The role of in person classes in training versus online coaching and self-video.

[paherne]

So, to the OP, yes it is possible. I would argue that someone who put as much time, effort and money into a subject as you have would get better without any training. Dumb luck, as it were, and lots of effort would probably yield similar results. The problem is, most people don't learn like you, or have the time or commitment to the exclusion of other things in their lives.

I think you're an outlier and your results are not applicable for the vast majority of folks, for a number of reasons.

Comparing shooting to other top level sports, we almost never see professional athletes that have not received in-person coaching and evaluation. Why is that?

GJM noted an important point about the pandemic as an experiment in distance learning the last few years. It has been disastrous for childhood development. However, in that case we are talking about less-motivated subjects and oft-times poor instructors, so it may not directly correlate.

Perhaps, if I watched a number of pornos and worked on my technique, I could become the lothario I've always wanted to be.

[JCN]

So, to the OP, yes it is possible. I would argue that someone who put as much time, effort and money into a subject as you have would get better without any training. Dumb luck, as it were, and lots of effort would probably yield similar results. The problem is, most people don't learn like you, or have the time or commitment to the exclusion of other things in their lives.

Agree most people don't learn like me. But in sub-selected communities and fields, the majority of people DO.

Regarding time commitment, I spent less than 20 minutes a day to go from A to GM. Now I just do it for fun, but it's not like I'm sitting in my parents basement without a job.

Most regular folks watch more TV or play more video games than I practice. It's not exactly an arduous task. But yeah.

I think you're an outlier and your results are not applicable for the vast majority of folks, for a number of reasons.

Ahem. From the thread.

I don't have a dog in the fight, but @JCN I think you're something of an outlier in terms of your ability to self-assess.

I totally agree with that (and said as such) and what works for me won’t necessarily work for others.

But the concept of it CAN help. In the SWYNTS thread you can see how forcing people to video their runs has them learning how to critique themselves. You can see people learning how to learn in that thread which is huge.

And that’s why people are noticing big improvement where they had previously plateaued.

Also this, where I say most people will require in person learning.

IN PERSON: You get the VIDEO content live but you only get to watch it once and can't slow it down. You get one perspective but not the chance to assimilate multiple expert opinions. You get a critical eye helping you with gross errors but you might not be able to see or recognize what it is you're doing from first person perspective. Some good classes I hear use cameras and slow motion to help.

This is a good option for people who don't self-assess at a high level. It's a necessary option for most people.

@paherne if you read the thread, it's not about whether it's possible. Of course it's possible. I did it. Gio did it.

My path was almost entirely self taught, using video analysis and studying/emulating the movements and mechanics of the top shooters in the world.

I went from buying/owning a pistol for the first time as a young 24 yr old in 2006 to dabbling in competition right after that (without really diving in yet), to getting more serious in IDPA competition and getting my initial classification as expert (2011) and then initial USPSA classification in B class (2013) to USPSA Grandmaster (2017), super squad (2020, 2021, 2022), and multiple top 10 finishes with no formal classes by any instructor.

It's about what to do with it.

Which is the point of the thread. Read the testimonials of the people I've helped online...

People who had taken classes and put in the work... but didn't have the coaching to work on the proper things.

Working with me online they're improving at a rate previously not achieved. Not because they're doing more work (to contradict your point), but because they're working smarter. I'm helping them with that.

My statement earlier in the thread was:


My specialty is helping people who ARE motivated, but need help with the self-assessment... the people who have plateaued and extra classes and traditional drills haven't moved the needle.

This is where my special skills and training come into play, not just for me dry firing in my basement... but to help others. And that's a specific application where online and video coaching shines.



I think some people get very concrete in the literal.

I would be a better shooter if I were in the AMU.
I would be a better shooter if Max Michel was my neighbor.

None of that is realistic in my schedule, while dry firing with videos instead of watching television is.

So we aren't talking about what is ultimately possible. We are talking about what's reasonable.

If I had Ben Stoeger live in my basement for a year and paid him $200k to be my live in coach, I would probably be better than I am now.

If my goal was to be the best that I could possibly be, I would ask him to do it.

Does that make sense? World class specific coaching on an ongoing basis (like 5 hours a week minimum) is useful, but not easily available.

Group classes by random joe trainer may not be worth the opportunity cost.

Longitudinal training beats bolus training.

Etc.


I'm rare for the general population, but I'm not unique by any means. I know a dozen people like me and better than me from work and play.

What I do is teachable and trainable and you're seeing the fruits of that for people in the SWYNTS and training journal threads.

Nobody would be able to hire me for in person coaching. I'm too expensive. But it costs nothing to tap my brain for 2 minutes online.



Online coaching allows opportunities that just aren't possible in person because of opportunity cost.

That is the point of this thread.

[gringop]

Perhaps, if I watched a number of pornos and worked on my technique, I could become the lothario I've always wanted to be.

Would that be longitudinal coaching?

Gringop

[Mister X]

I agree with most what the OP says, but a lot depends on the specific individual in terms of getting the proper balance between self-directed and formal instruction correct.

Quite a bit of my training has been self-guided and that would include much of my martial art training. While not shooting related, I think it’s analogous…I was recruited right out of high school by the President of USA karate as a good candidate to bring home a Gold medal at the World championships. His opinion. At the time I had only been in a single tournament, so virtually no experience. My tryout had simply been sparring against 3 members of the US team in the dojo and I landed an offer solely based on that performance.

Once I began training with them, I came to learn how wrong I had been in what I was doing and had no idea, despite it having worked for me in the past. One example is I had been getting by effectively utilizing very poor footwork due to my athleticism and explosiveness, but they showed me much better ways. According to coach, even though my footwork had been successful in the past, it would begin presenting problems at the highest levels of world competition and I think he was correct.

Some really athletic and physically talented folks can do things and not really understand how they are doing them or even get by doing things in suboptimal ways. Really smart individuals will obviously be able to engage in more effective self-taught learning than someone who is not. A self-taught guy with both may surpass the highly trained individual, but I don’t think that’s all that typical. Getting some high quality instruction is always a good idea, but the overall degree of necessity and quantity needed will vary and depend on the specific person.

[RennBaer]

I became very proficient at racing sports cars mostly through self teaching (at least initially), but video feedback and accurate/truthful self-assessment were essential. Racing and shooting are surprisingly similar disciplines when it comes to learning and performing, so I believe that a person with the right mindset and approach to learning can absolutely teach themselves to become a highly proficient shooter. Eventually, coaching (whether in-person or remote) can help you break through plateaus or fine-tune techniques.

"Remote" coaching is actually the norm in racing in the sense that you almost never have a coach sitting in the car with you. The coaching happens off-track by reviewing data and video. You and the coach come up with a short-list of things to work on, and you go off on your own to put those things into practice to see how they affect your performance. Rinse and repeat. I don't see how this same approach wouldn't also work for shooting.

[gomerpyle]

If I really think about it, the rate of skills/performance acquisition isn't linear. Sometimes the improvements come in leaps.

Truth.

[Sal Picante]

Online coaching allows opportunities that just aren't possible in person because of opportunity cost.

I can't agree with this enough.

Again, I'll add: I think this is great importance in forging a relationship, virtual and/or meat-spaced, with someone who actually give a crap about your progression...

I see a natural, hierarchical progression of the knowledge being:

Safety --> Marksmanship --> Gun Handling --> Movement --> Refinement (shooting swinger, setups, etc)

The sad thing in most open enrollment classes is that people who can't do the first two things derail the people that are trying to work on the last three...