Jake Di Vita

That's a good question. One I'd like to know the answer to myself. I've shot 140% on classifiers before. That shouldn't be possible if that number was based off of elite performances.

It has nothing to do with percentiles of the population. It is percentage against a number that remains unadjusted over time. A GM isn't someone who is in the top 5% of all USPSA shooters. A GM is someone who shoots at 95% or above on a pre-determined number for classifiers.

Ok...we've lambasted him enough.

PJB, What you are saying is called reification. You're treating an abstract as if it were reality. While the 5% of shooters being GMs may have been the original idea, ideas and theory rarely conform to reality in every way.

More shooters and better access to information. Now picking the minds of some of the best shooters in the world is only a click away.

Alright Kurt, fuel the fire more.

Proper calling of shots eliminates hesitation. Regarding match conditions, penalties, or any other outside pressure - I'm not thinking about that stuff when I'm shooting and I would never change my game plan because I might mess up under pressure. That is a telltale symptom of a bigger root problem. Taking less shots is always going to be faster than taking more shots...unless you aren't 100% confident in your shot calling ability (thus creating hesitation). When I have the resources, I will be happy to prove it to you.

OK, and what are the results if you have no FTNs? Would you not have a sizable advantage? Once again, let me state I think there is definitely a time and a place for 2 anywhere. It just doesn't make sense to me to do that at targets that I can hit with one alpha 20 out of 20 times. Kurt, Is there any time where you would fire one alpha instead of 2 anywhere? A duck at 5 yards for example? If you would still shoot 2, why?

Now calling shots is reserved for Grandmasters who have had training from great shooters and only because they used a ton of money and time? C'mon...Calling shots is nothing more than knowing where your gun was pointed when it fired, which I first learned how to do as a B shooter. And my point is, if shooters can't do that yet - falling back on a crutch is not the way to make it happen...nor is it necessarily the most efficient way to negotiate a stage.

Kurt, I never said I would do that on every target. On partials at distance, shooting 2 is a reasonable deal. How about open targets at 5 yards? Do you shoot 2 on them as well? I'm not in a position where I can do what you ask right now, but when I am I will.

I wasn't talking about shooting with a rifle. As I said in the earlier post, I don't have enough experience with them to have an educated opinion on it. How many times would you say you do this in a given match?

I have no idea. I haven't shot much 3-gun, but what I have shot that was under the 1A/2 anywhere rules, I always hit each alpha and never had a problem. I'd really like to hear the top gun's reasoning behind it. How does target size, placement, or movement have anything to do with calling your shots? We aren't talking about transitions here - I really don't see how this has anything to do with the subject at all. When you consider that it takes no longer to shoot an Alpha than it does to shoot at brown this boils down to the ability of calling shots. The only reason you would shoot more than one round is if you weren't sure you hit an A with your first shot. Otherwise all you are doing is firing worthless shots (IE; wasting time). I can see this at 25 yards...not at 10 yards. This is a shot calling problem. It's simple math, less shots (more often than not) = faster time. Also...I know because I read the sights the instant the gun fired. It has nothing to do with muscle memory.

I 100% disagree with you here. I understand the reasoning but I believe the logic behind it is flawed. It takes no longer to shoot an A (and KNOW it is an A) than it takes to shoot two anywhere.

I like the idea of possibly getting more main stream attention towards USPSA...but that is damn hard to argue with.

Also I should stipulate that this is only concerning pistol targets. I don't have enough experience with rifles to have an educated opinion on it.

JT, When I'm talking about people who win, I'm talking about the best shooters in the world. And I'll answer your question with a question: Do you shoot from the hip out to 100 yards and beyond? If not, why? Kelly, I'm actually surprised to read that from you. Do you really believe you can spray 2 rounds at a target faster than you can call 1 shot? At my best, I was able to score the targets real time as I shot them, and I know of several people for sure that do the same thing. It doesn't slow them down. Uhhh yep. Sounds just like any USPSA match in the country. I don't consider this a problem. I remember Brian telling a story about the steel challenge a long time ago where a plate on speed option (I could have the details screwed up) had rubber on the back of it to deaden the sound. IIRC he made up the shot because he didn't hear the ding and had two rounds in the center of the plate upon examination later - which is where the not listening for the hit came from.. I wasn't talking about getting feedback from the steel...you get your feedback from the sights of course. My point is you wouldn't take two shots at each piece of steel (for insurance or not) because 1 shot is all that is required. Similar to steel if you call a bad shot (IE, out of or close to out of the A zone) it is well within your purview to make it up - but arbitrarily deciding to shoot an extra shot on every target is not going to give you the best result. Sure it works and it's "safe" but that doesn't mean it's efficient. I remember talking to Max one time after an Area match...he was pissed that he had 6 make-up shots for the entire match. Probably not a coincidence that he wins most matches he enters.

Thanks Brian, I've actually had the rough draft written for about 3 years now. Come to think of it, I'd like to go back and read it again now to see how my opinions may have changed.

Perhaps you should email them to get the answer from the horse's mouth. Although I would contend that the rifle and shotgun portion of the match have a higher bearing on the results than the pistol portion. In that scenario you could likely get away with less than ideal execution with the pistol, but that doesn't mean it's the best way of doing it. Come to think of it...it would likely be better to just treat those targets as steel. How much would it effect your score if you shot two rounds at every piece of steel you encountered regardless of whether you hit it the first time or not.

I was once told I would never become a GM because I have to shift my grip in order to hit the mag release. Because of that I took a fanatical approach to developing my reloading ability. I know a lot of other people who hear things like that and believe them without a fight. Those people will never be GMs. I'd also say that anyone that can hit M can hit GM barring some physiological aberration. Most M class shooters are as fast as GMs, they just lack accuracy and consistency. Ultimately I think it comes down to how much people are willing to sacrifice to hit their goals. If Joe shooter practiced for hours a day. If he ate, drank, slept, and bled shooting. If he was on a continuous mission to better himself by reading, thinking, and cross training every single day. If they never missed a training session. I'd bet on that shooter becoming a GM every time. It might take months, it might take years. Persistence is critical. Now obviously this comes at a very high price - usually to the exclusion of all other things besides work and family. Most people are not willing to pay that price, therefore most people will not become GMs. Does it come easier for some than others? Sure, absolutely. But I refuse to say that someone can't do something because their hand-eye coordination isn't great. You know what they say - The person who says it can't be done is often interrupted by the person doing it.

Well as has been discussed many times, it is no slower to know where you hit than it is to not know. I would also say if your target is simply whatever is brown, you give yourself a higher chance of missing the target entirely. I'll wager that isn't true for the people who win. That is not a coincidence. Sounds like you don't trust your ability to call the shot. There is no extra time required to shoot an A as opposed to a blind shot on brown. Not to mention if the shot you called was questionable, you have the option of making it up. But to shoot two rounds on every target when it is not necessary just doesn't make sense to me. Figure every time you do that it adds at least .25 to your time. Decide to shoot 8 doubles instead of 8 alphas and all of a sudden your 2 seconds behind before you even start the stage.

What percentage of shooters make A class? With very few exceptions, 100% of those who decide to.

Why shoot two if you called an A on your first shot?

I look back at post #1223....looks like he already has brung it crispy keen.

Why not just use real targets?

I've done it about a million times. You'll be fine.