TargetTalk

Gurus, Students, All:

O.K., several spinoffs in the "Last 200 Milliseconds" thread already and a lot of great ideas AND questions both. However, a particular issue was kind of hiding in the background on that thread and I thought we might break it out into it's own topic.

Let's assume we know how to properly execute a shot and we are training away. This will (inevitably? eventually?) lead to our being able to shoot UP TO our "potential" for any given day.

Allow me to clarify my assumptions here- I am assuming that if we do "all the right things" in terms of executing each shot, we will be able to shoot our "best" for that match. However, on any given day, our "best could be a 550 . . . or a 590.

When it "just so happens" that our "karmas are aligned" our "best" for that day will be very high indeed- but the next day, when our biorythms are off/we aren't thinking happy thoughts/we are wearing the wrong socks our "best" might be pretty miserable.

O.K. Sports Fans- here's the $64,000 question(s):

How can we improve the likelihood that our "best" (for any given day) will be reliably set at a high level?

How do we improve our "potential ceiling" while simultaneously raising the floor?

Steve "Where did *That* Score Come From" Swartz

Steve,
Some random thoughts -

What do baseball players do when they are in a hitting slump? This is a fairly common occurance and I would think that players and coaches have developed methods over the years to deal with it. I did a very quick Google search and the articles I skimmed seemed to discuss many of the approaches already discussed here on TT, but it may be worth a more detailed look or discussion with a professional ball player or coach.

There are some players who never get into a slump - they hit 300 just about all the time. There are others who may average 400 for the season, but have periods when they bat 100 and other periods when they bat 600.
So what's best?

Fred

Steve,
I thionk one of the questions you are asking is along the lines of 'how can we consistently shoot to optimum' i.e. how can we ensure that we can reproduce in competitions what we do in training.

Two answers springs to mind one is practice. Shoot more comps they become more familiar and you get less stressed out at the thought.

The second one is mental preparation and training. Train your mind to focus on the shot process and shooting technically good shots. It doesn't matter where you are or in what competition your in, the process of shooting a good shot is identical. Concentrate on the process and forget the outcome or desires. Likewise train your mind to be fully occupied and don't think about the situation - i.e. leave no room for match nerves. Also you need coping strategies to eliminate nerves or stresses should they surface. I'll just add that a positive state of mind is essential. If you get into negative dips you need to work out methods to switch back into positive. In a bad match you can still shoot good shots and good strings. I try and use it as a mental training exercise to switch back to being positive and in so doing you can forget the bad and often recover the shoot to a large extent.

As to how do we raise the ceiling, I'm still working that one out. I can more often than not reproduce training scores in matches now, or even surpass them but I still have a gap between training bests and competition. I do however believe that it's only a matter of time before that gap dissapears or even reverses, the more comeptitions I shoot the nearer it comes (fingers well crossed <g>).

Rob.

Steve Swartz wrote: How can we improve the likelihood that our "best" (for any given day) will be reliably set at a high level?

How do we improve our "potential ceiling" while simultaneously raising the floor?

Being used to win and/or perform premium scores helps,.... a lot! I think it is the programming thing that is the working "device", both the subconscious and the conscious are used to and expect top performance.

I think this is more significant than excellent quality traning with the pistol. Perhaps top quality self image training can do some of the things that being used to premium performance does.

This, of course, only works if the fundamental technical execution is rather good.

Thanks guys- please allow me to bounce something back.

Two years ago I spent a considerable amount of time on the thought processes involved; and indeed implemented the ideas you presented with great success. Took me over a significant plateau.

The remaining issue seems to be FOCUS or intensity of concentration before/during the match. I am making good progress here as well- although not as consistently as I would have hoped. I have finally (after many years) actually figured out what people mean by "in the zone" and think that improvements in this area- of mental intensity- will indeed bear fruit.

However

I still note (with some frustration and dismay!) that even if I am able to put the mental and behavioral pieces together reliably, there is a missing element (physical?) that seems outside my grasp.

Before I embark on a rigorous (and time consuming) program of experimentation and data collection with stance, grip, trigger position, etc- you know, the Tiger Woods thing about "Disassembling and Reassembling the Swing"- I wonder if there is something else I am overlooking.

Yes, consistency in execution is always noted by the great masters- but are there not "consistently better" ways to do things as opposed to "consistently not as good?"

Did any of that make sense?

Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz wrote:The remaining issue seems to be FOCUS or intensity of concentration before/during the match. I am making good progress here as well- although not as consistently as I would have hoped. I have finally (after many years) actually figured out what people mean by "in the zone" and think that improvements in this area- of mental intensity- will indeed bear fruit.

However

I still note (with some frustration and dismay!) that even if I am able to put the mental and behavioral pieces together reliably, there is a missing element (physical?) that seems outside my grasp.

Steve,
I'm no expert on this and my comments are based on what seems to work for me and what I think will produce the goods further down the line. I'm also not quite at your level yet - but I plan to get there ;-) so please take my comments accordingly.

If you read what you've written above there are signs of frustration and negativity. Whilst we all have them they are not good, in fact I'd say they were bad. I would suggest part of the mental training is to get rid of these thoughts and their negativity and instead come at the 'problems' from a different angle. You have the technical skillset as you've shown so I'd suggest looking elsewhere. Sure you should carry on honing those skills (which is way beyond my ability to comment on) but try to concentrate on the mental game. I think you mentioned Basshams books - it may be worth actually spending time with the guy and go through this with him (or someone suitable skilled in this arena).

I would however suggest that you mentally rehearse your competitions, feeling at ease in them and shooting well. You can even add in exercises to simulate negative feelings and how to overcome them in a match.

As I said I'm no expert in this but the whole area I find very interesting. Most of what I read and hear makes sense to me and more importantly I believe in it and believe it will further help my shooting performances. I would like to think the same thing would help you.

Rob.

Rob:

Thanks for the kind words and I'll deliberate over your points . . . we all have to "rediscover the basics" on regular cycles, do we not?

Go back over your own logbook and see what I mean. If it looks anything like mine, you will find that you seem to "discover" (Aha!) the same stuff over and over.

The observation of negativity (and frustration) reflected in my post is perhaps shared by many different shooters . . . any "slump" or "plateau" is a bad thing at whatever level. YOur comments should be noted as a good wake-up call for us all?

Nobody ever accused me of being too humble or lacking in self confidence

HOWEVER

you are right- no matter how "positive our self-imagery is," it's still darned easy to fall into the trap of analyzing the negatives.

Sorry about that.

Good food for thought. I am dusting off my Bassham/Orlick. This weekend perhaps is a good time to devote ENTIRELY to "rethinking the fundamentals" from the POSITIVE (what to do RIGHT) perspective.

Thanks!

Steve "Simple Does Not Equal Easy" Swartz

(p.s. Rob the definition of "ex-spurt" is "a drip under pressure" or some such. Nobody is an "expert" on all of this stuff I don't believe to any comprehensive extent?)

Steve Swartz wrote:Go back over your own logbook and see what I mean. If it looks anything like mine, you will find that you seem to "discover" (Aha!) the same stuff over and over.

How very true and perhaps we should take time to actually read through our log books frequently rather than just write in them ? Perhaps I'm a bigger culprit than some, but I very rarely read things that I've written, I more often than not just add to them.

A good example was last w/e. I started off shooting poorly and then 'remembered' and 'found out' how to hit the bull. A first string of 89 was transformed into 93 and 94's and capped with a 97. In that instance I stopped and wrote a couple of paragraphs in my log book mid competition just whilst it was fresh in my mind. I find that kind of thing gives that very nice warm fuzzy feeling in that I shot a good score but more importantly relearned the importance of focusing on what I was doing. I must now try and not forget it again <g>.

Rob.

I agree very much with the logbook comments and go through the same thing -- "why did I stop doing that?". I wonder how many, like myself, also go through the "fix of the week" syndrome -- where some mental or physical alteration suddenly seems to bring it all together and the shots start to drop into the ten ring one after another. You think "Aha! That's it! If I just keep doing that I can shoot great from now on!" Only to find that on your next visit to the range it doesn't work anymore. I think there are the basics required to shoot well, but there are also a lot of subtle mental and physical elements that can cause poor shooting. Sometimes we try something and we start to shoot great for a while. I suspect that in most cases it operates as either a temporary mental focus point that allows our subconscious to perform well, and/or as a distraction to our conscious mind that frees up our subconscious to focus and do its job. Then, after a while, our mind adapts to the change and that benefit is lost.

EdStevens wrote:Sometimes we try something and we start to shoot great for a while. I suspect that in most cases it operates as either a temporary mental focus point that allows our subconscious to perform well, and/or as a distraction to our conscious mind that frees up our subconscious to focus and do its job. Then, after a while, our mind adapts to the change and that benefit is lost.

Ed,
How very true. I too suspect that in most cases it's the distraction technique that pays dividends. Our conscious mind can focus on some trivial component which really doesn't matter leaving the subconscious free to do the real work. I guess that signifies how much room for improvement we have with our mental game.

Another comment - triggered by some commentary on the snooker which we have televised quite a lot here - is regarding timings. There is a tendency to slow down (take longer) in competitions than training. Has anyone else noticed that and if so have you changed or speeded up in comps because of your observations ? I shot a competition earlier this year consisting of 3 daily 60 shot matches and I deliberately speeded up on the final day - I got my best (and equal PB) on that day. Do you think that was significant or just coincidental ? My feeling is that it helped although perhaps it was because I was closer to repeating in competition what I do in training rather than anything else.

Rob.

Steve - Are you using SCATT or similar electronic training system to check and compare your performances ?

The reason I am asking is since we have a shooter in our club who has similar competion performances like you (650 - 657) with AP and he is loooking for similar answers you do.

Scatt sessions were quite helpful.

- Ned

Hi Rob, you mentioned that on your 3rd day shoot, you speeded up and achieved a good and improved result. My interpretation of this has two trains of thought, the first is as you were now becoming more familiar with the range, having shot twice, you were possibly starting to enter the edge of a new comfort zone. This might have the effect of making you feel more at ease with the surroundings and therefore boost your confidence etc. The second thought would be, as I have found on many occassions, that by shooting slightly more quickly you have eliminated the "ditheration" factor and have released the shot nearer to your peak performance timing. The point in the theoretical graph where your maximum maintained concentration crosses or meets up with your minimum muzzle deviation.
This theorectical maxim can best be demonstrated with careful interpretation of the results from using a Rika Trainer or possibly Scatt.
The next stage in trying to achieve consistantly good scores in matches, is to try to replicate the shot timing, comfort zone and overall confidence. This replication for me only happens on rare occassions, but I am sure that by excercising careful self control and improving overall focus improvements can be made.

My personal $0.02 on shooting fast:

Three years ago I was holding about 15-20 seconds on target; 3 secs to do the final approach and sag; 3-5 seconds for the last breath and "settle;" then around 5-10 seconds for the actual settle . . . yeah, o.k., that was pretty stupid. By teh time I was ready to release the shot I couldn't see the front sight anymore!

Along with having to put down my baggage about what constituted "settle" in the first place, I undertook a study of my hold pattern. Found that I cycled from a wide-9 rapidly into a tight-9 within 3 seconds- and would then cycle in and out between tight and wide 9s (with excursions into 7 land) off and on with never more than about 1 sec actually in the 9 rign at a time and increasingly longer cycles out of hte nine ring as time went on.

It was right around that time I had my "Aha!" moment and realized that you didn't have to be able to "hold" a 10 to "shoot" a 10.

Now it's taken me three years to actually TRUST THE PROCESS discovered during that "Aha!" moment (and I still don't "get it" consistently enough for peak performance)- but I have found that:

- Focus on the front sight is best 1-2 sec after I open my eyes after the approach to target and DECLINES STEADILY to crap after around 8 seconds;

- Ability to concentrate on front sight alignment occurs rapidly (slightly faster than front sight focus intensity, oddly enough) and kind of cycles in and out with my concentration level, but is actully pretty good for up to 15 seconds; and

- The actual tightness of hold behaves as noted above.

Two conclusions as a result (YMMV):

I. SHOOT THE FIRST TEN YOU SEE (if no release after 5 seconds, PTFGD!)

II. DON'T BE SUCKERED BY THE HOLD CYCLE (your hold might go in and out, but the only hold worth shooting IS YOUR FIRST HOLD!)

To expand on Point II, you will see your hold actually get better (Beki Snyder calls it the "second wind hold" or some such) every so often if you keep hanging the gun up there- However, the intensity of focus on the front sight, and your ability to maintain (and recognize!) alignment has already gone to crap, but you are just too (naive? optimistic? hopeful?) to notice.

Anyway, seems like some other folks I've talked to about this (both BE and AP/FP) have noticed a similar thing.

Then again, guys like Jason Turner can measure hold time with a calendar and he seems to do o.k. . . .

Steve Swartz

Some from my point of view, but nothing special:
1. Time
Our eyes are made of chemical elements. They aren't supplied with active stencil/matrix like new digital cameras with Carl Zeiss optics, they aren't supplied with new NVidia graphic processors with 15-20 Gb/sec bandwidth possibility :-). After 12-15 seconds of aiming and attentive sight control we lose approximately from 20% to 30% of vision (lack of oxygen, etc.). After 18-22 seconds - "sighting picture" is wrong picture, and you have already 60%-50% of your usual vision. At the average after of 16-18 seconds most of us don't see real picture. Now I try to explain with my broken English :-) : after those 16-18 seconds on your eye's retina develops and fixes imprint of a sighting picture, laying upon this imprint picture - real/active picture "isn't" so active... we stopped to see little movements, now we see big movements only! And "little movement" is 7/8 at free pistol at best.
Only after 10-15 years of regular trainings man can extend sighting time up to 16-24, as his brain/hearth/etc. already trained.
IMHO, best time period for shot is 8-12 seconds maximum after sight-elements arrival in aiming zone.
My idol here Mr. Wang Yifu... shots very fast.

2. Why we shoot so bad
As I've wrote in previous topic: "we fear of a shot". Let me describe my shot on air pistol from memory, then, may be you could compare our feelings:
I load. I must do 10. It's easy. I check my: posture, legs, spine, wrist, et c. I'm ready. I turn my head. I know - finger starts to work already at top raise-point. Subconsciously - I know what a picture I should see. Arm raises. Finger works with first stage. I come to aiming zone. Sighting picture is good, enough to hit an inner '9' minimum. Finger already works with second stage, and as we subconsciously know when it ends (as we used this trigger many times) - arise first exertion. Finger stops or moves very slow. Growing efforts in all fingers, little finger starts to pull front sight to 6 o'clock (or variations). Index finger already participates in holding, instead of independent work. Extra-efforts alredy covered arm (sometimes face, etc...). Meantime I feel inner psychological exertion... it progressively grows - inner-fight for good shot. Final. Like a nuclear explosion. Wrist takes an amplitude after shot. Index finger stops work exaclty after shot. Efforts on all fingers are others, not as before. In da head... sad conclusion "bad, eight on X o'clock!".
What I want to underline in this exapmle:
- load cartridge
- wanna good shot
- know exact time when second stage ends
- and fear ^ of it's end
- growing exertion (phsych./phys.)
- point of truth: end of second stage clashes with exertion max.

How to escape this situation - you're already know yourself. Everyone of You had good shot many times.

It should be made "all the way through", like a:
a train goes through at the turn of rails;
an alarm-clock goes through when ring starts to work;
...

3. Shooter's life
God, thank You that shooter's life is so long... no matter how old are You. Meantime, this life is like sine-line ("Sin" function - from math.).
None of us couldn't guarantee that today he will hit 578 (for. example), but knowing current sport-shape we could tell possible score's interval (568-580 for example). But "delta" is different (580-568=12 is "delta). For example, after some years of shooting we can exactly say ... "not less that 520!"... "it's impossible to hit less!"... someone say "wooohoo, today I'm in bad shape... not less than 584" :-)
Possible pragmatics' question: "Hm, we train so much, we train many years, why our minimum score stopped to grow?"... I have no answer! May be someone have? Only mysticism, or no-talent... I think. For someone 580 is top point,... for someone 580 is start point :-(... but I can exactly say: that people have already won this psychological-game. But we're still trying.

Interesting thread, guys.

I'm not shooting so much international now, more NRA highpower competition, and actually have a few pointers from that field of play to share:

a) in NRA HP we're outside, shooting in the weather and variable light conditions. This means that there are some days, in some parts of the country, when just getting the shot in the black is an achievement. This leads to

b) if you see a 10, take the shot.

c) some people (the champions among them) go so far as to normalize their hold - i.e. they don't hold, really.

What they do is this:

they get their stance, NPA etc., sorted out, then approach the target in a certain manner.

In NRA HP it's usually sideways rather than top down, mainly because of windage, but I've tried it both vertically and horizontally, and indoors with an air or free pistol it's about the same. Use whichever you naturally do. (And we all do it.)

So you line your sights up with each other (i.e get your sight picture straight) , then bring the whole picture down (/up/right/left) to a definite spot next to your black, keeping a little tension in your body, then gently uncoil/release tension, and let your body slowly approach the black and your NPA.

As your sight picture approaches the 10 ring, increase trigger pressure.
As soon as you settle into your NPA, take the shot.

If your NPA is right, the shot will be in the black. Note that it's the NPA that determines release rather than the sight picture. (interesting, huh.)

That's it. Don't let the sight picture go out the other side of the black and then try and bring it back into a classic sight picture. If you "settle in" past the bull or somewhere other than the center of the bull then you've got your NPA wrong, or it's just naturally shifted over the course of time. Reset your NPA (even dry fire to check) and start over.

If the shot went off, call the shot and follow through as usual.

The idea is to do it "exactly" the same, every time.

What this will mean is (that once you've gotten used to it,) your group will tighten up somewhere in the black. It may not be centered around the X, but that's what your adjustable sights are for).

However, assuming you're practising and not in a match, you'd be better served by tightening your group first, then moving it after. Don't chase your NPA all over the target or this method won't work too well.

This usually results in around a 2-3 second "hold", since your body relaxes into the NPA and will naturally stay there just for a moment before your wobble starts taking over big time.

The key is not to compensate for your wobble - don't bring the sights back once they're on their way out past the black. Your approach will be uncontrolled, your call radius will be inconsistent and your hold will have deteriorated.

Taking your shot at first chance means your body stays more relaxed, your call radius goes down, and you never hesitate or flinch your shots.

Don't forget to follow through as normal.

I've tried this with an air pistol, and air rifle, a free pistol and my HP competition rifle, both on the ranges and with my RIKA at home.

All I can say is that once I got past the initial nervousness, my groups shrunk noticably, and, much more to the point, my call radius shrunk too.

The RIKA feedback confirms this. With the classic hold, I was continually having my time-offset score be higher than my regular score (i.e. "if you'd have taken your shot 0.3 seconds sooner, you'd have scored x instead of the y you did score"). Shooting the approach method, the groups tightened and the time offset diminished noticeably. i.e. whether I liked using it or not, it works.

The approach method puts more emphasis on trigger control than the classical method, which may or may not be a bad thing.

Shooting outdoors in the wind, you have to take more control of the trigger. Once I developed that decisiveness to take the shot "now!" without moving the piece as the trigger went off, then the surprise shot, while still important, has sort of focussed downwards: it's still a surprise, but only in the sense that I don't know in which third of a second it's going to go off, rather than in which two or three seconds, as I'd had before.

I got most of this from the field in competition, from my RIKA range at home, from the various video tapes available, and from two seminal books, both by the same man. His name is David Tubb and I think all shooters should read him, irrespective of shooting discipline. This stuff is all covered very well therein, also the mental game, match preparation, training, etc..

Google the man if you don't know who he is. Or visit his site, named after him.

IMHO if you're a shooter, you shouldn't miss out on what he has to say.

Cheers
Chris

John,
It's not the shot process time that I was shortening rather the 'dithering between shots. I was taking more deep breaths etc and thinking my routine out rather than just keeping to a steady rhythm. I tnd to try and get my shots off in 3-5 seconds once on aim. That's one of the areas I struggled with (and still do) in that I was readjusting my sight alignment in the aiming area - bad news that tiny muscle movement easily becomes a twitch and a wayward shot. I have been concentrating much harder on getting the side picture correct in the area of hold above the target (except I have the foresight proud). I won't bore you with the details but I have big problems keeping the foresight in the middle and I'm in the process of getting some custom grips made to help overcome this problem (John, you know my 'odd' arm position).

Rob.

Hi Rob
Gotcha.
If you use the approach method, though, this will force you to get your sight picture correct first, then move over and take the shot as your sight picture comes to bear. Zero dressing up of the sight picture.
(Of course, it's really never zero, just feels like it. Probaly between 1-3 seconds in reality).
Get your picture set up next to the bull, let's say to the left of it. This way your vertical sight picture (frontsight proud) will have to be sorted before you approach the bull. i.e. one plane of movement at a time.
If you do the top down approach then, if you get into a subconscious flow, you're really trying to do two things at a time - a) get the sight picture correct, and b) get the whole effort onto the black. One's really the hand and the eye, and the other is the entire body stance and the NPA.
Trying to do both things at once is the classical way and it's harder to do.
The approach method separates the two functions, and in theory makes each phase easier to control and hold.

Hold your (sorted) sight picture, approach the centre, take the shot, follow through. You're done.

So you don't really have to hold your picture for more than a little while.

If you're having sight picture problems, then this is more to do with the NPA phase, with your stance and grip, as you've mentioned. Although we've all learned (or been taught) to get our NPA with the closed eyes, etc., most NRA folk who are serious go through one or two dry fires in prep to confirm their NPA before they load up.

A popular practice routine that's used to eliminate dithering is "dry one, fire one". If it's not going so well then "dry two, fire one". If better, then "dry one, fire two".

For this routine, you're building up an entire cyclical rhythm - push the target, check stance, set NPA, check NPA, load up, take the shot, follow through, call the shot, pull target, mark the shot, mark the logbook, reload the target, relax, rinse, repeat.

So a "dry one" would be the entire cycle, including pulling, pushing and reloading of the (unfired at) target, with emphasis on seeing an imaginary hole where you called the shot to be, and the only difference between the dry one and a live one is the lead going downrange.

Then the cycle becomes larger, encompassing the scope of the competition. Arrive, sign in, unpack, setup, relax, dry fire, prepare, shoot for record, relax, pack up, mingle, depart.

And then the cycle of competitions in the shooting season/year.

Everything in the cycle relaxed and controlled. Routine, with its feeling of almost boredom, combats the dithers and the jitters and before we know it, heck, we're compeitive shooters. This is what we do all day, day in and day out. Nothing special, business (Xs) as usual.

All this on davidtubb dot com, or his publisher's site, zediker dot com.
Cheers
Chris

tozshooter wrote:Hi Rob
If you're having sight picture problems, then this is more to do with the NPA phase, with your stance and grip, as you've mentioned. Although we've all learned (or been taught) to get our NPA with the closed eyes, etc., most NRA folk who are serious go through one or two dry fires in prep to confirm their NPA before they load up.

Actually it's not quite that simple (for me) - hence I didn't want to bore people. My natural point of aim is more or less on the target to my left. Unfortunately this is because my elbow cannot straighten so my gun is angled left. I have to angle it right but it's almost at the maximum degree of rotation. The real answer is to get a proper grip made to measure but there is no one who can do this in the UK. I am in the process of contacting someone to custom build me one which I can then get finished off here in the UK. Slightly off thread I know but just to put some of my comments into perspective.

Rob.

Okay, then we're on to something else. How many degrees off, would you say? I'm sure someone like the Rink people would make you a grip, or else you could simply do what I did when I was in the UK - get some bondo (body filler) and bulk out your own grip to compensate.
What I did was to get an idea as to the grip design and orientation by using plasticine (play dough in the US) and making a test grip from this, using a pencil as a barrel sighter. (I was building my own free pistol grip using a more or less 45 degree hand position - like one is pointing a finger, much more natural than the vertical grips we use now).
Then once I had an idea as to what felt right, I copied that grip contour over a real (wooden) one by using a circular surform file and other wood files to cut away the stuff I didn't need, and then a mixture of body filler and the sawdust from the grip to build up the side of the grip I did need.
The thing was pretty ugly in the end but it shot great.
If you didn't feel like doing this yourself, what you might do is to see if Rink et al would be prepared to make you a one off grip using the plasticine and pencil mockup. I think they they would/could.
Try Edinkillie in Scotland if you can't get to Rink direct - I've had good luck there.
Cheers
Chris

Alternatively (and I know this may sound like a cop-out), how about shooting with the other hand?