# Training "elite" archers vs. beginner and intermediate archers



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Hear Hear!

One thing I would add however, 

If we use the "NTS system" and not "change" the steps but "simplify" them for easier understanding, maybe even leave a few out (don't say they are wrong but just don't introduce them) We are not telling our students one thing and then telling them later "well we taught you wrong, now you have to change". We don't have to make all the corrections early on, but if we introduce the skills at the higher level, and not dwell on trying to fix or train them to get it perfect, I think we accomplish what John is advocating. Getting the masses out and enjoying the sport and letting them decide how hard they want to push themselves.

Again, my demographic is kids and adults for the most part want to get better have fun, etc.. but so far none have told me they want to be an elite athlete (yet). Some however have told me they want to get as many of those shiny pins as possible.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, that would be one way to do it - so long as you KNOW you are going to see those kids often enough and long enough for them to remember those steps. 

When you know you're going to see an archer again and again for a period of many months, or even years, its a lot easier to plan for their development. However, a huge percentage of archers just won't spend that kind of time in front of a qualified coach. And I worry that if we try to "overcoach" these recreational archers, they will just get frustrated and find a less complicated way to spend their time.

Maybe it's just here on AT where we have the benefit of some of the U.S.' top NTS coaches, but it seems we spend a disproportionate amount of our time discussing and debating elite techniques that will only ever be put to use (correctly) by a tiny fraction of our students.

I've also seen the pressure and expectation for young archers to consider elite international competition do more harm than good. Sure, you're going to find those 2 out of 100 that have both the talent and drive to get there someday, but many of the 98 will have the fun sucked out of the sport along the way.

I'm just thinking we need to be vigilant and guard against that as coaches. Take the elite training seriously for those who are ready for it, but also not force it down the throats of those who are still "getting to know" the sport.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

dchan said:


> If we use the "NTS system" and not "change" the steps but "simplify" them for easier understanding, maybe even leave a few out....


I set up my JOAD program at the end of the Summer last year. We usually run in 13 week cycles and that let me break down the training to 10 steps following a simplified NTS outline. I spend 5 minutes explaining the week's focus and fine tune everything as we shoot. Most of my students are repeats allowing me to go into more and more detail everytime they cycle through (most don't get everything the first time around). My main focus is developing a stable stance, repeatable anchor and smooth release. I also introduce back tension for those who can activate those muscles. I make sure that they have rubber bands to warm up with and see to it that they are not over bowed. Lots of praise and a fun atmosphere and away we go. I am by no means an Elite coach but I make sure that I get training every year to stay current. This week I am traveling to Chula Vista for the NTS program taught by Coach Lee. I may not use everything that he recommends but I will have a better understanding of why he teaches the style he does.

TAO


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

So here's my example.

My first time lesson,

After safety, Using stretch bands. 

Stance,- (slightly open) 
Set,- hook and grip. try to get that "straight line" from elbow to bow hand explain *very briefly* 3 fingers on the string, and pressure on the palm/web of the hand
setup,- Both arms come up together. "like zombie arms" No need to aim yet, so your arrow may be aimed a little off to the left.
Draw,- somewhere below your anchor.
Anchor- Find some where consistent. Either corner of the mouth/Index finger or under the chin. Don't dwell on this except for the fact it needs to be the same every time.
Aim and hold.-NOW aim and let everything settle down a little. 3 seconds max.
Release... Pause here to explain and practice release using stretch band tucked under a foot. "let the string slip out out of your fingers or push your fingers out of the way" 
Follow through.-everything that happens after the shot. "try to keep your sight picture the same" and the tension you had on the string should allow your hand to slide back some.. 

We practice this for about 10- 15 minutes. 

Then we pass out gear, (arrows and bows)

Demonstration now explaining index feather nock locator, arrow rest, etc..

First shots are done one on one.
Show them how to nock an arrow, make sure it "snaps on the string" and index feather.
Talk them through the steps as they do it. Help them get height right "verbal lower/higher" as the come to anchor.
And "bang" they get the shot off. If it was reasonably acceptable and the arrow didn't end up in the bushes way past the bale, Tell them "do that again 5 more times" and move on to the next archer. 

Sometimes by the time we get to the line it's 

Stance.
load/hook/grip
raise up
draw/anchor/aim
Release/follow through.

Repeat

==================

This whole process usually takes about 45 minutes. 

The next 1:15, they practice. If no safety issues or problems with arm clearance etc, I try to leave them alone. If they ask questions, I'll give short explanation and get them going again.

As they return and want more info, we build on the above, adding as John mentioned starting from the bottom hole and filling as we go.

If they want to progress more, I challenge them to pay a little extra (actually it's a discount) to purchase a multiple session plan, and start attending our performance coaching sessions. That's were I start to break down the steps a little more, and start concentrating on correcting form at a little tighter level.

If they really want to get beyond that, It's private coaching, one on one.. and I do expect them to show interest and put in the effort.

Equipment knowledge starts after about 3-4 sessions. First learning how to string their own bow, and start taking measurements.. specifically brace height/tiller/nock position. Since we are using club bows Nothing to really to adjust. Just want them to get familiar with the gear.

Performance coaching takes the form of equipment lectures from time to time.

and so it goes.

DC


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

And we have fixed the "over bowed" issue by investing in extremely light bows. All our first time beginners start with 10lb or less bows. It's always easy to move up if necessary but teaching with 10lb bows makes form correction so much easier.. 

Sad to say, many of our youth, struggle with [email protected]" bows. Talk about too much TV/Video games

Strong thumbs, no upper body strength.

and a Note to all you people that live outside of California, San Francisco no longer has a mandatory PE on a daily basis and generally the "sport of choice" is soccer. No upper body there for the most part also.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good stuff gents.

"zombie arms..." I like that! LOL!

Ditto on the upper body strength. I have kids that should be able to pull 25# with ease who struggle with 20. Asked one the other day how she felt about push-ups. ha, ha. 

It's a different group of kids alright. We ain't getting the most athletic ones, that's for sure.

John


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John, et al - 

You guys are talking about kids, but it doesn't stop there. The same issues apply to adults too. Trying teaching "elite" techniques to beginners without an adequate foundation leads to a waste time on the parts of the student and instructor and usually a waste of money on the former. 

A good instructor should when (and if) new techniques should be introduced based a combination of a generalized game plan AND what he sees a shooter doing. IOWs, the techniques are introduced if and when necessary.

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good point Tony. 

I think that sometimes it's easy for an experienced coach to forget just how much they know, and how long it took them to get that knowlege. So often I've seen coaches and parents get impatient, when really, it could easily take years before an individual even starts to think of themselves as an archer-athlete.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Good stuff gents.
> 
> "zombie arms..." I like that! LOL!


It's cheesy and a bit of a kludge, but I came up with it to fill need while teaching at dchan's program. We teach a lot of beginners on a drop in basis, and work to give them a good foundation for NTS in a short amount of time. I was having problems trying to get students to visualize setting up following an imaginary clock face counter clockwise from 5 to 11 (or what ever it is currently :embara: ). It is just too abstract in that context. People still brought up the bow straight up, but as soon as I described it as raising zombie arms they seemed to get it more intuitively. Now if I could just come up with something that would get young kids to anchor on their face for every shot :mg: Joking aside, having a way to describe techniques in a memorable way that people can viscerally relate to seems to help, especially with beginning archers.

I don't know about elite archers, but I find that teaching beginners is often about deciding what to leave out. And as a newly minted instructor, it was initially hard not to try to teach everything all at once. You can't emphasize everything. If you do, you wind up emphasizing nothing. Another one of the hardest parts is leaving kids alone to work some things out on their own for a while and not hovering over them. dchan is really good about that, and his ability to not hover, and to limit the advice he gives at any one time so as to not overwhelm archers are some of the things that impressed me about his instruction.


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> ... it could easily take years before an individual even starts to think of themselves as an archer-athlete.
> John


Perhaps you coaches could prime the pump by telling your kids that by virtue of their practice in archery they _are _athletes. I think it was a turning point in my daughters' attitudes towards school athletics when I pointed that out to them. It was just a word, "athlete", but I could see the light go on when I said it and I believe it changed their self-image from that day on. They now take their school (non-archery) athletic activities more to heart, taking pride in telling my wife and I about their athletic accomplishments. They are also applying themselves better to archery practice at home.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Warbow said:


> It's cheesy and a bit of a kludge, but I came up with it to fill need while teaching at dchan's program. We teach a lot of beginners on a drop in basis, and work to give them a good foundation for NTS in a short amount of time. I was having problems trying to get students to visualize setting up following an imaginary clock face counter clockwise from 5 to 11 (or what ever it is currently :embara: ). It is just too abstract in that context. People still brought up the bow straight up, but as soon as I described it as raising zombie arms they seemed to get it more intuitively. Now if I could just come up with something that would get young kids to anchor on their face for every shot :mg: Joking aside, having a way to describe techniques in a memorable way that people can viscerally relate to seems to help, especially with beginning archers.
> 
> I don't know about elite archers, but I find that teaching beginners is often about deciding what to leave out. And as a newly minted instructor, it was initially hard not to try to teach everything all at once. You can't emphasize everything. If you do, you wind up emphasizing nothing. Another one of the hardest parts is leaving kids alone to work some things out on their own for a while and not hovering over them. dchan is really good about that, and his ability to not hover, and to limit the advice he gives at any one time so as to not overwhelm archers are some of the things that impressed me about his instruction.


Yup. I used to tell them to raise their arms like their shoulders were hinges. When warbow started using the zombie arms it worked so well the term just stuck for most of us.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I don't know about elite archers, but I find that teaching beginners is often about deciding what to leave out. And as a newly minted instructor, it was initially hard not to try to teach everything all at once. You can't emphasize everything. If you do, you wind up emphasizing nothing. Another one of the hardest parts is leaving kids alone to work some things out on their own for a while and not hovering over them.


All very true. 

Again, overcoaching and overcomplication will be the death of us if we're not careful.

John


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

i work with more beginners than any other group. One tip that i have found useful is to put a extra nock locator or tie of knot of serving above the center serving so that it can be moved up or down. (I call it a booger knot). Initially set it as a sighting aid (I know it is not legal to be in the line of sight but these are beginners). The archer lines the knot up with the sight (like a peep site) to help them come to a consistent point and hit what they are aiming at. Then as quickly as I can, I slide the knot down so they put it on the tip of their nose (this is legal). This touch point many times solves a lot of anchor problems and then gives us some basis for adding additional form elements. you would never use this technique with an elite, but it it is quite effective on beginners.

As to John's point on push ups, etc. I think it is imperative that for long term athlete development these kids be involved in other sports even if it is just skipping rope. Going sport specific at age 12 or 13 is a sin in my book. This is a huge difference between beginner/intermediate and elite training. Too often we overlay adult training models on youth athletes. The long term athlete development models used in other sports as well as other countries suggests not going sport specific until 16-18 years old at the soonest. I am aware that some of our dream team archers are asked to go all in on archery as young as 13. I submit this is a mistake more so on a sport they are not likely to get an athletic scholarship in nor be able to make a living at.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Hmm.

Great food for thought, gents.

At WPA we usually do the T and the release 123s after the usual safety, history and parts-of-the-equipment speech, then get them on the line asap with bows and arrows up and go 1 to 1 for their first end or two, do arrow retrieval and range safety at the end of the first end, then pretty much let them have at it.

This is all at 9m.

Because of the huge mortality rate (i.e. less than 5% repeaters - hey this is LA LA land after all), they pretty much sort themselves out: it's pretty easy to spot those with the fire in the eyes and all those unasked questions... 

After that it's "well here's something you could try to make things a little easier/more accurate/more fun..." and then pretty sneakily get into the 4-step NTS so they don't get too surprised by big changes later on.

JOAD kids get filtered out into the JOAD stream and full blown NTS - I have my pros and cons about that, as you may know. But for the people who remain at the range as recreational archers, that's pretty much as far as they go. We have plenty of coaches who do privates if they want to move on from that, but I have a feeling it's the fun shooters we're addressing in this thread.

Personally I don't see any harm in sneaking the basic NTS elements into their fun - getting into the back sooner, drawing under the anchor, then coming up, so on - as long as it's helping and not hurting. And also it doesn't hurt to shoot one's self, too. That also serves as a filter in a way, drawing out the "what are you doing? that's different" questions and further separating the ones who want to know.

Yeah, this all boils down to getting to know the beginners who stick around for more, taking care to get them into the fun of shooting, and keeping them there for as long as possible, across all of their eventual skill levels and objectives.

So ultimately this is just a +1 to you all, and a note of appreciation for your kind sharing of knowledge.

Thanks!
Cheers
Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

_"Again, overcoaching and overcomplication will be the death of us if we're not careful.

John"_

What about "monkey see, monkey do" coaching or inspiration? Is there any place in current archery coaching strategy, under the heading of "proof is in the pudding", to have a seasoned archer with good form shooting along with the new archery students (either the coach, a second coach, or another archer) so these budding new archers can be inspired by seeing firsthand a physical manifestation of where they're trying to get to?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm not aware that there is Larry, but you make a good point. Sometimes it's much easier for someone to learn by simply observing than by being "instructed." Children learn MOST of what they do this way, without ever being told how to do something. Works in archery too. This is one reason I try to bring my bow to most of my coaching sessions. So I can just SHOW them something instead of trying to describe it. This is also why I'm so skeptical of coaches who don't shoot. Because they can't demonstrate a technique to those students who are from "missouri" so to speak. 

My wife (the teacher) will tell me that there are many styles of learning. As coaches, we must be aware of this and use the style that most suits the student. 

John


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

LKS

I believe we hit this point (and did it squarely in) in another thread, something about "does Kisik Lee shoot?" and how coaches don't have to be good shots to coach well.

As usual there are divergent viewpoints on this matter. Personally I don't accept physical instruction from a coach who can't beat me by a decent margin in the field, same as I don't take math instruction too well from my son.

I believe we can make this as simple, or as complicated, as we want to. And I agree, in the beginning, things need to be the simplest they can be and also be safe and have fun too.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

We have beginners, intermediate and often coaches shooting on the line together. This is part of the reason we adopted the thought that if we teach one thing and do something different, it's harder to explain. If we teach using the same form that most of us shoot, there are less conflicting visuals to verbal instruction.

Shooting along side the students motivates some of the students to be willing to work at it. It often brings up good questions. With the folks in our "performance coaching" sessions I often get them to observe and coach each other (with guidance) building an eye for good form I believe can be as important as the actual shooting. It does allow an athlete "self coach" which can be very important when they may have to compete without the aid of a coach on the line with them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> same as I don't take math instruction too well from my son.


Yea, me neither. 

But only because it would be a total waste of his time. ha, ha, ha.

John


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

John....agreed on all points...

My JOAD beginner class handles just the basics as most do not own equipment. We go over safety, basic form, safety again and get them shooting. My thoughts with most is that I want them to have fun shooting and shooting alot! We run 2 hour classes and they will easily get 60-90 arrows in 3 arrow ends. The other coaches and I will give tips to help each archery get a little better. We find out really quickly who is just doing this for fun and who wants to get better. Either way, they are all tired at the end!!!!

For my "advanced" class, we break down technique with each individual archer, working with them one on one to help each reach their potential. This is the only place I will even mention NTS, because it is just too much for a beginner to comprehend. But when my beginners switch to the "advanced" class, they find that they already have a solid base to work with...

Gotta build the excitement, get them equipment and then focus on the little things....

SB


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Scott.Barrett said:


> This is the only place I will even mention NTS, because it is just too much for a beginner to comprehend. But when my beginners switch to the "advanced" class, they find that they already have a solid base to work with...
> 
> Gotta build the excitement, get them equipment and then focus on the little things....
> 
> SB


Agreed there.

We don't generally mention NTS either. We teach it in the form above and get them shooting in about 20-30 minutes. They will generally get 60-90 arrows during the rest of the 2 hr session as well (1.5hrs to practice) and as your class, we walk the line, give tips as needed or warranted, but it's all about the fun and excitement. The breakdown of technique and form happens in advanced classes but even there we don't really mention "NTS or BEST method" much. It's all good shooting.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

dchan said:


> Agreed there.
> 
> We don't generally mention NTS either. We teach it in the form above and get them shooting in about 20-30 minutes. They will generally get 60-90 arrows during the rest of the 2 hr session as well (1.5hrs to practice) and as your class, we walk the line, give tips as needed or warranted, but it's all about the fun and excitement. The breakdown of technique and form happens in advanced classes but even there we don't really mention "NTS or BEST method" much. It's all good shooting.



That certainly makes me feel better that we are on the right course!!!!


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Scott.Barrett said:


> That certainly makes me feel better that we are on the right course!!!!


Consider this..

"Right course for your program"

You need to find what works for you. The model we use may not be best for everyone or every other program.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

If a coach knows his stuff and can communicate it well - in whatever sport - I don't think 'him being able to personally do it well' is a necessary requirement (although it's a plus). 

I'm speaking of visual inspiration as a component of the training environment, not necessarily as one of the coach's personal attributes. I have a friend who is a heart surgeon. He has mentioned to me before that one of the most noteworthy parts of his surgery rotation during residency was not hands on experience (although that was critical for him to judge his latent ability and potential), but rather just being in the operating room (not assisting) and observing his highly renowned surgeon mentor operate. He said that the guy was so good and smooth and skillful that it was like watching an exquisite ballet. Bob made the comment that "watching him certainly didn't make me as good as this surgeon was, but watching him made me WANT to be as good as he was, and probably that inspiration was what made me ultimately decide to make thoracic surgery my specialty."

One of the things I most enjoy about shooting in national tournaments is the chance to watch up close really excellent (especially those with classical form) archers and just be inspired by the poetry of their precision and the 'nobility of the silhouette of the classical archer at full draw'. I am always inspired by such observations (down to the details of watching arrows streak rock solid like laser beam track to the target in that graceful arc, and even reveling in the 'whisper quietness' of the best tuned bows). It's a big part of why I took up the sport - archery is a beautiful sport in its form and in its movements, romantic even. I can remember seeing on YouTube the lead in to the archery coverage in the 2004 Olympics in Athens, seeing those archers in 3/4 film speed, and saying out loud "Wow. I want to be able to do that." 

Most newbies are drawn to archery by something they've 'seen' - the Olympics on TV, or movies. They're inspired by the natural beauty of the form and movements - Seems like it would be an advantage to try and incorporate a small measure of consistent nurturing of that inspiration during training, whenever practical/possible, especially of beginners.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

Sure helps to have a good shooter to look at in real life, though...

Plus one for DChan - we don't actually say anything is NTS or not, usually until they're either in private classes, or they ask. 

This is the age of Google and archery.tv. Everybody has access to the information, and I believe it's a good indication of a person's interest if they come to a coach with a puzzled expression and ask "what's this NTS deal about, then?"

C


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Chris RL said:


> Sure helps to have a good shooter to look at in real life, though...
> 
> Plus one for DChan - we don't actually say anything is NTS or not, usually until they're either in private classes, or they ask.
> 
> ...


Yeah, it really depends on the audience. Most of the beginners I've worked with just want to learn "archery", and don't care about one system vs. another, nor have any knowledge that such choices are available. So telling those kinds of students too much stuff about NTS on their first day is just more that they will tune out or forget--stuff that gets in the way of them learning archery rather than helping. However, I do sometimes tell kids there are a number of good ways to do archery, that the way we teach is one of them (the one used at the Olympic Training Center) and we'd like them to try it, at the very least so they'll have a basis of comparison with other systems. I don't know for certain that telling them that is necessary, but with some of the students, both kids and adults, they've been taught some archery in the past, and many will move on to other programs in various archery styles other than NTS OR. I don't want to be setting them up with the "our way is the right way and everybody else is wrong" attitude that I think can give people a bad taste. I'd rather be inclusive (Well, within limits; there are some things that really are wrong. I'm not New Agey, Post Modern, everything is equally valid, rather I think there is some legitimate variety in archery, and looking at various top archers in different archery disciplines shows that there are a number of successful ways to shoot.)

As an aside, most of our students shoot trad, without sites. Some move on to sights as they get more serious, others elect to stick without sights (USA Archery, please fix the trad/barebow/"novice" outdoor JOAD pins!!!!). And some of them get the ur doin' it wrong advice from other trad shooters at other ranges, as opposed to "here's how I do it and why I think it is a good idea". One of our trad shooters was chastised for shooting split finger side anchor rather than 3-under high cheek anchor. Both are legit anchors with different advantages, but the "helpful" archer telling our student only knew his way was the "correct" way for trad.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> As an aside, most of our students shoot trad, without sites. Some move on to sights as they get more serious, others elect to stick with sights (USA Archery, please fix the trad/barebow/"novice" outdoor JOAD pins!!!!).


AMEN.

I have yet another young lady contemplating quitting JOAD because there is no barebow division and her peers have all switched to sights, clickers and stabilizers. It reminds me of my oldest daughter version 2.0 

USArchery will never know how many young archers they've lost because they don't have a barebow division for JOAD.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> AMEN.
> 
> I have yet another young lady contemplating quitting JOAD because there is no barebow division and her peers have all switched to sights, clickers and stabilizers. It reminds me of my oldest daughter version 2.0
> 
> ...


I have to say that getting the barebow scores fixed (twice) for the AAP pins was fairly easy with Jane Johnson's able help and Diane Watson's cooperation. But JOAD? Not so much. I don't even get so much as an automated email response back from anyone, though I haven't tried the new outreach coordinator yet... :dontknow:

(Also, typo on my part, I meant to say "others elect to stick with*out* sights" :embara: )


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I know USArchery has the recommendations for the barebow achievement pins for JOAD. Now, they need to do something with that.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I know USArchery has the recommendations for the barebow achievement pins for JOAD. Now, they need to do something with that.


Is "they" someone more than just Denise? Or is it just up to her to get it approved and implemented?

And, on topic, what is the essence of archery? Not philosophically or anything that high minded, but what can we learn from looking at the top archers across multiple disciplines and looking for what, if anything they have in common? If you could emphasize only one technique to archers, what would it be? (I'll consider driven motivation , and other non-archery stuff that successful competitors have as a separate issue.)


----------



## swbuckmaster (Dec 20, 2005)

do any of you know if there is a youtube video clip of of a RA using the national training system.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

swbuckmaster

Start here:

http://www.astraarchery.com/Videos/Entries/2011/3/8_Nick_Kale_using_the_Shot_Trainer.html

and below it there's a link to youtube videos.

Also here: http://www.jakekaminski.com


Cheers
Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, all good archers have great balance and good alignment at full draw. But many of them get there in completely different ways. There is no "one way."

SWBuckmaster, there are many.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

SWB, what limbwalker says is +1 from me. 

After a certain stage, archery becomes about the archer and not about the coach. 

In other words, especially in a skill sport like archery, learning is acquisitive. It's up to the archer to go get the knowledge, find the right combination of archer, coach, equipment, motivation, practice, instead of just sitting back and being spoon-fed this or that methodology wholesale. So the archer's path can involve a lot of experimentation, or not, depending on the personality of the archer.

A lot of elite archers don't shoot NTS. Most elite archers on the planet aren't even from the USA, or Korea. But I guarantee you that in this age of archery.tv, they will, every last one of them, have studied it, at least, and every other style under the sun, and then made a decision which parts, if any, to adopt into their own styles, and which to leave well alone.

And we're not all built like Asians - there are five basic skeletal types on the planet, so form isn't a one-size-fits-all prescription.

Which is why the coaches, especially here in the USA (which is, after all, half of the world, put together  need to be every flexible in their approach to students in general. 

Also, don't forget that archery is Korea's national sport. Which means they're much more motivated (like most jocks here) to toe the political line and do things the party (coaches') way because their potential rewards are that much higher than ours are over here.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Dec 20, 2005)

Ive never bought into one way for anyone. You do have to be flexible. However when starting a new archer out it is nice to have a standard. When the new archer becomes more aware of his own hold he will modify it to fit himself.

I know very little about the system but have been shown how to do it once by a coach. I personally dont like the herky jerky multi step approach to the draw. This is why i dont coach the recurve shooters.

I draw a recurve bow like i draw my compound. I just try and imagine my elbow is in a straight line from the tip of my elbow to tip of my arrow. Adjust my draw or clicker to get desired alignment results. Like i said i dont coach recurve shooters.

So i wanted to know if the are RA even using this system. In my mind if it was such a good system the RA would be using it. 


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Chris RL said:


> (snip)
> And we're not all built like Asians - there are five basic skeletal types on the planet, so form isn't a one-size-fits-all prescription.


And don't forget that not all Asians are built like what you consider an "Asian" build.


----------



## Chris RL (Oct 30, 2011)

The thing is, we (coaches) get faced with one single National Training System... and then have to take an NTS course in order to "advance" up the chain of USAA certification... so then it's pretty easy to fall into an assumption of "one system fits all", especially if it's named BEST.

And since this is an open forum, anybody, including beginners who wish to advance, can get a hold of this information and if not careful will try and skip a few steps to get to the top quickly. Because all of us want to be *elite*, right?

But then again we're not all that gullible, are we? 

I mean, in other countries, "amateur" just means that one loves it. No connotations of inferiority. No hint that "professional" means superior. Just here in the US. 

i.e. there are, and should be, many "amateurs" who perform better than many pros. And not for the money/profession/business. For the love of it. And so for them, "elite" should mean something else entirely apart from the high stakes world of competition.

Pity that ain't in the US culture of the moment.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

_"...all good archers have great balance and good alignment at full draw"_

If I may nudge John's observation in a more esoteric direction ... what do the most talented quarterbacks, NCAA wrestlers, gymnasts, archers, and chess players all have in common? 'Clear spatial awareness of the endeavor' ... these actors can see the endeavor in its entirety and can also innately 'see/feel/know' their correct/optimum position in the endeavor. So I think the most talented archers (which doesn't necessarily include all of the top guys/girls at any one moment - lots of times 'other worldly hard work and above average talent' will surpass 'other worldly talent and above average hard work') have the 'third eye' that allows them to see perfect form and then just comfortably put their body and its line into the same optimum flow in space.

Parallel parking a car 'with ease' requires the same sense of 'spatial awareness and your position in that space'. I contend that you show me someone with a natural talent for parallel parking a car, and I'll show you someone with natural talent for archery.


----------



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

You've clearly never been driven anywhere by a top female Korean shooter.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Dec 20, 2005)

I can parallel park a truck and horse trailer so i should be dang good at archery.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## swbuckmaster (Dec 20, 2005)

>--gt--> said:


> You've clearly never been driven anywhere by a top female Korean shooter.


Lol

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lksseven said:


> _"...all good archers have great balance and good alignment at full draw"_
> 
> If I may nudge John's observation in a more esoteric direction ... what do the most talented quarterbacks, NCAA wrestlers, gymnasts, archers, and chess players all have in common? 'Clear spatial awareness of the endeavor' ... these actors can see the endeavor in its entirety and can also innately 'see/feel/know' their correct/optimum position in the endeavor. So I think the most talented archers (which doesn't necessarily include all of the top guys/girls at any one moment - lots of times 'other worldly hard work and above average talent' will surpass 'other worldly talent and above average hard work') have the 'third eye' that allows them to see perfect form and then just comfortably put their body and its line into the same optimum flow in space.
> 
> Parallel parking a car 'with ease' requires the same sense of 'spatial awareness and your position in that space'. I contend that you show me someone with a natural talent for parallel parking a car, and I'll show you someone with natural talent for archery.


I think that parallel parking is a very indirect example what is probably the key skill of top archers, which is body awareness, not just spatial awareness. I expect that top archers all have very good proprioception and kinesthesia--that is, they know by their own senses where their body is when still and moving.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Agreed. Common traits shared by all good athletes, and the reason it's so much easier to teach some students than others.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Excellent idea for a thread John...as usual always toughtful. And, excellent impute, but John can you give a sample of what a training cycle, week, or day might be like....starting with warm ups.

Viper is spot on by including adults...I think there is a very important need to pay attention to the adult shooters and not just the kids.

How much should an archer plan on shooting....150, 200, 300 or more arrows per day. Do they break down the training schedule to work on parts of the shot or just work on the whole shot. I'm probably asking for to much information, but I have always wonders how much time an elite shooter might spend behind the bow on a daily basis.

Do they shoot regularly and then ramp up their shot count as a major tournament grows closer.....etc, etc, etc.

Thanks

Art


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. Common traits shared by all good athletes, and the reason it's so much easier to teach some students than others.


Yes, sometimes we'll teach a brand new archer who shoots for the first time and just gets it. They can repeat the steps exactly as instructed, and their arrows group incredibly tightly for a new shooter. And then they never come back again. They have the talent but not the interest. And we also get some kids who really struggle, but try really hard. It can be very satisfying to help these natural underdogs to succeed, to get to a point where they can feel a sense of accomplishment and enjoyment in their shooting. The kinds of kids who would never pass the "try outs" we've read at least one JOAD program has. :dontknow:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> It can be very satisfying to help these natural underdogs to succeed, to get to a point where they can feel a sense of accomplishment and enjoyment in their shooting. The kinds of kids who would never pass the "try outs" we've read at least one JOAD program has.


Roger that. 

Art, training cycles should be tailored to each individual. There is no one answer for everyone, or even one answer for a single archer, since our goals change, and schedules change, from week to week and year to year.

One thing that remains constant however is strength training for those who choose to shoot recurve. Without consistent strength training of some sort, you can throw technique and equipment out the window because you won't be able to use either effectively. 

This is why you see so many top recurve archers switch to compound later in their career. Because they just cannot continue to be competitive if they cannot or will not keep up the physical conditioning required to shoot recurve well. Even just two weeks off from shooting a recurve will have a significant affect on performance.

John


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Even just two weeks off from shooting a recurve will have a significant affect on performance.


When I was training to try to get to 42lbs on my recurve, I found that just 2 days off had a significant affect! If I wasn't shooting at least 50-100 shots a day, 2 days off would set me back 3-4 days as far as being able to train at the same level. Of course I'm getting old (er) so it takes longer to recover.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Without getting long and breathy, just what does an elite archery do that is special...time shooting, arrow shot per day. time spent on technique.

I sent another post that didn't go through. I hear from time to time that normal...regular normal shooters don't understand what elite shooters do to get as good as they do (minus talent) and never hear what they actually do. It would be nice for once to hear, understand, and get the actual dope on what an elite shooter does in training.

I know one person said in another thread that elite shooters really face no sacrifice because they are doing what they want to do, but this thread has the tone that they are making sacrifices, at least compared to the average shooter. So, what are they.

Come clean if you know. If not stay out of this.....no opinions are necessary from wannabees.


Art


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

>--gt--> said:


> You've clearly never been driven anywhere by a top female Korean shooter.


Haha, good one! You're kind of quipping at the shadow of my notion, but it's a good quip nonetheless. Yea George!


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

ArtV said:


> Without getting long and breathy, just what does an elite archery do that is special...time shooting, arrow shot per day. time spent on technique.


When I was at the OTC for my L4 course, the Women's Taipai Coach was there taking the same course and of course we all were asking the same question.

Their team in the midst of guided practice, strength training, form work, etc they shoot an AVERAGE of 800-1000 arrows a day, every day. Some days more some days less but that's the average..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> they shoot an AVERAGE of 800-1000 arrows a day, every day.


Nonsense. It's rumors like that that get people hurt, or discouraged, or both. 



> just what does an elite archery do that is special...time shooting, arrow shot per day. time spent on technique.


Art, they are all different. Some put in 8+ hours / day on archery, some 8 hours/ week. 

If you want to look at what the top archers at the training center do, not even they put in a regular work week on just archery training alone. And for good reason. The body just flat cannot take 8 hours of physical training/day for long periods of time. 

Anywhere from 3-5 hours of training per day, 4-5 days a week is sufficient. Especially once the technique and strength have been achieved. 

Veteran "elites" need less time to maintain their performance than those who are still developing.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Nonsense. It's rumors like that that get people hurt, or discouraged, or both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi John,

Several of us pressed the coach regarding this. She explains, It's not always 800 arrows shot at full weight, and as you mention these athletes don't work. This is their work. 10 hrs a day, 7 days a week if they are in the midst of a training regiment. Something we sometimes forget, for many other countries, Olympic athletes are developed to be just that. Nothing else for the several years leading up to the Olympics. 


An example of a typical day for these "full time athletes" might go like this.

Get up, eat a light snack.
Shoot 200 arrows including warm ups, blank bale, etc. maybe even at lower weights working on form, no targets.
Break for real breakfast. Studies, Cardio or other light physical training or maybe stretching.
Shoot another 200 arrows. which includes some blank bale warmups, and 2 sets of 72 arrows and a cool down.
Lunch. and rest.
another activity after lunch (maybe social or mental training, watching videos, etc)
Shoot another 200 arrows some other combination of exercises scoring or blankbale, form work, Maybe less arrows and SPT's
Rest.. Dinner.
evening shoot another 200 arrows in some form.
another activity, Maybe social time, watch TV or movie, decompress, etc..
Bed..

Do I agree with the regiment? Not really.
Should we try to get our intermediate athletes to try to commit to this. As John says, NONSENSE! Without proper build up and ongoing maintenance, full time coaching and trainers, it is a recipe for injury and long term disability. so it's something I would discourage as well but, it is what the coach from that country's team explained.

You also have to remember that it's China. A country that takes the most promising kids from their families, and grooms them as athletes from a very young age with little regard for long term health and long term productive athletes. They expect them to go to one, maybe two Olympics and then their career would be over.. Make way for the next promising athlete.

John's response, relates to the USA and probably a lot of other countries training for athletes. Especially countries that don't flat out "sponsor" their Olympic athletes. 

And yes, as you get better and better, it takes less maintenance to keep up the performance.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Thanks


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dchan,

I'm pretty sensitive to this issue because it's easy for developing archers (many of whom are following threads like this one) to see those few "extreme" examples (not all of which I believe even still) and think that's what they must do to be competitive.

Those are just a handful of countries and a handful of archers. This is not the norm. 

People should also realize that training alone is not a direct path to becoming an elite archer. 

It's a three-legged stool. Training, Talent and Technique all contribute to whether someone will ever reach that status. Take one away and you may never reach that status.

The hardest of these to gauge is Talent. It is disguised in many forms and is not as easy to see - even to the trained eye - as you may think. And people express talent for things like archery more or less at different ages. I've seen some young archers express a great deal of talent at 10, or 14, or 20, then plateau and watch everyone else catch up with them.

But ultimately, the true elites are just incredibly gifted athletes who would most likely be good at any number of things they try to do. 

I don't say this to discourage anyone, but it should be considered when a person sets goals for themselves. It's just not very reasonable to think you are going to be a USAT-class archer if you've never had any success in any other athletic or physical endeavor. Goes back to the priopreception and body control discussion we were having on another thread...


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

1000 arrows ... average, say, of 30 seconds per arrow ... equals 500 minutes of actual shooting, which is over 8 hours ... of just actual shooting, not including all the other normal stuff mentioned that consumes time (training, watching videos, walking and pulling arrows, meals, potty breaks, resting, bow maintenance, ??? 800 arrows is still right at 7 hours of actual shooting, plus all the other stuff. Every day? It's hard not to think that sounds a bit fantastical. 

But I guess the basic point is that, regardless of the exact numbers, they train a LOT and shoot a LOT of arrows.


----------



## Sneezy (Dec 4, 2012)

forgive me for sounds like a newb (oh wait i am lol) what is the difference between elite and non elite training? i thought all archers had to begin with the same routines for learning that included stance, grip, alignment of the, and elbow out so you dont have funny people accusing you of letting a vacuum sucking on your forearm. so i see where you are coming from one must learn to walk before they can run. but i guess i am in such a small place and dont get much exposure to the more advanced portions of the sport that i didnt know there were more elite techniques (i understand that training/routine for an Olympic style shoot out is much different then training for hunting) out there then just learning the basics and learning them well. 

so would you mind sharing some of those more advanced techniques or a site that i could look at to get a better idea of what you are talking about. 

sorry if my question is outta place i just really had no idea that there were elite ways to do things that didnt include the basics. 

thanks in advance for the reply! 
-Russ




limbwalker said:


> At this point in time, I see so many coaches - and archers - being caught up with what I consider elite training techniques when what they really need are basic, fundamental skills to get them further along the path of progress in this sport.
> 
> I'm sure plenty will disagree, but many of the techniques being taught to our RA's and JDT's are elite training methods that simply make NO SENSE to attempt to teach to beginning and even intermediate recreational archers.
> 
> ...


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

John

I agree with all your points, except maybe one slight little poimt.

And I would not have even mentioned it if this were one of the regular how do I get better/hows my form threads. And thanks for the clarification to everyone else.

It is extreme training that takes a major toll on the body. And it may even be considered abusive by many. 

The main point is besides natural talent it takes a lot of time, good practice and a lot of commitment to be competitive even at the local level. To be competitive at the elite level is a whole different game.

The point I may have a small exception to is the natural talent "leg" of the stool. Some of that leg can be bolstered up some with sheer determination (And this would be a very small exception as well) but the person that comes to mind is our own Rick. Don't know if he was just giving us a story, but he told our L3 class, he was horrible at archery when he started out. He felt there was no real talent there. The rest of his siblings were all pretty good so he was so determined to get better than them that he just kept at it.

I see this in other sports as well. Sometimes "naturals" get lazy and never reach their highest potential because they think they don't have to work at it and then become discouraged when others begin to pass them.

Re the time/number of arrows/time in a day.
Again different training methods. This part was explained as well. One of our class "did the math" and questioned that as well.
State sponsored program, money is not an object.. 
When blank bale shooting or some other exercises, they shoot much faster. Maybe 5-15 seconds per shot depending on the exercise.
Shooting rounds, when not scoring, each athlete may have 24-36 or more arrows to shoot.. 
Also they have people to pull arrows for them so no time needs to be spent walking back and forth.

And as John also points out this is just one of only a few countries that may train this way. Not the norm.

Either way. Lots of arrows, lots of training.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

dc,

Just as a question of curiosity (not trying to be argumentative), what benefit are they seeking by shooting blank bale at a rate of 5-15 seconds per arrow?


----------



## Velvetme (Apr 12, 2012)

I'm in my first year of shooting and yes, it is ridiculous to put in more than say, 15 hours a week. Muscles are not built yet and even now after 8 months of 1000 arrows a WEEK, I still have to take 2-3 days off for stiff joints and recovery time. I am a very slight build female and I have hired a trainer for 1st of the year, the rest of my body needs to be able to support and sustain this level of activity, and I won't be into 36 lbs before February at the very earliest. 
That being said as my coach works with me to develop better form and practice routines, I will be able to shoot 280s indoor in a few more weeks (god willing) I expect each point thereafter would take me between 2-4 weeks depending on how many equipment changes or draw changes we make, yes the draw for me is an *ever evolving thing. Anchor and release were something I think I more or less fell into.

If I am on the "elite" track, it's absolutely none of my business! Perhaps not even my Coach's. Semantics and conjecture. My body can only take so much and NTS or no, I will develop at the rate I am capable of - no 1000 arrow challenge is necessary unless I can consistently execute 100, and I have no ambitions to try except to earn the bragging rights that I "can" do it.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Depending on the exercise. Just calling it blank bale is probably a bad way to describe it. If for instance the exercise is to repeat over and over a specific movement pattern not the whole shot cycle, there would be little reason concentrate or "slow" for other parts of the shot. If you are doing it with a training bow of lighter draw weight, the timing and exercise may change. 

The benefit is the repetition of a specific movement pattern so it is ingrained in the muscle memory.

So for instance, the goal is to get someone to pre-tension a bow and raise the bow up to the pre-draw position with the shoulders set "down".
they may hand them a light draw bow, same mass weight/configuration so they can shoot the bow easily with out really working on anything else except the specified movement pattern.

It's a different process of training than we often use for our "regular" archery students.

Reminds me of the movie "The Karate Kid" Wax on, Wax off../ Jacket off jacket on, Hang up jacket, pickup jacket, throw it on the floor.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Velvetme said:


> I'm in my first year of shooting and yes, it is ridiculous to put in more than say, 15 hours a week. Muscles are not built yet and even now after 8 months of 1000 arrows a WEEK, I still have to take 2-3 days off for stiff joints and recovery time. I am a very slight build female and I have hired a trainer for 1st of the year, the rest of my body needs to be able to support and sustain this level of activity, and I won't be into 36 lbs before February at the very earliest.
> That being said as my coach works with me to develop better form and practice routines, I will be able to shoot 280s indoor in a few more weeks (god willing) I expect each point thereafter would take me between 2-4 weeks depending on how many equipment changes or draw changes we make, yes the draw for me is an *ever evolving thing. Anchor and release were something I think I more or less fell into.
> 
> If I am on the "elite" track, it's absolutely none of my business! Perhaps not even my Coach's. Semantics and conjecture. My body can only take so much and NTS or no, I will develop at the rate I am capable of - no 1000 arrow challenge is necessary unless I can consistently execute 100, and I have no ambitions to try except to earn the bragging rights that I "can" do it.


36lbs in just over a year? That's faster than I would try to push any of my students. Especially with the people we are getting now. Of course it's been hard trying to hold them back. For most recreational archers I never really understood the desire to shoot 36-40lbs other than the "bragging rights" and if that's the goal, fine. There are some needs for heavy bows. Hunting, longer distances or even 3d in some cases. I think John even mentioned his daughter was shooting a fairly light weight bow for many years. There's no need to pull heavy bows unless you need the energy to fire an arrow those longer distances. 

But as you say, the body needs to recover. Just for reality check for the rest of those that are contemplating serious training and read John and my dialog. Those kids in some of the state sponsored programs probably took years to get to the 25-30 lb range. Most have been shooting or training to shoot from a very young age. Korea has the kids drawing stretch bands for years before even handing them a bow. The Canadian Archery Federation published a chart in a study that maps out recommended bow weights based on age, gender and time in the sport. 36lbs is somewhere past 2-8 years in the sport for a male archer over 18. 36lbs doesn't even show up on their recommended chart for Female archers. Granted it's a pretty conservative study but then again. We live in a "instant gratification" society. The study also maps out hours of practice recommended for athletes based on goals. It is an interesting read. 

DC


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sneezy said:


> forgive me for sounds like a newb (oh wait i am lol) what is the difference between elite and non elite training? i thought all archers had to begin with the same routines for learning that included stance, grip, alignment of the, and elbow out so you dont have funny people accusing you of letting a vacuum sucking on your forearm. so i see where you are coming from one must learn to walk before they can run. but i guess i am in such a small place and dont get much exposure to the more advanced portions of the sport that i didnt know there were more elite techniques (i understand that training/routine for an Olympic style shoot out is much different then training for hunting) out there then just learning the basics and learning them well.
> 
> so would you mind sharing some of those more advanced techniques or a site that i could look at to get a better idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> ...


Your question is not out of place. 

Elite training is whatever the elite archers do to train. Plain and simple. And that is all over the map. There is no one "elite" training method or schedule. Funny thing is that a lot of non-elite archers train as if they were elite archers, with less than elite results. 

Again, all three legs to the stool have to be there for one to reach that "world class" level.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The main point is besides natural talent it takes a lot of time, good practice and a lot of commitment to be competitive even at the local level. To be competitive at the elite level is a whole different game.


Well, there you go again. I think you are falling into the trap of believing (as most do) that elite archers are somehow doing something that nobody else is doing.

They're not.

They just make more efficient use of their time because of their physical talents and - generally - advanced intellectual capacity for their chosen activity. 99% of world class archers are just plain "archery smart." They almost intuitively know how to get the job done in the fewest possible steps, and waste very little time or energy worrying about or dealing with things that aren't going to help them get better. 

Most amatuers just haven't figured out the difference between things that matter, and those that don't, so they may spend as much or more time training and working on technique and equipment as the "elites" but still not be getting anywhere fast.

I like to look at the training spectrum as an exercise in efficiency. Elite training is just the most efficient form of training.

John


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

lksseven said:


> 1000 arrows ... average, say, of 30 seconds per arrow ... equals 500 minutes of actual shooting, which is over 8 hours ... of just actual shooting, not including all the other normal stuff mentioned that consumes time (training, watching videos, walking and pulling arrows, meals, potty breaks, resting, bow maintenance, ??? 800 arrows is still right at 7 hours of actual shooting, plus all the other stuff. Every day? It's hard not to think that sounds a bit fantastical.
> 
> But I guess the basic point is that, regardless of the exact numbers, they train a LOT and shoot a LOT of arrows.


Think outside the box. It is TOTALLY doable.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Lol!


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Well, there you go again. I think you are falling into the trap of believing (as most do) that elite archers are somehow doing something that nobody else is doing.


I probably didn't word that quite right, and I agree with your correction of my wording. My intention was that the next step beyond local competitive athletes is a *big* step. How they get there, as you have pointed out and I agree with, is very individual. They do however need to go through the same processes, training etc as everyone else, How much commitment, time or resources also weigh into this. Of course there are some other physical attributes and natural talent that help them along but it's not a "magic pill or process" that gets them to that elite level.

I'll take it back to skiing. I have been skiing since I was 4. I started teaching skiing 10 years ago (at age 42) and decided to try to get to the highest level of certification (L3 here in the US) It took me 2 years to attain L1 and L2 certification and my trainers tell me that is no small task. Many other full time instructors struggle to reach that level that quickly and I'm a part time instructor.. It took me 8 more years to just pass the skiing portion of my L3 certification. L2 I would relate to being competitive at the local level. The L3 skiing is like being competitive at the state level. I don't ever expect to be an "elite" athlete in skiing but I continue to train that way. I just don't have the time and resources (or body/age anymore) to get there.

My point in that comment was, those last few points to compete at that next level beyond the local/state are very hard gotten points. It gets harder and harder as you get closer to the top.. thus a "whole different game"


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> 99% of world class archers are just plain "archery smart." They almost intuitively know how to get the job done in the fewest possible steps, and waste very little time or energy worrying about or dealing with things that aren't going to help them get better.
> 
> Most amatuers just haven't figured out the difference between things that matter, and those that don't, so they may spend as much or more time training and working on technique and equipment as the "elites" but still not be getting anywhere fast.


So, how much of NTS consists of things that matter? :dontknow:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If the answer was 1%, would you still want to learn it? 

It's a game of fractions of an inch at the USAT level and above. Each individual has to decide for themselves if the "juice is worth the squeeze" so to speak. For many, it's not. For a very few, it is.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> It's a game of fractions of an inch at the USAT level and above.


Exactly, which is why I wonder how much of the NTS system we should teach to those below USAT level...

To a certain extent, it is just practical to standardize on NTS. At dchan's program he's worked to do that, and I think there is merit to having everyone roughly on the same page since kids learn by example. But with in that context, I still wonder what aspects of it to emphasize at various levels, and as much as I know that experience is one of the ways we determine that, I also know that expert intuition can lead us correctly and it can lead us astray (I've just starting reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman which is about the current science on "intuitive" thinking vs. slow, cognitive thinking), which is why I'm always looking for good scientific data on this topic--the kind of stuff I was lead to believe KSL Shot Cycle/BEST Method was entirely built from, but have since found it really isn't.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yours is a great question, and frankly, teaching all of NTS to beginners is a bit much. Like drinking from a fire hose.

I'd love to see some practical guidance on what components of NTS to introduce, when. Because in real life, that's how it works with good coaches. They only give the student as much as they can handle at that time...

John


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

spangler said:


> Think outside the box. It is TOTALLY doable.
> 
> View attachment 1537313


Haha - that's great!!! Just another example of why people should follow the very good advice of "Don't Mess with Texas (and Texans)!"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If he were from Texas, those arrows would have explosive tips Larry.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Yours is a great question, and frankly, teaching all of NTS to beginners is a bit much. Like drinking from a fire hose.
> 
> I'd love to see some practical guidance on what components of NTS to introduce, when. Because in real life, that's how it works with good coaches. They only give the student as much as they can handle at that time...
> 
> John


Now I wish I still had that video Coach Lee showed during our L4 when we talked about this very subject.

He had one of his younger students (I think she was 11 or 12) "teach NTS" to another beginner student. It was an example of how simple it could be and still cover the basics. She used 9 or 10 steps, Explained very simply the steps in order while demonstrating it. 

No real detail or breakdown on each step but it didn't miss anything that a beginner would need and didn't dwell on anything too long. Perfect example of how NTS could be taught within the same framework and not be "too much information" as to overwhelm a beginner.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

lksseven said:


> Haha - that's great!!! Just another example of why people should follow the very good advice of "Don't Mess with Texas (and Texans)!"


I'm going to pretend you didn't just call me a Texan.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

spangler said:


> Think outside the box. It is TOTALLY doable.
> 
> View attachment 1537313


Hmm.

Now is that 3 over, 3 under or split finger? How many arrow rests does it take to do that? What's he using for an anchor? , That grip is all wrong, he's grabbing the bow!. There's no stabilizer, he can't possibly shoot well without a stabilizer! There's no arm guard, Boy he's macho!, Wait the bow is canted! 






Oh wait. Over thinking it.. again...


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

dchan said:


> Now I wish I still had that video Coach Lee showed during our L4 when we talked about this very subject.
> 
> He had one of his younger students (I think she was 11 or 12) "teach NTS" to another beginner student. It was an example of how simple it could be and still cover the basics. She used 9 or 10 steps, Explained very simply the steps in order while demonstrating it.
> 
> No real detail or breakdown on each step but it didn't miss anything that a beginner would need and didn't dwell on anything too long. Perfect example of how NTS could be taught within the same framework and not be "too much information" as to overwhelm a beginner.


I frequently use my 13 year old daughter to assist as I coach beginners. Especially mid teenage girls and she does exactly this. She has heard it from me for so long that she could probably recite it in her sleep now. It also has 2 added advantages, I feel you don't really understand something unless you can explain it, and frequently, when explaining it to more people you tend to learn more about it. Also, it helps make teenage female students a little more at ease and relaxed when another girl their age is helping them as they start out.

Andrew


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

spangler said:


> I frequently use my 13 year old daughter to assist as I coach beginners. Especially mid teenage girls and she does exactly this. She has heard it from me for so long that she could probably recite it in her sleep now. It also has 2 added advantages, I feel you don't really understand something unless you can explain it, and frequently, when explaining it to more people you tend to learn more about it. Also, it helps make teenage female students a little more at ease and relaxed when another girl their age is helping them as they start out.
> 
> Andrew


YUP. Great example.. She probably doesn't use all the "technical terms" either, Just the simple ones that make sense to someone just starting out. As coaches it's very easy to "over explain" or "over teach". Something I try to instill in all our instructors. Get them to the line, make a couple of safe shots, and "WALK AWAY!"


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

dchan said:


> YUP. Great example.. She probably doesn't use all the "technical terms" either, Just the simple ones that make sense to someone just starting out. As coaches it's very easy to "over explain" or "over teach". Something I try to instill in all our instructors. Get them to the line, make a couple of safe shots, and "WALK AWAY!"


*nod* I overcoach her all the time and it is something I personally struggle with as a coach. John gave me some good advice at a recent shoot when I asked his evaluation of her form, "If I were you, I'd just let her shoot"

Andrew


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Chris RL said:


> The thing is, we (coaches) get faced with one single National Training System... and then have to take an NTS course in order to "advance" up the chain of USAA certification... so then it's pretty easy to fall into an assumption of "one system fits all", especially if it's named BEST.


As a US coach, you will advance up the chain of certification no matter how much you do or do not align yourself with NTS, BEST, or whatever system USAA goes to next only if USAA wants you for what ever reason they deem valuable. There is a definate ceiling in place in the US coach community for anyone that isn't "in favor" at the moment. . Your accomplishements, contributions, your hard work, expertise and knowledge means nothing, if they want ya, your in.... if they don't, your out.... simple as that... you can take all that you accomplish, all you do and just give and give, and get pushed aside if that is what the powers that be want. Nothing personal I am sure.... just how they do business.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

spangler said:


> I'm going to pretend you didn't just call me a Texan.


You haven't earned that title yet Andrew.  ha, ha.



> She used 9 or 10 steps, Explained very simply the steps in order while demonstrating it.
> 
> No real detail or breakdown on each step but it didn't miss anything that a beginner would need and didn't dwell on anything too long. Perfect example of how NTS could be taught within the same framework and not be "too much information" as to overwhelm a beginner.


Sounds reasonable. Hopefully that's what's been captured in the "new" level 1 and 2 instructor training.

Gonehuntin, PM sent.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Sounds reasonable. Hopefully that's what's been captured in the "new" level 1 and 2 instructor training.


Hmm...I guess we won't know until it appears without notice in the training materials supplied to people teaching the courses :mg:

I wish there was a version history web page the way software works so we could all know about the official changes when they happen so we can all be on the same page. Perhaps we could get an email/RSS Feed/Webpage that says:



> Release: 0.9.9 [07 Dec, 2012] New Features
> 
> Official KSL/USA Archery Shoes required for all archers. The specially designed KLS shoes designed to hurt you if you are in the wrong position, just like the KSL tab.
> 
> ...


Or something.... :dontknow:

It would be great if USA Archery would use this new fangled internet thing to communicate more efficiently to the coaches.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

John's comment remind me of a quote I heard once.


> Amateurs practice till they get it right. Professionals practice till they can’t get it wrong.


. This is the biggest difference I see between the recreational and elite archers.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

TomB,

The version I heard from a bird Lt. Col. was " 'remembering' doesn't mean you've learned it. You've learned it when you can't forget it."


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Having just returned from an NTS CE course at Chula Vista I will make 2 statements.

1) NTS is first and foremost a holding technique. It is one of many.

2) The "made-up" anatomy stems from the system insisting on describing movement not muscles. 

No one would have a problem if they said rotate your arm back keeping your triceps firm.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> No one would have a problem if they said rotate your arm back keeping your triceps firm.


True, but you didn't have to make up any anatomy to say that.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> True, but you didn't have to make up any anatomy to say that.


I call it Bob.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> True, but you didn't have to make up any anatomy to say that.


It's a hell of a lot simpler than saying something like "shift your scapula towards your thorasic vertibra using your rhomboids and stabilizing it with your lower trapezius while rotating your humerus around your spine and contracting your deltoids and triceps. Your radius and ulna should remain parallel to the arrow and your digital philanges remain contracted."

TAO
ex biology major


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> I call it Bob.
> 
> TAO


OK, but only if you get a tattoo to identify the exact spot since we can't find it on any anatomy chart. :tongue:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> It's a hell of a lot simpler than saying something like "shift your scapula towards your thorasic vertibra using your rhomboids and stabilizing it with your lower trapezius while rotating your humerus around your spine and contracting your deltoids and triceps. Your radius and ulna should remain parallel to the arrow and your digital philanges remain contracted."
> 
> TAO
> ex biology major


I can see an argument in favor of that, but the fake spots need to be described as just that, an imaginary spot to differentiate it from real anatomy, and, I think, with names that make sense rather than seemingly arbitrary initializations. I'm a bit of a literalist at heart so these kinds of things bug me, and I think they can hinder learning and understanding of the system if they aren't explained as being non-literal.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I'm a bit of a literalist at heart


Really? LOL 

TAO, did you sip a little kool-aid?


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I can see an argument in favor of that, but the fake spots need to be described as just that, an imaginary spot to differentiate it from real anatomy, and, I think, with names that make sense rather than seemingly arbitrary initializations. I'm a bit of a literalist at heart so these kinds of things bug me, and I think they can hinder learning and understanding of the system if they aren't explained as being non-literal.


Valid point.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

To be fair Warbow, Lee did explain "Lan2" to us JDT coaches as an arbitrary term many years ago. But, we were there in front of him. Not everyone gets that advantage.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Really? LOL
> 
> TAO, did you sip a little kool-aid?


Only one small sip, I swear! 

I did get to ask coach Lee all of the questions that you and I talked about a while back. We had a lively discussion about slapping the bow down on release. (I used vector analysis LOL) It does solve a problem but I use a properly weighted stabilizer to do the same thing. It's not something I'm going to teach my JOAD kids in any event. It was a good 4 days. Jim White, Steve Cornell and Larry Weiss were also there. Your name came up a few times. 

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> OK, but only if you get a tattoo to identify the exact spot since we can't find it on any anatomy chart. :tongue:


I'm game!

Since there have been a few changes to NTS over the last year, maybe we can call it Lan2.1?

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> To be fair Warbow, Lee did explain "Lan2" to us JDT coaches as an arbitrary term many years ago. But, we were there in front of him. Not everyone gets that advantage.


...also known as "most people." 

Perhaps the USA Archery book "Archery" , scheduled to be released on Friday, will also note that LAN 2 is an arbitrary point so that folks like me can avoid trying to figure out exactly which anatomical feature LAN 2 is supposed to correspond to. :embara:

(Also, not sure why the USA Archery book isn't a bit more precise in its title: USA Archery's National Training System, or some such, rather than "The Ultimate resource for recurve and compound archers" Really? The last resource? It better have a great section on barebow recurve :wink: )


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> We had a lively discussion about slapping the bow down on release. (I used vector analysis LOL) It does solve a problem but I use a properly weighted stabilizer to do the same thing. It's not something I'm going to teach my JOAD kids in any event.


Are you talking about bow "sit down", the affected forced bow hand follow through that exaggerates bow rotation? Because that is certainly something we don't teach beginning archers, and I've talked to a few college coaches who eschew it as well. With the draw hand follow through we emphasize a natural rather than affected follow through, as created by the natural muscle tension without opposition. Bow sit down seems the opposite, an affectation that is not the natural follow through that would happen normally based on normal grip tension. I'm still a bit baffled by the contradictory theories of what a proper follow through should be like based on which arm we are talking about. :dontknow:


----------



## mrchaos102 (May 23, 2012)

I wish you coaches would come up with a study on your own video system. Beginner through advanced . I live in bFe no where and have no shops or ranges closer the a 2hr drive. I have spent the last year building up my archery equipment and bows for my family. The only thing i have to "coach" from is what i learned i 4h shooting sports as a kid and what i pick up here on at.

I wish i could take the whole family to a real coach. 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

mrchaos102 said:


> I wish you coaches would come up with a study on your own video system. Beginner through advanced . I live in bFe no where and have no shops or ranges closer the a 2hr drive. I have spent the last year building up my archery equipment and bows for my family. The only thing i have to "coach" from is what i learned i 4h shooting sports as a kid and what i pick up here on at.
> 
> I wish i could take the whole family to a real coach.


At the very least, they should produce video exemplars of someone demonstrating what the base model of their NTS system looks like--and it needs to be someone trained and vetted to do exactly what KSL says is the idealized model, not what it looks like after it has been customized for a shooter. It can be confusing looking at one of the OTC shooters and trying to figure out how much is KSL/BEST/NTS standard and how much is the archer's own personal style. It is really hard to learn motion, which is what archery involves, from a book of words and static pictures. So some on-line videos are a must, IMO.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> At the very least, they should produce video exemplars of someone demonstrating what the base model of their NTS system looks like--


We've been asking for something similar, there are two issues though. 1) The rest of the world would have our secret recipe (grin). 2) A lot of it is feel. You have to be shown what it feels like when you activate back and core tension properly by placing the body in the proper position and repeating it. We spend a lot of time with stretch bands. 

TAO


----------



## Velvetme (Apr 12, 2012)

I would still enjoy seeing the 13 year old girl explain everything, and being able to set those goals in form like we do in scoring. Once my basic goals were in place for stance to followthrough there is a waxing and waning of ideas for how to introduce NTS concepts. On top of that I am watching top female shooters and thinking this doesn't sound like what they are asking for explicitly either. There are things I can and cannot repeatedly do, but I am still lost as to where I should "end up" so it's left to some experimentation and tons and tons of arrows to refine what I can never be sure is correct, or how valuable my time is spent pursuing any given accomplishment. As a student I should have a right to know what classes I would need to take in college to become a lawyer, so that I might decide weather or not its a path I want to be on in the first place. 
The grey area is too large for anyone past a beginner if NTS doesn't wish to become a public vs private endeavor.


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Warbow said:


> At the very least, they should produce video exemplars of someone demonstrating what the base model of their NTS system looks like--and it needs to be someone trained and vetted to do exactly what KSL says is the idealized model, not what it looks like after it has been customized for a shooter. It can be confusing looking at one of the OTC shooters and trying to figure out how much is KSL/BEST/NTS standard and how much is the archer's own personal style. It is really hard to learn motion, which is what archery involves, from a book of words and static pictures. So some on-line videos are a must, IMO.


In my humble opinion, I think the reason that isn't feasable at this point in time is that the specifics of the explaination of skill sets, the actual very precise words they want to require us to spit back out at our students, and even their own belief in how to accomplish what they are trying to share with an entire nation, changes rapidly and unpredictably, they are still very much in transition. There would soon be many videos floating around out there that contradict each other greatly. Videos that I am pretty sure, that the ones of us that live in remote areas, with limited accessibility to udates, might add to misunderstandings and real confusion about NTS. This surely would do more harm than good. Videos really need to be made available to everyone, just not until the NTS has reached a final development of basics that are stable, with a solid foundation in predictible theory. We dont have that right now.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

IIRC, Lloyd Brown was able to produce a series of simple, easy to follow instructional videos pretty quickly once he arrived in England...


----------



## Acehero (Nov 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> IIRC, Lloyd Brown was able to produce a series of simple, easy to follow instructional videos pretty quickly once he arrived in England...


http://www.archerygb.org/support/operations/coaches/coaching_videos.php


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> IIRC, Lloyd Brown was able to produce a series of simple, easy to follow instructional videos pretty quickly once he arrived in England...


And it is actually very well done... I use if for my athletes all the time to help them to SEE what they need to understand in order to progress... it works very well for us...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Absolutely no reason that shouldn't have already been done here in the U.S.

We've had a new head coach for what? 7 years now?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

gonehuntin said:


> In my humble opinion, I think the reason that isn't feasable at this point in time is that the specifics of the explaination of skill sets, the actual very precise words they want to require us to spit back out at our students, and even their own belief in how to accomplish what they are trying to share with an entire nation, changes rapidly and unpredictably, they are still very much in transition. There would soon be many videos floating around out there that contradict each other greatly.


That isn't a problem with videos but the program in general. If they can't get the program to hold still long enough to write it down then it can't reasonably be called a national system. Again, I'd think that all the material needs to be version controlled, the same way web and software developers do, with version numbers and a version history/change log publicly posted. And it isn't as if we are still talking about books that can't be changed quickly, this is the internet and instant YouTube era. Oh, wait. USA Archery is printing a book  Called the ultimate (which means last you'll ever need) guide for compound and recurve archers. At the very least the book needs its NTS version number on it :embara:




gonehuntin said:


> Videos that I am pretty sure, that the ones of us that live in remote areas, with limited accessibility to udates, might add to misunderstandings and real confusion about NTS.
> This surely would do more harm than good.


Surely not.  Videos would not be more confusing, IMO, than trying to reconstruct motion from static descriptions and words in a book. And I'm not suggesting that the videos need to be self contained instructional programs, but in addition to other material.



gonehuntin said:


> Videos really need to be made available to everyone, just not until the NTS has reached a final development of basics that are stable, with a solid foundation in predictible theory. We dont have that right now.


Agreed, and the rest of the instructional material. I've read too many threads where someone attended a BEST/KSL/NTS lecture that used some training materials and the materials were not available to the coaches or students attending.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Acehero said:


> http://www.archerygb.org/support/operations/coaches/coaching_videos.php


Those are exactly some of the kinds of things what I've been hoping USA Archery would do. Simple, cleanly produced, clearly explained.

Archery GB has produced some good, basic videos and posted them on the web. USA Archery has just produced a printed book, with no ebook version available. US Archery needs to catch up to the 21st Century.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

IMO, introductory and intermediate archery does not need "versions" or "updates." Bows haven't changed shape or function for what, 10,000 years or so? 

Advanced to elite training, yes, I think that should always be state of the art, but the vast majority of archers just need good basic instruction and will never reach the advanced stage. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

John


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

The issue is that the changes made to the NTS sometimes ripple down to even the basics. Things like starting beginners off with a square stance and progressing to an open stance was OK within the NTS, now it's STRONGLY recommended that everyone starts with an open stance. An anchor at the corner of the mouth used to be OK for beginners and progressing to an under the jaw anchor was OK within the NTS, now it's STRONGLY recommended that everyone starts with an under anchor.

It's a question of at what point do you apply systems like NTS to students?


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

kshet26 said:


> The issue is that the changes made to the NTS sometimes ripple down to even the basics. Things like starting beginners off with a square stance and progressing to an open stance was OK within the NTS, now it's STRONGLY recommended that everyone starts with an open stance. An anchor at the corner of the mouth used to be OK for beginners and progressing to an under the jaw anchor was OK within the NTS, now it's STRONGLY recommended that everyone starts with an under anchor.
> 
> It's a question of at what point do you apply systems like NTS to students?


Well isnt this the real core of the problem, the ongoing changes that occur over and over and over again..... The teaching program appears to be all over the map, first this theory is the only way, then not so much.... then an entirely different theory is the only way... then not so much again.... and so on and so on. The "used to be this, but now is that", adjustment and readjustment of teaching techniques, starting from the very basics of what we are told we should be saying to the beginner archer, up to and including the most advanced athlete coaching techniques. Each change is touted to be the current "absolute only way" to teach archery. How confusing, and easy to see how it is that there are those of us out there that struggle with faith or trust in a program that, faced with so many dramatic, contradictory changes over such a short span, can be considered neither tried nor true. I see changes being thrown out there, and my first reaction is always "are you sure this time"?
If there were to be some steady, dependable, consistant archery development theory that everyone could rely on being the same next year as this year, and in the years to come, (excluding a natural subtle evolution, or ongoing advancement of knowledge that enhances and expands the success of a already proven teaching theory, of course) imagine how that might help to advance the skill of the coaching community in general, as well as the archer at all levels!!

The implication here is that there are 2 NTS for us to use... the beginner NTS, and then the advanced NTS, each different from the other... so, you get good work started and good results up front, only to have to go back and break down what you taught and start over with something else? For myself, I'm not a big fan of that.


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

>>> At the very least, they should produce video exemplars of someone demonstrating what the base model of their NTS system looks like

What about 

1. 'B.E.S.T Beginnings in Archery' DVD done by Easton with Don Rabska?
2. 'Next Level Archery' with Brady Ellison videos? - They have some trouble with their Web site - hopefully not for long.

GM


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> It's a question of at what point do you apply systems like NTS to students?


I think this really is the question, and why I started the thread.

Unless and until you have a student that you have identified as "serious" about this sport, AND has the temperment and resources for the long haul, then frankly it's a waste of time to start introducing a training program for experienced target archers. Now, you'll notice I didn't mention ages. That's because I've seen students who meet this criteria as young as 10, and some who were 40 that didn't. Usually the coach knows the difference pretty quickly.

But if you never work with beginning and intermediate students, then I guess it would seem like everyone should be learning NTS on day 1.

John


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

On one hand, I'm very happy to see that the NTS is willing to incorporate and try new things (it's definitely not slow to change!). On the other hand I'm not sure that every change is an evolution. For a system headed by a coach known for being focused on objective results (through testing and research) we get very little more than, "this new way is better than the old way, so do this new thing now instead". It's strange that if its a case of 'proprietary knowledge and reasoning only available to the elite', that it is a system intended for everyone.

For example, I've yet to see anything objective that shows an open stance (or any stance) is superior over another. Those in favor of open say it helps you get into your back and to resist swaying in the wind. Those in favor a square stance say that in high pressure situations it's one less thing that can go wrong (as opposed to open).


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

kshet26 said:


> Those in favor of open say it helps you get into your back and to resist swaying in the wind. Those in favor a square stance say that in high pressure situations it's one less thing that can go wrong (as opposed to open).


So... Is it OK to sway in the wind in high pressure situation?:wink:
Archery is mindless art - you do not have to think of what to do while shooting, so how something can go wrong? I often compare archery to eating soup. Do you think how do you move the spoon while eating it? If you overthinking every step while shooting, then you need more training at the bale. 

GM


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> IIRC, Lloyd Brown was able to produce a series of simple, easy to follow instructional videos pretty quickly once he arrived in England...


The problem is that these videos do not reflect the current evolution of NTS. For example, the set position is no longer to the inside but to the outside. The draw is no longer down from the arrow to the chest but up from the grip pressure point to the chest. There was no mention of draw wrist position or any of the steps that lead to holding. Decent videos for beginners but not NTS.

TAO


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

mrchaos102 said:


> I wish you coaches would come up with a study on your own video system. Beginner through advanced . I live in bFe no where and have no shops or ranges closer the a 2hr drive. I have spent the last year building up my archery equipment and bows for my family. The only thing i have to "coach" from is what i learned i 4h shooting sports as a kid and what i pick up here on at.
> 
> I wish i could take the whole family to a real coach.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


Working on it.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

kshet26 said:


> The issue is that the changes made to the NTS sometimes ripple down to even the basics. Things like starting beginners off with a square stance and progressing to an open stance was OK within the NTS, now it's STRONGLY recommended that everyone starts with an open stance. An anchor at the corner of the mouth used to be OK for beginners and progressing to an under the jaw anchor was OK within the NTS, now it's STRONGLY recommended that everyone starts with an under anchor.
> 
> It's a question of at what point do you apply systems like NTS to students?


They do recommend that you start from an open stance but it's not etched in stone. The anchor point is OK at the corner of the mouth. I teach a stripped down version to my JOAD group for simplicity's sake but I can add the missing information if they are serious. 

The real issue with any of the training systems is how to get to holding. If you can get your students to achieve the proper back tension and activate the correct muscle groups then your system will be successful. Call it B.E.S.T., call it NTS, call it BOB. If you get to the proper destination then you are ahead of the game.

Some of the issue is that the system is being tweaked by the atheletes. They will make changes and if it results in higher scores and fewer injuries then it is incorporated. Brady, Jake and Jacob are doing as much developement as Coach Lee at this point.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The problem is that these videos do not reflect the current evolution of NTS.


Why on earth would they? Lloyd is the head coach for GB, not USA. It's the National Training System, not the WORLD training system that I'm sure some would like for it to become... 

When I see the Korean women's team all shooting with an open stance, twisting at the waist, then I'll pay attention. Until then, it's just another way to stand to me.

Some of my students stand square, and some open. It depends on the problem I'm trying to solve with that particular student, and the posture they can achieve with either. If you're not coaching the individual, then you're not much of a coach IMO.

John


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Why on earth would they? Lloyd is the head coach for GB, not USA. It's the National Training System, not the WORLD training system that I'm sure some would like for it to become...
> 
> When I see the Korean women's team all shooting with an open stance, twisting at the waist, then I'll pay attention. Until then, it's just another way to stand to me.
> 
> ...


Totally correct.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Why on earth would they? Lloyd is the head coach for GB, not USA. It's the National Training System, not the WORLD training system that I'm sure some would like for it to become...
> 
> John


Then I missed your point John, I thought that you were responding to Warbow when he stated:



> At the very least, they should produce video exemplars of someone demonstrating what the base model of their NTS system looks like--and it needs to be someone trained and vetted to do exactly what KSL says is the idealized model, not what it looks like after it has been customized for a shooter. It can be confusing looking at one of the OTC shooters and trying to figure out how much is KSL/BEST/NTS standard and how much is the archer's own personal style. It is really hard to learn motion, which is what archery involves, from a book of words and static pictures. So some on-line videos are a must, IMO.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> If you're not coaching the individual, then you're not much of a coach IMO.
> 
> John


No argument there. 

BTW half of my archers use a closed stance and all of my barebow archers anchor at the corner of the mouth. Nobody is forced to do anything that they don't feel comfortable doing. The only time that I asked an archer to change their anchor from the corner of the mouth to under the chin is when we ran out of sight adjustment and needed more distance outside.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Georgemay said:


> >>> At the very least, they should produce video exemplars of someone demonstrating what the base model of their NTS system looks like
> 
> What about
> 
> 1. 'B.E.S.T Beginnings in Archery' DVD done by Easton with Don Rabska?


That was a great effort by ESF, but it was obsolete before it was even published because BEST keeps changing. Easton Sports Foundation abandoned the production of the companion book/pamphlet for the video, possibly because of the publication of the privately published book "Inside the Archer".




Georgemay said:


> 2. 'Next Level Archery' with Brady Ellison videos? - They have some trouble with their Web site - hopefully not for long.
> 
> GM


The Brady videos are kind of meh. Brady is a great shooter but not a polished instructor. There is some solid info in them. However, he shows how *he* shoots, and he shoots well, but it is his version of NTS rather than the exemplar of the official NTS. So if want to know how to shoot using Brady's NTS variation, they are a good source of info. But if you want the latest incarnation of NTS absent the personalization of one shooter, they are less useful since Brady doesn't distinguish one from the other.

**USA Archery** needs to do the exemplars because it is their system, their standard. Everyone else who isn't doing an official video, even ESF and Brady, is on the outside to one degree or another.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

_"So if want to know how to shoot using Brady's NTS variation, they are a good source of info. *But if you want the latest incarnation of NTS absent the personalization of one shooter*, they are less useful since Brady doesn't distinguish one from the other."_

Underlined sentence = the great irony. I guess I'm just glad there isn't a NTS for baseball pitchers.


----------



## bowgal (Jun 12, 2003)

OK, so we have our top recurve male shooter using a "version" of the NTS??? How can this be?? I thought being at the OTC you would be taught the NTS and you would use it? 

There has been a lot of turn over at the OTC, especially the Junior ranks, in recent years. Did they not fit the mold or the mold not fit them? 

So much confusion from the top level down to the beginner level..... 

FWIW


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bowgal said:


> OK, so we have our top recurve male shooter using a "version" of the NTS??? How can this be?? I thought being at the OTC you would be taught the NTS and you would use it


People are different so the system has to adapt some. Brady is very much NTS. But, as a non-elite instructor I don't necessarily know which parts are which. But we need to know so we don't teach archer-specific adaptations as the rule rather than the exception.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

When Coach Lee teaches NTS, he is trying to get archers to understand the concept of what NTS is. He will tell you that the most important part of the process is getting to holding. He doesn't care how you get to Holding so long as you do. That is one of the reasons why you will see variations between the RA's and many of the JDT members. When you reach the Holding position, we are looking for bow-side and draw-side alignment and good engagement of the back with a strong bowarm. If you follow the steps that are described in "Inside the Archer", that is NTS. The things that people keep calling changes are options that have been developed by Coach Lee, the RA's, or other archers/coaches that make it easier for some to either get to Holding or accomplish some of the things that Coach Lee talks about that are enhancements to the shot process. Most of these options were developed because we saw common problems with archers and wanted to develop something that would fix that problem. Some people don't have the flexibility to do the baseline process so alternate ways of doing things have been developed that help the archer get to Holding or accomplish some of the other things we would like to see in their process. Some of those options have helped more people than not so we incorporate it as a preferred way of doing things. It still isn't the only way to get to Holding. 

As Warbow said, Brady fully incorporates NTS. Even though he looks different than what is in the book, he executes the concept and gets to Holding. People that try to copy him just by looking at a video are making a mistake because they have no idea what he is doing inside his body. Without talking to him, they don't know how he manipulates his skeletal structure, how much muscle engagement he uses, what order he uses his muscles, why he does what he does, or what intensity he uses when he contracts his muscles.

For clarification, the bow hand flip or "sit-down" movement is not done to throw the bow down or rotate the bow down. When done correctly, the hand pivots in front of the riser as the riser continues to move forward until it hits the end of the finger sling. 

Terry Laney


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

bowgal said:


> OK, so we have our top recurve male shooter using a "version" of the NTS??? How can this be?? I thought being at the OTC you would be taught the NTS and you would use it?


I mentioned it earlier. NTS is a holding technique. All of the body motions and positions are designed to get you there. Coach Lee is the first to say that variations are expected because of body types.

TAO


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

bownut-tl. said:


> When Coach Lee teaches NTS, he is trying to get archers to understand the concept of what NTS is. He will tell you that the most important part of the process is getting to holding. He doesn't care how you get to Holding so long as you do. That is one of the reasons why you will see variations between the RA's and many of the JDT members. When you reach the Holding position, we are looking for bow-side and draw-side alignment and good engagement of the back with a strong bowarm. If you follow the steps that are described in "Inside the Archer", that is NTS. The things that people keep calling changes are options that have been developed by Coach Lee, the RA's, or other archers/coaches that make it easier for some to either get to Holding or accomplish some of the things that Coach Lee talks about that are enhancements to the shot process. Most of these options were developed because we saw common problems with archers and wanted to develop something that would fix that problem. Some people don't have the flexibility to do the baseline process so alternate ways of doing things have been developed that help the archer get to Holding or accomplish some of the other things we would like to see in their process. Some of those options have helped more people than not so we incorporate it as a preferred way of doing things. It still isn't the only way to get to Holding.
> 
> As Warbow said, Brady fully incorporates NTS. Even though he looks different than what is in the book, he executes the concept and gets to Holding. People that try to copy him just by looking at a video are making a mistake because they have no idea what he is doing inside his body. Without talking to him, they don't know how he manipulates his skeletal structure, how much muscle engagement he uses, what order he uses his muscles, why he does what he does, or what intensity he uses when he contracts his muscles.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this, Terry! Great explanation!!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And the discussion always gets to "what are the elites doing?"... 

Meanwhile, 90% + of those engaged in the sport just want good, simple, easy to understand instruction.

Try explaining NTS to the parent of a first year JOAD or 4-H student. It's not that it's not important to understand for those coaching high performing archers. It is. It's just that there is no point in even having the discussion until years 3 or 4 or maybe longer...

What we need right now are a WHOLE BUNCH of basic, qualified archery instructors. Not a bunch of elite NTS programmers.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> And the discussion always gets to "what are the elites doing?"...
> 
> Meanwhile, 90% + of those engaged in the sport just want good, simple, easy to understand instruction.
> 
> ...


Well, we all learn by example. So it is natural to look to the best examples of archery, the elite archers. It is not necessarily intuitive to coaches and beginning archers that the methods taught to elite archers might be too complicated, convoluted or contrived to successfully emulate.

So, the question is what should USA Archery do about the need to teach different groups of archers with different needs, or what should we do, absent a coherent plan from USA Archery? It does make sense for USA Archery to have a standardized program so that JOAD archers don't get to the OTC only to be told to start over with a different system (though with the BEST/NTS/KSL has been changing I guess that has been happening to some extent anyways.) On the other hand, NTS is way to advanced and nuanced and confusing for the needs of most archers, so we need a simpler system, or a subset of NTS, for them, and a clear path for transitioning people from one to the other, including when, why and why not.

The Basic Certification manual, 4th edition, does teach a simpler form. It, for instance, advocates T-Stance. But, curiously, it also teaches "Transfer/Hold" and "Aim/Expand". Transfer, and expansion? In the manual for summer camp counselors? But they use T-stance? I think if you are going to simplify to T-Stance then Transfer and expand need to go to. I'm still not sure how "expand" applies to non-clicker shooters. And transfer? Forget it. Not gonna happen in that context.

I'll be interested to see what the new no-ebook available book has to say when it comes out on Friday,


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Teaching transfer and expansion to basic instructors, for beginning students? Seriously? 

Give me a break.

We're obviously only interested in teaching toward one end. Way to be inclusive and consider ALL the current and future membership...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Teaching transfer and expansion to basic instructors, for beginning students? Seriously?
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> We're obviously only interested in teaching toward one end. Way to be inclusive and consider ALL the current and future membership...











And that is all the detail Basic Instructors (now L1s again) get on transfer, which is both too much (mentioning it) and too little (mentioning it but giving too little detail to be of any use). But that is better than "expansion":









Err, so what is expansion? And, no, it isn't clarified elsewhere in the manual that I can find, though I might have missed something. 

I think the updating of the Basic/L1 manuals has been a bit of haphazard process. I don't know if the 4th Edition is current because, well, USA Archery doesn't publish a change log or web page that tells instructors what info, or what manuals, are currently being used nor what has changed since the last manual.

The manual is, overall, terrific. I like the visual layout. The cutout pictures that let you see good and bad form at a glance. I like the overview of archery, the tips on instruction. But there are a number of things that just make you go, "????"

The 4th Ed. suggests T-stance for beginners, but I think they Photoshopped the photo to try to turn open stance to into T-stance:









The angle of the feet seems off for T-stance.

However, in other photos you can see the kid is using what looks like open stance:









Not really good examples of open stance or T-stance.

So, USA Archery still has some work to do (maybe its done already, how would I know since they don't post a list of changes???). One thing I'd like to see is a student version of this manual. Students can use a nice overview of archery as much as instructors can and I don't understand why USA Archery hasn't produced one. Seems like a no-brainer, and the Basic Instructor manual would be an excellent starting point for producing one with almost no labor needed since it can be preposterous from whatever is the current instructor manual.


----------



## Velvetme (Apr 12, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Teaching transfer and expansion to basic instructors, for beginning students? Seriously?
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> We're obviously only interested in teaching toward one end. Way to be inclusive and consider ALL the current and future membership...


Transfer/hold is not a concept out of reach for beginners, so long as you can show them how it feels to do so. We have had some great coaches visit our JOAD and they took only 20 minutes or so to demonstrate and I wouldn't have traded it for anything


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Velvetme said:


> Transfer/hold is not a concept out of reach for beginners, so long as you can show them how it feels to do so. We have had some great coaches visit our JOAD and they took only 20 minutes or so to demonstrate and I wouldn't have traded it for anything


I'd say it is out of reach for *beginning instructors* who take an 8 hour course on teaching archery which requires no previous archery experience, which is what the Basic Instructor manual is for.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

There are many types of "beginners." 

Some you'll see again, and some you won't. 

Some that want lots of detail, and some that just want to shoot balloons until they decide they want to learn more.

Any student that's asking about expansion, or coach that actually understands what it is (and can do it themselves) is well beyond the "beginner" stage in my mind.

AT has very few true "beginners" participating in these discussions. Most here are either intermediate, advanced intermediate, or expert archers. So the perspective here is skewed, I think.

John


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Warbow,

Don't disagree with anything you have put up. In step nine, there is a BRIEF statement that says, "Begin a slight expansion from the center of your chest..." Certainly NOT an explanation but does TOUCH lightly on it.

Ya, the first time I saw this was doing a L1 for a summer camp. Had to spend some time explaining the steps as explanation, then spent more giving them (camp counselors) information about what steps in the book to ignore. Basically a reader's digest version of the steps but telling them to leave out "load, transfer, expand." These were college age L1 candidates that had NEVER shot before and were only going to have about 4 archery sessions in a 1 week camp with their campers.

FWIW, my L2 students get a full dose of the KSL BUT even there, I am careful to explain that many of the steps are for their information but that for their beginning archers some steps should be simplified a lot.

It's a work in progress (one would hope) but I wonder when the process will "settle down" a little.

Arne


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> It's a work in progress (one would hope) but I wonder when the process will "settle down" a little.


Probably about the same time Congress stops passing new laws and tells the executive branch to just enforce the laws we already have.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I'd say it is out of reach for *beginning instructors* who take an 8 hour course on teaching archery which requires no previous archery experience, which is what the Basic Instructor manual is for.


Frankly, It's not taught in level 2 and it's only briefly touched upon in level 3 (only a 20 hour course after all). I went to a 4 day NTS seminar in Chula Vista so that I could feel that I earned my NTS Coach credentials. Most of the attendies were level 4's being brought up to date and a few level 3's. BTW my level 3 instructor was there as well.

TAO


----------



## Flyers 1 (Feb 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> And the discussion always gets to "what are the elites doing?"...
> 
> Meanwhile, 90% + of those engaged in the sport just want good, simple, easy to understand instruction.
> 
> ...


Agree 100% :thumbs_up At every Joad session our son's coach asks each archer "What one thing will you work on tonight and why". After the session is over each student is asked for their feedback. Makes the student accountable. I have printed out 10 basic steps for both my son and I to review prior to and during practice sessions. Like "location,location,location" in Real Estate, the basics in athletics never gets old.


----------

