TargetTalk

Up until recently I have slowly lowered my sights onto the target and "held" the sub-6 position trying my best to hold the 10 whilst exectuting a smooth release.

At my last session on the range I thought I would try something different, especially because I felt my so-called "hold" bore more resemblance to the gyrations of the world champion at gyrating (OK - so I am exagerating slightly, but you get the point).

So - instead I lower my aligned sights through the target to a low hold, and then slowly move them up, timing the release to coincide with the point at which I was trying to hold.

OK - so its early days - but this method seems to iron out a lot of the lateral movement in my hits. The groups were much tighter (my last group were all within touching distance of the 10 ring - I usually shoot around and inside the 9 ring).

My questions are this:
"is this an accepted / recognised aiming method?"
"Are there any known down sides that I should watch out for?"

I guess the main response will be "use what works best for you" - but just thought some of the senior people may be aware of some pitfalls or no-nos to watch out for.

Best

Mike

I would go with lowering down slowly as it is harder to lift something up in a controlled manner.

If you think about it if you are hanging of a bar by your arms to lift your self up is hard work but you should be able to lower your self down in a controlled manner.

I have only seen very few shooters lift to a target and not to good affect.

Mike S-J wrote:My questions are this:
"is this an accepted / recognised aiming method?"
"Are there any known down sides that I should watch out for?"

I guess the main response will be "use what works best for you" - but just thought some of the senior people may be aware of some pitfalls or no-nos to watch out for.

Be careful of the novelty effect. When you first try any new technique you may find that it works, purely because you are concentrating more than usual.

You ask "is this an accepted / recognised aiming method?". It may be slightly unconventional, and the purists would probably hate it, but it's basically what I have been doing for the past 25 years for "precision" shooting.

I remember being told that it was easier to shoot with relaxing muscles, as you get when lowering the gun. I was getting the same thing as you, what I considered to be too much wobble (but which was probably more down to lack of fitness than anything else). I reasoned, rightly or wrongly, that just lifting the gun a tiny amount would re-tension the muscles enough so as to give a bit more stability.

The only thing that you need to be careful of is lowering the gun too much before lifting it again. You may be lucky and be shooting on a range where the back-stop is the same colour as the target. Not all ranges are like that and you run the risk of "losing" the sights into the background.

I would slightly question your "timing the release". That sounds like you are forcing it.

I have tried both for extended periods and still have not decided which works best for me. I will say that I tend to release the shot later when coming up to the hold point. Passing down through the bull seems to act as a signal to begin shot release and accept the first settle. Breathing is also a little different. But neither method seems to reduce my biggest problem - the number of shots outside the 9 ring.

Fred

As David says technically we have finer muscle control on the lowering than the raise. I aim to shoot lowering only into the sub six spot and personally when I do that right it is always a good shot. I also lower to around the 4 or 5 ring and raise back up. I find that very slight raise is also ok as long as it doesn't spoil the rhythm or take any thought. If I over lower to the bottom of the target (or worse) and come up again, I've undone all the good work in over raising in the first place and invariably that will be a poor shot. I know I should lower the gun and start again, but hey I'm only human ;) so sometimes I do ....

Rob.

I take the point about relaxing muscles, but:

If you are "holding" (or trying to hold) then some muscles are in tension and I suspect the wobble is caused, at least partly by that "static" tension.

Moving 'through' the aiming area may therefore reduce this effect (at least it seems to for me).

My rationale for releasing on the up is that I get to monitor the sights in the context of the target as I move into the right area (I actually find it easier NOT to focus on the target in this mode cf. to hold).

It seems to me that lowering the sights means alignment is happening against a black background (the bull) and the release point is harder to judge.

These are obviously my ramblings and impressions. Not sure what my point is other than to present an alternative P-o-V. Is it rejectable?

Two thoughts

I have often found that if I am seeing wobble on the target, that is the front sight wobbling versus the bullseye, I am not really looking at my sights (front within the rear) but rather at the front sight and the target.

Consider another approach. Line up the sights above the bullseye, slowly allow the sights to drop into the hold area (center or sub-six). Fire within two seconds of reaching the hold area.

Most of us hang out in the hold area for 6 to 10 seconds, and wobble increases. If the shoot is not there, why wait or try to adjust? Abort and restart.

Mike:

Just my always humble personal POV:

If you are concerned about being able to "monitor my sights in the context of the target" then I would humbly suggest your priorities are somewhat misplaced.

You also talk about a specific "release point" which suggests you are assuming that "releasing the shot at the right moment in order to shoot a ten" is part of your shooting paradigm. I would also humbly offer this is somewhat counterproductive.

Yes, methods similar to yours have been tried and abandoned with a degree of regularity over the years. I am not aware- and, granted, my knowledge is somewhat limited in this regard- but I am not aware of any world-class shooters using nor national or higher class coaches advocating this approach.

The problem- as I see it- is that this method presumes (incorrectly) that a human has the ability to visualize (with sight picture) and kinesthetically (by feel) where the muzzle is pointed at the target; and then predict where the moving muzzle will be pointed the proper number of milliseconds before the shot breaks in order to provide for the correct release timing.

Of course, the fascination with "hold area" or "wobble zone" is understandable, as that is what appears (optical illusion and faulty reasoning) to be the source of error in shot placement.

Steve Swartz

I found a large increase when I was mentally prepared to break the shot before entering the target area. Before, I had been entering the area, watching my hold, prepping to shoot, then shooting. Now I lower through the area, take up the slack, and mentally prepare myself to release the shot the first time I get a good picture. I then inhale 1/2 which raises me up through the area just slightly, and settle back in. Fliers really dropped with this method.

H.

Steve,

Thanks for your reply. Can I raise a few points that confuse me (not because you have not put them properly, but because I am relatively new to this and am still very much feeling my way into shooting).

If you are concerned about being able to "monitor my sights in the context of the target" then I would humbly suggest your priorities are somewhat misplaced.

Isn't that what everyone does: perfect sight alignment released smoothly in the right position? Whats misplaced here? One of the things I struggle with with this new sport (for me) is communicating what I am doing, and understanding what others who are better than me are doing. Guess since we only have words to describe it I will have to struggle a bit longer.

"You also talk about a specific "release point" which suggests you are assuming that "releasing the shot at the right moment in order to shoot a ten" is part of your shooting paradigm. I would also humbly offer this is somewhat counterproductive."

I would agree with you. As ever words seem inadequate to describe the process of this lovely, damned frustrating, sport. What I mean by "relaease point" (or its inference) is the moment the shot breaks. If one is trying to hold the 10, then I guess that is initiated at the point when the sights are aligned and in the right place? (i.e. sub six, etc).

"Yes, methods similar to yours have been tried and abandoned with a degree of regularity over the years. I am not aware- and, granted, my knowledge is somewhat limited in this regard- but I am not aware of any world-class shooters using nor national or higher class coaches advocating this approach."

Thats really useful information - I guess it means the technique is not consistent enough at any meaningful level of practioner.

The problem- as I see it- is that this method presumes (incorrectly) that a human has the ability to visualize (with sight picture) and kinesthetically (by feel) where the muzzle is pointed at the target; and then predict where the moving muzzle will be pointed the proper number of milliseconds before the shot breaks in order to provide for the correct release timing.

Can I ask humbly "how does this differ from the "ideal" aim + release?" given that no one can hold a 10 rock steady (or can they?).

Cheers.

Mike,
No-one can hold the ten ring and it's a mistake to try and aim for that. You will have your own area of hold, as will I and Steve. It is helpful to have a smaller hold but that doesn't mean someone who has an 8 ring hold can only shoot 8's. The sights will move in and out of the 8, 9 and 10 ring and the skill is to let the shot go at the right time. It is that part that with time the subconscious performs and leads to better scores (more 10's).

Rob.

Mike S-J wrote:So - instead I lower my aligned sights through the target to a low hold, and then slowly move them up, timing the release to coincide with the point at which I was trying to hold.

This is very similar to what I've been discussing with others for awhile now. There seems to be quite a large group of shooters that say this doesn't work for pistol. I've been having some limited success in proving the same results as the others quote - lots of tens, but a large number of wide shots. It seems that it's either dead on or way off, like the 7 solid tens, 2 eights and 1 very wide 9, on one target last night. The other two Slow Fire targets were 95 as well, but fewer eights. To satisfy my own needs, I still think further study will be necessary.

One of the more recent posts on this subject is at:

http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=13662

Steve Swartz wrote:Yes, methods similar to yours have been tried and abandoned with a degree of regularity over the years. I am not aware- and, granted, my knowledge is somewhat limited in this regard- but I am not aware of any world-class shooters using nor national or higher class coaches advocating this approach.

The following , by USMC GySgt Brian Zins (7 time National BE Champion), was posted the BE list. I will provide it without comment, for readers to interpret on the own:

Gunny Zins wrote:I am a simple person so I will try to make this understandable.

Look a gun. The sights are fixed right? So in essence the sights are alwys aligned to one anonther. Not aligned to the target yet though. We have not gotten to the target being involved in the process at this point.

Imagine sight picture ( no we are involving the target in the aiming process) being represented by you standing on the North Pole. If I were to take a step in any direcrtion (that step represents pressure being applied to the trigger) What direction are you going?

South right! So if you acquire perfect sight picture and then begin to apply pressure to the trigger you intentionally moving your sight alignment out of the center thus disrupting your perfect sight picture that you already had. First response is to stop applying pressure and get back your sight picture. Then we apply pressure again once it is back and the same thing happens over and over until the shot breaks in a less than desirable place.

Begin to apply pressure to the trigger once you have acquired sight alignment but not sight picture. Use the pressure that you are applying to th etrigger to control the sights to the center.

For years the fundamentals have been taught as sight alignment then trigger control. I have advocated for years that we have this whole process backwards. Thus using the trigger to control your sights.

If we start applying trigger control after sight picture is obtained than we are behind the power curve. This is much easier tio understand when applied to to the short line as if we wait for sight picture we are screwing up trigger control because we fall behind in time. Also we are training ourselves to see what we want to see when the shot breaks but not pulling trigger.

Think of it as a pyramid wher sight picture and trigger control start at the bootom and come together at the point and tht is when we want the shot to break.

Anybody really confused now?

Two more things to add:

1) The late Capt Franklin Green, 1968 National BE Champion and Silver Medalist in Free Pistol at the 1964 Tokyo Summer Olympics, also said sight alignment and then trigger control was backwards. The trigger must be started and then attention taken to the sights until the shot fired.

2) The late Don Nygord's note on "Releasing the Shot" might be of interest in your studies. It can be found at:

http://www.nygordprecision.com/note_1001.htm

Don Nygord wrote:No one is completely steady, nor is it necessary to be! The shot just has to release as the gun enters the area that will result in a 10.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Mike:

1) train the trigger so it becomes 100% perfect in not disturbing the sights; smooth, positive, uninterrupted and straight to the rear.

2) train the "sight picture" so that only alignment (front to rear sight) is maintained with 100% intensity; physical focus on front sight, mental focus on keeping sights aligned (NOT in any way "in the context of the target")

Then

Execute a shot plan that quickly and simply gets your aligned front sights "settled" in the aiming "area." Here's the part that's hard: when the ALIGNED sights are SETTLED in the aiming AREA, give yourself permission to initiate the trigger release.

Over thousands of repetitions, your subconscious will learn how to piece together the lag time from trigger initiation to release of shot (dwell time or total lock time) vs. the movement of the perfectly aligned sights (indicating muzzle position) over the sighting area.

As the Marine Corps says: "You only have to know how to do one thing and one thing only: Sight Alignment and Trigger Control."

Steve Swartz

David Levene wrote:Be careful of the novelty effect. When you first try any new technique you may find that it works, purely because you are concentrating more than usual.

Yes! Is there anyone among us who has not gotten off a nice 10 and thought, gee, I did something a little different that time, let me do it again. I'm talking about things like positioning your finger on the trigger a little differently or changing your grip slightly. A light goes on that you've just had great insight: This is the secret you've somehow overlooked in all your previous thousands of shots. So you want to do it again, convinced this is going to make the difference.

Sometimes, it works. Sometimes, you do get an insight that will help (like Zins's suggestion to visualize pulling on a string attached to your front sight) but mostly it doesn't. Usually, you just need to keep working on those same fundamentals you've been screwing up all along.

Ed:

Our posts "crossed paths" along the internet- I Hate It When That Happens! Sorry about the loss of synchonicity in the conversation.

Anyhow, couple-o-points:

1) We see what we think we are seeing; and much of what we are talking about here is both "unknown" and "unknowable." More's the pity, because it severely limits our abilityto establish "fact" in any meaningful sense. I'm sure that Brian sees what he says he is seeing and sees it exactly the way he says he saw it- as is true for each of us; many of whom see it differently (and not just me- to satisfy the "expert referent" fans in the crowd, equally talented shooters have described the process each way. Brian's description does seem to be somewhat in the minority though. Especially for international/slow fire type shooting.)

2) The main question seems to be: "Do we a. [subconsciously] monitor the sights and apply pressure in coordination with sight picture; OR do we b. [subconsciously] monitor trigger pressure and apply aiming in coordination with sight picture?"

a. The settle-accept-release method
b. The settle-press-steer method

The answer is Yes.

Not entirely (but mainly? no way of knowing) because even if the SAME EXACT PROCESS were actually happening for everyone, a fair number of people would describe it one way; and a fair number would describe the exact same process the other way.

Those last 200-300 ms of the shot process is one mysterious SOB now isn't it . . .

Steve Swartz

Actually, I think Steve may have misrepresented "the Zins Method". Here are a couple of direct quotes from Brian:

"Heres the thing, I commit to pulling the trigger before I want to take the shot. Back to using the trigger to align the sights. But once the trigger starts it usually only about 3 seconds til the shot breaks"

"The trigger has got to start moving before in the aiming area."

So, to use Steve's shorthand, it would be "the press-steer-settle" method (not "settle-press-steer").

I don't think Brian is at all unclear about what he is doing, nor do I think anyone doing it would be confused into thinking that they are settling before starting trigger pressure. In other words, I think there are two very different methods here.

I have been trying for the last few months to use Brian's method, and have come to realize it simply does not work for me most of the time. I believe the main reason is that, to use such a method, you MUST have complete confidence in your trigger pull and settling/holding ability. At first it seemed to work fairly well, but when I lost confidence after some really wild shots, the whole process fell apart and I never got it back together. However, it might very well work for a more confident shooter.

By the way, the one reference in the literature to something like this method that I can recall, describes something that is different in a major way. Skanaker, IIRC, described a free pistol shooter who timed his release to coincide with the bull as he CONTINUED lowering his arm through the aim area. I think Skanaker said it worked well for a while, but failed under extreme pressure. Not really the same as the Zins method.

Possibly one reason two very good shooters - Ed and Steve - seem to differ on this, might have to do with the trigger weights each customarily uses. Brian said he does not use his regular method for free pistol (he settles first), and for air pistol he dials out the first stage and raises the second stage weight so that it feels like a (light) .22 pistol trigger. Apparently the Zins method works best for a heavier, single-stage rolling trigger.

FredB

It has been interesting to read Ed's recent long thread and this new one on similar themes.

My sense was that some folks did not deeply understand (or maybe did not agree with) some of Ed's ideas.. especially about letting go of active control of both trigger and sights and letting the deeper parts of the mind take over. Actually, he is right on. More on this method in a moment. Regardless, a lot of great ideas and alternatives were presented by several of the participants.

--

A great many of us, especially if we are "Type A" and/or highly analytical, demand that the active thought part of our mind, the part with the voices and the ego, must control everything to "ensure" the outcome. Sadly, this part of our mind, and the visual process we over-rely on, are both too slow by themselves for the task at hand. However, we cannot bring ourselves to give up the (perceived) control we exert over the process.

If those aspects of our being are too slow, what then? Research has shown that complex sensori-motor tasks, of which shooting is one, are best performed by the deeper parts of the mind, not the "active thought" controlling parts. We are so concerned about the outcome that we cannot bring ourselves to let the deeper parts of our mind take charge.

--

A number of athletes that I have come in contact with shoot in ways that are very similar or identical to what Ed described in a number of his longer posts. A recent world champion that I have known for a few years delivers most of his shots this way. A few of National Team and advanced junior shooters I know also do this. By drawing on my past motorcycle racing training, I am able to also experience this style of shooting at times, despite my very restricted training time.

We have been able to teach this method to a number of athletes and their reaction upon first experiencing it is overwhelming. We can actually see a profound difference in the movement of the front sight and even on the face of the athlete... not to mention the tight lcuster of shots in the middle of the target... "effortlessly" delivered. This has even taken place with some of the previously mentioned "Type A" athletes, although some of them still reject the method after experiencing it because they fear the loss of (perceived) control more than they fear the bad shots they get doing it their old way. At one point in a national free pistol event I was in this mode and only later realized that not only had a string of shots gone completely inside the inner ten ring, I had actually clicked once to center the group - all without think about any of it.

--

One of the points raised in the TT discussions was that, despite the tight groups, a significant number of wide shots was still present. Not 9.9s, but 8s and worse! Rather than a condemnation of the method, it only reinforces the idea that even this type of shot process requires training. (The only true secret to this game is that there is no secret.) Training... and trust. No, actually, it requires TRUST. We think we trust it... but rarely do we fully trust it. Yet, even with total trust, it does require training. Even those with limited training time can benefit from this method.

The adjustment and use of the trigger is of paramount importance. We tend to use "heavy" triggers that require a lot of preload in events where a lighter trigger is more common, such as air rifle or free pistol. One very successful young rifle shooter had her air rifle trigger adjusted to 100 gm on the first stage and another 100 gm, for a total letoff of 200 gm, on her trigger. She realized that with the extra weight, she could take up the first stage, and most importantly, add and maintain significant pressure on teh second stage in order to facilitate an "automagical" letoff, even under intense competitive pressure. With a light trigger ("I can't get the shot off so I need ot lighten the trigger!"), the athlete perfects a technique in training that they cannot possibly perform under pressure. Competition is not the time you want change your process!

This same effect works with pistol. Even free pistol. At the other end of the spectrum, even rapid fire. And everywhere in between. When John Bickar patiently taught me the basics of rapid fire one morning many years ago, I realized in teh 4 second strings that I already had a whole fistful of trigger while pointed between the frames! At the time I only shot air and free, so this was craziness! Yet, I rehearsed each string beforehand, then "just shot" the string. It was all rhythm and flow. Arm, eye, sights, trigger, all together in a dance.

--

So, what about the trigger? Before the gun comes up, one must be 1) Mentally Ready - distractions have run, we are quiet and focused and 2) Emotionally Ready - committed to (not just involved in) the shot and to doing it properly and no concern over outcome. Now the gun comes up and by the time we arrive on our area of aim, we must already have 3) taken up the first stage of the trigger (or touched the single stage trigger) and 4) taken up and maintained a whole bunch of the second stage (or first stage of a single stage trigger). Now, this 4th step is scary. It is imperative that it be done. (Abhinav Bindra said "Oh, it is critical!") Now you know why the one athlete had her trigger so heavy. She won a major championship - adrenaline racing and heart pumping - with it. SHe used all 4 steps, among other things.

When first attempting this technique, people sometimes say it doesn't work. However, once they realize that they thought they were doing the first two steps, and discovered they really weren't ready when they forced themselves to do the 4th step, and then get truly ready (steps 1 and 2), now the magic can begin to happen a bit.

--

Sights? For pistol, look at the middle of the front sight mass. Not the top edge, and not the gaps. Don't look around at the sights. Look at that one tiny spot in the middle of the front sight. The alignment will start to seemingly take care of itself. The actual hold movement will steady out a bit as well.

It is important that this be coupled with "Hold is a noun, not a verb." If "hold" is something you do (a verb) the gun will move all over. If "hold" is just the gun sitting out there and moving only as a result of your body's natural stance and movement with no active participation on your part (a noun) the gun will become much steadier. Remember the eyes, however!

--

This little posting cannot possibly cover all the variables and variations that come into play. Everything affects everything. Hopefully it helps with the discussion.

--

Imagine taking Ed's idea of releasing control of both sights and trigger to those deeper parts of the mind that we haven't been taught to use. Imagine the trigger prepared as just discussed. Imagine a quiet mind and quiet eye gently resting on the middle of the front sight. Now imagine the gun arriving on the area of aim and instantly seeming to go off by itelf. Or, after moving around a bit, settling again and seemingly going off by itself. Ten point deep. It works. Not just in training as so many fragile techniques do. In competition. In big compeititons where the athlete REALLY CARES about the outcome. Where the fears and the "demons" come flooding in.

Ed's posts indicate a very advanced understanding of the activity. So advanced, that he even publicly questioned himself about it and/or his ability to explain it in at least one of his posts when others did not seem to fully understand his descriptions. In point of fact, he is approaching or already on another whole level of understanding. I can't wait to meet Ed someday (soon!?) and discuss these topics with him. To gain insight into what is going on here, read the article "The Expert Mind" found in the August 2006 issue of Scientific American. This article will help explain what is going on with Ed and with a number of our other most advanced athletes.

Ed, I encourage you to "stick to your guns" on this, trust it - and yourself, and explore it even more.

"Feel Center!"

-JP

Hi Steve,

What Fred said!<smile> Actually, I must add more, of course. Let's look at settle-etc. methods. First, If you settle, and then give the go ahead, you're behind in your operation. Remember that we see the past. Once we see the settle, we've already delayed the shot. We also have to begin the trigger perfectly, or we unsettle our settle and have to regain it. This causes a great dilemma in whether we should continue or abort the shot. This is translated into tiny little pressure increases intermixed with minute hesitations instead of a nice smooth increase in pressure.

A question to all those who take a long time to bring the trigger back: If you take several seconds to release the shot, can you really be moving the trigger for all that time, or are you starting and stopping it along the way?

My suggestion is to, not only give the subconscious permission to execute, but start the shot and tell the subconsious it's going to happen - make it perfect. I once had the opportunity to participate in a class with Bill Blankenship. One of the things he promoted was to "know" full well that the gun was going to go, "Bang." Have everything right when it does. His words were something like, "The gun is going to fire, come 7734 or high water. Have the sights aligned on the aiming area when it does."

Hi JP,

Thanks for the boost. I might not be quite so advanced as you say, though. I'm not winning many matches, yet. I hope I don't ruin my image with the next few paragraphs.<smile> I would be pleased to meet you some time. Maybe one of these days I'll fire a little more International and actually make it to an event.

I do beg to differ with your programmed stop in step three of your process. The wide shots I'm experiencing are manifesting themselves when I insert a hesitation in completing the shot. If I start the trigger and continue into my aiming area with no hesitation, I will often find a nice ten, no matter what the picture told me. If I come into my area, hesitate at all to correct anything, the shot will be wide, even if the picture looked perfect.

Now, what I'm really after, and am trying to promote with the idea of making shooting as natural as all those other things we do, is actually even deeper in concept. You remember the part where you were in the zone and didn't realize you made a sight correction? What if your subconscious was so in tune with the operation of everything, that instead of a physical sight correction, it just adjusted its activity to move the group? I've occasionally moved a Team Member slightly one way or the other, by just suggesting they "think right" or "think left" instead of having them move their sights. I've also moved my groups by simply touching the screwdriver to the sight without moving anything - sometimes to adjust the group within the X ring (center ten on the International targets).

The biggest stumbling block to the totally subconscious shot is not allowing it the free reign to learn all the intricacies. This is compounded by the lack of time allowed for training. Part of that is because we immediately jump into competition and want to do well. Competition does have its place, but so does training to let go of the process. Maybe we just don't have the time needed to make the shot process that natural. Or maybe we fear that loss of control.

I must admit that I reinforce my natural eating process several times every day - walking as well. I don't know how long it took me to achieve success in eating, but I know I started out without teeth so mistakes didn't hurt that much. How about the shooting analogy of working without bullets - dry firing. If we dry fired after every meal and snack we had throughout the day, for the same amount of time, would our shooting improve? Ah, but wait - we are actually subconsciously studying all the intricacies of our mouth throughout the day during non-meal times, too. Our tongue is constantly probing around and our teeth are often coming together in different ways, sometimes biting our lips a little or scraping our cheeks, etc. So, in effect, our mouths are in constant practice. Perhaps we don't have enough time left over to handle a gun as naturally as we eat, walk, speak, write, ...

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Hi folks.

Very interesting conversation here. I must say, I have difficulty when discussing subconscious shooting. I run into alot of novice/intermediate shooters who really don't have the fundamental skills or ingrained level of practice to pull it off. If you don't truly know what is involved, then you can't perform the activity consciously or subconsciously.

I've been trying to get a better understanding of coaching shooting, and many coaching models don't seem to work. Attending coaching courses in Canada, similar to the USA's ASEP program, you learn how to make athletes faster/stronger. They don't address skill sports well.

In the early summer, I started speaking with a PhD who does research and instruction in motor learning and control. The conversations have been enlightening to say the least.

One of the main points that grabbed me was how the brain processes instructions, which I believe were conscious. Essentially, the action is chosen and a motor program (for lack of a better term) is run.

When you say "Lower the pistol into the area of aim", a program performs the activities which lowers the pistol into the area of aim.

Now, your mind, being the wonderful computer it is, can run a monitoring program simultaneously. For instance, we say "Lower the pistol into the area of aim but minimize any right/left deviations."

You mind will run two parallel programs:
1. perform the activities which lower the pistol in the area of aim
2. monitor variations/movements right or left, in an effort to reduce or eliminate the deviations.

Here's the kicker: under load (stress), the programs intermix. The program streams will cross. Instead of monitoring right and left deviations as the athlete lowers the pistol, the athletes produce right and left deviations as they lower the pistol. Its known as the Ironic Effect.

Why do I have faith in this? We had the SCATT running and her asked me to perform two tasks:
1. lower the pistol and control the right/left deviation - perform/deliver three shots
2. Deliver three shots and control the height of the shot placement.

Guess what:
1. When I was controlling the right/left deviations, I produced a nice horizontal (r/l) string.
2. When I was controlling height, I produced a very nice vertical (up/down) string.

Exactly what I was trying to control/avoid, is what I produced. Ironic, huh?

Ever tried to "not snatch the trigger" only to do exactly that same thing? Ironic, huh?

This lends credibility to the subconscious argument. You're not thinking about what to avoid, so you don't have the monitoring program which under load becomes a motor program.

This also reinforces the importance of positive thinking and focussing on performance. If you are focussing on good technique, then you're not monitoring for variances.

I'd like to see what motor learning and performance has to offer our sport. I think that it is under-utilized at the moment.

Final note on the Ironic Effect, and this is the kicker:

While focussing on not moving right and left, research shows that while right/left movement increased, up/down performance improves. While focussing on one task factor, the performance of another task improved.

I was given an article, "Reciprocal Influences on Attentional Focus on Posture and Suprapositional Task Performance". (And yes, I did have the document in front of me as I typed it to make sure that I got all them big words right...)

Essentially, "the authors examined the influence that attentional focus on either a postural or surapostural task had on the performance of each task." So, what were the athletes thinking about when they performed the task: the task performace itself or something outside of the task while related to postural tasks.

Focusing internally resulted in greater postural sway. External focus resulted in either no degradation (status quo) or improved stability. "The authors conclude that suprapostural task goals have a stronger influence on postural control than vice versa, reflecting the propensity of the motor system to optimize control processes on the basis of the desired movement effect."

Whenever I focus on my feet and weight distribution when I shoot, body sway seems to increase. Whenever I focus on how the wood of my grip feels, my postural stability improves. Hmmmmmmm.

I guess that I like this line of thinking because there is solid, relevant research which backs up the theory. While it does come upon similar results to "shoot subconsciously", it seems to have recent scientific research to validate it. Its practical and applicable, once you decipher what the experts are saying.

I'm just starting to work with the fellow (Luc Tremblay, PhD.) and I'm learning alot of good things. Figuring how to apply it to shooting will be the real challenge over the next year.

I have a long way to go before I get a handle on this. I'd be interested inyour thoughts.

Patrick

Hi Ed,

Yes, what Fred said!

He made an excellent point about needing to have total confidence, having a few bad shots and then not ever being able to work with a method again. We must allow ourselves to make mistakes - sometimes lots of them - in our trianing, especially when experimenting with a new technique. We almost never give such trials enough time and correct psychological approach. Then, we must learn to allow ourselves to make mistakes in competition. Only then will we actually have far fewer of them than before.

--

And yes, I do agree with you (Ed) about hesitation... it does destroy the flow of the delivery. Therefore, I should probably explain just a bit more.

First, some background. I understand that many folks "start the trigger coming back and never stop until after the shot is gone" or something like that. Hesitation here is fatal to the delivery. As Bill said, everything had darned well better be right by the time it goes bang! This seems to me to be an example of leading with the trigger or using the trigger to drive the sights. (In contrast with the typical "check" the sights and then do the trigger. It is hard to get good shooting that way, as we all have experienced.) Training with this technique results, in time, in the deeper parts of the mind coordinating things so that we get Bill's good result. Yes, taking back the slightest bit of "control" destroys this... with obvious and painful results!

--

Now, I did discuss something different from the above. The 4 step sequence that I mentioned is a PREPARATION sequence and MUST be completed PRIOR to arriving on the area of aim. It takes some intestinal fortitude to take up and maintain a fistful of trigger before arriving at the desired area.

At this point, one might reasonably argue that taking up and maintaining that pressure is a stop or hesitation and destroys the flow. Rather than being a hesitation (caused by fear, excess movement, or any other factor), this is actually planned. Most importantly, it is psychologically dynamic! We know that "Things a-gonna happen!" when we have a fistful of that last stage taken up. Thus, the trigger must be adjusted correctly, and the athlete must be bold and not just add a tiny bit of pressure. I have not measured the actual numbers, though am sure that the "fistful" of trigger pressure is fairly close to the actual let off point as the athlete masters the technique.

Thus, when we arrive at the area of aim, all is ready. (Presuming that all 4 steps have been fully completed.) As mentioned in the earlier post, once the athlete starts to get the hang of step 4, they often discover that steps 1 and 2 weren't really, truly, fully, and completely mastered! As they work on the first two steps, then things start to really take off.

Although the trigger finger has physically stopped (prior to arriving on aim), the mind is on full alert. With a number of athletes, the gun will seem to "stop" (or nearly so) on the area of aim and seemingly go off by itself just as it arrives there. In other cases it may not "stop", yet the gun goes off, seemingly by itself, just the same. Often this happens very rapidly upon arriving, and other times after a number of seconds of holding. This method also requires relenquishing the perceived "control" of the process to the deeper parts of the mind.

--

Notice the common denominator? Relenquishing "control" of the process. This is the part that we overlook, or ignore, or vehemently disagree with. However, the way the human organism is constructed and wired requires relenquishing the "control" to get the desired performance... and outcome.

Another common denominator, that has gone unmentioned and is very critical, is the ability to reject the shot without thought or decision. Yes, I even relenquish that to the deeper parts of the mind. In effect, there are TWO "proper" paths to the end of the shot process. One path includes the delivery of the shot. The other path includes the rejection of the shot. Either is a success. Control of this "decision" is relenquished. That frees the mind to work in the best manner and it actually makes shot rejection much faster and more relaible. Champions do not avoid bad shots, they reject them. Of course, in our training, we learn to get to a point where we get enough of the "shot was released" versions of the process so that we stay within the competition time limit!

--

Starting the trigger moving and never stopping does have the advantage of removing most of the opportunities for "dressing it up" and "trying" to make the shot better. (We all know how well that works!) I suspect that the disadvantage is that the mind, and especially the body, may not always be ready and have the sights in the right spot at the right time, on each and every process execution. Thus, the wide shots. Thus the need for lots of training.

The "fistful" prep method does differ significantly, as you noted. However, when executed as part of a larger whole (everything affects everything), as hinted at in the earlier post, it yields excellent results with less tendancy for wild shots. There are some, to be sure, but they tend to be less frequent and not as far away from our desired spot.

--

Several years ago, I wrote a lengthy post on TT that included a description of the shot process progression that an athlete experiences as they grow toward mastery using methods identical or closely similar to what I have described. I need to dig that up and repost that excerpt. It was part of the post "About trigger control questions from Abhinav Bindra" in case it might be in the archives. He emailed me saying that his progession was almost exactly as described in that post.

Ultimately, we must stop concerning ourselves with any and all aspects of the shot outcome. (Score, rank, winning, losing, showing off, not being embarrassed, and so on.) This is central to good shooting. We must separate outcome - that over which we cannot exert direct control - from performance or doing - that which we do have direct control over. "Wait!" you say, "You said to relenquish control!" Ah, yes, so I did. I meant to relenquish control on the part of the active parts of the mind. The deeper parts are far more competent and capable for the shootign task and have full control if we allow it. We can DECIDE to "back off" and allow ourself to do it differently. We can also DECIDE that all of these discussions are hogwash and keep doing it our old way. Doing the same thing over and over is not likely to someday provide a different outcome.

--

Patrick discussed something that you mentioned: the subtle power of the mind to make the wrong thing happen when we attempt to actively control the process. He also mentions some research in this regard. Also read my articles "Choking" and Choking Cures" for insight into research that shows that our task is best performed when a "program" is run, not when we take charge and force it step by step in an attempt to ensure the desired outcome. Yes, Patrick, these lessons, learned long ago, are profoundly underutilized by the majority of shooting athletes.

(As an aside, the two articles were referenced in a USOC publication and then picked up by the US soccer coaches association to be reprinted in their magazine.)

While we are on this topic, and while we are digging around on Pilkguns.com to get my two articles referenced above, dig around for the two articles on pistol shooting by the Uktrainian coach. No, don't read them... study them carefully and at length.

--

All of this is very difficult to explain in print and much easier to work with on the range where there is instant feedback. Regardless, one hopes this has aided the discussion of some of the points a bit.

Feel Center!

JP