MarkCO Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Natural ability means you do not have to train, practice, develop, and it simply does not exist in the way most people think it does. Then again, most parents are too lazy to expose their children to the types of activities that will help to create the neurological and physical abilities needed to be at the top levels. What most people are calling "natural ability" is actually created. The only thing "natural" is IQ and physical size and even those can be modified to some degree. Read or watch the interviews of guys like Peyton Manning, Jerry Rice, Michael Jordan, Jimmie Johnson, Tiger Woods, etc. Significant factors come through...early coaching by a skilled and passionate mentor in their pre-teen years, their own passion for their sport, intelligence and the desire to be the best that they can be. That formula applies to Grauffel as well. If you think Peyton could have picked up his first football at 25 years old and been a HOF quarterback, sorry, that is just delusional. Even his exposure to media (through his father) and other high level athletes contributed to his current success, and he both acknowledges and is grateful for that fact. I have said before that a MLB middle infielder or an NBA point guard who had the passion and desire to excel could make Grand Master in 6 months and be competing at the top levels within a year. That is not because of natural ability, but because the skills needed to excel in the timer based competitive shooting sports, physically and neurologically, have been ingrained for years into their total make-up. The study of twins, separated at birth, raised in very different environments are pretty clear in showing that the focus of the parents, their education and exposure to various sports, art, thought processes, etc. are what create the total person at least as much as the DNA. Once a child hits 3 or 4 years old, "natural ability" goes out the window and it is those skills that are developed and nurtured that will dominate. But IQ and physique just can't be changed enough for some sports (or skills within some sports). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrukSnave Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 maybe people have a natural ability to learn things faster and better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 It's probably the water. (Perrier) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strick Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) . If you think Peyton could have picked up his first football at 25 years old and been a HOF quarterback, sorry, that is just delusional. Even his exposure to media (through his father) and other high level athletes contributed to his current success, and he both acknowledges and is grateful for that fact. The "natural ability" that is being talked about that would be relevant here is arm strength and accuracy. You can't teach that and the athlete can't learn it. Just like baseball, you can teach anyone the mechanics of pitching but if they can't throw the ball over the plate, can't through 95+ fast ball, can't throw a 90mph breaking ball then they will never be at the top. I will say, with out trying to sound egotistical, that I have a natural ability to shoot well. My lack of training and working as hard as I need to is what is keeping me from getting to that next level. Edited October 21, 2014 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssanders224 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 . If you think Peyton could have picked up his first football at 25 years old and been a HOF quarterback, sorry, that is just delusional. Even his exposure to media (through his father) and other high level athletes contributed to his current success, and he both acknowledges and is grateful for that fact. The "natural ability" that is being talked about that would be relevant here is arm strength and accuracy. You can't teach that and the athlete can't learn it. Just like baseball, you can teach anyone the mechanics of pitching but if they can't through the ball over the plate, can't through 95+ fast ball, can't throught a 90mph breaking ball then they will never be at the top. I will say, with out trying to sound egotistical, that I have a natural ability to shoot well. My lack of training and working as hard as I need to is what is keeping me from getting to that next level. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neomet Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 At the core you have to have natural ability. You simply have to possess certain skills, sometimes difficult to define to perform the required tests better than everyone else. The simple example is that I could devote the rest of my life to the 100 meter dash. Quit my job, eat, live and breath sprinting 24/7, learn the best visualization and actualization techniques and I will guarantee you that Usain Bolt will not lose a moment of sleep worrying about me at the next olympics. The question becomes trickier though when you are wanting to compare elite athletes who are at the far right end of the bell curve of performance. These folks all have high levels of natural ability. Why Rob or Nils or Eric win over the others on the super squad is something very nebulous and to my mind impossible to define and measure. Just because Eric shoots 250K rounds does not mean that is what the difference is. Nils doesn't shoot 250K so if that was the crucial variable he should not be as dominant as he is. It is easy to say the number of rounds shot, or how devoted someone is, or mindset, or anything is the reason for an individual's dominance because there is no way to disprove it. There is this Horatio Alger phenomenon that I see in this sport perhaps more than most. This "All you need to do is work harder/better" ideology. I think it is a coarse oversimplification and while hard work is critical, it is critical in conjunction with natural ability and other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi-Power Jack Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 hard work is critical, in conjunction with natural ability and other factors. That sounds right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toolguy Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Bobby Knight said - "Everyone has the will to win, but few have the will to prepare to win." I believe it takes a certain level of innate competence and a lot of desire and dedication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 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 Can someone get this message to Eric as soon as possible please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strick Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 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 If you could go to the range and shoot all A's for 500 rounds, at speed, then you don't really need all that practice. You can learn a lot even if you are shooting c's, d's and misses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrukSnave Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) At the core you have to have natural ability. You simply have to possess certain skills, sometimes difficult to define to perform the required tests better than everyone else. The simple example is that I could devote the rest of my life to the 100 meter dash. Quit my job, eat, live and breath sprinting 24/7, learn the best visualization and actualization techniques and I will guarantee you that Usain Bolt will not lose a moment of sleep worrying about me at the next olympics. The question becomes trickier though when you are wanting to compare elite athletes who are at the far right end of the bell curve of performance. These folks all have high levels of natural ability. Why Rob or Nils or Eric win over the others on the super squad is something very nebulous and to my mind impossible to define and measure. Just because Eric shoots 250K rounds does not mean that is what the difference is. Nils doesn't shoot 250K so if that was the crucial variable he should not be as dominant as he is. It is easy to say the number of rounds shot, or how devoted someone is, or mindset, or anything is the reason for an individual's dominance because there is no way to disprove it. Maybe this is the difference between 250K and 50K. Eric shot better points just a tiny bit slower than Nils but faster than Ben and JJ. At that level it will take a solid year of practice just to improve a small fraction. Eric beat Nils with Minor scoring. I would say shooting that much makes a huge difference. Proof is in the pudding 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. Edited October 21, 2014 by TrukSnave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Natural ability means you do not have to train, practice, develop, No it doesn't. But that explains the disconnect here, you are talking about something entirely different than everyone else. While in the modern world many top athletes are groomed from childhood, there are plenty of examples of latecomers who reach the same levels (with drive, determination and hard work). identical twin studies have conclusively shown that there is an awful lot of our capability and behavior that is genetically driven. People just start with different tools in their box. Grauffel is so good for the same reason elite competitors in *any* sport are so good. Talent, drive, will, and hard work. Edited October 21, 2014 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Natural ability means you do not have to train, practice, develop, No it doesn't. But that explains the disconnect here, you are talking about something entirely different than everyone else. Grauffel is so good for the same reason elite competitors in *any* sport are so good. Talent, drive, will, and hard work. Just using the common English language... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB45 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve RA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I think, to be at the very top, you have to have a "Killer Instinct". If you have two similiar shooters of the same degree of ability, generally one will dominate the other. Or you could just as easily call it the "Will to Win". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 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? What is the last match they competed against each other in the same division? Other than that, there is no comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB45 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 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? What is the last match they competed against each other in the same division? Other than that, there is no comparison. they just shot WS. if you combined the results, I'd be pretty easy to tell if Eric would have won Standard using Prod gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amish_rabbi Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 makeready.ru is the best I've got to compare them. A little bit of math and you could do the stage points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amish_rabbi Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Well, I had a lunch break and played in excel If only Eric and Nills shot the worlds, and were the same division, the match points work out like this Eric-2427.142594 Nills-2392.892 can post the whole break down later if people are interested... copy and paste doesn't seem to work on this forum in internet explorer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrukSnave Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 So 250k a year wins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 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? What is the last match they competed against each other in the same division? Other than that, there is no comparison. they just shot WS. if you combined the results, I'd be pretty easy to tell if Eric would have won Standard using Prod gear. So IPSC Standard and Prod have the same PF and rounds per mag. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrukSnave Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) It doesn't matter if they do or do not have the same PF or mag capacity! Considering the results...if Eric can beat Nils with minor scoring and more reloads...do you really think he couldn't do it with major PF? Edited October 21, 2014 by TrukSnave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB45 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Eric had less rounds per mag and scored minor PF. Preliminary calculations reveal he would have won Standard Division as well as Production. That is pretty amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 It doesn't matter if they do or do not have the same PF or mag capacity! Considering the results...if Eric can beat Nils with minor scoring and more reloads...do you really think he couldn't do it with major PF? Exactly 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