Comedian George Carlin once joked that “there are really only three sports: baseball, basketball, and football. Everything else is either a game or an activity.” By this rule, Columbia has a lot of varsity sports with which the late Mr. Carlin would take issue, but archery may be the most questionable of all.
Over the past few years I’ve covered a plethora of Columbia sports ranging from field hockey to baseball to lacrosse to wrestling. And, while I’ve deservingly criticized all of these teams at times, I’ve never once contemplated the very legitimacy of the sports themselves. However, a few weeks ago I was forced to do just that when my trusty sports editors decided that the section would now cover archery. Sure, archery can be competitive, but it fails on almost every level to deliver as an interesting sport to follow.
To call archery a low-profile sport at Columbia is generous. One sports writer and columnist quipped at a recent Spec Sports meeting that his own mother even laughed at his inexplicable decision to cover the archery beat. Having only ever tried archery at overnight camp several years ago, the section’s decision to cover the beat got me thinking about the long-lost team.
Archery is, essentially, exactly what most of us imagine—shooting an arrow from a bow at a target. Think Robin Hood with more rigid rules and sophisticated equipment. Teams compete either based on aggregate scores or as individual archers, depending on the type of tournament. Still with me? Then let’s continue…
The fact that Spectator regularly covers literally all men’s and women’s varsity sports except for archery is no accident. One must dig deep into the Spec archives to find the last time archery has received serious coverage (I was in sixth grade at the time).
This isn’t necessarily because the team has been bad (the reality is quite the opposite), but more because of its disconnect from Columbia. The archery team has competed in one tournament so far this season and is slated to participate in six more. Not only does the team compete infrequently, but most tournaments take place in different states. Columbia athletics are not known for having a rabid fan base, and the sport’s unfortunate off-campus nature makes it nearly impossible to follow seriously.
One columnist last year argued that Columbia should dismantle a sport such as baseball and focus our efforts on assembling a nationally competitive basketball team. While problematic for various reasons (e.g., the baseball team has actually been more successful than the basketball team recently), the idea makes some sense in theory. Columbia’s marquee sports like basketball, football, and baseball have, for the most part, experienced only mild success in recent years. Ironically, less watched sports like fencing, rowing, and archery have not only competed nationally, but have sent members to the Olympics. I’m not advocating cutting any varsity team, but investing more time and resources in headliner sports should continue to be a priority for the athletics department and for Spectator. Columbia archery could be the best team in the nation, but more people will still show up to a basketball game no matter how good the team is.
What a sport like archery lacks is the teamwork, aggressiveness, and heated match-ups that draws overly optimistic fans to consistently disappointing football games every season. Not only is Columbia archery for all intents and purposes unwatchable (yes, even if you wanted to watch it), but it simply lacks the rudimentary aspects of competitive sports. Call me cynical, but archery is irrevocably doomed never to excite Columbia fans. Archery is undoubtedly an art and finesse activity that takes tremendous practice to master. However, is it really a sport? Well, technically, yes it is. Scoring is objective, teams and archers compete, and there is a winner and a loser in every contest. However, I think it’s fair to say that any sport that can double as a method of big game hunting is a little difficult to take seriously. In a perfect world, all Columbia sports would receive ample Spec coverage, but despite its success, archery shouldn’t make the cut.
Comments
Just created an account in attempt to read comments two years later.
Couldn't agree more.
Archery is no different then golf, bowling or any other sport in which one competes against the "course". It is completely objective and easy to determine the winner and like golf and bowling, fun to do, boring to watch! Comparing it to sports in which one competitor tries to affect the other competitors outcome is not an apples to apples comparison. Sounds to me that the writer of the piece looked in from the outside and did nothing to understand what he saw....
Mr. Shapiro... You should lose your job over this one. Just because YOU'RE not into something, doesn't mean it has no value. Believe it or not... the entire competitive sporting world DOES NOT, in fact, revolve around a group of men's abilities to play with balls (pun intended). If you're a sports writer, then you should be finding out all you can about that sport and its athletes... getting the full picture and driving the enthusiasm and inclusion of your readers. You have completely missed the boat on the sport of target archery and, more importantly, the point of being a sports writer.
Full disclosure: I am a former (recent) member of the Columbia Varsity Archery Team. That article was unnecesarily nasty. It was nothing more than a whiney protest from an immature "journalist" who couldn't rise to the challenge of the assignment he was given. Clearly he didn't do the research to see that an article about archery needs to come from a different perspective than the typical football or baseball coverage.
While archery is not the most exciting spectator sport, its excitement, competitiveness, and aggravation is felt within the competitors, and their entire purpose during the competition is to suppress those emotions. It is a constant battle between composure and inner turmoil. Your daily troubles must be wiped from your subconscious before walking up to the shooting line, but that part is easy. If you have one bad shot, your personal disappointment compounds, making it even more difficult to recover. That tension tightens its grip on you like a snake; the more you try to loosen its grip, the tighter it wraps around you. Your frustration is your worst enemy, and your biggest battle is mental.
Being that Columbia is known for its high level academics, not really for its athletics, one would think that a sport that is primarily a mental battle, while still incorporating strength, control, and skill, should be honored as a sport most fitting for our ivy league university. It is the physical rendition of our intellectual potency. When we bring our equipment to the line, we represent Columbia. And we do it well. My first year on the team, we won the national collegiate championship.
Coverage of an archery tournament is certainly tricky, and I'm not arguing that archery should be entitled to a weekly column. Not only is there not a tournament on a weekly basis, but the journalist has to be more crafty in teasing out the emotions from the archers (and please don't ask an archer what she's feeling right after making a bad shot, unless it's the final shot of the tournament). Interviews might help. But perhaps a cue can be taken from coverage of professional golf tournaments; they have a huge audience. Granted, most of that demographic might play mahjong and bridge in the afternoon and make sure they make it to the early bird special; however, archery and golf are very similar in that they are mostly internal mental battles. If golf is given a serious look by the media, why should archery be any different?
So, rather than belittling the sport of archery, or "sport" of archery as this journalist criticized, perhaps he could see this assignment as a challenge to break out of the typical formula of sports writing and write from a new perspective. Imagine if we had to report on the sports reporting itself; THAT would be pretty unexciting.
By the way, while you can't recreate the experience of competing in a tournament without actually doing it, anyone can give archery a shot and experience the physical demands and mechanics of the sport. The Columbia Archery Team hosts a "Friends & Family Shoot" every December. The team does a demonstration, then teaches anyone from the audience how to shoot and gives them a chance. If you're interested, give it a try next December!
-KK
Beautifully and accurately written.
Definitely sounds like someone is throwing a hissy fit about covering something he knows so little about.
And some upset archers responding hahaha
Bravo KK! Archery becomes a fascinating spectator sport only after the spectator understands what kind of mental game is happening at the tournament. I have watched as my daughter competed with some of the best archers in the world and each shot was a nail-biter. When the World Cup took place in Central Park in NYC some years ago, the sport was blessed by the inclusion of a play-by-play announcer and a jumbo-tron which showed exactly where each arrow hit. I think the writer's impressions would be changed by such enhancements.
-KG
KG, sorry to correct, but it was not the World Cup that was hosted in Central Park, it was the World Championships in 2003. Not only were the finals hosted in Central Park, but the qualification rounds took place in Van Cortlandt Park, home to many Columbia XC meets.
What was the point of making this correction??
The World Cup and the World Championships are two different tournaments.
Correctness, I presume.
I think the comments against this article ignore its most fundamental point - mainly that archery is still more of an activity than a sport. There are lots of activities that could be judged objectively and act as a sport, but that doesn't mean we should consider them as such. While most people commenting are obviously on the team (or have some affiliation to archery), it is still unfair to say that there is a valid point being made here.
Noun. Sport- an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition. Synonyms: athletics
Have you ever competed in a national level archery tournament? I just don't think that anyone who themselves has not competed in a high-level archery tournament can understand the amount of stress and endurance that an archer must have. Yes, from a viewers perspective it doesn't look like much, but I urge you to actually try and shoot at the level that these girls do and then say that archery is an "activity" and not a "sport".
Try explaining the "not a sport" to the archers who make over 200k a year doing it... Spend 40+ hours a week practicing... And are the gym 30+ hours preparing their bodies for that practice. If you don't know what all goes into it, you really aren't qualified to write about the athletes or the sport. Just because you CAN do it at camp or in your back yard, doesn't mean you get it.
Guest,
Clearly you are making up your own definition of "sport" if you agree that archery does not fit that category. A sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Please give an example of any activity that can be "judged objectively and act as a sport", but is not a sport, as you said there are many such activities.
I'm assuming you are arguing archery is not a sport because you have never done it and don't understand it or if you did, you did not find it entertaining, yourself. I personally don't like playing basketball, but that doesn't mean it's not a sport. I am not a skilled golfer, but that does not negate it as a sport. Certainly you can't be arguing that archery is not physical, or that it does not involve skill, or that there is no competition involved.
While it may not be interesting as a spectator sport if you are not personally invested in it and do not understand the nuances of what is happening, that does not mean it is not a sport, and this is where Mr. Shapiro's article was especially offensive.
I'm sure the current archery team would welcome Mr. Shapiro's presence at a tournament where he can actually speak with archers and witness a competition. I'm sure the extent of his research ended with some google searches and information already available to him on the Columbia athletics website. Maybe he could actually get some instruction and attempt to shoot a 30-pound bow, the average weight of the string tension for female recurve archers. Men shoot heavier poundage, but I wouldn't expect a newbie to pick up a 40-50 pound recurve bow and find it easy to shoot well for any extended period of time.
-KK
Bull dilly!
PS: I have NO CONNECTION with
Thank you, KK for that tremendous reply. As a former captain of the team, it’s always discouraging to hear someone dismiss the sport as uninteresting and not worth the coverage, but more so from a journalist whose own bio states that he is “anxious to dive into the underappreciated world of Ivy League sports.”
At a time when archery teams across the country are losing their varsity status, it's articles like these that perpetuate the myth that archery is not a sport to be taken seriously and doesn’t deserve university funding.
I join in KK’s recommendation and ask that Mr. Shapiro join the team at its next practice or the annual Friends and Family shoot. I am confident that he will find that unlike the activity he recalls from summer camp, what the team does day in and day out requires a determination and dedication equal to any of the other so-called marquee sports.
-AW, Captain 2004-2006
How 'bout skiing? No direct, moment-to-moment "competition."
If Mr. Shapiro used that word, "anxious," Spectator should ban him...or send him back to Freshman Writing.
Or (correct myself) he really IS "anxious" about archer (pun intended: movie actress, Anne Archer) company lest he attend a session!
Michael,
I have to agree that you missed an opportunity with this assignment. Instead of belittling these athletes, why didn't you get off your chair and go talk to some of them? I'm not a journalist, but last I checked, having quotes and sources was kind of the point...
I am not an archer, and don't have any personal stake in the view of the Columbia Archery team. But I do take issue with your idea that because a sport is a "headliner" it deserves more resources. That's pretty inconsistent with Columbia's philosophy, don't you think? Not to mention that it's totally male-centric.
I hope you'll go out to Friends and Family day next year. I think you might learn a little something about what this sport really entails.
What a lazy ass. It seems the author's knowledge of sports is based on what he sees during the last 5 minutes of the 11 o'clock news. Any sport you do not take the time to understand will seem boring and a waste of time.
What kind of impression do you think the first time baseball watcher gets? You sit down and 90% of the time 90% of the players do nothing but watch the grass grow. Isn't that an exciting sport?
Michael could have at least pretended to do some research before writing his story. Walking across Broadway to the Barnard gym does not take too much effort or time.
He then makes the dumb comment that "any sport that can double as a method of big game hunting is a little difficult to take seriously". He should look at football. What you have is a bunch of men trying to hunt down the guy with the ball. Does he think anyone takes that sport seriously?
say what you will about archery being a sport but don't bash baseball!
I'm not bashing baseball. re-read what I wrote.
Agreed. The ability to shoot accurately is a lot less silly than say...running back and forth across endlessly across a small court. Why makes a sport "serious"?
I have to say that this is pretty ridiculous. Even as a past CU archer I will admit some things - archery is not a spectator-friendly sport. The competitions are long and you need binoculars and a pen and paper to follow along. It is not football or basketball, which are popular and exciting to watch, hear about and read about. There will never be fantasy archery on Yahoo, and archery will never have a tab on ESPN.com. All that said, here are some more truths – the Columbia Spectator is a college newspaper. It's readers consist of students, faculty and staff, and parents. It is read/skimmed in the minutes before class or on the elliptical when you forget to bring a magazine. The Spectator is not grabbing people from the street with their riveting headlines of amazing CU football games.
Now that those facts are established, I find it difficult to understand why a college paper would not cover one of its colleges most successful programs. One that has won national collegiate championships. One that has student-athletes competing on international platforms. And, one that competes in national shoots amongst and head-to-head with Olympians.
I do not see what the great difficulty is though. Sure, nobody wants a play-by-play of the full-day to week-long competitions, but it is really no different than covering many sports. Part of the competition is who gets the highest score in a set format, and the other half of the sport is head-to-head shoot-offs in brackets. What is so hard about this? Why is it so different from reporting that one athlete ran the mile faster, one crew team rowed faster, or a golfer needed less strokes? In my experience of reading college sports sections, it seems that it is the job of the writer to pull the important and interesting bits of a competition or game and report them. Although I personally find archery more interesting, ESPN.com reports on the week-long spelling bee, billiards, marathons and competitions that are not necessarily popular or spectator-friendly. For goodness sake, archery is an Olympic sport! The Olympics are cherished by the world, and you better believe they report on archery, despite its similarity to Robin Hood.
Archery was unnecessarily belittled in this article, and it makes me sad to think that Mr. Shapiro has downplayed archery with this article, comparing it to his summer camp experiences. CU archers are shooting at a target from nearly a football field away, pulling and holding pounds that many other athletes might not be able to handle. There is intense mental focus, strength, endurance and a finesse required to compete at the level at which the women on the CU Archery team are and have been for years.
Serious question: are ANY of the protesters on here NOT just current or former CU archers/athletes? I'm going to guess no.
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There are many people who disagree with this article who are not in fact CU archers/athletes. This includes individuals who are not affiliated with the university and who are disappointed by the lack of fact-checking in this article. Some are from the archery community, some are not, but everyone can appreciate the holes in Mr. Shapiro's argument.
I am neither. Nor have I ever pulled any bow except the one I MADE (from lemonwood!) at YMCA summer camp
in Poynetell, PA in the 1930s and '40s. So, there.
A lot of people here are missing the point of this column. Mr Shapiro was not tasked with writing about the archery team. That went to another writer, and this is what he came up with: http://www.columbiaspectator.c...
This one, was a sports columnist's opinion, with opinion being really the key word.
"Missing the point"? I missed the point because he didn't actually make a point. Here's my opinion: this piece not only represents small-mindedness, but it's just plain poor journalism.
Given the fact that another Spec writer contributed an article on the archery team means that this statement is incorrect: "One must dig deep into the Spec archives to find the last time archery has received serious coverage (I was in sixth grade at the time)." Mr. Shapiro needs to do some serious fact-checking before publishing articles.
My opinion is that he is a lazy ass.
My opinion is that everyone here questioning Mr. Shapiro's fact checking has NEVER actually researched journalism themselves. This is a column, meaning there are no quotes or interviews needed. It's simply his opinion.
It seems like all the commenters are just as "lazy" and "misinformed" about journalism as they claim Mr. Shapiro to be about archery.
Guest, the value and persuasiveness of an opinion rests on its basis in evidence and logic. The commenters are right to call out Mr. Shapiro on the lack of both in his article.
Perhaps the regulation and precision of a modern archery tournament doesn't provide the spectator with an obvious experience of "teamwork, aggressiveness, and heated match-ups," but then neither does golf, diving, or long distance running, just to name a few other sports that Mr. Shapiro's rather poorly thought-out and vague essay could unfortunately apply to with a few minor changes. As a frequent marathoner, I've rarely been able to get my friends and family out to cheer me as I run, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sport or that it isn't worth coverage by sports journalists. And like marathon running, archery *can* be made interesting to the non-participant by a talented and creative writer.
Moreover, what foot races and archery have in common as sports is not only their emphasis on the individual and his or her willpower, determination, concentration, and self-control, but also the sports' very ancient histories as training for war. Until the modern age, talent and achievement in archery was a practical matter as well as a competitive sport. Indeed, medieval and early modern England often highly regulated and even at times outlawed football (i.e., soccer) games and condemned the rowdiness with which the matches were associated, but archery matches were a feature of feast days and festivals, and all able-bodied men were encouraged to practice the sport so that they were ready for war. (And by the way, it has been called a "sport" in English since those days.) Longbowmen were decisive players in the victories of the English over the French in the battles of Crecy and Agincourt in the Hundred Years' War. And that's only one small part of world history in which the bow played a key role. (Full disclosure, I'm a professional medievalist as well as an amateur marathoner — and a Columbia alum —with a soft spot for the non-team, non-marquee sports.)
Perhaps a greater sense of the history of the sport might have given Mr. Shapiro a greater appreciation of it as a sport of "teamwork, aggression, and heated match-ups" of the past. With a little more easy research he would have learned that in the west the bow was associated largely with commoners, and in England with the yeoman class -- what we might call the middle class -- but nobility also used the bow in hunting. It is, therefore, a relatively democratic sport, a sport of all the people. That is still true today. Although it takes practice to be good at it, archery is a sport that anyone can at least try without a lot of money, space, or fancy equipment, and with no experience. (As the references to camp in the article and the comments suggest, not every would-be archer starts with the more sophisticated equipment of the tournament archer.) The organization of "Friends and Family" shoots by the CU Archery team reinforces this democratic aspect. And archery takes only one person, a bow, and a target — no gathering and organizing of people or learning of complex rules is required. Its simplicity is part of its potential for wide appeal.
Mr. Shapiro seems to have a narrow view of the world of sport, and he might benefit personally and professionally from a wider one. I encourage him to go to the next Friends and Family shoot or make an appointment with the team to try archery out. Columbia has a diverse range of competitive sports, all of which provide some benefit to their athletes and the community at large, and which have deeper histories and cultures than are readily apparent to the casual viewer. It is the task of the Spectator sports writers to cover Columbia sports. If you think there isn't interest in archery, *create* it. That's the power good writing can have. Mr. Shapiro demonstrated not that he doesn't take archery seriously, but he also equally showed disdain for his readers and himself as a writer.
Excuse me, my last sentence should read: Mr Shapiro not only demonstrated that he doesn't take archery seriously, but he also equally showed disdain for his readers and for himself as a writer.
Where to start on this one... First, this piece of writing belongs in high school and not in a college newspaper - this is why journalism is dying and analytical thinking is hard to find lately. Second of all, it is quite embarrassing for the reader to get to the end and realize the author is completely ignorant on the topic AND is oblivious of the shallow nature of his unneeded statements. Michael - please please pick up a bow and experience the teamwork, nerves and excitement that accompany each tournament and then write about something you actually know something about. And for the record, a sport is not defined by the crowds it attracts or how long your attention span lasts (primarily yours Michael), it is about mastery of a human body and mind.
Whoa, another former archer is angry that her sport is being criticized! What a shock!
PL- criticism should be done constructively- this piece was just blatantly disrespectful.
Brava
I am a fairly well known Archery coach and many years ago was a coach of the cornell squash team. I also was a member of three Yale teams including squash, skeet and table tennis. Two of my students were recruited by Columbia-and the grand daughter of one gentleman in my club shot for Columbia and was on one of the teams that won the nationals. She also was on the all academic collegiate archery team. Archery was the open door that allowed a girl who had once only aspired to attend a community college attend Barnard/Columbia: though injuries cut short her archery career at B/C she graduated Magna cum Laude.
One of the great things about Ivy league schools is the diverse excellence in the student body. From my own experience that is what enriches the learning at such schools. For example, my suitemates included a future United States Attorney General and an International Chess master. I was a world class shooter and everyone appreciated excellence even if it was in areas you might not understand. The writer of this silly article ought to appreciate the fact that Columbia's archers demonstrate excellence at much higher levels than many of the more exiting sports. Most of my friends knew nothing of skeet shooting or chess but those of us who won in those competitions were as honored as football players or rowers.
I will say up front that I am a recent CU archery team graduate, but who would understand the sheer amount of effort and determination this sport takes better than someone who actually shoots? There is a reason the media consults experts when they seek a more in depth look at anything - sport, issue, or otherwise. I have some questions to pose to the author of this article.
Have you ever watched a highly competitive tournament in your entire life? Have you seen the focus, skill, emotion, and sweat in the single elimination championship rounds that all major national and international tournaments include as the grand finale? Have you tallied the hours that make up the sheer amount of training that goes into practice - not just picking up a bow and shooting, but lifting weights, mental training, and completing drills and exercises as well? Have you been to a team event to feel the strong sense of togetherness that comes from competing together at a high level? Are you aware that target archery and hunting are about as similar as football and rugby - that they somewhat resemble each other but anyone involved in either sport will be quick to tell you how different they are
Questions asked, I guarantee that archery has more than its share of "teamwork, aggressiveness, and heated match-ups" however I would guarantee to the same degree that you simply never looked past your nose to see it. You can play a pick-up football game just as you can shoot a couple times at summer camp but you would never define the sport of football based on pick-up games and in the same way you should not define the sport of archery based on some long-past summer camp memories.
As for being spectator (catch the pun?) friendly, about 80% of it won't be. The team is currently in indoor season, which, as any member could tell you if you'd only ask, is more of a pre-season than the actual start of the competitive season. The stats will start accumulating now for prestigious awards such as All-East or All-American, however, the real guts and glory of the sport comes with the outdoor season. The team has to face a grueling tournament schedule (often two if not three 4-day weekends a month in the spring) traveling all over the country to prove that they are the best, nationally, on both individual and team levels. The single-elimination rounds that name the winner of the tournament are the definition of head-to-head, heated match-ups. The only things that exceeds the pressure in these matches are the sheer amount of will-power and the physical training that allows the team to consistently come out on top individually and together. And trust me, we have our rivalries. Just ask anyone on the team about who we would really, really like to beat at USIACs this year. And as for the claim that "investing more time and resources in headliner sports should continue to be a priority for the athletics department" I would counter that I think better of the University and thought better of its students; having a group of athletes entitled to more funding or attention not because of personal or team merit but instead because of a status-quo is most definitely counter to what I learned during my stay on 116th.
To finish up, though there is much more I could say, the point was made above that this is, after all, an opinion column. My response to that would be that an opinion column is fine but most readers would at least ask for an EDUCATED and THOUGHTFUL opinion, not an article that repeatedly makes claims that anyone who is involved in the actual sport of archery (not summer camp archery) will instantly recognize as ridiculous. "Archery is [NOT] essentially, exactly what most of [you] imagine." It goes far, far beyond bows, arrows, and targets. Ignorance is the only reason you fail to see this "activity" for the sport that it is.
Apologies for the typo in the 4th paragraph - my noun and verb numbers do not agree!
to the author: this included link to Whiz-Oz's reporting of the Australian World Team trials is a magnificent example of how to 'report' on an archery tournament, and make it interesting to anyone... all it takes is talent and effort (both the archery and the reporting) ... http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/...
While this may be an opinion column, that shouldn't give license to the author to spew utter narrow minded nonsense.
There are people that not only find archery an interesting and wonderful sport but that would prefer it many times over to, say, football. Football may draw in a great deal of money, but it doesn't draw everyone. There are different crowds, and the fact that it is held to such heights in this country doesn't mean football is the pinnacle of all sports and a standard by which the others should be judged. It simply means that there are certain crowds who enjoy watching football games. In that sense, archery is no different. It means a great deal to the athletes that compete in it, and whatever this writer would have you believe, there ARE those interested in following it.
That said, in my opinion whether or not archery is viewed by this writer or any other as a spectator sport is irrelevant. It is undeniably a sport of great skill, teamwork, and concentration. To say otherwise is ludicrous, and shows extreme lack of knowledge and research on the subject. I applaud Columbia for HAVING an archery team, as well as the archers themselves for the hard work and dedication they bring to their sport. They are nationally recognized, something that the author here seemed to think deserved only flippant mention. They deserve more recognition and press, not less. Next time this author sits down to write a piece on a sport he knows nothing about, I'd suggest a heck of a lot more research and a lot less blatant football and basketball favoritism.
"There are people that not only find archery an interesting and wonderful sport but that would prefer it many times over to, say, football. Football may draw in a great deal of money, but it doesn't draw everyone."
Well-said, JH. In fact, archery is the official sport of South Korea (where they might be saying similar things about football).
Except you are missing a key point. Archery is done for national prestige in Korea, not for recreation, not because it is some sort of great spectator sport.
One of my fellow archers visited Korea as part of an archery trip. The archers there were surprised that he did archery for fun. To them, archery was work, something they did professionally, not for fun, and they couldn't imagine anyone doing it as a hobby. Granted, not every Korean archer may feel that way, but it I think people need to separate two issues out of this conversation:
1) Is archery a good spectator sport?
2) Should archery be covered in the student paper?
The answer to number one is an unequivocal, "No." As mentioned elsewhere, there is no strategy. Archers just try to shoot for the center of the target, no matter what they just did on their last shot and no matter what their competitor just did. And most competitions don't have real time electronically entered scoring, so even spectators with binoculars, paper and pencil will only have a rough guess of what is going on since they'll have to try to add up the scores of all the competitors as best they can from a distance. As much as I love archery, participating in archery events and teaching archery I would never claim it to be a great spectator sport. Like many activities, the fun is more in the doing than the watching.
As to number two, see number one, a sport that is a lousy spectator sport does not lead itself to exciting game coverage in the press. But, one can cover such competition by doing back stories on competitors, human interest, vox pop all combined with the events of the game. It can be done. And it should be done in the context of the school athletic program, but perhaps not so much as other sports. Journalism not only covers what "should" be covered but also what the audience wants. And the audience for archery coverage is smaller than that for many other sports. And archers can hem and haw and whine but they need to deal with that reality. They can work to make archery more popular, but all the indignation I see in so many of the comments seems more about the denial of the nature of archery than about the actual opinion piece. The much of author's opinion is most likely shared by the majority of the paper's readers.
So, should the article be condemned? Well, I think it is a mixed bag. There are some insights and some silly claims, but in the end I think the article fails because it is a reporter whining about the decision of his editors to cover archery. That sounds like a better topic to discuss with his sports buddy at a bar or on a couch while watching a game rather than in a hasty opinion piece.
ArcheryFan, you seem to imagine a world in which journalists ask the people what they want (and that what people want is a fixed "reality" that journalists can ascertain in some way), but as often as not, journalists and other writers *create* demand and interest. The narrative arts are powerful machines of desire. Haven't you ever found a subject more compelling because of a brilliantly told account of it -- whether in print or on the stage or screen? Instead of assuming that people weren't interested in coverage of archery, Mr. Shapiro could have inspired that interest with a well-written article. As you point out, it might not have worked as a game blow-by-blow (or shot-by-shot) piece, but there are other ways to tell the story of an archery competition.
The best sports writers are compelling story-tellers who can spark interest in sports both mainstream and offbeat (Frank Deford comes to mind -- his first book was on roller derby! In 1973!). Mr. Shapiro had an unfortunate failure of imagination. Perhaps he'll learn from it and not miss the next chance to do something a little different and set himself apart as a writer.
Sorry for mistakes, I'm writing from Italy and english is not my language...
Mr Shaphiro please take a 45# bow and try to hit a gold from 70 metres and again and again... then go back to your typo and write about archery. There is no TV coperture on archery: the reason is we have no many pro, there is no much money from sponsors, no betting, no advertising spaces and especially few people know rules and love archery because majority watch only soccer (in Italy) and want read and watch only soccer all the week... and TV give it to them. Best regards from Italy.
Full disclosure: I am a former captain of the Columbia archery team and a professional journalist. A friend and fellow archer pointed me to the article earlier today.
I was not surprised at the immaturity of Shapiro's writing. I have worked with a number of aspiring journalists still in college who suffer from Bedroom Window Syndrome - the tendency to write as if you just rolled out of bed and looked out your window and believe all that exists is what you see from the confines of your room, and that you are the first to discover it. The best writers grow out of this phase.
I did wonder, however, where were the editors? I found the article wholly lacking in focus and organization. Even the most discombobulated copy can be made readable with a few judicious tweaks.
I'm still not sure what Shapiro was attempting to communicate. I agree with him that archery is not a spectator sport for those who know nothing about it. I would say the same of football, which I know nothing about and which bores me as much as, oh, I don't know... soccer. Cricket. NASCAR. Tennis. Rugby. To each his own, I suppose.
I do know this, however: sport or no sport, at 80 yards, me v. a Columbia football player... oh, wait, let's make this a little more balanced... At 80 yards, me v. a bunch of football players and one whiny college sports writer, well... I win.
"At 80 yards ... I win."
Ahahaha! I'd like to see a Hunger Games-style match up at Baker between the archers, the fencers, and the football team.
OK, not really. I'm not that sick. But archery did make for compelling reading in those books -- once again, another example of how Mr. Shapiro here missed the boat on the narrative possibilities (and pop culture references!) of archery!
Opinion is opinion, of course, but I have to question the judgment of editors who would green light this rather poor excuse for an article. Honestly, I'm not sure what the author's point was. He doesn't like archery? And the rest of the world should care why? He also seems to imply that Columbia's resources are being "wasted" on archery. In that case, an example or two might have been helpful in supporting his theory.
He admits right in the piece that archery is a sport, requires a great deal of practice, and that Columbia's team is actually quite good. Clearly these athletes are working hard and succeeding, so it's difficult to see why they are drawing such ire.
While it couldve used more evidence, I think the article makes a strong point that archery is not a spectator sport regardless of how good the team is. I found the piece to be a commentary more on how archery can never achieve the status of "marquee" sports like football and basketball despite its success. It's a little harsh on archery itself, but it seems that most of these comments are from archers a little sensitive seeing their sport criticized.
HK- there is a lot going on behind the scenes for the Columbia archery team that warrants the sensitive responses from archers. Getting support and recognition from the Columbia community at large has been a huge on-going struggle for the team for many years and is really a sore subject. The team has been successfully winning national championship titles has had individual archers compete on the international stage for many years and there is barely ever any mention of all these accomplishments. The archery team gets a head nod for winning a national championship and is then followed by a huge ceremony for, say, the baseball team winning the Ivy league championships (which is also a huge deal and we were all very proud of them!!!!!! Don't get me wrong!!). The two just don't seem to compare in my book. This article is just another slap in the face for the Columbia archers, all they want is to be recognized for their accomplishments and Mr. Shapiro is saying that they aren't "worthy" of even a news story being published. Maybe this background will help clear up why you are seeing a lot of defensive comments.
seems about right, SG...but the article was def less about whether its worthy and more about how it sucks that a sport like archery can never get widespread recognition.
I, for one, thought it was a rather interesting take on the undiscussed topic. Maybe its because im not an archer lol
I was a member of the archery team in the '80s. I don't think any of us were in it for fame and glory, we had a good time, learned about focus and discipline and made good friendships; my time on the archery team is one of my fonder memories of my time at CU. I'm not insulted (re comments that former archers are overly sensitive) that Shapiro doesn't like archery, I'm more curious as to why he's so hostile about it's existence. I'm delighted to see such a great show of support from my fellow archers, clearly the program has benefited a lot of students. What else is a college athletics program for?
true but he stated that he doesnt want the team disbanded right? He was just pointing out why its a tough sport to follow it seems
Oh, boy.
My late father was born and raised in Sweden. He knew nada about American boys' sports. Yet he used baseball to teach me a lesson: he would take me to opening day of the Scranton, PA Miners. "But, first, you and I'll go tell your principal what we're doing." "Oh, no. He'll refuse." I can imagine now my dad's boredom. Years later I took a German-born woman to see the Mets. "What's this all about?" Where do I begin?.
Back in one of CC's basketball glory days I was privileged to fly anywhere, any time, within reason. Indeed, from LAX to NYC I could detour to Miami. And, occasionally did. Earlier, even as a transfer student, I'd got to love even Ivy basketball. I attended classes with Columbia's team: Chet (The Jet) Forte, Jack Molinas, Whitey Brandt, my classmate, Fickheisen and others. When I saw them on the court, they weren't merely basketball players, but flesh and blood. At the time I didn't "get" this point.
After graduation, admittedly a bit of a "front runner," I gloried throughout the days of Jimmy McMillian and Heyward Dotson. My wife and I would pack up sandwiches and a thermos of whiskey sours and we'd drive the 50 miles from the North Jersey shore into Manhattan. Or Princeton. Indeed, late one afternoon on biz in Chicago, I detoured to Newark Airport by way of North Carolina to watch Columbia lose (to UNC ?) in the opening round of the annual NCAA Tourney. Because I felt a, foolish or not, kinship. Connection.
In the late 1980s I succumbed to my then-lady's expressed distaste of NYC. We moved to northern Westchester County. I didn't know how lucky I was with our condo's choice of cable TV. By then, I dare say most Columbia alumni had given up hope that Columbia would ever again field an Ivy winner.
With one flick of the TV wand I brought in the Hartford station which covered, even in his earlier days, Jim Calhoun's fast-improving UConn men's Huskies. At that moment the station sports announcer was conducting his weekly, seasonal, half-hour interview with coach Calhoun and a couple of his boys. The poor announcer had a terribly-distracting, seeming uncontrollable, eye-blink. But, indeed, today it's gone!
I don't know why, but I was fascinated with these strangers whose school I cared about not a whit. Perhaps a reason was that from our former Brooklyn, Clinton Hill, promontory, we got lousy TV reception. And, perhaps, just plain old basketball games sans personalities.
I made that interview show...and UConn games...a habit. Not only the men, but the women. Later, when I moved north, into Brewster and a spot in which cable would have cost me a one-shot of $25,000-, more often than not I couldn't get that Hartford station. But, ah ha! Usually radio.
To this day (especially because Bobby Knight no longer coaches) I try never to miss a UConn game that's televised.
Thanks to the raft of ESPN bretheren! And, less so SNY. I don't CARE anymore whether UConn wins or loses. I feel right at home just watching. Whether they romp or struggle as they did last night with St. Johns. What can we expect with all "under classmen?" I'm emotionally attached.
I think that's what I...and perhaps he...Michael Shapiro...missed: human interest. Personal aspects in the lives of those athletes.
Columbia archers want to draw a HUGE CROWD to a special event?
Blast the William Tell Overture by radio and TV:
At the conclusion of the contest or whatever, promo that "We have a special treat for all, archer fans or not: a volunteer will stand against a wall 100 yards from the reigning Olympic Champion archer who, yes, it's true, will attempt to put an arrow thru an apple atop this volunteer's head. We got the volunteer off a southern state prison's death row. The governor is a Columbia College graduate. Typical liberal, SHE agreed to commute the prisoner's death sentence in exchange.
Now, Mr. Bollinger, that's loyalty. Charge admission. TV will pay a fortune.
Think of what the future will hold.
finally - someone actually says what we've all been thinking: archery is a skilled activity, not a sport!
wish more columns would be honest like this
Dear Archery members who are STILL complaining,
SUCK IT UP. The fact that some prick college columnist who wrote that your sport is boring has apparently infuriated the entire archery world is quite PATHETIC.
People in the mainstream media mention all the time how boring baseball is, but you never see A-Rod or Bud Selig writing into the paper questioning his or her journalistic skills and demanding they be fired. You know why? Because they're above whatever snide columnist wrote that. Apparently, YOU AREN'T.
You're just embarrassing yourselves further and making everyone realize (assuming people outside the archery world are even reading this) just how insignificant the archery community is. The fact that all of you are so sensitive about some 20-year-old college kid coming to the opinion that your sport is boring only gives credence to the fact that HE'S PROBABLY RIGHT.
PL: and yet you seem to be just as charged up and emotional as the rest of the people commenting on this article, if not more. A little hypocritical, don't you think?
think PL has it right actually. the outpour of comments is testament to archery's failure to excite anyone
Amen. Plz shutup archers!
The difference between your baseball example and archery is that no one insinuated that baseball was not a sport at all. Mr. Shapiro said he had to "contemplate the legitimacy of the sport itself." THAT is what is offensive and what is dangerous to the existence of our SPORT at a college level. A-Rod wouldn't have to comment on a columnist calling baseball boring because he has the ticket sales to say otherwise. We have no one to speak for us because our sport is less accessible to the masses.
By the way--many people have brought up that only archers have written in arguing with Mr. Shapiro. Not only is that not true, but I wonder how many of those supporting this waste of an article are his buddies and also therefore have a bias. Because, as bored as someone might be reading about archery when they know nothing about the sport, how much more bored must they be reading about someone being bored by archery? What is the point of commenting "yeah, I totally agree!"? The team practices quietly in the Barnard gym; I'm not sure it warrants protest against it. I think commenting in support of this writer is even more pointless and is even more of a waste of time than the article itself.
Sad, sad excuse.
The archers aren't upset about having a "boring" sport. We understand our sport is not spectator friendly especially to people who have never watched it before. The archers are upset about other claims - specifically that archery isn't a sport, that the success of the team should go unrecognized because it's an obscure sport, and that funds should be taken away from smaller sports to fuel the banner sports.
To the first point, the author obviously did not do enough research to make an educated claim on whether or not archery is a sport. To the second, the team isn't asking for a spot on the front page every time they compete - but when they do something as impressive as winning the National title or sending multiple members to compete for the US team overseas they would like a little recognition for the hard work , just as any athlete in any sport would. And to the third point, let's be honest, no amount of money will turn the Ivy League into, say, the SEC East or the Big Ten. We do not have the sports fanatics atmosphere that these schools do and money is not the way to change that. If that's what you wanted in a school, you're at the wrong place.
I also fail to see the logic in the claim made in the second paragraph. <sarcasm>I, as a curious bystander, routinely conclude a community is insignificant when I read lots of upset comments in response to an article.</sarcasm>
I played a lot of football and soccer at camp, and I find them boring as hell to watch. Why should they get coverage?
Michael....I do not like you as a writer or as a person. And I do not give a flying crap about your article or about your asinine thoughts and ideas. I'm slightly perturbed that I'm even wasting 5 minutes writing this post....
But (just like you) I've have officially written out my opinions for all the public to see...That makes me a journalist too!!
Oh, and I'm not an archer...but I am an former varsity athlete and a Columbia grad and you should have pride in your school and support your community. Or you can leave. There are thousands waiting to get in behind you son.
For the people saying that archery is just a "skilled activity" -- that description better suits hunting with a bow and arrow. But hunting is very different from competitive target archery.
No one here has really seemed to give serious consideration to the fact that target archery requires physical strength in order to do well. Mr. Shapiro is probably correct in saying that target archery not the most exciting sport to watch -- especially if you don't know what to watch for -- and that it's fairly obscure. But it's a sport, plain and simple, because it requires strength and skill and is governed by a set of rules.
well, he does say its a sport, just not an interesting one. Article is definitely harsh but it makes some fair points about why archery has not been covered in the past and why it struggles to remain a sport.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...
It looks like Columbia archery is interesting enough for the New York Times.
Here, here, SG !
And, observers should realize, that of all the writers the TIMES Metro Desk might have selected, a Renaissance Man it chose! To be mundane, an adventurous, fearless, "jack of all trades," sufficiently youthful yet mature-through-experience beyond his age to represent for most all of us, even this almost-octogenarian, the joys, the mysteries, the challenges on the front line...even "80 meters" from that minuscule target at which we'll NEVER have the guts, to say nada of skill nor strength, patience, coolness-under-fire, strict-rule-abiding composure to experience what an organized archer endures. Unless, of course, we accept one of the team's annual invitations for that purpose.
Allan Wikman, CC, '54
Kingston, NY
I forgot to thank and compliment you for scouting, SG: for the record, this article appeared (stet.) tomorrow!
AW
glad someone posted the nytimes article. i guess producing two national titles in 5 years isn't something to sneeze at.