Todd, I just ran FAST 2 several times and then FAST 1. How much detail do you want?
Todd, I just ran FAST 2 several times and then FAST 1. How much detail do you want?
I don't follow. The previous FAST didn't incorporate an unplanned reload. The new one is trying to incorporate an unplanned reload. Why does a new test, with different rules, invalidate the old?Originally Posted by frady2001
I don't think anyone is saying we can compare scores of old FAST times to FAST 2 times, that's why Todd is calling it the FAST 2, and not just changing the rules and still calling it a FAST.
The difference from a planned to unplanned reload is about .3s for me.
Last edited by JV_; 03-10-2014 at 02:15 PM.
+1 no more than if we adopt an El Prez II. It's just a new test. A better test IMO. Better insofar as measuring reaction and immediate action.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
Why not keep fast and add Fast 2 as an advanced drill? Fast one is set up as a standard for all out speed and the ability to to reload and transition. Fast 2 becomes a reactionary drill for honing ability to react to the situation. Two completely different variables are being measured in my opinion.
This is coming from a guy that sucks at the fast drill so take it with a grain of salt.
“If you know the way broadly you will see it in everything." - Miyamoto Musashi
Don't forget the target transition, which technically doesn't happen in the FAST due to the timing of the reload.
From my perspective, the FAST is a Drill, while the FAST 2 is an Assessment. Drills by definition have a fixed set of rules, while an Assessment measures performance of a set of skills. You can use a drill as an assessment, but I don't think the opposite is necessarily true. Kind of like a math test vs a times table test...both are math but times tables are a known (a drill) and the test is an assessment of what you know about a math topic.
Seriously? If tomorrow the NFL makes throwing passes cheating, does that mean every pass ever thrown in an NFL game was cheating?
Respectfully, that's why I was asking people to try it. We can all surmise and guess. I'm looking for data.I think it's a cool tweak, but I also think you'd have to trash all the old benchmarks.
When no one had ever heard of or shot the FAST the benchmarks were pretty well tested and established. Now, as people run the drill a million times, those benchmarks are getting pushed. I never would have imagined people shooting it in the low 3's regularly and some even purporting to do it sub-3. It's sort of like the 10s El Prez. Once that meant something. Now, not so much. So if a surprise reload evens things out a bit, it might bring the existing benchmarks back into meaning. Or, it might require new benchmarks. That is what I am trying to figure out.
How does shooting one target first, every time, skew the results? The test is what it is. There is a very specific set of reasons why you shoot the low% target zone first.
The more the merrier. Specifically, I'd be interested in total times, reload times, and if the placement of the reload on the "FAST 2" affected total time in any meaningful way (i.e., did it matter if you started with 3 rounds in the gun versus 4 versus 5).
Well, I may just change the rules and still call it the FAST, just as others have changed their tests in the past. It wouldn't be my intent to use both, though obviously others who liked the old preset way could continue to use it all they wanted.
I don't see it that way at all. The FAST was always intended as an assessment/test and never intended to be a drill (skill-builder that you do over and over again). The change I'm thinking about doesn't alter that.
Is this going to take the place of the original FAST or be in addition to or an alternate to the original?
Understanding that fair is a place where cows and pigs win ribbons, one is a test of a known constant while the other isn't, and thus it isn't "fair" to compare the results as a single test.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
For my personal purposes -- what I do cold when I show up at the range, what I use when I teach, and ideally what I use when testing for a coin -- the new version would be the only one I use. That's why I'm trying to gauge just how big the impact is.
I'm ok, after all these years, of "raising the bar" a bit. Rogers changed their test years ago to make it harder (I think they upped it from under 100 plates to 125 and added a lot of the 1H stuff... in the process obviously they had to change the number of hits required to get Intermediate and Advanced).
The drill would still be the same for everyone. It would just be a little harder than it used to be.
Actually, after thinking about it, I was incorrect. Since you aren't supposed to sit down and shoot the FAST over and over it isn't really a Drill. Since you have to do it cold and on demand, it is also an assessment. I like the new twist myself.
If you end up with five rounds loaded:
1) you know longer have a surprise reload coming.
and
2) I need a much less forgiving grip to shoot one round after the reload than to shot multiple rounds. No different than the grip required for a one shot draw versus the grip to do a Bill drill.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Reply With Quote