# So who here shot, coached, or had family/friends in the Olympic trials on Saturday?



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Daughter and self. Six more archers plus eleven more adults plus siblings in our group of friends.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

No, I'm not totally jealous. Nope, not at all.. 

DM


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

dmacey said:


> No, I'm not totally jealous. Nope, not at all..
> 
> DM


Sorry. Not my intent. I have another reason for asking, which will become apparent before long.

Wish you could have joined us.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I shot. And had one adult student also shooting, and one child student there observing with her mom.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> How many here. Looking for a head count.
> 
> I'll explain why later.
> 
> ...


Two boys from my club who spent most of their first 5 years in archery at my house shooting are there. I am here in Ohio because we have our state shoot next week and I have a bunch more kids who hopefully will be following in the footsteps of Daniel and Sean


----------



## MIshooter (Sep 19, 2014)

I shot along with one friend. Plus my mom and my friends mom and dad and sister were there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Keep 'em coming folks.


----------



## baller (Oct 4, 2006)

One friend from Arizona and a club member from here were both there. I was unfortunately not able to make it this time.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

My friend John Demmer was there giving us humble BB guys something to cheer.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Easily two dozen friends or kids I've coached participating in the Olympic trials, plus scores more following the results of a couple of local archers shooting. Really an exponential relationship.


----------



## sprinke (Jul 9, 2015)

Three JOADs from my club plus their coach.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I had lots of friends shooting the trials, and both my son and I were there.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Plenty of friends shooting.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I didn't attend, but had at least 10 friends shooting.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Didn't attend. 11 friends shooting.


----------



## Wags02 (Jul 24, 2015)

My son and I both shot, along with a couple more friends from MO


----------



## Wags02 (Jul 24, 2015)

At least I should edit my post and say that I shot but didn't compete well. I could never get the tail wind figured out but I had fun and meet some new folks and got to spend some time with my son.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I should add to my previous post to say I shot, AND had a fair number of friends shooting in the trials, too.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, a few more days to tally who was there, and I'll share with everyone why I'm asking.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

I had eight friends competing.


----------



## ShooterPhill (Feb 23, 2015)

I shot, and had two others from my club shooting as well.


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

I shot.

Half a dozen other Socal friends that shot too, but don't see any postings from them yet. Probably bleary eyed, catching up on sleep, and getting back to work, etc... 

Brent


----------



## MIshooter (Sep 19, 2014)

I guess I should also add I had several people I knew that I would count as friends from other tournaments as well. Around 9-10 Id say.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Probably bleary eyed, catching up on sleep, and getting back to work, etc...


You just described my day at the office today. LOL.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Three friends shot from my club in Portland. Plus my friend John Demmer. (I would say I'm his biggest fan but I know he has a lot of big fans.) And Allison Eaton, 50-year-old science teacher who I ate breakfast with in Croatia and who made the cut of 16! And Ryland Hartman! I followed live results from my dining room table.


----------



## tenshooter (Sep 17, 2013)

I shot along with six others who shoot at Hall's Arrow here in Connecticut.

tenshooter


----------



## Varza (Sep 11, 2014)

8 friends from my club in the trials, one shot compound, one coached, couldn't shoot. I wasn't there, not up to it AND not eligible to tryout XD

And now I'm dying to know why you're asking...


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

I was there along with three of my friends who were also shooting.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

Six - me, my brother, 4 other friends. All of us competed. Attending the trials was an experience my brother and I wanted to have together. We figured that nothing will up the ante in our progress except shooting with some of the best archers in the country.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Can you tell us now?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I won't say yet, but I will ask this question of everyone who responded, what day did the trials begin?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I won't say yet, but I will ask this question of everyone who responded, what day did the trials begin?


Sunday. So, I need to amend my former answer to a non-answer. Got me.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

According to the procedures doc all four days are included as the nomination shoot. Practice, double 70m rd, two days of round robin.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ahem. 

You guys are getting warmer...



> Sunday. So, I need to amend my former answer to a non-answer. Got me.


So what you're saying now Larry, is that you DIDN'T shoot in the Olympic trials. Right?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

My answer still stands. I was there (mainly because I was part of the staff working the trials), my son was there shooting photos and volunteering there (he was in the locker room when he wasn't working), and I had friends in Brian Bullis, Chris Webster, Brady Ellison, Nathan Yamaguchi, Karissa Yamaguchi, and Lauren Clamon shooting as part of the top 16.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Steve, did you have any friends who shot the trials that didn't make the top 16?


----------



## Varza (Sep 11, 2014)

Uhhh, nobody I know who was there made it to the top 16. So should I amend my answer to "0"?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Ahem.
> 
> You guys are getting warmer...
> 
> ...


Correct - as I understand it I shot in the 'Texas Shootout', which was the qualifying event for the Trials. I believe that the intent of some of the wording was to identify that only the top 16 placers in the Texas Shootout comprised the field for the 'Trials'. Though 'why' that distinction was being so pointedly made I don't know.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

From the Athlete Selection Procedure Form for the 2016 Olympic Games:

1. 2016 U.S. Olympic Trials – Archery: First Nomination Shoot – TBD FALL 2015

Day One Official Practice
Day Two AM: 70 meter, 72-Arrow Ranking Round
PM: 70 meter, 72-Arrow Ranking Round
Cut to Top 16 Archers from 144-Arrow Ranking Round
Day Three USAT Event Elimination Matches (not part of Trials)
Day Four Round Robin Matches – Eight Matches
Day Five Round Robin Matches – Seven Matches

I don't see any distinction here between the double 70m and the 'trials'. If you shot Saturday you shot in the trials.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Steve, did you have any friends who shot the trials that didn't make the top 16?


From a liberal view of the document filed with the USOC, section 1.3.1.1 says:

"The First Nomination Shoot will cut to the top 16 men and top 16 women, who will comprise the membership of the Shadow Team. Only members of the Shadow Team will be considered for nomination to the 2016 Olympic Team except as noted in the “Medal Contender Clause” below."

Which means that the double 72 is the first nomination shoot. On top of that, if you paid the extra monies to put you in the nomination shoot, you were in the trials.

So, based on the liberal definition - yes, I did have friends that shot the first nomination shoot that didn't make the top 16 cut.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

This:



> Which means that the double 72 is the first nomination shoot. On top of that, if you paid the extra monies to put you in the nomination shoot, you were in the trials.


Yep, basically a contract. Offer, acceptance and consideration. Otherwise they would have only charged the fee for those that made the top 16. Usaa can't have it both ways.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So, based on the liberal definition - yes, I did have friends that shot the first nomination shoot that didn't make the top 16 cut.


So Steve, what are you willing to say? Is the "Nomination shoot" the Olympic trials or not? 



> Otherwise they would have only charged the fee for those that made the top 16. *Usaa can't have it both ways*.


But they can Tom. They've been getting precisely what they want, how they want it, for years now.

Anyone who wants to know why I ask this question, just go back to USArchery's social media feeds and see if you can determine who shot in the "Olympic Trials." Let me know what you find out, based on USArchery's own information during the event.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

On the 5th they refer to the shoot as TXShootout then later with the hashtag Olympic Trials.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

So the top 16 men and women shot the Olympic trials. Everyone else shot the shootout or nomination.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Then they refer to the first day of round robins as the first day of trials.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Cephas said:


> Then they refer to the first day of round robins as the first day of trials.


We have a winner!


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Seems like the social media people need to read the official nomination documents.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Just my personal view - I can't rely on what social media says. I do rely on what the legal documents say. 

The legal documents are what are set in the USOC documentation that was filed by USA Archery, plus what archers paid for registration based on the fact that when you pay for something, you're entering into a legally binding contract of sorts. 

Scoring was separated by who paid for the extra fee, and who didn't. That, in turn, adds to the legitimacy of the fact that if you paid, you shot the first nomination shoot, which means you shot Stage 1 of the trials. 

So, yes. I did have friends that did not make the top 16, including the former PR person for USA Archery and (don't shoot the messenger), you as well. But I knew about the other minor issue with a pool that you got hosed on as well.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Great explanation Steve. Precisely my view as well. 

I've reached out to a few folks who you know, and have been working with them to fix what I feel are some problems with how this has all been handled. I've been promised that something will be done. Hopefully the 212 that competed in the trials but didn't continue on, will actually have something to show for their efforts and their $25.

And we won't talk about the hosing I got while trying to climb out of the pool. LOL. 



John


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

And what about all of these on social media? Looks pretty official and sanctioned.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Frankly, the process is convoluted. I won't go into too many views on it other than the selection process gives a huge advantage (when all the factors fall into place) to a certain group of athletes. 

Funny on that advantage. Because of the weather issue on the first end of the third 36 arrow round, that advantage disappeared to a certain extent. 

I don't understand why a selection process to determine the top 16 uses a format that is not used by World Archery or the Olympics. But people who aren't In the system prevailed and got into the shadow team. That accounts for good training more than anything.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

TomB said:


> View attachment 2873154
> 
> 
> And what about all of these on social media? Looks pretty official and sanctioned.


That was designed and posted by Pam Maitland, who was hired to create those posters (and they looked pretty good too). 

Sarah Bernstein is the young lady that did the Twitter/Facebook/Instagram updates outside of what Pam did. 

Disconnect? Possibly. But that's what happens with a new PR person (Sarah) with a very confusing document for selection procedures.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Frankly, the process is convoluted. I won't go into too many views on it other than the selection process gives a huge advantage (when all the factors fall into place) to a certain group of athletes.


Different topic completely, and one that's been beaten to death here already. 

This is only about what the USArchery staff had control over with regard to promoting this once-every-four-years event, and opportunity for hundreds of archers to attend an "open" Olympic trials event. It has always been a point of great pride for archers, coaches, parents, friends and family to be able to say they participated in the Olympic trials. 

Still waiting on the official response. Don't really want to say too much just yet as it's not too late to do the right thing. 

John


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

TomB said:


> View attachment 2873154
> 
> 
> And what about all of these on social media? Looks pretty official and sanctioned.


I saw a ton of these! Maybe the people who tweeted these things overlooked the dates on the poster.


----------



## Scipiotik (Apr 11, 2012)

I think it's pretty obvious USA Archery doesn't want to recognize anyone who didn't make the cut as having shot in the Olympic Trials. This was obvious from the fact that you couldn't buy any sort of commemorative shirts/buttons/pins, and the name/bale papers for archers didn't reference the trials at all.

Pretty ****ty.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Scipiotik said:


> I think it's pretty obvious USA Archery doesn't want to recognize anyone who didn't make the cut as having shot in the Olympic Trials. This was obvious from the fact that you couldn't buy any sort of commemorative shirts/buttons/pins, and the name/bale papers for archers didn't reference the trials at all.
> 
> Pretty ****ty.


That's certainly how it could be viewed. I prefer to see this as an issue of "hyper-refined" focus - that the USArchery staff was so eager to tell the story of the top 16 (and deservedly so) that they simply overlooked the rest of the archers. 

I'm working on this... Let's reserve judgement until they have a chance to make amends. I've been promised they are working on it. 

For myself, I couldn't care less. It's semantics. And to a lot of folks, that's how they will view it. However I had my wife and my daughter both sign up, pay their extra fee, and in my daughter's case, shoot up from cadet to senior, train for months (in the case of my wife) or years (in the case of my daughter) just to shoot that one event.

My wife teaches at the local high school that my daughter attends. They both had 100's of students who knew they were going, who were rooting for them, and all they wanted was to be able to show those students and teachers something that said they had competed in the Olympic trials. They had both planned to proudly wear their "Olympic trials" T-shirts to school the following Tuesday after Labor Day. 

I can only imagine how many times this story repeated itself among the 212 archers who competed, but then didn't compete, in the Olympic trials. The archers having nothing that said "Olympic trials" was already a topic of conversation under many of the tents that Saturday. I do know that. A few were pretty ticked off, even while we were still shooting. This will vary in importance to everyone, but to some, it was very important.

Again, I've been told USArchery is working to make amends. We'll see.


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

While I appreciated all the TX A&M apparel it would have been nice to have had something that coommemorated the trials. We were too pumped/excited/tired to think about it in the moment.


----------



## Scipiotik (Apr 11, 2012)

I hope as you say it is just an oversight and they will make things right. Thanks for going to bat for everyone, it's very appreciated.

Did they sell/give away commemorative things at previous trials?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Scipiotik said:


> I hope as you say it is just an oversight and they will make things right. Thanks for going to bat for everyone, it's very appreciated.


Well honestly, as mad as my wife was about it, I really had no choice. LOL! 



> Did they sell/give away commemorative things at previous trials?


Yes. According to one source (who should know) every trials event prior to this one had commemorative shirts and sometimes towels. I have a shirt from the 12 trials, and a towel from '04. I have back numbers from both that say "Olympic trials." The back numbers make great frameable or scrapbook momentos. I have been told it was part of the contract, but I'm not sure as I haven't seen the contract. Just going by what I've been told.

One point I and others have made repeatedly is that the fact an unranked amateur archer can compete at the Olympic trials alongside Olympians and future Olympians, is something that sets our sport apart. It's something that makes our sport special, and we need to promote and highlight this as much as possible.


----------



## Scipiotik (Apr 11, 2012)

Well if you're successful you'll make my Fiancee very happy. So I'll owe you one forever.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Scipiotik said:


> Well if you're successful you'll make my Fiancee very happy. So I'll owe you one forever.


If we are successful, it means the leadership of USArchery hasn't completely forgotten about the membership. I hope that's the case. There has been a LOT of good progress made on this front (serving the recreational membership) in the past few years, which is why I am willing to view this as merely an oversight and not an intentional dismissal of the "other" archers.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Scipiotik said:


> I hope as you say it is just an oversight and they will make things right. Thanks for going to bat for everyone, it's very appreciated.
> 
> Did they sell/give away commemorative things at previous trials?


Yes, they have. My wife has a very nice head band that came from the trials 8 years ago that my wife's coach bought for her when he competed at the trials.


My first NFAA Outdoor nationals, 8 years ago, there were no commemorative material being sold. I.e. no t-shirts what so ever about that shoot. There were Generic NFAA shirts, but no outdoor national shirts. That was the biggest disappointment of that shoot. The other 2 that I have been to had the t-shirts.


Anyways, to any average Joe, that entire weekend was thought of as being the first round of the Olympic Trials. That everyone there was competing for the coveted 16 spots as part of the trials. I had 5 people that I was tracking and rooting for to make it through the whole shoot to finish in the top 16 (32 if you include the women). Of that only 1 made the first cut - Erin. 

Anyways, to the average Joe, a ranking round was there to seed the next set of shoots - i.e. the elimination rounds. So finishing 30th in the Texas Shootout wasn't really that bad because there was the next set of round robin elimination rounds. To most of us the thought of the round robin rounds (without reading the minute details of the rules) thought that it was like the normal elimination rounds but having more options. By having a round robin system, the normal top level shooters are not eliminated out of the process if they had one bad arrow. But that wasn't the format - odd as it was.

To the casual Joe, the Texas Shootout was part of the Olympic Trials. If the USAA doesn't consider the Texas Shootout as part of the Olympic Trials, then they grossly misrepresented the event. Their lawyers might be successful in arguing technical issues in the wording, but to the vast majority, the Texas Shootout was part of the Trials, and that everyone that went there should be allowed to formally state that the competed in the Olympic trials.


----------



## ShooterPhill (Feb 23, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> If we are successful, it means the leadership of USArchery hasn't completely forgotten about the membership. I hope that's the case. There has been a LOT of good progress made on this front (serving the recreational membership) in the past few years, which is why I am willing to view this as merely an oversight and not an intentional dismissal of the "other" archers.


I certainly hope you are correct. This was my first national event in about ten years, and being able to take home SOME sort of commemorative item (a decent back number would've sufficed) was something that I was looking forward to.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

A little something to add here: I was able to stop by during the cadet ranking round on Thursday to check on two of my students. I noticed as I approached, there were placards a short distance behind the bales that made mention of "The Road to Rio". I forget the exact wording that was also present, but the Road to Rio was definitely there. I also remember thinking how cool it was that the official signage made reference to the trials for the event.


----------



## hdracer (Aug 8, 2007)

I had three friends shooting (or not as I read the thread after posting)--2 RA's (twins) and one from Columbus.


----------



## tbrash01 (Oct 7, 2010)

First off Thank You John for stepping up! Cheers!

Second, this was my first WA/FITA event in 20+ years and I was disappointed that there wasn't any cool trinkets to buy, but at the same time I wasn't really expecting much either. The last trials I shot was in '92 and the entire event from what I remember was special. It was special for everyone there including a plaque for everyone who attended. It wasn't a normal event like the Texas Shootout then cut to 16. It was the US Olympic Archery Trials 1992. You either made the podium and the Olympic Team or you went home. But you went home feeling special that you were there and a plaque to prove your hard work. I really don't care about these trials as much on a personal level because I had issues before it all started, oh well this time, but I know I was there and the work I had to do just to shoot the number of arrows and finish. What I am sad about is for everyone else who did not get that special feeling, trinket, plaque, or memorabilia to take home and feel proud of just being there. Especially the Cadets who shot up as a Senior! They may not realize it now, but later on they will be look back and think, WOW! I shot the trials at age XX! But nothing to show for it years down the road. Just my thought.


----------



## Jay-El (Oct 16, 2012)

I got a towel from the hotel we stayed at. I'll cherish it forever in its memory tied with participating in the event lol.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Jay-El said:


> I got a towel from the hotel we stayed at. I'll cherish it forever in its memory tied with participating in the event lol.


That and your 32oz T-bone.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Jay-El said:


> I got a towel from the hotel we stayed at. I'll cherish it forever in its memory tied with participating in the event lol.


Did you pay for that towel?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tony, that's pretty cool. How classy. Thank you for sharing that. 

There was a time when the NAA took care of it's members in a very classy way, and the Olympic team members simply rose up from the ranks of all the amateur archers across the country. I and many others like to believe we can still have that classy, personal touch in USArchery. That USArchery hasn't simply become a marketing tool for the corporate sponsors and their elite teams, on the backs of the amateur recreational member. 

It's time for them to prove this isn't the case. They have the chance. The clock is ticking...

John


----------



## BobCo19-65 (Sep 4, 2009)

That is very nice Tony, thanks for sharing. 
Bob


----------



## tbrash01 (Oct 7, 2010)

Thank you for the kind words guys! I just thought I would share a little of how it once was done. I personally have tried to get onboard with USArchery several times with no luck. I always wanted to make sure that the "Governing Body" of archery didn't turn into a government style of business controlled by sponsors. Instead, represent the sport and its athletes from bottom to top and keep the original focus in mind... Archers do it because they love it, not because someone tells them to do it.


----------



## ShooterPhill (Feb 23, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> ...become a marketing tool for the corporate sponsors and their elite teams, on the backs of the amateur recreational member....
> 
> 
> John


After being out of the sport for over a decade, and just now getting involved again, this is certainly the impression I have gotten of the state-of-the-sport these days.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I consider the Nomination shoot to cut to 16 a part of the Olympic Trials. It is also the Texas Cup as USAA decided to combine the tournament ( which i understand, even though in 2012, the shoot was a separate tournament. 

i still wear my t-shirt from the 2012 trials and my quiver back number. And when i wear it, people still comment on it and that i attended and shot it. 

So this year only 16 people shot the Olympic trials???

I am certainly glad i shot it in 2012 when it WAS the trials. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> these remembrances are important to me.


USArchery is finding out just how important these things are to many people. Not just archers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> these remembrances are important to me.


USArchery is finding out just how important these things are to many people. Not just archers. 

To me, this is a "membership services" issue. And the organization needs to get it right. I am viewing this as a litmus test for where USArchery's priorities are right now.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I let my membership expire from USAA because of the way they have treated barebow shooters. I was beginning to think they were starting to acknowledge that barebow was a real class, and was getting ready to renew the membership. But now I am back to holding off on my money because of this and especially since they botched up by allowing ZERO archers to the World 3D championships a couple weeks ago.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

What we have here is no more that thinly disguised contempt(TDC). USA archery has three main customers to serve, the USOC is by far the 900 lb gorilla in the room and gets most of the attention since they provide so much funding. Next are the elite athletes which provide the medals which keep customer number 1 happy. A distant third is the necessary evil, the general membership, which is generally a pain in the ass, asks the most questions, provides some of the funding, and contributes very little towards winning medals, thus a major distraction to keeping number 1 customer happy. The result is TDC for the 3rd customer. And, bare bow is a small subset of the 3rd group, so they get even less attention.

Solution: get rid of the 3rd customer. That is why we need USA archery AND the National Archery Association. Let USA archery, it's rubber stamp BOD, serve the USOC and the elite athletes. But, then let's have the NAA with a separate BOD take care of the JOAD's, collegiate archers and general membership. (This in essence is what the state associations are. In fact, a federation of state associations would be a solid start for the NAA). A reciprocal membership would allow cross participation between USAA and NAA for the benefit of finding the next Olympians, and continuing the uniqueness of our sport with everyone playing on the same field in tournaments. But, be clear, the general membership fees goes to the NAA and not to USAA for a customer they have only thinly disguised contempt for.

More on TDC here: http://www.achrnews.com/articles/102976-how-to-define-perfect-service


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tom, the state assn. federation working under the NAA would be great. 

If USArchery doesn't get this Olympic trials thing right, I'm out. I won't be a part of an organization that treats their most dedicated members this way. 

They will receive no more of my volunteer hours until and unless we have something like you describe - an NAA that is an association of state organizations set up to serve the members.

They still have a chance to get this right, but as I said, the clock is ticking and so far, I've still not seen any real action.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

So, help me understand this thread. 

The Texas Shoot Out is one shoot and the Trials is another shoot. Both occurring at the same time and place, right? 

And, that when you registered for the Shoot Out that's what you shot, the Shoot Out, not the Trials? 

Is there a way for an amateur archer to make the cut, without having paid this additional fee? 

Did USA Archery deceive (might be the wrong word, not trying to offend) archers with vague registration?

Or, is this all just that USA Archery didn't sell or have swag for participants? 

I'm just wanting to understand the thread. Any help for a simple cave man......


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good questions. This is not about the swag, although for many, that is very important too.

It's about 244 archers training and preparing to shoot in the Olympic trials, PAYING extra to register to shoot in the Olympic trials, having your coach, parents, students, friends and family who THINK you're shooting in the Olympic trials, support you in so many ways, and then finding out at the event there is no reference to the Olympic trials on anything - not even your back number. To add insult to injury, many of these archers and their supporters tuned into FB on Sunday to follow the progress of those who made the top 16, only to see USArchery announce that "Day 1" of the Olympic trials was Sunday, not Saturday. 

Yea, plenty of folks are very upset about this. It's as much a matter of principle as anything else. Personally, I don't think the membership should just sit down and take it. To me and many others, the trials are sacred ground in the target archery world - open to everyone. Something that sets our sport apart from so many others and something that provides motivation to fuel so many competitive amateur archers to be the best they can be, preparing for that one day every four years. To take that one day away from 212 archers who paid their fee... :sad:

It would have been so easy for them to get it right and show respect to ALL 244 participants, their friends, families and coaches. Broadcasting on social media that the trials didn't begin until the top 16 had been seleted was one of the most insulting things I've seen in my 13 years with USArchery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's too late for USArchery to get it right, but it's not too late to make amends for the mistake. 

Still waiting...


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

chrstphr said:


> i still wear my t-shirt from the 2012 trials and my quiver back number. And when i wear it, people still comment on it and that i attended and shot it.
> 
> Chris


i should clarify, i don't still wear my Olympic trials quiver number. I meant i still had it. I do still wear my Olympic trials t-shirt with pride. I wasn't able to make the trials this time. 

But if i had been there, i would be upset that even i paid the extra fee, i didn't get to shoot the trials, only the Texas Shootout, AND their is no t-shirt, quiver badge, or pin that said 2016 Olympic Trials. Especially since most people paid a lot of money to come and shoot for one day for the prestige of shooting the trials, only to find out, then did NOT shoot the trials since they weren't in the top 16. 



Chris


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

USAA is probably going to do what all politicians do when they make a mistake: Reply on people's (their constituents) extremely short memory, keep quite about it, and then move on as if nothing ever happened because the people's memory has forgotten all about it because they are too focused on the today's feel good sound byte. By next month they will be quoting Hilary Clinton "What difference does it make now"


----------



## ShooterPhill (Feb 23, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> Good questions. This is not about the swag, although for many, that is very important too.
> 
> It's about 244 archers training and preparing to shoot in the Olympic trials, *PAYING extra to register to shoot in the Olympic trials...only to see USArchery announce that "Day 1" of the Olympic trials was Sunday, not Saturday*.


If this is truly the case, all of us who did not make the top 16 cut would be in within our rights to ask for a refund of the extra $25 fee. That fee was paid as registration dues in order to compete in the Olympic Trials. If the event that we competed in was not actually considered part of the Olympic Trials, then I believe that USA Archery misrepresented itself and needs to issue refunds.

Just a thought, as often things don't change until the bottom line is effected (as little as that may be in this case).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

SP, you are 100% correct. 

By my count, nearly $6,000 was deposited into USArchery's account with the understanding that it was being accepted from archers who were competing in the Olympic trials. If USArchery wishes to maintain that nobody other than the top 16 archers actually competed in the trials well, we have a serious problem.

But in my mind this is not about swag and not even necessarily about money. It's about truth and trust.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> SP, you are 100% correct.
> 
> By my count, nearly $6,000 was deposited into USArchery's account with the understanding that it was being accepted from archers who were competing in the Olympic trials. If USArchery wishes to maintain that nobody other than the top 16 archers actually competed in the trials well, we have a serious problem.
> 
> But in my mind this is not about swag and not even necessarily about money. It's about truth and trust.


Agree. There's an insular smallness about USA Archery's shading on this that makes me sorrowful.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Was given some reason today to believe that something is being done on this front. If what I heard comes through, I think folks will be pleasantly surprised. I sure hope so.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

You only get one chance to do it correctly, but everyone is entitled to redemption. I hope USAA makes it right for those who attended the Trials.

This reminds me of a shoot I attended some years ago. It was run by a state arm of the NFAA. I paid my entry and shot. I knew since I was not an NFAA member I was not eligible for awards. It wasn't a big deal. What was disturbing was my score was never posted in the results listing. Talk about feeling like a red headed step child. It was as if I never attended the shoot. I spoke with some influential members and they did change policy in following years, but, you only get to make a good first impression once. I've shot some NFAA target rounds in the years that have followed but my attitude towards the organization is now a bit shaded and my participation in their sanctioned shoots is not robust. 

So even if USAA didn't get it right from the start, the timing of a correction matters. If done in a timely way, it says hey we goofed and we want to make it right for you. The longer it takes, the less likely those shooters who shot Trials will believe USAA really gives a damn. BTW, this could probably apply to how USAA conducts their Indoor Nationals. Awards and results months after the completion of the event is tantamount to saying to those who shot that it is not important enough to deserve USAA's prompt attention.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

So........any news?



lksseven said:


> Agree. There's an insular smallness about USA Archery's shading on this that makes me sorrowful.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

Sorry, quoted wrong reply.
*
So....any news?
*


limbwalker said:


> Was given some reason today to believe that something is being done on this front. If what I heard comes through, I think folks will be pleasantly surprised. I sure hope so.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

The real question is:

Does this: 

"COLLEGE STATION, Texas – For the top 16 men and women, the Road to Rio made a big stop in Aggieland this morning with the beginning of U.S. Olympic Team Trials. This first nomination took qualification scores from yesterday’s Texas Shootout and cut almost 250 archers down to just 32.

The men and women shoot round robin matches against each other over the course of today and tomorrow, earning points for winning matches, as well as their 3-arrow average value in addition to points for placement in qualification and bonus points for high scores yesterday...." - USA Archery

...really mean this:

"The Olympic trials began yesterday, September 5th, and included a lot more than just 16 men and 16 women. Yes, the top 16 of each gender moved on to day TWO but 244 archers competed in the 2016 Olympic trials event. Don't take that away from any of them." - John Magera


If you go here: http://www.teamusa.org/usa-archery/events/national-events/olympic-trials-1 and click on "Download of Scores", you will find the Saturday qualifier results published:

"USAT Q ua lifier Series T X Shoot out -
]Saturday[/B]
Unite d S ta te s
S e p 05th - S e p 05th, 2015
*"Olympic trial - *" 
or 
*"Non Olympic trial - "* (Emphasis added)

It says Saturday's qualifier series was part of the Olympic Trials, separately reporting the "Olympic trial" from the "Non Olympic trial" archers. For those wanting a souvenir/proof of participation, you could print out the results sheet with your name on it and frame it.


----------



## dmacey (Mar 27, 2015)

I'm glad to see that, say, Butch Johnson and Joe McGlyn did really well (as well as our own limbwalker), so the "Download of scores" button perked up my mood a little. Glad to see us older folks are still pounding it out there 

DM


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> It would have been so easy for them to get it right and show respect to ALL 244 participants, their friends, families and coaches. Broadcasting on social media that the trials didn't begin until the top 16 had been seleted was one of the most insulting things I've seen in my 13 years with USArchery.


It is hard enough training for 144 arrows on an individual basis. To do so when you're up against professionals that train full-time just ups the ante for normal folks. I treated the weekend as a chance to test some things I had been working on for my own progress -and that was a nice opportunity. That said, it would've been nice for USA Archery to accommodate -and acknowledge- the participation of more than just the 16 that made the cut off.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I have read this thread as best as I could and can only shake my head. The presumption that USAA did not think this through is just that...a presumption. The trials process is controlled and approved by the USOC. When the trials is "Official" everyone must comply with USOC/IOC rules. Thus, the proper clothing (no advertising other than USOC/IOC sponsors), the field layout and the drug enforcement is in full swing. If USAA held the "Official" Olympic trials during the Texas Shootout (or whatever it is called these days), they would have to comply with the full USOC/IOC rules. The principle effort of the first process was to allow as many archers as possible with consideration of cost. The Texas shoot and the trial event is combined to save an extra trip. I am sure with all of the complaining and accusations made here, USAA may have to forgo that idea and in 4 years have a specific Olympic Trial event without adding on to another event to save many of those archers who might be economically challenged. I can sympathize with the thought or idea that this first event is called an Olympic Trials, but in truth, you would have to make a lot of changes that would have hurt those who would struggle to comply than those who would continue on to the top 16. 

The opportunity that USAA gave was gracious, in order to help all archers who wanted to be involved in the beginning process. Obviously, I would suggest someone (John?) make a shirt design and sell it at cost to those archers who shot at the first event. Or better yet, just come up with an agreed upon design and have the archer go to their local t-shirt print shop and have a few made for themselves. The shirt would be similar to all the archers who shot the event, and the USAA would cover their behinds and the USOC would not pursue the issue since it was not something that anyone made money on. Just don't go trying to sell it! 

I know the USAA is not perfect and never will be, but the comments made on this thread shows lack of respect for an organization that has complied with the USOC and watched their membership grow 6 fold over the past 10 years and still they try to include all archers. Can you imagine not having a national championships except for those who shoot a specific score? During my years we were lucky to get 300 archers at the US Nationals and now we are pushing 1000. 

Oh, one more thing about money received. The USAA gets a small percentage of the entry fees. The real financial winner of this event is Texas A&M and rightly so, since they worked hard at being the host. The money the USAA received might help them break even since they have such a large support group then ever before. That is why, for those of us who could not be there, could follow the event (at no charge) online. Loved it although I wish I could have been there.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

So who funds the USAA? Its members or the USOC?

If it is the USOC - then USOC can call all the shots

If it is the amateur archery members, then serve the members, and tell the USOC which archers are eligible.

Who is the USOC going to go to put together an archery team? The NFAA


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

The majority of funds come from the USOC. The second largest majority of funds come from the Easton Foundation. Thirdly is the membership funds. In the past the membership funds did not even cover half of the monies needed to fund the normal membership. Funds were shifted from the USOC to the membership in order to satisfy (at least try to) the membership. Without the elite athletes the organization would truly be a financially deprived volunteer organization. Some of you might want an all volunteer organization, but I am sure it is only as long as most of you do not have to do the volunteering.

For those who think the NFAA could do a better job, think again. They may be good at hosting the Vegas shoot and their own Indoor Championships but the organization has dropped from over 40,000+ members down to under 10,000 and chances are it could be even less. Chances are the monies they receive in membership dollars is minor compared to their efforts in Vegas and Indoor National's and the Easton Foundation. One of the reasons both of those events are successful is due to the all volunteer staff they have at the events. 

So, when you say serve the members, how much should they be served? Since the membership dollars do not pay for all of the services they receive now, should they cut back? I find it interesting that most elites do not mind supporting the membership, but when they read things such as this thread I am sure they question why they would even care. Most elites need to be singularly focused on their goal of becoming that elusive champion, but yet most take time to help out in a promotion in their club or organization. They take the time to stop and talk to the newbies and have incredible patience, giving advice and even moral support. As I have said before, this organization is not perfect but it is a far cry better than most other Olympic organizations. They do care more than you will ever know.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

In 2011, the trials was a separate event and had no trouble complying to USOC rules and guidlines at Texas A&M for all shooting days.

Why would in 2015 would anything be different just because they called the first day "Texas Shootout" and invited compounds to shoot?

For the recurve archers, trials are trials. 

Chris


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Rick McKinney said:


> The majority of funds come from the USOC. The second largest majority of funds come from the Easton Foundation. Thirdly is the membership funds. In the past the membership funds did not even cover half of the monies needed to fund the normal membership. Funds were shifted from the USOC to the membership in order to satisfy (at least try to) the membership. Without the elite athletes the organization would truly be a financially deprived volunteer organization. Some of you might want an all volunteer organization, but I am sure it is only as long as most of you do not have to do the volunteering.
> 
> For those who think the NFAA could do a better job, think again. They may be good at hosting the Vegas shoot and their own Indoor Championships but the organization has dropped from over 40,000+ members down to under 10,000 and chances are it could be even less. Chances are the monies they receive in membership dollars is minor compared to their efforts in Vegas and Indoor National's and the Easton Foundation. One of the reasons both of those events are successful is due to the all volunteer staff they have at the events.
> 
> So, when you say serve the members, how much should they be served? Since the membership dollars do not pay for all of the services they receive now, should they cut back? I find it interesting that most elites do not mind supporting the membership, but when they read things such as this thread I am sure they question why they would even care. Most elites need to be singularly focused on their goal of becoming that elusive champion, but yet most take time to help out in a promotion in their club or organization. They take the time to stop and talk to the newbies and have incredible patience, giving advice and even moral support. As I have said before, this organization is not perfect but it is a far cry better than most other Olympic organizations. They do care more than you will ever know.


Thanks for the clarification Rick. It is like how I tell people where I work, the person that signs my paycheck gets my priority attention. It is like you say, no organization is perfect, but understanding the money trail, one then begins to understand why certain decisions go the way they go.

Yeah, the NFAA comment was more of a joke. Most of the Oly shooters there are also USAA members, and there are very few of them. They don't seem to have any desire to have classes and rules compliant with WA.

Pete


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Chris, The Trials in 2011 were just that, Only the Trials. When you combine the Texas Shootout with the trials you open up a can of worms and the USOC is very protective of their turf and rightly so. I am not sure if you all are aware that the only funds the USOC gets is from sponsorships and donations. They are the only National Olympic Committee (NOC) that does not get funding from their government. All other countries are funded virtually entirely by their government. Thus, the protection that the USOC enforces appears to be a bit overboard to some, is only a matter of survival for USOC and US Olympic Athletes.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Awesome to get your perspective on things Rick. Thanks for posting.


----------



## jaredjms (Oct 24, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification Rick, makes sense now


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Here is something that could possibly be used. I have it in word as well so you can even change the wording if you want. Just email me if you need it in word. It appears this site does not allow it except in jpg, pdf, etc. But hopefully you get my point in just going to a local silk screen shop, chose your shirt and then have this image applied. If you all get one and wear it at a big USAA event, I am sure USAA will freak out and I think that's what most of you want...right?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> Here is something that could possibly be used. I have it in word as well so you can even change the wording if you want. Just email me if you need it in word. It appears this site does not allow it except in jpg, pdf, etc. But hopefully you get my point in just going to a local silk screen shop, chose your shirt and then have this image applied. If you all get one and wear it at a big USAA event, I am sure USAA will freak out and I think that's what most of you want...right?
> 
> View attachment 2937913


not the same thing. And not having the quiver name badge say Olympic trials is a huge defeat. 

Rick, you are an incredible archer with a house full of world championship medals, trophies and memories. All well deserved and earned. You are one off the greats of all time for Olympic archery. 

The rest of us mere mortals usually only get the t-shirt and the quiver number as a memory, maybe a pin. It is an honor to shoot with the greats of our sport. To go to such a prestigious archery tournament ( second only to the Olympics themselves) and not receive anything that says Olympic trials truly leaves out all the masses who enjoyed being on that stage, even if only for a moment. 

To make the trials be only the 16 who qualified really left the rest of the membership out in the cold. And honestly, if they keep doing that, they will find the membership shrinks to nothing. I don't go to tournaments where i don't feel welcome and included. And i am sure i am not alone. 

it is not about punishing USAA. Its about USAA punishing the regular membership who shoots these events and is not elite, and who's entry fees help make these tournaments profitable. 

Chris


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Are they profitable? I see 2014 'tournament revenue' of $374K and 'national events and trials' expenses of $415K.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

kshet26 said:


> Are they profitable? I see 2014 'tournament revenue' of $374K and 'national events and trials' expenses of $415K.


i doubt the Arizona cup has lost money the last 3 times it has been run. Also Nationals has made a profit each year at Hamilton. I can't say for any others, but i have not heard that Texas A&M has lost money putting on the Texas Shootout. 

The SoCal Showdown is held at the OTC by road Runner archery. I doubt they would bid for it every year if they were losing money. 


I am not saying they are making a lot of money, but i am not aware of any of the USATs losing money for the club that puts it on. 


Chris


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> not the same thing. And not having the quiver name badge say Olympic trials is a huge defeat.
> 
> Rick, you are an incredible archer with a house full of world championship medals, trophies and memories. All well deserved and earned. You are one off the greats of all time for Olympic archery.
> 
> ...


RE: bolded: Directed at anyone who holds that belief - The USA Archery results link that I posted earlier clearly shows the 242 archers as having competed at the "Olympic trials". It says right on it "Olympic trials - MR" etc. If you were among the 242, your name will be listed/ranked with "Olympic trials - (category)" at the heading. Print it out and frame it. Please.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i guess this thread is now done with rick's excellent explanation of the circumstances behind all this..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> Here is something that could possibly be used. I have it in word as well so you can even change the wording if you want. Just email me if you need it in word. It appears this site does not allow it except in jpg, pdf, etc. But hopefully you get my point in just going to a local silk screen shop, chose your shirt and then have this image applied. If you all get one and wear it at a big USAA event, I am sure USAA will freak out and I think that's what most of you want...right?
> 
> View attachment 2937913


Rick, this is about WAY more than just a shirt, and I suspect you know that.

PM on it's way.


----------



## tbrash01 (Oct 7, 2010)

The idea behind a keepsake like a shirt or pin is a nice thought and means something special to a lot of athletes reqardless of the sport. Time has passed way beyond a point of "fixing" the mixed emotions I think and the concern is that archers are not feeling part of the process. After years away I see some changes that I feel would help the sport. Take indoor nationals for example. Great idea to have at multiple locations! But not to have a single ceremony to recognize in front of peers the accomplishment of a podium almost defeats the point of trying to win. Take F1 racing as an example where the podium is 80% of the race and party afterwards is a time to reflect, meet and greet, and acknowledge what took place. To walk away from Texas and feel like, "Oh ya I shot in Texas and made an attempt at the top 16 for trials but didn't make it actually trials", is like saying why bother next time. 

USArchery has their own battles to fight to help keep us going as a unified sport with the IOC and appease the WA as well, but it is the governing body to represent archery in the US and that also means the little guys too. I know it has to be tough and I understand Rick's comments about what takes place and why, but at what cost do we start going to tournaments, especially the US Olympic Trials, and say oh well I was there but I don't matter because I am not a professional archer training under sponsors or the USOC?

My complaint is for the future of the sport and how it lacks the grace to reward and inspire others, young and old. Just my .02 as always but then again no one pays me to be quiet anymore. Love it or hate it but it needs to be addressed.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

jmvargas said:


> i guess this thread is now done with rick's excellent explanation of the circumstances behind all this..


so lol



Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Just my .02 as always but then again *no one pays me to be quiet anymore*. Love it or hate it but it needs to be addressed.


 :darkbeer:

Well stated.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Rick had a great response. It is nice to know that USAA doesn't need or want my membership. I am just a distraction.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Rick had a great response. It is nice to know that USAA doesn't need or want my membership. I am just a distraction.


That would be one way to interpret what he wrote, for sure. I hope you're (and he is) wrong in this case. 

Still waiting...


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

If USAA wants to spend most of their time catering to the USOC/IOC because they are their major funding source and just want to focus on the best of the best shooters for WA shooting events, then that is fine with me. It is their organization, and they can choose to do what ever they want. They just need to be honest about who they are serving.

Then it becomes my choice in how I support them. I can choose to support them if I think they have the interests of the average competitive shooter, or I can choose to support them if I want to directly support the best of the best at WA/Olympic events. As long as I know the true intentions are, it becomes an informed decision.

There was a time I thought that they were supporting the average shooter. But then again there as a time that the membership fees included a printed magazine. I used to love that magazine.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> It is their organization, and they can choose to do what ever they want.


Unfortunately, this seems to be how the majority of the membership views the organization which is why when things like this happen, so many remain silent because they figure there is nothing they can do about it. And maybe they are right and I'm wrong, but I still believe that the NAA (dba. USArchery) belongs to the members. The NAA had a 100+ year history of serving the membership, and of celebrating the amateur, recreational archer. I refuse to believe we have to sit silently by and watch that legacy be cast aside.

Right now, USArchery is seeing a rise in membership brought on by the increase in popularity of archery due to movies and TV. So it appears to some like USArchery actually had something to do with the increase in membership, while it was more a case of being in the right place (sport) at the right time. Hollywood could just as easily have picked downhill skiing or cycling, and those sports and NGB's would be seeing the same growth because of it. It's not real hard to connect the dots.

Anyone who will look at the membership and say "we did that" or "that proves we're doing something right" is either naive and are misinterpreting the cause and effect, or they are intentionally misleading others into believing that is the case. Regardless, this will be the argument made so long as the membership numbers are up and increasing. But that won't last forever. Interest in the sport of archery, like many niche sports and activities, is cyclical and it will once again wane to the point where only the amateur enthusiasts can be found preparing and competing at the highest levels.

How long will that take? I don't know. Nobody does. But history says each surge will run about 20 years, or one generation.


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

So, is the revolution still on or is it off? You've been pretty vocal John, and you're done a great job of expressing "our" concerns, but it feels like you're preaching to the choir. Is anyone at USArchery listening? Could we continue on without them?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Revolutions come in many forms.

Can we continue on without USArchery? LOL.

I shot arrows very happily - even competed in some archery events - for over 30 years before I ever even knew what the NAA or NFAA was. So yea, nothing any archery organization does or doesn't do, will change the fact that I enjoy, and teach, many forms of archery with friends and family.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Many of you who competed in the Olympic trials would have just received an email from Denise at USArchery. I am very grateful to her for recognizing the participants and the efforts they, their friends, family and coaches made to prepare for that competition. To me, the shirt is just a bonus but I know of one case where that shirt will mean the world to someone. I can't wait to share that story which will illustrate what it really means to be a true part of the Olympic experience.

John


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

InKYfromSD said:


> So, is the revolution still on or is it off? You've been pretty vocal John, and you're done a great job of expressing "our" concerns, but it feels like you're preaching to the choir. Is anyone at USArchery listening? Could we continue on without them?


John has done a lot of hard and thankless work supporting archery as a sport for all skill levels. - Thanks John

Yes, John is very vocal and many people may think he is preaching to the choir. What we need is to get the choir to sing. If John and a few others are the only ones voicing concerns, then the powers that make any decisions can easily just ignore them as a few disgruntled people. With any decision, there will always be someone that doesn't like it, and will be very vocal about it, and it is easy to ignore them. But when the choir starts to sing, and the decision makers get wind that there is a vast army of people that don't like the decision, then they have to relook at it. They may or may not change their mind, but then it is a well informed decision.

Many of us may be in agreement with the things John has championed for, but unless we take the next step and make our agreement publically known, the decision makers can only assume that silence is a form of not agreeing with the champion.

Anyways, Thanks John, for spearheading this. Sounds like some long overdue positive results are coming from this.


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

Fantastic!
Event T-Shirts actually are my wardrobe. This will keep me from having to take up another Sport in my old age. 
2 Shirts Ordered. Second one to make-up for no shirt at SoCal Showdown.

Thank you for the efforts!,
Brent


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

as an outsider looking in may i just say that i have communicated directly with john magera many times in the past on various topics and he has always given honest and very helpful insights and replies..

in my book he is a true champion on and off the range and i wish him more power and good health in the future...


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Copy and paste.... this is the same conversation/argument that resurfaces every year or so, especially with Nationals/Trials. Everyone complains about the atrocities of the overseer and then continues on with their day as planned.

The membership is filled with talented people; lawyers, designers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, the list goes on and on. Offer solutions and volunteer to produce those solutions and see where it takes us. If they don't want anyone's help, it's a free market. Put your ideas to the world, seek support and actually make change.

This is no different than the club level. It will grow and support it's members as much as the members build and support the club. If your club turns out champion after champion, has the largest team roster, has the most scholarship athletes, etc., heads will turn and ask "what are they doing that we're not?".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks. 

Through the last 12 years, I have never forgotten my roots, which is just recreational archery in its many forms - some of which include competitions. My desire to view archery as a recreational endeavor, best played by amateurs with a love and passion for the sport, has never changed. I have received a lot of heat for that view from those in the industry, and those who wish to be full time professionals. I guess that's their right to protect their financial interests if they find the "amateur" status threatening, but the fact remains that the "elites" were ALL once recreational archers who shot for the love of shooting, and nothing else. When they forget what it feels like to work hard for a $10 medal or how it feels to simply pursue a personal best or a state amateur record, then IMO that's when the problem begins and the departure starts. Thankfully I know quite a few "professional" full time archers who haven't forgotten this, and they are easy to pick out in competitions. They are the ones smiling and laughing and going over to help their fellow archer or just give them some encouragement, because they realize how fleeting their position in the sport is.

As I've said many times - for many of us amateurs, the Olympic trials is the most significant event we will ever compete in. Some may only get to do it once. I don't know of any archer at that event who did not take it seriously and prepare harder for it than any other event they have shot in the past 4 years. That alone is worth recognizing. Glad to see these archers finally get the recognition they deserve, and have an opportunity to take home a momento they can share with their friends, family and coaches. Some day, one of those shirts will be found in a box in an attic by a son or daughter, and will be handed down to a grandchild. And that grandchild will be able to say "my grandpa or grandma competed in the Olympic archery trials" and the cycle may just continue. This is how our sport is sustained through the generations. We must remember that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If your club turns out champion after champion, has the largest team roster, has the most scholarship athletes, etc., heads will turn and ask "what are they doing that we're not?".


Meh. Maybe. You might want to ask Mike Wischer and the Andersons how that's going for them in WA (they don't care, but it is an interesting test case for your theory )


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Matt Z said:


> Copy and paste.... this is the same conversation/argument that resurfaces every year or so, especially with Nationals/Trials. Everyone complains about the atrocities of the overseer and then continues on with their day as planned.
> 
> The membership is filled with talented people; lawyers, designers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, the list goes on and on. Offer solutions and volunteer to produce those solutions and see where it takes us. If they don't want anyone's help, it's a free market. Put your ideas to the world, seek support and actually make change.
> 
> This is no different than the club level. It will grow and support it's members as much as the members build and support the club. If your club turns out champion after champion, has the largest team roster, has the most scholarship athletes, etc., heads will turn and ask "what are they doing that we're not?".


Field of Dreams - Build it and they will come? It was a nice movie, but I'm not holding my breath that this is a reasonable expectation/predictor of success. Cynical position based upon overwhelming anecdotal observation: The 'success story of the grassroots' is statistically (viable incidents close to zero) a myth. Historical 100-year storms better explain the rare grassroots success story. Most success stories are birthed and sustained with the levers of power and access to power (witness the tremendous participation levels of the NASP - that's about as far from a grassroots effort as it's possible to imagine).


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Through the last 12 years, I have never forgotten my roots, which is just recreational archery in its many forms - some of which include competitions. My desire to view archery as a recreational endeavor, best played by amateurs with a love and passion for the sport, has never changed. I have received a lot of heat for that view from those in the industry, and those who wish to be full time professionals. I guess that's their right to protect their financial interests if they find the "amateur" status threatening, but the fact remains that the "elites" were ALL once recreational archers who shot for the love of shooting, and nothing else. When they forget what it feels like to work hard for a $10 medal or how it feels to simply pursue a personal best or a state amateur record, then IMO that's when the problem begins and the departure starts. Thankfully I know quite a few "professional" full time archers who haven't forgotten this, and they are easy to pick out in competitions. They are the ones smiling and laughing and going over to help their fellow archer or just give them some encouragement, because they realize how fleeting their position in the sport is.
> 
> As I've said many times - for many of us amateurs, the Olympic trials is the most significant event we will ever compete in. Some may only get to do it once. I don't know of any archer at that event who did not take it seriously and prepare harder for it than any other event they have shot in the past 4 years. That alone is worth recognizing. Glad to see these archers finally get the recognition they deserve, and have an opportunity to take home a momento they can share with their friends, family and coaches. Some day, one of those shirts will be found in a box in an attic by a son or daughter, and will be handed down to a grandchild. And that grandchild will be able to say "my grandpa or grandma competed in the Olympic archery trials" and the cycle may just continue. This is how our sport is sustained through the generations. We must remember that.


Beautifully put.


----------



## tbrash01 (Oct 7, 2010)

John - Thanks for putting all this out there and being an instrument to help move forward. US Archery did do something and that does mean a lot to me personally so a huge thank you to US Archery as well. The shirt is not just a keepsake from the event, but in this case a reminder that if we stick together and voice ourselves positive things can happen. Glad to know it took less than a month for our sport to make the effort! Go Team USA!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Be sure to contact Denise and thank her and her staff. That is very important.

Now, let's all get behind the 16 finest Olympic style archers we have in this country, and support them as well as we possibly can.

Go USA!


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Thanks to Denise, USAA, John and all the folks who shot in the event. I have been in the sport for decades and this is one of the nicest gestures I've seen out of an organizing body. No one gets it right 100% of the time, but few take the time to reflect, recognize what might have been and take action. Kudos to all involved.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I agree.

[email protected] in case anyone needs it.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

Thanks, John. This was my first Trials and it won't be my last. I love archery and the people I've me through it has kept me going to get better. I enjoy the sport and, to me, participating in the Trials was way more than just a shirt. The trials was a chance to put my hard work on the line and measure how well I could shoot under that type of pressure. My coach has always said that you learn the best in competition and that was what I set out to do when I began shooting competitively. I've learned a TON and it is amazing to mingle with others who share the same path that I do in this sport -amateur or not. 

Thanks to Denise and her staff for doing this for the members. I know a few people that will really enjoy the shirt. Having a keepsake for the Trials experience is a great topping for a trip that was really memorable for me. 



limbwalker said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Through the last 12 years, I have never forgotten my roots, which is just recreational archery in its many forms - some of which include competitions. My desire to view archery as a recreational endeavor, best played by amateurs with a love and passion for the sport, has never changed. I have received a lot of heat for that view from those in the industry, and those who wish to be full time professionals. I guess that's their right to protect their financial interests if they find the "amateur" status threatening, but the fact remains that the "elites" were ALL once recreational archers who shot for the love of shooting, and nothing else. When they forget what it feels like to work hard for a $10 medal or how it feels to simply pursue a personal best or a state amateur record, then IMO that's when the problem begins and the departure starts. Thankfully I know quite a few "professional" full time archers who haven't forgotten this, and they are easy to pick out in competitions. They are the ones smiling and laughing and going over to help their fellow archer or just give them some encouragement, because they realize how fleeting their position in the sport is.
> 
> As I've said many times - for many of us amateurs, the Olympic trials is the most significant event we will ever compete in. Some may only get to do it once. I don't know of any archer at that event who did not take it seriously and prepare harder for it than any other event they have shot in the past 4 years. That alone is worth recognizing. Glad to see these archers finally get the recognition they deserve, and have an opportunity to take home a momento they can share with their friends, family and coaches. Some day, one of those shirts will be found in a box in an attic by a son or daughter, and will be handed down to a grandchild. And that grandchild will be able to say "my grandpa or grandma competed in the Olympic archery trials" and the cycle may just continue. This is how our sport is sustained through the generations. We must remember that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The shirt will be appreciated by many. I suspect many who weren't even archers at that event will receive one from an archer, or buy one themselves to commemorate the event.

However, recognizing it was indeed the Olympic trials and that 244+ archers shot in the trials (not just 32), was a lot more important to me. No shirt or back number that said "Olympic trials" was annoying to me (infuriating to some though) but the "Olympic trials begin today!" post on the USArchery FB feed on SUNDAY was what set me off completely. 

I had already forgotten about the lack of shirt or back # until I saw that, but then all I could think was what an insult that was to not just the 244 that competed in the trials, but the 1000's more who supported them, coached them and anxiously followed their results. We simply cannot allow this to happen again. And that's not even mentioning the $6K that was accepted from the participants specifically for the "Olympic trials" which raises some serious legal questions.

Glad it was addressed and handled in a respectful, appropriate way. 

The Olympic trials is the biggest archery event that most US recurve archers will ever compete in. It's special, it's different, and dare I say, sacred ground. It's the single reason we have as many Olympic style archers in this country as we do. Because it is an open event. We cannot lose that. 

John


----------



## ShooterPhill (Feb 23, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> *...It's the single reason we have as many Olympic style archers in this country as we do. Because it is an open event. We cannot lose that.*
> 
> John


This, most importantly of all, cannot be brushed aside as the sport moves forward. Very well put Limbwalker


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Are all the competitors going to receive an email? We almost never buy the shirt but this is definitely a time we would have.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Cephas said:


> Are all the competitors going to receive an email? We almost never buy the shirt but this is definitely a time we would have.


the email to me had gotten routed by Google into the "Promotions" tab. I might never have seen it but for the mention of it here. Perhaps the email to you got similarly parked somewhere besides your inbox?


----------



## Cephas (Sep 7, 2010)

Good call!! Thanks, I found it right where you said it would be.-Pete


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good call Larry. I only received one - for my daughter. I've let them know.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

so am i right in presuming that all of you who shot that weekend get a commemorative t-shirt??

if so that's great!


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

The real problem with this thread is the vitriol based on a false interpretation of what should be seen as nothing more than a poorly worded phrase. We know that because USAA has clearly identified all 242 archers that competed in the Olympic Trials. If, as limbwalker and others have posted, that only 32 competed, then one has to ask where did they come from? Did they bus in from some secret location? 

More importantly, could the same results have been achieved without vilifying USA Archery? Why take the low road? You had a choice. I guess you can’t have a hero without victims, right? Drama certainly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> "An Internet troll is someone who posts offensive, controversial, or divisive material on an Internet community."


Huh. That definition leaves out the "blank profile."


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Seattlepop said:


> The real problem with this thread is the vitriol based on a false interpretation of what should be seen as nothing more than a poorly worded phrase. We know that because USAA has clearly identified all 242 archers that competed in the Olympic Trials. If, as limbwalker and others have posted, that only 32 competed, then one has to ask where did they come from? Did they bus in from some secret location?
> 
> More importantly, could the same results have been achieved without vilifying USA Archery? Why take the low road? You had a choice. I guess you can’t have a hero without victims, right? Drama certainly.



USA Archery blew it.
People complained.
USA Archery recognized/acknowledged that it 'blew it' and has crafted a remedy. 

I'm happy for me and the other participants and people like my 10-year old student who was thrilled at having made the trip to compete in/watch the Olympic Trials and meet real Olympians and will now be able to tangible-ize that experience with an official memento (Tshirt) that she can wear for pride and inspiration. I guess condolences to you that it all worked out so well.


----------



## tunedlow (Nov 7, 2012)

Seattlepop said:


> If, as limbwalker and others have posted, that only 32 competed, then one has to ask where did they come from? Did they bus in from some secret location?


They shot with everyone else -including the 5-10 minutes of great nasty weather that we had.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> The real problem with this thread is the vitriol based on a false interpretation of what should be seen as nothing more than a poorly worded phrase.


it was way more than a poorly worded phrase. And more than some swag. 

Pity you can't see that. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Pity you can't see that.


It's not that people like the troll can't see it. It's that they are haters and would rather see the world burn than to see anyone but themselves recognized.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Congratulations to those who will receive whatever John was pushing for. I just hope that it does not come with a cost to USAA via the USOC. I really hope Denise received permission in order to cover USAA's rear on this. Anyway, at least the 200+ archers will be thrilled and I am happy for you as well.

As for those people who want to beat up a guy who has a different opinion and call him a troll. I wonder, with 3900 posts, why he wasn't called a troll before hand? 

Another comment that was made about USAA only cares for the elites: Just as NFAA, IBO, ASA, and probably any other organization out there that has competitions. We all strive to better ourselves and appreciate those who have achieved a high level. We don't go to the Vegas shoot to watch the rookies, but love to watch the best of the best. If you don't think so, look how many people show up just to watch the shoot-offs. These elites do make the organization grow. 

And finally, I am still shaking my head over this issue. Yes, I have accomplished a lot f(Chris), but don't forget I was just a beginner, neophyte, rookie, or whatever you call it in the beginning too and have not forgotten my roots. However, when I went to my first Olympic Trials, I had to shoot 4 specific scores just to be eligible. Just like Track & Field and almost every other sport requires. Archery is one of the few that has no requirements except being a US citizen and that can be debatable during this era of upside down logic.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I wonder, with 3900 posts, why he wasn't called a troll before hand?


Rick, just so you're aware, the troll has been on many of our ignore lists for a long time already.



> Congratulations to those who will receive whatever John was pushing for...


 You say this as if this was a one-person issue.  

I started to explain it (again) but like I said in my PM to you, I really don't expect you to understand.

USArchery did the right thing by the membership here. You (and the troll) don't seem to agree. Sorry if that's an uncomfortable position.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John, it was a one man crusade. I never questioned your motives, just that you did not look at the overall picture. Since you say I would not understand, not once have you ever admitted that this could be a serious issue in the future. Your short sightedness could have repercussions for our future Olympic Trials. However, that appears to not matter. I am not saying that it will happen, just that it could. Only time will tell. 

I guess I am in the company of a troll now. Thank you John. It appears if one disagrees with you, then we become the troll, enemy or whatever you want to call it. Does not appear you want a healthy discussion, just for people to agree with you. Shame on you.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Huh. That definition leaves out the "blank profile."


Because it would be wrong. One can be completely anonymous and still be sincere. Besides, Seatlepop's profile is just as fully filled out as your profile.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Could someone (other than me) please explain this to Rick. He's not getting it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I tried. Somehow my point was lost. Pity.

Chris


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Rick doesnt have the post count or join date to have any credibility in an internet forum. How could he possibly get it. What could he know about the sport or how it works. How could his opinion matter. He is a veritable newbie by forum standards.

So I guess we chase another medalist off with pitch forks and torches because his opinion doesnt match the very vocal minority. WIN!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Or maybe he's just wrong on this one issue? Ever think of that possibility? 

But let's just talk about the issue, since Denise's decision still seems to bother some people...

USArchery accepted over $6,000 worth of registration fees, over and above the Texas Shootout registration, from over 240 competitors - specifically for the "Olympic trials." That's what it said on the registration information. A few days later, (day two of competition) the USArchery Facebook page proudly announces that the "Olympic trials begin today(Sunday) with the top 16 men and women!" 

Anyone who has a problem with Denise's decision to recognize these archers can go ahead and answer these two questions then: 

1) Do you really expect the membership to just sit back and accept that, and 

2) How do you explain that to a teenager who just shot in the biggest archery event of their life and whose parents, grandparents, friends and coaches were all watching? Hmm?

Rick has a tremendous amount of archery related knowledge to contribute here. But this is not an archery issue. It's an ethical one. And I'm pleased to say that Denise and her staff got it right.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> it was way more than a poorly worded phrase. And more than some swag.
> 
> Pity you can't see that.
> 
> Chris


Chris, don't buy into the "culture of contempt" that has been brewing on AT for years. Do you know what the main characteristics of a cult are?

1. A charismatic leader; 2. Externalize the enemy; 3. The answer.

It is interesting that so many on this board see USAA as the enemy (problem) and limbwalker the cure. 



limbwalker said:


> It's not that people like the troll can't see it. It's that they are haters and would rather see the world burn than to see anyone but themselves recognized.


The only proven hater here is you, John. You have attacked USAA unrelentingly for years and have been called out on it numerous times. You call anyone a troll who does so. Its what you do. 



limbwalker said:


> Rick, just so you're aware, the troll has been on many of our ignore lists for a long time already.


Yours and a sycophant or two. Maybe.  



limbwalker said:


> You say this as if this was a one-person issue.
> 
> I started to explain it (again) but like I said in my PM to you, I really don't expect you to understand.
> 
> USArchery did the right thing by the membership here. You (and the troll) don't seem to agree. Sorry if that's an uncomfortable position.


Wrong again. I never addressed whether or not I thought memorabilia was a good idea or not. Memorabilia is good - I have a couple from past competitions myself. 

What my post did do was question the necessary of vilifying USAA in the process. No one on this board is more divisive than you, and that, my friend, is the key component of a troll. 



Rick McKinney said:


> John, it was a one man crusade. I never questioned your motives, just that you did not look at the overall picture. Since you say I would not understand, not once have you ever admitted that this could be a serious issue in the future. Your short sightedness could have repercussions for our future Olympic Trials. However, that appears to not matter. I am not saying that it will happen, just that it could. Only time will tell.
> 
> I guess I am in the company of a troll now. Thank you John. It appears if one disagrees with you, then we become the troll, enemy or whatever you want to call it. Does not appear you want a healthy discussion, just for people to agree with you. Shame on you.


Welcome to my world lol. 



TER said:


> Because it would be wrong. One can be completely anonymous and still be sincere. Besides, Seatlepop's profile is just as fully filled out as your profile.


My profile has always been complete and I invite anyone who wishes to get acquainted to PM me. 

For those who really don't understand what REAL trolls do, here is a more complete list for your consideration:

"An Internet troll is someone who posts offensive, controversial, or divisive material on an Internet community." - wisegeek.com

"The Sad Truths of Internet Trolls: 

1.	Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.
2.	Trolls do not feel remorse like you and me. They have sociopathic tendencies, and accordingly, they delight in other people having hurt feelings.
3.	Trolls consider themselves separate from the social order.
4.	Trolls do not abide by etiquette or the rules of common courtesy.
1.	Trolls consider themselves above social responsibility.
2.	Trolls gain energy by you insulting them.
3.	Trolls gain energy when you get angry.
4.	The only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, or take away his ability to post online"
(http://netforbeginners.about.com)


It must be my age, but I am often appalled at posts I think should be under a private blog somewhere, not on *the* global archery bulletin board. The rules of common courtesy clearly do not apply here for many. 

One more thought: The few who continue to unfairly attack USAA seem to think it is fair game. I would encourage the AT membership to strive to make the game fair.

Fred
Seattle, WA


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

"Or maybe he's just wrong on this one issue? Ever think of that possibility?*"

Meh...

just because a person has a different opinion doesnt make it wrong. Just because a person doesnt agree on demand doesnt make it wrong.

Personnally, i believe that the situation wasnt handled well at the USA Archery level with repect to how they represented things in the beginning, AND I believe a bunch of people got way too worked up about it. If people really want to fight for something important there are places to do that, and you get to wear camo. This doesnt hit my Meh meter, but I guess the fallout is entertaining, because I keep clicking the link.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I could be wrong. However, just maybe, you were wrong, John. I know that could come as a shock, but we will see in the next 4 years if you went too far. 

No matter. This was a nice discussion. Thanks to those who listened/read and didn't attack. My opinion is just the same as John's as far as opinions go. I have no skin in this game, just wanted to give some insight of the reason behind certain things that happen. How it comes out doesn't affect me like it did John and his family. Oh, and the other 200+ archers. 

I'm headed to the Huntsman Games. Looking forward to seeing Ed Eliason and many other friends who shoot for the fun of it. Cheers!


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i thought this thread was done after rick's explanation but the ensuing discussions were quite enlightening.....and entertaining!


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I do not see the USAA as the enemy. I see it as an organization that seems to be bogged down and has its hands tied by the USOC. 

I am proud to be a USAA member. But that doesn't mean i agree with everything they do or that i agree with everything the USOC does within the Archery sport. Like NOT sending a USA team to the World Youth Olympics. or the not so great Nike deal. 

I also have much respect for Rick and for John. And everyone else on this forum that i agree with or disagree with. 

I am sure i am not politically correct most of the time, nor do i try to be. I try to give forth my opinion, and i try to give good sound advice and further the sport of archery. 

Sometimes, i have the odd dissenting view. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but we will see in the next 4 years if you went too far


Heh. Well, if Denise recognizing all the participants this year = going too far, then please explain what we did 4 years ago, when everyone's back number said "Olympic trials" and there were Olympic trials shirts available for sale and Olympic trials banners everywhere for the world to see. All anyone wanted was the same thing we did 4 years ago. So what changed Rick?



> I could be wrong. However, just maybe, you were wrong, John.


Well you're welcome to explain how. I asked two simple questions that you chose to conveniently avoid. I know why the troll didn't answer. Because their vitriol plays better off-topic. But I would have loved to have seen your responses Rick. Would have been a great opportunity to explain to me and the other folks who paid their trials fee, why we and Denise were all wrong.


----------

