TrukSnave Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 They shot different guns so it's not an apples to apples comparison. Nils shot a 2011 with a bad ass trigger. Eric shot a stock 2 with a better than Glock but still shitty DA/SA trigger. Not a good comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrukSnave Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Plus 9mm minor is way more accurate than 40 major Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 They shot different guns so it's not an apples to apples comparison. Nils shot a 2011 with a bad ass trigger. Eric shot a stock 2 with a better than Glock but still shitty DA/SA trigger. Not a good comparison that's the whole point. Despite the inherent disadvantages in scoring and capacity, EG still would win. Plus 9mm minor is way more accurate than 40 major What? Is that how it is on your planet? Here on earth, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) So is there a way to figure out if Eric beat Nils in combined results? That would be incredible. by the above stats... Eric's match HF is 6.035 Nils match HF is 5.861 Which doesn't mean Eric beat Nils, but it could be a clue. Anyone done the stage by stage comparison yet? Your math is off for Nils because you calculated his non-A hits using Minor Scoring. Nils total match HF is 5.932. This narrows the gap a little bit, but Eric still beat Nils by 1.69%. That is pretty impressive given that Eric was shooting Minor and slightly reduced magazine capacity verses Standard (15 rounds vs 19 rounds). I am not sure how many stage performances would have really negatively impacted Eric's stage time due to needing an extra reload or not. Measuring the impact of that can be tricky because most field courses have enough non shooting movement to do a reload while moving and it not impact the stage time. Edited October 21, 2014 by CHA-LEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssanders224 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 They shot different guns so it's not an apples to apples comparison. Nils shot a 2011 with a bad ass trigger. Eric shot a stock 2 with a better than Glock but still shitty DA/SA trigger. Not a good comparison that's the whole point. Despite the inherent disadvantages in scoring and capacity, EG still would win. Plus 9mm minor is way more accurate than 40 major What? Is that how it is on your planet? Here on earth, not so much. Trouble with sarcasm, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Trouble with sarcasm, eh? lol. musta skipped my afternoon coffee. There are so many outrageous things posted here seriously that it's not always easy to tell which outrageous things are sarcastic. Edited October 21, 2014 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssanders224 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The fact that he would have beaten Nils, with less rounds and minor scoring is just unbelievable. Really goes to show you that he IS the best. He has proven it in Open. He has proven it in Production. And he has proven it in Standard without ever actually shooting the division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amish_rabbi Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) And because I was curious, here are the results of Eric and Max being the only people at the match Eric- 2170.650359 89.409% Max- 2427.757 And Eric and Rob being the only ones at the match Eric- 2490.41 Rob- 2132.56 85.6311% edit: yea not 10 rounds in IPSC production Edited October 21, 2014 by amish_rabbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer377 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I thought IPSC production allowed 15? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 And because I was curious, here are the results of Eric and Max being the only people at the match Eric- 2170.650359 89.409% Max- 2427.757 And Eric and Rob being the only ones at the match (they both had 10 shots and minor, so this isn't a terrible comparison) Eric- 2490.41 Rob- 2132.56 85.6311% Eric had 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amish_rabbi Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 yep I forgot, force of habit lol. editted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris iliff Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Eric shot 424 A 70 C 7 D 1 PR 385.56 seconds Nils shot 358 A 108 C 34 D 1M 1 PE 1 PR 380.12 seconds. Ben Shot 423 A 70 C 8 D 404.51 seconds. This is really interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Not to drag everyone away from all the above number crunching but the 'natural talent' excuse has always bugged me WRT competitive activities. When was the last time you heard a national/ world champion use 'I just have more natural ability" to explain their success? Sure, you could argue that they are ALL just being polite but I don't buy it becuase theyvusually go out of their way in most cases to talk about all the years of hard work and the talent which they developed, not were born with. Saying that you or me could shoot 250,000 rds/yr until we're blue in the face and not be world champions is not an appropriate comparison becuase we didn't start at the same time, with the same resources as those Champions we are talking about. The only way to "prove" the "natural talent" argument would be to take a bunch of people and provide them with the same access and resources at the same age and see what happens. Even in this case you couldn't eliminate all the variables since an individual's emotional makeup, drive, will and determination would also factor in. Now that I think about it I might be willing to consceed that THOSE things constitute natural ability but not the physical skills you can be trained to perform ... Edited October 22, 2014 by Nimitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I went through college athletics as did my brother. We both saw even at that level individuals who worked every last bit as hard as anyone but who simply were not as good as the first stringers. Guys who were the first in, last out. Ate right, didn't party, were stone cold devoted to being a starter. No matter what training they did they never made it. Saying natural talent doesn't play into it at all is an insult to lots and lots of men and women who poured themselves into the effort but in the end didn't measure up. (Gee, if only you had just tried harder) Conversely, natural talent without an incredible amount of work will get you to a certain level but never to the top. Edited October 22, 2014 by Neomet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrukSnave Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) maybe people have a natural ability to learn faster and analyze what they are doing better than most. They shoot 50-250k a year and it works for them. The people who lack this natural ability to learn…they can shoot 50-250k a year and not learn much. Some people just practice wrong. I have no clue I have only been shooting for 15 months Edited October 22, 2014 by TrukSnave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrukSnave Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I went from C-A this year though….natural ability or practice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I went from C-A this year though….natural ability or practice? C: All of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I honestly can't believe people are debating the importance (or even existence) of natural ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerTrace Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 With Eric's level of commitment to training, I bet competing, to him, feels as "normal" as putting on your clothes in the morning. Without a doubt and without competition, he would feel naked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerTrace Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 The natural ability thing is real. Everyone has some, some just have more. It's what is done with it and how it is developed that matters. I have trained many, many shooters and not all have the same basic tools, plus not everyone is wired the same. A really top level shooter, as in champion at the top of any discipline has incredible physical co-ordination, and not just hand eye. They know where their feet are, and what their weight distribution is at all times and have excellent balance. They are physically strong, and I do not mean fit. Few are exceptionally light or small. There are some who are exceptions to some of these observations, but not all of them. All have a drive to train and excel while training. All are driven to excel under pressure and hate failing. All see the sacrifices they make to reach the top levels as acceptable, when many others would not. Those that stay relevant for extended periods of time truly love the equipment, practicing and the environment at the matches and feel very comfortable around others like them. They almost all do what they do out of an insatiable desire to perfect and perform the skills they need. Speculation of what it takes to get to this level seldom centers around the core elements. It is natural ability, but that is a starting point. Natural ability undeveloped will not create a champion. Interestingly, I see natural ability frequently, it is not uncommon. Having the "heart and commitment" is most rare. By the way, another curious observation; when an exceptional shooter performs at an exceptional level, it isn't special to them. They have of course experienced the feeling many times before and are expecting greatness to happen, not surprised by it.... This comes from one of the most talented shooters our planet has ever known. I'm very thankful he shares what he knows with those who defend our County and our way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssanders224 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I honestly can't believe people are debating the importance (or even existence) of natural ability. This. To argue that we are all somehow born with the same aptitudes is ridiculous. There are plenty of people on this forum that put in hours of practice and dry fire each week, but they will never finish ahead of others that can count their yearly practice sessions on one hand. There is nothing wrong with this, it is just a fact of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerTrace Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I honestly can't believe people are debating the importance (or even existence) of natural ability. This. To argue that we are all somehow born with the same aptitudes is ridiculous. There are plenty of people on this forum that put in hours of practice and dry fire each week, but they will never finish ahead of others that can count their yearly practice sessions on one hand. There is nothing wrong with this, it is just a fact of life. Yep..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyshoots Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Round count won't mean anything unless each and every round has a purpose when fired. Going to the range and shooting 500 rounds and half of those were misses, charlies, or deltas is just a waste of ammo and time. Rich This statement is spot on. When I started shooting 15 years ago I went to the range 4 to 5 days a week. In 3 years over 100 k went down range. It was all bad practice. The skill level at our local matches was not that high, and to win all it took was speed. I shot a lot of misses and noshoots, and would still win the match. After being stuck in b class for along time me and wife took a class from Max, and Travis. In 1 month of the right practice I made a class in limited. Unfortunately a few months after that I was promoted at my job and work 60+ hours a week. No time for practice. And for the natural talent doesn't exist crowd, I have none. Just a love for shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGO Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 It's probably the water. (Perrier) Or the shoes?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGO Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Round count won't mean anything unless each and every round has a purpose when fired. Going to the range and shooting 500 rounds and half of those were misses, charlies, or deltas is just a waste of ammo and time. Rich Unless that was the point, to learn what would cause those results so that you can avoid repeating. Never be afraid to fail when practicing. It's necessary in fact to regularly go beyond limits of control in order to push those limits further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now