Notwithstanding natural ability and dedication to the game, champion shooters (in any discipline) excel using techniques that are popular at the time. So are champion shooters great shooters because of the techniques they're using, or in spite of them ?

I think the latter is probably more true than the former. Is there any conventional wisdom that addresses this topic ?

What say you ?

As former firearms instructor, I can say this:
There are few of us who are naturally gifted shots just as some people are naturally gifted athletes. Factor that in with good training, proper techniques and practice and you have a champion.
One of the best shooters I ever saw would come out to qualify only if you dragged him with a mule team. And then he would win our departmental shoot off.
He was a natural.

Wow. Funny how that works. Like a top musician. They are born not manufactured.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
Wow. Funny how that works. Like a top musician. They are born not manufactured.

I respectfully disagree.

Champions simply apply whatever innate talent they were born with, with greater intensity and will.

In other words, they work harder, and they work smarter.

I believe those who acheive greatness see the "natural ability" claims made for them as an insult.
Abd I've bever seen it myself. Indeed, what I have seen many times, are innately gifted individuals who fail to reach their potentials because small successes came easily.

-Bruce

One Cowboy shooter put it "The more I practice, the luckier I get."

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
So are champion shooters great shooters because of the techniques they're using, or in spite of them ?

Just my personal opinion, but, regardless of natural talent/ability, champions are the ones who keep pushing themselves to be better.

Regarding your question on technique, it may actually be the other way around. For example, famed competitive shooter Brian Enos was at the top of his game when he started experimenting with his technique, trying to find a way to shoot better. One of his experiments resulted in the thumbs-forward grip that nearly all, if not all, competitive shooters use now, and has spread to the LE/mil/defensive shooting communities. So, by pushing himself to be better, he found a better technique, which in turn helped other shooters.

We are born with lungs. Not a gun.

Everything else has got to be learned.

Success is not an accident. It is a choice.

Success is a direct reflection of desire, proof of the dedication one is willing to trade to have what one claims to want.

I have seen and met shooters who are very good. I am not. They put in the effort that I have not. Were any of us to put in that effort, there is no valid reason why we could not achieve the same.

"I wish" really means "I'm not willing to put in the effort." If one does put in the effort, "I wish" becomes "I can," and then "I am."

quote:

Were any of us to put in that effort, there is no valid reason why we could not achieve the same.

Disagree. I could give a couple examples from my own local club in a half-dozen different shooting disciplines, of some who have spent hours/days/weeks/years grooming their skills.

Granted the efforts/practice/dedication/etc add considerably to the results any of us might experience.

Still there are people with a physical edge, better eyesight, etc, that they bring to the firing line that adds to the effects of their training.

A combination of innate ability and practice, practice, practice. Tony Gwynn spent hours and hours hitting balls from the pitching machine after wearing out the practice pitchers. Same principle.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
Still there are people with a physical edge, better eyesight, etc, that they bring to the firing line that adds to the effects of their training.

Which means that those who wish to equal or exceed them need to put in the effort.

That another may have a greater affinity does not negate what you can accomplish. That you don't accomplish it is no evidence that you cannot. It merely speaks to the effort made to do so.

I've seen wing shooters/Clay shooters, that were so GOOD, so quickly...there HAS to be some natural talent. While it takes Joe Average a few hundred shots to start connecting with regularity, some do it very quickly.

I recall 30+ yrs back a young man who dominated the bowling pin shooting sport for a time. He was apparently a hell of a competitor within a few days of trying the sport.

I certainly agree that concerted effort and determination matter. But I still feel there are some "naturals" out there.

There is no such thing as gifted. We don't need to rely on anecdotal evidence or speculate. The science is in. Naturally gifted is a false title. There are just people who pay more attention and are willing to out work us. Being raised in an inviroment that allows us to afford the practice/time to do the things we love is the lucky bit.

The guy who never practices and does well is not a natural. He's just doing more things correct. In his fewer practice sessions, he paid more attention.

The guys at the top of their game, any game, may have won the genetic lottery, 6'7" makes basketball easier, but that is it. In the end, they all worked their butts off.

If the topic is of serious interest to you, you might read Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers". He says in 250 pages what Bruce just told is in three sentences, still its a good read.

Might there be an analogy in other endeavors where physical ability is required? So all those bodybuilders back in the day defeated in competition with Arnold Schwarzenegger, just didn't train hard enough??? Genetics/DNA/being naturally "gifted" didn't play a significant part in what he was able to accomplish in the sport? I don't believe it.

Possible other analogies? I have been around individuals who were not "gun guys" at all. Didn't train hard at all, but performed better in training and qualification than people who did put serious effort into the endeavor. I was in a unit with a new young helicopter pilot. He didn't care to study, didn't care much about how helicopters fly, or don't fly, didn't work particularly hard at training, but when it came to just flying the helicopter, he was a natural. One might say gifted....ymmv

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rock185,

I'm really shocked at some of the comments in this thread.

To say there is no such thing as gifted is just stupid.

Mariano Rivera couldn't throw a 100 mph fast ball, did he not work hard enough?. Some are gifted with a great arm, some are not.

No matter how hard I train, I'll never have the gift of a multi-foot vertical jump. No matter how hard I train, I won't be a great singer.

We all have gifts and without them, we have practical ceilings.

To be truly great at anything you can't simply mail it in. You have to be obsessed and practice mercilessly.

However, to say you can be just as great as any professional who has reached the apex of their sport is flat out dumb. If that were true, we'd all be playing pro baseball making a hundred mill a season.

To reach the apex of anything, you need both a natural gift for said thing AND work tirelessly at your craft.

If you only have one, you can be good, but not great.

I concur with esdunbar. Humans are not manufactured like Camrey's. There is a bell shaped curve on muscle strength and overall contraction speed and endurance, reflexes, eyesight , even mental toughness and drive. Work and training will always help improve any skill, but someone, somewhere will have a higher ceiling. Deal with it. And don't use that as an excuse to not strive to improve yourself. After all, that is where real satisfaction lives.

I think for some people, natural ability raises the floor; for others, it raises the ceiling.

Maybe it helps to define what we are calling "a natural". YES, some are blessed with symetry and builds that lend themselves to being Arnold in his prime. YES, some of us are long limbed and have extra mobility and dexterity in our hands like Mariano. Just like being 6'7" makes you more apt to be a "potentially" great b-ball player. But these things do not make us naturals at a given task or game. It is the work they put in and the amout of knowledge they encorporated while doing it that made them great. The phyical traits simply allow them to be potentially exceptional.

Arnold any time after 1995 would never have won Mr. Olympia. His size in the modern game is to small and the smooth look that made him a legend in his day would be a nobody today except maybe at a natural event ( which are not natural).

The dexterity and mobility Mariano has could also be applied to being a champion axe thrower yet he did not become one.

Circumstance, exposure, desire, coaching, absorbsion of knowledge, practice, drive and compulsion made them what they were.

There was no natural born inate ability. You cannot find a singe example of anyone at the top of his game that did not work incredibly hard. If they also benifited from physical traits that helped then they were genetically lucky not naturals.

It used to be thought that an exceedingly rare number of people were born with perfect pitch. That this was a true natural gift. Research has shown that yes, some people can hear tones others cannot. But everyone studied and famed for this ability turns out to have had a lot of time and skin in the game. They LEARNED it.


This is a thing that has been much studied in the last 30 years. The consensus is overwhelming. There are no gifted athletes. There are no gifted children. Only hard workers.

To believe otherwise is contrary to studies in this field. It is discourteous to those we hold in high esteem for their talents, and it is a limit to our own potential.

I'm sorry hawk, but you're off the mark...big time.

I have kids. They are young-ish still. It's plain to see which ones have certain gifts.

You're "studies" that you vaguely refer to are shit.

Antonio Gates wasn't even a football palyer...and today he set the record for TE career touchdowns.

I can do this all day.

My best physical gift is snow skiing. I've always been good at it. When I went to college I got to ski against kids who grew up their whole lives skiing countless more days than me each year on harder terrain...but I was better.

I didn't work harder or ski more than they did. I was just better. I was a natural skier.

Just watch kids and ditch your silly "studies."

Since the question is about "champion" shooters...
I'll say that work has to be put in, lots of it.

I can go to local matches and place well, but when it comes down to a championship... well thats a whole different level. I don't think I'll spank Max Michel anytime soon.

Again we are talking about "champion" shooters. I don't think anyone can walk onto the championship stage in shooting and just naturally be in the top 3. Impossible.

There is a ton of technique, marksmanship skill and planning that goes into this stuff.