Olympic qualification

LMK

New member
Putting aside the considerable success of GB Para archers for a moment - I see that shooting have qualified their fifth Olympic slot so far for Rio. Keep in mind this was a sport with no UKS funding for London and a self funded shot secured Gold is it perhaps time for AGB to have a complete rethink?
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
though there are a lot of disciplines in shooting... for instance, USA/Russia often send ~20 shooters each (as opposed to the maximum of 6 in archery). Indeed, even in 2012 when as hosts we get given places we only had 11 shooters (normally 5-6 shooters qualify). Total number of shooters at the Olympics 390-410 (over ~105 nations), total number of archers present, 128 (over ~50 nations)
 

ieuan_johns

New member
Putting aside the considerable success of GB Para archers for a moment - I see that shooting have qualified their fifth Olympic slot so far for Rio. Keep in mind this was a sport with no UKS funding for London and a self funded shot secured Gold is it perhaps time for AGB to have a complete rethink?
Shooting is not really comparable, as already mentioned there are 15 events and 390 competitors compares to 2 and 128 for Archery, there is also a limit of 2 competitors per country per event as opposed to 3 in Archery.

Also a number of those events are really very niche in terms of the number of competitive nations, Trap and Skeet in particular (4 of our 5 places) tend to attract less nations and competitors due to the range requirements. Funding for shotgun events (indeed shooting events of all kind) around the world is lower than for Archery so financial comparisons are also awkward.

As someone who has come from rifle shooting as a sport I can vouch from experience that the success is pretty much in spite of the organisation rather than because of it. There are several pockets around the country where well run clubs and schools work with regional associations and make a massive difference (Scottish rifle shooting is a prime example), but on a national level the sport is no better run than Archery is, in fact there are more barriers to success in many ways.
 

Whitehart

Well-known member
As someone who has come from rifle shooting as a sport I can vouch from experience that the success is pretty much in spite of the organisation rather than because of it. There are several pockets around the country where well run clubs and schools work with regional associations and make a massive difference (Scottish rifle shooting is a prime example), but on a national level the sport is no better run than Archery is, in fact there are more barriers to success in many ways.
Perhaps this is the model we should be following :mischievo
 

Eluned

Member
LMK, the decision made by the IOC in Singapore during early July of 2005 was that London would host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. This presented GNAS / AGB with the knowledge, back in July of 2005, that they would have a clear minimum of 7 years to prepare for the next qualification for an Olympic games once Beijing 2008 was over. The years of funding, planning, applied expertise etc. etc. etc. came into flower on the field in Copenhagen last month. The most entertaining aspect to the sport in the UK is watching to see just how poor things get before there is what you call "a complete rethink". If the reality of the implications from the results of Copenhagen with regard to Rio qualification has permeated through even the most sclerotic of mind sets then so will the realisation that the clock is already counting down for the Tokyo qualification. Four years; tick tock.

Sadly, LMK, I reckon a rethink will come but not because it is recognised that real change is required. Sadly, change is more probably going to be forced upon the sport by the loss of funding. That change, though, will be more about the abandonment of Olympic pretensions and the consolidation of target archery in the UK as a leasure activity.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Anyone know what the targets were that were exceeded?
It's for both Olympic and Paralympic targets. Two junior World Championship golds, as well as medals at the Para-Archery World Champs since 2013 would have helped.
 

spdixon

New member
: "Being a new sport for Talent investment in 2013, we are all very proud that a new team has been able to deliver against the ambitious targets set. Archery GB wishes to thank Sport England for the confidence it has shown in our sport to deliver on Talent.

Smart talk but no results. I would feel more reassured if someone from AGB would stand up and explain for the failures in Copenhagen. When are these people going to learn that we need British coaches, British Managers and above all people in charge of the PU that can stand up and be counted.
 

Munsterman

Active member
: "Being a new sport for Talent investment in 2013, we are all very proud that a new team has been able to deliver against the ambitious targets set. Archery GB wishes to thank Sport England for the confidence it has shown in our sport to deliver on Talent.

Smart talk but no results. I would feel more reassured if someone from AGB would stand up and explain for the failures in Copenhagen. When are these people going to learn that we need British coaches, British Managers and above all people in charge of the PU that can stand up and be counted.
What difference do you think that British coaches etc. will make? Surely you want the best in the world and being insular will not help matters.
 

Whitehart

Well-known member
At the end of the day in hindsight and I know is disappointing and frustrating to club archers all over the country - I think that the emphasis from AGB and Sport England/UK since 2012 has always been about the Pathway Scheme and 2020 and beyond, along with building our Paralympian Team where we have a realistic possibility of medals in Rio. The emphasis and plan that Sport UK has bought into, is to create a pool of talent for the future and has always been about Tokyo 2020 and beyond with 2016 is more of a distraction. The backbone of this system is run by British Coaches with a bit of Korea in the background and supported by a dedicated parents and a number of Dealers in the UK.

From what I see and I guess Sport UK also is that the pipeline from 6 year olds up is developing all over the UK and will certainly give us a much bigger pool of archers in the future to make selection shoots more competitive. The concern is that the pressures on young people today especially from 15 years old means that the pool quickly thins out due to school exams and then again at 18 for university. As we see today these archers may leave the sport with no encouraging route back to the squad/selection should they wish to return in their 20's or 30's.
 

LMK

New member
Thank you whiteheart a really concise post on the present and future state of GB Archery. There is no doubt there is a growing pool of young archers - two observations though, volume - I have watched young archers, and by young I mean 12 to 16 shooting very very high volumes of arrows and suffering joint pain - one thing other sports have learnt is that at this young development age musculoskeletal development has to be managed very carefully - coaches I have spoken with have very little understanding of wider physical development (strength and conditioning) Perhaps more worrying is the attitude of central AGB staff to education - I know of at least two potential young archers who were told choose archery or education, they chose education - this is critical, particularly with AGB insistence in archers attending Lilleshal - other sports make far greater efforts to work a balance between education and sport. Archers reach their peak at 25/35 which gives time for both. In my opinion it is critical in the development of top end archers that a way is found (again as in other successful sports) to combine sport with education - ultimately the exceptional medal winning prospect is a rare individual - don't risk them leaving the sport because the sport doesn't have the vision to provide a balance.
 

Munsterman

Active member
volume - I have watched young archers, and by young I mean 12 to 16 shooting very very high volumes of arrows and suffering joint pain - one thing other sports have learnt is that at this young development age musculoskeletal development has to be managed very carefully - coaches I have spoken with have very little understanding of wider physical development (strength and conditioning) Perhaps more worrying is the attitude of central AGB staff to education - I know of at least two potential young archers who were told choose archery or education, they chose education - this is critical, particularly with AGB insistence in archers attending Lilleshal - other sports make far greater efforts to work a balance between education and sport. Archers reach their peak at 25/35 which gives time for both. In my opinion it is critical in the development of top end archers that a way is found (again as in other successful sports) to combine sport with education - ultimately the exceptional medal winning prospect is a rare individual - don't risk them leaving the sport because the sport doesn't have the vision to provide a balance.
Perhaps this is a generalisation, however I know for certain that there are plenty of coaches who have expert knowledge of development, S&C etc., derived professionally via medical backgrounds or via elite level coaching in sports with very high physical demands at an early age. There will be some regional bias in this but its not right to suggest that the coaches lack the knowledge to tailor the load to the developmental stages. I too have seen injuries with promising archers but I cannot say it is down to volume alone. It often happens while they are ignoring advice and not building back up in poundage when changing technique or ignoring the S&C elements.

The performance pathway exists for one reason only - if you cannot commit 100% and are unwilling to make the sacrifices then why do it at all? Move aside for those who can & will. Perhaps it is not made clear enough from the outset. I fully support the importance of education but being the best requires 100% commitment. Just as archery will still be there after university - the converse also applies. Most non-technical degree subjects have ample free time in the curriculum to allow for both, so perhaps the limitations are not just in the system but the person?
 

gster123

New member
As we see today these archers may leave the sport with no encouraging route back to the squad/selection should they wish to return in their 20's or 30's.
Sums up me pretty much. I left the sport at 18 after representing my country and becoming national champion. Back then there was no funding (although I did get ?100 from the local council). I had to go and work and simply couldn't balance work and archery. Started back 3 years ago now I have some time and a good job to find that I am at a disadvantage off the bat for progression etc simply due to my age.

Oh well.
 

Eluned

Member
Whitehart; your link refers to a Sport England announcement that funds English pathways. I realise that the word "National" has become very ambiguous, if not down right distorted in its use within the world of Archery GB but it is not yet known of as Archery England. Patience. I also wonder about the use of sweeteners before the bitter pill is dropped into the cup! Further; so the goal posts, (post Copenhagen), have been moved and retrospectively to boot. It was never about Rio and has always been about Tokyo; LOL.

The clubs at grass roots level are where archers of the future are introduced and first developed within the sport. The tournament field is where skill and knowledge is tested and measured. Club archery is not integrated into a UK wide competition structure and club archery continues to remain very poor in terms of performance, coaching is not stimulated by competition and the membership are marginalised from their own national sport, effectively relegated to spectators who might be fortunate enough to be allowed to participate in a showpiece PR exercise that is laughably called the "National Series". The creation of a seperate entity called the Performance Unit that is segregated as a walled garden from the membership for the exclusive use of an elite few who are identified by the custodiens of the walled garden has been and will continue to remain a recipe for failure for GBR archery in terms of sporting accomplishment. Of course there have been and will continue to be youngsters from this country who are capable of standing alongside other young people from the rest of the world and performing with distinction. There is nothing wrong with our young people. The adults though, seem to be making a pig's ear of things.
 

LMK

New member
Perhaps this is a generalisation, however I know for certain that there are plenty of coaches who have expert knowledge of development, S&C etc., derived professionally via medical backgrounds or via elite level coaching in sports with very high physical demands at an early age. There will be some regional bias in this but its not right to suggest that the coaches lack the knowledge to tailor the load to the developmental stages. I too have seen injuries with promising archers but I cannot say it is down to volume alone. It often happens while they are ignoring advice and not building back up in poundage when changing technique or ignoring the S&C elements.

The performance pathway exists for one reason only - if you cannot commit 100% and are unwilling to make the sacrifices then why do it at all? Move aside for those who can & will. Perhaps it is not made clear enough from the outset. I fully support the importance of education but being the best requires 100% commitment. Just as archery will still be there after university - the converse also applies. Most non-technical degree subjects have ample free time in the curriculum to allow for both, so perhaps the limitations are not just in the system but the person?
The point I was trying to make is that the current approach is to look at very young archers in the 14 to 18 year old bracket - the key education phase, if you force a decision of sport or education you run the risk of excluding the one or two archers with genuine potential from the talent pool you are creating. It is relatively straight forward with commitment and coaching to create a pool of good quality athletes but loose the one or two who have the "it" factor that will win you Olympic medals. 100% commitment simply is not enough in a skill based sport - just look at what other countries are doing and you will see a more balanced approach particularly in the American collegiate system but also Holland. To force an individual ( as I have witnessed) to make a decision aged 18 without considering joint education/sports approach is very short sighted - our best Olympic sports recognise this, not that they require less than 100% commitment but it is accommodated alongside education. AGB needs to take a more mature and informed long term approach than it is or it will produce nothing more than a squad of mediocrity - oh wait it's already done that.
 

Rik

Supporter
Supporter
If the choice comes down to "sport or education", you'd have to be nuts to take the "sport" option. A chancy few years with no post-competitiveness career options and scant pay?
If that's truly the attitude, it's barking.

It might be different, if archery offered the chance of a career in sport, but in this country it doesn't. So anyone advising a youngster to neglect their education, would not be acting in their best interests.
 

DarkMuppet

Member
As someone who has come from rifle shooting as a sport I can vouch from experience that the success is pretty much in spite of the organisation rather than because of it. There are several pockets around the country where well run clubs and schools work with regional associations and make a massive difference (Scottish rifle shooting is a prime example), but on a national level the sport is no better run than Archery is, in fact there are more barriers to success in many ways.
Perhaps this is the model we should be following :mischievo
The Dunlop model ? ;)
 

gster123

New member
If the choice comes down to "sport or education", you'd have to be nuts to take the "sport" option. A chancy few years with no post-competitiveness career options and scant pay?
If that's truly the attitude, it's barking.

It might be different, if archery offered the chance of a career in sport, but in this country it doesn't. So anyone advising a youngster to neglect their education, would not be acting in their best interests.
Exactly.


The Dunlop model ? ;)
That's a word I haven't seen for a long time.....
 
Top