Practicing for on demand performance

[feudist]

For your consideration

Whether your goal is winning on the street or the playing fields of Eaton, a common feature of both is the requirement to execute skills cold.

This stands in contrast to most practice methods where a number of repetitions are usually executed, and the gain in performance is tracked.

All well and good, but what is being tracked? Arguably, it is the ability to perform after multiple reps.

Another way of practice is possible. Known as "Random Training", this method has been shown to increase retention of execution ability.

It works by practicing different skills every repetition. For example, instead of practicing five freestyle draws at seven yards, instead:

1) Draw freestyle at seven

2) Pressout freestyle at seven

3) Draw SHO at seven

4) SHO low ready to extension at seven

5) WHO low ready to extension at seven

Now, if you draw freestyle at seven on rep #6, your earlier freestyle draw has had time to be "forgotten" from short term memory.

This rep now forces you to "remember" how to execute-cold.

As an analogy, take practicing the multiplication table.

The first time you solve 8x5 your brain has to retrieve the memory.

But if you immediately practice 8x5 again, your just parroting the same answer. But, solving several problems before returning to 8x5 gives you practice at

retrieval. Practicing retrieval seems to be the key to creating long term memory ( what is commonly called "muscle memory" is an aspect of that).

In testing, subjects shooting free throws using simple repetition versus Random training scored better on the test at the of the practice session. But, when

brought back days later and tested again, the subjects using Random practice methods scored higher on the test.

Another practice scheme that strengthens retrieval execution is called "Variable Training".

Here, on each repetition some parameter of the drill is changed.

Range to target, number of rounds fired, size/aspect of the target, and shooter movement would be examples.

Drawing and firing one shot at seven yards would be followed by firing at three yards, then ten etc.

The training effect here is making the skill execution more stable, by practicing more varied conditions.

You're already ahead of me, aren't you?

"What about combining Random and Variable practice?"

Yep.

BTDT. It was quite different. Usually my practice sessions leave me with a pleasant buzz. This left me feeling that my nervous system had

been...stretched-into odd shapes.And it was fatiguing, mentally.

Source: Dr. Richard Magill "Motor Learning and Control"

[EM_]

I find this very interesting. Good post!

[Totem Polar]

I've used-and teach-random training in another discipline to great effect. It's my opinion that, one, you're never as good at a practiced skill as you are right after just doing it and, two, for a skill that needs to be "on demand" it doesn't matter if you can do something correctly 9 out of 10 times, 19 out of 20 or whatever; it matters that you can do it well right out of the gate, every time. I definitely believe in the ideas in the OP.

[GJM]

Interesting timing on this thread.

I have never much liked drills/tests that do the same thing over and over. While they are often done in an attempt to "improve" consistency, I have wondered whether they do improve on demand performance, plus they quickly become boring to me.

[Mr_White]

Interesting timing on this thread.

I have never much liked drills/tests that do the same thing over and over. While they are often done in an attempt to "improve" consistency, I have wondered whether they do improve on demand performance, plus they quickly become boring to me.

Bolded part is the operative factor for me in some instances, even when a drill can legitimately and productively be repetitive. Sometimes my attention just runs out of gas if my interest is not there or doesn't stay strong enough.

Thanks for posting the article, feudist, very interesting!

[JeffJ]

I see a stack of pistol drill flashcards in my future, thanks for posting this.

[BaiHu]

Great article and this is a technique I use for teaching my students (martial arts, not guns :o) after they've got some good fundamentals.

IMO, you cannot teach someone variable or random drills until they've gotten some basic fundamentals solid. This is not something you can teach to the person who just picked up a gun or just learned to draw. There is a place for this, but it's not out of the box.

As for boredom, I wrestle with that word all of the time, specifically with kids.

Lil' Bobby 'learns' something from me after repeating the movement 10 times and says, "I'm bored, can we learn X?"

Problems that arise:
1. Your student starts teaching you how to teach them by derailing your lesson plan. Caveat: make sure your lesson plan doesn't suck by looking at the number of long term students you've attracted with the current plan.
2. Your student equates boredom with 'success'.

I find it incredibly odd that the typical child that is 'bored' will have no problem running a 'stage' on a computer game for 3 hours straight until they 'just get to the next level', but ask them to do 100 repetitions over an hour of a movement that only takes 1 second is somehow torture :confused: Of course, I'm being facetious, but it is a sad 'sign of the times'. I played video games, but I was outside 10x's more than I was on a video game.

Problem:
1. Some people just aren't cut out for certain disciplines and maybe the one you're teaching isn't enjoyable to them.
2. Some people just don't know they like something until they get over the repetition/boredom hump and enter the ZOMG, I love doing this over and over again phase. I call this phase the Potato Chip Phenomenon; you just can't have one chip, you just munch the whole bag mindlessly.

Once the foundation is built well enough, then I'm all for using the above technique whole hog. I'll definitely be trying this out tomorrow for my shooting. Funny how we don't always take our day to day template and lay it upon a 'new skill'.

I could probably blab a bit more, but this seems like a good place to stop and let someone else chime in.

[EM_]

I see a stack of pistol drill flashcards in my future, thanks for posting this.

I think that's what these are for:
http://www.tridentconcepts.com/product/tacost/

Might throw that on the old Christmas list.

[ToddG]

I'd like to read more about this before jumping to too many conclusions.

First, as BaiHu said, until someone has the fundamentals correct it's wasteful to jump around in practice.

Second, I'd like to see exactly what was measured and exactly what the differences were in the practice routines in the "basketball free throw" study. Were people just throwing one attempted free throw and then moving on to other things immediately, or did they simply practice free throws for a short while as opposed to for hours on end?

Third, as has been touched on tangentially, how does boredom -- which is very subjective -- play into all of this? Would someone who isn't bored after 100 draws to a 8" circle be less well served by this than someone who stops paying attention after three draws?

[feudist]

I think that's what these are for:
http://www.tridentconcepts.com/product/tacost/

Might throw that on the old Christmas list.

Thanks, maclin.

Just ordered those

[feudist]

I'd like to read more about this before jumping to too many conclusions.

First, as BaiHu said, until someone has the fundamentals correct it's wasteful to jump around in practice.

Second, I'd like to see exactly what was measured and exactly what the differences were in the practice routines in the "basketball free throw" study. Were people just throwing one attempted free throw and then moving on to other things immediately, or did they simply practice free throws for a short while as opposed to for hours on end?

Third, as has been touched on tangentially, how does boredom -- which is very subjective -- play into all of this? Would someone who isn't bored after 100 draws to a 8" circle be less well served by this than someone who stops paying attention after three draws?

Yes, BaiHu hits on a good point.

The general consensus is that a level of "Automaticity" should be attained to progress to a higher skill level.

That said, the basketball tests were typical double blind, college freshman participant tests. So, there was no prior skill development.

The testing showed the benefits of "Spacing" or "Forgetting" repetitions. I don't think they were factoring boredom as a consideration.

Todd, the real trick is getting "100 draws to an 8" circle" executed mindfully, with full attention to each rep. This practice scheme helps because you

have to refocus your attention on every evolution.

The next trick is designing a practice regimen that incorporates sufficient practice trials in conjunction with interleaving other skills sufficient to activate

the random effect.

This is not a training shortcut. It is about ROI on training time.

Google random and variable practice.

This falls(I think) under the rubric of "Deliberate Practice" as posited by K. Anders Ericsson. He came up with the 10,000 hour, 10 year rule for Elite

performance.

Deliberate practice:

Is designed to improve performance

Is repeated a lot

Feedback is continuously available

Is highly demanding mentally

Is hard

Requires explicit, well thought out goals.

[Cheap Shot]

I think that's what these are for:
http://www.tridentconcepts.com/product/tacost/

Might throw that on the old Christmas list.

That was the first thought I had also

Very interesting subject feudist. I'm looking forward to how the discussion evolves

[GJM]

Third, as has been touched on tangentially, how does boredom -- which is very subjective -- play into all of this? Would someone who isn't bored after 100 draws to a 8" circle be less well served by this than someone who stops paying attention after three draws?

I think it is important to recognize that different people learn best in different ways, and figure out what learning style works best for you.

For me, a drill with a lot of repetition, and a penalty such as the drill ending for a single mistake, it not a learning style that causes me to achieve the best results. Those rules are analogous to instructing a college age boy to only ask out girls in college that you knew would say yes, and game over if even one said no. Or, only start a business that you could guarantee would be successful. I know that my school and work life would have been a lot less fun if I followed those rules.

I think we share a common goal of achieving the best on demand performance possible, but there may be a number of different methods to get there.

[feudist]

An inexpensive book that covers Random/Variable training is "Fundamentals of Motor Behavior" By Jeffrey T. Fairbrother.

It's on Amazon (I got mine used for 10.00).

Magill's books are textbooks in the 40-60.00 range.

I've got three editions of those:confused:

[ToddG]

That said, the basketball tests were typical double blind, college freshman participant tests. So, there was no prior skill development.

The testing showed the benefits of "Spacing" or "Forgetting" repetitions.

One question I have: were the test subjects doing one rep of free throws, doing other things, and then coming back to free throws? Or were they doing 10 minutes of free throw work (as opposed to 60 minutes or whatever)?


I don't think they were factoring boredom as a consideration.
Todd, the real trick is getting "100 draws to an 8" circle" executed mindfully, with full attention to each rep. This practice scheme helps because you have to refocus your attention on every evolution.

I think that's interesting from a number of angles. It would be insightful to ask top athletes if they have that "mindfulness" issue when they drill. Perhaps one thing that separates people who achieve excellence is their willingness/ability to stay focused on a drill?


Deliberate practice:

Is designed to improve performance

Is repeated a lot

Feedback is continuously available

Is highly demanding mentally

Is hard

Requires explicit, well thought out goals.

I'm with you on all those things.


I think it is important to recognize that different people learn best in different ways, and figure out what learning style works best for you.

Absolutely. A corollary, I think, is that -- just like with shooting techniques -- there are lots of ways to practice that work; finding the one that is most effective (which probably includes most enjoyable & motivational) for you means you'll practice more and stay focused better.


For me, a drill with a lot of repetition, and a penalty such as the drill ending for a single mistake, it not a learning style that causes me to achieve the best results.

I'd argue that depends completely on what "results" you're looking for, and what percentage of your training involves such drills.

[feudist]

Todd,

One rep, then another skill drill.

The result is known as contextual interference and it is an extremely general finding in studies, in verbal-cognitive and motor skills, across all skill levels and age groups.

It challenges conventional wisdom by showing that poorer practice performance results in better learning-as shown in retention tests.

There are 2 hypotheses why:

Elaboration: shifting from one skill to another forces the learner to become aware of the distinctiveness between skills, making them more meaningful in long term memory. This facilitates retrieval at a later time.

The second is spacing, or forgetting. The space between reps forces the reconstruction of the action plan for skill execution.

Retrieval of the motor skill action plan is execution. Random practice essentially provides more repetitions in retrieval, ergo better execution cold.

In Brian Enos' book, he talks abut guys who would shoot he Steel Challenge courses of fire until the were hip deep in brass. They would end up with these amazing runs-in

practice.

He uses a metric he calls LOHF-Limit of Human Function.In this, he shots a drill many times until he stops progressing. That "best run" then becomes his current LOHF.

Then, he would track shooting those drills cold, and see what his on demand performance was. There was quite a difference, at his elite level.

[GJM]

Absolutely. A corollary, I think, is that -- just like with shooting techniques -- there are lots of ways to practice that work; finding the one that is most effective (which probably includes most enjoyable & motivational) for you means you'll practice more and stay focused better.



I'd argue that depends completely on what "results" you're looking for, and what percentage of your training involves such drills.

The result I am looking for is best, on-demand performance. Probably the same objective you have. :)

If I can do something once or twice in a row cold, that seems like a pretty good indicator of ability to perform on the street (tundra) or in a match. I am not sure how repeating the same thing five or ten times in a row relates to the ability to perform on demand, cold? Now if I was training factory workers to perform the same repetitive task all day, every day, I would think repetitive training, with a once and you are out penalty, might be appropriate.

Even in my dry fire practice, where I work things like draws and reloads with a bunch of repetitions, I tend to break things up -- which is a more productive learning style for me.

[Totem Polar]

The second is spacing, or forgetting. The space between reps forces the reconstruction of the action plan for skill execution.

Retrieval of the motor skill action plan is execution. Random practice essentially provides more repetitions in retrieval, ergo better execution cold.



This is, for me, the key component. Struggle is the process by which we build more myelination for a skill. I've found this concept ("spacing", above) incredibly valuable in coaching "elite athletes of the small muscles" (classical musicians) at the collegiate level. Point being, it doesn't matter how many times you can play, say, a difficult passage in a Bach violin sonata correctly in the practice room, it only matters how well you can retrieve the skills and execute them cold. I'll go further and say that a player who can retrieve average playing skills well under pressure will give better concert performances than a bionic practice room player who fails to drill *cold* retrieval.

In short, you've gotta be able to do whatever skill you're investing in right the first time, so best to practice lots of "first times" as opposed to thousands of "second times" over the same length of training.

JMO from a different perspective.

[feudist]

This is, for me, the key component. Struggle is the process by which we build more myelination for a skill. I've found this concept ("spacing", above) incredibly valuable in coaching "elite athletes of the small muscles" (classical musicians) at the collegiate level. Point being, it doesn't matter how many times you can play, say, a difficult passage in a Bach violin sonata correctly in the practice room, it only matters how well you can retrieve the skills and execute them cold. I'll go further and say that a player who can retrieve average playing skills well under pressure will give better concert performances than a bionic practice room player who fails to drill *cold* retrieval.

In short, you've gotta be able to do whatever skill you're investing in right the first time, so best to practice lots of "first times" as opposed to thousands of "second times" over the same length of training.

JMO from a different perspective.

That puts it very succincly, thanks.

[Mr_White]

In Brian Enos' book, he talks abut guys who would shoot he Steel Challenge courses of fire until the were hip deep in brass. They would end up with these amazing runs-in

practice.

He uses a metric he calls LOHF-Limit of Human Function.In this, he shots a drill many times until he stops progressing. That "best run" then becomes his current LOHF.

Then, he would track shooting those drills cold, and see what his on demand performance was. There was quite a difference, at his elite level.

I need to dig up the book again, but wasn't his cold performance about 85% of his LOHF practice performance?

I don't have much to add to this discussion, but again, thanks for starting it. I am really enjoying considering all the comments that have been made.

[John Hearne]

In terms of on-demand performance, I think that recency will trump about everything else. The last time that you confirmed your kinesthetic alignment of the gun via dry practice or live fire and the ability to execute the basic motor programs needed to run the gun will be hugely important.

If I'm worried about on-demand performance, I'd make sure I was dry firing as much as possible. I've found that I can deliver most of my performance potential with 4 sessions of dry practice and a 100 round session every week.

Jeff Cooper recommended presenting the gun 10 times before you left the house. If you do this, you're about as prepared as you can reasonably be.

[Stuffbreaker]

Frequent dry fire has been the key to improving my on-demand performance, as well. In 2013, I did half the live fire practice I did in 2012, but added 3-5 hours a week of dry practice. Prior to adding dry fire, I'd hit a plateau in the worst way. After adding dry fire, I broke the 5 second barrier in FAST cold for the first time, and advanced an entire class in both USPSA and IDPA. Shot calling improved immediately. I even won a stage overall at a major event, my first stage of the day.

In dry fire, I do both varied and repetitious drills applied mostly to small stages comprised of movement between 5-8 targets with multiple shooting positions. I use a par timer to help identify tweaks that get me to my maximum performance threshold for a particular stage. Cranking out rep after rep is the best way for me to shave time on a stage/drill and find the optimal sequence and types of movements that yield results. It would be difficult to isolate what works and what doesn't in a particular sequence without repetitive practice on a timer. I move on when focus wanes, then come back to the drill sporadically throughout the rest of my session to see what I've retained.

After several reps, drills can start to feel automated. I move on when I'm making small mistakes and corrections on the fly, but still hitting a par time I struggled with initially. At this point, running the stage backwards or jumping around to different skills helps me get back in focus. Its difficult to quantify exactly what I'm learning by jumping from drill to drill, but it does seem to help.

[Rick Finsta]

This puts words to why I like Dot Torture; I find that I don't improve performance doing the same drill over and over and over, but the more I do Dot Torture (and other similar drills where I only do limited repetitions of several mini-drills), the better I seem to progress. I also have found when working with a novice (well, more novice than myself, even), that any kind of drill like DT is a waste of time and ammunition, as the wheels will come off as they try to work the fundamentals under the slightly different rules of each dot. I like the concept of recognizing the subtleties of different skills/applications, and how that could foster better cold performance; and I think that area is exactly where a novice would do poorly. If they don't know what "right" is, how are they supposed to recognize different shades of "right?"

As for boredom, I've also found that having some kind of "fun drill" to break up the monotony of practice can help a student stay focused over a longer practice period. I usually just do something like the "Lucky Charms" target; it is just enough of a break to get the jitters out, then back at it.

Perhaps there is a good way to develop a curriculum that uses those "fun drill" breaks to recognize when a student is ready for the more advanced training regimen; when they start to perform well on those consistently (not necessarily to a hard and fast standard) they are ready for the more/smaller drills workout.