TargetTalk

I understand the use of metrics on a production line to identify bottle necks or cases of failure by measureing faulty items on the production line. The closest thing I can come to such a measurement in shooting is the hits on the target producing your score. As you know I believe the hit on the target provides necessary feed back to the shooter, telling him /her if a change in zero is needed and if the shot sequence is being performed correctly. It just seems to be an unusual word for Steve as he wants to deal only with the individual acts the shooter must do to fire the shot correctly, ie behaviors. Good Shooting Bill Horton

I understand the use of metrics on a production line to identify bottle necks or cases of failure by measureing faulty items on the production line. The closest thing I can come to such a measurement in shooting is the hits on the target producing your score. As you know I believe the hit on the target provides necessary feed back to the shooter, telling him /her if a change in zero is needed and if the shot sequence is being performed correctly. It just seems to be an unusual word for Steve as he wants to deal only with the individual acts the shooter must do to fire the shot correctly, ie behaviors. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Not at all Bill- if you are familiar withte h use of Statistical Process Control, you must be aware that at the bottling plant (for example), SPC is applied to a lot of smaller (but critical) stuff.

Like bottlecap tightness.

If you tried to run your bottling plant based on sales alone, you would not have any idea what to improve in your process.

If you try to improve your performance on shooting by measuring the holes in the paper alone, you would not have any idea what to improve in your process.

So you use a cause-effect (Ishikaw, fishbone) chart of the process in order to identify what are the improtant things that must be done *right* to get the desired overall outcome.

And you measure your performance on the "subelements" (bottlecap tightness, quality of sight alignment, whatever) in order to make the process better.

You've seen my cause-effect chart. You have seen the list of things that I think must be done right in order to get the desired outcome. You've seen how I propose we measure those things in order to organize our training effort. I have explained how the tools I put out here can and should be used to help a "self coached" shooter get more bang for hte buck out of their training effort.

I would really like some feedback on the substantive issues around what I am proposing.

I did receive a little bit of feedback initially (from two people); but that was a lo-o-o-o-ong time ago . . .

[I have been working on this for quite some time and it worked quite well for me until my elbow exploded. However, what works for me might not work for everyone; I understand that. I would like to "de-personalize" my training tools so that they could be used by *anyone* wishing to "bettermize" their own performance vs. their potential.]

P.S. to use the POM/SPC/TQM analogy to a production line again . . .

Things like "depth of drilled hole" (outcomes of the performance of a drill press) compare to what, exactly, in hte process of delivering a shot?

What are those "Tasks" (therbligs to the business majors out there) or "discrete units of work" that must be analyzed in shooting?

. . . wait for it . . .












BEHAVIORS!

Remember that I also believe that one only has to know how to shoot a ten, and be able to repeat the ten at will. Improvements .are only needed when someone else is beating you. Ask Bryan about how much he improved after winning eight national championships. I do agree that it is harder to go where no one has gone before. But there is still the 2680 out there waiting for us to eclips it. Yours is a training concept, not necessarily a winning concept. It may one day prove to be the winner but as yet it has not done so. In any case don't anyone give up, Keep working at it and maybe the grail really is out there. Good Shooting Bill Horton [ I like to think that I'm a shooter and avoid phylosophy at all costs. sorry about going off the deep end]

bill, figure you are refering to another bryan, i have won alot more than 8 national titles, but not any yet in pistol.

i think at a point, (noted to be around ap 570), it is no longer managing just the body, but mostly the mind. hence 90/10% mind/body
in saying that, you still need to measure what you are doing to improve.

at this level there is little point in clicking away in your pocket to record errors that are now more the effect, not the cause.

looking for a technical problem as to why you pushed a 9 to a 10, or even back out again is not going to get you anywhere. its a technical problem caused by a mental one.
the gauge I employ to see at what standard a shooter is at is to compare training results to comp results, including any issues.
comp result at 20 points below training would represent someone that trains to train quite well.
more is someone that has been training to train for a long time.

less is often someone that is yet to be trained, and doesnt know any better. haha.
but less, usually you will be looking at the elite athlete.
everyone is different, but I like to use the KISS principle, especially once you are looking at moving into competition mode, not training mode.

In previous posts I described very specifically how to get a shooter from "which end of hte gun points downrange" to Journeyman proficiency (the 550 range).

Currently I am providing information designed to help shooters advance from the plateau of "550s-560s" into the 570s.

We can start another thread on mental management?

However

Mental management is already a key piece of how you get to 570s.

One critical aspect of mental management is knowing what you are supposed to be focusing on.

I suggest that by focsuing on how to properly execute the skill/technique elements it might be helpful.

One of the reasons why shooting a 580+ is so *easy* is because when you are shooting it the proper bvehaviors have already been BURNED IN and you *don't* have to think about them anymore.

But until you get to that point, you *do* have to work on them explicitly and with an organized discipline (how else would you burn in proper behaviors?).

*Shooting* the 580+ is easy.

The disciplined work that goes into preparing for the 580+ is far from easy.

A framework for organizing your training effort is needed.

I am providing a framework . . . . I am seeking feedback on how to make it better.

Saying "We don't need no stinkin framework" is of course useful feedback and it has been duly noted; thanks for your contribution.

Bryan:

Bill is of course referring to the USA NRA Conventional Pistol discipline. Brian Zins is the 8-time National Champion in NRA COnventional Pistol he is referring to.

"*Shooting* the 580+ is easy.

The disciplined work that goes into preparing for the 580+ is far from easy.

A framework for organizing your training effort is needed.

I am providing a framework . . . . I am seeking feedback on how to make it better.

Saying "We don't need no stinkin framework" is of course useful feedback and it has been duly noted; thanks for your contribution."

Steve, are you providing your "framework" based on experience or are you exploring for it yourself. I do agree that fairly regular humps appear in the scoring ladder. And that it take different approaches to go over the hump at each level. Right now I am at an impasse trying to decide if I should align and steady the gun while I press the trigger, or press the trigger while I align and steady the gun.

Direct Personal Experience.

*Then* a lot of reading to figure out the "Why" and "How."

Metrics seem to deal with measuring precicely in a totally objective manner. Steve, if you can come up with truly objective measurements for the myrid of things that occur during the delivery of a shot I would be most interested in the concept. I will suggest one off the top of my head. The hit on the target is objective proof of execution . Have fun with this one. Good Shooting Bill Horton

"Metrics seem to deal with measuring precicely in a totally objective manner."

Therein lies the problem.

I am reminded of the story of the drunk looking for his wallet under the dim glow of the lampost.

The beat cop walks up and, after helping the drunk look for his wallet for half an hour, asks "Are you sure you lost your wallet under the lampost?"

The drunk says "No, I lost it in the dark alleyway!"

The cop says (incredulously) "then why thye bloody f**k are we looking under the lampost!?"

The drunk replies: "Because that's where the light is!"

just find it is not always that clear which bryan you are refering to, possibly because I dont know much about bryan zins to instantly pick who it is. what hope has a newby got, makes things very confusing.

frame work is the basis of any attempt at working towards being the best, never said it wasnt.
what I am saying is in my opinion, your system, though is working for you to a point, is way to complicated for most.
it is a broad training method you are trying to develope is it not?


the issue I see is for a self coached shooter, it is difficult to figure out what is right/wrong.
how does a self coached person establish what they need to work on?
my advise is start doing coaching courses, start spending a percentage of your training time coaching new shooters, the training others will start to reinforce your own beliefs in the shooting process. you will also start to learn the most efficient ways of the many available.

I agree with the 580+, lots hard work on the basics.
the closer you get, the more light you will need to see what you are looking for.

there are threads on the mental side already, with some really good stuff in them.

You'd probably find it easier if he spelled his name right it's Brian Zinns.

thanks, that clears it up a lot.

Richard H wrote:You'd probably find it easier if he spelled his name right it's Brian Zinns.

Try Brian Zins.(smile)

Or, you can check out his site:

http://www.brianzins.com/

Take Care,
Ed Hall
Air Force Shooting Homepage
Bullseye (and International) Competition Things

How 'bout we just call him BZ? Eventually we'll get his name right.

Bryan Zins also breaks mid 590s with AP, BE does not exclude high scores with ISSF type pistols. Steve, you should remember his score at Benning. Fundamentals are always fundamental. Neither the target nor the range to it has any impact on how the shot is fired. I have never shot a dot in my life. All competition for the distinguised badge [ Pistol, rifle and international ]are shot with iron sights You are the worst I've met in using false strawmen to try to prove a point. And that worries me because you may be far too influential where our beginning shooters are concerned. They need accurate information ,uncolored by preducises and as yet unproven concepts. Bryan Zins team seems to be on the right track, Russ is another, and things are looking up at the training center as well. Even though you damned him with faint praise the col knows how to win and that is a good thing . Good Shooting Bill Horton

Glad you're still hanging on every word Bill . . . twisting and misinterpreting them at every opportunity; but still paying very close attention!

I am cautiously optimistic about your prospects.

Measuring what you are doing is a key link in the feedback chain. Basically, without measurement you have no way of verifying whether what you think you are doing is what you are really doing.

Unfortunately, although anything is possible in a well equiped lab, I can't think of any simple way to measure the things I would like to verify most. For instance, I would like to have a graph of time vs pressure on my trigger so that I could see whether I was increasing the pressure evenly or mostly at the beginning, or too suddenly at the end. But to do that would take an instrument which looks and feels just like my pistol and its trigger. Likewise, I would like to see how small a zone I can acheive and for how long and at what point in my hold. To do that, I would need some kind of laser on a sensitive screen and the software to make sense of what bits of the screen got lit up as time went on. I don't think I will have either of these items soon.

Without such instrumentation evaluating, that is "metrifying" how good your hold or squeeze is becomes extremely subjective and likely very unreliable.

I would suggest one way out of this bind, which would be to deliberately push out the envelope on both sides of what is now normal for you, and thus develope a rough frame of comparison. I tried this today with the squeeze time.

I started out just holding my gun loaded with what I think is a good start pressure and doing my best to aim. And I did this several times trying to get as much pressure as possible without the gun going off. Obviously the gun does go off sometimes, and that is good, because there is your surprize break. Aand if the gun does not go off before you are tired of holding, that is fine too.

Next I just fired normally, squeezing until the shot goes. That is my baseline. It is also the black box whose contents I would like to get some indirect information on.

Thirdly, I began shooting one shot after another trying to get the squeeze time quicker without jerking. I sometimes found the shot slow to come and that is feedback telling me that I am not squeezing as hard or as fast as I would like to. I also took advantage of the semi-auto action to shoot more than one shot, and as everybody knows, that magic rythm of rapid fire makes the squeeze smooth and accurate and fast.

Fourth, I tried to stretch out the time incrementally one shot slower than the last. And this is where things became interesting, because although I was able to slow down, the shot kept coming earlier than I expected. And that I think is a very good thing. A relatively slow careful shot which is breaking before you get a chance to start worrying about why it has not broken. In the end I had a shot breaking later than my usual, but before I expected it.

In any case, instead of just trying to evaluate my normal shot, I am attempting to establish a larger range in which I can compare the pressure it takes to make a shot come faster or slower, and to compare the resulting accuracy of each strategy.

Hopefully such methods can take some of the edge off not really measuring things. And metrics aside, I found the exercise useful.

*perhaps there will be a reaction like... Duh, the old faster and slower release routine!...Well that's what you get for allowing people to think out loud on public forums:)*

Best Regards,

Gordon