Have you heard...

[greygoose]

Have you heard the one where Archery GB state that Peter Suk is the worlds foremost coach?
It's here-
Archery GB - SportFocus - Website
Greygoose

 

[Milliard]

Given they are using that statement to sell a DVD I wonder of they are flirting with the Trade Description Act. In any event I would bet that Yang Chang Hoon would beg to differ.

 

[Whitehart]

Still a good DVD that most would benefit from even if they only watched it once.

 

[Nightimer]

If Archery UK think this clown is so good (we pay his wages ) why havent the UK won an Olympic archery gold medal since 1908!!
Makes you think doesn't it!!

 

[Furface]

If Archery UK think this clown is so good (we pay his wages ) why havent the UK won an Olympic archery gold medal since 1908!!
Makes you think doesn't it!!

Possibly because the opposition is better? This is quite basic goal-setting stuff, that you can only influence your own performance, not how others do. The question would be better asked why we have not produced better archers since 1908 - but that might make people look at themselves rather than point the finger upward.
[Stands back and waits for the brickbats]

 

[archer_thom]

If Archery UK think this clown is so good (we pay his wages ) why havent the UK won an Olympic archery gold medal since 1908!!
Makes you think doesn't it!!

Apparently so - here are some of mine :soapbox:

- Most countries which take Olympic archery seriously use a similar system to develop their Olympic archers. Namely some form of National performance Centre with a top coach and professional modern methods for fitness and technique. The intensity of these programmes varies between countries but they are similar.

- The level of international archery is very high, with the top 40 or so all able to shoot over 650 in the Olympic qualification round (42 did so in Beijing 2008: http://archery.org/UserFiles/Document/Results/Results/2008/08_OG_Beijing/ARM070901.01.C73A.1.0.pdf). The world record being 687 (OR 684) means that 40 archers will consistently be within 30 points of each other, a separation of about 4%. Factor in the elimination round and it becomes clear that winning an Olympic gold is *almost* a lottery.

- It is "almost" a lottery because superior mental and technical consistency will give some an advantage. However as this is the desired outcome of the system in my first point, this can be ignored as they will all have a similar degree of this.

EXCEPT!

- A coach who is genuinely better than others may be able to give their archers a better level of consistency.

- Countries with a greater "talent pool" and most intense domestic competition will a) be more likely to unearth really good archers and b) more able to prepare them for top level competition.

- In order to have a greater "talent pool" a country will normally require a larger population of archers. This also means more membership fees and therefore more money will be available to put into elite archery development.

Britain does not have a vast talent pool, or a big archery population. Nor does it have a domestic competition of the intensity of many of its competitors, although this seems to be being improved. I have been very impressed by the level demonstrated by various British archers at international level over the last few years, and the performances seem to be improving.

The lack of an Olympic gold should not be seen as a major failure because even if Mr. Suk is a very good coach (I cannot comment on this) this alone does not guarantee victory.

One final thought: if coaches were the single most important factor in winning, wouldn't they get the medals?

 

[clickerati]

If Archery UK think this clown is so good (we pay his wages ) why havent the UK won an Olympic archery gold medal since 1908!!
Makes you think doesn't it!!

Let's get something straight here...GB has won gold since 1908 in archery, but it was by the Paralympians!!! They are part of the Olympic movement, but as usual are totally disregarded. If archery is a sport for all, we'd all better start treating both squads as ONE!!! It's the paralympic success that keeps bringing lottery funding to the sport. The paras brought home two golds, a silver and a bronze from Beijing, far more than the *other* squad.

But the para squad is always looked upon as the *other* squad. Less important, which is total b***s***!!! Many of the para squad rank very high overall in this sport, and I guarantee that one day soon you'll see paras on par with the *others*.

We should all get off our high horses and actually think about the struggles some of the paras have gone through in their lives and still achieved gold medal glory. How many of you could lose a limb or suffer a spinal cord injury (amongst other things) and represent your countries? I reckon very few. It's this group of archers we should all be looking up to and admiring. And it's with very little help from Peter Suk.

 

[clickerati]

It was requested that this thread be split, so some of it might might not make sense and two of the post here have been copied into the new thread to try to make sense over there. If you get my drift.

Apologies :cupcake:

 

[Nightimer]

Maybe if we stopped wheeling out the same old warhorses and had a look at the 30,000 plus archers we are "supposed" to have we might win a gold for a change (not interested in 2nd place as nobody remembers who came second let alone 3rd)
I would have thought that out of 30,000 archers we could get some new blood maybe not for this games but certainly for the next one.
Get some new blood,a decent coach and a "performance director", not one who came 10th in a cycle race and we might get some results.
In a football club the coach gets FIRED if he does not come up with the goods.
The set up we have at the moment is like an "Old boys"club.
Its been 101 years since we have won a gold medal,pretty bad if you ask me, and nothing to be proud of.

 

[Hidden Hippo]

The set up we have at the moment is like an "Old boys"club.

We have the "Old Boys Club" as you put it because those are the only archers to manage the qualifying scores. We will get new blood, if there are enough archers dedicated to shoot and train enough to get the scores.

 

[clickerati]

Its been 101 years since we have won a gold medal,pretty bad if you ask me, and nothing to be proud of.

my other post got edited out, but i will say again that gb has won gold (and silver and bronze), but it was the paralympians who prevailed and ensured that ALL of gb archery got more lottery funding. and they have never had any real coaching from suk, although i believe he took the credit for it.

 

[bimble]

I would hate to be seen as defending Suk, partly because I don't know him or the whole situation, but considering the recent successes of the GBR squad in international events to say that he shouldn't be called a very good coach (the world's foremost might be a bit over-egging it I ghuess) isn't really fair. Another World Cup final with British Archers present.

As archer_thom mentioned, winning Olympic gold is almost a lottery with the eveness of competitors. British archers have shown that they are of world quality and it is only a matter of time before before they bring home the cake.

Mmmmmmmm, cake.... :cake: :yummy:

 

[twitterer]

Maybe if we stopped wheeling out the same old warhorses .

These would the same "old Warhorses" who have made it to FITA World Cup final would it - a GB representatiative there for the fourth year running!! Not too shabby is it?

 

[Tom]

my other post got edited out, but i will say again that gb has won gold (and silver and bronze), but it was the paralympians who prevailed and ensured that ALL of gb archery got more lottery funding. and they have never had any real coaching from suk, although i believe he took the credit for it.

Whoops sorry, it did make sense to leave that post in. I've undeleted it

 

[clickerati]

Whoops sorry, it did make sense to leave that post in. I've undeleted it

no worries, tom. the original post was long winded

 

[dmp52nyf]

I cannot believe that UK archers are still bitching and Moaning about Peter Suk, Mostly I think it is down to the lack of dedication from the Archers.

You guys do not know how lucky you are that you have such a fantastic Archery structure in place. Have a look at this

TEXAS STATE TARGET CHAMPIONSHIP 2009
Bastrop, Texas July 18,2009

Place DIVISION Bow Gender LastName, FirstName LastName FirstName Distance 1 Distance 2 Long 1/2 Distance 3 Distance 4 Short half Total Fita X's 10's
1 Senior Recurve Female Dupree, Lori Dupree Lori 150 241 391 193 260 453 844 0 6
1 AR3 Recurve Male Bosson, Steve Bosson Steve 153 255 408 276 309 585 993 4 15
2 Lukow, Michael Lukow Michael 157 246 403 201 297 498 901 3 11
1 Bowman Compound Female Zunker, Adriana Zunker Adriana 259 314 573 267 303 570 1143 5 23
1 Trafford, Miriam Trafford Miriam 337 345 682 333 339 672 1354 23 71
2 Haynes, Elizabeth Haynes Elizabeth 294 302 596 265 296 561 1157 5 21
3 Magera, Allison Magera Allison 137 199 336 61 85 146 482 2 2
1 Bowman Compound Male Dixon, Justin Dixon Justin 324 300 624 300 301 601 1225 8 22
2 Braendle, Gus Braendle Gus 308 331 639 276 291 567 1206 13 30
1 Bowman Recurve Male Tomlinson, Kiran Tomlinson Kiran 302 314 616 307 295 602 1218 7 26
2 Trafford, Hardy Trafford Hardy 311 316 627 290 289 579 1206 3 25
3 Gonzales, Daniel Gonzales Daniel 263 275 538 222 256 478 1016 4 14
1 Cadet Compound Female Haynes, Victoria "Tori" Haynes Victoria "Tori" 281 281 562 309 310 619 1181 5 20
1 Cadet Recurve Female Trafford, Heather Trafford Heather 308 317 625 304 330 634 1259 7 13
2 Trafford, Rachael Trafford Rachael 263 303 566 298 312 610 1176 8 31
1 Cadet Compound Male Hoganson, Nick Hoganson Nick 327 329 656 340 346 686 1342 29 67
1 Cadet Recurve Male Xu, Michael Xu Michael 197 233 430 254 318 572 1002 2 12
2 Hoganson, Alex Hoganson Alex 212 213 425 248 296 544 969 3 8
1 Cub Recurve Female Haynes, Christina Haynes Christina 172 263 435 270 300 570 1005 5 14
1 Cub Compound Male David, Reece David Reece 341 344 685 350 353 703 1388 43 54
2 Sizemore, Taylor Sizemore Taylor 313 337 650 341 343 684 1334 25 46
3 Webb, Zachary Webb Zachary 311 327 638 344 346 690 1328 13 58
4 Zunker, Rowdy Zunker Rowdy 295 301 596 326 335 661 1257 9 34
5 Green, Tyler Green Tyler 290 284 574 316 333 649 1223 9 30
1 Cub Recurve Male Klimitchek, Collin Klimitchek Collin 279 310 589 313 338 651 1240 11 33
2 Xu, Andy Xu Andy 137 159 296 229 258 487 783 1 5
3 Scott, Graham Scott Graham 147 212 359 161 254 415 774 0 3
1 Junior Compound Female David, Stacie David Stacie 274 294 568 296 331 627 1195 12 28
1 Junior Recurve Female Brown, Mackenzie Brown Mackenzie 240 228 468 250 300 550 1018 4 12
1 Junior Compound Male Locke, Justin Locke Justin 268 313 581 318 336 654 1235 17 37
1 Master 50+ Compound Male Locke, Richard Locke Richard 293 319 612 320 340 660 1272 17 44
1 Master 60+ BareBow Female Newsom, Wanda Newsom Wanda 2 39 41 76 98 174 215 0 2
1 Senior Compound Female Comedy-Holmes, Jennifer Comedy-Holmes Jennifer 305 321 626 317 341 658 1284 16 45
1 Senior Recurve Female Nichols, Jennifer Nichols Jennifer 322 326 648 324 341 665 1313 18 50
2 Nichols, Amanda Nichols Amanda 278 295 573 277 310 587 1160 8 22
3 Miller, Katie Miller Katie 256 280 536 283 319 602 1138 7 18
4 Marzec, Lyndsey Marzec Lyndsey 251 263 514 233 309 542 1056 3 13
5 Dupree, Lori Dupree Lori 150 241 391 193 260 453 844 0 6
1 Senior Compound Male Miller, Benjamin Miller Benjamin 301 311 612 328 348 676 1288 18 52
2 Webb, Kenneth Webb Kenneth 193 231 424 230 269 499 923 3 4
1 Senior Recurve Male Rice, Shawn Rice Shawn 288 310 598 333 342 675 1273 20 41
2 Magera, John Magera John 277 310 587 318 344 662 1249 26 50
3 Holmes, Staten Holmes Staten 268 306 574 324 350 674 1248 16 45
4 Meyers, Tim Meyers Tim 269 301 570 321 346 667 1237 18 42
5 Sera, Max Sera Max 258 305 563 306 343 649 1212 13 41
6 Magera, James Magera James 261 298 559 295 322 617 1176 4 20
7 Jones, Bobby Jones Bobby 248 282 530 292 334 626 1156 7 29
8 Bosson, Steve Bosson Steve 153 255 408 276 309 585 993 4 15
9 Jarrett, Brian Jarrett Brian 194 216 410 236 286 522 932 2 10
10 Requa, Matt Requa Matt 125 185 310 229 232 461 771 6 10





That is the ENTIRE target list for the Texas State Champs, where I live - the structure is just not in place here, nor are the competitive events - 2 Fita events in the entire State, which happens to be about 3 times the size of Britain, and I would guess the average travelling time to events around the country to be 7 hours "BY AIR" probably 2 days by car.

Yet the USA still seen to win the ocassional Gold in the Olympics.

Better Coaching!! most US archers do not even have access to a Top Level Coach until they reach Olympic Standing

Basically the UK has too many weekend warriors who are not prepared toput in the time and effort required, but are happy to sit on the sidelines and pass comment.

Have alook around your own clubs! how many do the organising and how many just turn up and shoot, and dissappear when there is work to be done?

that my two pennies worth!!

 

[clickerati]

Better Coaching!! most US archers do not even have access to a Top Level Coach until they reach Olympic Standing

Basically the UK has too many weekend warriors who are not prepared toput in the time and effort required, but are happy to sit on the sidelines and pass comment.

suk is only available to those on squad. the rest of us generally struggle to find top level coaching. there are plenty of archers who are very happy to stay at club level. there are other archers who are happy to put in the effort, but have no coaching in their area, basic let alone top level, so either have to travel a great distance or pay for coaching.

forget coaching - i couldn't even find a target club when i lived in the US!!! i could only find clubs with 3d targets for bowhunters. and the local universities who DID have facilities and coaching did not want to open their clubs to the general public.

 

[Hidden Hippo]

there are other archers who are happy to put in the effort, but have no coaching in their area, basic let alone top level, so either have to travel a great distance or pay for coaching.

I'm playing somewhat devil's advocate here, so don't anyone go biting my head off.

Surely if the archer is happy to put in the effort they'll be willing to travel? I decided at the end of my target panic last year that I wanted to be good, and I don't mean scraping MB good, I mean GMB+ good. In order to do this, I'm travelling around 3 hours from home to Ipswich to receive coaching and paying for that coaching. To me this is a very small sacrifice to make for receiving top coaching. Don't forget that the top archers have to travel to Lilleshall for coaching - Peter doesn't travel to them - which is likely a 2/3 hour drive for some of them.

 

[SilverSurfer]

One of the reasons (and this is only one of the reasons), as to why the average archer never rises above a certain level, is because there is no sports coaching structure at club level. Many archers like to call themselves sportsmen/sportswomen, but they do not actively train as sports people do.

I personally enjoy archery, purely as a form of relaxation. It takes away some of the stress of work, and the daily grind to pay the bills, whilst the government robs us all of our hard earned money, to pay for moat cleaning and pornography.

I attend some of my clubs competitive shoots (home & away), purely to help the team, and sometimes just for some extra practice time.

As far as a club "team", goes....there is no training of any sort. At a football club for example, time is spent warming up, stretching, and exercising, and then time is devoted to task training. Coaches give pep talks to try to help motivate the team players, and when someone is not doing too well, their performance will be scrutinised, and instruction & advice offered. The team as a whole, is trained specifically for the task at hand.

This doesn't happen at my club, and I'm sure it doesn't happen at many others.

Everybody at my club turns up on a Saturday, and does some general practice, and then when a competition comes up, people decide whether or not they want to do it. Some people occasionally practice a little bit, mid-week, but again, it is all done on an individual basis. There is no team practice time, with an organised team. There is no instruction from anybody, as to what is done, when it is done, or why it is done. Everybody has their own individual style, and none of them has been specifically trained to shoot that way. Everybody does a beginners course, and then they are left to their own devices. If anybody develops a good level of skill, it is not because they have been coached, it is because they have stumbled across something that works for them.

At the moment, each archer is only concerned with improving their own handicap rating. There is no "team", mentality.

To develop higher standards at club level (which then goes on to County, then national level), there needs to be a fully structured course of training, which involves a designated team, a proper coach (not someone who only trains beginners in the basics), and the dedicated effort of every archer within the team to attend regular training sessions, and if necessary, swap ideas to help everyone else in the team, to improve.

In simple terms, they have to be a real "Team".

Create the "structure", first... and then train people accordingly.

:kyudo:

 

[Furface]

.......Create the "structure", first... and then train people accordingly....

Well said. IMHO, the structure should have three elements - coaching at the required level (work in progress on that front, I think); a competition system that is fit for purpose (not there at present, but a full competition review is on the cards); facilities and clubs that are also fit for purpose.
The current competition structure does not encourage anyone to "work their way up". For most archers going to a tournament is not competitive, but simply a form of extended practice with a social side thrown in. The main goal appears not to be winning - which is beyond all but a handful - but moving up the motivational levels of stars, roses, classifications. A proper ranking system (see tennis!) would be a start, then graded tournaments.
Clubs and facilities are even more controversial. To be able to train effectively as a team you need a good "pool". Allowing for the "weekend warriors" - who are every bit as necessary a part of our sport, and must be catered for - making up, say, 75% of a club, then we are looking at clubs with about 100+ members to create a sufficient pool across bow styles and sexes. Not many clubs are this big, though some are; is the average size something like 25? And how many clubs have facilities good enough to cope with that many members? And can guarantee that those facilities are there for the foreseeable future? One model that might work is to have "major" clubs, big enough to raise the money to buy their own facilities, while maintaining "satellite" clubs as their local presence. Purely as an example; a new "Leeds Archers", combining the membership of Adel, Bronte, Bowmen of Leeds, South Leeds, Panda, owning an outdoor and indoor range at Headingley, which all members may use, and having satellite grounds as at present.