Production Division - Opposable grip from Front Sight

[DukeEB]

Just now, Jake Di Vita said:

 

I'm willing to accept that, but until someone comes and explains how I'm wrong in a logical way that refutes what I'm saying I'm not going to change my mind.

 

 

I have high standards for what I think is impressive. A lot of those standards require the person to be faster than me. I've never seen Ron do anything that I can't do rather easily, so no I don't find his speed or accuracy while going full speed particularly impressive. He's a very good shooter. I'm sure he's a very good instructor. He has won some matches. All of that is possible while using less than ideal technique. Your assertion that these things somehow make him right is a poor foundation to base your argument on.

whether you agree or not is irrelevant to me, and I'm sure, to Ron as well.  Have a nice day! 

[Jake Di Vita]

1 minute ago, DukeEB said:

whether you agree or not is irrelevant to me, and I'm sure, to Ron as well.  Have a nice day! 

 

I prefer my ideas to be able to hold up to debate. If you don't care about that....well that says a lot to me. You have a nice day as well.

[DukeEB]

Just now, Jake Di Vita said:

 

I prefer my ideas to be able to hold up to debate. If you don't care about that....well that says a lot to me. You have a nice day as well.

hahaha!  I'm sure it does.  I'm not good enough as a shooter or a wordsmith to debate you.  Send a mail to Ron and ask him to debate if you want.

[Jake Di Vita]

4 minutes ago, DukeEB said:

I'm not good enough as a shooter or a wordsmith to debate you. 

 

But hey, at least you're good enough to tell me that I"m wrong and that I don't understand. I figured you had some meat behind that. Guess not. I'm 100% open to being wrong, but if the best argument you're bringing is "you don't fully understand his teachings" you aren't going to get very far with me. That sounds like one of those McDojo guys defending his teacher after watching him get wrecked in a bar fight.

 

I'm willing to debate anyone on the subject and I'm willing to change everything I do if I am shown better information. I'm not going to chase anyone to debate them. If he's interested, I'm right here.

 

You come in and post that video, I say that I fundamentally disagree with what I believe to be his principles, you say I'm wrong and have a nice day. This has happened a couple times now. Either tell me why or send someone else who will.

[DukeEB]

Just now, Jake Di Vita said:

 

But hey, at least you're good enough to tell me that I"m wrong and that I don't understand. I figured you had some meat behind that. Guess not. I'm 100% open to being wrong, but if the best argument you're bringing is "you don't fully understand his teachings" you aren't going to get very far with me. That sounds like one of those McDojo guys defending his teacher after watching him get wrecked in a bar fight.

 

I'm willing to debate anyone on the subject and I'm willing to change everything I do if I am shown better information. I'm not going to chase anyone to debate them. If he's interested, I'm right here.

 

You come in and post that video, I say that I fundamentally disagree with what I believe to be his principles, you say I'm wrong and have a nice day. This has happened a couple times now. Either tell me why or send someone else who will.

Talk to Ron.  I didn't post the video either.  I merely quoted it.  You seem to want to argue, but I don't.  I don't need to get anywhere with you to be honest   I don't even need to give a reason for disagreeing, take it how you will.

[Jake Di Vita]

1 minute ago, DukeEB said:

You seem to want to argue, but I don't. 

 

If by argue you mean have a conversation where we logically discuss our points of view and where we disagree, then yes that is exactly what I want. I think it's pretty cowardly to tell me I'm wrong and talk to me like I'm a fool then hide behind "I don't need to give you a reason" and "I'm not good enough to debate you". We're all talking about shooting here and trying to get better. At least that's what I'm trying to do. You seem completely unwilling to have any sort of discussion with substance. 

 

Throughout my life as a coach one principle I've tried to live by is that if I can't explain WHY someone should do something, then I'm not going to tell them to do that thing. That ideal has served me well, perhaps you should give it a try.

[DukeEB]

23 minutes ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 

If by argue you mean have a conversation where we logically discuss our points of view and where we disagree, then yes that is exactly what I want. I think it's pretty cowardly to tell me I'm wrong and talk to me like I'm a fool then hide behind "I don't need to give you a reason" and "I'm not good enough to debate you". We're all talking about shooting here and trying to get better. At least that's what I'm trying to do. You seem completely unwilling to have any sort of discussion with substance. 

 

Throughout my life as a coach one principle I've tried to live by is that if I can't explain WHY someone should do something, then I'm not going to tell them to do that thing. That ideal has served me well, perhaps you should give it a try.

I already tried to explain it to you as best I could in the previous thread.  I see no reason to go down that road again.  You didn't want to understand then, and you don't now either.  I have not told anyone that they SHOULD do something, I shared what I got from the class. Take it or leave it, I don't care. 

[Jake Di Vita]

4 minutes ago, DukeEB said:

I already tried to explain it to you as best I could in the previous thread.  I see no reason to go down that road again.  You didn't want to understand then, and you don't now either.  I have not told anyone that they SHOULD do something, I shared what I got from the class. Take it or leave it, I don't care. 

 

 

I just don't understand yet you're the one who can't explain anything or have a halfway intelligent conversation on the subject. The extent of your knowledge on the subject seems to be "Ron told me so". You're a funny guy. I'll no longer be responding to you unless you can somehow manage to come up with a coherent and thought out post. I won't be holding my breath.

[DukeEB]

3 minutes ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 

I'll no longer be responding to you unless you can somehow manage to come up with a coherent and thought out post. I won't be holding my breath.

Excellent!  I appreciate that

Edited May 11, 2017 by DukeEB

[Dr Mitch]

On 4/13/2017 at 0:47 AM, Jake Di Vita said:

Thumb pressure is just an extension of wrist pressure. A thumb rest in this case also gives you a point of contact further forward on the gun to apply force on which gives you a bit better leverage. Of course you don't need to have thumb pressure to shoot, that doesn't mean it isn't useful. 

How many winners use a thumb rest?  It's trash.  A gimmick product for unskilled shooters.

[Jake Di Vita]

3 minutes ago, Dr Mitch said:

How many winners use a thumb rest?  It's trash.  A gimmick product for unskilled shooters.

 

And that ladies and gentlemen is a textbook example of the red herring logical fallacy. Low effort on the troll....shame..

[WaJim]

Wow tough crowd.....

 

First time on the internet that I actually know the guy that was called a Troll...Here I thought this Forum was above that.

 

Not all shooters are seasoned veterans.....seems to me that some have forgotten that there are newish shooters that take good professional instruction to heart. 

 

The student came to the defense of his teacher and was beat down for it.....SMH

 

Aaand yes, I read the whole thread.

[shootingchef]

I learned everything I needed to know from Matt Burkett.

[Butterpuc]

5 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

You guys are entitled to your opinion just as I am. I am not going to continue to promote laziness by posting my data for nothing other than reading entertainment for people who are not going to do anything about their grip strength anyway. If people are truly interested in improving their recoil management skills then they will explore stuff like grip strength on their own to see how it impacts their performance. If you are not willing to put in the effort to figure it out on your own then seeing the data I have isn't going to make any difference either. Lazy is as Lazy does. You can call me the bad guy all you want. I am simply stating the facts.

 

couldn't agree more.  

[rowdyb]

So back in the 7th post when I showed a picture of my grip, do I need to change it now or not?

 

JK, I'm not changing a thing.

[MemphisMechanic]

On 4/13/2017 at 7:29 PM, CHA-LEE said:

 

Sounds like a good question to ask and figure out when you run the test on your own. Good luck.

 

"I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn."

 

- Albert Einstein

[tanks]

11 hours ago, Jake Di Vita said:

...

I just don't understand yet you're the one who can't explain anything or have a halfway intelligent conversation on the subject. The extent of your knowledge on the subject seems to be "Ron told me so". You're a funny guy. I'll no longer be responding to you unless you can somehow manage to come up with a coherent and thought out post. I won't be holding my breath.

 

OK. Seeing that I posted the video, I'll chime in. First if you look at the video and even slow it down you will notice that there hardly is much recoil anyway, and with the wrist camming the gun comes back to original point of aim (or thereabouts) pretty fast. The reasoning for "let recoil happen" step in Ron's "Shooting cycle (see below) is to relax/not tense up and also not force the gun down prematurely. At least that is what he tells me when I tense up and start shooting low on follow up shots.

 

Also, you are talking about one component of the shooting cycle. Active recovery step is where you control the recoil and bring the gun back (where the camming action helps you.). So, it is not "let recoil happen" and not do anything after.

 

Now, you might disagree with his methods and approach, but tens of thousands of students and instructors that have been trained by him using his methods over the course of years seem to agree enough to come back or encourage others to take classes/lessons with him. 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by tanks

[Jake Di Vita]

9 hours ago, tanks said:

OK. Seeing that I posted the video, I'll chime in.

 

Great. Thank you for actually starting a decent conversation on the subject.

 

9 hours ago, tanks said:

First if you look at the video and even slow it down you will notice that there hardly is much recoil anyway, and with the wrist camming the gun comes back to original point of aim (or thereabouts) pretty fast.

 

Well, it's really hard to tell via video how much recoil there actually is. And yes, the camming action on the gun will assist in recovering the gun from recoil to the target. I'm not arguing that it is pretty fast, I'm arguing that it isn't ideal. As I said before, I think Ron is a very good shooter, but I don't think the technique he is espousing is maximizing the ability to run a gun quickly and accurately. It's very common to find a pretty good shooter that isn't using pristine fundamentals. I've been testing and re-testing methods for real close to 20 years now. I've been a gm for almost 15 years. Since making gm, I've had 4 or 5 complete and total overhauls of my technique. I've tried letting the gun recoil and I can't produce times or hits with that method anywhere close to the method I'm using now. To take an example from my personal training, my best bill drill using the let the gun recoil technique is right around 1.5. That is still reasonably fast using what I consider flawed technique. My best bill drill using my current methodology of not letting the gun do whatever it wants is 1.26. Quite a significant difference.

 

9 hours ago, tanks said:

The reasoning for "let recoil happen" step in Ron's "Shooting cycle (see below) is to relax/not tense up and also not force the gun down prematurely. At least that is what he tells me when I tense up and start shooting low on follow up shots.

 

Sure. I've heard this before. I think it has validity for some shooters but it certainly isn't an immutable truth. To me, you shooting low on follow up shots isn't necessarily because you are tense. If we break the problem down to it's most basic fundamental, you are simply crunching the gun down at some point during the execution of the shot. If you are compensating for recoil prematurely, we call that a flinch. There are other ways to correct a flinch beyond relaxing and letting recoil happen. You may be prematurely pushing the gun down by only a hundredth of a second. Timing issues like that are certainly fixable without letting recoil happen.

 

Recoil from one shot does not directly effect the shot placement of the next shot. All shots fired are independent of each other. The cycling and recovery action of recoil is done long before you actually start pulling the trigger for the next shot. The difference in what he recommends and what I do is that I am always aggressively driving the gun to the target, even during the execution of the shot. I don't want to drive the gun down from recoil, I want to drive the gun forward right back to the target. I think this is a distinct difference that gets lost on people. Conflating recoil compensation with poor execution of the next shot is over simplifying what is going on in that process.

 

9 hours ago, tanks said:

Also, you are talking about one component of the shooting cycle. Active recovery step is where you control the recoil and bring the gun back (where the camming action helps you.). So, it is not "let recoil happen" and not do anything after.

 

But in the image from him it directly says "let recoil happen". I also think that image is fundamentally incorrect since it says calling the shot happens after recoil. Calling the shot happens at the precise instant that recoil starts. I'm a bit surprised he would publish that image with such a glaring error.

 

9 hours ago, tanks said:

Now, you might disagree with his methods and approach, but tens of thousands of students and instructors that have been trained by him using his methods over the course of years seem to agree enough to come back or encourage others to take classes/lessons with him. 

 

That's irrelevant to the subject at hand. We could spend all day finding popular firearms instructors teaching flawed technique. Some students (as we've seen in this thread) become so entrenched in their favorite instructor's dogma that they never branch outward to expand their abilities. Yes, there are a bunch of people that swear by him. That in no way means what he is teaching is the most efficient way of accurately and quickly manipulating a firearm.

[Rosshooting]

23 hours ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 

Great. Thank you for actually starting a decent conversation on the subject.

 

 

Well, it's really hard to tell via video how much recoil there actually is. And yes, the camming action on the gun will assist in recovering the gun from recoil to the target. I'm not arguing that it is pretty fast, I'm arguing that it isn't ideal. As I said before, I think Ron is a very good shooter, but I don't think the technique he is espousing is maximizing the ability to run a gun quickly and accurately. It's very common to find a pretty good shooter that isn't using pristine fundamentals. I've been testing and re-testing methods for real close to 20 years now. I've been a gm for almost 15 years. Since making gm, I've had 4 or 5 complete and total overhauls of my technique. I've tried letting the gun recoil and I can't produce times or hits with that method anywhere close to the method I'm using now. To take an example from my personal training, my best bill drill using the let the gun recoil technique is right around 1.5. That is still reasonably fast using what I consider flawed technique. My best bill drill using my current methodology of not letting the gun do whatever it wants is 1.26. Quite a significant difference.

 

 

Sure. I've heard this before. I think it has validity for some shooters but it certainly isn't an immutable truth. To me, you shooting low on follow up shots isn't necessarily because you are tense. If we break the problem down to it's most basic fundamental, you are simply crunching the gun down at some point during the execution of the shot. If you are compensating for recoil prematurely, we call that a flinch. There are other ways to correct a flinch beyond relaxing and letting recoil happen. You may be prematurely pushing the gun down by only a hundredth of a second. Timing issues like that are certainly fixable without letting recoil happen.

 

Recoil from one shot does not directly effect the shot placement of the next shot. All shots fired are independent of each other. The cycling and recovery action of recoil is done long before you actually start pulling the trigger for the next shot. The difference in what he recommends and what I do is that I am always aggressively driving the gun to the target, even during the execution of the shot. I don't want to drive the gun down from recoil, I want to drive the gun forward right back to the target. I think this is a distinct difference that gets lost on people. Conflating recoil compensation with poor execution of the next shot is over simplifying what is going on in that process.

 

 

But in the image from him it directly says "let recoil happen". I also think that image is fundamentally incorrect since it says calling the shot happens after recoil. Calling the shot happens at the precise instant that recoil starts. I'm a bit surprised he would publish that image with such a glaring error.

 

 

That's irrelevant to the subject at hand. We could spend all day finding popular firearms instructors teaching flawed technique. Some students (as we've seen in this thread) become so entrenched in their favorite instructor's dogma that they never branch outward to expand their abilities. Yes, there are a bunch of people that swear by him. That in no way means what he is teaching is the most efficient way of accurately and quickly manipulating a firearm.

 

Hello,

 

I am one of Ron’s instructors and reading the topic I will share my comment:

I do not think Mr. Di Vita clearly understands in depth the concept of the Shooting Cycle as it is presented, the idea behind each element, and their actual meaning. I will not start a long explanatory polemics here. Instead we will be happy to provide to Mr. Di Vita a free slot for some of our classes so he will be able to receive detailed view on the principles that are involved in our system. We will be more than happy to discus and observe Mr. Di Vita’s superior technique but if he do not meet our expectations, for skills, accompanied with accuracy and consistency required to be a word class performer in this “game”(as Ron Avery is a proven name), we will kindly ask Mr. Di Vita to pay the actual cost of the class.

I think this is constructive idea as we are always focus on positive input, the success of our training school and the success of our students!

 

Best Regards!

Rossen

[WaJim]

Just got real......

[Jake Di Vita]

38 minutes ago, Rosshooting said:

Instead we will be happy to provide to Mr. Di Vita a free slot for some of our classes so he will be able to receive detailed view on the principles that are involved in our system. We will be more than happy to discus and observe Mr. Di Vita’s superior technique but if he do not meet our expectations, for skills, accompanied with accuracy and consistency required to be a word class performer in this “game”(as Ron Avery is a proven name), we will kindly ask Mr. Di Vita to pay the actual cost of the class.

 

I'd be happy to as long as the terms for what your expectations are spelled out specifically in advance. I think it'd be a whole lot easier to just have a grown up conversation about it, but if you want to challenge my ability to shoot, I'm more than happy to oblige.

[shootingchef]

I got me a digital grip tester, I'm at 90# on the weak hand and 86# on the strong hand. according to the charts that came with the device, that's an average grip. I'm only a M class shooter, I will take this thing to the match tomorrow and get the GM's to squeeze one out. Will there be an over/under wager for this test, on whether they have stronger grips?

[Jake Di Vita]

Just now, shootingchef said:

I got me a digital grip tester, I'm at 90# on the weak hand and 86# on the strong hand. according to the charts that came with the device, that's an average grip. I'm only a M class shooter, I will take this thing to the match tomorrow and get the GM's to squeeze one out. Will there be an over/under wager for this test, on whether they have stronger grips?

 

My opinion is that you should have them adopt their normal firing grip, tell them to squeeze like they would if they were shooting, then take measurements for both left hand and right hand. Your overall grip strength won't be as good of an indicator as the amount of pressure that you actually apply while you are shooting. I believe what you want to measure is their productive application of force, not their total contractile potential. In order to measure productive application of force, you need to introduce technique...which in this case is their normal firing grip.

[Rosshooting]

22 hours ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 

I'd be happy to as long as the terms for what your expectations are spelled out specifically in advance. I think it'd be a whole lot easier to just have a grown up conversation about it, but if you want to challenge my ability to shoot, I'm more than happy to oblige.

 

Well Mr. Di Vita, it’s a practical “game” and it’s better to be shown that spoken. Ron interacts with the top shooters nationwide and the principles we teach corresponds in their systems for performance and training. In relation to that fact we are curious about your superiority and we are wondering why you are not included in the National team. Please contact us on ross@tacticalperformancecenter.com so we will provide you the slot.

Best Regards!    

[Jake Di Vita]

2 minutes ago, Rosshooting said:

 

Well Mr. Di Vita,

 

First off, you can call me Jake. And you are who exactly? 

 

11 minutes ago, Rosshooting said:

 

it’s a practical “game” and it’s better to be shown that spoken.

 

What, so you're telling me that rational discourse is a waste of time? Did you do any research at all about me before you insinuated that I can't back up what I'm saying with ability? Why don't you tell me exactly what qualifies to you as "showing" that I'm not full of shit.

 

17 minutes ago, Rosshooting said:

Ron interacts with the top shooters nationwide and the principles we teach corresponds in their systems for performance and training.

 

There are technical differences among a great many of the top shooters nationwide.  Are you saying that Ron and "top shooters nationwide" (a meaningless claim without names) have come to some consensus and are all in total agreement? 

 

19 minutes ago, Rosshooting said:

In relation to that fact we are curious about your superiority and we are wondering why you are not included in the National team.

 

I''m not claiming I'm superior. I'll be the first to tell you that I'm far from the best shooter in the world. What I'm doing is voicing criticisms about what I've heard about what your company teaches. Criticisms that coincidentally have still not been addressed by anyone in a well thought out fashion. Instead of professionally and logically addressing those claims, you lazily challenged that I just don't know what I'm talking about and probably can't shoot good. That bit of laziness on your part is not going to work out well for you.

 

Why am I not on the national team? Not that it's any of your actual business, but that would be because I have other things going on in my life that I'm not willing to sacrifice to do so. Remind me what national team you are on? This ad hominem crap is not what I was after, I just wanted to talk about shooting.

 

24 minutes ago, Rosshooting said:

Please contact us on ross@tacticalperformancecenter.com so we will provide you the slot.

 

I'm not overly interested in a slot. Since you're all about showing that these things work in a practical sense, how about you and I (and whomever else you want) compete at a major match together with a gentleman's wager on the line and we'll see who performs better than who where the results can be seen by everyone.

 

If that for some reason isn't good enough for you and you insist on testing me in your class setting, you will not only be providing the slot, but also the hotel, gas, car, and food expenses. Then if I'm unable to satisfy whatever criteria for skill that we predetermine, I will be happy to foot the bill. Since you started this by challenging my shooting ability rather than talking to me, I would not be coming to receive instruction from you. I would be coming to place your foot squarely into your mouth.

 

Or we can just talk like adults, which is all I wanted in the first place. It's up to you, but you really shouldn't underestimate me.