Shotgunworld.com
https://www.shotgunworld.com:443/bbs/

A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Class
https://www.shotgunworld.com:443/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=517088
Page 10 of 11

Author:  lt0026 [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

The NSCA exists in name only. The NSSA runs the show. The people that run the NSSA in SA collect paychecks and benefits. Just because you volunteer doesn't mean you aren't accountable or open to criticism.

Author:  sera [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

NSCA board members are not consulted by NSSA for decisions on paid staff.

Author:  Rooster booster [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

lt0026 wrote:
The NSCA exists in name only. The NSSA runs the show. The people that run the NSSA in SA collect paychecks and benefits. Just because you volunteer doesn't mean you aren't accountable or open to criticism.


Waiting to hear your recommendations on what you’d do differently?

Author:  Eriehunter [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

lt0026 wrote:
The NSCA exists in name only. The NSSA runs the show. The people that run the NSSA in SA collect paychecks and benefits. Just because you volunteer doesn't mean you aren't accountable or open to criticism.


Time for a revolt. :mrgreen:

Author:  lt0026 [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

sera wrote:
NSCA board members are not consulted by NSSA for decisions on paid staff.

Exactly my point. Again from the Charter: Notwithstanding the terms of this Charter or the NSCA Rules and Regulations, ultimate approval
and authority with respect to all governance and operations of the NSCA will rest with the NSSA
Executive Committee. The NSCA was gutted aa few years ago with the Charter change and all the NDA activity.

Author:  birdhunter39 [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

I'll ask the question more pointedly since it hasn't attracted an answer thus far: What exactly are the national delegates doing if not taking time to visit shoots and going down their list of new members, seeking them out and asking about their experiences thus far?

If new members were of any sort of importance to NSCA i would think this should be an absolute must do for the delegates.

Author:  lt0026 [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

The NSCA attempted an ambassador program about 5 years ago. Lots of money spent never got off the ground.

Author:  moishepipick [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Battue0626 wrote:
Some of the top group are shooting 40,000 to 50,000 shells per year counting practice. I hear more than a few say they are born with skills most don’t have. Yea they do, it’s called effort. And that thing called money unfortunately.

Any that practice seriously and pay their dues with normal ability should blow thru the D, C and B rather quickly. Staying competitive at the big shoots in AA and Masters is were the “shooters” separate.

Then age kicks you, and you have to complete against the McGuires and Duffy’s in Veterans, because the young bucks have essentially kicked them of the top 10 to 20. But they are still out there digging for every target.

You gotta have the heart for it. Other than just accept it as a weekend of screwing around and accept the class you let yourself reside in.

You are just plain wrong. There are differences in talent, not just in effort. Unless you think this game is somehow different from every other...

Author:  Rooster booster [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

No one is born with many of the ‘talents’ to whack clay targets Mooshie.......

Author:  oneounceload [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

True, but excellent eyesight is something that does make a difference, and some folks are born with the eyes of an eagle..........

Author:  Rooster booster [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

oneounceload wrote:
True, but excellent eyesight is something that does make a difference, and some folks are born with the eyes of an eagle..........


Very much agree. But I’ve known some true champions in many shooting disciplines that are blind as a bar. Not many, but it can be overcome.

I’d still rather inherit good peepers.:-)

Author:  bdog58 [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Rooster booster wrote:
No one is born with many of the ‘talents’ to whack clay targets Mooshie.......


Nah.... I'll disagree. I think there are many that have the talent spoken of. Its what people do with it. Hard work and education can overcome talent deficiencies, Couple hard work, desire, education with talent....now you're cooking. Getting the most one can with what you've got, is a cool thing.

Author:  Rooster booster [ Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Pretty much we’re born with the ‘instinct’ to breath, eat, squak, and $heet. Everything else is learned.

Yes, some are born with certain DNA that helps, but it’s mostly desire and work, not raw talent. In most anything.

Author:  bdog58 [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Well, no matter how hard I work at it, I can't sing a lick. I'm sure there are many ball players that work just as hard as Mays ever did.....but being a 5 tool player you don 't see often. Heck, look at Machado. If he worked or had the right attitude he'd be in a class all by himself....he gets by, on talent. Now Trout? He's what Machado could be.

Author:  Battue0626 [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

moishepipick wrote:
Battue0626 wrote:
Some of the top group are shooting 40,000 to 50,000 shells per year counting practice. I hear more than a few say they are born with skills most don’t have. Yea they do, it’s called effort. And that thing called money unfortunately.

Any that practice seriously and pay their dues with normal ability should blow thru the D, C and B rather quickly. Staying competitive at the big shoots in AA and Masters is were the “shooters” separate.

Then age kicks you, and you have to complete against the McGuires and Duffy’s in Veterans, because the young bucks have essentially kicked them of the top 10 to 20. But they are still out there digging for every target.

You gotta have the heart for it. Other than just accept it as a weekend of screwing around and accept the class you let yourself reside in.


You are just plain wrong. There are differences in talent, not just in effort. Unless you think this game is somehow different from every other...



You can think I'm wrong, but none has ever reached the pinnacle of their chosen field on talent. In Sporting many mention eyes, and good vision certainly helps, but as another mentioned there are many top shooters with average vision. It is also the excuse of those for one reason or another never make it close to the top.

Repetition and instruction is the key. And the sooner it starts the better, because at a young age the developing brain is a sponge. An infant brought up in a home were multiple languages are spoken, will learn all of them..It is the rare individual that will ever become fluent in Russian if they start when adult..

I talked with Wendell Cherry and he mentioned he has shot over 1 million rounds in practice.There is the repetition, and he also has taken lessons and has been instructed and applied-ingrained-the foundations of shotgun shooting Then there are the tricks. Tricks being a better or easier way to shot specific targets. And the top guns often still take instruction from each other.

Would be a boring book for many, unless one is interested into how the prodigies are made.....and they are made....

It addresses the fact that shooting is no different than any other skill or sport...Be it playing the violin or shooting..And shooting is a skill....a made skill....Most never even come close to making the required commitment to being the best they can be.

Image

In endeavors that require speed or strength, there are those born with the advantage of slow or fast twitch muscle fibers, which most definitely would be a DNA advantage depending on the sport. Shooting falls in neither situation.

Author:  moishepipick [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

I agree that none has ever reached the pinnacle on talent alone. But I also believe none has ever reached the pinnacle without it.

Author:  Battue0626 [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

moishepipick wrote:
I agree that none has ever reached the pinnacle on talent alone. But I also believe none has ever reached the pinnacle without it.


Much depends on ones definition of talent....Is talent an innate gift that is obvious....or possibly a latent gift that was never nourished at a young age and subsequently died...

Number two is my horse...It is way many children of skilled athletes or violin players become skilled themselves..The talent is given a chance to develop by close association and early instruction from the parent when the brain is a sponge.

Running fast is an example of a fast twitch muscle talent some are born with..Many other skills we are not born with, shooting being one, they are essentially made....

Addition: I agree with you that there are those born with talents that apply to shooting....But i think there are more great shooters who had nothing more than average ability, who were fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity and instruction, combined with their desire, which enabled them to be the equal and exceed the more naturally gifted.

Author:  Skeet_Man [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Most if not all of the shooting sports are great equalizers.

None of them require exceptional speed, endurance, eyesight, muscle mass, ect.

They are also one of the few sports sectors for which being male vs female offers no clear advantage one way or the other.

Sure, previous life experiences can help with FACTORS in shooting (you played college baseball, so you have a better honed sense of eye/hand coordination, ect), but in my opinion shooting neither involves or requires any innate "talent" or ability that you received by luck, and more so than just about any other athletic endeavor requires mostly time, desire, and dedication. The younger you start is obviously advantageous as well, if for no other reason than giving you the opportunity for more raw trigger time.

If you've already given up because you think everyone else got the magical "talent" at birth and you weren't given any, you've already lost.

Author:  Rooster booster [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Skeet_Man wrote:
Most if not all of the shooting sports are great equalizers.

None of them require exceptional speed, endurance, eyesight, muscle mass, ect.

They are also one of the few sports sectors for which being male vs female offers no clear advantage one way or the other.

Sure, previous life experiences can help with FACTORS in shooting (you played college baseball, so you have a better honed sense of eye/hand coordination, ect), but in my opinion shooting neither involves or requires any innate "talent" or ability that you received by luck, and more so than just about any other athletic endeavor requires mostly time, desire, and dedication. The younger you start is obviously advantageous as well, if for no other reason than giving you the opportunity for more raw trigger time.

If you've already given up because you think everyone else got the magical "talent" at birth and you weren't given any, you've already lost.



Bingo!

Author:  oneounceload [ Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A better way to refer to Shooters in A, B, C, D, or E Cl

Skeet_Man wrote:
Most if not all of the shooting sports are great equalizers.

None of them require exceptional speed, endurance, eyesight, muscle mass, ect.

They are also one of the few sports sectors for which being male vs female offers no clear advantage one way or the other.

Sure, previous life experiences can help with FACTORS in shooting (you played college baseball, so you have a better honed sense of eye/hand coordination, ect), but in my opinion shooting neither involves or requires any innate "talent" or ability that you received by luck, and more so than just about any other athletic endeavor requires mostly time, desire, and dedication. The younger you start is obviously advantageous as well, if for no other reason than giving you the opportunity for more raw trigger time.

If you've already given up because you think everyone else got the magical "talent" at birth and you weren't given any, you've already lost.


Sorry, I do not agree with this.

Quote:
None of them require exceptional speed, endurance, eyesight, muscle mass, ect.


So, if I take a young 16 year old kid who plays sports and is in great shape, and an 85 year old who has been shooting for almost 80 years and have them both shoot two back to back 100 bird tournaments in this Florida 98 degree heat and 99% humidity, you're saying that muscle mass and endurance won't matter? BS

Quote:
shooting neither involves or requires any innate "talent" or ability that you received by luck, and more so than just about any other athletic endeavor requires mostly time, desire, and dedication.


So, that same gent (who is a friend of mine and closer now to 90 than 80) and has been hunting and shooting for 80 years should be the world champ while a young kid like Joseph Fanizzi, who's been a Master Class shooter since he was about 12-13 or so and goes toe to toe with the very best anywhere shouldn't be that good because, IYO, there's no such thing as innate ability? Again, BS

I do agree that being a female makes no difference - Kim win her first Olympic Gold at 16 - so why do we still continue to separate the top women and men?

Page 10 of 11 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/