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.
No comments:
Post a Comment