an answer.. not THE answer

[moo-mop]

Originally Posted by Little Miss Purple

see... even the answers you are all given shows that one size doesn't fit all!!! Starting with a basic technique or being within a range... open your eyes people and hear what you are saying!!

No I don't think so, you must understand this range is no where near as broad as that many GNAS coaches will allow and say is absolutely fine. It's actually quite a narrow range and I certainly don't fall into it much as i would like to. Most club archers are far further off and yet coaches are quite happy with that and there's a 'if it works for you' attitude - and this is more prevalent as you get better and is certainly caused me a block to my progress when I started to shoot around 1200. I was told 'shoulder in my ear' was just my build more than once or twice - it wasn't. It is this level when it also gets tricky as the coach has to make a decision on if it's worth changing something which will make an archer go significantly worse in the short/medium term and that will depend on that individual's goals.
I'm sure you're a better coach than that, but is propagating the 'we're different' helpful? I for one believe we're all the same, but it may just look different to those less experienced.

Of course there are different communication methods that get the message across.

[alert the argument on clickers spring to mind....]

p.s. in my PhD I did experiments with actual semiconductors in big machine, a theoretical one does the same on computers or paper. All do experiments, but are not all are experimentalists if you see what I mean.

[Snarkhunter]

Originally Posted by ASW1973

there is finesse and nuance in honing a skill. BUT if you told a child there is an infinite number of ways of writing then they would never learn anything. There are rules to any skill and without them there is no beginning or basis of skill. So yes one size does fit all at the most basic level, most peoples defence of individual differences is to explain their failings.
A successful athlete picks a "school of thought" and commits to that as gospel. These are their rules!
On this forum their are many different levels of athlete and the message is different for whatever level one wants to achieve, HOWEVER, if the individuals start talking about performance at high levels there is very little flexibility of approach.

I think the writing analogy is a good one.

I agree ASW, telling a child that there is an infinite way of doing something is to tell them nothing about how they might do it. However, an over insistence on there being only one, right method can be equally problematic: as any left-hander who was forced to write right-handed!

Most archers genuinely want to improve. However, success is hard won and few would change their style hastily, without careful thought and good reason.

Part of the issue here I think arises from the nature of any forum where (a) people tend to keep their answers as brief as possible (leaving out much of the "because" that explain why you should do something) and (b) because the communication is not face-to-face much of the subtlety and clarification that would be present in a coaching session is missing.

While we can do nothing about (b), perhaps if some of the answers included more detail as to the reasons behind them then there would be less feeling of being issued holy commandments and more like the excellent guidance and advice from skilled archers it is intended to be!

[moo-mop]

OK the why I'm so against this idea of there being an infinite number of ways to shoot is because that attitude (from myself, as well as others btw), more than anything else, stopped my progress when I was in my first period of archery from 1996-2000 and I still find it very very prevalent.

Once I realised it's far more minor variations on proven techniques within the key areas (technique, goal setting and equipment) then I started to move on. from my later experience I can now judge that sometimes for my goals I can ignore this advice, but if you have higher goals you probably can't.

[archer_thom]

Surely it's a lot simpler than you're making out - or I've ignored something important again. Archery is about putting arrows as close to a point as possible, as often as possible. Therefore while any method *could* be used, say by a shooting machine, human anatomy dictates the use of certain muscle groups because these allow the bow to be drawn more easily and repeatably than others.

When people mention different techniques they are usually referring to the "decoration" - how each top archer gets into a position to use the same muscle groups as pretty much every other top archer. (Non-top archers are less certain). However having spent years watching top archers in an attempt to understand what was going on I definitely came to the conclusion that they were all doing basically the same thing, and were doing so as far back as I could find images (about 1965 I think).

I'm not sure if that's simple at all.

[its my party and]

Interesting this I recently found a new (better) back technique that works so much better than the one I was using before. So did I not have back tension before or did I just think I had! I thought I did. Or simply has my posture improved and technique along with it as well. I couldn't say there is a real definition of back tension anywhere I can read.
Also as another point on the junior squads the coaches are looking for a perfect but natural front shoulder position in the archers being looked at and Peter is saying whether they have "it" or not. But if they don't have it they are apparently not being told what it is, or how to achieve it. Just being told to come back when they think they have it. Not sure that is the right way to go about coaching but then again why communicate if they are not going to listen. Mind you if the top coach in the country doesn't communicate what they want then is anyone going to listen further down. Its a strange game this archery. One day everyone will sing from the same hymn sheet I hope.

[Desert Archer]

I came back to archery after a long time away. Because of my un-naturally long draw I got a lot of bad information and was even told it couldn't be that long. That sort of planted the idea that I was different so none of the rules applied to me. It's taken 4 years but the more I learn the more I realize the basics and fundamentals just don't change much and work pretty well for everyone. I have some quirks to my style because of my physical disability but they are just my way of achieving what all the books and experts say are the fundamentals of form and technique.

Dave

[addo]

Originally Posted by avalon

Reading some of the posts lately, there are some people proposing one solution/training plan/method etc, as if it's the right and only way of doing things

IMO these people are wrong.........HORSES FOR COURSES

[ASW1973]

I have seen, and worked with, peter suk when he explains exactly how to get the front shoulder right to both juniors and seniors. However for a british archer it is hard work and most have given up quite quickly and returned to bad habits.

[Watch_Man]

While a good score with a poor technique always beats a bad score with good technique I think most leading coaches and experts seem to have a common ground in their training methods.

If archery was a high profile national sport as in Korea, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. For a lot of archers initial coaching is like being taught to drive by your dad and then later having a qualified driving instructor spend time getting rid of the bad habits before instilling good ones for the test.

[clickerati]

The top Korean archers don't have jobs or families. All they do is archery. It defines them. It's what they do. Park Sung Hyun said as much in the most recent Bow International.