TargetTalk

Steve Swartz wrote: Damn it Ed, why'd ya put that virus in my head!? =8^0

Anyhow . . . I can't even come up with a way to determine which (classical or Hallian) process is actually in use for any given shooter and/or shot. Certainly one would not be able to observe his or her self which technique they were using . . . there are indeed ways to "train for" one method or the other though.

Again, fascinating stuff for one and all.

Fascinating indeed; and I try not to think about it when I am shooting :-)
Fred

Thanks Steve and Ed
Every now and then someone writes something that just clicks. For me it was Steve's assertion that you top out in the high 560s because there is too much to think about. (In my case, I think I topped out in the high 550s)
Some shooters never really progress beyond 500 because they are conciously tied to the shot process. Once you can break that thinking, there is no problem getting them to 540.
There appears to be another mental step which allows you to move from 540 to the 550s and I successfully conquered that one.
For a long while I thought it might be a physical thing, so I started (light) weight training, stopped drinking coffee but my scores did not improve. Then one night it just clicked that it was still a mental process and I was able to consistently move into the 550s.
Steve has given me the realisation that there is something else I do not consciously have to think about. Can't wait to get to the range.

Steve Swartz wrote:
2) "Release the shot" refers to the HUMAN (not gun) side of the system; i.e. give coscious to subconscious permission to let the shot go (release it). Ed knows that and (as he suggests) maybe better terminology would help prevent confusion . . . "initiate" Ed implies a conscious willful action which is NOT what we are looking for.

Initiate? Release? Maybe we need a different word?

Steve

Depending on how we train or the goal for the actual start of the shot/trigger, perhaps a good term would be "allow" the shot. This implies that we are training to let our subconcious do all the work and are just stepping back to let it do its job.

Elmas wrote: I dont think Muscle Memory is a good description of what happens.... Muscles do not have a 'memory' as such .

Technicaly I agree with you; However for my $0.02 too may people go looking for the holy grail when focusing on the basics would benifit them more. Thinking "muscle memory" and not magic can often get better results, not every one can apreciate the technical psycology behind it all.

J

"Muscle memory" is perhaps best demonstrated by how fast one can play a piano or other instrument -- if one has to think (pass the impulse from the brain to the fingers), you cannot play more than a note or two per second. The muscles "learn" to perform repeated tasks without needing precise control directly from the brain and can then play music (and do other things) at rates of many notes per second.

It was pointed out one time that dynasaurs had more "brains" in their spinal cord than in the head since the time to pass a message from the brain to a distant muscle for such a large beast would be many seconds.

Best,

Joe

. . . of course, it isn't the "muscles" that do that at all . . .

hence the term "Muscle Memory" is perhaps a poor choice of words to describe the phenomenon. Which leads to different people having different interprefications of exactly what MM is; or just flat out misunderstanding what is going on.

This sounds like its just a quibble over termininology; o.k., I plead "Guilty." And at one level it doesn't matter: as long as the use of the term MM helps someone understand something about shooting, then it has value. The problem comes in when someone hears the phrase and understands it to mean something else entirely, perhaps limiting their ability to improve their performance through training.

Anyhow, once more with the Grammar Police I guess . . .

Steve

Perfect case in point, Steve,

I've been shoooting various sanctioned disciplines for around twenty years now and have never heard of MM as described by Joe. I'll comment on his description after mine. All my conversations about MM were centered around the comfort and stability points for the stance. Specifically, if you fire your competitions at targets that are a specific height all the time and then go to a range with lower targets, your recovery will be high during sustained fire and during slow fire, your "feel" will be off. That's MM! DON"T TRY THIS, but if you always fire at one specific hieght, you can probably set up and fire a fairly decent sustained score with your eyes closed. That's MM!

Now back to what Joe described:

He presented a perfect description of letting the subconscious perform without immediate supervision by the conscious. Since all conscious perception is after the fact, if we wait for feedback, we can never do anything that takes less time than we can process the evaluation. In order to achieve something like The Flight of the Bumblebee you have to release the control to the subconscious, trust that all will be well and listen to the music. You may even notice a flaw in your performance (a nine?), but if you consciously stay out of the way the music will flow on. OTOH, if you try to "fix" that flaw, you will probably get poor reviews as you start stumbling around with your instrument.

Take Care,
Ed Hall (wannabee Grammarian)
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

<fire suit on >

Could the last 5 commenter's please explain how their comments helped the question asked ?

Yes we can all bicker about theory and make our version better that the next, and then then pat each other on th back, but the question at hand was ......

Once we all have our PHD's, all will be well.

But in the mean time, this top notch theory is well ........ but some times things have to be "dumbed" down so that those who have not read 30 volumes of sports psychology, and understood it, can have something to work with!

The above is the truth when it come to coaching; giving what is needed !

Has any one answered the question at hand ?

</fire suit off>

JulianY

Anonymous wrote:
Does anyone here have an informed opinion as to whether I'd be better off trying to force myself to focus on the front sight?
Yepp !

Am I limiting my long-run potential by focusing on the target?
Yepp !

Is it pretty much universally accepted that focusing on the target is a no-no?
Yepp !

Thanks!

My pleasure !

Elmas

.

1) Fred Mannis answered the question directly and succinctly with the first response.

2) Discussion followed regarding WHY those answers were correct.

3) Answers lead to questions, which lead to more answers . . . all of which creates a discussion "arc" which sometimes (not this time, OBTW) strays from the subject.

But of course you already knew all of this.

Cranky today, are we?

Steve Swartz

Ok, you want answers, you got 'em here. You can get to a certain level with any number of techniques. Some good, some bad. The problem is finding out which ones are good, which are bad and which ones don't make any difference. (Of course then you have to go through the physical things, then equipment, etc. etc.)

First view this clip. This is a pretty good teaching tool for those that want to keep saying that a perfect sight picture is required. (Yep, it might be necessary for "perfect center X's; but I've noticed that all 10's will generally win a match). This shooter is focusing (however you want to interpret it) on the front sight to do one of the most important things visually, maintain sight alignment.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... pr=goog-sl

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... pr=goog-sl

Now, the responses were trying to get to the point that focus on the front sight was important. Why is it more important than say, maintaining the "perfect" sight picture (putting the sight alignment on that special place on the target)?

First because focus on the front sight brings you closer to one of the main things needed to make a good shot, and once again that is sight alignment. Of course the other is trigger process to get the shot off while maintiaining the best alignment possible.

Watch the clip closely. Focus on the front sight. Can you see the sight alignment through each shot? Look hard. Can you see the relative position of the front sight in the rear? You will see almost perfect sight alignment. Now check out the sight picture. Change your focus to the position of the sights with respect to the target. Moving all over the place, ain't it. As a matter of fact, look at how far out the sight picture appears for some of the shots. Now look at the inset showing the shots. All 10's.

Stand up and point that empty pea shooter at the wall. Are you moving enough to move out of the 10 ring? Unless you've had a couple of beers, probably not. Now check out that sight alignment while pulling the trigger. Was it really good?

Sight alignment makes the shot accurate. Sight picture simply confirms you're pointing that alignment in the right direction.

So what do you see when you shoot? Which should be more important - alignment or picture?



Respectfully submitted for your consideration:

Cecil Rhodes

[quote="CR10XGuest"]
So what do you see when you shoot? Which should be more important - alignment or picture?


Both ??


Elmas

.

Elmas wrote:

CR10XGuest wrote: So what do you see when you shoot? Which should be more important - alignment or picture?


Both ??


Elmas

.

Sight Alignment; the 10 ring on the NRA target is ~3.3 inches in diameter. If your sight alignment is correct, your pistol can be anywhere in that circle and still shoot a 10.

If your sight alignment is off by ~0.1" though, you'll be off the paper at 50 yards!

Both ??


Elmas

As people learn to shoot, they go though many phases or levels. Trying to find the right position, equipment, grip, hold, etc., etc. There are even several very productive posters on the board today that have gone through this process. A lot of them started with "well I have to have a perfect stance, grip, sight picture, etc., then I can get a perfect shot". I think that today you will find their opinions have changed, I know I have changed.

One of those phases is trying to keep the pistol pointed in the right direction, mostly to get your body used to the concept of reducing the wobble or movement. BUT, you can't reduce it all and it sometimes (well almost always) looks lilke a lot of movement with respect to that "perfect sight picture" of unmoving sights on the target.

And there are people that can shoot well above the average by doing a lot of things that are not the optimum. Trying the maintain a perfect sight picture to the detriment of sight alignment and trigger, is one of them.

But I can tell you that from my experience the distance in terms of effort and technique to go from 90% shooting to 93%, to 95%, to 97% is not linear. It is an exponential requirement in terms of refining your shot process and effort. On of the obstacles in getting to that next level is figuring out what works best and what to discard as a part of the shot process and training.

Until a pistol shooter really, really believes and trains to visually monitor the sight alignment above all else, (including sight picture) he will be limiting his performance.

Until a pistil shooter really, really believes and trains to accept the tactical feedback to complete the trigger process and maintain the sight alignment, he will be limiting his performance.

Sight picture, stance, grip, equipment, what you eat, think or anything else is down in noise level as far as completing an accurate shot goes. I know it does not feel like that now for a lot of shooters. Just continue the journey and when you look back, you will see the detours and pitfalls that delayed your process. I've seen them myself.

Train on one thing at a time. Train on trigger press, train on sight alignement (which is mostly what dryfiring or blank target firing is about). If you need to train on maintaining a good sight picture, that is great and necessary for most people as well. The body and mind must learn what we have as a goal.

Each training session should have one and only one training goal. Each shooting session should only have one goal, to evaluate the effectiveness of the training sessions. Basically, if you are traning, train on one thing. If you are shooting, perform and evaluate, don't train. Both of these may involve firing a shot or series of shots, but they are vey different.

AND, when you are performing a complete shot as part of the training process, put all other things aside. Sight Alignment and Trigger Process are the keys. They feed on each other and support each other in making an acceptable shot.

No, its not both for me. I found that it limited my performance.

Cecil

Cecil:

One for the ages.

Very well said.

Steve Swartz

(p.s. the FTVS system is a wonderful training tool- as well as the Scatt/Rika/Noptel- but again, if you don't KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR they are a waste of time and money. Several years ago I watched a shooter deliver a perfect slow fire string while hooked up to FTVS and Noptel. The alignment was perfect- the wobble was horrendous- the Noptel showed a wide 8-ring pattern- and the shooter delivered a 10.6 AVERAGE shot value. He-e-e-e-ello?!? Is anyone listening?!?! I wasn't. I wasted three years trying to identify and perfect various elements of technique using experimental design and statistical analysis to find the right grip, stance, torso lean, pellet, approach to target, rest/shoot cycle, etc. etc. It wasn't until I "internalized" what really happens during a good shot [vs. a bad shot] that I really understood the process. If I had've gotten a clue when I started, my performance would have advanced a lot faster- and I would have known WHAT TO LOOK FOR during all my experimentation and analysis! Not that the experimentation and analysis were "bad" per se, but my imperfect understanding of the shot process led me to focus on/measure/try to improve THE WRONG THINGS.)

If I had've gotten a clue when I started, my performance would have advanced a lot faster- and I would have known WHAT TO LOOK FOR during all my experimentation and analysis! Not that the experimentation and analysis were "bad" per se, but my imperfect understanding of the shot process led me to focus on/measure/try to improve THE WRONG THINGS

You couldnt have gotten a clue when you first started... The 'clue' would have been rejected by you because it would not fall in with what was in your head at the time... namely; the 'introduction to perfect shooting' bandied around the shooting circles.

You... (( not specifically you of course )) had to go through the process of wearing the shooting shoes with oversized soles and marking the position of your feet with chalk etc....until with practical experience comes the " Liberation " from the shackles of conformity when you realize that " Stance is important yes , but more important is not to let 'stance' get in the way of your shooting !

Does this make sense ?


The 'traditional' way to liberate oneself is through dedicated hard work and practice till one KNOWS without being told .

The sight picture must be a preoccupation at some stage until one is liberated from the shackles of preoccupation with it through experience and enlightenment .

All the gurus in this game share the same belief that what remains in the end.... is a realization of the importance of sight alignment and trigger control.

Elmas

.

Curiously, your position seems to have changed significantly sometime between November 22d and November 23d.

Or you were playing "Devil's Advocate" all along? trying to "draw out" a better rationale than what was originally provided?

Not really important. Just puzzling.

Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz wrote:Curiously, your position seems to have changed significantly sometime between November 22d and November 23d.



Or you were playing "Devil's Advocate" all along? trying to "draw out" a better rationale than what was originally provided?

Not really important. Just puzzling.

Steve Swartz

Steve ,

A novice cannot from the very outset ignore sight picture !! Only after training for a long time can he 'liberate himself' from its limiting effect on his performance ?

At first , I was addressing novice and experienced shooter alike ; by posing questions and not really stating "facts" . Or stating facts that prompt challenging questions !

My latest posting was directed at the experienced shooter who has already done the mileage and has found out through experience what I am proposing . Experienced shooters are invited to challenge what I wrote and help in understanding the process better.

Like others in this fascinating sport , I dont really have all the answers , what I say is merely a reflection of my 'stage of development' which is by nature a dynamic and in constant change.

This is the first and only Forum to which I subscribe..( thanks to Don Williams ) . It has increased my understanding of the shooting experience considerably .

It has also added a welcome intellectual dimension to the practical side of the sport.


Elmas

.

In response to Steves question of a better term for "release" the shot, I propose:

"disinhibit".

Not very catchy.
Or memorable.

But possibly an accurate reflection of the mental process. Many motor responses are inhibited by centers in the CNS - the conscious release of the behaviour involves releasing the inhibition (a bit like a trigger really). I suspect the same kind of process may be involved with "releasing" the shot.

Unfortunately, knowing what to call it doesn't make the process any easier.

Mike

I'l try to make this as plain as possible from my persepective.

A shooter, no matter what level, should not be preoccupied, focused, concenrating, whatever, on the sight picture unless it is during a training session for sight picture only.

Just because I mentioned that some shooters do that at various levels do that during the shot process does not mean they should. It is a problem of perception that much be overcome.

"How can I hit that little part of target at the other end of the range if I don't pay attention to the sight picture (see the target)?" Because everything that is really important to the placement of the shot takes place at the gun.

If I had the chance to train a new shooter from scratch, it would be about a year before they saw anything with a round circle on it at the other end of the range.

Cecil Rhodes