training:practice:ability

[rob_s]

I'm still figuring out how this will work itself out, so please bear with me to start.

I'm interested in ideals we set for ourselves, and the limits of reality, relative to ability. Ignoring the nature ("natural talent") vs. nurture ("work ethic") argument for a moment...

What is the ratio you think is required to achieve a known ranking as measure of ability? In other words, how many classes per year, matches per month, practice sessions per week, etc. do you think is required to become a USPSA or IDPA Master? What about a USPSA "C"? and what is the output required to initially achieve that level vs. maintaining it once achieved? If you have to go to the range and practice two days a week to achieve Master, can you back off and go instead twice a month to maintain that? Does the focus shift from static range training to attending more matches?

I'm thinking about this in terms of physical fitness where there are limits to how big/strong/fast you are going to get and that is largely limited by (pharmacology excluded) time and effort invested. Does the same thing apply to shooting? Do we set unrealistic goals or fail to understand the real commitment that is necessary to achieve certain goals?

The reason I'm asking all of this is that I am interested in the limits that the realities of life place on our time, and what we can realistically hope to achieve within those limits. In other words, there is a balance point wherein you aren't going to continue to improve given X amount of money & time invested. It is unlikely that someone is going to become a Master class shooter if they shoot one match ever few months and maybe get to the range once a month for two rounds of Dot Torture. But, then, what classification CAN that person hope to achieve?

I think it was Basham, or maybe McNamara, or some other NLP-type that said goals have to be realistic and achievable, but just out of your current reach (or words to that effect), so how do we ensure that the goals we set meet with the resources we have available?

Hope this makes sense. I'll try to clarify as (if?) the thread develops.

[ToddG]

I think you're trying to quantify something that isn't quantifiable. There is no simple equation that says "2k per year = Sharpshooter; 10k per year = Master." The number of variables in terms of what/how someone practices, how well they retain it, etc. is just huge.

If someone's shooting goals are wrapped around trying to achieve a certain status within a game, but his practice routine isn't well thought out in terms of that game, he won't achieve as much (or as fast) as the guy who has a laser focus on becoming the next World Supermaster.

[nwhpfan]

The reigning USPSA Production Champion (Ben Stoeger) says it took him 3k rounds to become a IDPA Master and 2k more rounds to be a USPSA Grand Master and he had never take a class from anybody before that. I would surmise from that - it was what and how he practiced vs. just "shooting". Meaningful practice and training in the furtherence of some measurable level of skill can be a hard thing to accomplish. I have had a difficult time understanding "how" to practice in the past; and I would consider myself "on my way" to better, but not there yet... I learn what to practice by competing and watching those better than me; seeing what they do better, faster, gooder etc. I look at stage results and see who beat and me and why. For example I know I need to be better at transitioning from one target to the next and "pressing" a shot vs. hammeriing it. I tend to (try) move quick and dynamic and have a hard time not letting the power associated with the movement stay away from how I pull the trigger. I know I need to work on catchng the re-set in recoil and prep the next shot as my sights settle-I shoot too many Alpha Charlie instead of 2 Alpha; I know I need to practice shooting while moving. I know I need to relax my head and stand more straight up and ride the recoil instead of trying to choke it out. I get 90% of my drills from www.pistol-training.com My favorite of late is http://pistol-training.com/drills/press-six and over the last few sesssions I've increased the time and distance.... I think it's the same you've been hearing since youth sports...perfect practice makes perfect...

[jetfire]

Conversely, the reigning Steel Challenge Champion shoots something like 50,000 rounds a year.

[rob_s]

I think you're trying to quantify something that isn't quantifiable. There is no simple equation that says "2k per year = Sharpshooter; 10k per year = Master." The number of variables in terms of what/how someone practices, how well they retain it, etc. is just huge.

If someone's shooting goals are wrapped around trying to achieve a certain status within a game, but his practice routine isn't well thought out in terms of that game, he won't achieve as much (or as fast) as the guy who has a laser focus on becoming the next World Supermaster.

I'm not looking so much for equations as I am looking for a general idea. Nor am I intending game status as anything more than a quantifiable measure, and I understand that some prefer to avoid measure at all costs.

[ToddG]

I'm not looking so much for equations as I am looking for a general idea. Nor am I intending game status as anything more than a quantifiable measure, and I understand that some prefer to avoid measure at all costs.

Got it. I'm all for measuring performance.

Don't know if this really answers what you were getting at, then, but my general advice is to find your starting point (where you are now) and think about what practical milestones you can see between that spot and your long-term goal. Just to use IDPA as an example because it's easy thanks to the standardized Classifier: If you're a Marksman today and you want to make Master, establish the intermediate steps (Sharpshooter, Expert) as milestones and work on achieving them. Obviously you need to delve more deeply than that to figure out exactly what skills need the most work, etc.

[rob_s]

Got it. I'm all for measuring performance.

Don't know if this really answers what you were getting at, then, but my general advice is to find your starting point (where you are now) and think about what practical milestones you can see between that spot and your long-term goal. Just to use IDPA as an example because it's easy thanks to the standardized Classifier: If you're a Marksman today and you want to make Master, establish the intermediate steps (Sharpshooter, Expert) as milestones and work on achieving them. Obviously you need to delve more deeply than that to figure out exactly what skills need the most work, etc.

Yes.

But is, then, shooting once a month enough? Do we build without back-sliding, and if not how far can you go without building again before you negate whatever building you did last time?

For example, if you can do 30 pushups today and keep adding one per week for 6 weeks but then stop for 3 weeks, you probably won't still be able to do 36. Shooting, at least to me, seems to be the same way.

[ToddG]

I don't think this is what you want to hear, but my best answer would have to be "it depends." It depends on the shooter, his regimen, his current skill level, etc.

Muscle mass isn't the same as skill. But I do think the comparison provides for some very good points. For example, if you stopped your pushup practice but at the same time got a job swinging hammers at a quarry, your physical performance might actually rise. If you only go to the range once a month but started dry firing three hours a day, your performance will probably improve compared to the guy who shoots three hours every week (and does nothing else to work on his shooting).

Can someone who only shoots once a month make Master in IDPA? Absolutely. Do most people who make Master in IDPA shoot more than once a month? Also yes.

[Shokr21]

I started competing in USPSA just this year. I've competed in ~7 matches total.

Before this spring I had not really done any serious pistol shooting, just going to the range shooting 100 rounds at a 10" target somewhere between 10-25 yards.

Now I dry fire 3-4 times weekly for a minimum of 20 minutes a time. I go to the range 1-2 a week to work on various drills.

My first 4 classifiers with USPSA were 47% 29% 53% 49%. I think my incoming C card is about right for where I'm at right now. There are 2 A shooters in production at the local match and the rest of us are C's or D's. I finish in the top 5 quite consistently and have recorded 2 2nd place finishes. I've also finished dead last. Typically 12-18 shooters in production per match.

When I shoot IDPA I consistently land in the top 3-5 of 15-20 competitors.

I know if I practiced more, I would get better, but also the competition is a form of practice for me. The more I shoot with others watching the better I've become over time.

I don't know how to quantify that at all. I think I'll rise to the top of C class this summer and possibly breach B. That is my goal for my first season to be knocking on the door of B class.

[BN]

Ignoring the nature ("natural talent") vs. nurture ("work ethic") argument for a moment...


I don't think you can ignore that. Different people will evolve differently according to their ability as well as their dedication. Some shooters will rise to the top with a small amount of effort, while others will not rise even with much more effort.

I feel that someone can reach a certain level of ability and then "coast" for a while slightly below their peak.

I'm coming at this mostly from a competition viewpoint. I've seen a lot of shooters in the 30 years I've been doing this. :)

To move up the quickest, I would say get good instruction at the very first. Get instruction for what you want to improve. If you want to be a good USPSA shooter, then get instruction from a good USPSA instructor. If you want to be a gunfighter, then use a different instructor. :cool: Then practice what you learned.

An average that might benefit most shooters: Get a class. Then shoot 200 quality rounds per week plus dryfire a couple times a week. They will improve if they work at it.

[Shawn.L]

Todd's comments are spot on.

To add to this. I have a good friend who is a Master class USPSA shooter. He related to me that for a long time he was a B class shooter, and then at one period in his shooting he learned to let go, trust his hits would be there and spent one season in A class before making Master. It wasnt about increasing the amount of work for him, it was about getting an intuitive switch lit . Now that switch cant be hit if your not shooting at all, but I would bet that "just shoot more" doesnt do it either. I know one guy in particular at our club "dont need no stinkin training" who may shoot a couple thousand awful rounds a week, and while he prob is on the up side of average hes never going to move from there.

The same Master I referred to didnt shoot a live round all winter , and shot his first live rounds at a match I attended that he crushed.

[YVK]

What is the ratio you think is required to achieve a known ranking as measure of ability? In other words, how many classes per year, matches per month, practice sessions per week, etc. do you think is required to become a USPSA or IDPA Master? What about a USPSA "C"? and what is the output required to initially achieve that level vs. maintaining it once achieved?

I don't think you'll be able to quantify the return on investment here. In everything I've done in life, if bar was set reasonably high (Master level classification, for example), then you could not get there without significant mileage. Same thing for getting above 4.0-4.5 NTRP rating in tennis. Same thing for getting good enough so double black diamond slopes are not a suicide mission. Same thing for benching your body weight, or whatever you bench goal is.

This thing about Stoeger's 5000 rounds road to GM has been floated around internet recently as an example to the contrary. However, I read him saying he used to dryfire 2 hours daily, and now at one hour. This is a massive investment. There is absolutely nothing other than work that I've done in my life consistently for two hours every day. There is always mileage; how much of it depends on innate abilities, talent and how one's training interplays with said abilities. Some people dispute the importance of innate talent; these people don't know anything about the subject.



Do we set unrealistic goals or fail to understand the real commitment that is necessary to achieve certain goals?


That's entirely individual, just as the amount of commitment required, see above. The next goal should be realistic in terms of absolute performance desired, understanding of things needed to be done to get there, and resources required. This is effectively what Todd has already said. The ultimate goal should be "the sky is a limit".

What Shawn is referring to is commonly cliched as a "lightbulb moment", which is nothing but achieving a personalized, individual understanding of what and how a certain thing needs to be done in order to move forward.

[rob_s]

I don't want to get too hung up on the competition side of things, or making a ranking just to make it, I only used those as examples because they are known standards.

I think that everyone has an "resting weight" so to speak, and that the resting weight will be higher after some initial instruction and practice than it is after just starting out. Similar to a person who will be of a certain physical size/weight if they just keep on eating what they are eating on a normal day and get no physical activity beyond what they do going about their normal day (excluding someone who's normal day of eating is more calories than their normal day burns).

I understand "it depends" but I think that's kind of a cop-out BS answer. No shit it depends, and if that's all the discussion has to offer I'll let it go, but I hoped for a little more. It sounds like we're not even in agreement that there is a back-slide potential, so let's start there.

Is it generally agreed that (and I understand there is no fixed numbers but there should be a relatively fixed formula) X amount of effort is required to maintain a particular level of skill and ability, and that <X will result in a degradation of same down to the "resting weight", and >X will result in an increase in skill and ability?

Is it generally agreed that there is a "resting weight", or a level of basic ability beyond initial instruction and practice that one is unlikely to sink below?

For example, let's take the FAST, considering where we're discussing this. For the average person if you just hand them a gun and say "shoot this there, then do this, then shoot that here" it's going to be a disaster. Spend a day giving them some instruction on the draw, sight alignment, trigger control, and reloads and they'll be exponentially better. Let them go away and practice it once a week for 100 rounds and they'll be better still. They will reach a point where it's really about a familiarity level that dictates their score. That is their "resting weight". What that resting weight is "depends" on them, but everyone has a resting weight. That is their score when they don't practice, don't train, etc. They are unlikely to sink below that, ever, beyond perhaps a quick re-familiarization with the gun if they pick it up after a long absence. If they practice some amount (let's say 2x per week, 100 rounds per session), they will improve. At some point they will reach a level where they can maintain with less input (perhaps 1x per week, 100 rounds per session) but if they do not maintain they will drop back to resting weight. If they continue at their previous rate (2x per week, 100 rounds per session) they will continue to improve.

Which then brings up the other question, what is the ceiling, and what happens when you reach it? Going back to the games for a minute, I would suggest that the highest level shooters are all at their ceiling when it comes to manipulations and accuracy but that experience with their particular game and their ability to navigate the entire match as well as the individual stages makes the difference.

[YVK]

I think I am starting to lose what this was about, or maybe I never understood it to begin with, but I'll try to hang in here for just a bit.



Is it generally agreed that there is a "resting weight", or a level of basic ability beyond initial instruction and practice that one is unlikely to sink below?


Yes. I'd use a word "baseline". I think once a new baseline has been achieved, you won't sink below it. The key is that this new baseline has to be truly achieved at some point earlier. I'll use examples of two other sports that I am familiar with - tennis and skiing. I've seen people return to both after years of lay-off, and I had myself several years gap on the slopes and up to one year on a court. When I returned back, I never degraded to the beginner level, or my personal ground zero point.




Is it generally agreed that (and I understand there is no fixed numbers but there should be a relatively fixed formula) X amount of effort is required to maintain a particular level of skill and ability, and that <X will result in a degradation of same down to the "resting weight", and >X will result in an increase in skill and ability?



Yes, except I don't understand how you can come up with formula given individual variability in people's ability to retain the skill. I also think that degree of degradation is not linearly proportional to the absolute amount of <X effort. Part of it again individual abilities to retain skill and how much X in absolute terms one needs to be at/near peak. Part of it is that the skill itself is not a homogenous concept. My slow accuracy scores are generally reproducible even after longish layoffs, while my reloads break down if I don't drill them regularly. Same thing with my forehand vs my serve.
Similarly, I don't think that absolute amount of >X is linearly proportional to improvement in skill.




Which then brings up the other question, what is the ceiling, and what happens when you reach it? Going back to the games for a minute, I would suggest that the highest level shooters are all at their ceiling when it comes to manipulations and accuracy but that experience with their particular game and their ability to navigate the entire match as well as the individual stages makes the difference.

I don't know about the ceiling. Seems like even highest level shooters are looking to further improve their stuff. The incremental amount of improvement is clearly small so graphing it would seem like a plateau, but I think they all are looking for their next level. Push the 2 inch dot target to 15 yards, get the draw under 1 sec, hit splits under 0.16 etc.

[ToddG]

I understand "it depends" but I think that's kind of a cop-out BS answer.

You've tried to quantify things based on days spent at the range per month.

It depends on how much time is spent per day.
It depends on how many rounds are fired per day.
It depends on the shooter's skill level.
It depends on what he focuses on.
It depends on how efficiently he uses his time.


It depends on too many variables to drill down to an easy formula.


Is it generally agreed that (and I understand there is no fixed numbers but there should be a relatively fixed formula) X amount of effort is required to maintain a particular level of skill and ability, and that <X will result in a degradation of same down to the "resting weight", and >X will result in an increase in skill and ability?

That's tautological. If you begin with premiss A ("X amount of effort is required to maintain") then necessarily it's true that "less than X will result in degradation."

If you want to get more complicated, though, I'd suggest that X+1 will not automatically result in visible gains... though I guess that falls down to what our units of measure are. But whether it's days, hours, or rounds, it's probably incorrect to assume that adding one to your minimum required maintenance will give you measurable improvement.

If what you're saying is simply that "if I practice below a certain amount my skill will degrade, and if I practice above a certain (other) amount my skill will grow," I don't think you'll find much argument.


Is it generally agreed that there is a "resting weight", or a level of basic ability beyond initial instruction and practice that one is unlikely to sink below?

There may be, but I've honestly never heard anyone explore it seriously as you're doing here.

Plenty of LE/mil folks get high volume training followed by long periods of inactivity (in terms of shooting). There is a very definite and obvious decline in skill over that time. But I don't think anyone has ever taken the time to measure it. My SWAG is that while higher skill will result in a higher "resting weight" to borrow your phrase, there will also be a proportionally greater loss. In other words, a guy who struggles to make Marksman in IDPA probably won't be so much worse after putting his gun down for a year, but a guy who struggles to make Master will probably notice a real difference after the same amount of inactivity.

[David Armstrong]

I've got to agree with Todd when he said "I don't think this is what you want to hear, but my best answer would have to be "it depends." It depends on the shooter, his regimen, his current skill level, etc." As a personal example, about 20 years ago I was firing over 100,000 a year. I was competing on average in 2 IPSC matches, 1 NRA/Bianchi Cup match, and either a ICORE or a Bullseye match every month. I don't know how well I could have been rated in assorted disciplines because I was shooting with duty gear and firearms, but I was able to hold my own and won a few state-level matches.
I developed some physical problems, and 20 years later I no longer train regularly, I don't compete, and I might shoot 1000 rounds a year. But if we put aside the physical problems my actual shooting ability is probably 95% of what it was and my annual LEO qualification score has remained consistent.

Don't know if that helps or not.

[jslaker]

This thing about Stoeger's 5000 rounds road to GM has been floated around internet recently as an example to the contrary. However, I read him saying he used to dryfire 2 hours daily, and now at one hour.

I've seen him post the same, and, honestly, it kind of struck a chord with me. The thing is that guys like Ben and other shooters at his level didn't just magically become great shooters. They got there through hard work and dedication.

What it really comes down to is, realistically, what are your goals and how hard are you willing to work toward them? I think it's reasonable to say that most people aren't going to put in a couple of hours worth of dryfire every day.

But what are you willing to do?

You need to set goals and work toward them. If you easily attain those, set them higher and push yourself harder. If you're struggling to attain them, you need to evaluate whether your goals are realistic for where you are now or if you need to rededicate yourself toward them.

[MDS]

It sounds like folks who know a lot more than I do are having trouble coming up with a formula-type answer. I wonder if it would be possible to extract a formula from a data set? For example, I bet we could get some kind of answer if we mined the RangeLog database. If someone has the wherewithal to sort through all the unstructured info, we might even get something insightful from the journals on this forum. Not exactly the most rigorous approach, but it might get the OP some vague sort of answer to his question... I know I'd be interested in reading the results of such a study. :-/

[John Hearne]

I'm not convinced that all the variables are captured in the amount of time/rounds/matches someone shoots. There does seem to be some individual variation in how quickly one learns physical skills. Someone who is a natural athlete will improve more quickly than someone who develops more slowly.

As an example, a guy I work with simply disgusts me. He is one of our DT instructors, plays with BJJ, and is a great all around athlete. I shoot better than he does but he does no work to maintain his level. If he got half way serious about his shooting, he would be a national class shooter. He likes to shoot but his interests are limited to cleaning our qual course and holding his own when we shoot man-on-man stuff.

The other factor is mental. The quip - "If you think you can or you think you can't you're right" is correct. I've worked with people that seemed convinced that they couldn't shoot better and they fulfilled that expectation.

[GOP]

If we are talking about competition development, then the truth is that the mental game is extremely important. I'm an IDPA Marksman but I have ran a 3.74 FAST, 1.8 Bill Drill, and a 280 FBI Qual in training; thus, I should be scored higher than an IDPA Marksman on paper. I haven't done any mental management training until recently, and I feel like with just what I have learned on the mental management side in a short time, I will be moving up a division very soon. At my last major match, I came in 79 of 119, and it was only my 4th match ever, so you simply cannot overlook the experience factor. I had never seen, let alone shot, several of the props at the match and had no clue on the best strategy to run them. I was on a n00bish squad and I distinctly remember our strategy on a long distance swinger being "shoot it 2 times on it's first pass, and 2-3 on its second pass." We probably wasted a ton of time on that prop alone (I know on that 1 prop, I lost 2 places in the overall standings as my first two shots on the swinger were -0).

If we are talking skill development, then in my opinion it is dry fire >>> live fire. In fact, I would say that I get almost 50% more benefit from dry fire practice than I do live fire practice, so it is more efficient for me. Now that I have a SIRT, I shoot almost all of my speed focused drills dry fire, and my live fire (until I broke my arm) consisted of 2 cold tests per week, finishing off the session by pushing my accuracy standards (i.e. my weakness). I try to train 7-10 hours a week, with about 70%-80% of that being dry fire. I find that any less than 7 hours a week and I don't progress as much the next week, and beyond 10 hours a week I start to overtrain and get burned out. The lowest amount of time a day I train when healthy is 30 minutes, and I will go up to about as much as 2.5 hours. With my broken arm, I am averaging about 5 hours a week totally strong hand only. Another thing that is absolutely critical for efficient time management is performance tracking. I track every shot fired, every drill shot, every minute spent at every session. If I hit on a training technique that works, I exploit it as long as I can. Recently, for example, I started taking .5 seconds off of my iHack par each week until I got it down to 2.35 seconds with 6 out of 9 hits from concealment at 5m. This is still working, as I am at about 3.65 seconds for 6 out of 9 at 5m from concealment SHO. Work load + efficiency in training = success in my opinion. It isn't that difficult to quantify really, I think that 7-10 hours a week for 2-3 years will yield the skill level of a Master class shooter (pure skills, not the classification...see 1st paragraph). I just completed my first year doing this, and plan to be at that level of skill by this time next year.

edit: I just realized it is 1am here, and I haven't slept much in the past couple of days, so I apologize for any grammar errors.

[DocGKR]

GOP:


I'm an IDPA Marksman but I have ran a 3.74 FAST, 1.8 Bill Drill, and a 280 FBI Qual in training; thus, I should be scored higher than an IDPA Marksman on paper."

Wow, those are impressive claims; I am just a mediocre shooter and will never attain that level of proficiency. With those numbers, you should be competing for the National Championship--of course what you do by yourself in practice is utterly IRRELEVANT unless you can do it on demand, when other folks are watching/involved, and for real when under stress. Everything else is just unsubstantiated juvenile internet bragging...

[GOP]

edit: nevermind. I'm out.

[ToddG]

This site runs off some of the best shooters here because of that attitude. We had freaking Ben Stoeger and 2 other master class shooters in USPSA who were ran off recently because of the ego of others here.

No, actually they were run off for eliciting people to troll the forum, being disrespectful towards SMEs or Staff (in some cases on the forum and in some cases by PM), or both. If you'd like to discuss the matter further, feel free to PM me or any other member of the forum Staff. It's not relevant to this thread.

If you think DocGKR's surprise at your reported scores is unfounded, I emailed them to a many-times USPSA/IDPA national champion and his response was that you'll no doubt win National Champion this year. You can see where people might find a disconnect between someone who's a MM-class IDPA shooter who didn't even break into the top half at the last major match he shot, and someone who claims he can shoot a sub-4 FAST and 1.80 Bill Drills. While there's certainly a lot more to playing gun games than the skills tested by the FAST & Bill, folks who can turn in such astounding scores on those drills don't tend to rank 79 out of 119.

I'm not intending this as a personal attack and hope it doesn't come across as such. But when you make extraordinary claims that are significantly out of proportion to your demonstrated "rank" in a game (for lack of a better term) certainly you can understand where it creates confusion.

[GOP]

No, actually they were run off for eliciting people to troll the forum, being disrespectful towards SMEs or Staff (in some cases on the forum and in some cases by PM), or both. If you'd like to discuss the matter further, feel free to PM me or any other member of the forum Staff. It's not relevant to this thread.

If you think DocGKR's surprise at your reported scores is unfounded, I emailed them to a many-times USPSA/IDPA national champion and his response was that you'll no doubt win National Champion this year. You can see where people might find a disconnect between someone who's a MM-class IDPA shooter who didn't even break into the top half at the last major match he shot, and someone who claims he can shoot a sub-4 FAST and 1.80 Bill Drills. While there's certainly a lot more to playing gun games than the skills tested by the FAST & Bill, folks who can turn in such astounding scores on those drills don't tend to rank 79 out of 119.

I'm not intending this as a personal attack and hope it doesn't come across as such. But when you make extraordinary claims that are significantly out of proportion to your demonstrated "rank" in a game (for lack of a better term) certainly you can understand where it creates confusion.

I totally understand, I'm not upset at all. I ran a 3.74 FAST on 6-06-12. I ran a 1.8 Bill Drill the same day during the 7m portion of the HCST (I scored a 167 overall). I can tell you exactly were my weakness lies: movement skills. I usually run 5-8 at local club matches, and get beat by guys who are way more efficient than me on the move. I also have no clue how to put together stages, and generally suck under pressure. If I was a national champion this year, I'd be ecstatic. At the last local club match I shot, I came in 3rd on the FAST portion of the testing (i.e. the static test) with a 4.62, the winner and Rudy Project shooter had me by .4 seconds. I'll try to get a video up this week or early next in my training log if you'd like, name a drill to run and I'll do it. You can also PM me and I can PM you my cell number we can talk on the phone if you'd like, I have no reason to lie here (this isn't meant threatening at all, but rather as a friendly gesture).

Here is the FAST variant they ran at the local club, the guy saying "Nice" at the end is a professional Rudy Project shooter who recently won expert I believe at a major match. He beat me by .4 seconds. This was several months ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9eG7sp93E&feature=plcp

Actually no, I came in 5th overall in the FAST standings that day. The scores were 4.61 (me), 4.25, 4.24, 4.20, and 4.03. The others were experts and 1 master, I can't hang with them during any movement stage. Also, I have the screen shot of the scores that day if necessary. I'd rather not post the others names, but If can post (blacked out) if necessary.

[LittleLebowski]

The real question here is how GOP can get over his stage fright (for lack of a better term). Is the answer only "more competition" or would be formal training/ Marine Corps Drill Instructors berating him as he shoots, perhaps?

[Chris Rhines]

There's something to be said for, "Moar competition," especially if improving your competition performance is your goal.

From 2004-2007, my only shooting practice was a match almost every weekend and some dryfire. I'd get out to the range to practice live maybe 5-6 times per year. But at the end of 2007, I was a B-class USPSA shooter with a couple of regional podium finishes and a Nationals invite. Competing more will absolutely help your overall performance.

-C

[ToddG]

Here is the FAST variant they ran at the local club, the guy saying "Nice" at the end is a professional Rudy Project shooter who recently won expert I believe at a major match. He beat me by .4 seconds. This was several months ago.

So... am I just not seeing it, or is there no 3x5 in the head? Hitting the 36 square inch head box is a lot different than hitting the 15 square inch card that the drill is designed around. Those are still very good times but it's not a real F.A.S.T. That could be where some of that confusion came from. It's like if you said you shot El Prez in under five seconds, but it was an "El Prez" run at five yards and all you had to do was hit an IPSC target rather than the A-/0-zone.


The real question here is how GOP can get over his stage fright (for lack of a better term). Is the answer only "more competition" or would be formal training/ Marine Corps Drill Instructors berating him as he shoots, perhaps?

In my experience, the best way to get over match stress is to shoot matches. But you definitely need to be cognizant of the mental game, as some people call it. I've certainly seen folks who were easily rattled even though they've been shooting longer -- and at a higher level -- than their calmer competitors.

I think the general stress inoculation stuff (a la the USMC stuff LL mentioned, or the C.U.S.S. class Jack Leuba and I have done) definitely can help, but it's a mistake to assume that inoculation to one kind of stress will provide the same level of inoculation against other stress. The best example I can give is the reverse situation: plenty of guys who've been through USMC -- or even actual combat -- get stressed at matches. It may not affect them as severely but it's there.

[GOP]

So... am I just not seeing it, or is there no 3x5 in the head? Hitting the 36 square inch head box is a lot different than hitting the 15 square inch card that the drill is designed around. Those are still very good times but it's not a real F.A.S.T. That could be where some of that confusion came from. It's like if you said you shot El Prez in under five seconds, but it was an "El Prez" run at five yards and all you had to do was hit an IPSC target rather than the A-/0-zone.

There isn't a 3x5, I'm not really sure why they don't run it with one. My 3.74 time was with a 3x5 and concealment (PPQ in a Dale Fricke holster AIWB), but again, I guess I don't see how that is so magnificent. I'm pretty sure I have an old run at the FAST that is around 4.7 also from several months ago with my Go Pro somewhere. It's funny, because I broke through a HUGE plateau when Ben Stoeger told me in PM here that you have to miss a lot to make big progress. The video is from April 30, he told me that on May 19th or so. I was stuck in the 4.5 range, and after about a month or so I hit a 3.74 FAST (the real kind). It was only one run, and it was after 11 other runs, but it counted. Can I do that on demand? Heck no. My on demand time is around 4.3 seconds or so. I'd almost classify the 3.74 as a lucky run, because I nailed the reload. The 1.8 bill drill at 7m on an 8" circle isn't that impressive IMO, It was from AIWB. I drew at the bottom of the plate and rode the sights up, I don't feel that is so great. I don't know how to move efficiently, and I lose a ton of time there in matches. Stage plans and how to shoot certain props? You can forget that. My skills there are non-existent. I also get nervous, and remember shaking on the first stage of the major match (it was a SHO/WHO stage too, my score/time blew). So basically, it looks like I suck badly under stress and with movement, but I'm a solid shooter when Im static at the range. Well, basically we have just discovered what I already knew, Im a range God with no real skills. I want to fix this, so any help would be awesome. I really think I can be good at this sport, and I love it, it is the only sport I've ever been naturally gifted at.

[DocGKR]

GOP--Check fire. I am not insulting you and disparaging your skills. I was quite clear I cannot shoot anywhere near that well. As I stated, your numbers are VERY impressive and if repeatable will put you in contention for a National Championship. But as I stated before, they don't mean anything unless you can do it on demand, under stress, with witnesses. Also, the video you shared is nice, but 4.61 is not 3.74; and as others noted, the entire head box is easier than an actual 3x5 scoring area.

[GJM]

GOP, consider this. If you go thru the Pistol-Training list of best FASTest performance in each class, you will not find a single time under 4.0 seconds -- and the best time I see is 4.59. When you state you can shoot sub 4.0 FASTests and that inside an afternoon, you can shoot a sub 4.0 FASTest with ANY striker fired pistol you pick up, you have shot one arrow through the notion that dedication to a platform yields results, a second arrow through the hearts of those of us that are working our hardest, yet unable to shoot a sub 4.0 FASTest, except by going at a speed that the hits are more luck than skill, and probably pegged the BS meter on most folks that participate in this forum.

Last summer, I posted a video here, where I shot a 4.4 or 4.5 legitimate (concealment, etc.) FASTest. A few months later, when I showed up at Todd's course, the best clean FASTest I managed was 5.9, and it was the third attempt which didn't count towards class standing. I think Ben Stoeger suggested, more or less, add 2 seconds to personal best to get what can be done on demand, in a setting like a FASTest at a class with your peers watching.

I have no basis to know whether you can shoot a sub 4 FAST on demand, but if you were asking for advice, I would suggest to lay low on the times and claims, until you show up at a TLG class, or similar formal event, and make it happen. Will you be attending the TLG class at the end of September in NM?

[GOP]

I have no basis to know whether you can shoot a sub 4 FAST on demand, but if you were asking for advice, I would suggest to lay low on the times and claims, until you show up at a TLG class, or similar formal event, and make it happen. Will you be attending the TLG class at the end of September in NM?

Great point, I made claims with no video evidence or and no witnesses here and got called on it. I apologize, my intentions were pure and meant to simply say that competition experience and mental management skills are very important skills to have. As I have said before, I really am not a good shooter, at least not on demand. I won't be at TLG's class at the end of September, but I will be at the Mississippi State IDPA Championship in October if anyone is there. There is no way I'd get a coin or anything at a class, I know that much. Until then, I'm going to simply lay low and shut my mouth on the forum. I was never intending to brag or come across as arrogant, that isn't my style. It can't be when you come in 79th of 119 at a major competition ;) You folks have a good one.

[ToddG]

Folks certainly don't have to come through one of my classes to demonstrate they're outstanding shooters. I don't recall seeing Dave Sevigny, Rob Leatham, or Bob Vogel in class for instance. :cool:

[JSGlock34]

As others have stated, there is something different about shooting the FAST for record at a class or KSTG event. There is indeed an added mental component to the marksmanship challenge.

http://i537.photobucket.com/albums/ff339/ArclightPB/AFHS/ARM_3619.jpg

[YVK]

GOP, I don't think you should shut your mouth and stop expressing your experiences and opinions. If you're as good as your numbers suggest, your rankings and scores at matches will speak for themselves, especially that you're feeling you've had a breakthrough.

This thread took a major detour, but since it did, I might as well to post on this subject too. I have a quite strong dissenting opinion on performance in the class vs performance in practice. Provided that I am shooting at the speed that I am seeing my sights, my performance in practice is no different than in classes or under observation. In fact, it is often better in classes which I attribute to lighting conditions. My "official wall" FAST was my fastest ever at that time. There are multiple factors that people use to explain the degradation in class and I am not buying most of it. Sound of timer, being observed by others, stress etc. Everybody who is halfway serious about this has a timer or three, why are you freezing now? Being observed - big deal, it is not like your ass is getting lit up on fire by people staring at you. Stress, really? Punching holes in paper? Come on, nobody has ever been under real performance stress in life?
I would give one reason that I think is real where people might stress out about their performance on paper shooting tests - when it affects their livelihood. Instructors, professional competition shooters come to mind. For everybody else, I don't see how it should be more stressful than Xbox.

[JHC]

No, actually they were run off for eliciting people to troll the forum, being disrespectful towards SMEs or Staff (in some cases on the forum and in some cases by PM), or both. If you'd like to discuss the matter further, feel free to PM me or any other member of the forum Staff. It's not relevant to this thread.

If you think DocGKR's surprise at your reported scores is unfounded, I emailed them to a many-times USPSA/IDPA national champion and his response was that you'll no doubt win National Champion this year. You can see where people might find a disconnect between someone who's a MM-class IDPA shooter who didn't even break into the top half at the last major match he shot, and someone who claims he can shoot a sub-4 FAST and 1.80 Bill Drills. While there's certainly a lot more to playing gun games than the skills tested by the FAST & Bill, folks who can turn in such astounding scores on those drills don't tend to rank 79 out of 119.

I'm not intending this as a personal attack and hope it doesn't come across as such. But when you make extraordinary claims that are significantly out of proportion to your demonstrated "rank" in a game (for lack of a better term) certainly you can understand where it creates confusion.

Come on now a huge portion of winning a major USPSA title is stage tactics and the transition game which a new shooter won't have so those many-times champions surveyed were being kind of chicken shit. Although you may have set them up to be so. ;)

[JHC]

The real question here is how GOP can get over his stage fright (for lack of a better term). Is the answer only "more competition" or would be formal training/ Marine Corps Drill Instructors berating him as he shoots, perhaps?

Serious or snark?

Definitely match competition experience.

[ToddG]

Come on now a huge portion of winning a major USPSA title is stage tactics and the transition game which a new shooter won't have so those many-times champions surveyed were being kind of chicken shit. Although you may have set them up to be so. ;)

The shooter in question was indeed being facetious. I clearly failed to communicate that adequately. Apologies.

[JHC]

The shooter in question was indeed being facetious. I clearly failed to communicate that adequately. Apologies.

Great word! We need to work that in more. ;)

[CCT125US]

I think a change in match performance / class performance could be explained by the shooters personality. Some people are frightened to speak in public, be in large groups, center of attention, take tests, etc. etc. Add in the fact that you pay good money, time, and effort to make a class, that all adds up. Some people handle it better than others. That would be an interesting data point to see the personality of top shooters and their backgrounds / profession.

[Mr_White]

I think a change in match performance / class performance could be explained by the shooters personality. Some people are frightened to speak in public, be in large groups, center of attention, take tests, etc. etc. Add in the fact that you pay good money, time, and effort to make a class, that all adds up. Some people handle it better than others. That would be an interesting data point to see the personality of top shooters and their backgrounds / profession.

Definitely agree.

People are different, and some handle stress better than others, and some feel stress where others don't.

The worst stress situation I personally face is on-demand performance with my friends/peers/students. Over time it is getting better, but it definitely affects me.

I find competition somewhat less stressful that that, including competition where I will win or fail to win a pistol and a couple hundred bucks based purely on my on-demand performance.

[Mr_White]

what you do by yourself in practice is utterly IRRELEVANT unless you can do it on demand, when other folks are watching/involved, and for real when under stress.

Do you not consider reaching and attempting to reach high levels of technical performance in solo practice a legitimate intermediary step in the journey toward being able to execute at that high level on demand, with others present, when under some level of stress, with consequences attached to performance?


As I stated, your numbers are VERY impressive and if repeatable will put you in contention for a National Championship. But as I stated before, they don't mean anything unless you can do it on demand, under stress, with witnesses.

I have shot a whopping two USPSA matches so far, so my perspective on this is very limited. But, it is apparent to me that there is a lot more to winning at USPSA and IDPA than pure shooting skills, and the draw as a component of match performance is small, especially compared to the weight the draw has in a short-form drill or test such as the Bill Drill or the FAST.

To me, it is not inconceivable that a person might be able to shoot extremely well in short-form drills or tests, and measure up considerably less well in a broader competition that tests a whole lot more, with a whole lot more complexity.

Pure marksmanship and speed might be better measured by more simplistic competitions such as Steel Challenge, NRA (bullseye and action pistol?), and GSSF. Essentially, competitions where the components measured are primarily marksmanship and speed, and maybe the draw, and not a lot of movement and more extensive gunhandling or complex stage planning.

Frankly, I think short-form drills, tests, and courses are more likely to be relevant to self-defense, though of course they are not directly transferable either.

I do not think that technical performance in solo practice is irrelevant. I think that part of expanding one's on-demand ability includes jumping as high as you can to reach the highest heights you can. I think that is a part of it. I think technical skills in solo practice constitute the starting point from which a person will fall, when faced with stress and adverse circumstances, be it performance on video for public display, performance in front of peers/students/instructors, or performance in defense of life.

If that's the case, where does that leave a person who can't even perform at a high level when not faced with adverse circumstances? What will that person be left with?

[CCT125US]

There are certainly many examples of untrained or poorly trained individuals engaging in and living through a self defense situation. What I feel DocGKR is pointing out is that in regards to competition, stand and deliver is what matters and wins. A friend of mine who engaged in a self defense situation decided to put two rounds over the BG's left shoulder as a warning. Everytime I shoot with this friend, he has the classic down and left flinch. He somehow managed not to duplicate what he does in practice, when it was real. If he did, his GF's ex husband would be dead. But I obviously see the importance of stand and deliver in competition.

[DocGKR]

"Do you not consider reaching and attempting to reach high levels of technical performance in solo practice a legitimate intermediary step in the journey toward being able to execute at that high level on demand, with others present, when under some level of stress, with consequences attached to performance?"

ABSOLUTELY!!! But don't tell the whole world how great you perform if you are unable to do it for real or have those impressive claims validated in front of other folks. It is the unsupported claims that are irrelevant, NOT the technical performance, practice, and striving for increased speed and accuracy--those are all critical.

[YVK]

Good post, Origami. My whole one USPSA match experience led me to similar conclusions. I came in a middle of a pack, I am probably C level at best. I also shot it from a concealment and to a slide lock vs open drop-and-offset holsters and IPSC reloads by everybody else, so I wouldn't be surprised if on FAST or similar drills my ranking amongst the same crowd would be higher. If I were to pick one solitary shooting skill for that match, based on my perception, it would be hitting small prob targets at longer distances, like 15 yards or above. Bullets fly faster than man can run.




If that's the case, where does that leave a person who can't even perform at a high level when not faced with adverse circumstances? What will that person be left with?

As I mentioned, my shooting performance doesn't deteriorate under "adverse" circumstances of classes, but I can answer the part I put in bold. 'cause this is the level where I live at - the land of Mediocrity. You get to a certain level of competence, and then shoot and practice as time and circumstances allow, and you enjoy the process. The classic Journey vs Destination thing.

[Mr_White]

ABSOLUTELY!!! But don't tell the whole world how great you perform if you are unable to do it for real or have those impressive claims validated in front of other folks. It is the unsupported claims that are irrelevant, NOT the technical performance, practice, and striving for increased speed and accuracy--those are all critical.

I thank you for your clarification.

[Mr Pink]

This is a pretty interesting thread, but I'd like to attempt to address the OP's initial question.


What is the ratio you think is required to achieve a known ranking as measure of ability? In other words, how many classes per year, matches per month, practice sessions per week, etc. do you think is required to become a USPSA or IDPA Master? What about a USPSA "C"? and what is the output required to initially achieve that level vs. maintaining it once achieved? If you have to go to the range and practice two days a week to achieve Master, can you back off and go instead twice a month to maintain that? Does the focus shift from static range training to attending more matches?

When I was in the military we had the opportunity to train with some competitive shooters. Each time we time we trained with these guys, this question would come up. Some of the common responses to become a Master class USPSA in a year were:
-Dry Fire everyday for 10-20 minutes (this can be broken down into two sessions AM/PM)
-Live practice 3 days per week (100-200 rds per practice)
-Shoot at least one match per month
-Use a pro timer for dry fire and live fire

Of course as pointed out, there are TOO MANY variables that effect the outcome. What drills do you shoot? What par times do you use? How do you practice? What do you practice? etc...

Years ago, I used the above formula for 3 months and was able to go from Sharpshooter to Master in IDPA. Granted, I was not very interested in competition, nor competitive in rankings and I've only shot a few matches. At the time I was instructing full time and had free ammo. Years later I find that I'm not as fast or as accurate as I used to be. Hopefully, I plan on shooting some matches in the near future.

[DocGKR]

Mr. Pink--great comments!

[Mr Pink]

Mr. Pink--great comments!
Thank you Doc. I hope that in the future I can continue to be a constructive member here.

As an update, I shot the classifier and found myself missing Master by a few points. A "miss" on a head shot and a procedural held me back a little, but my overall speed was not there. Time for me to break out the pro-timer and start practicing :D

[Chris Rhines]

Mr. Pink -

The course of practice that you describe, is almost exactly what I did to make Master.

Rob -


I'm interested in ideals we set for ourselves, and the limits of reality, relative to ability. This is a really interesting question, and I fear that there might not be an easy answer.

First off, I'm firmly in the nurture vs. nature camp when it comes to practical shooting. Natural ability plays a small role in your ability as a shooter, but I've never seen anyone, anywhere, who could compete on a high level right out of the box.

Jeez, this was getting long.

Shooting ability depends on three main factors (exclusive of physical ability, eyesight, and so on...) How much time you spend training, how consistently you spend that time, and how efficiently you spend that time as related to your shooting goals.

I know plenty of shooters who don't practice at all save for attending matches on the weekends. They generally peak in the USPSA C-class / IDPA Sharpshooter range. That's fine, they generally have no performance goals beyond going out to the matches and having some fun.

A shooter who commits to a hour of practice every day*, in addition to 2-3 local matches per month, I'd expect them to be able to make USPSA A-class at least. That's just based on my own personal experience, and my observations of other shooters who I train with. But again, it depends on the quality and consistency of your practice. Quality of the matches, too. I've been to plenty of matches that were just glorified hosefests, no real accuracy required.

The really top dogs, the guys who are winning national championships, train more than this. How much more, though, is a matter of some speculation. There are certainly guys who shoot full-time, but there are also plenty of top shooters who compete at a very high level while holding down a full time job, college, etc. I suspect that at that high a level, time management becomes very important.

Anyone really interested in this subject would be well-advised to read Saul Kirsch's Thinking Practical Shooting (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Practical-Shooting-outstanding-Performance/dp/9080880531/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342967729&sr=1-3).

-C


* - That's an hour on average, including dry- and live-fire practice. 30 minutes of dry-fire, six days per week, plus two 2-hour range sessions would certainly qualify.

[rob_s]

First off, I'm firmly in the nurture vs. nature camp when it comes to practical shooting. Natural ability plays a small role in your ability as a shooter

IME these types of statements come from those that do have natural ability and they just can't understand why other people can't do what they do. Not just in shooting, but in school, sports, work, whatever. Even attitude. Ever notice that all those stupid platitudes about "be happy!" and "have a positive mental attitude!" tend to come from people that either naturally do so or who have never been really challenged?

I think natural abilities play way more of a role than most anyone wants to admit. Those that benefit from it don't want to admit that it's not because of all their hard work, and those that don't have it don't want to think that there's something they just can't do.

As an example, BMX freestyle (sorry if that's too esoteric, I'm not a big-4 sports guy). Matt Hoffman is the Tony Hawk of BMX freestyle. Yes, he absolutely works hard, puts in the time on the ramp, etc. But Rick Thorne puts an equal amount of time in (or did, I have no idea what either of these guys are doing today), and he was just never going to be as good as Hoffman. Thorne was my favorite rider though because you could see that he wanted it, and worked hard, and when he caught air and started a trick you could feel how hard he was working. Everyone loves to watch Hoffman and Hawk because they are smooth and make it look effortless, and while it's not totally effortless it's also not as hard for them. A guy like Thorne has to expend more effort, more time in practice, and is still never going to be as good or as smooth as Hoffman.

It's silly to think that some people don't just naturally do better at certain things. Of course they do. We spend our whole lives observing this and then we decide we don't like it and we're going to ignore it. That doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't, work hard to achieve what we want, but we should also understand that some of us are naturally hamstrung more than others in certain areas, and excel in other areas.

[Mr Pink]

IME these types of statements come from those that do have natural ability and they just can't understand why other people can't do what they do.

I used to think the same thing, until my unit had the opportunity to train with a guy named Frank Garcia. Frank is probably one of the most uncoordinated, non-athletic person I have ever met. BUT he had determination and trained every day (either dry fire or live fire). I learned a lot about training from him. Talent is overrated and that guy proved it.

[Mr Pink]

Mr. Pink -

The course of practice that you describe, is almost exactly what I did to make Master.

NICE! How long did it take?

[JAD]

Matt Hoffman is the Tony Hawk of BMX freestyle.
Facepalm. No one is the Tony Hawk of anything except vertical skateboarding.

I kid -- your analogy is fine -- but this is jarring for a child of the eighties.

[Chris Rhines]

NICE! How long did it take? About two years. I'm still pressing hard to make GM...

-C

[rob_s]

I used to think the same thing, until my unit had the opportunity to train with a guy named Frank Garcia. Frank is probably one of the most uncoordinated, non-athletic person I have ever met. BUT he had determination and trained every day (either dry fire or live fire). I learned a lot about training from him. Talent is overrated and that guy proved it.

I've trained with Frank more than once, and your assessment of him is right on. Your assessment of talent is right off. He works like a dog to get where he is, but if was starting out with more natural ability he'd either be better than he is or have to work less to get there and maintain it.

We ALL know people that in one way or another just don't have to try at certain things. To say otherwise is just ridiculous.

[Mr Pink]

Your assessment of talent is right off.
There's an excellent book called "Talent is overrated" you should check it out. Basically, anyone can do anything with desire. Frank Garcia is an excellent example of that. He's always said "if I can do it, you can". The reason is because he doesn't have natural ability, he just trains hard and the right way. I lived overseas with him for a while and can attest to his lack of "natural ability". The guy is a workhorse.

[Mr Pink]

About two years. I'm still pressing hard to make GM...
That's awesome! You are an inspiration and proof that hard work pays off.

[rob_s]

dragging this back up, as I think there is some research that is relevant.
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/11/secret-happy-home-fulfilled-work/


Americans also gain a boost in positive emotions the more they use their strengths. The more hours per day adults believe they use their strengths, the more likely they are to report having ample energy, feeling well-rested, being happy, smiling or laughing a lot, learning something interesting, and being treated with respect.


In other words, we do what makes us feel good, and doing what we are good at makes us feel good.

[Peally]

If I'm using my shooting skills at work something has gone terribly, terribly wrong or terribly, terribly right (we finally installed a free staff range!) :p

[Luke]

Good thread bump!

There is a huge difference for me in practice and at matches. 99.99% of that is mental. I've been listening to a lot of Steve Anderson recently (20 episodes in less than a week), and my "match mode" is so screwed up. From a technique aspect and from a mental aspect. I'm working on this now, I know this is what I need to work on.

[rob_s]

While the point of the article is specifically about work, there are concepts there that apply to fun. In fact, the end application is pretty irrelevant, as we're all basically just pleasure-seeking machines, and we derive pleasure from doing what we're good at.

[Luke]

Matt Burket said "good shooting is boring". I would agree, some of my best stages in matches felt slo motion and not good. Some of my worst I came out smiling saying man I blasted that!

I have fallen into the trap of doing what was fun, and not necessarily what was needed to be done.

[taadski]

Good thread bump!

There is a huge difference for me in practice and at matches. 99.99% of that is mental. I've been listening to a lot of Steve Anderson recently (20 episodes in less than a week), and my "match mode" is so screwed up. From a technique aspect and from a mental aspect. I'm working on this now, I know this is what I need to work on.



:)

[taadski]

In other words, we do what makes us feel good, and doing what we are good at makes us feel good.


Ironically, having the disposition or work ethic to hammer on those things we're NOT good at seems to be a primary precursor to success, often regardless of "natural ability".

[rob_s]

Ironically, having the disposition or work ethic to hammer on those things we're NOT good at seems to be a primary precursor to success, often regardless of "natural ability".

Most of the modern studies I've read seem to go against that idea. Yes, it's what we've all been told our entire lives, but it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

"work hard, and you can achieve anything!" The mantra of the lost-cause, the need to have one's achievements be about their effort not their ability, and the attempt to motivate everyone in the can-do society.

But it's not true.

The narrative isn't as fun if you say Mike Tyson was just predisposed to knock motherfuckers out, and that all Cuss did was find him and polish him up. Or that Tiger was predisposed to hit balls long and accurate, and that all his dad did was keep making him do it.

Which isn't to say that someone is going to simply walk onto the range and win the game. There is, obviously, some amount of specialized fine-tuning of natural ability that is required even to participate, let alone win. But while I don't believe someone with zero training or practice is going to win Nationals, neither do I believe that someone lacking the natural ability (and the joy that comes from exercising said ability) is even capable of doing so no matter how much "work ethic" they have.

[Nephrology]

Most of the modern studies I've read seem to go against that idea. Yes, it's what we've all been told our entire lives, but it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

"work hard, and you can achieve anything!" The mantra of the lost-cause, the need to have one's achievements be about their effort not their ability, and the attempt to motivate everyone in the can-do society.

But it's not true.

The narrative isn't as fun if you say Mike Tyson was just predisposed to knock motherfuckers out, and that all Cuss did was find him and polish him up. Or that Tiger was predisposed to hit balls long and accurate, and that all his dad did was keep making him do it.

Which isn't to say that someone is going to simply walk onto the range and win the game. There is, obviously, some amount of specialized fine-tuning of natural ability that is required even to participate, let alone win. But while I don't believe someone with zero training or practice is going to win Nationals, neither do I believe that someone lacking the natural ability (and the joy that comes from exercising said ability) is even capable of doing so no matter how much "work ethic" they have.

I think this might apply to your legendary competitors in a given sport (Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Tom Brady, and so forth) but for your average person I think you can compensate for average natural ability with above-average work ethic. Consider, for example, how uncommonly terrible America is at our math education. American students come out of college at a significant disadvantage in mathematics vs. graduates from other countries - particularly Asian countries - such that they usually have to complete some degree of Masters coursework or other independent study to be brought up to par for PhD programs.

I don't think this is a case of a whole nation with a dearth of natural ability vs. the rest of the world. There will always be the Georg Cantors and Alan Turings of the world who will succeed no matter what environment they are plonked in, but for the majority of us on this forum we have a lot more we can wring out from increasing the frequency/quality of our dry and live fire practice.

This is especially true when you consider that the skills & qualities that go into good shooting (as with most sports) is highly multifactorial - upper body strength, visual acuity, manual dexterity, 'vision' for the 'field,' etc. You can be born with natural skill in some but not all of these areas - which is where hard work can help you make up the deficit, even if your natural ceiling is lower than most.

[45dotACP]

Funny, a guy named Jerry Miculek assessed his own talent as not being "natural"

He just has literally millions upon millions of trigger pulls in his lifetime.

Sure, you may not be the best without a certain natural disposition (excellent vision, hand eye coordination, resilience to muzzle blast, at least fairly decent strength and foot speed) much as certain mental tendencies bring other people to success in mathematics, art, music etc.

But hard work counts for a lot. Is Ben Stoeger national champ because he is a natural, or because lots of practice? He did classify GM his first time so there's a natural talent thing...but he also shot a lot before that so there's that too...

I'll probably never be the single stack nats ace shooter... maybe never even a GM, but damned if I won't practice and have a ton of fun doing it!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Luke]

One thing in common with the people on top is they know how to practice.

Want to know how Ben classified GM first time out? He looked at what it took to classify. He then broke that down and worked on those skills. Ben seems like the king of practice.

I think claiming he has "natural talent" is a disservice to his hard work he has put in.

[45dotACP]

One thing in common with the people on top is they know how to practice.

Want to know how Ben classified GM first time out? He looked at what it took to classify. He then broke that down and worked on those skills. Ben seems like the king of practice.

I think claiming he has "natural talent" is a disservice to his hard work he has put in.

Agreed...it would seem that his natural talent is to be able to look at the sport and intuitively understand what he needed to achieve in practice to play at the highest level. I noticed in his podcast, he seems to be at best, lukewarm about what gun a shooter uses, what types of bullets, what types of powder, etc...seemingly because the most important thing is what you practice, how you practice it, and how often.

[Mr_White]

I think claiming he has "natural talent" is a disservice to his hard work he has put in.

Well said and I completely agree. I pretty much see this argument literally as the struggle between free will and determinism. I don't care whether determinism is true; I simply find it repugnant and think it is unproductive as a personal philosophy.

[Sal Picante]

Well said and I completely agree. I pretty much see this argument literally as the struggle between free will and determinism. I don't care whether determinism is true; I simply find it repugnant and think it is unproductive as a personal philosophy.

Wow. Least number of words you've ever used...

[Sal Picante]

Most of the modern studies I've read seem to go against that idea. Yes, it's what we've all been told our entire lives, but it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

"work hard, and you can achieve anything!" The mantra of the lost-cause, the need to have one's achievements be about their effort not their ability, and the attempt to motivate everyone in the can-do society.

But it's not true.

The narrative isn't as fun if you say Mike Tyson was just predisposed to knock motherfuckers out, and that all Cuss did was find him and polish him up. Or that Tiger was predisposed to hit balls long and accurate, and that all his dad did was keep making him do it.

Which isn't to say that someone is going to simply walk onto the range and win the game. There is, obviously, some amount of specialized fine-tuning of natural ability that is required even to participate, let alone win. But while I don't believe someone with zero training or practice is going to win Nationals, neither do I believe that someone lacking the natural ability (and the joy that comes from exercising said ability) is even capable of doing so no matter how much "work ethic" they have.

Interesting sentiments...

Anecdotally, I never knew about shooting, not having grown up with it. I tried it a few times and somehow, after I figured out how to aim, I was hooked; I just loved pulling the trigger.

I think that a person has to see some sort of value in what they're doing. It makes the bromides about hard work/etc besides the entire point: you'd do it if it were even harder.

Shooting is such an unnatural endeavor, though, that I really don't think you could point to anybody having "natural ability". Is it the hand-eye thing? The grip thing? The ability to keep eyes open and not flinch? Etc... The "motions" are fairly simple processes, but layered up in a rather complex fashion.

[Paul Sharp]

I think I've had this type of conversation at least a hundred times since I started coaching. It's the Gordian Knot in the sports world, and to some in the self protection world. Surprisingly I've had the conversation far more frequently in the BJJ/MMA/Judo/Wrestling/Boxing world. The sports world seems to understand a direct correlation between performance and survivability, (however we choose to define it; making it to the next bracket or making it home.)

What does it take to be great? Is it natural or something that's nurtured?

What element is most important? Heart? Raw natural talent? Work ethic? And how does a coach determine how much natural talent an athlete possesses? (Specifically beginners. Intermediate to advanced guys are easy to assess..., but then we're back to the original point which is how much of them getting to an advanced level was natural or hard work or both.)

We do know a solid starting point is almost mandatory. Strong fundamentals, deeply ingrained are more important than almost anything else. Flawed fundamentals are almost impossible to overcome, it involves rewiring years and years of pathways that are beat into place through lots of reps in practice and competition. That can be almost insurmountable and one of the first things to limit a guys growth.

We also know a certain level of intelligence is necessary. Randy Couture used to say it was God's way of leveling the playing field; guys with unbelievable natural abilities can be dumb as rocks and lazy because everything comes easy for them whereas the guys with less physical ability were a little more intelligent in their approach, and learned to work hard to master things since nothing ever came easy to them. I realize this is a broad brush but it was based on decades of watching athletes at all levels and observing how things played out. Think about how many times you've asked someone how they did something they were really skilled at and they responded with; I don't know, I just do it. Now think about the ones you asked that had a detailed answer, including books they read, coaches they've consulted and a few practice regimens they've used. Same skill level, very different approaches. Both worked, but one approach can be duplicated, the other... not so much.

It's definitely an interesting discussion, one I've participated in way too many times to only be able to say, I'm not sure... we're still trying to figure it out.