benos Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Back when I thought that not seeing the sights was quicker than tracking them I just didn't understand that seeing doesn't have to have a beginning and an end. That's killer. I remember having a "no beginning or end" realization regarding paying attention and seeing. It was revolutionary for me. I remember thinking - visualize everything you will see the entire time the pistol is out of the holster. So instead of creating a string of images (sight pictures for example), you create a movie in your head. And at the buzzer the movie starts. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 a drawback for not seeing them is in the transition. as the eyes are shooting to the next target of a transition, especially if the target you are transitioning to is out of your field of view will get you in trouble on those close ones. been there...lately, as a matter of fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Anytime you don't think you see, or don't think you need to see, in order to accomplish your shooting goal then you've simply mixed up what has changed. What has NOT changed is the need to see. What HAS changed is what you need to see.J Jack, absolutely! Realizing what you need to see, and then seeing it. That reminds me of one of the all time greatest shooting quotes by The Burner. Which is also related to what Brian just posted about creating a movie in your head. Imagine if you were watching an action flick where only the character who was currently speaking was allowed to move. All the other players and objects in the movie just froze when someone else was speaking. Frame-by-frame. That would seem very stilted and wierd, wouldn't it? That's the way a stage feels to me if I haven't properly visualized it. The action starts and stops and everthing feels ragged and a little jittery. There is no flow. By properly visualizing, we are realizing what we need to see and preparing our minds too be able to see it. While focused intently on the seeing, there is no conciousness of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 While focused intently on the seeing, there is no conciousness of time. Perfect - once again. At that point although you are moving quickly you are not in a hurry. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 That reminds me of one of the all time greatest shooting quotes by The Burner. Which was....? You tease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Um, er..... "I saw what I needed to see to make the shot!"??? Or something like that??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odie Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 My problem lately seems to be the opposite. Aiming TOO MUCH at targets at that distance. Which is basically the same thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Yes, Odie. I think it is the same thing. Once, when practicing with forum member MX5 (Ron Ankeny) we came upon the concept of "obsessing over the sight picture" on close targets. One way I have worked on this issue is to do one shot draws to progressively farther(or smaller) targets. Start with a close one, say five yards. Draw, see, press. I can usually shoot an "A" in around .9 on a five yard target and see the sight very well. Same time for a ten yarder. At fifteen, 1.3 to a draw and "A". Twenty five yards is about 1.5 to an "A". My draw time is the same. My sight picture is the same. The extra time is required to pause and align the gun a little better and to work the trigger a tad slower, for the extra precision needed on the smaller target. What I "need to see" at the longer distance is the gun pausing on the "A" zone". Up close, the gun is still moving a little, but not enough to cause a miss and I can slap the trigger like a rented mule. A few posts back, Jack made a great point about knowing what one needs to be looking for. What HAS changed is what you need to see. If I'm looking for something that I don't need, I'm obsessing. If I'm not seeing something that I need to see, I'm missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 A few posts back, Jack made a great point about knowing what one needs to be looking for. What HAS changed is what you need to see. If I'm looking for something that I don't need, I'm obsessing. If I'm not seeing something that I need to see, I'm missing. Not that I know anything ---but I'd argue Jack's point. Nothing has changed --- you still need to see different things for a 25 yard partial than for a three yard open target or for a ten yard head shot --- except for the shooter's awareness that different targets require different levels of precision, precision being the degree of sight alignment and fine motor control to not disturb that alignment to the point where the shot goes somewhere other than intended..... In other words --- the skill required hasn't changed; the shooter's perception of the skill and his ability to execute have.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cas Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 (edited) When I'm point shooting and doing it right... (which isn't the right term because when I'm doing it right I don't see the gun), it's almost like I have a telephoto lens. I sort of see the targets up close and just see the holes appearing where I want them without any other thought. It's only afterwards that I realize what I did/saw. Of course that doesn't always happen, or even usually happen. I've had times where the targets started at 3 yards and slowly moved out.. 3-5-10-15+, and I've point shot them all really well UNTIL that oh so smart conscious mind gets involved and the little voice in my head said "you know you're not aiming?" Of course at that point it all goes out the window. Just like the old bit in the cartoons where they walk off a cliff. It isn't till they look down that they start to fall. That best describes my non aimed shooting. Which come to think of it is the same way I touch type without looking. (since I never took a typing class) Once I realize I'm doing it, it comes to a screeching halt. Edited November 2, 2008 by cas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 A few posts back, Jack made a great point about knowing what one needs to be looking for. What HAS changed is what you need to see. If I'm looking for something that I don't need, I'm obsessing. If I'm not seeing something that I need to see, I'm missing. Not that I know anything ---but I'd argue Jack's point. Nothing has changed --- you still need to see different things for a 25 yard partial than for a three yard open target or for a ten yard head shot --- except for the shooter's awareness that different targets require different levels of precision, precision being the degree of sight alignment and fine motor control to not disturb that alignment to the point where the shot goes somewhere other than intended..... In other words --- the skill required hasn't changed; the shooter's perception of the skill and his ability to execute have.... From my perspective you just reinforced my point. At least that's what I was trying to say. On certain targets there's this idea that a shooter can let loose the hounds and not pay attention to the road. I'd contend there are definitly times where I am really dialed in and there are times where my vision is more open. I don't stop seeing though. I just understand that I can (read into that NEED) to see different things depending on the shooting scenario. Maybe I made my point wrong. I know this. I've yet to encounter a scenario where I felt so confident in my ability that I wanted to shoot the targets blindfolded so my vision wouldn't slow me down. That would indicate for me at least that there is need to see certain things regardless of how easy the targets are. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 A few posts back, Jack made a great point about knowing what one needs to be looking for. What HAS changed is what you need to see. If I'm looking for something that I don't need, I'm obsessing. If I'm not seeing something that I need to see, I'm missing. Not that I know anything ---but I'd argue Jack's point. Nothing has changed --- you still need to see different things for a 25 yard partial than for a three yard open target or for a ten yard head shot --- except for the shooter's awareness that different targets require different levels of precision, precision being the degree of sight alignment and fine motor control to not disturb that alignment to the point where the shot goes somewhere other than intended..... In other words --- the skill required hasn't changed; the shooter's perception of the skill and his ability to execute have.... From my perspective you just reinforced my point. At least that's what I was trying to say. On certain targets there's this idea that a shooter can let loose the hounds and not pay attention to the road. I'd contend there are definitly times where I am really dialed in and there are times where my vision is more open. I don't stop seeing though. I just understand that I can (read into that NEED) to see different things depending on the shooting scenario. Maybe I made my point wrong. I know this. I've yet to encounter a scenario where I felt so confident in my ability that I wanted to shoot the targets blindfolded so my vision wouldn't slow me down. That would indicate for me at least that there is need to see certain things regardless of how easy the targets are. J Jack, you made your point fine. After I wrote all that, I went searching back for the whole post --- and realized that we were talking about two very subtle hues of the same color. That difference --- probably just semantics or personality..... This is a fabulous thread about being open to sensory input and deciding how to utilize that input in executing a task.... I'm grateful for the education.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I know this. I've yet to encounter a scenario where I felt so confident in my ability that I wanted to shoot the targets blindfolded so my vision wouldn't slow me down. That would indicate for me at least that there is need to see certain things regardless of how easy the targets are.J Well put. (...as I slap my head wondering why I never thought of saying that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1b Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 A few posts back, Jack made a great point about knowing what one needs to be looking for. What HAS changed is what you need to see. If I'm looking for something that I don't need, I'm obsessing. If I'm not seeing something that I need to see, I'm missing. Not that I know anything ---but I'd argue Jack's point. Nothing has changed --- you still need to see different things for a 25 yard partial than for a three yard open target or for a ten yard head shot --- except for the shooter's awareness that different targets require different levels of precision, precision being the degree of sight alignment and fine motor control to not disturb that alignment to the point where the shot goes somewhere other than intended..... In other words --- the skill required hasn't changed; the shooter's perception of the skill and his ability to execute have.... From my perspective you just reinforced my point. At least that's what I was trying to say. On certain targets there's this idea that a shooter can let loose the hounds and not pay attention to the road. I'd contend there are definitly times where I am really dialed in and there are times where my vision is more open. I don't stop seeing though. I just understand that I can (read into that NEED) to see different things depending on the shooting scenario. Maybe I made my point wrong. I know this. I've yet to encounter a scenario where I felt so confident in my ability that I wanted to shoot the targets blindfolded so my vision wouldn't slow me down. That would indicate for me at least that there is need to see certain things regardless of how easy the targets are. J Jack, you made your point fine. After I wrote all that, I went searching back for the whole post --- and realized that we were talking about two very subtle hues of the same color. That difference --- probably just semantics or personality..... This is a fabulous thread about being open to sensory input and deciding how to utilize that input in executing a task.... I'm grateful for the education.... I figured we were kind of saying the same thing. I do so enjoy the various perspectives. It's brainstorming sessions like this that I think are so helpful. Because it gives me or any other forum member so many doors to explore to find the right answer. I too am grateful for the education. I learn things here everyday. It's cool. Thanks for the props Flex J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Sorry all. I think I'm the one who is hard to understand. I fully agreed with Jack's post all along. And to further confuse matters, my definintion of "seeing" has been changing lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 How so, O Obscure One? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Hi Duane! Yes, my definition of seeing has changed..... relative to some things that I now notice that I never recall noticing before. Things that were there before, my eyes were certainly were looking at them. But, I wasn't concious of them. It's like my eyes saw you walking as I drove my truck down the street. I might have thought that I didn't see anyone walking down the street. Or I might have thought that I saw someone, but didn't recognize them. Or I might have thought there was Duane walking along in blue jeans, hiking boots, and a grey sweatshirt with a cup of Starbucks coffee in his right hand and Glock slighty printing under his strong side waistband.....wow, is Duane left handed? Then I mime the words "you're printing" as I drive by, and you grin, nodding, shrug your shoulders and flip me the bird. That's how the term "seeing" has sort of changed meaning for me since joining Brian's forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolduckboy Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I actually find myself using the sights for my first shot only and then muscle memory kicks in for the rest of the targets 15yard and closer. I never knew this until my 3rd year of shooting though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 What percentage of the points do you usually shoot at matches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolduckboy Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 What percentage of the points do you usually shoot at matches? for me? I was averaging top 15 at local matches, I push myself way too much which is my downfall. My mental game sucks when going into stages and switching gears between close and far targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Do you know the actual percentage? Also, this: I actually find myself using the sights for my first shot only and then muscle memory kicks in for the rest of the targets 15yard and closer. and this: I was averaging top 15 at local matches, I push myself way too much which is my downfall. My mental game sucks when going into stages and switching gears between close and far targets. are just about diametrically opposed. How about going back to using your sights for every shot and see if that changes anything for the better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolduckboy Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 (edited) http://matchresults.arpc-ipsc.org/2008/12apr2008.html http://www.teamcroc.com/Scores/Jul08.txt http://www.teamcroc.com/Scores/Apr08.txt http://www.columbia-cascade.org/Matchresul...SArea1_2008.txt There are 4 matches that I shot with my Limited gun, I have a pretty good run with stages then I get pretty confident and bomb a stage. Edited November 13, 2008 by Coolduckboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 That reminds me of one of the all time greatest shooting quotes by The Burner. Which was....? You tease. The Burner was being interviewed just after shooting a blazing string of runs, on the stage Roundabout, at the Steel Challenge. The interviewer, Kirby Smith (also a shooter), in somewhat of a state of shock and disbelief, asked him "Did you see your sights on every target"? To which the Burner replied, "I saw what I needed to see." I was there (overheard) for that. It was a truly awesome summation of a shooter's job. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Griffin Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I've recently discovered a few good drills for this, and like everyone says, it's no slower and a lot better. I do recall at Nationals that the one stage I won in L10 I clearly saw my sights on every shot, and wound up with 1 or 2 Cs. The points won that stage for me, I think I was nearly .5 sec off the fastest time. However, at Nats there were no easy shots that I recall. H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 What if I ask, what do you need to see at 5, 7, 15 and 25 yds to get an A hit and asked you to visualize it. Go ahead and visualize each distance then scroll down. How many here just had an image of a perfect sight picture on the center of an A zone at every distance? 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