Goals fro USASNC?
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
steve, I was expecting something a little more advanced.
In my opinion these goals are not suitable for high results. they will tend to increase anxiety, dependend on your confidence levels.
being you are already making excuses, confidence will be lower than what it has been. I would be avoiding anxiety at all costs till you put up a few results.
imho
shaun is on the right track.
In my opinion these goals are not suitable for high results. they will tend to increase anxiety, dependend on your confidence levels.
being you are already making excuses, confidence will be lower than what it has been. I would be avoiding anxiety at all costs till you put up a few results.
imho
shaun is on the right track.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Goals have to be realistic and achievable. Knowing a few people who underwent similar surgery to Steve I would imagine that he is probably only about half way to regaining full shooting fitness (typically 12-18 months in my experience). He therefore needs to be setting goals which are a little above what he is shooting now, not what he was shooting before the surgery.bryan wrote:In my opinion these goals are not suitable for high results. they will tend to increase anxiety, dependend on your confidence levels.
-
shawnpurslow
goals
Hi Steve
I believe that your goals would be better aimed at your training leading up to the competition. No point in saying hit a certain % when you are not achieving this in training.
In terms of behavioural goals i would go with this anyday. There was tons of research completed in Us and Uk in the early nineties on 'knowledge of performance versus knowledge of results'. Those given performance feedback always improved at a greater rate than those just given results feedback. Although simplistic this could be demonstrated by blindfolding someone and asking them to shoot a ten. If you just say a score they will improve slower than if you gave no score but told them all the way they could improve.
To put things in context i have only been shooting for less than a year but my goal is to make the 2012 olympic team. May be out of reach but it's what i believe. To achieve this i am currently in the process of breaking down every aspect of my technique and setting goals. None of those include scores. The reason being that if i can reduce my horizontal movement and smooth my trigger release etc etc then i know i will be able to shoot a 570+.
I will then break down psychological goals such as can i repeat training performance in competition setings and create a number of practices to test this, including shooting in competitions.
As said on a previous post a goal for a tournament could be to win as long as it is backed up by SMART goals in the build up.
Think i've waffled far too much. Hope it made some sense.
Shawn
I believe that your goals would be better aimed at your training leading up to the competition. No point in saying hit a certain % when you are not achieving this in training.
In terms of behavioural goals i would go with this anyday. There was tons of research completed in Us and Uk in the early nineties on 'knowledge of performance versus knowledge of results'. Those given performance feedback always improved at a greater rate than those just given results feedback. Although simplistic this could be demonstrated by blindfolding someone and asking them to shoot a ten. If you just say a score they will improve slower than if you gave no score but told them all the way they could improve.
To put things in context i have only been shooting for less than a year but my goal is to make the 2012 olympic team. May be out of reach but it's what i believe. To achieve this i am currently in the process of breaking down every aspect of my technique and setting goals. None of those include scores. The reason being that if i can reduce my horizontal movement and smooth my trigger release etc etc then i know i will be able to shoot a 570+.
I will then break down psychological goals such as can i repeat training performance in competition setings and create a number of practices to test this, including shooting in competitions.
As said on a previous post a goal for a tournament could be to win as long as it is backed up by SMART goals in the build up.
Think i've waffled far too much. Hope it made some sense.
Shawn
-
coward,
Rob said...
I know Daryl S. was a rifle shooter and I am sure he was good at it...now I would consider him a great pistol shooter.
At my last match someone said this also and it got me to thinking. What would be the definition of each of these. If a person who held master cards in 3 position and prone would they be considered a "good" rifle shooter? Now to be a great pistol shooter what would that mean? 580+ AP?...I've seen nothing that remotely supports what you're saying and I've certainly never seen a good rifle shooter become a great pistol shooter.
I know Daryl S. was a rifle shooter and I am sure he was good at it...now I would consider him a great pistol shooter.
My point was that rifle shooters can switch to pistol and vice versa. There is no difference to my mind as to which way is easier or produces better shooters.Chris wrote:Rob said...
I know Daryl S. was a rifle shooter and I am sure he was good at it...now I would consider him a great pistol shooter.
Rob.
shaun, best of luck with your goals.
one point, 2012 is not far away in shooting, you need to be ready 2 yrs before at least.
other point, goal of making the team is not so good.
when you make the team, then what?
time between selection and olympics is not that long to then make new goals.
so make team and ?????
o/k, (just do it)
making the team the secondary goal is also important.
after the Olympics, you can have couple days break, then plan for next Olympic cycle.
one point, 2012 is not far away in shooting, you need to be ready 2 yrs before at least.
other point, goal of making the team is not so good.
when you make the team, then what?
time between selection and olympics is not that long to then make new goals.
so make team and ?????
o/k, (just do it)
making the team the secondary goal is also important.
after the Olympics, you can have couple days break, then plan for next Olympic cycle.
-
Steve Swartz
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:06 am
- Location: Auburn, AL
Now that's odd . . . since Shawn agrees on setting "Behavioral Goals" (if I read him correctly) and I have always been a strong proponent of "Behavioral Goals;*" and yet Bryan disagrees with me but agrees with Shawn.
*By the way- some of us are talking about match/shot plan goals; some of you are talking about mid-term goals; and some of you are talking about strategic overall outcome goals. I was talking about short-term goals for a single match. Setting outcome (score) goals for a short term objective does not seem to be recommended by a lot of knowledgeable folks . . . for example, setting a goal for a match coming up in four weeks of "Making the Team for London 2012" doesn't seem very helpful for me; whether that is an overall strategic objective or not.
*By the way- some of us are talking about match/shot plan goals; some of you are talking about mid-term goals; and some of you are talking about strategic overall outcome goals. I was talking about short-term goals for a single match. Setting outcome (score) goals for a short term objective does not seem to be recommended by a lot of knowledgeable folks . . . for example, setting a goal for a match coming up in four weeks of "Making the Team for London 2012" doesn't seem very helpful for me; whether that is an overall strategic objective or not.
shaun is using his technique to determine performance.
you are using results and place.
maybe I got it wrong?
still time to set new match goals
shaun was giving an insight into his long term goals, not one for a comp 4 weeks away.
I guess if you are happy with your goals, thats fine.
revist this in 4 weeks and see which areas worked. build on those for the next comp.
you are using results and place.
maybe I got it wrong?
still time to set new match goals
shaun was giving an insight into his long term goals, not one for a comp 4 weeks away.
I guess if you are happy with your goals, thats fine.
revist this in 4 weeks and see which areas worked. build on those for the next comp.
Goals
To my mind you need to set short, medium and long term goals. These all need to be aligned with your annual training plan so that you can use that as a kind of guide rope - to keep you on track. The short term goals are typically to help you acheive small objectives. Mid term goals are to build on the short term ones and I believe should be aligned with a microcyle - of typically 2 - 3 months. Then you have the long term goals, which would typically be aligned with major objectives (matches) in your annual training plan.
Rob.
Rob.
-
2650 Plus
Goals
Steve, I am concerned that some of us are being too cereable and getting too wound up in esoteric concepts that are simply not necessary to shoot higher scores than are being mentioned by many of the shooters posting on this forum. You asked the poster just above this one if he identified a difference between [Refraized] the planning and execution of a shot and the score. The shot location is part of the reinforcement when I execute a perfect or near perfect shot. When I have shot three tens in a row ,all with good solid execution I ask myself " What are the odds that I can shoot another ten ?" And the answer is three to none in my favor. Shot holes are an important part of my shooting technique and I do not ignore them. Why do you seem to think shooting is seperate from score ?There is a saying that was used on the Army Team . It went like this, " BS doesn't win matches , only hits on the correct target are scored. " Good Shooting Bill Horton
-
Steve Swartz
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:06 am
- Location: Auburn, AL
BRING IT ON
I have been thinking abolut the tone and tenor of several recent "quibbles" lately over technique and training issues.
Fasten seatbelts, place seat backs and tray tables in stowed and upright positions.**
2 main points to follow:
- Clarifying misunderstanding; and
- Handling disagreement the "old fashioned way"
I. CLARIFYING MISUNDERSTANDING
A very learned and rational man (who happens to be a radio talk show host) applies the sound principle that he "seeks to achieve clarity (understanding) over agreement."
In that spirit Bill Horton (as i fear there are some fundamental issues preventing us from ever achieving "agreement") i would offer the following questions/observations for your comment.
[I had originally decided to blow off your comments Bill; then after some lengthy reflection decided that many other shooters would gain from exploring this further. And my karmic pain in going through this exercise with you- again- the fourth time now i think- was a small price to pay for the common weal. At least for the entertainment value alone!]
On my part:
- I am proposing that the student of shooting concentrate on the behaviors that drive performance, and not the performance outcomes themselves, when it comes to designing and executing training plans
- Further, that any training effort not focused on a behavioral issue is necessarily a distraction at best; and that
- It is necessary for the student to understand the desired behaviors and how they interact to provide the outcome first, in order to achieve that outcome.
This seems somewhat obvious to me, but apparently you have a disagreement with those three propositions. From your last post, it appears that you disagree along the following arguments:
- The behavioral approach is "getting too wound up in esoteric concepts that are simply not necessary to shoot higher scores than are being mentioned by many of the shooters posting on this forum."
Am I to presume that you are arguing that focusing on behaviors is too cerebral; and further unecessary, for shooting higher scores? I need clarification here. This seems so obviously misguided that I must be misinterpreting your words.
- Your paraphrasing of my "behavioral" approach interperets what I am saying as "if he identified a difference between [Refraized] the planning and execution of a shot and the score."
No, actually, I am not saying the execution of the shot (what I have been calling the "behavioral approach" for about the last 5 years) is irrelevant to the score. What I *have* been saying is that the behaviors are the "Necessary and Sufficient" conditions to achieve the score- in other words, how the bloody hell can you shoot the score if you aren't executing the proper behaviors? So obviously- we should all be training to improve the behaviors! Worry about perfect alignment, and the hole in the paper will take care of itself as it were.
Why on earth is this "behavioral approach" thought to be so radical by the old timers? It's just common sense!
- There is a saying that was used on the Army Team . It went like this, "BS doesn't win matches , only hits on the correct target are scored. "
Well, this can only be interpreted one way I fear (ever do any street racing? Know what "Pinks" are?). And it isn't very gentlemanly of you (but what should I expect?). This leads us inexorably to
II. HANDLING DISAGREEMENT
Bill, even though I am recovering from an injury and surgery, I look forward to meeting you at nationals.
I have stated my position on how unseemly- and frankly irrelevant- these types of "d**k measuring contests" are; and yet you persist in making that the sole arbiter of right and wrong with respect to The Truth Of Shooting Methodology. I guess that whole thing about "people who can shoot but don't have the faintest idea why or how" has been hitting pretty close to home, eh?
Shall we agree as gentlemen then that if I kick your ass in Air Pistol and Free Pistol at nationals, you will agree to stop your irritating and obsessive quibbling with me for say . . .
6 months?
Or how about (just between you and I) we make it a semi-annual affair between Nationals and the Top Gun match. Winner gets to post his philosophy unimpeded by the other between each major match?
Should we restrict it to Air Pistol then? Or make it Free Pistol only? Should we include PTO scores?
How about a rolling "whoever has posted the best, most recent PTO or higher score gets to post his ideas unmolested" kind of thing?
I will open the contest to any "quibblers"* with me on this forum . . . ISSF rules apply of course . . . I believe this should apply to those who have discussed technique with me directly; alas some folks seem to be satisfied to avoid any direct discussion of technique and so eliminate themselves naturally from this type of wager.
So let's agree on the players and the terms- and get this thing rolling! Nothing like a bit of public hype around this sort of thing to provide entertainment for all, eh?
We can agree on a similar thing in the BE forum, right?
=8^)
Whew! Why do I feel *so* much better now? Even though I have seriously painted myself into a corner, should any number of truly world class shooters choose to participate!
Good night all
*"quibbling" being defined as making snarky postshots with no substantive contribution or constructive argument vis a vis the material discussion
** my apologies to anyone I offended unintentionally; I presume the "dish it out-take it" rule applies to the principals
Fasten seatbelts, place seat backs and tray tables in stowed and upright positions.**
2 main points to follow:
- Clarifying misunderstanding; and
- Handling disagreement the "old fashioned way"
I. CLARIFYING MISUNDERSTANDING
A very learned and rational man (who happens to be a radio talk show host) applies the sound principle that he "seeks to achieve clarity (understanding) over agreement."
In that spirit Bill Horton (as i fear there are some fundamental issues preventing us from ever achieving "agreement") i would offer the following questions/observations for your comment.
[I had originally decided to blow off your comments Bill; then after some lengthy reflection decided that many other shooters would gain from exploring this further. And my karmic pain in going through this exercise with you- again- the fourth time now i think- was a small price to pay for the common weal. At least for the entertainment value alone!]
On my part:
- I am proposing that the student of shooting concentrate on the behaviors that drive performance, and not the performance outcomes themselves, when it comes to designing and executing training plans
- Further, that any training effort not focused on a behavioral issue is necessarily a distraction at best; and that
- It is necessary for the student to understand the desired behaviors and how they interact to provide the outcome first, in order to achieve that outcome.
This seems somewhat obvious to me, but apparently you have a disagreement with those three propositions. From your last post, it appears that you disagree along the following arguments:
- The behavioral approach is "getting too wound up in esoteric concepts that are simply not necessary to shoot higher scores than are being mentioned by many of the shooters posting on this forum."
Am I to presume that you are arguing that focusing on behaviors is too cerebral; and further unecessary, for shooting higher scores? I need clarification here. This seems so obviously misguided that I must be misinterpreting your words.
- Your paraphrasing of my "behavioral" approach interperets what I am saying as "if he identified a difference between [Refraized] the planning and execution of a shot and the score."
No, actually, I am not saying the execution of the shot (what I have been calling the "behavioral approach" for about the last 5 years) is irrelevant to the score. What I *have* been saying is that the behaviors are the "Necessary and Sufficient" conditions to achieve the score- in other words, how the bloody hell can you shoot the score if you aren't executing the proper behaviors? So obviously- we should all be training to improve the behaviors! Worry about perfect alignment, and the hole in the paper will take care of itself as it were.
Why on earth is this "behavioral approach" thought to be so radical by the old timers? It's just common sense!
- There is a saying that was used on the Army Team . It went like this, "BS doesn't win matches , only hits on the correct target are scored. "
Well, this can only be interpreted one way I fear (ever do any street racing? Know what "Pinks" are?). And it isn't very gentlemanly of you (but what should I expect?). This leads us inexorably to
II. HANDLING DISAGREEMENT
Bill, even though I am recovering from an injury and surgery, I look forward to meeting you at nationals.
I have stated my position on how unseemly- and frankly irrelevant- these types of "d**k measuring contests" are; and yet you persist in making that the sole arbiter of right and wrong with respect to The Truth Of Shooting Methodology. I guess that whole thing about "people who can shoot but don't have the faintest idea why or how" has been hitting pretty close to home, eh?
Shall we agree as gentlemen then that if I kick your ass in Air Pistol and Free Pistol at nationals, you will agree to stop your irritating and obsessive quibbling with me for say . . .
6 months?
Or how about (just between you and I) we make it a semi-annual affair between Nationals and the Top Gun match. Winner gets to post his philosophy unimpeded by the other between each major match?
Should we restrict it to Air Pistol then? Or make it Free Pistol only? Should we include PTO scores?
How about a rolling "whoever has posted the best, most recent PTO or higher score gets to post his ideas unmolested" kind of thing?
I will open the contest to any "quibblers"* with me on this forum . . . ISSF rules apply of course . . . I believe this should apply to those who have discussed technique with me directly; alas some folks seem to be satisfied to avoid any direct discussion of technique and so eliminate themselves naturally from this type of wager.
So let's agree on the players and the terms- and get this thing rolling! Nothing like a bit of public hype around this sort of thing to provide entertainment for all, eh?
We can agree on a similar thing in the BE forum, right?
=8^)
Whew! Why do I feel *so* much better now? Even though I have seriously painted myself into a corner, should any number of truly world class shooters choose to participate!
Good night all
*"quibbling" being defined as making snarky postshots with no substantive contribution or constructive argument vis a vis the material discussion
** my apologies to anyone I offended unintentionally; I presume the "dish it out-take it" rule applies to the principals
-
Steve Swartz
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:06 am
- Location: Auburn, AL
BRING IT ON
Upon reflection, Bill, I suggest the following:
- One year wager (USASNC to USASNC)
- Loser can't comment on any TECHNIQUE issues involving FP and MAP (equipment/ammo issues are chupchiks anyhow)
- For any thread on Target Talk whether winner has commented yet or not
- Winner decided by COMBINED MAP and FP scores (to include finals) "across the course" for the two events
- No excuses, no waivers, no quarter asked and none given
Are you in?
As you yourself said:
"BS doesn't win matches , only hits on the correct target are scored. "
See you at Ft Benning
- One year wager (USASNC to USASNC)
- Loser can't comment on any TECHNIQUE issues involving FP and MAP (equipment/ammo issues are chupchiks anyhow)
- For any thread on Target Talk whether winner has commented yet or not
- Winner decided by COMBINED MAP and FP scores (to include finals) "across the course" for the two events
- No excuses, no waivers, no quarter asked and none given
Are you in?
As you yourself said:
"BS doesn't win matches , only hits on the correct target are scored. "
See you at Ft Benning
steve, what are you doing?
the last thing you need to be doing is this type of thing if you wish to reach your goals.
if you are looking for some gred, reach all your goals at nats.
I would not enter any mental type debate till the comp is over, then by all means discuss the results.
My competition goals are simple, follow my plan.
thats it.
long term goals are more complicated, as I have to address what I need to do to acheive them.
the last thing you need to be doing is this type of thing if you wish to reach your goals.
if you are looking for some gred, reach all your goals at nats.
I would not enter any mental type debate till the comp is over, then by all means discuss the results.
My competition goals are simple, follow my plan.
thats it.
long term goals are more complicated, as I have to address what I need to do to acheive them.
-
Fred Mannis
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:37 pm
- Location: Delaware
Bryan,bryan wrote:steve, what are you doing?
the last thing you need to be doing is this type of thing if you wish to reach your goals.
if you are looking for some gred, reach all your goals at nats.
I would not enter any mental type debate till the comp is over, then by all means discuss the results.
Perhaps Steve has changed his goals.
Steve,
An excellent plan and proposal. I wish you luck with it.
See you at Benning.
Fred
P.S. I do not plan to enter the proposed contest.
-
2650 Plus
Goals
My, My, Steve you really are quite emotional arent you. That could become a real problem in the entensity of serious competition. I tried to identify the emotional level at whitch my performance was most consistant and was very careful to maintain that level through out the competition. You might try this sometimes. It worked for me. Good Shooting Bill Horton P.S. I will not be entering the match.
-
Steve Swartz
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:06 am
- Location: Auburn, AL
1. It's training- always about training- I have every excuse in the world to not do well at USASNC. So I need something to add pressure to my mental game? O.K.! How better to add pressure than to make some very public "smack talk" about performance?
2. Bill- you are apparently a trifling scrub. But I knew that. O.K., do you not then at least have the honor to stand behind your own words and your own philospophy?
You know, the whole "if you can't shoot the scores, you don't have the cred" philosophy?
Hey, that was never *my* philosophy. I have always learned more from the "struggleing colleagues" than the "self proclaimed experts."
Step up or step off dude. Your rules, not mine. Since you were never wiling to meet me on my turf, I will meet you on yours.
Or What?
2. Bill- you are apparently a trifling scrub. But I knew that. O.K., do you not then at least have the honor to stand behind your own words and your own philospophy?
You know, the whole "if you can't shoot the scores, you don't have the cred" philosophy?
Hey, that was never *my* philosophy. I have always learned more from the "struggleing colleagues" than the "self proclaimed experts."
Step up or step off dude. Your rules, not mine. Since you were never wiling to meet me on my turf, I will meet you on yours.
Or What?