Correction

[2650 Plus]

Bryan, your last paragraph fits the way I approach competition. I benchmark my performance against my plan. Normally , my first response when I find difficulty in following my plan is that I try to simplify the plan and make it more progressive. I have found that simplifing is usually the quickest way to straighten out a faulty plan. Even so the modifications to the plan must still be tested, confirmed as valid ,incorporated into training sessions, and finally practiced until I get consisitancy and then taken into competition for final verification. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[alb]

Interesting discussion, particularly the posts regarding positive vs. negative reinforcement in training.

I recently read a book entitled, "The Body Has a Mind of Its Own," by Sandra and Matthew Blakeslee. It's a discussion, dumbed down for the lay person, of the neurology and psychology of what the authors refer to as 'body maps', i.e., regions of the brain's cortex that correspond to various parts of the body. Many of these regions have already been mapped by neurologists and neurosurgeons. There are body maps that control motor function, process sensory inputs, and planning future actions.

The book discusses various practical manifestations of these body maps, including mental practice and rehearsal, the 'yips', pathologies associated with malfunctioning body maps, e.g, phantom limb syndrome, etc. The point is that this book would seem to indicate that a lot of what Lanny Bassham preaches has, in fact, a scientific basis.

Bassham is somewhat fanatical about the power of positive thinking, to the point where he once told someone, "I'm sure that somewhere in the last 28 years of my shooting career I shot a 9, but I simply choose not to remember it!" His point is that if you think about shooting a bad shot, you are in fact mentally rehearsing shooting a bad shot, and this will increase the liklihood of you shooting bad shots.

This brings to mind a discussion we had on another thread, where Bryan suggested that someone like Brian Zins, having just shot nine 10's in a row, would feel the pressure as much as anyone else. I suggested that instead, he would probably be thoroughly enjoying the moment, and would 'know' he was about to shoot another 10. In Bassham's terminology, if, after shooting nine 10's in a row, you think to yourself, "Gee, I hope I don't blow this last shot," then you are in fact forming an image in your mind of shooting a bad shot, i.e., rehearsing shooting a bad shot. On the other hand, if you are having fun and telling yourself that you 'know' you're going to shoot another 10, then that is what you are mentally rehearsing.

My point here goes to the discussion of positive vs. negative reinforcement in training and in match shooting. If you try to analyze why you just shot a bad shot, then you are, in fact, mentally rehearsing a bad shot as you replay the shot in your mind, thereby increasing your liklihood of shooting another bad shot. Instead, you should immediately forget the bad shot and think about what it feels like when you shoot a 10. When you shoot a 10, then you should replay that shot in your mind and think about what you did right and how it felt.

So sayeth Bassham, and it makes sense to me. If nothing else, focusing only on what you did right makes practice and competion a lot more enjoyable.

And, as to Steve's discussion of the 'bad 10', when you shoot a bad shot, there is still some probability, although greatly reduced, that it will land in the 10 ring. Nowadays, when I shoot a bad shot, I know it immediately, and I don't bother looking through the spotting scope to see where it went.

Regards,

Al B.

[2650 Plus]

What you said ALB Right on, oh yeah , great insight all those good things And by developing your shooting technique and persisting in totally positive imagery you have a chance to shoot world records, and I am dead serious. I loved this post. Good Shooting Bill Horton

[Guest]

"And, as to Steve's discussion of the 'bad 10', when you shoot a bad shot, there is still some probability, although greatly reduced, that it will land in the 10 ring. Nowadays, when I shoot a bad shot, I know it immediately, and I don't bother looking through the spotting scope to see where it went. "

If you focus on behaviours, you will know the difference between a good shot and a bad shot without a scope. Or even without a hole in the paper at all.

Scopes and holes in paper are simply mechanical things related to the setting of your sights, and provide very little useful feedback as to how well or poorly you are shooting TODAY, or for THIS SHOT.

If youlr behaviors are "True," you will know it is a good shot, and as long as the sights are adjusted properly and the gun is mechanically sound, the hole in the paper will arrive where it is supposed to.

If your behaviors are "False," you will know it is a bad shot, and the location of the resulting hole in the paper will tell you absolutely nothing- other than to reinforce negative thinking and verify to youlr subconscious that "I Suck."

A world-class international shooter (I believe it was Mel Makin) once said something to the effect of "instead of doing what most struggling shooters do- not even glance in the scope after shooting a good shot, and staring at a bad shot for minutes . . . we need to do the exact opposite; to not even look at a bad shot, but to stare at every good shot!"

However

Holes in paper can provide useful diagnostics (as Bill mentions) for assessing the impact of various training techniques etc. in the long term. However, I haven't met a coach yet (and very few shooters; none of them world class) who understood the use of exerimental design and factor analysis/ANOVA, which are absolutely required if you are going to use scores to assess whether or not various changes to technique or training methods actually resulted in an "improvement."

Obsessing over holes in paper as a blow-blow indicator of how well you are shooting in any given event is an approach that is fraught with peril. It just insn't worth it.

The absolute worst example of this is the so-called "Wheel of Misfortune" I see many shooters using during training/matches. The heck of it is, the "Wheel" was never intended to be used as an individual self-assessment device in the first place . . . IIRC, it was developed as a COACHING aid!

Steve Swartz

[Fred Mannis]

[quote="Anonymous
Obsessing over holes in paper as a blow-blow indicator of how well you are shooting in any given event is an approach that is fraught with peril. It just insn't worth it.
Steve Swartz[/quote]

I agree with your statement, but you write in such a terse style that it is possible to overlook key words like "obsessing". I see nothing wrong with the following: during a match I observe that my last three shots are at 12 o'clock eight ring. Previous shots had all been evenly distributed inside the 9 ring. I decide that my grip pressure had, unnoticed, shifted and I had 'heeled' the last three shots. I pay more attention to maintaining uniform grip pressure during shot release, and the shots resume falling inside my hold area and centered on the 10.

What do you recommend that I should have done during this match?

Fred

[alb]

However, I haven't met a coach yet (and very few shooters; none of them world class) who understood the use of exerimental design and factor analysis/ANOVA, which are absolutely required if you are going to use scores to assess whether or not various changes to technique or training methods actually resulted in an "improvement."

Ahh. A man after my own heart!

Regards,

Al B.

[alb]

What do you recommend that I should have done during this match?

The esteemed Mr. Bassham, whom I mentioned above, whould have you immediately put those 8's out of your mind, and focus on remembering the feeling of a good shot.

Bassham stated that at one point during his career, he focused on trying to eliminate his 8's in order to improve his score. He said the result was that he started shooting more 8's than ever. His point was that when you try to analyze what you are doing wrong, you are creating (and thereby rehearsing) a mental image of doing it wrong. And there is no point in figuring out how to shoot a bad shot, especially during a match!

Regards,

Al B.

[bryan]

Bill, the next question is do you supply your plan to your coach before each comp?
also, training and comps are very different, being aware of this should highlight a plan suitable for training, may not be suitable for competition.
even as the level of competition increases, your plan may need alteration to suit. Or more importantly, a good comp plan may be hard to follow in practice.
One other thing is the purpose of the plan is to create an environment you can get in the right zone from.

Alb, I have listened to lanny, and dont like his delivery style at all. but he does everything very well for him, and preaches to this as being what we all need to do. fortunately, we are not all like lanny.
the mindset of thinking/knowing you are going to shoot a 10, and then actually doing it is very difficult. knowing and shooting a good technical shot is somewhat easier, resulting in a 10.

It is not rocket science to realise that after shooting 9 ten's, if you suddenly change what you did to acheive the first 9, the chances of another reduce somewhat. The process should be the same for each shot in the comp. trouble is you need to confirm the placement of each shot, and will be aware of your result, esp. with electronic targets.
everybody would be aware they were about to shoot the 10th ten etc. we are all in the same situation. the difference is what the individual does in this situation.

you have to look at each result before the next, if there was a problem, you need to address it, fix it and continue.
you cant change the past, only affect the future. why would you ignor a problem, only to repeat it?
I am sure this would be somewhere else in his notes.

Hopefully knowadays you know where all you shots should be, not just the bad ones. the process for each shot should be the same, so look at all the shots. as soon as you decide not to look at a shot, you are changing something. hopefully you dont shack your head etc, for any onlookers.

steve, experimental anova what? you have me slightly interested. I see actual improvements just by looking, so there is another way?

bryan

[alb]

Bryan,

I can't say that I'm particularly fond of Bassham's style either. But a lot of what he says has a ring of truth to it. Where I would take issue with him is contention that shooting is 90 percent mental. It may very well be true that the difference between an olympic shooter and an olympic champion like Bassham is 90 percent mental, but I can assure you that the difference between an olympic shooter and someone like me is at least 90 percent physical. Bassham does address this, but he pays it short shrift, since that isn't what he's selling.

As for trying to analyze your errors, especially during a match, Bassham does make a good point. If you know how to shoot 10's, why would you want to focus your attention on what you did wrong on the last shot, rather than focusing on doing it right on the next shot? And if you do figure out what you did wrong on the last shot, you're still going to need to exercise concious control to avoid doing again on the next shot. And, as Bassham says, when you are using your concious mind to shoot the shot, then the 'B' team is definitely in control.

As for shooting that 10'th ten in a row, it's a question of what you focus your attention on and what you mentally rehearse prior to each shot. When I was competing at archery many years ago, I didn't experience the benefits of a positive mindset until after I'd won my first tournament. Some time after that, I reached the point where I 'expected' to win, and it seemed to help, in the sense that at that point I started shooting better in competition than I did in practice. Once you have that mindset, you just simply never think, "Gee, I hope I don't blow it!"

Where I differ from Bassham is that I don't believe you can develop that kind of confidence in your ability until you've developed your ability itself. With bullseye pistol shooting, I haven't reached the point where I shoot better in competition than I do in practice, although I don't seem to shoot any worse in competition either. You can have all of the positive mental focus in the world, but if you don't have the physical skill to shoot 10's consistently, you're just not going to do it. On the other hand, it does take a positive mental focus to 'learn' to shoot 10's consistently.

As for analysis of variations (ANOVA), it's a method for mathematically analyzing a dataset in order to identify statistically significant factors and their relative contribution to the overall result.

On that point, with regard to evaluating reality scientifically, Bassham's theory sounds a lot like the 'friendly dolphin' fallacy. We've all heard stories of sailors who've fallen overboard, and subsequently been gently nudged to shore by a dolphin. Does this mean that dolphins are friendly or altruistic? Well, in order to know that, we would have to know about all of the sailors in similar situations who have been gently nudged farther out to sea, only to drown and never be heard from again. Perhaps, dolphins are merely playful.

Bassham's theories are based on his personal experiences as an olympic athlete and as an olympic champion, as well as interviews that he's conducted with other olympic champions. He's identified mental characteristics that they all seem to have in common. However, in order to really know whether these attributes actually contribute to success, or are merely byproducts of success, or are completely irrelavent to success and are attributes that most athletes have in common regardless of their success, he would need to interview lots of poor and mediocre athletes as well and use a technique like ANOVA on the results.

The book I cited in my first post on this thread references experiments where the researchers did exactly that in order to discover the significance of mental rehearsal on the process of learning and performing a physical skill. So it would seem that at least some of what Bassham preaches has a scientific basis, even if Bassham didn't do any scientific analysis of it himself.

Regards,

Al B.

[Richard H]

The problem with applying statistical techinues to extremely complex human tasks, is the fact that it almost impossible to identify all the factors. Sp most experiments contain only the factors that the experimenter chooses or identifies. Thus the results really are no more helpful then any other method. Statistical techniques work well on machinery and systems that are in control, the human system is far from a system in control.

[alb]

The problem with applying statistical techinues to extremely complex human tasks, is the fact that it almost impossible to identify all the factors. Sp most experiments contain only the factors that the experimenter chooses or identifies. Thus the results really are no more helpful then any other method. Statistical techniques work well on machinery and systems that are in control, the human system is far from a system in control.

I would agree with you, up to a point. However, there is nothing particularly complex about an experiment that measures the improvement in a physical skill over time using mental rehearsal vs. actual physical practice. One might postulate all kinds of factors, such as negative feedback from shooting bad shots imeding improvement, vs. always visualizing perfect shots, which would not impede improvement and thus would allow in inferior form of practice to work nearly as well as actual physical practice.

But, so what? The results of real, controlled experiments show a statistically significant improvement in performance when using mental rehearsal vs. nothing at all, and a much smaller difference in the improvement of performance when using mental rehearsal vs. physical practice. If there are confounding factors, then they are well-hidden. And throwing up one's hands and claiming that there is simply no way to know isn't particularly helpful when deciding how to practice or how to perform in competition.

The combination of scientific evidence, even if it isn't adequate to be conclusive, combined with the endorsement of an olympic champion is, for me at least, persuasive enough to give it a try. And as I said in a previous post, focusing only on your successes and trying to duplicate them is, if nothing else, a far more enjoyable way to practice and compete, which is really why someone like me does it in the first place.

Regards,

Al B.

[Steve Swartz]

***TEDIOUSITY ALERT***PLEASE DISCONTINUE READING IF YOU AREN'T INTRERESTED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND/OR HOW TO SEPARATE REALITY FROM PERCEPTION***TEDIOUSITY ALERT***

Apologies in Advance!

Fred:

I would suggest that if you were "sufficiently intensely aware" of your grip pressure you would have detected (and corrected) the error before it showed up on the paper. You may consider this somewhat of a tautological argument (fair enough). However, if you train yourself to pay attention to the critical stuff (it's difficult, yes, and takes work) it is possible to develop a sense of those things- by focusing how to *properly* execute behaviors, you will eventually increase your skills. Focus on executing proper behaviors. Your execution of those behaviors (properly) will improve. Focus on the proper behaviors during a match. You will develop a sense of what proper execution looks-feels like.

Or, you could reject my arguments as being simplistic and a dead end; because the logic is "self fulfilling." "I get better because I a priori work at getting better" does sound somewhat thin I agree. But consider hte default condition: "I get better because I focus on what I did wrong and post-hoc make corrections to my errors."

Alb:

Process Variability Reduction through designing experiments around various elements of technique, then collecting and analyizing data to test hypotheses works just as well for shooting as it does for anything else. For example, the discussion/argument that Bill and I are having over center vs. sub-6 hold can be tested empirically for each individual.

Specifically, a shooter could work on developing proficiency at "the other"
sight picture as an element of technique. The shooter could then use alternating training sessions to test both techniques, while trying to isolate the technique element of interest from other factors (time of day, lighting, exercise prior to data collection sessions, etc.). Collect both objective and subjective data on both techniques (not just score). Then perform ANOVAS using the technique as the "treatment" variable; other factors (how I felt, time of day, ability to focus, etc.) as covariates/moderators. If yoiu have enoguh data, and if you conduct he experiment relatively "noise reduced," you will see a difference. Eventually, you can conduct multi-treatment experiments (full factorial, latin squares, etc.) to isolate (and control for) interaction effects.

Bryan:

The problem with "it looks good to me" as a way of evaluating technique is that human beings are too suggestible to make good observers. People with experience in accident investigation (or police with experience in criminal investigation) will admit that human observers make very unreliable witnesses. People make things up, see what they want to see, and will fit their memories to serve their pre-existing biases and preferences.

So if you *believe* that a certain stance is best for you, even if you "properly" design a "scientific" experiment, odds are you will see what you want to see. Objective instrumentation is the only way to approach data collection . . . and this only works if you are completely HONEST with yourself about your prejudices/preconceived notions.

This is a problem with conducting any legitimate "qualitative" type research (case studies, ethnogrtaphy, phenomenology,etc.). Asking a bunch of people how they "feell" about something or even what they "saw" during an event will always result in a very high degree of error.

"Who Ya Gonna believe, Me Or Your Own Lyin Eyes?"*

Steve Swartz

*W.C. Fields I think

[Fred Mannis]

[quote="Steve Swartz
Fred:

I would suggest that if you were "sufficiently intensely aware" of your grip pressure you would have detected (and corrected) the error before it showed up on the paper. You may consider this somewhat of a tautological argument (fair enough). However, if you train yourself to pay attention to the critical stuff (it's difficult, yes, and takes work) it is possible to develop a sense of those things- by focusing how to *properly* execute behaviors, you will eventually increase your skills. Focus on executing proper behaviors. Your execution of those behaviors (properly) will improve. Focus on the proper behaviors during a match. You will develop a sense of what proper execution looks-feels like.
I think

I agree with your suggestions and that is how I train. Those of us who do not yet regularly shoot MAP 570+ shoot many imperfect shots and (even worse) may not realize when a shot is technically not perfect or what caused it to be imperfect. But in competition the objective is to win, not to train behavior. For the scenario I described, I do not believe that the behaviour suggested by alb/bassham will result in the most points for that competition. After the first 8, I thought about shooting more 10's. After the second 8, I thought about shooting more 10's. After the third 8, I paused and thought about why I was shooting 8's and how to correct it.
Not too different, I think, from the issues raised in previous thread of when/whether to adjust your sights.

[alb]

For the scenario I described, I do not believe that the behaviour suggested by alb/bassham will result in the most points for that competition. After the first 8, I thought about shooting more 10's. After the second 8, I thought about shooting more 10's. After the third 8, I paused and thought about why I was shooting 8's and how to correct it.
Not too different, I think, from the issues raised in previous thread of when/whether to adjust your sights.

Fred,

Whenever I shoot a bad shot (and I've had LOTS of experience with this), I know it immediately -- I can feel it. It doesn't feel the same as a good shot. But I know what a good shot feels like because I've shot lots of those also. So I concentrate on trying to make the next shot feel like a good shot. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. I don't panic, and I don't adjust my sights to compensate for the unknown error that I'm trying not to repeat on the next shot. I don't adjust my grip or my stance either. (If you feel like your stance or your grip could be causing the problem, you might consider putting the gun down and stepping back from the line for a few seconds in order to give yourself a chance to re-establish both. Personally, I would never try to make a concious adjustment to either during a match.)

The fact is, your shots follow a normal distribution in 2 dimensions, with the variance being a measure of the accuracy of the shooting system (gun, ammunition and shooter). Your performance over the course of a match also follows a normal distribution, with some shots being more perfectly executed than others. Here, the variance is a measure of your skill level. So yes, this no different from the issues raised on that other thread.

That being said, the question then becomes, "How do I become a better shooter?"

Do I do it by trying to eliminate all errors (kind of like trying not to think about purple elephants)? Well, shooting errors come in infinite variety, and you can't focus on all of the ways that you can screw up a shot simultaneously. But I can focus on reducing the variance in my skill level by conciously trying to reproduce the same good shot over and over again consistently. I can't break down the shot and try to focus on individual elements of the shot (dry-fire and training exercises not withstanding) because there are far too many variables for me to focus on all of them simultaneously.

But I can focus on the feeling produced by the gestalt when I shoot a shot correctly. It seems to me that if this is what I practice, and this is what I visualize, then the consistency with which I do this is what will improve with practice. And, if this is what I do when I practice, then this is what I want to do during a match also.

Regards,

Al B.