Now that the first seven posts have cover some of the basic elements, it is time to try to tie them together into a basic framework. After about two years as a point and aim shooter, I had hand surgery and could not shoot for 6 weeks. It was at that time I watched Miss Kitty and copied the locked elbow draw from her.
The Form: As Howard Hill stressed, form is crucial to being an accurate shooter. We align the shooting foot pointed toward the target. The off foot is slightly back and positioned where ever comfortable. Hips and shoulders are square with the target. Shooting foot and specifically the toe of the foot will control the right /left alignment. The gun is rolled out of the holster with the thumb cocking the gun with a backward motion. The backward motion is complete when the elbow is locked. Prior to the advent of Rule 17 this would or might result in the muzzle being behind the front lip of the holster. Because of Rule 17 we must now use an anchor point that is more forward. The anchor point should be against the hip just above the holster. Your anchor point should result in the muzzle being at the front lip or slightly forward of the front lip of the holster. When the gun reaches the anchor point the trigger is pulled.
I note a lot of good shooter will do a mock draw with a loaded gun. I never draw unless I also pull the trigger. To me to do so would cause a hesitation between the draw and firing of the gun. I just don't do it.
There is no forward motion in this draw. There is no flail in this draw. For those coming from other draws that have forward motion, eliminating the forward motion seems to be the most difficult thing to do.
The Start: If you are going to learn this draw, you must commit to it and never go back. Even if you have to do it in slow motion, learn it and never go back. I can think one shooter that has a perfect locked elbow draw when he is dry firing, but when he is on the target he flails or does a follow through. He has a 3.5 dry fire at 80% and 4.5 draw on the light at 40%.
You can not mix and match and be good. YOU MUST COMMIT TO THE LOCKED ELBOW COMPLETELY.
The Subconscious: After the start, after you have learned the basic draw you must commit it to the subconscious. This moves the draw from the frontal lobe of the brain back into the subconscious. You do this by doing it over and over again. I recommend short work at 5 feet so that you are also chunking data at the same time. I recommend 50 rounds at least three times a week. You are finalizing your draw. You are done when you have no memory of what you have done when you draw. Just like you have no memory of the breath that you take, you have no memory of the draw.
Deliberate Practice Framework: To me a good framework would be bucket work close up three days a week; dry fire practice on three of the other days, with maybe one or two days of light work or competitive shooting each week. Bar-E suggests 25 chunking and 25 on the plate each day. Sounds good to me. Whatever works for you as long as it is deliberate practice that finalizes your draw. To flail 50 down range in an attempt to be fast accomplishes little other than to learn how to miss quickly.
The Dilemma: Presently I am a 240/160/30 shooter for a .43, i.e reaction/draw/flight. I should be a 160/150/30 for .34. Looking at photos from Oklahoma, I note that my anchor point is 3 inches high. If I lower the anchor point, I am sure I will cut off some milliseconds from my draw time, maybe 10 or so. The dilemma is do I do it now or wait until after the season is over. If I revamp my draw I must relearn it and re-finalize it. "Any thinking transforms the expert into a novice!"
That is the why to constantly be changing your draw restricts your ability to progress. You must at some point finalize your draw to be competitive. To make changes in your draw moves the draw back from the primitive automatic area of the brain back to the frontal lobe. If you think about it, you are slow. If you think about it, you are inaccurate.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Lessons from Howard
Bar-E suggested that I watch a video on u tube entitled "Hit em like Howard" part 2 which is about the shooting of Howard Hill, the greatest archer of all time. I was struck by the similarity of technique and the training to the lock elbow draw and our method of training.
Howard emphasized form over all else in learning to shoot. He would go out and shoot 50-100 shots just practicing form. The instructor emphasized to shoot without a target so one could learn proper form. Howard emphasized alignment of the shoulder with the target. We emphasize the alignment of the shooting foot, hips, and shoulder with the target. Howard urged his students to repeat their form over and over again. We urge our students to repeat their draw over and over again. Howard finalized his draw as we do.
Watching the Howard Hill archer draw is like watching the locked elbow draw. Both have the same elements. There is the smooth movement to the shooting position. Hill moves the release hand to the anchor point in one smooth motion. We draw the gun from the holster and move the gun and trigger hand to the anchor point. Hill's anchor point is the side of the mouth, our anchor point is the side of the hip. Both release the projectile when the hand reaches the anchor point.
In Hill's shooting method there is no flailing. In the locked elbow draw there should be no flailing toward the target.
In both there is no aiming. Hill has no sights. He does not aim. The arrow goes where his form and alignment sends it. How does he shoot the apple off of a man's head? (Another video) Well, his form is "finalized," his alignment is correct, and he has chunked a lot of data. Therefore, he hits where he looks.
Thanks, Bar-E.
Howard emphasized form over all else in learning to shoot. He would go out and shoot 50-100 shots just practicing form. The instructor emphasized to shoot without a target so one could learn proper form. Howard emphasized alignment of the shoulder with the target. We emphasize the alignment of the shooting foot, hips, and shoulder with the target. Howard urged his students to repeat their form over and over again. We urge our students to repeat their draw over and over again. Howard finalized his draw as we do.
Watching the Howard Hill archer draw is like watching the locked elbow draw. Both have the same elements. There is the smooth movement to the shooting position. Hill moves the release hand to the anchor point in one smooth motion. We draw the gun from the holster and move the gun and trigger hand to the anchor point. Hill's anchor point is the side of the mouth, our anchor point is the side of the hip. Both release the projectile when the hand reaches the anchor point.
In Hill's shooting method there is no flailing. In the locked elbow draw there should be no flailing toward the target.
In both there is no aiming. Hill has no sights. He does not aim. The arrow goes where his form and alignment sends it. How does he shoot the apple off of a man's head? (Another video) Well, his form is "finalized," his alignment is correct, and he has chunked a lot of data. Therefore, he hits where he looks.
Thanks, Bar-E.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Backups and Mental Toughness
Every serious gunfighter needs at least one backup gun. To the extent possible, it should be the same make and model as your competitive gun and should be tuned the same way with the same hammer pull and trigger pull. When you pick it up it should feel the same and shoot the same. But that is not enough.
You need to shoot your backup gun a lot, not only in practice but in competition. Your backup is ready when you reach the point that you really don't know which gun you shoot better. If you seriously consider before a major competition which gun you should shoot, then your backup is ready.
This is all important because it ties into mental toughness. Mental toughness really is nothing more than confidence. When you go to the line you must believe that you are a roll and it is time to bring the next shooter. If you have had to go to your backup gun, if you know that your backup gun is as good or better than your competition gun, nothing has changed, "bring me the next shooter."
You only get to this level of confidence by using the backup gun. Shoot it from start to finish at your next club match. Win with it. So far this year, I have a 2nd at the Southern Territorial with my competition gun, and a 2nd at Oklahoma State with my backup. Does not matter when one breaks, bring me my backup and the next shooter, I ain't lollygagging and I ain't missing with either.
You need to shoot your backup gun a lot, not only in practice but in competition. Your backup is ready when you reach the point that you really don't know which gun you shoot better. If you seriously consider before a major competition which gun you should shoot, then your backup is ready.
This is all important because it ties into mental toughness. Mental toughness really is nothing more than confidence. When you go to the line you must believe that you are a roll and it is time to bring the next shooter. If you have had to go to your backup gun, if you know that your backup gun is as good or better than your competition gun, nothing has changed, "bring me the next shooter."
You only get to this level of confidence by using the backup gun. Shoot it from start to finish at your next club match. Win with it. So far this year, I have a 2nd at the Southern Territorial with my competition gun, and a 2nd at Oklahoma State with my backup. Does not matter when one breaks, bring me my backup and the next shooter, I ain't lollygagging and I ain't missing with either.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Test
For those trying to master the Alleluia training regiment, it is about time for a test. You should be well on your way to finalizing your draw. Hopefully you have at least 500 rounds under your belt.
What I want you to do is to shoot 20 rounds at five feet on a target that has no markings on it. Nothing to aim at. Shoot your best and quickest draw, the one you have been finalizing. No lollygagging. If your first shot is a good draw, feels good to you then that hit, no matter where it is, is your target. If it was a bad draw, start over with a clean target.
Shoot the next 19 rounds at that first hit. We are not chunking, just testing how well you have finalized your draw. After you are done, evaluate your group. Take and draw a five inch circle around the body of your hits. Then count the hits outside of the five inch circle. A five inch circle is the same as a 21 inch target at 21 feet.
If 4 or less are outside the circle, you have successfully finalized your draw. You will hit better than 80% if you can use that draw.
If 8 to 4 are outside the circle, you still need some work. You should shoot better than 60% and this is consider adequate by some, but not by me.
If more than 8 are outside the circle, you are still struggling with your draw. My guess would be that your draw varies draw to draw.
I suggest you change your practice routine based on these results. If 20% of your shots were outside the circle, then 20% of your time should be spent finalizing your draw. If 50% of your shots were outside the circle then 50% of your time should be spent finalizing your draw.
Once you have finalized your draw your can combine this practice with reaction time practice. If you have better 80% within the circle you can shoot on the light at five feet and you are practicing reaction time at the same time as you continue to finalize your draw. Rodeo Romeo posted a picture of 10 shots on the light at 3 feet in a 3 inch circle. Great illustration of someone with a finalized draw. Don't know how he is at chunking data, but is draw is finalized.
What I want you to do is to shoot 20 rounds at five feet on a target that has no markings on it. Nothing to aim at. Shoot your best and quickest draw, the one you have been finalizing. No lollygagging. If your first shot is a good draw, feels good to you then that hit, no matter where it is, is your target. If it was a bad draw, start over with a clean target.
Shoot the next 19 rounds at that first hit. We are not chunking, just testing how well you have finalized your draw. After you are done, evaluate your group. Take and draw a five inch circle around the body of your hits. Then count the hits outside of the five inch circle. A five inch circle is the same as a 21 inch target at 21 feet.
If 4 or less are outside the circle, you have successfully finalized your draw. You will hit better than 80% if you can use that draw.
If 8 to 4 are outside the circle, you still need some work. You should shoot better than 60% and this is consider adequate by some, but not by me.
If more than 8 are outside the circle, you are still struggling with your draw. My guess would be that your draw varies draw to draw.
I suggest you change your practice routine based on these results. If 20% of your shots were outside the circle, then 20% of your time should be spent finalizing your draw. If 50% of your shots were outside the circle then 50% of your time should be spent finalizing your draw.
Once you have finalized your draw your can combine this practice with reaction time practice. If you have better 80% within the circle you can shoot on the light at five feet and you are practicing reaction time at the same time as you continue to finalize your draw. Rodeo Romeo posted a picture of 10 shots on the light at 3 feet in a 3 inch circle. Great illustration of someone with a finalized draw. Don't know how he is at chunking data, but is draw is finalized.
Target Height and Aiming
Bar-E was having trouble with his five foot work. He thought it might be related to aiming at a target at five feet and then shooting at 21 feet. He sent me the following diagram.
He had determined his target height by using a laser. When I look at this drawing, it appears obvious to me that he was practicing to shoot 3 or 4 inches above the target at 21 feet, which is just what he said he was doing. His target height as drawn is 45 inches with a shooting height of 40 inches. That means the bullet has risen 5 inches in the first 5 feet and will continue to rise another 16 inches in the next 16 feet so the bullet will hit 4 inches above the top of the target at 21 feet.
To calculate proper target height for 40 inch shooting height you take the needed rise of 10 inches divided by 21 feet which equals .4762 per foot. Then times 5 feet for 2.38 inches which is added to shooting height of 40 inches which results in a target height of 42.38 inches at 5 feet.
If you are working on your draw or stance it is always good to recheck your shooting height. It can change. All of Bar-E practice was not wasted. Even though he was practicing to miss high his work was finalizing his draw and may have been very beneficial in chunking data. He was learning and storing information on how to bring his shot down. However, before a competitive shoot it is crucial to do your close work at the proper shooting height.
At Oklahoma State there were categories shot on the first day. Boss had set up some electronic lights in the dry fire area, of course, at 50 inches. Like a rookie, I put my laser in and warmed up at 6 feet on the center of the light. I lost all of my matches shooting high, just could not bring it down. Of course, the more I missed the more I dry fired in between matches trying to find the light. It was not until the next day that I realized that I had been practicing missing in my warm ups.
Bar-E being an old instinctive bow shooter suspected that difference in the angle looking at the target at five feet instead of 21 feet had something to do with the practice not being productive. He is going to try the new target height and we will report if that solves the problem. I don't think looking at a close target is a problem because we do not aim. We look at the target only to be told when to draw not locate our hit. Old West on Shady Mtn shot blindfolded and hit better than 60% which was demonstration that we do not aim.
I have heard other mentors telling their students to "aim" higher or "aim" lower to correct a miss. I always think that is bad advice because we do not aim. Where we look should not have any effect on where we hit. Where we hit is a result of our alignment, which should be done all before the set command.
Right and left alignment is easy to deal with. The hard alignment is elevation. We need to know how we raise and lower our elevation. Shooters do it in different ways. The worst way is by changing your draw. If you are changing your draw to hit you are lost.
You need to know how to change elevation either consciously or better subconsciously. Powder Keg says he controls elevation by the location of his thumb on the hammer. He shoots direct hammer and I suspect that the more flesh on the hammer the higher he shoots. I control elevation by my balance. That is why I get better and better as a shoot goes on because I am learning what my balance needs to be for that shoot.
In the locked elbow draw you roll the gun out of the holster and put the fist against your side or hip bone when the trigger is pulled. The elbow is locked and the forearm is parallel to the ground. Everything needs to level. A slight balance forward will lower the shot, a slight balance backwards will raise the shot. I am not talking about body lean. The change in balance is so slight as to not be seen by the naked eye. It is something that is felt. It is learned. That is why you chunk data, to learn what it takes to raise and lower elevation. That is my method.
He had determined his target height by using a laser. When I look at this drawing, it appears obvious to me that he was practicing to shoot 3 or 4 inches above the target at 21 feet, which is just what he said he was doing. His target height as drawn is 45 inches with a shooting height of 40 inches. That means the bullet has risen 5 inches in the first 5 feet and will continue to rise another 16 inches in the next 16 feet so the bullet will hit 4 inches above the top of the target at 21 feet.
To calculate proper target height for 40 inch shooting height you take the needed rise of 10 inches divided by 21 feet which equals .4762 per foot. Then times 5 feet for 2.38 inches which is added to shooting height of 40 inches which results in a target height of 42.38 inches at 5 feet.
If you are working on your draw or stance it is always good to recheck your shooting height. It can change. All of Bar-E practice was not wasted. Even though he was practicing to miss high his work was finalizing his draw and may have been very beneficial in chunking data. He was learning and storing information on how to bring his shot down. However, before a competitive shoot it is crucial to do your close work at the proper shooting height.
At Oklahoma State there were categories shot on the first day. Boss had set up some electronic lights in the dry fire area, of course, at 50 inches. Like a rookie, I put my laser in and warmed up at 6 feet on the center of the light. I lost all of my matches shooting high, just could not bring it down. Of course, the more I missed the more I dry fired in between matches trying to find the light. It was not until the next day that I realized that I had been practicing missing in my warm ups.
Bar-E being an old instinctive bow shooter suspected that difference in the angle looking at the target at five feet instead of 21 feet had something to do with the practice not being productive. He is going to try the new target height and we will report if that solves the problem. I don't think looking at a close target is a problem because we do not aim. We look at the target only to be told when to draw not locate our hit. Old West on Shady Mtn shot blindfolded and hit better than 60% which was demonstration that we do not aim.
I have heard other mentors telling their students to "aim" higher or "aim" lower to correct a miss. I always think that is bad advice because we do not aim. Where we look should not have any effect on where we hit. Where we hit is a result of our alignment, which should be done all before the set command.
Right and left alignment is easy to deal with. The hard alignment is elevation. We need to know how we raise and lower our elevation. Shooters do it in different ways. The worst way is by changing your draw. If you are changing your draw to hit you are lost.
You need to know how to change elevation either consciously or better subconsciously. Powder Keg says he controls elevation by the location of his thumb on the hammer. He shoots direct hammer and I suspect that the more flesh on the hammer the higher he shoots. I control elevation by my balance. That is why I get better and better as a shoot goes on because I am learning what my balance needs to be for that shoot.
In the locked elbow draw you roll the gun out of the holster and put the fist against your side or hip bone when the trigger is pulled. The elbow is locked and the forearm is parallel to the ground. Everything needs to level. A slight balance forward will lower the shot, a slight balance backwards will raise the shot. I am not talking about body lean. The change in balance is so slight as to not be seen by the naked eye. It is something that is felt. It is learned. That is why you chunk data, to learn what it takes to raise and lower elevation. That is my method.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Practice, Practice, Practice
From the Sports Illustrated article:
"It started with musicians. For a 1993 study, three psychologists turned to the Music Academy of West Berlin, which had a global reputation for producing world-class violinists.
The Academy professors helped the psychologists identify 10 of the "best" violin students, those who could become international soloists; another 10 students who were "good" and could make a living in a symphony orchestra; and 10 students they categorized as "music teachers" because that was their future career path. The psychologists conducted detailed interviews with all 30 students, and certain similarities emerged. All of them had started taking regular lessons at around age eight, and all had decided to become musicians at around 15. And regardless of their skill levels, the violinists in all three groups dedicated a whopping average of 50.6 hours each week to music -- whether taking theory classes, listening to music or practicing and performing. "
"Then a major difference surfaced: The amount of time that the violinists in the top two groups spent practicing on their own was 24.3 hours each week, compared with 9.3 for the bottom group. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, the musicians rated solitary practice as the most important aspect of their training, albeit a much more taxing one than activities such as group practice or playing for fun. Everything in the lives of the violinists in the top two groups seemed to orbit around training and recovery from training. They slept 60.0 hours each week, compared with 54.6 for the bottom group. But even the hours spent practicing alone didn't differentiate the top two groups. So the psychologists asked the violinists to make retrospective estimates of how much they had practiced since the day they began playing. It turned out that the top violinists had begun ramping up their practice hours more quickly. By 12, the best violinists had a head start of about 1,000 hours on the future teachers. And even though the top two groups were spending identical amounts of time on their craft at the academy, the future international soloists had accumulated, on average, 7,410 hours of solitary practice by age 18, compared with 5,301 hours for the "good" group and 3,420 hours for the future teachers. "Hence," the psychologists wrote, "there is complete correspondence between the skill level of the groups and their average accumulation of practice time alone with the violin." In essence, they concluded, what might have been construed as innate musical talent was actually the product of years of accumulated practice. "
"Remarkably, the psychologists found that expert pianists had, on average, accumulated a similar number of practice hours as the top violinists, as if there were a universal rule of expertise. The researchers used these weekly practice estimates to suggest that expert musicians, regardless of the instrument, have had 10,000 hours of practice by age 20, and that skilled performers have engaged in greater quantities of "deliberate practice," the kind of effortful exercises that strain the capacity of the trainee. In other words, the kind of practice that is often done in solitary."
"In their now-famous paper, "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance," the authors extended their conclusions to sports, citing the Starkes occlusion tests showing that learned perceptual expertise is more important than raw reaction skills. Accumulated hours of practice, they suggested, were masquerading as innate talent in both sports and music.
The lead author of the paper, K. Anders Ericsson, now professor of psychology at Florida State, came to be viewed as the father of the "10,000-hour rule" to achieve expertise (though he himself never called it a rule) or the "deliberate practice framework," as it is often known among those who study skill acquisition. Ericsson and other proponents of the framework went on to suggest that accumulated practice is the real wizard behind the curtain of innate talent in fields as diverse as sprinting and surgery. ***** "
"As genetic science became more prominent, Ericsson worked genes into his writing. In a 2009 paper, "Toward a Science of Exceptional Achievement," Ericsson and his co-authors wrote that the genes necessary to produce a pro athlete (or a pro anything, really) "are contained within all healthy individuals' DNA." In that view, experts are differentiated by their practice histories, not their genes. The media interpretation of Ericsson's work has often been to say that 10,000 hours are both necessary and sufficient to make anyone an expert in anything. No one, the idea goes, achieves expertise with fewer hours, and everyone achieves expertise with that amount.
"But it is not enough for scientists to say that practice matters. That point is entirely uncontroversial. "There isn't a single geneticist or physiologist who says hard work isn't important," says Joe Baker, a sports psychologist at York University in Toronto. "Nobody thinks Olympians are just jumping off the couch." "
"Scientists must go beyond saying that practice matters and attempt the difficult task of determining how much practice matters. By the strictest 10,000-hour thinking, accumulated practice should explain much or even all the variance in skill. But that is never the case in research on elite athletes.
In some instances, as with sprinting, sports scientists suggest that early training that is hard and specific leads to the dread "speed plateau," in which an athlete gets stuck at a certain top speed. The athlete is better off diversifying his or her early sports experience. (Two-time NBA MVP Steve Nash grew up playing hockey and soccer and didn't get his first basketball until he was 13.) And for all the athletes who cut their teeth on decades of sport-specific training, there are still those like Jon (Bones) Jones, the UFC light heavyweight champion, who take up a sport on a whim (or, in Jones's case, when he got his girlfriend pregnant and needed money) and within months are dominating seasoned professionals. "
Gunslinger Practice:
Practice matters, but it needs to be effective practice. I started this sport at age 68 and do not 10,000 hours left in me. Too often we spend a lot of time practicing missing.
The kernel for us herein is that our practices should be "that skilled performers have engaged in greater quantities of "deliberate practice," the kind of effortful exercises that strain the capacity of the trainee. In other words, the kind of practice that is often done in solitary."
There is a myth that you have to learn to go fast before you learn to be accurate. Mentors have their students slinging wax all over the place, many times teaching the flail. They waste hours of practice and wax teaching a skill that later has to be unlearned if the gunslinger is going to be competitive. DON'T PRACTICE MISSING!
My guess is that the average person can commit a quick and accurate draw to the subconscious in less than a 1,000 rounds. That is probably about 5 hours of intense and effective practice. That will make a individual into a serious competitor. Not necessarily a champion, but one that is more competitive than 75% of our shooters.
Joint practice sessions probably don't accomplish much because they are just fun matches where really what we are doing is practicing missing. Chasing the clock, grailfever, probably does not accomplish much. Again we are practicing missing in the name of pursuing speed.
Remember we can practice bad habits or skills as well as good habits and skills. As most seasoned shooters will tell you, it takes more effort to unlearn a bad skill than it does to learn it. That is why grailfever is so devastating. If you flail trying to go fast, you will spend years trying to unlearn the flail.
To be a competitive gunslinger, you must have a "deliberate practice framework." This framework must be such that you finalize your draw so that in competition you can shoot from the subconscious. Practicing missing, whether in the name of speed or just having fun, accomplishes little and may actually set you back.
"It started with musicians. For a 1993 study, three psychologists turned to the Music Academy of West Berlin, which had a global reputation for producing world-class violinists.
The Academy professors helped the psychologists identify 10 of the "best" violin students, those who could become international soloists; another 10 students who were "good" and could make a living in a symphony orchestra; and 10 students they categorized as "music teachers" because that was their future career path. The psychologists conducted detailed interviews with all 30 students, and certain similarities emerged. All of them had started taking regular lessons at around age eight, and all had decided to become musicians at around 15. And regardless of their skill levels, the violinists in all three groups dedicated a whopping average of 50.6 hours each week to music -- whether taking theory classes, listening to music or practicing and performing. "
"Then a major difference surfaced: The amount of time that the violinists in the top two groups spent practicing on their own was 24.3 hours each week, compared with 9.3 for the bottom group. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, the musicians rated solitary practice as the most important aspect of their training, albeit a much more taxing one than activities such as group practice or playing for fun. Everything in the lives of the violinists in the top two groups seemed to orbit around training and recovery from training. They slept 60.0 hours each week, compared with 54.6 for the bottom group. But even the hours spent practicing alone didn't differentiate the top two groups. So the psychologists asked the violinists to make retrospective estimates of how much they had practiced since the day they began playing. It turned out that the top violinists had begun ramping up their practice hours more quickly. By 12, the best violinists had a head start of about 1,000 hours on the future teachers. And even though the top two groups were spending identical amounts of time on their craft at the academy, the future international soloists had accumulated, on average, 7,410 hours of solitary practice by age 18, compared with 5,301 hours for the "good" group and 3,420 hours for the future teachers. "Hence," the psychologists wrote, "there is complete correspondence between the skill level of the groups and their average accumulation of practice time alone with the violin." In essence, they concluded, what might have been construed as innate musical talent was actually the product of years of accumulated practice. "
"Remarkably, the psychologists found that expert pianists had, on average, accumulated a similar number of practice hours as the top violinists, as if there were a universal rule of expertise. The researchers used these weekly practice estimates to suggest that expert musicians, regardless of the instrument, have had 10,000 hours of practice by age 20, and that skilled performers have engaged in greater quantities of "deliberate practice," the kind of effortful exercises that strain the capacity of the trainee. In other words, the kind of practice that is often done in solitary."
"In their now-famous paper, "The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance," the authors extended their conclusions to sports, citing the Starkes occlusion tests showing that learned perceptual expertise is more important than raw reaction skills. Accumulated hours of practice, they suggested, were masquerading as innate talent in both sports and music.
The lead author of the paper, K. Anders Ericsson, now professor of psychology at Florida State, came to be viewed as the father of the "10,000-hour rule" to achieve expertise (though he himself never called it a rule) or the "deliberate practice framework," as it is often known among those who study skill acquisition. Ericsson and other proponents of the framework went on to suggest that accumulated practice is the real wizard behind the curtain of innate talent in fields as diverse as sprinting and surgery. ***** "
"As genetic science became more prominent, Ericsson worked genes into his writing. In a 2009 paper, "Toward a Science of Exceptional Achievement," Ericsson and his co-authors wrote that the genes necessary to produce a pro athlete (or a pro anything, really) "are contained within all healthy individuals' DNA." In that view, experts are differentiated by their practice histories, not their genes. The media interpretation of Ericsson's work has often been to say that 10,000 hours are both necessary and sufficient to make anyone an expert in anything. No one, the idea goes, achieves expertise with fewer hours, and everyone achieves expertise with that amount.
"But it is not enough for scientists to say that practice matters. That point is entirely uncontroversial. "There isn't a single geneticist or physiologist who says hard work isn't important," says Joe Baker, a sports psychologist at York University in Toronto. "Nobody thinks Olympians are just jumping off the couch." "
"Scientists must go beyond saying that practice matters and attempt the difficult task of determining how much practice matters. By the strictest 10,000-hour thinking, accumulated practice should explain much or even all the variance in skill. But that is never the case in research on elite athletes.
In some instances, as with sprinting, sports scientists suggest that early training that is hard and specific leads to the dread "speed plateau," in which an athlete gets stuck at a certain top speed. The athlete is better off diversifying his or her early sports experience. (Two-time NBA MVP Steve Nash grew up playing hockey and soccer and didn't get his first basketball until he was 13.) And for all the athletes who cut their teeth on decades of sport-specific training, there are still those like Jon (Bones) Jones, the UFC light heavyweight champion, who take up a sport on a whim (or, in Jones's case, when he got his girlfriend pregnant and needed money) and within months are dominating seasoned professionals. "
Gunslinger Practice:
Practice matters, but it needs to be effective practice. I started this sport at age 68 and do not 10,000 hours left in me. Too often we spend a lot of time practicing missing.
The kernel for us herein is that our practices should be "that skilled performers have engaged in greater quantities of "deliberate practice," the kind of effortful exercises that strain the capacity of the trainee. In other words, the kind of practice that is often done in solitary."
There is a myth that you have to learn to go fast before you learn to be accurate. Mentors have their students slinging wax all over the place, many times teaching the flail. They waste hours of practice and wax teaching a skill that later has to be unlearned if the gunslinger is going to be competitive. DON'T PRACTICE MISSING!
My guess is that the average person can commit a quick and accurate draw to the subconscious in less than a 1,000 rounds. That is probably about 5 hours of intense and effective practice. That will make a individual into a serious competitor. Not necessarily a champion, but one that is more competitive than 75% of our shooters.
Joint practice sessions probably don't accomplish much because they are just fun matches where really what we are doing is practicing missing. Chasing the clock, grailfever, probably does not accomplish much. Again we are practicing missing in the name of pursuing speed.
Remember we can practice bad habits or skills as well as good habits and skills. As most seasoned shooters will tell you, it takes more effort to unlearn a bad skill than it does to learn it. That is why grailfever is so devastating. If you flail trying to go fast, you will spend years trying to unlearn the flail.
To be a competitive gunslinger, you must have a "deliberate practice framework." This framework must be such that you finalize your draw so that in competition you can shoot from the subconscious. Practicing missing, whether in the name of speed or just having fun, accomplishes little and may actually set you back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)