Detlef Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 I would assume, though, that hitting that plate with your eyes closed probably took you longer (i.e. was not in any way faster) than hitting it watching your sights? --D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRM Posted December 5, 2002 Author Share Posted December 5, 2002 Brian, I believe I have been more honest with you than you have been with me. I first appeared here when someone (namely you) was calling me an "arrogant a_-hole"... The second time I came by was when someone was asking questions about FIST-FIRE... I tried to keep the focus on technqiue. I tried not to bash or trash anyone. I thought you guys were opened minded here, being IPSC shooters and all, and thought you would be interested in some new idea's and maybe even in pushing the "Point Shooting" envelope as far as it would go. Guess I was wrong... Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 DRM, Brain seems to have the memory of an elephant. Some of those pissing matches that you got into on GT have stuck with you. That, and the fact that you promote a fairly narrow doctrine, whereas BE teaches an open philosophy. I think we shouldn't be throwing out the baby (DRM's knowledge and experience) out with the bath-water (DRM's way of presenting his info). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 ong45 said: Some of us just have superior index. Ahhhh, but how do we get there? How do we get the superior index? DRM said (about Leatham): I was being quite honest about his natural ability (why do you think they call him TGO anyway? ). I still don’t believe you can impart natural ability (like his) to others. I think that just isn't so. I firmly believe that we humans can learn much more than we let ourselves believe we can. The above quote discounts all the time and effort that TGO has put in. {edit: I view the "natual abililty" thing as a self-imposed limitation...always have. My bias.} Perhaps his natural ability is in his capacity to learn and apply this knowledge (along with a desire to do so and the drive to make it happen). Paul said: The true meaning of competition, in this case shooting, is to work together to improve one another. So, regardless of the venue, I will learn. Well said. (Edited by Flexmoney at 4:05 pm on Dec. 5, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 (Edited by EricW at 9:28 am on Dec. 6, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Detlef, Okay, if you're gonna get picky, it might take a little longer (to "get the feel" as opposed to relying on the sights), but not much. Maybe a tenth or two on the first shot and then .10 to .15 between for the breaks. But, I wasn't using a timer so who can say for sure. I know this sounds unbelievable, but, at times, not that often really - more than several but not a lot - I could hit more than one target on the same string with eyes closed all the time. The most I ever hit was four in a row. (Eight-inch plates, 15 yds, 5 or 6 feet apart.) I'd "dry-feel" them before closing my eyes. I only hit four once - it was a fluke. But, the weird thing is I remember it felt like magic as it was happening, and, I realized just as I finished (I only had four plates set up.) that there had been some "serious letting go" going on. There was no trying in any form whatsoever. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 WOW !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George D Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Quote: from Flexmoney on 6:39 am on Dec. 6, 2002 DRM, I think we shouldn't be throwing out the baby (DRM's knowledge and experience) out with the bath-water (DRM's way of presenting his info). I may be speaking out of turn here, but I think Flex's comment is right on the money. Being geographically remote from most of the forum members I may be able to cast a more objective view on what is being said on this thread. There seems to be a great deal of personal animosity being expressed which has drifted the thread away from the original question. Being remote, I may be naive about motivations for this question but, again being naive, it presented itself to me as a straight forward request for opinions on point-shooting. I think someone said that "point shooting" can mean many things to many people. To me it doesn't mean shooting early when the sights are almost aligned or shooting with the eyes closed. To me it means shooting at a target that you are focussing on without the gun in your focus field at all. The type of thing that Hollywood portays of the Wild West. I mean no criticism or offense to anyone with this opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 I think this whole mental process of learning your index and trusting it is all gliding scales. In the beginning I used to watch my sights on every shot, no matter how close. Hours a night of dry firing and the excercises in Brian's book helped me create an index I can count on in most cases (suffers when lots of match adrenaline run through my body though). Now on close shots (out to 15 yrds) the index is just there. I still see the sights, but the whole process of putting the shot in the right place is so different. It used to be that my sight were everything. Now they just confirm my index on closer shots. If I don't see them I notice. If I do see them it's on a subcontious level. And I glide more towards just sights and trigger on 50 yard shots or 25 yard bobbers. Brian said it all with the "You have to see what you have to see to make the shot" philosophy." And even in this post it frustrates me. I feel like I'm echoing parts of the book . To me, it's just true. That theory, in all its openness. YOU decide what you have to see. Everyone has to decide for him or herself. Oh, and as far as this forum goes, I think the great thing about it is that it's about SHOOTING. About becoming a better shooter. It's not about defense. It's more than just that. I used to be a martial arts fanatic. What I liked best was being able to control my body and learning how to become a better person. I never cared less about being able to kick someone's ass. I might as well have picked ballet (I'm just not a musical guy) The people on this forum are as open as one can be when it comes to evolving in shooting. They show their "weaknesses" and discuss their strong point with everyone. No secrets. Just shooting. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 (Edited by EricW at 9:29 am on Dec. 6, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRM Posted December 5, 2002 Author Share Posted December 5, 2002 As I said in the original post, I was refferring to 100% target focus. No looking at the gun or any sighted fire of any type. The older I get, the easier it is to see less of the gun and more of what's down range... Stay safe, D.R. Middlebrooks - Director Tactical Shooting Academy (TSA) http://www.TacticalShooting.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 OK! This thread is annoying to say the least. 4 pages about a technique that has NEVER been described (here at least). DRM, If you want to describe and give details and teach then go ahead. If you want to argue that you have the best technique without describing it, perhaps you will find more tolerant moderators on GT. I think that everyone here would like to know what you are talking about and has been very patient with you. This forum is not for arguing, it is for discussing different techniques. "I tried to keep the focus on technqiue" What technique???? "Myth or Magic" Right now, I say LUCK. Way too much thread drift here. 4 pages of BS and still no info on what you are talking about. Ya got one more chanch before I lock it up. I'm not as polite as our host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Tightloop: Wow about the shooting or wow about the pissing match, lol. DRM: I started shooting IPSC two years ago. I came into the sport with severe presbyopia, prisms in my lenses to correct for double vision, tendonitis (in the form of both tennis elbow and golfer's elbow) in my right arm, bone chips in my right elbow, two shoulders that have been surgically altered and are trashed out, and two hands so full of arthritis that the x-rays just come out white. I am also fat and slow, lol. I quit shooting 10 years ago because I thought I was well beyond my prime. I planned on shooting just for fun and I was content playing around in C class. I love IPSC shooting and I got hooked, then I found this Web site. In a very short time, I went from C to the top of A class. I am one one hundredth of one per cent away from Limited Master. I stopped shooting Limited and went to L10 and Open rather than strive to become a "paper Master" because I don't feel worthy of the title Limited Master. In the next calendar year I will be Limited Master, L10 Master, and Open A, of that I am sure. On your Web site you talk about floundering around in A class for a number of years and I came away with the impression that you were stuck there in part because of the old school dogma peddled by guys like Brian. In my case, guys like Brian Enos, Pat Harrison, Jack Barnes, and many others have taken a worn out old fart (me) and turned me into a fairly decent shooter without ever even seeing my face. They did that by listening, teaching, encouraging, and giving freely of their knowledge and time, with nothing expected in return. That is what this forum is all about. Brian has tried to explain to you that this is a special place for sharing, learning and teaching, not for self promotion. You need not apologize to me if you feel I am offended by your remarks because you obviously are not sincere. If you cared what the members of this board thought, you would make an effort to conform to the spirit of the board. Brian has been pretty tolerant of you, and I agree with Brian that your passive aggressive methodology is unsettling to many forum regulars. I'll take that one step further, when we can no longer tolerate your approach and finally tell you what we think, you come back with the "poor little innocent me" routine. You start the fight with impure motives, stir things up, and then try to play the part of the "point shooting martyr”. As near as I can tell, your business model for Fist Fire is to be steeped in controversy and constantly under attack. You have most certainly accomplished that. I hereby move to lock the thread because the dead horse is tired of the whip. Do I hear a second? (Edited by Ron Ankeny at 4:23 pm on Dec. 5, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Sharp Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 It would seem that the key to point shooting is the process of building a dead on index. I think it was Robbie that said "my index aims the gun", I've heard some fantastic skeet and trap shooters say something similar, in their case they were saying the cheek weld aims the gun, IIRC. "It used to be that my sight were everything. Now they just confirm my index on closer shots." Awesome point! (no pun intended) Ron Avery says something similar in his classes when he talks about the S.A.F.E. drills. With enough time on building your index the sights should be aligned practically from the holster, your eye just validates this if needed. D.R. teaches a system built on your index. You build your ability to index the pistol by feel first than learn how to use the sights. I like the term "indexed shooting" over point shooting for the reason some have stated here. It conjures images of the Hoover era FBI guys shooting from the hip. When I point shoot, I'm allowing the index to point the pistol. For me its simple enough, if I had to put numbers on it I would say, 0-5 yards Index is enough for accurate hits, 5-10 yards looking through the sights is enough for acurate hits, after 10 yards I really need to stay on the sights. I'm sure with more time and effort in building my index I can extend those ranges but for now the limits of my ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRM Posted December 5, 2002 Author Share Posted December 5, 2002 Ah, the name calling thing again… To be quite honest, if this is all you guys have to offer, then go ahead and lock up the thread. I'll still be waiting for you to prove me and my FIST-FIRE System wrong. Shouldn't be that hard, now should it? Later, D.R. Middlebrooks - Director Tactical Shooting Academy (TSA) http://www.TacticalShooting.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Quote: from DRM on 7:41 pm on Dec. 5, 2002 Ah, the name calling thing again… To be quite honest, if this is all you guys have to offer, then go ahead and lock up the thread. I'll still be waiting for you to prove me and my FIST-FIRE System wrong. Shouldn't be that hard, now should it? Later, D.R. Middlebrooks - Director Tactical Shooting Academy (TSA) http://www.TacticalShooting.com I think it will be damn hard since we don't even know what it is because you have not been willing to share it with us. (Edited by Singlestack at 8:13 pm on Dec. 5, 2002) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts