Natural Talent

[RangerTrace]

At least A. I shoot about 1-2 match a month, have only has two practice sessions and easily made A as my first classification.

So you never practiced with a handgun? Bought a gun, shot two practice sessions, no other training and classified as A?

Anything is possible and I seem to recall a few who made GM at their initial USPSA Classification, but I think most of those has some sort of background in firearms.

[Matt Cheely]

At least A. I shoot about 1-2 match a month, have only has two practice sessions and easily made A as my first classification.

So you never practiced with a handgun? Bought a gun, shot two practice sessions, no other training and classified as A?

Anything is possible and I seem to recall a few who made GM at their initial USPSA Classification, but I think most of those has some sort of background in firearms.

I'm sure it is possible for someone out there to pick up a gun and shoot an A classification, but they would be few and far between.

I certainly had a background in firearms, shooting bowling pin and PPC matches. Had a Master classification as my first in Production, and I had never shot anything with quick reloads or movement.

[teros135]

It sounds like many of the answers to this question are "like I did". Each of those scenarios is obviously possible, but how could we ever know how to apply them to the individual newcomer? Oh yeah - just watch them and see how they do, yes?

[PKT1106]

The problem with asking about "natural talent" is that it varies from person to person. Your question is like asking how many people can make a free throw without ever picking up a basketball beforehand. Or, and I think this is closer, how many people can hit a golf ball without ever having held a golf club? Or hit a baseball without ever holding a bat?

The implied idea of "natural talent" makes me think of someone who is more athletically inclined and has the muscle strength, coordination and visual and mental acuity to pick up anything and be a little above average at first, but will increase their skill at a faster pace that the "average" person.

I don't think the right question is "what would they first classify as" so much as "where will they end up".

[Parallax3D]

I think most people are missing the meaning of "natural talent."

True, most shooters in USPSA fall into C class, but do all of those people have "natural talent?" I'd say no.
I'd be willing to bet that most shooters in C class don't practice and train regularly. That's why they are still C class.
I think the average shooter, with practice, can probably reach B.
Someone with a little more natural talent can probably reach A with a little bit practice. Prabably higher if they really apply themselves.
Someone with A LOT of natural talent can probably reach A with little practice, and M or GM if they apply themselves.

[MarkCO]

Shooting a gun is NOT natural, punching and throwing can be argued are natural responses though.

Someone can be more athletic, but that is not necessarily natural either. Maybe desire is natural, but kinesthetic intelligence (KI) is debatable as to whether it is learned or if you are born with it, likewise eye-hand coordination. Since there is no actual control case for either, the argument is theoretical.

The answers in this thread are based on each persons bias, and mine is that there is no such thing as a "gifted" shooter. Those for whom it comes easier already had a high KI and excellent eye-hand co-ordination derived from another pursuit that myelinated the proper circuits conducive to action shooting.

I do beleive that the top shooters are comprised of a mixture. Some who tried shooting and it came easily (due to other factors) and those who worked WAY harder than others. There are certainly some in the middle who may had a mixture.

What is interesting to me is to go look at stages/videos of the top shooters in the 1980s, set up the same stages and evaluate the performance differences with a 30 year gap. High B to A shooters today would have been in the mix of the top shooters 30 years ago. That, to me is why guys like TGO, Miculek, Voight and a few others are so impressive beyond their wins...they have been able to increase their skill level over a steady increase in competition. Then ask yourself, if a guy with "current" skills like a Nils was time transported back to 1985, what would the top competitors be like today? Have we hit the performance peak yet? My first card was a B card, then I quit and shot other sports for 6 years. When I came back, as a better shooter, I was much lower on the totem pole.

All that is to say that performance levels are time shifted as well as shifted based on the persons background, KI, desire, physiology, and ability to learn.

Edited January 26, 2015 by MarkCO

[Parallax3D]

Shooting a gun is NOT natural, punching and throwing can be argued are natural responses though.

Neither are things like playing billiards or a guitar, but there ARE people who DO just have a natural talent for it, It takes them little effort to attain a level of skill that others would take a long time to attain, even if they practiced relentlessly. Things like better eye/hand coordination, muscle control, etc. all play into it.

[motosapiens]

Shooting a gun is NOT natural, punching and throwing can be argued are natural responses though.

Neither are things like playing billiards or a guitar, but there ARE people who DO just have a natural talent for it, It takes them little effort to attain a level of skill that others would take a long time to attain, even if they practiced relentlessly. Things like better eye/hand coordination, muscle control, etc. all play into it.

What? that's crazy talk. It's all about how hard you work. Anyone can become an acclaimed professional guitarist. The ones who don't make it are just lazy.

[CHA-LEE]

I am still trying to understand the point of the question? For a shooter to be interested enough to "Stick with" shooting USPSA matches, enough to shoot once a weekend for years, they would need at least a little bit of a competitive drive. This competitive drive makes people want to perform better so they can be more competitive and beat or contended with their competition. Competitive people are usually drawn to practicing the skills required to compete so they can be more competitive. I think that finding a "Competitive" shooter who is interested enough to attend weekly matches for years on end, who also NEVER practices in any way shape or form would be very hard to find. So once again, what is the point of the initial question? The shooters who would fit into this category are a very, vary small small subset of what could be considered your "Average" shooter.

I do think that there are a lot of shooters who started off in the practical shooting sports going hog wild in trying a bunch of different stuff or practice/training efforts in an attempt to get better. Then they eventually settle into a mode of "This is good enough" from a skills perspective, which is usually in the C or B classification. Once that happens their skills stagnate at their current level because they stop trying to improve. I see a lot of shooters settling into this situation which usually consists of the bulk of the shooters at most club matches. There are very few shooters who truly want to get better and put in the effort to make it happen. Is this natural talent? Nope. Its a crap ton of hard work that refines their skills to a level that makes it look like its "easy".

[ES13Raven]

I am still trying to understand the point of the question? For a shooter to be interested enough to "Stick with" shooting USPSA matches, enough to shoot once a weekend for years, they would need at least a little bit of a competitive drive. This competitive drive makes people want to perform better so they can be more competitive and beat or contended with their competition. Competitive people are usually drawn to practicing the skills required to compete so they can be more competitive. I think that finding a "Competitive" shooter who is interested enough to attend weekly matches for years on end, who also NEVER practices in any way shape or form would be very hard to find. So once again, what is the point of the initial question? The shooters who would fit into this category are a very, vary small small subset of what could be considered your "Average" shooter.

I don't know how your local clubs are, but the ones around here - you find plenty of "competitive" shooters who just enjoy shooting the local match. They arn't interested in winning or getting better - they just enjoy guns, shooting and the cameraderie. They don't run drills or practice. The match IS their practice.

[RangerTrace]

I am still trying to understand the point of the question? For a shooter to be interested enough to "Stick with" shooting USPSA matches, enough to shoot once a weekend for years, they would need at least a little bit of a competitive drive. This competitive drive makes people want to perform better so they can be more competitive and beat or contended with their competition. Competitive people are usually drawn to practicing the skills required to compete so they can be more competitive. I think that finding a "Competitive" shooter who is interested enough to attend weekly matches for years on end, who also NEVER practices in any way shape or form would be very hard to find. So once again, what is the point of the initial question? The shooters who would fit into this category are a very, vary small small subset of what could be considered your "Average" shooter.

I don't know how your local clubs are, but the ones around here - you find plenty of "competitive" shooters who just enjoy shooting the local match. They arn't interested in winning or getting better - they just enjoy guns, shooting and the cameraderie. They don't run drills or practice. The match IS their practice.

And what we have to understand is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that..I'm quickly turning into one of those shooters!!

[teros135]

Hmmm. Not sure I'd call those folks "competitive" shooters. They're local shooters, having a good time. Nothing wrong with that. Being competitive takes a lot more work.

[CHA-LEE]

You are missing the point. Most of your local shooters who regularly attend DID go through a practice phase when they started attending practical shooting matches. Then when they settled into a skills comfort zone and stopped practicing. That situation is very common in the practical shooting sports. Hell, you could say the same thing about just about any recreational competitive sport.

If Jim Bob tried a little harder at getting better than Joe Blow before "settling" on being good enough, does that make Jim Bob a more naturally talented shooter? No. You also need to take into consideration that everyone learns at a different pace. So you can't simply say that Jim and Joe both practicing for the same xyz hours should translate to the same skill level once they give up on trying to get better.

The hard fact is that the vast majority of the C and B classified shooters DO want to get better. They simply don't want to put in the effort to make it happen. Settling for "good enough" is a very comfortable security blanket that not many people want to toss to the way side.

[RangerTrace]

Hmmm. Not sure I'd call those folks "competitive" shooters. They're local shooters, having a good time. Nothing wrong with that. Being competitive takes a lot more work.

That is the nice thing about the USPSA Classification system. Much like those National Team Ropers Associations. You can go to a match and technically only "compete" against other A's, B'c, C's or whatever.

[motosapiens]

I am still trying to understand the point of the question? For a shooter to be interested enough to "Stick with" shooting USPSA matches, enough to shoot once a weekend for years, they would need at least a little bit of a competitive drive. This competitive drive makes people want to perform better so they can be more competitive and beat or contended with their competition. Competitive people are usually drawn to practicing the skills required to compete so they can be more competitive. I think that finding a "Competitive" shooter who is interested enough to attend weekly matches for years on end, who also NEVER practices in any way shape or form would be very hard to find. So once again, what is the point of the initial question? The shooters who would fit into this category are a very, vary small small subset of what could be considered your "Average" shooter.

I don't know how your local clubs are, but the ones around here - you find plenty of "competitive" shooters who just enjoy shooting the local match. They arn't interested in winning or getting better - they just enjoy guns, shooting and the cameraderie. They don't run drills or practice. The match IS their practice.

But if they don't care enough to practice, why would they (or anyonen else) care how good they could get? That's what I'm scratching my head about.

[motosapiens]

Hmmm. Not sure I'd call those folks "competitive" shooters. They're local shooters, having a good time. Nothing wrong with that. Being competitive takes a lot more work.

That is the nice thing about the USPSA Classification system. Much like those National Team Ropers Associations. You can go to a match and technically only "compete" against other A's, B'c, C's or whatever.

Argh. That seems like a very self-limiting way to approach it, but I guess less so than just not practicing at all.

[RangerTrace]

Hmmm. Not sure I'd call those folks "competitive" shooters. They're local shooters, having a good time. Nothing wrong with that. Being competitive takes a lot more work.

That is the nice thing about the USPSA Classification system. Much like those National Team Ropers Associations. You can go to a match and technically only "compete" against other A's, B'c, C's or whatever.

Argh. That seems like a very self-limiting way to approach it, but I guess less so than just not practicing at all.

Well, I remember a guy who said "Off to "B" with you" after I won "C" class Limited at a major match back when I first started. That guy is still a "C" and had been shooting for years back then. He also works hard to put on major matches and club matches in his area. He has fun and still enjoys competing...thankfully. We get older and priorities change. Or maybe shooting never was a priority.

[MarkCO]

Because most shooters really are casual shooters who want the secret "thing" to know or buy, as long as they do not have to exert any effort. It is so much easier to stay in C class and beleive that the A to GM shooter has "natural talent" instead of putting in some effort to improve.

Sure age, work, family and money are factors, but not as big as most make them out to be.

[RangerTrace]

Because most shooters really are casual shooters who want the secret "thing" to know or buy, as long as they do not have to exert any effort. It is so much easier to stay in C class and beleive that the A to GM shooter has "natural talent" instead of putting in some effort to improve.

Sure age, work, family and money are factors, but not as big as most make them out to be.

Have your first born Son at age 45 and see what happens to your slowly advancing classification. It certainly doesn't speed up!!

[motosapiens]

Hmmm. Not sure I'd call those folks "competitive" shooters. They're local shooters, having a good time. Nothing wrong with that. Being competitive takes a lot more work.

That is the nice thing about the USPSA Classification system. Much like those National Team Ropers Associations. You can go to a match and technically only "compete" against other A's, B'c, C's or whatever.

Argh. That seems like a very self-limiting way to approach it, but I guess less so than just not practicing at all.

Well, I remember a guy who said "Off to "B" with you" after I won "C" class Limited at a major match back when I first started. That guy is still a "C" and had been shooting for years back then. He also works hard to put on major matches and club matches in his area. He has fun and still enjoys competing...thankfully. We get older and priorities change. Or maybe shooting never was a priority.

Nothing wrong with staying a C if one enjoys it. However if one starts bragging about 'winning' C class, or making excuses, then one is asking to be mocked.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to go to matches and shoot matches and just enjoy the shooting and camaraderie. I hope if I stop getting better, I'll still enjoy shooting matches just for the fun of shooting with my friends and solving the problems of each stage.

[RangerTrace]

Hmmm. Not sure I'd call those folks "competitive" shooters. They're local shooters, having a good time. Nothing wrong with that. Being competitive takes a lot more work.

That is the nice thing about the USPSA Classification system. Much like those National Team Ropers Associations. You can go to a match and technically only "compete" against other A's, B'c, C's or whatever.

Argh. That seems like a very self-limiting way to approach it, but I guess less so than just not practicing at all.

Well, I remember a guy who said "Off to "B" with you" after I won "C" class Limited at a major match back when I first started. That guy is still a "C" and had been shooting for years back then. He also works hard to put on major matches and club matches in his area. He has fun and still enjoys competing...thankfully. We get older and priorities change. Or maybe shooting never was a priority.

Nothing wrong with staying a C if one enjoys it. However if one starts bragging about 'winning' C class, or making excuses, then one is asking to be mocked.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to go to matches and shoot matches and just enjoy the shooting and camaraderie. I hope if I stop getting better, I'll still enjoy shooting matches just for the fun of shooting with my friends and solving the problems of each stage.

Moto, I think that is why "C" class or whatever class exists. I'm not sure where the "making excuses" part fits in, but the whole reason we have class wins is for those shooters to win and feel proud about it. If only the GM winners get to "win" then our sport with die a quick death in my opinion.

[motosapiens]

Moto, I think that is why "C" class or whatever class exists. I'm not sure where the "making excuses" part fits in, but the whole reason we have class wins is for those shooters to win and feel proud about it. If only the GM winners get to "win" then our sport with die a quick death in my opinion.

That is an interesting way of looking at it. I guess everyone needs a medal for their self-esteem, lol. If it makes people show up to help set up and tear down, then I'm all for it.

[RangerTrace]

Moto, I think that is why "C" class or whatever class exists. I'm not sure where the "making excuses" part fits in, but the whole reason we have class wins is for those shooters to win and feel proud about it. If only the GM winners get to "win" then our sport with die a quick death in my opinion.

That is an interesting way of looking at it. I guess everyone needs a medal for their self-esteem, lol. If it makes people show up to help set up and tear down, then I'm all for it.

Hmmm, that's the most condescending thing I've heard on here for a while. I don't even think Scott Stockton (my good friend) would say that on a public forum!!

[Nimitz]

when was the last time you heard the elite in any activity explain their success by claiming they had a bunch of natural talent and that is why they are a champion? They all say the same thing .... they worked their butt off to get where they are. They are not just being polite, either. Sure, those that are NOT champions use the 'excuse' of natural talent to explain those folk's success but that's just a basic human nature defense mechanism to protect their egos, whether they want to admit it or not. The only 'natural talent' I'm willing to concede that exits is an unrelenting drive to be the best at something. How many of you are willing to dry fire an hour or more at least 6 days a week for months on end and then throw in 3-4 live fire sessions every week on top of that; year after year after year? That's why someone like Ben Stoeger is where he is. The average rank & file shooter really has no idea the commitment level required to make GM, never mind become a champion. It has basically nothing to do with 'natural talent' and everything to do with your own personal drive ... how bad to you REALLY want it?

[RangerTrace]

when was the last time you heard the elite in any activity explain their success by claiming they had a bunch of natural talent and that is why they are a champion? They all say the same thing .... they worked their butt off to get where they are. They are not just being polite, either. Sure, those that are NOT champions use the 'excuse' of natural talent to explain those folk's success but that's just a basic human nature defense mechanism to protect their egos, whether they want to admit it or not. The only 'natural talent' I'm willing to concede that exits is an unrelenting drive to be the best at something. How many of you are willing to dry fire an hour or more at least 6 days a week for months on end and then throw in 3-4 live fire sessions every week on top of that; year after year after year? That's why someone like Ben Stoeger is where he is. The average rank & file shooter really has no idea the commitment level required to make GM, never mind become a champion. It has basically nothing to do with 'natural talent' and everything to do with your own personal drive ... how bad to you REALLY want it?

Well said and I know/realize you are very motivated. Keep up the good work!!