Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Sign in to follow this  
boudreux

Why is Grauffel so good?

Recommended Posts

Great eyesight and reflexes are "natural" attributes that one either has or doesn't.

EG has them.

As did TGO

Without them, one cannot be an all timer USPSA/IPSC shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great eyesight and reflexes are "natural" attributes that one either has or doesn't.

EG has them.

As did TGO

Without them, one cannot be an all timer USPSA/IPSC shooter.

How do you know that "reflexes" are "natural" as opposed to "trained". It is an assumption we make about grown adults with no consideration to what factors contributed to their development from birth through their teen years where the electro-chemical development and wiring has certainly been proven to be impacted by the activities, diet, and stressors placed on a person. Much of the scientific research that has sought to answer that question makes your assertion suspect, even though most rigorously hold on to the traditional explanations.

BTW, I still think the showing Leatham made would keep him in the "has" as opposed to "had" category where you placed him. The freaks, to me are Leatham, Voight and Miculek who, most definitely are better shooters today than they were 10 years ago (probably even 5 years ago) who continue to be competitive while being pushed by men half their age and less who had the advantages of learning to shoot well at very early ages in comparison. How many of their contemporaries from 10 or 20 years ago still top the podiums? That is more impressive to me than the level that Grauffel is currently shooting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If TGO is shooting better now than he did ten years ago, it necessarily follows that EG is now the best shooter ever.

In both open and production. (And evidently limited)

And I wouldn't bet against him if he took up Single Stack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between things that we may not be aware of that impact performance and the ultimate ability of individuals to perform a task. To use the eyesight example I agree there are a multitude of variables which can improve or decrease the eyesight of people even without their knowledge. None of these studies however come to the conclusion that all individuals under the identical conditions will have the same eyesight. Physical variations in humans mean some will be better equiped to do some tasks than others. A world class marathoner has never become a world class 100 meter sprinter. Jockeys suck in the NBA.

The unanswerable question to me is how much natural ability and natural ability at what tasks are needed to be at the very top of this sport. How much and what type of training? There are no double blind studies, hell no studies at all beyond people just trying to guess based upon what they hear about the very top shooters and how they train.

Reader's Digest version of the answer to the OP is "Nobody knows for sure".

Edited by Neomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know why Max didn't shoot this match?

Why would he?

Why wouldn't he?

Because he's already shot the match and won it.

His reason not to shoot the match again, is probably the same reason Cooley, Nils, Vogel, Blake, Sweeney Tomasie, Strader, JJ, Mink, McKenna, Leatham, Jarrett and MANY others aren't shooting it again.

Edited by jrbet83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
I've definitely worked on this this year and it has made a difference...but I have no natural talents so its easier for me to find my failure points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is someone on there with the username TGO. He posts frequently

How would you know? You got banned from Doodie for constantly posting pictures of guy's dicks.

Easy flex. That language only belongs at doodie.

Besides, don't give him ideas.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know why Max didn't shoot this match?

Why would he?

Why wouldn't he?

Because he's already shot the match and won it.

His reason not to shoot the match again, is probably the same reason Cooley, Nils, Vogel, Blake, Sweeney Tomasie, Strader, JJ, Mink, McKenna, Leatham, Jarrett and MANY others aren't shooting it again.

Oh......got it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It well be interesting to see how EG's points and times differ from open to production. I would guess that he was practicing production leading up to the world shoot, and then to switch to open just for the US match. Same stages correct?

Edited by ron169

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything else involved in this game, yep.

However, there is nothing "natural" about shooting a pistol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between things that we may not be aware of that impact performance and the ultimate ability of individuals to perform a task. To use the eyesight example I agree there are a multitude of variables which can improve or decrease the eyesight of people even without their knowledge. None of these studies however come to the conclusion that all individuals under the identical conditions will have the same eyesight. Physical variations in humans mean some will be better equiped to do some tasks than others. A world class marathoner has never become a world class 100 meter sprinter. Jockeys suck in the NBA.

The unanswerable question to me is how much natural ability and natural ability at what tasks are needed to be at the very top of this sport. How much and what type of training? There are no double blind studies, hell no studies at all beyond people just trying to guess based upon what they hear about the very top shooters and how they train.

Reader's Digest version of the answer to the OP is "Nobody knows for sure".

I believe there’s some confusion going on between what’s perceived to be "Natural Ability" vs that of "Superior Genetics" A world class Marathoner Is just put together differently than a world class Sprinter. That doesn't mean that the Marathoner couldn't be a Sprinter. He just won't be a "World Class" sprinter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep agree Doc. I said it before, IQ and physical build are to two "parts" of a person that are pretty much set at birth (at least the maximum). I look at Nils and BJ for instance, two very accomplished multi-discipline shooters, two very different physiques...that, at least right now, don't matter too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep agree Doc. I said it before, IQ and physical build are to two "parts" of a person that are pretty much set at birth (at least the maximum). I look at Nils and BJ for instance, two very accomplished multi-discipline shooters, two very different physiques...that, at least right now, don't matter too much.

That's because physical build isn't all that important to shooting, just like vision isn't important to sprinting. There are probably world class runners with all sorts of levels of viscual acuity.

It seems pretty likely to me that some of the particular physical attributes shooters need also have a genetic component.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IQ is something not often touched on in these conversations but there's not a single top shooter I have ever met who was not very, very smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised that you believe that your IQ maximum is determined at birth. I am not saying you are correct or not, but how you could actually prove or even disprove your theory.

I find this thread very interesting, I must admit it has made me think a little but overall it is kind of sad. People are sitting around guessing how someone who is phenomenal at what he does got to where he is, while at the same time stating they couldn't possibly perform at that level themselves. If you think it is beyond your ability to compete at that level what makes you think you have any idea what it takes to get there. Obviously EG knows what it takes to perform at that level and does it over and over again.

Jockeys do make horrible NBA players but because they ride horses instead of shooting a basketball. While few and far between the NBA has had short basketball players. You can't forget Muggsy!

Yep agree Doc. I said it before, IQ and physical build are to two "parts" of a person that are pretty much set at birth (at least the maximum). I look at Nils and BJ for instance, two very accomplished multi-discipline shooters, two very different physiques...that, at least right now, don't matter too much.

Edited by pkm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this thread very interesting, I must admit it has made me think a little but overall it is kind of sad. People are sitting around guessing how someone who is phenomenal at what he does got to where he is, while at the same time stating they couldn't possibly perform at that level themselves.

Wait, what? Who said that? Why can't we all be elite athletes, like EG and michael jordan? I got a trophy for finishing 8th in the 1/4 mile in junior high school, so I'm pretty badazz.

Seriously, I don't care whether I could be as good as EG or not. I only care if I can be as good as I can possibly get. That's something I can control. If it means I end up better than some other people, well that's great, but it's secondary to the goal of being as good as I can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this thread very interesting, I must admit it has made me think a little but overall it is kind of sad. People are sitting around guessing how someone who is phenomenal at what he does got to where he is, while at the same time stating they couldn't possibly perform at that level themselves.

Wait, what? Who said that? Why can't we all be elite athletes, like EG and michael jordan? I got a trophy for finishing 8th in the 1/4 mile in junior high school, so I'm pretty badazz.

Seriously, I don't care whether I could be as good as EG or not. I only care if I can be as good as I can possibly get. That's something I can control. If it means I end up better than some other people, well that's great, but it's secondary to the goal of being as good as I can be.

And I took dead last at the cross country meet in highschool but it doesn't make me a long distance runner (if you had met me you would find that at least a little humerus, but wouldn't be surprised i was last) but I did prove my point and that was good enough for me.

I agree and have pretty much the same philosophy as you do. I am just amazed at how many people chalk it up to genetics, money or his super human abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep agree Doc. I said it before, IQ and physical build are to two "parts" of a person that are pretty much set at birth (at least the maximum). I look at Nils and BJ for instance, two very accomplished multi-discipline shooters, two very different physiques...that, at least right now, don't matter too much.

I believe there’s some confusion going on between what’s perceived to be "Natural Ability" vs that of "Superior Genetics" A world class Marathoner Is just put together differently than a world class Sprinter. That doesn't mean that the Marathoner couldn't be a Sprinter. He just won't be a "World Class" sprinter.

Heck, go beyond Nils and BJ. Rob, even right before he got his bionic knees was still winning. I think what that says is sprint speed is not not as large a component to success as other things. I will say though that it is my perception that there are more and more athletic builds in the supersquads lately, particularly Open. Maybe coincidence, maybe not.

Doc, I think maybe we are agreeing but are hung up on terms. To me "Superior Genetics" means the same thing as "Natural Ability". Because someone has superior genetics they have more "natural ability" to bench press more, run faster, see better, mentally process visual input quicker, react faster, whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this thread very interesting, I must admit it has made me think a little but overall it is kind of sad. People are sitting around guessing how someone who is phenomenal at what he does got to where he is, while at the same time stating they couldn't possibly perform at that level themselves.

Wait, what? Who said that? Why can't we all be elite athletes, like EG and michael jordan? I got a trophy for finishing 8th in the 1/4 mile in junior high school, so I'm pretty badazz.

Seriously, I don't care whether I could be as good as EG or not. I only care if I can be as good as I can possibly get. That's something I can control. If it means I end up better than some other people, well that's great, but it's secondary to the goal of being as good as I can be.

This is awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, Jordan was a Super Star at basketball but didn't fare too well at baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...