"Go big" versus incrementalism in training

[GJM]

In terms of improving performance, there seem to be a number of approaches:

1) Be consistent. Keep shooting at a pace you can make your hits at a 90-100 per cent hit rate, allowing your speed to build only as you continue at that accuracy level.

2) Swing for the fences, as a method of accelerating improvement, recognizing that accuracy may suffer initially, but with the belief that accuracy will follow as you adjust your body mechanics to that new, faster speed.

3) Combine 1 and 2 in a methodical way, that allows for big breakthroughs but in a more disciplined way.

What are folks doing?

[Mr_White]

Great topic.

I am strongly inclined by nature to go big, all the time. And I think that has gotten me a lot of improvement.

Todd's AFHF and Ben Stoeger's USPSA class were very helpful in modulating that natural impulse to be a wildman and shoot and gunhandle like a rocketship on crack. Shooting competition, both USPSA and GSSF, really helps me with that too.

So, in effect, I am #2 (heh heh) but recognize that I need to find some #1 at times, so when I put them together I amount to #3 and shoot and gunhandle like a rocketship, just not one on crack.

[YVK]

#3.

#1 carries a risk of under-challenging self and shooting within comfort zone only, effectively wasting time and ammo.

#2 carries different risks. Missing a lot actually doesn't bother me. What I dont want is a risk of shooting faster than seeing, shooting faster than being able to recognize own errors, and perceiving random stellar results as a sign of systematic progress. All of the above prevents appropriate introspection in own performance and correction of mistakes. This effectively wastes time and ammo.

#3 reinforces your baseline, on demand available, skill during high % hit practices and allows to overload yourself and try to adjust to higher speed during balls to the wall runs. Both are valuable in their own rights.

[JAD]

Interestingly, I played with this concept at the range today -- pairs at 7y with a 2s par to a 2" dot, for example, which is much less time than I need. I missed, a lot, but I got all my shots off. Later I shot a lot better than usual at Changing Gears. Innaresting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[jetfire]

It depends on what I'm training for.

For example, for USPSA training, 3 is probably the most effective method. But Bianchi Cup, #1 all the way because speed isn't nearly as important as accuracy. If I'm training for Steel Challenge, 2 works pretty well because I have to develop the mechanical speed to MOVE THE DAMN GUN faster.

For "general" training through, #3 is probably my best bet.

[GJM]

It depends on what I'm training for.

I am not talking about training for a match, but rather trying to turbo boost improvement.

[Al T.]

This idea came up on another board in terms of training new shooters. I've got a new shooter that's going to hit the range with me soon. I'm going to vary some things and see what happens...

[GJM]

To elaborate on my thinking, my view is that once you have a good grasp of fundamentals, further improvement is part fundamentals, part just learning to operate at a faster speed, and part using psychology. Improving fundamentals is self evident. Learning to see at a faster speed obviously needs to be done with exposure to faster speeds. In some ways, I find the psychology part most interesting. Do you focus on your worst performance or best performance, as a method of improving. I believe, and behavioral science supports, we improve more with positive reinforcement.

If for example, a drill requires a specific performance, and if you fail to meet that performance it ends, I would argue that is an example of a drill that is not using psychology to improve your performance. Now if you took that same drill, noted your hits, but continued to up the speed or distance, all the time noting your performance, you have an opportunity to continue to learn, and focus on what you do well as opposed to just what you have an opportunity to improve.

Lately, I have tried to organize my practice sessions so I start out focusing on consistency, at some point transition to "doing the Origami," and then finishing with accuracy (like shooting the one inch square at 10 yards) so I leave with confidence that I can hit a very low probability target, and know what I need to do to make that happen. Sometimes this works well and other times not so well, but it has allowed me to do some things I would not have thought possible.

[David Armstrong]

I tend to go with #1, especially when training new shooters. I'd much rather try to make speed catch up to accuracy than to make accuracy catch up to speed.

[Josh Runkle]

In terms of athleticism, #1. In terms of mental, #2.