"Which is more important - speed, or accuracy?"

[IHAVEGAS]

19 hours ago, UpYoursPal said:

"Which is more important in USPSA: speed, or accuracy?" 

 

For me personally when I don't have visual patience I am screwed. When I do have visual patience it has a minimal effect on my times. That is with minor power factor USPSA scoring or IDPA or steel challenge. 

 

[Silver_Surfer]

Speed when you're young.

Accuracy when you're old

 

These days I'll take a slow hit(A) over a fast miss(M) anytime. 

[UpYoursPal]

21 hours ago, Rnlinebacker said:

Rob Leathem said in one of his videos,

 

"Small stages are about the points. Big field courses will reward time a little more"

 

If they can shoot alphas as fast as possible, relative to difficulty of target, than both things become mostly equal and you don't have to sacrifice one for the other

Thanks.  I'm going to remember this one and keep it on my back pocket to use when this invariably gets asked again.

[waktasz]

As fast as possible while still getting decent hits. This is about 90% of the points or more. 

When people are new they waste so much time doing things that aren't shooting, shooting a little faster is just going to make them drop points and do worse. 

[motosapiens]

6 minutes ago, waktasz said:

When people are new they waste so much time doing things that aren't shooting, shooting a little faster is just going to make them drop points and do worse. 

 

this is a very valid point. while learning to shoot better, it would make sense to focus on improving the speed of the non-shooting tasks.

 

Someone smart on this forum years ago posted very succinct guide to success at USPSA, which I paraphrase as:

 

"Shoot alphas as fast as you can, do everything else really really fast."

[Schutzenmeister]

I'm reminded of the advice I was given almost 30 years ago when I first got into this sport ...

 

"You can't miss fast enough to win."

 

Still holds true today.

[Racinready300ex]

8 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

I'm reminded of the advice I was given almost 30 years ago when I first got into this sport ...

 

"You can't miss fast enough to win."

 

Still holds true today.

 

Not always the case, depending how you define winning. 

 

I did the math once on a local IDPA match and the shooter who finished last could of had a better finish by drawing firing one shot and stopping. He wouldn't of been last, which could be a win for him. 

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Racinready300ex

[CClassForLife]

Here are my thoughts and I think asking myself this very question early on heavily influenced my shooting development.

 

For a single match, a shooter only has one optimal combination of speed and accuracy. The moment a shooter's cone of accuracy tightens into the X zone (this means that every shot of a shooter's grouping would fall into this area if given the same time constraints), then ideally the shooter should shoot. This cone defines the probabilistic intersections of the bullet paths and the target. Shooting quicker just means that the shooter has to accept that some shots aren't going to land into his desired scoring zones as his cone has not fully tightened yet. Shooting slower also doesn't help as now his cone is tightening beyond what's necessary. Two tight alphas are scored the same as two alphas at opposite corners.

 

If a shooter understands his cone of accuracy, then he understands that deviating from this will result in worse average match hit factors. Generally speaking, the X zone encompasses the entire C zone for major scoring and roughly half of the C zone for minor scoring. A shooter should test his hit factors at various paces to understand his X zone.

 

Now, what makes shooter A better than shooter B? I'd argue that A is better than B if A can tighten his cone to the same target area faster. This loops back to the original question of what's better: speed or accuracy? If the goal is to improve in the long term, then the better approach is to figure out how to tighten one's cone efficiently. I strongly believe that speed is the more efficient approach in this case. Note that doing so is at the detriment of short-term match performance. This is because a shooter has to learn how fast his cone tightens and this can only be indirectly observed through where the shots end up. Once the shots end up where the shooter intends, it is a waste of time to continue to develop his accuracy. At this point, the only way to see a bump in hit factor is to be faster.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I had ultimate faith from the start that this is the way. I shot at the pace I wanted to be at. In the beginning, my cone was way bigger than the target, which resulted in a ton of Mikes. A few months in, I didn't look any better on paper as my cone was still bigger than the target. However, I knew that my cone was tightening faster and it was only a matter of time until it was within the target itself. It's important to be cognizant of where the misses are as that indicates the edge of the cone.

 

TL;DR
Optimal match performance: 88-95% of points that's dependent on shooter's style
Optimal development for me: 70-80% of points with an emphasis on the edges of my groupings

[cheby]

It also depends on the stage hit factor. For example, on a stage with hit factor of 5, one C (Minor scoring) is equal to 0.4 sec. So 5 Cs is the same as 2 sec slower with the same HF. On a stage with the hit factor of 10 one C is only 0.2 (And a mike is 1.5 sec)  So it pays to be more aggressive (taking some risk of losing points) on high hit factor stages compared to low HF stages where your strategy should be more conservative in general

 

Another point. It is easier to train a fast shooter to become more accurate than the accurate one to speed up. It is not just a different approach. It takes more time/effort and you never graduate from it

    

Edited December 8, 2021 by cheby

[echotango]

[rowdyb]

To me it sounds like you're trying to show how hf effects stage strategy. 

 

Rather I'd focus on how speed and or accuracy effects a given score. Get them to truly understand their score and how it's derived. Then the rest is 5th grade math.

[Silver_Surfer]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Not always the case, depending how you define winning. 

 

I did the math once on a local IDPA match and the shooter who finished last could of had a better finish by drawing firing one shot and stopping. He wouldn't of been last, which could be a win for him. 

 

I didn't do the math but maybe I'll try an experiment at my next match with the Texas Star. Normally the Texas Star in on one of our longer course of fires. I'll fire five rounds in under s second at the TS and move on. Just want to see where I end up in that stage? 

[waktasz]

That sounds like a terrible idea

[zzt]

@echotango  Thanks for that chart.  Half As and half Cs is better than all As if you can drop 2 seconds.  I'm closer to the 24/8 spread without the pickup in speed.  It makes me want to push harder. 

[ltdmstr]

You guys really think that new(er) shooters who are still learning the game and developing basic skills are able to make these distinctions?  Most I encounter are just trying to find a good way to navigate the stage and do so with decent hits and not have a bunch of misses or screw ups.  Intermediate shooters maybe, but a D or lower C class type?  I don't think so.

[Schutzenmeister]

3 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

Not always the case, depending how you define winning. 

 

I did the math once on a local IDPA match and the shooter who finished last could of had a better finish by drawing firing one shot and stopping. He wouldn't of been last, which could be a win for him. 

 

 

Last I looked, the overall category for this is USPSA/IPSC Shooting ... I haven't a clue how those folks in IDPA score.  In the "real" world, the fastest shot possible which manages to miss the target generally translates into you getting killed.  Maybe that's just my military mindset ... I wouldn't call that a win.

[obsessiveshooter]

We tend to think of the need to balance speed and accuracy, but what makes a fast stage time is mostly your plan and how you move when your front sight or dot is not over a target.  You could have the "balance" 100% dailed as far as seeing what you need to see to get the right points, but if you still don't know how to haul ass around the COF you'll never get anywhere.  If I could take a class primarily focused on movement, I'd see way more gains than if I took a class that focused on trigger control, for instance.  

[motosapiens]

7 minutes ago, obsessiveshooter said:

 If I could take a class primarily focused on movement, I'd see way more gains than if I took a class that focused on trigger control, for instance.  

i have just the trainer for you.... I know of a movement coach who sucks at shooting.  

Edited December 8, 2021 by motosapiens

[Racinready300ex]

39 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

Last I looked, the overall category for this is USPSA/IPSC Shooting ... I haven't a clue how those folks in IDPA score.  In the "real" world, the fastest shot possible which manages to miss the target generally translates into you getting killed.  Maybe that's just my military mindset ... I wouldn't call that a win.

 

It's a vary extreme example to show that you can shoot faster sacrificing accuracy and still move up in the standings. The game doesn't really matter.

 

[davsco]

just with basic math, with time in the denominator, time is of the essence.  going 15% faster is better than getting 15% more points, though not by a bunch.

 

	baseline	15% more points	15% less time
points	100	115	100
seconds	15	15	12.75
hit factor	6.67	7.67	7.84

[zzt]

1 hour ago, obsessiveshooter said:

If I could take a class primarily focused on movement, I'd see way more gains than if I took a class that focused on trigger control, for instance.  

 

A friend took just such a class and said it shaved ten seconds off his total match time.  He took it a second time to see if he could shave any more off.

[SGT_Schultz]

3 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

You guys really think that new(er) shooters who are still learning the game and developing basic skills are able to make these distinctions?  Most I encounter are just trying to find a good way to navigate the stage and do so with decent hits and not have a bunch of misses or screw ups.  Intermediate shooters maybe, but a D or lower C class type?  I don't think so.

 

1000% this

 

 

[SGT_Schultz]

2 hours ago, obsessiveshooter said:

We tend to think of the need to balance speed and accuracy, but what makes a fast stage time is mostly your plan and how you move when your front sight or dot is not over a target.  You could have the "balance" 100% dailed as far as seeing what you need to see to get the right points, but if you still don't know how to haul ass around the COF you'll never get anywhere.  If I could take a class primarily focused on movement, I'd see way more gains than if I took a class that focused on trigger control, for instance.  

 

Also 1000% this

[George16]

2 hours ago, motosapiens said:

i have just the trainer for you.... I know of a movement coach who sucks at shooting.  

Is that the lady who used to be married to a world champion shooter ?

[Sarge]

3 hours ago, motosapiens said:

i have just the trainer for you.... I know of a movement coach who sucks at shooting.