Re: Physical Physiology (or other names for it...?)
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:02 pm
-TT-, it depends on the person's chosen stance. Which muscles are engaged depends on the angle of the shooter to the target (even the deltoid is divided into three different parts. If ONLY considering the lowering of the arm, it makes sense to have a completely side on stance so that only the central deltoid and no shoulder muscles are tensed for maximum control. But obviously there are other factors in play for a shooter than just lowering the gun onto the target, such as stance stability, wrist and grip alignment etc.
As I stated at the beginning of this thread, and have reiterated throughout it, this knowledge is not a substitute for training, and it is not something I would consider pursuing if I had a coach. I do not have a coach. I do not see that changing anytime soon.
I'm not sure why people don't understand why this knowledge is important in the absence of a coach, but I'm going to guess that it's because people glanced over my post with the Youtube link and didn't bother to watch it. Watch it. Please.
What I am discussing is a method for determining HOW to train and WHAT to train. It is not the actual training, and it is not a coach. It is a substitute for a coach when I do not have access to one. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that a book is a terrible way to impart a shooting stance. Written words can't explain the coordination required to execute a great shot like a coach can.
Is this clear enough? Or do I need to break it down further? Because I'm running out of ways of trying to explain to certain people in completely different situations than me why this knowledge is necessary.
As I stated at the beginning of this thread, and have reiterated throughout it, this knowledge is not a substitute for training, and it is not something I would consider pursuing if I had a coach. I do not have a coach. I do not see that changing anytime soon.
I'm not sure why people don't understand why this knowledge is important in the absence of a coach, but I'm going to guess that it's because people glanced over my post with the Youtube link and didn't bother to watch it. Watch it. Please.
What I am discussing is a method for determining HOW to train and WHAT to train. It is not the actual training, and it is not a coach. It is a substitute for a coach when I do not have access to one. I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that a book is a terrible way to impart a shooting stance. Written words can't explain the coordination required to execute a great shot like a coach can.
Is this clear enough? Or do I need to break it down further? Because I'm running out of ways of trying to explain to certain people in completely different situations than me why this knowledge is necessary.