Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Defining “Natural Athlete” vs. “Technical Athlete”


Cy Soto

Recommended Posts

When I talk or hear about someone being described as a “Natural Athlete” I think of a person who is fast (‘explosive’ movements), strong, has great cardiovascular endurance and amazing hand-eye coordination; but I am having a hard time describing the term “Technical Athlete”. The only thing I can come up with is: ‘someone who is not a “natural” but is still capable of producing the results needed to excel in a given sport’.

So when it comes to Practical Shooting, what skills define a “Technical Shooter”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily believe there is such thing as a "natural athlete" but excluding that I'd say the difference is more in terms of attitude.

I'd define natural as someone who doesn't think about the technical aspects of shooting, maybe doesn't know exactly why he or she does what they do or why it's better, and performs well. Example: Brad Balsley

I'd define technical as someone who knows all the nuances. Can pick places or ways to save tenths of a second. Knows why they do what they do and can explain it. Example: Max Michel Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Jake said but would like to add...

I took Manny Bragg's class and he is a self described "Technical Athlete" in that he was terrible when he started in this sport and had to learn how to do the majority of things that have made him a great shooter and has become a great instructor in the process. Because he had to fix everything about his game, he has a clear understanding of what to do and, most importantly, why you have to do it that way to help you improve your game. Basically, everything was learned and nothing came naturally.

Edited by L9X25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I'd say the difference is more in terms of attitude.

Obvious as it may seem, I had really never considered this aspect of the game but I can see now how the right attitude plays a major role!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I talk or hear about someone being described as a “Natural Athlete” I think of a person who is fast (‘explosive’ movements), strong, has great cardiovascular endurance and amazing hand-eye coordination; but I am having a hard time describing the term “Technical Athlete”. The only thing I can come up with is: ‘someone who is not a “natural” but is still capable of producing the results needed to excel in a given sport’.

So when it comes to Practical Shooting, what skills define a “Technical Shooter”?

Two words:

Doug Koenig :D

Technically excellent, not what I'd call a gifted natural athlete. No insult, as I've only met and spoken to him at the SHOT show in Orlando. I've never seen him shoot a basketball, or throw a football. Just my impression.

Natural Athletes can compete in virtually any sport, but may not excel in any particular event. Technical Athletes are very good at one specialty, but may have limited ability in other sports. Doug is the best in the world at one discipline, which requires god-gifted talent, dedicated practice, and lots of time and work.

This is my personal definition, as a lifelong "Natural Athlete", and Fitness and Nutrition Professional.

You can be a GM in Practical Shooting, or nearly win the British Open at age 59, without being a "Natural Athlete"...

Jeff Ward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Natural Athlete doesn’t understand why everybody else can't do the same way he or she does. The technical athlete would apply a scientific methodology to identify or connect missing links or dots to improve his/her ability to execute the task. The best combination is when the Natural Athlete "with talent" combined with "scientific" knowledge would apply it to perform a task at hand.

Like Michael Schumacher and Ferrari taking Michael’s blood samples between practice section to fine tune his peek performance base on nutrition, it was proven at his level that if he had an edge, or a millisecond over his competition it was worth to apply the scientific methodology to overcome the competition that lacked talent or scientific knowledge.

At any given sport the talent athlete can see things happening at a more defined/efficient pace, where the technical athlete would have to work mush harder to play catch up.

Edited by Sandro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This comes largely out of a conversation I had years ago with Tim Bacus (just wanted to give credit where it's due):

Occasionally at a match we'll see people show up who, with absolutely no real training, can fire a handgun as fast as the best shooters on the range. These are the people with just innately fast reflexes and great hand/eye coordination. The sort of people who are used to being able to excel at any sport they try. Strangely, such people don't tend to last long in our sort of shooting. Because shooting a handgun fast AND accurately isn't primarily a matter of innately great reflexes and hand/eye coordination, it's a matter of great technique. So, because they're relying solely on their physical advantages but don't really know what they're doing, the naturally gifted person, while he's very fast, isn't hitting anything. Such people tend to get really emotionally beaten up when they see how poorly they scored at the match; that doesn't fit their self-image as a naturally gifted person who's good at everything; so they get discouraged and quit.

Now when you get a shooter who starts out with innately great reflexes and hand/eye coordination AND has the self-discipline and strength of character to stick with it to the point they can bring their accuracy up to the level of their speed, that's when you get a Jerry Barnhart or a Jethro Dionisio - and that's also when you get someone who is very, VERY hard to beat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HUH?

You know this is an interesting thread. We were just talking about this the other day. If you look at someone who has played sports that involve similar activities we find in this sport, I would assume that if they were somewhat decent in those they can quickly grasp the movement portion of USPSA. We could take a high school linebacker or shortstop and have move through a course of fire and he could without a doubt beat the big boys by seconds. But now we put a pistol in their hand and we narrow it even further by putting in transitions and "A" zones, ports, etc. It increases the difficulty level, to say the least. But how much longer does it take for someone who can shoot pretty accurate, but had NO athletic development through their lives to develop the fluidity that an athlete has. Who will reach the limits of their ability sooner, The Shooter who has to learn to be an athlete or the athlete who has to learn to shoot... Man that is one for the ages. We got on this subject because we were talking about how the matches have started to be that one has to be fleet of foot and physically aggressive if you want to run with the big boys. The days of the stand an shoot reloads seem to be fading away. Look at the athletic ability of the Pro- boys, Travis, Max, KC, Blake, Danny Horner, Dave Sevigny, TGO, TJ, etc. and look at the courses of fire they excel and win matches at. I would be willing to bet that if we were to dig back in the youth of these guys and the previous studs, we may find a couple of old baseball, soccer, football photos when they were younger. I think that fitness is detrimental to success, The reason these guys can bust out of a starting position is because of their bodies ability to respond to the demands. I mean whats the worst that can happen if you run a couple of miles or eat alittle better or drop a few pounds...may not shoot any better but you will live longer! Well, I gotta go my pizza, hotdog, cheeseburger, frito sandwich is getting cold.

T-VS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis Tomasie used to be a member of a semi-pro soccer team (footwork and overall agility). Dave Sevigny used to be a very good hockey goalie (great hand/eye coordination). Todd Jarrett was a high school track star (sheer speed). Robbie Leatham turned down a college basketball scholarship to become a professional shooter (hand/eye coordination, speed, endurance).

OTOH, these days Robbie is probably about 50 pounds overweight and has one good knee. So while there's no doubt that having great physical movement capabilities certainly has to go in the "plus" column for a shooter, not having absolute top-level physical prowess in this area is not an iinsurmountable handicap either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis Tomasie used to be a member of a semi-pro soccer team (footwork and overall agility). Dave Sevigny used to be a very good hockey goalie (great hand/eye coordination). Todd Jarrett was a high school track star (sheer speed). Robbie Leatham turned down a college basketball scholarship to become a professional shooter (hand/eye coordination, speed, endurance).

OTOH, these days Robbie is probably about 50 pounds overweight and has one good knee. So while there's no doubt that having great physical movement capabilities certainly has to go in the "plus" column for a shooter, not having absolute top-level physical prowess in this area is not an iinsurmountable handicap either.

This is quite true. I remember talking with Max about that to some extent. He was saying that he was not a natural, gifted shooter. And that if he does not practice he loses the level he needs to be at. There are not many shooters at his level that still dryfire, draws, reloads, etc. i remember before i became friends with Max, being at a stage that had a start from the table, backs of hands on "x" 's. I saw Max over in the safe area practicing this when he was 2 or 3 shooters down. Those are the things that are encouraging, train hard, train right and be the best that you can. If it is the top of "YOUR" game and not the top of "THE" game so be it. Few can be the best, but your best is up to you!

T-VS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you remember Olympic Gymnastics/Ice Skating many years ago, Americans against the Russians. The Russians trained and trained on the technical aspects of their sports. They took sports to a whole new academic level. Their competitors were amazing strong but to some, lacked the style and flair of the Americans. This is not to say Americans did not train hard but they did train differently.

When I think of technical aspects I see folks who have talent then the discipline to train and improve. The talent guys to me are people like Michael Jordan, Dr J. they have great natural talent and worked hard. Dennis Rodman reminds me of a technical guy, does not have a 40 inch jump reach, actually never seems to have his toes leave the ground but he was the rebound king, based on technique rather than physical prowess.

All the great GMs have some great talent but I think in our sport more so than some others, needed great technique to excel to be champions, then never stopped practicing and learning. I remember something I attributed to TGO about the up and comers, it was something like, he had a million rounds down range and by the time the new guys get a million rounds down range he will have another million.

There is a great book that alludes to this issue: Outliers. It is a study on those who excel and why. Part of it talks about genius level kids in CA and how some excelled, some were average, and others not so good. They all had talent but there were environmental influences that allowed some to excel while others did not.

The conclusion is that it is not just nature v. nurture but a combination of both that leads to excellence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite true. I remember talking with Max about that to some extent. He was saying that he was not a natural, gifted shooter. And that if he does not practice he loses the level he needs to be at. There are not many shooters at his level that still dryfire, draws, reloads, etc. i remember before i became friends with Max, being at a stage that had a start from the table, backs of hands on "x" 's. I saw Max over in the safe area practicing this when he was 2 or 3 shooters down. Those are the things that are encouraging, train hard, train right and be the best that you can. If it is the top of "YOUR" game and not the top of "THE" game so be it. Few can be the best, but your best is up to you!

Anthony,

GREAT post. :D

Good to see another ex-paratrooper here. Though I guess you're never really an ex-paratrooper are you - it's something that kind of sticks with you forever. Patrick Sweeney is also a member of the fraternity. Fort Bragg '83-'85 here. Yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis Tomasie used to be a member of a semi-pro soccer team (footwork and overall agility). Dave Sevigny used to be a very good hockey goalie (great hand/eye coordination). Todd Jarrett was a high school track star (sheer speed). Robbie Leatham turned down a college basketball scholarship to become a professional shooter (hand/eye coordination, speed, endurance).

FWIW, I talked to Sevigny at the Pro Am. He doesn't play goal, but defense. Still does (imagine any other pro athlete's sponsors being happy with them running off to play ice hockey :surprise: )-- he was raffling off a Glock so his team (the "Stars") could buy some new jerseys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was intervewing Dave for an aritcle in the Glock Annual, he stated specifically he was "a very good goalie" and even sent me a snapshot of him as a goalie in a game. That doesn't mean that's the only thing he's ever done in hockey, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite true. I remember talking with Max about that to some extent. He was saying that he was not a natural, gifted shooter. And that if he does not practice he loses the level he needs to be at. There are not many shooters at his level that still dryfire, draws, reloads, etc. i remember before i became friends with Max, being at a stage that had a start from the table, backs of hands on "x" 's. I saw Max over in the safe area practicing this when he was 2 or 3 shooters down. Those are the things that are encouraging, train hard, train right and be the best that you can. If it is the top of "YOUR" game and not the top of "THE" game so be it. Few can be the best, but your best is up to you!

Anthony,

GREAT post. :D

Good to see another ex-paratrooper here. Though I guess you're never really an ex-paratrooper are you - it's something that kind of sticks with you forever. Patrick Sweeney is also a member of the fraternity. Fort Bragg '83-'85 here. Yourself?

Sorry Brother, I just saw this...

89-93 Cco 1/327th, 101st

96-2000 Cco 1/325 Air, 82d

I retired in Apr 07....I got tired of building pyramids for Pharaoh!!!

T-VS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would venture to say most "natural athletes" grew up moving around, ie. working, playing sports, or doing other things to develop good balance, strength, and hand eye coordination AND have the genetics to excel at physical activities. Once you have a good understanding of your physical environment and good control of your body, it is very easy to learn other activities, even if you do not have to "think" about it. Then there are the genetic freaks who are just "gifted" and can do things even well trained athletes can not do to some genetic anomaly.

Becoming excellent at anything requires some degree of technical aptitude, as the differences between good and great are quite minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of it comes right back, as so many things do, to personality type. ESFJs are probably the most naturally athletically capable of all the types, and one of their notable traits is that they tend to pick up new physical skills and tricks almost effortlessly.

I know that when I was a firearms instructors, about once every six months I'd get in a brand-new shooter who just instantly GOT it. Most people you tell, "Stand like this, hold the gun like this, manipulate the trigger like this, etc." and they say they understand. But somewhere between the mental understanding and the physcial execution, it kind of gets lost. Then every once in awhile, along comes along the person you tell, "Stand like this, hold the gun like this, manipulate the trigger like this, etc." and they just....do it. And they never seem to think that's a big deal. They don't understand that for other people, this is very hard, because for them it isn't. They've been doing it their entire lives.

I noticed over time these people invariably had certain traits in common.

(1) They weren't afraid of the gun. A lot of new shooters are, but all of my Excellers just approached the entire thing very matter-of-factly.

(2) Whether they knew it or not - and they didn't - they all had great hand/eye coodination. None of them were jocks or former jocks, BTW, and the idea that they had hand/eye coordination well above the norm always suprised them when I mentioned it. But it was instantly obvious just in the way their hands moved, the way they manipulated the gun.

(3) Finally they all had a superior ability to take in and synthesize new information, and put it to work almost immediately.

BTW, gender had nothing to do with it, they were equally divided between men and women. Nor did it seem that an exceptionally high I.Q. was required. I will say that none of the Excellers was dumb, and some were quite smart, but having a just-average I.Q. did not seem to be a handicap either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, gender had nothing to do with it, they were equally divided between men and women.

Interesting.

I would say that for all the people I trained to shoot a gun for their first time, by far, women "got it" much faster than men. My theory was that it was because women approached shooting with a clean plate. For that reason I felt most women simply did what I told them to. (Now if I could just get my girlfriend to do that.) :o

Whereas men, in general, seemed to have more ego at stake in learning to shoot. So they didn't learn as quickly.

be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew a guy about 15 years ago like this. I was shooting my bow and he told me he had never shot one and asked if he could shoot it.

I told him "stand like this, hold the bow like this" etc. His first shot slapped my arrow that was in the center of the bullseye. He handed it back and said "thats easy". :angry2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a martial arts instructor and find that women pick things up faster then guys because of the "clean plate" or unbiased start Benos mentioned above. However, the guys will often catch up and surpass the ladies because of their competitive spirit and physical coordination. (This does not apply in all cases - I have some really good female students that can thump the guys)

Natural Athlete - picks up just about any physical sport and is competitive quickly because of their coordination and competitive drive.

Technical Athlete - works hard and is disciplined to practice until they are proficient or good.

Just my experience as an instructor for 25 years. I've sent 2 teens to the U.S. Olympic Taekwondo Team and was the U.S. National Taekwondo champion in 86 & 87.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural Athlete - picks up just about any physical sport and is competitive quickly because of their coordination and competitive drive.

Technical Athlete - works hard and is disciplined to practice until they are proficient or good.

I believe that pretty much nails it. A "natural" can just do it without much practice or thought where a "technical" can still do it as well as a "natural" but they take much more study and practice to achieve the same level.

Now if you combine the two you get people like TGO, TT, Eric Graffel, Dave S. These guys are naturally gifted but also study and practice their skills like mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of it comes right back, as so many things do, to personality type. ESFJs are probably the most naturally athletically capable of all the types, and one of their notable traits is that they tend to pick up new physical skills and tricks almost effortlessly.

I know that when I was a firearms instructors, about once every six months I'd get in a brand-new shooter who just instantly GOT it. Most people you tell, "Stand like this, hold the gun like this, manipulate the trigger like this, etc." and they say they understand. But somewhere between the mental understanding and the physcial execution, it kind of gets lost. Then every once in awhile, along comes along the person you tell, "Stand like this, hold the gun like this, manipulate the trigger like this, etc." and they just....do it. And they never seem to think that's a big deal. They don't understand that for other people, this is very hard, because for them it isn't. They've been doing it their entire lives.

I noticed over time these people invariably had certain traits in common.

(1) They weren't afraid of the gun. A lot of new shooters are, but all of my Excellers just approached the entire thing very matter-of-factly.

(2) Whether they knew it or not - and they didn't - they all had great hand/eye coodination. None of them were jocks or former jocks, BTW, and the idea that they had hand/eye coordination well above the norm always suprised them when I mentioned it. But it was instantly obvious just in the way their hands moved, the way they manipulated the gun.

(3) Finally they all had a superior ability to take in and synthesize new information, and put it to work almost immediately.

BTW, gender had nothing to do with it, they were equally divided between men and women. Nor did it seem that an exceptionally high I.Q. was required. I will say that none of the Excellers was dumb, and some were quite smart, but having a just-average I.Q. did not seem to be a handicap either.

Duane, do you find you teach the natural shooter differently than the technical shooter? From the above, I think you would spend more time with the technical shooter, explaining things, walking through steps, etc. Where as with the natural shooter, you would let them discover their own way after the basics were established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all of my shooters were basic level students, and after one class I never saw them again. But - based on never having done it, natch - I'd say you were correct. I'm not one of those people who gets really hung on having people do something the "correct" way if they can come up with something that works better for them.

Y'know, I've noticed in the past that there are people in the world, instructors and non-instructors alike, who fixate early-on on one particular set of techniques, and assume that anyone who does anything different is wrong. It completely escapes their notice that the way the other person is doing it....works.

Some will say, "Well, that'll last right up until you kick their ass." Not necessarily. The person who wants to delude him- or herself will come up with some justification. Usually they'll blame it on the gun. I had a guy tell me they only way I could shoot the way I could was because I was using a "racegun." Yes, yes, it was all because of my iron sighted, non-compensated, near-stock, Glock 34 "racegun."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...