GNAS - The 10000 Dollar Question

[Furface]

Barry C - 8/8/2005 3:40 PM



Gnas is responsible for holding out sport in the dark ages. Perhaps you see it from a different angle, but as a person striving to become the best I can see many weaknesses in their system that other countries do not have. I see problems with organisation, coaching, funding, PR and representation. It could be we just live to two different standards.

Barry, in another thread, has posted this view, which many seem to hold. I don't, but I would be interested to hear from those who do as to what problems they see. I don't believe any organisation is perfect, or ever can be, but if we can all have a civilised debate about the issues people see, then we can all work together to improve things.

[joetapley]

Archery is a funny sport. With most sports participants are interested in what's happening locally, nationally and internationally even if their own country is not involved. Things like world championships are regarded as a major event. In general UK archers couldn't give a (forum) monkey about anything outside their club. The archery world championships were held a couple of months ago - only a small percentage of archers probably knew about it and even less probably bothered to 'follow' it. GNAS of course took the same attitude. Bit of 'how did we do' but about the competition itself before/during/after zip.

What Barry says about GNAS is largely true but GNAS just historically reflects it's membership - and I don't think the attitude of it's membership has changed much. Financing rather than the membership is what has forced GNAS to try to get its act together in recent years. It's going to be a long process. With coaching the major hurdle seems to have been overcome with most coaches now accepting that the existing system is a joke and with the coaches themselves putting the effort in to change things. So yes things are a mess but (fingers crosssed) going in the right direction.

[pitprops]

I guess a question that needs to be resolved first is what percentage of archers consider archery a sport compared to a passtime/hobby. I would rather bet it is fairly small.

If you look at local (sunday afternoon pub, etc) football, cricket etc. teams, whilst the skill levels are relatively low, most participants take part in the fervent belief that they have been overlooked by the national selection hierarchy by mistake, but it is only a matter of time. I don't think the same is true of archery. So whilst I read somewhere that archery is one of the highest participation sports in the Uk, it isn't considered in the same way. Plus it doesn't exactly make great spectator sport (don't all shout at me please). However, that being said, any TV channel that seems able to dedicate the whole weekend to fishing in its various forms should really be able to find a half hour slot for archery

[Shirt]

pitprops - 8/8/2005 9:08 PM

If you look at local (sunday afternoon pub, etc) football, cricket etc. teams, whilst the skill levels are relatively low, most participants take part in the fervent belief that they have been overlooked by the national selection hierarchy by mistake, but it is only a matter of time. I don't think the same is true of archery.

That's because football ability isn't quantifiable. American football has the annual combine for new players, where you get measured bench press, 40 yard dash, and a few other statistics to help quantify something that's essentially unquantifiable. Whereas with archery, you have people shooting 1000 FITAs and the GB team shooting 1300 FITAs. Distinct, quantifiable difference.

Football doesn't have a ratings system, so people can delude themselves for as long as they like.

[Mick]

I think Joe hit the nail on the head, most archers neither know nor care what happens outside their own club. Ask any weekend footballer, cricketer, golfer or angler to name six top performers from their sport and they'll likely as not rattle off a dozen. Ask the same question of the average club archer and you're likely to get the answer Robin Hood and -if your lucky- Alison Williamson & Simon Needham. Most don't go in for tournaments and most don't aspire to reach the highest level, nor are they interested in becoming involved with their clubs committee, county or GNAS.
I'm afraid to say most seem to view archery as more of a passtime than a sport, nothing wrong with that, but if the grass roots level aren't interested in a competative sence, then GNAS, FITA etal will have their work cut out to raise the profile of archery as a serious sport.
IMHO The drive must come from club level so until we see a hardcore of club members with the desire to represent their County or Country, or at least become involved (even in a minor way) in the running of the sport, then nothing much will change.
Sorry to be so negative -it gives me no pleasure- but I'm afraid when it comes to being involved with the organisation/ running of our sport or striving to be the best you can be, then apathy rules in all too many clubs, everyone has a gripe but we all want someone else to sort it out.

I'll be offline for the next few days (PC upgrade) I look forward to catching up with this thread at the weekend.

[English Bowman]

I couldn't agree more. Some very good points have been made. The problem with GNAS is the archers, not the organisation itself, and until someone can find a cure for apathy I think that we are stuck with this problem. I wish I had the answer, but the best I can do is try to encourage juniors to take a more active interest, and hope that when they form the next generation it's a little more active than the current one.

Daniel

[pitprops]

Shirt - 8/8/2005 9:22 PM

That's because football ability isn't quantifiable. American football has the annual combine for new players, where you get measured bench press, 40 yard dash, and a few other statistics to help quantify something that's essentially unquantifiable. Whereas with archery, you have people shooting 1000 FITAs and the GB team shooting 1300 FITAs. Distinct, quantifiable difference.

Football doesn't have a ratings system, so people can delude themselves for as long as they like.

You miss the point. Participants in football are passionate, enthusiastic and very competitive. You only have to stand in your local park on a Sunday afternoon to realise this, or worse still when a colts team is playing and the parents are living out their fantasy by proxy. They strive to improve themselves, even though they may not have any ability. It doesn't matter whether the ability is measurable or not. Most of the archers I come into contact with turn up, may be there in time to set up the targets, but its unlikely; ping a few arrows; probably don't bother to score; then go home usually leaving someone else to put their targets away. As a few others on this thread have said, apathy is the major issue, not ability.

[JohnM]

OK, as an American I'll throw in my 2 cents, and it's rather cynical and sad, but I think it boils down to:

(1) there's no money in archery, and
(2) following it on TV requires an attention span that is way, way beyond the level of the average person.

No potential of future fame and/or wealth by participating in it, whereas football, baseball, basketball, soccer, etc. have lots of TV coverage, insane salaries, and participants, even at the lower levels and less-than-stellar ability, very often achieve celebrity status. On the other hand, hardly anyone knows the names of the best 5 archers in the world. No one cares.

You could respond by saying that increasing the exposure would help, but IMHO archery is astonishingly un-watchable as a sport. Participating in it is fun, but there are 100 other things I'd rather do than watch it on TV. The other mentioned sports have "action." Archery does not. Maybe a 21st-century innovation such as an "arrow-cam" might make it more interesting, or perhaps other camera angles, but TV people probably don't consider it worth the investment.

Another issue is cost. To participate in archery with half-way decent equipment, including bows, targets, arrows, other necessary accessories, costs at least $500. Compared to other sports, this is really expensive.

This condition of apathy/pasttime/hobby in archery will continue to exist until the potential rewards of participation change (which is highly unlikely, anyway).

[Barry C]

Never have I agreed with a post ...

[geordie_online]

Don't you think if there was a 30 minute weekly slot on TV, that interest in watching it would be increased? Even if it is sometime in the early hours of the morning. I would record it. (maybe i'm just sad!!!)

If you look at some of the rubbish that is shown on eurosport between 2am-3am, archery would not be out of place.

There are now internet TV stations being created to cover 'minority sports' prehaps this will suit archery better. However it is down to the organising bodies to video the event and post it on the net.