Do master competitors point-shoot?

[Jshuberg]

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.

I disagree with this. There are multiple layers of the subconscious mind. Lower levels can process sensory input and react much quicker than higher level layers. Think about all of the hundreds of thousands of simultaneous actions and reactions that are going on when a ballroom dancer is dancing. All kinds of near instantaneous adjustments are being made all simultaneously, from adjusting to the texture of the floor, minor changes and variation that effect balance, changes in a persons performance based on energy level, caffeine, nicotine, muscle fatigue, etc. At the level of performance the top dancers operate at, reaction times have to be what some would consider unnaturally fast. Developing procedural memory (AKA muscle memory) plays a significant role, but they also have to be capable of adapting and adjusting to variations in order to do what they do.

The same is true of shooting. There is simply no way to explain how a person is able to determine they made a bad shot and then break a 2nd shot in less than around .2 seconds, unless you acknowledge that while the conscious mind is incapable of this, that lower levels of the subconscious mind are.

I tried that reaction timer you posted. I like it! It took me quite a few tries to get it, but it works nicely. The fastest I was able to get was .13 seconds (If only I could shoot this fast using proper technique!). One observation I made was that when I was reacting at around .15 or so, I was hitting the mouse at about the same time that I became aware that the color changed. My subconscious mind sent the instruction to my hand to click the mouse before I had actually become consciously aware the color had changed. The same has happened to me when lining up my sights for an accurate long distance shot. Often times (and more frequently the more I train) the gun goes off without me being aware that I was pressing the trigger at all. It literally surprised me when then the shot broke.

At first I was concerned that I was getting sloppy with my finger and had a negligent discharge (albeit on target). The interesting thing was that when this happened, it was typically a better shot than normal. If I shot a string this way, my group was considerably tighter than when I would consciously began pressing the trigger. After researching it, I discovered that this was not me becoming sloppy, it was that my subconscious initiated the trigger press before my conscious mind even realized I had the proper sight picture. It doesn't always happen this way, but I try to allow this to happen whenever possible, and have discovered that when you distract the conscious mind with something else, it happens more readily. This same mechanism is what allows the best shooters to identify that they made a bad shot, and to shoot a follow up shot before moving on in less time than the conscious mind is capable of reacting.

While I am able to "let go" and let the conscious mind control the operation of the pistol much of the time, my awareness is still at the conscious layer, meaning that in order for me to call my shots properly, I need to slow down to the speed of the conscious minds reaction time, or around .20 seconds. I suspect that those who have mastered this technique are able to move their awareness from the conscious to the subconscious layer of the mind where the reaction is being performed. I believe this to be the main thing that is currently holding me back, the ability to shift my awareness to the layer of the subconscious that is controlling the pistol.

Could those of you who have mastered this ability confirm that your awareness is moved into the subconscious, and that it's not just pre-programmed subconscious reactions? If I'm right about this, do you have any recommendations for a guy who is kind of getting there to be able to shift to this altered state of consciousness on demand while shooting. I would very much appreciate the tips!!

Edited December 5, 2013 by Jshuberg

[dbooksta]

OK, so there's clearly a "zen to pistol shooting." If you're willing to believe the subconscious mind can do anything that probably doesn't hurt, but it doesn't explain what's going on. Sure, exceptional athletes and performers can do things that are impossible until they're hardwired below the level of conscious control. For example, virtuosos can pretty much perform blindfolded because they don't have an OODA loop.

Can you subconscious/zen advocates give any example of performers that can reliably perform a feat that requires reaction to a visual stimulus faster than .15 seconds?

NB: In my original post I suggested an experiment that might settle the question. Any takers?

[Jshuberg]

The subconscious mind can't do "anything", but it can do things that many people would believe impossible, until they actually see someone do it. Specifically it can perform a complex orchestration of actions simultaneously, with potentially the same level of attention given to each constituent part. The subconscious can also observe and react faster than the conscious mind can. This explains why there is a performance gap between those who are good, and those who are really good. Those who are really good have managed to tap the performance advantages that only surrendering yourself to the subconscious mind can provide.

Given the descriptions of those at the top of their game, they're not just simply reacting at the subconscious level, but that they have shifted their awareness to the subconscious level as well. It's an altered state of consciousness, where the mind becomes aware of its own lower-level happenings, unfiltered by logic or ego. I believe that this is what many people refer to as "seeing". It's not simply visual observation, it's gaining an additional level of understanding of what is being observed by letting go of those elements in the conscious mind that distort the understanding of what is being observed.

I used to practice transcendental meditation regularly many years ago, and still do from time to time. I've experienced altered states of consciousness, but I haven't figured out the mechanism or "trick" to dropping my awareness down to the level where I can call shots faster than my conscious reaction times. Not yet anyways

In the past I've tried decoupling the mind from my environment when shooting, it didn't work. I've tried distracting the conscious mind, and while this does work well at handing the performance of a task off to the subconscious, it didn't drop awareness to the subconscious. I've tried putting my conscious mind to the task of simply observing as much as possible, which kind of works sometimes, but only briefly and on occasion. I've recently began to suspect that I need to find a way to consciously let go of my ego, to willfully drop personality and just "be" before my awareness will drop in an "active" mental environment.

Thoughts?

Edited December 5, 2013 by Jshuberg

[Flexmoney]

Can you subconscious/zen advocates give any example of performers that can reliably perform a feat that requires reaction to a visual stimulus faster than .15 seconds?

I'm not sure who is disagreeing with reaction time? I'm suggesting that it doesn't have to be the main factor, as we don't have to do things one domino at a time.

I know we've had some conversations on this in the past...I'll see if I can dig up a thread or two.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7986&page=2#entry775246

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=133375&page=2#entry1502347

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=41404#entry471179

[Flexmoney]

NB: In my original post I suggested an experiment that might settle the question. Any takers?

Your opening post reminded me a bit of Swiss Cheese.

- You made an assumption about Mas shooting a G26, and then drew a conclusion from that. I'd have a hard time agreeing with your assumption, and your conclusion.

- You read something into Bob's article in Front Sight that Bob clarified that he didn't mean at all.

- You made an assertion that those with experience don't really know what it is that they are experiencing. That one is a bit ironic, LOL.

- You suggested an experiment, which might have expected results, but doesn't necessarily support your assertion.

[CHA-LEE]

Jshuberg> I struggled with your exact issue of "Calling On" the subconscious mind to get tasks done but yielding inconsistent results in doing just that. After a bunch of testing I found that if I have solid confidence in completing a shooting task I can simply allow my subconscious to get it done. To trigger this I will use a stage plan where I do not inject or mandate a specific shooting order, speed or desired sight picture for a given array of targets. I will instead focus on formulating and burning in a stage plan that puts my body and stance in the proper position which will allow the desired targets to be seen and engaged.

My stage plans use to be a very complex and detailed orchestration of desired actions. When doing this I would only be able to shoot from a conscious level because that level of thought was needed to verify that I am still "On Schedule" with the defined plan. Today my stage plans are far more simple. I only consciously think about hitting specific shooting positions within the stage and don't really come up with a "Shooting Plan" for the target engagement while in the shooting position. Doing this forces my subconscious to take over and get the shooting done when I get to the shooting position. Obviously if there is a complex target engagement order requirement for the shooting position then that portion of the stage has to be programed properly. But if its a simple shooting position were it really does not matter what order the targets are shot in I leave that determination 100% up to my subconscious to figure out on the fly during the stage run. As stated before, if you don't have solid confidence in the shooting skill that you are forcing your subconscious to do it will not happen at that level.

[Chills1994]

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.

+1

Barring any other visual/auditory/kinesthetic/tactile inputs, the brain/mind/body is basically in an auto-pilot mode set to "free fire zone". Kind of a continuous stimulus-response loop that is only interupted by say feeling your foot is over the fault line.

I am sure at some point researchers have hooked up EEG's to master class _________ and compared their brainwave activity against amateurs as a way of proving that master classed ________ are "in the zone" or in some zen like state. The technology probably isn't there just yet where a GM shooter could get wired up and not feel encumbered by such an apparatus.

About the coolest thing I have seen so far was from Canada where they compared the eye tracking of SWAT cops vs. rookie cops.

I would guess that

[Chills1994]

Just to throw this out there too. I am sure that most of us here are not picturing subconcious vs. concious as strictly a binary option, but rather conciousness as a spectrum or continuim. Maybe the better word to use is attention, that there are different levels of attention.

[dbooksta]

NB: In my original post I suggested an experiment that might settle the question. Any takers?

Your opening post reminded me a bit of Swiss Cheese.

- You made an assumption about Mas shooting a G26, and then drew a conclusion from that. I'd have a hard time agreeing with your assumption, and your conclusion.

- You read something into Bob's article in Front Sight that Bob clarified that he didn't mean at all.

- You made an assertion that those with experience don't really know what it is that they are experiencing. That one is a bit ironic, LOL.

- You suggested an experiment, which might have expected results, but doesn't necessarily support your assertion.

Fair enough, let me try again:

Definition: Point shooting is the act of triggering a shot with gun alignment based on muscle memory, not based on visual confirmation of sight alignment.

Hypothesis: Top shooters often point-shoot.

Evidence: Top shooters execute splits that are faster than physiologically possible if they were to wait for a proper sight picture before triggering the shot.

Proposal: Alter the grip angle on such a shooter's gun so that he can't rely on muscle memory to align it (or if he does the shot will go high or low). If he is unable to execute accurate hyper-splits in that condition then we have evidence that he was using muscle memory, not sight alignment -- i.e., he was point-shooting.

Caveat: Shooter might be able to quickly adapt to the changed grip angle, so a negative on the test doesn't negate the hypothesis. I can't think of a way to control for this. Suggestions on better experiment designs welcome!

[Chills1994]

@ dbooksta, go do an advanced search here using the keyword "D.R. Middlebrooks".

He might have called it the "fistfire method", in case you need another key word to search for.

That might give you some insight on what the Masters and the GM's on this forum feel about so called "point shooting".

[CHA-LEE]

You can bring the horse to the water, but you can't force him to drink......

I have tired my best to explain what is going on during ultra fast splits WHILE calling your shots. But there still seems to be skepticism around it even being possible. Until you can experience it first hand yourself I guess it will forever be "impossible" for anyone to do. I will continue on doing the "impossible" since I must be delusional for even thinking I can.

[Ssanders224]

I won't jump into the full discussion, but the problem I have with this topic is that point shooting is somewhat subjective.

For me, on open targets <7 yds, I will be honest and say that I do not have a hard sight focus on both shots. I will usually see the sights very clearly before the first shot breaks, and unless I do something stupid, the gun (sights) will not leave the A after the shot. Therefore, I break the second shot simultaneously. There are times when I call a bad second shot, but it might be because I saw something, felt something, bad grip, etc... Not necissarily because I clearly saw the sights lined up in the wrong spot when I broke the shot.

Again, this is on open, close targets. Further targets, or tight shots, I see the sights dead clear on each shot... But they will also be >.15 splits.

[45dotACP]

I think it all boils down to the one question of the day. Can you call your shots? If not, then mega fast splits seem to be "Point shooting". But the key remains to be this. If you're saying a GM level shooter is "point shooting" because his splits are too fast for him to physiologically see, you are assuredly splitting hairs. Point shooting is the stuff taught by people who throw around phrases like "combat accuracy" or who advocate utilizing the appropriate kinesthetic weapons manipulation dynamic for unsecured hostile operating environments...it is not the notion of said GM firing a pair of shots and knowing, based on the sight picture and knowing exactly how his gun behaves during recoil, that both shots are grouped in the A-zone, head box or whatever he is aimed at. But the obvious fact is still that sights were involved and this negates the whole "point" aspect of shooting.

(Also as to the notion of an experiment above, I seem to recall a certain GM by the name of Dave Sevigny who shot glocks and single stack, taking the title from Rob Leatham, because he's Dave Sevigny and you can change the grip angle on his gun however you'd like, and he'd still pull of mega fast splits because he's a GM.)

Edited December 5, 2013 by 45dotACP

[dbooksta]

Here's why I think this isn't splitting hairs: If they're point shooting, consciously or not, then that suggests (as did Bob Londigran) that building muscle memory is essential to being a top competitor. That might be valuable to somebody who is evaluating their weaknesses and trying to construct the most efficient training regimen. It likely has other implications. For example, a GM who has only trained on Glocks would be expected to suffer a serious handicap on traditional grip angles. Someone who can point-shoot should be able to shoot accurately in conditions in which they cannot see their sights.

@Cha, @Flex, et. al., even if you are technically point-shooting I am not saying I disbelieve what you perceive. As I, and some of you, mentioned earlier, once you've hardwired these skills you can transpose them, both consciously and subconsciously. You can perceive that you (A) needed a follow-up, (B ) had a good sight picture, and (C ) sent the shot, even if the reality is that your brain sent the signal for C before receiving the signal for B. Just as there is a lower limit on reaction time I recall there is a lower limit on the ability to temporally sequence perceptions.

Edited December 6, 2013 by dbooksta

[Chills1994]

Building muscle memory is essential to being a top competitor???

In other news, water is still wet.

Dave Sevigny (formerly of Team Glock) shot the 2008 USPSA single stack nat's. I am sure you can still find those match results posted up on USPSA.org, if you really care to look.

CHA-LEE, you're right! You can lead a horse to water...

[Chills1994]

Despite my somewhat snarky response above, yes practice buids

Muscle memory. Practice with actual live bullets down range teaches you how sloppy you can be with the sight picture and the trigger under varying conditions. In short, what you can get away with.

Shocking, I know.

[bdpaz]

Here's why I think this isn't splitting hairs: If they're point shooting, consciously or not, then that suggests (as did Bob Londigran) that building muscle memory is essential to being a top competitor. That might be valuable to somebody who is evaluating their weaknesses and trying to construct the most efficient training regimen. It likely has other implications. For example, a GM who has only trained on Glocks would be expected to suffer a serious handicap on traditional grip angles. Someone who can point-shoot should be able to shoot accurately in conditions in which they cannot see their sights.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI

[Chills1994]

I think he is a little too caught up in this whole subconcious vs. concious thing.

The way I think he is using it, he thinks they are two separate or distinctive states that are mutually exclusive.

[Chills1994]

See also;

Yerkes-Dodson arousal law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YerkesDodson_law

Edited December 6, 2013 by Chills1994

[JakeMartens]

until someone can do it they will not understand what is going on

[gearguywb]

When a question is asked you must be able to accept the answer....or why bother?

[Whoops!]

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.

I agree with this, as with most other things Ben says.

In all seriousness though, some of you still don't understand what I'm saying. You are processing your sight picture post-shot when you make less than .15 second splits and relying on timing for the initiation of the second shot. You still see your sights, you are just unable to comprehend the sight picture before the second shot breaks. That's why you are unable to make mechanical correction to sight alignment prior to breaking that second shot. A couple of you seem unable to grasp this fact and instead rely on an alternate explanation, unable to grasp the fact that information from our eyes actually takes time to transmit through the brain. However, many of your arguments actually support this scientifically authenticated fact, you just don't understand it. So far, none of the theories or studies presented so far negate this fact, and I welcome anyone who can quote a newly published article from any reputable scientific journal which does.

You still see the sights for calling the shot. However, by the time your brain has processed that sights for that shot, the shot has already happened. You know where you hit, but you did not use your sights to initiate that second shot, you only used them for follow-up. The only secret state of zen is excellent timing through a substantial amount of practice, as with a musical instrument. Also as with a musical instrument, you, along with Van Halen, are looking at the instrument to confirm you did it right, even though you probably don't need to.

This thread is a good example of why so few people make it through med school. Don't get me wrong, I didn't go to med school. Lol.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Whoops!

[Whoops!]

I think it all boils down to the one question of the day. Can you call your shots? If not, then mega fast splits seem to be "Point shooting". But the key remains to be this. If you're saying a GM level shooter is "point shooting" because his splits are too fast for him to physiologically see, you are assuredly splitting hairs. Point shooting is the stuff taught by people who throw around phrases like "combat accuracy" or who advocate utilizing the appropriate kinesthetic weapons manipulation dynamic for unsecured hostile operating environments...it is not the notion of said GM firing a pair of shots and knowing, based on the sight picture and knowing exactly how his gun behaves during recoil, that both shots are grouped in the A-zone, head box or whatever he is aimed at. But the obvious fact is still that sights were involved and this negates the whole "point" aspect of shooting.

(Also as to the notion of an experiment above, I seem to recall a certain GM by the name of Dave Sevigny who shot glocks and single stack, taking the title from Rob Leatham, because he's Dave Sevigny and you can change the grip angle on his gun however you'd like, and he'd still pull of mega fast splits because he's a GM.)

I agree with this one hundred percent. My original post was splitting hairs and something of a joke; however, as with everything else I've said, there are many different definitions for each thing. We could have a novel long debate on what is sub-conscious or conscious. A book long debate on when "seeing" actually happens (as opposed to "looking" which some of you are talking about when you talk about it happening on a continuous basis)

Do I really think splits faster than .15 seconds should all be considered point shooting? Of course not. As I said, some of us can call those splits and some of us can not. However, depending on your definition of point shooting (for example, anything not using the sights to initiate the shot) . . . All of the second shots on those splits are.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Whoops!

[Chills1994]

I take a Gestalt-ish view of it. Your mind has already created a pattern or template for what a good shot feels like to which the various sensory inputs must match before the mind kicks it up to a higher level of processing (or conciousness or attention). That higher level of processing at some point asks "Is it really worthwhile to fire a makeup shot?"

Think of it as like a mental GO/NO GO gauge.

Or you are feeding a bunch of round pegs through a round hole and all of a sudden you are handed a square peg. You mentally pitch that square peg off to the side, and quickly grab a round one.

[Whoops!]

I take a Gestalt-ish view of it. Your mind has already created a pattern or template for what a good shot feels like to which the various sensory inputs must match before the mind kicks it up to a higher level of processing (or conciousness or attention). That higher level of processing at some point asks "Is it really worthwhile to fire a makeup shot?"

Think of it as like a mental GO/NO GO gauge.

Or you are feeding a bunch of round pegs through a round hole and all of a sudden you are handed a square peg. You mentally pitch that square peg off to the side, and quickly grab a round one.

I think that sums it up perfectly.