How'd they get so good?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that people are made by their environment and will to succeed. Anyone can do something with enough time and energy.

Leaders aren't born, they are made.
 
I believe that people are made by their environment and will to succeed. Anyone can do something with enough time and energy.
Ahhhhh...

The great american con!

Can a 4'11 - 100 lb guy ever be an offensive tackle for a pro football team no matter how much time and energy he puts into trying? NO!

Can a person with an 80 IQ ever be a nuclear physicist? NO.

Can a gravel voiced wrinkled up old guy ever be a singing sex symbol? NO.

Shall I go on?

All men ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL. Jefferson was a great man to be sure but sometimes I wish he'd just said what he meant instead of waxing poetic.
 
All men should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law(no nobility, caste system, etc). Not quite as catchy as "all men are created equal", but I that's what I've always taken it to mean in the context of the declaration of independence.

Though maybe I'm just the only one, and I'm totally off.

Back OT, it's a bit of both, but I tend to think it's just a little more natural talent, hard work is still a must, though it varies with what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Ahhhhh...

The great american con!

Can a 4'11 - 100 lb guy ever be an offensive tackle for a pro football team no matter how much time and energy he puts into trying? NO!

Can a person with an 80 IQ ever be a nuclear physicist? NO.

Can a gravel voiced wrinkled up old guy ever be a singing sex symbol? NO.

Well, if you are going to introduce handicaps, then my theory goes out the window.

4'11" is below average when it comes to height, but if they weighed 350 lbs. it is possible they could play offensive tackle.

Someone with 80 iq either did not have enough time and energy to learn or they didn't care. Or maybe they are mentally retarded?

Again, I am not referring to people who are very young or very old. (Gravel voice from smoking perhaps?)


Maybe everyone who is good at something is a robot?
 
I believe that there are people who are just born to be adept at certain tasks due to their physical and emotional qualities.

Some people pick up a shovel and understand it from the first second the start using it. For some, it's a firearm. For some, it's a spinning wheel. For some, it's a remote control. :D
 
Ahhhhh...

The great american con!

...

Shall I go on?

All men ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL. Jefferson was a great man to be sure but sometimes I wish he'd just said what he meant instead of waxing poetic.

He was not waxing poetic. He was making a statement of fact:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Not only did he make the statement that all men are equal, he then went on to explain it: They are equal in the rights that they hold. To suggest he meant all men can all do the same things would get you laughed at in his day. It's our modern "enlightened' ideas that make people think such stupid thoughts.



Now, back to the original topic:

I've been reading about Annie Oakley. She started hunting when her father died to try to provide food for her family (she was less than ten). She had been told (not taken out hunting and shown how to do it) that you shoot the head so you don't spoil the meat. According to her biographer, she said she made sure every shot counted so she didn't waste precious ammunition. This speaks to natural ability.

HOWEVER, she also practiced EVERY SINGLE DAY when she began her career as a showman (woman). Just as with all the other greats, you cannot become great without natural ability. You also cannot become great without practice.

Practice can make up for a lack of ability and you can be good.

Natural ability can allow people to avoid practice and still be good.

You need both to be truly great.
 
I doubt that York had much money to spend on ammunition for the plinking and general playing around that many of us here do on a regular basis. Yet York's marksmanship was deadly and his skill with both pistol and rifle helped him to win the Congressional Medal of Honor.

This comment reminded me of a guy I shot skeet with a couple months ago. I do not remember his name, but I remember him telling me of his background. He was from Cuba and prior to moving to the United States he shot on the Cuban Skeet team. He told stories of the team being so poor that they could only afford one box of shotgun shells per team member per month. To practice they would just throw clays and dry fire. One more thing they would do to save money is put a couple guys in the field to catch the clays so that they could rethrow them.
 
Look up certain shooters as Herb Parsons and Tom Knapp.

Those guys practice all the time, night and day.

Yes, certain people have some advantage over others. A stocky guy may (and I stress the word "may") not be able to run as fast as a lankier guy, but he will most likely be stronger (again not always). Practice will always supercede "natural" talent if it is done right and often.
 
I had the pleasure of sipping iced tea with Alvin York on his front porch on several ocassions. He didn't care to talk about his war heroics. His view was that he did no more than most other soldiers would have done in his circumstances. Truthfully, it was difficult to reconsile the unassuming, humble man on the porch with the image of the remorseless, cold eyed, steel nerved rifleman in my mind.

York was very much a christian. He didn't feel that it was "right" to profit from his fame after WWI and he did not do so. He simply wanted to do his duty to the best of his ability. He didn't like violence and he certainly didn't like killing. I don't believe there was a mean or selfish bone in the man's body.

He died broke, hounded to his grave by the IRS.
 
I have vision that is corrected to 20/20, yet I've come to realize that there are people around me who see MUCH, MUCH better than I

Baseball great Ted Williams is an excellent example.He supposedly was 20/10 in both eyes.
Probably the greatest natural hitter in MLB history,(along with Joe Jackson), Williams went on to some of the highest skill ratings at Pensacola Airfield during WWII.
Called back for Korea, he shot down several Mig's during the "Conflict".
I miss you,Teddy Ballgame.
 
Practice will always supercede "natural" talent if it is done right and often.

Unfortunatly not true. genetics are very important. Enviroment has a great deal in shaping who you are and what you can do but they are bound by your geneticlly given abilites
 
I had the pleasure of sipping iced tea with Alvin York on his front porch on several ocassions. He didn't care to talk about his war heroics. His view was that he did no more than most other soldiers would have done in his circumstances. Truthfully, it was difficult to reconsile the unassuming, humble man on the porch with the image of the remorseless, cold eyed, steel nerved rifleman in my mind.

York was very much a christian. He didn't feel that it was "right" to profit from his fame after WWI and he did not do so. He simply wanted to do his duty to the best of his ability. He didn't like violence and he certainly didn't like killing. I don't believe there was a mean or selfish bone in the man's body.

He died broke, hounded to his grave by the IRS.

Please tell us more
 
Good thread. Goes to the heart of things, instead of obsessing about whose equipment is better.

Too bad we don't know a lot more about the fighting mindset and how we shoot. What we don't know far exceeds what we do know.

Maybe we need some federally funded research here...
 
Practice can develop and improve the natural skills you are born with. It cannot give you what you are not born with.
:)
 
Nobody is born knowing how to race cars, nor are they born knowing how to shoot down planes. They learn.

But some do it much better than others because they were born with a natural talent and coordination. No one can learn to drive like Dale Earnhardt or play basketball like Michael Jordan or play golf like Tiger Woods. Those are God given skills you're either born with or not. Practice only improves them.
:)
 
to keep it gun related, most people can learn to draw and hit a target in under a second, but there will still be some faster than others(which is what makes them good)

I shoot a basketball very well, I also play the guitar however no matter how much I practice I'll never be as good as reggie miller or play like eric clapton
 
That York and Murphy managed to avoid being awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously illustrates that there is ineliminable element of the miraculous about their survival.
 
With all due respect, I don't believe that hero and patriot Carlos Hathcock fits into the type of men we're discussing here. I will admit to not knowing as much of his story as I should, however, I think he would be in a different category.

As a sniper without peer, I don't think that Hatchcock was performing his duty under the same conditions as York, Murphy, Bryce, Hickock, etc. In other words, he wasn't under direct fire from those he was taking out, standing his ground and looking directly into the face of death, as it were.

Further, I believe that a sniper, could be simply, a well-trained rifleman who does not necessarily possess the inherent eye-hand coordination of the other shooters who've been discussed.

The other shooters who have been discussed seem to be those who have people right in front of them, trying to kill them, unlike a sniper. They had to either shoot much faster (ala, Bryce), or be able to remain cool in the face of the incoming & overwhelming odds (ala, York).

A sniper, on the other hand, is spotting his enemies from a distance, and is taking them out, again from a distance, and hopefully not giving away his camoflauged location, and therefore not facing immediate return fire.

Let me be clear: This is not posted as a slight, in any way, toward Marine Hero and Patriot, Carlos Hathcock.

Sam
 
With all due respect, I don't believe that hero and patriot Carlos Hathcock fits into the type of men we're discussing here. I will admit to not knowing as much of his story as I should, however, I think he would be in a different category.

As a sniper without peer, I don't think that Hatchcock was performing his duty under the same conditions as York, Murphy, Bryce, Hickock, etc. In other words, he wasn't under direct fire from those he was taking out, standing his ground and looking directly into the face of death, as it were.

Further, I believe that a sniper, could be simply, a well-trained rifleman who does not necessarily possess the inherent eye-hand coordination of the other shooters who've been discussed.

Respectfully, I don't think you could be farther from the truth. Being a sniper is not about just shooting from long range. Its stalking, being in the bush alone or with one other man and avoiding constant danger being behind enemy lines and very up close and personal with people trying to find and kill you every moment.
 
Practice, practice, practice. Professional musicians and athletes practice every day.

It doesn't take a lot of rounds every day to dramatically improve your skills - if you concentrate on the fundamentals. 50 rounds a day will do it. Much more and you hit marginal returns because of fatigue.

If you can't make it to the range, dry fire. Make sure you hold/grip the piece the same as at the range.
 
SHOOT1SAM, I respectfully suggest that you read a book about Carlos Hathcock's exploits and then reconsider your opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top