Pistol shooting — talent vs technique

[GJM]

My wife and I were recently discussing this subject. While athleticism and good eyesight obviously help, after observing many shooters and trying to understand why the good shooters are good, our conclusion is that good technique and hard work seem to be the most important factors in explaining how the good shooters became good shooters. In other words, who wants it bad enough, has the ability to learn, and then is willing to put in the work.

[JAD]

That’s consistent with my life experience. I will hire a hard worker with common sense over a wunderkind all day. Some of the hard workers turn out to be secret rockstars, but few prodigies surprise you with their work ethic.

[YVK]

I gave you that like for starting a good topic.

My analysis of known to me examples of excellent technical shooters made me isolate three key parts:
- willingness to put in hard work
- time and venue available/created for that willingness to translate into action
- presence of analytic ability to separate right from wrong and important from not, whether innate or external (Ben's shooter's intellect, Ron/Ken/Glenn for the sisters, Dad for JJ).

[fly out]

With attitude and effort, anyone can get to 80% Maybe 90%

Talent/genius gets you the rest of the way.

My two cents.

[Trooper224]

Well, yeah.

[Salamander]

I'll draw a couple of parallels with athletic activities, for whatever they're worth.

As a former competitive runner, I watched lots of people who probably had enough talent to do pretty well languish in mediocrity. They were the ones not willing to put in the work. Now is it worth 40 or more miles per week of training to get to that level, with incremental improvement over several years to finally get to a higher level? Each person needs to decide that for yourself. I'm able to say that training at that level while working a day job leaves essentially no time for any other aspect of life. Thus the reason that elite athletes in many fields are sponsored, so they can just train without distractions.

One of my coaches was a good example. Sponsored, #12 ranked amateur triathlete in the world at the peak, extraordinary work ethic, a full minute faster than me at 5k and untouchable at anything from 10k to half marathon. At a whole different level than the rest of us at those distances. But I was considerably faster than they were at 200 meters, about the same at 400 m, and slightly faster at full marathon. So we each have unique physical compositions that even with training are best focused on the things we're good or potentially good at. Sometimes it takes a while to figure out what those things are.

That works up to a point. A sprinter needs a certain physiology, and if they have it they're going to peak at a relatively early age. Someone who is all slow twitch muscles is never going to win at 400 meters. A distance runner tends to peak at a later age, often into the 40s, because strategy (and thus experience) is more important at distance, and training can overcome a lot of physical limitations (although not for everyone). At distance, work ethic really matters.

One that's perhaps more relevant to the topic at hand: I was never as serious about baseball, more of a recreational activity as a kid and through college, but I did get serious about it one year. It's in part about hand-eye coordination, and as long as one has good eyesight, I learned that practice enough, and very rapid improvement can happen. Once the eyes start to go, not so much. back then I could see the seams on the ball as it came toward the plate. Now, 40 years later, that wouldn't be possible.

Pretty sure it's similar with shooting. There's one old dude, 80-something, at the range who I'm told used to be an exceptional shooter in his younger days. Now he shoots a scoped T/C Contender off a rest because he's legally blind in one eye and close to it in the other. So he's adapted to what he's able to do. Other guys have bad hands or other physical limitations. Another 80+ year old who recently passed, a former federal marshall and former PPC shooter, excelled at bullseye, one hand one ragged hole, til his final time at the range but his tactical skills were long gone by the time I met him.

If I have one regret it's that I didn't train to shoot at a higher level when I was young. Yeah, my nerves were more jittery, I was high strung in general, and it was harder to afford shooting a lot, but I could see. Although my vision isn't bad compared to a lot of folks my age, it's enough to make a difference (I'm lucky to be otherwise physically intact and can still outrun a lot of folks half my age and routinely do 15-mile dayhikes in the backcountry). Training can and does still produce rapid and important gains, but the limits are a bit less than they once were, and it's not likely to get better with time.

[Medusa]

Every sport I have ever pursued has what I call a formula. Talent x work = results. If you have less of one you must make it up with the other.

Sometimes hard work and practice unlocks talent.

and I’ve always believed that the willingness to work hard is from some perspectives a kind of talent of its own.

[Yung]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scnp7Vy2ZYc

[Joe in PNG]

Every sport I have ever pursued has what I call a formula. Talent x work = results. If you have less of one you must make it up with the other.

Sometimes hard work and practice unlocks talent.

and I’ve always believed that the willingness to work hard is from some perspectives a kind of talent of its own.

Often times, too much talent can actually be a detriment, if it leads one to coast instead of working harder to improve oneself.

A lot of promising high school level athletes, musicians, or scholars brimming with talent never put in the hard work to really develop that talent. As a result, they never developed their talents, never developed the work ethic to reach the next level, and were left behind.

[GJM]

A red dot makes up for a lot in the vision area.

[Clobbersaurus]

My brother always said (about his work): You may be smarter and more talented than me, but you’re not going to outwork me.

That always stuck with me. I see it all the time in all areas of my life. You get back what you put in. Quite often the talented ones don’t want to put in the work, and that’s where I’ll beat them.

[rob_s]

While I know it’s not a popular opinion among conservative crowds, my experience and the reading I’ve done on the subject is the exact opposite.

Yes, anyone can see improvement with the right practice, and some can improve quite a lot with quite a lot of dedication, but those at the top begin with a natural gift and *also* put in the time. Also, those with the gift are more likely to attribute their success to “all the hard work”. because who wants to just say “yeah, I’m just naturally good at this”?

Also, humans do what feels good (or sometimes, least bad), and doing things you’re good at feels good. So if you take two humans, have them both perform an action, the one that naturally does well is the one that is more likely to keep pursuing it and putting in the time. This gives the impression that it’s the time out in that makes the difference, when in fact it all start apps with the natural ability.

There are anomalies (Rick Thorn, BMX freestyle rider is an example), but really the exceptions prove the rule.

[revchuck38]

I think it's important to note that being good at something and being "at the top" aren't the same thing. In his original post, GJM wasn't talking about the best shooters but good ones (though I may be inferring incorrectly what he meant). I think that Rapid Butterfly is spot on with her "Talent x work = results" equation. If you have a modicum of talent but put in the work you can get pretty damned good at something, but someone with a lot of talent and the same work ethic will be better, and the difference won't be infinitesimal.

[JHC]

I think it's important to note that being good at something and being "at the top" aren't the same thing. In his original post, GJM wasn't talking about the best shooters but good ones (though I may be inferring incorrectly what he meant). I think that Rapid Butterfly is spot on with her "Talent x work = results" equation. If you have a modicum of talent but put in the work you can get pretty damned good at something, but someone with a lot of talent and the same work ethic will be better, and the difference won't be infinitesimal.

That's what I think. Sure, almost anyone can get good by putting in the work. This isn't pole vaulting. Truly great? There's a fair bit of natural gifts that fall into the realm of athleticism and vision I think. And in many cases, size. Seems to me an awful lot of top hands over the years have been a good bit larger than average males. Sevigny, Leatham, Ben, Vogel come to mind. Ever seen the video of Vogel and a SHOT walking a handstand down the length of a fookin' long lobby? :D GJM himself has some out of ordinary physical characteristics being long and lean with big hands.

My Uncle Johnny a short statured sports fanatic who played competitive amateur league sports late into adulthood had an expression. "A good big man will beat a good little man every day." ;)

I take shooting with my elder son as another example. Whether we're talking our lifetimes of shooting and dry fire or just the last X number of months during which my volume of work dwarfs his - he consistently burns me to the ground. And has for some years now.

I'm 5'10" of relatively small build and while in good shape, was always a C+ B- athlete even when training daily in track til I puked. He's 5'8" about 190 with a grip like a gorilla. He swings, presses and get-ups Kbs in the ~80-100 lb range for reps. Always was a top athlete in his scholastic sporting days in coordination tasks as well as power. With a fraction of the practice he burns me to the dang ground.
To me, that's a clue.

[GJM]

I think it's important to note that being good at something and being "at the top" aren't the same thing. In his original post, GJM wasn't talking about the best shooters but good ones (though I may be inferring incorrectly what he meant). I think that Rapid Butterfly is spot on with her "Talent x work = results" equation. If you have a modicum of talent but put in the work you can get pretty damned good at something, but someone with a lot of talent and the same work ethic will be better, and the difference won't be infinitesimal.

Correct, I am talking about being a good to very good shooter, not the very top, which of course requires special talent (and all the hard work, given how skills intensive shooting is).

[JHC]

Correct, I am talking about being a good to very good shooter, not the very top, which of course requires special talent (and all the hard work, given how skills intensive shooting is).

I'm tracking.

[flyrodr]

A red dot makes up for a lot in the vision area.

Amen to that. I'm among those who have seen the light, being nearly unable to see the sights!

[M2CattleCo]

Some people are good at things.

I've done a lot of shooting, training and competition. Won a lot of matches, smoked a lot instructors at their own drills. Never worked hard to get better, it's always been easy.

I've lived in a boxing ring six days a week, worked til I puked and was beat bloody, black, and blue. Never was real good at it.

I could play a trumpet the first time I picked it up, play a couple times a year, have gone a decade without even thinking about it. A week of practice to build back my embouchure, I can solo at church and blow everyone away.

I've played guitar for 22 years and still suck after intense work.

I can fly acrobatic and ag airplanes effortlessly. Could from the get-go. Never did practice and won't fly if I'm not getting paid or laid.

I have a hard time with languages. I've lived with Spanish all my life and still babble and stutter through conversations.



I could go on and on. People have things that they're good at and tend to stick with 'em since it's easy and fun to excel.

[Wise_A]

I think the most important part of being good at shooting, is one's ability to take a beating. I am currently embarking on the path of not sucking at guns, despite the fact that I have been shooting for nearly half my life.

I bought a shot timer. That was a great way to spend a hundred bucks to punch myself in the ****. Tomorrow, I'm going to go to the range, and use it again to punch myself in the ****. I'm going to keep pushing speed, blowing my pretty little groups into shotgun patterns of ****-punching, until it doesn't hurt anymore. And it's gonna hurt for a while. I'm gonna look really fucking stupid, and spray a lot of money downrange. People are gonna think I went blind and contracted a finger palsy.

But it's gonna be worth it, because I'm going to suck slightly less each time. And I'm gonna wreck all the losers that can't take losing.

[BehindBlueI's]

My wife and I were recently discussing this subject. While athleticism and good eyesight obviously help, after observing many shooters and trying to understand why the good shooters are good, our conclusion is that good technique and hard work seem to be the most important factors in explaining how the good shooters became good shooters. In other words, who wants it bad enough, has the ability to learn, and then is willing to put in the work.

I think that's pretty well established and "prodigies" are just people who got their 10k-ish hours in at a young age. Obviously if you're 6'3' you're never going to be a world class jockey, but aside from that sort of thing it's just dedicated and meaningful practice. Which is why I will never be world class at anything. I simply don't care enough.

[spence]

I have come to a few conclusions on this kind of subject. I am a relatively intelligent person. My "I don't give a shit" GPA in high school was a 3.61, scored a 25 on my ACT, a 90 on the ASVAB, with a GT score of 122. Not genius, by any means, but relatively intelligent. I also have concluded that I have the ability to learn. Hand me something that I take a bit of interest in, and I can excel. I went to school to learn to shoe horses almost eight years ago now, and found I have a knack for it. In those first few years, I competed a fair bit, and went to every certification I could muster to pass my certified journeyman farrier.

So when I started getting serious about pistol shooting, I found that by simply watching videos and with a bit of gear (some target stands, a shot timer, targets, lots of mags and ammo, and an internet connection), I could get significantly better.

However, I have started to feel like I'm flatlined. As in, I need some direction. I've gotten to the place where to get where I want to go, I need to make myself afford the time and cash to do some training, and have finally found where I can start to do some level of competing. it's progressive, and sometimes it feels like I'm going slow as mud, but being in my 30's, there's things that feel like they shouldn't be the challenge that they are.

Just my musings on the matter.

[Eyesquared]

A few disorganized thoughts:

I think some aspect of improving is going to come from knowing how to practice which is definitely a learnable skill.

Most people don't know how much practice it takes to get really good at shooting. Once a top competitive shooter makes it and people start interviewing them about their practice, they might say they dry fire 15-30 minutes a day and live fire 1-2 times per week, which seems very doable for many people. Some like Maria Gushchina, barely even dry fire.

However, most of them spent significantly more time in practice in the years leading up to their competitive peak. Ben Stoeger mentioned in an interview he used to dry fire 30 minutes to an hour each day. Hwansik Kim has mentioned on podcasts that he used to dry fire for multiple hours per day when he was getting started in USPSA. As I understand it once you build up myelination it's fairly easy to retain it, but building it takes a lot of effort.

[Gio]

I think some aspect of improving is going to come from knowing how to practice which is definitely a learnable skill.


I think there's a lot of truth to this statement. I've always shot a low round count compared to most GM level shooters, in part because of just lacking enough time to get to the range more than a couple times a month. As a result, I've had to learn how to be as efficient as possible with how I practice. I wouldn't say I am naturally gifted, because I know how bad I was when I picked up a pistol for the first time, but I did know how to practice, drill, and visualize and had some mental management skills from my youth sports experiences at a nationally competitive level. I know countless people trying to advance in classification who are stuck in C, B, and A class though who have been there for 5-10+ years and who shoot significantly more rounds than I do on an annual basis. I would classify their actual work ethic to be at least equal to mine, but I think a lot of the disparity comes down to quality of practice rather than quantity of practice. You can have an exceptionally high work ethic and dedicate time and resources to practice, but if you don't know how to practice or you just go to the range and do the same thing over and over, you're not going to move the needle much.

[vcdgrips]

LONG WINDED

IMNSHO based on the athletic observations of myself and hundreds of kids when coaching my own.

People can get to the 85-90% level if there are willing to put in the time

People can get the 91-92% level with that plus good coaching

People can get to the 93-94% level with work+ coaching+some natural talent re eyesight/coordination reflexes etc.

People get to and maintain the 95% level on demand/cold/all day every day the whole day with all of the above but even more natural gifts.

Most of us will plateau at the sub 90% level no matter what because we just do not have that drive plus the God given gifts.


I once interned with a guy who played for four years at a D1 college baseball behind an eventual MLB longtime player. I asked him what was the difference between him and the eventual MLB guy.

My intern buddy said he hits an off speed pitch 4 or 5% points better than me. And if you hit us each 1000 grounders for a throw into first, he makes 995, I make 988 or 989.

My take away was that the margins at the top are thin but huge in terms of the curve and achievement they represent.

FWIW

[StraitR]

Rob Leatham talks about having both talent and drive (to train) in Wilson's "Gun Guy's" Episode 21...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNWhuvDTSqg&list=PLFJTW6YkjgiQNzPLiCEcMzSH w6hrQJimE&index=22

[LOKNLOD]

My take away was that the margins at the top are thin but huge in terms of the curve and achievement they represent.


Excellence is an asymptote.

[arcfide]

I'll throw out that I think Talent vs. Technique is a bit of a false dichotomy. Myelination is a great term and highly relevant. The research I've seen suggests that at the very least, the human entity is *much* more theoretically adaptable than people often accept, because most people are operating on a pragmatic metric that implicitly absorbs the concept of effort vs. reward trade-offs that are inherent in the human motivation. In other words, it's socially convenient to talk about talent as a fixed thing, even though, when you get right down to it, there's almost nothing fixed about it. The idea of talent generally encompasses not just the biological but the motivational, which, when put together, form something more static.

However, very, very little about the human body is truly static. Shifting DNA, changes in body composition, flexibility, tendon/musculature, and so forth, all point to the body as being at least theoretically capable of significant biological adaptation over time. In a very real sense, there appears, based on what I've read (I don't do this research professionally), to be a very real correlation between the overall "intake" of the body and the mental aspects to changes in the body itself. It seems that Peak IQ is among the hardest things to fundamentally change, if it can be changed at all. However, given the modern diet and exercise programs, as well as the mental exercises that most people have today, most people are nowhere near their theoretical peak IQ, and therefore, have room to expand even there.

After that, there's a ton of theoretically alterable things, but some of them are very hard to change, and very hard to intentionally change. Moreover, you can't just change something by "work." Work is too general a term. You need to combine sufficient effort (exponentially more effort depending on the types of changes) with sufficiently accurate direction. You need to be able to diagnose the most problematic or limiting present conditions, and identify the most efficient remediation for those limitations. That's, IMO, actually the hardest part.

Most people are capable of doing insane amounts of work given the right set of circumstances, with a lot of biological potential. But it's very difficult to acquire sufficient introspective faculties to the degree that you can truly be efficient in learning. Thus, a terrific amount of effort to improve occurs with less than optimal results, leading to lots of work, but less progress. Having the coaching and outside assistance necessary can be really important, but there are some domains that are much easier to coach than others, and so there are some domains in which natural talent appears to be "stronger" than in other domains.

I'm convinced that in the vast majority of domains, given a person with a reasonable timeframe to learn, has at least the potential to do extremely well in almost all areas. However, the earlier you start down that path, with accuracy, the better. There will eventually be a fundamentally limiting biological element that occurs, and sometimes that happens in the form of someone who started too late and gets too old to truly excel. But outside of that, I think the true fundamental limits of ingrained biology are probably closer to the point where almost everyone *could* get into the "major leagues" of whatever they pursue, starting young enough, at least theoretically. Now, after you reach the top echelon of performance, there are likely to be people who will out-perform you. So, I imagine most people, given a total reworking of their life, with significant effort, could compete at essentially what would be termed an Olympic level on many things (I think age is one of the most limiting factors here), but they might still end up losing to someone who is just biologically a little better, and thus, they wouldn't necessarily make it to the Olympics.

But that's just the extreme edge of capacity. I think it's useful to have that edge, but the reality is that the vast majority of people are not going to have the necessary motivation and drive and necessity to make the huge changes that would be required to achieve those high levels. So, given careful training and work, you can still get far, but without that total makeover, which also includes having the ability to find the people who know how to address the limitations you have (sometimes those people might as well not exist they are so hard to find) to move you in the right direction, most people cannot reach that upper echelon.

In short, what I think is more likely to be the case is that people are much more capable of climbing that exponential excellence curve than they often think they are, but most people won't go very far along that curve on any one thing because of the costs involved with getting there. Those people who make that cost trade-off will often simply say that they don't have the talent, but the truth is probably that they either lack the trifecta of will, time, and direction necessary to get there. I think a lot of people will say that might as well be the same thing as "being born" with talent or not, but I think there's an important psychological difference.

[critter]

I think that's pretty well established and "prodigies" are just people who got their 10k-ish hours in at a young age. Obviously if you're 6'3' you're never going to be a world class jockey, but aside from that sort of thing it's just dedicated and meaningful practice. Which is why I will never be world class at anything. I simply don't care enough.

That's pretty much me. I had a goal to out-shoot my Dad, of whom when I mention was an incredible rifle shot words simply do not convey how amazing he actually was. I couldn't get to that level with a rifle, but I did with a pistol - by age 13. Goal achieved - consistently beat dad at shooting. I can't say I lost all interest at that point, but my primary motivation was gone and I just didn't care enough to get into competitions, or train my ass off.. etc. So, I'm a decent shot but would be eaten alive in any form of pressured competition. I can draw from concealment and fire a shot on target in approximately 2.7 days or so.

[sparkyv]

That’s consistent with my life experience. I will hire a hard worker with common sense over a wunderkind all day. Some of the hard workers turn out to be secret rockstars, but few prodigies surprise you with their work ethic.

Well put, sir. I couldn't have said it any better.

[EPF]

That’s consistent with my life experience. I will hire a hard worker with common sense over a wunderkind all day. Some of the hard workers turn out to be secret rockstars, but few prodigies surprise you with their work ethic.

Fact. The world is littered with guys who trounced everyone on the sporting field from pee-wee to high school and then could not make it at the college level or beyond because they never had to work. Some incredibly spectacular flame outs. There seems to be an inverse relationship between natural talent and the ability to work hard. The very small number who have both are at the top rank of any endeavor.

My experience is that the “journey man” level in any activity is occupied largely by those with some talent but a heavy work ethic. Seems like we need to re-define the term “potential”.

[Deaf Smith]

Talent vs technique? I like 'em both.

Tools, technique, tactics, strategy.

[RevolverRob]

One thing that consistently comes up in sports training is the idea that one must practice with goals in mind. The classic analogy is the difference between a professional and novice golfer. Both take a bucket of 100 balls to the driving range and hit them. A professional, just performed 100 repetitions of practice, the novice just hit 100 golf balls. If you do not recognize and attack with a plan to refine and build your technique, talent or hard work will get you no where.

___

That's why you can't just view them individually. It's also why it is important to work with people are who are better than you at stuff you aren't good at.
___

Now that said, talent means something. Talent is really a reflection of the way your brain is wired - people are predisposed to have certain types of response and abilities in certain situations. What I mean by that is - what you're talented at - is looking at something abstract and immediately seeing the complexities of it and possible solutions and problems.

Think about it like playing wallball/handball for a minute. You can train yourself to have all the hand-eye coordination in the world and those skills can be improved dramatically. But all of that coordination does you naught if you cannot anticipate where the ball will come from, based on you watching and processing what is going on. Now, you can get really good by missing a lot and watching and learning. But the best people, have a brain that is wired to let them process it just a little bit faster, with a little bit less experience. And then when those same folks have as much or more experience as you, they will destroy you.
___

tl;dr - talent is the way your brain is wired, each person is wired differently. Hard work is important, but it must be done with discipline. Talent is important, but must be tempered with discipline.. You can go the farthest when you have both talent and hard work and it's tempered with discipline. Find whatever you're talented at and pursue it with relentless vigor and you'll be the best at it. If it isn't shooting - eh, whatever.

__

PS: It's important to note, because we have a society that doesn't seem to recognize this. Hard work alone will never make you the best at something. It really won't. You can be really good, you can outwork folks. But those alone will not make you the best. Play to your strengths, identify your weakness and make them less weak, but recognize you cannot be the best at everything or probably even just one thing. There are very, very, very, very, very few elitely talented people. There is only one Warren Buffet, one Lebron James, one Serena Williams, etc.

[Greg]

Good technique reduces the number of things I have to think about. I’m having a good day at a class/match when all I have to think about is “good trigger press”.

A certain underlying athletic ability is required, but not huge amounts.