• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GorillaTactical

  • Rank
    Calls Shots
  • Birthday August 5

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Houston, TX
  • Real Name
    Josh Mazzola
  1. I believe both have value; I've been able to use both camera angles to learn different things. From 3rd Person, I gain a lot of information about my movement, my setups, my positioning, my explosiveness, etc. At times it's also a good reference for if you screw up somehow, you generally have a better full-picture view of whats happening and why. From 1st Person, I've been able to identify more specific things about my gun handling. For example, I've used such footage to determine that I overdrive my gun in certain situations...can't see it on third person very well, but def see it in 1st person. Also let's you see more clearly how you're handling the recoil and controlling your cadence. Ultimately, if I had to choose just one method to gain information on the whole, I'd pick 3rd Person, but it's also a lot easier to get 1st Person footage by just clipping the GoPro on my muffs. If you have the opportunity to get both, do so!
  2. Thank you for posting Wak, and Charlie for the analysis. I was able to watch, read, and then rewatch a few times to understand and see all of the points of discussion. I feel like this was a valuable experience for myself being completely unrelated...I saw when this was first posted and was interested to see what feedback was given.
  3. Based on this data, I'd suggest that you need to def. be paying more attention to collecting your A hits. 60% Alphas shooting production is, in my opinion, waaaaaaaaaaaay too low. Def. focus on collecting those A hits brotha.
  4. There's a big difference IMHO, in someone who has reached a higher level on proficiency with respect to skills often tested in a classifier, such as draws, reloads, etc. (opposed to field courses whereby your draw, for example, doesn't have as much impact) and someone who is shooting a classifier to "hero it" and as such, artificially increases their classification to a point where they then fall woefully short in actual matches of their designated skill level.
  5. In my experience, difficulty remember the sequence on a stage is a product of not spending enough time mentally running through the stage prior to shooting. Once you identify the most efficient way to attack the stage, you should be constantly running through that sequence...as many times as you can walk it, and then as many times as you have time to do so, mentally, before getting up to the line. If you get to the line and still don't have it down, run through it again in your head as part of your make ready process. My "memorization" includes not only knowing which positions I'm going to shoot which targets from, but also what my dot/sights will actually look like on the targets...what an effective sight picture will look like, etc. Maybe others have a differing opinion, but I don't believe the memorization of a stage is something that is worth trying to figure a way to focus on in dry-fire practice. Rather it's a mental sharpness type of training...and more than anything, a process that you have to work into your pre-stage routine.
  6. 2017 Area 59 Optics Challenge No Video of This One This match was a semi-local/semi-regional match with Open, Carry Optics, and PCC. Really fun match with stages built for high hit factors, while maintaining some pretty serious movement requirements. Unfortunately, I started the day off like an idiot, violating one of the cardinal rules of stage planning - don't change your stage when you go to the line. Well, I'd walked the stage for about 15 minutes before the match started, got a solid plan, was shooting second in the lineup. On my last pass through the stage, I noticed you could cutout a position by shooting a few different targets from a few different spots on the stage. I decided to go with this plan as it allowed me to save about 5 yards of movement. But because I didn't take the time to memorize the plan well enough, I didn't pickup one of the targets I needed to, from one of the other positions, and thus ended up with a 2M + Procedural to kick things off. That broke my streak of 0 penalties since nationals. After that, things went pretty well and I ended up with the PCC win. What I Learned: I'm not immune to the rules of stage planning appropriately. I did this at nationals as well (slightly different scenario where I allowed gear to distract me), but I need to ensure I follow my documented steps for stage planning...controlling the controllable needs to be top priority. After doing fairly well with 1 for 1 shooting on steel and dropping very few shots over the last few matches, I didn't have any clean runs on steel arrays at this match...I wasn't paying close enough attention to ensuring my dot was steady and still. There were very few real no-shoot/partial target risks at this match, with the difficulty being more about maneuvering tight awkward ports, hard leans, etc; targets were setup fairly close. You'd think that my A/C/D ratio would be heavily toward alphas, but I found that I was letting the open target presentation cloud my perception and likely shot a stage or two too quickly out of awkward positions where mounting the gun was difficult. As such I was picking up some deltas. Another stage planning comment - I tend to be able to move quite well, and as such, I'll sometimes allow myself to default to movement on a stage where it isn't 100% required because certain targets can be taken at earlier positions. What I mean is that I don't look to take them earlier and then weight the option, I just assume I'm going to move to the additional position. I want to try and get better at focusing on seeing all targets from all positions, and not assuming which ports or positions I'm going to move to. @Flatland Shooter helped me see a different way of shooting our last stage with respect to eliminating about 3 steps simply by taking a target a few feet further back. What I Did Well: After moving around like someone with lead blocks on their feet in Mississippi, I felt like my movement was back on point. I was exploding out of position and I felt like my time to first shot was improved (I've been working on my entry into position a bit more). Very few butterflies! I tried going for a short run in the morning before driving over to the match. I haven't tried this before, but I didn't end up with any real butterflies on my way to the match (normally I get them quite bad). Not allowing an early mental mistake to screw up my game - In past matches, dropping 2 mikes and the procedural on my first stage would have put me on tilt pretty bad. I'm happy with how I handled it. I feel like I didn't take makeup shots (on paper targets) nearly as frequently. Maybe only 2-3 over the whole match, instead of like 1-2 per stage.
  7. Don't disagree at all...always two ways to look at HF...go faster or be more accurate. When you're losing more points for your accuracy deficiencies, the cost benefit is probably weighted towards shooting more alpha's opposed to trying to go faster...just using the example to demonstrate the point either way...but practically speaking, 100% agree. With respect to the bolded portion...couldn't agree more!
  8. Exactly the conclusion I've reached as well. If we look at a real scoring hypothetical instead of making assumptions, we can imagine that we might pick up an extra 3-8 points per stage on average (depending on stage length), from minor to major. Even if the shooter's times were identical, which is unlikely, it's the difference of collecting, say 150 instead of 140 points out of a possible 160 (that's 32 rounds fired with 22 alpha, 10 charlie - thats approx. 30% charlies). Doing that on say a 20 second stage, still puts you at only 6.xx% difference in score...with the same time shot. Yes, 6% is a lot, of course, but it isn't the world ending difference that it's being described as insofar as that new shooters can't come over and compete in the division fairly...even if we say the shooter could only improve speed by 1 second utilizing minor ammo, that immediately takes that 6% and drops it to less than 2%. 1 second in split times over 16 targets by dropping down to minor PF...that's believable to me...not to mention the extra few rounds might make the reload timing better on a stage, or not needed, and that on steel arrays, theoretically the 9mm has an advantage as all scoring hits count for the same, etc. All that said, I shoot major in USPSA...I believe it provides a marginal advantage for me...and I'll take every fraction of advantage I can. But hey, if I'm going to a falling steel match, you better believe I'm shooting the 9mm.
  9. Correct...you need to do it with accuracy.
  10. It's all a product of speed. Maybe they do, maybe they don't...how fast is the local guy shooting? It's conjecture until you determine that. For example, I just pulled up my last local match results. I shot about 82% alphas (shooting maj). I also just pulled up the open nats and grabbed cody's hit breakdown for major scoring. He only shot about 72% alphas. Brad, in 3rd, only shot 69% alphas...Now that doesn't prove anything necessarily, just that your general assessment is not always correct. Unless Moto has it right, and the people you're shooting with just can't hit the target, then it's all a product of understanding how to balance speed and accuracy. The best shooters will still be the best regardless of what they are shooting. You might be able to improve marginally (a few percent) without changing anything else, by switching to major, but shooting minor doesn't suddenly put you in a position where you can't win your local match or otherwise be competitive...I'd position that if we all spent the time it took to read through this thread, and put it towards dry fire, we'd be in a much better position And yes, finishing 5th at Nationals would put you in the "very-freaking-competitive" column of the chart.
  11. What percentage difference are you seeing for the same times and hits within your scores?
  12. Let's say the winner at nationals shot minor...would that drop him to 61st? No...it might have moved him to like 5th. That's still mighty competitive...it's just not seizing every single advantage. My point is, the average shooter at your local match does not feel an effect...we talk about major like if you aren't shooting major, you might as well have a nerf gun...it's just not true. Further, I'd be willing to bet that the best shooters at your local match would still be at the top of the heap if they were shooting minor exclusively.
  13. Savage In all seriousness, the percent you move from one scoring to another is marginal at best. I too have seen only a percent shift of 1-5% at best if I calculate it out over recent matches. Now, 5% at a major match is a lot...but to suggest that this is some barrier to entry into the sport...or that good shooters cant come over from 3 gun and compete because of it, is just hilarious.
  14. This one didn't feel like a very good match overall, if I'm being completely honest. I posted up a full AAR on my thoughts about what I should have done better in my Range Diary if you're interested in looking. Otherwise, enjoy the video. MATCH VIDEO
  15. 2017 Mississippi Championship MATCH VIDEO This was an interesting one for me. I believe I got too caught up in worrying about what was going on around me, and not focusing enough on the task at hand. I'm sure it will be evident from the video, but this was an extremely sloppy match for me. I moved slow, my transitions were lethargic at times, my shooting wasn't particularly impressive and overall it was one of those moments where you're lucky to escape with the win. What I Learned: STOP MAKING UP CHARLIES. I continue to struggle with this issue. In this case, it was more about not trusting my dot on the first two shots, and therefore taking a third. Stage at 01:12 was actually best 3 on paper so that's not what I'm referring to here. First shots into new positions continue to be slow. I need to work some dryfire respective to coming out of an explosive movement and better mounting the gun/finding the dot/accepting a relatively decent sight picture, opposed to waiting till the dot and my body are perfectly settled. In small little stages with minimal movement, I need to continue to work through my stage planning process to include a step respective to how I plan to move through the stage. It's obvious in some of these stages that I didn't have any plan about how to move to the next position, because it seemed self-evident in walk through...but then when shooting the stage, I didn't utilize enough explosive movement to make it work well. I need to work on my comfort level with partial targets beyond 12-15 yards. There were only maybe 5 of these over the 10 stages, but it's obvious when watching the stage video, that my confidence on attacking these targets just isn't there. I feel like this is something I'll need to do in live-fire practice. What I did Well: This match was unique insofar as some stages were setup in such a way that they would be shot twice (each for a unique stage score) with minimal alteration. In the two (or four depending on how you look at it) stages that did this, I definitively shot much better on my second run through. They actually felt like "good" runs. Not sure how to rationalize this. My shots were better, my cadence was improved, my movement was better...so at least I did improve, but the real question is why was there so much room for improvement from run #1?!