TargetTalk

....

Patrick Haynes does not have Bill Horton's shooting pedigree. Patrick also doesnt share RMinUT's penchant for torturing coherent thought to suit his own arguments.

What Patrick does seem to possess is the abilty to communicate without attacking, defending or making ridiculously broad and sweeping statements. To relegate any particular methodology as "nonsense" seems arrogant and close minded. A viable training protocol must be one which considers the unique and highly individual needs each of us has.

Thank you Patrick for givng us the benefit of the knowledge you have gained as a coach working with many individuals who possess unique needs which are not amenable to the "one size fits all" approach.[/b]

RMinUT wrote: Since I guess it's your chart, I don't know I didn't look at it, I sense you feel a need to defend it.

Robert, you said that you didn't read it, yet you discounted it. Doesn't say much to support your argument?

Also, I didn't create it. I identified the sources: "Taken from The UIT Pistol Book by John Chandler and the United States Army Marksmanship Training Unit Manual." You may not know Chandler, but I think that you may have heard of the USAMU. It doesn't need defense.

Error detection and analysis takes on different levels. Reading targets is at one level. SCATT analysis is at a higher level. The methodology is the same.

My biggest concern, as Bill proposed, is that you don't need to analyse your errors: just focus on your good shots. As I said, that leads to arrested development and stagnation. Whether you read targets or review traces, you must look at your deficiencies and develop training practices to eliminate them.

Patrick

The majority of the folks who post here are fairly (if not very) accomplished shooters. At their level, concentrating on their good shots & trying to make that an unbreakable habit is the way to go. Most of them probably don't remember what it is like not to have ANY good shots. Or the occasional shot in the black where they accidentally managed to cancel their trigger jerk with just the right about of anticipatory "heeling".

It's much harder not to focus on your bad shots when that's all you've got. For those folks, the diagnostic targets can be helpful. Not as a training device that will get them to the Olympics, but as a tool to identify the basic techniques they need to work on. Once they can get enough good shots to notice, then they can move on to the techniques espoused by the better shooters here.

I had a coach who was a superb pistol shot (double distinguished, national record holder etc.). He was a "natural", and just always shot extraordinarily well. Unfortunately, he wasn't a very good coach. He had never struggled with any of the problems his shooters were fighting, and had no idea how to help them. He just told them to shoot more.

Shooting is much more of a science now, and there are plenty of drills & tools that good coaches should be familiar with to help shooters with problems. That should include techniques for shooters at different levels. I suppose if all you do is coach at the Olympic level, your training repertoire can be more limited, but not everyone who posts here is in that league.

There are some excellent coaches who post here, and there are some excellent shooters who have some good insights. There are also some folks who have a "one size fits all" approach to things that proselytize that they have the answer for everything & everyone. Like much of the rest of the Internet, learn to ignore them, or proceed at your peril.

Patrick,
I'm not sure if you know that Bill was with the AMU for many years. So just because the chart was developed or further developed there doesn't make it the gospel. Bill is not endorsing it and he might have helped devolop it, but later found better training techniques.
I think overall there is a series of misscommunications here. Imagine that, a misscommunication over the Internet. I said that I thought the original poster was barking back at Bill's disagreement of a shot chart. I've talked to Paulo and that was not his intention, MY BAD.
I cannot speak for Bill in regards to his shot analysis techniques. I can only guess that he means a new shooter should simply focus on good methods instead of bad.
To really get to the bottom of my way of instruction I ask that you find the USMC Marksmanship guide. It focuses on shooting for group, their training deals in positive steps to success not analyzing what went wrong. It is a simple instruction guide and I feel more effective because shooting is a simple sport with too much human anaylsis injected. Keep it simple.

The posted group analysis page is much more useful and I do like how the shot error chart said to look out my eyes. That is going to help, bigtime.

Cheers,
Robert

orionshooter wrote:Thank you Patrick for givng us the benefit of the knowledge you have gained as a coach working with many individuals who possess unique needs which are not amenable to the "one size fits all" approach.[/b]

This takes us back to the old arguement.

Some shooters know how they shoot, or used to shoot, well.
Some shooters don't know how they shoot, or used to shoot, well. They just automatically repeated what they had done in training hundreds of thousands of times, sometimes without realising that their technique had drifted away from where it started.

Neither will necessarily make a good coach. For that you need to know how to apply different tools and techniques to suit the needs of the shooter being coached.

David Levene wrote:

orionshooter wrote:Thank you Patrick for givng us the benefit of the knowledge you have gained as a coach working with many individuals who possess unique needs which are not amenable to the "one size fits all" approach.[/b]

This takes us back to the old arguement.

Some shooters know how they shoot, or used to shoot, well.
Some shooters don't know how they shoot, or used to shoot, well. They just automatically repeated what they had done in training hundreds of thousands of times, sometimes without realising that their technique had drifted away from where it started.

Neither will necessarily make a good coach. For that you need to know how to apply different tools and techniques to suit the needs of the shooter being coached.

I agree David, coaching is about relating to some degree. Some high level shooters cannot convey their message but there are some good coaches that very articulately relay bad points. Which is better, that is for people to decide for themselves.

In regards to Orion's point, Just because a coach is grammatically correct and very articulate does not make their point more valid. Bill and several of the coaches that I know, that have coached for 40+ years have all moved away from dissecting bad shots. They all want to instruct good shot instructions. The cards only articulate what not to do, there is nothing but in depth instruction of errors.

RMinUT wrote:Some high level shooters cannot convey their message but there are some good coaches that very articulately relay bad points. Which is better, that is for people to decide for themselves.

I agree that not all coaches are of equal ability or knowledge.

I would also feel however that high level shooters who only preach "my way or no way" should not be involved in coaching. They potentially do more damage than the open-minded but misguided coach (and that is not reference to Patrick).

Every time I come on here, I wonder "why". At least people concede that I am articulate and gramatically correct. All that learning/reading did some good after all.

Here's my deal. Coaching for a long time (I've only been at it since '89) doesn't make one right. It makes one experienced. All coaches, including myself, need to expand their horizons and continually seek to improve their knowledgebase, exactly the same way we expect our athletes to improve their technique.

Personally, I don't rely soley upon personal experience to teach others. Why? There are huge differences among populations. I know this because I am a corporate trainer and see it every day.

There are truisms brought to light through research in learning. Sport expertise shows us how people, as a group, become great.

If one person asked me how to improve, does it make sense to discount all the current, proven research, or tell them how a select subset of individuals have grown? Playing the numbers, I'm going to follow the path that is proven to produce improvements across a population.

As a result, those shooters will become motivated through their sense of achievement. Their boost in confidence will help them handle competition. Their success will support a positive mental attitude. When this starts to take place, and they have a foundation, then they can focus more on improving already solid technique.

None-the-less, as each strength improves, their lowest strength becomes their relative weakness, which in turn, they must identify and strengthen. Continuous improvement never ends, and it rarely pays to improve what is already your best.

I work with a lot of athletes. Most of them have no idea what they are doing well, and what they need to improve. Observation and analysis allows me to determine their strengths and weaknesses. As soon as that is sorted out, I tell them to trust their strengths and we work on eliminating their weaknesses. In each and every case, they get better. This has worked with new juniors, all the way through experienced national/intl competitors.

I don't know what else to say, except follow the path that makes you happy.

Patrick

David Levene wrote:
I would also feel however that high level shooters who only preach "my way or no way" should not be involved in coaching. They potentially do more damage than the open-minded but misguided coach (and that is not reference to Patrick).

Amen

Well back to the wheel of misfortune/chart originally referred to, I will maintain it's value is primarily knowledge. I agree wholeheartedly that skills of shooting must be approached positively. Some closed minds interpret anything negative as bad bad bad. There is nothing wrong with knowledge. Even knowledge of the bad things. When your shots exhibit jerk characteristics, learn to recognize that, and know what generally causes jerks. But know too, what good mental and/or physical skills correct jerks. I have a belief that shooting knowledge and shooting skills do not always follow the same track. That knowledge might be what makes the coach too. I hope I have articulated this clearly. :)

Let me relate an example of the result of negative coaching that influenced my opinion of the negative value that approach. A famous USAMU coach used to give a motivational speach to the team before every competition. He always ended with the admonition " Don't start the day off with a seven !"At one match he became ill and couldn't give his normal speach. The Army team doubled the number of its shooters that day from five to eleven. In previous matches shooters that had not shot a seven for weeks would hang one out there during their first ten shots. In 1979 I was the shooting coach for the US CISM team. I must say that the skill level of the shooters did not approach that of the Army team. The weaponry was issue level rather than competition type. We trained in a French issue pistol, a sub machine gun and a french army rifle because the French were the host country. Oh yes, we also threw hand gernades. Unless the CISM matches have made substancial changes the competence of the shooters might benefit from negative input.But I noticed the Canadian coach is aware that little is gained fron "Dont Jerk The Trigger' IMHO He just hasen't carried the concept to its logical conclusion thet telling his shooters how to shoot a properly executed shot, Observing how well they follow his instructions And then carring out the coaching function of observing the targets and advising POSITIVE corrective actions will result in more rapid advancement of his shopoters

I'll go way out on a limb and pass on one tip I was taught: The subconscious mind does not respond to negatives. If you think, "Don't shoot an 8," the subconscious reads, "shoot an 8". And you do.

It's worth trying.

As for me, I'm going to try a more positivist approach. I've hit a plateau, and I REFUSE to accept the notion that I can't break 540 in AP.

This is a partial correction of my post two above. The army shooters more than doubled the number of 2650 shooters in the competition I was describing. I must admit, I am a shooter, not a typist and sometimes I do misspell words. Please bare with me as I do not attempt to describe any thing about how to shoot other than what I actually have experienced and used on the range or in coaching another shooter. Good Shooting Bill Horton

2650 Plus wrote:IMHO He just hasen't carried the concept to its logical conclusion thet telling his shooters how to shoot a properly executed shot, Observing how well they follow his instructions And then carring out the coaching function of observing the targets and advising POSITIVE corrective actions will result in more rapid advancement of his shopoters

Bill: you've got to be kidding, right? Have you ever seen me coach? No. Have you read what I've written? Apparently not.

I work all ends of the spectrum. When we identify a problem, we work on the problem by acknowledging it and developing better technique. I highlight correct technique when displayed and offer advice on how to sustain it. Ignoring a problem supports its longevity.

I'm quite pleased with how my athletes are developing, and so are they. You shouldn't talk about that which you have no clue.

Patrick

2650 Plus wrote:You don't need to analize your worst shots unless you are planning to repeat them. Spend this time analizing your properly executed shots and work to repeat these best performances. Don't think about poorly executed shots.

2650 Plus wrote:...Observing how well they follow his instructions And then carring out the coaching function of observing the targets and advising POSITIVE corrective actions will result in more rapid advancement of his shopoters

There's something missing here Bill. How can you advise positive corrective actions if you are only analyzing the properly executed shots.

Wow! One thing I believe is that you will not be good at something unless you are passionate about it. Seems to be a lot of passion here!

Now I began bullseye shooting at around 40, although I shot a lot of different things before that. So I know how hard it is to progress in the shooting sports. On the other had, I too have an Orton Trophy, Mayleigh Team, Presidents (came it 3rd one time), Distinguished (4 matches, damn that 8 point leg), etc. etc. This really doesn't mean that much when it comes to coaching.

However, I will say that I'm closer to Ed Hall's camp than actually using that "Wheel of Misfortune" chart. But my reasons are different. Like most, I wanted to know what I was doing wrong when I really started training. It's a natural response, ingraned into most of us by our educational systems and society.

I began to improve when I discovered that I wanted to shoot 10's, not 7's. So how did I get started training for 10's and away from the "wheel". Well, my opinion is that if I needed the wheel to tell me what was happening, it was a direct result of me NOT seeing what was happeing during the shot (what is known as calling the shot). BUT, not for the 7's to know what was wrong, but for calling 10 to know what a good shot looked like before and during the trigger press.

To addresse a question from earlier, a poster shows some targets and asks about the 7's. If I may ask, did you spend as much time look and thinking about how all those 10's and 9's got on the target? I see it all the time with shooters that think they are training. They shoot a really good 10 and immediately begin to bang away at another shot. They shoot a 7 and then spend 5 minutes reviewing their shot plan. I got a lot better when I reversed that process. To this day, I can't remember what makes a "heel" shot postion on the target. I do know what makes a 10.

I try to take the time to see everything about the shot (call that shot). If you're not on call, train to call the shot first. Then when I shoot a 10, I review and relive to the best of my ability that shot before sending another one down range. When that shot is not at the acceptable level, that one is replaced by reliving a previous "good" shot. I do not "reward" that shot by studying it.

Now what I have described is for me, your mind and mileage may be different. But, for those that appear to use the positive feedback process, they tend to get very passionate about it.

Just curious Robert and Bill, how many Olympians have you guys coached, how many World Cup level athletes have you coached, how many Pan Am athletes have you coached, or how many national International shooters have you coached. Just interested, how many top international level athletes have been coached by you guys and have applied your advice and what there level of success was.

I shot a target with about 30 individual shots. 20 or so were in a nice centered knothole. The others were scattered all directions mostly 2 rings out. What positive steps must I take?

jackh wrote:I shot a target with about 30 individual shots. 20 or so were in a nice centered knothole. The others were scattered all directions mostly 2 rings out. What positive steps must I take?

Find a good coach who can work with you to identify faults needing correcting/erradicating.