My sarcasm meter is off, I actually thought @JohnO was making a joke. sorry!Originally Posted by Clusterfrack
You bring up another point how fast connotes miss and slow connotes hit. I find the concepts of fast and slow are divorced from hits and misses the further along I go.
It'd take too much time to quote each so I'll try and break it down into points:
Luke said:
1. The mind works like a machine. Give it an input, it provides an output (Ben Stoeger). Giving a shooter on the range the input "slow down" usually results in an output of everything slowing down: the draw, transition, reload, movement, not just the careful shooting desired.
Me: We are animals, not computers. People think too much. When you get to the animal level (unconscious competence) of proficient hunter like a tiger or a shark... you're not thinking about words. But like a tiger hunting, there's a time for speed and there's a time for stealth and slow stalking...
2. Hit factor scoring and defensive shooting are both successfully executed as fast as possible, emphasis on FAST. The answer to these challenges are never to purposely slow down, EVER! Any slowing down is a gift to your opponent/competition.
Me: I don't believe that to be true. Sometimes hiding your draw and being slow to avoid outing yourself seems like a better tactic ("waiting your turn"). If you're talking about an actual gunfight... use of cover also means you're willingly eating up time to your tactical advantage. Take Eli Dickens in the mall. He didn't stand up from his Food Court table and start Bill Drilling from across the atrium, did he? No, he went to cover and then took metered, slower shots to get better hits. He took the time to brace on the trash can. He did not execute "hit factor" scoring because real life tactics and safety necessitated something different than blasting away.
3. Human perception of speed is inaccurate. What feels and looks fast can be slow, what feels and looks slow can be fast.
Me: to an untrained person, sure. But to someone who routinely trains speed and efficiency... they can tell you what their speeds are and how long it took them to execute by feel. I can call splits down to the 0.01s. But that's because I train to match sounds and impulses to man-made conventions of timing. That comes from years of musical training.
4. Fast is a relative term. What is fast for some is slow for others.
Me: okay you got me. I agree with this one.
5. Instead of a vague notions of fast and slow, we decide, based on experience and experimentation to shoot using VISUAL cues.
Me: this to me is actually missing the point IMO.
IF... and this is a bit IF.... you are training for excellence and improvement, you're not shooting based off visual cues.
You're training to use MECHANICAL cues with visual confirmation. That's a key distinction. It's subtle and you might think there's no difference.... but there really, really is.
This visual confirmation schemes.... are dependent on your mechanics. If your mechanics are variable, then so is the fidelity of your visual confirmation requirement.
Shooting based off vision assumes solid mechanics. That's not a good assumption for newer shooters and people who don't necessarily train.
So to that end, you can't tell someone with poor trigger and grip to shoot based off vision... because it won't work.
You have to get to a certain level of proficiency before it can even remotely become a thing.
6. I understand sight confirmation so I'll put it here (there is a corresponding level of confirmation for irons that I'm too lazy to type out):
Confirmation 0: Body index, outline of slide in front of your face
Confirmation 1: Streak of red dot over the intended target
Confirmation 2: Moving circular dot over intended target
Confirmation 3: Steady circular dot over intended target
For example, a shooter experiments with different confirmation levels at varying target difficulties and learns they can shoot a 3 yard full size USPSA target with Confirmation 0 but needs Confirmation 3 at a 25 yard head box.
Me: going back to my point above, a poor mechanical shooter can have "confirmation 3 vision" on a 7 yard target... and still proceed to miss the whole stinking target because of jerks and twitches and mechanical wobble.
So that's the crux of the fallacy of your hypothesis. Vision is dependent on mechanics and there's a point where there's too much mechanical wobble that vision isn't helpful (like the Rob Leatham "why aiming doesn't matter" video says... doesn't matter that your sights are on target if you jerk the gun off target when you fire).
Annnnnnndddd. Most people aren't going to put the work into improving mechanics so.....
7. Our training efforts should be spent on driving good technique at the limit of human function (Steve Anderson) into our subconscious so that the gun handling is perfect and consistent when called upon. It should be spent on learning the sight confirmation required to get the hit we want and executing the shot(s) as soon as possible. The more we master these elements the more brain power we can bring to bear on the important decisions of when to shoot, the rate of fire, and when we decide to stop shooting.
Me: That might be MY goal and it might be YOUR goal... but I guarantee it's not my wife's goal and I think probably less than 0.1% of gun owners have that as a goal and that's okay.
My exercise efforts, say.... golf... aren't about pushing human limits. It's about being outside, spending time with friends and possibly drinking beer.
I don't think it's appropriate to put our goals and standards on other people. I certainly wouldn't for my wife.
As an aside... I don't think about fast and slow. I think about efficiency. I find that serves me better that speed.
I'll give you an analogy. I ran national SCCA autocross competitively at a pretty high level. A couple of National podiums... and I started from noob level.
There was a thing that a high level driver told me early on when we were datalogging... it was that worse drivers wouldn't slow down enough for the slow corners and wouldn't go fast enough in the fast parts. The highest level drivers slowed down enough in the corner to get track position and that translated to a better exit and more speed down the stretch... so purposely going slow to get to your goal faster and win... it's a thing.
I have also told people to slow down and get their hits. It's usually when their mechanics are shaky and they have huge wobble zones that won't support anything less than Confirmation 3 and they want to shoot like people with better mechanics and match their cadences... which doesn't work out very well for them.
So "slow down and make your hits" to me is short hand for... don't outrun your wobble / skill / mechanics...
Heck, I tell myself that in Steel Challenge all the time. "No miss" pace is much better than hoser plus misses that eat up time.
Oh also one more thing about visual confirmation. It's not about the shape of the dot or streak... it's about the confidence the reticle is WITHIN THE BORDERS of the target (wobble zone).
So like my eyes closed target. It doesn't matter what the vision is... because I know my mechanics support the hits. It's all based off the mechanics and not the vision.
And it's possible to be fooled by your vision.
Remember that guy Notactravis who was a dryfire ninja and thought he had visual confirmation on targets in dry.
When he eventually went live... he missed everything because he didn't account for his trigger and muzzle wobble. The vision was there-ish... but the mechanics made the vision unfaithful because of added wobble.
Last edited by JCN; 06-27-2023 at 08:36 PM.
I am confused. I thought that was going to be right up your alley. Your responses surprised me even more.
One of the better things I’ve heard on this topic came from a green ops staffer with a competitive background (Rowdy Bricco). Replace “Faster” with “more focused”
I think “more focus” better conveys what you were trying to express in your OP.
More focused = sooner rather than “faster.”
Personally, I think this is supported by sports and shooting related research on “The quiet eye” and performance at speed.
The work of Joan N. Vickers ( Perception, Cognition, and Decision Training: The Quiet Eye in Action and Aiming for Excellence; The quiet eye as a characteristic of expertise).
There is also shooting /Gunfight related research by the Force Science Institute based on Vickers’ work.
https://www.forcescience.com/2009/10...nfight-part-1/
My own shootings taught me a couple things I keep in mind when training
1. Hits to vital zones matter, misses and "low A zone or Cs" don't really do much if you are fighting someone who wants to fight (including with 556 and 7.62)
2. Some people die easier than others.
3 manipulations should be done as fast as possible, whether it's a speed or tactical reload, move with a purpose.
4. Shooting should be done as fast as possible as the situation, distance, and target allows.
5. Remphazise: hits to vitals and the brain matter, everything else is wishful thinking.
I try to keep stuff balanced in my training, sometimes you have to push speed to get faster but I focus on doing that with a high accuracy standard. If I can't meet the accuracy standard, I pump the breaks at the end of the learning to reaffirm what I am capable of.
Active self protection is a great resource to watch actual shootings and what work. @JCN you had a really balanced take as well.
Great research.
Forced Science Institute research article excerpt: "The ERT increasingly directed their attention to the suspect’s gun hand/arm as the scenario evolved."
medmo excerpt: "The eyes are the window to the soul but they will kill you with their hands. Watch their hands."
Ummmm.... thanks?
Awesome Post thank you. Lots to think about here. I hope this response does it justice:
Animals vs computers, People think too much. You're not thinking about words.
So my thought on this is that the words that come into people's heads, when uncontrolled, result in inconsistent results. That's why Steve Anderson's take on Mental Management is extremely powerful when it comes to producing the highest consistent performance using things like a focus phrase and a performance journal.
Speed with regard to tactics.
So I don't think making use of advantages whether they be terrain or surprise is "slow" for what I am talking about. All those things lead up to the point of delivery which at that point turns into a shooting problem, possibly a challenging one but a shooting problem that would never benefit from purposefully going slow. To me a strategy that involves utilizing a brace to make a tight shot is the same as someone running down range to a closer shooting position on a stage to get better points. Pannone describes hit factor's applicability to defensive shooting as kinetic energy transferred to the target/second. All of these things imo are going to be executed properly as fast as possible.
Trained assessment of speed
This is very interesting and makes a ton of sense. Billy Barton (new Bill Drill champ) has a YouTube video about splits where he makes use of a metronome to normalize the tempo of fast splits in your head.
Mechanical cues vs visual cues
Interesting. So I think of cues as signals I feed my brain which I know from training and experience yield a desired result. When I was doing a lot of work on draws from a level three holster I learned a cue from Reactive Shooting Science to make sure and touch the frame of the pistol before I made any move to deactivate the retention or lift the pistol. This cue drastically assisted in consistent draws from this style of rig.
My shooting lately has been a matter of determining what cues give me the results I want and then focusing on execution. As time goes on the cues I need change to the lowest currently hanging fruit in my game. (all stuff from Match Mentality)
Vision and its usefulness for mechanically unskilled shooters
So I think things visual confirmation scales to the skill of the user. A new shooter with poor mechanics is going to be shooting Confirmation 3 on pretty much everything whereas a skilled shooter is trying to force as many shooting problems into the lower confirmation levels by improving their mechanics and visual precision.
"slow down and make your hits" to me is short hand for... don't outrun your wobble / skill / mechanics...
So this makes a lot of sense to me. So does feedback like "rushing" a shot instead of going "too fast."
I feel the word "slow" and the directive to "slow down" is so powerful and full of unintended consequences that it should basically be verboten.
Wobble Zone
I incorporate the Wobble into the visual confirmation level. It is a very important part of the sight "video" instead of the sight "picture" we're all familiar with.
Again great post @JCN
I like this a lot and I am going to check out this book. edit: expensive as hell but maybe worth it?
Last edited by LukeNCMX; 06-27-2023 at 10:39 PM.
I think all of this ties in with some of what you said above, particularly when you talk about the concept of “rushing a shot” versus a shot being “too fast.”
Different shots / targets required different levels of attention. The application of Predictive, reactive, or deliberate shooting to a particular target is a balance between target difficulty and the shooters skill level.
Riley Bowman uses a great stop light / driving analogy i.e. predictive = green; reactive = yellow; red = deliberate. You assess the target on the fly like you assess traffic lights as you drive.
IMHO the overall concept in applying performance shooting to fighting is to develop a “surplus of skill” so you can run your 85% “no miss” speed when you need it and still be shooting “sooner” than the opposition.
Last edited by HCM; 06-27-2023 at 11:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
