Do master competitors point-shoot?

[Flexmoney]

If you watch one of the top jo's shoot, it's very easy to tell when they see the dot before the second shot. It adds about .10 to .15 to their split.

It may be just the opposite. From my experience, it isn't the seeing that take the time. But, the seeing can allow one to notice that the something is off and needs adjustment. I don't have too many videos up, but I do have one that shows this. It's the first shot of the stage. I wasn't "over aiming"...something was off that I needed to correct. (might have flubbed the grip...I can't recall)

That cost what? Half a second? A full Second? It wasn't an aiming issue, it was...something else. Stage results.

[Nimitz]

Flex's description is one of the best I've heard in layman's terms for how the brain processes information which results in a person being able to accomplish something that if done serially would be impossible. The brain processes information orders of magnitude faster than our physical reaction time limits and through a tremendous amount of training you can learn to harness this ability to accomplish a task which otherwise might not seem possible.

The best examples that this is going on are top level shooters who take makeup shots with splits as fast as there original shot. Unless you simply choose to believe that they are not telling the truth about "seeing their sights on ever shot" there really is no other way this could be done. Once you reached a level where your subconscious mind is in control when you are shooting amazing things are possible.

If you choose not to believe this is possible that is your prerogative but you will have closed off any entire level of shooting expertise that will no longer be attainable

[eric nielsen]

Seeing is an analog process. It is conveyed by an electro-chemical process that is not quite up at the speed of light but for all purposes could be regarded as travelling that fast. How your mind interprets and then creates thoughts or emotions or reactive movements based on what you see is extremely variable but there is no inherent minimum reaction time needed to "see" anything. If you intention or survival response is strong enough you can see everything; the only limit is the focal quality of your peripheral vision (which is most of your vision).

[Chris iliff]

Full second Flex, easy.

Not to derail a good conversation, but that video was damn good shooting!

[Whoops!]

... you were posting .12 to .11 second splits. I'm going to say it's physically impossible for you to really see and use your sights effectively for the second shot at that speed.

By not studying science, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.

I might suggest checking your premise. It seems you hold a belief, lets call that a hypothesis, that contradicts observed empirical evidence from others. For your hypothesis to be true, the actual observations of others needs to be faulty. They would have to be wrong in their reporting of actual observed experience. Possible. But, is it likely?

Lets examine your hypothesis. One basis, it seems, would be your earlier posting about reaction time:

Here's one glaring human factor that many ignore in this sport. The best human reaction time is around .15 seconds. The top competitors are not above this human factor.

I agree, but you are applying the [probable] facts incorrectly, IMO. And, it is a common way of looking at things. I think we tend to look at things...especially if we are analytical in nature...as a linear progression. We probably do this even more when we are trying to learn/understand something. In other words, we want to organize the information...in chunks that we understand and relate to. We want....A...then B....then C...etc.

We look to understand things as a series of events. We tend to want to "see" things as a snapshot in time. Then, we'd do something based off that information. And, that is wrong.

The reason that is wrong is because it is too slow. We would be resetting our decision making after each "snapshot" that we deemed significant. (see OODA loop)

You actually speak to your current mindset on that when you say:

Very few top competitors are posting .15 second splits and calling their second shot in time for it to be worth going back and picking up. By the time their brain has processed the shot well enough to know where it hit, they are .15 to .3 seconds past the shot. This means they are well into their next target.

You see, that assumes very linear thinking. That assumes things happening in series.

To transition back to the other target would take another fraction of a second. Then they must rethink the process they had planned for the rest of the stage.

...and again.

And then this speaks to a very set and rigid structure:

A process they had ingrained into their head...

However, the reality is that things are multi-dimensional...lots of things are going on at once. The skill set needed is to be able to observe constantly, not just in series and resets. The honing of that skill set it to make responses to those constant observations into automatic actions. (for the OODA loop thinkers, you would take out the middle O and D...leaving just Observe and Action...with the action being automatic.)

How does this factor in?

I covered some of this in another thread a few years back. I had noticed, on a few occasions, that I had fired (needed and observed) makeup shots on steel with 0.17 splits. That short amount of time negates any after-the-shot reaction..because my reaction time just isn't fast enough to do that. And, I had not pre-planned to fire 2 shots on the steel for any reason. So, how do I account for being able to fire a needed makeup shot at a pace much faster than my reaction time?

I was able to do so because I was constantly observing and was able to pick up cues as the shot was being formulated/made. I was observing constantly, and did not have to wait until after the shot to know it was off. (maybe I saw my sights dip because of poor trigger pressure, maybe I saw the gun was moving long or short of the steel and/or not stopping on target)

Perhaps some of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. In .15 second or faster splits, you are not seeing the sights before you break the follow-up shot. In reading what was said here, by Cha and Flex, I believe that is clearly evident. Thus, you are not seeing the sights for every shot, you are seeing the sight after you have already broken the shot. You can call the shot after it has broken, but you did not see the sight prior to it being broken. This is human factors. It's a linear school of thought because it has already been studied and verified by scientific method. This is a critical aspect of understanding for laying down very fast, but effective splits. It's also the reason so many make up shots at that speed end up with a third shot, instead of a corrected second shot.

It is extremely safe and scientifically verified to say that if you corrected for your second shot before making it, you were already on the pathway to a .16 or greater second split. That make-up time probably ended up in a .25 second or greater split for that shot.

So let me see if I can state it more plainly, when you are breaking the second shot at that speed, it is physically impossible for you to have already seen your sights. As a result, you are making that second shot based upon input from your first shot. You are making that shot based only upon input from that first shot. When your brain finally catches up and realizes what it just did, you may indeed make a third shot based only upon input from that second shot. Luckily, thanks to ingrained muscle memory and skill already acquired, that third shot will likely hit the mark. You'll know it after it happens. After you've broken the shot and when your brain has finally had the time to call the shot

Edited December 4, 2013 by Whoops!

[Racinready300ex]

you are not seeing the sights for every shot, you are seeing the sight after you have already broken the shot.

How do you see something after it has already happened? See is present tense, to call your shot you have to see the sight when the shot breaks not after.

[Whoops!]

Everything we see is after it has already happened, our brains don't process anything instantly. In normal conversation about almost anything we can discuss seeing in a present tense. But, when we start talking about splits this fast, we can't.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Whoops!

[Racinready300ex]

Everything we see is after it has already happened, our brains don't process anything instantly. In normal conversation about almost anything we can discuss seeing in a present tense. But, when we start talking about splits this fast, we can't.

Your eye has to see it when it's happening, or your not going to see it at all.

Now to call your shot you are processing what you saw (past tense). And to make up a shot there may be some lag if your brain has to process that information and decide to take a follow up shot. But, I think the goal of training is to take the decision out of it. To be able to just shoot. But, either way you are still seeing it when it happens, or you aren't seeing it at all.

[dbooksta]

We need to acknowledge that there are physiological limitations involved here. @Whoops suggested the .15 second bound on reaction time. My neurophysiology is a little rusty: is that the bound on any reaction to visual stimulus? Or is it the bound on hands reacting to a visual stimulus, which means it's the sum of three processes:

1. ocular stimulus processing through the visual cortex (Observe)
2. post-processing of the perception to make a decision to act (Decide)
3. and then the delay between the decision to act and the impulse reaching the muscles (Act)

It seems @Flex suggests that training can cut out one of those steps, though I don't see how that's logically possible. There's no question that training can cut steps 2 and 3 to the physiological limit, but if you're waiting for a visual perception of the sights being on target to make a decision to act then you can't break that lower bound.

@Flex, it sounds like what you're describing is reacting to a perception of the first shot, thus putting the second "Decide" step before the first "Observe" step. That would get you sped up, but it also means you are point shooting because you've sent the signal to shoot again before you could physiologically acquire the sight picture. Which doesn't mean what you're saying is incorrect: After all, if you're that experienced your muscles will not break the second shot until you're on target, at which point you will have what you consider an acceptable sight picture. You can even "call the shot" because you can begin processing the second sight picture at the same time your muscles are breaking the shot. But if you couldn't point shoot you wouldn't be able to dissociate and reorder the Observe, Decide, and Act steps.

[dbooksta]

@Flex, @Cha, and the other masters who insist they always see their sights, can you clarify again what you count as a sight picture?

On your fastest splits is your focus staying on your front sight?

Does a target focus count as a sight picture, and if so do you ever adjust your sight alignment while focusing on a target?

I'm still curious to learn if there's a known physiological limit on focal transitions. Are you aware of a time delay when you make a focal transition from the target to the front sight? E.g., do you consciously avoid that focal transition when possible to save time?

[Jshuberg]

The splits being described here are beyond my ability, but I think I understand what is being discussed and think I may be able to phrase it in a way that might make more sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, if there's an error in my understanding I'd like to have it corrected.

The human eye is capable of "seeing" almost instantaneously. The "sample rate" is much faster than any human being is able to shoot. The eye is absolutely capable of seeing the front sight as it moves through recoil back down into the rear and on target again.

It isn't until it gets to the brain where things slow down. There are multiple levels in the brain where action and reaction can take place - the conscious layer and numerous subconscious layers. When sensory input enters the brain, it travels up the hierarchy from the lowest levels up to the conscious mind, and then back down again to the motor cortex to initiate an action/reaction. Each layer adds additional processing time for the both the input and output signals, which results in additional reaction time.

The conscious mind at the top processes things in a linear stream of conscious, and it is very slow. It is the most analytical layer of the mind, at the cost of speed. It takes around .25 seconds for sensory input to travel up the hierarchy to the conscious mind, and then instructions back down again to the motor cortex to react. However, it is possible to react to something in one of the lower subconscious layers through training. This decreases the reaction time required, and allows multiple observations and actions to take place simultaneously, as lower level of the mind are less linear.

When a person achieves the ability to call shots subconsciously, they will be able to know at the moment the shot breaks if they hit the target correctly, or if they need to take another shot. It's quite possible that this realization may occur before the front sight comes back down into the rear again. The conscious mind is still .25 seconds behind what is happening, but the subconscious can take the second shot and move on just like it can hit the clutch and brake when someone swerves at you on the freeway.

One observation I have made is that if you're calling your shots consciously, your mind can get in the way. There is a well known mental illusion known as chronostasis that will actually throw away small portions of memory and backfill them with a snapshot in time to eliminate saccades and other small transitional moments. Until a person can get past this effect and "see" using their subconscious mind, it may seem impossible. Once a person can train themself to "see" using the subconscious mind, and to react at a lower level of the subconscious mind, the difference in time between action and reaction shrinks considerably.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Jshuberg

[CHA-LEE]

Great Post Jay!!!

[CHA-LEE]

@Flex, @Cha, and the other masters who insist they always see their sights, can you clarify again what you count as a sight picture?

On your fastest splits is your focus staying on your front sight?

Does a target focus count as a sight picture, and if so do you ever adjust your sight alignment while focusing on a target?

I'm still curious to learn if there's a known physiological limit on focal transitions. Are you aware of a time delay when you make a focal transition from the target to the front sight? E.g., do you consciously avoid that focal transition when possible to save time?

Q1 - A sight picture is a visual representation of the target with the sights on top of it. What you are focusing on (Target, Front Sight, Rear Sight, something else) can vary given the shot difficulty and how distracting something is.

Q2 - On very fast splits my focus usually ends up on the FO rod in the front sight. The top and sides of the front sight may or may not be totally clear, but I am mainly observing the FO rod as it tracks up and down during recoil and it moving around within the rear notch. The placement of the FO rod within the rear notch allows me to call the shot effectively.

Q3 - Yes, there is a focal transition delay. That is why its important to determine which arrays of targets require the focal transition from sights to target then back to sights. For me, if targets are fairly close to one another and I can engage them all within the same stance (not needing to shuffle my feet) I will keep a hard focus on the sights. If there are targets to engage outside of my dug in stance I will transition my focus to the target to locate it as I am shifting my stance then bring my focus back to my sights as my sights are almost on target. Its best to minimize these focal transitions as much as possible and staying focused on the sights allows you to start shooting and calling your shots as soon as possible.

[CHA-LEE]

... you were posting .12 to .11 second splits. I'm going to say it's physically impossible for you to really see and use your sights effectively for the second shot at that speed.

By not studying science, you are limiting your own development. Good luck.

I might suggest checking your premise. It seems you hold a belief, lets call that a hypothesis, that contradicts observed empirical evidence from others. For your hypothesis to be true, the actual observations of others needs to be faulty. They would have to be wrong in their reporting of actual observed experience. Possible. But, is it likely?

Lets examine your hypothesis. One basis, it seems, would be your earlier posting about reaction time:

Here's one glaring human factor that many ignore in this sport. The best human reaction time is around .15 seconds. The top competitors are not above this human factor.

I agree, but you are applying the [probable] facts incorrectly, IMO. And, it is a common way of looking at things. I think we tend to look at things...especially if we are analytical in nature...as a linear progression. We probably do this even more when we are trying to learn/understand something. In other words, we want to organize the information...in chunks that we understand and relate to. We want....A...then B....then C...etc.

We look to understand things as a series of events. We tend to want to "see" things as a snapshot in time. Then, we'd do something based off that information. And, that is wrong.

The reason that is wrong is because it is too slow. We would be resetting our decision making after each "snapshot" that we deemed significant. (see OODA loop)

You actually speak to your current mindset on that when you say:

Very few top competitors are posting .15 second splits and calling their second shot in time for it to be worth going back and picking up. By the time their brain has processed the shot well enough to know where it hit, they are .15 to .3 seconds past the shot. This means they are well into their next target.

You see, that assumes very linear thinking. That assumes things happening in series.

To transition back to the other target would take another fraction of a second. Then they must rethink the process they had planned for the rest of the stage.

...and again.

And then this speaks to a very set and rigid structure:

A process they had ingrained into their head...

However, the reality is that things are multi-dimensional...lots of things are going on at once. The skill set needed is to be able to observe constantly, not just in series and resets. The honing of that skill set it to make responses to those constant observations into automatic actions. (for the OODA loop thinkers, you would take out the middle O and D...leaving just Observe and Action...with the action being automatic.)

How does this factor in?

I covered some of this in another thread a few years back. I had noticed, on a few occasions, that I had fired (needed and observed) makeup shots on steel with 0.17 splits. That short amount of time negates any after-the-shot reaction..because my reaction time just isn't fast enough to do that. And, I had not pre-planned to fire 2 shots on the steel for any reason. So, how do I account for being able to fire a needed makeup shot at a pace much faster than my reaction time?

I was able to do so because I was constantly observing and was able to pick up cues as the shot was being formulated/made. I was observing constantly, and did not have to wait until after the shot to know it was off. (maybe I saw my sights dip because of poor trigger pressure, maybe I saw the gun was moving long or short of the steel and/or not stopping on target)

Perhaps some of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. In .15 second or faster splits, you are not seeing the sights before you break the follow-up shot. In reading what was said here, by Cha and Flex, I believe that is clearly evident. Thus, you are not seeing the sights for every shot, you are seeing the sight after you have already broken the shot. You can call the shot after it has broken, but you did not see the sight prior to it being broken. This is human factors. It's a linear school of thought because it has already been studied and verified by scientific method. This is a critical aspect of understanding for laying down very fast, but effective splits. It's also the reason so many make up shots at that speed end up with a third shot, instead of a corrected second shot.

It is extremely safe and scientifically verified to say that if you corrected for your second shot before making it, you were already on the pathway to a .16 or greater second split. That make-up time probably ended up in a .25 second or greater split for that shot.

So let me see if I can state it more plainly, when you are breaking the second shot at that speed, it is physically impossible for you to have already seen your sights. As a result, you are making that second shot based upon input from your first shot. You are making that shot based only upon input from that first shot. When your brain finally catches up and realizes what it just did, you may indeed make a third shot based only upon input from that second shot. Luckily, thanks to ingrained muscle memory and skill already acquired, that third shot will likely hit the mark. You'll know it after it happens. After you've broken the shot and when your brain has finally had the time to call the shot

You are correct in the fact that while shooting fast splits there is "No Time to make mechanical corrections". This could be front sight alignment within the rear notch corrections or sights on target corrections. I am relying on my burned in natural point of aim, grip, and stance to get the sights on target in an aligned state any time I point the gun at a target. The more refined my natural point of aim, grip and stance skills are the less correction is needed to actually get the sights aligned and on target properly when you point at a target. When shooters refine these skills properly this is where they feel that since these aiming skills are burned in enough that the sights are aligned pretty good every time they point the gun at a target they don't have to use the sights any more. Thus enters the skill of point shooting.

I think the other thing you are not interpreting correctly is that calling your shots magically creates good shots. Calling your shots really has nothing to do with the mechanical execution quality of breaking the shot. You are simply observing the sight picture as the shot breaks and making a subconscious decision of the shot being good, bad, or marginal based on what was observed. Calling your shots does not ensure good on target hits, it only provides decision making feedback on what was seen as the shot broke. As I have stated before, when I am shooting I am rarely DECIDING or COMMANDING the pull of the trigger. Once my sights are on the target in a valid sight picture the shot breaks on its own subconsciously. This leaves me in a position of NOT KNOWING exactly when the next shot is going to break. So all I can do is turn up my awareness and observe what is going on in the sight picture as the gun is going off at whatever pace it wants to go at.

[toothguy]

CHA-LEE, I had a question if I may, back to what you were saying about the focal transition delay. My understanding is that your eyes stay with the front sight as much as possible. Just curious about something like a plate rack, do you still stay with the front sight during transitions or back and forth? Thanks.

[CHA-LEE]

CHA-LEE, I had a question if I may, back to what you were saying about the focal transition delay. My understanding is that your eyes stay with the front sight as much as possible. Just curious about something like a plate rack, do you still stay with the front sight during transitions or back and forth? Thanks.

For a plate rack I use a solid front sight focus. All of the plates are very close to one another and the transition is easily done during recoil to properly move over to the next plate.

A Texas star would be the opposite. I will locate the plate, then focus back to my sights to shoot, then focus back to the next plate to find it, then focus back to the sights to shoot it. This is usually needed because you are looking below where you are currently shooting to find the next plate to engage.

[Flexmoney]

Perhaps some of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. In .15 second or faster splits, you are not seeing the sights before you break the follow-up shot.

That is meaningless to me. You are stuck thinking along a timeline. I am talking about seeing in a continuous manner.

[Jshuberg]

Perhaps some of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. In .15 second or faster splits, you are not seeing the sights before you break the follow-up shot.

That is meaningless to me. You are stuck thinking along a timeline. I am talking about seeing in a continuous manner.

For clarity - are you saying that you are seeing, and comprehending what you are seeing in real-time, continuously throughout the entire event?

Edited December 4, 2013 by Jshuberg

[Flexmoney]

It is rather amazing what you can comprehend visually when you are able to remove distractions and just see.

That might entail removing any thoughts (distractions) about what you are suppose to see and how you are suppose to react (or even respond) to it.

[Nimitz]

It really all comes down whether you are using your conscious or subconscious mind to execute the tasks .... Until and unless you actually experience having your subconscious performs tasks it's easy to believe people are not reporting accuractly what they are doing or experiencing or that there is another explanation for the results. It's kinda like the expression - you don't know what you don't know ...

[Whoops!]

Perhaps some of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. In .15 second or faster splits, you are not seeing the sights before you break the follow-up shot.

That is meaningless to me. You are stuck thinking along a timeline. I am talking about seeing in a continuous manner.

Actually, your definition of seeing is what is different from myne. In my opinion, you don't see something until the picture is cognitively created from what your eyes interpreted. The picture of the sights after the first shot is not in your head for at least that long of a period of time.

Although as some have stated, our subconscious continues to process imagery at a time frame of less than .15 seconds, our conscious does not. As opposed to the theory here that people are shooting based off subconscious thought, I say it could only seem like they are because one can not accurately judge there own physiological delay. Even then, we could have a discussion on what exactly is subconscious thought. The way my theory plays into this, anyone who makes shots anywhere near this quickly must be shooting on their subconscious. However, even when relying solely on subconscious, it's going to take your brain more than .15 seconds to respond to an image with motor action. This is partially evidenced by the test below.

This is why I stand that with splits less than .15 seconds, we don't actually call the shot until after the shot has broken and we certainly don't see the sights in order to make the shot. We are pressing the trigger based on timing and rhythm. We are pressing the trigger based on the first shot. We don't know where it hit until, at least, .04 seconds after a .12 second split. Now, do this, count to .04 or even .08 seconds in your head. I don't think any of us can. We can't interpret that small of a time frame so it may seem like we're doing it at the same time that it happens.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/games/reaction-time.html

So, technically what I'm saying is this . . . Anytime anyone has a split faster than .15 seconds, he or she is point shooting. You may see where your sights were after the shot broke, but when you made that shot, you did not see the sights.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Whoops!

[juan]

i believe we are observing the sights at that speed but we have already commited to pulling the trigger prior to the sights coming down on the tgt,timing the gun. hence the make up shot.

[Chris iliff]

The splits being described here are beyond my ability, but I think I understand what is being discussed and think I may be able to phrase it in a way that might make more sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, if there's an error in my understanding I'd like to have it corrected.

The human eye is capable of "seeing" almost instantaneously. The "sample rate" is much faster than any human being is able to shoot. The eye is absolutely capable of seeing the front sight as it moves through recoil back down into the rear and on target again.

It isn't until it gets to the brain where things slow down. There are multiple levels in the brain where action and reaction can take place - the conscious layer and numerous subconscious layers. When sensory input enters the brain, it travels up the hierarchy from the lowest levels up to the conscious mind, and then back down again to the motor cortex to initiate an action/reaction. Each layer adds additional processing time for the both the input and output signals, which results in additional reaction time.

The conscious mind at the top processes things in a linear stream of conscious, and it is very slow. It is the most analytical layer of the mind, at the cost of speed. It takes around .25 seconds for sensory input to travel up the hierarchy to the conscious mind, and then instructions back down again to the motor cortex to react. However, it is possible to react to something in one of the lower subconscious layers through training. This decreases the reaction time required, and allows multiple observations and actions to take place simultaneously, as lower level of the mind are less linear.

When a person achieves the ability to call shots subconsciously, they will be able to know at the moment the shot breaks if they hit the target correctly, or if they need to take another shot. It's quite possible that this realization may occur before the front sight comes back down into the rear again. The conscious mind is still .25 seconds behind what is happening, but the subconscious can take the second shot and move on just like it can hit the clutch and brake when someone swerves at you on the freeway.

One observation I have made is that if you're calling your shots consciously, your mind can get in the way. There is a well known mental illusion known as chronostasis that will actually throw away small portions of memory and backfill them with a snapshot in time to eliminate saccades and other small transitional moments. Until a person can get past this effect and "see" using their subconscious mind, it may seem impossible. Once a person can train themself to "see" using the subconscious mind, and to react at a lower level of the subconscious mind, the difference in time between action and reaction shrinks considerably.

Whoops, did you miss this post? Do you understand that during conscious thought we are only capable of doing one thing at a time, hence the linear progression of events that you seem stuck on. The opposite side of the conscious state is the subconscious state. When operating in the subconscious state, scientist can not calculate the # of things we are capable of doing seemingly at the same time. I've read estimates that they think we can do millions of things at the same time when allowing our subconscious to take over. Cool huh. It Helped me understand athletes and the "zone", think Air Jordan. He tried very hard to describe his own uncanny ability and the best we got from him was "the whole world was a huge bucket, I couldn't miss". He was playing subconsciously. No thinking.

You want desperately to understand and quantify something that can only be experienced to fully grasp and appreciate. Flex and CHA-LEE are trying to tell you about something real and that is experienced by people in all kinds of sports. Generally those near the very top of their sports.

[Ben Stoeger]

So, technically what I'm saying is this . . . Anytime anyone has a split faster than .15 seconds, he or she is point shooting. You may see where your sights were after the shot broke, but when you made that shot, you did not see the sights.

I think it follows from this that the secret to learning to shoot fast is to learning to shoot without using the sights.

[motosapiens]

So, technically what I'm saying is this . . . Anytime anyone has a split faster than .15 seconds, he or she is point shooting. You may see where your sights were after the shot broke, but when you made that shot, you did not see the sights.

That seems pretty dogmatic, but I'm not subtle enough to make fun of you the way Ben did.

I'm not even a very good shooter (just made , but at 7-10 yards, my sights never even lift all the way out of the a-zone when shooting bill drills. I can see them the whole time and just pull the trigger when they drop back into the middle of the a-zone. admittedly, my splits are in the .18-21 range, so that doesn't disprove your dogma, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to that a vastly more experienced shooter might be able to go 20% faster while seeing the sights the whole time just like I do at my pedestrian pace.

I think the concept of point shooting doesn't have much to do with splits anyway.