Behavioural Training / scoring

[Mike S-J]

This is a issue relating to a point Steve Swartz raised in an earlier thread.

Steve pointed out that instead of using holes in paper to observe progress (i.e. scores) one should use progress in the shot process (i.e. behaviour). I thought about this and realised that part of my problem was disassociating my "process" from my scores, so I thought I would give Steve's "behavioural scoring" system a go. I modified it slightly. Instead of using a 7 point Likert scale I used a five point categorical scale. I guess the type of scale, or its width is largely a matter of what you feel you can comfortably score yourself. The important thing is it makes you focuss on WHAT you are doing.

I was, and am, astonished at the consequences of putting my gun down after each shot and carefully analysing my behaviour! Its like putting on glasses for the first time. Incredible. AND my groups were as tight as a gnat's chuff.

Way to go Steve.

[Fred Mannis]

Me too, Mike. I have printed out Steve's six behaviors and have it sitting next to my shooting position. After each shot I look at the list and mentally review my performance for each behavior. As you say, just taking the time after each shot to think about each behavior makes for a great improvement in training.

Another THANKS STEVE

Fred

[cdf]

Is it possible to make it a sticky thread ?

Chris

[Sparks]

Um, could someone who knows where the original post of Steve's is post a link to it or even the name of the thread?

[Steve Swartz]

Thanks Guys; glad to help! That's why I post here . . . after being incredibly frustrated with my own slow progress (due in large part to not having any effective coaching to be sure) I'm just trying to help others "not make the same mistakes I did."

in its entirety from original thread ("How To Measure Progress"):

***********************************************************
What can you control?

Behaviors.

Should you measure things you can't control?

Of course not.

Therefore

1) Identify the proper behaviors to be executed
2) Come up with performance criteria for these behaviors
3) Measure your performance on those behaviors, against those criteria

I use a 1-7 point Likert Scale (1 being "didn't execute at all" and 7 being "executed as perfectly as I have hte capacity to observe") on the following behaviors:

a- approach to target
b- time to settle/quality of settle
c- quality of maintaining alignment
d- quality of trigger release (conscious awareness = bad)
e- quality of trigger response curve (assessed using RIKA)
f- quality of follow through (assessed by eyeball and RIKA)

So, after every shot, I use my judgement and observation to score a, b, c, d, and f; and use Rika to score e and to compare with observation on f.

Each shot process then earns a score between 6 and 42.

This can be scored while either live or dry firing against either a blank surface or distraction (aiming) bull. Which is good, since training should take place in all four environments.

When live firing "for score" under "match conditions" (done only once a week) I simply assess "Behaviors" as either a Yes (everything executed properly) or No (some error in behavior).


One More Time, With Feeling:

HOLES IN PAPER ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A SIDE EFFECT OF YOUR BEHAVIORS!!!!

Steve Swartz
*********************************************************

Postscript: Also consider this- once you identify what the "proper behaviors are," wouldn't it make sense to design your whole approach (from what gun to buy to which stance configuration to use) on "Making Those Behaviors Occur More Properly More Often?"

Of course it does . . . and yet . . . how many training manuals (or coaches for that matter) take that approach?

[Steve Swartz]

one more thing sorry to be so verbose on this-

Once you identify what the critical behaviors are (I think my list is pretty good but certainly not perfect) two fascinating issues need some further "Ponderation:"

1) the issue of "what constitutes proper execution?" e.g. what *is* perfect trigger and how would you recognize it as it happens?

2) As you become increasingly focued on these behaviors, your "threshold" of what is good enough changes. What I perceive as "perfect alignment" has tightened up considerably since I started paying attention to behaviors.

Would be interested in what you guys think about these (and any other) issues you experience . . .

Steve

[Fred Mannis]

Would be interested in what you guys think about these (and any other) issues you experience . . .

Steve,
One observation - note the quantity and quality of the response to this very practical suggestion on how to improve one's shooting skills, as compared to some of the more theoretical discussions.

Fred

[Bill Poole]

I think almost everything Swartz has posted is extremely valuable.... I don't agree with him on every issue but I cannot think of anyone who has put as much thought into the technique of shooting and communicates it as well.

I hope someone (with more patience than I) will compile all his posts into one place for easy access...

a wikipedia topic perhaps

:))

Poole

[jackh]

Sounds a lot like a good retrospective examination of ones own shotplan and how well one followed it.

No coach, no Rika here, and probably never will be. What would the list look like with no Rica devices?

I have appreciated Steves "coaching" here and elsewhere (Airforce page). I have seen his thoughts evolve just as mine have. I have a Swartz folder in my files.

[RobStubbs]

I think almost everything Swartz has posted is extremely valuable.... I don't agree with him on every issue but I cannot think of anyone who has put as much thought into the technique of shooting and communicates it as well.

I hope someone (with more patience than I) will compile all his posts into one place for easy access...

I thought he was writing a book, just posting it slowly up here first, bit by bit ;-).

In all seriousness though if he did write it up as a book it would be a very worthwhile read !

Rob.

[cdf]

I find this a comforting post . I'm trying to clean up my technique , and correct bad habits / "bandaid" methods . I was feeling a bit concerned as the results are sometimes poor . This being due to a conflict/ struggle between old and new methods .

Chris

[Steve Swartz]

Jack:

"No Rika" is "No Problem" however you lose some of the objectivity and data capture that only an instrumentation system can provide. The behaviors captured by Rika data include:

d- quality of trigger release (conscious awareness = bad)
e- quality of trigger response curve (assessed using RIKA)
f- quality of follow through (assessed by eyeball and RIKA)

d and e are "trigger control" and you could just focus on d and not evaluate e at all. Conversely, you *could* substitute "shot on call" as an ersatz approximation of e (as long as alignment was very good).

For f you can assess follow through with our own eyeball observation . . . but the W.C. Fields (Groucho Marx?) quote comes to mind: "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lyin eyes?"

The problem with believing your own eyes is, as noted humorously above, that sometimes our own eyes aren't very good judges of things. However- the benefit of using *just* your eyes to evaluate follow through is you will have to concentrate pretty darned hard to make sure you get an accurate assessment, right? Not entirely a Bad Thing.

Ed Hall and I talked about putting together a book/training manual/software training aids package once. Swartz' Rule of Team Effort* applies though.


Steve

*Swartz' Rule of Team Effort: On asny given task of finite size, the amount of work required is directly proportional to the number of people on the project.

1 person = 100% of work
2 people = 60% of work each
3 people = 50% of work each
4 people = 40% of work each
etc.