Time Plus and how fast is fast enough?

[ToddG]

My math exercise is solely aimed at discussing Todd's prioritization of accuracy over speed in a training environment versus my belief that speed and accuracy are equally important.

I absolutely get where Kevin is coming from, too, but like you, George, my brain often goes all mathy about this stuff. It's a great example of missing the forest for the trees, probably, but in this case we're specifically talking about a tree. Does that make sense?

Now let's talk specifically about this statement: "Todd's prioritization of accuracy over speed in a training environment"

There are a lot of folks -- including quite a few folks I admire -- who would say the exact opposite about me and my classes. One well known instructor has made some very public disparaging comments about what he calls "Aim Fast Miss Fast."

Compared to him, then, I'm prioritizing speed over accuracy. Compared to you, perhaps I'm prioritizing accuracy over speed.

Anyone can get faster if they accept poorer accuracy. My goal is to get faster without sacrificing accuracy. Because -- and I think this gets back to Kevin's point and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- at the end of the day what matters is what my practice has enabled me to do when I really need to do it. When (if) that time comes, misses cost me ammo and time. Since general experience informs us that most folks get less accurate (but not slower) in those cases, I don't want to see if 95% becomes 80%. I certainly don't want to see if 80% becomes 50%.

Going back to the math, think about what you're proposing in terms of the Rogers test. Would you rather go in knowing that you'll score 100 (80%) points plus some makeup shots (if you have time) or go in confident you'll score 119 (95%) points up front? At Rogers, as you well know, a makeup hit is better than a miss but it's certainly substantially worse than a hit on your first try.

Again, that's just me. It's how my personal view is molded by my priorities and beliefs. I'd never criticize the guy who wants students to make all hits on a 5" circle as long as everyone understands how that affects training and skill-building overall (both positive and negative). Nor do I criticize someone who decides 80% hits on target-xyz is appropriate or acceptable, with the same caveat.

But if you can't get a hit on a low% target first time every time when you absolutely need to, under stress, under time pressure, then personally I think that's a serious deficiency. And in my opinion, it's easier to back off from 95% to 100% on demand than it is to back off from 80% to 100% on demand. The F.A.S.T. is a great example, because I've seen a lot of incredible shooters who can't seem to hit that 3x5 consistently on demand under the simple stress of winning some random blogger's challenge coin.

[Mr_White]

13 percent better marksmanship will always translate into a hit on a moving target

This is an interesting aspect of this and one that we have touched on before. At some point, the marksmanship problem can become difficult enough that 'guaranteed hits' are nowhere to be found. Does shooting in a manner that guarantees the hit against static targets in training translate into any benefit against targets so difficult that hits can't be certain, say, over an approach in training where one shoots for hits, but maybe doesn't guarantee them?

[Kevin B.]

I don't think these posts are in opposition to each other. GJM's post seems like some of the nuts and bolts behind the part I bolded in KevinB.'s post.

Nor do I for the most part. Where I think we begin to differ is when GJM posits that delivering a shot in 1.35 with the option for a follow-up is preferable to delivering a slightly slower first shot with a significantly higher probability of a hit. On the flat range, I call that good training. In the real world, I consider it irresponsible.

I don't have experience shooting at people, but I have, in relative terms quite a bit of experience shooting animals ranging in size from a gopher up to an elephant. My goal is to use all available time to make an accurate shot. However, there are times when you don't have enough time, and you have to do what you can with the time available, skill that you have, and hopefully luck.

My math exercise is solely aimed at discussing Todd's prioritization of accuracy over speed in a training environment versus my belief that speed and accuracy are equally important.

GJM, apologies if my post came across as condescending; not my intent. However, what I see you promoting is not a balance of speed and accuracy but rather speed over accuracy. Perhaps, it is a matter of perspective.

[GJM]

Kevin, I didn't take it as condescending at all, and I am especially interested in your opinions based on real world experiences.

I definitely am not prioritizing speed over accuracy, but rather trying to strike what I believe is a better balance between speed and accuracy. In the example, I gave, we were discussing a 83 percent versus 96 percent hit rate to a 3x5, with zero points if any shot was even a pencil eraser width out. The question was what is the value of a 83 percent likely hit to a 3x5 in 1.35 versus. 96 percent likely hit in 1.60.

I believe TLG views accuracy so much more than speed, that for example he has set the scoring system of the FAST to deemphasize speed. Consider a 2 second penalty for any miss to the 3x5, and no graduated scoring on the head or body, on what is arguably a 5 second drill. He has told me, more or less, that he would rather shoot a 4.99 FAST clean 96 percent of the time, than a 3.99 FAST clean 75 percent of the time. That raises two issues -- what happens if today is the day it takes a 3.99 level performance to save your life, and if we really thought 4.99 is where it is at, are we better able to do that by always training to 4.99 or pushing until the wheels come off?

Using flying for example, I train in the jet simulator at FlightSafety each year, and at Bell Helicopter doing crazy emergencies. Especially in the simulator, where there is no downside to failure, we load up with every conceivable emergency until we are down to both engines flamed out and a dark cockpit. In the real helicopter, we are more careful because we don't want to wreck, but we do autorotation profiles that would scare most anyone. We never intentionally do this stuff in normal flight, but we train to a "where the wheels fall off level" because there is no guarantee what we might get on our worst day.

Back to shooting, given there are little downsides to routinely pushing until the wheels fall off, and I don't know exactly what a worst day scenario might look like, I think that is preferable. Todd feels differently, and I have been trying to explore why in this thread.

[Mr_White]

Consider a 2 second penalty for any miss to the 3x5, and no graduated scoring on the head or body

...

if we really thought 4.99 is where it is at, are we better able to do that by always training to 4.99 or pushing until the wheels come off?

Just to these two specific points:

The lack of graduated scoring on the 'body' and 'head' of a FAST administrated on either the PT.com or IDPA targets is one of the psychological issues I have had with shooting the FAST the way TLG intends. I understand that TLG considers the 3x5 and 8" circle the only targets on the FAST, and the rest of the head and body are misses...I have historically had a hard time treating it that way. When there is a shot a little above the 8" circle that is too low anyway (IDPA target) and a shot barely out of the 3x5 in what would be the nasal cavity, my gut reaction isn't "failure!"

...

From my time in practicing and trying to get better, I subjectively feel a lot of efficacy in the approach of pushing hard, including making the wheels come off, as a way of improving my entire range of performance, from the lucky to the probable to the guaranteed. Again, the phrase comes to mind, "the better I am, the luckier I get." I think training to shoot a probable sub-4 FAST clean is a great way to get a guaranteed sub-5 FAST clean.

[ToddG]

The lack of graduated scoring on the 'body' and 'head' of a FAST administrated on either the PT.com or IDPA targets is one of the psychological issues I have had with shooting the FAST the way TLG intends.

The last four words are key: psychological issue is as intended.

[YVK]

For the sake of discussion, I will assume anything out of the 3x5 is a miss, although I don't believe this to be the case since a shot a smidge out of the 3x5 will do something, and I can't remember the last time I missed the whole head.

Here is my math comparing a hypothetical 1.35 first shot with a 83 percent hit rate to a 1.60 first shot with a 96 percent hit rate. Assume the make up shot takes .40. The 1.35 shot saves .25 each time, but requires about one more shot in 8 runs, to account for the difference in accuracy. This computes to .25 x 8 = 2.00 seconds, less the required .40 make up shot, means the faster first shot is 1.60 faster across eight repetitions.
.

Look at it backwards. One option is a 17% miss rate, another is 4%. Almost one in five vs one in twenty five. Relative risk reduction for miss - failure to neutralize in gamer's lingo - is 76%.

I don't think second make up shot is admissible since it ain't guaranteed to be a hit.

Which gets to Gabe's and your points of how much miss is important, see below

I understand that TLG considers the 3x5 and 8" circle the only targets on the FAST, and the rest of the head and body are misses...I have historically had a hard time treating it that way..

..which is entirely expected when a drill measured in a dichotomous way by virtue of target used is being extrapolated on a life scenario best measured by an ordinal scale.

[GJM]

Look at it backwards. One option is a 17% miss rate, another is 4%. Almost one in five vs one in twenty five. Relative risk reduction for miss - failure to neutralize in gamer's lingo - is 76%.

Assuming this is real world and not gaming, the 3x5 is an arbitrary shape, larger than the upper CNS. I don't believe TLG, or anyone in this thread has tried to suggest that a shot near the width of the five inch part of the card is necessarily a better stopping shot than a shot a smidge high or even well below, that is centered. Regardless of whether you want to focus on the 17 percent or the 83 percent, we do know that the 100 percent alternative is a slower shot every time, and in a great enough amount of time that you could fire another high probability shot with the time savings.

[YVK]

Assuming this is real world and not gaming, the 3x5 is an arbitrary shape, larger than the upper CNS. I don't believe TLG, or anyone in this thread has tried to suggest that a shot near the width of the five inch part of the card is necessarily a better stopping shot than a shot a smidge high or even well below, that is centered. Regardless of whether you want to focus on the 17 percent or the 83 percent, we do know that the 100 percent alternative is a slower shot every time, and in a great enough amount of time that you could fire another high probability shot with the time savings.

Devil is in details. What's a smidge? Is smidge above is as important as smidge below? What about to the side? What about smidge above smidge? Is 96%, at freaking pretty darn good 1.6, is only a smidge below 100%, making a point that 100% is invariably slow invalid?

Point is 3x5 is a binary target, you hit or you don't; real life is ordinal, center hit is best, just of is good, smidge above it is OK etc. It doesn't matter how much penalty TLG assigns to a miss. You can't overlay ordinal scoring principle onto a binary target. If you want to go binary and extrapolate to a real life, we should make a reverse trapezoid
target between edges of a mouth and center of eyes, let's see how popular that will be.

[GJM]

1.6 is freaking awesome -- until the day you need 1.2 to save your life, win the match or shoot the elk. On that day you will have wished you trained until the wheels fell off in practice rather than at a speed slower than you are capable of, in the name of consistency.