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]

[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.