2650 Plus wrote:I need help on this as my falure rate is far too high. If I train 15 shooters, 5 get it and move into the master class in less than one year. 5 reach expert or sharpshooter , and the remaining 5 struggle . I discuss visualization techniques stressing positive approaches, I use what I call name dropping by bringing up the names of top shooters I have competed with and against and relating thing they have told me that support the concepts I teach. Those shooters that have trouble with visualization I use a verble command where the shooter tells him / herself to go step by step through the shot sequence. I reinforce every correct shot delivery by having the shooter verbalize the process used to deliver the shot. And I still end up with the split in performanceI I believe that If some one else trained the same group they might end up with the same numerical split but with different people in each group,And I may be totally wrong about this. Any Ideas?? Good Shooting Bill Horton
Are you kidding!? 1/3 of your students reach master class in less than a year? Please try not to hurt yourself patting yourself on the back!
Seriously, though, there are several external factors over which you have little or no control, in this order:
1. The quality of the equipment your students use.
2. The amount of time your students spend practicing.
3. Your students’ individual physiological peculiarities.
4. Your students’ natural ability.
1. I just recently read an article by Gil Hebard that he wrote back in 1961, titled, “Selecting a .22 Target Gun.” In it, he described a match that he put together in 1960, with 5 of the best shooters in the country, that he called the 30 dollar gun test. He gave each of the 5 shooters a cheap target pistol to shoot, and had them shoot a 30-shot national match course, with a substantial cash prize going to the winner. The match was won by Jim Clark Sr., the 1958 national champion, with a score of 266. His average score for that course of fire at the time was 294. Fifth place went to W.T. Toney, the 1952 national champion, with a score of 233. His average score for that course at the time was 291.
The point is this. If former national champions, high masters all, can’t even shoot expert class scores with inferior equipment, then what chance does someone who is just starting out have to learn to shoot well with inferior equipment? The answer is, “No chance at all.” In woodworking, we have a saying, “Buy the best and only cry once!”
2. How do you get to Broadway? “… Practice, practice, practice!” Practicing with inferior equipment is of limited value, but assuming you have addressed that issue adequately, it still requires a considerable amount of practice to learn and hone a new motor skill. I read somewhere once that it takes a minimum of 10,000 hours of practice to achieve an Olympic level of skill at anything. And that’s with world-class coaching and abundant natural ability.
Reaching a master class level of performance obviously doesn’t require nearly as much practice. But, I’ll bet that if you ask your students who reach this level in less than a year, you’ll find that they’ve been putting in some serious hours at the range.
Quality of practice is important also. SCATT, Rika and Noptel trainers all provide valuable feedback that it’s difficult for a shooter to acquire through introspection alone. Taking advantage of all of the technology available to improve the quality of practice does make a difference.
3. No amount of practice can make up for a physiological problem, such as poor vision. For example, we have an older shooter in our bullseye league who prefers to shoot iron sights. He does this because he likes to shoot ISSF air pistol and free pistol, and would rather practice those disciplines. Last night, with iron sights, he shot an 813. Last week, he pulled out his other target pistol with a dot sight on it, for the first time in a year, just to see if he can still shoot it. He shot an 863 with it. Unfortunately, no amount of practice is going to improve his eyesight.
He’d probably do better spending most of his practice time using the dot sight, so that he can refine the skills that he
can improve. Your job as a coach is to spot physiological peculiarities and find ways to deal with them – a tall order, even for the best coaches in the world.
4. The ultimate example of natural ability in sports has to be Lance Armstrong, who dominated the world of cycling for 7 years. His heart pumps twice the normal average volume of blood per minute. His blood naturally has higher levels of hemoglobin, meaning that it carries a greater amount of oxygen per unit volume to his muscles than normal. And his muscles produce much less lactic acid than normal, cutting his recovery time to a fraction of that of other people. And you can forget about illegal drugs, the French cycling authorities not withstanding. He is the most drug-tested athlete in the history of sports, with over 330 random tests during that 7 year period, not one of which ever came back positive.
Of course, we’re talking shooting sports, not cycling. But the same thing applies. You simply can’t teach natural talent. Or, as an NBA coach once said, after drafting a 7-foot high school center, “You can’t teach height!”
How do you assess the natural ability of your students? Are their results consistent with your assessments of their ability?
The big question is, how good are the results that you are getting compared to other coaches – do you even know? They seem pretty good to me.
By the way, do you live anywhere near Malvern, PA? I may want to sign up!
Regards,
Al B.
