Scoring Well

Every year, the team I coach acquires new archers, many of whom have very little experience. I wrote the following handout on how to begin to score well for them and I decided to share it with you. SPR

Scoring

When you first seriously undertake learning to shoot your focus is upon your form and execution. Form being your body positions (foot positions, hip positions, shoulder positions, full-draw-position. etc.) and execution being the movements made to get from one position to the next. This is necessary. First you must build your shot, then through repetition you come to own it.

Then if you find you like competition, another aspect arises—scoring. Being able to shoot repetitively, creating nice tight groups is one thing, scoring well is another. An example is a student I had who worked very hard to make sure her sight settings were good and would go to a competition and shoot tight groups but not score well. On one occasion, her arrows were bunched well below the center of the target. She kept shooting, hoping things would work out and when we asked her why she didn’t adjust her sight so the arrows would land in the highest scoring zone, she answered that her sight marks were good, she must be doing something wrong and she just hadn’t figured out what. Compare that behavior with the 2000 Olympic Gold Medal winning archer, Simon Fairweather. After warming up and shooting two ends of three arrows in his gold medal match, he shot his first arrow in competition. He looked through his spotting scope, then reached up and adjusted his sight setting. The lesson? If you want to score well, put the damned aperture where it needs to be to make the arrows go in the middle.

Even if everything were perfect during practice and warm-ups, when competition pressure builds up, you change making things different. tension makes muscles shorter, making it more difficult to get through your clicker or into your full-draw-position, for example. This changes the feel of your shot. It doesn’t feel right any more. This is the challenge: making whatever changes needed to score well without trying to invent a new way to shoot in the process.

Here are some suggestions on how to score well:

  1. You must “trust your shot.” Improvising new techniques to score well is counterproductive. This can happen subconsciously!
  2. If your arrows are grouping off center, change your point-of-aim, crawl, sight setting, etc. so that your groups become centered. This is a basic condition for scoring well.
  3. Know thyself. Learn about how you respond to competition pressure. Take notes. If you shake more at full draw under pressure, note that (it doesn’t necessarily affect your scoring much), etc. Learn about what you need to eat and drink and do during a competition to perform your best.
  4. When things go wrong, troubleshooting must address whether the problem is your equipment, the environment (includes your target), or you. If you get the source of your problem wrong, you will not have solved the problem but probably also made an unneeded “fix” that makes scoring worse. I had a young student who was given a target with a soft center (they thought she would hit it much so it shouldn’t be a problem). End after end, she found arrows in the grass she was sure should have hit the target. Those arrows were going through the soft spot unnoticed and received scores of zero instead of 10s, 9s, or 8s.
  5. Track your competition and practice scores and compare them. If you are scoring 10% below your practice scores in a competition and you think that is a problem but it is, in fact, normal for you, you just created a problem that doesn’t exist and any “solution” to that problem will make your scoring worse.
  6. At the end of every competition, make two lists of at least three (3) items each: #1 Things I Learned and #2 Things I Will Do Differently Next Time. Do this within 24 hours of the end of the shoot. Read these lists to develop practice plans and to prepare for the next shoot.

There is more … much more.

4 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches

Sticking with Strings

QandA logoAs a follow-up on my last post about waxing bowstrings I received a query about breaking in new bowstrings.

* * *

First, a separation must be made between modern and post-modern bowstring materials (my definitions). I say this because no one is using traditional materials (silk, hemp, linen, cotton, sinew, etc.) in target archery so we do not need to talk about them. (Yes, primitive archers are using such materials but not to seriously compete against others in ordinary target archery venues.) And, there is a big difference between the first-generation modern string materials and those that came after.

So, the first “modern” string material and the only one worth considering is Dacron® (still available for purchase, by the way). Dacron® was much stronger than most of the materials and cheaper and more regular, etc. But Dacron® was also “stretchy.” So, when a new Dacron® bowstring was placed on a bow, several procedures were used to remove some of the stretch. One common technique was to place the strung bow, back down, in one’s lap and press down on the limbs. After some of the stretch occurred, the string would be twisted up and shot. Unfortunately, Dacron® never stops stretching so one needs to keep twisting over the life of the string.

The first post-modern string material (in my scheme of things) was Spectra® marketed under the brand name “Fast Flight.” This string material was primarily ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, a slightly modified version of the material used to make black plastic garbage bags. And, there was Kevlar® (poly-paraphenylene terephthalamide—Aramid fiber), and yes the stuff used to make bullet proof vests, but Kevlar strings had the nasty habit of breaking … at full draw so achieve only a temporary popularity.Recurve bow string

Most newer bowstring materials are made from two such materials, their fibers twisted together to make “blended string materials.”

The point here is that once you get past Dacron®, the “stretchiness” is much, much less. (There are technical terms used, such as “creep” which have technical definitions (stretch that doesn’t recover, stretch that does recover, etc.) but my argument doesn’t require a foray into the itty-bitty details.) Because of the low level of stretch in these materials “string break in” is a simple procedure: string the bow and shoot it.

The “old” rule of thumb (Fast Flight came out in the late 1980’s, so we are talking about the last 30 years or so) was 100 shots and you were good to go. Basically 30 will probably do it. After that adjust your brace height or eccentric positions and you are good to go. Yes, you still need to check these things regularly because things do go wrong, but don’t expect large changes after break in, they just don’t happen with these “post-modern” materials.

And, if you keep your ears open you will hear old-timers talking about things like “sinking in” their new bow by shooting their heaviest arrows. These are traditional self-bow archers who are not talking about their strings so much as they are their bows. But keep listening, just be sure you associate what you hear with what is really being talked about and don’t just extrapolate that to you and your archer’s archery.

PS I still use Fast Flight string material for compound strings and cables and the occasional recurve or longbow strings. Good stuff. But (Warning!) do not use modern string materials on older recurves or longbows that do not have limb tip reinforcements. These materials are so unyielding that they can cut right into the bare wood of such bows. Most archers use dacron strings on those older bows as the springyness of the string lessens the shock on the limb tips. (No charge for that tip.)

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

Waxing Poetic

QandA logoHi Steve,
One of my young archers asked if they had to use special bow string wax. He wondered if he could, in a pinch, use Chap Stick, lip balm, bees wax or something more readily available on his bow string. He readily ruled out candle wax, it didn’t feel the same, but I didn’t have a good answer for him on his other suggestions … do you?

* * *

Okay, is he a recurve archer? Recurve archers do not generally wax their strings, unless they are expecting to have to shoot in the rain. Wax increases the weight of the string, slowing it and the arrows attached to it down. Water in the bowstring will do the same thing, so the wax is preferred over the water as being less variable. The amount of waxed used then becomes a variable, which …Chapstick

If he is a compound archer, well, they do wax their strings, maybe once a year. So, what kind of a pinch/emergency are we talking about? ;o)

I remember a young JOAD archer who was earnestly waxing the string and cables of his compound bow and I asked him why he was doing that. His response was that he was told to “keep his string and cables well-waxed.” The fact that he already had enough wax on his bow to polish a good sized gymnasium floor was not considered a sign of “oops, too much.”

Modern string materials are made out of stuff very similar to that used to make plastic garbage bags (high molecular weight linear polyethylene being one the first such materials). Wax is not needed, per se, as these materials do not absorb water. Some wax, though, keeps grit from getting between the individual strands of the string which keeps that grit from abrading the individual strands, thus preventing premature string failure. Any soft wax will do, which is why candle wax did not feel right (too hard). Beeswax has been used on bowstrings since prehistoric times, I believe. I suggest playing it safe and using a commercial product as the ingredients in lip glosses, for example, may soften the string material leading to string stretch which changes a whole bunch of bow parameters. If the commercial products had any such negative effect, the obsessive-compulsive archers would have pointed that out already.

Recurve bow stringIf any such substitute string “wax” is used in “a pinch” I would replace it with commercial bow wax at the earliest opportunity. Just wax over the area with the “good wax” and then loop a strand of serving material around the string, pull on both ends and slide it up and down. This will remove the excess wax. The “dewaxing” could be done before as well as after the correct waxing, first to remove the “bad wax” and the second to remove the excess. A couple of repetitions of this procedure will result in the “good wax” replacing the “substitute” almost completely.

Recurve archers can be obsessive about their strings up to weighing them to make sure they are identical in every way, down to the very small amounts of wax used on them.

Good question!

 

6 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

There are Archery Coaching Principles

I was watching a teaser for Hank Haney’s instructional video “Lessons Learned from Coaching the World’s Greatest Golfer” and Coach Haney brought up something I had already recognized as a basic principle for coaching archers. When I recovered from the cheap thrill, I realized that he had expanded upon that principle in a way I had not.

The Goldilocks Principle
I have recommended “the Goldilocks Principle” to many coaches, the basic thrust of which is when you are looking to make a change, exaggerate at first. Goldilocks comes into it because if something is too low and you effect a change that moves you to a position of being too high, then you now have boundaries, between which you will find “just right.” (This porridge is too hot. This porridge is too cold. This porridge is just right. Ah.)

An archery example of this occurs while sighting in. If your first sight setting results in your arrow hitting the target very low, you could put a couple of “clicks” into your sight and shoot again. The result will be the arrow will land slightly higher than the first one (if you moved the aperture the right way, of course). Instead, you should move your aperture down quite a bit, hopefully so that your next shot is too high. Once you know where “too low” and “too high” are on your sight bar for this distance, then try half way in between those. If that isn’t very close, then half way to one of those boundaries (depending on where the next arrow lands) until you are very close, then you can go a couple of clicks at a time to fine tune your group location.

Coach Haney referred to those “boundaries” (e.g. too hot and too cold) as being “parameters,” a fine Latin term which means “to be measured against” but there is really no difference between what he was teaching and what I am. But Coach Haney indicated that working with Tiger Woods taught him a great deal. One of those things he shared in his sales pitch for the fill video, namely Tiger’s father, Earl, taught him that “there is a big difference between feel and real.” So Tiger would do a lot of mirror work, trying very hard to exaggerate any change he was making. The reason for this is that when you have practiced something until it feels natural, something I call the “Old Normal,” if you deviate just a little bit it feels like you have deviated a lot. This is why when you ask a student-archer to do something differently, they will move only slightly away from what has been tried and true for a long time. You have to ask them to exaggerate, as Coach Haney said “I have to ask for a foot to get an inch.”

So Tiger would do mirror work when he was trying a change a bit of his swing or he would ask his coach when his club (or hand or …) was in the right position. Then Tiger could associate that particular feel (which always felt very exaggerated to him) with the real position he was trying to create.

In other words, he used his own sense of the feel of things to calibrate the change.

This involves the athlete more actively in making the change. They are not just being a good soldier, doing everything (or trying to do everything) commanded by their coach. The coach is there is provide the feedback the athlete needs to match up the “feel” he is having with the “real” situation. This puts the athlete more in charge of his training, which I believe is always a good thing in an individual sport.

 

Conclusion
I believe there are Principles of Coaching Archery. I believe we share some of these with other sports. What I call the Goldilocks Principle is used in golf and, I suspect, other individual sports.

If you look at these two sports (golf and archery) both have been around for very long times. So why is golf so much farther advanced when it comes to coaching than is archery? I am sure that it has something to do with golf being restricted to the well-to-do by and large and that the wealthy would pay for instruction where the poor and middle class could not afford it. But there is more. Part of it involves the transmission of information between and among golf instructors and coaches and the codification of that knowledge. Now, I really don’t believe everything the PGA teaches about coaching golf is correct, but at least you can acquire those teachings. You do not have to start from scratch.

I think it would be a “good thing” if us coaches were to make a list of as many of these archery coaching principles as we can identify. I can think of no better information to pass along to the next generation of coaches. As it has been, we have left each new generation to learn what they could on their own. We can do better.

Leave a comment

Filed under For All Coaches

Marketing on a Myth

I was reading a website’s marketing piece for yet another mechanical broadhead design. The line that caught my eye was “… allows the <brand name of broadhead> to maintain a minimal amount of blade exposure reducing the wind planning (sic) effect insuring better accuracy at a distance and (than?) a comparable field point shot.”

All mechanical broadheads are designed around this central bit of dogma. There’s only one problem with it: the “wind planing effect” is bogus. As the “wind planing effect” story goes the blades of an old model broadhead (see photo) act like airplane wings and cause the arrow to “fly” off line.

An "old style" two blade broadhead (still available)

An “old style” two blade broadhead (still available)

This is very bad science. An airplane wing allows a plane to fly because a number of factors:
1. Its shape causes air to move farther around one side than the other causing the pressure there (above the wing) to be lower than on the other side (below the wing) resulting in the air pushing harder from below than above creating aerodynamic lift.
2. The wing is angled to the line of flight, more so at slower speeds than to create more lift but also more drag. When the plane gets going, the higher the speed, the lower the “angle of attack” to reduce the drag and the lift (you only need enough lift at that point to keep the plane level, not climbing even more).

So, to get this “force” attributed to broadheads, the blades (aka “wings”) would have to be curved and at an angle to the air sliding by them. In fact they are flat, that is “not curved,” and in line with the shaft of the arrow creating no lift whatsoever. Not only that but there are two or three of these wings spaced equally around the point either cancelling each other out or accentuating one another. If there were actual lift created (there is not) it would be at a right angle to blade and hence a right angle to the shaft and since it would be off axis, the effect would be to spin the arrow shaft around the shaft (faster or slower depending on whether they are working with or against the arrow’s fletching), which is considered to be a good thing.

A mechanical broadhead cocked (below) and deployed (above)

A mechanical broadhead cocked (below) and deployed (above)

So, where did the idea of the “wind planing effect” come from?

I have found references to this effect that go back to the early 1970s and I suspect they go back even farther. But I suspect it came about when people had the opportunity to compare the same arrows with different points, so possibly when screw-in points were invented. Arrows with a screwed in target or field points would impact in different places than a screwed in broadhead of the same weight. People immediately wondered “why?” and the wind planing effect story was invented to explain the problem.

So what was the real reason the two arrows hit in different places?

My guess is that a number of things could be the cause. First, broadheads are quite longer than target or field points. If they were not perfectly straight, when screwed on a shaft you would have the equivalent of a bent arrow and so it would not hit in the same place. Second, those considerable longer broadheads create a longer arrow with a different weight distribution (a different “front-of-center” or FOC balance point). That would cause the arrows to fly differently, too.

Of course, there are dozens and dozens (and dozens) of mechanical broadheads being sold in today’s market. All of the marketing for which is, well, bogus. So bowhunters are buying into more complicated and more expensive broadheads (in which more things can go wrong, such as the cutting blades not deploying or parts falling off before use making them unusable) for no good reason.

Can you see now why I ask all of my coach-trainees and all of my archers to think through everything and ask a lot of questions?

2 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches

New Coaching Book Available

My latest archery coaching book is now available on Amazon.com and other sources. Here’s the TOC so you can see if you are interested:

 Table of Contents
Still More on Coaching Archery

    Introduction

On Form and Execution
1  A Defense of Copying
2  An Analysis of the NTS Finger Loose
3  Being Consistent
4  Helping Your Students Explore Balance
5  How to Build Championship Form
6  Relaxing
7  The Physical Requirements of a Good Shot
8  We Don’t Talk Enough About Stillness and Rhythm
9  What Is the Most Important Part of an Archer’s Form?
10  Why the Bow Hand Release is a Bad Idea

On Practice
11  Practice Tricks
12  Why You Should Always Center Your Groups
13  A Practice Prescription Case Study: After a Longish Layoff
14  Enjoying Practice

On Equipment
15  Arrow Overhang: How Much is Too Much?
16  Bearpaw Twinbow Review
17  The Broadhead Planing Effect: Fact or BS?
18  Ultra-Adjustable Compound Bows
19  What the Coach Training Classes Leave Out . . . And Shouldn’t
20  A Stringwalking Puzzle
21  Can You Read Arrow Patterns?
22  The Optics of Apertures

On Coaching
23  Teaching the Finger Release
24  Getting from “Here” to “There”
25  A Coaching Case Study
26  The Overaiming Meme
27  The Stages of Learning Archery, Pt 1
28  The Stages of Learning Archery, Part 2
29  The Stages of Learning Archery, Part 3
30  The Stages of Learning Archery, Part 4
31  Coaches Never Assume
32  Managing Emotional Attachments to Athletes
33  On the Nature of Advice
34  Towards a Common Terminology
35  Watch Your Language
36  What To Look For (At?)
37  What Great Archers Don’t Necessarily Make Great Coaches
38  What the Coach Knows and the Athlete Needs

General Commentary
39  Random Archery Thoughts
40  Alternate Shot Letdown Alternatives
41  ATAs Archery Participation Survey
42  There Must Be … A Better Way
43  The Benefits of Archery
44  Having a Lot of Pull on the Archery Range

SMOCA Front Cover 10%

3 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches

How Many Arrows Should I be Shooting?

QandA logoI got an email from one of my Olympic Recurve students who ask the above question. It was in the context of getting a bit fatigues at the end of an indoor 600 round (60 arrows, 10-0 scoring).

* * *

As a rule of thumb, I think for “heavy shooting days” (to be alternated with light days and medium days and rest days) you should be shooting double the number of arrows in your most rigorous current round. So, that would make it 120 arrows for heavy, maybe 60 arrows for light and 90 arrows for medium. (For NFAA indoor archers you’d have to double these as an indoor 600 round is 120 arrows, 5-3 scoring.) As one’s championship desires become greater, those get upped. Many Olympians preparing for the Olympics do 400 arrows per day for their heavy days. The idea here is if you know you can shoot 120 strong shots in a day (as you have done it repeatedly) then shooting 60 strong shots is a piece of cake. On rare occasions you might want to do a super load day and shoot a much larger number of shots: in the scheme above, maybe 200-240. This is the psychology behind the 1000 Arrow Challenge, once you have shot 1000 arrows in a single day, it is very hard for you to respond with “I can’t do that” for almost anything else in archery.

You have to prove to yourself that you can shoot large numbers of quality shots. Each shot you shoot has to be with your full physical and mental shot routines. If you cheat and just “fling arrows” to run your count up, you will know this and the “experience” won’t really count.

* * *Indoor BB Shooting

Now, this is a very experience archer I am talking to. If he were less expert, the rules are quite different. I express this as “you have to find your shot before you can own it.” There is no real value in shooting high arrow loads if he hadn’t yet found his shot, the shot that uses his body best, aka optimally. If he weren’t there yet, shooting high volumes of arrows would create a feeling of “normal” around a shot he needed to change. Any time an archer tries to make changes, the “old normal” exerts a pull away from the “new normal” they are trying to create and back toward the old shot, making progress that much more difficult. With this student, we rebuilt his shot a couple of years ago and now he is refining and maintaining that shot, the one he will use for quite a while. (An archery shot is never “done,” rather like a knife it needs to be honed and occasionally sharpened as it is used; otherwise it gets dull and ineffective.) The score this student made in the local tournament was almost identical to the one he made to take a medal at the state indoor championship last year, even though he struggled somewhat due to a layoff from practicing.

Outdoor Blank BalesSo, if a student hasn’t yet found her/his shot, I discourage large volumes of shots and encourage working on their shot more. A balance can be found so they can have fun competing as all archers want to do, but really, really serious archers wouldn’t think of competing without having a settled shot, so if they were rebuilding their shot, for example, they will avoid competition until they can prove to themselves in practice that their shot is up to snuff. Otherwise, under competition stress, it will probably break down and they will have a good chance of developing bad habits as they struggle to score, that will just have to be weeded out later.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

We Have to Stop Saying Stupid Things

I just finished reading a column in the January 7, 2015 New York Times: “Years of Repetition Help Sharpshooter Equal a Record”

The subtitle was “Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis of UConn Took Aim at Record for 3-Pointers;” here are a few quotes:

By the time Mosqueda-Lewis reached seventh grade, Ali (her father) was waking her at 5 a.m. to take her to a 24-hour fitness center in her hometown, Anaheim Hills, Calif., so she could shoot as much as possible before school. The exhausting goal was 500 shots per day. If that meant returning to the gym once her homework was done, so be it. Ali never tired of running down rebounds and snapping off passes, and the two of them delighted in a bond that grew ever stronger.

There have been very few players who shoot the ball the way Kaleena does,” Coach Geno Auriemma said. “It’s God-given, and she’s worked hard at it.

“Argh! God-given talent my ass!”

Argh! God-given talent my ass!

Coaches have to stop saying stupid things like this. This young lady has the correct mindset for an athlete, which is “if I practice hard, I will get better.” There is no such thing as “God-given talents” and the consequences of believing you had one is … what? Why should you work hard if the talent came to you magically? Why should you risk high levels of competition as it may put all of my praise at risk?

The right mindset for an athlete is one in which they equate hard work on their game with progress. In no other way will they get better. Praying certainly won’t do it. Asking God for another soupcon of talent won’t do it. Why not ask God to make you taller (or quicker or faster), that would really help a basketball player.

Coaches need to praise athletes for their hard work and dedication, which fuels even more hard work and dedication, not some mumbo-jumbo about “God-given talent.” How in heck would Coach Auriemma recognize a “God-given talent” in any case? Where did he get the talent for that? When did he receive his coach training in recognizing talents? What is a talent for basketball or for archery, exactly?

Stop with the stupid, please!

 

3 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches

Serving Recreational Archers to Serve Archery

In our programs we make a distinction between recreational archers and competitive archers. Our definitions of such may differ from yours, though. What makes a competitive archer is not just going to competitions; many recreational archers go to competitions, even at the national level. Competitive archers differ from recreational archers in how they train. Recreational archers, in general, will do little that is not fun to do. Competitive archers, on the other hand, will do quite boring drills and whatnot if they suspect it will improve their performance. This category includes, of course, elite archers but also a great many others who still want to win, even if it is in a small subcategory of archers.

Since we are in the business of training coaches, knowing who your audience necessarily informs what a coach will recommend. We had a friend (still do) who kept asking recreational archers to do work only competitive archers embrace and was disappointed when those tasks were not done. Offering boring tasks to a recreational archer is how we determine if they are becoming competitive archers. If they refuse, it is not an occasion for disappointment, merely an acknowledgement of their recreational archer status. Similarly trying to train a serious competitive archer in the same way you train recreational archers will likewise result in poor results. (How about a balloon shoot today?)

A correspondent recently pointed to his disappointment that the “archery organizations” did so little for recreational archers. I have had similar thoughts myself, but I think it is time we recognize the reality of the situation. As long as archery is a relatively minor sport, it is fitting and normal that the archery organizations are focused upon the highest performing segment of their memberships. It is only that way that the sport can achieve a bigger share of the sports spotlight.

I could be criticized for using too many golf analogies, but here I go again. If you look at the phenomenon which is golf today, there are entire cable channels devoted to the sport, the PGA Tour has sub tours on other continents. Other continents have their own professional golf tours and televised golf events have sponsors which have little to do with golf or nothing at all (Buick, Rolex watches, etc.). The questions I wish to put to those of you who would like a similar standing for archery is: how did golf get this way?

ty-cobb-the-american-golfer 1931If you go back a hundred years, golf in the U.S. was an entirely amateur sport, mostly played by rich people. Playing for money was sneered at. In the 1950’s, professional golf was a backwater of sports with little prize money. Golfers often made more money from side money matches with well-to-do challengers than they made in the tournaments themselves. The advent of televised golf changed things a lot and the dramatics of highly contested matches (Palmer-Nicklaus, etc.) contributed positively. What attracted advertisers was not the golf but the ratings of the golf shows. So, who was watching televised golf? The answer: ordinary golfers. So, golf’s formula was to get a great many people involved in the game, build an audience for advertisers and then cash in.

The Professional Golfer’s Association (PGA) was founded in the late 1920’s with two target groups (no, not professional golfers). They targeted coaches and golf course superintendents. Coaches were necessary to teach people to play well enough that they continued in the game and superintendents were necessary to make sure courses existed and then thrived. You needed places to play golf and people to play the game. This was the formula used to build audiences, not a professional tour. The PGA spun off the PGA Tour as a separate entity and while a whole lot of money is involved in the PGA Tour, most of that is handled by the separate tournament organizations and only a few hundred members of the Tour exist. The rest of the PGA, some 29,000 members is dedicated to serving … wait for it … recreational golfers and, well, some competitive but not professional archers (putting on various championship tournaments for amateurs that required very high levels of skill to win).

So, while many in archery drool over the success of professional golf, it is the recreational base which made it all possible.

So, what does this teach us? I think it teaches us that we need to build a strong organization in support of recreational archers, archers who can demand places to shoot in their local municipalities, like public golf courses serve community golfers. The more recreational archers, the greater the demand. So what is needed for this to happen? A great deal, I am afraid. For our part we have published an entire recreational archery curriculum (see here) and have begun a website to support that curriculum and we are creating programs to train and support archery coaches. We need some kind of effort to secure municipal archery ranges but we are not up to that yet. Can we depend upon our archery organizations to do this for us? I don’t think so. Like the PGA did, it takes a much greater effort to “build the base” than it does to promote the pinnacle and I don’t see anybody or any organization stepping up to that task in the way the PGA did.

What do you think?

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches

My 2 Cents Worth on “Shuffling My Feet”

two-centsThanks to all who commented on this matter. Here are my thoughts on this.

* * *

The purpose of shuffling one’s feet while engaged in a tournament was to lessen the tension that was building up when the author was trying to score well during a tournament. This is unfortunately typical of the routes that archery “conventional wisdom” gets passed along. A suggestion from a stranger is first rejected, then later attempted with some positive results and a new practice is adopted, then that story is passed along in an “it worked for me, maybe it will work for you” fashion.

To figure out whether this practice is “good advice” one needs to consider what the alternatives are. What else can be done to lessen the pressure we put upon ourselves to score well when that pressure becomes debilitating?

First, I think that some of that pressure is desirable. It leads to increased focus and intensity. What we do not want is for the pressure to score well to build up until it inhibits good execution. So, what are some alternatives to shuffling one’s feet?
• One could wiggle one’s legs (without moving one’s feet)
• One could develop a mental program that channeled the pressure better
• One could use breathing exercises
• One could shake the tension out through one’s hands
• One could adopt a key like rattling the arrows in one’s quiver to trigger a relaxation
• One could use a tension reducing sequence like curling one’s toes and relaxing them followed by tensing various other muscles and then relaxing them.
There seem to be a great many alternatives. (I could think of more, but …)

What, then, are the pluses and minuses to moving one’s feet. For one, it does break the routine that was allowing the pressure to increase to unacceptable levels. That’s a plus. For a minus, if one’s feet are perfectly placed, moving them means that they are less likely to be perfectly placed for the next shot. (The author himself emphasized the importance of a proper stance). This introduces another measure of variation into the shot and makes one less consistent. Maybe the cost of this tension reducer is higher than some of the alternatives. (I think so.)

Once the pressure problem has been identified, the best way to deal with it is to not just settle for the first thing that works better than doing nothing. Rather than comparing the results against doing nothing, one needs to identify a number of things one could do and pick a couple to experiment with. Pick one of those that seems to fit one’s personality and start there.

The evaluation needs to include both the positive and negative aspects of each option. I think moving one’s feet is a big negative and would not recommend that unless nothing else worked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches