The reality behind "Slow is smooth and smooth is fast."

[PPGMD]

Been saying this for a while myself, but it is nice to nice to have confirmation.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=12670


One of the most overheard phrases in firearms training is the old adage of “slow is smooth and smooth is fast.” In my career as a trainer and shooter, I seem to recall it most often told to me by people who were slow and maybe smooth and honestly had little business telling me what actually was fast. Words have powerful meaning, and as an instructor, it is important for us to use the correct ones when trying to impart skills and knowledge to our students.

Let’s start by examining the root of the adage. It has been told to generations of shooters that “slow is smooth and smooth is fast.” Some trainers apparently got tired of uttering the entire phrase, which has its own flaws, and had skipped right to “slow is fast.” NO IT IS NOT. What relevance the full phrase had is erased by shortening it.

[ASH556]

Been saying this for a while myself, but it is nice to nice to have confirmation.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=12670

I get the point, but I think it's splitting hairs. Words for the sake of words and yet another attempt at "uniqueness" by a trainer. Those who understand the meaning behind the phrase will progress beyond it. Those who care more about regurgitating phrases than improving personal skill will still be lost despite the wording of the phrase or the meaning behind it.

[Mr_White]

I've not really liked the phrase for a while now.

It's fine insofar as being a statement about economy of motion being desirable, though there are probably clearer ways to say that.

Even as a statement of economy of motion, the phrase will eventually have to be abandoned once a person has that economy of motion and wants to improve from there.

I think Hilton Yam is pretty much right on on this.

[rob_s]

I've not really liked the phrase for a while now.

It's fine insofar as being a statement about economy of motion being desirable, though there are probably clearer ways to say that.

Even as a statement of economy of motion, the phrase will eventually have to be abandoned once a person has that economy of motion and wants to improve from there.

I think Hilton Yam is pretty much right on on this.

I think it's only right for the people it's right for.

Having been involved in competition shooting before I ever got any decent formal training, the tendency is to go fast, early, reinforcing bad habits before you even know you have them. The idea of getting someone to understand that they should work on the repetition slowly, to possibly un-learn those bad habits, is a good one.

There is a major trend in the shooting world for the various talking heads to forget where they came from, or what it was like to be a new(er) shooter, or just making that transition from dirt-shooter to purposeful-shooter, or whatever.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

Seems pretty straightforward, and on-point, to me.

But, then, we live in a world where people also want to re-write the four rules, so go figure. I guess everyone needs a niche, whether it's useful, applicable, or not. Controversy seems to breed followers, and that seems to be what most people are after, so...

[Failure2Stop]

The only place I find relevance for the term is team-based enclosure clearing with regard to movement.

I abhor its utterance with regard to firearms unless properly explained to a degree that pretty much makes the original sentence irrelevant.

[Mr_White]

I think it's only right for the people it's right for.

Having been involved in competition shooting before I ever got any decent formal training, the tendency is to go fast, early, reinforcing bad habits before you even know you have them. The idea of getting someone to understand that they should work on the repetition slowly, to possibly un-learn those bad habits, is a good one.

There is a major trend in the shooting world for the various talking heads to forget where they came from, or what it was like to be a new(er) shooter, or just making that transition from dirt-shooter to purposeful-shooter, or whatever.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

Seems pretty straightforward, and on-point, to me.

But, then, we live in a world where people also want to re-write the four rules, so go figure. I guess everyone needs a niche, whether it's useful, applicable, or not. Controversy seems to breed followers, and that seems to be what most people are after, so...

Well, I guess it does depend on where you come from.

I didn't start with competition, I started with lots of defensive/tactical training. 'Slow is smooth, smooth is fast' was a phrase used frequently in that environment, and for a bunch of us the effect was to eschew timers, build smooth technique, never mind how fast it was or wasn't, and never attempt to make that technique faster since we were already smooth and thus 'fast.' Even though we weren't.

[Kimura]

Is there another way other than to learn and perfect technique at a relatively slow speed, then push it to faster speeds? No one can learn and perfect a technique running at the their ragged edge of speed. The statement is being taken out of context. It's a part of training, not an entire philosophy. As such I don't really see the issue with it.

[GJM]

"Slow is smooth and smooth is fast."

It is a NON training scar, and part of the timmie's creed:

1) I DON'T compete because it will reinforce habits that will get me killed on the street.

2) I DON'T do the FAST, El Prez, Bill drills, etc., because it will reinforce habits that will get me killed on the street.

3) I DON'T use a timer because there are no timers in a gunfight.

4) I DO strive to always be smooth and tactically correct.

5) I DID took a tactical course 25 years ago, and learned all I need to know about fighting with a gun.

6) I DO carry a .45 1911, and between that, my tactical visualization, my innate fighting skills, and what I learned 25 years ago, I know all I need to know.

[orionz06]

Slow is smooth and smooth is fast...


Until slow is slow....

[ASH556]

"Slow is smooth and smooth is fast."

It is a NON training scar, and part of the timmie's creed:

1) I DON'T compete because it will reinforce habits that will get me killed on the street.

2) I DON'T do the FAST, El Prez, Bill drills, etc., because it will reinforce habits that will get me killed on the street.

3) I DON'T use a timer because there are no timers in a gunfight.

4) I DO strive to always be smooth and tactically correct.

5) I DID took a tactical course 25 years ago, and learned all I need to know about fighting with a gun.

6) I DO carry a .45 1911, and between that, my tactical visualization, my innate fighting skills, and what I learned 25 years ago, I know all I need to know.
Funny how many of these guys I run into (all dressed out in head to toe camo) at the local 3-gun match.

Slow is slow. Fast is fast. Accurate is accurate, and a miss is a miss, whether you go fast or slow. Fumbling a reload is still fumbling whether you do it fast or slow.

I believe the phrase is applicable in that it basically communicates "Develop the fundamentals before worrying about speed. Then, speed them up." In this practice or application of the phrase, slow becomes smooth and smooth becomes fast.


But, then, we live in a world where people also want to re-write the four rules, so go figure. I guess everyone needs a niche, whether it's useful, applicable, or not. Controversy seems to breed followers, and that seems to be what most people are after, so...

and I believe this is also true and applicable to the article.

[PPGMD]

3) I DON'T use a timer because there are no timers in a gunfight.

My response to that one is "Oh yes there is, but you find out if you didn't make the par time based on whether or not you get shot."

[JHC]

I think it's only right for the people it's right for.

Having been involved in competition shooting before I ever got any decent formal training, the tendency is to go fast, early, reinforcing bad habits before you even know you have them. The idea of getting someone to understand that they should work on the repetition slowly, to possibly un-learn those bad habits, is a good one.

There is a major trend in the shooting world for the various talking heads to forget where they came from, or what it was like to be a new(er) shooter, or just making that transition from dirt-shooter to purposeful-shooter, or whatever.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

Seems pretty straightforward, and on-point, to me.

But, then, we live in a world where people also want to re-write the four rules, so go figure. I guess everyone needs a niche, whether it's useful, applicable, or not. Controversy seems to breed followers, and that seems to be what most people are after, so...

But the author explicitly made that point. Slow is to start learning the efficient method. But it does not equal fast.

[GardoneVT]

In the circles ive heard it at -read military folks at the local gun range-its just another cliche excuse for piss-poor performance.

Fast is Fast, Slow is Slow, and a hit is a Hit. Period. Imagine how fast i'd get laughed at if I failed my PT run time and said to the Clipboard Lady 'slow is smooth and smooth is fast'.

[John Hearne]

The phrase probably isn't perfect but the thought it is. Let's face its, spastic jerky motion is very inefficient and ends up being slower than smooth motion. No matter how you slice it, the best way to build perfect motor programs is to start slow and perform the desired movements PERFECTLY. At most 20% of my dry fire is at full speed, I very deliberately perform each step slowly and build from there to full speed.

I always saw the phrase as a long term training philosophy. With that said, it is a great excuse for mediocrity.

[nycnoob]

This phrase has always interested me since there are numerous martial arts which perform most practice at a slow speed (tai-chi and Aikido for example) so I would thing that there is some benefit to practicing at 1/2 speed or slower.

However if there is a benefit I have not been able to find it.

Bill Rogers has explicitly told me that he does not think this kind of practice helps people learn to shoot at his ranges full speed.

[GJM]

The phrase probably isn't perfect but the thought it is. Let's face its, spastic jerky motion is very inefficient and ends up being slower than smooth motion. No matter how you slice it, the best way to build perfect motor programs is to start slow and perform the desired movements PERFECTLY. At most 20% of my dry fire is at full speed, I very deliberately perform each step slowly and build from there to full speed.

I always saw the phrase as a long term training philosophy. With that said, it is a great excuse for mediocrity.

Maybe.

This past summer, out at our cabin, I was practicing draws to an 8 inch circle. at 7 yards. Not my preference, but a local guy, gun dude, hung around watching. My draws were pretty much in the .80's. His comment was I had tension, looked jerky in my hand movement, and should try to be smooth as "that was faster." My view is the timer doesn't lie, and assuming the same accuracy for both, I would rather have a jerky/tenser .85 draw, than a smooth 1.10 draw.

[Mr_White]

Bill Rogers has explicitly told me that he does not think this kind of practice helps people learn to shoot at his ranges full speed.

Bill has a great phrase on this point, 'You can't learn to hit fast pitches by hitting slow ones.'

This is one of the subtleties that affects how true or not 'slow is smooth, smooth is fast' is: is the motion itself actually the same when done slow and when done fast, or does the motion/technique become different or need to become different when done 'at speed' as opposed to when being done slower?

It doesn't just apply to the Rogers Range either.

Here's an example: lots of people have practiced releasing the trigger only to the reset point because they've been taught it's the most efficient way. They do various unpressured and mildly pressured shooting while 'riding the reset.' Works great, slow is smooth, smooth is fast, there it is. But then have them shoot faster because of being under a high degree of pressure (self-imposed or imposed by circumstance), and the motion itself often changes and the person can be seen to be letting the trigger out further than the reset when running the trigger at speed. Now, was slow, smooth practice at riding the reset even relevant? A discussion for the ages, I am sure.

And in this example, it also brings into question whether strict economy of motion is the overriding factor in final efficiency. Letting the trigger out further than the reset is, on it's face, more motion than only releasing to reset. But one way works for shooting at speed and the other doesn't work as well.

[orionz06]

Maybe.

This past summer, out at our cabin, I was practicing draws to an 8 inch circle. at 7 yards. Not my preference, but a local guy, gun dude, hung around watching. My draws were pretty much in the .80's. His comment was I had tension, looked jerky in my hand movement, and should try to be smooth as "that was faster." My view is the timer doesn't lie, and assuming the same accuracy for both, I would rather have a jerky/tenser .85 draw, than a smooth 1.10 draw.

I think the issue there is the time window. Take some footage and slow it down, how does it look then. I've done that about a year ago and found in real time a 1 second draw may look jerky, at half speed it looks smooth.

[Mr_White]

Maybe.

This past summer, out at our cabin, I was practicing draws to an 8 inch circle. at 7 yards. Not my preference, but a local guy, gun dude, hung around watching. My draws were pretty much in the .80's. His comment was I had tension, looked jerky in my hand movement, and should try to be smooth as "that was faster." My view is the timer doesn't lie, and assuming the same accuracy for both, I would rather have a jerky/tenser .85 draw, than a smooth 1.10 draw.

I have a pretty similar thing going on with my draw. I fumble it much more if I try to go slow and be smooth, because the motion is different than when I do it at full speed. When I draw at speed, it's explosive, I use some energy, I draw hard. There is what may appear to be excess motion. But put it on the timer and there isn't any question about what gets me a better result.

I don't know which one it was on, but Ben Stoeger commented in one of his podcasts that of the top level shooters in USPSA, some of them looked really smooth and effortless and others looked like they were jerky and explosive, but all had gotten to an objectively high level of skill. The point being that the way someone looks (smooth vs. jerky) wasn't a useful indicator of skill level or actual results.

[GardoneVT]

This phrase has always interested me since there are numerous martial arts which perform most practice at a slow speed (tai-chi and Aikido for example) so I would thing that there is some benefit to practicing at 1/2 speed or slower.


In my Karate dojo, we only work slowly when learning a new technique set or "kata". Once we've practiced the basics enough, we move on to sparring and faster execution, so that eventually we can perform the kata properly AND quickly. Personally , it all goes back to what Todd G said so long ago-we can't just have perfection of form OR high speed. To do "gun-kata" right , whatever you consider it to be , we need both at the same time. Without both, we're doing it wrong.

[Dagga Boy]

Funny how many of these guys I run into (all dressed out in head to toe camo) at the local 3-gun match.

Slow is slow. Fast is fast. Accurate is accurate, and a miss is a miss, whether you go fast or slow. Fumbling a reload is still fumbling whether you do it fast or slow.

I believe the phrase is applicable in that it basically communicates "Develop the fundamentals before worrying about speed. Then, speed them up." In this practice or application of the phrase, slow becomes smooth and smooth becomes fast.



and I believe this is also true and applicable to the article.

I did my own response to the article that will likely be unpopular as always. With that said.........I like the above.

[orionz06]

I did my own response to the article that will likely be unpopular as always. With that said.........I like the above.

Care to share said response?

[rob_s]

But the author explicitly made that point. Slow is to start learning the efficient method. But it does not equal fast.

Then why do we need an entire article about it?

[Dagga Boy]

Care to share said response?

"I guess it all depends what you are training for. Fast is Fast……..but at what? Fast at drills. That is good if you want to be fast at drills. What is the drill for? Should we shoot the same unevaluated skill test drill to the point of being “fast” at it, and thus we can now conquer any real world problem……except for the part where we mastered a non-real problem but are fast at a drill, yet not smooth at the process to get to the shoot part. Then we have those who are very good at solving problems and making decisions, yet do not have the skills to solve the problem. We have folks that suck at everything. We have folks who are amazingly efficient and smooth (watch a world class PPC shooter and they are very good at this), yet not particularly fast. Then you have some with amazingly fast twitch reflexes and mechanics that can run guns faster than they can think (and often display those skills while shooting a course or drill that was “pre thought” before the actual shooting part), which is an awesome skill set for some things.
In the world I live in, I like the idea of training to right. Right tactics, right target, right decision to shoot, right speed, right accuracy, right decision to stop, right decisions afterwards, right gun handling, etc. I have no real idea how to apply a defined speed, or smoothness, etc. to any of that as it is ever changing. So, I like the idea of balanced efficiency. Everybody and every situation will be a little different (or a lot different) at this. I think this is all way too complex for neat sayings."


Begin the "your just saying that because you are slow" in 3...2.....1.....go.

[Will_H]

This is interesting, since the first time I heard "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast" was in performance driving. Or was a reference to economy of motion. Like shooting, the stopwatch doesn't lie in racing. The meaning was to get the driver to slow down just a fraction and to focus more on solid technique than trying to wring out the lay fraction of a second, since sloppy technique costs more time than being smooth.

[JHC]

Maybe.

This past summer, out at our cabin, I was practicing draws to an 8 inch circle. at 7 yards. Not my preference, but a local guy, gun dude, hung around watching. My draws were pretty much in the .80's. His comment was I had tension, looked jerky in my hand movement, and should try to be smooth as "that was faster." My view is the timer doesn't lie, and assuming the same accuracy for both, I would rather have a jerky/tenser .85 draw, than a smooth 1.10 draw.

Did he run any on the timer? ;)

[Bigguy]

I haven't shot competitively yet, and certainly don't have the skills and experience to have a valid opinion. However, this thread reminds me of something Jim Scoutten said on an episode of SHOOTING USA. "You can't miss fast enough to win."

[orionz06]

I think this is all way too complex for neat sayings.

You were apprehensive but the response is awesome and should be here. The quoted portion is especially good.


Begin the "your just saying that because you are slow" in 3...2.....1.....go.

This... oh well. Slow is all relative to the goal. I think anyone who who would proclaim you are saying that because you are slow is projecting their personal goals onto you. Call them a moron and drive on.




I haven't shot competitively yet, and certainly don't have the skills and experience to have a valid opinion. However, this thread reminds me of something Jim Scoutten said on an episode of SHOOTING USA. "You can't miss fast enough to win."

Very stale cliche, IMHO.

[Mr_White]

projecting their personal goals onto you

Projection sure confounds a lot of discussions.

[JHC]

Then why do we need an entire article about it?

I'm guessing that he was put off my the LCD element he may have bumped into oooozing along at the smooth is fast pace after much training, no improvement. IDK. Just a guess. And I also guess the blog is not about what we need per se. Just their soap box.

[Tamara]

But the author explicitly made that point. Slow is to start learning the efficient method. But it does not equal fast.

I know for a fact that one can be slow and yet still as clumsy as Clouseau. :o

[PPGMD]

Begin the "your just saying that because you are slow" in 3...2.....1.....go.

That's because you're slow. :p

I will say that being able to shoot a gun fast doesn't inoculation to dealing with the stress of a shooting. That is what Force on Force training is for. But if you have solid skills particularly at speed it makes FoF a whole lot easier. Because even though your thinking is moving slow at first, you ability to get the gun out fast and put rounds on target can overcome that.

OTOH someone that crazy fast on the range, and then has the FoF training that he is able to make decisions quickly would be a scary gun fighter.

And though I agree that everyone should start slow, but as some point after you get the fundamentals down it is time to ratchet up the speed. But you need to understand that you need to dial it back from your max. When I took some training with Shannon at USA, he called it Demo Speed. ie The speed I/he would do a demo in front of students, fast enough that I am able to impress most people, but slow enough to get my fits (since only hits count).

Also you need to know when to dial the speed back. For example I can blow through a plate rack in three seconds or so. But at Bianchi I always try to shoot the close plate strings at 5-5.5 seconds to ensure that I get my hits.

[Clusterfrack]

Several months ago I took a competition class from Steve Anderson, and it really helped me think about about the fast vs. smooth vs. accurate issue. Anderson advocates setting separate training goals for increased speed (“speed mode”), increased accuracy (“accuracy mode”), or shot calling (“match mode”) but suggests not trying to improve more than one at the same time. This way we can measure the progress made in each mode.

[Tom Duffy]

How about the Wyatt Earp quote, "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything. In a gun fight... You need to take your time in a hurry."

[GJM]

I think most sport oriented, technical shooters have no business teaching tactics. I also think most tactical trainers have no business teaching technical shooting skills.

Just as real deal tactical guys would laugh at what a sport shooter would teach about tactics, what most tactical trainers put out there as best practice for technical shooting, is laughable.

Consider Ben Stoeger. When he started sport shooting, he made an analysis of what technical shooting skills were required, and set out to practice those skills at a high level. His initial IDPA classification was Master, and his initial USPSA classification was GM. All that happened with a relatively low number of rounds fired. That is the kind of person I would like to learn technical shooting skills from.

[Dagga Boy]

I think most sport oriented, technical shooters have no business teaching tactics. I also think most tactical trainers have no business teaching technical shooting skills.

Just as real deal tactical guys would laugh at what a sport shooter would teach about tactics, what most tactical trainers put out there as best practice for technical shooting, is laughable.

Consider Ben Stoeger. When he started sport shooting, he made an analysis of what technical shooting skills were required, and set out to practice those skills at a high level. His initial IDPA classification was Master, and his initial USPSA classification was GM. All that happened with a relatively low number of rounds fired. That is the kind of person I would like to learn technical shooting skills from.

Well, for a change we are in full agreement. I think what gets confusing for people is that the technical shooting skills needed for winning fights (including the court fight) is FAR different than what is need to win various competitions. There are some very essential fundamentals shared across the board, but once those are mastered, application becomes very different to excel in the chosen arena of specialization.

[ASH556]

So what do you say about a guy (for example) like Proctor? SF, so he has the tactics, but a USPSA GM so he has the technical as well. Or, if you prefer the LEO side vs Mil, Erik Lund.

[rob_s]

There are some very essential fundamentals shared across the board

the number of people that understand that this is true, let alone are even handshake-acquaintances with those fundamentals, is so staggeringly small that it's literally almost pointless to talk about anything else.

forums like this become an echo chamber and a self-licking ice cream cone over time. only the self-perceived high-level enthusiasts participate to begin with, and dissenting voices are shouted down over time, to the point that it's just a bunch of people sitting around nodding their heads at each other.

It's the internet equivalent of Gunsite.

[GJM]

So what do you say about a guy (for example) like Proctor? SF, so he has the tactics, but a USPSA GM so he has the technical as well. Or, if you prefer the LEO side vs Mil, Erik Lund.

I say Frank Proctor is on my short list of people to train with.

Conventional wisdom is you can be a gamer, or a timmie, but not both. I am very interested to see how Frank navigates between technical shooting and tactics.

[orionz06]

I say Frank Proctor is on my short list of people to train with.

Conventional wisdom is you can be a gamer, or a timmie, but not both. I am very interested to see how Frank navigates between technical shooting and tactics.

I'm pretty much over conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom also tells us to help each other by chanting front sight as someone else is shooting and they will get better.

[rob_s]

I say Frank Proctor is on my short list of people to train with.

Conventional wisdom is you can be a gamer, or a timmie, but not both. I am very interested to see how Frank navigates between technical shooting and tactics.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. He applies the fundamentals,that are applicable to the situation, in the best way possible.

But I bet what you'll find is that even he doesn't know. My guess is that he falls more into the rarified air of the Miculek,/Butler/Stoeger group of people that simply possesses the correct natural abilities to excel at shooting gun games.

I'm way more interested in learning from normal people, that face the same challenges I do or, failing that, at least someone who has had training or schooling in how to teach people, and by that I do not mean the military method.

[NETim]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. He applies the fundamentals,that are applicable to the situation, in the best way possible.

But I bet what you'll find is that even he doesn't know. My guess is that he falls more into the rarified air of the Miculek,/Butler/Stoeger group of people that simply possesses the correct natural abilities to excel at shooting gun games.

I'm way more interested in learning from normal people, that face the same challenges I do or, failing that, at least someone who has had training or schooling in how to teach people, and by that I do not mean the military method.

TLG and Vogel I don't consider "normal" shooters but I learned a great deal from both of them in their classes.

[JHC]

I didn't appreciate just what an athlete Vogel was fully; until last week seeing a video shot in a hotel lobby of him clowning around with a celeb female competitive shooter.

They each went into a handstand and then raced down the long lobby walking with their arms! Vogel won by a mile but both were quite impressive.

[NETim]

I didn't appreciate just what an athlete Vogel was fully; until last week seeing a video shot in a hotel lobby of him clowning around with a celeb female competitive shooter.

They each went into a handstand and then raced down the long lobby walking with their arms! Vogel won by a mile but both were quite impressive.

Vogel stood up next to a benchrest table and jumped up on top of it in my class. Yes, I'd say the man is an athlete.

[imp1295]

The saying is obviously interpreted differently by man. But, my old Ranger Regt vet SGM used it all the time and I think we all understood it to mean: When you are having issues with performance, slow down, get the CNS understanding how to do it right to build unconscious competence.

But, many here already know that. I have been working my way back through Todd's SACS Warren 1911 test and ran across this again

Along very similar lines, my endless battle with reloads got a boost from the same “slow down and do it right to be faster” approach. In particular, I’ve found that taking the time to get a solid visual lock on the front corner of the magazine well during my reload and slowing down the insertion to a speed where I can guarantee a smooth single motion has greatly reduced the number of fumbled reloads I’m causing. The long term goal, obviously, is to build up enough reps that neither the visual index nor the moderated pace are necessary. But for now, while my best reloads are a tenth of a second or so slower, my average reload is a quarter second faster.

So, I guess even at an elevated level of mastery slowing down can speed you up.

[rob_s]

TLG and Vogel I don't consider "normal" shooters but I learned a great deal from both of them in their classes.

I'm not saying there isn't something to be learned, I'm saying that thinking they can teach you to be exactly like them is probably misguided.

[ASH556]

I'm not saying there isn't something to be learned, I'm saying that thinking they can teach you to be exactly like them is probably misguided.

That's true regardless of the instructor. There's a guy that's been coming in our range for probably 6 or 7 years now. He owns several Kimber 1911's and probably shoots 500+ rounds a week. He also heads up the pin shoot. When he's not shooting pins, he's practicing pins by shooting a set of 5 2" bullseyes spread left to right. He's paid for at least one pistol instruction class and I've helped him out ad hoc when he's asked for it. Despite the number of rounds he fires and despite "knowing" what to do, he still struggles a lot to execute. The battle is in his own head and nobody else can win it for him.

[Clobbersaurus]

I say Frank Proctor is on my short list of people to train with.

Conventional wisdom is you can be a gamer, or a timmie, but not both. I am very interested to see how Frank navigates between technical shooting and tactics.

Ernest Langdon does a very good job with both. I really hope I get the opportunity to take his advanced pistol course.

[Surf]

I have no issue with the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" mantra when explained with the correct context of what we are trying to achieve. I personally do not use it, but I rather use the word "deliberate" along the lines of "Correct and deliberate execution with repetition leads to high degrees of proficiency even as speeds increase." I do have a method of training which includes speeds that go from very deliberate with 100% execution, all the way up to the point where the "wheels fall off". Of course there is an "optimal" training range where I use a ballooning effect to continually induce improvement.

As for the whole competition thing, I have no ratings and do not compete in "official or sanctioned" events but I commonly shoot typical "competition" types of courses of fire on a regular basis, even with a couple of the top guys in this state that I frequently have access to. I will note that I have ZERO problems identifying between a sport and defensive or combat shooting. I have been a competitive athlete all my life and I understand what a recreational or competitive "game" is all about and I will attempt to win that "game" utilizing any equipment or techniques allowed within the rules.

On the flip side I have been teaching advanced defensive, combat, tactical or whatever you want to call it shooting courses within Local, State, Federal LE and Military for about 15 years. In general you don't get into my courses without having an experienced background, solid skill sets and were hand picked by your agency / organization to attend. My program is extremely successful and I use a lot of take offs from the competition world and infused it into a combative shooting program. When I am done with my students they are downright scary to face off with and it wouldn't matter if it was on a weekend IDPA match or a real life critical incident. Is this the norm? No, but with time, resources, a skilled instructor who understands and is highly skilled in both shooting genre's and it is not hard to accomplish it. The problem being is that you don't have a lot of high level instructors who are truly in the drivers seat when it comes to both competitive and combative shooting.

[Dagga Boy]

Surf, if there was a like button, that would get me pressing it.

Earlier someone mentioned "Demo Speed". That is a good analogy to what we are often after. As instructors, when we demo a drill, we usually do not demo at wheels off the bus speed. We tend to demo at a speed and process where we are using proper application of all skills and at a speed where we can guarantee textbook hits so we don't have to explain why we screwed up. I always looked at this as the goal for street work. As fast as you can guarantee work and solid execution. Demo stuff tends to be efficient all the way around, and that is the goal. We will also demo at full speed just to show students how much room for error or how easily a small error can cause a big issue.

[Mr_White]

Surf, if there was a like button, that would get me pressing it.

Earlier someone mentioned "Demo Speed". That is a good analogy to what we are often after. As instructors, when we demo a drill, we usually do not demo at wheels off the bus speed. We tend to demo at a speed and process where we are using proper application of all skills and at a speed where we can guarantee textbook hits so we don't have to explain why we screwed up. I always looked at this as the goal for street work. As fast as you can guarantee work and solid execution. Demo stuff tends to be efficient all the way around, and that is the goal. We will also demo at full speed just to show students how much room for error or how easily a small error can cause a big issue.

You know I'm pretty much on the same page about demos - error-free execution, but I also demo a range of performance that sometimes includes pushing it. But that's not the primary demo mode.

The words you and others are using to describe 'demo speed', and that's pretty much the manner I think of demo speed also, pretty well matches all the definitions of 'match speed' that I've ever heard from a good authority. Match speed and demo speed are the same thing in my view (people also Do It The Wrong Way sometimes.)

[JHC]

Surf, if there was a like button, that would get me pressing it.

Earlier someone mentioned "Demo Speed". That is a good analogy to what we are often after. As instructors, when we demo a drill, we usually do not demo at wheels off the bus speed. We tend to demo at a speed and process where we are using proper application of all skills and at a speed where we can guarantee textbook hits so we don't have to explain why we screwed up. I always looked at this as the goal for street work. As fast as you can guarantee work and solid execution. Demo stuff tends to be efficient all the way around, and that is the goal. We will also demo at full speed just to show students how much room for error or how easily a small error can cause a big issue.

My sense from reading around is that Pat Mac also is an advocate of a fast (individually dependent) speed with which you can guarantee precision for accountability of the gravest kind.

[Dagga Boy]

My sense from reading around is that Pat Mac also is an advocate of a fast (individually dependent) speed with which you can guarantee precision for accountability of the gravest kind.

The best thing I took away from Pat. I was actually shooting one of his drills significantly "faster" than Pat chasing a "number". The difference was when I was shooting at a similar speed to Pat, I did not have to ask the spotters if I got my hits (anything outside A zone was a miss). When I started running significantly faster chasing better times I found that I was turning to the spotters asking "were they all in"? They were, BUT I didn't REALLY know for sure they were. I was feeling all high speed low drag about my times, until I watched Pat run it slower, and then just turn around and walk off the line without saying a word, because he knew he got all his hits and didn't have to ask anyone. His time mirrored my initial runs when I was "fast", but was really focused on ensuring that every shot was where it should be. At that speed we were both "smooth" "efficient", and accurate. When I got "faster", I was not as smooth (on my fastest time I actually double clutched the trigger (LEM) on one of the shots) and likely looked like monkey on crack. This totally reinforced my going back to "paced" time where I know for sure that I can put a round in a fist at that speed........even if it is slow by somebody else's idea of what fast is.

[LHS]

I fall into the "great adage that's been hijacked by tards" camp on this. When I was learning to shoot, I didn't realize the caliber of people I was learning from. All my teenage self knew was that I was DFL (dead f*cking last) on every drill against dudes in their 30s and 40s with beer guts, so I pushed harder and harder to catch up and go as fast as they did. And they all kept telling me to slow down and get my hits, and speed would come as I got my technique straight. Being young and dumb, I ignored them and kept pushing speed speed speed. Eventually I wised up, slowed down, got my hits, learned the technique correctly, and found that I was then able to speed back up and still get my hits. And it took Dad and Hackathorn both telling me "Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast."

I still use that mantra when learning a new technique. I analyze it, explore it, feel out the way to do it, and get it right at half speed before trying to knock the wheels off. You'll never get fast by continually going slow, but at the same time, you'll never be as fast without learning the technique correctly, which generally doesn't happen when you only go balls-to-the-wall.

[MDS]

Reading this thread, it occurs to me that the problem with the saying is that it's very static and point-in-time, whereas it tries to capture a very dynamic and ongoing phenomenon. Slow/careful practice leads to smooth/correct execution, and smooth/correct execution remains effective at speed.

If you're willing to sacrifice effective hits in order to go faster, this saying isn't for you. But if you want to increase the speed at which your hits are still effective, take note: accuracy drops with speed because technique breaks down with speed. To the extent you ingrain the smooth/correct technique so that it doesn't break down with speed, your accuracy won't drop with speed, either. As to how best ingrain technique, there are various approaches, but they all agree that doing nothing but amraps right from the start is not ideal.

At least, that's my take.

And then there's the whole difficult truth that nyeti harps about: be very careful because in a critical incident the thing that will limit your effective shooting speed is your ability to make good decisions. (For most of us, anyway. For myself, certainly.) If you go into a shooting situation thinking that your shooting speed is the limiting factor, you're liable to shoot amrap before you've had time to make good decisions. A bad day can quickly get worse.

(But nyeti only says that because he's so slow.)

[GJM]

The best thing I took away from Pat. I was actually shooting one of his drills significantly "faster" than Pat chasing a "number". The difference was when I was shooting at a similar speed to Pat, I did not have to ask the spotters if I got my hits (anything outside A zone was a miss). When I started running significantly faster chasing better times I found that I was turning to the spotters asking "were they all in"? They were, BUT I didn't REALLY know for sure they were. I was feeling all high speed low drag about my times, until I watched Pat run it slower, and then just turn around and walk off the line without saying a word, because he knew he got all his hits and didn't have to ask anyone. His time mirrored my initial runs when I was "fast", but was really focused on ensuring that every shot was where it should be. At that speed we were both "smooth" "efficient", and accurate. When I got "faster", I was not as smooth (on my fastest time I actually double clutched the trigger (LEM) on one of the shots) and likely looked like monkey on crack. This totally reinforced my going back to "paced" time where I know for sure that I can put a round in a fist at that speed........even if it is slow by somebody else's idea of what fast is.

Darryl, I think you are confusing fast, smooth and pace.

The reason Mac knew whether he was making his hits wasn't his speed, smoothness or pace, but rather he was using the basic sport technique of shot calling. Without shot calling, it is hard to run around, shooting in and out of position, sometimes on the move, know what shots you need to make up real time as you are shooting, and after 40 shots on a stage, know with a high degree of certainty where your shots hit.

Going to a "paced" time doesn't guarantee anything beyond shooting that pace. I think shooting "fast" or "slow" doesn't cut it. I think you need to align the sights, press the trigger in a way necessary for the difficulty of the shot, and call the shot as you make it. You might consider poking around on Enos, and read some on shot calling for a more in depth explanation.

[GJM]

I have no issue with the "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" mantra when explained with the correct context of what we are trying to achieve. I personally do not use it, but I rather use the word "deliberate" along the lines of "Correct and deliberate execution with repetition leads to high degrees of proficiency even as speeds increase." I do have a method of training which includes speeds that go from very deliberate with 100% execution, all the way up to the point where the "wheels fall off". Of course there is an "optimal" training range where I use a ballooning effect to continually induce improvement.

As for the whole competition thing, I have no ratings and do not compete in "official or sanctioned" events but I commonly shoot typical "competition" types of courses of fire on a regular basis, even with a couple of the top guys in this state that I frequently have access to. I will note that I have ZERO problems identifying between a sport and defensive or combat shooting. I have been a competitive athlete all my life and I understand what a recreational or competitive "game" is all about and I will attempt to win that "game" utilizing any equipment or techniques allowed within the rules.

On the flip side I have been teaching advanced defensive, combat, tactical or whatever you want to call it shooting courses within Local, State, Federal LE and Military for about 15 years. In general you don't get into my courses without having an experienced background, solid skill sets and were hand picked by your agency / organization to attend. My program is extremely successful and I use a lot of take offs from the competition world and infused it into a combative shooting program. When I am done with my students they are downright scary to face off with and it wouldn't matter if it was on a weekend IDPA match or a real life critical incident. Is this the norm? No, but with time, resources, a skilled instructor who understands and is highly skilled in both shooting genre's and it is not hard to accomplish it. The problem being is that you don't have a lot of high level instructors who are truly in the drivers seat when it comes to both competitive and combative shooting.

Surf, I am really surprised you don't compete in USPSA. Reading your posts, you seem to absolutely be immersed in the details of technical shooting, and I can't think of a more efficient way to vet techniques, and get brutally honest feedback then shooting courses of fire designed by others, against others in formal competition.

[GJM]

Going to a "paced" time doesn't guarantee anything beyond shooting that pace. I think shooting "fast" or "slow" doesn't cut it. I think you need to align the sights, press the trigger in a way necessary for the difficulty of the shot, and call the shot as you make it. You might consider poking around on Enos, and read some on shot calling for a more in depth explanation.

Attempting to edit my post above. What I meant to say:

I think you need to align the sights, press the trigger in a way necessary for the difficulty of the shot, and call the shot as you make it, without regard to fast, slow, pace or anything beyond seeing what you need to see, and pressing the trigger as you need to press, for the difficulty of the shot.

And, the "you," isn't aimed at you personally, Darryl, but at all of us.

[PPGMD]

Ok lets clear something up, when someone says that you go at the speed that you get the occasional miss, in almost every case (at least among people I would listen to) they are saying missing the desired hit area. Whether that is a 8" or 4" circle, USPSA A zone, or an upper thoracic cavity on a more realistic target. They aren't saying missing the entire target, that miss is still a descent hit, it's just outside whatever zone you are training yourself to hit.

And yeah I am willing to sacrifice the occasional hit (particularly on longer distances) to go faster. I am not purposely doing it, but yeah it occasionally happens.

[JHC]

Attempting to edit my post above. What I meant to say:

I think you need to align the sights, press the trigger in a way necessary for the difficulty of the shot, and call the shot as you make it, without regard to fast, slow, pace or anything beyond seeing what you need to see, and pressing the trigger as you need to press, for the difficulty of the shot.

And, the "you," isn't aimed at you personally, Darryl, but at all of us.

My understanding is that is what he was getting when he ran at Pat's pace vs his prior "burner" pace. Pace was not a "Par" time but just a different . . . well, pace.

I think the bolded describes pretty well what I've seen Pat's teachings to be; plus virtual certainty that you can deliver that shot, every shot with precision. I think he applies it to all the gunhandling including draws, reloads, everything.

[BLR]

Never mind.

[jetfire]

Saying slow is smooth and smooth is fast is a lot easier than saying "go slow to ensure perfect practice reps and economy of motions, then build on that foundation by adding speed until you're no longer using good economy of motion, dial it back, then start building again."

But if your audience is too stupid to understand the latter concept, using the shorthand phrase probably isn't a great idea.

[orionz06]

Let's be honest... The audience is generally dumb as all hell.

[John Hearne]

The often forgotten factor is this is that these improvements take time. You are literally rewiring your brain and making physiological changes at a neurological level. I think the importance of the saying is that it reminds people to take their time when going through these processes.

[Mr_White]

align the sights, press the trigger in a way necessary for the difficulty of the shot, and call the shot as you make it, without regard to fast, slow, pace or anything beyond seeing what you need to see, and pressing the trigger as you need to press, for the difficulty of the shot.

This is the right way.

The difference can be subtle sometimes, but it is a enormous improvement to think the way described above, instead of any variety of speed-focusing.

Make no mistake, attempting to 'go slow', 'slow down', etc., is just as much a form of speed-focusing as is trying to 'go fast' or 'speed up.'


Ok lets clear something up, when someone says that you go at the speed that you get the occasional miss, in almost every case (at least among people I would listen to) they are saying missing the desired hit area. Whether that is a 8" or 4" circle, USPSA A zone, or an upper thoracic cavity on a more realistic target. They aren't saying missing the entire target, that miss is still a descent hit, it's just outside whatever zone you are training yourself to hit.

Thanks for pointing that out. That's also an important point in the discussion and one that has been the crux of some disagreement here before.

[PPGMD]

Saying slow is smooth and smooth is fast is a lot easier than saying "go slow to ensure perfect practice reps and economy of motions, then build on that foundation by adding speed until you're no longer using good economy of motion, dial it back, then start building again."

But if your audience is too stupid to understand the latter concept, using the shorthand phrase probably isn't a great idea.

I agree it certainly has it's place. But the student needs to understand that core concept of it first, and then you remind them using the shorter phrase.

And they also need to understand that slow isn't fast, that you eventually have to push that speed to get things fast.

[psalms144.1]

I'm so far out of my league on this, I'm hesitant to even start to chime in, but, God hates a coward, so, here's my $.02:

WRT the saying, OF COURSE it's logcially false. It's a saying/mantra to try to get spastic shooters to slow down, calm down, and focus on fundamentals. It's not a a statement of fact, it's a coaching tool to try to get people to un-vaporlock on the line. Are there better ways to say it? I'm sure, but I know I'm not going to waste any precious time or brain power to figure one out.

On the topic of what a "miss" is, I respectfully disagree - FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. I ROUTINELY watch folks drop rounds COMPLETELY off silhouette (Transtar III) at ranges as close as 7 yards (usually on the WHO shooting string of our qualification). At 25 yards, it's not uncommon to see 3-6 rounds off silhouette out of 12 rounds. And, NONE of the timelines in our qualification are "stressful" at all.

So, while there are some folks who are OK with occasionally dropping a round out of the A-Zone to reach a new speed target, my (unfortunate) reality is one where the single most important thing I can do to make better shooters out of my "students" (co-workers) is get them to slow the kitten down and TRY to get hits.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Regards,

Kevin

[Trooper224]

Personally, I hate catch phrases of any kind and this one's no exception. The same applies to acronyms, something that's a cancer in the errornet tactical timmie community. Some things shouldn't be dumbed down, language is one of them.

[JHC]

It's a saying/mantra to try to get spastic shooters to slow down, calm down, and focus on fundamentals. It's not a a statement of fact, it's a coaching tool to try to get people to un-vaporlock on the line. Are there better ways to say it? I'm sure, but I know I'm not going to waste any precious time or brain power to figure one out.


Kevin

Ha! I'd say your intrepidness paid off. +1

[Jay Cunningham]

WRT the saying, OF COURSE it's logcially false. It's a saying/mantra to try to get spastic shooters to slow down, calm down, and focus on fundamentals. It's not a a statement of fact, it's a coaching tool to try to get people to un-vaporlock on the line. Are there better ways to say it? I'm sure, but I know I'm not going to waste any precious time or brain power to figure one out.

I think you hit it on the head pretty well. I've personally had to use this kind of coaching for reloads and malfunction clearance quite a bit - people tend to get spastic and that just leads to bad results.

[Clusterfrack]

...Some things shouldn't be dumbed down, language is one of them.

Some people can't help it.

[Failure2Stop]

I think you hit it on the head pretty well. I've personally had to use this kind of coaching for reloads and malfunction clearance quite a bit - people tend to get spastic and that just leads to bad results.
Not being spastic or stupid is fast?

[Jay Cunningham]

Not being spastic or stupid is fast?

It tends to be faster than going catatonic or dropping stuff.

Some people need and respond well to this kind of coaching, but others either don't need it or it's an ineffective suggestion for their brain. Shocking, I know.

[Failure2Stop]

It tends to be faster than going catatonic or dropping stuff.

Some people need and respond well to this kind of coaching, but others either don't need it or it's an ineffective suggestion for their brain. Shocking, I know.

Sorry, didn't really mean that to be direct question; more of a simplified, more accurate statement than the original.

[Jay Cunningham]

Sorry, didn't really mean that to be direct question; more of a simplified, more accurate statement than the original.

"Not being spastic or stupid is fast."

Works for me!

[BWT]

I think the idea is; you'll become faster once you've learned a skill/reflex and practiced the skill. Start by slow and deliberate execution understanding what you're doing while you do it. The idea is it will become second nature and speed will come with time.

Which, I think is good to do with something new and I do believe reflexes are good to develop. Reality is we must push the envelope on speed to obtain speed. I think how in some drills; such as speed drills. Todd teaches to shoot to the point of failure and then backup or stop there; then keep trying until better results are reached and refined.

I think that is sound but to surpass old limits you must first find them. Which means getting out of your comfort zone. Second, you must keep pushing for improvement; which means failure, change, adapting, and progressing.

I think where you go wrong is staying in your comfort zone; where you know you can always do what is expected even in practice.

That may be good to maintain skills but it doesn't improve them.

Gotta take off the training wheels sometime and start scraping knees.

[Trooper224]

When I was instructing in another discipline one of my oft repeated mantras was, "First we do it right, then we do it fast." I never thought that was too hard to figure out.

[Surf]

Surf, I am really surprised you don't compete in USPSA. Reading your posts, you seem to absolutely be immersed in the details of technical shooting, and I can't think of a more efficient way to vet techniques, and get brutally honest feedback then shooting courses of fire designed by others, against others in formal competition.I would love to compete and plan to do so when I retire, which might be within the next year. Right now I am on a range 3-5 days per week and I do a lot of shooting and get more than my fill. Locally IPSC is the main player and USPSA is next and no IDPA. All matches are on weekends only. Overall local participation is often hampered by facility / range space. With a 10 and 8 year old, coaching and all family activities take precedence on weekends at this time in life. I cannot justify spending an entire day at a local match and shooting for maybe 10 mins total. The juice is not worth the squeeze so to speak. At least not right now. I do shoot head to head with some of the best in the State, former State Champions, through many stages often set up and used in their weekend matches and I have shot all of the qualifiers. It is a great way to do exactly what you mention, kind of a classroom / test lab situation. It also gives me a fairly good idea where I might stand if / when I do decide to compete.

I should add that I used to shoot shotgun competitive as a kid and into my teens so I am not unfamiliar with actual shooting sports competition. Which may have lent to my being open minded to infusing things learned from the competition world into combative shooting.

I do also come from a formal or ongoing educational background in science and made a radical change when I entered my current field, so indeed I analyze down to the smallest details. Been accused of going overboard with it, especially by those within my current peer group. Fortunately my results as a shooter and trainer has been favorable and I am given the freedom to take the program in the direction of my choosing. I take a very calculated approach and do not implement anything without it having gone through the wringer, twice. There is no margin for error as far as I am concerned and the responsibility that I am entrusted with is given my full attention and scrutiny.

[KevinB]

The only place I find relevance for the term is team-based enclosure clearing with regard to movement.

I abhor its utterance with regard to firearms unless properly explained to a degree that pretty much makes the original sentence irrelevant.

Bingo...

Jack nailed it initially - the whole concept came out of team based movement in a CQB stack.

If #1 is a rabbit and #2 a turtle and the whole stack gets jacked to hell, it is not smooth or effective. When the team moves slowly and smoothly (and slow is relative) then its fast - as the corners gets taken, and your dominate a structure faster than if a bunch of drunken clowns bolted thru it.

It was never meant to relate to individual skills -- where you drives as fast as you can without outrunning your headlights.

[ToddG]

I hate this saying with a passion.


Several months ago I took a competition class from Steve Anderson, and it really helped me think about about the fast vs. smooth vs. accurate issue. Anderson advocates setting separate training goals for increased speed (“speed mode”), increased accuracy (“accuracy mode”), or shot calling (“match mode”) but suggests not trying to improve more than one at the same time. This way we can measure the progress made in each mode.

Without having taken a class from him and based solely on the above description I'd say I agree partly. I think there are times when focussing on accuracy over speed is necessary to improve overall marksmanship. I think there are times when focussing on speed over accuracy is necessary to improve overall speed. And I think there are times when focussing on a specific technique such as reloads is important to improve that specific technique. You can't simply make every single drill about every single element of shooting fast & accurately. But at the same time, eventually you do need to put it all together. Being able to shoot really slowly but accurately and being able to shoot really fast but inaccurately isn't just magically going to merge into "fast and accurate."


This is interesting, since the first time I heard "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast" was in performance driving. Or was a reference to economy of motion. Like shooting, the stopwatch doesn't lie in racing. The meaning was to get the driver to slow down just a fraction and to focus more on solid technique than trying to wring out the lay fraction of a second, since sloppy technique costs more time than being smooth.

It's the "just a fraction" part that I find really helpful in your explanation. Too many instructors use the "smooth is fast" line as an excuse to teach people smoothness and never get them to being fast. At the end of the day, you won't get fast unless you start going faster. Given my limited driving/racing instruction I think it applies the same way. You could go around a track perfectly at 10mph but you won't ever reach a point where you'll learn just when and just how hard to brake before Turn 3 at 10mph. Eventually, you have to start pushing to see where it needs to happen.


Jack nailed it initially - the whole concept came out of team based movement in a CQB stack.

Google festina lente. The saying has essentially been around since man learned to write. I can absolutely see its relevance to group CBQ -- which is utterly and completely out of my lane -- but that's not where the phrase comes from even just from a shooting perspective.

I'm similarly reminded of something Mike Orock used to have as his signature line:

Deja vu DVC: In archery we have three goals; to shoot accurately, to shoot powerfully, to shoot rapidly.
- De Re Strategica of Syrianus Magister

That's from the ninth century. :cool:

At the end of the day I think it takes so much time to explain what the saying means that it is more hindrance than help. It's easily confused and easily misused by instructors who automatically assume that a miss is always caused by too much speed and a hit is always caused by adequately slowing down... something any decent instructor should know is fundamentally untrue.

Speed is a spectrum just like accuracy is. Do you need 1" @ 50yd accuracy for most pistol activity whether it be fighting or playing or plinking? No. Do you need 0.15 splits for most pistol activity? Also no. Would we all like to make 0.15 splits hitting 1" @ 50yd? Very yes. :cool:

[ford.304]

It makes more sense to me in performance driving. You can only go around a curve so fast. What matters for your overall time is coming *out* of that curve under control, so you can hit the gas hard and go fast again. The rule of driving is to go just slowly enough on the slow parts to go faster on the fast parts. In that case, it is a hard and fast rule - if you hit the corner too fast, you *will* be slower overall. The mindset is that you can never gain time - you can only lose it.

I think that's what it's really trying to say with regard to shooting... but there aren't as clearly defined "fast" and "slow" parts. To me it means a "slow part" would be "make sure you have a good grip" or "make sure your gun doesn't have to go above the target and come back down on your draw," or "see your target and your sights." All of these things require you to slow down from the fastest you could be doing the actions in order to reduce your extra movement and be in a good position to hammer on the fast parts.

If you hit the corner too fast, everything else will be slow. If you draw the gun faster than you can actually acquire a proper grip and see your sights, everything else will be slow.

It was never supposed to have meant "go slowly all the time."

[Shawn Dodson]

I believe the correct phrase is, "Fast is slow, slow is smooth, smooth is quick."

I recall reading an article years ago regarding Boyd's OODA Loop that explained the difference between "being fast" as opposed to "being quick". Unfortunately I can't recall what the difference is.

[Failure2Stop]

I don't think that anyone is arguing against the advice to build speed by first learning efficient action and then accelerating that efficient action, or that an efficiently executed action is faster, relatively, than a jerky, fouled action.
It doesn't matter if you are discussing performance driving, enclosure clearing, drawing a pistol, or washing dishes.

My problem is with the phrase itself with regard to being "fast" in a competitive field.

Bring back the performance driving; if a turn and the course after a turn can support taking the turn at 60 MPH, continually "smoothly" taking the turn at 35 MPH is not going to put you in first place unless everyone else in the field either went too fast and wound up in the wall, or are going slower than you. The goal, in my mind, is to learn how fast you can go and ensure success. You don't get there without learning where the wheels come off. To go fast with success, you need to go faster.

One can merrily execute an inefficient motion slowly, never knowing that the action is inefficient. "Smoothness" is more related to comfortable habit than actual physical efficiency. People tend to do under stress exactly what they habitually do, and deviating from the comfort zone tend to lead to inefficient, jerky, and sub-optimal actions.
This is not news.

I do want to point out that interpersonal conflict with kinetic weapons is a competitive event (before anyone gets fixated on that), in which there is generally not a second place award.

[Failure2Stop]

It makes more sense to me in performance driving. You can only go around a curve so fast. What matters for your overall time is coming *out* of that curve under control, so you can hit the gas hard and go fast again. The rule of driving is to go just slowly enough on the slow parts to go faster on the fast parts. In that case, it is a hard and fast rule - if you hit the corner too fast, you *will* be slower overall. The mindset is that you can never gain time - you can only lose it.

I think that's what it's really trying to say with regard to shooting... but there aren't as clearly defined "fast" and "slow" parts. To me it means a "slow part" would be "make sure you have a good grip" or "make sure your gun doesn't have to go above the target and come back down on your draw," or "see your target and your sights." All of these things require you to slow down from the fastest you could be doing the actions in order to reduce your extra movement and be in a good position to hammer on the fast parts.

If you hit the corner too fast, everything else will be slow. If you draw the gun faster than you can actually acquire a proper grip and see your sights, everything else will be slow.

It was never supposed to have meant "go slowly all the time."

I prefer to break it down into "be fast" and "be sure" moments, as in: be fast to the gun, be sure of the grip, be fast to get the gun out of the holster, be sure of your sights. When it's time to be fast, nothing else will do, but only if the right things happened first.

[ToddG]

I do want to point out that interpersonal conflict with kinetic weapons is a competitive event (before anyone gets fixated on that), in which there is generally not a second place award.

So awesome.

[John Hearne]

"A shooting match is not a gunfight. But, every gunfight is a shooting match." - Massad Ayoob

[dbateman]

Meh the first time I heard the saying was in relation to driving, I like the saying but I do think most people don't understand it.

[PPGMD]

I believe the correct phrase is, "Fast is slow, slow is smooth, smooth is quick."

That suffers from the same problem.

fast = slow
slow = smooth
smooth = quick

Thus fast = slow = smooth = quick

Which also means
fast = slow - WTF?!?!
slow = quick - another WTF?!?!

At it's core there is nothing wrong with the statements, as it represents an idea that is sound. But people take it too literally, and assume all you need is to be smooth while being slow and suddenly you are fast.

[Shawn Dodson]

It seems many have missed the point I was making - according to Boyd there is a critical difference between "being quick" and "being fast". What it is I can't remember nor can I find the article he or one of his acolytes wrote that explains the difference.

On a different note, I recall hearing about police officers who, when engaged in a gunfight, clearly "heard" the voice of their firearms instructor telling them to slow down and focus on the sights. Once these officers slowed down they got good hits on their assailants that ended the fight.

"Doing it right the first time takes time. Doing it over again takes longer." -- unknown

"Haste makes waste." -- unknown

"More haste, less speed" -- unknown

[PPGMD]

I disagree, you are missing the point. I and most others have no problem with the core concept, I have an issue with the people that take the phrase literally.

[ToddG]

It seems many have missed the point I was making - according to Boyd there is a critical difference between "being quick" and "being fast". What it is I can't remember nor can I find the article he or one of his acolytes wrote that explains the difference.

Respectfully, if you can neither explain nor remember the difference, it's not much use in the discussion. "Someone said there's a difference" doesn't really advance the goal posts.


I disagree, you are missing the point. I and most others have no problem with the core concept, I have an issue with the people that take the phrase literally.

Especially instructors. Especially lazy instructors who use it as an excuse to reward mediocrity.

[rob_s]

I disagree, you are missing the point. I and most others have no problem with the core concept, I have an issue with the people that take the phrase literally.

Which is a pretty big assumption, that folks are taking it literally.

[ToddG]

Which is a pretty big assumption, that folks are taking it literally.

Plenty of people are, and plenty of people on this forum have been on the range or in the chow hall after a class listening to people -- including instructors -- describing it in very literal terms. My first serious instructor would frequently tell us that the smoother we got the faster we'd get. There was never any discussion about actually pushing speed for the sake of being faster. "Get smooth and the speed will come all by itself." I loved the guy and still respect him greatly but on that point he was 180 out.

[orionz06]

I've heard it meant literally from no less than 3 instructors.

[dbateman]

I disagree, you are missing the point. I and most others have no problem with the core concept, I have an issue with the people that take the phrase literally.

Like most things people over complicate it.

[Failure2Stop]

Like most things people over complicate it.
I disagree.
They under-detail it, or they truly believe it literally.

[rob_s]

Plenty of people are, and plenty of people on this forum have been on the range or in the chow hall after a class listening to people -- including instructors -- describing it in very literal terms. My first serious instructor would frequently tell us that the smoother we got the faster we'd get. There was never any discussion about actually pushing speed for the sake of being faster. "Get smooth and the speed will come all by itself." I loved the guy and still respect him greatly but on that point he was 180 out.


I've heard it meant literally from no less than 3 instructors.

I guess I've been lucky. I stopped counting numbers of instructors, or hours, or rounds, in classes but I've had more than a few and I can't recall ever having heard anyone utter, or absorb, the concept at hand literally. I have certainly heard people say "speed will come" but never that it will just magically happen because:smooth.

[ToddG]

Lucky or very astute in your choice of instructors, as the testimonials in this thread prove.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[nwhpfan]

Smooth is faster than....

Missing the mag button, fumbling with the magazine, or trying to insert it at the wrong angle...

Who hasn't seen a shooter all pumped up ready to go so fast - they jack it all up.

Tension, anxiety, etc.. lead to mistakes. Mistakes cost time

Eliminate the tension.

I was glad to read Steve Anderson referenced in this thread. I generally don't go to classes but I did take one from him this year. Performance in general is a big part of what he teaches. He dos teach eliminating tension, anxiety; etc. is a necessary to be fast. As is simply moving your body parts fast, being effecient with movement. That has been my experiece as well.

[Tamara]

I was glad to read Steve Anderson referenced in this thread. I generally don't go to classes but I did take one from him this year. Performance in general is a big part of what he teaches. He dos teach eliminating tension, anxiety; etc. is a necessary to be fast. As is simply moving your body parts fast, being effecient with movement. That has been my experiece as well.

So, what you're saying is that while smooth isn't necessarily fast, fast pretty much has to be smooth?

[nwhpfan]

So, what you're saying is that while smooth isn't necessarily fast, fast pretty much has to be smooth?

Smooth is absent mistakes. Fixing/adjusting to mistakes costs time.

To be fast you have to move fast. Moving fast without making mistakes is even faster.

[jetfire]

How do we have 11 pages on this topic.

"You have to go faster to get faster and wasted motion is dumb."

[Wondering Beard]

Because we are all exceedingly intelligent people who provide nuance.

...

Or we just like to nit pick and talk.

[Lomshek]

Or we just like to nit pick and talk.

And then there's that!

[98z28]

I prefer to break it down into "be fast" and "be sure" moments, as in: be fast to the gun, be sure of the grip, be fast to get the gun out of the holster, be sure of your sights. When it's time to be fast, nothing else will do, but only if the right things happened first.

I like this. Great way to break it down.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[dbateman]

I disagree.
They under-detail it, or they truly believe it literally.

To be honest I have never really heard the saying used in shooting/gun handling training.

The first time I heard it was in relation to driving, it was explained to me as slow is smooth smooth is fast IE learn to do a task technically correct to the point it is subconscious then learn to go fast.

Technique and speed training are to different things. You don't get fast without training to get fast and you don't get technique without training it.

You can be fast with incorrect technique but you'll also be ineffective.