How well do you shoot & the 10,000 hour theory

[Eric. 9]

Nowhere near 10,000 hours I can assure you...

Here's thought- to be admitted into the Scout-Sniper program, you have to have time in under an MOS 03 (infantry) and you have to already be a qualified expert marksman.

 

*Before you enter the program*

 

 

Eric

[supranatural 66]

There has been questions about the 1 hour of practic, etc.  The 10,000 hour rule as proposed/bastardized by Geoff Colvin (I was mistaken when I attributed it to Gladwell)  is supposed to consist of what he calls deliberate practice.  It is not just random practice (i.e., I'll throw around the basketball for an hour) but specific and designed to push the limits of your skill.  According to Gladwell someone can only do this 2-3 times a day for an hour or so as it is too mentally taxing to do for 8 hours a day.  So let's say you do 4 hours per day, 6 days per week that means according to Colvin you would need 8 years to achieve that.  However, in David Epstein's book "The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance" he shows an example of where a world class jumper had trained his entire life, set world records, won Olympic Gold, then a (I think) Jamaican guy from the local basketball team decided to try high jumping and within a year had beaten this record holder - without having done anywhere near 10,000 hours of practice.  In fact the guy didn't like to practice at all.  What he did have was genetic gifts that made him a natural jumper (very short archilles tendon for one, IIRC, as well as being taller).  So with a lot less practice he dethroned the current world record holder.  Epstein shows numerous examples like that in the book.  I was very athletic (national/international class in 3 sports) and my son, who is 4 years old, usually rises to the top of whatever sports class we put him in - a lot of his friends look like total spaz's next to him on the playground - and I attribute that as much to his genetics as anything I've done with him.

 

[supranatural 66]

I do agree that the 10000hr rule might have some holes.  Even still, its not completely without merit either.

 

One of the underlying suggestions is that with dedicated practice (to be redundant: practice&coaching&instruction&competition), anyone can reach a high level of proficiency.  That doesn't mean they can play like the top of the field, but they won't be mediocre, by a long shot.

 

For that matter, if anyone plays Pool on this forum, I'd be willing to challenge anyone, if you would like to see what 9000 hours of dedicated practice and play time can produce.  I know this comes across as arrogant but really,its just confidence in knowing where my abilities are, on the totum pole.

 

If anyone feels like reading something interesting, google "the dan plan".  Its about a guy that took up golf 5 years ago, at 30 yrs old.  Dan is running uis own 10k hr experiment.

 

 

Eric

I know of that guy, he decided to put the theory to the test.  I'm very interested in knowing the results.  I have a similar plan for my son which started when he was 1-1/2 years old although I'm not officially tracking the hours just yet.

 

The 10k rule has some merit, however the proponents of it state that world class performance is achieved at that mark.  The 10,000 hour theory has since been debunked with numerous examples of people doing it in a lot less hours, and people who have put in the requisite 10,000 hours and not achieving anything near world class performance.

 

That said, I always believe if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well and being able to shoot well is a skill that is highly desirable.

[Eric. 9]

 

 However, in David Epstein's book "The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance" he shows an example of where a world class jumper had trained his entire life, set world records, won Olympic Gold, then a (I think) Jamaican guy from the local basketball team decided to try high jumping and within a year had beaten this record holder - without having done anywhere near 10,000 hours of practice.  In fact the guy didn't like to practice at all.  What he did have was genetic gifts that made him a natural jumper (very short archilles tendon for one, IIRC, as well as being taller).  So with a lot less practice he dethroned the current world record holder.

 

I would agree with most of what you are saying, but I'm not sure the Jamaican high jumper is the best example, for the 10,000hr rule.  With high jumping, natural physical attributes are such a huge factor.  If a guy is born "physically superior", then all the practice in teh world will not allow you to beat him.

 

IMO, a better test for the 10k hr rule would be a skill that takes a lot less physical ability.  I think shooting guns would be a good basis for the experiment, for example.

 

 

Eric

[supranatural 66]

I would agree with most of what you are saying, but I'm not sure the Jamaican high jumper is the best example, for the 10,000hr rule.  With high jumping, natural physical attributes are such a huge factor.  If a guy is born "physically superior", then all the practice in teh world will not allow you to beat him.

 

IMO, a better test for the 10k hr rule would be a skill that takes a lot less physical ability.  I think shooting guns would be a good basis for the experiment, for example.

 

 

Eric

I agree, it's not the best way to illustrate it.  The book is filled with examples of people with the genetic predisposition for certain sports (some of the main examples are runners with greater VO2 capacities and specific muscle fiber composition) but I've also seen examples myself where some people simply have better hand eye coordination and these same people require less time than other people to reach a specific skill level, as well as being able to achieve more in the long run.  

 

It's an interesting question without a doubt.  I consider my son to be my own science experiment in this regards although to be fair he comes from an athletic family on both sides of his parents families  and it would have been a better test if both my wife and I were un-athletic couch potatoes.  I've vacillated between the nature/nurture side of the debate for sports abilities for years now and depending on what year you ask me my answer may be different .

[RichP 115]

Perhaps if the creator of this theory, or the writer of this article had spent 10,000 hours practicing their own profession/skills, they could have come up with something worth reading.

[raz-0 1,259]

I would agree with most of what you are saying, but I'm not sure the Jamaican high jumper is the best example, for the 10,000hr rule.  With high jumping, natural physical attributes are such a huge factor.  If a guy is born "physically superior", then all the practice in teh world will not allow you to beat him.

 

IMO, a better test for the 10k hr rule would be a skill that takes a lot less physical ability.  I think shooting guns would be a good basis for the experiment, for example.

 

 

Eric

 

Except you would be wrong. Shooting seriously involves visual processing and motor skills. People with better eyesight have more potential to be good, especially with iron sights on long guns, that's mostly genetic. Then you have how the visual cortex processes stuff, and how people have learned to see. You can get the best out of that, but a good chunk of it has been set dependent on environmental/experiential factors occurring before some pretty early developmental milestones. Then of course you have reaction times. Not everyone is the same, and it's not just about practice. Then you have things like blood pressure, one's natural stress and anxiety responses and what they do to your heart rate and blood pressure, etc. IT may not be raw physical strength or endurance, but it doesn't mean it isn't constrained by physical limitations that are genetic or a matter of early childhood development, and fall into the same basic pattern of physical ability. 

[Eric. 9]

Except you would be wrong. Shooting seriously involves visual processing and motor skills. People with better eyesight have more potential to be good, especially with iron sights on long guns, that's mostly genetic. Then you have how the visual cortex processes stuff, and how people have learned to see. You can get the best out of that, but a good chunk of it has been set dependent on environmental/experiential factors occurring before some pretty early developmental milestones. Then of course you have reaction times. Not everyone is the same, and it's not just about practice. Then you have things like blood pressure, one's natural stress and anxiety responses and what they do to your heart rate and blood pressure, etc. IT may not be raw physical strength or endurance, but it doesn't mean it isn't constrained by physical limitations that are genetic or a matter of early childhood development, and fall into the same basic pattern of physical ability. 

"Wrong" is pretty strong.  In my opinion, it's not so cut & dried with some of the stuff you mentioned.

 

I agree that someone with better eyesight, better visual skills, etc are genetic and are a physical advantage.  What I'm not so sure about is how much of a gap there is or how big of an advantage it is?  Are the results a huge gap or maybe a smaller one?  Maybe someone with a background in that field can chime in?

 

One thing I absolutely know, if one man is 6'6" and another is 5'5", the taller guy has a huge advantage in dunking a basketball.  The shorter guy can train til he has holes in his sneakers but he will have a near impossible time coming close to the tall guy's abilities (Spud webb, excluded).

 

 

Eric

[NickySantoro 211]

!0K hours shooting guns?  When they are shooting at you you get real good real fast or you get real dead real fast. BTDT.

Where do these characters come up with this shit?