"Go big" versus incrementalism in training

[ToddG]

I think the answer is more complicated than falling into a pigeon hole.

First, later in the thread you said you wanted to "turbo boost performance." Not everyone can "turbo boost" every aspect of performance at every step in his progression. One of the biggest mistakes I see shooters make is thinking that no matter where they're at, there's some special secret or change that will suddenly and magically halve their draw speed or double their accuracy. Do you think Michael Phelps jumps in the pool each morning and says, today I'm going to take ten seconds off my personal record!, folks? No.

At the same time, for every person who wants to discover the magic bullet of instant awesomeness there is a shooter who believes that plodding along at the same exact thing the same exact way every time he goes to the range will somehow make him better. To borrow a phrase from John Holschen, if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got. That's where goal setting and performance tracking comes into play.

In my experience, most shooters aren't very honest with themselves. The "go big" crowd often talks about that one time a drill went spectacularly well but forgets all the instances with misses and mistakes and fumbles. Awesomeness that isn't repeatable or dependable isn't awesomeness, it's freak chance. The "slow and steady" crowd often convinces itself that it's getting better but in reality hasn't seen a modicum of improvement in a long, long time. Feeling better isn't the same as performing better.

There's also a matter of practical need. A hostage rescue team guy is probably a lot more concerned about never making a mistake than someone who is primarily interested in IPSC. To him, improvement may not be measured by improving his average El Prez by 1 second but rather by going from 95% success to 99.5% success in running El Prez (12 A's) in a given time period. I've worked with military units who treat a single hit on a "non-threat" as a fireable offense. That means if you hit one non-threat target during the course of an intense multi-week training cycle you can get booted from the team. How would your approach to USPSA be different if hitting a single no-shoot got you banned for life?

Define your needs and priorities. Establish goals to address them. Create a plan to drive toward those goals.

[GJM]

I don't believe it is controversial to say that neither only "going big," nor only using "incrementalism" is the ideal training strategy, and that an appropriate combination of both is likely to give you the best results for the most efficient investment of time and resources.

Even using the hostage rescue team guy as an example, I think it is an interesting discussion as to with what combination of methods do they get to their highest potential of speed and accuracy. It sounds neat in principle to say with one busted shot, they are off the team, but even if this was actually enforced, I am not sure whether that would be the best strategy for having the most effective team. While the hostage rescue guy seems 180 degrees away from a USPSA GM, I would bet that an ideal training strategy for one might not be that different than for the other.

I do believe that training strategy has an enormous impact on results. Consider if instead of how you currently give out a FAST coin, you awarded them based on the average of all your FAST runs, or alternatively, based on your single worst run. Certainly that change would have a pretty big impact on shooter behavior.

[JHC]

I'm pretty sure I apply # 1 in most of my training and then I apply #2 in matches. Does that count as a #3 blend?

[JV_]

I definitely need a mix of both. For me, this definitely applies:

Attachment 1670

[GJM]

Very good, JV. I suggest you need a third circle for where the fastest magic happens -- on the web of course.

[ToddG]

Even using the hostage rescue team guy as an example, I think it is an interesting discussion as to with what combination of methods do they get to their highest potential of speed and accuracy.

So I spoke to someone on such a team earlier today about this very topic. His exact words were that he's more concerned with what he can accomplish 100% of the time on demand and trains with that as the foremost goal.

It sounds neat in principle to say with one busted shot, they are off the team, but even if this was actually enforced, I am not sure whether that would be the best strategy for having the most effective team.

I'm sorry, what does "even if this was actually enforced" mean? I've been present when a SF guy got drummed out of a 16wk program for hitting a hostage. It's enforced. That's the whole point. They take it a lot more seriously than most folks seem to.

While the hostage rescue guy seems 180 degrees away from a USPSA GM, I would bet that an ideal training strategy for one might not be that different than for the other.

Spend some time with both and see if you still feel that way. Are there commonalities? Sure. But I don't think you'd ever mistake one for the other.

I do believe that training strategy has an enormous impact on results. Consider if instead of how you currently give out a FAST coin, you awarded them based on the average of all your FAST runs, or alternatively, based on your single worst run. Certainly that change would have a pretty big impact on shooter behavior.

Absolutely. The protocol is based on administrative requirements as well as shooting. Originally, the requirement was that it be done cold. One try, once a day, first six shots you fired out of your gun. I still think that's the most honest assessment. But that standard didn't work well in a class where students are shooting the drill at the beginning and end of each day.

Next the requirement was for two-in-a-row, and they had to be the first two FASTs of the day. So you could do other shooting, but not shoot the FAST before the test. David Sevigny was the only person who won a coin under that standard. Given the shooting pedigree of some of the folks who tried but failed, it was suggested that perhaps the standard was unrealistic. That's how the "best two out of three" standard came to exist.

[GJM]

So I spoke to someone on such a team earlier today about this very topic. His exact words were that he's more concerned with what he can accomplish 100% of the time on demand and trains with that as the foremost goal.

Not surprising at all. The question is do they continue to try to improve their skills, and if so, how do they train to improve their skills? Do they include stretch drills?

As to 100 per cent, on truly challenging shooting problems, isn't that a goal and not a guarantee? It is my experience, that humans vary in performance on different days and under different circumstances. Ever run a slew of consecutive, clean, quick, consistent time FASTests in a row, for example, and come out the next day all thumbs? Unless you dumb down the standards of a particular test, how can you guarantee absolute 100 per cent performance?

I'm sorry, what does "even if this was actually enforced" mean? I've been present when a SF guy got drummed out of a 16wk program for hitting a hostage. It's enforced. That's the whole point. They take it a lot more seriously than most folks seem to.

Let me be certain I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that in EVERY instance in which a team member hits a hostage target in training testing, they WILL be expelled from the team, or alternatively that if they hit a hostage they MAY be expelled at the discretion of the team's leadership?

[ToddG]

Not surprising at all. The question is do they continue to try to improve their skills, and if so, how do they train to improve their skills? Do they include stretch drills?

Of course they continue to improve their skills. Was that really a question? I'm not sure whether you're being argumentative or just not getting the distinction, but to be clear: there is a difference between shooting a single instance of a single drill and overall skill building. I thought the original question was about overall skill building.

As to 100 per cent, on truly challenging shooting problems, isn't that a goal and not a guarantee? It is my experience, that humans vary in performance on different days and under different circumstances. Ever run a slew of consecutive, clean, quick, consistent time FASTests in a row, for example, and come out the next day all thumbs? Unless you dumb down the standards of a particular test, how can you guarantee absolute 100 per cent performance?

That's exactly my point. Some folks work to be consistent and overcome those "all thumbs" days as much as possible. They're the guys who don't just do well on the practice range but they perform to that same level at a match and in real life. That doesn't mean they're not pushing themselves. It doesn't mean they just coast on easy drills or easy standards. It means their idea of "I can shoot an 8s El Prez" is that they can always do it... unlike many folks who shoot a 8s El Prez once and think "I can shoot an 8s El Prez!"

Let me be certain I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that in EVERY instance in which a team member hits a hostage target in training testing, they WILL be expelled from the team, or alternatively that if they hit a hostage they MAY be expelled at the discretion of the team's leadership?

I don't think I can answer that question with absolute certainty. The unit I'm most familiar with held a peer review board on a student's first hostage hit and more often than not expelled violators (whether it was 60% of the time or 90% of the time I couldn't tell you, I wasn't around enough to create a database). For guys who were allowed to stay, a second hostage hit during the entire training program was an automatic dismissal.

[GJM]

To be clear, I am also interested in building the best possible repeatable skills, as opposed to somehow believing or claiming that a single outlier performance is reflective of one's actual level of competence.

I had hoped this thread would spark discussion, with specificity, as to how folks were systematically incorporating stretch training into their shooting performance improvement plan. Not just, "some days I go big," but rather I spend X percentage of a typical practice session on stretch goals, and believe, even subjectively, it has had Y impact in moving my overall level of performance.

In other words, taking your statement below (from earlier in the thread) and translating that into a specific plan.

Define your needs and priorities. Establish goals to address them. Create a plan to drive toward those goals.

[Westminster]

Something like this, perhaps?

1. Pick the skill on which to focus today.
2. Verify your floor: Do five reps at a par time and 100% accuracy level to verify you are still at your previous floor level.
3. Stretch: Do three reps pushing yourself (lower par time/increased distance, etc.) WITHOUT going below 80% accuracy.
4. Assess. Stop and think. Repeat steps 2 and 3, but quit focusing on this skill for the day if it becomes apparent you are grinding in a bad habit.