Coaching

[JohnM]

Barry, I think what you're describing here are attributes of a competent experienced archer, and not necessarily an archery coach. A coach's job is not to gain the highest level of technical knowledge, but to figure out how to get the athlete to apply what he/she knows (physically and psychologically) to practice and to competition. After all, what is a coach evaluated on? - results, not technical knowledge.

You could apply this to almost any sport - the greatest athletes hardly ever make great coaches - why? Because they "get" the technical aspects so well and it comes so naturally (whether by natural ability or thousands of hours of practice), they have a difficult time explaining it in simple terms to others.

[Barry C]

JohnM I do agree a bit. My brother isnt a recurve archer and doesnt understand evything, be he is invaluable at pointing things out and bouncing ideas off. </p>

Often he says on good shots#x is a common factor... </p>

However, I wish there were more good coaches in the UK. And what I said above is what I feel as an individual, I need.</p>

[cliveanne]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt"><font face="Times New Roman">I am a GNAS Club coach, one of seven in our club. I gained my certificate Nov’2000 &amp; have been earning a living as a “Coach” since June 2001, when redundancy paid me a visit. (Got to top up the pension somehow) I have helped with many “Beginner’s” courses &amp; have ran courses of my own, with adult evening classes, private 1-1 sessions, “After School” clubs, countless “Have-a-Go” sessions as well as “Club Coaching” on evenings when I would prefer to shoot for myself. I use the term “Coach” because that is what is stated on my certificate I have to keep a diary of my coaching activities for 3 years send it off to GNAS to have my certificate renewed. To me, a waste of time, as I could sit &amp; make up work I have not done. But that is another story. Then there is the issue of having to jump through the hoops for the Child Protection Agency, First Aid courses, private insurance (GNAS leaves a lot to be desired)</font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt"><font face="Times New Roman">I have “Coached” 100’s of Archers over the years to that of improver or beyond. I know my limitations as a coach &amp; am happy with my lot. I can show how to… make up arrows, make strings, tune the set-up in use &amp; general maintenance of equipment. I also use “Blind shooting” Tai Chi &amp; a lot of the written word from “Chinese Archery” (Sorry, can’t remember the name of the author), which is very relevant to today’s sport. Having recently moved to the “Dark side” I am learning about the compound &amp; am able to pass on a few tips to other compound archers, but mostly picking up tips.</font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt"><font face="Times New Roman">Does that make me a coach? Perhaps not in some views. A teacher of archery? I don’t think so, too many variances in the sport for me to grasp, maybe in another 50 or so years…an archer who likes to pass on all that is good in our sport with enthusiasm…Yes, I think so </font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt"><font face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><font face="Times New Roman">#

</font></p>

[Shirt]

Dave - if you just want to enjoy shooting, and that's the whole point to it - why do you need a qualified coach? Any halfway competent archer can teach you enough that you're hitting the middle and aren't a danger to others.

English Bowman - 25/7/2005 9:10 PM
Is it someone who is a guru on technique and equipment or someone who can get the best out of an archer at their level of shooting, and knows their limitations?
If I was a beginner I would rather be coached by someone who understands fully the level that I am at, and the equipment needed at that level, and most importantly recognises their own limitations, and knows when to pass me to someone who coaches at the next level up than start off with a top coach straight away.

I think the real issue in this country is that coaches don't understand their own limitations. If someone is shooting 1200 FITAs, the number of "coaches" who will tell them that everything is wrong and needs changing is huge. (Admittedly, it's only 1200, so there's obviously a fair bit of room for improvement.) "Try holding the bow, it'll stop it jumping about so much..." being a wonderful example, the other good one has been "the string hand shouldn't move on release, just open your fingers."

I've personally seen QUALIFIED coaches clearly ignoring obvious defects in order to focus on what they consider more important. E.G. an individual isn't referencing at all, the string is a good four inches away from his face when he releases. The coach has been focussing on bow hand position.
Another example, different people. Archer is referencing slightly on left side of nose, and has an exceptionally long sight-pin (right handed archer). Reason that coach gives for sight pin being so far off to the left? "Oh, it's because you're using Beiter nocks and haven't got a Beiter nocking point"... The fact that the guy was actually shutting his right eye at full draw kinda got lost in translation...

The fact is, there are a huge number of basic-level coaches out there who ignore form flaws that are critical because THEY incorrectly don't regard them as important. (Insert argument: individual does not progress because of poor coaching, leaves sport, etc). Generally once you get to the senior coach level, coaches have a better understanding of what they're doing and what their limitations are. And equally, are more willing to admit what they do not know! That's another key factor that gets ignored - I've yet to meet a lower level coach that will admit a lack of knowledge. When presented with a different theory and evidence to back it up, the usual reaction was "Oh, I know about that, but I think it's wrong, which is why I do such-and-such..."

Basically, there are too many people who can call themselves "coach". The currency of knowledge with respect to knowledge has become devalued because of them. Lets start from scratch and put some credibility into the system. Why charge for the reassessment? GNAS puts out a letter to all coaches. "From the end of this year, you will not be certified. Please present yourself at Lilleshall on the XXXXth of this month for a recertification examination." No "lessons" or anything, just straight to the exam. If you've not been coaching, you'll get caught because your knowledge will be shown up to be sadly lacking and you won't be able to produce examples of people you've worked with. The decent coaches will waltz through the recertification exam because they've been keeping up-to-date. Total cost - each coach pays to get themselves to Lilleshall (get all your club to go at once, everyone goes in one car) and then there's the cost of coach assessors which GNAS can foot the bill for.

/rant.

[Furface]

Leaving aside the variable quality of coaching in the UK, or what we actually mean by a "coach", what do we mean by "Professional"?
Paid? This, of itself, will not necessarily drive up quality. What it will do is create an extra expense for those who wish to improve. Will club members who are "professional" coaches be expected to do general club coaching for free? If not, then we are likely to lose just the sort of coaching we need at club level, and increase the "Nellie's knee" approach to coaching that seems to be causing problems. And those who aspire to the top will aspire to the top (more expensive?) coaches, and have more expense. This may lead to seeking to get more money in to the sport, leading to demands for prize money, a "professional" circuit - and an even greater gulf between club and elite archer (look at British Tennis, Golf, Football etc). Of course, this may raise the profile, and make the sport more popular - and bring more members in who get only free club coaching. Or should clubs pay for the services of coaches on their books? It is already virtually impossible to get my own shooting in without having someone asking my opinion as a coach. Would there be a "we are paying you for this" attitude? Personally, I suspect that paying for coaching would change our sport in ways that we cannot predict, and that we might not like. But it might not be a bad thing.
Or do we mean "serious"? With due respect, I think there are many coaches who do take their role extremely seriously (and are good coaches because of that), just as there are many who do not. But what incentives do we offer to encourage this? We let the local rag know when Brian has taken a prestigios trophy, but do we ring up the gazette to say that Betty has qualified as a Coach? How many counties have "Coach of the Year" awards? And, does the coaching framework encourage personal development outside the exam structure? Do we cross-pollinate with other sports? Some do, most don't.
Professionalism needs defining before we go there. It is just a part of a mosaic of change that we need for this sport.

[English Bowman]

Shirt 26/7/2005 10:16 AM
Dave - if you just want to enjoy shooting, and that's the whole point to it - why do you need a qualified coach? Any halfway competent archer can teach you enough that you're hitting the middle and aren't a danger to others.

Not any halfway competent archer can teach, there is a world of difference between shooting and teaching, and being good at one doesn't mean that you are good at the other. I would much rather have a qualified person teaching beginners, than any one who decides that they can. I liked the old idea of an Instructor grade, but since this is now level 1 coach, then why not use the structure as it is designed.

I think the real issue in this country is that coaches don't understand their own limitations. If someone is shooting 1200 FITAs, the number of "coaches" who will tell them that everything is wrong and needs changing is huge. (Admittedly, it's only 1200, so there's obviously a fair bit of room for improvement.) "Try holding the bow, it'll stop it jumping about so much..." being a wonderful example, the other good one has been "the string hand shouldn't move on release, just open your fingers."

You need to know the context of these quotes before judging them. There are times when I might say something similar to the above, not often, but it is possible. For instance, a beginner is trying to shoot a recurve open handed without a sling and grabbing the bow. I might tell them to hold the bow for that evening and get them a bow sling to try the next time they shoot. A beginner is exaggerating the follow through and plucking the string, I would tell the archer not to move his hand, just relax the fingers and let it go. I would tell him that he shouldn't move his hand at all; it is just a reaction to the release of the string that causes the movement. How I explain that depends on who I was talking to.

I've personally seen QUALIFIED coaches clearly ignoring obvious defects in order to focus on what they consider more important. E.G. an individual isn't referencing at all, the string is a good four inches away from his face when he releases. The coach has been focussing on bow hand position.
Another example, different people. Archer is referencing slightly on left side of nose, and has an exceptionally long sight-pin (right handed archer). Reason that coach gives for sight pin being so far off to the left? "Oh, it's because you're using Beiter nocks and haven't got a Beiter nocking point"... The fact that the guy was actually shutting his right eye at full draw kinda got lost in translation...

There is no excuse for this, and any coach making these mistakes regularly shouldn't be coaching.

The fact is, there are a huge number of basic-level coaches out there who ignore form flaws that are critical because THEY incorrectly don't regard them as important. (Insert argument: individual does not progress because of poor coaching, leaves sport, etc). Generally once you get to the senior coach level, coaches have a better understanding of what they're doing and what their limitations are. And equally, are more willing to admit what they do not know! That's another key factor that gets ignored - I've yet to meet a lower level coach that will admit a lack of knowledge. When presented with a different theory and evidence to back it up, the usual reaction was "Oh, I know about that, but I think it's wrong, which is why I do such-and-such..."

You must have a poor coaching structure in your area if this is the case. In our club we have 3 coaches, and will work together bouncing ideas off each other and ensuring that archers are "assigned" to the coach who they work with best. We will quite happily refer archers to a higher level when we don't feel that we can help them progress any more where a higher coach could, and in this way have recently seen one of my juniors get 2nd in the Nationals. On the other hand I have had archers referred to me for coaching from other clubs because they have taken up shooting in the Longbow, and their club coach doesn't know much about that style. Is the Portsmouth / Hampshire area unusual in this co-operation? To encourage this, our County Coaching Organisation holds meetings and workshops on a regular basis.

Basically, there are too many people who can call themselves "coach". The currency of knowledge with respect to knowledge has become devalued because of them. Lets start from scratch and put some credibility into the system. Why charge for the reassessment? GNAS puts out a letter to all coaches. "From the end of this year, you will not be certified. Please present yourself at Lilleshall on the XXXXth of this month for a recertification examination." No "lessons" or anything, just straight to the exam. If you've not been coaching, you'll get caught because your knowledge will be shown up to be sadly lacking and you won't be able to produce examples of people you've worked with. The decent coaches will waltz through the recertification exam because they've been keeping up-to-date. Total cost - each coach pays to get themselves to Lilleshall (get all your club to go at once, everyone goes in one car) and then there's the cost of coach assessors which GNAS can foot the bill for.

No I disagree completely here on the idea of being summoned to Lilleshall. I have no problem with re-sitting an exam, but have it set by the county coaching organisation. I don't want to travel 200 miles to keep my certificate, and wouldn't expect others to do the same. What about the coaches in Scotland, Cornwall or the Channel Islands? Not practical. But the County Coaching Organisation are the people who granted the certificates in the first place, would they be willing to admit that they got it wrong and revoke them? I don't know.
What I would suggest is that the clubs monitor the coaches. If there is a coach that you are not happy with, then why not talk to him, he may be only to willing to arrange a refresher with his County Coaching Organisation. I know that Hampshire will arrange this if asked. If not then maybe talking to another coach might help. If he will not admit that there is a problem, then it's time to talk to the club committee and look into getting that coach replaced.

Daniel

[Barry C]

Joe T did have a really great point.</p>

The coaches think coaching is working great</p>

The archers feel the coaching is letting them down</p>

The coaches are there for the archers so should adapt. If coaching was professional market forces would force them to, perhaps a reason for professional coaches with a archery CV?</p>

[joetapley]

Barry

If the aim of coaching is to produce a development ladder up which (young) begining archers can climb to reach international standard if the potential is there (my view) then putting the rungs in place requires a lot of competent coaches. A professional coach system can never provide this if only because of the economics. Your right though that external forces are required to improve UK coaching. The GNAS coaching group is a peer group within a peer group, so doubly insulated from reality.

Fortunately external market forces do exist. The driving force behind GNAS trying to get its act together in recent years has been the basis of allocation of lottery funding. Plus the introduction of the National Coaching Certificate. Also much more information about all aspects of archery at all levels is now generally available so coaches can no longer get away with talking crap as much as they were once able. So there are a number of electric prods around to shift the complacency.

[English Bowman]

Barry C - 27/7/2005 12:59 PM



Joe T did have a really great point.</p>

The coaches think coaching is working great</p>

The archers feel the coaching is letting them down</p>

The coaches are there for the archers so should adapt. If coaching was professional market forces would force them to, perhaps a reason for professional coaches with a archery CV?</p>

If coaching was professional, then I'd probably give up. It would probably cost more to renew the certificate, and to cover this I'd have to charge. this would then count as a second income, which I don't need or want due to tax hassles.
There may be room for professional coaching alongside amatuers, but then the best coaches would be professional, limiting the availabillity of top coaching to those who can afford it. I think this would be a bad idea.

Who is at fault in the archer-coach relationship when it doesn't work?
Is it always the coach to blame, or does the archer sometimes have unrealistic expectations?

As a coach I have never had an archer tell me that he/she isn't happy with the way I work. It has always been up to me to suggest that the archer may want to go to a higher coach when I cannot help them progress any further. I have had an archer who was comfortable with me, and unwillling to go to someone else, even after I told them that they needed a higher level of coaching now as I would just hold them back. If I hadn't had found a compromise, then who would be to blame for that girl not achieving her potential? (We ended up going to a coaching workshop together so that I could learn from the county coach at the same time)
If a coach makes mistakes in coaching without the archer questioning them, how are they to know there is something wrong?
Those of you who are archers, and not happy with their coaches, what have you done about it?
Have you spoken to your coach about your expectations, and what you want to achieve?
Have you looked for alternative coaches?
If the answer is yes to those questions, then you have a genuine greivance in my opinion, if not, then try this before saying that the current system doesn't work.

What areas of the country are the people who think that coaching isn't working from? Is this the common factor rather than all the coaches across the nation thinking that all is well, and all the archers not being happy?

Daniel

[Barry C]

In my region Surrey. No one even shoots 1200 anymore really. The county could not even recommend one coach that was able to help someone above a 1000 fita.