clickers

[WhitehartFB]

Originally Posted by not dead yet

well thanks sp220, asw. decent answers

can i just add something off topic.


do you think someone can pick up a bow, be taught the principles, shoot everyday or most days because they dont have to go to work. and under their own steam. with no real coaching. shoot for GB in 18months...

pete

Firstly sorry NDY I was thinking of others.

Might be a can of worms but IMO yes if they have natural ability and a logical mind to work things out for themselves. Sometimes too much knowledge is a bad thing especially if they get hung up on bow tuning.

Chemistry good idea but I helped out on a beginners course run as you suggest and the trainees were bored within 10 minutes, all they wanted to do was shoot arrows and hit the target and if was near the middle they enjoyed it more and joined the club. Rightly or wrongly the underlying reason for running the course in the first place.

[ASW1973]

short answer to your question pete is no (maybe 1 in 1000 chance)! If they did, then they would have been much better with coaching.
If you asked the same question but with dedicated coaching then i would say 1 in 20 chance.

chemistry:
As to demonstration, you open an interesting discussion that is well documented in motoric learning.

commandments to teaching a group of novices well FOR PERFORMANCE:

1) give them information but not so it swamps them
2) dont give them options (that does not mean there are no options just that you are the purveyor of knowledge and can make that decision without their input)
3) break learning outcomes into manageable chunks (again they do not need to see how this fits into a whole while being given the coaching).
4) british army technique for getting information into novices: "tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you just told them". if there is opportunity get them to tell you what you just told them
5) show them what you want, watch them perform to check vague concepts are understood then leave them to get on with it. If a novice makes a plan on information given, even if it is wrong, then they are taking part. you can sort out a wrong plan/method quickly when you come back to them.
6) compliment them on what they do right in a meaningfull way tell them what the do wrong ONLY IF YOU CAN OFFER A CURE AT THE end of the sentence.
7) NEVER get a pro to demonstrate to novices, they look at the pro not what you are showing them and believe it is difficult cos a pro is doing it. Get them to demosntrate (may take manipulation of the skill).
8) encourage discussion away from the practice area so they are not distracted but included and feel they have had their questions answered. BE CAREFULL TO NOT SWAMP WITH INFOREMATION OR CONTRADICT YOURSELF OR OTHER STAFF

[chemistry]

sp220,

I take your point, but still think that there are two ways to reduce the problem, even if it can't be eliminated entirely.

First, give people some pre-reading to do before they arrive (just a side of A4 would do) i.e. use their time before they even arrive at the lessons. Of course, some people won't read/understand it, so...

Secondly, sort beginners into two groups - those that can grasp only the very basics and those that have at least a fundamental understanding of the workings of a bow. Stick clickers on the second group from day one, and maybe fit (but don't use them) on the others too (at least that way they won't see a clicker a somethign special, when the time comes...).

In essence, focus resource where it will deliver the most benefit.

Obvously this is all in the context of a typical beginners course scenario, with 10 or 20 people being taught at a time. All rather different in the case of 1 to 1 coaching I imagine!

[grimsby archer]

Originally Posted by chemistry

Perhaps the first session ought to be a demonstration by experienced archers of their equipment & how they shoot it, so people can see what the end goal is and have at least a basic understanding of what key components of a bow, such as a clicker, are for. It might help stimulate enthusiasm too, as the wooden riser training bows we start people on don't have the 'wow factor' of a decent recurve with all the bells and whistles. Even better, send students a simple intorductory pack to read before they start, so they know the basic theory before they pick up a bow... !

If you are advocating lesson 1 where the beginner doesnt even touch a bow and just gets to watch others play, I dont think that would work. Most beginners want to shoot their first arrow as quickly as possible.
We get experienced archers to demonstrate shooting on lesson 2 or 3 as part of the introduction of other types of bow.

It still amazes me that beginners course = recurve. It just seems to be a natural assumption everyone (except necessarily the beginner) makes.

To really stir the worms up, level1 coaches (dont start) are taught to teach POA (point of aim) with a reference point at the side of the mouth first. You cant shoot clicker with POA.
My understanding of the reason for teaching POA is (a) it is easier to learn (b) gives better alignment and (c) transfers to other disciplines such as compound, longbow and some field styles.
Not saying I agree with these principles and I am sure the POA or Freestyle first for beginners argument has been done to death, but I thought if I chucked it in to the pot........

[chemistry]

ASW1973 & Grimsby - your points are well taken.

In terms of the process of learning, whilst I defer to your knowledge and experience ASW, it seems to me we are broadly in agreement. Frankly if I'd been taught archery the way you describe, I'd probably be much the better for it.

My point on the demonstration was really to convey what a bow is/does. I'm amazed at how little our beginners seem to know. Also, 'proper' bows look cool, which always seems to encourage people to aspire to shooting/ownign one. I accept however that having someone show-off slotting an ACE into the 10 ring at 90m might be a little off putting...!

Grimsby, I agree that a whole theory lesson would be dull, but still think we hand out bows too early (i.e. immediately!) and that a decent overview, supported by a brief A4 introduction to archery sheet before people even arrived, would help.

chemistry

[hooktonboy]

Originally Posted by sp220

Thirdly, I also find it interesting to note a professionally paid coach who has hundreds of clients ranging from all levels who travels all over Europe to coach is advocating early use of a clicker, who's posts are thanked by Erika (an international archer). Yet all the posts in argument againt those views are from coaches I've never heard of and are only thanked by each other...

Interesting.

Yes it is interesting and a point well made. The problem is that the coaches you've never heard of are the ones who run the beginners courses in most of the clubs. It is hard to deny the impeccable logic of starting properly on day one.... (or maybe day 2 anyway) BUT I think that a lot of clubs can't/won't go there because of the amount of time commitment it will take from volunteer coaches who probably would like to spend a bit of time shooting too. So ultimately this thread is about the dreaded "C" word - especially the "average" level of support available once the "absolute beginners" course is over. That average level is in fact quite low which is why it will take a step change in the coaching regime/ funding etc in very many clubs before we get to the ideal scenario.

And that's always provided the beginner actually wants to shoot recurve!

NDY - I'm going to do a quick poll on our website to see how many recurvers there would be up for more coaching. I'll let you know how the responses go....or you can have a look at Wrexham Bowmen :: Index

To be honest I've no idea what response we'll get there......

[Rainbow]

when I first started archery I did not use one but after about 2 months someone suggested using a beiter one it made wonders to my shooting then I had to turn to the darkside but if I could still shoot recurve I would use one all the time

[babylon5]

Originally Posted by grimsby archer

It still amazes me that beginners course = recurve. It just seems to be a natural assumption everyone (except necessarily the beginner) makes.

I don't think it's an assumption at all, simply down to economics.

The cost of a half-decent beginners compound is significantly more than a cheap club recurve (of the old Rolan type for example). I know of two club locally to me that would love to have a few compounds to allow juniors/beginners have a go with or start out with, but they just can't afford it....