# USA Archery Coaches Symposium



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

So,

Everybody has had some time to mull it over. Archers helping Archers, anything to pass on to the rest of us who didn't attend? 
Changes/tweaks to NTS? 
Any great nuggets, other than those already reported about MMS?
Observations?
Value of attending?
Funny or not so funny stories?

Come on people, share. Even though I advocate for a much lower price (or free, hahaha) mentoring workshop approach by trusted agents in each state or major center, I know this will never happen. So the only way we have to get the information around is for people to not squirrel it away.

Cheers


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

bobnikon said:


> So,
> 
> Everybody has had some time to mull it over. Archers helping Archers, anything to pass on to the rest of us who didn't attend?
> Changes/tweaks to NTS?
> ...


As much as you were seeming to be kidding about "free", do people really expect symposiums like this to be free? If so...wow. Just, wow.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

To answer the question directly:

- USADA and supplement411. Google it and you can see some cool stuff on their web site.

-Achievements and adaptation of the Para archers, always a good presentation

-Mental Management (outside of MMS), additional presentation done by coaches from other sports show that MMS has a streamlined method of standardization of the mental game

-Regional symposiums are possible for the future


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Beastmaster said:


> As much as you were seeming to be kidding about "free", do people really expect symposiums like this to be free? If so...wow. Just, wow.


I do not expect symposiums like this to be free. What I do expect, if they expect their VOLUNTEER instructor/coach cadre to be up to date and professional, is for USA Archery to mentor and train their coaches. If what I heard about the "rant" is true, then they need to reach out to the regions/states/centers/whatever and bring their instructors and coaches up to the level they expect them to perform at. 

That is all.

Is that too much to expect?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

The one thing I think was interesting was Coach Lee throwing Level 4s under the bus, by stating matter factly that they weren't teaching NTS, especially to level 3s.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Coach Lee's discussion on curing target panic was interesting.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

erose said:


> The one thing I think was interesting was Coach Lee throwing Level 4s under the bus, by stating matter factly that they weren't teaching NTS, especially to level 3s.


Hmm...I wonder what his take away from that (assuming the L4s aren't teaching NTS) is?



Beastmaster said:


> To answer the question directly:
> 
> -Achievements and adaptation of the Para archers, always a good presentation


That sounds like useful stuff that coaches may not be able to learn locally, the kind of stuff that that, to my mind, really justifies the utility of a national symposium.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

erose said:


> The one thing I think was interesting was Coach Lee throwing Level 4s under the bus, by stating matter factly that they weren't teaching NTS, especially to level 3s.


This is what I am getting at with respect to the mentoring idea. If the level of coaches produced is not satisfactory, then they need to develop a core group of "trusted" coaches who can go out to the masses and bring up our level as a whole. No matter how good the course material, book, or whatever, nothing will beat in person training. This benefits us, but more specifically them. Then again, does it really matter? Probably not in the long run.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bobnikon said:


> This is what I am getting at with respect to the mentoring idea. If the level of coaches produced is not satisfactory, then they need to develop a core group of "trusted" coaches who can go out to the masses and bring up our level as a whole. No matter how good the course material, book, or whatever, nothing will beat in person training. This benefits us, but more specifically them. Then again, does it really matter? Probably not in the long run.


This is why I'm interested in what Lee's take away is. I'm reminded of the writings of engineer, failure annalist and user interface designer Don Norman, who notes that user interfaces need to be designed the way people think and work and not to try to force people to work around the design. So, if NTS isn't being promulgated through the L4s on down, there is probably something about _NTS_, as opposed to the L4s, that could lead people to teach it poorly, inadequately or not at all.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Warbow said:


> This is why I'm interested in what Lee's take away is. I'm reminded of the writings of engineer, failure annalist and user interface designer Don Norman, who notes that user interfaces need to be designed the way people think and work and not to try to force people to work around the design. So, if NTS isn't being promulgated through the L4s on down, there is probably something about _NTS_, as opposed to the L4s, that could lead people to teach it poorly, inadequately or not at all.


Good point, not likely one that will be addressed in the near future though. I have often wondered if there was a equally "biometrically" correct way to do it that wasn't so complicated. If so, would we all be better equiped to understand it and pass it on. There is a lot about NTS that is very hard to grasp until you actually get it. The way it is presented is often not so conducive to getting it. 

The other issue is the dynamic nature of the system. It seems year to year people are being admonished for using what was understood to be part of it the year prior. When changes are made, it would be kind of cool if they were promulgated... 

That is a big part of why I started the thread, hoping people could pass on things that were understood to be changed, or that caused issue for people, so we could all get a better understanding of how NTS is evolving.

It really wasn't intended to be a muckraking thread.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

For people that have been going to symposiums for a while - Coach Lee's rant is a constant one. He does that *EVERY* year. One year, he hit on it so hard that some coaches (including Level 4's and 5's) walked out.

There's two parts to the rant. One I agree with. The other, I have a small problem with.

Part 1 of the rant (that I agree with) is that there isn't enough reinforcement of the NTS, so even Level 4's will forget about small bits and pieces of it. However, those that keep up in some way/shape/form of the NTS still all agree that we all teach the concepts the same.

The part I have a problem with is the continual negative reinforcement of the fact that no one teaches the NTS properly. Well, truthfully, no one will teach NTS totally properly in the eyes of it's creator. This is a combination breakdown of culture differences (Asian vs. non-Asian) and the fact that it's constantly evolving.

From someone who straddles the line between high performance archers and run of the mill recreational archers, the slight difference in how one approaches NTS can become a huge chasm in coach training. I fully admit that I approach a recreational archer (and how I show them NTS) differently than what I show and have my JDT kids and potential JDT kids do NTS.

And that chasm is something that most coaches don't cross. There are very few coaches that truly do high performance coaching. Coach Lee expects everyone to be at that level - it's not realistic and not practical to be there all the time.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

erose said:


> Coach Lee's discussion on curing target panic was interesting.


He hit on that in prior L4 training and the symposium content he presented was identical to what he did in a World Archery coach symposium a year ago or so.

In an odd way - he's right. Target panic is the issue of not following or having a breakdown in the process. The issue is - can you effectively retrain the archer mentally to follow the process and ignore the outcome?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

erose said:


> The one thing I think was interesting was Coach Lee throwing Level 4s under the bus, by stating matter factly that they weren't teaching NTS, especially to level 3s.


In my Level 4 course, after I passed, I was expressly asked to begin mentoring current and future Level 3's so that they can pass the Level 4. The flip side to that is I'm in a state where I can theoretically do that - there is a pipeline of L2-L3 people that one can draw from to mentor. 

This is something that Coach Lee has recently started pursuing more aggressively as subsequent L4's get trained and pass their course. 

The other side of the coin is that some areas have no Level 4's or 5's for a Level 3 to refer to.

Again, here's another problem that needs to be solved and worked out. Level 4's are supposed to train archers to shoot in National and International events. Level 4's (in the past) weren't supposed to be coach trainers as well.

Only recently has the desire for "coach trainers" come across. My personal problem is one of time. I have a "normal" job of coaching archers, a "not so typical" job in finding talent and seeing if they can face the grinder of national and international competition, and the "paying" job of doing normal work to pay the bills. Developing coaches is another demand on time that I don't always have cycles for. I also have the part where I'm working on the necessary items to attain my Level 5, and that also takes time out as well.

Realistically, we need a group of dedicated "coach trainers". Their job is specifically to create, teach, and maintain new coaches. I don't see that happening just yet.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

erose said:


> Coach Lee's discussion on curing target panic was interesting.


For those who are interested and have an open mind,here is the first Youtube Video that Coach has allowed. This is from a World Archery Coaches Seminar in Spain, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_XYQ76K5a4


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

bobnikon said:


> Good point, not likely one that will be addressed in the near future though. I have often wondered if there was a equally "biometrically" correct way to do it that wasn't so complicated. If so, would we all be better equiped to understand it and pass it on. There is a lot about NTS that is very hard to grasp until you actually get it. The way it is presented is often not so conducive to getting it.


If you get an opportunity, take one of Coach Hardy Ward's clinics. In my opinion a much easier and less tiring technique.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jab73 (Jan 22, 2013)

Tagged

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> Coach Lee's discussion on curing target panic was interesting.


Anyone ask him how well that worked for him?


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> For people that have been going to symposiums for a while - Coach Lee's rant is a constant one. He does that *EVERY* year. One year, he hit on it so hard that some coaches (including Level 4's and 5's) walked out.
> 
> There's two parts to the rant. One I agree with. The other, I have a small problem with.
> 
> ...


Thrashing your protégés in public is not the most effective leadership style. In fact, it likely indicates one is not suited to be in a leadership role, especially with a bunch of volunteers.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Anyone ask him how well that worked for him?


Heh. He fully admits that target panic was a problem of his at one time.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

TomB said:


> Thrashing your protégés in public is not the most effective leadership style. In fact, it likely indicates one is not suited to be in a leadership role, especially with a bunch of volunteers.


Again, difference in cultures. You don't see it in our country because of the "take this job and shove it" mentality that can occur. In Asian cultures, you're going to see that happen because it's an accepted norm.

And - you bring up the chasm in which I speak of - Volunteers vs. Paid coaches. Actually, there's realistically three levels with chasms between each level - you have Volunteers, Volunteers with resources to have continuing education, and Paid coaches that have resources to have continuing education.

-Steve


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

The thing that popped in my mind at the time he started throwing you guys under the bus, is if this is a huge problem, and he is the one who teaches level 4s then perhaps he needs to look in the mirror and wonder what he is doing wrong.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I've said for nearly a decade now that NTS is a technique best taught by experts, to experts (full timers or those who train like full timers). If those two conditions are met, it has proven to be as good as any other shooting method, for male archers. There is finally beginning to be some evidence that it can work for very athletic, strong female archers as well. 

Just going by the numbers and looking at the data.

I stepped away from teaching NTS to most of my students because it's not a good solution for the masses of recreational archers us volunteer coaches work with. If a student wants to learn NTS and has demonstrated a valid work ethic to me, I will teach it to them, but I have yet to have a single recreational archer carry through the whole process to completion. Most recreational archers are simply not interested in such a rigid, difficult to master method. It is what it is.

Support for NTS among coaches tends to fall along the lines of who wishes to be "in" or "out" of the current clique. If viewed objectively, just by the data, it's pretty obvious that it is not an easy method to teach or learn, and Lee's frustrations with his students are not only predictable, they are his to solve by simplifying the method for volunteer coaches and recreational archers.

I'm sure he would view this as a "dumbing down" of the method and resist or refuse to adapt it for recreational archers and volunteer coaches. And that would be his prerogative. But he was hired to train coaches who spend 99.99% of their time teaching recreational archers, so at some point you have to meet the customer's needs, I think.

But there we get back to the question of who the customer is...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

The sunk costs fallacy comes to mind, which is when people continue to spend time and money doing something that isn't working because they don't want to loose their initial investment - throwing good money after bad.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Anyone ask him how well that worked for him?


Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark John


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I've said for nearly a decade now that NTS is a technique best taught by experts, to experts (full timers or those who train like full timers). If those two conditions are met, it has proven to be as good as any other shooting method, for male archers. There is finally beginning to be some evidence that it can work for very athletic, strong female archers as well.
> 
> Just going by the numbers and looking at the data.
> 
> ...


I'm here as well. This is the one thing I definitely learned at the Symposium.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

erose said:


> The thing that popped in my mind at the time he started throwing you guys under the bus, is if this is a huge problem, and he is the one who teaches level 4s then perhaps he needs to look in the mirror and wonder what he is doing wrong.


A couple of us almost two years ago proposed that the process for candidates for level 3 and 4 coaches be changed. Basically you had to apply to get in, sort of like business school or any other professional degree. They her focus was on one's body of work and to gauge whether one had what it took to succeed in the program. Our suggestion was the National Coaching staff be the gate keepers to ensure the quality of the input to the level 3 and 4 courses. Maybe then a better, more successful outcome from those courses would occur. Then for the rest of us, the recreational coaches, we could be exposed to the concepts and language of the method without demonstrating mastery in some other informational series. What we have now is a one siz fits all ( or fits none) program, thus the low yield of level 4 passing the class and apparent unsatisfaction from the boss.

As one might anticipate, our suggestion fell on deaf ears. Not invented here syndrome.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> As one might anticipate, our suggestion fell on deaf ears. Not invented here syndrome.


An interesting idea, but when considered in the context of the apparently political and cliquish nature of the current coaching system at the OTC I have to wonder if it would have exacerbated the current issues, and creating an even more insulated and sycophantic circle at the top levels.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Warbow said:


> An interesting idea, but when considered in the context of the apparently political and cliquish nature of the current coaching system at the OTC I have to wonder if it would have exacerbated the current issues, and creating an even more insulated and sycophantic circle at the top levels.


True, but a refined process, more selective, would have saved a bunch of folks some money who failed to get certified and saved exposing a bunch of students to folks who only knew enough to be dangerous.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

TomB said:


> True, but a refined process, more selective, would have saved a bunch of folks some money who failed to get certified and saved exposing a bunch of students to folks who only knew enough to be dangerous.


The only issue with this is not all coaches (good coaches) teach NTS. Of course the way it sounded at the Symposium, there really aren't that many coaches teaching NTS anyway.


----------



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

Jim C said:


> Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark John


Probably not. Cheap shots generally don't.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

I am a level 3 instructor/coach and this was my 1st symposium. I walked away with a much greater understanding of the NTS system and what is to be gained from using it to teach other competitive archers who are willing to devote the time and work necessary to master it then I had after passing my level 3 exam.

It is not some willy nilly system that was thought up in some dark crevasse of Coach Lee's mind, but a systematic approach to enable the instruction of a properly run shot sequence along with executing that process through the use of "pure" back tension to a mass of divergent competitive shooters. The steps of the NTS system could just as easily be the numbers 1-12 or the colors of the rainbow, but the words used in the NTS shot cycle not only reinforce to the archer what should be occurring at each of the steps, but how each step is generally supposed to "feel" when performing it correctly, and, most importantly, when the switch from conscious action to subconscious response should occur within the cycle.

I sadly admit to not having a firm grasp of this concept until I was able to get instruction from the source and actually get walked through each stage of the shot sequence with Coach Lee and the other Level 4-5 coaches present during the hands-on practical sessions provided. 

Is it an appropriate system to teach to the average recreational archers? Probably not. They would not have the desire to put in the work needed to get the most out of it and would become easily frustrated. But for the highly competitive student, this could very well be a means to reach a very high performance level with minimal risk of bodily or mental injury.

My .02C


----------



## chase128 (May 29, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> I've said for nearly a decade now that NTS is a technique best taught by experts, to experts (full timers or those who train like full timers). If those two conditions are met, it has proven to be as good as any other shooting method, for male archers. There is finally beginning to be some evidence that it can work for very athletic, strong female archers as well.
> 
> Just going by the numbers and looking at the data.
> 
> ...


+ 1 here. 

I am a volunteer level 2 that co-instructs a mixed group of 30-45+ archers every weekend, and limbwalkers statement well summarizes what we run into here in our campus club. 

In general for us here, significantly more of our time is spent instructing beginner and purely recreational archers. Advanced/motivated archers are encouraged to learn NTS, not as enforcement of shooting style, but as another set of tools in their technique toolbox. 

Did learning NTS benefit me personally? Yes, but I can easily see how it would lose or possibly discourage a recreational or beginning archer.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> Probably not. Cheap shots generally don't.


Ah the forum snitch shows up again...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

montigre said:


> I am a level 3 instructor/coach and this was my 1st symposium. I walked away with a much greater understanding of the NTS system and what is to be gained from using it to teach other competitive archers who are willing to devote the time and work necessary to master it then I had after passing my level 3 exam.
> 
> It is not some willy nilly system that was thought up in some dark crevasse of Coach Lee's mind, but a systematic approach to enable the instruction of a properly run shot sequence along with executing that process through the use of "pure" back tension to a mass of divergent competitive shooters. The steps of the NTS system could just as easily be the numbers 1-12 or the colors of the rainbow, but the words used in the NTS shot cycle not only reinforce to the archer what should be occurring at each of the steps, but how each step is generally supposed to "feel" when performing it correctly, and, most importantly, when the switch from conscious action to subconscious response should occur within the cycle.


Cool, it sounds like the symposium was exactly what you needed. So, here's the question that comes to my mind, is NTS robust enough to trickle down through layers of coaches and remain intact? Or does it only work when learned direct from Coach Lee or one of his directly trained coaches? The answer to that question would seem to be one of the keys as to whether NTS is a viable system to trickle down through the layers of a national, hierarchical roll out. The symposium is a great step in the right direction, but can it be enough if not everyone can meet Coach Lee in person?


----------



## RandyN (Aug 23, 2015)

This has been a great discussion. I can relate to the different points of view concerning the teaching of NTS. I have been struggling with teaching the recreational archer and how hard to push the NTS. I think I found my answer in this discussion.

mcullumber---Thank you for posting the link above. I need to watch it a couple more times to make sure I have all the finer details but it definitely answered a few questions for me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Cool, it sounds like the symposium was exactly what you needed. So, here's the question that comes to my mind, is NTS robust enough to trickle down through layers of coaches and remain intact? Or does it only work when learned direct from Coach Lee or one of his directly trained coaches? The answer to that question would seem to be one of the keys as to whether NTS is a viable system to trickle down through the layers of a national, hierarchical roll out. The symposium is a great step in the right direction, but can it be enough if not everyone can meet Coach Lee in person?


This is a good question and one that should have been asked nearly 10 years ago. If after 10 years, the person who created the system is still PO'd at student coaches for not being able to "get it" then that is a clear answer to your question IMO. But we aren't even allowed to ask these questions in the new USArchery environment. Nobody is allowed to ask why the emporer is not wearing any clothes without being attacked by the corporate shills and those who are looking for something to gain or for preferential treatment for themselves, their kids or their students. And so it goes... 

And before I get flamed yet again (by those corporate shills and special interests) re-read what I've written about NTS over the years. It's a complex system with lots of subtleties best taught by expert coaches to highly dedicated, full time archers. If those conditions are met, then yes, certain archers can use it to shoot elite level scores with an OLYMPIC RECURVE bow. That's all 15 years of data has shown and any other conclusion IMO is just wishful thinking by those who are either looking for a silver bullet solution or to line their own pockets.

I think after watching all this unfold for the past decade, while running JOAD programs and putting kids on Jr. USAT and Jr. World teams in the meantime, the greatest value of NTS to USArchery is to create a litmus test to determine which archers/coaches/parents will provide unconditional support to the organization and sponsors, and who will dare to question them. To that end, it has served it's purpose quite well IMO.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I always say, 鹬蚌相争，渔翁得利啊！


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

chase128 said:


> + 1 here.
> 
> I am a volunteer level 2 that co-instructs a mixed group of 30-45+ archers every weekend, and limbwalkers statement well summarizes what we run into here in our campus club.
> 
> ...



Perhaps this post sums it up the best. A terrific personal experience (Level 3 NTS, Level 4, and the Symposium), but not very useful for most. Lets face it, Coaches need practice too! Practice as a Coach, not as an Archer. With NTS as detrimental (OK, less that optimum) to the masses, how much of an opportunity does the NTS Coach get to practice his NTS coaching skills. Not much of an opportunity, and as a result the ability to teach NTS deteriorates for that individual coach and by extension all coaches. 

I wonder, do the Level 3 and 4 classes teach a section on when it's appropriate to refer your student to a different coach?


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

erose said:


> The thing that popped in my mind at the time he started throwing you guys under the bus, is if this is a huge problem, and he is the one who teaches level 4s then perhaps he needs to look in the mirror and wonder what he is doing wrong.


Actually... Coach Lee did just that during the symposium.



montigre said:


> I am a level 3 instructor/coach and this was my 1st symposium. I walked away with a much greater understanding of the NTS system and what is to be gained from using it to teach other competitive archers who are willing to devote the time and work necessary to master it then I had after passing my level 3 exam.
> 
> It is not some willy nilly system that was thought up in some dark crevasse of Coach Lee's mind, but a systematic approach to enable the instruction of a properly run shot sequence along with executing that process through the use of "pure" back tension to a mass of divergent competitive shooters. The steps of the NTS system could just as easily be the numbers 1-12 or the colors of the rainbow, but the words used in the NTS shot cycle not only reinforce to the archer what should be occurring at each of the steps, but how each step is generally supposed to "feel" when performing it correctly, and, most importantly, when the switch from conscious action to subconscious response should occur within the cycle.
> 
> ...


I agree with Gail. I also got a lot out of the symposium. I for one want to learn the NTS and also be able to teach it.
And in actuality, the system isn't that hard or complicated once it is explained properly.

As for the recreational archers, who's to say they always want to be just recreational? If someone comes to me wanting to learn archery, don't I owe it to them to teach them properly and to the best of my ability?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Define properly. Nothing against NTS but there are many properlys out there.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

XForce Girl said:


> Actually... Coach Lee did just that during the symposium.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NTS isn't the totality of archery (see Korean archers, Italian archers, etc). Yes, it's great to be able to teach/demonstrate NTS technique/methodology to archers, just as it's good to be able to teach/demonstrate other methodologies, so that the coach can address individual archers on an individual basis and match the correct message and correct medicine to each archer.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Oop - Gabe beat me to it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

XForce Girl said:


> As for the recreational archers, who's to say they always want to be just recreational? If someone comes to me wanting to learn archery,* don't I owe it to them to teach them properly and to the best of my ability?*


Sure, but as I'd think that "the best of [your] ability" would include your best judgement about teaching your student what will work well for them, at the level they wish to shoot and at their level of commitment and physical conditioning. I think for most shooters (I include the vast majority of recreational shooters as the major factor in that "most"), that is definitely *not* NTS.

Trying to teach _everybody_ full blown NTS because you can is a bit like a High School Physics Teacher insisting on teaching _every_ student post graduate level string theory, because that is the "best of the teacher's ability", or a salesman selling everybody a Linux server farm rather than the Windows laptop they came looking for. Nothing inherently wrong with post graduate level string theory or Linux server farms, but that doesn't make them right for every customer. Not everybody needs, or wants, the same thing. Of course I'm not saying that a coach couldn't or shouldn't teach full blown NTS exclusively, so long as they are being selective in their students so that what they teach is a good fit for them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Xforce girl,

There are many fundamentals that are common to ALL good methods, which a coach should be teaching their student from day one. NTS didn't invent these fundamentals, only expand on them in a unique way. Other methods expand on the fundamentals in other unique ways. But every archer must learn the basic fundamentals and that is the job of coaches who teach recreational archers up through the advanced intermediate level.

When you listen to NFL and MLB players talk about the coaching they receive in the NFL and the Major league baseball, they talk about learning the fundamentals from their high school and college coaches, but that the most elite coaches are in the pros. And despite having played football and baseball for a dozen years or more, and despite being drafted to the pros, many of those professional athletes only then learn the BEST way to hit or tackle or plan for a game, because of the level of coaching they receive and the level of commitment they bring to practice. 

I see Lee and the OTC as the "majors" or the "NFL" of archery. But what is taught there does not necessarily need to be taught to a 12 year-old JOAD archer, so long as they are getting good fundamentals. 

The idea that we need to be teaching NTS to kids who only shoot once/week is just a false narrative IMO. Why do I say this? Because this is not Korea or another country that places archery on the same plane as other professional sports. And for that reason, neither the kids or the parents will be able to sustain the kind of drive long-term that is needed to commit to an NTS style or an elite training program required to learn and perfect it. Until there are significant college scholarships for archery, that is just the way it is going to be, period, end of story. The juice isn't worth the squeeze. There aren't enough Olympic spots in the sport to keep kids and their families engaged and spending time and $ on this sport, and there aren't other ways to find a return on the immense investment that is required to be an elite archer. At least, not yet.

So what happens? Us JOAD coaches see over and over and over again, archers who should be shooting on college scholarships, dumping archery mid-high school and putting their time into other things. My daughter is a perfect example of this. She was easily on track for a college archery career, finishing in the top half of the Olympic trials at just 15, but she will instead put her time into swimming and band, because those are what she views as legitimate college sports/activities. This is her decision, not her parents. And all she's doing is what 99% of all promising JOAD archers will do when they reach 15 or 16. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt. 

If the archery corporations or organizations want that to change, they have the power to, but we are on the very low end of the curve where even exponential growth may not be enough.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Define properly. Nothing against NTS but there are many properlys out there.


I'm fairly new to archery compared to most of you on here. (10 years) So, I haven't had the luxury of learning any other methods.

If I have a brand new person interested in archery I don't (obviously) teach them all the NTS Steps, however, the steps I do teach them are steps they can easily apply if they later decide to get more serious. 

To me as a coach, it's a pain when we get a new member who has been trained differently and has no idea of the fundamentals the NTS offers.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

More of a personal view from many sides of this discussion...

1) NTS is just one of many systems out there. There's NTS (angular draw, solid bow arm side, expansion on string arm), Korean Linear (my nickname for it, linear draw, solid bow arm side, expansion on string arm), Push/Pull (linear draw, expansion on both bow and string arm), and whatever in between. Just like certain NBA teams have different systems (Fast Break/Fast Paced like what Mike D'Antoni runs or the Showtime era of the Lakers, or more slower paced like how the Celtics used to run in the 70's), or NFL teams have different systems (passing heavy vs. rush heavy), you have different systems in archery.

All systems have proven successful. All have pros and cons. A coach needs to determine what system is best for that specific archer. I teach NTS and have two kids doing pure NTS (mainly Compound NTS), but I also have two recurve students doing Korean Linear, and one recurve student even doing a modified Push/Pull because his body won't allow for expansion in the NTS method. So a coach has to consider what's best for the student, not for the comfort of the coach and their preferences.

2) I agree with John's assessment that fundamentals need to be taught until you hit some sort of "big time". If you look at what every system uses, they all rely on alignment and hold as their basis for success. In my club along with the other major influential clubs in the Phoenix area (ones with Mel Nichols, Eric Bennett, and Gary Yamaguchi as part of their coaching staff), we all have alignment and hold as part of our major emphasis.

Once you get to the big time (JDT, Resident Athletes, USAT, whatever), you're working on the total system from set/setup to follow through and reflection. For recreational? The key basics and only the key basics. That's alignment and hold in my view.

3) One of the biggest issues with going "big time" is time itself. Training time takes a LOT. A lot on the coach, and a lot on the archer themselves. Unless you've experienced first hand the amount of time needed to really go to the bigs, you don't know how much time it really takes.

My National JDT kids put in 3-4 hours a day in some cases...just to KEEP their proficiency to their "standard" level. Increasing their proficiency means spending more time than that.

4) Funding. It's not just the entrance fees. It's travel. And if you're a parent, its travel for you AND your kid. The bow/arrows/equipment is (ironically) the cheap part.

Finally - The coach has to take everything in. Soup to nuts. Holistic and technical. Life and training. I've had my coach training over years of actually being a coach in other sports. Archery coaching and how you "become" a coach is far different than how you become a coach in other sports. 

In a lot of other sports, if you choose to become a coach, you do (eventually) get training on how to actually be a coach. How to develop yourself and also develop others. How to develop your players. How to care for your players beyond the sport...and into real life.

In Archery? Nowhere near anything I'm used to in the Volleyball and Baseball world. This sport doesn't develop coaches...and we need to. The desire is there from a lot of people I've met and I know. The training isn't there.

So the challenge is: how do we develop the coaches, and how do we do so in a way that keeps the best ones in the system while flushing out the ones that just want the piece of paper?

-Steve


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

XForce Girl said:


> I'm fairly new to archery compared to most of you on here. (10 years) So, I haven't had the luxury of learning any other methods.
> 
> If I have a brand new person interested in archery I don't (obviously) teach them all the NTS Steps, however, the steps I do teach them are steps they can easily apply if they later decide to get more serious.
> 
> To me as a coach, it's a pain when we get a new member who has been trained differently and has no idea of the fundamentals the NTS offers.


I can appreciate that you can only teach what you know. There is much to know in what constitutes good form. But a shooter with good form can adapt if a modification is in their best interest. Perhaps instead of looking at a non NTS student as a pain, you can observe what that shooter does well and if NTS is a good fit. Or perhaps only some elements of NTS are appropriate.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I can appreciate that you can only teach what you know. There is much to know in what constitutes good form. But a shooter with good form can adapt if a modification is in their best interest. Perhaps instead of looking at a non NTS student as a pain, you can observe what that shooter does well and if NTS is a good fit. Or perhaps only some elements of NTS are appropriate.


Maybe the word Pain was a little harsh.

This doesn't happen often but occasionally a shooter will want to join my program and their previous training and coach has ingrained their habits to the point they are very reluctant and even tend to argue. I wonder if it is worth it to even try to re-educate them on the way my team trains. That is the PAIN part.

If I had sent the couple of kids to the Dream Team selection camp without the proper NTS "basics" do we think they would of still made the team?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

XForce Girl said:


> Maybe the word Pain was a little harsh.
> 
> This doesn't happen often but occasionally a shooter will want to join my program and their previous training and coach has ingrained their habits to the point they are very reluctant and even tend to argue. I wonder if it is worth it to even try to re-educate them on the way my team trains. That is the PAIN part.
> 
> If I had sent the couple of kids to the Dream Team selection camp without the proper NTS "basics" do we think they would of still made the team?


Talent is talent. Any coach would be derelict to not select the best prospects, no matter what style they shoot. 

In our program we have shooters who are coached privately. We ask the shooters what they and their coaches have been working towards and try to reinforce those things. As a coach, it is important to be a good observer and learn as you teach. If I feel a student is getting some fundamental incorrectly, I'll bring it up both with the shooter and the private coach. Yes, I make it a point to know the coaches who teach our students. Most often there is some miscommunication rather than a disagreement about what is being taught. 

Be open. Teach. Learn. Listen. There is plenty of room for all to get better. Try not to get too caught up with a particular dogma.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Great points Steve.



> All systems have proven successful. All have pros and cons. A coach needs to determine what system is best for that specific archer.


And here is the kicker... Until and unless a coach has actually LEARNED other systems, they are a one trick pony. It's even better if you yourself as a coach have SHOT multiple systems. Very few have. Very few.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

I did not attend the symposium this year, but was at Chula Vista with Coach Lee et al in December. Kisik made me an offer, which I may well take him up on, of coming to visit our club. And here is what he would find...

Out of the almost 100 JOAD / AAP archers, I can count on one hand the number of athletes who I have taken all the way with text book NTS. And each of those archers are having to adapt at least one element to suit their physique. Finger pressure and placement on the string, for example. The 30 / 50 / 20, will not work comfortably for someone with a long ring finger. The 30 degrees open stance will not work perfectly for someone with a wider, flatter face to get a good anchor. So, an understanding of *why* NTS is structured the way that it is, will help a coach to adapt a student's method accordingly. Coach Lee shared that same fundamental with us in the class. 

We have to understand the mechanics behind it, and ultimately get the archer to a fully braced holding in the most biomechanically efficient way. And keep, what I call, the "business ends" of archery as they should. That is the bow hand and release.

So what about the other 95% of our archers? They fall into a few categories. Those who say they want to succeed, but don't practice enough or have an inclination to do what it takes. I am not going to waste my time showing them NTS until they show me the dedication that is needed. Let's just get them not gripping the bow to start with. 

Then there's the purely recreational, "I'll try for my pins, but it's not that important" type archer. I'll cheer them on, give them tips, and ask them how their basketball, volleyball and multiple other activities are going.

Before we get all NTS on our archers, it is important to understand their goals first. We are fortunate enough, at our range, to have enough L1/L2s to handle the less serious.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> I did not attend the symposium this year, but was at Chula Vista with Coach Lee et al in December. Kisik made me an offer, which I may well take him up on, of coming to visit our club. And here is what he would find...
> 
> Out of the almost 100 JOAD / AAP archers, I can count on one hand the number of athletes who I have taken all the way with text book NTS. And each of those archers are having to adapt at least one element to suit their physique. Finger pressure and placement on the string, for example. The 30 / 50 / 20, will not work comfortably for someone with a long ring finger. The 30 degrees open stance will not work perfectly for someone with a wider, flatter face to get a good anchor. So, an understanding of *why* NTS is structured the way that it is, will help a coach to adapt a student's method accordingly. Coach Lee shared that same fundamental with us in the class.
> 
> ...


Lynda, you're doing an awesome job down there - so proud of you!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

XForce Girl said:


> (snip)
> 
> If I had sent the couple of kids to the Dream Team selection camp without the proper NTS "basics" do we think they would of still made the team?


Actually, knowledge of NTS is not a requirement. It's trainability.

Can that archer be trained or can that archer be willing to be retrained?

The balance of that is - can the archer be retrained and end up a better archer at the end?

Using a personal student as an example - this archer has studied under Coach Kim Hyung Tak before in Korea. (This is a third generation American kid, so there's no ties to Korea either - his family chose to send him there as a kid every couple of years). He uses a Korean Linear method of shooting. Has the highest rating of any kid or adult that I've seen in getting into their back - beating Brady and other RA's when we measured him at the recent Recurve JDT selection camp.

He was NOT chosen for Recurve JDT. Retraining him to perform angular draw and the NTS would radically change super consistent shooting to where he's going to go downhill, then try to rebuild him in hopes he gets back to his current level. It's not worth it.

So, we could have trained the archer under NTS. Will the archer end up being better at the end? No.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Actually, knowledge of NTS is not a requirement. It's trainability.
> 
> Can that archer be trained or can that archer be willing to be retrained?
> 
> ...


Question. Is Dream Team about teaching NTS, or about grooming the next USAT performer?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Question. Is Dream Team about teaching NTS, or about grooming the next USAT performer?


That was exactly my question, too. But maybe I'm misinterpreting Steve's post.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

lksseven said:


> Lynda, you're doing an awesome job down there - so proud of you!


Well, shucks. Thank you, Larry. We have a great team. It takes a village. 

That raises another aspect that we employ. I have an assistant head coach, an L3, who has a vast amount of knowledge. We work together on several students, brainstorming between us and being completely open to what each other have to say. And that ties in to what Beastmaster said about trainability.

One of our L2s has been around for *years* and is totally old school and a compound shooter. I laid down the gauntlet recently, for him to start shooting a recurve to better understand the mechanics. Just like limbwalker did with me a few years ago, haha. The L2 graciously accepted the challenge. It's not easy for him, but he is open to learning and growing. That is key for all of us.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> Well, shucks. Thank you, Larry. We have a great team. It takes a village.
> 
> That raises another aspect that we employ. I have an assistant head coach, an L3, who has a vast amount of knowledge. We work together on several students, brainstorming between us and being completely open to what each other have to say. And that ties in to what Beastmaster said about trainability.
> 
> One of our L2s has been around for *years* and is totally old school and a compound shooter. I laid down the gauntlet recently, for him to start shooting a recurve to better understand the mechanics. Just like limbwalker did with me a few years ago, haha. The L2 graciously accepted the challenge. It's not easy for him, but he is open to learning and growing. That is key for all of us.


There are plenty of villages that lie fallow forever. What it takes is ample acreage, fertile soil, and individual leadership with ability and vision - you're aces on all three.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

lksseven said:


> That was exactly my question, too. But maybe I'm misinterpreting Steve's post.


I think it is an important question to answer. Steve is an insider. If Dream Team is about NTS and does not support other talented young archers, how do those talents get groomed at a higher level? How does USAA support those who choose to employ another methodology? 
I'll bet Butch and Vic would have some interesting input, as they spanned Coach Lee's tenure. The same goes for Jenny Nichols.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Question. Is Dream Team about teaching NTS, or about grooming the next USAT performer?


Speaking directly on Compound JDT - the purpose of Compound JDT is to provide a training ground to develop the next high performing compound archers. A lot of the kids in Compound JDT are wanting to shoot on the World Championship/World Cup level. Some have won on the International stage before they joined Compound JDT, others have won while in it.

NTS is one of many tools used to do the type of training.

Using my own son as a prime example - he knows NTS for compound. He doesn't follow all of it - his body won't allow him to get a complete Barrel of the Gun, for example. His form is more trapezoidal (when looking at him from the top) than triangular. But the coaching staff works with it and concentrates on more important parts - ensuring alignment, achieving better hold, clean release, and the mental game. There's emphasis on overall physical conditioning.

Recurve JDT is very similar, but the emphasis on NTS is far more than in Compound JDT. 

Doing a comparison between Spencer and my recurve kid that didn't get on Recurve JDT, here's the main points...

Spencer - Already was shooting a variant of NTS to begin with. Was willing to be torn down and rebuilt knowing that the amount of change was going to be minimal. Ended up winning the Arizona Cup, two top 5's, and got 8th in Cadet USAT for a 13 year old kid in a very contentious division with LOTS of talent.

Recurve Student - Shooting Korean Linear. Was willing to be torn down and rebuilt, but knew change would be HUGE. JDT coaches and I agreed that tear down/rebuild wasn't worth the risk, and that the Korean Linear method of shooting isn't a danger for a young kid to be using. Gets continual top 5 in major tournaments.

So in the recurve world, NTS has far more emphasis in the JDT structure. 

The end game? It's hopes for both programs is that their graduates will move on to the higher end stuff in archery and perform well. USAT isn't necessarily a requirement or even a stepping stone. The performance indexes used in both programs to rate and rank the archers really take into account personal growth within archery, not items like USAT placement or wins in state/national/international events.

And NTS (at least in the compound world) is a tool, not a requirement for JDT. The coaches in Compound JDT are a bit more flexible. The coaching staff in the recurve side of the world make it more of a requirement to know and practice it.

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I think it is an important question to answer. Steve is an insider. If Dream Team is about NTS and does not support other talented young archers, how do those talents get groomed at a higher level? How does USAA support those who choose to employ another methodology?
> I'll bet Butch and Vic would have some interesting input, as they spanned Coach Lee's tenure. The same goes for Jenny Nichols.



Hehe...I'm only informed to a certain extent because I see things from being a personal coach to some JDT kids and being a dad for another. My success within that system is because I'm willing to talk and negotiate with the coaching staff on what will work for the kids. 

Ask me about scoring systems inside USA Archery, and that's where you definitely get the inside story...


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Recurve JDT is very similar, but the emphasis on NTS is far more than in Compound JDT.
> 
> 
> Recurve Student - Shooting Korean Linear. Was willing to be torn down and rebuilt, but knew change would be HUGE. JDT coaches and I agreed that tear down/rebuild wasn't worth the risk, and that the Korean Linear method of shooting isn't a danger for a young kid to be using. Gets continual top 5 in major tournaments.
> ...


So JDT is about retraining to NTS. Ok. How does your young non NTS shooter get higher level support?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I think it is an important question to answer. Steve is an insider. If Dream Team is about NTS and does not support other talented young archers, how do those talents get groomed at a higher level? How does USAA support those who choose to employ another methodology?
> I'll bet Butch and Vic would have some interesting input, as they spanned Coach Lee's tenure. The same goes for Jenny Nichols.



I'll be a bit blunt about the JDT selection process. It's not all that it's cracked up to be.

Trainability is the biggest plus. Willing to show and demonstrate the skill asked of the archer by the coaching staff is another. But consideration for long term success within the NTS system (especially in the recurve world) is one of the points as well.

Ultimately, Long Term Success is all about the relationship between the PERSONAL coach and the archer. Long term success in the JDT world means you have a three way relationship between your JDT coach AND your personal coach with excellent communication amongst all three. 

Speaking as both coach and dad - JDT is a tool for my archers to use in their developmental process. They have access to higher level psych, training, and tools for development. In the Compound JDT world, NTS is a set of guidelines, not a rigid form to specifically follow blindly.

As for higher end archers and grooming - Khatuna does not follow the full NTS methodology. She's got full support from the coaching staff. Elements from her Eastern Bloc training still comes through every once in a while, like pushing through her shot. I don't see Guy or Coach Lee rushing to make major corrections for Khatuna.

A lot of the other archers in the RA program are now pretty much kids that have come up from Recurve JDT or from other NTS based coaches into the RA program. Brady is one of the last ones left that is somewhat of a hybrid NTS shooter.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Beastmaster said:


> I'll be a bit blunt about the JDT selection process. It's not all that it's cracked up to be.
> 
> Trainability is the biggest plus. Willing to show and demonstrate the skill asked of the archer by the coaching staff is another. But consideration for long term success within the NTS system (especially in the recurve world) is one of the points as well.
> 
> ...


So, in current JDT culture/philosophy, a hypothetical - a 14year old Vic Wunderle or Oh Jin Hyek (immigrating from Korea) comes to tryout at JDT and doesn't want to submit to the 'NTS-broken-and-rebuilt' plan ... so are they then given a kiss for luck and shown the door?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Depends. It's at the decision of the current coaching staff. Very subjective. They could be shown the door. But that doesn't define their long term success. 

I'll use one real life success story that isn't on JDT. Brian Bullis. He's coached by Mel Nichols. Has excellent support, isn't on JDT, and is extremely consistent. 

Another set of up and comers are Jackson Mirich and Andrew Park. Jackson's coached by Dick Tone, Andrew is a duo coached archer between myself and Alexander Kirilov. Again - no JDT for either of them, but both have the resources to excel at the higher levels. 

Ultimately, JDT doesn't define success. It can help with it, but it's not the end all and be all. 

It's like equating JDT to having a drywall screw gun. You can use nails to hang drywall or you can use a screw gun. Both accomplish the same thing - they attach drywall to studs. The result can be the same.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Even though I wasn't really impressed with Coach Lee's attitude, I must say that overall I think that the symposium was a very good experience and I learned a great deal from that experience. I think one of the biggest pluses to me, was the seminar on drug testing and tools coaches can use to determine if what their archers are shooting are acceptable or not. I did not know that every single USAA sanctioned event, can possibly be exposed to a drug test. I also thought that the discussion on our current insurance policy was good as well, and gave me many ideas to keep me safer from litigation. 

The other one concerning coaching that I feel that I need to work on greatly in my program is to create a winning culture that people want to be part of. It was universally discussed that culture is extremely important to any program. My program is very new, and culture is what I need to work on greatly.

I would like to though on the next symposium that I go to, see more information on archery specific training plans as well as high performance bow tuning. I think more needs to be discussed on compound archery, and maybe some hand on examples of equipment designed for para-archers as well. 

In all honesty USAA I think did a great job across the board. I just personally wasn't really impressed with Coach Lee or his attitude towards his level 4 coaches. I must say though that Coach Guy was pretty impressive as a person.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> So JDT is about retraining to NTS. Ok. How does your young non NTS shooter get higher level support?


They find a coach who is experienced and well-versed enough to teach outside of NTS. You know, what we did before a certain head coach was hired. 

They do exist. The smarter (or just lucky) parents know how to find them. And many of our nation's finest young archers have done this exact thing. If you look up the results from JOAD Nationals over the years, yes there are plenty of JDT kids near the top, but in many cases, the National Champion is not. It's worth noting.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I have several kids that podium at Nationals. All of them shoot the Korean Linear method. 

I started them with it and when they progressed past me, i sent them to HSS Academy in Irvine for training with two Korean Olympic gold medalists. 

I have talked with the parents and the kids at length about the OTC and JDT camps etc. Almost all do not want to change to NTS so they do not aspire to JDT anything. Having said that, i also tell them that being JDT does not get them on a National team or an World Champs team, or an Olympic team. Their shooting does. 

None of my JOAD kids or adults miss anything. They have plenty of coaches who work with them on the method they prefer. None are interested to dismantle and rebuild. Almost all my JOAD kids are recurve. 

Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong but higher level support is more than form training. Learning how to interact with a traveling team and everything associated with national and international shoots is very different than a self funded trip to a few shoots. Wasn't there a JDT trip to an international shoot that was sponsored by USAA recently? As I recall there was some buzz about that on this forum.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Learning how to interact with a traveling team and everything associated with national and international shoots is very different than a self funded trip to a few shoots.


My oh my how different the perspective is in just 12 years.


----------



## spruis (Jan 15, 2015)

Re "Unapolgetically fighting for the recreational archer" Hear, hear!

I heard Coach Lee said that NTS is the cure for TP. Is that true? If so, why are all of the guys with release aids getting it?


----------



## spruis (Jan 15, 2015)

Would you like to write an article about the Linear Method for Archery Focus magazine? If so, send me an email at [email protected].


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

spruis said:


> Re "Unapolgetically fighting for the recreational archer" Hear, hear!
> 
> I heard Coach Lee said that NTS is the cure for TP. Is that true? If so, why are all of the guys with release aids getting it?


One of our JOAD kids, came back from a Coach Lee thing recently, and and was amused that said Lee said both that target panic can't be cured, and, later, that NTS is the cure for target panic, or some such. It's very second hand, but that from some smart kids and their dad so, dunno what he tells coaches :dontknow:


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

spruis said:


> Re "Unapolgetically fighting for the recreational archer" Hear, hear!
> 
> I heard Coach Lee said that NTS is the cure for TP. Is that true? If so, why are all of the guys with release aids getting it?


He has made the claim that if one shoots NTS they will not get target panic. But at the symposium he said that to cure target panic you need to focus on three things:
* Process 
* holding
* balancing consciousness and subconsciousness

I don't know maybe it would work, I guess a good question to ask is does anyone know of an NTS archer(s) who got target panic?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes. Several.

The idea that NTS will prevent TP is preposterous. But just like politicians and the modern media, if you control the information you can say anything you want and 90% of the audience will never question it. In fact, said enough times, many will even defend it, whether it's true or not.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> One of our JOAD kids, came back from a Coach Lee thing recently, and and was amused that said Lee said both that target panic can't be cured, and, later, that NTS is the cure for target panic, or some such. It's very second hand, but that from some smart kids and their dad so, dunno what he tells coaches :dontknow:


Given the language and culture issues that have been discussed before, I find it easy to assume that the message could easily be that target panic may be difficult to *cure*, but that focusing on certain components of NTS will help you manage it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Given the language and culture issues that have been discussed before, I find it easy to assume that the message could easily be that target panic may be difficult to *cure*, but that focusing on certain components of NTS will help you manage it.


I can agree with this. But the same could be said for focusing on certain components of any well established system. And "manage" is the right way to put it. You don't cure it. You just manage it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Given the language and culture issues that have been discussed before, I find it easy to assume that the message could easily be that target panic may be difficult to *cure*, but that focusing on certain components of NTS will help you manage it.


Yes, quite possible.

At the very least, it seems Coach Lee was not communicating effectively at the event (this was not the coaching symposium), because more than one person I talked to thought he was being self contradictory. But, I wasn't there, so I don't know.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

I'm still relatively new at archery and coaching archery; and I haven't, nor one of my students, experienced target panic. I may be asking a stupid question here, but why isn't target panic curable, or so hard to cure?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Do a search for TP, esp. on the compound forums, and you can lose a lot of sleep reading about it. 

It's a subconscious, uncontrollable response to anxiety that can cripple an archer. I've seen it completely end GOOD archer's careers. Lots to be read and said on it. Eventually, everyone gets it to some degree, if they shoot enough in big enough competitions. Those who shoot recreationally and don't compete or never compete in events that are important to them, may never experience it though.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Yes. Several.
> 
> The idea that NTS will prevent TP is preposterous. But just like politicians and the modern media, if you control the information you can say anything you want and 90% of the audience will never question it. In fact, said enough times, many will even defend it, whether it's true or not.


I did get that feeling at the symposium. I know NTS is Lee's system, and he obviously feels the need to sell that system, but I do think he should be more respectful for the other shooting styles out there. The idea that the only reason why Koreans are so good is because of the 1000s of arrows they shoot, and that if they used his system they wouldn't have to shoot as many arrows to get that good, was pretty incredulous to me.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

He's just being honest with what he thinks. I fail to see the disrespect here. What or whom did he disrespect? If a doctor prescribed a different treatment from a conventional and more popular treatment and told you that it was better, would you say that he or she was being disrespectful?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> He's just being honest with what he thinks. I fail to see the disrespect here. What or whom did he disrespect? If a doctor prescribed a different treatment from a conventional and more popular treatment and told you that it was better, would you say that he or she was being disrespectful?


Didn't claim that he disrespected anyone. I just stated that I found the statement incredulous, nothing more than that. Which means I didn't buy what he was claiming. 

I have no doubt he believes his system is the best system. Heck he has to, so that he can coach it at the level he coaches. I wouldn't be surprised that other elite level coaches have the same mentality about their preferred system. 

But I personally think the KSL is one of the best systems, just not THE best system. I don't know what the best system is, if there really is such a thing; since as discussed on another thread that much of an archer's success goes beyond whatever system he/she uses.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

erose said:


> I'm still relatively new at archery and coaching archery; and I haven't, nor one of my students, experienced target panic. I may be asking a stupid question here, but why isn't target panic curable, or so hard to cure?


This article helps explain the phenomena. It is not unique to archery.
http://gladwell.com/the-art-of-failure/


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

erose said:


> I know NTS is Lee's system, and he obviously feels the need to sell that system, but I do think he should be more respectful for the other shooting styles out there.


You were at the symposium. You're in a better position to judge whether what he said constituted a "less than respectful" approach to selling his methods. From what I have gathered from you have said so far, all he did was point out the difference in methodology, so to be fair, I think you need to at least suggest in what ways he could have been "more respectful".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Why do we keep searching for "THE" best system? Haven't we figured out by now the evidence is pretty clear that there is no ONE "best" system? 

Just look at the list of men's Oly. gold medalists over the past 5 Olympics. Not a single one of them shoots the same. Not even close really. That is what a court would declare indisputable evidence. You cannot present indisputable evidence to the contrary, unless you want to claim that in the case of female archers, the Korean linear method reigns supreme, and even then it's hard to determine whether it's their style of shooting, team selection method or incredible work ethic that produces such consistent results.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> You were at the symposium. You're in a better position to judge whether what he said constituted a "less than respectful" approach to selling his methods. From what I have gathered from you have said so far, all he did was point out the difference in methodology, so to be fair, I think you need to at least suggest in what ways he could have been "more respectful".


I never claimed that he was disrespectful, I used the term incredulous, which says more about what I read in what he said than what he said. I don't think that he was disrespectful to anyone except perhaps the level 4 coaches. 

The biggest thing that he said that I thought was a stretch, was that he claimed that the only reason why Koreans were better than everyone else was due to the number of arrows they shot, and that if they used his method they wouldn't have to shoot as many arrows to get as good as they are now. I agree that the amount of practice they put in, is definitely helpful to them in becoming superior archers; but to say that they could be superior archers without putting in the amount of practice they currently do, if they used his system, is in my opinion is speculation. Perhaps our archers could be as good as theirs if they put in the amount of practice that the Koreans do; but that is speculation on my part. Seriously how would one prove that one way or the other? He didn't disrespect the Koreans, he just made a comment that I thought was incredulous, nothing more than that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I just wish he and others would stop the comparisons aimed at justifying their method. The data isn't there. Not even close. So just focus on achieving the results you want, and over time, the data will point to the truth. I mean, is this really that hard in an objectively-scored sport? The reason many people participate in archery versus other "sports" is because the target is the ultimate judge and it can't get much more objective than that. 

And until one method, used by multiple archers, is consistently dominating the podium, people can say anything they want but it will just be their opinion. 

The only "method" that one can point to right now and say it's measurably better than any other, is the way the Korean women shoot/train/are selected. Period. Everything else is a guess. It's an insult to people's intelligence to suggest anything different without providing concrete data.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Why do we keep searching for "THE" best system? Haven't we figured out by now the evidence is pretty clear that there is no ONE "best" system?
> 
> Just look at the list of men's Oly. gold medalists over the past 5 Olympics. Not a single one of them shoots the same. Not even close really. That is what a court would declare indisputable evidence. You cannot present indisputable evidence to the contrary, unless you want to claim that in the case of female archers, the Korean linear method reigns supreme, and even then it's hard to determine whether it's their style of shooting, team selection method or incredible work ethic that produces such consistent results.


You know I like the idea of the setup USAA is trying to implement in a way, in that we try to establish a system that will be taught to the coaches from top to bottom, and then that way when archers move from one club to another they are getting relatively consistent coaching, and as they move up the ranks the coaching just builds upon what they already are doing. A great idea in my opinion if the system was easier to execute and coach, and if the pool of archers on the top was larger.

The problem I see with the NTS is that even at the basic level of the system it is too complicated. You really can't start them off on the NTS and build on it. To a certain point you have to teach them a different technique and then integrate the NTS as they go. It looks like USAA has accepted this point, by what is discussed in their level one and two manuals. 

The other issue is that there isn't a lot of top slots open to archers, where archers can actually make a living. We don't really have our version of the NFL or NBA; so we are not going to get the best athletes or when we do, archery is only going to be a secondary recreational sport for them. To be an elite anything requires a ton of work, and if you have to make a living to support yourself and a family, you aren't going to have enough time to put in the work. I love this sport, and will shoot my bow as much as I can, but that really only means that when I'm in town I get to shoot 3 to 4 times a week for a couple of hours. Granted I'm still growing as an archer and haven't plateaued yet; but at some point I'm going to hit a wall that will keep me from being able to compete against the "paid" archers.

I could be way off base with my comments here, and probably am; for there are many of you who have been in this sport a lot longer than I. This is my impression.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

A lot of people want structure in their lives. They are okay with being told one way is the "best" way, etc. It takes a lot of the work and anxiety out of it for them, and for those folks, what we're doing now not only makes perfect sense, it puts them at ease. And I get that. 

However, championship athletes are never satisfied with only trying one way. They will try every way they can to improve. Just look at Tiger Woods' golf swing or all the professional baseball players that constantly tweak their stance and swing, or throwing motions of NFL quarterbacks, etc. Always trying to improve and willing to try any valid method to see if it will make them better.

That's what separates good archers from great archers, and it's also why the last five Olympic champions have all shot their own way. It's part of what separated them from the crowd. They took good form, then made their own adjustments, then they OWNED THEIR SHOT. 

That's not just how you reach the elite level, it's also how you combat anxiety and TP - by owning your shot. Not by trying to do something someone else says you "must" do to shoot correctly. 

And whether you're way off base or not is a matter of opinion. The fact that you're relatively inexperienced and have no preconceived notions or loyalties, and you draw this conclusion, says to me that you represent a lot of others who feel the same way. 

But at the end of the day, it comes down to personality types. Most people are sheep. They are easily persuaded by "experts" (whether real or perceived) and will do what they are told. Those people will question, challenge or even criticize those who don't follow the crowd. Others are more independent thinkers and for them, a one-size-fits-all top-down method is never going to make much sense to them. Not saying one is right and one is wrong - just different approaches. You could say this about a lot of decisions in life. Look at how many people own Iphones and how many use Android phones. I suspect the percentages that apply there aren't far off from NTS supporters vs. those who are open to multiple styles.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Speculation erose? The guy grew up under that system.
Seems to me, your claim that it was speculation on his part, seems to be rather far-fetched.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

theminoritydude said:


> Speculation erose? The guy grew up under that system.
> Seems to me, your claim that it was speculation on his part, seems to be rather far-fetched.


Sorry, TMD, but Lee is most certainly speculating if he claims his system would improve the Koreans performance with fewer arrows. Unless he has randomized, objective studies in Korea, with Korean archers, with the experimental group improving their scores with fewer arrows than a control group, he is just speculating, in a potentially egotistical way. Not sure why you are trying to shoot erose down.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Because that's what apologists do.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> However, championship athletes are never satisfied with only trying one way. They will try every way they can to improve. Just look at Tiger Woods' golf swing or all the professional baseball players that constantly tweak their stance and swing, or throwing motions of NFL quarterbacks, etc. Always trying to improve and willing to try any valid method to see if it will make them better.


Ironically, that is what Coach Lee has done, for himself. He left the orthodoxy of Korea's archery factory, granting him the freedom to craft and teach his own system, which he has turned into a new orthodoxy that he excoriates L4s for not adhering to. 

:dontknow:


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Warbow said:


> Not sure why you are trying to shoot erose down.


Because it's always easy to criticise a person behind his back? 

Not sure why you can't see this.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

theminoritydude said:


> Because it's always easy to criticise a person behind his back?
> 
> Not sure why you can't see this.


Right, because 

A) it's wrong to criticize a highly paid public figure for the way they do, or fail to do, their job

and

B) posting well founded criticism in this well known and popular _public forum_, where Lee and any of his minions are free to respond, is "behind his back"

I'm sure Lee is grateful to have you watching his back, because you are such a valued and staunch supporter of NTS in general and Lee in particular...and because you *never* criticize anyone not already participating in a thread...

/heavy sarcasm


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

It's kinda weird but I don't practice nor teach NTS. It's is not our system. In any case it was taught here awhile ago and didn't turn out well.

Your problem, if any, is not with the coach; it's with the agency that decided on using Lee as the coach. Unless you're suggesting Lee teach a method that he does not believe in, in which case I'd be very concerned.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Minions.

Ah, so that's what this place is about.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> Speculation erose? The guy grew up under that system.
> Seems to me, your claim that it was speculation on his part, seems to be rather far-fetched.


Why would it be. If it is a fact then why not provide evidence? Not only that if the KSL system is superior, then why didn't the Koreans themselves adopt the system? They as a culture have shown that they aren't afraid to change what they do, if it gives them an edge.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> Why would it be. If it is a fact then why not provide evidence? Not only that if the KSL system is superior, then why didn't the Koreans themselves adopt the system? They as a culture have shown that they aren't afraid to change what they do, if it gives them an edge.


That may be the best argument I've heard yet.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> Because it's always easy to criticise a person behind his back?
> 
> Not sure why you can't see this.


I only criticized him for two things: 1) for throwing his level 4 coaches under the bus; and 2) making unsubstantiated/able comments.

What if I came here and stated that the best archers in the world are in Louisiana. One would obviously expect evidence of this assertion. If I'm unable to support this claim with some amount of evidence, then the original statement I made is what can only be considered unsubstantiated. It doesn't mean I'm wrong, just means I can't prove it. It doesn't matter how high I'm up the totem pole, an unsubstantiated statement is still unsubstantiated. I don't care if you are the President of the USA. 

Is his system one of the best? Without a doubt. Is it the best? I don't know. Is there a best system? Doesn't look like it, but not saying there isn't one.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> A lot of people want structure in their lives. They are okay with being told one way is the "best" way, etc. It takes a lot of the work and anxiety out of it for them, and for those folks, what we're doing now not only makes perfect sense, it puts them at ease. And I get that.
> 
> However, championship athletes are never satisfied with only trying one way. They will try every way they can to improve. Just look at Tiger Woods' golf swing or all the professional baseball players that constantly tweak their stance and swing, or throwing motions of NFL quarterbacks, etc. Always trying to improve and willing to try any valid method to see if it will make them better.
> 
> ...


I'm an Android guy. But I'm pretty sure you already knew that.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

erose said:


> I only criticized him for two things: 1) for throwing his level 4 coaches under the bus; and 2) making unsubstantiated/able comments.


You're doing it again!


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

But I guess you'll still be attend in his symposiums. Doesn't matter either way.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

theminoritydude said:


> You're doing it again!


Hmm...I almost forgot about this feature...


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

What I find most interesting about this thread and so many like it, is that not one detractor has or can provide a single piece of evidence that proves USAA and Coach Lee's approach will not, in fact, result in "multiple archers" borne of the same "method" someday "consistently dominating the podium". The fact that today's podium has three different archers using three different styles proves nothing other than the fact that there are three different archers on the podium who currently use three different styles. 

However, it has been established that a "method" can produce results as shown by the Korean Women's Team. The fact that one method works is not evidence that another method will not work.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> I'm an Android guy. But I'm pretty sure you already knew that.


Naturally. 

I think the majority of folks who post here, with a few easily identified exceptions, are. The sheeple are told to avoid this place, and they do what they are told. LOL. Free thinking - what a concept. What's next? Open elections?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> What I find most interesting about this thread and so many like it, is that not one detractor has or can provide a single piece of evidence that proves USAA and Coach Lee's approach will not, in fact, result in "multiple archers" borne of the same "method" someday "consistently dominating the podium". The fact that today's podium has three different archers using three different styles proves nothing other than the fact that there are three different archers on the podium who currently use three different styles.
> 
> However, it has been established that a "method" can produce results as shown by the Korean Women's Team. The fact that one method works is not evidence that another method will not work.


You have a point. But after a dozen years, the data is not (yet?) in favor of NTS. Maybe in another dozen. But if we don't field a full women's team for the second time in this head coach's tenure, I really don't see how anyone can argue that this method is even AS good as the Korean method, much less better. 

So, are you willing to wait another 12 years? Do you do that for head coaches of your favorite professional sports teams? Hmm?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Hmm...I almost forgot about this feature...
> 
> View attachment 3769898


It took you that long?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> You're doing it again!


Yes I am. Do you accept that the best archers are in Louisiana?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> But I guess you'll still be attend in his symposiums. Doesn't matter either way.


To be honest the symposium was very good and I learned a lot. USAA does do a good job of selecting speakers. If I can afford it, and if they have more than a couple of topics next year that I'm interested in, then yes I probably will attend.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

erose said:


> Yes I am. Do you accept that the best archers are in Louisiana?


I have never seen an archer from Louisiana.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Seattlepop said:


> What I find most interesting about this thread and so many like it, is that not one detractor has or can provide a single piece of evidence that proves USAA and Coach Lee's approach will not, in fact, result in "multiple archers" borne of the same "method" someday "consistently dominating the podium". The fact that today's podium has three different archers using three different styles proves nothing other than the fact that there are three different archers on the podium who currently use three different styles.
> 
> However, it has been established that a "method" can produce results as shown by the Korean Women's Team. The fact that one method works is not evidence that another method will not work.


I don't think anyone has claimed that. No one has said that the NTS is a lousy system. I sure haven't. We do have some young promising archers using the system today. Perhaps, and hopefully they will podium at the Olympics. That isn't the question.

Seriously though, in all honesty if one makes a claim and doesn't substantiated it, when did it become the questioner's responsibility to disprove such claim?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> I have never seen an archer from Louisiana.


But since I said it shouldn't you just accept it? Or do I need to be a National Coach first, before you accept my claim?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I think you might be deliberately conflating my point about your accusation of KSL being less than respectful of other methods, with the assumption that I accept every claim that comes my way.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Because I noticed that you have a tendency to sidetrack. You ARE a coach, right?


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Now, if you want to carry on, you might have to do it alone, because as you can see, I am in the ignore lists of several members here, and unless you want to render their ignore feature useless, I would suggest you either carry on with this in PM, or prove me right.

Your choice.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> I think you might be deliberately conflating my point about your accusation of KSL being less than respectful of other methods, with the assumption that I accept every claim that comes my way.


That is pretty much what you implied I should do.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> I think you might be deliberately conflating my point about your accusation of KSL being less than respectful of other methods, with the assumption that I accept every claim that comes my way.


Again, that really goes both ways doesn't it? I never ever claimed that KSL was being less than respectful of other methods. We have already had that discussion. The only thing I claimed was that he was less than respectful to his level 4s.

Actually you told me that I should just accept whatever KSL said.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

This thread contains the entire conversation. I shall leave it as it is.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Seattlepop said:


> What I find most interesting about this thread and so many like it, is that not one detractor has or can provide a single piece of evidence that proves USAA and Coach Lee's approach will not, in fact, result in "multiple archers" borne of the same "method" someday "consistently dominating the podium". The fact that today's podium has three different archers using three different styles proves nothing other than the fact that there are three different archers on the podium who currently use three different styles.
> 
> However, it has been established that a "method" can produce results as shown by the Korean Women's Team. The fact that one method works is not evidence that another method will not work.


But if two of those podium steps are NTS occupied, then that _*will*_ prove something? 

Olympic Gold: John Williams '72, Darrell Pace '76, boycott '80, Darrell Pace '84, Jay Barrs '88, Justin Huish '96.
Olympic Silver: Vic Wunderle '2000. World Champion: Rick McKinney 3 times.
And your contention that no one's proved that NTS cannot someday produce podium frequenters (as if it's possible to 'prove that') begs the question of how in the world did the above string of success occur without any 'system', much less NTS - looks like a bunch of individual American achievers to me, pursuing excellence in their own way with the same fervor. 

Thank God there wasn't a National Pitching System around when Nolan Ryan and Greg Maddux and Sandy Koufax and Juan Marichal were teenagers.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Wow I had no idea there were so many folks who are questioning the idea of NTS. I am one of those people who has a real hard time just following orders simple because because someone said so. It's probably why I didn't join the military I'm sure I would have ended up in the brig. Now if you can explain to me why a specific technique should work then I am open and willing to try it but I have a real hard time with blind faith. I think Limb walker is spot on with his comments below.




limbwalker said:


> A lot of people want structure in their lives. They are okay with being told one way is the "best" way, etc. It takes a lot of the work and anxiety out of it for them, and for those folks, what we're doing now not only makes perfect sense, it puts them at ease. And I get that.
> 
> However, championship athletes are never satisfied with only trying one way. They will try every way they can to improve. Just look at Tiger Woods' golf swing or all the professional baseball players that constantly tweak their stance and swing, or throwing motions of NFL quarterbacks, etc. Always trying to improve and willing to try any valid method to see if it will make them better.
> 
> ...


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

It has always rubbed me the wrong way that we "must" conform to a system. OK there are some advantages to the idea that we as coaches have some consistency and we work within a general system that is "proven" to work. That does make things a lot easier for the elite level coaches to help their athletes as they move up. But when you try to strip all individuality from the archer I begin to question the wisdom of that. I've had coaches tell me you can't do that" or "that won't work" and when I ask why I get the sheeple answer "It just won't". Ah sorry, "It just won't" didn't even work when my parents said it, you have to do better than that. 

Example: An archer sticking his thumb behind their ear is *"bad form"*. There isn't an NTS coach that would tell you, it is a good technique and most athletes would be chastised for doing it. If it is so horrible how on earth did Viktor Ruban manage to win a gold metal doing it? Well of course NTS subscribers would say he won because he was able to overcome this horrific disadvantage. Well the truth is likely that its probably a lot closer to a neutral form technique. The detriments are darned close to the benefits meaning it didn't help him and since he clearly won by doing it, it probably wasn't a huge detriment either. In fact as Limb walker alluded to, since he believed it worked for him, and he *OWNED IT*, he was a lot more committed to proving it. That commitment to his shot may have bumped him over the top. I wonder how much individuality are athletes are allowed? For those of you who aren't familiar with Viktor here is a picture of the 2008 Gold medalist.








I am totally convinced that winning at archery has a lot more to do with the innate athleticism of the person and their mental aptitude for competition than any farting around we do with their form. I suspect getting the archer over the top has a lot more to do with managing the personality than it does managing their technique. Case in point the BEST or NTS system has been in play for what 10 12 years and we're just now requiring our coaches to have mental management training, where has our focus been? We've been fixated on getting everyone to use the same technique while we've watched our archers struggle. Now as I said I don't think the NTS is bad in fact there is nothing wrong with it other than we seem to be fixated on it as some magic pill that will make an athlete elite. It's not the technique that is getting in the way of their success it's our faith in it as a cure all.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

b0w_bender said:


> It has always rubbed me the wrong way that we "must" conform to a system. OK there are some advantages to the idea that we as coaches have some consistency and we work within a general system that is "proven" to work. That does make things a lot easier for the elite level coaches to help their athletes as they move up. But when you try to strip all individuality from the archer I begin to question the wisdom of that. I've had coaches tell me you can't do that" or "that won't work" and when I ask why I get the sheeple answer "It just won't". Ah sorry, "It just won't" didn't even work when my parents said it, you have to do better than that.
> 
> Example: An archer sticking his thumb behind their ear is *"bad form"*. There isn't an NTS coach that would tell you, it is a good technique and most athletes would be chastised for doing it. If it is so horrible how on earth did Viktor Ruban manage to win a gold metal doing it? Well of course NTS subscribers would say he won because he was able to overcome this horrific disadvantage. Well the truth is likely that its probably a lot closer to a neutral form technique. The detriments are darned close to the benefits meaning it didn't help him and since he clearly won by doing it, it probably wasn't a huge detriment either. In fact as Limb walker alluded to, since he believed it worked for him, and he *OWNED IT*, he was a lot more committed to proving it. That commitment to his shot may have bumped him over the top. I wonder how much individuality are athletes are allowed? For those of you who aren't familiar with Viktor here is a picture of the 2008 Gold medalist.
> View attachment 3771186
> ...


Very very well put. Totally agree.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm going to approach this from multiple angles.

1) Any coach, teaching any system, will be successful if they are able to explain and demonstrate the CONCEPT. 

Coach Linda Beck said it pretty well when you equate a coach to a storyteller. A good storyteller can show the environment, the character, and the plot line in a way that the reader can understand and get into.

A good coach will do the same thing. If they can get the story into the archer's head so they understand and can execute the concept, that archer will be successful.

2) Every archer is different. There is absolutely NO way every archer can perform the same system identically. A successful coach will modify the system to conform to the archer's needs.

3) There are too many coaches that teach by rote. I see this predominantly in the USA Archery system in which coaches will teach NTS like it's a rigid Bible-like set of rules. You "must" have your BOG. You "must" do the candy cane. You "must" do this, or that.

There's a lot of reasons why this occurs. One is that there are too many USA Archery coaches that never have coached ANYTHING before. There is a huge difference between being an instructor, and being a coach. A good example is the military - you don't have Drill Coaches. You have Drill Instructors (DI). DI's teach everything by the numbers, in groups. In archery, your instructors teach everything by the numbers, in groups. No difference.

Coaches are different. You adapt, change, and modify - both the system for the student, as well as the student to certain parts of the system. That requires more one-on-one. 

A coach needs to know when to be an instructor, and when to be a coach.

Every archery coach should have a set of things they stick to no matter what the student. I've mentioned this before - my own personal items to concentrate within archery are alignment and hold. Every system relies on it. Every coach states it differently. Frank Person says a successful archer will have their hands lined up (alignment) and have the ability to keep the bow drawn back (hold). NTS uses bow hand/string hand/back elbow in a line (alignment) and use your back muscles (hold). Randy Ulmer says to line things up (alignment) and use your back muscles to keep the bow string back (hold). 

See my #1 point - everyone approaches the picture differently. The same outcome generally occurs. 

4) Your successful archers all have these qualities:
- The ability to do the same repetitive task with the same level of skill and quality
- The ability to adapt what works to them
- The mental toughness to win

5) Coach Lee's admonishment to his Level 4's encompasses a lot of what I've talked about in the above points. Coaches aren't coaching the CONCEPT. They are preaching the individual steps. And some are preaching the individual steps without actually shooting a bow themselves.

One Level 4 coach that I know (and doesn't shoot a bow hardly at all) will attempt to have their archers detail every little small niggly nitpick item within the NTS. That's not teaching the concept. That's making them memorize by rote. Memorize by rote won't make them good archers nor does it make this coach a good coach. It's being a glorified DI.

And this is where the majority of the outrage gets generated. A lot of the coaches get pissed off because they feel they are teaching NTS. They are, from a purely technical standpoint in which your doing it like you're taking down an M4 rifle - by the numbers. They aren't teaching NTS from a concept, and then creating and molding both the archer around the system, and the system around the archer. 

As much as I get tired of hearing the same beginning message from Coach year after year (skipping the years I was undergoing chemo), I understand where the frustration comes from. The solution is quite different than what Coach likely envisions - it requires USA Archery as an entity to filter and nurture coaches and coaching techniques. 

It also requires USA Archery to actually bear down and teach other systems to our coaches. One - to show WHY our National Training System is better than attempting to show a student a push/pull system, for example. It also forces our coaches to actually get off their rear ends and shoot. To understand why one system can be better than another.

We don't have enough people or enough funding to accomplish that...yet. I'm hoping we do. Soon.

-Steve


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> This thread contains the entire conversation. I shall leave it as it is.


Ok, I went back and seen where you are talking about. I will say that I chose a poor usage of words. It was not my intent to refer to a lack of respect. Like I wrote in another post the two issues are: 1) disrespect for his level 4s and 2) making unsubstantiated/able claims. These are my two issues.

I do think though that this line of discussion is very interesting though. How much does a coaching system positively affect the success of an archer. Perhaps I will start a new post and ask that question.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> However, it has been established that a "method" can produce results as shown by the Korean Women's Team. The fact that one method works is not evidence that another method will not work.


but the fact that their method dominates is evidence that it is the most successful method. So why would anyone use a less successful method? 

I am reminded of the Taekwando and karate martial arts. Super popular and thought to be a great fighting system up until the octagon fighting started. 

Back when ultimate fighting started and all the fighting styles were pitted against each other, and one form came out on top. Brazilan Jiujitsu. That was the most successful. hands down. Royce Jiujitsu to be specific. And Tae Kwando and Karate were shown to lose against the superior fighting system. Now Taekwando is relegated to movie stunts and Oylmpic competitions. karate is a novelty with competitions for Katas. 

Show me a UFC or full contact fighter who today uses karate or taekwando? none. Because the system is not effective at all. Jiujitsu, boxing and kick boxing are the most effective, and every fighter uses a combination of these three systems to form one fighting style. 

The Chinese, Japanese and Chinese Taipei went with the linear Korean method. All top podiums routinely. Why? because they use a system shown to be the most successful. Mexico also attained podiums in a very short time with the system. 

Does the USA routinely podium? Only in Compound. By sheer numbers of archers, the USA pool should produce many many more podium archers than we do. The cause must be the system we are teaching is not the most successful. 

you don't need any more evidence than that. 

Chris


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> I'm going to approach this from multiple angles.
> 
> 1) Any coach, teaching any system, will be successful if they are able to explain and demonstrate the CONCEPT.
> 
> ...


I Couldn't agree more. "Because I said so" is not an adequate reason for having an archer change his\her form technique. You need to understand the why behind a technique and be able to articulate that and show it's advantages\disadvantages over other methods or techniques. This is an inherent problem in having an NTS and trying to gain consistent message throughout the coaching ranks. You need to be able to communicate the desired methodology as quickly and accurately as possible unfortunately if you don't do the extra leg work as you suggested to compare and contrast to other techniques what you end up with is rote learning and a lack of understanding of the underlying reasons for the method of choice. I enjoyed your perspective I think it is indeed why we are seeing such a focus on form, many coaches simply only know what they have been told and are being as accurate of a mouth piece as they can be. It's real hard to venture off script if you have no experience or understanding of what will happen if you do.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> but the fact that their method dominates is evidence that it is the most successful method. The cause must be the system we are teaching is not the most successful.
> 
> you don't need any more evidence than that.
> Chris


I'm not sure it is quite that simple
There is an old saying in scientific circles that Correlation does not imply causation.

If 95% of the participant are using X10 arrows and the podium is dominated by X10 arrow shooters, that does not mean that X10 arrows are the best possible solution it simply means that there were no significant challengers. An X10 dominated podium is a self fulfilling prophecy. Now swap that around if the X10's were dominating the podium and only 5% of the participants were using them then there is some statistical significance to that outcome and you could then tentatively draw a correlation\causation relationship.

Now it's real hard to actually apply scientific methodology to testing elite athletes performance given the inherent variances in the performance from day to day so I certainly wouldn't totally discount your assertion that that methodology is better than ours. However if all we do is try to emulate what everyone else is doing we have zero chance of innovating and again their method becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

b0w_bender said:


> I'm not sure it is quite that simple
> There is an old saying in scientific circles that Correlation does not imply causation.


I'd say that correlation does not *entail* causation, but it often does imply it. :wink:


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

b0w_bender said:


> I'm not sure it is quite that simple
> There is an old saying in scientific circles that Correlation does not imply causation.
> 
> If 95% of the participant are using X10 arrows and the podium is dominated by X10 arrow shooters, that does not mean that X10 arrows are the best possible solution it simply means that there were no significant challengers. An X10 dominated podium is a self fulfilling prophecy. Now swap that around if the X10's were dominating the podium and only 5% of the participants were using them then there is some statistical significance to that outcome and you could then tentatively draw a correlation\causation relationship.
> ...



Not quite the same as my arguement. 95% of archers are not using one system. There are a number is systems in use. One system is dominating by a wide margin. 

Also your theory doesnt meet this....

they have limited pool to draw from based on funds and populations but have hundreds of 1300 shooters, we have much larger pool and five 1300 shooters if that each year. 

That is not self fulfilling. That is the hard truth. 


Chris


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> =they have limited pool to draw from based on funds and populations but have hundreds of 1300 shooters, we have much larger pool and five 1300 shooters if that each year.


"Pool to draw from" is a bit misleading though. The "pool" in the US is self-selected based on people who enjoy the niche sport of archery as a hobby. The "pool" in Korea is a highly focused nationwide factory system that uses many primary, middle and high schools as farms to train potential archers, discarding all who are unworthy, to create professional archers. We don't have anything remotely comparable.

Just as John notes that NTS seems to work best for strong male archers, the Korean system could work best for archers who practice with the dedication of Korean archers. (Not saying that is true, mind you, just that there can be confounding factors and what seems obviously true may not actually be true, or may only be partially true.)


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> (snip)
> The Chinese, Japanese and Chinese Taipei went with the linear Korean method. All top podiums routinely. Why? because they use a system shown to be the most successful. Mexico also attained podiums in a very short time with the system.
> 
> Does the USA routinely podium? Only in Compound. By sheer numbers of archers, the USA pool should produce many many more podium archers than we do. The cause must be the system we are teaching is not the most successful.


Some thoughts.

1) The Oriental culture brings about almost a near obedience structure between the coach and student, especially in the female ranks. We really cannot compare cultural differences as part of the overall impact. Try putting an Oriental archery based training method to a US student and you get immediate looks of horror. Like...

"Oh, my God. You want me to use a ROPE BOW for over a year before picking up a real bow? No way..."

2) We (meaning the United States) are not routinely hitting the podium in Compound any more. If one look at the most recent Indoor World Cup Championships, where were the American compound females in the finals? They weren't there. You had one Korean archer against a somewhat linear shooter, and then you had two push/pull archers who's push/pull balance for both of them were less than stellar.

In the men's compound, you had two Europeans for the bronze medal match, and an all-American gold medal match. 6 medals, 2 Americans. 



-Steve


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

I think a few people have identified a major problem. We are an impatient, immediate gratification, results now! people. 

Pointing out that we had a few champions between '72 and '96 speaks volumes. Because while we were herding cats and hoping for a tiger to emerge, the Koreans were patiently building a national training system. Which approach has proven superior? The results are obvious.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Well the USA has been developing an NTS, but with different sports. Our archery system in my opinion is going to become comparable until there is something to obtain at the end of the tunnel. The kids we have in our programs, for the most part shoot only for fun. The parents aren't going to push them like that do for other sports, because...well where is the scholarships or the financial awards? There is just not that many slots on top for kids to obtain to. And those slots on top, how many are making a good living? The people who stick may not be the best athletes, but they do love the sport, and that is why they stick and do what they do. Those are few and far in between in my opinion.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Seattlepop said:


> I think a few people have identified a major problem. We are an impatient, immediate gratification, results now! people.
> 
> Pointing out that we had a few champions between '72 and '96 speaks volumes. Because while we were herding cats and hoping for a tiger to emerge, the Koreans were patiently building a national training system. Which approach has proven superior? The results are obvious.


Your juking in this post would make Barry Sanders proud. "A few champions"? You mean, like 5 out of the 6 gold medals winners in a 24 year period (not counting the boycotted 1980, which would have doubtless produced another gold medal for Darrell Pace) - that's "a few"? And so, from 1972 to 2012, Korea's system produced 1 gold medal winner, in 2012 (and that winner's shot form doesn't even come close to following the textbook Korean method) ... 44 years for 1 individual gold medal (and that from an outlier of their method) is a LOT of patience, brother. 

And then, you change focus slightly from 'method' to selling a holistic comprehensive approach - a 'system' - but your argument is that obviously a 'national system approach is 'the way' because it produced one gold medal in 44 years ((versus 5 gold medals out of the 'herding cats' system), but also that specifically NTS is 'the way' system to use ..... because it's successful rival system has been very successful? 

And, then, still no one who cheerleads NTS here will ever take on John's question "what about the female American team - would someone please explain how NTS is showing to be 'the way' for them?"

I prefer Bruce Lee's philosophy that " 'the way' is 'no way' " - that each artist must take from each method those elements that he/she proves to work for him/her and make his own unique 'way'


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

erose said:


> Well the USA has been developing an NTS, but with different sports. Our archery system in my opinion is going to become comparable until there is something to obtain at the end of the tunnel. The kids we have in our programs, for the most part shoot only for fun. The parents aren't going to push them like that do for other sports, because...well where is the scholarships or the financial awards? There is just not that many slots on top for kids to obtain to. And those slots on top, how many are making a good living? The people who stick may not be the best athletes, but they do love the sport, and that is why they stick and do what they do. Those are few and far in between in my opinion.


And agree here. College Scholarships are the fuel that will create fertile soil and drive growth - without them, it will just be scratching around on hardpack soil.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Your juking in this post would make Barry Sanders proud. "A few champions"? You mean, like 5 out of the 6 gold medals winners in a 24 year period (not counting the boycotted 1980, which would have doubtless produced another gold medal for Darrell Pace) - that's "a few"? And so, from 1972 to 2012, Korea's system produced 1 gold medal winner, in 2012 (and that winner's shot form doesn't even come close to following the textbook Korean method) ... 44 years for 1 individual gold medal (and that from an outlier of their method) is a LOT of patience, brother.
> 
> And then, you change focus slightly from 'method' to selling a holistic comprehensive approach - a 'system' - but your argument is that obviously a 'national system approach is 'the way' because it produced one gold medal in 44 years ((versus 5 gold medals out of the 'herding cats' system), but also that specifically NTS is 'the way' system to use ..... because it's successful rival system has been very successful?
> 
> ...


One event every four years is not the definition of world-domination. Between Olympics we have World Cup and World Championship events. Is anyone denying that Korea is the dominate force in archery? Seriously? 

The future of archery in the US should not be focused on cupped vs bowed wrists. I believe that USAA's vision of the future includes archery as a National sport and a cohesive National system has a much better chance of achieving that goal.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

lksseven said:


> And so, from 1972 to 2012, Korea's system produced 1 gold medal winner, in 2012 (and that winner's shot form doesn't even come close to following the textbook Korean method) ... 44 years for 1 individual gold medal (and that from an outlier of their method) is a LOT of patience, brother.


Not quite, also look at the team, since 88, Korea's men won gold in 88, 2000,2004,2008 and silver in 96. USA mens team, 1 gold 1 silver. 


you are also leaving out the Womens recurve archers. Since 72, the ladies have won individual gold in 88,92,96,2000,2004,2012

with team the ladies have won gold in every Olympics since the team round was started 88,92,96,2000,2004,2008,2012 

Thats 17 gold and several silver and bronze since 84. 

lets take a quick look at the current Olympic records. 

men's,

View attachment 3773906


Australia and US have one each. The rest ... Korean. 

women's

View attachment 3773914


nothing but Korea. 

This is not because they start all the kids in elementary school. We have had boy scout archery, girl scout archery, 4H, NASP, local hunting etc etc etc for decades. We have every opportunity for kids to learn about archery, to try it, to pursue it etc. 

USA kids can have a similar work ethic. I see it all the time in all kinds of sports and activities. The final push over the top for them is the system. 

Chris


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> Not quite the same as my arguement. 95% of archers are not using one system. There are a number is systems in use. One system is dominating by a wide margin.
> 
> Also your theory doesnt meet this....
> 
> ...


Confirmation bias is looking at the the facts that best support your conclusion and subconsciously ignoring those that don't. It is the primary reason Scientists don't use correlation to identify causation. How many countries and or archers use the Koren shooting method (linear) that aren't on the podium? Is that also evidence that the system doesn't work?

I know this sounds like I'm an apologist for our current NTS which would not be accurate in the least bit. I am not a fan in the slightest. But I am a fan of including all the data for both improving our system and becoming better than anyone else.

Now I'm not even saying you are wrong in your assertion. It may be that the Korean linear system is the superior method. What I'm saying is that to truly fix something you need to accurately identify the root cause of a problem.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Seattlepop said:


> One event every four years is not the definition of world-domination. Between Olympics we have World Cup and World Championship events. Is anyone denying that Korea is the dominate force in archery? Seriously?
> 
> The future of archery in the US should not be focused on cupped vs bowed wrists. I believe that USAA's vision of the future includes archery as a National sport and a cohesive National system has a much better chance of achieving that goal.


please, for a sport like archery, trying to dismiss individual Olympic championships as just "one event every four years" because it doesn't fit your narrative is a bit dissembling or disingenuous, isn't it? For some sports, the Olympics absolutely does define that sport. But, no, of course, you're completely correct that Korean archers have been the dominant archery force in the world for some time (and apologies to Chris - of course YOU'RE also right in that I was completely - and wrongly - not including the Korean women in my discussion before). 


So, I readily stipulate to Korean current dominance. The question is - from whence the dominance?

Does the dominance come from a rigid shooting form philosophy that all Korean archers must adopt? Or does the dominance come from the national commitment of resources (financial, structural, and coaching)? Or from something else? Either way, I don't see the logic trail that Korean current domination is proof positive that the USA [the debate is settled] needs NTS. I much rather think that what would best serve the USA is a 'system of support (structural and financial) and incentives (including financial) to pull, entice, and unleash American archers in sufficient amounts to produce meaningful dynamism and numbers. Somewhat like baseball - a nationwide collections of leagues and networks that are not exactly joined up in lockstep, but are recognizable from one locale to another, and that filter up talent and work ethic in a pyramid - but there is no 'national pitching method' or 'national batting stance and hitting style'... individuals can flourish and develop their individual genius (along with coaches who approach each pitcher or hitter as an individual) take on general physics within the structural support of leagues (corporate $$ support and grants) and colleges (scholarships and varsity status) and then the major leagues ...(how's that for some esoteric blather? :cocktail: ).

Structured support and pathways? Certainly. If that's what you mean by 'a national system' then I agree. But Rigid edicts about techniques to be employed by each individual - that won't work (meaning, you'll produce a heck of a lot fewer high flyers than if you nurture individuals individually).


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I would LOVE to see a regular number of US archers undergo the complete Korean training system starting from age 10, beginning with a relatively small population of 1000, and see what you have left after 8 years.

Then we will come back here and have a cuppa as older men and women and talk about it.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

lksseven said:


> please, for a sport like archery, trying to dismiss individual Olympic championships as just "one event every four years" because it doesn't fit your narrative is a bit dissembling or disingenuous, isn't it? For some sports, the Olympics absolutely does define that sport. But, no, of course, you're completely correct that Korean archers have been the dominant archery force in the world for some time (and apologies to Chris - of course YOU'RE also right in that I was completely - and wrongly - not including the Korean women in my discussion before).
> 
> 
> So, I readily stipulate to Korean current dominance. The question is - from whence the dominance?
> ...


There is nothing disingenuous about my assertion that winning an Olympic gold medal by itself is not a show of over-all dominance in a sport if you are not winning anything else. It does, however, make you extremely popular and marketable and who doesn't want that? 

I agree with you that we need a "national commitment of resources (financial, structural, and coaching)" . I don't have a problem with USAA's program as the vehicle to ultimately reach that goal. I also don't believe individual talent will be lost. I attended 12 schools by the time I reached High School and I'm pretty sure there is a basic batting stance as well as a standard jump shot taught in every baseball/basketball camp in the US. Safety demands it if nothing else. Once the basic concepts are taught and practiced, an individual is free to make adjustments. Is it really impossible to imagine that someone who comes up through a National archery system could be allowed to exercise their "individual genius"? "Hey you! Get off the podium! Coach Lee says you cupped your wrist. No medals for you!" Nope, don't see that ever happening.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Seattlepop said:


> There is nothing disingenuous about my assertion that winning an Olympic gold medal by itself is not a show of over-all dominance in a sport if you are not winning anything else. It does, however, make you extremely popular and marketable and who doesn't want that?
> 
> I agree with you that we need a "national commitment of resources (financial, structural, and coaching)" . I don't have a problem with USAA's program as the vehicle to ultimately reach that goal. I also don't believe individual talent will be lost. I attended 12 schools by the time I reached High School and I'm pretty sure there is a basic batting stance as well as a standard jump shot taught in every baseball/basketball camp in the US. Safety demands it if nothing else. Once the basic concepts are taught and practiced, an individual is free to make adjustments. Is it really impossible to imagine that someone who comes up through a National archery system could be allowed to exercise their "individual genius"? "Hey you! Get off the podium! Coach Lee says you cupped your wrist. No medals for you!" Nope, don't see that ever happening.


:darkbeer: "No soup for you!" ... Seinfeld soup nazi

Okay. We're quibbling at the pennies and agreeing at the dollars. My only concern is the scenario (suggested here as a 'possible scenario') in which a non-NTS but talented 14year old gets steered toward the door in favor of an ultimately less talented but NTS acolyte student because of a 'not planned but maybe inevitable' NTS bias among the glitterati of USAT. That's all.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

lksseven said:


> :darkbeer: "No soup for you!" ... Seinfeld soup nazi
> 
> Okay. We're quibbling at the pennies and agreeing at the dollars. My only concern is the scenario (suggested here as a 'possible scenario') in which a non-NTS but talented 14year old gets steered toward the door in favor of an ultimately less talented but NTS acolyte student because of a 'not planned but maybe inevitable' NTS bias among the glitterati of USAT. That's all.


Let's separate USAT out here for a second.

USAT rankings do not care what system you shoot. You shoot the tournaments, you get the scores, you get on USAT. Period.

You could shoot backward while standing on your head and the bow could be held parallel to the ground. Get on the podium (or close to it) enough times in the rolling ranking period, you get on USAT. 

-Steve


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Beastmaster said:


> Let's separate USAT out here for a second.
> 
> USAT rankings do not care what system you shoot. You shoot the tournaments, you get the scores, you get on USAT. Period.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the correction! I misspoke. I meant the NTS powers that be.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Let's separate USAT out here for a second.
> 
> USAT rankings do not care what system you shoot. You shoot the tournaments, you get the scores, you get on USAT. Period.
> 
> ...


Yup, that's the beauty of open ranking events and the USAT system, although one could easily argue that it tends to favor full time archers who have their travel, registration and hotel paid for them. But that's a different topic. 

Fact still remains that if you shoot well enough, enough times, you can make USAT (or Jr. USAT).


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

lksseven said:


> And, then, still no one who cheerleads NTS here will ever take on John's question "what about the female American team - would someone please explain how NTS is showing to be 'the way' for them?"


This did actually come up during the symposium and the answer was quite astounding from a coaching standpoint. It has been evaluated by USA Archery over the past few years and they came up with the supposition that there are no real differences in physical ability that could equate to the lackluster showing of US female archers compared to their male counterparts other than "they do not want it". 

Apparently the coaching staff do not believe there is a flaw in the system when applied to the female form or psyche, but a flaw in the athlete that is preventing more women from podium finishes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Unreal.

I like coach Lee. I think he is a decent man and has a solid track record with male athletes that nobody can really refute. However, an objective look at his track record with female athletes can lead a logical person to only one conclusion.

In 2004, I spoke at length to the female Olympic athletes from Aus about Lee before he ever came to the U.S., because I wanted to know more about the "BEST" method. What I got was a whole lot more than I expected. I coached female athletes at the OTC and overseas, and have known most of the female athletes who have trained under Lee here in the U.S., so my opinion does come from some experience and first-hand observation. 

It's sad to me that USArchery isn't more concerned about our women. I've said for years now that I won't be convinced they are until we have a women's head coach that has the same standing as our men's head coach. Nothing less is sufficient IMO and if my daughter were to train at the OTC, that would be a condition of her attending. We pour time and money into our athlete development programs, and our female athletes deserve their own head coach who understands their needs and motivations.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Is that not what Coach Guy does now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Coach Guy works for coach Lee. Not the same standing.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

Not the same standing or understanding of the female athlete. Coach Guy was the person who made the comment about women not wanting to excel as much as the men and followed it up with comments like when coaching women, unlike coaching men, you must pay particular attention to their emotional sides...if they feel like crying, let them; tears are important. As a competitive female archer, I felt like I was transported back in time to the 50s.

I'm sorry, While I do realize men and women are "wired" differently, the elite athlete, regardless of their chromosomal pairings, is approaching the sport from the same foundational basis; they like to compete, they like to win, and they will do what is necessary to reach those ends. 

I do not see how applying a different set of coaching standards to the women athletes is going to improve podium performance in the long run. Maybe more women archers would stop believing they are the "weaker", less capable sex if they stopped having that outdated concept rammed down their throats by those in positions of authority. 

Ooo, must have struck a nerve......


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Montigre is absolutely right, but in some ways, so is coach Guy. I've seen it first hand. There were many young ladies that went through that program that did not have the work ethic required to be an elite athlete. That's just a fact. To ignore it would be foolish, but to assume that women cannot or will not work as hard is also foolish. Tell that to the world class female athletes we see in other sports. Tell that to athletes like Khatuna who routinely outwork their competition as a matter of pride and professionalism. 

While it is partially true what Guy says about not finding the right athletes, it's equally true that some of the reason for that is the men's program has gotten the vast majority of the attention in the past. And this goes back long before Lee. I heard these things when I first came in in 2003/2004. What amazes me is the way USArchery promotes the men so much more than the women. That is changing thankfully, but if you go back and look at just the media releases and images shared by USArchery, the overwhelming majority are about the men. That is easy to fix. 

There needs to be the same standards and expectations for the women, but I think we all know it takes a different approach to get results from women than from men, speaking in very general terms. I was always very impressed by the way Sheri Rhodes connected with and motivated her team. Tough but fair.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Sheri Rhodes is a stud. We for sure need more like her.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Why she wasn't appointed the women's head coach in equal standing with Lee as the men's head coach, is something I'll never understand.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

montigre said:


> I'm sorry, While I do realize men and women are "wired" differently, the elite athlete, regardless of their chromosomal pairings, is approaching the sport from the same foundational basis; they like to compete, they like to win, and they will do what is necessary to reach those ends.
> 
> I do not see how applying a different set of coaching standards to the women athletes is going to improve podium performance in the long run. Maybe more women archers would stop believing they are the "weaker", less capable sex if they stopped having that outdated concept rammed down their throats by those in positions of authority.
> 
> Ooo, must have struck a nerve......


Wow. Now I REALLY know why I don't become a coach. If I had listened to Coach Guy say something like that I be in jail.

And I'd be telling my young ladies they're the toughest of the tough cuz they're HERE on the range and others are not. I"d also be saying there's no crying in archery, but that's another story.


And Montigre is right. Women and girls are treated differently in general. In the most inane situations some men assume we're lost and alone or the village idiot. Some men presume some things about us which they discover are untrue, to their shock and horror.

As for weaker, be 8 months pregnant, diabetic, feel like crap and still drill x's in practice. I defy any man to do that. One of our lot does that when she' feels well enough to show up.

Oh and I think Khatuna Lorig did her first Olympics while pregnant, did she not?

Or have PCOS. Or epic cramps and you're stoned on Advil for the teenagers. This weaker sex thing is for the birds. Coach Guy wouldn't be here without his mother.

End of feminist tirade.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

lksseven said:


> Sheri Rhodes is a stud. We for sure need more like her.





limbwalker said:


> Why she wasn't appointed the women's head coach in equal standing with Lee as the men's head coach, is something I'll never understand.


I've actually asked her that. Realistically - she didn't really want that as a career path. I also feel that she didn't want to deal with that political minefield.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Pity. I think our women's program might be on the same level as our mens had she been their head coach and given all the same liberties and resources.

And StarDog, remind me not to piss you off.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

My 8-12 year old JOAD girls outshoot my 8-12 year old JOAD boys. Mostly because they have a better work ethic, practice harder, and i treat them all the same. I dont baby any of them. 

Do the girls cry sometimes? Sure. Do the boys get pissed and shutdown? Sure. But getting back up is the mark of a champion and good sportsman. Something both can be.

Thoug i feel USA Archery has shortchanged the ladies teams for years as second class. 

Something i refuse to do.

I also agree Sheri would be a great head coach. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> have a better work ethic, practice harder, and i treat them all the same. I dont baby any of them.


Which is also why



> Sheri would be a great head coach.


Because I've seen her do exactly that.


----------



## Supermag1 (Jun 11, 2009)

I'd rather coach youth girls than youth boys. For the most part, they're more coachable than the boys of the same age.


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Women's sports have usually gone second fiddle, if they're even allowed in the orchestra


Limbwalker:set1_rolf2:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Supermag1 said:


> I'd rather coach youth girls than youth boys. For the most part, they're more coachable than the boys of the same age.


I guess my knee-jerk reaction would be to agree with you - I've found myself coaching a lot of young ladies over the years for reasons I've never tried to understand - but of course there are always exceptions on both the boys and girls sides. 

Most young ladies are better listeners and will at least try to do what you tell them, even if they don't have the practical skill, coordination or strength to do it. They will at least try. A lot of the boys I've coached will listen for a split second, make one or two attempts, and if they don't start punching out the spider on every shot, go right back to what they were doing.  Working with ladies just requires more patience I think. Boys you can answer with "because I said so" but try that with a young lady and see how far it gets you. LOL.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

In general, girls are much more coachable. They 1) listen, 2) try to follow directions, and 3) want to know "did I do it right?". Boys in general walk into the range with pretty much the same attitude "Look, old man, I'm already great, ok? So just stop talking, hand me the bow, and watch this!" And then for the boys that aren't hitting the middle with regularity, there is this followup attitude "this sport sucks!"

Another observation in general ... when getting ready to shoot balloons, boys will often ask (or just do it!) if they can shoot their neighbor's balloon after they shoot their own, while girls will offer up the remainder of their arrows to someone who hasn't hit his/her balloon yet. 

Generalities, of course. Numerous exceptions.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

In the USA we are all about superlatives. Who is the best. Any time you add a qualifier to the answer, it diminishes the activity. Hence, the WNBA is much less popular than the NBA. It's just human nature. As others have said, rock climbing may be the sport where women will be the best, period.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Midway, while my wife and I were in college at SFA, our women's basketball team was nationally ranked in the top 10 every year. They would pack the arena every night, and we enjoyed watching so many of their games in those years. Meanwhile the men were mediocre at best and their games were poorly attended. 

Could the men's team at SFA throttled the women's team head to head? Sure they could have. But the women were the more successful team, so they drew the biggest crowds. 

Same goes in archery. When our women get the resources they deserve and are pushed in the right way, they will be successful and people will want to watch them. Who doesn't want to watch the Korean women's team? Everyone does, for the same reason. 

Archery is a sport where the genders are very close. Hell, I sat in the stadium in Athens and watched one Korean archer shoot seven consecutive 10's in a match. I never saw a male archer do that.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

This thread is getting really hilarious.


----------

