another case of "what's best for you isn't what's best for everyone else"

some people like the tightness, other people like having their waist more loose. i think one thing that people forget is that Kisik Lee's technique is a whole single piece, and each part is meant to work with the others.

meanwhile, a lot of people are doing just fine with other techniques because their entire form works together.

so whether it's good or bad depends on if the rest of your technique likes it and not who you're copying. (however, copying is a great way to figure stuff out)

 

Torso twist is something that is advocated only by KSL. Ie current korean method advises hips square to target even if they sometimes use (very slightly) open foot position. General consensus seems to be amongst other coaches is that it might be good idea, IF you can train the required 40-50,000 shots per year and do the required physical training on the top.

This is of course from european point of view, as we aren't that strictly tied to one strict system.

 

The twist in the torso does more than just add stability. It also affects your followthrough when you expand correctly, making it go towards the target more. It depends on the technique you use.

 

The twist in the torso does more than just add stability. It also affects your followthrough when you expand correctly, making it go towards the target more.

I wonder if that is fact or doctrine? I wanted to learn "BEST Method" because it was touted as being all scientifically and empirically based, but I wonder what the scientfic proof of torso twist==better follow through?

 

But when I look a many of the top archers on YouTube etc., not everyone does this "torso twist"

So what's the deal?....good or bad?

I've stated this before and it's worth repeating. Different archery styles are like different religions, they each have different paths to the same place. An archer's most efficient posture is based on his/her individual skeleton and musculature. If a coach is lucky, he will find a few archers who's body type not only fits his style but who also embrace the mindset. Coach Lee has Bradey Ellison.

Each country also has it's own "flavor" , the Koreans shoot differently than the Italians who shoot differently than the Americans and so on.

In addition to the trunk twist you must tilt the pelvis up and tighten the stomach muscles slightly (think of the reaction that you have when someone pokes you in the stomach). Coach Lee also speakes of pulling the sternum down. This tension combined with the twist creates a stable platform and straightens the lower back eleminating the curve. Not every one finds this position comfortable. Does this increase stability - sure. Can everyone do it - not without extensive retraining.

There are plenty of archers that still shoot with a square stance quite effectively without the trunk twist. Limbwalker comes to mind. I find that I do better with an open stance and a slight trunk twist but I have a hard time with the pelvic tilt.

Whatever works for your body type is best for you.

TAO

 

Here's the only Korean I know who uses this twist:

 

Here's the only Korean I know who uses this twist:

No wonder, as he was once coached by KSL. Another one is Chung Jae-Hun.

 

And here are two americans that use it;

 

I might add, notice how the Korean looks as though he drops his hips like he's twisting lower in the body, or at the hips. Miranda and Brady don't drop like that.

Just an observation.

 

Just remember that he shot 1379 and medalled in plenty of olympics and world champs.

He twists the way koreans twist when they use open stance, hips swing almost in line of shoulders.

 

Not possible. Only the KSL shot cycle works. :tongue:

 

Archers may be different but system in most successful archery countries is similar.

You can see another video of him in 1996 olympic video.

 

OK, finally....here's an older Oh and the twist is more pronounced here...

 

DIV -

Kinda like Alan's and TAO's take on this.

From a purely anatomic standpoint if we consider the spine and surrounding muscles as sort of a spring, or having spring-like properties, then any twisting of the torso (spine) will result in a natural tendency to untwist, as the shooter attempts to "relax into the shot".

Since I believe that the best (lower case) way for most people to shoot is by doing the least amount of work during the shot as possible. Causing the spine to twist and holding it there seems to require more work that I'd want to do or have my students do. (Yes, there are varying degrees, so this is just a general statement.)

Now there might be some cases / body types where this is exactly what will work, but I wouldn't try it as a matter or course.

(BTW - we had the same type of discussion years ago with competitive rifle shooters. The trunk or torso twist was popular for the off hand position in certain circles, but oddly enough, some shooters found themselves untwisting during the trigger squeeze and drifting. Think the same thing applies here, at least it does (and did) with me.

Viper1 out.

 

(BTW - we had the same type of discussion years ago with competitive rifle shooters. The trunk or torso twist was popular for the off hand position in certain circles, but oddly enough, some shooters found themselves untwisting during the trigger squeeze and drifting. Viper1 out.

When I shot pistol, I adjusted my stance with my eyes closed until my gun arm naturaly pointed at the target. That became the neutral point for my stance. I do something similar with my archery students until they are aligned properly with the center of the target.

TAO

 

Most drastic downside of open stance and hip/shoulder twist according to current Korean method is hip swing upon release which tends to increase with fatigue and stress. They see it as a risk.

I tend to agree. Personally I only use open stance with compound and all archers I coach or used to coach went with straight stance. Some have since experienced with open and very open stances, and have seen a larger variation in scores between competitions or even during one competition.

 

zal, I've seen the same. When I talk open stance, I start suggest putting the ball of your lead foot in the arch of your rear foot, and that's about all the "open" you need. Heck, come to think of it, that's just barely past natural point of aim for me. It is something that is most useful in moderation.

I have seen archers standing 45 degrees and even more open to the target. Some of these are incorrect interpretations of Lee's method.

 

Warbow,

What form of proof or objective evidence are you looking for?

Terry

 

That's the crux of it isn't it? How do you objectively prove one technique to be superior to another when it is part of an over all system, and when it can't be necessarily shown to be causally related to the success or failure of any one archer based on their scores? I frankly don't know. But I'd like to see some kind of physiological study that objectively compares the two systems in terms of stability and other isolatable, quantifiable measures. Start with the specific claims of advantages proponents say the twist gives--then find out how to isolate that specific claim and instrument a test for it that compares it to equally trained (and scoring) archers of similar physique who don't use it. I'm not sure what the study design would look like, or how you would objectively compare the advantages to the disadvantages, but we really should look for more evidence than analogies to twisted ropes. We are not rope.

If we are going to train an entire country full of recurve archers to use an awkward technique, and, at the top levels, spend thousands of hours perfecting it, a technique not used by top archers from other countries there really should be some objective evidence to show the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

 

Gerard -

I kinda figure if there were any aspect of shooting that was clearly superior (as evidenced by consistently higher scores), then most people would be doing it that way sooner or later. Fact is, with all the scientific studies (and claims), there are still a number of options being used that still work quite well. I guess it's still figuring out what's negotiable and what isn't, for example, when was the last time you saw a good Olympic shooter with a floating anchor?

Similarly, while I believe it's a good idea to try as many options as you (or your coach) feel are appropriate, most of us don't have the time or patience to try every last option out there - nor is there any reason to, IMHO.

Basically what works (again, IMHO) would be something is physically sound AND has been shown to work in practice.

Pretty simple on paper, isn't it???

Viper1 out.

 

I kinda figure if there were any aspect of shooting that was clearly superior (as evidenced by consistently higher scores), then most people would be doing it that way sooner or later.

Hmm...

...I don't want to dismiss innovation out of hand, but I also don't want to simply assume that because one person says something is better that it necessarily is.

 

I'm reminded of the high jump, and how the Fosbury Flop revolutionized that event. Soon everyone was jumping with their back to the bar - the stampede to that style was amazingly fast.

It was one of those things that was plain to see; and while absolute prood would be hard to come by in any kind of scientific sense; it was easy to persuade most people through anecdotal evidence.

I think it's too soon to be dictating/subjecting oceans of young kids to the KSL method. My preference (realizing that it is completely irrelevant to anyone but me) would be to wait and see how that posture/method holds up over some reasonable length of time across some reasonable data sample of USA archers.

Just an aside - does anyone else have a philosophical problem with the whole idea of a 'NATIONAL TRAINING SYSTEM", per se, against the backdrop of traditional American individualism? It sounds so "Eastern Bloc-ish" ... on the other hand, maybe it's an apt near-future metaphor.

 

Just an aside - does anyone else have a philosophical problem with the whole idea of a 'NATIONAL TRAINING SYSTEM", per se, against the backdrop of traditional American individualism? It sounds so "Eastern Bloc-ish" ... on the other hand, maybe it's an apt near-future metaphor.

As with all "systems" it creates a standardized system of training for the atheletes and the coaches. This way everyone teaches the same thing and all of the atheletes learn the same way. It's great if you are teaching something like SCUBA diving where everyone learns the same skills and must be expected to act and react the same way in emergency situations. We used this system to great effect when I taught, all of the instructors cross trained each other and used the same language and teaching techniques. I knew that my students were getting the same information from the other instructors if I couldn't bee there for their open water dives..

It's not so great when you are teaching atheletes who have very different physiology. What you end up with is a group of atheletes who's physiology conforms to what the coach considers perfect and weeds out the athelete who with a subtle change may become a superior archer. An extreme example would be the very competive Para-Olympians who have compromised physiology.

This situation will be compounded if Brady Ellison does as well as expected in London. You will see a massive flight to the NTS as a result.

I teached a modified NTS system to my JOAD kids but I'm not afraid to go old school if the student requires it.

TAO

 

Larry, I think the whole BEST uproar would never have been, had no label been ascribed to what Coach Lee teaches. I'm guessing if USAA and Coach Lee had to do it over again, they would have skipped naming it.

Kids would have gone into training camps, come out with additional knowledge, adapted their shots to some degree and no one would have whimpered. Heck, the open stance has been around for a long time.

 

Gabe,

Agree. The perception can take on a life of its own, whether tied to reality or not.

I read what many of the coaches say (and how they say it) about the BEST/NTS method, and I just get a kind of vague unease about what I perceive to be a general (but not all inclusive, certainly) pattern of reflexive ire/defensiveness if any part of the BEST/NTS method is questioned. I would be concerned about that mindset of inflexible dogma then being forced on a youngster with insufficient regard for that youngster's physique/anatomy ("who the heck are you to question or complain, Student? - this is the BEST/National Training System method ... now twist and rotate!" .... I'm being dramatic here with this quote, but you get my point), then I worry about the longterm injury consequences that some have alluded to in past threads.

Also, I have an innate aversion to anything that smacks of 'BORG'-like koolaid.

 

I think it's time for a poll!

 

Also, I have an innate aversion to anything that smacks of 'BORG'-like koolaid.

I think this is what irks most folks. It's a reflexive response to people telling us 'this is what you have to do, no questions asked'. I don't think it's fair to say Coach Lee does not entertain questions, or modifications. But, it strikes me that EVERYTHING B.E.S.T. has become so polarized, there is nothing anyone could say to change minds. Thus, we now have NTS. If all the labels were dropped maybe people would stop hyperventilating.

The bottom line is, can Coach Lee train archers to be Olympic Medalists? That question was answered in Australia. Does every archer have to use his methods to achieve success? Clearly that answer is no. The final and probably most controversial question is, should we be rolling out this particular style to our JOAD kids? The answer is not at all clear in my mind.

 

Via BoingBoing

1) If it makes a really nice story, ask for the details. (Good science usually makes a bigger deal out of the evidence than it makes out of the story. In fact, that's actually a problem many legit scientists have—they're better at talking about the details and data then they are at telling stories. But most of us respond to stories better than we respond to details and data.)

2) If the proof seems self-evident (i.e., it's just good common sense), ask more questions...

The story of BEST/NTS is very appealing...and there is some science on *some of it*, but I don't think there is science on all of it, certainly not comprehensive.

 

If someone can point to the documented science/studies or test data for other techniques that are in use or were being taught prior to NTS, that may help the NTS folks understand what type of information is being requested. There are a number of different techniques being taught/used so is there any info available to show why one of those methods or parts of a method is preferred over another.

 

Injury, whether using BEST or any coaches "flavor of the day" technique, doesn't come from the method..it comes from not training properly, not warming up properly, or lousy coaching or worse no coaching. Of course, in time, over-use issues can occur. But, most injuries come from the archer either taking short cuts or being over bowed.

We obviously have some super talent with our young archers, but the USA has not been in the position of challenging the World in archery for a long time. I would have to give credence to the coaching of Couch Lee and his staff for bringing us back up to international standards and possibly being a dominant force in archery. I would never try to suggest the idea that the BEST method as taught by Coach Lee had anything to do with it:wink: Although the current top US shooters are using it...well, Butch and Vic are still in the mix, but do not use the BEST method I believe.

The other side is also, to my knowledge, no one since John Magera has come close to making the team who has to work a full time job to make ends meet. International Archery is a full time job, to be competitive. This means the time to shoot lots and lots and lots of arrows...with physical training off the archery field as well. The point is..assuming you have the talent and with little else in life to do except train almost any shooting style will work.

So, what it all comes down to regarding torso twist, no twist, BEST/NTS or Hugo's Archery for Idiots, if you do the same thing every time you shoot an arrow you will probably get the same results. Consistency "is" the "best" method.:idea1: Just my 2c. The thing that makes the BEST method successful is, it's coachable. It has a standard. A guide with references. In other words it leads to consistancy. But, think of the Jim Furyk's in the world..you might prefer to follow Hugo's "Archery for Idiots".
Art

 

KSL's archers tend to have fairly short careers, riddled with injuries (as mentioned before). Whether it comes from method or training regime is debatable.

Most archers fighting for top 10 have been around the top for 10 years or more, those who pick up major injuries rarely get back to their best. Lee SJ seems to be managing that.

 

For what it's worth, I had a pretty intense 2-1/2 session of shooting yesterday where I worked on a long list of form points. It turns out that at this point, the torso twist is not for me. At least not at this point in time.