Is Time Really an Illusion?

[ToddG]

It sounds like you might be comparing their practice philosophy with their match pace/philosophy, which are two different things.

If that's the case then my mistake. What I've heard and seen many times in the past -- and admittedly it's been years since I was competing regularly at a national level -- is an acceptance and de-prioritizing of that skill in practice. And I'm not even being critical of that, because if you really are consistently hitting .25's under stress on a 7yd wide open A-zone then it probably does make sense to focus elsewhere. But it doesn't mean there aren't gains that could be made.

I wonder how much trigger type has to do with this. I don't know the answer, but it seems like the trigger mechanism might account for a few of those hundredths.

I may be misunderstanding you, but if you meant that once people hit that physical limit wall, the couple hundredths of gain or loss is trigger related then I agree. My point is that some people -- including some outstanding shooters -- simply can't shoot sub-20 splits no matter what gun you put in their hand even if they're just shooting blindly in the berm. Other guys can pull .11s under those circumstances. I don't think it matters beyond the point where you can control the gun and get hits, but if you've got a 0.22 finger and 0.18 eyes...

If the conventional methods for improving one's technical performance as applied in competition shooting are not useful for the streets, then what do you suggest as an alternative to improve technical performance on the streets? I realize that might be a large question.

Like Jeff, I think you're mischaracterizing what I said. I didn't say "improving one's performance as applied in competition shooting" is bad. I said that the priorities in competition are skewed and need to be considered in a rational light when we're trying to decide what is and isn't important beyond those constraints.

Admittedly, those skills need adjustment for the WBE/tactical environment/whatever. But the technical skills and abilities are a fundamental base.

We're in complete agreement. It's the specifics of "those skills need adjustment" that is at point here.

I agree with you guys from the philosophical and self-improvement standpoints...but I ask where the evidence is.

Watch police shooting videos. Read OIS reports. There are plenty of times when a BG is behind (or in front of) something that you don't want your bullets to hit instead of him, when angles prevent getting a full width torso as a target, etc.

I mean, think of the body of research amassed by Claude Werner insofar as he has studied citizen self-defense incidents,

With all due respect to Claude, I don't think he has access to enough details about those incidents to draw a conclusion about what kind of shots were or weren't necessary (when shots were necessary at all), nor does the dataset represent the myriad instances in which someone might have survived but didn't because of lack of skill, nor -- to borrow a concept from Tom Givens -- does it really show us what might have happened if more people with more skill were walking around with guns to begin with.

and think of the Rangemaster data set.

I don't recall the details of Tom's data enough to say whether full frontal straight on targets were the norm.

That's a good start, but it seems like lack of recoil might be a significant factor in that exercise with a SIRT.

No question, but as I said earlier, short of shooting real people with real ammo everything is a compromise on some level. Combining live fire and FOF seems to be the best solution we've seen so far.

[JeffJ]

Jeff -- Dude, it's a PITA to respond to comments you put in a quote box because when someone tries to quote you back, they don't show up.

Sorry

Thanks for clarifying, I think I might have been missing your point about splits - I'll agree with you that when you're staring the bad guy down at 12' your splits are pretty kittening important, assuming that you can get the gun out and hit the target. However, I think that there is a point where trying to improve your splits is really futile and I think you agree with that.

I think I still put a bit higher emphasis on transitions, mainly because I've seen a very distinct relationship between my overall shooting and my transitions - when I start to slack on the transitions everything seems to suffer. I have a hypothesis (although I have no plans to test it) that we all have certain aspects of our shooting that greatly influences the whole - it might be the draw or reload or something, but the better we get at that one thing the better other aspects get. For me, I've got a pretty well developed index and can get a little sloppy with my sight picture and get away with a lot on the draw or reload, but the transition makes me a little more honest with properly acquiring a target and focusing on my sights.

[Mr_White]

Like Jeff, I think you're mischaracterizing what I said. I didn't say "improving one's performance as applied in competition shooting" is bad. I said that the priorities in competition are skewed and need to be considered in a rational light when we're trying to decide what is and isn't important beyond those constraints.

(4) I think putting too much emphasis on what works for competitive shooters who are almost always shooting just two rounds per target (which we know is completely unrealistic), almost always driving to the next target without having to worry about the condition of the previous target (which we know is completely unrealistic), almost always dealing with half a dozen or more targets per stage (which we know is completely unrealistic), and are almost always executing a pre-planned strategy rather than responding to the dynamics of a moving, thinking opponent (which is obviously unrealistic) ... is a base rate fallacy.

I guess I took paragraph (4) as a harder-line position than you meant it and have further characterized it.

Watch police shooting videos. Read OIS reports. There are plenty of times when a BG is behind (or in front of) something that you don't want your bullets to hit instead of him, when angles prevent getting a full width torso as a target, etc.

...

With all due respect to Claude, I don't think he has access to enough details about those incidents to draw a conclusion about what kind of shots were or weren't necessary (when shots were necessary at all), nor does the dataset represent the myriad instances in which someone might have survived but didn't because of lack of skill, nor -- to borrow a concept from Tom Givens -- does it really show us what might have happened if more people with more skill were walking around with guns to begin with.

...

I don't recall the details of Tom's data enough to say whether full frontal straight on targets were the norm.

Even without benefit of the details, it seems like in the Claude-collected and Rangemaster cases, even if difficult shots were present, they don't seem to have prevented success by the defender. But I do also agree with the key aspect of this thread, which was that there may be significant elements of the human dynamics and time equation that do matter but aren't easily knowable later.

No question, but as I said earlier, short of shooting real people with real ammo everything is a compromise on some level. Combining live fire and FOF seems to be the best solution we've seen so far.

Agree. I think the best you can do on that one (like many issues of unrealism in training) is to use various different training modalities that each offer some piece of the puzzle.

[BLR]

(3) In my experience, most people have a fairly natural point at which their splits are as fast as they're going to get without serious effort, and even then it might not make a difference of more than a hundredth or two. It's probably got something to do with physiology and twitch muscle variation from person to person. So from a practical standpoint -- vision stuff in point #2 aside -- I think trying to drive yourself past your personal physical limit isn't going to result in gains worth the effort.

I've pondered, more than once, whether the guys that can do ultra fast splits are actually tracking the sight or know from being able to break down the recoil action where there gun was going to be pointing when the trigger is pulled.

I just don't have the background to draw a good conclusion. I do know the sight tracker makes a difference for the really good shots.

As for time and illustion and space...

Do all variational problems with certain boundary conditions have solutions?

[YVK]

First, I don't quite understand why this discussion has narrowed down to splits.There is a whole lot of stuff happening before I let out my second or third shots.

Second, my opinion is that there is a whole lot of over thinking. Faster is better, if only on a basis of simple logic. Simple logic is often wrong, but one needs a solid data to support otherwise illogical conclusions.
Come to think of it, faster action is better in all acute life threatening emergencies, provided that action is applied to where it needs to be applied. I think that this much is axiomatic, the rest is speculation and subject to a reasonable disagreement, including target size, % hits desired in practice, draw time, split time, direct pressure vs tourniquet, swerving vs braking, etc.

[Sal Picante]

I've pondered, more than once, whether the guys that can do ultra fast splits are actually tracking the sight or know from being able to break down the recoil action where there gun was going to be pointing when the trigger is pulled.

Yes.

While I can't shoot as fast as Ben, I know from experience and conversation with him that he's seeing quite a bit of the front sight in the rear notch at 10 yards. If he wasn't, he probably wouldn't have landed hits as good as those...

[Sal Picante]

Come to think of it, faster action is better in all acute life threatening emergencies, provided that action is applied to where it needs to be applied. I think that this much is axiomatic, the rest is speculation and subject to a reasonable disagreement, including target size, % hits desired in practice, draw time, split time, direct pressure vs tourniquet, swerving vs braking, etc.

Dude... I agree, except for one life-threatening situation: breaking off a slice.

If you go too fast, she'll kill you when you're sleeping...

[Dagga Boy]

I'm just going to throw this out here. Do you want to be fast or right? If the answer is right, then how fast can you be right? That is the speed I try to emphasize and work off of.

[Chuck Haggard]

Ref the El Prez video; that sort of thing kind of makes my point. An awesome performance without a doubt, but what if he didn't have the luxury of standing flat footed to shoot, and the targets started to move after the first shot?

[ToddG]

Faster is better, if only on a basis of simple logic.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. Instead, the issues are:

(1) How much faster do you have to be for it to matter?
(2) How do you set your priorities for training effort to get faster/better at the most efficient, useful things first?

For example, if I told you that a new process would cut the speed of your typical surgery by two thirds but that one out of a hundred patients who'd otherwise have survived will die in the process, is the trade-off worth it?

I'm just going to throw this out here. Do you want to be fast or right? If the answer is right, then how fast can you be right? That is the speed I try to emphasize and work off of.

On the one hand, I read that and think: Exactly!

On the other hand, I don't think anyone here is advocating going fast even if it means screwing everything up. So we're back to defining priorities and standards.

Ref the El Prez video; that sort of thing kind of makes my point. An awesome performance without a doubt, but what if he didn't have the luxury of standing flat footed to shoot, and the targets started to move after the first shot?

Then it would have been a different exercise, no?

I doubt anyone in this day and age actually looks at El Prez as a practical "scenario" or emulation of real world combat. It simply does what it was intended to do: measure those things that the designer felt was important in terms of gun handling and shooting. The presumption is that those improved gun handling and shooting skills will benefit someone in a fight.