Kerfuffles, Catawampuses, and Snobby Gosters: A Taekwondo Tale

In our inaugural guest episode, we dive deep with Dan Lewis, a geologist-turned-data analyst who's revolutionizing how we understand Taekwondo trends in America. Lewis shares shocking statistics about USA Taekwondo's decline - participation has dropped from over 7,000 competitors in 2019 to just 4,500 today, with some regions seeing a devastating 75% decrease in athletes.

What makes this conversation particularly compelling is the financial paradox Lewis uncovers. While USA Taekwondo sits on unprecedented cash reserves of nearly $1 million, junior development programs crucial for Olympic success remain woefully underfunded. The data paints a clear picture: American Taekwondo athletes peak around age 13, then participation plummets just as international competitors are winning Olympic medals at 16-19 years old.

We explore how constant changes to competitive pathways, rising event costs, and questionable regional structures have contributed to widespread disillusionment. Lewis's analysis of World Championship results from 2011-2023 reveals no meaningful improvement in American performance, challenging official narratives of program success.

This eye-opening conversation exposes the disconnect between organizational wealth and athlete development. If you care about the future of American Taekwondo or want to understand how data can reveal truths that official statements might obscure, this episode is essential listening. What changes would you make to fix our broken development system?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Welcome back to the Warehouse 15.
And this is our third attempttoday because we're having
technical issues.
I'm not sure that TJ paid theinternet bill, but we're going
to be okay with that.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
I'm working on it now .
Working on it now.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
As we said before, we're here and this is our
inaugural episode with our firstguest ever, and I couldn't
think of anyone better to haveas a guest, and it was at the
suggestion of my colleague andgood friend, coach Moreno, so
I'm going to let him introducehim, but before we get started,
you know, my understanding is hehasn't signed the waiver, so

(01:00):
I'm going to raise his righthand and he promises to tell the
truth to the best of hisability and not to get offended
by anything that TJ or Iindefinitely will say, and if so
, he will accept the apology ofsorry, not sorry.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
I agree to one of those.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
All right, good as long as we get one of them, we
can negotiate Sorry, not sorry,all right, no, mr Lewis.
Yeah, mr Lewis, all right.
No, coach you're up.

Speaker 4 (01:26):
Yeah, mr Lewis, first of all, thank you for coming on
the show, and it's interestingbecause we've kind of got a
little bit of a buzz with thislittle threesome that we've kind
of got going here.
No, did he Threesome?

Speaker 2 (01:38):
I knew it Hold on a second Hold on A grouping of
three people talking about Letme wrap myself up a little bit.
It's going to get a littlechilly in here.

Speaker 4 (01:47):
No, but we've had a lot of people want to come on
the show, so we were talkingabout it and I don't know.
I just thought you would be agreat first guest.
Just because of some of thethings that we see in social
media, I think there's a lot ofthings that we really agree on
and there's some things that wedon't agree on.
But, um, yeah, so we we'rereally happy to have you.
So thank you very much for foryou know, spending some time
with us today.
So well, you know how this goes.

(02:07):
We have a lot of fun.
We, you start here and we gothere and we just keep it loose.
So, uh, thank you very much forcoming on thanks, I'm looking
forward to some friendlydisagreement no more agreements
and disagreements.
Believe me, believe me, but uhtj, what's up with you bro?

Speaker 1 (02:22):
I'm just chilling.
I'm just chilling just here inNorth Carolina hanging out.
Like I said before, I'm superexcited for this episode.
I know as one of the peoplethat I talk the most Taekwondo
with.
It's always nice to have thosedeep conversations about
Taekwondo and everything.
So it'll be kind of cool tokind of get the fact side of
everything kind of really knowwhat we're looking at so excited
welcome and let's do this.

Speaker 4 (02:43):
Why don't you, why don't you start off by just
giving us a quick littlebackground?
You know I know we got a lot ofsubjects to get into, but tell
us you know a little bit aboutyourself.
I know your daughter and yourwife were involved in the
martial arts with taekwondo.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
But give us a little background yourself real fast,
okay I'm a geologist by training, spent 20 years finding gold
mines all around the world,buying, buying them, selling
them.
Then I spent about a decadedoing the same thing with
geologic hazards, evaluatingtheir risks and stuff.
So a lot of evaluation, a lotof number crunching, and so that

(03:16):
leads me to a lot of hobbiesthat I have.
I do this with climate data andstocks and population trends
and all that stuff, but alsoTaekwondo Got into Taekwondo
when I married my wife in 2014.
She had a 13-year-old daughter,who you mentioned Summer, who
was really into Taekwondo.
So we dove in with everythingwe had for the next half dozen

(03:38):
years and had a super enjoyabletime.
I started doing analysis andthat led us to I made lots of
comments on I think it was asite called Taekwondo Edge.
I made a lot of comments andgot in a big fight with Steve
McNally of USAT.

Speaker 4 (03:57):
Who's that?
No, no, no, come on.

Speaker 2 (04:02):
Is that the OxyClean guy?

Speaker 3 (04:04):
Doesn't he sell OxyClean, that's not him, I have
been Something like that.
So then we opened our own site,our own Facebook page, called
WTUSAT Data and Facts, and we'vebeen going full steam ever
since then, 2019.

Speaker 4 (04:21):
I got a question just real fast off the top, before
we get into more details, likehow long does it take you to
come up with this, like, withall these numbers and all these
stats?
I mean, is it about, like, isit difficult to get that
information?
Because obviously for stocksand for weather and stuff like
that, it seems like maybe thatwould be a little bit more ready
.
But man for Taekwondo, I don'tknow how you get all this stuff

(04:41):
so quickly.

Speaker 3 (04:43):
Well, it can be a real challenge, and certain
places are more challenging thanothers, and I'll just throw
this out right now.
For example, adu is impossiblebecause they don't have any data
that they're sharing.
I've asked for it and they say,oh yeah, we'll get that to you,
but not happening.
But USAT, I just download asmuch as I can off the various

(05:04):
sites and you know, I actuallydo a huge amount of data entry
myself, which takes most of thetime, especially when it's, you
know, big events like Worlds orGrand Prixs and there's all
those different countriesinvolved.
So it just takes a lot of time.
You know, the thing that takesthe most time is when we do
scoring analysis and we select awhole bunch of matches of the

(05:24):
Olympic weight classes at allthese events and then we analyze
where all our scoring came from.
That takes a huge amount oftime and so we don't do it very
often.

Speaker 4 (05:33):
I mean I know.
I mean, obviously, you know Iwork for the country of Brazil
right now.
We have, you know, one of ourguys that does that.
So we know when we get, forexample, we get ready for big
games.
You know the Olympics, panAmerican Games, where the draw
is pretty much set.
We have, I mean, right leg,left leg, what time of the round
they score most often with, andwhat do they do when they're
winning, what do they do whenthey're losing?
I mean, sometimes I think it's alittle bit too much, but I

(05:56):
guess you know you can neverhave enough, but it's.
I know that it takes a lot oftime and you know, know we're
doing it for you know fourdivisions for men and four
divisions for women with, likeyou know, a very limited number
of athletes.
We know when you're looking atthe olympic games, so it's a lot
easier, but I I can imaginethey'd be very painstaking.
You know time consuming andespecially if you're just trying

(06:17):
to get the videos off of.
You know the internet orwhatever the case may be.
But exactly.

Speaker 3 (06:23):
And then one last thing is you.
I also take a look at USAT'sfinancials, and maybe later we
can make a comment about that.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
I would love to.
Oh, I didn't really havefinancials.

Speaker 4 (06:34):
Any quick questions, mr Perez, off the top of your
head.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
No, I think you know we did a little bit of research
and we have some ideas andquestions, and I think that your
data is always influential andcorrect and always revealing and
thought provoking.
So I think we're ready to goand get into some of this,
because I know it's hard to dothat kind of work.

(07:00):
But, more importantly, it talksto trends which I think you're
good at illuminating.

Speaker 4 (07:07):
Thank you.
I'll start with this.
Maybe just an open-endedquestion.
Like why, why?
Why do this?
For take one?
I know it was a hobby, becausenot many people stay around once
their kids take off, right, Imean, they just it's, it's, it's
not important to them anymore.
But you've stayed around for anumber of years, know years, you
and your wife and I know you'refans.
But like why, why dive into somuch?

Speaker 3 (07:29):
uh, that's a great question and I get asked that by
my wife all the time you know,we enjoy it.
We invested, uh, blood, sweatand tears and treasure for half
a dozen years, uh, with ourdaughter and know it basically
was almost the equivalent of acollege education price-wise.
So you know, when she droppedout in 2019, and she dropped out

(07:50):
because you know she had theultimate successful failure in
the sense that in 2019, she wasthe alternate on the US World
Team, the Pan Am Games Team andthe World University Team, so
you know, three strikes and shedecided she was out.
But we did not want to give up.
We actually really love thissport, even though sometimes I

(08:11):
make fun of ourselves and it'sjust.
You know, it's a niche sportthat I think there's fascinating
information about.
The people are wonderful, withthe exception of one or two
people here and there.
We love everybody and you know,uh, the us open is frequently
in vegas or, more recently, reno, so it's easy for us to travel

(08:32):
to yeah, yeah, td, you get youup.

Speaker 4 (08:36):
I can keep going, but I'm just listening.

Speaker 1 (08:39):
I'm listening.
I think I think all of us, butI know I've had some.
I had a chance to actually bein some of the training sessions
with your daughter and shespent some time with the WCAP
guys.
I've actually been at yourhouse before, as I remember, so
that's kind of a longer story.
But no, I think, like for me atsome point I would like, if
we're just talking about thingswe want to go over and talk
about, I mean I want to.
I'm always interested in, likethe correlation between the

(09:01):
cadet and junior and moving onto senior success and all that
stuff like that.
So we had a chance.
I'd like to.
I mean, you know, I know youprobably have it in front of you
or maybe you can pull it up alittle bit, but just because I
think last episode we weretalking about was it the
coaching aspect more, was itnature versus nurture, that
whole thing.
I think that's a good littlekind of statistics to add to
that whole conversation.

Speaker 4 (09:21):
That's good.
Let me ask you this like whatdo you?
I mean, recently you've had twobig topics like number one, the
decline in the um in the usa,texas organization, as far as
their numbers, um, and then, ofcourse, you know you, I think
maybe even a little bit beforethat, if I'm not mistaken you
talked about the age of theolympic athletes and the and the
and the performances, the medalperformances of those athletes

(09:44):
as well, like you're, you knowwhat.
Give us a brief overview ofyour, of your data as far as it
pertains to, like the numberswithin taekwondo, within the
usat okay, well, you're right, Idid a couple recent things, uh,
and I'm trying to pull up olddata and I even yeah I lose my
own data because it's on adifferent computer and it it

(10:05):
dies on me.

Speaker 3 (10:06):
So you know there's a lot of recreation of
information.
But you know, you probablyremember I'm just going to hold
this chart up.
Look at that chart right there.
That's ages of taekwondoathletes, older ones over here,
and they peak around age 13 andthen they just plummet off in
terms of competition and so thathere, Is that in the United?

Speaker 4 (10:24):
States.
That's in the.

Speaker 3 (10:25):
United States, that's in 2019.
You know there's 800 competingearly cadets and youth, and then
it drops off radically at eachstep to juniors, and then
seniors, of course, just plummetthrough the floor.
So that's the challenge thatyou guys have talked about and
we have here and uh, probablyother countries have as well,
but maybe not as pronounced so.

(10:47):
And then in usa is usat, uh,even with on top of that trend
where, with eight year, peopleage out and select themselves
out, uh, there's this uh bigshift over the last half dozen
years and some of that might bethe sorry, not pandemic pandemic
and you know whereparticipation dropped off by

(11:10):
almost half.
A lot of clubs, I understand,closed.
You know Dojang's just wentaway.
People gave up, parents,athletes gave up, but they're
coming back, and so that allshows up at Nationals and US
Open and also in this recentthing where USAT is trying to
get their regions organized.
So we took a look at thewhatever it was seven or eight

(11:31):
regions that they suggested, andthere's this grossly
disproportionate number ofathletes in each region.
So we suggested you might wantto shift that.
And then we also looked at youknow, I had that same data for
2019 versus this last year, 2024.
And the numbers are juststaggering.
You know, in 2019, we had, youknow well over 7,000 competitors

(11:54):
and now we're like 4,500,including color belts, and in
some areas like the Midwest andthe Great Plains states, uh, the
numbers are down by 75 percent.
So it's down everywhere.

Speaker 4 (12:07):
But uh, really bad there, I can't explain let me,
let me ask you this I mean just,I mean again, it's I know it's
not data per se, but like forexample okay.
So from that, when you say 17to 17, now right that was 19 so
six, okay, so 19, 19 to now.
And, yes, the pandemic was inthere and that hurt a lot of

(12:27):
people, but the martial artbusiness industry is back up,
it's, it's rebounded.
I mean, people are doingextremely well.
So there's people there, butthey're just not coming back.
And so my question and maybethis is just again, it's not
facts, but like what, do youhave an idea of what, what, what
that could be contributing to?
Because, listen, you, you'veheard us on this on this show

(12:48):
and I'm going to say it againthis the current administration
has been basically been in stepsince 2018, 2017, you know, some
coaches were hired, a new CEOwas hired, and so that's over
their tenure, and it's tank,tank, tank.
And so, you know, my thing is,of course, I can give everybody
a strike or a mulligan for the,for the pandemic, but after that

(13:12):
, where?
Why?
Why hasn't there been anincrease?
Is it because of the disarray?
Is it because of the changingof the system?
Is it because the changing ofthe selection procedures?
There's got to be somethingthat we can point it to.
But what is your best guess?

Speaker 3 (13:28):
You gave a really good list there that I think all
are factors.
I think there's adisillusionment with the way
USAT changed their pathways.
They call them, in fact, thatwas how I got in a big kerfuffle
with Mr McNally back in the dayI think it was in 2019, I

(13:50):
ripped apart or actually sorry.
I analyzed their pathways andsuggested some improvements, and
that led to World War VII.
So the pathways keep changing.
It's maybe a little less obviousnow, but in the early part of
that period you just talkedabout their tenure the pathways

(14:12):
were specifically designed forspecific athletes.
You know they're what I callthe black ops team, and then
that became the, the academy,and now the academy is smaller
than ever.
It's it's secret still as towho's even on the academy, as at
least aau tops and, uh, the aceteam put had the pictures of

(14:32):
their athletes on a website, soyou knew who they were.
You just have to sort of guesssometimes.
So it's a big disillusionment.
The prices have gone up forevents.
There's been complaints aboutthat, uh, recently and, uh, you
know, moving around to differentparts of the country that
aren't popular, like Reno forthe US Open, even though US
people showed up.
The Europeans and the Asianshate it.

(14:56):
It's going to hurt.

Speaker 4 (14:59):
I mean, listen, as it pertains to the US Open, for me
, I think the United States hasto do a better job of
international relations, and youknow, me and Master Perez have
talked about that with one oftheir fearless leaders, because,
listen, we're not the only gamein town anymore, there's Opens
everywhere and there's goodOpens everywhere.
So before people rushed to theUS Open because it was a premier
event, but not anymore, it'sjust another event.

(15:21):
Could it be a good event?
Could it be a great event?

Speaker 3 (15:23):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4 (15:24):
But right now you might as well go to Canada, you
can go to Mexico, you go to Rio,you go to Dominican Republic.
If you're just trying to getpoints, you don't really have to
run over to this G2 anymorebecause they're everywhere.
So I think USA Tech Wandobetter, you know, have some
better relations to get some ofthese big teams over if you want
to keep that level up.
If not, it's going to be, in myopinion, a canada, united

(15:46):
states and mexico open.
That's what it's going to beand don't forget brazil brazil
will come.
We didn't come this year becausewe had our team trials the week
after, so it just wasn't.
It didn't line up.
But yeah, and probably mostlikely in the in the future.
You know it's a, it's a bigtournament and it's worth a lot
of points early in the year.

Speaker 3 (16:04):
So yeah, I'm sure we'll, we'll be yeah, there's,
and you're right about theproliferation of g events and
g2s.
Uh, there's more g2s than ever.
There's one this one thisweekend, a huge one in holland,
the dutch open uh yeah, 630seniors signed up.
So yeah, big, always a bigtournament.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
Yeah, that's one that's always a crazy, crazy
historically.

Speaker 4 (16:24):
I was actually talking to one of my athletes.
Today we talk about MichaelRodriguez and we were talking
about watching it this weekend.
That's the kind of nice thingwe can kind of see it on live or
on TV now on the internet.
But I was telling him and wetalked about this athlete, you
guys, yes, last week about ClayBarber.

(16:45):
I remember in the 90s, in thelate 80s, clay used to always
talk about the dutch open, inthe copenhagen open, and at the
time opens weren't important.
It was just kind of a smallthing and I'm like who cares?
I mean who cares?
But like now, you know thatthat term has been around the
longest, it's the biggest, it'sgot the deepest field.
I mean that's like a, a miniworld championships, you know, I
mean 60, 70 people in division,some, you know, top level

(17:05):
athletes.
You're not getting in manyAsians, you know, or you know,
but you're getting a lot of theEuropean.
Bulk of Europeans aredefinitely there.
So, yeah, we're going to haveto.
I think the United States isgoing to have to do something to
make our event a little bitmore special.
Have you ever been approachedor asked by the USA Taekwondo to

(17:30):
do any work for them to crunchany numbers for them, to assist
them.
You did this great thing on theregions, which I think we
should talk about that a littlebit, but have they ever
contacted you for anything?

Speaker 3 (17:42):
Yes and no.
So you know, sherman Nelson is,you know, a very talkative guy
and he's asked for some freework.
I'm not too interested in doinga lot of, you know, painstaking
work for.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
He's a pastor, so he should understand the value of
free work he should understandthe value of free work Go ahead.

Speaker 3 (18:06):
Yeah, I've listened to some of his sermons.
I don't anyway the, so he's.
You know he's reached out alittle bit.
I've talked to him.
I would contract to them, ifthey wanted me to, to do some
detailed work.
You know, jay asked me lastyear to contribute to their
World Taekwondo ImprovementCommittee so I sent him a bunch

(18:30):
of data that actually didcompile.
And you know, I think it'sreflected in the tenants that
they want to try to improve onfor 28 and beyond and that was
mostly just scoring analysis andshowing how much Gamjons were,
you know, far too dominant as ascoring method.
You know a quarter, nearly, youknow 20% or so of points at

(18:53):
these major events are fromGamjons and people just don't
like that.
That just ruins the viewingexperience for so many.
So you know.
And then there's other coacheswho say you know they should
hire me but I'm not moving fromhere and you know it could be a
piecemeal effort.

Speaker 4 (19:09):
Yeah, but I would say , obviously I think there's
certain things that you've donealready, just kind of just
because you wanted to.
That I think is veryinteresting and probably very
helpful.
Like the regional thing,because I know you you broke
down the in a probably a morescientific way as far as the
numbers, so it kind of madesense.
So it was a little bit morewhat's the word equal, a little

(19:31):
bit more balanced within theregions.

Speaker 3 (19:36):
Right, and California is its own almost country and
they perform that way too, atthe, the, at the, you know,
nationals in particular, at alllevels, cadets, juniors, seniors
, well, especially the youngerpeople, the cadets and juniors
California really does extremelywell, followed by, you know,
new York, new York, texas andFlorida.
But you know, even withCalifornia is interesting

(20:00):
because you know there's likefive, six, 700 people that go to
their state tournament and thenthey also go on to.
You know there's like five, six, 700 people that go to their
state tournament and then theyalso go on to, you know, other
events around the country, likenationals and these they're
calling them grand grand prix orfinals, whatever they're called
, the money raising efforts andso.
But you know, cuda sent me afile, a spreadsheet of, you know

(20:23):
, know, lots of informationabout the athletes.
They withheld their names andages, but I, they had zip codes
so I could track them down byzip code as to where they were
in the state and could.

Speaker 4 (20:33):
It hadn't even done that uh so so they thanked me
very much for sending it back tothem and so they could see
where their uh athletes werecoming from so I got a question
for you because I mean this,this is I agree with in
principle what you did, but,like, for example, I know, and
I'm going back a couple of yearsin gymnastics and in wrestling,
for example, there was hot bedsum for those sports.

(20:55):
Like, for example, in theMidwest in the eighties and
early nineties the Midwest wasthe hot bed of of wrestling and
but they didn't really worryabout the other regions.
Matter of fact, it's either youget better or you don't, and I
think that eventually, forexample, pennsylvania got good,
california got good, all of asudden these regions were forced

(21:17):
to get better.
And you see that a lot inAmerican football, american
baseball, American soccer, allthis stuff.
I mean there's always going tobe these hotbed kind of they
divide it up and they say youguys either either pick it up or
you just stay behind forever.
Do you do you?
Do you think that's any good inthat or do you think it's just
better to do it?

(21:37):
Because I think I'm mixing twothings.
If I'm just talking aboutperformance, I'm almost like
either you get better or youdon't.
If you're talking aboutregional training and trying to
give people have a good balanceall around the country.
I think the statistics sidemakes more sense.

Speaker 3 (21:54):
I guess this year they're going to call it the all
American open.
There's going to be two of them, an East and a West, and you
know, perhaps there should be,you know, three of those.
There should be a, a true West,and then South.

Speaker 1 (22:14):
Yeah, but they're allowing, like people that
aren't even us citizens, tofight in that competition.
So I don't really know what thepoint of that competition is
what, what, what what theAmerican?
The American east open and westopen.
You don't have to be a citizen,you, but you can't go to
nationals.
You could fight the tournament,but you, yeah, I don't know, I
don't get that.
I'm pretty sure that's what itsays, right?

Speaker 4 (22:32):
so I'm not making that.
I didn't know that.

Speaker 1 (22:33):
I did not know that right now so they're allowing
people to fight the competition.
For what reason?
But this also leads into ourpathways or whatever to make the
national team get to nationaland stuff.
That's weird.
I guess I got one question,just um, and I guess we'll go
back to that, but like I don'tunderstand.
So what's the point of theregions?
Because I've read it and Idon't like what.
What is what are the regionssupposed to do?
What are we doing with theregions?

(22:54):
I mean, that's for anybody.
If you guys know, I don't know,I'll I'll venture an opinion.

Speaker 3 (22:58):
it's just, uh add, I'm very critical of it in
general.
I think it's just to addanother layer of middle
management as far as coachingand training and administration,
and then it's really amoney-making exercise.
You have more events thatpeople have to go to and it
makes a lot of money.
Usad has actually been veryclever the last couple of years

(23:20):
with how they raise money andhow much money they're raising.

Speaker 1 (23:23):
They're extremely flush right now yeah, yeah, yeah
, I mean, we used to do regional.
We had regional competitions.
You know we had was it?
Was it states, regionals,nationals?
Right, I think we talked aboutthis a little bit before, but we
had those four, it was.
Was it four regions beforecoach, do you remember?
I?

Speaker 4 (23:39):
mean like, I would feel like it was something like
that.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
But anyways, my point is that it made sense to have a
.
You had states who you had thatmedal or you had to get like
top eight at states or top fourat states and then get top four
at this one.
So it kind of all made senseand I just don't know the point
of like we're making theseregions to do what.
Are we going to have acompetition in those regions?
Is that what they're trying?
Is that what the point of it is?
To separate, to have like aregional competition, as opposed
to like state and thenregionals of that area that

(24:02):
they're putting it in.

Speaker 3 (24:02):
I assume I I listened to the uh podcast, uh, where,
uh, mr n Nelson described it,and that was part of it was to
yeah, part of it was to, youknow, introduce region versus
region competitions, which Idon't think is going to go
anywhere.

Speaker 1 (24:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (24:23):
Listen, I personally think that it's for show.
It looks good, it kind ofsounds good.
We're going to break intoregions but, like, if you get
down to like the specifics, well, who's going to come?
What's it going to do?
Why should I go?
Why should I invest money intothat when the pathway is over it
?
Just like you said, it's layersof middle management.
It sounds good.
I think you I think maybe itwas in your yeah, you're you and

(24:45):
your wife's's little podcastthing that you put you said it's
not going to work.
The way it's structured it'snot going to work.
I mean, from the coaching allthe way down.

Speaker 3 (25:03):
And I was kind of like I thought that was a bold
statement because it's not goingto work, because the plan and
the structure of it won't let itwork Right.
Yeah, you're right, it was alittle controversial, we share
our opinions, as well as dataand facts.
I actually got a.
I got a call that night from mycoach in Europe who said man,
if I tried that, I'd get shot.
So it's.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
It resonated in some places, give them time.

Speaker 3 (25:24):
So you know it's.
And then, of course, there'sthe elephant in the room where
they basically excluded you guyson purpose Say we're going to
invite everybody in except forthese guys over here.
So that's offensive.
I think it's extremelycounterproductive.
If you're not involving all thebest people, then what's the?

Speaker 4 (25:45):
point.
It's not just us.
I mean, there's a lot of goodcoaches out there that I think
that you know, just for whateverreason, if they're not in the
end, they're not kissing thering, they're not running out to
North Carolina and that they'rebeing transparent.
And, like you said, you don'teven know who's at their academy
.
To exclude high-level athletesand high-level coaches, to

(26:15):
actively work against them isjust strange, which is?
It brings me to an interestingpoint, because I'm gonna just
use the GB model.
The GB model was individualcoaches for maybe two or three
athletes or even weightcategories.
That's their model.
They came up with it, and nowit's just the opposite.

(26:38):
It's like everyone together dowhat we say or don't be involved
, like you would think that theywould say I mean, it sounds
self-serving, coach Jennings,you work with X, y and Z.
They made the national teamlet's bring you guys in so we
can all have our bestperformance, instead of saying
get out of there, we'll takethem and let's see what we can
do with them.
And they're not moving outthere, they don't have funds for
you, they can't bring you toout there to train, like it just
doesn't make a whole lot ofsense, you know.

Speaker 1 (26:59):
And so when I hear about this regional thing, and
you know all these little- ifthey can't do it at the top,
that's where maybe I should gowith that.
If they can't do it at the top,what makes me think they're
going to do it at the middlelevel?
You know?
Yeah, excellent point.
Yeah, I think you guys made agood point when you brought up
the whole.

(27:19):
What were the three words?
I think was like synergy.
Uh, what were the three wordsof judgment they were choosing
to to tell people that that'swho they wanted to work with?
yeah, it was integrity, uhsynergy and uh coalition or some
word like coalition those aresome tough words, but like even
that, and it's even that initself, like who writes that?
Like what, what?
How do you as a company, as anorganization, say this is what

(27:42):
we're going to pick this off of,we're going to, we're going to
say who has these three things?

Speaker 2 (27:45):
well, that, was that was written by the communist
party.
Actually, if you had synergywith us, if you had integrity.
If you didn't, then it meantyou got to understand what
they're saying.
If you're not part of us, thenyou lack integrity, you lack
synergy, you lack qualifications.
That's what the you know.
So you got to remember.
Mcnally is a snake oil salesman.

(28:06):
He came from a background thathad no, he has no history in
sport.
He has no education in sport.
He didn't attend the memosprogram to develop sport leaders
.
Bob Gambardello did, I did anda number of others have and in
that program they teach you howto build NGB support systems and
pipelines.
That's not training thatMcNally's had McNally and, by

(28:30):
the way, neither did Jay Warwick.
So neither Jay nor McNally havethe training, the requisite
training, to build a pipeline.
Jay, in his experience in theUSOC, does have it, which is
interesting because he was oneof the guys who oversaw the most
unsuccessful portfolios of theUSOC, not the successful ones.
So when I was on the USOC, notthe successful ones.

(28:51):
So when I was on the USOC boardof directors, I oversaw eight
sports that were successful.
Jay's history has been as aportfolio manager for them.
He had the unsuccessful sportsand he's carried that over into
Taekwondo with McNally.
His background was a PR guy.
Hey, mate, everything's okay,don't worry, don't look over
here, don't look at this handand don't worry where my other

(29:12):
hand is, just worry about thishand over here.
So he's the master of deceptionand so, yeah, they're not
looking for that.
So when he says I've hadnumerous conversations with him
where he's intimated to me aboutthe integrity of individuals,
on this phone call currently,right now, and in the
organizations and he does whatthey do now, he says oh, I can't

(29:33):
tell you what it is, but justdon't associate with them any
longer.
I can't do the right Australianaccent or not even sure he's
from Australia, but I think he'sfrom England.
He missed the boat to Australiabut unfortunately found a boat
here and brought two of hisfriends.
So I don't want to digress, butI think the work.
A boat here and brought two ofhis friends.
So I don't want to digress, butI think the work that you're
doing is amazing.

(29:54):
The question, I think, becomeswhat do you see?
What do you?
What do you see the use of thedata for?
Forget about the organizationbecause it's clear they're not
going to do anything with itwhat?
How can coaches or athletes usethe data to their benefit, and
to what end goal?

Speaker 3 (30:13):
Well, that's a really good question.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
That was actually Juan's question.
I stole it.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
I get feedback, especially at events like the US
Open and a few other things wego to, from parents in
particular, and also coaches.
A lot of coaches come up andexpress their gratitude for just
compiling information, becauseit's not always easy to find
whether it's from a specificevent and who did what the

(30:44):
brackets sometimes brackets arevery hard to find and also with
parents in particular, theydon't know a lot of the rules.
You know, in WT or USAT, thedifference in points between
those two things.
How to you know what should acadet be doing to prepare for

(31:06):
juniors and on to seniors andshould they bother, and all that
?
Uh, what about going to college?
You know, etc.
So get a lot of feedback andit's it's, you know the feedback
I get is positive becausenobody's nobody really comes up
to me and, you know, swears atme and say I hate you.
Uh, although I'm sure they'reout there and it uh, it's, it's
just the volume of information,not all of it is going to stick

(31:29):
you.
You know I basically have athrow it against the wall
approach and some of it, youknow, falls completely flat,
gets, you know, almost nobodylooking at it, and that's some
of the work I actually reallylike, but other stuff, it does
make an impact and it's reallyabout just information,
information sharing the rules,you know.
And then it's frustrating whenthings are not transparent.

(31:52):
You said the word transparent.
Things are not transparent,whether it's, you know, meeting
minutes, which are justnon-existent in some cases or
they just stop years in the past.
The financials, which Imentioned they're hard to find
and and even harder tounderstand, uh, and most people

(32:13):
don't go into that, but you knowI, I do.
But, uh, you know, athletes,you know it's mainly parents
that give me the, the feedbackthat they then pass on to their
coaches of all things and theirtheir athlete students have you
got?

Speaker 4 (32:26):
have you?
Have you had anybody from?
I think this would be a greatbusiness for you, like if you
could come up with a format likelisten for X amount of dollars.
I will break down yourdata-wise, like your kid's
performance, scoring performance, defensive performance, right
leg, left leg.
You know what I'm saying?
Like kind of what I talkedabout with the Brazil people.
It's just here's a profile foryour athlete over these five

(32:49):
matches or whatever, and if theyever got better, you could say,
if you want me to do it foryour competitors, I could do the
same thing.
And I mean I'm surprisedsomeone hasn't, because it does
make a difference If you could.
You know what we did in Brazil.
People like, oh, I scored, Iscored, I scored my cut kick all
the time.
And we're like do you?
And then we went back and we'relike you don't, you think you

(33:09):
do because you use it and theydidn't realize it, you know.
And maybe just in the eyesight,you're like, yeah, he cuts all
the time, he's real good withthat, but actually he scores
with the back leg 63 percent ofthe time, you know.
So it's interesting what peoplethink they do until they
actually have that raw data infront of them right and you know
I have not done that.

Speaker 3 (33:28):
I I don't, it wouldn't be worth my while, I
don't think, and people wouldn'twant to pay what it might cost,
okay.
But you know, a couple thingsyou said really stuck with me
where you think that you know,some people think that this is
what's going on, uh, and then ofcourse there's a layer of is
the equipment working?
And we see it all the time atevents where the first day you
know, know the equipment isn'tworking and so you know it

(33:52):
surprises me sometimes that theathletes don't change their
tactics.
You know, in the second orespecially third round, if
there's a third round where youknow either data and sometimes
even KP and P, the body gears,it's not working.
You got to go to the head, yougot to punch, you got to gamjong
.

Speaker 4 (34:11):
And you know, people, people, they just don't really
coaching, coaching, coaching.
Yeah, coaching, coaching, Igotta.
I'm sorry, guys, if I'mdominating this thing, because I
got all kinds of questions.
Like you said something aboutthe financials, like you said
there was flush, so I'm thinking, okay, that's pretty good.
So then my question maybe youcan kind of get into that a
little detail but if it's sogood, why not support the cadets
, why not support the juniors,why not support the senior

(34:31):
national team to come out fortraining camps and things like
that?
I mean I know you can't answerthat because it's not yours, but
how, how flush is it?
I mean, well, they're makingmoney it's.

Speaker 3 (34:40):
It's really flush for a few different reasons and I
I'm actually going to do someanalysis and post it sometime in
the next week or whatever, butwhatever.
But they're adding these events, the finals and those regional
events, and then I think theyincrease fees, the amount
they're making.
The most recent data we have isfrom 2023, which is not off

(35:02):
their website.
It's off one of these nonprofittrackers that have the most
recent financial information, soI had to go there to get USAG
data.
But in 23, they set a recordwhere the most money they've
made from the US Open andNationals and these other events
they organized.
It was like $2.2 million,whereas normallya high year was

(35:23):
like $1.8.
So there's like $400K rightthere.
The fees registration fees Ithink had gone up a little bit.
The numbers have increased andso they were making around
$700,000 a year.
It fell off during the pandemic.
Now it's back up to close to$560,000 in 23.
And then in 24, at their Julyboard meeting they had a

(35:46):
financial presentation which ispoorly described, but basically
they had at that point $900,000in the bank, where $600,000,
$700,000 ahead of budget becauseof increased participation and
not sending the teams reallyanywhere because they're waiting
for the Olympics.
That's continued.

(36:06):
They haven't been shippingpeople off in the second half of
the year.
That's continued.
They haven't been shippingpeople off in the second half of
the year.
So I think they're sitting on.
I would guess and I have tofinish the numbers, but you know
well over a million in cash, uh, 1.2, some number like that.
What do you think it would costto send cadets to worlds this
year?

Speaker 2 (36:22):
to 200 000.
No, it's a hundred hundred.

Speaker 4 (36:27):
Well, there's 10 of them.
There's 10 of them.
There's 10 of them, and it is along tournament.
There's 10 of them and it is along tournament, so it's a
little bit more than a normal,but yeah, wow.

Speaker 2 (36:35):
But they're doing what I call blue sky budgeting
right, so everybody can make aprofit if you don't pay your
expenses.
So if you don't fulfill yourmission and their mission is to
to equip and send teams to getinternational experience, to
develop a pipeline that canperform and put people on the
medal podium when you don't dothat and you keep that money in

(36:56):
the bank, then you're cash rich,result poor, and you're doing
what I call blue sky budgeting.
And I had a long history incity government and, quite
frankly, on the USOC's board ofdirectors in budgeting.
And when you look at the budgetper plan and then the expenses
per plan and you see thatthey're not doing the plan and

(37:17):
they're not expending the moneyper plan, then you get blue sky
budgeting.
So if I need to make my numberslook better, I simply start
cutting and saving and saving.
You can cut and save on certainthings, but you can't cut and
save on the core mission andwhat it sounds like they're
doing.
One of their core missions isto fill the pipeline and that
would be giving juniorsexperience and funding their

(37:39):
ability to participate when youhave a national championship or
a team trials where people don'tshow up.
They don't show up becausethey've given up.
And when you have blue skybudgeting, they don't show up
because they've given up.
And when you have blue skybudgeting, you're paying the
salaries of the clown car.
And there's enough people inthe clown car.
It starts with Jay and Steveand now Sherman and anybody else

(38:01):
that's willing to drink theKool-Aid.
Yet you have athletes outsidethe gates of the bourgeois
sitting there going just a piece.
Let them eat cake.
And these poor athletes thatare out there looking like
little miss les miserables.
You know, peasants can't get toan event because jay and steve
are going and doing the worldtaekwondo improvement foundation

(38:23):
.
I got some.
I got a clue for worldtaekwondo.
Bring taekwondo back andthat'll be your improvement.
Not that hard to do.
Change the rules, but the bluesky budgeting would be
interesting to see.
And the question is going tobecome at what point do the
facts be true, betray the, theappearance of what some people
think the truth is?

(38:43):
And once you do learn the truth, do the masses arise and take
care of business, which is fireMcNally, get rid of Jay, get rid
of Sherman, get rid of theclown show, empty the clown car
and get a pickup like like TJdrives around in Kentucky or
wherever he's living.

Speaker 4 (39:00):
Listen, I hope you do get that.
You know that kind of financialstuff and it'd be interesting
because I think that peoplealways listen.
I'm a businessman, we're allbusiness people and we want to.
We want to make money.
I'm all for people making money, I'm all for paying people what
they're worth.
But I think there always has tobe, when you have a, a
non-profit organization likethis, you know and you gotta,
you gotta take care of yourathletes.

(39:21):
And if there's that much moneyand they can't bring the cadet
kids together to train, to bringthe junior to train, if they
can't do it, what are they doingwith that money?
Who's getting that money?
Because that's just to me,that's just that's unacceptable.
If there's a million dollarssitting around somewhere, if
there's 500,000, if there's200,000, you should be spending

(39:42):
on some of these young kidathletes so that there's
incentives.
I talked to a kid the other day.
My whole TJ knows your dreamwas to make a national team.
One of the carrots was you makethe national team.
They provide for you, they takecare of your stuff.
Now I'm like I'll go to theseopens and get a medal here or
there and get a wild card.
The us team has almost beenbroken because there's no

(40:03):
incentive for these kids.
The parents got to pay theirway anyway.
I'd rather go with my mom, dadand my coach versus go over
there, you know.

Speaker 1 (40:12):
So it's just I hope that if you could produce those
things or give some kind oflight, that would be really
interesting for people to see Ijust don't, like I said, like I
said in the beginning, I don'tknow how we don't see that as
being important, like, how arethe juniors not like, how is
that not a funded, like a fundedtrip, a funded team, a of
individuals?
Like?
That's my part.
It doesn't make any sense.

(40:32):
It doesn't make any sense Ifthe goal is and we talk about
how, the turnover right now andthe age and how fast they become
Olympian Olympic medalists andall that stuff.
Because I think I made a commenton one of the other ones, when
I was trying to make thenational team, I was sitting
behind 27, 28-year-olds, theyyear olds, they were adult men
and I'm coming in at 16, 17, 18,so it's a little bit of a

(40:53):
different vibe.
But these kids are now makingthe olympic team and getting
olympic medals at 16, 17, 18 onon a normal rate.
It's like the yeah.
So so my question is how, howis that like?
How is that not important?

Speaker 2 (41:03):
well, this is like we almost have to be.
This is a kerfuffle that'sturned into a catawampus, and
when you understand that, theneverything else is going to make
sense.
At the end of the day, when youallow ultra crepidarians to run
the organization, you're boundfor a kerfuffle wrapped in an
enigma, which is a dilemma,that's wrapped in a catawampus.
And now that we find ourselveshere, the question becomes what

(41:25):
are we going to do about it?
And until the reality goes, ifI take my family to dinner and I
buy myself dinner, and I lookat my other guys and I'm like,
oh, good luck.
And they're like, daddy, don'tyou run a taekwondo?
Yeah, I do, there's enoughmoney for one of us.
I'm gonna take care of myselffirst.
That's not a leader.
A leader leader feeds thetroops first.

(41:48):
And and so Steve McNallyShuckster, huckster took a pay
raise and now paying what he'sworth.
He was getting paid what he wasbarely worth.
Now you're not sending kids totournaments while you're sitting
in plain seats.
That's tough on the kids.
It's tough on America.
In what other country could youdo this?
So you've got to take a lookand listen to the PR.

(42:12):
Shster hikes.
You know huckster and what he'sdoing.
And then the other guy who's inpulling the strings behind the
scenes is jay and jay.
Jay is ridiculous, but jay'salways been that way.
He's always been a politicianthat looks out for the best
plane ticket because he doesn'tlike sitting wherever he lives
alone and playing with his flyfishing.
So it's time to put down thefly fishing rod and actually

(42:35):
pick up the rod.
Stay home, fish a little more,get out of the taekwondo and let
some people lead it.
That can make it go, but anywayI got real quick.

Speaker 4 (42:45):
I've got a question write that one down down.
I know it's a big open-ended,but if you thought there was one
thing that you could provideUSA Taekwondo whether it's
whatever organization what wouldbe something you could
implement that you think thatwould just improve us?

Speaker 3 (43:03):
Well, you guys have just mentioned it.
I think really clearly, juniors.
Juniors are the future of 28.
And then, beyond that, you know, I put out tables and charts
showing the ages of Olympicmedalists and the lighter
weights.
You know the two Olympic weightdivisions, in both male and

(43:24):
female.
There's a lot of teenagersspread around there.
Tj mentioned, you know, 17 yearolds who you know might even be
16, because they're 17 thatyear, uh, and then you know 18,
19 year olds, and this last year, of course, in paris, you know,
we had a number of teenagerseven in, even in 67, three of
the four medalists were under 19yeah

(43:46):
yeah, and so, you know, you gotto get the juniors involved.
And here's, here's a dilemmathat say sport is created and,
you know, say sport might havegreat ideals, but I think it's
really hurting.
You know, the development ofjunior athletes in taekwondo and
probably other athletes.
I've been told that the academyis not allowed to have athletes
there who are not 18 years old.

(44:07):
And so, you know, even thoughChristina Tichette was there
when she was like I don't know,15 or something, that seems to
have stopped and so they'rereluctant to involve juniors in
a variety of things.
It seems I'm assuming this, I'mspeculating and so but that's
going to be self-defeating interms of Taekwondo, because the
lower Olympic weights are veryyoung.

(44:29):
They average, you know, like 21years old, and the heavier
people average like 24, 25.
It's not like they're 30.
There's a couple of oddballsthat have already won medals
that come back and win anothermedal.

Speaker 4 (44:40):
Sure.

Speaker 3 (44:41):
But you know, and then that brings me back to the
USA at the Olympics.
And Juan, you're the only malein 58, minus 58, who's ever gone
to the Olympics for the US, andyou know what's with that.

Speaker 4 (44:54):
And there's hardly any 49ers.

Speaker 3 (44:56):
There's two 49ers.

Speaker 4 (44:58):
I never even thought about that, to be honest with
you.
Yeah, but you know what theycan't.
I mean, maybe they can't youliar, you think?

Speaker 2 (45:03):
about that every day?
No, I never thought about that.
I always think about being 17,.

Speaker 4 (45:08):
but I don't think about.
I never even thought about 58.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
I did not think about that.
You killed that line.
That line is now dead.
There's only one of you, andthat's forever.

Speaker 4 (45:17):
Hey, no, I was going to say like the, I know maybe
they can't have people livingfull-time at the Academy, but
they can bring people out thereand if they have the money, you
say they do they should.
You know they've had it lastyear.
They, you know they've done ita couple of times, but it's
always been self-funded.
If you want to come out there,so, or you know what, how, about
better yet, maybe these coachescould get out to these places

(45:38):
and actually invest in them.
I mean, no offense, and we'renot perfect, but like, for
example, in Brazil, like we're,we're focused on our Olympic
level athletes and we have twomen and two women that are right
now under the age of 17 and wetake them with us, you know, to
these international trainingcamps in uzbekistan and korea,
all the different stuff, becausewe know that one of them, maria

(46:00):
clara, was like that and hegave the 80 guy.
They were these little kidsthat nobody really paid
attention to, but they had alittle something.
It panned out.
For us it might not pan out,but you gotta at least try yeah,
we're not trying.

Speaker 2 (46:12):
You don't expect these snobby gosters to do this,
do you really?

Speaker 4 (46:16):
I mean, you can't he's making up words now.
Mr lewis, this is what happensin our show there's slobber to
gullions and they can't do it.

Speaker 2 (46:24):
These are snobby gosters and, in case you don't
know, a snobby goster is anunprincipled but shrewd person,
and I couldn't think of a better, better word for it.
And just because I like words,a slubberdegulian
slubberdegulian depending on howyou pronounce it.
That's somebody who's a drunkenfool, and you can.

(46:45):
There's a president of aparticular IF I'm thinking that
falls into that category.
But all kidding aside, on the,on the sense of, I think the
thing that I've always respectedabout you, mr lewis, is your
unflinching willingness to takethe data, analyze it and then
let it lead where it leads.
So, and when you see that andwhen you talk about that, I
think the next, the next set ofquestions become to what degree

(47:09):
does the organization listen orrecognize the problems inherent
in it?
And I'll point you to a moviein particular, and it's a movie
about a baseball team down thisway, the Oakland team, moneyball
.
And this guy took a ton of thatdata and said, OK, here's what
we should be doing.
And they went on to winwhatever they won, right, became

(47:30):
a better team.
And I always looked at that andI was like you know, coach
Moreno said somethinginteresting.
Yeah, they probably couldn'tafford it.
But the idea that you take anunflinching look at what happens
and why and then to try todetermine why In the past the WT

(47:51):
somebody did an analysis of itmight have been you what was the
highest scoring techniques andin what situation?
I think it was in Korea and youguys would be surprised to know
this.
But what is the single mosthigh-scoring kick in Taekwondo?
No in Taekwondo.
No in Taekwondo Back in the day.

Speaker 1 (48:13):
Back in the day.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
To the body, nope To the face, yep, and the reason
will surprise you.

Speaker 4 (48:22):
No, but that makes sense because, it was more
obvious.

Speaker 2 (48:26):
The roundhouse kicks they did more but they didn't
always score.
Roundhouse kicks they did morebut they didn't always score.
Roundhouse kicks per percentageof attempts and scoring you
roundhouse kick somebody in theface, you got a point 99% of the
time.
So that's useful informationbecause now when you're fighting
and you know that you can scorea round kick to the body, but
if you kick them in the face,you're definitely going to get a

(48:47):
point.
One of the analysis I'd like tosee you do in the future, mr Mr
Lewis, is I'd like to see yougo and look at when I am, when I
play.
I will, I will when I can.
Right now I'm trying to get awayfrom the slollygosters, but the
it's, it's time, because it's akerfunkle and and a catawampus

(49:17):
all wrapped into two.
So, with that said, theanalysis I would love to see
because I see it in manydifferent sports is there's a
way people play when they'retrying to win a match and then
there's a way when they're.
They play when they're losing amatch and trying to win the
match in the last 30 to 40seconds, and it would be
interesting to see when it works, why and how, and when it
doesn't work, why and how and Ihave my own theory on it, but I

(49:40):
I will guarantee you you willsee a different expedience.
You'll see a different choiceof techniques and and it's and
it's actually unintentional.
So when a guy is losing by apoint or two, they'll try to
score something that they knowwill definitely score a point,

(50:01):
as opposed to trying to scorewhat should score a point.
But anyway, those are those Ithink I it would be interesting
to see where your research couldmorph into and, given the
opportunity, how it couldimprove the performance of a US
team, much like in Moneyball.
It was improved for Brad Pitt'steam, not that he needed Brad

(50:22):
Pitt's, you know he's got firstworld problems.
Sorry, not sorry, but I thinkthat would be interesting as a
sport.
I think on the other side of it, you know, once you get through
this financial data, that wouldbe interesting information for
the USOC, because you can't, asa nonprofit, keep $900,000 in

(50:45):
the bank.
It's illegal under nonprofitlaw.
It's got to be mission-specificand spent on mission-specific
stuff.
I'm sure they got a mission forit.
I'm sure they got a mission forit's got to be mission specific
and spent on mission specificsI'm sure they got a mission for
it.

Speaker 4 (50:52):
I'm sure they got a mission for it yeah, I got a
personal question you ever howmany gold mines did you find,
sir?
Three, three, yeah, hey, tj, wegot.
We got a hit up that house.
We're going to reno man, we'regonna find gold.
I know he's got a lot.

Speaker 2 (51:09):
He's in the mountains he's got storage rooms I'm
looking at the house right now.
He's got a tree on his ceiling.
He's got a plant with a tree inthe ceiling.
I mean this is a guy.
And then he's got sort of.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
There's a secret button behind that that like
opens up the wall.

Speaker 2 (51:23):
He's got carved dolls up there that are either some
sort of ethnic art fromsomething or other, or it's a
picture of like.

Speaker 4 (51:31):
I want to hear about these gold mines.
Where'd you find them?

Speaker 2 (51:36):
Is that?

Speaker 3 (51:36):
a Kachinka doll you have up there.
Yeah, those are trophies mywife won from bodybuilding.

Speaker 2 (51:43):
Oh, but pull over a little bit more.
There's one over there thatlooks like a Kachinka doll.
Do you know what that is?

Speaker 3 (51:48):
Oh, that's Wonder Woman over there, oh Never mind,
it's not a Kachinka doll.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
I apologize, yeah, so we've got resources.
yeah, that's what rich peoplesay all right, we're good, we're
good, I, you don't have to sayno more, I don't want it to turn
into a kerfuffle.
So, um with uh, with all thatsaid tj, what?

(52:11):
What would you like to see?
What is what?
What is something that youthink that mr lewis could do
that would help you in yourday-to-day life?
And I'm not talking aboutsharing the location of his
infinite amount of gold mines,which he goes and blunders when
he runs out of kachinka dolls,but I think for me my biggest
thing is, like I said, we saidit a bunch of a few seconds ago

(52:32):
with the juniors.

Speaker 1 (52:33):
I want to see the junior stuff.
I'm always care.
I know you didn't, you weresupposed to hope he's still talk
about it a little bit, but justkind of like that has to be
something that we're doing.
I, I just don't.
If we're not doing that, thenwe're not trying to win.

Speaker 3 (52:46):
There's no way you can explain it to me any other
way right, yeah, and you know,when you know I I was tracking
worldwide the number of junior,uh, junior world medalists, or
gold medalists in particular.
That went on to do be verysuccessful as a senior and I was

(53:06):
surprised but it was actually arelatively low number.
It is, yeah, you know, like the, the italian guy who's in 58 I
forgot his name at the momentyeah, he, uh, he won gold in in
both uh, but it's, you know,kind of few and far between it.
It really surprised me andthere's a ton of.
Iranians that do extremely wellin juniors and cadets.

(53:27):
Now, there's cadets, but eventhey they don't.
Mobina Namatzadeh is anexception.
She won medals at both recentlyand she's still like 18 or
something, but a number of otherones didn't either.

Speaker 4 (53:41):
So they just have so many people that maybe it
doesn't, it doesn't matter tothem I remember back in like
when I was coaching the usnational team I'm talking early
on.
I remember the uslc provided usdocumentation that in our sport
that junior success didn'tnecessarily translate into
senior success.
But I also think that the sportwas a little different and so
you had.

(54:01):
It took a little longer toacquire, you know, results.
But I think now, going back toyour data about how young it is,
people are winning.
Like you said, tj, they'rewinning consistently at 16, 17,
18, and then they get out andsomebody new comes in.
So that's, you know, alarming.
If that is the truth, if that'sthe path.
Yet we don't have that.

(54:22):
Like like nothing, like wedon't have that, like like
nothing, like we don't haveanybody 15, 16, that we go oh my
gosh, they're the next bestthing.
So that's we we did.

Speaker 3 (54:31):
You know, if you look at anna zelich's background, I
don't think she ever lost amatch as a cadet or junior, like
none no yeah, no, but again,she was an anomaly.

Speaker 4 (54:41):
Yeah, right, there was, there was nothing around
there.
But I think where there's some,I think there's people out
there that we could do, that, wecould run them, you know, and
they could be ready.
But only if they're invested in, only if they're taken around.
If you're just relying on theselocal coaches because now I'm
going to go back I think in theUnited States we have a problem
because historically we doextremely well cadet and

(55:02):
junior-wise in in the PanAmerican region.
Matter of fact, we usuallydominate, they usually dominate.
They go to the world andthey're pretty competitive.
In a couple of divisions They'llpop out a medal or two, but
then it just keeps going downand down and down.
Because a lot of these localcoaches they run them so hard to
to, to get better, so fast, andthen by the time they're 16, 17
, 18, they're just, they'retired, they want to, they want

(55:25):
to move on where some of theseother people have better
investment and better kind ofmethodology and that's why these
kids can perform at 16, 17, 18,19, 20.
Ours are gone by the timethey're 16, 17.
Part of it is because they'relocal coaches, but I think a
bigger part is the federationthat doesn't say here's where I
can take you, here's where wecan assist you.

(55:45):
They're just, they gotta makethe decision.
Yeah, I'm gonna go to.
I'm eight, I'm 17, I gotta getready for college.
You know, I got I gotta go, andthis, this sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
Oh no, go ahead.
Yeah, I think I I was going tomention that, but you already.
He mentioned that.
You know the united states hasdifferent, different parameters
for kids at that age.
So kids will become competitiveand then they go to college,
unlike swimming, where the kidshave the same problem.
They are competitive, but theyget college scholarships or
soccer, like my son.

(56:16):
They get a college soccer.
They'll end up in a collegeprogram.
So they get another four yearsto 22 to become successful and
then swimming is just such a bigmoney sport.
The problem then you have isthe bottom is pushing out the
top so quickly.
So you get a guy unless he's anoutlier, like michael uh phelps
, you get a guy pushing you outas soon as you win.

(56:38):
You win one and you're done,because there's another kid
swimming just a second fasterthan you.

Speaker 4 (56:46):
But at the university level we get.
I mean, it's almost a deathsentence right now in this
country because 98% of theplaces you're going to go are
not going to have a dedicatedsport program with a dedicated
coach, and so, yeah, you couldbe in the taekwondo program, but
it's almost like you got tomove to the area and go train
with somebody else or hope thatthe area you live in has a
decent coach.

(57:06):
I mean that's.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
You know you can always go to Carolina.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
You know, during those years that the collegiate
team was fully funded.
At least there was teams atthat level that were fully
funded.
At the collegiate level thatused to be a like a pinnacle
thing.
You went from junior team tocollegiate team.
The next goal was to try to geton the Pan Am championship team
and the world team was ultimategold, and that's just what it
was.
But now I think not having thatI mean, I know people still do
collegiates but there was onepoint that the USOC paid for it.

Speaker 2 (57:35):
When we went to, like some of the, the Izmir games
and university games, you got tounderstand why the USOC paid
for it.
So the USOC dedicated money andI don't want to be a flippant
to drip it but the USOC paid forit because it was part of the
USOC's plan that was submittedas a high performance plan
marker by Taekwondo.
So Taekwondo received themajority of its budget.
And this is the problem I justrealized now I forgot.

(57:57):
As a part of the highperformance plan you make your
markers and your events and youwant the ones funded and you
request funding.
When you receive that funding,you either use it or lose it.
So when you say I need $100,000to go to collegiates, you got
to use it.
What you don't use has to bereturned, can't be repurposed.
But when the organizationitself is putting 900 grand in

(58:20):
the bank or whatever it can dowhatever it wants with it, the
US OCs money it's got to accountfor, but it doesn't have to
account for the 900.

Speaker 4 (58:27):
But that goes back to , like you know, the, the
transparency and stuff like thatWhere's that money going?
Because you're right, if theymade a CJ to your point, to Mr
Lewis's point if, if it wastransparent and they said,
listen, the marker is going tobe this, this and this, but they
don't want to support theircollegiate because maybe that's
not their, they don't control itper se or they don't run that

(58:49):
tournament.
So it should be a markerbecause that would help with
development.
That's the USOC's problem.

Speaker 2 (58:55):
In other words, the USOC takes the high-performance
plan that's given to them andthey say yay or nay.
And now, right now, that usedto be volunteer-driven.
So volunteers would look atthat and say, oh, that's good or
that's bad.
And quite frankly, I'll giveyou an example.
And it's at speed, it's across-country skiing.
So the us, the usa ski speedskiing, sends in a thing and I'm

(59:17):
the guy overseeing it.
So I look at it.
And when I look at it, and whenI look at it, I realize that all
their selection criteria issubjective.
And it says it seems objective,but it says if somebody wins
this they're on the team.
If they win this, they go totrials, if they win this much.
And then, when you take acloser look at it, they never
win those events.
So the entire plan issubjective.

(59:39):
Now, a staff member wouldn'thave caught that, a volunteer
caught it, I caught it.
So when the USAT puts in itsplan, they go oh, that sounds
good.
Oh, they're going to do what?
All right, and that's becauseit's like do the X's and O's add
up?
And I've got.
Right now there's 45 sports orwhatever, and each guy's got
eight or 10.

Speaker 4 (59:59):
So he's like next, and that may be true.
And I don't blame the USOC, Iblame the USAT, because you got
people doing the highperformance plans that have
never run programs.
They never run high performanceprograms, they never run
successful schools.

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care, they.
If they cared, listen, howcould they care?
They went to an Olympics andtheir top prospect didn't medal.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They don't care.
They got to go.
They don't care.
They went to.
They went to get back to Mr.

Speaker 4 (01:00:35):
So what's what's next for you guys?
What's next for USA?
You know the WT, you know page,and then what's next?
I mean, you just keep, keepplugging along, or do you?
You have anything?
What's your?

Speaker 1 (01:00:43):
goal.

Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
What's your goal?
Yeah, maybe that.
Yeah, maybe that.
You know, since it's a hobby,you know I just do a lot of
stuff and so I'm not surethere's too many goals involved.
But you know, I want to seeimprovement in USA performance
at major events, like you knowSenior Worlds, junior Worlds and
similar events.
You know, senior worlds, juniorworlds and similar events.

(01:01:05):
The Olympics I see as a bit ofan anomaly because it's such a
restricted, you know cadre ofathletes that can go and you
know it's, but it's the ultimate.
But you know, I look at worldsas a real benchmark as to how
the U?
S is doing and something thatyou know I was just actually
pulled up a chart that I hadthat you know it's an older
chart, but I've got 2011 through2023, our performance at Worlds

(01:01:28):
.
And you know the thing is thatwe don't, we're not really
improving, even though, you know, in 22, there was a Gold with
Michaela and the last time therewas a Silver with CJ.
You know I really look atquarterfin and up the best that
the US has done in quarterfinals and medals.

Speaker 4 (01:01:48):
Let me guess 2017.

Speaker 3 (01:01:52):
Definitely not no 1987.

Speaker 2 (01:01:54):
1987.
2015.

Speaker 1 (01:02:00):
No no.

Speaker 4 (01:02:02):
Before I say that, 2015.
2015.

Speaker 1 (01:02:04):
In the no Before I say that 2015.

Speaker 4 (01:02:07):
Yeah, but in the recent I wasn't thinking that
much.
This is between 11 and 23.

Speaker 3 (01:02:11):
So yeah, in 2015, we had two medals and three quarter
finalists, including MrTerrence Jennings.
And that's the best, I got got.
No shell beaks right, yeah, meand Servette so that's the best
that the US has done in thosecriteria in those seven world

(01:02:33):
championships.
Last time was only two peopleand Michael Rodriguez got a
quarter final.

Speaker 2 (01:02:39):
That's it 1987, the entire men's team medaled, with
the exception of maybe one.

Speaker 4 (01:02:45):
So, 1987.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
No, actually I think everybody medaled no you didn't,
flyway didn't meddle.
Paul, yeah, he's a good guy.
He didn't meddle First year onthe team.
He shouldn't meddle First yearon the team.
He should carry bags and makeramen.
So 1987, historically mostsuccessful teams in the history
of the sport at the Pan Am Games, at the World Championships,

(01:03:10):
and the reason was most handsometeam we were.

Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
What you were doing was the electronic era.
It was from the electronic?

Speaker 2 (01:03:19):
I wouldn't even, I couldn't be honest.
Had I seen the electronic era,I would have ran to another
sport had I seen what passes fortaekwondo now.
I would have ran to pickleball.
I would have become the worldpickleball champion.
Or I would have been the firstmale not to change gender and
try to become a synchronizedswimmer.
Just so you know, if thatdidn't work out for me, I'm

(01:03:40):
going right to curling.
Right to curling because I knewI could do that.

Speaker 4 (01:03:45):
But let me, let me go back to Mr, let me go back to
this.

Speaker 2 (01:03:49):
I got one last thing to say.
I seriously and this is a factand I think you know this, coach
after retiring in 92, Iseriously considered going to
luge, but not luge skeleton,because the entire sport in the
country at that time had 10people that were doing it.
If I entered, it ran on a sled,fell on it, get down the hill.

(01:04:11):
I'm in the top 10, no matterwhat, and I wanted the swag.
I wanted the Olympic swag.
Unfortunately for me that yearthere was this kid came from a
long line of skeleton guys.
Jimmy O'Sullivan won a goldmedal at the worlds, crushing my
dreams of being a two-timeolympian in different sports I
feel that, though all right, goahead I just had to share that

(01:04:34):
and I didn't mean to be, uh, youknow like, but that's my thing.
Like you know, I love data likethat.

Speaker 4 (01:04:39):
I love data like that .
That you said, mr lewis,because you know he said you put
it out there.
Hey, so wait a In the lastagain, just like in our
presidency and our country.
When things are going good, youwant the credit.
When things are going bad, yougot to take it on the chin.
And so these guys.
Now they've had 2019, 2021, 22,and 23.
They've had these worldchampionships under their belts

(01:05:01):
as the program directors, assolidified bona fide, and we're
having two quarterfinal finishes.
That's success.

Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
I mean, it's a tough one and again, I'm not saying—
you said that's the best onefrom 2015?
The last one from 2015 was thebest result.
Yeah, final 1987.

Speaker 2 (01:05:22):
But that's my point.
You know what?

Speaker 4 (01:05:23):
I'm saying when people tell me their success or
that it's healthy, how do youexplain that?
Remember, we talked aboutpeople.
Eyes are saying one thing, butdata and facts are another thing
.

Speaker 1 (01:05:34):
I said that it's an illusion.

Speaker 4 (01:05:37):
Yeah, that's right.
If that was you, you would havelost your job.
Listen, no pun intended, but Ilost my job in 2012 when I had
50% of the team and 100% of themedals Right and the Pan Am
Games.
The year before, I had 50% ofthe team and I had 100% of medal
rate at the Pan Am Games.
But it's funny because now Idon't know what standard they're

(01:05:58):
using.
There is no standard.

Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
Early picture of, for those of you watching the
podcast instead of listening to,an early picture of tj as a
youth at least I have one hair.

Speaker 1 (01:06:10):
I used to have long hair for real, though, but there
is no standard.
There can't be a standardbecause we're only worried about
the few people that are in thatroom.
If you're not in that room,then it doesn't matter.
They're not there to coach thewhole usa team.
It's never a goal about tryingto be the best in the world.
It's about their guys doingwell.
That's it, past that point.
It's irrelevant.
That's a crazy one.
2015 is crazy because I was madthat year.

(01:06:31):
I think we wanted more thatyear.
Of course, we always wantedmore, but those were tough
matches.

Speaker 3 (01:06:37):
Steven Lopez lost in the quarterfinals too.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
I forget who he fought.
15.
Did else too.
Yeah, I forget who he fought 15people.

Speaker 4 (01:06:50):
Did he fight the iranian kid?
It might have been those of it.

Speaker 1 (01:06:52):
Yeah, it might be running, was he?

Speaker 4 (01:06:54):
run or was it?
Uh, I don't know.
I asked the ask, uh, the I wasthinking about the by john guy.
Yeah it was, it was toughmatches, but yeah, that was a,
that was good stuff.
Well, listen, you know, mr lewis, I just got to say for me, I'm
so impressed that you're stillaround, because I love people
like you that are just fans, andI know you have the time on
your hands a little bit.
You're busy with other stuff,but I love that you take the

(01:07:16):
time to give this stuff and Ilove that Coach Grandma Sprez
said it's just so forthcomingwhether it's for Canada, whether
it's USA, whether it's just soforthcoming whether it's for
canada, whether it's usa,whether it's brazil.
You're like hey, here it is,guys, and you know you don't
apologize for it.
And unfortunately, I don'tthink people you know take you
seriously enough.
Because you know, I think, atleast in this country, even
though I work for anothercountry, if I was here and I was

(01:07:37):
running things, I mean I wouldhire you.
I mean I just think you havetoo much good to offer.
Um, you know, you know for for anumber of different reasons,
because we need someone like youto crunch the number.
So, you know, I hope you keepdoing some good things.
I hope your page keeps growing.
I I see more and more people,you know, liking it, and not
just from the country, fromaround the world people.
People are looking at it, youknow, so that's pretty cool

(01:07:58):
stuff, good well thank you verymuch, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:08:01):
One final thing I just want to throw in that I
forgot to mention I wanted tohighlight it is that, in terms
of these, all these financialsand stuff, the move to charlotte
, north carolina, had a massiveimprovement in everything too
there.
I didn't even say that they'regetting about two million
dollars, including in-kindcontributions, from that
sponsorship that they got there.

(01:08:22):
So that's one of the reasonsthat the bank account is
building up, and so that was,you know, a very smart,
strategic um.
But uh, you know, now, likeyou've all said, it's time to
support the youth.
Uh, and you know, in manydifferent ways, I like these
talent id camps, send them toworlds, uh, pan am championships
, all that stuff, really supportthe youth yeah, that's, that's

(01:08:46):
second and tertiary thinking,and I think you're right.

Speaker 2 (01:08:48):
I forgot about that.
So, although I often joke aboutum that move, because I don't
think it was in the bestinterest of the organization, it
was a cost savings.
And then the vik stuff, whichis value in kind, um is
important as well and that'swhere you get the savings.
But then it's really a questionof what you do with the savings
and and that's yeah, that's mything, listen, I don't not.

Speaker 4 (01:09:10):
The colorado is the olympic town and I don't think
it was the hotbed of taekwondoeither.
But you know, moving there was,of course they had.
You know, they got a great, youknow a great deal.
So you know it is what it is.
But but they, but they got toinvest in it, they got to use
that other resources, thoseother resources too.

Speaker 2 (01:09:27):
We've taken a lot of your time and you know we try to
.
we try to keep our podcast to acertain length, just the right
about the right amount of time,before somebody gets annoyed
enough with us where theyrealize that we're not as smart
as they thought they we were.
And so I want to thank you onbehalf of the Warehouse 15 and
apologize for anything that TJmay have said to affect you, and

(01:09:49):
certainly you know I don't knowwhy he kept sending me those
words to say snarly gospel.
I just wanted to share those aswell.
Any parting thoughts from?

Speaker 1 (01:10:05):
anybody.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
I think we got to do it again.
I think we got to do it again,I think, maybe for the purpose
of actually having three or fourtopics to kind of talk through.
I think we kind of jumpedaround a little bit and kind of
touch here, touch there, but Iwant to, like I said, have those
conversations connecteddirectly to the statistics.
So maybe next time we'll beable to pick another date and
maybe do just two or threethings and get to those things
directly.

Speaker 2 (01:10:25):
So if we can get you off the mountain in time.

Speaker 4 (01:10:29):
No, I'm going to say the exact same.
First of all, thank you forcoming out.
I'm going to say I just feellike you're you're you kind of
fit in with this group.
You know to be honest with youbecause you're independent
thinking, you say what you wantto say and good luck to
everybody how you guys interpretit.
So I think you're right, tj, asas some of these topics come up

(01:10:49):
, I would love to be able tobring you back a little bit more
specifically, That'd be awesome.

Speaker 3 (01:10:51):
Thank you very much for having me.
It's been a blast, I love it.
And yeah, if I could do somepreparation on a subject or two,
uh, that would be helpful to meso that you know, I got some,
some real numbers to just sayblah, blah, blah, blah, blah and
we could do that.
I love it.
Being independent has a lot ofvalue.
I can say whatever I want.
So can my wife, who says a lotof things that she really wants

(01:11:19):
and it doesn't affect us becausewe're not in anybody's pocket
and not asking for a handout.

Speaker 4 (01:11:22):
Yes, sir, I love it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:23):
All right, gentlemen, have a great afternoon
everybody.
I'm going to say I'll be.