Ne parlavo giusto oggi con una persona di un certo livello
del nostro settore, si discuteva su quanto contasse nel nostro sport la
componente umana, ovvero il tiratore.
La discussione considerava però tutti i tiratori, anche i
nostri cugini del tiro a volo, anche perché la persona con cui parlavo ha
contatti anche (e forse più) con quel
settore.
Mi si diceva che nel tiro a volo la percentuale del
risultato attribuita alla componente umana è altissima, ovvero il 90 % del
successo è merito del tiratore, il resto attrezzature e materiali.
E nel nostro settore ? quali sono le percentuali ?... non
parlo stavolta delle componenti fisica, mentale, tecnica etc… ma solo
componente umana vs attrezzature e materiali.
In un mio post sul gruppo Facebook Concentrica ho chiesto
quanto ritenessero ancora competitiva una Anschutz 1413 , prodotta approssimativamente
dal 1965 al 1971, quindi un arma di circa 50 anni fa.
La stragrande maggioranza concordava che l’arma (ovviamente
se in ottime condizioni) era tuttora in grado in mano ad un tiratore valido di
esprimersi a livello internazionale.
Implicitamente tutti sostenevano pertanto la schiacciante preponderanza della
componente umana sulle attrezzature e sui materiali.
La palese dimostrazione di questo dovrebbe essere la straordinaria prestazione di Sergey Martinov ai Giochi Olimpici di Londra 2012, dove con una carabina datata, una giacca sdrucita, una cinghia antidiluviana ma con tanta maestria ha dato la paga a tanti tiratori "ultratecnologici", vincendo qualificazione , finale, oro olimpico + record del mondo (!!).
Salta però agli occhi una palese contraddizione.
Tutti sono d’accordo per dire che il tiratore è la parte più
importante per il conseguimento di un risultato, e che quindi di conseguenza i
materiali e le attrezzature ricoprono ruoli di molto inferiori.
Se è così, perché tutti ma proprio tutti i tiratori , quando
vivono un insuccesso, un periodo di crisi, una sconfitta cercano la soluzione
in un cambio di attrezzature ? armi ? munizioni e chi più ne ha più ne metta ?
Perché non cerchiamo (mi ci metto ovviamente dentro anche
io) la causa del nostro errore dentro di noi ?
Forse perché è piu facile cambiare una carabina o un
accessorio piuttosto che lavorare su di noi ? Oppure perché non vogliamo
ammettere i nostri errori e preferiamo
rifugiarci in quella che Velasco chiama la “cultura degli alibi”?
I talked to him rightly today with a person of a level in our sector, and discussed how much the human component, the shooter, counted in our sport.The discussion, however, considered all the shooters, even our cousins of the shotgun, also because the person I spoke with also contacted (and perhaps more) with that sector.I was told that in shooting the percentage of the result attributed to the human component is very high, or 90% of the success is due to the shooter, the rest equipment and materials.And in our industry? what are the percentages? ... I do not talk about physical, mental, technical, etc., but this is just human component vs. equipment.In my post on the Facebook Concentrica group, I asked how an Anschutz 1413 still seemed to be competitive, produced roughly from 1965 to 1971, then a weapon about 50 years ago.The overwhelming majority agreed that the weapon (obviously if in good condition) was still in the hands of a powerful shooter to express itself internationally.Implicitly, therefore, all supported the overwhelming preponderance of the human component on equipment and materials.The obvious demonstration of this should be the extraordinary performance of Sergey Martinov at the London 2012 Olympic Games, where with a dated rifle, a disguised jacket, an anti-diluvian belt but with so much skill paid to so many "ultra-tech" shooters, winning qualification , final, Olympic gold + world record (!!).But there is a contradiction in his eyes.Everyone agrees to say that the shooter is the most important part for achieving a result, and that consequently the materials and equipment have much lower roles.If so, why all but just about all the shooters, when they are in failure, a period of crisis, a defeat are seeking the solution in a change of equipment? weapons ? ammunition and the more you put them in?Why do not we try (I naturally place myself inside) the cause of our mistake inside us?Maybe why is it easier to change a rifle or an accessory than to work on us? Or why do not we want to admit our mistakes and we prefer to take over what Velasco calls the "culture of alibi"?
I talked to him rightly today with a person of a level in our sector, and discussed how much the human component, the shooter, counted in our sport.The discussion, however, considered all the shooters, even our cousins of the shotgun, also because the person I spoke with also contacted (and perhaps more) with that sector.I was told that in shooting the percentage of the result attributed to the human component is very high, or 90% of the success is due to the shooter, the rest equipment and materials.And in our industry? what are the percentages? ... I do not talk about physical, mental, technical, etc., but this is just human component vs. equipment.In my post on the Facebook Concentrica group, I asked how an Anschutz 1413 still seemed to be competitive, produced roughly from 1965 to 1971, then a weapon about 50 years ago.The overwhelming majority agreed that the weapon (obviously if in good condition) was still in the hands of a powerful shooter to express itself internationally.Implicitly, therefore, all supported the overwhelming preponderance of the human component on equipment and materials.The obvious demonstration of this should be the extraordinary performance of Sergey Martinov at the London 2012 Olympic Games, where with a dated rifle, a disguised jacket, an anti-diluvian belt but with so much skill paid to so many "ultra-tech" shooters, winning qualification , final, Olympic gold + world record (!!).But there is a contradiction in his eyes.Everyone agrees to say that the shooter is the most important part for achieving a result, and that consequently the materials and equipment have much lower roles.If so, why all but just about all the shooters, when they are in failure, a period of crisis, a defeat are seeking the solution in a change of equipment? weapons ? ammunition and the more you put them in?Why do not we try (I naturally place myself inside) the cause of our mistake inside us?Maybe why is it easier to change a rifle or an accessory than to work on us? Or why do not we want to admit our mistakes and we prefer to take over what Velasco calls the "culture of alibi"?
(Segue)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento