This may sound somewhat grandiose and mysterious and dependant on your outlook, it may well remain so.
At any given point in a timeframe i.e. whilst shooting either in training on in a match, the actual score of the single shot or string will be the result of your mental approach, preparation and attitude at the time of shooting, combined with your highly skilled and pre-trained ability to release the shot to the best of your capability.
Once the shot has been released and has cleared the barrel, there is nothing else that you can do to influence the final outcome and position on the target, i.e. ‘what will be, will be’.
Is there something that can be learned from the outcome? Short term: The score, the position of the shot, feeling of a degree of achievement and/or others.
However, in the long term analysis, this is where we can utilise our “Esoteric Potential”. This is possibly best described as the means of calculating your achievement in relation to a few established and known factors. This provides a means to quantify and hopefully improve your scores. By improving your “Esoteric Potential” your overall scores and achievements will also improve.
How to calculate your “Esoteric Potential”.
You need to determine a base score, this needs to be your lowest acceptable individual shot score, for example “9”. If you manage to shoot 10 consecutive “10’s”, you will have a gun score of 100, that’s the easy bit. Your maximum potential score can only be 100 and your string average is 100. That pretty boring and not difficult to calculate.
If you have a gun score of 95 with five “10’s” and five “9’s”, your maximum potential score is 95 and you will have an “Achieved Potential” of 100% on this particular string. If however, you achieved this 95 gun score with six “10’s” three “9’s” and one “8”, your maximum potential score is 96, which has an “Achieved Potential” is 98.96%. A further example, you score 98 with nine “10’s” and one “8”, your potential score is 99 and you have an “Achieved Potential” of 98.99. Conversely, if you have a gun score of 93 with five “10’s”, three “9’s” and two “8’s”, your potential score is 95 and you have an “Achieved Potential” of 97.89.
Once you have fired a few strings, it is then possible to calculate your average potential score and average achieved potential. The object of the exercise is to use the analysed data as a means of feed back to quantify your improvements.
You have now created your “Esoteric Potential”. The object of the exercise is to improve your overall gun score, whilst trying to obtain an “EP” of 100% by reducing your group size.
Score improvements will only be achieved by interpreting the results and then eliminating some of your errors.
Do not attempt to carry out the analysis whilst trying to concentrate on your shooting; you could end up trying to out think your self.
Esoteric Potential
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
-
John Marchant
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:35 pm
- Location: Bedfordshire, England
- Contact:
John,
I've only given this a quick read so I may have got the wrong end of the stick. However this kind of thing appears to suggest it is OK to shoot to your potential (average (?)). I would suggest that is the wrong mindset to get into. Having acceptable string scores focusses on outcome rather than process. It also places too much empthasis on keeping in your comfort zone. So you shoot 7 tens and you almost force yourself to shoot an 8 to compensate for shooting too good.
In my opinion a better approach is to focus on every single shot and concentrate on getting the shot process correct. You can 'score' that exactly the same but with no reference to the shot score obtained. So by doing this you can say I want to shoot 90% technically good shots, i.e I didn't over hold, I ran through my shot process correctly etc. That way you won't get distracted by where the hole in the target is other than to verify your shot process and of course shot calling.
Rob.
I've only given this a quick read so I may have got the wrong end of the stick. However this kind of thing appears to suggest it is OK to shoot to your potential (average (?)). I would suggest that is the wrong mindset to get into. Having acceptable string scores focusses on outcome rather than process. It also places too much empthasis on keeping in your comfort zone. So you shoot 7 tens and you almost force yourself to shoot an 8 to compensate for shooting too good.
In my opinion a better approach is to focus on every single shot and concentrate on getting the shot process correct. You can 'score' that exactly the same but with no reference to the shot score obtained. So by doing this you can say I want to shoot 90% technically good shots, i.e I didn't over hold, I ran through my shot process correctly etc. That way you won't get distracted by where the hole in the target is other than to verify your shot process and of course shot calling.
Rob.
-
John Marchant
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:35 pm
- Location: Bedfordshire, England
- Contact:
Rob,
Agree with what your saying that it would be only too easy to provide yourself with a reduced 'potential goal' in order that you could achieve a higher 'Esoteric Potential' however I possibly did not explain my theory properly in that the analysis of the achievement and resultant scores takes place at some other point in time, off the range, purely to prevent the in depth analysis interfering with the shot preparation thought and execution process. I find that by going back over the respective strings, off the range makes me think more about the shooting process. I find that to try and improve on my 'EP' figure tends to encourage me to concentrate on shot positioning and group size. These are the two factors that can make a difference in the 'EP' value.
At the end of the day some may see this purely as a data excercise and it could be deemed to throw too much emphasis on the resultant score as opposed the process of creating the shot in the first place.
'EP' is not intended to replace the instant feedback of the shot position on the target, purely as a means of retrospectively calculating your potential for the string.
Agree with what your saying that it would be only too easy to provide yourself with a reduced 'potential goal' in order that you could achieve a higher 'Esoteric Potential' however I possibly did not explain my theory properly in that the analysis of the achievement and resultant scores takes place at some other point in time, off the range, purely to prevent the in depth analysis interfering with the shot preparation thought and execution process. I find that by going back over the respective strings, off the range makes me think more about the shooting process. I find that to try and improve on my 'EP' figure tends to encourage me to concentrate on shot positioning and group size. These are the two factors that can make a difference in the 'EP' value.
At the end of the day some may see this purely as a data excercise and it could be deemed to throw too much emphasis on the resultant score as opposed the process of creating the shot in the first place.
'EP' is not intended to replace the instant feedback of the shot position on the target, purely as a means of retrospectively calculating your potential for the string.
-
Steve Swartz
John:
An interesting concept, but somewhat of a distraction, don't you think? I fear I am about to criticize your idea fairly directly. I don't want to do this; but I'm afraid that too many shooters out there might fall into a very, very dangerous trap.
Your proposition brings to mind an analogous situation from cost accounting. A popular thing to do is to calculate the "unit cost" of some item of output from fixed costs through a process of allocation based on some arbitrary method of divvying up the fixed costs. While there are various ways to "spread fixed costs around," some apparently better than others, you are still doing something fundamentally irrational: the costs are fixed, and the units of output are not. Dividing an apple by a banana does not equal fruit salad.
Well, o.k., back to the point.
We did something similar on the USAF Pistol Team (conventional pistol) for many years- we calculated a "potential aggregate" score by logging the highest score ever fired for individual sub-matches and summing to calculate a potential aggregate score. We then tracked our performance against our "potential scores" in a spreadsheet etc.
That's all well and good- however- it didn't have much of an effect on trigger squeeze, settleing the sights, stance, grip, or any of the other actual behaviors required to execute a shot properly. We spent a lot of time analyzing performance- and our training suffered.
I think I understand what you are trying to do- but I fear it may have consequences that in the end are self-defeating.
If the pistol is functioning properly, to include being sighted in, the location of the hole in the paper gives me absolutely no useful information for my task at hand.
I guess I'm not criticizing your idea directly per se . . . but I either execute the behaviors properly, or I don't. Sometimes I mess up and shoot a 10 . . . should I be happy? No. Sometimes I execute the behaviors properly and leak out a 9. Should I be sad? No.
I should be focusing on SHOOTING THE BEST I CAN given that day's human potential. Some days my human potential is very high; other days not so high.
Sorry; Back To Our Regular Program.
Steve Swartz
An interesting concept, but somewhat of a distraction, don't you think? I fear I am about to criticize your idea fairly directly. I don't want to do this; but I'm afraid that too many shooters out there might fall into a very, very dangerous trap.
Your proposition brings to mind an analogous situation from cost accounting. A popular thing to do is to calculate the "unit cost" of some item of output from fixed costs through a process of allocation based on some arbitrary method of divvying up the fixed costs. While there are various ways to "spread fixed costs around," some apparently better than others, you are still doing something fundamentally irrational: the costs are fixed, and the units of output are not. Dividing an apple by a banana does not equal fruit salad.
Well, o.k., back to the point.
We did something similar on the USAF Pistol Team (conventional pistol) for many years- we calculated a "potential aggregate" score by logging the highest score ever fired for individual sub-matches and summing to calculate a potential aggregate score. We then tracked our performance against our "potential scores" in a spreadsheet etc.
That's all well and good- however- it didn't have much of an effect on trigger squeeze, settleing the sights, stance, grip, or any of the other actual behaviors required to execute a shot properly. We spent a lot of time analyzing performance- and our training suffered.
I think I understand what you are trying to do- but I fear it may have consequences that in the end are self-defeating.
If the pistol is functioning properly, to include being sighted in, the location of the hole in the paper gives me absolutely no useful information for my task at hand.
I guess I'm not criticizing your idea directly per se . . . but I either execute the behaviors properly, or I don't. Sometimes I mess up and shoot a 10 . . . should I be happy? No. Sometimes I execute the behaviors properly and leak out a 9. Should I be sad? No.
I should be focusing on SHOOTING THE BEST I CAN given that day's human potential. Some days my human potential is very high; other days not so high.
Sorry; Back To Our Regular Program.
Steve Swartz
Steve S wrote:
[/quote]
If the pistol is functioning properly, to include being sighted in, the location of the hole in the paper gives me absolutely no useful information for my task at hand.
I guess I'm not criticizing your idea directly per se . . . but I either execute the behaviors properly, or I don't. Sometimes I mess up and shoot a 10 . . . should I be happy? No. Sometimes I execute the behaviors properly and leak out a 9. Should I be sad? No. (end quote)
Does not the location of the hole in the target tell you that the muzzle was pointed at the point the hole appears when the bullet exited the barrel? Is this not what we are trying to do, i.e. have the barrel pointed at the center of the target at the time the bullet exits the barrel? Did you really "mess up" when the ten appeared, or did your subconscious fire the shot before you recognized it? Was the "leaky" nine really a result of proper exectution? If so why wasn't it a ten?
Pat McCoy
[/quote]
If the pistol is functioning properly, to include being sighted in, the location of the hole in the paper gives me absolutely no useful information for my task at hand.
I guess I'm not criticizing your idea directly per se . . . but I either execute the behaviors properly, or I don't. Sometimes I mess up and shoot a 10 . . . should I be happy? No. Sometimes I execute the behaviors properly and leak out a 9. Should I be sad? No. (end quote)
Does not the location of the hole in the target tell you that the muzzle was pointed at the point the hole appears when the bullet exited the barrel? Is this not what we are trying to do, i.e. have the barrel pointed at the center of the target at the time the bullet exits the barrel? Did you really "mess up" when the ten appeared, or did your subconscious fire the shot before you recognized it? Was the "leaky" nine really a result of proper exectution? If so why wasn't it a ten?
Pat McCoy
-
Steve Swartz
Pat:
Good point.
However, yes and no. It depends on what you are trying to do. If what you are trying to do is release the shot perfectly (align + trigger) while you are in your minimum arc of movement (settle), then I say No- I am most assuredly *not* trying to "have the barrel pointed at the center of the target at the time the bullet exits the barrel . . . " although that will be the likely result, that is not what I am trying to do. And whether or not that actually happens is not within my direct control-= only the behaviors that get me there are.
Allright, not to put too fine a point on it- the "Yes" answer to your question is Yes, if I am executing everything properly I will be shooting inside my minimum arc of movement- and if my subconscious is also doing it's job properly etc. etc. etc. then more likely than not the hole *will* show up cutting the ten ring."
But the fact that it does is irrelevant to whether or not I executed teh proper behaviors.
O.K., so maybe I am quibbling at this point; sorry!
The issue is DON'T EVALUATE HOLES IN PAPER DURING A MATCH!!!!
Steve Swartz
Good point.
However, yes and no. It depends on what you are trying to do. If what you are trying to do is release the shot perfectly (align + trigger) while you are in your minimum arc of movement (settle), then I say No- I am most assuredly *not* trying to "have the barrel pointed at the center of the target at the time the bullet exits the barrel . . . " although that will be the likely result, that is not what I am trying to do. And whether or not that actually happens is not within my direct control-= only the behaviors that get me there are.
Allright, not to put too fine a point on it- the "Yes" answer to your question is Yes, if I am executing everything properly I will be shooting inside my minimum arc of movement- and if my subconscious is also doing it's job properly etc. etc. etc. then more likely than not the hole *will* show up cutting the ten ring."
But the fact that it does is irrelevant to whether or not I executed teh proper behaviors.
O.K., so maybe I am quibbling at this point; sorry!
The issue is DON'T EVALUATE HOLES IN PAPER DURING A MATCH!!!!
Steve Swartz
-
Ama
-
John Marchant
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:35 pm
- Location: Bedfordshire, England
- Contact:
Steve,
Thanks for your comments and to a certain extent I agree with them, if I was suggesting that the analysis was to take place between strings of shots or whilst trying to prepare and execute the next shot. Full concentration on the shot process is required. The object of 'EP' is to give a quantifiable comparison figure of the days performance in relation to your 'daily human potential'. The better the mental training and preparation of the shooter, could possibly help to influence the combined result of your 'daily human potential' and the achieved result.
[The issue is DON'T EVALUATE HOLES IN PAPER DURING A MATCH!!!! ]
Totally agree with your statement above, in my original post I mentioned 'what wil be, will be' which I interpret as, once the shot has left the barrel and the shot has appeared on the target, there is nothing that can change that. However the positon of the shot on the target can be used as positive feedback, irrespective of the actual score. The only analysis that takes part is purely to confirm your shot 'follow through' in order to maintain confidence in your shot preparation process.
John[/quote]
Thanks for your comments and to a certain extent I agree with them, if I was suggesting that the analysis was to take place between strings of shots or whilst trying to prepare and execute the next shot. Full concentration on the shot process is required. The object of 'EP' is to give a quantifiable comparison figure of the days performance in relation to your 'daily human potential'. The better the mental training and preparation of the shooter, could possibly help to influence the combined result of your 'daily human potential' and the achieved result.
[The issue is DON'T EVALUATE HOLES IN PAPER DURING A MATCH!!!! ]
Totally agree with your statement above, in my original post I mentioned 'what wil be, will be' which I interpret as, once the shot has left the barrel and the shot has appeared on the target, there is nothing that can change that. However the positon of the shot on the target can be used as positive feedback, irrespective of the actual score. The only analysis that takes part is purely to confirm your shot 'follow through' in order to maintain confidence in your shot preparation process.
John[/quote]
-
Steve Swartz
Yep.
However, some of us on this board are actually "True Amateurs."
My coach is me.
Steve Swartz
(John: what I prefer to do- YMMV- is to evaluate the actual behaviors I am executing during the training session/match. This 1) focuses me on executing the behaviors; and 2) gives me a running benchmark for assessing the match flow and match management. All done from the perspective of "to what degree was the element executed perfectly" as opposed to watching for errors . . . the downside (?!) is that I really have no idea where the holes are going until it's over. But I do know exactly how well I am doing, comapred to my potential for that day. If I can shoot my potential, well, how could I have done any better?)
However, some of us on this board are actually "True Amateurs."
My coach is me.
Steve Swartz
(John: what I prefer to do- YMMV- is to evaluate the actual behaviors I am executing during the training session/match. This 1) focuses me on executing the behaviors; and 2) gives me a running benchmark for assessing the match flow and match management. All done from the perspective of "to what degree was the element executed perfectly" as opposed to watching for errors . . . the downside (?!) is that I really have no idea where the holes are going until it's over. But I do know exactly how well I am doing, comapred to my potential for that day. If I can shoot my potential, well, how could I have done any better?)
I've done some analyses based on scatt files. I entrered average session data (stability in 10, 10a0 stability, trace lenght, impact offset and estimated speed) from 50 AP scatt files in excel spreadsheet. The files come from ematch.scatt.com and from shooters from my club. I used sesions with at least 40 shots.
The more significant pattern showing performance (score) level is stability in 10 during last second.
Roughly speaking that gives following :
Stability in 10 | Score
45% 560
55% 570
70% 580
+80% 590
There is also trigger "factor" which explain exceptions. Trigger quality can play up to +- 15 points.
Shooter with 50 % stability in 10 is able to "hold" in 9 ring. I heard somebody said once that 10 you hit is in fact is 9 you missed. I.E that if he accepts his arc of movement and with correct trigger execution there are 50% chances to hit ten.
Of course there are always occasional lower points but paying too much attentions to them would destabilise the shooter.
- Ned
The more significant pattern showing performance (score) level is stability in 10 during last second.
Roughly speaking that gives following :
Stability in 10 | Score
45% 560
55% 570
70% 580
+80% 590
There is also trigger "factor" which explain exceptions. Trigger quality can play up to +- 15 points.
Shooter with 50 % stability in 10 is able to "hold" in 9 ring. I heard somebody said once that 10 you hit is in fact is 9 you missed. I.E that if he accepts his arc of movement and with correct trigger execution there are 50% chances to hit ten.
Of course there are always occasional lower points but paying too much attentions to them would destabilise the shooter.
- Ned
Steve wrote:
"It depends on what you are trying to do. If what you are trying to do is release the shot perfectly (align + trigger) while you are in your minimum arc of movement (settle), then I say No- I am most assuredly *not* trying to "have the barrel pointed at the center of the target at the time the bullet exits the barrel . . . " although that will be the likely result, that is not what I am trying to do. "
Why not. Isn't the eventual goal of target shooting to shoot your individual shot goal on each shot, and to eventually raise your individual shot goal to 10? I understand that during the shot we must be more concerned with activity goals than performance goals, but if the performance goal is not there why are we shooting?
From a prior thread I saw a technique for learning trigger control by closing your eyes and dry firing, in whatever direction you were most comfortable, while mentally focusing on the feel of the trigger. this to try to establish "automatic trigger control". I believe this is a valid technique, but if you did this live fire you would accomplish your "perfect shot release while in the minimum arc of Movement", but without neccesssariily having the shot strike anywhere near the target.
I don't hink you can stop yourself from evealuating holes in the target during a match, but you can learn to use the evaluation (good shot, bad shot) to improve your shooting. Good shot for me (with pistol) may be 8, while good shot for you may be 10. Eventually my good shot will improve to 9, then 10 with proper practice. Eventually anyone's good shot can decrease with improper practice (dwelling on the bad shot, worrying about what went wrong, etc).
"It depends on what you are trying to do. If what you are trying to do is release the shot perfectly (align + trigger) while you are in your minimum arc of movement (settle), then I say No- I am most assuredly *not* trying to "have the barrel pointed at the center of the target at the time the bullet exits the barrel . . . " although that will be the likely result, that is not what I am trying to do. "
Why not. Isn't the eventual goal of target shooting to shoot your individual shot goal on each shot, and to eventually raise your individual shot goal to 10? I understand that during the shot we must be more concerned with activity goals than performance goals, but if the performance goal is not there why are we shooting?
From a prior thread I saw a technique for learning trigger control by closing your eyes and dry firing, in whatever direction you were most comfortable, while mentally focusing on the feel of the trigger. this to try to establish "automatic trigger control". I believe this is a valid technique, but if you did this live fire you would accomplish your "perfect shot release while in the minimum arc of Movement", but without neccesssariily having the shot strike anywhere near the target.
I don't hink you can stop yourself from evealuating holes in the target during a match, but you can learn to use the evaluation (good shot, bad shot) to improve your shooting. Good shot for me (with pistol) may be 8, while good shot for you may be 10. Eventually my good shot will improve to 9, then 10 with proper practice. Eventually anyone's good shot can decrease with improper practice (dwelling on the bad shot, worrying about what went wrong, etc).
-
Steve Swartz
Steve,
I absolutely agree that activities (behaviors) are the only thing you can control and must be the basis of training. I guess I misread, or misunderstood, your statement regarding "depends on what you are rying to do".
With our advanced shooters we are always trying to shoot tens. Oftentimes with new or intermediate shooters a 10 is not what wwe are trying to accomplish on a particluar shot.
We are going to try to start an air pistol program here this Fall, so I am reading as much as possible, and find this site very usefull.
Pat
I absolutely agree that activities (behaviors) are the only thing you can control and must be the basis of training. I guess I misread, or misunderstood, your statement regarding "depends on what you are rying to do".
With our advanced shooters we are always trying to shoot tens. Oftentimes with new or intermediate shooters a 10 is not what wwe are trying to accomplish on a particluar shot.
We are going to try to start an air pistol program here this Fall, so I am reading as much as possible, and find this site very usefull.
Pat