What makes a shooter "good?"

[YVK]

Good enough for what? "Shooting" can mean very, very different things.

Right on, "shooting" alone is too broad of a term.

Take defensive pistol shooting, what is a benchmark that must or "should" be made to be considered good or adequate? How does one get good?

It is an unanswerable (is there such word?) question. Extrapolate from any field that requires standardized testing to practice/work in that field. It has been shown again and again that performance on standardized tests does not have a strong correlation with success in practical field. You can ace your test on paper, but be unable to apply your knowledge practically. You can shine in comfortable situation but collapse under time pressure. Etc, etc. When you choose your doc, lawyer, car mechanic, you don't look at their test scores, you look at their track record.
Same with shooting. The only true benchmark is that one has won all gunfights he's been in. Short of it, the best we can say is that better shooters would likely do better, but nobody can predict minimally required level. We don't know what's minimal level of proficiency is; technical proficiency could be a very small part of winning a fight; fight scenarios could be very different, with potentially drastically different demands.

[MDS]

It is an unanswerable (is there such word?) question. [...] The only true benchmark is that one has won all gunfights he's been in.

With all respect - this line of thinking seems like a bit of a cop-out. This thread isn't about predicting the future of who will win a gun fight. It's about discussing where that fine line is between a "good" shooter, and a shooter that isn't good. I think we can all agree that Sevigny is a good shooter. And we can all agree that the dude at the range last week, who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 10 paces, isn't a good shooter.

Those are extreme examples of good and not good, as evidence that the distinction actually exists and is meaningful. So, where do we draw the line? How do we measure whether the line has been reached? It's an interesting question to discuss, precisely because it's multi-faceted (accurate at long range vs fast at short range vs ... etc) and because "good" is a relative term (so we get to hear what lots of other folks think of as good.)

I'd love to keep hearing detailed measurements of what different folks think of as good, and why. In my case, I'm interested in developing a well-rounded initial competence with the fundamentals of pistol shooting - so my definition of good reflects that, as well as my ignorance and bias and everything else. Your definition will probably reflect your own goals and priorities, as well as any ignorance or bias you might have. Comparing notes on these things could be useful to both of us, for many reasons.

Again, with respect. I don't actually disagree with what you're saying. I just think that this conversation is useful nonetheless.

[Frank B]

What means the term "Good" to everyone? Imho, there is no final answer to this question.
Every school/instructor out there set his very own benchmarks. One instructor is focusing on "Fighting", another favors "Speed/Accuracy". Or one instructor is focusing on static shooting, another favors Shooting on the Move.

[YVK]

Mario, with mutual respect, I disagree with essence of discussion. Specifically

This thread isn't about predicting the future of who will win a gun fight.

When gtmtnbiker defines his question this way...

Take defensive pistol shooting, what is a benchmark that must or "should" be made to be considered good or adequate?

...I then perceive his question as a discussion of minimally required technical skill to prevail in civilian self-defense shooting. If that's the question at hand, I don't believe this is possible to establish. I used to receive American Rifleman [thinking of which, I should continue to be receiving it but I don't] where NRA published cases of successful self-defense by civilians. When I read those cases, in many instances I had a feeling that those gun owners weren't switched on at all. Nonetheless, they won in all cases - otherwise it wouldn't've been published - and there is no better skill assessment tool than outcome of said skill application in real life. Caveat, of course, is that the outcome could've been a random event...
I truly don't think we can have a conclusion in specific performance numbers here. Minimal requirement for me is a safe gun handling; don't shoot yourself when pulling that gun out of the holster. Beyond that, "bigger is better"; how big I need to get to feel confident - I don't know. It is like proving something in criminal vs. civil court: the preponderance of evidence is that I am OK now, but I don't know if it is beyond any reasonable doubt.

[MDS]

Mario, with mutual respect, I disagree with essence of discussion.

Thanks for that. May be cheesy for me to say, but this tendency toward mutually respectful, grown-up discussion about contentious topics is why I hang around on PFC and FT&T.

...I then perceive his question as a discussion of minimally required technical skill to prevail in civilian self-defense shooting. If that's the question at hand, I don't believe this is possible to establish.

I totally agree. It's like when ToddG talks about time to first shot - how do you know that won't need to be faster than you are? You definitely want to prioritize your training, so that you work on those skills that are most likely to benefit your survival rate with improvement. But there's no general "good enough" level of skill - only "good enough" for a particular situation, and you can't know what that level will be ahead of time.

Minimal requirement for me is a safe gun handling; don't shoot yourself when pulling that gun out of the holster. Beyond that, "bigger is better"

That makes a lot of sense. For myself, I know I can learn something from anyone who can at least handle the gun safely. Still, there are folks on the line who I look at and think "nice shooting!" And there are folks on the line who I look at think "that dude could really use more dry-fire." Do you have similar reactions when you see shooters with varying skill levels?

[Keebsley]

I forgot who told it to me but a good shooter is someone that can produce the fundamentals on demand....rain, snow, tired, explosions, day, night...on demand 100% of the time no matter what.

[BrettB]

I would draw the line between good and not good at the ability to call your shots.

Since all areas of shooting worth mentioning require someone to shoot on demand under pressure, knowing if the last round you sent was good/bad is important whether you are fighting, competing, etc. That said, I agree, you can never be "good enough." Leatham is currently trying to become a better shooter.

[MTechnik]

I would draw the line between good and not good at the ability to call your shots.

Since all areas of shooting worth mentioning require someone to shoot on demand under pressure, knowing if the last round you sent was good/bad is important whether you are fighting, competing, etc. That said, I agree, you can never be "good enough." Leatham is currently trying to become a better shooter.

I would say there has to be a level of "good enough" in the equation if you are to carry a pistol.

But that would be different from "I'm good enough and going to stop growing now".

[gtmtnbiker98]

I forgot who told it to me but a good shooter is someone that can produce the fundamentals on demand....rain, snow, tired, explosions, day, night...on demand 100% of the time no matter what.

So, what drill or test attributes to the fundamentals to be performed on demand?

I agree with YVK, a definite answer is hard to answer, if not, impossible. Just trying to get some personal definitions, benchmarks, etc. to what other's feel makes a good shooter. There was some pretty good dialogue in another thread where it was discussed that those who practice a particular classifier (namely IDPA/USPSA) to the point where they make Master; however, when it comes to Match time, seldom performs to that expectation. So, becoming good at one skill does not necessarily make you good at all of them.

[Chipster]

I think the FAST wall shooters are decent shooters (I am on there myself) but a "good" shooter to me is someone much, much better than me. I think along the lines of people like Todd G, Massad Ayoob, Ernest Langdon, all the USTC instructors. These guys are good, me I am just ok. I don't even consider myself worthy of shooting in the same league as these guys. Some may say I have low self esteem but truly these guys are men amongst boys and they are what I consider "good". IMHO