# Korean method of shooting



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Read "In Korea" by Chris Shull. Parts 1, 2 & 3. Very informative. Can be found in back issues of Archery Focus. He also wrote another article entitles "1 year later."

Or you can email him.


----------



## BILL B (Jun 21, 2003)

There have been a number of articles and seminars purporting to expose the "secrets" of recurve archery in Korea. It would be fair to point out that neither the authors nor any reader has yet been able to follow the instructions presented to achieve the results the Koreans do.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"It would be fair to point out that neither the authors nor any reader has yet been able to follow the instructions presented to achieve the results the Koreans do."

But to be fair, how many of the authors or readers were able to practice full time in a well funded program with high performance coaches... 



-CG


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

You got that right. I question quite often just how "amateur" this sport really is.  I would love to be able to have the time to "properly" train. It's definitely tough with a full-time job and family to be competitive. I never cease to be in awe at the hours of training many archers go through to remain at the elite level.


----------



## Jorge Oliveira (Aug 13, 2004)

You may get an idea here:

http://www.tournamentarchery.com/Korean Archery.htm

Now, it takes a way of life commitment...


----------



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

Ok, ok, enough.

Here's the secret.













































Foakleys !


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

I think you have found it. It appears the lens color has to be at least close to the same shade as the spin wings though, is that correct?


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

I always thought it was a hat. But, maybe, it is hat/foakleys combo?


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

palmer said:


> *I think you have found it. It appears the lens color has to be at least close to the same shade as the spin wings though, is that correct?  *


I don't think so. Some Koreans use white spinnies. And unless Oakley's come out with some really cool new lense colors, white isn't available. =D


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

mbu said:


> *I always thought it was a hat. But, maybe, it is hat/foakleys combo? *


Thats got to be it.


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Well, so much for my hopes 'cause I got as much chance at pulling off the bucket hat look as I do growing a full beard.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

"There have been a number of articles and seminars purporting to expose the "secrets" of recurve archery in Korea. It would be fair to point out that neither the authors nor any reader has yet been able to follow the instructions presented to achieve the results the Koreans do."

Ha.... I suppose shooting a 339 @70m at Gold Cup and a [email protected] at nationals is no way close to Korean performance. That being only 2 years after training in Korea. And what about John Magera who attended my seminar last December and made the Olympic Team this past year! I guess that doesn't qualify either. Or what about Australia? I guess they would have won two Olympic Medals with out former Korean coach Lee...

The truth is only a few people(2 that I know of! and I'm one of them) from the US have actually trained in Korea with top Korean coaches. Their philosophy is completely different, but well worth it. But of course, it takes some time to get used to any significant technique/mental changes.


----------



## BILL B (Jun 21, 2003)

huggybear

I apologise for pressing your "go" button. The scores you cite are good and so are the others you shot this year. The bottom line still is that the Korean training technique works for them for special reasons that are based on total commitment and outside support. The scores for all top US archers is a bit below that for the Koreans in the same tournaments. A glance at the 2004 Olympics ranking round results shows this.

I do not think that attending a Korean archery seminar (which I did with your father) will lead us to better scores. I feel that the only way for the US to increase its performance level is to establish a relatively uniform program thoughout the country, hire a national coach to oversee our resident archer program and to increase the number of archers in this program. As you know, the NAA is deliberating right now on how to proceed.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

huggybear said:


> *"There have been a number of articles and seminars purporting to expose the "secrets" of recurve archery in Korea. It would be fair to point out that neither the authors nor any reader has yet been able to follow the instructions presented to achieve the results the Koreans do."
> 
> Ha.... I suppose shooting a 339 @70m at Gold Cup and a [email protected] at nationals is no way close to Korean performance. That being only 2 years after training in Korea. And what about John Magera who attended my seminar last December and made the Olympic Team this past year! I guess that doesn't qualify either. Or what about Australia? I guess they would have won two Olympic Medals with out former Korean coach Lee...
> 
> The truth is only a few people(2 that I know of! and I'm one of them) from the US have actually trained in Korea with top Korean coaches. Their philosophy is completely different, but well worth it. But of course, it takes some time to get used to any significant technique/mental changes. *


I would definitely like to hear your opinions on the Korean training program and why its successful.

The other person who trained in Korea was talking about it last night actually. This is what he said. "The Koreans win because of sheer numbers. Their applicant pool is so large that the best float to the top..." Not an exact quote, but very similar. He also went on to say that he didn't think the amount of training was what did it for the Koreans.


----------



## NavyDMO (Mar 4, 2003)

If memory serves from a previous discussion on this I think it may have been GT who mentioned that the "Korean Technique" is actually U.S. derived and just practiced with enough discipline to near perfection.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

The biggest factor is that the Koreans adhere to biomechanics totally. When they decided to domainte archery they researched it and continue to do so. In part of their research they looked at archers from around the world to see what they were doing. 

Talk to a Korean coach and he will tell you straight up that there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things, and they do it right. Everyone has the same bones and while bulk may make things look different, the structure is the same. 

Talk to a western coach and they will say "everyone is different and must be coached differently". In my coaching experiance I have had more success with the korean method.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

Don't worry about the "go" buttons Bill 

Well, this is an interesting topic.... I think the Koreans have taken archery to be a science and a sport. They took what Rick and Darrell were doing in the 80's, improved upon it, and made a system out of it. They have many things going for them in their program.

First of all, they are able to train very much and shoot very many arrows because they are so technically solid. It is up to 6 months for some of their kids before they actually shoot a bow at age 10-11. Most will shoot above 300 at 30m the first time they shoot. (we saw 11 year olds shooting 340's at 30m at a competition!). Because they are so solid, they spend no time correcting flaws. They can shoot 2,3 or 4 fitas a day because they are just constantly refining the feeling of their form. 

Second of all, their coaches are awesome! There was not a moment during the time period I was there that the coach was not watching the archers. These coaches know each student's shot and watch them shoot a majority of their arrows everyday. They are not chit chatting, shooting the s%^t, goofing around, they are coaching. When an archer makes a mistake, they correct it before it is a habit.

Third, their training is superb. Their training is part of their success. This is something I disagree with Chris. If you shoot 100 good shots a day, that's good. But if you shoot 400 good shots a day, that's even better. It is evident in other sports that you must constantly increase your training output in order to keep up with the rest of the world. I think it is around 20percent increase/year! 

So what do we do? We need a national system. None of this level 1,2,3,etc stuff that none of the coaches teach. WE need a HEAD coach that knows something about technique and training, can be authoritative enough to get other coaches to do the same, have training for those coaches, etc. Maybe we could even send a couple of coaches and athletes to Korea... it would certainly open the eyes. It sure opened my eyes when I saw high school kids shooting 1300-1340's for the guys, and 1320-1365 for the girls. Marcus is right though! There is a right way and a wrong way. But you don't see it that way until you see the right way! I hope I remembered everything here


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

I personally think that the most important thing the Koreans do is the coaching system. That and the sheer numbers of shooters they are able to pick from.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

The sheer numbers is not as valid as you think it it. 
Australia has only about 1000 recurve archers (and the real actual number of coached recurvers is more like 50, most of the above will never get past 50m) yet we have won World championships and medals in 2 Olympics, plus turned out quite a few 1320+ mens recurvers (including one who has shot 1360+ twice)
This is not quantity of archers, this is quality of coaching. Expect to see Australia churn out quite a few more as our system is improved.

Numbers is an excuse, not a reason. 

Great post huggybear, I think many of your points are spot on. In Australia at grass roots level we still treat archery like a hobby to be worked around real sports. When we can change the culture to where archery is a serious competitive sport you dedicate yourself to then we will catch the Koreans. 



Leighton said:


> *I personally think that the most important thing the Koreans do is the coaching system. That and the sheer numbers of shooters they are able to pick from. *


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Marcus said:


> *In Australia at grass roots level we still treat archery like a hobby to be worked around real sports. When we can change the culture to where archery is a serious competitive sport you dedicate yourself to then we will catch the Koreans. *


Omigod, considering what Australian archers have done the past few years, what's going to happen when Australia get serious about it? Let us prepare to be dominated.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Can't discount the decline of American Archery. After producing champions such as Rick McKinney, Jay Barnes, Darrel Pace and others. Looking at the history of olympic archery medals, the US was a superpower until recently. Yes, we did produce Justin Huish, but that was probably a fluke.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

A fluke? How does one "fluke" an Olympic Gold Medal. He just got lucky?


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

And it's Jay Barrs, not Barnes.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

TER said:


> *And it's Jay Barrs, not Barnes. *


My bad.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

TER said:


> *A fluke? How does one "fluke" an Olympic Gold Medal. He just got lucky? *


By fluke, I mean the trained harder, longer and had better coaching than the rest of Americas archers.

Most other archers would give up somewhere along the way and get a day job because archery in the US pays pretty much nothing.

Whereas in Korea and Australia you can make a living just from shooting archery. The archers there have more time and motivation to train.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Huish was shooting very well leading up to the Olympic games. In 2001 we asked the Australian coach why is it that the US keeps winning at the Olympics and he said that it's because you guys expect to win, while Korean men do not. 
This is a mixed blessing. self confidence is vital in matchplay, however it also meant that you guys are 8 years behind the rest of the world now in changing your olympic training methods. The success of Huish probably prevented Athens success.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Probably true. I think America needs to get a better coaching system. Do away with the level 3 & 4 system and revamp it. Make the course a month long in the summer and involve several FITA shoots where the potential coach has to shoot at least a 1250, prove that he/she's done so in the past or some how prove he/she has coached someone to shoot a 1250, 1300 for level 4.

The other thing America needs is more government support for its athletes. We certainly need some method where recurve shooters, can make a decent living while only shooting.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

No the score your coach shoots doesn't matter, it's all about technique. Technique is the single most important aspect of recurve shooting. Get that wrong and the scores will not happen, or the potential of the archer will not be reached. 
It's easy to teach, and the coach must teach it. Things like release hand orientation is vital, how the back is used etc. Get these right and the scoes will happen on their own.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Marcus said:


> *No the score your coach shoots doesn't matter, it's all about technique. Technique is the single most important aspect of recurve shooting. Get that wrong and the scores will not happen, or the potential of the archer will not be reached.
> It's easy to teach, and the coach must teach it. Things like release hand orientation is vital, how the back is used etc. Get these right and the scoes will happen on their own. *


Couldn't agree more, but until someone tells me a better way of testing, I'm sticking to this method. =P

There is a difference between having the skill necessary to shoot the score and the skill to teach it, but at least having the ability to shoot the score at least means the person has the knowledge as to how to do it. The focus of the entire course would then be to teach the potential coach How to pass it on.


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Good discussion everyone. There's alot of good stuff to think about in there; some things I never considered before. 

Guy, are you still holding training seminars? John told me you do a really good job. I'm at a point where I think that would be of benefit to me. My access to good coaching is really limited so I've had to "self-coach" most of the time. It can be done, but it sure is difficult at times. Also, are your seminars only for adults or do you have ones for youngsters as well?


----------



## Rich (Sep 9, 2002)

Leighton,
Have you ever shot a 1250+ score?
Do you have any idea what it takes, in time and practice, to achieve such a score?


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

Marcus, is Australia able to continue it's current level of archery instruction if Mr. Sik were to leave?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> the decline of American Archery


Wow ! Everyone seems so negative these days.

I don't see it as a _Decline_ so much as we've just stayed put and others have passed us up. I mean, years ago we had two great archers (Rick and Darrel) driving one another and kicking eveyone else's butts. How is that different than today? (i.e. Butch and Vic...) 

Gotta agree that we "expect" to win, while others may not. Probably our greatest asset.

Also gotta agree that the medals in Atlanta and Sydney may have hurt us more than helped us. We have an awful problem here in the U.S. with taking things for granted...

I think it finally caught up with the NAA, and I think they have recognized that.

John.


----------



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

> if Mr. Sik were to leave?



Bob, better brush up on your Korean syntax. That would be Mr. LEE.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

George,

did you get my email? I need some major help!

Guy


----------



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

Just saw it Guy, I'm working it out in my head first...


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

Thanks for the reminder George, no intent to disrespect the Korean culture. I am curious to find out if Mr. Lee has been able to educate his coaches to a high level of competency during his time in Australia as would be expected of him if he were to accept the rumored position of head coach in the USA.


----------



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

Bob,
I have worked with Lee, Ki-Sik in several capacities, and I can tell you that he's a lot more than just a form coach.

Based on what I have seen at AIS, I would say, yes he has created a program that will go on with or without him as any good manager should be capable of doing. If he were to leave the AIS program Matthew Lee and others working under him would simply pick up and continue.

I wouldn't count on any rumors, but if I were you or any other good US coach who really cares about the future of the program, I would fervently hope they're true. 

That's my point of view as a shooter- I'm no coach.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Rich said:


> *Leighton,
> Have you ever shot a 1250+ score?
> Do you have any idea what it takes, in time and practice, to achieve such a score? *



Maybe I have, maybe I haven't. Maybe I can, maybe I can't.

What's your point? If I can't shoot a 1250, I damn well, better shoot a 1250 before I try and coach someone to shoot a 1250.


----------



## BILL B (Jun 21, 2003)

Leighton, I can’t figure our why you insist that to be a good archery coach one must be able to shoot an elite score. 

All you have to do is look at all the successful coaches in all sports to see that this is not a criterion for being a good coach. Can you imagine Bella Karoli on the balance beam? How about Don Shula who was an average player but is the winningest coach in the pro foot all hall of fame. There’s Butch Harmon in golf and Red Auerbach in basketball. All played the sport they coach but were not standouts. 

If you are interested, there is an excellent definition of an athletic coach on the web. Nowhere in this lengthy definition does it say the coach needs to be a standout individual performer himself.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sports_coaching


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Right, thats why I also say, OR if that person has been able to coach someone to shoot a 1250 or 1300. But that is incredibly difficult to prove, so the main criteria in my method is something easily proved. Shoot a 1250.


----------



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

What an... interestingly ludicrous argument.

Leighton, exactly where did you learn these amazing archery revelations of yours ?


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

>--gt--> said:


> *What an... interestingly ludicrous argument.
> 
> Leighton, exactly where did you learn these amazing archery revelations of yours ? *


I could be listening to Chris Shull too much, or I could be buying too much into the Korean system of coaching. Take a look at what it takes to be a coach in Korea. All of them are World Championship level shooters. Most of them have even won international events. I'm sure all of them can shoot 1300+

Perhaps thats where I get my "ludicrous" arguments.

Not to mention that the entire post is about the "fabulous" Korean method. If we want to emulate them, why not their coaching system? That is definitely one area where they are obviously years ahead of us.


----------



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

I don't know ANY coaches in Korea- of the five I know well- who can shoot a 1300 OR have competed in a World Championship.

I will, however, accept that you have been listening to Chris too much though


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Well, perhaps my information is flawed, but from what I've heard, (from Chris, Archery Focus and some information here and there on the internet) the Korean coaches have to have competed on an international level. At least the top level ones.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

>--gt--> said:


> *I will, however, accept that you have been listening to Chris too much though  *


*shrug* Haven't got anyone better to listen to.  Besides, I think he's at least 1/2 right.


----------



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

Well, perhaps you can make a minimal effort to determine the veracity of comments before posting them. That might be more helpful than "1/2 right" information posted here.


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

Interesting bunch of arguments here. There is really only a few levels of perfect geometry to shoot a bow and a variety that can be gotten away with and still be effective. One of the key differences in the US is that we do not discourage anyone from our sport and in fact try desperatly to get them playing the game and don't care how we get em going. We make them care on their own to fix what needs fixing, (or seek their own help) and we have a great method of trying to patch things up down the road (not). At the National Team level, it is considered that the archers are good at what they do so don't mess too much with progress, they might go backward a little first (which unacceptable and intollerable) sarcasm. This kind of thinking is what holds back the US coaching methods and our program to a large degree. This keeps a high number of people stuck at levels that by our standards are not bad, but would not hold up internationally. The issues needed to grow to the next level are not explored because some backtracking and rebuilding might be necessary. Very few shooters at a decent level will tolerate much in the way of back tracking. This makes things full steam ahead with little or no change/improvement just small steps working around our flaws. We have not built shooters from the ground up if you will, so have not had the opportunity to start them off on the right foot and keep them that way. We instead spend allot of energy working around form flaws and making the best of them on archers that have reached a certain level or desire to improve their game after already having a base ( and often flawed one) to work from. ( I know, I'm loaded with them!) Anyway, It would be so cool to be able to start from scratch and move through the progress with good coaching all along the way and therefore have far fewer flaws to wrestle with! I say this from both a shooter and coach perspective. My answer is a National coach. An individual that is not affraid to break a few eggs to make an omlette and a person that understands the correct way to execute or complete the shot. A person that is not affraid to start at the foundation and be a good form architect. One of the most difficult scenarios is with a person that is having resonable success working around correctable flaws but is not willing to step back and rebuild without the flaws! Sorry to rant with my two cents worth, but anyone else want to expound furhter on some of this or change directions! Thoughts please.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

>--gt--> said:


> *Well, perhaps you can make a minimal effort to determine the veracity of comments before posting them. That might be more helpful than "1/2 right" information posted here. *


Well, he was there in Korea. I don't agree with everything he says, but everything I've posted I believe is true.

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a better way to produce quality level 3 & 4 coaches. Until then, I'm sticking with my beliefs.


Jurasic - I don't disagree. I think a strong national coach would be a good thing.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

I can see where Leighton is coming from, you want coaches who are proven good coaches. I believe that the only way of really doing that is by having a head coach who can evaluate the coaching methods of the coaches below them. 
For example you may have a coach who's student is shooting 1250 despite them, and another coach who is doing it right but is in the early stages with that student. 
However it does sound to me like the US needs a Head coach and a coaching development program and get away from these "Master" Coaches who have been doing it for 50 years. 

Jurassic
Yep I agree 100%, we have the same issue in Australia. Most of our archers get broken in the beginners courses. When a shooter gets accepted into our fulltime olympic program they get their bow taken off them and start from scratch. 3 months with nothing but a theraband. It's tough, but that's the price you pay to get good at something.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Thanks for being charitable with my position Marcus. I understand where everyone else is coming from and how radical my position is, but as I've said earlier, I personally cannot think of a better way of proving a coach is worth his salt. The only other way it to give him a position and evaluate his performance and the results.

The problem with this is that if he's bad, you have to replace him and try the process all over again. Its completely hit and miss. My process probably will look over several very very qualified coaches, but it also weeds out all the ones who are completely unable to produce good archers.

What we have left is a bunch of potential coaches who are willing *and able* to pass on their knowledge, namely how to shoot a 1250+. Whats left is to teach them *how* to pass it on. My process already proves they *have* the knowledge, now, we can spend a week or two teaching them how to pass it on.

Once that is complete, we now have a rather good system for producing *quality* level 3 & 4 coaches.

Note: I have no problems with the level 1 & 2 system in place. I think its great.


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

Just out of curiosity, how much salary do you think a national coach should be paid in the US.
$20,000-40,000
40,000-60,000
60,000-80,000
80,000-100,000 or more?


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

I think shooters should be able to make 40,000-80,000 if they're good.

Coaches should make something comparable, and the national coach should be making 60-100k. But 100k is a lot of money. In reality, I think 65k is a good salary.

A national coach is a good start, what we really need though, is a way for recurve shooters to actually make a decent living from just shooting. Give them a government stipend of $20,000 per year if the shooter shoots at least 2 xxxx's FITAs that year.

Something like that. Or $1,000 per xxxx FITA. Then give them a salary for making the national team, with trials each year.


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

We are not so lucky in the US to recieve federal dollars. The monies for a coach and stipends for athletes would have to come from the NAA membership and from the USOC grants which are getting harder and harder to come by.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think 65k is a good salary


Wow! Maybe for a Manager at McDonalds!

Ain't no way I'd touch (not that anyone would ever ask) a national coaches job for less than 1/2 that amount.

You get what you pay for, and for a position as controversial and complex as a national coach, you had better be ready to pay six figures or suffer the consequences.

just my opinion...

John.


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

Wow John-130k/year x four years= $520k better be a good coach.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> *Wow! Maybe for a Manager at McDonalds!
> 
> Ain't no way I'd touch (not that anyone would ever ask) a national coaches job for less than 1/2 that amount.
> 
> ...


Right, forgot to say what I'd pay the national coach. I was thinking 65k was a good starting point for national level coaches on staff.

Hmmm, maybe 80-120k would be a good range.

Btw, I don't think a manager at McDonald's makes 65k per year. Thats at least $32/hour assuming 2000 hours of work. Right, a manager at McDonald's makes $32/hour.........yup, I'd better go put in my application. **** my college degree, I'm quiting.


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

So now Leighton, you are telling us that this national coach should have paid assistant coaches? 130k/year for National coach and 65k/year for each assistant coach. I think we should raise entry fees to $4000/tournament to do our part as members to pay for this proposal of yours. If economics courses are taught at your school, I might suggest you sign up. Some of us have learned not to buy what we can't pay for.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Leighton, I'm talking $65K total salary and benefits.

If you have a 4 year degree, been working more than 10 years since college and aren't being compensated at that level, I'd either switch jobs, or take a good long look in the mirror, or both! 

John.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

> If you have a 4 year degree, been working more than 10 years since college and aren't being compensated at that level, I'd either switch jobs, or take a good long look in the mirror, or both!


Here, here. 



> You get what you pay for, and for a position as controversial and complex as a national coach, you had better be ready to pay six figures or suffer the consequences.


Again, absolutely true. 

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Leighton said:


> *
> Btw, I don't think a manager at McDonald's makes 65k per year. Thats at least $32/hour assuming 2000 hours of work. Right, a manager at McDonald's makes $32/hour.........yup, I'd better go put in my application. **** my college degree, I'm quiting. *


You would be surprised by the reality of what a good food service manager can make with salary and bonus. A good manager works long frustrating hours and is worth his weight in gold. There is no such thing thing as a manager that works 2000 hours a year, that would be totally slack. College kids tend to be a little naive about how the world works.

This "coach needs to shoot 1250" is just silly. Why not judge a coach on how he does his job, that is, coaching? What was Al Henderson's personal best FITA?

Half an education is a dangerous thing.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

TER said:


> *This "coach needs to shoot 1250" is just silly. Why not judge a coach on how he does his job, that is, coaching? *


And what if he's ****ty? You signed him on for a contract, or worse yet, certified him for 5 years. Now what? Are you going to take his certification away? Doubtful.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Levl4e said:


> *So now Leighton, you are telling us that this national coach should have paid assistant coaches? 130k/year for National coach and 65k/year for each assistant coach. I think we should raise entry fees to $4000/tournament to do our part as members to pay for this proposal of yours. If economics courses are taught at your school, I might suggest you sign up. Some of us have learned not to buy what we can't pay for. *


You ****ing asked. You never said anything about realistic expectations. Thats what I think he should be paid and he should have assistants. But thats not reality.

In reality the head coach will probably get $65-$100k per year. The NAA doesn't have national funding and pretty much lives off of donations and membership fees. Not to mention they have to pay for a lot of other stuff.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> *Leighton, I'm talking $65K total salary and benefits.
> 
> If you have a 4 year degree, been working more than 10 years since college and aren't being compensated at that level, I'd either switch jobs, or take a good long look in the mirror, or both!
> 
> John. *


Oh, well in that case, your completely right. I was talking 65 + benefits. And time off during the off season, if there is one.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Levl4e said:


> *If economics courses are taught at your school, I might suggest you sign up. Some of us have learned not to buy what we can't pay for. *


I am an economics major. And I don't see why he shouldn't have assistant coaches. Plus, you freaking asked the question without any stipulations as to "given the current situation" or "given the NAA's current budget of $xxxxxx"


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

In reality the National coach would most likely get about $40-$50k a year, certainly not 6 figures. I can tell you the Aussie coaches are not paid huge amounts. They do it because they love to coach and love the sport. 
Not everyone works for money. 

Sorry Leighton, your idea isn't radical, it's just not ideal.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Marcus said:


> *In reality the National coach would most likely get about $40-$50k a year, certainly not 6 figures. I can tell you the Aussie coaches are not paid huge amounts. They do it because they love to coach and love the sport.
> Not everyone works for money.
> 
> Sorry Leighton, your idea isn't radical, it's just not ideal. *


Yup, they do it for the love. Although it'd be nice to make 65+benefits doing something you love. =D

I think my idea is ideal, it just won't happen. We'll stick with the old ways and certify level 3 coaches on the basis of a test and five days of their time; and level 4's on the basis of a research paper and seven days of their time. Yup, nothings going to change.
I've provided a sound method for determining whether the coach has the required knowledge and have provided an alternative if the coach is worth his salt. If people would just read the rest of what I wrote, they'd see I said "*OR* if he/she has coached someone to shoot a 1250 in the past"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Leighton,

I hope this isn't the attitude you bring to the line. Not sure why you seem so negative, but if folks simply disagreeing with you gets you this "****ing" wound up, you're going to be in real trouble when the arrows don't find the gold.

Just relax and be patient. We will see what the answer to the "national coach" situation is in good time. You might be exactly right, and you might not. All we can do at this point is hope (and pray) for the best, and help when we're asked.

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I wonder if the issue isn't whether we have qualified coaches or whether we have a society which creates a situation where the individuals presented to a coach are not as receptive to coaching?

I don't pretend to know Korean coaches in archery. I had a korean coach (Mr Lee, Dal Joon-his name is recognizable to anyone who followed US table tennis since he won the US Open 6 times). I was not been trained as a world class player but just a decent to good tournament player (2000 level). However, I did get some insight to the methods that the Koreans use and since they have taken table tennis (their men have won two individual gold medals since 1988) seriously longer than FITA style archery, it makes sense that what they have learned from that most competitive of sports has influenced their archery coaching

Mr Lee noted that in Korea, he practiced for at least a year in front of a mirror with a piece of plywood before he actually could hit a ball. That was both because he was not rich enough to afford membership in a club and a coach wanted him to prove he was "serious". As a result he ended up #10 in the world in sport where there are more full time athletes in one Chinese province than there are serious fita archers in the world.

Apparently, his country had more than a few young would-be's who are willing to endure such "deprivation". We might find some in this country but I think there is more to it than getting just the current "top coach"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good point Jim.

I can just see the reaction in the local JOAD program when we tell the new kids they won't be touching a bow for at least 3-6 months. Ha! 

If we were talking about a sport played professionally here in the U.S. (football, baseball, etc.) you might get away with that, since both the parents and kids have more motivation (sponsorships, college scholarships or a chance to play professionally) than what we have for archery, and the pool of interest is much deeper. I hate to say this, but even a chance (while we still have it) to compete in the Olympics just isn't enough motivation for most kids in the U.S. If it were, you'd probably see many more talented young compound shooters switching over to recurve.

John.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Given all that has been posted here about the "Korean method" and what the Korean archers went through to get to the top, Limbwalker's accomplishment in going to the Olympics in what ammounted to one year of FITA competition is absolutely incredible. You are to be commended, John.

Dave


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> *Leighton,
> 
> I hope this isn't the attitude you bring to the line. Not sure why you seem so negative, but if folks simply disagreeing with you gets you this "****ing" wound up, you're going to be in real trouble when the arrows don't find the gold.
> 
> ...


 Only when intoxicated and when someone blasts me for answering a question they asked. And also when the same person blasts me before reading my entire argument.

I apologize for my crass words last night. It was definitely late and I wasn't thinking straight.



I think my proposal doesn't have a chance in hades to become reality. No one likes the idea of failing more than half the applicants.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

> I can just see the reaction in the local JOAD program when we tell the new kids they won't be touching a bow for at least 3-6 months. Ha!


These kind of comments are doing our programs alot of damage as well. 
It seems to me that people can not look past minor issues like:
• They don't get to shoot for a year, will never work here
• They have sponsored company teams, will never work here
• They have lots of people in their program, will never work here

All three of these are totally irrelevent to the fundamental key as to what makes Korea dominant in archery, they are consistant in their teachings and teach in a scientific manner. 

I've seen it hundreds of times on this board, someone will have a major form fault and instead of fixing it will point to 1 succesful archer who also does it as a reason to continue. That's the westen way of things. It's also incredibly stupid. (Example, using a bent arm with compound. 1 out of 10 pros my use a bent arm, and he suddenly becomes to reason to use one, despite the 9 that don't)

OK so your JOAD program won't succeed if they can't shoot for 3 months. Fine, but spend 1/4 of your JOAD times working on fundamentals (when I played American Football we went for weeks without contact while we worked on fundamentals)
other sorts do the same. Other sports do drills aimed at perfecting techniques, same should go in archery. 
So we don't have sponsored teams, OK don't waste time with people who are not committed, make them find the time. Sacrifices must be made if you want Olympic gold. 
We don't have the numbers? Well America has 3 million people with bows so that's BS, but reality is that other countries have fewer archers as well and are winning. Australia and Italy are great examples. 

Again, quit with excuses, look for answers.

PS. Leighton, I coach 2 recuvers shooting 1250+ (in less than a year) can you pay me $65k+ per year, $US to coach? When do I start?
Cheers!


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Marcus said:


> *PS. Leighton, I coach 2 recuvers shooting 1250+ (in less than a year) can you pay me $65k+ per year, $US to coach? When do I start?
> Cheers!  *



Well, I don't represent the NAA, so...sorry man. You SOL. =D


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Marcus,

I'm the proud father of a 12 year old daughter (that has achieved the Junior Archer level with recurve) a 9 year old son (that has achieved Junior archer with the compound and Archer level with the recurve) and 4 year old daughter who is just starting to shoot. I'm speaking from both a JOAD parent's point of view as well as a concerned NAA member and archer.

You got any kids?

I'm not "making excuses", just stating what is often the case here in the U.S. 

You can be critical of it if you want, but I don't see how your awesome program fared all that much better than ours in achieving Olympic Gold, despite whatever "sacrifices" that may have been made.

John.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

John
If you read my posts you will notice I am just as critical of the Australian attitudes as the US ones. We have a great program here but the old guys of archery here have a bad attitude towards it. 
We didn't get gold, but we got 1 more bronze than the US got. 

No I don't have kids. Instead I have busted my butt to get more juniors into our sport and shooting better. Before I started our club had not had a junior compete in 7 years. In 2 years we now have 2 Australian champions and a number of others who are smashing longstanding records. I don't have my own kids yet, but I have sacrificed time and income to help juniors in archery. I have also competed as a junior at International level so I have a background there. 

I think the JOAD program is great, to a point. We have NOTHING in Australia, our jr development programs are a joke. In fact my state body has said they are not interested in the growth of juniors, their focus is veterens. Good isn't it?

However the fact remains, I have heard comments or 'reasons' like the one you have given time and time again, both in my country and from yours, and it's unconstructive and short sighted, it's not your fault, it's an archery culture problem. (I fight with my own club members over this same comment. )
Regarding sacrifices, our guys and girls have given up alot. It's what we must do to keep up with the rest of the world. Our sport is not amateur anymore (although we still don't get paid) and it's just a simple reality. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. 

Sorry dude, calling it as I see it, I would expect you to do the same to comments I make that you disagree with. (no disrespect intended, you should know by now I have a great deal of respect for yourself)


----------



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

I think the Aussies have accomplished a great deal in a short time. They are more than the equal of the US- which has around 10 times the population- in archery prowess.

The Australian program-in a country of around 25 million population- went from having one truly world-class competitor to more than five in just over four years under Lee, Ki-Sik. 

Their 8-year Olympic medal count would actually match that of the US if not for a single errant men's arrow in the team round in Sydney.

Several large Aussie cities have municipal archery programs with supervised facilities and coaching- and these programs actually turn small profits. Name one US city besides Los Angeles that can say that.

David Barnes, Tim Cuddihy, Matt Grey, Deonne Bridger, and the completely reconstructed Simon Fairweather (a completely different shooter than he was when he won the WC in 1991, shooting completely in his arms) are just the tip of the iceberg, and the Aussies have a lot to be proud of in my opinion.

Someone like Lee, Ki-Sik is worth a salary of about $100,000-120,000 US per annum to the NAA. That is peanuts considering the potential payback.

Based on past performance he would bring in around 1.2 million dollars based on the previous USOC payouts for performance- not to mention the sponsor support opportunities for having a successful program and teams. Pretty good payback, IMHO.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Someone like Lee, Ki-Sik is worth a salary of about $100,000-120,000 US per annum to the NAA. That is peanuts considering the potential payback.


George, those figures are more in line with what I was thinking. It's gonna take at least that to get the quality and demand the results that we "expect".

And let's not start bringing up errant shots at the Olympics, okay? ... ha, ha, ha  

Marcus,

My statement was more a reflection of the prevailing attitude than an endorsement of it. I never said I agree with it. It does dissapoint me when I see the "just get them shooting as soon as possible" attitude. I completely agree that other sports do a better job of teaching fundamentals than we do in archery. I played soccer for 13 years, and certainly did my share of "drills" ad-nauseum, so I know what you mean. Hopefully, a good JOAD program does both...gets them shooting quickly while teaching them proper fundamentals.

The only reason I bring up my kids is that I know what it's like to bring a couple of youngsters into a JOAD program, (which I might add I knew absolutely nothing about 2 years ago when they started). So it gives me a good perspective, I think. We all started out totally green, like most parents and kids I see at JOAD.

John.


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

George, can you enlighten us on the speciifics regarding these USOC payouts? Do they go to the athletes or to the NAA? Where will the money come from to pay for a National coach? I think the idea of a national coach is a good idea by the way but I am a bit concerned how our organization will pay for it. We can hardly afford to fund full teams to international events at present and now we are thinking of adding another paid staff member to the largest staff that the NAA ever had. How long can you add to the top before it all falls down?


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

Bob,

I think we can assume that a grant from the USOC will cover the salary of the national coach. In past years, when we had Rick Mack as the director, we were able to get a grant for around $190,000 I believe. This was soley for international travel and the Gold track camps. Also considering the fact that the USOC will not let us have a resident program UNTIL we have a full time coach, I think it's safe to assume that they are willing to foot the bill or a large portion of the bill. 

Of course, everything at this point is speculation. I don't think the NAA will do anything to raise the cost of memberships to $4000. Tom Parish is there and I think he can keep things realistic. Let's wait and see what happens, then we can talk


----------



## BILL B (Jun 21, 2003)

GUY
The USOC required the NAA to have a High Performance Director so Tom Parrish was appointed to the position. The USOC initially paid his whole salary but I understand that their payment will reduce each year until the NAA foots the whole bill. Sort of like the unfunded mandates created by the US Congress. It would not surprise me at all for the USOC to use the same procedure for a required National Coach.

Regardless of the funding questions, I think that a national coach and the other moves I am hearing about really make sense.


----------



## SagarM (Jan 9, 2003)

Sorry people I am off subject . . . 

Hey George, this is Sagar Mistry. I was wondering if you had received my email? If not, chances are I probably got your email address mixed up or something. I had a question regarding Hoyt, so if you could please let me know how to reach you, so I can send you another email.

Thank you,
Sagar M


----------



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

Sagar,

Please see your PM's.

-gt


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

It was good to see you this weekend Guy. How did you end up in the tournament? One thing I learned as a young man was not to assume anything. I was usually dissapointed when I did assume something. I was joking about the $4000 per tournament entry fee. By the way this is the entry fee I have been told that you pay to play on the PGA tour, I don't know if this is true or not. I am waiting to see the minutes of the last board meeting to see what was proposed to the USOC. You do realize that proposals are not always excepted.


----------



## kbob1 (Nov 1, 2004)

> Based on past performance he would bring in around 1.2 million dollars based on the previous USOC payouts for performance- not to mention the sponsor support opportunities for having a successful program and teams. Pretty good payback, IMHO.


Wow, did the USA get that much after their Double Gold in Atalnta?


----------



## Jorge Oliveira (Aug 13, 2004)

huggybear said:


> * It sure opened my eyes when I saw high school kids shooting 1300-1340's for the guys, and 1320-1365 for the girls. *


Could someone explain why women are better than men at target shooting?

Thanks,


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Easy Jorge,

They listen better.  

Except of course to their parents...  

John.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

"The women aren't better than the men, they only have to shoot 60 and 70m for a fita" That's what I was thinking anyway.

Oops!

Here's the records and the womens 70m is 4 points higher than the mens 70m.

Men
90m = 337
70m = 347
50m = 351
30m = 360 17x

Women
70m = 351
60m = 351
50m = 350
30m = 360 14x

Wow, is all I can say to that 1405!

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

The women don't necessarily shoot better than the men. There are a lot of factors that go into it. First of all they shoot closer distance. Also, the most notable difference is men usually shoot 90m while women shoot 70m early in the morning. Often by the time men get to 70m, the weather is usually windier and they don't get practice ends before they shoot 70m! That's why the women's world record is higher. And at the Olympics, the women usually shoot in the morning when the weather is better.

Interestingly enough, I've always had the feeling(especially after shooting a competition there) that the Koreans have many of the their national and major competitions when the weather is traditionally the best, therefore they are able to shoot high scores. They shoot a lot of their records in October I believe. It's not like at the texas shootout where you have 25 mph winds!


----------



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

Guy,

Your points about weather are reasonable. However, the Korean team women tend to have much better form, especially under pressure, than the Korean team men. They appear to be more coachable and they are psychologically very tough- or I should say, "toughened". The men are less so. (I have never seen a Korean woman shoot less than a 7 - and that only once or twice- in any major competition with reasonable weather, but I have seen Korean men pop sixes in good conditions five or six times.) 

A possibly negative part of this, from an American point of view, is cultural. I'll never forget the mild shock of seeing a well-known Korean coach face-slap Cho, Yeon-Jeong in Barcelona for crying- _AFTER she won the gold medal_. It was out of sight of the spectators, but I saw it myself.

Imagine what an American woman (or her lawyers) would do in such an incident.

As any Korean shooter will tell you, and as you well know, winning the Korean Nationals is tougher than winning the Olympic Games in terms of competitive depth. Sadly, that used to be true here too. No surprise when you understand that any top 15 US male archer or top 5 female is more than a match for 75%-80% of the field at the Games.

Let's also remember, that unlike the NAA and most other federations, the KAA does everything it can to help their shooters (and guests for that matter) shoot the highest scores possible. They understand the psychological and program benefits of having those records.

1. Sighters between distances are often shot (and there's no rule against it.)

2. As you say, they pick known periods of decent weather for major events in Korea. That's not to say Koreans can't shoot well in poor weather- they can, obviously.

3. Korean national (and some international) judges traditionally call a questionable arrow "in" if it's close to the line- even if there's a visible gap. They interpret the FITA face tolerance to mean that the archer gets benefit of doubt if it's near the line. That's worth maybe 3-4 points in a FITA. It might seem a little shady, but they're consistent about it (they don't just do it for their team members).


----------



## Broken X (Sep 9, 2002)

Amazing story GT.


After winning the gold, Cho Yeon-Jeong was crying and was slapped for doing so? Ouch  


So, basically the Korean women dominate in Archery because of the extreme phycological discipline combined with what seems like military boot camp?

If so, how does the rest of the free world compete with such a program? 

We cant be bi--- slappin everyone til they hit all 10's  and right now theres not much insentive for Archery....$$.


----------



## Jorge Oliveira (Aug 13, 2004)

>--gt--> said:


> *
> 
> 1. Sighters between distances are often shot (and there's no rule against it.)
> 
> *


Would you mind explaining this point?

Thanks,

Note re women's being slapped in western world - ever saw a coach with an arrow in his back?


----------



## grantwomack (Dec 1, 2002)

>--gt--> said:


> It might seem a little shady, but they're consistent about it (they don't just do it for their team members).


So what you're saying is that when you're scoring arrows and you need to call over a judge, try to make eye contact with the Korean judges first...? 
I think there is little the rest of the world can do in the immediate future to challenge the Korean dominance. It can be done but I imagine it will be somewhere like India or Australia.

Australia has a great sports program and their results at the last Olympics shows that. The US dominates across all sports by a combination of good funding and a huge population base. The Indian archers are an upcoming force, I believe, judging by their recent results in the European circuit. They just need more experience with international events.

We'll all get there in the end, but it ain't going to be easy.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Jorge Oliveira said:


> *Would you mind explaining this point?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ...


I believe he means that in between distances, the shooters are allowed a round to sight in. ie, the round is not scored.


----------



## Jorge Oliveira (Aug 13, 2004)

Thanks, Leighton

I believe we did it here (many yrs since I last shot a FITA).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I'll never forget the mild shock of seeing a well-known Korean coach face-slap Cho, Yeon-Jeong in Barcelona for crying- AFTER she won the gold medal


Well, from what I could tell in Antalya, the Indian team is well on it's way to incorporating this form of "training." 

John.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Huggybear, do the Koreans "push" or "pull"? I keep hearing that a bunch of them "push" through the clicker, but I can't even imagine how they do it.

If you would be so kind as to clarify the information, I'd be grateful.


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

Leighton,

If you attend my seminar this weekend in Washington I will be able to explain much more clearly 

Actually then do both in a manner of speaking. It's not pushing though, and not just pulling. Theoretically, if you pull, you move your anchor and hence it is not an anchor if it is moving(or you move your head). The problem with just pushing is there is no balance.

Korean technique is largely developed around their culture, philosophies, martial arts, and COMMON SENSE. Once you understand it, you realize there is no other comparable way. Yes one or two archers may have success with a different method, but 100's of archers have success with the same method!


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

huggybear said:


> *Leighton,
> 
> If you attend my seminar this weekend in Washington I will be able to explain much more clearly
> 
> ...


I'll make you a deal. You come to my level 2 course, or find someone else who will come in your place and I'll come to your course. =D Sounds fair to me. 

Push & Pull eh? Makes sense. I'll just have to ask someone how to push properly. Can't learn it through reading forum posts.


----------



## kbob1 (Nov 1, 2004)

Exactly which muscles do you use to push?


----------



## TJ Mason (Mar 25, 2004)

The way I push is:
 get to near full draw and get the weight of the bow onto the drawing-side back muscles
 keep drawing slowly, watching the clicker
 when the clicker starts to move, switch focus to the target
 move the bow-side scapula slowly forward while keeping the bow shoulder level. Be careful not to allow the bow shoulder to rise, which can happen if you're trying to "muscle" through the push.

This seems consistent with what others are saying, but it's proving to be a very difficult technique to put into words.

It's kind of an expansion of the shoulders, so perhaps the word "push" is misleading.

The amount of push is very small -- about quarter of an inch, if your shoulders are set properly. Just enough to get the point through the clicker.

I've found that pushing seems to stabilise the bow arm, though many insist that this can't happen. In fact, many insist that pushing is impossible if your shoulders are set correctly. All I can say is, my shoulders are set correctly, and...eppur si muove.

Have a read of the thread "Hoyt/Easton Seminars at Quicks and Wales Archery" on the Sagittarius board, especially the postings at the bottom of page 1 by John K and Rik:
http://sagittarius.student.utwente.nl/bb/viewtopic.php?t=624&start=0 

I asked the question "How much pushing room have you got?" at Sagittarius, and the replies suggest that I'm doing it about right:
http://sagittarius.student.utwente.nl/bb/viewtopic.php?t=944 

Also, Don Rabska has written a chapter on recurve form in the book "Precision Archery" (ed. Steve Ruis and Claudia Stevenson). This explains pushing better than anything else I've seen.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Is "expanding" the word you guys are looking for?


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

Sorry, of all the comments in this thread this one had the most impact for me.



Jurasic Archer said:


> *At the National Team level, it is considered that the archers are good at what they do so don't mess too much with progress, they might go backward a little first (which unacceptable and intollerable) sarcasm. This kind of thinking is what holds back the US coaching methods and our program to a large degree. This keeps a high number of people stuck at levels that by our standards are not bad, but would not hold up internationally. The issues needed to grow to the next level are not explored because some backtracking and rebuilding might be necessary. Very few shooters at a decent level will tolerate much in the way of back tracking. This makes things full steam ahead with little or no change/improvement just small steps working around our flaws. We have not built shooters from the ground up if you will, so have not had the opportunity to start them off on the right foot and keep them that way. We instead spend allot of energy working around form flaws and making the best of them on archers that have reached a certain level or desire to improve their game after already having a base ( and often flawed one) to work from.*


But I disagree. I think that there are top level archers who would be willing to take two steps back and completely rebuild themselves from the ground up. The real trouble is finding someone competent enough, and that you trust enough, to allow them to completely deconstruct your form and mental attitude and rebuild it.



Jurasic Archer said:


> *My answer is a National coach. An individual that is not affraid to break a few eggs to make an omlette and a person that understands the correct way to execute or complete the shot. A person that is not affraid to start at the foundation and be a good form architect.*


And who would that be?


----------



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

You'll find out, in a few weeks, if all goes well.


----------



## baldmountain (Apr 21, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> *You'll find out, in a few weeks, if all goes well. *


Just tell me it's not Bella Karolli.


----------



## TJ Mason (Mar 25, 2004)

>--gt--> said:


> *You'll find out, in a few weeks, if all goes well. *


Are congratulations in order, George?


----------



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

No, it isn't Bela 

And no, I wouldn't touch that job with a 10 meter pole. Not qualified and not interested !


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Any guesses? Lloyd Brown, MJ Rogers, Terry Wunderle . . .

Wow! GT is serious, 10 meters is 3 times longer than the usual 10 foot pole.


----------



## kbob1 (Nov 1, 2004)

Larry Skinner, Hardy Ward..... Maybe a Korean!?!?


----------



## i_am_god (Nov 19, 2004)

*sup guys*

what up dudes 
i knew this coach who thinks proper back tention means your bow arm should move to the left(for right handers) after the shot 
is this true
p.s. he clames don rabska taught him this like 10 years ago


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

*Re: sup guys*



i_am_god said:


> *what up dudes
> i knew this coach who thinks proper back tention means your bow arm should move to the left(for right handers) after the shot
> is this true
> p.s. he clames don rabska taught him this like 10 years ago *


He may or may not be right, but when I shoot, there is no possibility for my bow arm to move left or right.


----------



## grantwomack (Dec 1, 2002)

On release, I've found my bow arm falling to the left. I wasn't sure if this was the "proper" way to do things or not. A lot of shooters will keep it stationary, a lot will swing it to the right. I didn't know if the left-swing showed that I had too much tension in the outside of my bow arm or if it showed that my back muscles were working correctly. But then again, it is working for me so I can't complain.


----------



## TJ Mason (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: sup guys*



i_am_god said:


> *what up dudes
> i knew this coach who thinks proper back tention means your bow arm should move to the left(for right handers) after the shot
> is this true
> p.s. he clames don rabska taught him this like 10 years ago *


My arm goes slightly forward on release, but not sideways. I like to hold on target until the arrow strikes.

I'd be wary of anyone who relies on namechecks as an argument, especially since there's no way of verifying his claim.

If you want Don Rabska's views on form, read his contributions to the book "Precision Archery" (ed. Ruis & Stevenson, 2004).


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

*Re: Re: sup guys*



TJ Mason said:


> *My arm goes slightly forward on release, but not sideways. I like to hold on target until the arrow strikes.
> 
> I'd be wary of anyone who relies on namechecks as an argument, especially since there's no way of verifying his claim.
> 
> If you want Don Rabska's views on form, read his contributions to the book "Precision Archery" (ed. Ruis & Stevenson, 2004). *


Or his Archery Focus articles. Very nice reads. He writes well.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

kbob1 said:


> *Exactly which muscles do you use to push? *


Here is an answer to your question. Chris says pushing uses the shoulder muscle. He also agrees with Huggybear. God, how did you two come up with those names.... I'll never know.....


----------



## BILL B (Jun 21, 2003)

Leigton. Try again. There is no such thing however there are muscles in our shoulders.


----------



## kbob1 (Nov 1, 2004)

so, exactly which muscle do you use to push the bow arm towards the target?


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Bill B - Please explain your response . . .

I've never been a fan of the push/pull. The stability and stamina of the bowarm is crucial in the later stages of a shoot. I don't like to waste any energy when ever possible.

I would think that if your alignment was correct, the bow would travel straight towards the target. Meaning the bottom limb would make contact with you leg.

The bow arm follow through has been the most interesting thing to watch in form these days. The exaggerated follow through by some Koreans and Aussies has to be purely for entertainment . . . . or psychological warfare on an OR opponents.


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

I do remember USIAC 1999 I think it was when Chris and the Kruger Brothers were the men's TAMU archery team (team round competition) where they came out in a 70s fros and names on their vests like Huggybear, and Kid Dolomyte (it seems like a long time ago)

http://recsports.tamu.edu/archery/Pictures/usiac99.html


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"I've never been a fan of the push/pull."

If you are shooting a 40lb+ recurve you are doing it to some extent...



-CG


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

"you are doing it to some extent..."

yeah, some miniscule extent . . . I guess 

Question: Do you do it if you have proper skeletal alignment . . . i.e. Korean methods??


----------



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

With apologies to Winston Churchill:

"never have so many said so much about so little they knew about"


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Question: Do you do it if you have proper skeletal alignment . . . i.e. Korean methods??"

Sure, because your muscles support your skeletal structure. Unless you have a physical deformity your muscles and tendons keep the dynamic stress of a drawn bow from returning to its undrawn state, as well as keeping you as an archer from collapsing with it. A bow (and a recurve or traditional bow especially) is like an elastic band and requires that controlling stress be exerted from the upper body through the front shoulder, as well as through the back shoulder - there by giving you a push/pull. The more the dynamic stress (relative draw weight) the greater the amount of controlling stress that needs to be exerted.

Understanding basic anatomy and kinesiology rather than discussing buzz words such as "Korean method", "alignment" or inaccurate terminology such as "bone-to-bone contact", gives you a more accurate description of the bio-mechanics involved. 

"yeah, some miniscule extent"

Probably about 60-80% if you are describing controlling the shot for placement to a fine extent. Don't confuse what you *think* you feel with the actual bio-mechanics of what *is* happening...


-CG


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

In essence, you are a clothsline attached to a bow.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

There are over 20 muscles that control the movements in the shoulder. There isn't a particular "shoulder muscle" per se.

Muscles that can be used for pushing are the subscapulais (underside of the scapula), serratus anterior (on the rib cage under the scapula) and the latisimus dorsi (connects the under side of the humerous to the rib cage between the spine and side of the rib cage under the arm pit).

Come on GT, why don't you jump in the pig pen with us and get a little dirty on this one? 

It's quite obvious that your viewing of all the Olympic footage has had SOME benifit, if your recent form is any indication 

I think your thoughts on your perception of what is taking place in the "proper shot" would probably be quite revealing to many on these forums.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

GT - sorry if we are boring you . . . wait, no I'm not 

CG - I understand that my whole body is involved in the shot, but the label it as push/pull is inaccurate imho. I think it's the difference in "feeling" the shot and training your body to do a specific action of the shot such as the "push".

Alignment as a buzz word?? Isn't that a fundamental that can be taken a ton of different directions and .

I'll give you "Korean method", my bad.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"push/pull is inaccurate imho."

It is an accurate description of what is happening bio-mechanically.

"...training your body to do a specific action of the shot such as the "push"..."

If you weren't pushing to some extent your bow side shoulder would be near your ear - and on a more practical note, you couldn't exert the fine muscular control needed to aim.

"Isn't that a fundamental that can be taken a ton of different directions"

It is a word that has little meaning unless you define it in a thorough manner within a certain context. As such when people throw around the word "alignment" without defining what they deem it to mean within the context of their argument - it is nothing more than a buzzword. You could substitute the words form, stance or structure for the word alignment and it would make little difference - unless you provide a definition for terms...and very few people on Internet forums go to the trouble of defining terms so much as spouting vague opinions...

-CG

-CG


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

I understand that I push against the force of the draw bio-mechanically on a subconcious level, my problem is LABELING it PUSH/PULL as a focused action.

I use the word "alignment" as it, to my understand, is refered to in many archery publications. To disect words to the point of making them meaningless is non-productive.

Just looking for knowledge and conversation, not an arguement.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"To disect words to the point of making them meaningless is non-productive."

To not define terms will *guarantee* meaningless discourse, and not dissecting *ideas* will result in the same...there is always the choice to examine a subject in an intellectually rigorous fashion, or to make invalid assumptions and discuss those assumptions as though they have a basis in fact. For the most part Internet forums succeed in promoting invalid assumptions without question… 

"I understand that I push against the force of the draw bio-mechanically on a subconcious level, my problem is LABELING it PUSH/PULL as a focused action."

If biomechanically you need to provide both push and pull stress, then obviously it isn't just on a “subconscious” level - it is both a directed action (within your sphere of "conscious" actions) as well as subconscious (actions controlled by “subconscious” direction). The fact that you feel how much pressure you exert on you hand against the grip and how you use that feedback to determine if you are influencing torque on the bow through the grip should give you direct evidence that it is more than a “subconscious” action. Or in another pertinent example, keeping the pin on the target is a direct function of you “consciously” controlling the amount of push stress to a fine degree, which includes “consciously” varying the angle and stress imposed through the arm via the shoulder. If you have a problem labeling it, perhaps you should examine why you have a problem labeling it as such – it makes perfect sense…

-CG


----------



## huggybear (Sep 30, 2004)

Do NOT use the shoulder muscles. Push doesn't come from the shoulder muscles! Try to "push" to the target with the shoulder, you move no where or at least a small portion and it's painful. It must come from under the arm. This muscle is the serratus anterior.

Huggybear comes from USIAC in 1999 as explain. It was my pimp name. There was also Dolomite, Shaft(my bro), and we had the P.I.T.(pimp in training). We also had several cheerleaders we called "Gung HO" "Tally HO" "Back HO" and "Nava HO". Fun times


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"Try to "push" to the target with the shoulder"

Yep, as I mentioned the "that controlling stress be exerted from the upper body *through* the front shoulder"

"Do NOT use the shoulder muscles."

You use them, they just aren't the "prime mover" in the push stress/tension. However they are activated as the shoulders (deltoids/traps) are are providing structural stability as well as variable tension/stress control in the fine control of aiming. The perceived focus when you are executing the motion is under the arm or middle back.

-CG


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

I prefer the word expand. When you blow up a balloon it expands somewhat equally on all planes horizontal and vertically. 

Looking at a shot horizontally, it's expansion. Through the shot along the line of force. Which comes from the body and not the arms. If I am correct. 

Dylan


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

huggybear said:


> *Huggybear comes from USIAC in 1999 as explain. It was my pimp name. There was also Dolomite, Shaft(my bro), and we had the P.I.T.(pimp in training). We also had several cheerleaders we called "Gung HO" "Tally HO" "Back HO" and "Nava HO". Fun times *


I forgot about the PIT and the cheerleaders! That was a riot and maybe the best memory I have from my only USIAC. 

You guys should do a reunion sometime in the future.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

hkim823 said:


> *I do remember USIAC 1999 I think it was when Chris and the Kruger Brothers were the men's TAMU archery team (team round competition) where they came out in a 70s fros and names on their vests like Huggybear, and Kid Dolomyte (it seems like a long time ago)
> 
> http://recsports.tamu.edu/archery/Pictures/usiac99.html *


Yes, I know. But how they came up with those names, eludes me....


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

hkim823 said:


> *You guys should do a reunion sometime in the future. *


Or not. One of them is enough for me. =D


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Okay, got done with my first day with Lloyd. After this I'm done with this thread. 

Listen to what CG says, he's pretty right. I'm not going to get any further into this now.


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

I agree Leighton, CG is right. But I think he has trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time . . . biomechanically.

I'm out.


----------



## clever_guy (May 21, 2002)

"...CG is right. But I think he has trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time . . . biomechanically."

As long as I am right...I can always just pop a mint if chewing becomes to complicated...

   

-CG


----------



## ACECOACH (Dec 11, 2004)

huggybear said:


> Don't worry about the "go" buttons Bill
> 
> Well, this is an interesting topic.... I think the Koreans have taken archery to be a science and a sport. They took what Rick and Darrell were doing in the 80's, improved upon it, and made a system out of it. They have many things going for them in their program.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Leighton said:


> Probably true. I think America needs to get a better coaching system. Do away with the level 3 & 4 system and revamp it. Make the course a month long in the summer and involve several FITA shoots where the potential coach has to shoot at least a 1250, prove that he/she's done so in the past or some how prove he/she has coached someone to shoot a 1250, 1300 for level 4.
> 
> The other thing America needs is more government support for its athletes. We certainly need some method where recurve shooters, can make a decent living while only shooting.



a very STUPID suggestion. The guy who turned me into a world class (193/200 average one year) skeet shooter never could even break 90/100. Phil Jackson was never an all star in Basketball-Mike K of Duke was no all american

the best table tennis coach in ohio can't get 3 points off of me in a standard 11 point game and I don't even train anymore  

charlie pierson was never a world class FITA shooter (flight shooter-different matter) and Pierson's lanes used to feature some of the best recurve shooters in the world including Pace and Brothers.

BTW-ACE COACH is no 1300 recurve archer (dont bet against him in barebow indoor though) and he is as good or better than most level 4's

Leighton do you actually think before you post


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Jim C said:


> a very STUPID suggestion. The guy who turned me into a world class (193/200 average one year) skeet shooter never could even break 90/100. Phil Jackson was never an all star in Basketball-Mike K of Duke was no all american
> 
> the best table tennis coach in ohio can't get 3 points off of me in a standard 11 point game and I don't even train anymore
> 
> ...


Just because my views do not agree with yours does not make them incorrect. You are focusing only on my suggestion that a coach be a good shooter as well and missing the other half of my argument that says if he/she has coached archers to shoot good scores, he/she would be make a good national level coach.

Also, my argument is based on what makes a great coach that will help make 1300+ level shooters. I do not doubt that there are many good coaches out there that can't shoot an 800 FITA. However, you would be hard pressed to find a great archery coach that is not a decent archer OR has been around the sport for years and has learned what works and what doesn't through sheer amount of experience.


----------



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

ACECOACH,

Back at you 

Hope we can get a group like that together again down there.

As for the post immediately above this one...

I can't take it anymore.

Where's that "ignore" button at ?

Aah, here it is...

PLONK.


----------



## TJ Mason (Mar 25, 2004)

Vittorio Frangilli was never an elite archer, but look at the results he's achieved with the Italian team. He coaches the current world champion and the current Olympic gold medallist.

Coaching is a different bag of cats to competing.


----------



## TJ Mason (Mar 25, 2004)

I'd better clarify the reason for my last posting.  

It's not a direct response to Leighton -- yes, I saw the point about a coach having demonstrated the ability to train someone to score highly. Rather, it's a tip to anyone looking for a coach to look at the shooting records of archers trained by that coach, rather than the coach's own shooting record. Good performers don't always make good coaches, and vice versa.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

>--gt--> said:


> ACECOACH,
> 
> Back at you
> 
> ...



another good reason to buy Hoyt bows: they hire really smart people


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

TJ Mason said:


> Vittorio Frangilli was never an elite archer, but look at the results he's achieved with the Italian team. He coaches the current world champion and the current Olympic gold medallist.
> 
> Coaching is a different bag of cats to competing.


If what Archery Focus published is correct, he was a competitive archer once. Then Michele won a tournament and so Vittorio quit competitive archery to become a full time coach.

At least thats what AF wrote.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

yep Vittorio was a competitive archer and according to several sources-he never earned a 1200 star. Now if we used the "Post to advertise my string business" author's rules, Vittorio would never be a certified coach in the states since he couldn't break 1250


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Jim C said:


> yep Vittorio was a competitive archer and according to several sources-he never earned a 1200 star. Now if we used the "Post to advertise my string business" author's rules, Vittorio would never be a certified coach in the states since he couldn't break 1250



Except he could because he satisfies the other requirement of having coached an archer to shoot 1300.

Also, I never said if you couldn't meet either requirement, you can't be certified, just not be a national level coach.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Leighton, perhaps you ought to spend a few minutes thinking about why one of the two or three most knowledgeable posters on this board (no, I am not talking about me) made that comment about the IGNORE button. remember, quantity is no substitute for quality.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Jim C said:


> Leighton, perhaps you ought to spend a few minutes thinking about why one of the two or three most knowledgeable posters on this board (no, I am not talking about me) made that comment about the IGNORE button. remember, quantity is no substitute for quality.


Look, I understand that my view point is very left of center; however that is what I think would make a great coach; a very good mix of practical shooting experience coupled with some serious training on how to be a coach; the other viable method that I have seen is to spend years upon years learning about what it takes to be a good coach and a good shooter. The practical problem with that theory is that there is no way to test prospective coach's coaching ability other than their track record. If we go by that standard alone, we end up with only a very small handful of qualified coaches.

In my opinion, a small handful of coaches is not enough for the sheer volume of archers in the United States; not to mention that they are spread out over 50 states and some of those states are many miles away from the continental US.

Therefore, I have added the stipulation that if the coach is able to shoot a good score and takes the course, he/she would probably make a great coach for the national level.

The above is my opinion and will never come about while I'm alive and I've accepted that. However, I feel that the above is a good system for training national level coaches.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Leighton said:


> Look, I understand that my view point is very left of center;


There is left of centre and there is also wrong.



> Therefore, I have added the stipulation that if the coach is able to shoot a good score and takes the course, he/she would probably make a great coach for the national level.


Actually IMHO often what makes a great archer DOES NOT make a great coach. Because archery is a sport where you can be world competitive well into your 50's and 60's our talent does not often go into coaching. Instead our coaches should be coming from the intelligent group of archers who didn't quite get there but have an excellent knowledge of biomechanics, physics and psychology. Many top archers do not have that knowledge. It would be like asuming that a champion racing car driving could also be a mechanic. Rarely the case. 


> The above is my opinion and will never come about while I'm alive and I've accepted that. However, I feel that the above is a good system for training national level coaches.


The pain of being an unrecognised genius.


----------



## winst (Nov 21, 2002)

"It is possible to fail in many ways...while to succeed is possible only in one way."


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Marcus said:


> There is left of centre and there is also wrong.
> 
> 
> Actually IMHO often what makes a great archer DOES NOT make a great coach. Because archery is a sport where you can be world competitive well into your 50's and 60's our talent does not often go into coaching. Instead our coaches should be coming from the intelligent group of archers who didn't quite get there but have an excellent knowledge of biomechanics, physics and psychology. Many top archers do not have that knowledge. It would be like asuming that a champion racing car driving could also be a mechanic. Rarely the case.
> ...


Shouldn't a coach know what it is like to deal with the pressures of tournaments, both national and international? Also, wouldn't it be beneficial for the coach to understand what it is like to be facing off for the #1 spot?

Either case, I don't think anybody in this thread can PROVE for a fact that their position is absolutely right as there is always going to be this one or two exceptions.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Shouldn't a coach know what it is like to deal with the pressures of tournaments, both national and international? Also, wouldn't it be beneficial for the coach to understand what it is like to be facing off for the #1 spot?


Leighton, you ever coached anyone? I can tell you that watching one of your students compete in a close match is more nerve wracking than actually competing! 

Now, I know some parents that could sure benefit by knowing what it's like to be facing off for the #1 spot...  

John.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Leighton, you ever coached anyone? I can tell you that watching one of your students compete in a close match is more nerve wracking than actually competing!
> 
> Now, I know some parents that could sure benefit by knowing what it's like to be facing off for the #1 spot...
> 
> John.


I've coached a lot of people, but I must admit, I don't know what its like being the coach, sitting still, trying to remain calm while your star pupil is out there facing off for the #1 spot. IMO, nothing but lots of experience is going to help you out there.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Jim C said:


> Leighton, perhaps you ought to spend a few minutes thinking about why one of the two or three most knowledgeable posters on this board (no, I am not talking about me) made that comment about the IGNORE button. remember, quantity is no substitute for quality.


Not that I agree with Leighton. But being right is no reason for being arrogant.

The title of this thread is about a method, which really isn't a "method". Korean coaches are professionals. They use biomechanics, physics, kinesiology as a means to build archery technique. The basis of technique is from the past traditional archers. But the Koreans never stuck with traditional means. They went out to scientifically understand what shape the body must take in order to make for consistent, strong technique.

Bruce Lee was a philosophy major in university and took a scientific approach to martial arts. He was tired of all the indoctrined, tribal mentallity of martial arts and having to follow this form or that. Tired of listening to what all the so called "wise" people have to say, because they were only fowarding the traditional indoctrined martial art of their choice. This to Bruce Lee ment limitation in the way one fights or defends themself. He knew that martial arts was produced as a means of self defense and there was no one right way to defend yourself in a situation given changes of circumstance. He wanted to produces a freedom in the mind and body of martial artists in order for them to become better at self defense. He also hoped that they learned to take on the use of freedom of mind in daily living, in order to learn more readily and adapt to what ever may come at you in life.

Leighton, you sound as though you have indoctrined a thought process, that a coach must be a 1200 plus shooter himself in order to produce 1300 level pupils. I don't think it's a totally correct assumptions The other point about producing 1300 shooters in order to be a national level coach? Well that becomes difficult when a person with lots of natural talent isn't willing to unfetter their mind from the rights and wrongs they've been taught before or learned themselves. Jen Nichols is a 1300+ shooter. Who coaches her?

Well, in order to learn there must be no preconcieved ideas about whats right or wrong. In Korea, right and wrong is taken out of the equation. Archers are started young and they are built to shoot the right way. This may be a controlled way of doing things, it does produce results though. But archery is not like Martial Arts. There is no "Korean" way of shooting. There is a phyiscal or mechanically correct ways to shape a body of most every human being that shoots archery and the koreans have figured this out through study. 

Then it all comes down to physical and mental prowess I suppose.

My thoughts as right or wrong as they may be. 


Dylan


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

MerlinApexDylan said:


> Jen Nichols is a 1300+ shooter. Who coaches her?



Alexander Kirillov (Tucson, AZ) coaches Jen. 

-peace,
Hollywood


----------



## ACECOACH (Dec 11, 2004)

huggybear said:


> Don't worry about the "go" buttons Bill
> 
> Well, this is an interesting topic.... I think the Koreans have taken archery to be a science and a sport. They took what Rick and Darrell were doing in the 80's, improved upon it, and made a system out of it. They have many things going for them in their program.
> 
> ...


From a older person's perspective who's been on both sides of the fence,let me sort of clear the air on a couple of points.As one who has been a
3-d hotshot,a barebow hotshot,(both recurve and compound)I do believe that
a coach needs to have experienced what he is trying to pass on to others.
How can I teach you to handle pressure if I haven't experienced it myself.How
can I teach you to shoot without sights if I haven't done it before.How can I
teach you not to pull the arrow off the rest if I don't know what causes it.Let
me give you another example which most of you can't argue with.Tiger Woods! Good example of starting young and not getting sidetracked until he had mastered his one sport.But what's amazing is the fact that he realizes
that his game can be better while most people would love to have the skills
he has now.American coaches have huge egos and most are only willing to coach archers who already have skills.Take a kid from scratch to the top if 
you really want fulfillment as a coach.A 1250 does not make a coach but a coach must be a problem solver but first and foremost he must motivate his 
students regardless of their status in the group.Hopefully I'm making sense
and creating closure for the topic.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

MerlinApexDylan said:


> Leighton, you sound as though you have indoctrined a thought process, that a coach must be a 1200 plus shooter himself in order to produce 1300 level pupils.


I never said that. All I am saying is that shooting a 12xx is a good indication of an archer's shooting abilities. I do firmly believe that in order to be a great archery coach one must be able to shoot well or have a great store of knowledge and many years experience in the sport. One example of someone who has been around the sport for many years and has since become a great coach is Lloyd Brown. However, I dare say that it took him a long time for him to get to the level he is at.

If we train good archers to be good coaches, I dare say that there would be a high percentage of them who turn out to be not only good coaches, but great coaches.

I am not saying that the only way to become a great coach is to be a good shooter. I am only saying that ONE way to become a great coach is to start off with a good archer and then add on the basic coaching skills. The archer already knows what it takes, from a first hand perspective, to execute a good shot as they are already a good shooter. Now add the coaching side of things, namely what is supposed to happen externally, how to communicate positively etc, and you may have a good formula for making a great coach.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Some who know far more than you do Leighton note that a great coach has to be extremely analytical and constantly thinking while such a mindset is a huge roadblock to winning archery tournaments. Look at some of the greatest athletes in history and who their coaches were. A guy named Fisher taught Sampras tennis-not much of a player.

I hate to say what most are thinking-I don't think you really know much of what you talk about Leighton when it comes to this subject.

that you were ambivalent about your brother's claims of having shot a 360 out of 360 at 50 meters or a 600 with 58x on the indoor fita (a recurve score that beat Cousin's world compound record) pretty much proved all that I needed to know


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Jim C said:


> that you were ambivalent about your brother's claims of having shot a 360 out of 360 at 50 meters or a 600 with 58x on the indoor fita (a recurve score that beat Cousin's world compound record) pretty much proved all that I needed to know


And exactly what do you want me to say on the subject? I have no proof that he didn't do it and neither do you.

All I have is his word and I'm not about to call my brother a liar on a public forum without proof.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Jim C said:


> Some who know far more than you do Leighton note that a great coach has to be extremely analytical and constantly thinking while such a mindset is a huge roadblock to winning archery tournaments. Look at some of the greatest athletes in history and who their coaches were. A guy named Fisher taught Sampras tennis-not much of a player.


So what about Don Rabska & Larry Skinner? Both great archers and coaches. Don Rabska has a 13xx to his name.

What about Vic Wunderle? Looks like he's done a pretty good job coaching Joy.

Vittorio may not have shot more than an 1100, but that was back in the 70s. Not to mention Archery Focus credits him as being one of Italy's Top Archers back then.

Guy Krueg? Last I heard, he's been teaching people to shoot with his seminars. Heck, John Magera attended one of them and gave positive feedback.

Or what about James Park and Ed Eliason?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Leighton said:


> And exactly what do you want me to say on the subject? I have no proof that he didn't do it and neither do you.
> 
> All I have is his word and I'm not about to call my brother a liar on a public forum without proof.


I will call him a liar-I know that he didn't shoot a 360 at 50 meters nor a 360 at 30 meters on a 60CM face when the greatest archers in US history-Butch Johnson, Rick McKinney, Darrell Pace and Vic Wunderle have never done that on a 80. true only their tournament scores are listed but given how many FITAS rick Darrell and Butch have shot (a hundred or more 1300 fitas between them) its safe to say your kid brother who isn't even a national JOAD champion hasn't done it 

No compound archer has ever shot 360 in a tournament at 50M so again I am safe in knowing for a fact he LIED

You lost all credibility with anyone who understands this subject for allowing one of your staff shooters to post such outrageous BS.

I don't pretend to be a great archer. My best FITA ever was in the mid 1200's and with my current shoulder problems I would be happy to shoot 1200 now. I have a couple USAT "funded" scores in star fita fields but I have been around lots of sports and was an equivalent 1330 fita shooter in INternational Skeet-a varsity squash coach (cornell University-a top ten nationally team) US #19 in squash and I won the US collegiate table tennis doubles 20 or so years ago and have coaching certificates in all of the above sports

I have no reason to doubt you make good strings-so do I and a few hundred other people but it seems to me you aren't doing your business any help by posting either throwaway lines (for example on sagittarius when someone wants a discussion of risers and their attributes saying "pick the one that feels best" (DUH) or acting like an authority on stuff you are not

I wont quibble with you anymore-I have said what I think needs to be said and if you think I am the ***** because of it so be it


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Leighton said:


> So what about Don Rabska & Larry Skinner? Both great archers and coaches. Don Rabska has a 13xx to his name.
> 
> What about Vic Wunderle? Looks like he's done a pretty good job coaching Joy.
> 
> ...


think about the issue and get back to me. top in Italy in the 70's? actually he wasn't. That would have been the two Italian guys who were contending for Olympic medals-Sante Spigarelli-as I recall-led Darrell in the 75 worlds for an end or a few at 90m. Ferrara (sp) broke a 1300 -one of the first to do so after Darrell's first star 1300 ever.

the rest of your post proves nothing. we are talking about the skills required to be a national level coach and whether you have to be a world class archer to do it. Vic is-Guy is close, Don once was. But there are others who never were in all sorts of sports who became best of the best in coaching

Let me note that some sports I really had to work hard to be decent at (I have very fast hands, really slow feet) and others I came naturally in (my third skeet tournament I ran 100 straight-I watched a film of a camera on a gun-memorized the Lead and the next day shot 96/100 after only a few months of skeet). when a sport comes easily to you its often hard to explain it to someone who it doesn't. I have spent years around Darrell Pace and some of the things he did in archery I still haven't been able to understand  -his talent was so far beyond what I have.
bottom line-I coach far better at the stuff I really had to work at to become decent than something I just rocked in from day one. I can teach you squash and table tennis and archery but I can't teach you how I hit a 70MPH skeet target nearly as well as the old veteran who taught me-and he couldn't break 15/25


----------



## newbieshooter (Dec 13, 2004)

Even though I'm just adding fuel to the fire, I recall a conversation I had with Chris Shull. He firmly believes that you HAVE to be a good archer in order to be a good coach. I think this position is much more radical than Leighton's.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

So then, the 10's of dozens of coaches in Korea? Do you believe they have to be good archers too? Considering the chance of alot of archers shooting in the 1300's is far greater in south Korea then it is in the US? Unless I'm mistaken. None if any archery coaches in Korea were ever shooters?

Then we look at Australia. Seems like half a dozen of their recurve archers on the mens side can shoot in the 1300's or hovering around that area. I wonder if Lee Ki Sik was ever an archer himself?

Seems like the good shooter makes a good coach theory is incorrect to me. With the evidence above. 

Dylan


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

I would say that one of the biggest problems we have in terms of starting out beginners is people that believe because they can shoot that they can also coach. Anyone that has really taken the effort to be a good coach knows that it is alot of work. Even if you were the number 1 athlete in the world (knows all there is about equipment and form) it would still take alot of time of research and study in order to learn to 'coach'. I am in the process of applying to graduate school where I will spent atleast 2 years studying just to be a coach. 
How many of us have been at a range and heard someone 'coaching' a newbie in a way that makes your skin crawl? ( oh come on, we all have) 

Now of course having been a competitor is somewhat important to being a coach but that does not mean that you have to have competed at a high level. But the idea that the top coaches would have been someof the top archers (I know that some are going to argue that 1250 is not the best but it is pretty darn good) That is akin to saying that the best conductors were also some of the leading instrument players. The best directors are also the best actors. Best chefs are the best eaters  The best parents were the best kids. The best teachers were the best students. The best doctors were the healthiest people. Or the best patients are the best doctors (which is a total lie since they are the worst patients) Being a good coach is a different skill. Sometimes an individual will have the qualities that make them a great coach AND great athlete but it is much more common to find that someone has the skills to do only one well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> when a sport comes easily to you its often hard to explain it to someone who it doesn't


Jim, so true. I often face this challenge with the more advanced JOAD kids...  

Coaching is an art. It is as important to know what to say as it is when or when not to say it, and it takes a very special person to know the difference.

John.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

MerlinApexDylan said:


> So then, the 10's of dozens of coaches in Korea? Do you believe they have to be good archers too? Considering the chance of alot of archers shooting in the 1300's is far greater in south Korea then it is in the US? Unless I'm mistaken. None if any archery coaches in Korea were ever shooters?
> 
> Then we look at Australia. Seems like half a dozen of their recurve archers on the mens side can shoot in the 1300's or hovering around that area. I wonder if Lee Ki Sik was ever an archer himself?
> 
> ...


Actually, "Ki Sik Lee (pictured left) was Korean national champion in 1975 and 1979, and broke the national record 26 times. He was Korean National Men's Team Coach from 1981-84 and again in 1990, and National Women's Coach from 1986-1989."

http://www.ais.org.au/archery/coaches.asp


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

i'm still not gonna base a persons coaching skills souly on their shooting skills. It takes a special person to be a coach. 

Dylan


----------



## barico (Nov 21, 2004)

Its not essential that a coach was a top archer. But If my coach has been there and done that I would feel a whole lot better and would certainly listen much more and certainly not question his/her judgement. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. The only real way to know if a coach has what it takes to drag you to the top is by past results, either as a coach or as a top archer who has a reputation for coaching/explaining things. Two examples I think of here are Vittorio Frangilli, unproven archer but world class coach and Don Rabska world class archer who made transition to world class coach. Certainly not all top archers are good coaches and certainly not all uncompetitive archers are bad coaches. But I think if you made some data there would be a strong trend that would lend some credibility to what Chris and Leighton suggest.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

barico-the issue isn't whether top competitiors can be top coaches-some can, some cannot be-its whether someone who really has no knowledge on the subject was correct in saying that one had to pass a shooting test to even be allowed to receive coaching credentials. I find his suggestion moronic because it would have prevented many many top coaches from ever coaching. why are some coaches former good archers? probably because they are interested in archery. It was said (I only met her once, she died 25 years ago) that Darrell Pace's mother-who had never shot a bow competitvely-could watch Darrell shoot and tell right away if he made a good shot or a bad shot without looking at the arrow or the target. She knew his form better than many "coaches" and could quickly note a break in form far better than say some 1300 shooter standing a few targets down the line 

People also have to remember that this isn't a sport where the coach has to "push" his student. Most of the touring tennis coaches are former good (top former players don't need the money  ) tennis players and that is useful when they need to hit the ball with their clients. That your coach can beat you in an OR round doesn't seem to be a requirement to me


----------



## barico (Nov 21, 2004)

Jim - agreed


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Jim C said:


> barico-the issue isn't whether top competitiors can be top coaches-some can, some cannot be-its whether someone who really has no knowledge on the subject was correct in saying that one had to pass a shooting test to even be allowed to receive coaching credentials.


Jim, very well put. I totally agree and I here is the arguement that I thought through. 

So I started with the assumption that we use the 1250 score to be a high level coach. Assuming recurve for both male and female. We would all agree that someone with a physical disability can be an excellent coach,right? Of course, but could they reach the scoring level set? The scores that I found for national records were mostly below 1250. I believe that for an AR archer to get an 1250 requires much, much, much more skill that to get a 1250 for a non-AR archer. So then we would say, for AR archers we would use an different measurement, a different score. Well, what if I was the best archer and my scores were developing but then I was in a car accident and seriously injured the muscles and bones shouldar. Not so severly to fall into the AR class but significant enough to keep me from being able to reach that 1250 score? Well, everyone knows that I could have made it. Well then maybe I get a special pass because of the car accident. You can see the way that this is going. What if I lost a finger on my draw hand? Thumb on my bow hand? What if my shouldar is lax and dislocates easily?

What if I didn't get my 1250 but switched to coaching? Should I quit coaching to go back to training to get the 1250? Anyone that has tried to do both knows that it is very very very difficult.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Jim C said:


> barico-the issue isn't whether top competitiors can be top coaches-some can, some cannot be-its whether someone who really has no knowledge on the subject was correct in saying that one had to pass a shooting test to even be allowed to receive coaching credentials.


Whether or not I have the requisite knowledge on the subject is up for debate with you and everyone else. But I think you will be hard pressed to say that Chris Shull doesn't know what he's talking about.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Chris tends to think he knows what he is talking about on every issue known to man    (I have known Chris a rather long time Leighton). He is truly suited for the practice of law


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Leighton said:


> Whether or not I have the requisite knowledge on the subject is up for debate with you and everyone else. But I think you will be hard pressed to say that Chris Shull doesn't know what he's talking about.


uh, oh, um, hmmmmm, well..

Ok, I love Shull (Bubble-boy!) and he is a good guy with a great heart but that doesn't mean that I agree with him (I can't speak for everyone) plus he is not the one talking. I try to never take second hand statements as truths (that is a guarentee to confusion and every sit-com plot) BUT assuming that everything you say, Shull would stand behind, it still doesn't make it right. We are not talking about what spine arrow to use with a certain setup (and even experts might disagree on that) but rather talking about stuff that is more akin to politics than equipment. And politics brings out strong opinions and very different opinions. 

If someone is in a bind, I would trust Shull to pitch in and help out (which he has done) and if I was hurt and crying I would trust Shull to say a nice word (which he has also done). I also believe that he can/is/will be a great shooter. But that doesn't mean that everything that comes out of his mouth is right. Besides, an arguement should be able to stand alone and not require that some archer stands behind it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Leighton,

Why on earth do you insist on bringing Chris' name into everything. Like that gives you credibility just because you know the guy? That would be like me speaking for Butch or Vic simply because I roomed with them. It just ain't right. Let Chris speak for Chris. If he wants to get on here and post his opinion, then let him, but don't speak for him. Where I come from, that is VERY disrespectful, and leaves you looking like a pretty lousy "friend"...

If you don't have enough credibility on your own to speak for yourself, then consider not speaking!

John.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Leighton,
> 
> Why on earth do you insist on bringing Chris' name into everything. Like that gives you credibility just because you know the guy? That would be like me speaking for Butch or Vic simply because I roomed with them. It just ain't right. Let Chris speak for Chris. If he wants to get on here and post his opinion, then let him, but don't speak for him. Where I come from, that is VERY disrespectful, and leaves you looking like a pretty lousy "friend"...
> 
> ...


Because for just that reason. All my opinions that are not the norm are immediately believed to be wrong just because I haven't shot a 1300 or coached someone to shoot a 1300.

I just find it disrespectful for people to immediately think I'm wrong, say I'm wrong and not provide sufficient evidence to prove that I'm wrong.

Jim C's post sums it up pretty well; I'm just assumed to not know anything, therefore I don't know anything and no matter what evidence I give, I'll still be wrong.

Either case, you are correct in that Chris should speak for Chris and I wish I didn't have to feel the need to do so.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

No Leighton, I didn't assume anything about you until your brother started that nonsense about shooting scores higher than the best compound archers in history have ever registered and you equivocated over the clearly bovine bi-product he was spewing. after that I started reading your posts rather carefully and came to my conclusions after careful analysis and logical filtration through my BS O'Meter


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Leighton, 

I'm really not trying to be mean here (honestly) but most folks don't just "assume" you are wrong. They decide you are right or wrong based on the content of your posts! You're really not giving folks much credit to say that they are just "assuming" this. They have their own minds and can think for themselves. Unfortunately for you, the content of many of your previous posts leads them to think you are wrong! It's not that you are assumed to know nothing, it's just that you have proven that by your posts.

I think you mean well and are trying to be helpful. Your posts are generally helpful in tone, but more often than not they lack substance, fact, or truth.

That's how others conclude what they have. It's not an assumption, I'm afraid to say.

And before you say it.... yes, this IS just my opinion...  

John.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Jim C said:


> No Leighton, I didn't assume anything about you until your brother started that nonsense about shooting scores higher than the best compound archers in history have ever registered and you equivocated over the clearly bovine bi-product he was spewing. after that I started reading your posts rather carefully and came to my conclusions after careful analysis and logical filtration through my BS O'Meter


Unlike you, I do not have the privelege of not seeing him ever again. Needless to say, I have talked to him in private and I'll see whether or not he can live up to his claims in a few days.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Good answer Leighton.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

newbieshooter said:


> Even though I'm just adding fuel to the fire, I recall a conversation I had with Chris Shull. He firmly believes that you HAVE to be a good archer in order to be a good coach. I think this position is much more radical than Leighton's.


Do you often talk about yourself in the 3rd person Leighton?  
Registering under a different name to add some creditbility doesn't work. 

You must understand Leighton how this thread started. Here is a summary
Leighton: "I believe that coaches should have shot at least 1300"
Everyone else: "No that should not be a deciding factor, there is more to coaching that scores"

You made a point, others pointed out is was simplistic. Get over it. YOUR IDEAS ARE NOT RADICAL THEY ARE SIMPLE AND INCOMPLETE. Please understand that. 

If the US wants to get to a Korean level of shooting then the US needs to NOT use it's current archers and coaches to do so. Why have your coaches from a crop of 1300 archers and coaches? You will achieve 1300's. You want coaches who have produced 1350+ archers, because that is where the world's best currently sit. Australia has a number of 1250+ archers who could have become National coach, and we would have produced quite a number of 1250 archers. Instead we have developed programs and worked hard on technique development and the science around it by employed an experianced coach with a strong grounding in biomechanics. That is the key. You want your coach to understand the biomechanics of archery, preferably with a degree in biomech, physics or engineering, than some dude who shot 1250 (which is not very good)

BTW I don't even shoot recurve and in 6 weeks have taken a jr girl from 950 to 1100+ Short FITA recurve by employing biomech theory. I can do this without needing to pick up a recurve. She broke a 25 year old state record a few weeks ago as well. Guess I should stop coaching her huh?


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Marcus said:


> Do you often talk about yourself in the 3rd person Leighton?
> Registering under a different name to add some creditbility doesn't work.
> 
> You must understand Leighton how this thread started. Here is a summary
> ...



I NEVER said that being a 1300 level shooter automatically makes you a good coach.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Leighton said:


> I NEVER said that being a 1300 level shooter automatically makes you a good coach.





Leighton's post that started this said:


> Do away with the level 3 & 4 system and revamp it. Make the course a month long in the summer and involve several FITA shoots where the potential coach has to shoot at least a 1250, prove that he/she's done so in the past or some how prove he/she has coached someone to shoot a 1250, 1300 for level 4.


Nope but you did say that before they get their levels they have to shoot a high score which is what I am referring to. 

So what you are now saying is that "1300 doesn't make you a good coach, but we'll take you over a qualified coach anyday!"


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Marcus said:


> Nope but you did say that before they get their levels they have to shoot a high score which is what I am referring to.
> 
> So what you are now saying is that "1300 doesn't make you a good coach, but we'll take you over a qualified coach anyday!"


Yes, but to even take a level 3 or four course, you have to be 21 and have been a level 2 for a year.

AND everyone seems to leave out the part where I say "OR prove that he/she has coached someone to shoot a 1250"

I have accounted for the very distinct possibility that a non-shooter can become a great coach. Its happened in the past.

I have also created an easily quantifiable test of a coach's potential abilities. If they can take themself to a level of 12xx then in theory they know HOW to do it from a first person perspective, AND they have already taken the level 2 course, where they learn how to do it from a third person perspective, and they have had at least a year to work on their coaching skills.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

OK and how will becomng a level 4 suddenly allow you to produce better archers?
You are missing the point of this thread. While you develop level systems with awards and layers the rest of the world is improving their actual knowledge and passing you by. 



Leighton said:


> Yes, but to even take a level 3 or four course, you have to be 21 and have been a level 2 for a year.
> 
> AND everyone seems to leave out the part where I say "OR prove that he/she has coached someone to shoot a 1250"
> 
> ...


----------



## Shirt (Aug 31, 2002)

Because, of course, you've gotta be a qualified coach and have got the paperwork in order to know how to communicate!  

The best coach around here has never, as far as I know, got a coaching certificate or done any course like that. Yet has coached people to 560 FITA 1 level within a year of them starting in the sport. He's a pretty good shot himself. Should his club say "no, you're not qualified, we don't want you to coach us"?

Bits of paper are bits of paper. Useful, but not an essential, and in most cases meaningless.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

What you are saying is a contradiction there Marcus 

I think what you meant was that we need a head coach that has top knotch biomechanic theory and a very complete understanding of what it takes to use such theory, but that their system/theory doesn't need high level recurve shooters as coaches below to teach it to the masses.

I'm a buyer there if that's really what you were trying to say 

Does the US need a Korean cookie cutter system to be successful? That is another question entirely. I'll suggest that much of this talk is extremely offensive to many of the long standing shooters and coaches in the US.

Has there ever been a $100k coaching position in archery? Has an american coach ever been given that type of support to develop a program? Might I suggest that no one in the US has ever been given the tools to do what the Korean coaches are doing from the ground up. Archery is seen as too small of a sport to justify it as a profitable venture in the long run.

Maybe money toward something along the lines of one of the ski academies would be more productive.

Here's a couple of examples.

http://www.burkemtnacademy.org/athletics/bma_athletics_success.asp
http://rowmark.org/ski.program/past.skiers.of.note.php

Just some other food for thought and somewhat back on topic, LOL!

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

Marcus said:


> If the US wants to get to a Korean level of shooting then the US needs to NOT use it's current archers and coaches to do so.


Marcus,
Did you really mean that? So are you telling me that pretty much everyone on this sight from America needs to quit coaching and quit shooting because we are worthless? That we will never be at a high level , Korean competitive. Did you really mean that? Are you saying that the only way we will have a good program is to fire all our coaches, hire a Korean coach and have him start all new archers? That I am a waste and will never be good, either as a coach or an archer? I am not sure what else you could have meant because it sure seems that it what you said and I am surprised that no one else commented on it.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Sorry I did not write that in a fully constructive manner and allowed too much to be read into the comment. 
Of course they should not quit coaching and shooting. However they do need to change their philosophy with coaching. The reality is that country's like the US and Australia still operate in an amateur level with our coaching structures and this simply must change. You need everyone on the same page and everyone working with the same technique towards the same goal. Get rid of egos and get rid of the "but blah blah shoots well and he does it this way" excuses and start working towards what we all need to do. Beat the Koreans. 
The US is using the same coaching and development system that Australia was using and it just doesn't work in today's world wide archery competitions. You will not win that way. 
We are making changes because we want to win. It is our responsibity as coaches and administrators of our sport to give our archers the best possible chance to win. Do we need millions of $$$ to do it? No we do not. But we do need to start looking outside our way of doing things and look at what our competition is doing. Stop saying "oh we won't beat Korean because they have more archers" and start saying "We have less archers, but what makes them so good?". Trust me, it is NOT their pool that makes them shoot 1400+ recurve. You can not take 3 million people with bad technique and expect one to shoot 1400. If Korean had 100 arhers to choose from they would still beat us. 
What do you want for your archery or your student's archery? 1200? 1300? 1350? I want 1440 for my students regardless of my ego as a coach and will do what it takes to get there. Levels mean nothing if you are winning on the world stage. 

Here are 2 questions
a) Do you honestly think that with currently taught US technique you will produce archers shooting 1380 Mens and 1400 Ladies?
b) If so, why has it not happened yet?

(in Australia my answer to A is yes, my answer to B is because few are implimenting it)

cheers



G33k said:


> Marcus,
> Did you really mean that? So are you telling me that pretty much everyone on this sight from America needs to quit coaching and quit shooting because we are worthless? That we will never be at a high level , Korean competitive. Did you really mean that? Are you saying that the only way we will have a good program is to fire all our coaches, hire a Korean coach and have him start all new archers? That I am a waste and will never be good, either as a coach or an archer? I am not sure what else you could have meant because it sure seems that it what you said and I am surprised that no one else commented on it.


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

I disagree that having everyone on the same page using the same system is the best possible solution.

Olympic sports like swimming, gymnastics, athletics and ski racing are fine examples of sports where multiple "systems" are used to generate the top talent in the US. These multiple systems compete for the best athletes and top honors as the clubs or teams that send the most athletes to the Olympics each time. It is a healthy process and seems to work very well where the pool is large enough so to speak.

The difference, as an example, is that there are 3000 kids on swim teams in Salt Lake City alone. This is 100 times the number of kids in JOAD around here. The last indoor swim meet here had 2800 swimmers. There were a total of 12 recurve shooters at our premiere indoor event last weekend, Joad shooters included.

Archery at this point simply does not draw like other sports.

How to make that happen is a much more viable question IMHO.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

c3hammer said:


> Archery at this point simply does not draw like other sports.
> 
> How to make that happen is a much more viable question IMHO.
> 
> ...


I have thought of it and I have the answer, more people would watch archery if archers randomly burst into flames! I think that is what makes drag races so much fun. Or maybe if they got into fights like hockey players. Ha ha ha! Or my other idea is that archery dressed in costumes like in the WWE, you could be good or bad and then start imaginary rivalries etc. What ya all think?


----------



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

Marcus said:


> Here are 2 questions
> a) Do you honestly think that with currently taught US technique you will produce archers shooting 1380 Mens and 1400 Ladies?
> b) If so, why has it not happened yet?
> 
> ...



Ah ! Some constructive food for thought.

Hopefully, without blowviating on this matter too much, some random thoughts come to mind that may add to the discussion.

First issue is that of defining what IS "currently taught US technique".

There's truly no such thing, not from the point of view from the level of detail in your AIS programs, Marcus. The reason is we have two basic types of coaches here- "system" coaches and "lone wolf" coaches.

If I go to five experienced US coaches from the NAA programs, each coach will teach the same basic things with, perhaps, different emphasis in different areas. They all will teach their own separate "key element". Furthermore, they will each approach different students requirements differently- as it arguably should be. These "system" coaches teach what they are taught to teach nd are a vital and effective tool in growing the sport.

If you go to a US "lone wolf" (outside the system) "name" coach, of which there are perhaps a dozen in the USA, well, these are all very self-assured and capable guys, some of whom have substantial egos, and all of whom think they have the One True Sword when it comes to technique- and their swords are all different from each other in significant ways. In particular there are frequently significant differences from the "system" technique.

In fact _each of those coaches teaches something significantly different than the other_. And yet all have been "successful" to one degree or another (though there's a real question as to whether they have been _more_ successful, statistically, than some unsung "system" coaches in America's heartland).

(One could also bring up the issue of how the most successful coaches are perhaps those who are most discriminating when choosing students, or how those who think they have "the answer" have uncomfortable parallels to religious zealots, but I digress...)

Fundamentally, our coaches are all teaching variations of what may or may not be the best technique. Until the variations are homogenized and the technique refined, we'll continue to get what we've got- relative mediocrity interrupted by flashes of brilliance.

We need one technique, taught by people who are willing to teach it without putting their own stamp on it- and I would argue those are likely to be the "system" coaches we already have in place.

With that said, I participate in another activity at a fairly high level which has its own share of high-ego instructors and "gurus"- and every year we get together to discuss the evolution of the technique used in that specific activity, and decide upon what works, what does not, and what the curriculum shall be for the upcoming year. Once the decisions are made, all of us conform to the agreed upon techniques- until we learn something that works better. Then we bring the "new idea" into the group the next year and decide whether to adopt it in as part of the curriculum.

This has kept the activity moving forward for many years, improving all the way.

I think I attended the last true "summit" meeting of top archery coaches in this country, but it was a while ago, and I don't think another has successfully been staged in quite some time. I'm not sure one COULD be staged, what with some of the personality issues that exist between some of the coaches.

The NAA is heading down a path to deal with this, and I hope they are successful.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

C3, I don't totally disagree with what you've just said. But the scientific factors that go into building a swimmers technique can be put on the same page as archery technique. You can have a naturally fast swimmer, that doesn't mean you aren't going to video their technique and come up with the best and most efficient stroke pattern in order to make that swimmer go faster.

There is no multiple technique system for swimming. There is a stroke motion that will make you go faster. This goes for every type of stroke. 

Swimming is dying here in Canada. Our programe went from strong to bottom wrung in a little over several years. We had a few swimmer that performed personal bests and made it to the finals at the last Olympics. In the finals, swim another personal best only to finish 4 or 5th and even last place. Complacentcy is the only reason I can think of.

In the US, the Darrel Pace, Rick Mckinney days are over. What Marcus is saying. Is if you become complacent with a programe like archery then it's hard to be at the top. The US is no longer at the top when it comes to archery. The Japanese and Chinese and perhaps Korea are good in situations like this. Through out history they've used or copied ideas from other cultures and then made it their own. 

It seems like in North America, and in the US especially. People are slow to move towards new ideas from other cultures or other countries. Americans are patriotic. They wanna be able to say, my American coach, American technique and American archery equipment helped me win this competition. The same goes for here in Canada. It's really all about ego's. Everyone has one, and it always seems like it's waiting to "beat you with a club", should you think without it. 

The question that should be being ask with a free thinking mind is.... what will it take to make my archery programe a competitive programe on the world level. Money isn't always the answer. 


Dylan


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

There is one key comment/issue I agree with in the comments Marcus made. It most certainly is not about what certificate you hold. I am a level two coach which for me simply means I have not had the vacation time and or money to spend to go and get the other levels. They also are not important to me and what I wish to accomplish. That does not mean I don't support the higher levels or feel I could benefit greatly from them, it only means on the priority scale of things it is down the list a ways and I don't see that changing any time soon. I do not feel that effects my current interests in a negative way. I will continue to help all those that wish for my input on whatever I am capable of helping with. 
With regard to the thought that you might need to be a great competitor to be a great coach, that is simply not true and I sum it up like this: As a coach it is all about do as I say, not as I do. In fact, if as a coach you were trying to get a student to do something a certain way because you know it is the most effective way to accomplish it, it might undermine your effectiveness if your student saw you struggling with the same issue! There are many issues in my own shooting that I know if done more soundly I could be a better competitor. Just because I know in many cases what needs to be done, does not mean I can do it as easily as the next guy! So in summary, a great coach knows what needs to be done regardless of if he is capable of doing it himself. A great competitor knows what he is doing and how to do it but may not have a clue how to convey what he does and when to the next person! I see very little connection in those scenarios. Let coaches do what they do best, and let competitors do what they do best! All the certifications in the world will not make a great coach greater or a poor coach greater. The information needed is out there and available and is not contained in a wall decoration. Nuf said.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

c3hammer
I don't buy your numbers game thing at all. 
As I said earlier Australia would have about 50 coached recurvers with SFA programs. 
Yet we are winning medals. 

Please explain the reason for the above. 
or choose one

a) We got lucky
b) we have a more expensive program
c) we are in general more talented
d) Our culture is vastly different
e) We have employed better technique amoung our archers


I'm sorry but throwing more archers at it will not work.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Good post GT, very informative. I'm glad to learn whats going on. 

Dylan


----------



## ACECOACH (Dec 11, 2004)

huggybear said:


> Don't worry about the "go" buttons Bill
> 
> Well, this is an interesting topic.... I think the Koreans have taken archery to be a science and a sport. They took what Rick and Darrell were doing in the 80's, improved upon it, and made a system out of it. They have many things going for them in their program.
> 
> ...


Hi,This is acecoach and it is time to "chill !" From where I stand now and where I've stood for many years the one thing that I've observed is we as an
archery group don't communicate well.Teaching is a gift,wisdom is garnered as you go. Don't force an issue,explain it in such a way that it absolutely makes sense.Chris S is a great kid and I love him like a son,but he too has an 
opinion.(his) I know Don, Larry,Tim,George and many many others but let's
not talk about what used to be and what we've done in the past.Let's solve 
what's ailing us now. Alexander has done well with Jenifer.Larry has been there for Vic but you still need to find that common thread.All of those archers who are at the top didn't get there by luck nor was it a fluke that Justin won his Gold medal.I grew up with them all.Scott Mckechnie,Allen Rasor
Chad Conner,Faun Baumgardner,Jason Pfister,Chris Jones,Tana Lama,Katie Blum and on and on........One thing to note is that when other coaches tried
changing what they already did well thimgs went downhill fast. A head coach
who's attentions are directed at all his students not just special ones is a great idea but remember he or she is not a miracle worker.
So guys it's great to make your point but don't go for the throat of the other.
Like I said once before,I think Darrell as president of the NAA,will be a driving 
force in the selection of a new head coach. I don't think anyone can BS their way into that position. Have a great evening!

Acecoach in Ohio


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Marcus said:


> Please explain the reason for the above.
> or choose one


NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Tim pulled out the clutch game at crunch time. End of story. 

The fabled Korean men tend not to do it at crunch time as often as they do it in ideal conditions at home.

There are only 25 guys in the world right now who can pull out their game when it counts like that. It's never the same guys from one Olympics to another.

As far as which country's system is the best, that goes without question, that is a numbers game. Both from a funding viewpoint and number of participants viewpoint, Korea has won both catagories hands down vs. the US and Australia combined.

As far as which country takes home the most medals, that's simply a question of which of the 25 guys is hot for that one week.

Was the american system with Mckinney and Pace the best or were they simply the hot shooters during that time? How about Jay? Or Justin?

You'll suggest that Simon, Tim and Dave did very well due to your new system. I'll suggest they are just the cream of the crop right now when it really counts.

Does a good coaching system hurt, of course not, but it's not what makes an Olympic Champion by it's self, which should be plainly obvious from the latest Olympic results.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

..... and please don't try to read into the above that I don't think those guys had great coaching or that they didn't use all the known tools to perfect their game. My point being that all the top shooters are extremely well coached and do use all the latest technology to their advantage.

In spite of all that, it comes down to who's got game that day!

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

OK so explain this

Dave Barnes, 1366 and 1360 Mens FITAs plus 3rd at World Championships. Just got hot on the day
Tim Cuddihy: 4th at World Target, 2 World Junior Titles (against Koreans), Olympic record and Olympic bronze. Just got hot on the day
Simon Fairweather. World and Olympic Champion. Just got hot on the day. 
Clint Freeman, World Compound champion and first person to shoot 1400 FITA star. Just got hot on the day (did both AFTER training at the AIS with recurve BTW)

Not bad given our small numbers. If it was just a numbers game we would have been lucky to produce one of the above, not 4 (with more in the wings  ) These guys didn't just pull it out on the day, but their success was prdicted well in advance by the world's top coaches. It's no fluke. Dave and Tim ARE that much better than most of the rest of the world. 

Sorry but blaming numbers is an excuse, what's stopping the current dedicated US archers shooting 1350? Is it talent or technique?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> what's stopping the current dedicated US archers shooting 1350? Is it talent or technique?


Marcus, are you living vicariously?  

Give it a rest, will ya'? Tim and David are great archers. We all know that. 

I get so sick of folks saying "we" when what they really mean is "they"...

John.


----------



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

As I thought I said, (but obviously wasn't clear enough for someone who reads these posts upside-down  )

It's probably technique.

Marcus, get outside and enjoy your nice summer down there !


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Sorry Marcus, I'm not blaming the numbers, I'm blaming Tim and David for being unbelievable 

As I recall Vic was beaten by the Gold Medalist by one point as was Tim by the Silver Medalist in a shoot off by one point.

Both teams were beaten in the team rounds by the same Chinese Taipei team.

How is it that one point, under the most intense preasure cooker there is, makes for such broad claims about different systems and the value there of? 

Our sport is way too small, with far too few numbers in both countries to show any value to the statistics. It all comes down to the talent, work ethic and a bit of luck for the few who choose to excel at it.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## mbu (Oct 22, 2003)

It is very attention-grabbing to see how this thread of “The Korean Method Of shooting”, which started with an innocent question, has evolved into very interesting but often opinionated and heated discussion of somewhat related topics. Judging by the number of replies and viewers, there are many people that found this thread worth while their attention. 

I don’t believe that there are many hush-hush secrets left in archery, including the Koreans. Their success is largely based on the appropriate form and methodology, great but ruthless selection process, huge amount of tedious hard work and significant funding and support of their program by the government and culture. They have also successfully helped implementing the appropriate programs abroad, so it is not unique just to their own country.

It is worth while mentioning, though, that due to various reasons a “competitive life span” of many Korean archers is somewhat limited, so their program needs to be a bit “adjusted” or might not be accepted in a different cultural environment. 

Although I would rather see an American coach as National Coach, NAA might decide to hire an outsider (Korean or not), in order to avoid any possible internal resistance and politics. Many corporations do just this and for exactly the same reasons, even though they have plenty of internal and qualified resources. As always, I regret when it happens, but do realize that it does often produce the appropriate results.

The United States has plenty of talented archers and knowledgeable coaches, but the Olympics are very seldom won by part time practitioners (athletes or coaches) and without sufficient financial support. We shall see in the near future if USA Archery Strategic Plan generates the so desired Olympic medals.


----------



## G33k (Jul 16, 2003)

mbu said:



> I don’t believe that there are many hush-hush secrets left in archery, including the Koreans. Their success is largely based on the appropriate form and methodology, great but ruthless selection process, huge amount of tedious hard work and significant funding and support of their program by the government and culture. They have also successfully helped implementing the appropriate programs abroad, so it is not unique just to their own country.


Very well said MBU. There was somethng mentioned that I personally am scared about. Specifically the reference above to the ruthless selection process. I have been given the impression that the 'Korean' method ,*if implimented here*, would mean that if you are over 18 you are done. You are already too old to train. I know that if that happens I will not be pleased. It doesn't seem fair for an organization to take the approach which basely tells all the members 'You are a waste of our resources' But I guess people will support that approach if it gets medals, of course none of us will be getting those medals. I am not saying this is what is going to happen but it scares me all the same. It is depressing


----------



## Jorge Oliveira (Aug 13, 2004)

*Slightly OT*

Decades ago Judo was a Japanese sport. No other country was able to face them.
It was paramount among Judo players that a small guy could win a match against a big guy.

Then a very big Dutch guy went to practice in Tokyo and years later he became world Judo champion - the first non Japanese in history.
At the Olympics he competed against the whole Japanese team, and lost gold because he was wounded by a japanese guy (that was disclassified) in the semi final.

From then on, Judo was not a Japanese sport anymore.

So, Koreans - or whoever - are not invencible.
But it takes lots of organization and will power.


----------



## Shane S.D. (Nov 23, 2004)

The great thing about us (Americans) is that no dream is too big for us, I could be 85 years old and if I want that gold medal I would do what it takes, because I have that power. Who wants it bad enough?.....right now its the Koreans....who's next?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> How is it that one point, under the most intense preasure cooker there is, makes for such broad claims about different systems and the value there of?


C3, when you figure out the answer to that one, would you let me know? ha, ha, ha.  

John


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

>--gt--> said:


> Marcus, get outside and enjoy your nice summer down there !


No, it's hot and I'll ruin that nice pasty white glow I have developed from a computer screen. (pssst it was a retorical question  )
Anyway must break now, too much blood rushing to my head.  

Limbwalker: I know you get it, I know GT and many others here get it. What I'm trying to point out is that some people here don't get it and are pushing the "it'll never work here" myth. It's not a US thing, an Aussie thing or a Korean thing. What they are doing isn't magic, it's obtainable by all, even by a couple of guys down the local club. I guess some of the posts here strike me as "we don't have what they have so we can't beat them" and that's crazy. 



G33k said:


> I have been given the impression that the 'Korean' method ,if implimented here, would mean that if you are over 18 you are done. You are already too old to train.


We had this myth floating around also. Many of the 30 something recurvers got really ticked off when passed over for scholarships for teenagers. However if the US uses the system we are trying to get here going then the 30+ will still be catered for and still have access to the knowledge and training system, but just not be 'in the program'. The main goal of it would be to develop young shooters for the future. (Tim was a developed archer for example). What you most likely will find is that the first 2 years of an Olympic campaign would be development and the final 2 years would be training for potentials (regardless of age)
If the US adobts the training and development system that Australia is using many will critisize it, but the benifits would be huge. Honestly if the US did you would be tough to beat.


----------



## Leighton (Aug 24, 2004)

Just wondering, but how do you guys select your coaches?


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

He was the head coach in Korea as far as I understood it. Australia probably said. "Hey, you are good. We'll pay you to come here and coach so we can have a successful archery programe".   

Dylan


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Leighton said:


> Just wondering, but how do you guys select your coaches?


This is a new area right now so I won't comment on it. However it is NOT score based.


----------



## chug (Aug 2, 2004)

MerlinApexDylan said:


> He was the head coach in Korea as far as I understood it. Australia probably said. "Hey, you are good. We'll pay you to come here and coach so we can have a successful archery programe".
> 
> Dylan


We all pretty much have an idea how they got Ki-Sik Lee, but I think Leighton was refering to how they select their "state" coach's like James Park and the others. I would imagine that it is similar to the way that we select our Olympic, Pan-Am, and World Team coachs...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Very good content in this topic.... just found it now, so as my name has been on the table for few times, i'dd like to give some "first hand" infos..

I want first to reconfirm I have never got 1200 star (yet). My top fita score was 1172 around year 1989 or 90, my top scores at various distances have been 272,311,311,338, my top indoor score is 558 (with a miss) and to mention field score has no meaning, but I was a reasonably acceptable field shooter. I have got at that levels by myself, as I have never had any kind of coaching... As a matter of fact, there were no coaches but 1 in Italy when i stated archery in 1973, so it was reall a problem of chicken and egg...

I'm a purely amateur coach, as my business is in the consumer electronic field, so basically I only coach archers from my club and in my club.
But I have introduced to archery probaly more than 1000 people, in 32 years,
so the numbers are in my favour, and I have been able to coach some good people. As a coach, I have collected up to now in my club from 93 to 2004, 43 top level archery medals with 6 different archers, not to mention the number of italian champions titles (full lists at: http://www.arcierimonica.it/albi/albi_cam.htm)

I want also to point out that I have nothing to do as a coach with Marco Galiazzo. He is mainly coached by his father Adriano, that becouse of the 2004 Olympic medal has been designated by Fitarco "Coach of the year 2004".

Now, back to topic, I have already expressed in different forums my opinion that there are no special secrets in Korean archery, apart from the fact that their federation is made by full time professionists, from archers to coaches, and puts a lot of effort to statstycal analysys of various solutions, were they are really unbeatable becouse of the large numbers of top level shooters they can analyze.
My opinion, since ever, is that is impossible to clone their systems in our (western) countries, so we have to use diferent approches.

Now, some bits of informations about Italian archery system..
The link below gets to the list of the people and clubs in Italy that will receive mention and prizes during our national annual congress, January 30 of next year.
http://www.fitarco-italia.org/comunicazioni/2004 elencopremiatiasselettiva.pdf
The list is in Italian, but I think understandable:
- Athlets of the year 2004 are Marco Galiazzo (obvious) and Jessica Tomasi (World field ladies champion, recurve division, when still junior).
But the list of the other archers honored for their 2004 international results is huge, with a total of 42 different names (but much more medals)
Among them, those I coach are Michele Frangilli, becuse of the silver medal at the European Indoor champs for individual and teams as well, plus 1 gold in one Gran prix and a bronze with the team in another, Elena Maffioli for the silver with the team at the European target champs and bronze also with team in a gran prix, and Carla Frangilli, for the world Cadet target recurve gold medal, the second place at the world junior field champs and a bronze with the cadet team at an European junior gran prix..
Then, we have all the others, with medals ranging from World Junior field Compound men Gold to winners of medals in the Sky Archery discipline. 
Then, a the end of the page, all National coaches that will receive prizes becouse of the support given to archers for the achievement of the above bunch of medals. 
But, really only very few of the 42 athlets are coached by the national coaches, that are mainly acting as coordinators during winter preparation and international competitions . 
The coaches behind the 42 names are 90% personal or club coaches like I am. Some of them very good and with more than one archer in the list, some of them with only one archer there. Names mainly unknown outside Italy, and for the majority with limited personal shooting experience and completely different ideas frome each other.
We have a totally open system, basically with "no" system at all.
Is our a perfect system? Not at all, but yearly we are able to produce a number of international medals very difficult to be reched by other countries..
And in recurve archery we are presently keeping in Italy at the same time:
- Olympic Gold Men title
- World Target Champ Men title
- World Indoor Champ Men title
- World Field Champ Women title
- World Target Cadet Champ Women title
Not bad, considering that our only korean coach left Korea in the early 90's, and frankly his present contribution is not so heavy...

Apologize as usual for my bad english...

Vittorio Frangilli


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

good points Vittorio-btw Your English is far better than my Italian -no need to apologize


----------



## Levl4e (Feb 17, 2004)

I just read a report that was put out by the USOC after the 94/98 olympics regarding a questionaire that most of the athletes were asked to fill out. It covers a lot of topics but one that is pertinent to this thread is the summary of the athletes who felt that the most important qualities of a coach were that the coach needed to be a good teacher and a good motivator. f you are interested in reading the report please PM me and I will send it to you. It is to big to send on this site.


----------

