By Jay McAninch

Editor’s Note: Each section of the article below is an abbreviated version of the complete presidential election piece featured in the next issue of ArrowTrade magazine, which should hit your mailbox by late October.

The 2012 presidential election will be an unusual event for me and, by extension, our industry. Why? It’s the first time one of the two presidential tickets includes someone I’ve worked with and know well. I’ve accumulated 14 years of experience with Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, which brings understanding unmatched in my career’s work with other politicians. Beyond knowing his stance on our issues, I can vouch for his character and priorities – dimensions I might never again be privy to. As a result, I support the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Congressman Ryan is the first candidate for high office who not only knows the business of archery and bowhunting, but IS a bowhunter. He can discuss archery and bowhunting equipment in detail. He understands hunting tactics. He’s committed to hunting and quality deer management. On the business side, he has testified to congressional committees, and given media interviews to explain the complications of arrow taxes, the impacts of federal excise tax on our industry, and the regulatory burdens that hurt our small-business members.

Paul Ryan and Our Industry

When Pete Shepley, Erik Watts, Matt McPherson and about 20 other industry VIPs gathered in Minneapolis in December 2001 to create a strategic plan to grow archery and bowhunting, Congressman Ryan drove over from Wisconsin to address our “summit.” He urged them to work together as a group of small businesses to achieve success for our industry. He talked about his passion for small business, and his agenda for getting government out of the way of entrepreneurs. It’s this inclusive commitment to every business and every industry that, collectively, makes the U.S. economy strong.

Later, in 2003-04, Congressman Ryan educated members of Congress and the media on how federal excise tax applies to archery products, and why it mattered that all products be taxed fairly. He realized our industry is a collection of entrepreneurs (Main Street businesses), and helped people understand that small-business issues apply to businesses within recreation-based industries just as these issues apply to any other industry.

The Ryan Vision for America

Despite my level of trust and familiarity with Paul Ryan, and his deep support for our industry, the most important reason I support the Romney-Ryan ticket is because Paul’s vision for America is the one I want for our industry, my kids and grandkids.

Ryan believes in personal responsibility vs. government responsibility, in independence vs. dependence, and in success through hard work vs. “success” via government redistribution. The American dream is earned, not gifted. Our industry is full of people who sacrificed much to build their businesses from scratch. Paul Ryan holds such business owners in high regard and trusts that, as a group, our country’s future is in good hands.

Long before most Americans knew about Paul Ryan, he authored his “Roadmap to America’s Future,” a detailed plan promoting national prosperity but limiting government’s burden of spending, mandates and regulation. It ensured the opportunity for individuals to fulfill their potential and enjoy the satisfaction of their achievements. It secures the distinctly American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.

The Case for Romney

Now, many will ask, how does support for Paul Ryan justify an endorsement of Mitt Romney. It’s a fair question. Many question Romney’s appeal to voters and, specifically, his interest in shooting-, hunting- and conservation-based business issues. On issues that foster free trade, fair markets, profitability and professional customer service, Romney gets the nod largely because his business agenda resembles ours. Further, he supports sportsmen despite the fact he is not a shooter or hunter, and has not been a conservationist or direct supporter of conservation.

Some criticisms of Romney are simply unfair.

Why? McAninch considers criticisms and takes a deeper look at Romney’s association with Bain Capital, his wealth, foreign policy experience and his collaboration with Paul Ryan in the upcoming issue of ArrowTrade. Archerytrade.org will also post this article, in its entirety, days before the election on Nov. 6.  

By Jay McAninch

Paul Ryan addresses the ATA Board of Directors in Washington, DC, June 28, 2012.

America awoke Saturday, August 11, to find that Congressman Paul Ryan, a seven-term Wisconsin Republican, had joined Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign as the vice-presidential pick. For bowhunters, this was exciting news. Bowhunting is one of Ryan’s passions, along with his Insanity workouts, his family and, oh yeah, the nation’s financial woes. In fact, Ryan has earned the respect of colleagues, the media and most economists as a policy expert. He’s especially renown for his knowledge of the U.S. budget, federal tax policy, healthcare, Medicare/Medicaid, social security and the “social safety net,” entitlement programs many Americans build their lives around.

Yet, if you scan the Internet, read news publications, or watch/listen to cable TV and radio chatter, you also hear details about Ryan’s public and private life. Voters want to know about a politician’s “roots,” after all. As expected, we’ve seen articles about his home, his friends, his early years, his father’s early death, his marriage and his family.

And though disappointing, I’m not surprised some sensational media types spun Congressman Ryan’s work for the archery industry as an effort to give manufacturers undue breaks. Worse, others attacked Janna Ryan, Paul’s wife, who worked as a congressional aide and later for a lobbying firm before marrying and staying home to raise the Ryans’ three children. Still others dug into the congressman’s past and tried linking him to donors and other people loosely linked to scandals, implying guilt by association. They’ve also questioned his honesty, demeanor and bipartisanship; and his relationships with congressional leaders, cabinet members and President Obama.

Finally, any Google search turns up infinite pieces denigrating Ryan’s background, qualifications and legislative skills as reasons to suspect his policies. I’ve also read superficial pieces about him that include empty statements like, “Ryan will end Medicare as we know it.” For instance, Eugene Robinson of “The Washington Post” cast Ryan as a selfish, me-first capitalist who doesn’t believe in community or safety nets for those less fortunate . Dana Milbank, one of Robinson’s “Washington Post” colleagues, scoffed at Ryan’s candidacy and claimed Ryan’s only noteworthy attribute is his physical fitness. And “New York Times” columnist Paul Krugman – long incensed that Ryan is considered an expert on America’s economy – believes the media unwittingly embrace Ryan as an honest, truthful policy broker . Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner, further blames the media for not exposing Ryan.

Meanwhile – though the American people deserve it – I’ve had trouble finding thoughtful, insightful reviews or exposes’ on Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” or his “Path to Prosperity,” a budget framework he passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Some analysts did reasonable work contrasting elements of “ObamaCare” with Ryan’s budget plans. Others criticize Ryan for specific elements of his plan, such as options for future Medicare recipients and social security beneficiaries. Others, of course, question the tax code’s fairness. However, because Obama hasn’t presented a comprehensive plan for all entitlements, comparisons remain incomplete.

I’m eager for the media to find a Democrat who accepts the substance of Rep. Ryan’s plan and provides an equally sound treatise on these issues from a more liberal perspective. So far, President Obama has fallen far short of the mark; Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and the Senate haven’t even offered a budget, let alone a plan. And Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and her House colleagues have only voted against Ryan’s budget without offering one of their own. Worse, what should be an evolving policy debate and ultimately a compromise package has devolved into a name-calling contest with unsubstantiated sound bites, overly simplistic ads and “my way or destitution” hyperbole. And that’s coming from both sides.

I’m also eager to see leaders emerge who insist on conversations at a higher level. Americans must be assured their futures are based on freedom of choice and the liberty to pursue individual interests. They deserve the chance to work hard, take personal responsibility, and secure a future for their families and greater communities. Yes, that includes caring for those who can’t manage for themselves and those who fall on hard times through no fault of their own.

Paul Ryan has spent the past couple of years asking Democrats to engage in what the president has called an “adult conversation,” but Ryan has had no takers. Thus, I think he has accepted the only other route toward change: using elections to force us to hold a conversation about our future. If the November 2012 election causes everyone to stop, read, think and consider what kind of future they want for themselves, their families, communities and nation, then Congressman Ryan will have succeeded, regardless of the election’s outcome.

As President Obama says in one of his campaign ads, we have a choice this fall. Now that Paul Ryan is in the race, we have a choice and we can have that conversation about our collective futures. I’m confident that — if and when people engage in that conversation — we will fulfill America’s promise for everyone. I hope we support leaders like Ryan, who can help us at every turn on the long and challenging road to a stronger America.

NOTE: For ATA resources and news on Paul Ryan, please click here. 

By Jay McAninch

Team USA Archers, courtesy of U.S. Olympic Committee communications division.

As the first week of the 30th Olympiad ends and our USA Archery team members make their last appearances, everyone is asking them, “what now?” With several young archers on the team and many of us wanting to see the US increase our medal haul at the 2016 Games in Rio de Janerio, I assumed many would be back in training soon. After all, isn’t that what world class archers do?

What few of us know is that sports, at the highest levels, is not only a full time job for the athlete but requires relocation and disruption of family relationships and education advancement. Even more, there are delays of the “normal” progression of life’s events. Most don’t finish high school with their friends or attend college or professional school, let alone build a career or get engaged, married or settle down to buy a home and start a family.

Moreover, athletes (and their parents) must be willing and able to find financial support for at least four years so the athlete has the security of knowing their Olympic dream is possible. The USA is the only country that does not provide funding for Olympic sports, which means groups like the United States Olympic Committee and USA Archery have to count private donations (such as those from Easton Foundations) to make ends meet. The athletes’ families also provide a major source of support because full-time jobs aren’t feasible given the athlete’s training obligations. Most employers can’t handle the irregular hours and frequent absences for a week or more to attend shooting events around the world. More difficult for an employer is the reality that a job extended to an athlete/employee is not an investment likely to pay long-term dividends for your company.

How much income does it take for Olympic hopefuls to fully commit to their dream? Not as much as you’d think, largely because the athletes themselves accept a meager standard of living. Most start by counting on the Olympic Training Center’s Resident Athlete Program in Chula Vista, Calif., for a bed, a room and three meals a day. After the essentials, most archers are happy to live life on the tightest of budgets. Frankly, most college kids or entry-level employees live a far more advantaged lifestyle than our elite archers.

Most archers do have sponsorship contracts to shoot specific brand of equipment, but the majority of that income is contingent on winning or doing well at major events.  While these sponsorships carry some prestige, this kind of funding does not provide the security needed to budget beyond the next event. Having compensation tied to performance is the norm in sports. Yet one could argue that college athletes on scholarship have a level of support that allows for a normal lifestyle, while professional athletes — even at less lucrative levels with smaller followings —have base compensation that can sustain a reasonable standard of living.

At a time when we might think our elite archers would be committing to working harder and longer to prepare for the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, they are, instead, distracted. While others are talking about marriage, families, careers and the kinds of pursuits most of us take for granted, these athletes must now pursue sponsorships and figure out how to piece together lives put on hold for the better part of four years. Many of us whose lives are “normal” don’t stop to consider that four years is a high school or college experience, a stint in medical or law school or the time it takes to parent a child from birth to nearly school age. Those who keep at it for eight, 12 or 16 years can quickly find themselves far out of step when compared to others in their generation.

For most athletes, at some point, it all ends. The constant stress of having to perform, improve or achieve at a high level wears on a person to the point they can break and finally give into pressure to “get on with their lives.” If they have had moments of great accomplishment, that’s sometimes enough to sustain them into the next phase of their lives. If not, I hope everyone they encounter will see their commitment as a rare commodity in today’s instant-gratification world.

I can see that elite sports are really about the pursuit of excellence over a long period of time which, in archery, means perfecting skills, physical and mental training and fine-tuning equipment to shoot a 10 every time. After watching our USA Archery Team this week, I can’t help but have a deep respect for these archers. Being around them is to appreciate the strength of character it takes to walk out on that range in front of thousands of fans and millions of viewers and compete: win, lose or draw. Most can’t comprehend that kind of pressure. Yet, they do more for archery and our industry than all our marketing and promotional campaigns combined. I hope you have a chance to meet them one day so you can see what I saw when I looked into their eyes: persistence and determination. That’s what I respect most.

By Jay McAninch

“Close” is a very bad word in sports, yet it’s the story of most athletes’ competitive lives. Where sports fans always focus on the winners, the vast majority of participants finish with a number by their name like “6th,” “10th,” or (the worst number in the Olympic games) “4th.”

To fans in the crowd, the television audience and readers of sports pages, these elite athletes are nameless, faceless young people in colorful clothing. They provide context around the featured stories of Michael Phelps, Gabby Douglas and the rest of Olympic champions the media love to tout.

Janet and I have watched every American archer compete here at the Olympics; and we’ve made all the noise we can. Luckily we’ve sat with USA’s No. 1 archery fan and assistant archery coach Guy Krueger who tirelessly cheers on our shooters. The cheering in the Lord’s Cricket Ground archery venue has been nonstop. And the Koreans have, by far, the largest and most vocal contingent. As for flag waving, chanting and yelling encouragement; Mexico, Italy, and — to a lesser extent — France do their archers proud. British fans go wild over their shooters, but they also take sides in the matches, which adds an interesting twist.

Jake Kaminski

As the last week unfolded, the American men and women archers fell short of their expectations. All told, we had one archer get beyond the round of 32. Jake Kaminski lost in the first round. Jacob Wukie, Brady Ellison, Jenny Nichols and Miranda Leek lost in the second round. The USA archery star turned out to be five-time Olympian Khatuna Lorig who ended up infourth place. For American archery, the games were a great success. We came home with team silver, an individual fourth place finish and the reputation of a team everyone else wants to beat.

What I liked most about our team was the way they carried themselves. They walked out with great confidence, waved to the crowds with genuine appreciation and acknowledged their competitors, win or lose. They were very disappointed with their results and, to add to their pain, their losses were a major gain for those who beat them.

Miranda Leek

That was one difficult aspect of sitting in the stands: there was no question a portion of the fans wanted each American to lose. This added to the already heavy burden of carrying the hopes of a country that only measures success in gold medals.

After watching our shooters, I was only sorry that every American couldn’t see what I saw.

Jake Kaminski has a great grin and acts like he enjoys every minute of every day. He looks like he’s never met a person he didn’t like, but he shows flashes of great pain when his arrows don’t fly true;

Miranda Leek has the sweetest smile but, when her bow is at full draw, her face is a study in intensity. While she looks like the quiet piano player she is, her competitive spirit sits just below the surface;

Jacob Wukie

Jacob Wukie, the oldest archer on the men’s team,looks the part of the older brother. His smile is more reserved, but feelings for his competitors appear genuine, even when he had to shake the hand of someone he felt he should have beaten;

Jenny Nichols is a warm and sincere competitor, but no one should mistake her polite style as a concession. In her eyes, during the last minutes of her matches, you can see — , in her mind — she’s never really been beaten by anyone;

Jennifer Nichols

Brady Ellison is the archer who’s embraced the role of media darling, despite the enormous pressure that comes with that burden. He entered the Olympics as the top-ranked archer in the world and was never the crowd favorite; except for those of us who could not have been more proud of his conduct and sportsmanship; and,

Brady Ellison

Khatuna Lorig was our most experienced Olympian. This likely explains her exuberance during her matches.  She was clearly enjoying the moment. From her animation during the walk on and off the venue to her warm exchanges with her coach KiSik Lee, she had a quiet determination hidden behind the sunglasses she wore while shooting, rain or shine. Her deadly shooting demeanor reminded me of the “straw boss” in “Cool Hand Luke,” who wore mirror shades while giving off a tough aura. Difference is, Khatuna’s look wasn’t all image. It was the eventual gold medalist who ultimately ended her Olympic dream.

Khatuna Lorig

I’m sure there was an unfair share American bowhunters who watched the archery competition on TV, leaned back, and let their friends and family know, “I could do that.” OK, come on down. Put a target with a circle on it the size of a CD, place the target on the goal line at your local football field, walk back to the 25 yard line on the opposite end of the field and then shoot until you put 15 arrows into the circle. Oh, and do it when the world is watching.

Welcome to Olympic archery!

By Jay McAninch

Jake Kaminski shoots his recurve at the 2012 Olympics.

As Janet and I wander through our hotel lobby, we often notice people wearing the blue and green of Olympic officials going about their business from early in the day to late in the evening. I learned they are the archery judges, spotters, referees, equipment technicians and venue announcers. They coordinate the inspection of the competitors’ equipment, and mediate rules issues, manage hundreds of matches, and generally deal with minutiae that would drive most people crazy. However, they’re critical to the success of Olympic archery competition.

Before arriving in London, I knew Olympic archers used recurves bows, which many of my bowhunting friends and I agreed (who hunt with compound bows) are not REAL bows. REAL bows have pulleys, cams, cables and substantial let-off, as well as internal mechanics and vibration-dampening systems so shooters can minimize practice and maximize hunting time. After all, technological advances are embraced in most sports, and increase the excitement and appreciation for the difficult skills required.

But I’m here to tell you we’ve been wrong. Very wrong. There’s an elegance to the simple, yet sophisticated, design of recurve bows. By using recurves, Olympic archery becomes a pure game with only a few simple rules for judges to enforce. There’s no complicated regulations about let-off, sights, rests, releases, arrows and all the other equipment that divides and segregates archers into endless arrays of competition categories. In the Olympics, every bow is a recurve, which is defined this way: “An instrument (interesting they don’t call it equipment) consisting of a handle (grip) that is part of the riser (the bow’s midsection) and two flexible limbs, each ending in a tip where the string is nocked. The bowstring runs directly between the two string nocks and, when the bow is held in one hand by its handle, the fingers of the other hand draw and release the string.”

That’s it. Simple and clean. That’s archery of the bare-bones type, for sure.

Most other rules ensure the archer gets no help in aiming, and thus the archer’s sight can’t have more than one sighting point. There’s no magnification, no prisms, no electronics and no leveling devices. The judges must be sure the sight allows wind and elevation adjustments, but nothing more. In addition, nothing on the bowstring can assist aiming. The bowstring serving (threads wrapped around the center of the bowstring where the arrow is nocked and fingers placed to draw the bow) can’t be wrapped in a way to give the archer a rear point to line up the sight.

Arrows basically must be, well, arrows: a tip, nock, fletching and a shaft with a maximum diameter. Fletching of any kind and type can be used. Most archers use Mylar attached with double-sided tape. Mylar is interesting because it’s basically a thin plastic sheet, almost a film, which means archers use the lightest material they can find to guide the arrow’s flight. All arrows must look the same and be marked with the athlete’s name. Arrows fit the design of recurve bows in their simplicity and fly true more than 70 meters in all weather conditions.

Judges score a target as arrow boys watch.

More about the judges: Archery judges are kind of a combination of ushers and referees. They lead the athletes on and off the range, manage introductions and all the shooting, and watch to ensure no archer violates the rules. The rules include where the archers must stand relative to the waiting line (where they wait to shoot), when they can be on the shooting line, when they can pull and nock an arrow, and how quickly they must shoot. As with many sports, the best archery judges aren’t noticed because the match goes smoothly and without incident.

Judges who function like referees can’t have much interest in the competition. I say that because they must sit behind the target buttresses as the archers shoot, and emerge only to determine the position of arrows near the target’s scoring lines. These officials are sort of an inspection squad: They file out quickly, huddle around the target, study the arrows, and occasionally use a magnifying device to see if the shaft pierced a line. Then they talk some more and finally radio their ruling to the scorekeepers. Then they pull the arrows, hand them to an arrow holder (arrow retrievers function like ball boys in tennis) and file quietly back out of sight. I found myself hoping they had a TV back there so they could at least watch the competition.

As with most judges and referees, their thankless job is only discussed when they err. Over the years, one judge or another caused a stir at a major event, which every aficionado recalls with clarity (like all sports fans).

So far at the London Olympics, the judges have quietly and expertly done their jobs.

By Jay McAninch

USA archer Miranda Leek shoots in one of the few sunny moments of the quarterfinals.

In the span of three hours Sunday during the women’s team archery final rounds, London was, well, London. When spectators like me reached our seats at 3 p.m., for the opening match between Korea and Denmark, we were accompanied by sunshine, a slight breeze and much anticipation because the Korean women were going for their seventh consecutive gold medal. In fact, Korea is the only country to win this particular gold medal since the team competition started in 1988.

The first Korean set of three arrows scored two 10s and an 8. THEN rain cascaded on a stadium full of huddled fans and media, who furiously tried to protect cameras of all kinds and types. The judges continued doing their jobs, standing stoically like guards at tombs of the unknowns. And, of course, so did the archers, who continued shooting.

“Poor Denmark,” we thought. It’s tough enough to shoot against the elite, experienced Koreans on any day, but it’s terribly difficult under the stress of a downpour. The Denmark women bravely stood at the line, shot within their time limits (each team has two minutes to shoot two sets of three arrows) and, unfortunately, they hit an 8, a 7 and the worst arrow in the final round, a 4.

Amid my empathy for the Danes, I wondered if Denmark might be unfazed by shooting in the rain, being that their homeland lies between the North and Baltic seas, and experiences rain nearly once every three days year-round.

In the end, the sports axiom held true: The best teams do best in any conditions. Korea beat Denmark by 11 arrows, and then beat Japan by 15 arrows and won the gold by one arrow on the last shot. Throughout the final rounds we saw sprinkles, steady rain and sheets of rain. And, as I’m learning in London, we also saw bright sun, hazy sun and, to top it off, a rainbow.

Despite the weather – which didn’t dampen the crowd’s enthusiasm nor that of the judges, the range support staff, or all-world archery announcer George Tekmitchov – the competitors inspired me. I’ve played football in snow and cold, and watched the Ice Bowl in Green Bay where the Packers beat the Cowboys on a day when the mercury rose to minus 15. I’ve also watched all kinds of other games where the conditions affected scores and, more importantly, the psyche of those participating. I’ve also felt for competitors as they got jerked on and off the course, court or field by weather delays, which has to change momentum.

What I had never seen until Sunday’s medal rounds in the women’s team competition was the fierce concentration and willpower of tournament archers. To my eye, every archer shot the same in rain, drizzle, sprinkles, hazy sunlight and bright sunlight. No matter what happened, they competed. They had to draw their bows, focus on the target, concentrate on all the mechanics of shooting, and release cleanly within the time limit. In archery there are no time-outs, no weather delays, nothing. You can’t change equipment unless it’s already inspected, so you better shoot well in all weather.

When the rain started, as it did several times during matches, the archers had to stay in sequence and on time, and they couldn’t do anything differently than when the sun was shining. The big screen in the stadium showed the intensity and concentration on their faces as they focused on shooting for our sport’s highest honors. Adjusting for the weight of the rain and estimating its impact over the 70 meters to the target had to add stress to every archer’s decision-making.

I later learned that every archer had to remember to pluck the bowstring and tap or whip their arrows to remove rain drops. They also had to compensate for a wet finger tab (most are made of cordovan leather), which meant the tab contacted the string differently. They also had to account for a wet bow hand, which might mean a slip or slightly different grip. Either adjustment could be the difference between a 10 and an 8, which is the difference between gold and elimination in this competition.

“Just another day at the archery range,” is how everyone talked afterward. Meanwhile, I shake my head in amazement at the mental toughness of some of the greatest competitors I’ve seen in ANY sport.

By Jay McAninch

Editor’s Note: USA men’s archery team is scheduled for an appearance on NBC’s Today Show, Mon., July 30, 9 a.m. ET.

Koreans and Americans face off.

Most everyone has their memorable moments in sports – I certainly do. I remember when the American’s beat Russia in Olympic hockey, and one of the great, Olympic moments of all time, when Bob Beamon broke the long jump record in Mexico City in 1968 by nearly 2 feet, a record that stood for 20 years.

Most of you likely know our American men’s archery team — Jake Kaminski, Jacob Wukie and Brady Ellison — won the silver medal yesterday, losing to Italy by one point on the last arrow. Lost in the headlines, but vividly seared into my memory is when our young team of Americans sauntered onto the Lord Cricket Grounds range and beat the vaunted Koreans in the team semifinals, 224-219. This is the same Korean team whose members qualified one, two and three in the individual ranking rounds and who, in their quarterfinal match, were within one arrow of setting a world record score. Korea, over the past 20 years, has dominated Olympic archery.

No one picked the Americans. In fact, most said it was too bad we ended up in the same side of the draw as Korea, code for, “let’s shoot against the Koreans in the gold medal match so we’ll at least get a medal.” I confess to having said we’d be shooting against the Mexicans for bronze.

But our guys must have missed the memo. For the semifinal match, these three men walked out to the range, loose, smiling, confident. They seemed almost too loose. Looking back, I think I was expecting them to be solemn, given the gravity of taking on the dominant team in archery. If our boys took this match seriously, they certainly hid it from me.

The Koreans, as expected, were a study in confidence. All three were of the same mold: about 6-feet tall and 220 pounds, stoic, unemotional and supremely confident; as Olympic, multiple-medal winners are.

Introductions in archery are short with little hype. The Koreans were true to form, hardly flinching when they were introduced. We looked like college friends being introduced at a slow-pitch softball game. Wukie is the oldest at 26 and was the most understated offering a simple wave and warm smile. Kaminski, who stood out because of his blue cap, different from the red cap his teammates wore stepped forward with a smile that consumed his face and gave an animated wave. Ellison, the anchor shooter, walked while pointing to the heavens, then gave a two-handed, wrist wave with arms still raised, first to one side and then to the other before walking back to the line pointing skyward.

Korea took a 2-point lead after the first end (each archer shoots one arrow in each set, an end is when each team’s archer has taken two shots, totaling six shots for each team), which left me with that nervous foreboding that the inevitable was starting. My brain was stuck on the shooting prowess I’d seen in the previous round when the Koreans hit 10 after 10. It was only a matter of time. Yet, we made up one point of the deficit in the next end before pulling ahead by one point when the third end was finished. The tension was palpable during these middle ends as the teams traded 9s, with the occasional 10 thrown in just to give our hearts a jolt.

And then, the greatest thrill in sports: our guys went on a run. Of the last nine arrows, they hit SEVEN 10s, and Ellison – the world’s no.  1 ranked archer – only had one of those 10s. Wukie and Kaminski ended the match hitting three 10s in a row. In archery, that’s the equivalent of hitting three-point shots late in a close basketball game and then getting a steal and dunking on your opponent as the game ends. In fact, our boys ended the match with three10s to spank Korea by five points.

By day’s end, our team had won the silver and, although they were likely a bit disappointed with second place, I went home with a sports memory I’ll never forget. Kaminski, Wukie and Ellison had drawn their bows and shot arrows in front of thousands of cheering fans and millions of TV viewers and, when it mattered most, they performed at the highest level archers can attain. It doesn’t get any better than that.

By Jay McAninch

Archery practice range at the Olympic Games in  St. John’s Wood, London.

Janet and I entered our room at the Danubius Hotel in St. John’s Wood, London and opened the curtain to a view of the Olympic archery practice range. The first thing I noticed was the wide range of colors: all the individuals in their team uniforms, the white spires on the tent-like resting areas and the lush green grass. Of course, I’m always in awe of the distance they shoot: 70 meters on this range.

All day groups shot and then took the long walk to the targets to pull their arrows and walk back to the shooting line. Some walked alone, head down, likely lost in thought about how they were shooting. Others walked in twos and threes, probably talking about the short time left before they had to shoot for real or, maybe, how someone else was shooting.

In many sports, teams or individuals warm-up separately. Football, hockey, soccer and basketball teams drill on opposite ends of the field. Baseball teams take turns taking infield and batting practice, and golfers warm up with an assortment of shots. Tennis players hit balls to each other, an array of familiar, ritualistic warm-up shots.

A major part of warm-up rituals is the mental game. Some teams actually try to mislead their opponents about who’s active, who’ll play and some teams show an odd formation or two. All players — no matter the sport — flex, strut, and do all they can to intimidate. Aggressive players even throw a few well-chosen words around and some practice the modern art of trash-talking.

In archery, there appears to be no pre-match rituals except that everyone shoots from the same line.  Archers spend their warm-up time WITH their competitors; in fact, within a few feet of their opponents. Yet despite the close proximity of all archers, I didn’t see one flex, point, laugh, dramatically pull their bow in a show of strength or even appear to talk. When it came time to retrieve arrows, no one sprinted up to the targets in a show of speed or even ran or jogged to demonstrate confidence. Rather, they all walked at varying speeds, consumed by their thoughts.

Not one archer acknowledged the other archers around them. I believe a few stole a sideways glance at someone else, while pretending to adjust their sight or examine an arrow. This ritual made perfect sense. It doesn’t matter if you have massive muscles or can sprint at world-class speed. It’s about where you shoot your arrows. Putting all of them inside the yellow 10 ring IS intimidating, regardless of whether you’re 5 or 7 feet tall, weigh 100 or 350 pounds, or have tattooed biceps the size of melons.

I thought about some of the greatest athletes in our sporting world – Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, any Hall of Fame baseball player or any Hall of Fame NFL player. They’d wilt if — every minute they were on their field of competition — they HAD to be on their game. In archery, you can’t miss the target and say, “I was getting my back warmed up.” Or spray your arrows all over the target and try to sell the idea that you were “aiming” at all those spots. There’s only one bulls eye and it’s marked with a tiny X.

As Olympic archery competition begins, I’m becoming a proud advocate of archers. These athletes have the mental tenacity, self-awareness and discipline to draw their bows and be judged on the outcome of every arrow released.

By Jay McAninch

Our journey to London to watch the Olympic archery competition was only a few hours underway when I realized what a “fish out of water” I would be. For all the years of my long love affair with archery, I’ve never stepped up to the line, pulled back my bow and shot against anyone for the best score. I’ve never shot in a tournament, a club event or even against a friend for pocket change or backyard bragging rights. Why? Because I’m a bowhunter. Bowhunting has been my world.

I’ll soon be on Lord’s Cricket Ground in St. John’s Wood in North London, sitting and watching the world’s best archers shoot for all the marbles. I’ve bowhunted all my life and consider myself a good shot, but only now am I coming to grips with the difficulty of shooting against the world’s elite archers. These athletes are standing on a flat, open archery range, shooting at a target 70 meters away, and adjusting for wind, sun and any other weather conditions WHILE thousands of people watch in person and many millions more watch on TV. That’s something that would leave me shaking in my boots.

I’ve absolutely loved bows and arrows since my teenage years when, along with my best friend, I began shooting. From the beginning, though, my purpose for shooting was to bowhunt. I considered bowhunting the ultimate outdoor challenge, whether hunting for rabbits, carp or deer. Bowhunting and bowhunters have always been “archery” to me, and I never really thought much about the actual sport of archery. Or, when I did think about it, I’m ashamed to admit I once dismissed archers as the kind of athletes who play croquet or bocce ball.

Today, I can safely say I’m in awe of the difficulty of archery, especially at the elite level. Shooting for hours, training for days and weeks, months and years even, and working to control the mind and reflexes to maintain maximum precision and accuracy are just a few of the sport’s most difficult challenges. And then to deal with distance, weather and your competitors while the WORLD watches … well, that’s daunting.

As London draws near, I’ve decided archery is not just an obscure name for bows and arrows, hidden behind the camo of bowhunting. Archery is a competitive sport that demands more commitment than most bowhunters ever consider giving. Where bowhunting is an intensely private affair, archery places a person – all alone – in front of a target with a time limit and three arrows as the entire world watches and judges.

When a top-ranked archer like Brady Ellison goes bowhunting to relax and enjoy another form of archery,that puts me right in my place. In a few days, when this young kid steps up to the line, draws his bow and releases his arrows, I’ll be cheering for him as the bowhunter I’ve always been but who, in archery, remains a rank amateur. Go USA!

 The image featured in this blog was created in a variety of sizes. The ATA encourages its members to download the image  and send well wishes to USA Team Archers by posting it on your company’s social media pages and/or Web site.  

By Jay McAninch

By offering non-English voters help in so many languages at the polls, how can we ensure oral assistance doesn’t influence their votes?

As we start down the home stretch toward November’s election, the balance of power in the White House, the Senate and House of Representatives is up for grabs. With growing numbers of non-English-speaking groups becoming a factor in political races, how do we ensure all U.S. citizens have effective opportunities to register, learn the details of elections, and cast free ballots in this important election?

I ask because I noted a headline from California last week in which the secretary of state announced that voters could participate in elections in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog or Vietnamese. New Web pages will provide registration forms, voting advice, instructions for voting by mail, and other useful voter information. In addition, oral assistance will be available at the polls to help those who find written materials confusing.

Just so we’re clear, written and oral assistance will also be available in English, but I wonder why we simply don’t require English as the only option at polls. By offering so many language choices, how can we be sure the assistance non-English voters receive – especially oral assistance – doesn’t influence their votes? After all, a fine line separates assistance from influence.

Imagine going to the polls and seeing a Spanish-speaking volunteer assisting voters who don’t speak English. Imagine, too, if you couldn’t understand what the volunteer was telling one of your fellow voters. I oppose voter discrimination, but how can we know if the volunteer is giving the voter helpful instructions or steering electoral decisions?

In the last election, 248 jurisdictions (states and counties) were required to provide language assistance for voting. This included 188 in Spanish, 22 in Asian languages, and 38 in Native American and Alaskan native languages. Minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which have been in effect since 1975, mandate that jurisdictions provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance and other materials related to the election process, including ballots in the language of the applicable minority group. The affected jurisdictions are determined by ethnicity figures. Language assistance is required by federal law when more than 5% of the voting-age population, or 10,000 citizens of voting age, are members of a single-language minority living in a jurisdiction. It’s also required when English proficiency and illiteracy rates of a minority group are higher than the national rates.

I believe the language of politics should be English to ensure all voters can read and understand the same information, regardless of how they receive it. That single act would remove any potential for partisan advocates to assemble voting blocs based on language. It would also remove any need for oversight and monitoring to ensure translations provide instruction and information, not guidance and persuasion, no matter how subtle.

Apparently, members of Congress agree, as demonstrated by the more than 700 members who have co-sponsored English language legislation dating back to 1981. The current bill, the English Language Unity Act of 2011, is sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) as HR 997, and Sen. Jim Imhofe (R-Okla.) as S 503. The bill has 113 co-sponsors. This legislation would make English the language in all official government activities, including voting. It sounds like a no-brainer, but given today’s politics regarding race and ethnicity, this legislation reportedly has little chance of passing.

Meanwhile, the 2010 census reported 80.3% of U.S. residents speak English, 12.3% speak some variation of Spanish, 3.7% speak a European language (German, French, Italian, Scandinavian, Slavic, Baltic or Iranian), 3% speak an Asian language (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and languages of Asia and the Pacific), and 0.7% speak native American or Alaskan, Arabic or Hebrew, or another indigenous language. Of non-English speaking residents, 3% did not speak English or did not speak it well.

The number of citizens needing voting assistance is small but, unfortunately, most non-English speakers live in communities dominated by their ethnic group, usually in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago – all strongholds of the Democratic party. Will the GOP soon insist on monitoring all such instructions with their own translators? And when party allegiances shift in the future, will Democrats insist on monitoring presumed-GOP translators? As I compiled this information, I became less concerned about voter discrimination and more concerned about voter influence.

Although this issue is sensitive, it will grow in importance as we scrutinize future elections. Minority voting blocs are common topics in the media, yet I’ve not seen reports on what assistance non-English speaking citizens receive at the polls. Granted, monitoring these situations will be tough. When does oversight become voter discrimination in an age where governments seemingly try to accommodate everyone? These days you can get a driver’s license and participate in court proceedings without speaking English. Therefore, without speaking a word of English, you can obtain the most common form of legal identification and gain access to our legal system, where you’re entitled to the same freedoms and rights granted to most Americans.

I fear it might be time to get out those foreign-language tapes so I can protect my future and my family’s at the ballot box.