# upcoming KSL shot cycle revision?



## averageJoe576 (Oct 13, 2014)

I have heard from a NTS coach that very recently (i.e. more recently than the knee locking revision), Coach Lee has revised setup , loading and anchor to be a single (or at least heavily overlapping) phase as opposed to the current 3 discrete sequential steps, and that an email should go out soon to alert the coaching community of such. 

Can anyone confirm or provide additional details?

I know people are heavily opinionated on the matter, and/or may feel that such a change is highly improbable, please keep in mind I am inquiring about facts :teeth:

Thanks,
Joe


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

In my opinion, the coaching community at large would find out more when the symposium comes out, rather than before it occurring...

-Steve


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Is teaching archery really so follow-the-leader a mass emailing to coaches far and wide is how it's done with every change, every whim of the archery Pope? Sorry for the editorial comment but jeez. Nobody has any ability to think for themselves anymore it seems. Is KSL a religion? That could explain some of this.

When one man is thinking for everyone, where is the natural improvements you see in any other human endeavor with experimentation, adaptation? Archery is no different. Group think. Stagnation. That's KSL.


----------



## averageJoe576 (Oct 13, 2014)

Beastmaster said:


> In my opinion, the coaching community at large would find out more when the symposium comes out, rather than before it occurring...
> 
> -Steve


Email is an extrapolation I made myself, probably should have said communication. Yeah, now that I see the symposium is next weekend I guess that makes sense.

Again, not looking to start a KSL argument thread, just looking for some objective information


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

averageJoe576 said:


> I have heard from a NTS coach that very recently (i.e. more recently than the knee locking revision), Coach Lee has revised setup , loading and anchor to be a single (or at least heavily overlapping) phase as opposed to the current 3 discrete sequential steps, and that an email should go out soon to alert the coaching community of such.
> 
> Can anyone confirm or provide additional details?
> 
> ...


Joe,

If I really want to dig deeper. I wrote go back to the NTS coach who you heard this from and find his sources


----------



## averageJoe576 (Oct 13, 2014)

Bob Furman said:


> Joe,
> 
> If I really want to dig deeper. I wrote go back to the NTS coach who you heard this from and find his sources


I know who the source is, and I'll hopefully get to discuss further with him soon, but in the mean time thought it likely someone who frequents these forums might have additional info they can share. Fwiw, I'm not in desperate need or anything, just impatient :teeth:


----------



## jaredjms (Oct 24, 2007)

Lee never had a problem with it flowing together-- it is taught in distinct steps because that is easier to learn properly than a fluid motion because direction and speed are changing through that movement. Watch ellison shoot and you will see a nice smoth flow-- you will also see what I mean by changes of speed and direction as he moves through the phases. I worked with lee for a week 2 months ago and he didn't express any change to what he taught me previously in regards to your question. He was working on a presentation on target panic for the symposium at the time. That being said I feel he is always putting thought into expressing his ideas more effectively and it will never surprise me if at any time he changes the way he expresses something or finds a way he thinks works better. He is an incredible coach and he is always looking to find better ways of doing it-- that's evolution.

Stonebridge, you can call it what you want but nts is about using science and biomechanics to advance the level of archery in this country. Before it, people isolated doing it on there own wasn't really working and the US was getting left behind on the international scene. How can you criticize people for wanting to be better. A few years ago I felt I needed to do something different to improve. I started looking at nts, studying it and applying it. Some of what I read I thought was ridiculous and a waste of time-- because I didn't truly understand the concepts. I then had a chance to spend a week at the OTC and learn it directly from lee. I spent that week learning everything I could from him and making sure I understood the whys behind all of the concepts. I left the OTC completely changed. I realized that even though I thought I knew it well from all the reading and studying, I just didn't-- and that's why I criticized parts of it-- the same as a lot of you guys here. Trust me when I tell you that you likely don't understand it just as I didn't. I am grateful for the weeks I have spent learning from lee at the OTC, and it has changed my archery ability dramatically for the better as well as the students I teach. The results from spending the time with him to truly understand his concepts have been measurable and quite amazing. So when I hear someone put down a system that they likely don't understand it bothers me a bit--probably becuase I see how positively it has effected me

There is certainly more than one way to shoot a bow, we all know that. Best of luck to you


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

No one man has all the answers. KSL is 90% basic archery with a new lexicon of terms and a cult following. Little more.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jaredjms said:


> Stonebridge, you can call it what you want but nts is about using science and biomechanics to advance the level of archery in this country. Before it, people isolated doing it on there own wasn't really working and the US was getting left behind on the international scene. How can you criticize people for wanting to be better.


Indeed, in order to learn anything we need to be open to change. The scientific underpinnings of KSL Shot Cycle II/BEST/NTS were part of what attracted me to FITA/WA Recurve. However, I've yet to actually see the science that underpins the system, and I've definitely seen some occasional pseudoscience. Kiskik Lee is not a scientist, and I haven't seen USA Archery publish any scientific studies on their training system. That doesn't mean it isn't scientific (well, the pseudo scientific parts wouldn't be, of course) just that it isn't clear what specific aspects of NTS, if any, are supported by sound, repeatable science. It isn't sufficient to merely declare something scientific in order for it to truly be so, nor does just having someone say "it's biomechancially efficient" necessarily make it so. In science, the findings of studies are published openly so other scientists see if they can verify the claims. 

What specific aspects of NTS are proven scientifically?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Stoney -

Your are correct on all counts.

Warbow -

Ditto, I haven't seen it either. In a few cases, quite the opposite.

The problem is that the concept of "BeSt" (both upper and lower case) can only be taken so far. The fundamentals really haven't changed over the last 50 years (probably more). What a good coach can or should be able to do is adapt those fundamentals to fit a specific shooter, both physically and psychologically. If that doesn't happen, then athletes who "fit the mold" do quite well, and those who don't fall by the wayside. 

However, there is a theory that people, or at least some people do respond better to a more "rigid" framework, and again, IMHO, that's why the NTS stuff seems to work in some cases. Hopefully individual coaches are smart enough to not follow that protocol blindly.

Viper1 out.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

jaredjms said:


> Stonebridge, you can call it what you want but nts is about using science and biomechanics to advance the level of archery in this country. Before it, people isolated doing it on there own wasn't really working and the US was getting left behind on the international scene.


how so? Daryl Pace and Rick Mckinney owned the International scene. We as a country have won several Olympic Archery medals since then. NTS didnt save US archery from being left behind. 

Chris


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

If NTS was routed so very strongly in science then why is it constantly revised without any actual scientific studies published?

If the USAA wants their pipeline of new archers to follow one specific technique because they believe it will be easier for them to be coached by their chosen head coach should they get to the highest level then that is a fine, but they should be honest about their reasoning.
If their intent is to get all archers to conform to a system developed around certain biomechanics then they will only get archers who fit into that physical mold. That is unfortunate since we all know that the mental side is what really matters. Even countries who openly scout talent at a young age based on physical make-up have archers competing with a pretty wide range of technique successfully.

-Grant


----------



## jaredjms (Oct 24, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Indeed, in order to learn anything we need to be open to change. The scientific underpinnings of KSL Shot Cycle II/BEST/NTS were part of what attracted me to FITA/WA Recurve. However, I've yet to actually see the science that underpins the system, and I've definitely seen some occasional pseudoscience. Kiskik Lee is not a scientist, and I haven't seen USA Archery publish any scientific studies on their training system. That doesn't mean it isn't scientific (well, the pseudo scientific parts wouldn't be, of course) just that it isn't clear what specific aspects of NTS, if any, are supported by sound, repeatable science. It isn't sufficient to merely declare something scientific in order for it to truly be so, nor does just having someone say "it's biomechancially efficient" necessarily make it so. In science, the findings of studies are published openly so other scientists see if they can verify the claims.
> 
> What specific aspects of NTS are proven scientifically?


First, sorry for this thread derailing. You are correct-- maybe a better phrase would be using technology and biomechanics to further archery. I don't know of published studies that validate these findings and for that they are theory. I can say that at the OTC they use technology to try and validate the principles of NTS. EMG, high speed video, HRM, brain wave analysis, force plates, dartfish type motion analysis, and others I'm sure I don't know about. They do have biomechanics experts, Doctors, and scientists that they consult with-- it is the OTC. Theory-- not Law.

Viper, you know I highly respect you as a coach-- one big misconception of NTS is that it is a rigid cookie cutter.

Stonebridge, of course no one man has all the answers-- I just see him trying harder to advance archery than anyone else that is available to me

Chris, I wasn't referring to the few who have perfected their technique and done well. USA archery has statistics that show that the *amount* of USA archers shooting a certain level of score at high level events has been on the increase since Lee has taken over. Sorry I cant publish it, but I saw the graphs at OTC. Before Lee, their graph showed USA was losing ground to the world. Maybe they skewed the results to make the program look good but I doubt that-- from what I understand(and I could be wrong on this) the IOC is who that info was prepared for 

I know many of you have strong and valid feelings on this topic that I respect, and we could probably go around forever -- I guess we all need to pick our poison and roll with it. Ive got to get ready for the ATA show-- good luck to you all!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jaredjms said:


> First, sorry for this thread derailing. You are correct-- maybe a better phrase would be using technology and biomechanics to further archery. I don't know of published studies that validate these findings and for that they are theory. I can say that at the OTC they use technology to try and validate the principles of NTS. EMG, high speed video, HRM, brain wave analysis, force plates, dartfish type motion analysis, and others I'm sure I don't know about. They do have biomechanics experts, Doctors, and scientists that they consult with-- it is the OTC. Theory-- not Law.


Not even theory. In science, theories are proven constructs with tested explanatory power, such as the Theory of Electricity, or the Germ Theory of Disease. NTS is hypothesis at best. Which doesn't mean its wrong, mind you. I'd just love to see some studies that test specific hypothesis of NTS. I've heard of Lee doing a study that correlated shorter hold times with more consistent fps, but those findings can be applied to any system, not merely NTS. And, unless a specific hypothesis had been proposed in advance and was being specifically tested by the study, various confounding factors likely wouldn't have been have been taken into account and compensated for in the study design. The inconsistency in fps could be due to other factors correlated with the longer hold time rather than the longer hold time. Or they could be artifacts. I don't recall there being any P value for the study (I haven't seen the full study, if, indeed, one was ever written up).

I'm not sure that Kisik Lee has a scientific mind set. This is demonstrated by the pseudo scientific claim made in NTS and detailed in the USA Archery edited book, _Archery_. In it, it is claimed that looking too far to the side of your "eye openings" decreases "neurological strength". This has been "proved" to coaches at USAA coaching seminars using a subjective, pseudo scientific "strength" testing procedure that is known to be subject to the expectation bias of the tester. If looking too far to the side of your "eye openings" actually caused a decrease in "neurological strength" it would affect all sports, and be testable using double blind testing, not merely pseudoscience. And it would be a *major* finding for all sports physiology, not just a side bar in a niche archery book.

This glaring bit of pseudo science in NTS doesn't prove that other aspects of NTS are wrong or contradicted by science. But it does demonstrate that the validity of NTS should not and cannot be presumed true or scientific merely upon the authority of Kisik Lee or USAA. Instead various aspects of NTS remain unproven scientifically until specifically proved through sound, replicable science.


----------



## jaredjms (Oct 24, 2007)

Well I'm just a mindless robot then  I am one who the above technique was demonstrated on. I didn't know what they were about to show when demonstrated so you can rule out expectation bias as you say. I am pretty strong-- former bodybuilder, and there was a tremendous difference in my strength when looking extreme side eye to straight ahead. You can call it pseudo science, witchcraft, or wishful thinking-- whatever makes you feel good! What other sports that require strength and muscle control do the athletes operate from the corner of their eyes?


----------



## averageJoe576 (Oct 13, 2014)

I guess its fine if it derails now, if there was more concrete info it probably would have been posted by now (thanks to jared for best answer so far to the actual OP)



jaredjms said:


> of course no one man has all the answers-- I just see him trying harder to advance archery than anyone else that is available to me


This. 

As a new archer, there may not be hard scientific that gives me complete confidence that each and every aspect of NTS is the best or the safest, but there is enough data (longevity, track record, amount of research and development, level of adoption, etc.) to give me a high confidence that NTS is at least quite good and reasonably safe, and I can gain access to a coach/club and (with some research and cross referencing) be confident they are teaching correctly, and that's true almost regardless of where I might choose to move in the cont US. As far as I am aware, nothing else currently comes close to offering that.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jaredjms said:


> Well I'm just a mindless robot then  I am one who the above technique was demonstrated on. I didn't know what they were about to show when demonstrated so you can rule out expectation bias as you say. I am pretty strong-- former bodybuilder, and there was a tremendous difference in my strength when looking extreme side eye to straight ahead. You can call it pseudo science, witchcraft, or wishful thinking-- whatever makes you feel good! What other sports that require strength and muscle control do the athletes operate from the corner of their eyes?


Nope, you are human, subject to human bias, just like we all are. As a body builder your strength was a key to you performance, just as it is in most sports. If looking to the side decreased strength you'd be unable to lift, or do *any* exercise to the best of your ability depending merely on what direction you were looking at. Do you think you somehow missed that super simple key to dramatic differences in strength based on what direction you were looking at during your entire career as an athlete until told by an archery coach? I don't.

The human mind is powerful, and subject to many perceptual biases. And once we believe something, it can be really hard to accept that that what we took as convincing proof actually just *seemed* like convincing proof. Let me give you an example:









The image above looks like a spiral. Even if I tell you it is not a spiral, it still looks like a spiral. In reality, it is a bunch of concentric circles, drawn in a way that utterly fools our sense of perception. Follow the blue line around with your finger to verify this. And it will still *look* like a spiral. 

Science is the tool we use to separate what is true from what merely seems to be true. The arm strength test is a utterly convincing illusion just as the spiral is. The test I've read was used is identical to a classic pseudo-scientific diagnostic method used in the quackery known as "Applied Kinesiology" (not to be confused with the similar sounding scientific field of kinesiology). The pushing down on the arm test is a test that seems real but is actually controlled consciously or unconsciously by the belief of the participants. AK practitioners claim to diagnose all sorts of things including allergies this way. For "allergies" they put the test substance on your tongue (or just hold it near you in a jar) and push down on your arm to see if you are "allergic" to the substance. This form of nonsense diagnosis can be very convincing is fairly common among chiropractors who have added AK to their range of pseudo-scientific practices.

This same nonsense test was used to "prove" that Power Balance bracelets magically increase strength and balance:






Psychologist Ray Hyman visited with a group of AK chiropractic practitioners who showed that they didn't understand how science works (via Skepdic):



> Some years ago I participated in a test of applied kinesiology at Dr. Wallace Sampson's medical office in Mountain View, California. A team of chiropractors came to demonstrate the procedure. Several physician observers and the chiropractors had agreed that chiropractors would first be free to illustrate applied kinesiology in whatever manner they chose. Afterward, we would try some double-blind tests of their claims.
> 
> The chiropractors presented as their major example a demonstration they believed showed that the human body could respond to the difference between glucose (a "bad" sugar) and fructose (a "good" sugar). The differential sensitivity was a truism among "alternative healers," though there was no scientific warrant for it. The chiropractors had volunteers lie on their backs and raise one arm vertically. They then would put a drop of glucose (in a solution of water) on the volunteer's tongue. The chiropractor then tried to push the volunteer's upraised arm down to a horizontal position while the volunteer tried to resist. In almost every case, the volunteer could not resist. The chiropractors stated the volunteer's body recognized glucose as a "bad" sugar. After the volunteer's mouth was rinsed out and a drop of fructose was placed on the tongue, the volunteer, in just about every test, resisted movement to the horizontal position. The body had recognized fructose as a "good" sugar.
> 
> ...


The test you took clearly still *seems* convincing. But think back on your entire career as an athlete and ask yourself if you really missed out on such a dramatic and fundamental key to performance. If this were really a thing, you could test people with a strain gage or weights, rather than a subjective test by a biased tester, under conditions where neither the subject nor the test proctor knew what the "expected" results were. And the results would be consistent between different types of athletes, and in different studies. It would be *replicable* in controlled double blind trials. Heck, if this were true you and others would be trumpeting this newly discovered key to strength all over the forums of every sport, saying "Never look to the side!!!! You will dramatically loose strength!!!" AFIK know, that isn't happening because it isn't true. And if you think about your own experience before the test, you'll realize that true. And if you still aren't convinced, you can create a double blind, objective test using a strain gauge (scale) or weights to test the hypothesis on other athletes.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

averageJoe576 said:


> As a new archer, there may not be hard scientific that gives me complete confidence that each and every aspect of NTS is the best or the safest, but there is enough data (longevity, track record, amount of research and development, level of adoption, etc.) to give me a high confidence that NTS is at least quite good and reasonably safe, and I can gain access to a coach/club and (with some research and cross referencing) be confident they are teaching correctly, and that's true almost regardless of where I might choose to move in the cont US. As far as I am aware, nothing else currently comes close to offering that.


I'd love to see any comprehensive data on injury rates for NTS as diseminated vs. any other system. If there is such data I'd love to see it. If NTS is *actually* superior in reducing injury nationwide that would be something valuable to us all. I'm not aware of any such published data.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

If the OTC has all these engineers and scientists and doctors working for them to improve athletes abilities then why don't we see the published data? Anyone can throw out buzzwords as scientific, or technology, or biomechanics out there. They may sound good, but is really meaningless if one can not take data and repeat the same experiment and get the same answer. Granted that the human body is the major factor in shooting performance, and there are no two humans alike, so publishing data that can be tested and verified by others is practically impossible. But trends can be published with fairly good accuracy. And yet trends are not published.

In the absence of physical science to explain things, we all rely on the results of our personal cause and effect experiments (self learning) and the opinions of others (what they have learned from there experience). I am not saying that this doesn't yield good results and many times it does. But to lay claims that something is scientific or biomechanical doesn't make it so without disclosing data along with the experiments that was used to collect that data so that others can repeat it.

I would love to see this in peer reviewed journals.

Is coach Lee a good coach? Definitely yes, he has helped improve the shooting performance of countless archers around the world. That by itself makes him a excellent coach. 

But to give coach Lee the benefit of doubt, the appropriate application of the scientific method generally does lead to changes in processes to improve performance. So will the shot cycle change over time? I would suspect it will always change as physics replaces opinions.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Lee went off the rails for me when I read on his site that no non-Christian could ever achieve at the highest levels of archery because some part of their soul was in disarray. I had to stop and scratch my head on that one. I think maybe there a couple of non-Christians around the globe, maybe a pagan or two also, who can shoot pretty good in spite of their poor luck in not being born into a religion the Archery Pope deems required.

Not sure he still has that article posted online, but many on here know what I mean. His mix of religion and archery is inappropriate at best. His followers really do behave like, well, followers. I call it a cult. But that's just me.

The guy or girl who ends up being the truly top shooter is always the one with the most natural talent and the will to succeed. You need time and money, too. But talent is what wins in the end. America has turned out a lot of very good shooters over the years. None ever understood they had to twist their body at 5.5 degrees and then say four Hail Mary's before dropping the string. Somehow they managed without the overblown packaging that is KSL and its one-track teachings. I always cheer for the lone wolf archer who looks at all that is available, then thinks for himself. Getting more rare all the time.


----------



## jaredjms (Oct 24, 2007)

What high performance sports program in the world publishes the data for the world to see?? NONE!! You guys keep asking for published studies as if publishing validates it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jaredjms said:


> What high performance sports program in the world publishes the data for the world to see?? NONE!! You guys keep asking for published studies as if publishing validates it.


I'm not convinced that USAA has any studies that would be publishable. And why couldn't they publish data on injury rates? That's the kind of stuff you publish for vetting if your goals really include actually reducing injury. Injury reduction is a complex subject, and not one that any single org can master on its own. If USAA wants to claim science, then they have to do and demonstrate science. 

Speaking of science, I'm wondering if you have reflected upon your career as a body builder and thought about whether somehow you really missed a dramatic, and super easy, key to performance just based on what direction you look in? Or if, just maybe, that one quick, subjective test you were shown just might be mistaken?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

The OTC doesn't have any responsibility to "publish" its findings in a "peer reviewed journal". Monsanto does a lot of 'real science' in their labs to develop better seeds and fertilizers, etc. They sure as heck aren't publishing their findings - they're protecting those findings to gain competitive advantage. General science and competitive/commercial science are apples and oranges.

Having said that, the notion that the USA was being left behind because we didn't have a coordinated national training system seems like a tenuous position to take. So, the US takes Olympic gold in '72, '76, '80 (yeah, I know we boycotted, but the sun doesn't come up in the East if Pace doesn't win gold in 1980 if we showed up), '84, '88, '96, and silver in 2000. Lee got here in, what, 2005 or 2006? So we missed an individual medal in '92 and 2004, and thus were in the permanent wilderness? And, so, 8 BEST/NTS years later, we've got, what, 5 or 6 guys who can regularly shoot 1300 or better in a full FITA? And South Korea has, what, 200+ guys who can do that any day of the week? And, take away Brady - who is going to be world class no matter what style he shoots - and who have we got making it to the medals matches around the world? And what about the women? Is NTS supposed to be of any benefit to female archers? And if so, how long must we wait to see the fruits of that tree? Where are the successes that must inevitably flow from this vastly superior scientific methodology? 

Besides, any style/method that is nigh impossible to understand unless sitting under the tutelage of a few individuals is problematic in my mind. 

Having said that, I like Bruce Lee's mantra " 'no way' is the way" .... take from each style/method what works for you, and leave from each what doesn't work for you.

Lots of different ways to skin a rabbit. NTS is probably God's gift to some, and the Devil's Brew to others - just like every other style. For me, anyway, the 'heat' comes from being force fed that Style "A" is better because it's "scientific". That's BS - what Darrell Pace and Rick McKinney were doing in their approach and method was every bit as scientific as what's going on today.


----------



## jaredjms (Oct 24, 2007)

Speaking of science, I'm wondering if you have reflected upon your career as a body builder and thought about whether somehow you really missed a dramatic, and super easy, key to performance just based on what direction you look in? Or if, just maybe, that one quick, subjective test you were shown just might be mistaken?[/QUOTE]

Actually, one thing I believed was key to reaching a high level at a very young age had to do with increasing muscle fiber recruitment. I read numerous studies that would show two ways of increasing the percentage of muscle fibers recruited were by looking at the muscle and by touching it. We called this the mind to muscle connection and I do believe that the techniques that I employed, well studied and published by highly regarded institutions, allowed me to activate a higher percentage of muscle fiber in a given muscle, and thus more muscle growth was possible. If this has any application to corner of eye strength, I don't know but I feel it could relate.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/AboutUs/SportSpirituality.html

I hope the above link works. It was on the KSL site. Has actually been cleaned up in recent time. Instead of God, they use SBS. (Super Being in Space - I swear to God they do) At the bottom of the article it says written by Dr. Mell Siff. No doubt the over-the-top earlier article where Lee insists you must be Christian caused some backlash so the good doctor had his less offensive article published in it's stead. Even so, read the thing. It's not about archery, it's evangelical claptrap. Lee is all about baptizing his shooters and preaching. Another clip on this site shows Brady Ellison after his baptism. What does that have to do with anything archery related? 

Reason enough to run from KSL if you ask me. I don't need my soul attended to by an archery coach.


----------



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

I just finished talking to Coach Lee a couple of minutes ago. There is no change coming. 

Terry Laney


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> I just finished talking to Coach Lee a couple of minutes ago. There is no change coming.
> 
> Terry Laney


Cool update from the source.

Controversy over specifics or not, I'm certain that pretty much everyone, including myself, considers Kisik Lee a extremely talented coach.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/AboutUs/SportSpirituality.html
> 
> I hope the above link works. It was on the KSL site. Has actually been cleaned up in recent time. Instead of God, they use SBS. (Super Being in Space - I swear to God they do) At the bottom of the article it says written by Dr. Mell Siff. No doubt the over-the-top earlier article where Lee insists you must be Christian caused some backlash so the good doctor had his less offensive article published in it's stead. Even so, read the thing. It's not about archery, it's evangelical claptrap. Lee is all about baptizing his shooters and preaching. Another clip on this site shows Brady Ellison after his baptism. What does that have to do with anything archery related?
> 
> Reason enough to run from KSL if you ask me. I don't need my soul attended to by an archery coach.


Not playing sides, but there was also this article I recall hearing about before the 2008 Olympics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/sports/olympics/20archery.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Thanks, Bob. I remember reading that a while ago. No doubt Lee has some knowledge of archery. But I think his success is largely based on the fact he had some early success and then parlayed that into a business. Others see the successful archery coach and figure he has found "The Way". So he gets the best athletes. The best guys rise to the top naturally and Lee looks the better for it.

Every really good shooter Lee has, got there by pure talent. If Darrel Pace trained those same kids they'd shoot just as well in the end but they might not get baptized. That's my only point. I think Lee, and KSL in general, is a crock of crap. Any good and motivated athlete will get to his top level with any fundamentally sound coach. You don't need a preacher chanting in your ear and expounding on scientific principles that when examined closely don't hold up. Lee is no scientist, he's a salesman and a general pain in the butt to those who do not share his religious beliefs. I firmly maintain he is closer to a cult leader than anything else. I can't see any real difference in the end.


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

Bob Furman said:


> Not playing sides, but there was also this article I recall hearing about before the 2008 Olympics:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/sports/olympics/20archery.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Stunning. The coaches at my kids' parochial school are far more tolerant and accepting of other religious beliefs (including no religion) than our national coach?!?!


----------



## rookcaca (Oct 10, 2002)

I don't know much about the NTS system, but if this man has a belief in Jesus Christ, that is a plus for me.



Stone Bridge said:


> http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/AboutUs/SportSpirituality.html
> 
> I hope the above link works. It was on the KSL site. Has actually been cleaned up in recent time. Instead of God, they use SBS. (Super Being in Space - I swear to God they do) At the bottom of the article it says written by Dr. Mell Siff. No doubt the over-the-top earlier article where Lee insists you must be Christian caused some backlash so the good doctor had his less offensive article published in it's stead. Even so, read the thing. It's not about archery, it's evangelical claptrap. Lee is all about baptizing his shooters and preaching. Another clip on this site shows Brady Ellison after his baptism. What does that have to do with anything archery related?
> 
> Reason enough to run from KSL if you ask me. I don't need my soul attended to by an archery coach.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Well I don't know about the science of the KSL system, but I do know that my archery skills has improved greatly after studying the system and applying many of its suggestions to my technique. The angular draw, transfer, and holding I think are what has enhanced what I am doing.

I first started out learning what I call the European method (that which is found in the WA documentation); and it got me to a certain point. After adopting the KSL drawing and holding, my bow is a lot easier to keep steady.

That being said, I don't use an exclusive KSL technique. There are some things that make for a better shot for me personally than all the steps exactly. For example I use a much deeper hook, than what the KSL recommends, and my bow grip is different as well.

I do think that it is too difficult to try to teach to someone, who does not have the passion to strive to become an expert archer; but some aspects I think do help. The system is just too detailed and the archer, and coach, can get lost in the details.

Concerning the eyes, I do think it is better to not aim from the corner of the eye, if possible. One for vision sake, as the nose can affect the sight picture; also, at least for myself, looking out from the corner of my eye for long periods, does affect my neurological feel, makes me get mentally fatigued faster, and will eventually give me a headache. So when I shoot, my head is probably at no greater an angle deviation from the target than around 10 degrees, if that. I've read the USAA archery book, and currently reading the newer Total Archery book, and neither that I remember speaks of loss of physical strength; but I could be wrong there.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

rookcaca said:


> I don't know much about the NTS system, but if this man has a belief in Jesus Christ, that is a plus for me.


But what if you're Jewish or Hindu and have this guy looking down on you all the time? He's disparaging non-Christians every time he opens his mouth when not actually dispensing wholly unscientific nonsense about biomechanics. Probably you'd be happier having the village priest teach your kids to shoot a bow. This is okay. But at the national level we need neutrality on the religious front when teaching anything. What the hell does religion have to do with archery in the first place?

Rookcaca, would you send your child to a Muslim archery coach if he was thought to be the best coach in the world but taught the Koran as he was teaching archery? Same goddamn thing, if you'll pardon the phrase.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Erose, Lee claims we are physically stronger for looking out of the corner of our eyes. Once I stopped laughing at this, I Googled the subject. There is no evidence in print I could find to support such nonsense. I even tried a few strength tests at home with my eyes in different positions. I'm embarrassed to admit this on a public forum but I did do this. It made no difference at all. Lee is largely a quack. Closely examine just about everything he teaches and then look back in time at other archers. Nothing he is humping has not been done before, from the draw angle to the foot position and body twist. Guys 30 years ago were shooting open stance and rotating clockwise to then align their shoulders.

Lee simply applied names to this stuff and gave long-winded farcical explanations as to why you must do it that way. Those unwilling to think for themselves did as they were told and it worked. It worked because it's basic archery in the first place. The guy really has not invented anything. Had he been born 150 years ago, he'd be driving a wagon through the west selling little bottles of brightly colored water and telling you of eternal life if you only purchased a few.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

erose said:


> One for vision sake, as the nose can affect the sight picture


Yes please.



erose said:


> looking out from the corner of my eye for long periods, does affect my neurological feel, makes me get mentally fatigued faster, and will eventually give me a headache.


So does drawing back a bow for long periods of time. 



lksseven said:


> Having said that, I like Bruce Lee's mantra " 'no way' is the way" .... take from each style/method what works for you, and leave from each what doesn't work for you.


This.
Trouble is that learning each style takes a long time, and since we're result driven it might be easier to learn one that covers 80-90% what works and take it from there.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Taking a long time to teach a complicated method actually fits into some people's philosophy of how coaching archery should be done. Fits some of our students and their parent's idea of what "professional" coaching should look like too. I mean, they have money, and they want to spend it to get their kid "on the team." How many people are there these days who simply assume if a method is more complex and more expensive to learn, surely it must be better.

Think about it. If what you teach takes a day or two to learn, then you're done as a coach right? No $200 skype sessions, no $1000 seminars needed. It doesn't fit the model. 

To build a system and write books about it, you need a complicated method. 

IMO, McKinney penned all that a person needs to know to reach the top of the sport in his book. It's neither long-winded or complicated. No vodoo in it at all. 

Fact is, none of the top archers in the world are shooting NTS. If the best archers in the world continue to stand square and draw in parallel lines to the target, I have no idea why we are teaching anything else.

If a student or their parent comes to me and wants to learn NTS, I will teach it to them. But I'll also spend time explaining how long it will take them to learn and I may show them a video or two of a Korean archer in the meantime, then let them decide. If they still want to learn NTS, then I take a big deep breath and say... "Okay, well here we go then!"


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

rookcaca said:


> I don't know much about the NTS system, but if this man has a belief in Jesus Christ, that is a plus for me.


Me, too.

Regarding NTS - or any other 'way' - eat the chicken and leave the bone.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> IMO, McKinney penned all that a person needs to know to reach the top of the sport in his book. It's neither long-winded or complicated. No vodoo in it at all.


agreed, Every archer on our JOAD competition team has one. I recommend this book more than any. ( of course i also like Coach Kim's book, but at $150, its too pricey for JOAD parents/kids.

Chris


----------



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

Coach Lee does not teach having the head turned away and aiming from the corner of the eyes. He has never taught that. 

Terry


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

jaredjms said:


> Speaking of science, I'm wondering if you have reflected upon your career as a body builder and thought about whether somehow you really missed a dramatic, and super easy, key to performance just based on what direction you look in? Or if, just maybe, that one quick, subjective test you were shown just might be mistaken?


Actually, one thing I believed was key to reaching a high level at a very young age had to do with increasing muscle fiber recruitment. I read numerous studies that would show two ways of increasing the percentage of muscle fibers recruited were by looking at the muscle and by touching it. We called this the mind to muscle connection and I do believe that the techniques that I employed, well studied and published by highly regarded institutions, allowed me to activate a higher percentage of muscle fiber in a given muscle, and thus more muscle growth was possible. If this has any application to corner of eye strength, I don't know but I feel it could relate.[/QUOTE]

Jared,
Are you saying that I'm me and Schwarzenegger is him because he was looking in the right direction at the gym and I wasn't? If so, then Dad-blast it!, I want a do over.

If this isn't what you meant, then I'm (with distressing frequency) clueless ...


----------



## zephus (Apr 28, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> But what if you're Jewish or Hindu and have this guy looking down on you all the time? He's disparaging non-Christians every time he opens his mouth when not actually dispensing wholly unscientific nonsense about biomechanics. Probably you'd be happier having the village priest teach your kids to shoot a bow. This is okay. But at the national level we need neutrality on the religious front when teaching anything. What the hell does religion have to do with archery in the first place?
> 
> Rookcaca, would you send your child to a Muslim archery coach if he was thought to be the best coach in the world but taught the Koran as he was teaching archery? Same goddamn thing, if you'll pardon the phrase.


I would have to agree. This is actually the first time I heard of this fact about Lee, and it somewhat turns me off from becoming a latent Olympic hopeful. The Olympics itself is a union of athletes from many different backgrounds, both religious and ethnic, competing in solidarity. The Greek Era Olympics were GREEK, even. Meaning they were polytheists. In essence we are all participating in a religious event that no one worships that most modern day religious would have found heretical.

I'm sorry, but if I had my coach talk down at me because of my own religious followings, I'm not sure if I'll have the patience to follow that person. Nor will I give that person respect. That's not what I would go to the Olympics for and represent.


----------



## pineapple3d (Oct 23, 2002)

John I think my rates are to low after seeing this.


limbwalker said:


> Taking a long time to teach a complicated method actually fits into some people's philosophy of how coaching archery should be done. Fits some of our students and their parent's idea of what "professional" coaching should look like too. I mean, they have money, and they want to spend it to get their kid "on the team." How many people are there these days who simply assume if a method is more complex and more expensive to learn, surely it must be better.
> 
> Think about it. If what you teach takes a day or two to learn, then you're done as a coach right? No $200 skype sessions, no $1000 seminars needed. It doesn't fit the model.
> 
> ...


----------



## scolist (Sep 16, 2014)

Not looking to hijack this thread, can someone tell me where I can find McKinneys' book?

Back on topic: Probably just a coincidence but, The NY Times article states that Lee found god in 1999. Isn't that right after he found out the Australian's would pay him for his services? =o)


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Don't worry about hijacking the thread, that happened soon after the OP started it. You can find Rick's book on the Carbon Tech Archery site.


----------



## scolist (Sep 16, 2014)

Thanks. Just ordered my copy.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

ThomVis said:


> So does drawing back a bow for long periods of time.


 My headache from having to look from the corner of my eye comes long before my arm gives out from shooting.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

rookcaca said:


> I don't know much about the NTS system, but if this man has a belief in Jesus Christ, that is a plus for me.


As a fellow Christian, I would agree! In the secular world, though, our heart's intent is not up for consideration. There was an almost 2 hour training from Team USA many of us just had to meet and complete on the subject of keeping the inherent power of one's coaching authority away from any perceived harassment (hope that's the right test answer) or oppression of our charges. Might be all this happened before he watched the video  Another time in history, he would be celebrated for such. Today, he's chastised. Just the times we are in.

As for NTS, I have other coaching I listen to. I owe that to me and the one who's time I'm taking.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Stone Bridge said:


> Erose, Lee claims we are physically stronger for looking out of the corner of our eyes. Once I stopped laughing at this, I Googled the subject. There is no evidence in print I could find to support such nonsense. I even tried a few strength tests at home with my eyes in different positions. I'm embarrassed to admit this on a public forum but I did do this. It made no difference at all. Lee is largely a quack. Closely examine just about everything he teaches and then look back in time at other archers. Nothing he is humping has not been done before, from the draw angle to the foot position and body twist. Guys 30 years ago were shooting open stance and rotating clockwise to then align their shoulders.
> 
> Lee simply applied names to this stuff and gave long-winded farcical explanations as to why you must do it that way. Those unwilling to think for themselves did as they were told and it worked. It worked because it's basic archery in the first place. The guy really has not invented anything. Had he been born 150 years ago, he'd be driving a wagon through the west selling little bottles of brightly colored water and telling you of eternal life if you only purchased a few.


I don't know Lee personally, so I cannot attest to his character; but I do use some of his books, and have benefitted greatly from them. Isn't that all one can ask for? Right now I am reading Inside the Archer, and I have found it extremely informative. Granted I don't do everything the way it is prescribed in the book, but I like the detail and it gets me thinking about my own personal technique. I don't follow it exactly, and I would assume I am a lot like many other folks here; who use a hodgepodge technique that is particularly their own, which I will be honest I am constantly tweeking, to improve what I am doing. Sometimes I do take a step back to go two steps forward, and sometimes I take a step back and stay there until I go back to what I was doing before. Trial and error. 

For me the open stance and the angular draw works much better than the closed stance and linear draw, which seems to be the biggest difference between the NTS and WA (World Archery) systems. That being said I think that the WA system is much easier to teach to a new archer, because it is more natural; and thus that is where I myself start my kids out with. I haven't really coached anyone yet who has aspirations of being an Olympic athlete, so until then I will just stay with the KISS method of teaching. 

I have experimented with the KSL system with my youngest son, with mixed results. He is struggling with grasping it more than the WA method; but where he has grasp the difference it has improved him as an archer. But it can be frustrating for him at times and myself no doubt. Anyway at this time I am still working on which way is the best way of teaching archery to new kids, and right now I am basically teaching them the WA method; but my technique though is much closer to the KSL method though.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

erose, I've read all I could find on KLS too. I read everything. I do think he can teach. That was never my point. My only issue is that many think Lee invented modern archery when in fact all he's done is repackage the work of many who went before him. His ego then attached jargon, terms and descriptions to things Pace and others were doing just after the earth cooled. Lee glommed on to this early work and is now profiting greatly from it. 150 dollars for his bible. His archery book. That's disgusting considering he's supposed to be guiding kids. Parents already spend enough for lots of other things kid-related. 150 dollars to read in Lee's book what you can get for free online. Hell, this forum has Olympic shooters on it. Guys who know every bit as much about archery as Lee does, and they can actually shoot much better than Lee who is not noted for his actual shooting skill. Funny a guy with all the answers can't apply his own principles and shoot better. But I digress.

Read Lee. I have. Read everyone else, too. Once you have done that, you'll be as cynical as I am about KSL and the guy humping that system. He is largely a very crafty salesman of snake oil. Others will disagree. So be it. Lee appreciates the blind allegiance. He's probably got a very nice swimming pool at home because of it.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I like the fact that modern Korean method advocates simplicity. They are after all ones with most resources and sport science behing their program.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Stone Bridge said:


> erose, I've read all I could find on KLS too. I read everything. I do think he can teach. That was never my point. My only issue is that many think Lee invented modern archery when in fact all he's done is repackage the work of many who went before him.


 Well if folks think that then obviously they aren't very well informed. I do think that Lee (I'm assuming it is Lee) has helped focus some things on the National level concerning USAA, by attempting to supply a base method by which all levels of USAA coaches are suppose to have some knowledge of so that a student can build upon his/her skillset as they progress up the ladder of archery. We can argue if that is truly the case or not; but there has been an attempt at least to establish a farm system for the Olympic archery program. If I would have to guess the current USAA system is modeled after the South Korean system, albeit not as many serious young archers. At least that is something.




Stone Bridge said:


> His ego then attached jargon, terms and descriptions to things Pace and others were doing just after the earth cooled.


 Well, as a trainer or coach you do need a common jargon to communicate with that your students have at least some idea of what you are speaking of. I also am a professional trainer, and if I am training new operators; I spend a good hour going over the jargon and terms that I will be using throughout the training period. Technical training normally doesn't use all common terms, that a unknowledgeable person will know off the top of their heads. For example I use jargon such as feed gates, cowcatcher, front fold fingers, back fold hooks, fold plows, hold down skis, drop down skis, etc. I doubt if there is anyone here that could give me a definition of each of these items unless they have went though my training program for the machine I train on.




Stone Bridge said:


> Lee glommed on to this early work and is now profiting greatly from it. 150 dollars for his bible. His archery book. That's disgusting considering he's supposed to be guiding kids. Parents already spend enough for lots of other things kid-related. 150 dollars to read in Lee's book what you can get for free online.


 Two things here. Is Lee's Total Archery volume one being mass produced? And does the market bare the dollar amount? If his first volume isn't being mass produced, believe it or not books are not cheap the make. A few years ago I wrote a technical manual for packaging designers who design packages that run through the machine I train on; and it was about 180 pages long and had a lot of pictures in it. Anyway I went to office depot to have one printed out so that I can show potential customers. It was in color, and it was bound with only plastic swirly (can't remember the name at this time) and it cost me $130.00 to make! Just one! Nothing fancy either. So $150.00 may be pretty close to the minimum they can charge and still make a profit. 

The other question is also important. Do people buy that book at that price. If so, then why not sell it at that price? 

One last point here as well. I am currently reading the second volume, Inside the Archer, which cost me about $60.00 from Amazon; and it is definitely not for the average child or parent. The book is over technical to say the least. A would not let my child open the cover except maybe show him a picture of what something should look like. That book would blow his mind to say the least. If someone picked up that book, who has never shot before, and think they would come away from reading that book thinking that archery is one of the most complicated things a human being can do period. 





Stone Bridge said:


> Read Lee. I have. Read everyone else, too. Once you have done that, you'll be as cynical as I am about KSL and the guy humping that system. He is largely a very crafty salesman of snake oil. Others will disagree. So be it. Lee appreciates the blind allegiance. He's probably got a very nice swimming pool at home because of it.


 I currently am, and I have read others as well. I am not cynical about the KSL, and quite honestly if a man can make a good living doing something that he loves, go for it is all I can say. 

I too am hoping that eventually I can make a retirement living off of archery; but that is a ways in the future, and a lot of things are going to have to fall right for it work that way.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

pineapple3d said:


> John I think my rates are to low after seeing this.


I'm sure they are. I mean, $200/hour for a skype session is all the going rate man. Get with the program!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

zal said:


> I like the fact that modern Korean method advocates simplicity. They are after all ones with most resources and sport science behing their program.


Exactly. They have almost limitless resources to throw at their national sport, and yet how do their archers shoot? And what are their results? 

Look, I'm not interested in making anything in life any more complicated than it has to be to get the job done. Life is already complicated enough. So when I see the best archers in the world shooting a very simple method, well... 

Why would a responsible coach deviate from the way the best archers in the world are shooting? 

I can think of a few reasons, but I'll keep them to myself. After all, I'm just some small-town JOAD coach who doesn't even charge most of the time. What could I possibly know? I mean, you get what you pay for, right? Isn't that how it works? $200/hour skype sessions have to be worth that if folks are paying it.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Actually, it's Coach Kim's book that is $150. Coach Lee's Total Archery was $50 to $60 and Inside the Archer is $65 on LAS now.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

erose, it's okay if your all in. You have a lot of company. Lee has a nice pool to prove it.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Stone Bridge said:


> erose, it's okay if your all in. You have a lot of company. Lee has a nice pool to prove it.


I never said I am all in. I don't use the KSL system exactly. I do use some of the techniques recommended in the KSL system. I doubt very seriously that will ever be involved with the Olympic teams. All I am doing is trying to become the best archer I can, and help as many kids to learn to enjoy the sport I have grown to love. For me Lee is a resource, as is whatever else I can find. I just am not going to disparage him because he has found great success in this field.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Having read a book, doesn't mean one understands the contents of that book. That has been demonstrated on numerous occasions right here.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I just am not going to disparage him because he has found great success in this field.


What is the metric for "great" success. I'm curious.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> What is the metric for "great" success. I'm curious.


The very fact that we are speaking of him speaks of the success he has had. Whether it is warranted or not doesn't matter. I think that President Obama is one of the worst Presidents ever; but his success as a person cannot be questioned. Lee right now whether one likes it or not is on top of the food chain when it comes to Olympic archery and the USAA that in itself is a great success for an individual coach.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The very fact that we are speaking of him speaks of the success he has had


By that measure, Paris Hilton is a talented actress who has enjoyed tremendous success.



> Whether it is warranted or not doesn't matter


It matters a great deal to some. Particularly to coaches like myself who have had to answer 1000's of questions from parents and archers re: NTS/Lee/OTC over the past 9 years.



> I think that President Obama is one of the worst Presidents ever


I cannot disagree with that.



> his success as a person cannot be questioned.


Let me just say you have a funny, and very conteporary way, of measuring "success."



> Lee right now whether one likes it or not is on top of the food chain when it comes to Olympic archery


Well, he certainly seems to have you convinced. 

If we wanted to do the math, and particularly if we are willing to consider <gasp!> FEMALE athletes as the equal to men in the Olympic games, there are actually a number of archery coaches who have been more successful in the past decade. 

But that's being objective-like and all...


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I disagree with the statement _".. President Obama is one of the worst Presidents ever"_ . In my opinion he is _*THE*_ worst [2-term] President ever.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Limbwalker, even though Paris sucks as an actress, there is no doubt that she has been very successful in marketing herself. So it still stands. 

Success is how well you do in the field you are in. Obama is successful in that he achieved what he set out to do. Right now he is President of the United States. 

Lee's system is now considered the National Training System of the USA. Whether you like it or not his system is THE system of USAA. It is his system discussed in the "official" archery book of USAA. He is well respected among his peers, if he wasn't he wouldn't be where he is. Is he the best archery coach out there? I don't know. The odds are against him I would imagine; but he has still achieved great success for himself in the field he has chosen to follow. 

Look I don't want to be considered the Kasik Lee official apologist. Quite frankly I don't know the man from Adam. I have read some of the books he has contributed to, and have used some of the techniques I have found in them. But I have also read other folks books, and have read the level one and two manuals for World Archery. Some of the techniques I have read in them I have adopted as well. Heck some of the suggestions made by you and others on this very forum, I have also adopted. I'm really still in learning mode, which is exciting.

The only thing I challenged here is the disparaging of a man's reputation, who is obviously not here to defend himself. Maybe some of the stuff he is spouting is hogwash, but a lot of what he teaches does work, because like Stone Bridge has stated, it has worked since well before Lee was born. 

Archery is like a lot of other things we do in this world, there is more than one way to skin a cat, when it comes to archery. The NTS is one of them. Is it the best system? I don't know. But it is a good system, albeit can be difficult to learn and teach.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

erose said:


> . It was in color, and it was bound with only plastic swirly (can't remember the name at this time) and it cost me $130.00 to make! Just one! Nothing fancy either. So $150.00 may be pretty close to the minimum they can charge and still make a profit.
> 
> The other question is also important. Do people buy that book at that price. If so, then why not sell it at that price?
> 
> One last point here as well. I am currently reading the second volume, Inside the Archer, which cost me about $60.00 from Amazon;


Cost really depends greatly on how many units you print. Inside the Archer cost under $5 per hard cover copy, printed in China as a batch of 5000 books. But that means fronting $25,000 in advance and hoping to sell 5000 copies. Which is a lot for a niche book. The cost of printing coach Kim's book in smaller quantities could be a lot more, but $150 a copy is steep and surely results in substantially fewer sales.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I have both Coaches books. Kim's has far, far more stuff I could use in it. Also it's full of photos, and I know from experience that's what pushes costs up. If you'd push out a paperback I'm sure the costs will go down. Also I think I paid 80 euros for mine, bought straight from the guy, so distributor markup seems quite big.

Look, I'm not pitting those coaches against each other, and I didn't mean Kim when I spoke of "modern Korean method", they have really good programme that is pushing the developement and simplicity is key in that. But Kim's coaching does work, look at Maja Jäger, she's been practicing in Korea for few years and it shows, as she is 2013 world champion.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

zal said:


> I have both Coaches books. Kim's has far, far more stuff I could use in it. Also it's full of photos, and I know from experience that's what pushes costs up. If you'd push out a paperback I'm sure the costs will go down. Also I think I paid 80 euros for mine, bought straight from the guy, so distributor markup seems quite big.
> 
> Look, I'm not pitting those coaches against each other, and I didn't mean Kim when I spoke of "modern Korean method", they have really good programme that is pushing the developement and simplicity is key in that. But Kim's coaching does work, look at Maja Jäger, she's been practicing in Korea for few years and it shows, as she is 2013 world champion.


I know people who have self-published their own novels and it did not cost much at all. They were selling copies for under 20 bucks and making a small profit. I do not believe you have to charge 150 dollars to recoup costs for a small run of books, not even 50 dollars. It's gouging and that's all it is. Sometimes you just have to look at the obvious and state the true. Of course nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head if they spend 150 dollars on an archery book. It simply offends me on many levels, that's all.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

TER said:


> Actually, it's Coach Kim's book that is $150. Coach Lee's Total Archery was $50 to $60 and Inside the Archer is $65 on LAS now.


That's 3X the price.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose, we clearly have two differing opinions on how to define success.

There is the seemingly contemporary notion that if you "get" the job, you are successful. (i.e. - Obama "got" the job). Then there is the idea that I support that you must DO the job to be successful. Old-fashioned, yes, I know, but it's who I am... 

Yea, Obama got the job, twice, but how is he performing IN the job? That's how I measure success.

But I'm not going to argue with you. And you're right about disparaging a person's reputation here. I'm not here to do that. Lee is a good man and I like him personally. I don't agree that the method he teaches is the best way to shoot, based on the evidence before us. I'm a science guy - my degree is in science and when I look at the evidence, it would suggest that the most successful coaches in terms of worldwide podium placments, are teaching arguably the simplest method. 

The fact that NTS is now the national coaching standard is not IMO a measure of success. USArchery was looking for a standard. This is the one they chose. It really is just that simple. They could have chosen another and we would have enjoyed just as much, and perhaps even more, success with our students. From my perspective, it takes a pretty good athlete to perfect the NTS. 

John


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Stone Bridge said:


> I know people who have self-published their own novels and it did not cost much at all. They were selling copies for under 20 bucks and making a small profit. I do not believe you have to charge 150 dollars to recoup costs for a small run of books, not even 50 dollars. It's gouging and that's all it is. Sometimes you just have to look at the obvious and state the true. Of course nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head if they spend 150 dollars on an archery book. It simply offends me on many levels, that's all.


In the past I've been looking for publishers and printers for the history books my dad's written. You can easily do a small run of paperbacks and even some hardbacks for ~$15 a piece if you only want text, for black and white pics it gets up a notch and for colour pics a lot. Also the quality of paper and binding you want influences the cost a lot. We did a very small run of very picture heavy books for our club's anniversary (or rather the anniversary that was a couple of years ago), they ended up costing 70 euros apiece (~$85) even with soft backs, and we sold them without markup.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

zal said:


> In the past I've been looking for publishers and printers for the history books my dad's written. You can easily do a small run of paperbacks and even some hardbacks for ~$15 a piece if you only want text, for black and white pics it gets up a notch and for colour pics a lot. Also the quality of paper and binding you want influences the cost a lot. We did a very small run of very picture heavy books for our club's anniversary (or rather the anniversary that was a couple of years ago), they ended up costing 70 euros apiece (~$85) even with soft backs, and we sold them without markup.


This all assumes *printing* a book is necessary. The last archery book I bought was "Archery" edited by USAA, and I bought it add an eBook. Printing cost: $0.00.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

zal said:


> In the past I've been looking for publishers and printers for the history books my dad's written. You can easily do a small run of paperbacks and even some hardbacks for ~$15 a piece if you only want text, for black and white pics it gets up a notch and for colour pics a lot. Also the quality of paper and binding you want influences the cost a lot. We did a very small run of very picture heavy books for our club's anniversary (or rather the anniversary that was a couple of years ago), they ended up costing 70 euros apiece (~$85) even with soft backs, and we sold them without markup.


I believe you, zal. I understand color printing is expensive. My biggest point is such a book as Lee is selling has already been done to death. There are several very good archery books on the market along the Internet to allow more research. The book at 50 to 150 dollars is not needed.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I have perhaps 25-30 books related to archery, plus a lot of scientific papers on subject I've managed to find. A lot of them have same themes and are almost identical. I still think Kim's book, Axford's Archery Anatomy and Mckinney's book would be my three picks. I like the way that Kim's book is written, it has good examples and a lot of valuable information from beginner coach to experienced coach. Archery Anatomy is a must if you want to understand anything most books write about and to be able to formulate your own view. Mckinney's book gives very personal view and is highly motivational. With Lee's stuff its very, very easy to get the wrong idea and a lot of beginners have been trying techniques which are clearly for advanced archers.

Still, the best source of written archery information in the world, IMO, is old sagi BB's archives. I spend one happy christmas reading through them back in ~2004 when I started archery again after 10+ years hiatus. Sadly the board has pretty much dried up, but archives are still worth reading.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

zal said:


> I still think Kim's book, Axford's Archery Anatomy and Mckinney's book would be my three picks.


i have three archery books that i read. Those are the three. 


Chris


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> erose, we clearly have two differing opinions on how to define success.
> 
> There is the seemingly contemporary notion that if you "get" the job, you are successful. (i.e. - Obama "got" the job). Then there is the idea that I support that you must DO the job to be successful. Old-fashioned, yes, I know, but it's who I am...
> 
> ...


John I didn't say that Obama is successful as a president, I'm saying that he is successful as a person. There is a key difference here, that I think that we are talking over each other, and I apologize for that.

The same I think goes for Lee, one can argue that Lee isn't as successful as a coach as he or others thinks he is, and that argument I can not debate, because quite frankly I don't know his situation enough. But I think though that no one can really argue against the fact that Lee has been pretty successful as a person, in the field of archery. That is all I am saying, and nothing more.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Ssdd


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Again, it all comes down to how one defines success. Obama is no more successful as a person than many people I know, and far less than some. Depends on the metrics used.

About 8 years ago, I was asked to move to our Washington office and in the process, be someone I was not. I could have done it, and done it well but instead, I chose to stay true to who I am. Does that make me more or less "successful?"


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

If you go out and accomplish what you set out to do, does that not define success? Obama set out to be President, and he accomplished that. I don't think that he ever set out to be a good president, just president.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys - 

If we can get back to archery for a second...

The main difference between the NTS/KSL "method" and what some people are describing as old school is that one appears to be more, well, rigid stating that the theoretical "best" (lower case) process should be and attempt to make it a one size fits all, vs. a fundamental "+" methodology. The latter implies that once the fundamentals are understood and to some degree mastered, the individual shooter can and if fact needs to develop a style that maximizes their strong points and minimizes their weak points. I'd like to believe that's what actually happens at the OTC, but based on my readings, it doesn't seem that way. 

When trying to use laboratory testing as described earlier on this thread, regardless of how methodical they appear, the tests are only valid for the subjects being tested. We used to have a saying, that given strict controls or temperature, humidity and pressure, the organism will typically do as it damn well pleases. That why while the lab testing done at the OTC has value, it has to be taken with a grain of salt, as in evidence when someone comes along and does quite well doing the exact opposite. 

As an instructor/coach, I figure it's my job to know the difference between what negotiable and what isn't from wise for a given shooter. IOWs, I have to know when to correct something and when to shut up. 

BTW - IMHO, limbwalker's first post on this thread pretty much nailed it. 

One other thing since we're all basically ranting here. I understand that there have only been about 16 men on US Olympic teams since 1972. Compare that the the number of people just "shooting" Olympic style archery throughout the country and yes, even the throughout world. A lot of techniques that may serve a shooter practicing 6 or 7 days a week for hours at a time, may not always be ideal for a weekend warrior, which most of us are. I think I can do more good tailoring what I do to "the rest of us". Heck, it works for me anyway...

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> If you go out and accomplish what you set out to do, does that not define success? Obama set out to be President, and he accomplished that. I don't think that he ever set out to be a good president, just president.


Therein lies the problem with today's society, and many of today's youth. They think that a position = success. Trouble is, positions are merely platforms from which you are supposed to ACCOMPLISH something. The whole point is accomplishing things, not obtaining titles. Who cares what title one holds if they are not accomplishing things.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

I'm going to repost this becaise I really shouldn't type any before my third cup of coffee...

Guys -

If we can get back to archery for a second...

The main difference between the NTS/KSL "method" and what some people are describing as old school is that one appears to be more, well, rigid stating *what* the theoretical "best" (lower case) process should be and attempt to make it a one size fits all, vs. a fundamental "+" methodology. The latter implies that once the fundamentals are understood and to some degree mastered, the individual shooter can and* in *fact needs to develop a style that maximizes their strong points and minimizes their weak points. I'd like to believe that's what actually happens at the OTC, but based on my readings, it doesn't seem that way.

When trying to use laboratory testing as described earlier on this thread, regardless of how methodical they appear, the tests are only valid for the subjects being tested. We used to have a saying, that given strict controls *of* temperature, humidity and pressure, the organism will typically do as it damn well pleases. *That's* why while the lab testing done at the OTC has value, it has to be taken with a grain of salt, as in evidence when someone comes along and does quite well doing the exact opposite.

As an instructor/coach, I figure it's my job to know the difference between *what's* negotiable and what isn't *form *wise for a given shooter. IOWs, I have to know when to correct something and when to shut up.

BTW - IMHO, limbwalker's first post on this thread pretty much nailed it.

One other thing since we're all basically ranting here. I understand that there have only been about 16 men on US Olympic teams since 1972. Compare that the the number of people just "shooting" Olympic style archery throughout the country and yes, even the throughout world. A lot of techniques that may serve a shooter practicing 6 or 7 days a week for hours at a time, may not always be ideal for a weekend warrior, which most of us are. I think I can do more good tailoring what I do to "the rest of us". Heck, it works for me anyway...

Viper1 out.


----------



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

NTS has a baseline process that we use as a starting point. With getting to holding as the ultimate goal, each archer is supposed to be evaluated based upon what they can and can't do, and the process is adjusted to fit them. That is what is done at the OTC and that is what is done with JDT archers. It should be done with anyone else learning the process. There is a lot in NTS that is negotiable. The thing the coach needs to learn is when to stop trying to fix things that don't need fixing because that is what that archer needs to do to get to holding, if they can. Do we have things that are not negotiable, yes, just as any other process has, but it still comes down to an individual archers ability and desire. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> NTS has a baseline process that we use as a starting point. With getting to holding as the ultimate goal, each archer is supposed to be evaluated based upon what they can and can't do, and the process is adjusted to fit them. That is what is done at the OTC and that is what is done with JDT archers. It should be done with anyone else learning the process. There is a lot in NTS that is negotiable. The thing the coach needs to learn is when to stop trying to fix things that don't need fixing because that is what that archer needs to do to get to holding, if they can. Do we have things that are not negotiable, yes, just as any other process has, but it still comes down to an individual archers ability and desire.
> 
> Terry


Given that, it would be handy have a list of all the "nonnegotiables" and the extras broken down in that manner.


----------



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

Bone-on-bone alignment
Strong stable bowarm
Good use of back tension 
Angular draw 
Getting to holding position

Terry


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

I'm not sure I agree with angular draw being a non-negotiable. I have seen plenty of archers have success with a more linear draw. It's certainly not common IMO, but it can be done and for some people it works much better.


----------



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

Last_Bastion said:


> I'm not sure I agree with angular draw being a non-negotiable. I have seen plenty of archers have success with a more linear draw. It's certainly not common IMO, but it can be done and for some people it works much better.


The question asked of me was what was non-negotiable within the NTS process? NTS does not use a linear draw. If an archer is using a linear draw, that's fine. It just isn't the NTS. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> Bone-on-bone alignment
> Strong stable bowarm
> Good use of back tension
> Angular draw
> ...


Which would really boil down to angular draw as the only NTS specific "non-negotiable"?

I'm not sure what bone on bone means... ( It's another bad analogy, I think. You never really want bone on bone - bone on cartilage, sure. /pedant ) By bone on bone do you refer to the inline back and bow arm (BOG)? That is, is BOG non-negotiable?


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

bownut-tl. said:


> The question asked of me was what was non-negotiable within the NTS process? NTS does not use a linear draw. If an archer is using a linear draw, that's fine. It just isn't the NTS.
> 
> Terry


Ah. I didn't realize that. Sorry to muddy the waters.


----------



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

Warbow said:


> Which would really boil down to angular draw as the only NTS specific "non-negotiable"?
> 
> I'm not sure what bone on bone means... ( It's another bad analogy, I think. You never really want bone on bone - bone on cartilage, sure. /pedant ) By bone on bone do you refer to the inline back and bow arm (BOG). That is, is BOG non-negotiable?


We are talking about alignment. I was using the same term Chris used to describe it. It isn't a bad analogy, I just failed to define it since I thought it was an understood term, but I'll accept your view and bash my head on my desk top for using it. Yes, the BOG is non-negotiable. Oops, I used another bad one. Head butt again. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> We are talking about alignment. I was using the same term Chris used to describe it. It isn't a bad analogy, I just failed to define it since I thought it was an understood term, but I'll accept your view and bash my head on my desk top for using it. Yes, the BOG is non-negotiable. Oops, I used another bad one. Head butt again.
> 
> Terry


Well, first I should thank you for taking the time to give these helpful posts that aid in clarifying some aspects of NTS. So, thank you.

I really wasn't certain what you meant by bone on bone because back parallel to the arrow is still "bone on bone" - bones are still "on" bones even if they aren't in a straight line, so the description's meaning isn't self evident even if it has common usage in NTS. I find it is really easy to accidentally miscommunicate when two people just assume they are using a term in the same way - hence my asking for clarification. However. I still don't know if you're referring just to alignment on the compression side as opposed to the tension side, because bone on bone wouldn't apply to the draw side because in that case tension is pulling the bones apart and isn't bone on bone even in a loose analogy.

Question for you, other than angular draw, are there any national level systems that don't embody all of the nonnegotiables you cited?


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Taking a long time to teach a complicated method actually fits into some people's philosophy of how coaching archery should be done. Fits some of our students and their parent's idea of what "professional" coaching should look like too. I mean, they have money, and they want to spend it to get their kid "on the team." How many people are there these days who simply assume if a method is more complex and more expensive to learn, surely it must be better.
> 
> Think about it. If what you teach takes a day or two to learn, then you're done as a coach right? No $200 skype sessions, no $1000 seminars needed. It doesn't fit the model.
> 
> ...


I have always found Rick Van der Ven's shot to be very effective and look so simplistic! Makes me wonder why you would ever need more than that!


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Exactly. They have almost limitless resources to throw at their national sport, and yet how do their archers shoot? And what are their results?
> 
> Look, I'm not interested in making anything in life any more complicated than it has to be to get the job done. Life is already complicated enough. So when I see the best archers in the world shooting a very simple method, well...
> 
> ...


John,

I want you to author a book with this as the only page in it....I am willing to pay up to $75 for it....


----------



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

Warbow said:


> Question for you, other than angular draw, are there any national level systems that don't embody all of the nonnegotiables you cited?


I am not aware of any. However, I can't speak for them in terms of how much importance they play or how they define them. For example, when NTS says use a strong bowarm, we are saying it is fully exended, (not hyper), tight triceps muscles and the arm is rigid. I have heard other archers say they have a strong bowarm, but it is relaxed. They simply meant they don't let it drop at release. 

Terry


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

bownut-tl. said:


> For example, when NTS says use a strong bowarm, we are saying it is fully exended, (not hyper), tight triceps muscles and the arm is rigid.
> Terry


Yes, this is my definition of strong bow arm. 

my definition of bone on bone alignment is the wrist, bow arm and both shoulders are all in alignment toward target.

Chris


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Therein lies the problem with today's society, and many of today's youth. They think that a position = success. Trouble is, positions are merely platforms from which you are supposed to ACCOMPLISH something. The whole point is accomplishing things, not obtaining titles. Who cares what title one holds if they are not accomplishing things.


Perhaps. The way I see whether or not someone is successful, is did they meet or exceed their goals. Any other view of success is going to be subjective on the part of the observer. Obama set out to be the President of the USA. He met that goal, thus he was successful. No one can deny this point because it is purely an objective observation. Whether or not he has been a successful president quite frankly is a subjective observation. There are still quite a few folks out there who believe Obama is an outstanding President, while from our point of view he isn't. You see what I mean?

When one looks at what Lee has accomplished in his career, it is obvious that he has met or exceeded his goals as a coach. I doubt very seriously that when he started out coaching he goal was to be a national team coach. If I had to guess, his goal was probably to be a good coach. Yet no one can deny that he has exceeded expectations. That is an objective observation. On whether or not he is a great coach or not, or that his system is a great system or not would fall into the realm of subjectivity. That is my point. 

Thanks for the discussion though. I have learned quite a bit from this thread and the other two similar ones.

I won't comment further on this line of debate, so may have the last word.


----------



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

chrstphr said:


> Yes, this is my definition of strong bow arm.
> 
> my definition of bone on bone alignment is the wrist, bow arm and both shoulders are all in alignment toward target.
> 
> Chris


Same as NTS.

Terry


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Obama set out to be the President of the USA


You really think this was his goal? I would hope that the position of president was seen by him as a means to an end - the end being the change he wanted to see made (i.e., what us old school folks call "the product."  ) 

Because if his goal was just to "become" president, that that truly is disappointing.



> When one looks at what Lee has accomplished in his career, it is obvious that he has met or exceeded his goals as a coach.


I doubt a single team silver medal in nearly 10 years as the head coach of the most powerful nation on earth meets or exceeds his personal goal. If it does, I would be shocked. By any measure, he had more success in half the time in Australia.

If his goal was simply to become a national coach, then it was a pretty sad goal. 

I'm guessing you're pretty young by the way you define a goal and success. I see this often in young people these days. No talk about the product, only the position or title... It's depressing.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I doubt a single team silver medal in nearly 10 years as the head coach of the most powerful nation on earth meets or exceeds his personal goal. If it does, I would be shocked. By any measure, he had more success in half the time in Australia.
> 
> If his goal was simply to become a national coach, then it was a pretty sad goal.
> 
> ...


Perhaps this next time USAA can wait until *after* the Olympics before giving their head coach a renewed 4 year contract?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> Yes, this is my definition of strong bow arm.
> 
> my definition of bone on bone alignment is the wrist, bow arm and both shoulders are all in alignment toward target.
> 
> Chris


In the NTS system the BOG is not really in line with the target. Your wrist, bowarm, and shoulders are lined up, but they will be pointing slightly to the right of the target for a right hand shooter.

I would also think having an open stance would also be a non-negotiable.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> Same as NTS.
> 
> Terry


So, Terry, where does the locked legs revision fit into all of this? It was described as a way to solve a problem that some some people had but it was told us as something that everybody must do. Why not propose it as a solution for people who had a specific problems rather than prescribe it to everybody just because some people have a problem?


----------



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

It's an option. We tell the archers about, let them try it, and if they want to incorporate it they can. If not, we move on. It is not driven by the NTS.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> It's an option. We tell the archers about, let them try it, and if they want to incorporate it they can. If not, we move on. It is not driven by the NTS.


Thanks. That's the way I would expect it to be used in a well thought out system for an occasional problem. But that's not the way it was disseminated by email to all of us on the mailing list. I don't know what it means to say "driven by NTS" since any change to sent out by USAA is de jure a change to NTS - unless there's some fragmentation between "NTS" versus the national standards that USAA disseminates. There seems to be a disconnect.


----------



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

What I meant by "not driven" is that it wasn't specifically developed as a part of the NTS like angular drawing.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> What I meant by "not driven" is that it wasn't specifically developed as a part of the NTS like angular drawing.


I could see how you could qualify it as not being one of the non negotiable aspects of NTS, but what does NTS mean? Supposedly it means national training system and by that standard the leg lock for everybody is definitely part of the national training system as disseminated by USAA. What does NTS mean to you?


----------



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

Ok....UNCLE!!!!

I'm tapping out. 

ARCHERS OF THE WORLD, DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> Ok....UNCLE!!!!
> 
> I'm tapping out.
> 
> ...


You know, somehow I think it's different when you do stuff in person than when you try and condense what you into a system you can communicate by a self contained collection words. The things you say make sense. The things that get transmitted down to others via USAA often do not make as much sense as what you say here in this forum. Thank you for taking time to make clarifications. Maybe if you were in charge of communications things would be better. Really..

Also, my question about what does NTS mean to you is a real question. Because if official coaching changes sent from USAA about what to teach aren't "NTS" then what are they? and how is anyone other than OTC coaching staff supposed to know the difference?


----------



## zephus (Apr 28, 2012)

So when these revisions do get made, are the US team obliged to follow these changes to promote NTS to the community at-large? I would assume it would be quite disrupting to Brady and the gang just to enforce USAA'S defacto style and form.


----------



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

I'm going to go punish myself with a spinning class at the gym and will try to recover my brains later to respond. 

NTS is a shot process. Some elements were developed and refined by coach Lee, or coach Lee with the RAs, or by others that coach Lee felt was an improvement in a step that could be added to the NTS baseline. All changes, adjustments, clarifications, or whatnot are first tried with the RAs and, if a positive result is found, it is incorporated into the baseline. If not, it is discarded. We are using the continuous improvement approach. Brady, the current RAs, or any other archer using NTS have the option of incorporating any process adjustment if they feel it helps them. If they have a process that is working well for them, they can stay with their process. Remember, the goal is getting to Holding, the path you take to get there, within certain limits, is up to you and your coach, but mainly you the archer. 

I'm getting a headache now so I'm done for awhile. 

Terry


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Terry, just so we're clear, we're still calling alignment "holding"? Why not just call it alignment? It's the little things like this (and "LAN 2") that confuse people and frankly, hurt the credibility of NTS.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Thank you Terry for answering about NTS. it is rare for me to find anyone who can or will. While i do not appreciate the system or method, I can appreciate and respect that you do. 


Chris


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Why not include a linear draw method as a way/option to get to holding / good alignment?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> Thank you Terry for answering about NTS. it is rare for me to find anyone who can or will. While i do not appreciate the system or method, I can appreciate and respect that you do.
> 
> 
> Chris


Yup, Terry is good people. Not many NTS advocates today can be polite and respectful while explaining the system the way he can.

Lee and NTS owes him a debt of gratitude IMO.

John


----------



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

John and Chris,

Thanks for the kind words.

To answer your question. Holding is a position that consists of alignment (bow side and draw side), good use of back tension, and a mental commitment to the shot. Alignment is a big part of it, but we don't want the archer to think that is all that is required at that point. Once holding has been achieved, now the archer is ready to start the rest of the process. We don't stop moving at this point so I know Warbow will hate the use of the term because the name implies something other than what we mean. That is why, when we teach it, an explanation goes with the name. We break the shot into two halves. We look at the first part as being more conscious. Not to the point of thinking about how to do each part. That should still be based on muscle memory, but to be aware of what is happening along the way and deciding if the shot should continue or you let down and start over. Once holding is reached, we think of the rest of the shot, from that point on, as being a subconscious action. With more shot experience, the archer is able to easily move from one step to the next where it becomes a seamless action. There is a bit more to this, but that is the basics. Hope it doesn't burn too many grey cells or singe folks eye lashes.

Terry


----------



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

As for Lan2 or things like it, if all you say is focus on Lan2 and don't tell them what it is or means, yes, it can be a problem. I guess my question is why is it ok to use names or terms like string alignment, fistmele (sp), brace height, tiller, pile, bracer, plunger, tab, and other terms where you have to teach someone what they mean.....but Lan2.....No, even if you define it, that one is a problem. It just sounds.........to me.

Terry


----------



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

ryan b. said:


> Why not include a linear draw method as a way/option to get to holding / good alignment?


The NTS doesn't offer a linear draw as an option because we have angular draw as one of the non-negotiable steps. If how you drew the bow was optional in the NTS we could do that, but for us, it isn't.

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> John and Chris,
> 
> Thanks for the kind words.
> 
> ...


Nah, holding is one of the less objectional terms.  And, when *you* describe it it makes sense, though since you included bone on bone earlier I didn't realize that holding also was meant to imply a specific alignment as well- so, holding is, to a degree, yet another KSL/NTS term of art that is used in a special way that isn't obvious to outsiders. At least with LAN 2 it's obvious I don't know what it means (what ever happened to LAN 1?) So even with relatively uncomplicated terms like holding there is an opportunity for unknowing accidental miscommunication if you don't take the time to define the terms during the conversation. 

I agree with John and others here, your comments here are really helpful and will serve as reference and educate far more than just the people currently posting the thread. I don't think I've ever read explanations of NTS that are as clear, credible and articulate as yours, and I'm thankful for your posts.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

bownut-tl. said:


> The NTS doesn't offer a linear draw as an option because we have angular draw as one of the non-negotiable steps. If how you drew the bow was optional in the NTS we could do that, but for us, it isn't.
> 
> Terry


I see. Thanks. 


Also, thank you for elaborating on holding (above), it was helpful to me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The NTS doesn't offer a linear draw as an option because we have angular draw as one of the non-negotiable steps.


Terry, thanks for the explanation. 

But it's a good thing nobody told Ms. Park that the linear draw was non-negotiable, otherwise we might have never seen a 1400 shot with a recurve.


----------



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

Warbow said:


> Nah, holding is one of the less objectional terms.  And, when *you* describe it it makes sense, though since you included bone on bone earlier I didn't realize that holding also was meant to imply a specific alignment as well- so, holding is, to a degree, yet another KSL/NTS term of art that is used in a special way that isn't obvious to outsiders. At least with LAN 2 it's obvious I don't know what it means (what ever happened to LAN 1?) So even with relatively uncomplicated terms like holding there is an opportunity for unknowing accidental miscommunication if you don't take the time to define the terms during the conversation.
> 
> I agree with John and others here, your comments here are really helpful and will serve as reference and educate far more than just the people currently posting the thread. I don't think I've ever read explanations of NTS that are as clear, credible and articulate as yours, and I'm thankful for your posts.


When Coach Lee came to the US his use of English wasn't that strong, especially after having to deal with the way the Aussies speak, and he always seemed to have a few issues with understanding terms we Americans use. I'm sure John can remember a few of those instances. He tried to come up with names that he felt made sense to him when speaking english. He will admit some of the terms could have better names, but they are what they are and he felt, since the folks using the process understood what he meant, there was no need to change them. I don't recall where Lan2 came from or why there isn't a Lan1. Maybe it just roles off the tongue better. He had a spot on the back of the arm he wanted archers to focus on so he wanted to give it a name. Lan2 became it. I guess he could have called it "the spot" or "the spot on the back of the upper arm" or even better, "a spot on the back of the upper arm that is approximately two thirds of the way above the draw elbow between the triceps muscles and used to help focus the draw movement, expansion, and follow through" or we could simplify it by calling it "asotbotuatiattotwatdebttmauthftdmeaft" or Lan2 for really short.

If one is going to use an atypical name, that person has a responsibility to define it. We do that.


----------



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

limbwalker said:


> Terry, thanks for the explanation.
> 
> But it's a good thing nobody told Ms. Park that the linear draw was non-negotiable, otherwise we might have never seen a 1400 shot with a recurve.


yea, but maybe if she had used an angular draw, she would have shot a 1440.


----------



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

I'm just curious, if someone in Korea didn't want to use a Linear draw...would it be Ok?

terry


----------



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

I have to get up early in the morning to go to the VA to get two sets of hearing aids so I will see where this stuff is in the morning.

Terry


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Oh, Jin, Hyuk.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Or Hyek. Or however my wife pronounces it......


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

theminoritydude said:


> Oh, Jin, Hyuk.


He doesn't even do bone-on-bone alignment, so he's pretty much the best example of the Shoot Whatever Way Works For You(tm) method.


----------



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

The readers of this or other NTS threads have seen comments about the NTS use of an open stance. So it is clear to all who wish to know, I want to describe what the NTS stance is.

This is for a right handed shooter:

If you are at home and have a wood or tiled floor, find a line on the floor that would be perpendicular to a shooting line and imagine that is your target line. 
Place your right foot such that the target line passes through the ball of your right foot.
Place your left foot shoulders width apart from your right foot.
Move your left foot back until the toes of that foot are between 1 to 1.5 inches away from the target line. 
Rotate the left foot about 45 degrees toward the target.
Rotate your right foot toward the target until it is at an approximately 30 degree angle from the shooting line. Some archers will leave this foot parallel to the shooting line and that's ok.

That is an NTS open stance.

One final comment. Just because you see someone at a shoot or on YouTube stating they are shooting the NTS process, it doesn't mean they are. So be careful when making comparisons.

Terry


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Terry, just so we're clear, we're still calling alignment "holding"? Why not just call it alignment? It's the little things like this (and "LAN 2") that confuse people and frankly, hurt the credibility of NTS.


One of my points all along - superfluous jargon to make things appear more than they are. Pure KLS and it hurts more than it helps.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> yea, but maybe if she had used an angular draw, she would have shot a 1440.


LOL. Until someone demonstrates they are better than she was, it's pretty pointless to argue that she may have done better with another method. Have you watched her shoot? I did, in person, and it was the simplest motion ever. No wasted motion, no wasted energy. 

IMO, this is how we should be teaching our women to shoot in the U.S., as the data by now has proven that NTS does not work for women, whether Australian, Korean or American.



bownut-tl. said:


> I'm just curious, if someone in Korea didn't want to use a Linear draw...would it be Ok?
> 
> terry


Not every Korean uses linear draw. Particularly the men. Have a look at Oh and tell me Terry, angular or linear?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M4-hB9t3kY

Some of the Korean men use angular draw, but none of the women do. See the connection? 

It's a real pity that Oh never reaches "holding" though. Imagine what he could do if he did!


----------



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

i wasn't trying to do a comparison. Just wanted to know what I asked.


----------



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

Stone Bridge said:


> One of my points all along - superfluous jargon to make things appear more than they are. Pure KLS and it hurts more than it helps.


Stone Bridge, since that spot has a purpose with the NTS, what would you prefer we call it when talking about it to archers we teach? Or are you saying we shouldn't use the spot or use something else that currently has a name like elbow or something?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bownut-tl. said:


> Stone Bridge, since that spot has a purpose with the NTS, what would you prefer we call it when talking about it to archers we teach?



"Acromion"

"scapular spine"

"humeral head"

All these are based on factual terms for that position on the back of a person's shoulder.

Or even calling it the "rotation point" or "lever" would make more sense than "LAN 2". I'm still trying to figure out what happened to LAN 1.


----------



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

So, for people that don't know what the Acromion, scapular spine, or humeral head are, you still have to describe them. Scapular spine is easier to say or remember than Lan2, ok. 

As for Lan1, I'll give it a home. We would have used the term belly button, but can't because in rare cases, some folks don't have belly buttons anymore because of abdominal surgery so we will now use Lan1.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Really guys.. Lan 2 is what is really going to drive everyone to a fit.

I have a solution, think of it as a brand name, nobody is arguing why we google something, or that kodak was named after the sound the stupid camera made. Maybe he should have called it Lee 2. But at the end of the day, that is the name he used, and it has been clearly identified and located so that anybody who asks can identify where it is. Lan 2 ... trademark pending. Use it, love it.


----------



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

I work at a nuclear waste facility and I think I have had too much radiation exposure so the logic center in my brain must have been damaged. I need to try and recalibrate it. Is the continued use of the term "fistemele", even if it is old, OK in archery or would you prefer if it had never been created?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> LOL. Until someone demonstrates they are better than she was, it's pretty pointless to argue that she may have done better with another method. Have you watched her shoot? I did, in person, and it was the simplest motion ever. No wasted motion, no wasted energy.
> 
> IMO, this is how we should be teaching our women to shoot in the U.S., as the data by now has proven that NTS does not work for women, whether Australian, Korean or American.
> 
> ...


the thing that always jumps out at me when watching Park shoot is her complete and absolute control of herself and the bow/draw weight, clicker. She has such slow, smooth concentrative care with her draw, and it looks like she's got another 20lb of draw weight capability in reserve.

Stength and subtlety: In other words, yes her form and draw are exquisite, but integral to the success of both of those things _*is her strength/power at the margins of her movement.*_ This is what I see most often missing from archers shooting competitive weight bows (including me most of the time).

PS - Oh Jin Hyek does have something of an open stance going on, though. And, John, what are you looking at to observe that he's 'not reaching holding' ? School me.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

What did Darrel Pace call that spot? I seriously doubt he ever thought about one tiny piece of his anatomy to the exclusion of all others. He was too busy simply aligning himself and practicing his butt off. I had lots of coaching in the Miami area back in the 1970s. Men who were far better shooters than this teenage boy. My coaches simply watched my form and moved this part here or there. I could see myself in a mirror. I knew what the right "form" was, and I worked toward that. It was so simple. What is hard is talent. 

Not everyone can shoot well no matter how perfect their form is. This point is always lost on people. When scores do not add up to expectations it is assumed the student is lacking in form. This is wrong. They are lacking in inner nerve, they lack talent. It's not a sin. We all cannot shoot over 1400. 

Coaching, as I see it now under NTS, is so over-engineered it causes more problems for young archers than it addresses. If we simply taught kids how their equipment worked, showed them how to tune their bows, and then gave them rudimentary instruction as to basic form allowing them to find there own most comfortable foot position along with grip and final alignment, the kids would progress much faster and have more fun in the end. This would allow for the diamonds in the rough to show themselves. 

Take the diamonds and further cut and polish them. You can't really polish the lower ranks you took the diamonds from. They will never rise above their lower talent level. So it's a waste of everyone's time to be teaching KSL to 8-year-olds in the first place. Put your effort into the best students after they have grown up a bit and shown themselves. The reason for NTS is to find the best Olympic hopefuls, right? Why waste effort on the masses when it's better to target the cream of the crop later in their development when their natural talent is more evident. The best always show up eventually no matter what coaching system they learn under. It is the case in every sport on earth. 

As for naming body parts and specific movements throughout the draw cycle. It's mainly done to justify the huge coaching fees and to make the KLS coaches feel empowered or worthy of their self-proclaimed elevated status. Any good old-fashioned archery coach can put his hands on a student and place that archer's parts in the right position. He can explain why this is needed. If the student cannot grasp the reason, or cannot duplicate the effort of the coach, he might not be very good to begin with. Some kids or students just don't have it. Some people can drive a car for decades and never "get it". The junk yards are filled with proof as are the local archery ranges if you watch some very long-experienced shooters (like me) continue to shoot modest scores no matter how much coaching they get. I'm a firm believer the "system" is irrelevant. It all comes down to desire and talent of the kid learning. 

It seems to me, those involved in teaching and promoting KSL are more interested in the perpetuation and defense of their system than in really developing great shooters. Just my take.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Scott.Barrett said:


> I have always found Rick Van der Ven's shot to be very effective and look so simplistic! Makes me wonder why you would ever need more than that!


Really? What about his continuous tilting of the bow during final execution phase? No, not simple at all, but effective, for sure. Anyhow, a solution worth to be studied


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lk[B said:


> sseven;1072040495] And, John, what are you looking at to observe that he's 'not reaching holding' ? School me.


Have a look at his front shoulder position. There is no "barrel of the gun" with him. His shoulders are parallel to the target line, not across it. He is muscling his way through the shot - and very effectively, I might add. He's one, similar to Park, where it's obvious he has strength in reserve and can just "manhandle" the bow without perfect alignment or "holding." 

Oh combines old school upper body alignment with an open stance and angular draw. He's a hybrid of the kind that would drive some coaches absolutely bonkers.

What's funny to me (hilarious actually) is that when you look at the last three individual Olympic gold medalists on the men's side, NONE of them shoot a popular, conventional method by today's standards. Galiazzo, Ruban and Oh all have their own style and they are all completely different. 

And this is why I teach my students to find THEIR shot, and perfect it, rather than adapt to some alignment or draw style or whatever. I will tweak them to get them within the parameters I feel will allow them to find their shot, but after that, I work with them to get to know themselves better than I know them. Hell, my top student right now shoots with two fingers on the string! But they have supreme confidence in their shot and that's why it works. Esp. under pressure.

There is tremendous value in allowing your students to be individuals - for them to know that they do what THEY do better than anyone else does it. Esp. when you work with teenagers. Not too many American teens today want to be the product of an assembly line. It's just not the American way. Why I find the last 3 Gold Medalists amusing is that we are being "out-Americaned" by guys from Italy, Ukraine and Korea, among others...

John


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Have a look at his front shoulder position. There is no "barrel of the gun" with him. His shoulders are parallel to the target line, not across it. He is muscling his way through the shot - and very effectively, I might add. He's one, similar to Park, where it's obvious he has strength in reserve and can just "manhandle" the bow without perfect alignment or "holding."
> 
> Oh combines old school upper body alignment with an open stance and angular draw. He's a hybrid of the kind that would drive some coaches absolutely bonkers.
> 
> ...


Thanks! Makes perfect sense to me. I've been following your philosophy with my students up here, too.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bobnikon said:


> Really guys.. Lan 2 is what is really going to drive everyone to a fit.
> 
> I have a solution, think of it as a brand name, nobody is arguing why we google something, or that kodak was named after the sound the stupid camera made. Maybe he should have called it Lee 2. But at the end of the day, that is the name he used, and it has been clearly identified and located so that anybody who asks can identify where it is. Lan 2 ... trademark pending. Use it, love it.


I think "The L-Spot" might work... :embara:

I think my problem when I first came across the term Lan2 was that they were trying to describe a place on the anatomy of person and making up a name for it. It made it seem like they didn't know anatomy, which was weird given that the system was supposed to be scientific and based on a superior understanding of human anatomy, not on just making stuff up. It undercut the credibility of the system. The same goes for the barrel of the gun. If the person teaching the system doesn't understand why the analogy is wrong, then maybe the reasoning behind all of their system is also wrong and they don't realize it. And, again, I'm not saying any particular aspect of NTS is wrong I'm simply saying that these gaffes reduce the credibility of the system.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> Really? What about his continuous tilting of the bow during final execution phase? No, not simple at all, but effective, for sure. Anyhow, a solution worth to be studied


Perhaps "fluid" is the word I was looking for...


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

This isn't going to help but the origin of lan2 from martial arts:

Lan: Obstructing. To block with the sword.
A defensive technique: with the tip of the blade facing down, use the edge to block an incoming weapon. Deflecting with the rear side of the broadsword

Lee's interpretion of lan2:

http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/Technique/FAQs/FAQs.html#Q68


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Amazing screen shot of Park...talk about "Barrel of the gun"... Her alignment is toward target #8, but she is shooting target #2.

View attachment 2129021

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIeBGcaETYw)

If you could look at the Park screen shot from above, how different would it look from this: 

View attachment 2129031


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

That girl just can't get it right. Glad she's not instructing me.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> Amazing screen shot of Park...talk about "Barrel of the gun"... Her alignment is toward target #8, but she is shooting target #2.
> 
> View attachment 2129021
> 
> (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIeBGcaETYw)


thats an optical illusion. here is a video still from the same video. 

You can see she is lined up directly on the #2 target. As linear as you can get. 

View attachment 2129055



Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Actually, I agree that Ms. Park's alignment more resembles what NTS teaches. I noticed that long ago. I'm actually not sure why Lee hasn't used her as an example more often when demonstrating the "barrel of the gun" - an alignment I think makes perfect biomechanical sense.

However, when I use her as an example of a "linear" shooter, it is not her shoulder alignment I am referencing, but rather her stance and the fact that she draws in line with the target - both a definite "no-no" in NTS.

As a coach of many young and new archers, it is MUCH easier for them to understand that everything needs to be in parallel lines with the target line. Feet, knees, hips, and the arrow as it is drawn back. This is the "KISS" method of coaching, and it works well for the young and the new archer. 

Once I explain the basics (everything parallel to the target line), I will often later explain that shoulders (or scapula, take your pick) in line with the target are good, but that the "barrel of the gun" (although I don't use that stupid phrase) is even better if they can achieve it. But achieving it, even with my younger and more flexible students, often takes months and even years. 

Many, if not most of my adult students could not achieve that alignment with their shoulders/bowarm if someone held a gun to their head. 

John


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I dont know why the attachment is now not working. it was working earlier. 

Here is the photo of Park from the same video just before release. Pointed directly at Target 2

View attachment 2129206


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Chris, while her arrow, hips and feet may be pointed directly at target 2, her shoulders are very much pointed to the right of that. 

I saw this in person and remember it clearly. It was the first time I really noticed what Lee calls the "barrel of the gun." The reason I remember it is because I spent some time wondering how she could get her front shoulder inside the line of her rear shoulder. Seemed like the move of a double-jointed person to me at the time. 

John


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Chris, while her arrow, hips and feet may be pointed directly at target 2, her shoulders are very much pointed to the right of that.
> 
> I saw this in person and remember it clearly. It was the first time I really noticed what Lee calls the "barrel of the gun." The reason I remember it is because I spent some time wondering how she could get her front shoulder inside the line of her rear shoulder. Seemed like the move of a double-jointed person to me at the time.
> 
> John


yes, but she is not pointed to target #8 . She is still pointed at her target.

here is another photo of her setup

View attachment 2129242


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That is her setup. Not her full draw position. Her front shoulder moves into a line between her bow hand and her rear shoulder as she draws the bow.

Again, I don't need to refer to pictures. I was there.  It was pretty remarkable to watch. Several times, I just stopped shooting and stood there to watch her shoot. The day that video was made was one of those days. I remember Simon's tank top. LOL.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Watch this video from 0:49-0:53 and again from 1:19 to 1:22. It's no so much that her front shoulder moves as her back shoulder moves dorsally to reach this position. Again, you won't see this at setup as her shoulders are parallel at setup.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Again, I don't need to refer to pictures. I was there.  It was pretty remarkable to watch. Several times, I just stopped shooting and stood there to watch her shoot. The day that video was made was one of those days. I remember Simon's tank top. LOL.


yes, and i am so jealous of your whole experience. Making the Olympic team, going to the Olympics, shooting with such world class archers, competing for the USA on archery's highest stage. Just a dream come true. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Watch this video from 0:49-0:53 and again from 1:19 to 1:22. It's no so much that her front shoulder moves as her back shoulder moves dorsally to reach this position. Again, you won't see this at setup as her shoulders are parallel at setup.


yes, i always thought that was how she got to her back tension. By engaging the rear bow shoulder to that position. 


Chris


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

Wow, this was a baffling discussion for me. I couldn't understand it all until I decided to read it from the center of my eye openings instead of the sides. I wish I has learned this trick before college. :wink:


----------



## StarDog (Feb 17, 2007)

Sosius said:


> Wow, this was a baffling discussion for me. I couldn't understand it all until I decided to read it from the center of my eye openings instead of the sides. I wish I has learned this trick before college. :wink:


Two thumbs up.


----------



## wfocharlie (Feb 16, 2013)

Sosius said:


> Wow, this was a baffling discussion for me. I couldn't understand it all until I decided to read it from the center of my eye openings instead of the sides. I wish I has learned this trick before college. :wink:


Edit reason: "to increase sarcasm" was as funny as the post. lol


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

One time, at band camp, I tried to pound a nail while looking at it sideways. It was hilarious.


----------

