TargetTalk

as they say "winners make it happen-losers make excuses"

It's a shame this thread has gone away from what Steve intended when it it was started and various people, many annonymous, have felt the need to inject one line witicisms rather adding any constructive comments or suggestions.

Steve,
Set your goals, stick to your plans and keep to your technique like you know you can. Oh and of course enjoy it. That's all that anyone can ask of themselves.

And good luck !

Rob.

Steve, giving you advice is very much like throwing pearls in the path of swine. I will try one more time. Get away from the keyboard and go to the range. Shoot some good shots and most of you defensive irritation will melt away. I am not attacking you, I just dissagree with one or two of your concepts and every time you repeat them I will post a dissenting viewpoint. IMHO , The subconcious pressure on the trigger technique can be trained but there must be an intermediate step done by using the steadily incressing pressure method until the subconcious begins to understand what we expect of it. I will repeat an incident that I reported in an earlier post. I was on the firing line , had already taken my shooting grip and was reviewing my shot sequence when the gun fired as I visualized alligned sights. I was shocked by the incident and mentally reviewed how this had happened. I went back through my shot plan and when I got to the point of visualizing alligned sights the gun fired again. My remedy was to never put my finger on the trigger until the pistol was pointed at my target. That incident is full conformation that you are not just full of it. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Curious, the last conversation I had with Erich Buljung, formerly of the AMU, metal winner, Camp Perry national champ etc; he described the trigger action as being (and I do quote) "a controlled jerk"

PETE S wrote:.....Erich Buljung, formerly of the AMU, metal winner, Camp Perry national champ etc ....

ISSF Standard Pistol World Record holder is quite a big "etc" ;-)

If you don't know what your talking about- speak loudly, some people will think you know what you are talking about. You go Steve, no hiding scores from the forum.

Some top shooters do not advocate holding exercises because they feel that when perfect sight alignment is achieved the trigger MUST be pulled. That is waht the subconscious has been trained to do,

Only one top shooter has ever shot 2680 , Bryan Zins has been close several times. He also shot very good scores at Benning in the AR match, but still hasn't broken the 2680 Platoe. The folks at Pilk should be able to confirm what technique Hershel Anderson used in shooting that phenominal score back in the olden days, as he lives near their business and ocasionally visits their premisis. That was the apex of shooting performances And should be the platform on which we build the next rung of the performance ladder. Be very cautious about putting all our eggs in the Swartz basket, Just one small mistake in his consept could destroy many years of steady progress. I join with all in hopeing there is no mistake and that Steve is really on the correct course. By the way, steve usually makes some comment about the top shooters not knowing how they shoot the great scores and that is another disagrement we have , I dont believe a person can shoot at the high master level without a deep understanding of what he / she is doing.[ Just another Quibble] Good Shooting Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:By the way, steve usually makes some comment about the top shooters not knowing how they shoot the great scores and that is another disagrement we have , I dont believe a person can shoot at the high master level without a deep understanding of what he / she is doing.

I don't believe that a top shooter necessarily knows every element of the technique they are using.

They may think they know, but after hundreds of thousands of rounds in training their technique may well have changed in small ways. At that level, although they obviously carry out the basics very well, they do not have to think about them. They become automatic.

Top shooters may not be able to verbalize what they do, but they know. Just ask one.I think you will find it very simplistic. They tend to laugh at much of the psycho babble they see on forums like this. All the talk in the world can't replace real work. Every wonder why the same shooters keep winning? And why are they not on this forum? They are working while others are babbling.

Anonymous wrote:Top shooters may not be able to verbalize what they do, but they know. Just ask one.I think you will find it very simplistic. They tend to laugh at much of the psycho babble they see on forums like this. All the talk in the world can't replace real work. Every wonder why the same shooters keep winning? And why are they not on this forum? They are working while others are babbling.

I do think random spoutings like this illustrate that people with something meaningful to say register, and those whose writings are 'less meangingful' <keeping it polite>, choose to remain anonymous.

I won't even waste my time disagreeing with everything they've written above...

Rob.

I'll waste my time disagreeing with the above then, Rob : )

Technique is basically a non-deterministic formula, or model of a perfect shot. Performing to your potential means approximating your model with high degree of precision and repeatability. However, if your model is sub-par, performing to your potential is still not good enough.

If you look at a formula from math or physics, or an algorithm from computer science, many of them look laughably simple. Plug in your parameters, shuffle a few numbers around and get the result out. However those formulas are lifetime works of brilliant men, built on the foundation of other brilliant men before them. Only a dim person that is a victim of the US public education system would say "what's the point of wasting time understanding all the abstract psycho babble when you can just plug the numbers in the formula and have the answer?"


The top athletes arrive to their simplistic shot models via intense training, observing and discussing issues with colleagues, having top coaches identify and correct flaws. If mostly the former, the athlete may not even be able to understand and hence explain their model. They arrived to it implicitly and it works for them.


Most people on this forum don't have the benefit of that, and thus have to "psycho babble" in attempt to move forward. Otherwise you'll end up with a consistent execution of crappy technique that flats out at 560, forever.

Not everything that's being said by everyone has to make sense, or be the holy grail of everything. However, it would help if disagreements took form of respectful intelligent discussions rather than condescending snarky ad-hominem attacks.

Alex makes an excellent point. If with remain with discussions of ideas, we have ways of helping each other reach a better understanding of how to shoot. Challenging each others ideas is great debate. We will make sense from these nuggets.

There is of course the challenge of "false" or "incorrect ideas." I suspect there are enough more knowledgable individuals that the better ideas will prevail.

Alex and David both make excellent (and related!) points; Pete's comments play as well.

Nobody ever said it was "complicated."

But that doesn't make it "easy!"

The hard work comes about in making it simple and easy.

The <non-cerebral> top shooter has put in thousands of hours of hard work developing and refining technique elements that have *finally* become automatic and/or semi-autonomic.

Great! For them, it is now both simple and easy.

Bad news though for those who have not yet reached that point.

How do we get there with some reasonable degree of efficiency?

Especially for the "True Amateurs."

Might it not be the case that

"The Best Road To Simple And Easy" may require a little bit more "Cerebration" than just saying "here, kid, take this case of ammo and come back when your done" type coaching?

The problem with being your own coach (as many do) is that you *do* have to both "think about it" *and* tehn "do it without thinking."

It's one of them there conundrum thangs!

I've finally gotten through Steves'disertation on the training of absolute beginners and highly recomend it to all coaches . Steves' concept borders on sheer geneious, yet I still have a tiny nit to pick. Positive reinforcement of evey correctly performad step in the process is the essential step that I failed to find. If thats the biggest omission Steve made [ and I may have simply missed it ] He should be quite pleased with his effort so far. My approach was to identify the first correctly performed shot and use what I came to call the " Name Droping comment" to wit "Man , Blankenship can't shoot a better shot than that. Now do it again." The name of the shooter is immaterial just as long as the beginner recognises it. Good Shooting Bill Horton

I've finally gotten through Steves'disertation on the training of absolute beginners and highly recomend it to all coaches . Steves' concept borders on sheer geneious, yet I still have a tiny nit to pick. Positive reinforcement of evey correctly performad step in the process is the essential step that I failed to find. If thats the biggest omission Steve made [ and I may have simply missed it ] He should be quite pleased with his effort so far. My approach was to identify the first correctly performed shot and use what I came to call the " Name Droping comment" to wit "Man , Blankenship can't shoot a better shot than that. Now do it again." The name of the shooter is immaterial just as long as the beginner recognises it. Good Shooting Bill Horton

Steve , I don't call people names except face to face. I remember something simular where Russ was concerned. How many more ? Bill Horton

What the bloody F are you talking about Bill?

what or who is considered a "true amateur"??

From Olympic lore and tradition (before eastern bloc countries started commissioning all their athletes in order to pay them) an "amateur athlete" was someone who did not derive any income from their sport.

Under the "modern rules" (where the vast majority of olympic athletes are also professional athletes) the "true amateurs" would be the people who are competing without significant financial support related to shooting.

The people who work full time so they can eat and feed their families, and compete in ISSF events as a "Hobby."

At least that's the definition I have heard most often. I am fairly sure it isn't in any dictionary though; since the modern rules do not consider "amateur" to be that significant (?).