Posted by David Levene on October 06, 2000 at 09:43:01:
In Reply to: Everything you ever wanted to know about Electronic Trainers but were too scared to ask posted by The Hitchhiker on October 05, 2000 at 21:35:49:
At last, something to disagree with.
The general desciption of the use of the ET was spot-on. What I didn't agree with though is your interpretation of the common increase in score if you look at a point 0.2 to 0.3 seconds earlier than the the actual shot break.
The only time that this really indicates a bad trigger action is when there has been a rapid increase in the velocity of the trace during that last period. This can certainly be analysed and recognised using Scatt. I am not sure about the others.
If that rapid increase in velocity is not present then the increased score is more likely to be an indication of a smooth release of the trigger. The eye/brain have recognised a good sight picture and, with the normal reaction time and area of hold, the pistol has moved before the shot breaks. This can only be reduced by reducing the area of hold, often a function of physical fitness.
It is therefore the velocity of the gun that is more important during the reaction time than any change in score.
The only other area where I have slight concern is the actual period for analysis. Having used the Scatt system with elite and sub-elite shooters for several years I have found that the analysis of the data in the last 1 second before the shot break is much more accurate than 2 seconds.
These comments though are detail, the general tone of the article was great.
Posted by Warren on October 06, 2000 at 10:21:27:
An excellent point. I guess it's a generalization I should have tried to explain better. The RIKA takes an average of 10 shots or full match when giving those "potential scores". The trend for inexperienced shooters is to pull the shot from the center of the target in the last three to two tenths of a second before release. This shows a downward slide on the bar graph. Better shooters DO NOT UPSET the line of the bore with their final trigger release ON AVERAGE so their graph is much flatter.
I really need to see if I can explain it much better and do a partial rewrite.
Thanks for the input, David.
BTW, by using the dot trace on the RIKA instead of the normal line trace it does give a good indication of the velocity of trace.
And yes, I guess because I've been a compulsive holder 2 seconds is okay for me. 1 second would probably be a better for more sensible shooters.
Posted by JP O'Connor on October 06, 2000 at 23:10:26:
Very good points (no pun intended) by David and Warren. May I weigh in with some thoughts?
There are a number of generalized shot profiles - on average anyway.
1) "Automagical" - this is the shot where "it" shoots... that is the gun seems to stop (or very nearly so) for a fraction of a second just as the trigger breaks (seemingly all by itself) and just as the aiming point is perfect - all three at one instant. Usually a very deep ten, this is a shot released by the subconscious. Shows as a trace that zeros in on the best score right at the moment of release. Earlier time (0.2-0.3 sec) score would be lower as also usually would the later score. Of course, we are describing the perfect shot here.
2) Reactive - Shooter sees/feels good hold and aim so shooter commands the shot consciously. Shows as a trace that would likely score better as an earlier shot since the gun rarely stops still for 0.3 seconds. The problem is that the shooter cannot shoot "earlier"... one must learn to deliver the shot in a completely different manner (i.e. as #1 above), not just "earlier". So it is kind of moot that the shot "would have" scored better. The shape of the trace shows that the shot was conscious and thus subject to reaction delay. As one coach I've heard would say: "Once you see it, it's too late!" Lots of shooters - even some pretty good ones - shoot this way.
3) Triggering Error - as was mentioned by David and/or Warren, these show the gun suddenly moving more rapidly right around the time of the shot - both before and after. Gotta have a clean triggering! On the plot that shows 10.9 at the top and moment of the shot on the right side, the slope of the trace line indicates the relative velocity of the gun's aiming point across the target. The steeper the line, the more rapidly the gun is moving at that moment. (You don't need a separate velocity trace to see this... the steep slope is a dead give away.)
One could argue that seeing the "would have been" earlier score helps here. But not by itself. Looking only at that score, the question is did the trigger get jerked or was the hold poor on a cleanly triggered reactive shot or was it another type of error? (See example below.) The shape of the trace tells all. Actual score difference or hold velocity difference is of little value to the diagnosis and correction. We want to know what happened... not what the score "would have been".
The way to tell the difference between #2 and #3 is the shape and/or slope and/or magnitude of change of the line just before the shot breaks. In the case of #3, a technical error is being committed which must be corrected. In the case of #2, one is doing a good job of controlling the shot. However, the best shots come from not controlling the shot... instead, they come from allowing the shot to happen as in #1. This has been proven by analysis of thousands of shots of shooters at all levels from beginner to Olympic Champion.
Note that any given individual shot can deviate from these - such as the "lucky ten" we are all familiar with. Also note that there are many other shot profiles possible, based on the individual shooter's technique. The three listed above are very common, especially #2. Future Olympians take note: #1 is better!
Of course, we mustn't forget:
4) Bad Shot - a typicial example of the bad shot looks pretty good but the shooter overholds and/or makes other errors that result in a really bad shot. The trace looks decent then plummets toward the zero line as the shot breaks. Gotta love those 8's! ...and 6's!
Unfortunately, #4 is quite common like #2 above.
In the analysis of thousands of shots it has been proven that - on average - a shot that turns out like #4 can be distinguished from one that turns out like #2 (or #1) 1-3 seconds prior to the shot break based on the "quality" of the aim and hold at that "early" time. Have you ever had the "feeling" that a shot wasn't going right but forced it anyway? Usually not a good shot. We get enough good ones like this (luck) to suck us in to doing more like that rather than break this very bad habit. When it doesn't "feel right" - break it off now!
Of course, there are a number of additional errors that can be added to the above discussion. Follow through and other issues are important.
Example:
An air rifle shooter once had a problem with too many nine's out to the left. 9.5, 9.3, 9.6, etc. He and others assumed triggering error. They even put him on an electronic trainer. Still no clue. A week later he asks us to look at the problem. Aside from a really lousy follow through... everything appeared fine with his technique. His setup was a bit suspect however but nothing glaring.
Once on the trainer, we instantly found the problem. His movement pattern, though side to side as is often typical for a shooter in the offhand position, had a very different motion pattern. Rather than being a gentle side-to-side it would basically stop at the two end points and move rapidly when going from one to the other. Problem?
Yup! His natural point of aim (NPA) was at about 9.5 on the left. His eye saw the aiming error and he muscled the gun on to center... but it was so subtle that he had no idea he was doing this. We had him change the way he set up because he was using his eyes too much during his NPA check. The body follows the eyes and he always muscled the gun over the last few millimeters.
The shot trace for this problem didn't look like the ones listed above... but the steepness of the line between the two steady spots (deep ten or mid-nine) and the trend to be steady either on or well off the best aim spot confirmed the suspicion... he stabilized at a couple of different points and raced between them. His very poor follow through (also proven to him by the trace) compounded the problem because his body relaxed at the moment of the shot. Relaxed, it went back to the NPA! (obviously)
A few months later, he was competing in a big 3x40 event and, in offhand, was merrily shooting 9's and 10's. Suddenly, a 2 appears! He protests but the snowbird was there for all to see in the target. It's a 2. We heard about the shot value, but not it's location. The next morning at the range he was asked if the shot was at 4 o'clock. He grined and said "You know me too well!" We just knew he had very poor follow through from the training session just mentioned above... and he knew that too - thus his answer. He had actually started putting the gun down while the shot was in the barrel and had no idea at the time that's what he had done. He worked on having better follow through the second day of the match!
Electronic trainers are like any other tool. Dumb as dirt. We have to know how to use them and we have to understand the shooting process deeply enough to understand what is really going on and what is important or useful information vs. extraneous info that is of no help in diagnosing and fixing a problem. Warren's article and this discussion thread are useful in helping us understand what's going on with these things.
Posted by David Levene on October 07, 2000 at 09:45:10:
Extremely interesting views.
I believe (but am willing to be swayed) that there are three types of shot release.
#1 is what I would describe as "Automatic". Provided that the sights are not wildly out of line then the shot is going to break. The only message that the shooter is responding to is "don't shoot". A shooter who has perfected this method will not show the -.25 second increase in score that we have been discussing. The average trace for a number of shots will be virtually flat for all of the last second before release.
#2 & #3 are both reactive. #2 being the subconcious shot where the brain reacts automatically to the correct sight picture and sends the message to the trigger finger. #3 is the concious shot where the shooter makes a concious decision that it is time to shoot and then releases the trigger.
It can sometimes be extremely difficult to tell the difference between #2 & #3. Given the same shooter then #3 would tend to show a slightly earlier "optimum release" time although this would only normally be by less than .1 second. As the is a fairly wide spread in reaction times between different people (.2 to .3 second is certainly common) it is difficult to tell which method is being used by reaction time alone. What is more normal is that a concious shot will exhibit other symptoms e.g. longer hold or a short tremble just before release.
I have seen good shooters using each of these methods.
Is one better than the other? Probably.
Is the method used more important than the score achieved? No.
Do all World Champions use the same method? No.
Posted by JP O'Connor on October 07, 2000 at 23:14:53:
David raises some interesting and very good points.
First a review of the informal shot type numbers we find ourselves using in this (sub)thread:
1) "Automatic" - the shot shoots seemingly by itself. Usually a really great result.
2) "Reaction" - the shot exhibits a human reaction time. I thought of these only as conscious shots although David makes a case for these to also be subconscious.
3) "Triggering Error" - Almost always a conscious shot, this one adds the element of a jerked trigger.
Yes, I suppose the #2 type shot can be subconscious as he states though it can also be conscious... with really great technique of course. One cannot "tell all" just from the trace and, as David states, sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference between two very similar looking shots that were actually performed very differently. I still have a nagging thought on this however. A 0.25 sec (more or less) reaction time includes active thought in the brain. A subconscious shot does not involve active (conscious) thought. (More thought and study required!)
With many pistol shooters who have really great holds, and most rifle shooters (or so it seems) the hold time is very long so the "flat" trace that he describes is often seen - regardless of whether they are type 1 or 2. These shots could usually be a bit better if the shooter would take the shot when it first is available. Admittedly, many top athletes have learned to shoot with long holds and do quite well.
These are the "holders" while others are "optimizers" who come on target and deliver the shot fairly quickly. Both techniques are used at this point with great success. Both can exhibit the -0.25 sec effect under discussion. Both can exhibit the #1 effect as well.
Interestingly, the #1 shot often does not have the "flat" trace. Rather, it starts out like a typical shot (holder or optimizer) and then, instead of dropping away from perfect or staying flat, the trace often rises to a higher score value just as the shot breaks. This is seen in pistol especially, but also in rifle although the effect is much more subtle. It's almost as if the athlete's inner self "felt" center and delivered the shot by itself. This has been seen in a large number of shots by a number of athletes at intermediate to top levels. Of course, most of these same athletes deliver a far greater percentage of #2 type shots - whether conscious or subconscious. I suspect that the type 2 and 3 shots can be delivered both ways... although the conscious shot is difficult to deliver as a #2 and the subconscious shot almost always ends up as a #2 though #3 is possible. Many of the subconscious shots also end up as #1.
The profiles discussed here and in my earlier post are based on analysis of over 10,000 shots "fired" on electronic trainers and then analyzed in detail for the various performance types and shot results. Of course, as David points out quite well, the "how" can differ for shots that have a similar "what" or trace profile. That's why the units don't solve our shooting problems for us! I'm constantly learning more about this topic and David's comments have forced me to think about some things a bit differently... which helps me learn. Thanks, David!
Admittedly, shooters at the very top level of the sport do have varying styles that work... and the medals to prove it.
The question is... how much better could shooters be? Sort of like the four minute mile "barrier" being impossible to break through years ago... once it was broken then lots of people did it as well. I realize that we are only talking tenths of a point here but medals have been won or lost be such slim margins.
It is this question which provides areas open for research and learning. The journey continues!
Are David and I the only TT readers who have really looked at the electronic trainers to this degree and depth? Let us hear from you!
Posted by steve the student swartz on October 09, 2000 at 13:30:58:
Really great stuff from JP, Dave, and Warren. I'd like to try to "boil down" some things re: world class shooting and the mental game. About 6 months ago I tried to do the same thing and it was met with mixed results/responses. Of course this is just my opinion based on a short review of the literature (which I am currently in the process of expanding).
Some main points:
- The best shot is the "natural" or relawed shot; teh zen shot if you will. Whether this is product of the subconscious or "unconscious" (autonomic) is somewhat debatable at this point. The key here is "how much mental horsepower do you want to be engaged in shooting?" We can agree that conscious shooting involves too much horsepower and brings to bear all kinds of distractions- but a high level of analytical ability.
- Okay, point number two: shooting a perfect shot is not real complicated folks. Doesn't make it easy- just simple. Do we need the conscious mind in order to do it? No- aamof, the conscious mind sucks at it. Do we really need the subconscious mid to do it? Well, maybe, but probably not. Here's the kicker- if we *could* release the perfect shot (reliably) with an autonomic process (Chet's "unconscious" mind) then we would probably want to do so.
- So here's the fundamental issue: how do we 1) train the autonomic system to make the release of the perfect shot possible "unconsciously;" while at the same time 2) relegating as much of the shooting process that's left over (grip stance yada yada yada) to as low a level as possible in teh mind?
- I humbly recommend we shoot for (so to speak) the following "division of labor" in our shooting process:
1) Autonomic: release of the shot
2) Subconscious: alignment and hold
3) Conscious: scripting and preparation so that
1) and 2) are invoked and activated
appropriately
Oh yeah and the conscious also gets to keep track of overall match management in between shots.
How do we then train ourselves so that during our shot sequence, we use 3) to guide us to sink deeper so that 2) can take over in order to activate 1)?
Seems to me that in the short and superficial amount of research I have done, all of the common techniques (visualization, imagery, focal objects, autosuggestion, keywords, shot plans/scripts, etc. etc. all seem to suggest how to achieve the 1-2-3 level process that I've described.
My personal training plan is now directed at achieving the 1-2-3 level delegation process. I think I have some techniques integrated into my plan that will help me achieve this. I'm interested in how anyone else thinks it can be done.
Sponsored by Pilkington Competition Equipment