Natrual Shooters

[BrianOFB]

I am curious to ask what in your opinion would be a natural shooter.

[Paul Burtchell]

Someone with little or no prior experience with shooting a firearm, showing up to a shooting sports competition and doing better than the majority of the experienced competitors.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Paul Burtchell

[MarkCO]

I have come to beleive there is no such thing. In 22 years of a dozen forms of competition and having trained about 5,000 people to shoot pistol, I have not EVER seen someone do better at a match or skill than an experienced shooter, even bad experienced shooters.

Shooting is not a "natural" ingrained action from any perspective. The people who tend to excel rapidly have other developed skills that transfer and make it "look" like they have natural shooting ability. The ability to calm oneself down, strength, endurance, higher than normal amount of fast twitch muscles, good eye hand co-ordination, good peripheral vision, development of weak side motor skills, low blood pressure, and motivation are all great personal assests when developing shooting skill.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Give me a MLB shortstop or NBA point guard who has never shot a gun (but who WANTS to) and 6 months and I can coach them to USPSA GM in Open or Limited.

[GrumpyOne]

Take the Robert Redford movie, "The Natural". He could hit, pitch, catch, etc. But, it wan't that he was a "Natural", he father had so loved baseball, he started him way young to make him a ball player. There are those with talent, to be sure, but natural? I don't believe so...

[konkapot]

Mostly agreeing with MarkCO.

I would say that there are people who do have some innate/inherent skills that allow them learn new skills quicker and better than others.

Child stars in many arenas are examples of this.

Sometimes (especially in the shooting community) people justify their own laziness by saying that others are better than them only because of natural talent.

On the flipside, some folks with some of that inherent/latent "natural" ability try to claim all the credit for their good genes.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

FY42385

[GrumpyOne]

Mostly agreeing with MarkCO.

I would say that there are people who do have some innate/inherent skills that allow them learn new skills quicker and better than others.

Child stars in many arenas are examples of this.

Sometimes (especially in the shooting community) people justify their own laziness by saying that others are better than them only because of natural talent.

On the flipside, some folks with some of that inherent/latent "natural" ability try to claim all the credit for their good genes.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

FY42385

Truth? You can't handle the truth!

[sfinney]

There are some people that (from birth I dare say) DO have a physical and or mental advantage to becoming a better (fill in the blank). Whether its shooting, or other sports. Every sport has certain body types and skill sets that enable some to better than others, all other things (like amount of training) being equal.

Now, you take that inherent raw potential, and THEN train like the dickens, and you end up being a "natural" super star.

For example, I could never be a pro NBA Center, no matter how hard I try. But you take someone with right entering physical attributes, and then have them train and work harder than everybody else, and they might be able to be one.

In shooting, some people have innately better hand/eye coordination, better 3D processing skills, better physical skill sets.

Can you take an average person and train them to be a top level shooter..... yes. But if start with someone who is "gifted" with the right reflexs or natural skill sets, and then train, train, train, then they can be come THE top shooter.

So, I am not saying that the best shooters haven't had to work harder than everyone else to get where they are today... but I am saying add that hard work, discipline, and effort to a superior raw product, and your final potential should be higher.

Most "natural" athletes have worked their ass off to be what the are. But I do believe there are some freaks of nature out there that can just do it.

[Aglifter]

There's always going to be certain phenoms, who are naturally gifted - but those people, combined w. the requisite discipline to develop those gifts, are quite rare. The vast majority of your pro-athletes are the product of a body suited for the sport, and healthy, and determination.

Mental ability goes much further, w.in reason, than physical ability.

Now, it doesn't mean that most people could train themselves in Miculek, but I suspect most people could make GM, if they trained - this could change as the sport develops, and training techniques improve.

[Reshoot]

There are those that pick things up quickly and easily but, I wouldn't call them "naturals". Me? I have to work hard just to become average

[Field]

a natural is someone whos built to excel at said activity due to a combo of thier genetic traits.

most people are more or less a natural at something

[Loves2Shoot]

I am curious to ask what in your opinion would be a natural shooter.

Someone who is willing to do the same thing over and over and over and obsessively evaluating every detail and nuance of what they are doing until they can perform at the limits of human performance.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Loves2Shoot

[Field]

Someone who is willing to do the same thing over and over and over and obsessively evaluating every detail and nuance of what they are doing until they can perform at the limits of human performance.

there is a difference between a natural and a hard worker. the lines can be blurry and sometimes it is hard to tell the difference when looking at different people. but this description above is that of a try-hard.

[Singlestack]

Someone who is willing to do the same thing over and over and over and obsessively evaluating every detail and nuance of what they are doing until they can perform at the limits of human performance.

there is a difference between a natural and a hard worker. the lines can be blurry and sometimes it is hard to tell the difference when looking at different people. but this description above is that of a try-hard.

+1 to Field. A natural would be able to perform a task very well with little practice.

[Loves2Shoot]

Bingo

That is why there there aren't "natural shooters" and the "try-hard" gene is the only common gene that I see in the only shooters I've known to make shooting look natural. From TGO to BJ and Nils to Benny Hill, no one makes shoot look easy without the "try hard" gene and lots of practice.

That is why I answered to OP's question the way I did. How long and how fast to master the skills will vary by training, physical and mental ability of course. Some will have to do those things 1000 times, some a million, but without the desire and dedication, I don't see it happening.

ps. I think that trying hard might be confused with the analysis and correction skill that it take to program your body to do any action.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Loves2Shoot

[chefcs5]

I have met a naturral shooter.it is weird. He started shooting bullseye had never shot a gun in his life. His 3rd match he won. his 5th match he baet a guy who has like 100 medals from camp perry. We got him a glock and he won his 2nd ppc match. So he came out to a uspsa match. he placed 3rd of 11 in production his first match. he has won the last 4 matches and we have 2 A class 1 B class and a ton of solid C class shooters. his first classification is as a B. He has only been shooting since last november. its crazy he had never even shot a bb gun before. I am so jealous I work my ass off and come in 3rd or so every month to him. he shoots 1-2 times a month and smokes me. I have been shooting trap for like 15 years and uspsa for 2.5..seems a natural to me

[G-ManBart]

No offense, but the question is simply too broad. Everyone seems to be talking about a natural USPSA shooter, but that isn't how the question was phrased. The skills to be a top trap shooter (for example) are quite different from being a top USPSA shooter. Trap shooters stand in one place, we're almost always moving. They see a relatively limited number of presentations from known distances where we see all kinds of presentations, etc, etc, etc.

Generally speaking, I don't think there really is such a thing as a natural, but some folks do have certain natural abilities that will help them if they put the effort in. R,

[lugnut]

Not being facetious but does it really matter? We all learn everything differently... but in the end it doesn't really matter. What matters is how to help one's self to learn as efficiently as possible. I know only one thing that will help me- good, smart training.

[dagger10k]

I've been told before by others that I am a natural. I can tell you it is not true. I am only a low A, and it took me hundreds of hours of practice to get where I am.

I honestly don't believe that there are any 'naturals'. I've seen people who make shooting look effortless, but that is because they work hard enough to make it effortless for them.

Some people might learn faster than others, but it's the journey that matters anyway. At least that's my opinion.

Edited October 20, 2010 by dagger10k

[juan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Give me a MLB shortstop or NBA point guard who has never shot a gun (but who WANTS to) and 6 months and I can coach them to USPSA GM in Open or Limited.

Markco

I got 6 months

how much do you charge ?

[MarkCO]

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Give me a MLB shortstop or NBA point guard who has never shot a gun (but who WANTS to) and 6 months and I can coach them to USPSA GM in Open or Limited.

Markco

I got 6 months

how much do you charge ?

If you fit the criteria, nothing!

[ParaGunner]

I am curious to ask what in your opinion would be a natural shooter.

A natural would be a shooter not using performance enhancing substances.