TargetTalk

luftskytter wrote:Then there's the mathematic side of it:

If you're able to "control" accuracy within say, the nine ring, then tens will occur for "statistical" reasons. So your score will be a bit better than 540. Flinches and snatches that cause sevens or worse, can only be "compensated statistically". This means that if your goal is an average of nine or better (540+), then a seven needs to be balanced by at least two tens before you are back to par.

I read a paper last night, again by Ericsson, about elite golfers and putting. I think that it applies because it is similar to what we do, performing an eye/hand coordinated activity with a clear numeric outcome (mental aspect). He reviewed studies of golfers repeatedly putting toward the same hole (deliberate practice), same distance and trajectory. The elite golfers were not guaranteed to drain the put every time, but, they did show significantly smaller and more consistent dispersion patterns than golfers with less capabilities. Essentially, the elite golfers had a tighter group and increased the odds of hitting the putt. The same can be said for shooters: the tighter the group (over the 10), the greater the odds of hitting the 10.

From a performance goal standard, don't focus on hitting 10s; but rather, focus on reducing group size. Playing catch-up (I need to hit two 10s to eliminate the 7), places greater pressure on the athlete, specifically on creating performance outcomes. If you do anything, focus on what needs to be done to deliver a solid centreshot: clear sight picture, smooth trigger release, followthrough, etc. Do enough of those, with a reduced group size and your 10s can be counted after the match.

Don't worry about 10s: focus on how you can achieve them.

Patrick

I read a paper last night, again by Ericsson, about elite golfers and putting. I think that it applies because it is similar to what we do, performing an eye/hand coordinated activity with a clear numeric outcome (mental aspect). He reviewed studies of golfers repeatedly putting toward the same hole (deliberate practice), same distance and trajectory. The elite golfers were not guaranteed to drain the put every time, but, they did show significantly smaller and more consistent dispersion patterns than golfers with less capabilities. Essentially, the elite golfers had a tighter group and increased the odds of hitting the putt. The same can be said for shooters: the tighter the group (over the 10), the greater the odds of hitting the 10.

From a performance goal standard, don't focus on hitting 10s; but rather, focus on reducing group size. Playing catch-up (I need to hit two 10s to eliminate the 7), places greater pressure on the athlete, specifically on creating performance outcomes. If you do anything, focus on what needs to be done to deliver a solid centreshot: clear sight picture, smooth trigger release, followthrough, etc. Do enough of those, with a reduced group size and your 10s can be counted after the match.

Don't worry about 10s: focus on how you can achieve them.

Bingo. a good shot process yields a result within your area of hold. Trying to play catch up, by "trying harder" implies two things that are not true. The first is that you weren't trying hard enough when you shot the 7 (possible but unlikely) and the second: that deviating from a good shot process will yield a better result than sticking to the fundamentals. If you are doing something poorly, dry fire a few times to get your process back before you take the next live shot.

That's a good point about truth. Lately one of the most mantra-like things I've been going through during my shots is reminding myself to be honest. A thoroughly good shot is the result of telling the truth, in a way. It is all too easy to 'lie' to oneself during the process and end up trying to improve on one's best practices at the last moment, cheating the shot into the 10 ring, but if it happens to land there it's more a matter of luck than of executing a skillful shot. It just seems so easy as the seconds tick by during a hold to let go of the truth, to cheat just to get it over with. The cure is largely something a friend recently passed on from his coach, Sil Lyra; learn to put the gun down.

Gerard wrote:That's a good point about truth. Lately one of the most mantra-like things I've been going through during my shots is reminding myself to be honest. A thoroughly good shot is the result of telling the truth, in a way. It is all too easy to 'lie' to oneself during the process and end up trying to improve on one's best practices at the last moment, cheating the shot into the 10 ring, but if it happens to land there it's more a matter of luck than of executing a skillful shot. It just seems so easy as the seconds tick by during a hold to let go of the truth, to cheat just to get it over with. The cure is largely something a friend recently passed on from his coach, Sil Lyra; learn to put the gun down.

I find that I have to put the gun down the most when I am not focused on my process and actively thinking about what my trigger pull is going to be like. once my sights drop into my aiming area. If I start to focus on the triggering after I have leveled the gun, I am behind the shot.
Psychologically speaking, the studies tell us that behavior will persist the longest when it is rewarded intermittently.
Scope diving to confirm a bad shot or to amaze yourself that you managed to pull it out in spite of a flawed process will encourage you to continue taking chances on a poor shot process. so, don't reward ( or punish) yourself by scoping your shots unless you are actively sighting in the gun. Trust your sights or adjust them, don't start thinking and second guessing when the shot process is almost always the issue, not your hold or your sights.

also if you are going to lie to yourself, the best lie to tell is; "there is no round in this gun. This is dry fire."

That's a good one, never thought of telling myself it wasn't a real shot... gonna have to try that one this afternoon. And yeah, it's hard to resist plugging in my tablet and the wireless camera I have just below my trap and glancing at the screen after every shot. At times I've felt that it helped, when I was feeling less than secure about my process, and in fact I've often seen strings of very nice results when using the camera that way. But lately, along with a host of other changes in my routine, I've been keeping the camera unplugged.

zuckerman wrote:Howdy,
The start of this thread was a recommendation from me to read the book Outliers by Gladwell, based on a review from a motorcycle blog writer that I follow. I have both purchased this book and read it, with the expectation that there would be enough material to absorb and use for AP. Unfortunately, it does not pass muster, there is a little more than half a chapter devoted to relevant dialog pertaining to or transferring to AP about the 10,000 hour rule. That is not to say the book is not entertaining and informative, it is, but there is not enough "meat" for an AP shooter to make it worth purchasing just for half the second chapter.. this is in my opinion; perhaps someone else could glean more from the book even though I was not able to.

I think chapter seven is one of the most important parts of this book. Take a look again at the cost of mistakes of ”Korean Air” made before they acknowledged the problem. Acknowledgement of the problem is the first step of possible changes toward future progress. Think about it.

The score of AP 570 is already a problem for me and for someone who believes that it is not achievable for them in “International level of performance”. It all depends from what point of view we see the problem.

Sorry but thinking that 570 is a goal to be competitive in international competition is a little short sighted, that's a page two or thee score. Think 583 plus if you want to make a final.

I agree about 583 and up. At the same time, look at the first place score level at the Australian National ISSF championship this year: AP 575.
http://www.pistol.org.au/results/nation ... 1500-match

Russ wrote:I agree about 583 and up. At the same time, look at the first place score level at the Australian National ISSF championship this year: AP 575.
http://www.pistol.org.au/results/nation ... 1500-match

Gosh Russ, are you shifting gears today, suddenly advocating for settling for results that'll be just adequate? I had the impression that in your opinion, very often expressed in threads you start or contribute to here, only shooting for the stars was an acceptable goal and that everything else was simply uninteresting and a 'hobby' activity. So... some of the Australian shooters in that final, both men and women shooters, were mere hobby shooters, and the winners were shooting scores you could train someone to shoot within 3 months, is that right? I just want to be clear on where you stand here, since you bring up mediocre scores (by world standards) as being, so it seems from your words above, now sufficient.

Dear Gerard,
Your implication is not correct. I do remember that I promised to not argue with you. I will honor my words.
Please execute your writing skills outside my name. I am not interested to have any discussion with you. I am only trying to express my thoughts to specific topics if it looks interesting enough. Your posts never catch my attention, sorry.
Thank you for understanding.

Russ wrote:Dear Gerard,
Your implication is not correct. I do remember that I promised do not argue with you. I will honor my words.
Please execute your writing skills outside my name. I am not interested to have discussion with you. By the way, I am not trying to contribute and newer was. I am only trying to express my thoughts to specific topic if it looks interesting enough. And your posts newer catch my attention, sorry.
Thank you for understanding.

What an odd response. Obviously my post did catch your attention, hence your response to it. Your expressions of your thoughts, or whatever you wish to call them, are obviously a contribution to these forum threads, as are all contributions, thoughts, expressions, whatever people want to call them. You can choose to play semantics games if you like, and that, too, is a contribution. "Writing skills outside my name"? I've no idea what that is supposed to mean, sorry.

I was only calling attention to the apparent contradiction. Here you have pointed out that a score of 575 is adequate at an international final. So often, you have stated as fact that scores of below 565 or 570 do not interest you. So it seems you have found a middle ground, with a range of perhaps 10 points, where the scores are of interest to you, or of utility in your opinion on the international stage. I merely pointed out that this seems odd, especially considering the fact, as Greg Derr pointed out very accurately, that scores of 583 or so are absolutely necessary for most ISSF World Cup level matches or similar level matches. A score of 575 would not, in most cases, even get you to the final, and certainly not merit a medal in all but exceptional circumstances - such as this Australian match, apparently.

I am not arguing with you Russ. I am asking for clarification of your stated opinions.

What is your question? What else can’t you understand? That 570 can be achievable in three month from the score level of 540?
565 and 570 does not really matter; it is the same concept. What does matter is if you stall at the level of 540 long enough and choose to not invest in education, you will continue to stay at this level forever. Does not matter how expensive you tool or ammo. In a 20 point jump up in performance, you have to evaluate your current system, structure and strategy if you have any in place. Afterwards, someone knowledgeable must point your attention toward the weak points in your performance (system, structure and strategy). After that, you can start working toward a new model of performance.
What you can’t understand is you came to conclusion of knowing what you need or what your current issue is. In reality it is not. You cannot see the actual problem, and you can’t fix it because you do not understand where to look.
After all, it is not a very effective way for me to spend my time by arguing about the subject with someone who does not understand what he is doing.

Ho Hum ..... Yet another interesting thread goes down the toilet.

Was that my fault? I'm sorry, better back off then.

As regards practice, the subject of this thread, my own is going nicely. I've been bringing more focus than ever to my practice sessions, condensing my efforts and often shooting just one or two targets, doing a lot more dry fire than live. Last evening I shot 3 targets in a row and scored them at 94, 93, and 91. My average a couple of weeks ago was 90, as it was a month before and at a competition in February. Of course I expected a plateau when buying a new pistol (going from the 46m to the Pardini K10) as adapting the grip and adapting my style to the new hardware would present a challenge. But now comfort has been achieved through a lot of grip carving and other modifications involving pistol balance and trigger geometry, and my full attention has come back to training to shoot 10's.

Shot just one target today with no warm-up, resulting in a 92 with 4 10's, 4 9's, and 2 not-too-weak 8's. Nothing brilliant, but it was easy and I felt the 8's happen when my mind wandered into the jobs I should have been doing, rehairing a couple of violin bows, repairing a couple of cracked doublabasses, and restoring a broken violin. Part of good practice is learning to put the gun down when the hold or attention goes sideways. By extension, it seems rational to put the gun away when focus is not fully available. I'm working away the day, getting caught up on work, and will do some dry fire time tonight before bed. This new, more densely focused approach to practice is paying off. And I've forced myself to reduce attention on scoring 'matches' at home, only doing so a couple of times this month and finding the resulting distraction degrades performance, so I won't be doing that for a little while longer. The number of 94 to 96 point targets is slowly increasing. The last 540 scored 'match' I shot had 26 x 10's in it. For now that's a good enough measure of progress.

remmy223 wrote:Ho Hum ..... Yet another interesting thread goes down the toilet.

No, it is not.
If you guys are really looking for progress, you can start to practice “Crew Resource Management.”
p.197.”Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell
"Mitigated Speech" is sometimes the problem.

Bruce Lee, Birkam Yoga, Outliers. BS, try the KISS method and work real hard. Sorry there are no shortcuts. Yes a lesson or two is great, but I would focus on sport specific reading and training. Forget score, shoot for group first. Get in as many matches as you can at any level. Ask a champion shooter what their priorities are.

"Get in as many matches as you can"
What is the price of attendance for the match? From my experience, it runs from $700 to $1,100 and up.
It is not fit to the KISS format; it is more likely to be the expensive format. Actually, who cares about the money here? It is good for the economy ;).

"Ask a champion shooter what their priorities are."
Is that the wayhow you did it? Why are you always trying to forget the name of your coach, Greg?

Can you imagine the line of less successful shooters who will ask the champion after a stressful final:"What their priorities are"?

Russ wrote:"Get in as many matches as you can"
What the price of attendance to the one match? From my experience it is runs from $700 to $1,100 and up.
It is not fit to KISS format, it is more likely expensive format, actually who cares about the money here, it is good for economy;).

Wow again. Not being overly argumentative Russ, but I've attended two local matches so far and the total cost including entry fee ($60 each time - 180 shots total over 3 matches on 2 days, each set up and officiated to full ISSF standards), bus fare (about $6 per day, so $12 per match) and pellets (about $5 worth or less) was about $77 per match. I'm attending a less lofty match (just one ISSF-standard 60 shot round) in a city about 250km away in June, and the costs including entry fee, hotel for 2 nights and the return Greyhound bus fare plus miscellaneous expenses will come to about $350. Shooting at the Canadian Pistol Championships in August would run to about $500, if I have the time to attend. It's going to be a very busy summer for my work, but I'll try to make it for the experience. I don't think your price estimate is very accurate, unless you're talking about travel to other countries or luxury hotels when you get to a match. Flights, if needed, can often be had very cheaply with a bit of planning ahead.

"Shooting at the Canadian Pistol Championships in August would run to about $500,"

Well, I will be delighted to see your actual score after all. ;)
Do not get yourself in the same trouble as you did last time.

My attendance to the Canadian Airgun Grand Prix costed me in 2007 about $700. The USAS National in 2007, Fort Bening GA, costed me over $1,000 in 2007.


My goal was to participate in the finals, and I achieved my trip's objectives.
Did I learn anything valuable over those trips? No.
Because, it is too expensive way to learn!

Russ wrote:"Shooting at the Canadian Pistol Championships in August would run to about $500,"

Well, I will be delighted to see your actual score after all. ;)
Do not get yourself in the same trouble as you did last time.

My attendance to the Canadian Airgun Grand Prix cost me in 2007 about $700.
USAS National, in 2007 Fort Bening GA cost me over $1,000 in 2007.


My goal was to participate in finals, and I achieved my trip objectives.
Did I learn anything valuable over those trips? No
Because, it is too expensive way to learn!

In case you ever wonder why I've taken to quoting your comments Russ, it's due to your well known habit of editing them, often radically. The above comment for instance has been changed by the addition of the last paragraph between the time I saw it on my smartphone and a few minutes later when I saw it on my PC. Just sayin'.

My goal at each match I have so far attended was to win in my class, which was 'temporary expert' in the first match (I took bronze and was somewhat disappointed), and 'Expert' in the second (I took gold, but could have scored better). My intention at the coming match in June is to score over 94% and graduate to the 'Master' category, so I might compete with the best shooters at subsequent competitions. I feel that this is imperative if I am to further accelerate my learning. My personal best of 553 is deeply unsatisfying to me, and my best match score of 544 even more so, but as I said, practice/training are progressing very well and I expect to accomplish my goal for the coming match and perhaps do better than that.

Congratulations on accomplishing your own goals Russ, it feels good, doesn't it?