Howdy, Although this article is written for a motorcycle oriented blog, it points up several things that, I believe, directly transfer to AP.
http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2012/ ... ing-great/
a quote from the article:
It's natural to gradually learn how to do something if we do it often enough, but it's also natural to enjoy doing what we've mastered and that's a danger to getting better.
practice
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
Great point.
Can you tell us what is your practice routine (time wise) was to get to you point of the score satisfaction, in the day, in the one week and one month?
Thank you.
Required Reading : Book of Academic Macolm Gladwell
http://midwestacademyconsulting.wordpre ... -anything/
Posted: February 6, 2012
“Practice makes perfect: Why it takes 10,000 hours to be a success at anything, according to a top academic”
Can you tell us what is your practice routine (time wise) was to get to you point of the score satisfaction, in the day, in the one week and one month?
Thank you.
Required Reading : Book of Academic Macolm Gladwell
http://midwestacademyconsulting.wordpre ... -anything/
Posted: February 6, 2012
“Practice makes perfect: Why it takes 10,000 hours to be a success at anything, according to a top academic”
-
BenEnglishTX
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 8:34 pm
- Location: Texas
Long version -Russ wrote:“Practice makes perfect: Why it takes 10,000 hours to be a success at anything, according to a top academic”
It's interesting you should cite that book, Russ.
Many, many years ago I tried to become a standup comedian. I failed. I had a steady job and not enough time to put in the required work.
The rule of thumb in that business is that if you work as hard as you can, doing gigs every nite possible, writing for at least a couple of hours a day, you will generally produce about 1 minute of original, killer-funny material for every year you put into the job. Successful careers are built on 5 minutes of material; you can pad that out to make a one-hour show.
People who have 10 minutes of original, killer-funny, often painfully personal material are the folks who wind up with their own TV shows and "personal brands". Those are the big, over-exposed household names. Roseanne Barr, Jerry Seinfeld, and Tim Allen literally had just 10 minutes or so of true original material (plus some marketing breaks) to become the over-exposed, ultra-successful,ubiquitous-unto-irritation icons they are today.
By the 1-minute per year standard production rate, it takes a comic about 10 years to either make it or not.
If you run the numbers - 1 hour gig plus 2 hours of serious writing daily times 350 days a year times 10 years equals 10,500 hours of work.
The first time I saw that book and hypothesis that it takes 10,000 hours to become truly skilled at something I remember thinking "That sounds about right." I have been surprised by how many times I've stumbled across examples where that 10,000 hour rule seems to hold.
Short version -
Russ, I think you're on to something with that reference.
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
I think pistol shooter go through several phases depending on their discipline and natural abilities.
When I first started shooting competition almost exactly four years ago, my hold was my biggest issue. After a couple of years, my hold was as good as it is probably going to get, in an effort to shoot better, my triggering became an issue.
Now my biggest issues are mental. Shooting the same way in a match that I can in practice.Thinking too much and being afraid of shooting a bad shot, can turn an acceptable 9 into a six or worse.
I agree on the 10,000 hours. Some people can gain the confidence and skills they need with less than that, but for most people, that is about right.
If you are shooting much better in practice than matches you need to start an analysis of what you do differently at a match. For most people the answer is going to be a combination of losing confidence and trying too hard. You can sometimes know exactly what you are doing wrong and still not be able to stop yourself.
When I first started shooting competition almost exactly four years ago, my hold was my biggest issue. After a couple of years, my hold was as good as it is probably going to get, in an effort to shoot better, my triggering became an issue.
Now my biggest issues are mental. Shooting the same way in a match that I can in practice.Thinking too much and being afraid of shooting a bad shot, can turn an acceptable 9 into a six or worse.
I agree on the 10,000 hours. Some people can gain the confidence and skills they need with less than that, but for most people, that is about right.
If you are shooting much better in practice than matches you need to start an analysis of what you do differently at a match. For most people the answer is going to be a combination of losing confidence and trying too hard. You can sometimes know exactly what you are doing wrong and still not be able to stop yourself.
Amen!!!Isabel1130 wrote:
If you are shooting much better in practice than matches you need to start an analysis of what you do differently at a match. For most people the answer is going to be a combination of losing confidence and trying too hard. You can sometimes know exactly what you are doing wrong and still not be able to stop yourself.
Equation
So far we are getting close to solve the mathematical equation :"How to Move your Performance to Level 570 in AP in 3 Months"
If Mr. Zuckerman can generously share with us the details of his thoughts about practice time, the formula will be complete.
If Mr. Zuckerman can generously share with us the details of his thoughts about practice time, the formula will be complete.
Howdy,
The start of this thread was a recommendation from me to read the book Outliers by Gladwell, based on a review from a motorcycle blog writer that I follow. I have both purchased this book and read it, with the expectation that there would be enough material to absorb and use for AP. Unfortunately, it does not pass muster, there is a little more than half a chapter devoted to relevant dialog pertaining to or transferring to AP about the 10,000 hour rule. That is not to say the book is not entertaining and informative, it is, but there is not enough "meat" for an AP shooter to make it worth purchasing just for half the second chapter.. this is in my opinion; perhaps someone else could glean more from the book even though I was not able to.
The start of this thread was a recommendation from me to read the book Outliers by Gladwell, based on a review from a motorcycle blog writer that I follow. I have both purchased this book and read it, with the expectation that there would be enough material to absorb and use for AP. Unfortunately, it does not pass muster, there is a little more than half a chapter devoted to relevant dialog pertaining to or transferring to AP about the 10,000 hour rule. That is not to say the book is not entertaining and informative, it is, but there is not enough "meat" for an AP shooter to make it worth purchasing just for half the second chapter.. this is in my opinion; perhaps someone else could glean more from the book even though I was not able to.
That sums up my impressions of Gladwell the several times I've heard him interviewed by various CBC journalists. He's certainly an amiable enough fellow, and adept at conversational twists and turns. But the lack of 'taking it to the next level' as in analysis, real and insightful apprehension of his subjects, is simply lacking. He's a charming dilettante. I am not dismissing his eager aggregatorial approach to research and found myself liking him, but that's not enough. A writer of at least equal aptitude as a follower of cultures and researcher, but with infinitely greater gifts as an analyst, is Douglas Copeland. Went to art school with the guy one year about 30 years ago and was impressed even then by his sharp wit and clever observations on human nature.
Gladwell writes often in the New Yorker, which I subscribe to, so I recognize his formula: find a new twist that calls into question the conventional wisdom on a topic, and write (very well) about it.
HOWEVER, Gladwell is NOT an academic. He may write like one, but his 10,000 hour statement has, in fact, been challenged by several people who seem to know a lot about "genius" and that kind of stuff. Ironically, one could say that people who have dedicated over 10,000 hours to the study of expertise and genius, etc., aren't convinced that the rule holds across the board. For all fields and all people.
I personally don't know if the 10,000 hour thing is true (anectodal evidence aside, including my own experience), so I certainly don't plan to make life-changing decisions on that basis. As researchers like to say: "More research is needed."
In the meantime, do it for fun.
HOWEVER, Gladwell is NOT an academic. He may write like one, but his 10,000 hour statement has, in fact, been challenged by several people who seem to know a lot about "genius" and that kind of stuff. Ironically, one could say that people who have dedicated over 10,000 hours to the study of expertise and genius, etc., aren't convinced that the rule holds across the board. For all fields and all people.
I personally don't know if the 10,000 hour thing is true (anectodal evidence aside, including my own experience), so I certainly don't plan to make life-changing decisions on that basis. As researchers like to say: "More research is needed."
In the meantime, do it for fun.
10,000 Hours of Perfect Practice Access Code
10,000 hours of perfect practice is a wonderful thing if you have the access code. If not, it can be a different story or book written by a different medical professional.
It worked for me at least.
It worked for me at least.
concept of the practice.
I was happy with my result to read books and articles about and by Garry Anderson.
In other words, "go to the source”. Garry Anderson is able to perfectly deliver the concept of practice. If someone has true competitive aspirations, he does not need to read all amateur opinions about this subject which can drastically delay his desired level of performance.
I personally enjoy the approach to deliver information from a few sources on "TT" and I am certain that reading those individuals inputs will be no harm for competitive athletes.
I will be happy to share those names: Patrick Haynes, Ed Hall, JP O'Connor, and someone as “GUEST”, John Zurek.
"As the world’s top rifle shooter in the 1960s, Gary Anderson is one of the shooters most responsible for our resurgence in international rifle shooting. In addition to his Olympic performances, Anderson won seven individual World Championships, set six individual world records, won 11 National Championships, and won 11 gold medals at the Pan-American Games. In addition he was a team member of several world record and world championship shoots. Anderson graduated from Hastings College in Nebraska and then studied for the seminary in San Francisco. Instead he entered local politics in Nebraska, eventually rising to become a Nebraska state senator. He spent several years as the executive director of the National Rifle Association."
http://www.sports-reference.com/olympic ... son-2.html
In other words, "go to the source”. Garry Anderson is able to perfectly deliver the concept of practice. If someone has true competitive aspirations, he does not need to read all amateur opinions about this subject which can drastically delay his desired level of performance.
I personally enjoy the approach to deliver information from a few sources on "TT" and I am certain that reading those individuals inputs will be no harm for competitive athletes.
I will be happy to share those names: Patrick Haynes, Ed Hall, JP O'Connor, and someone as “GUEST”, John Zurek.
"As the world’s top rifle shooter in the 1960s, Gary Anderson is one of the shooters most responsible for our resurgence in international rifle shooting. In addition to his Olympic performances, Anderson won seven individual World Championships, set six individual world records, won 11 National Championships, and won 11 gold medals at the Pan-American Games. In addition he was a team member of several world record and world championship shoots. Anderson graduated from Hastings College in Nebraska and then studied for the seminary in San Francisco. Instead he entered local politics in Nebraska, eventually rising to become a Nebraska state senator. He spent several years as the executive director of the National Rifle Association."
http://www.sports-reference.com/olympic ... son-2.html
-
Patrick Haynes
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:36 pm
- Contact:
Deliberate Practice and Expertise
Hi, Russ.
First off, thanks for the vote of confidence. ;-)
I think that most serious coaches and athletes will want something more in depth than a generalist book like Outliers. While it defines the concept in a popular way, it lacks meat.
I would suggest that anyone interested in more depth, seek out K. Anders Ericsson paper "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance", written in 1993. His work has driven research ever since. The paper is 44 pages long but it introduces the concept of deliberate practice and work. Work, according to the study, lacks intrinsic rewards. For a shooting example, if you go to a match and shoot for record, you get a score, which is a reward. If you go to your basement and dryfire for 2 hours, you get no tangible or immediate reward BUT if you practice deliberately on hold (for instance), then your technique will improve and subsequently, your scores should improve over time. Spend 10000 hours, working and performing deliberate practice and you will rise to the top in your chosen doman of knowledge.
If you want to read, get the following books:
Patrick
First off, thanks for the vote of confidence. ;-)
I think that most serious coaches and athletes will want something more in depth than a generalist book like Outliers. While it defines the concept in a popular way, it lacks meat.
I would suggest that anyone interested in more depth, seek out K. Anders Ericsson paper "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance", written in 1993. His work has driven research ever since. The paper is 44 pages long but it introduces the concept of deliberate practice and work. Work, according to the study, lacks intrinsic rewards. For a shooting example, if you go to a match and shoot for record, you get a score, which is a reward. If you go to your basement and dryfire for 2 hours, you get no tangible or immediate reward BUT if you practice deliberately on hold (for instance), then your technique will improve and subsequently, your scores should improve over time. Spend 10000 hours, working and performing deliberate practice and you will rise to the top in your chosen doman of knowledge.
If you want to read, get the following books:
- Expert Performance in Sports: Advances in Research in Sport Expertise, edited by Janet L. Starkes and K. Anders Ericsson (2003)
Developing Sport Expertise: Researchers and Coaches Put Theory into Practice, edited by Joe Baker, Damian Farrow and Clare MacMahon (2008)
The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, edited by Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich and Hoffman (so many names) (2006 - but more of a reference book)
- Motor Learning and Performance, by Richard A. Schmidt and Craig A. Wrisberg (multiple editions and pub dates)
Motor Control and Learning, by Richard A. Schmidt and Timothy D. Lee (multiple editions and pub dates)
The Essentials of Performance Analysis: An Introduction, edited by Mike Hughes and Ian M. Franks (2008)
Patrick
-
Patrick Haynes
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:36 pm
- Contact:
Re: Deliberate Practice and Expertise
Sorry: forgot to discuss deliberate practice.
The critical distinction here is relative deficiency. We all have strengths. We all have opportunities for improvement. You get more bang for your buck by reducing or eliminating your deficiencies (key truth of sport performance improvement) than polishing what you're already good at. You need to honestly look at your performance, rely on your strengths and deliberately practice to eliminate your weaknesses. As you improve, you re-evaluate your technique, maybe switch to a new relative deficiency and attack that in training. The cycle never ends and you constantly improve.
Most sport participants stick to working on what they are good at (achieving rewards) and their performance plateaus because a relative weakness holds them back. This can happen at any level (AP: 540, 570, etc.) to any one who stops looking at and applying ways to eliminate deficiencies.
Patrick
Deliberate practice is directed application of training activities (i.e. drills) specifically targetted on improving the aspects of your technique which are deficient, relative to the other aspects of your technique.Patrick Haynes wrote:I would suggest that anyone interested in more depth, seek out K. Anders Ericsson paper "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance", written in 1993. His work has driven research ever since. The paper is 44 pages long but it introduces the concept of deliberate practice and work.
The critical distinction here is relative deficiency. We all have strengths. We all have opportunities for improvement. You get more bang for your buck by reducing or eliminating your deficiencies (key truth of sport performance improvement) than polishing what you're already good at. You need to honestly look at your performance, rely on your strengths and deliberately practice to eliminate your weaknesses. As you improve, you re-evaluate your technique, maybe switch to a new relative deficiency and attack that in training. The cycle never ends and you constantly improve.
Most sport participants stick to working on what they are good at (achieving rewards) and their performance plateaus because a relative weakness holds them back. This can happen at any level (AP: 540, 570, etc.) to any one who stops looking at and applying ways to eliminate deficiencies.
Patrick
That last point regarding being held back by our weaknesses due to working with our strengths rings very true for me. I've been getting better and better at 'sniping' while letting go of the need to drill for hold stability. The result? Better-centred 10's when I do hit them, but worse flinches and more 8's and the odd 7 due to panicking when the sniping goes wrong. Trusting my hold and pulling the trigger through that is proving very challenging for me, but it's also obviously worthwhile, and so that's where most of my practice time has gone lately. And the biggest personal challenge with that is in trying not to pay attention to scoring (when shooting live, not during dry fire obviously), just persisting with learning to trust the hold. But I know it will eventually carry me forward to the next improvement in scoring.
-
luftskytter
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:50 am
- Location: Norway
sniping and flinches
Then there's the mathematic side of it:
If you're able to "control" accuracy within say, the nine ring, then tens will occur for "statistical" reasons. So your score will be a bit better than 540. Flinches and snatches that cause sevens or worse, can only be "compensated statistically". This means that if your goal is an average of nine or better (540+), then a seven needs to be balanced by at least two tens before you are back to par.
I believe many shooters think like this, but I mainly mention it to illustrate that eliminating weak shots makes more sense than stressing your style by trying to improve scores by "sniping".
I know it ain't easy.......
If you're able to "control" accuracy within say, the nine ring, then tens will occur for "statistical" reasons. So your score will be a bit better than 540. Flinches and snatches that cause sevens or worse, can only be "compensated statistically". This means that if your goal is an average of nine or better (540+), then a seven needs to be balanced by at least two tens before you are back to par.
I believe many shooters think like this, but I mainly mention it to illustrate that eliminating weak shots makes more sense than stressing your style by trying to improve scores by "sniping".
I know it ain't easy.......