Awesome! Thanks for doing this, really helps to bring the point home. You dont want to go too slow, or so fast you leave too many points on the stage, but as fast as you can go, maintaining control, and shooting optimal points.
Thanks Tim! Where I struggle empathizing Points in a stage is maintaining max aggression all non shooting actions in stage (draw, reload, movement, shifting vision). You were winded 2nd run shooting controlled for more Alphas. Shows shooting more controlled you’re still going 100% .
Hi Tim...still seeing improvements both from your lessons to me a few months back and your practice suggestions. I learned and improved more from you in 2 1/2 hours than in several years of bad lessons and wasted practice sessions.
You have no idea how glad I am to have seen this video. When we want to turn up the speed, we go from 5 to 12 instead of to 7. It's important to keep the alphas. Footwork will do more for the average shooter than split times anyway. Thanks to the video.
I would like to see u reverse the sequence and shoot the alphas first and the aggressive second. That way u could see if there was a statistical difference in stage learning by shooting a stage that u had already completed. Shooting major power factor may also bring about a change in output hit factor.
I’ve experimented each way and have come to the same conclusion each time. Even shooting major, there’s no difference. You simply can’t shoot faster than the points deficit costs.
Your times were nearly identical for both, I would expect more time savings especially with no-shoot partials vs hardcover stuff. Interesting stuff, just needs to be run more.
What do you mean, “needs to be run more”? If I shot it as fast as I can, which might have even been maybe even a whole second faster, do you agree that a mike, no shoot, even more deltas and nearly zero “acceptable” shots would have skewed the results even more? I wanted to shoot the stage as close to meaningful both stage runs and approach it as much like we do in a match. In all of my early and lengthy testing and experiments with this, the “time savings” just isn’t there like we’d like to believe. Perception of time and time dilation happen because our conscious mind isn’t focused on time, but rather the collecting points. Brian Enos speaks of this same thing in his book Practical Shooting, Beyond the Fundamentals. It’s the same sensation when we’re experiencing “shooting in the zone” and then we get the time at the end and can’t believe we executed that fast.
@@codywalker2927 so like I explained above AND in the video. What would you have preferred me to do? Shoot so aggressively that there’s ZERO control or accountability? That would have skewed the results even further. I feel like this test and concept trial are lost on a few who simply want to see results that more support their particular view point that raw tested data as I provided. I can promise you, the results would have been even further separated. I guess the only thing I could encourage you to do is run a similar test yourself however you want them and then record your data. See if it still supports your viewpoint. But, you’ve got to be completely honest and unbiased. 😉
Ok so this sounds great for the pros that can take an extra .1 second over an entire stage and go from 10 Charlie’s to 4 (obviously) but what about for those of us that aren’t pros and to get that level of increase in accuracy we need to take 3 - 5 additional seconds. What’s the difference then? Better to go fast or better to get the alphas?
I still would advocate getting points. People believe it takes them longer to aim than it actually does. Time dilation is real. If you’re aiming, it’s not costing you any appreciable time. It’s purely visual discipline
I am 70 and been shooting under frank garcia since i started shooting 4 years ago. At my age, limited speed and all other things a 70 year old deals with he wants me to shoot alphas. At my age, when i speed up too much, my accuracy really suffers. At my age my difference in speeds would probably be 5 seconds or more. Wish i had was younger 😢
True but if someone has .35 splits and someone has .15 splits. One person can shoot 6 times in a second while the other person can shoot only twice in a second. That will definitely add up towards the end of the match not in milliseconds but in multiple seconds.
But your time was almost identical in both runs , different was minimal , few hundreds of the second . Not sure what this proves , maybe you just had better run second time. I think you need to run this few times and make time difference little more significant, If you'd shave 1.5 second off first run wit same hits , you'd pretty much same HF as second more accurate run
I’ve run this many times and tested it in many ways. The proof is that people think that aiming and being disciplined to a higher level of accuracy is a huge time difference…and there’s just not. It’s all about simply paying more attention to the correct things and focusing on the process and not time/results
@@TimHerronShooting let them argue. The internet will argue anything. It's the "hey you could get better if you put in the work" and the internet yells "don't tell me what to do!"
Having seen the behind the scenes of this video, some of these partials were VERY close to the minimal allowable scoring zone. How much more "not worth it" from a risk perspective would you have him make the target before you accept the results as valid?
@@charlesfisher3983 I'm not necessarily talking about that end of the spectrum. What about full A zone partials? How about NS vs hardcover partials? Do you shoot them all the same?
On your "speed run" you were only .10 faster. It seems at this point in your shooting career you can't rush your shooting because you've trained to only accept a proper sight picture. I'm a run-of-the-mill A class shooter and I would be at least 2 or 3 seconds slower trying to shoot all As
Awesome! Thanks for doing this, really helps to bring the point home. You dont want to go too slow, or so fast you leave too many points on the stage, but as fast as you can go, maintaining control, and shooting optimal points.
Thanks for doing these videos Tim!
Thanks Tim! Where I struggle empathizing Points in a stage is maintaining max aggression all non shooting actions in stage (draw, reload, movement, shifting vision). You were winded 2nd run shooting controlled for more Alphas. Shows shooting more controlled you’re still going 100% .
Hi Tim...still seeing improvements both from your lessons to me a few months back and your practice suggestions. I learned and improved more from you in 2 1/2 hours than in several years of bad lessons and wasted practice sessions.
You have no idea how glad I am to have seen this video. When we want to turn up the speed, we go from 5 to 12 instead of to 7. It's important to keep the alphas. Footwork will do more for the average shooter than split times anyway. Thanks to the video.
The best shooting channel on RUclips. Honest, practical guidance. Thanks Tim
Thank you! I truly appreciate that!
As everyone says, "Go fast; don't suck."
Big agree!
However, telling myself to be more patience has proved to be the hardest shooting hurdle I’ve ever encountered
Do you want it good or do you want it fast? I want it good and fast. Still working on that! But we never stop reaching for that goal, do we?
THANK YOU for this topic! Super relevant and helpful.
Could you do a video specifically on when you do or don't use predictive shooting? How to manage transitions if using predictive shooting?
I would like to see u reverse the sequence and shoot the alphas first and the aggressive second. That way u could see if there was a statistical difference in stage learning by shooting a stage that u had already completed. Shooting major power factor may also bring about a change in output hit factor.
I’ve experimented each way and have come to the same conclusion each time.
Even shooting major, there’s no difference. You simply can’t shoot faster than the points deficit costs.
Shooting at the speed of sight!
Your times were nearly identical for both, I would expect more time savings especially with no-shoot partials vs hardcover stuff. Interesting stuff, just needs to be run more.
What do you mean, “needs to be run more”? If I shot it as fast as I can, which might have even been maybe even a whole second faster, do you agree that a mike, no shoot, even more deltas and nearly zero “acceptable” shots would have skewed the results even more?
I wanted to shoot the stage as close to meaningful both stage runs and approach it as much like we do in a match.
In all of my early and lengthy testing and experiments with this, the “time savings” just isn’t there like we’d like to believe. Perception of time and time dilation happen because our conscious mind isn’t focused on time, but rather the collecting points. Brian Enos speaks of this same thing in his book Practical Shooting, Beyond the Fundamentals.
It’s the same sensation when we’re experiencing “shooting in the zone” and then we get the time at the end and can’t believe we executed that fast.
@@codywalker2927 so like I explained above AND in the video. What would you have preferred me to do? Shoot so aggressively that there’s ZERO control or accountability? That would have skewed the results even further.
I feel like this test and concept trial are lost on a few who simply want to see results that more support their particular view point that raw tested data as I provided. I can promise you, the results would have been even further separated.
I guess the only thing I could encourage you to do is run a similar test yourself however you want them and then record your data. See if it still supports your viewpoint. But, you’ve got to be completely honest and unbiased. 😉
@@codywalker2927 do you really believe there’s going to be a substantial difference in speed?
@codywalker2927 so you would have him intentionally falsify test results in order to prove a point? Who did you vote for in the last election?????
It's almost like the time that it takes to assure yourself of good hits isn't that much more than to have no idea what your hits are
Ok so this sounds great for the pros that can take an extra .1 second over an entire stage and go from 10 Charlie’s to 4 (obviously) but what about for those of us that aren’t pros and to get that level of increase in accuracy we need to take 3 - 5 additional seconds. What’s the difference then? Better to go fast or better to get the alphas?
I still would advocate getting points. People believe it takes them longer to aim than it actually does. Time dilation is real. If you’re aiming, it’s not costing you any appreciable time. It’s purely visual discipline
I am 70 and been shooting under frank garcia since i started shooting 4 years ago. At my age, limited speed and all other things a 70 year old deals with he wants me to shoot alphas. At my age, when i speed up too much, my accuracy really suffers. At my age my difference in speeds would probably be 5 seconds or more. Wish i had was younger 😢
❤
Movement is far more important than splits when it comes to speed
True but if someone has .35 splits and someone has .15 splits. One person can shoot 6 times in a second while the other person can shoot only twice in a second. That will definitely add up towards the end of the match not in milliseconds but in multiple seconds.
But your time was almost identical in both runs , different was minimal , few hundreds of the second . Not sure what this proves , maybe you just had better run second time. I think you need to run this few times and make time difference little more significant, If you'd shave 1.5 second off first run wit same hits , you'd pretty much same HF as second more accurate run
I’ve run this many times and tested it in many ways. The proof is that people think that aiming and being disciplined to a higher level of accuracy is a huge time difference…and there’s just not. It’s all about simply paying more attention to the correct things and focusing on the process and not time/results
GODDAMNIT THOM, STOP GIVING OUT FREE INFORMATION AND BEING A NICE GUY
People argue regardless🤷🏻♂️
@@TimHerronShooting let them argue. The internet will argue anything.
It's the "hey you could get better if you put in the work" and the internet yells "don't tell me what to do!"
Well great now the uspsa internet is broke
Not all partials have the same risk. Some are worth the time getting alphas, others aren't. I think that has to be part of the equation.
I’ve gotta respectfully disagree
Having seen the behind the scenes of this video, some of these partials were VERY close to the minimal allowable scoring zone. How much more "not worth it" from a risk perspective would you have him make the target before you accept the results as valid?
@@charlesfisher3983 I'm not necessarily talking about that end of the spectrum. What about full A zone partials? How about NS vs hardcover partials? Do you shoot them all the same?
@@stvnchng4755 all partials are designed to distract you from shooting A zones. Why let them?
On your "speed run" you were only .10 faster. It seems at this point in your shooting career you can't rush your shooting because you've trained to only accept a proper sight picture. I'm a run-of-the-mill A class shooter and I would be at least 2 or 3 seconds slower trying to shoot all As
I don’t think you would. Even if there were a 2 second disparity, the prioritization of points would still be better.
So shoot alphas as fast as possible 👍
Promo_SM ☹️