The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: Tyler Durden on March 06, 2010, 02:42:23 PM
-
Scott Bollard on the 2nd page wrote:
Hey Richard,
Why do you think the overall experience of competitive shooting was less than realistic? Was it a lack of finality for a miss? Lack of life or death stress? Missing the immediate, personally felt through pain, feedback?
Did you find it stressful or fun? In between? Did you experience any of the effects of stress while competing?
Did you always have the thought in your mind that it was only a game?
Any input you may have will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Stay Safe,
I'm sorry but your questions one after another like that make me laugh. ;D
Are you writing a paper for school/college on stress and (combat) shooting?
Yes, shooting in a match can be stressful. In some cases, there is a little bit of an adrenaline dump, and it is kinda like a rush.
So, yeah, it can be lots of fun too.
-
I have never shot any matches, but if I were to equate what I've read here it would be the LSAT. Its a test for law school but it isn't about law, but about the way you think. The described scenario seems to be along the same lines. It may not be a practical, but it tests how you will think tactically on the fly.
I think you hit the essence of it, Broso. I really get a chuckle from those who constantly criticize competitive shooting, specifically IDPA, for lacking realism. It has been my experience that most of them are people who go to square ranges and shoot at stationary targets. Maybe they lie on the ground sometimes or they will actually shoot with their support hand but they never go beyond that.
The truth of the matter to me is that IDPA, schools and instructors really can not provide something that adequately or completely prepares someone for that moment of truth, though they do their best to do so. My purpose for posting the topic on using the light was to get people to think about their own setup. From reading some of the posts here and in other forums, it's obvious some have it all figured out and that's good for them; I wish 'em luck. But I hope for the rest of us this helps in some small way. Heck, they might actually go outside at night and see if they can see their sights at 7 -10 yards. It might set something in motion but who knows...
-
Scott Bollard on the 2nd page wrote:
I'm sorry but your questions one after another like that make me laugh. ;D
Are you writing a paper for school/college on stress and (combat) shooting?
Yes, shooting in a match can be stressful. In some cases, there is a little bit of an adrenaline dump, and it is kinda like a rush.
So, yeah, it can be lots of fun too.
Hey Tyler,
I ask those questions to gain some insight into how people react to certain stress inducers.
I'm a student in the context that I believe the learning never stops. What I do now is train professional protective security personnel. I am licensed, insured and certified to do what I do. I do it because I like to teach. I can teach because I have more than 25 years of experience doing the work.
I gave up competitive shooting long ago because I found the stress was not comparable to that of real life encounters. I found it to be an amusing game. Contrived and abundantly safe for obvious reasons, there was always a thought in the back of my head that there was no finality, no life or death, to the situation. Therefore, no real stress. This allowed me to be much more relaxed than I was in deadly force encounters. It was fun for me, but nothing more.
The member I asked those questions was nice enough to spare some of his time to explain to me how he felt during competition. He had far different experiences than others I have spoken to who were in the same or very similar circumstances. I was able to gain valuable insight into how people's minds and bodies work during varying degrees of applied artificial stress. Most importantly, he was mature enough to understand that there were no right or wrong answers, just his personal experience to share. I admire and respect him for being willing to share something so personal.
I prefer to use FOF marking cartridges when training new team members. They provide immediate and somewhat painful reminders that the student just did something which may have cost him his life. I have had students lose bladder control during FOF marking cartridge evolutions. Others complained about being extremely tired from the adrenaline dumps they experienced throughout the day. I have not had a lot of feedback from shooters indicating they felt this level of stress during organized matches. I feel that FOF marking cartridge training should be offered to civilians, but that is another thread.
Bottom line for me is that by asking those amusing questions, I learn. By learning more I can become a better teacher. Through that avenue, I just may teach someone something which may save a life. I think it is worth the effort and I am truly grateful to those who are willing to share their experiences so that others may live.
If you haven't read it, I recommend On Combat, by Dave Grossman.
Stay Safe,
-
Tyler, I have had the opposite experience than you I guess because I have shot with individuals from any number of lettered (CIA, IRS...) agencies and military as well as local police departments match after match. They even take what they did back to their TO or were the TO and modified their programs accordingly. One of the things they commented about was and we pride ourselves in was SAFETY! Also, letting them watch civies go at it was an eye opener for them because a lot of them have only dealt with BG's w/guns.
Richard
-
Scott wrote:
If you haven't read it, I recommend On Combat, by Dave Grossman.
He lives just down the street.
Yeah, seriously, he does.
I have both of his books. He autographed them before he gave them to me at a steel match.
I have listened to some of his seminars or speeches on like a books on tape sorta thing while on the road to matches.
I hate to admit this, but... I have yet to read them...yet.
It would be nice if I were able to get licensed, certified, and insured to teach.
Just for my own research purposes, one of these days I will have to wear a heart rate monitor when I shoot matches. It would be interesting to see what my heart rate is like before a stage and then after.
This is sort of a thread drift...as far as the whole putting your life on the line thing....way back when, I free fall'ed out of a plane 5 times and earned my jump wings. That was quite the rush too. So was rappelling out of helicopters.
Oh, and for whatever it is worth to ya, I was a human factors major at a small engineering school in Colorado. A lot of the HF world does revolve around how people deal with stress and/or focus...or rather NOT focus their attention on the task at hand.
-
Hey Tyler,
It's worth quite a bit. You have a better understanding of how the human element fits into the grand scheme of things. You can provide insights from a point of view others may not have considered just because you have that education and training.
Do you think that competition courses could safely create the same stress you felt on your first jump? Did you ever feel the same level of stress in competition that you did during jump training?
Were they free fall as in HALO or static line as in jump school at Benning? Do you think that the stress inoculation you received on the 250 tower was a mitigating factor in the way you reacted at the door on your first jump?
The first time you fast roped was it as stressful as your first jump or were you "used" to it by then?
The stress experiences you describe are what I am talking about for SD encounters. Most people do not get to feel that level of stress in their entire lifetime so myself, and a lot of instructors I know, try to quasi-inoculate them to it through conveyance of experience. Both our own and from others. Even the people who read this learn through others that they can function, work their plan, think and survive an armed encounter. The confidence can go a long way to helping them successfully deal with the situation. If nothing else, it just might make some one realize that they need better training. Perhaps something based in a more realistic context with empirical data to support the effort.
That is awesome that you have access to Dave Grossman. He is a wealth of knowledge when it comes to the software side of the armed conflict.
Thank you for sharing your experiences!
Stay Safe,
-
If I may, it has been my experience from very high risk sports that low-level stress tends to "inoculate" the participant to the higher level Real World stresses. Indeed, nothing is like the Real World when the wheels start coming off, but your response can be modeled in lower stress, non-life-threatening situations. There's a lot of current learning theory that comes to the same conclusions, essentially that lessons learned under stress are retained differently by the brain them lessons learned not under stress.
Michael B
-
If I may, it has been my experience from very high risk sports that low-level stress tends to "inoculate" the participant to the higher level Real World stresses. Indeed, nothing is like the Real World when the wheels start coming off, but your response can be modeled in lower stress, non-life-threatening situations. There's a lot of current learning theory that comes to the same conclusions, essentially that lessons learned under stress are retained differently by the brain them lessons learned not under stress.
Michael B
Thank you Michael.
You have been in both situations. Does the stress you feel while competing come close to what you felt when you were forced to use your firearm, whether you discharged it or not, in a defensive situation?
Stay Safe,
-
To answer your questions Scott, one of the jump instructors there did tell me it was technically a HALO jump. The airfield/DZ is at about 6,000 feet MSL, and IIRC, anything past 12,500 you are supposed to be on supplemental oxygen. We never got that high. Just high enough for 10 seconds of free fall. Everything is graded and there were guys on the ground with very high speed cameras who video'ed your exit out of the aircraft, and kept video'ing until your parachute successfully opens. Then there are guys who grade your PLF. Then once you get back and get your chute all shaken out and hanging for the riggers to pack, then they show you your video of the exit out of the aircraft. Then they grade that. Then they show you your grade card for your PLF.
On my first jump, I actually instinctively went to "kicking and swimming" mode trying to grab anything to break my fall, then I flipped over on my back, then I thought "arch harder!", so I did, and I ended up in the proper position, facing earth, all the while keeping my count, and then pulled my "rip cord".
Nope, no 250 foot tower. We just had a building with probably about a 50 foot ceiling where we were winched up next to the roof, and then practiced "opening shock" , going through the emergency procedure checklists, like so many odd broken lines or a "Mae West" and how to rake out the line groups out of the reserves, and then finally we dropped from...oh, I dunno, 6 feet off the ground or so, to do a PLF in the pea gravel. We had done lots and lots of PLF's from wooden platforms of various heights into the pea gravel earlier in the week.
Nope, no fast roping. This was back in the early 1990's at Air Assault school. It was strictly ropes and rappelling back then. Stepping out on the skid of a Huey was always kinda awkward and spookey feeling.
getting back more on topic now... the catch with any sort of training is that the student knows he is in training or at a match. There is no element of surprise... there is NO moment like this .... ??? :o where you are trying to figure out just what the heck is going on before you decide how to react. Ya, know...that whole OODA loop thing.
I'm sure that split second where you are like this ??? or like this :o brings about its own level of adrenaline dump.
-
...........The stress experiences you describe are what I am talking about for SD encounters. Most people do not get to feel that level of stress in their entire lifetime so myself, and a lot of instructors I know, try to quasi-inoculate them to it through conveyance of experience. Both our own and from others. Even the people who read this learn through others that they can function, work their plan, think and survive an armed encounter. The confidence can go a long way to helping them successfully deal with the situation. If nothing else, it just might make some one realize that they need better training. Perhaps something based in a more realistic context with empirical data to support the effort......................
OK...for what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that people who have felt no level of self-defense or other life threatening stress can benefit from both training and "fake" stress. Training is tops. When I worked the offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, our company work force was highly trained and because of that training I am here today. The untrained and poorly trained contract people ran...though they had no where to go but frigid January waters and death.....I stuck around and fixed the problem after an initial "surprise" when 3,000 psig of pressure let go and covered the platform in an explosive fog. What is not measureable but of great value are all of the "stress events" I had diagnosing, repairing and replacing equipment when my hide was not on the line...that collectively contributed to and became a part of trainin. I have had "umteem hundreds" of stress events to make deadlines, keep production online, to save money on damaged equipment, etc. which undoubtably helped me pull it together and get a clear mind when it counted.
I am saying training and stress are symbiotic. They work well together and each draws upon the other. Neither works as well alone as together.
Had I only mind knowledge without stress innoculation it is possible I would have cut and run screaming like a girl just like 15 other guys did or froze up (assessing the situation wondering what the heck I could do to live) like I did at age 15 or 16 on a beach in Grand Isle, La. when a snub nose .38 with a 2 inch wide barrel was pointed at my head.
All of that to say I think for the population like me that is not a warrior, any competition complements their training. Being in stressful situations that demand a quick answer not related to self defense are also of great, perhaps not quantifiable, help. Not every stage and not to the same level in every person...but even if you are next to last and are trying to keep from being last spot on the list there is something beneficial to working through that situation. A person will begin to critique himself, wonder what is going wrong, decide how better to shoot a stage, and, in general, do lots of things together to avoid the stress of coming in last...and that is a benefit to the lowest on the totem pole.
Have A Great Day,
Ken
-
A lot is made about "types" of stress... I think it misses the point.
getting back more on topic now... the catch with any sort of training is that the student knows he is in training or at a match. There is no element of surprise... there is NO moment like this .... where you are trying to figure out just what the heck is going on before you decide how to react. Ya, know...that whole OODA loop thing.
That is the key. High level athletic performance can be incredibly stressful.. but the brain is focused intently on it and recruits a variety of mechanisms (not limited to visualization, but that's a huge one) to make the execution of the expected complex motors skills very precise.
-RJP
-
Hey Ken and Tyler,
Thanks for your insights!
If I understand correctly, what you and MB are saying is that small levels of stress throughout your daily travels, be they work related, daily societal interactions or through competition, help you to handle the high degree stress situations better.
If that is true then I imagine it is possible for a person to be over exposed and appear relaxed or even complacent in deadly force situations. Isn't this the point where unconscious competence clicks on? That competence which comes from repetition in context.
Do you suppose that a person's stress inoculation is a perishable thing which requires periodic re-affirmation?
How would you propose to reconcile the difference between shoot and no shoot situations? Did you ever run a competitive stage where you did not shoot? Conversely, it is highly plausible that in many potentially deadly force encounters, sidearms are drawn (or made ready to be drawn) without being fired far more often than they are drawn and fired. How would a person deal with the stress of being all dressed up and not being able to go to the dance? At this point is competition experience or repetitive contextual training of the fundamentals, i.e. finger off trigger, muzzle in safe direction, safety on if appropriate, more beneficial to the amped up shooter? Yes, you follow those same rules in competition but you still fired first; did you not?
True, competition has no shoot targets, but the player still shoots at some point during the stage. Admittedly I have not shot competition for many years so if things have changed, I apologize for my ignorance.
I have been told that I come across aggressively at times so with that in mind, please accept my apologies if I have offended. This is not my intent. I have nothing but respect for those willing to have an opinion and share it. Even more so for those who will defend their position. I thank you for this.
I am sincerely looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Perhaps there is a middle ground between two points which could prove to beneficial to us all.
Stay Safe,
-
A lot is made about "types" of stress... I think it misses the point.
That is the key. High level athletic performance can be incredibly stressful.. but the brain is focused intently on it and recruits a variety of mechanisms (not limited to visualization, but that's a huge one) to make the execution of the expected complex motors skills very precise.
-RJP
Only if the competitor is not over-exposed to the stressor.
Someone who competes every week will get into certain habits which could prove fatal? For example:
If a shooter is trained to clear and show safe his weapon after each stage of shooting that is what he does. If that same shooter is involved in a deadly force situation then is he not likely to revert to that training and clear and show safe his weapon when he should be scanning his environment, calling for help, checking the wounded and safely working the weapon back to the holster when appropriate?
Does a competition shooter think about his backstop? They already know that the course is set up to run safely.
Does the reactive defensive shooter get to walk through the course of fire prior to his deadly force engagement? Only if he has been there before and visualized his responses. What about all the times where we must go places we have been before?
How many times have you drawn your weapon in defense of life where you did not have to shoot? How many times have you competed in any athletic endeavor which required you to do nothing?
The pitcher went through the wind up and we look for the ball and begin our swing. The light turns green and we accelerate. We jump on our bike and we peddle. Humans are trained to respond in certain ways. Competition shooting trains the shooter that he will shoot each time he draws.
Doesn't this create a situation of a predetermined response which would cause the shooter to look for a way to complete what he has been programmed to do? How many times have we been warned not to create bad habits on the range. Habits like catching our revolver brass or catching an empty mag so we don't have to pick them up later. We avoid these things because they create bad habits. My supposition is that the artificiality of competition creates stress out of context to that of true deadly force encounters, false confidence in abilities and bad habits.
I have never been attacked by a 2 dimensional piece of stationary cardboard or steel. The dynamic and experience of an actual DF encounter can not be duplicated as it is different for each person. I propose that the closest we can come is through realistic, winnable, in context and properly administered FOF training. It is not the same, but it is close and you will use the same decision making skills and actions you would in an actual DF encounter. At the very least the target will move like a human being and will be 3 dimensional. More importantly, it will be an actual human which will provide a vitally important inoculation to the shooter. We all know that a lot of shooters who are excellent shots, freeze when they have to fire on an actual human target. If we don't train this out through FOF, we are doing a dis-service to our students.
I will concede that high level athletic competition has its place and can be a valuable tool. How many of our students compete in high level athletic competitions?
Stay Safe,
-
An important thing to remember if you are using competition to hone your "real world" training is that you need to compete like you would fight. If all you compete in is IPSC and drop your mags you will drop your mags in real world fights. If you shoot IDPA and do all retention and shoot from cover and concealment you will struggle with dropping a mag or being exposed. If you only shoot Bianchi or bullseye you will find yourself looking for range bags and brass buckets in a fight.
All these items have been brought to my attention by those that got sucked in (law enforcement especially) and their trainers that were finding and reading about things like dead cops with hands and/or pockets full of spent brass, because on the range you don't dump your revolver brass on the ground.
I could go on and on, but the shortest answer is - Yes, there is a place for competition in training, but it is more complex than just playing the game as it was designed. Also, there is no way to induce the adrenaline shot in training that being timed and hearing the buzzer go off ... unless you can get a friend to bounce lead off the ground around your feet ;)
-
Take this for what it is worth. I'm an industrial and petroleum engineer by training with an interest and a minor in psychology....all of which means the industrial part likes to put things in a step by step fashion, the petroleum part likes generalities and the psych part helps them both fall apart.
If I understand correctly, what you and MB are saying is that small levels of stress throughout your daily travels, be they work related, daily societal interactions or through competition, help you to handle the high degree stress situations better.
I believe this.
If that is true then I imagine it is possible for a person to be over exposed and appear relaxed or even complacent in deadly force situations. Isn't this the point where unconscious competence clicks on? That competence which comes from repetition in context.
My experience with people in stressful situations is that they cannot be overexposed with the right attitude (short of a nervous breakdown, i.e., going crazy). If a person avoids the "I know it all attitude" I don't think there can be overexposure. The best people I know be it offshore operators, engineers working a solution with two minutes to get it right or have a blowout or one of the trainers down the street at USSA are the ones who are relaxed and confident. Exposure begats confidence that when coupled with proper training, I think, exploits the positive symbiotic nature of exposure and training.
....Do you suppose that a person's stress inoculation is a perishable thing which requires periodic re-affirmation?
Yes and no. Low level contact yes...but think about the traumatic things of life. I am a believer that traumatic experiences can force a change that is permanent....maybe not the "precision" and timing of a reaction or action which degrades with time, but the direction of the reaction or action continues as conditioned by that traumatic experience. The stressful situation produced that traumatic experience which was internalized into a person and makes us what we are. The training hones the reaction that is formed on the basis of who we are (what we internalize, i.e. who we have become in our lives). Obviously not all stressful situations produce a life change. I believe some traumatic experiences force an immediate change, others a slower change with a change in outlook and attitude and then some only reinforce what was already "in the well".
....How would you propose to reconcile the difference between shoot and no shoot situations? Did you ever run a competitive stage where you did not shoot? Conversely, it is highly plausible that in many potentially deadly force encounters, sidearms are drawn (or made ready to be drawn) without being fired far more often than they are drawn and fired. How would a person deal with the stress of being all dressed up and not being able to go to the dance? At this point is competition experience or repetitive contextual training of the fundamentals, i.e. finger off trigger, muzzle in safe direction, safety on if appropriate, more beneficial to the amped up shooter? Yes, you follow those same rules in competition but you still fired first; did you not?
Good point about always shooting in a competition. For me it is suppressed by who I am...I don't want to hurt someone much less kill an innocent so...for me to shoot, there are a lot of hurdles that I have to deal with inside. Competition experience is helpful in that, if we are true competitors, we use our minds quickly to gain the best possible solution which is execise of the thought processes and brain. Brain exercise is proven and thinking through a problem is the best kind of test and training for students of any kind, in my opinion. It is also good for the fundamentals...which I always need help on. I had a real life no shoot just day before yesterday. My son and I were putting groceries in the truck at night and a guy handing out flyers came from behind a van and ran (literaly ran, a dead run) straight to me in my "hot zone" with something unidentified in his hand (roll of flyers looked like a stick in the dark) as I was putting groceries in the back seat...I saw his movement and immediately reacted to position myself behind the truck door with my IWB weapon toward the inside of the truck and my hand on the grip. I didn't pull the weapon and he does not know I had my hand on the weapon...you tell me why....I reconciled under that stress (which I did not feel) to protect my son and myself if necessary....it wasn't necessary to go any further and I de-escalated my mindset. The recognition there was no threat to life was after an assessment...are we hardwired for that...I dunno...competition would tell me to drop the hammer, the essence of me which is the cumulative product of learning and stress said chill out.
I have been told that I come across aggressively at times so with that in mind, please accept my apologies if I have offended. This is not my intent. I have nothing but respect for those willing to have an opinion and share it. Even more so for those who will defend their position. I thank you for this.
Every discussion is a learning experience for me. If we do not test our beliefs and what we surmise we may find, at a particularly bad time, that we were wrong and I am not saying you are wrong. Whether we agree or disagree, thinking through our thoughts helps us to understand what we believe and why and that, I believe, prepares us for understanding and learning in areas where we do err. Also, there is often more than one way to skin a cat.....sorry HAZ.
-
Interesting reading guys, all great dialogue.
My experience is that stressful situations force me to concentrate and focus hard on the issue at hand, my sight, my hearing, my sense of touch and even my sense of smell and taste are enhanced. Training for certain things, and being ex-military, we trained for every possible scenario, constantly, helps to define the minds reactive response to the stimulus.
I carry a gun, I'm never in a complacent mindset while armed and even when I'm not carrying a firearm, I'm always armed.
-
m58 wrote:
If all you compete in is IPSC and drop your mags you will drop your mags in real world fights
First off, that statement is too broad brush and unequivocal for me.
Thinking about a SHTF scenario, in all probabilty, I will probably just keep shooting until the gun goes to slide lock.
I won't be dropping mags all willy nilly like I do in a USPSA match. That's my guess anyway.
The whole cops found dead with empty brass in their pockets is...well... a dead horse that still to this day continues to be beaten.
::)
It is anecdotal.
The nemesis to any anecdotal evidence is ...well...statistical data.
My guess right off the top of my head is that for every one cop found dead with brass in his pockets there were 50 cops who left their brass or mags lay, stayed in the fight, kept their wits about them and ended up on top that day.
But...oh...no....we don't hear about those 50 other cops who walked away just fine...now do we?
I think that is called "salience bias" by the way, that makes you remember the alarming evidence first before all others.
There are other heuristics and biases out there that are also other "mental or cognitive traps"... I'm trying to rack the ol' brain here....availability heuristic comes to mind.
Try this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
so, hmmn...yeah...I might have those two confused.
Here is another think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
-
Tyler,
Based on empirical data from my own experiences and that of those I have discussed the topic with in depth:
You fight as you train.
Stay safe,
-
Maybe you should train as you fight.
"You fight as you train" makes for a good sound byte.
Maybe this whole paradigm of what constitutes training should be scrapped, and something new put in its place.
-
Maybe you should train as you fight.
"You fight as you train" makes for a good sound byte.
Maybe this whole paradigm of what constitutes training should be scrapped, and something new put in its place.
I'm getting the impression that we are just going to keep going round and round on this one.
My experience has led me to find that the actions I practiced and engrained during training are the same ones I reverted to while under the stresses of a deadly force encounter. Others I work with, have worked with, or had the opportunity to discuss the topic with all relayed very similar impressions. That's the reason I believe a person will fight in the same manner in which they train.
I would welcome any thoughts on what you would replace the contemporary training concepts with if the current system were to be scrapped.
Otherwise, on the topic of competition as a training tool, we should probably just disagree and be done with it. I think our ideals, beliefs and life experiences are much too different to find common ground.
I'll leave the last word to you.
Thank you for working this over with me. I'll look forward to the next time.
Best Wishes,
-
Scott wrote: my responses in blue
I'm getting the impression that we are just going to keep going round and round on this one. Yes, that usually happens in these IDPA/USPSA gamer vs. self-defense/LE (tacti-billy) threads. So, that's par for the course. I have been here (there) before, and I have seen it hashed out at least a dozen times on various forums.
My experience has led me to find that the actions I practiced and engrained during training are the same ones I reverted to while under the stresses of a deadly force encounter. Agreed! Others I work with, have worked with, or had the opportunity to discuss the topic with all relayed very similar impressions. I'm not surprised. But the flipside to that...that you didn't elaborate on...was whether the guys you talked with, if their training was beneficial in helping them survive the encounter. Since they were there talking with you, I have to ASSume that the training they received was beneficial. However, there might be others out there who executed everything by the textbook and followed their training to a "t" but they still ended up dead. You don't get to hear whether their training was actually a hinderance instead (that can only be extrapolated out by either witness accounts or by dashcams). So what information you do hear leads to confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) That's the reason I believe a person will fight in the same manner in which they train. Again, I agree with you there.
I would welcome any thoughts on what you would replace the contemporary training concepts with if the current system were to be scrapped. As you know, attitudes are one of the hardest things to change. Paradigms would be the next hardest thing to change. There is already this inertia set within military and LE training circles. I think I heard one so called expert instructor claim that LE is about 20 years behind competitive shooters. Just one for example for you is the USPSA Open gun with its red dot optic. That was the norm for USPSA'ers probably as far back as 1991, or even earlier. Now look at our infantry troops over in Iraq and A-stan. You can pretty much bet they all have Aimpoints or ACOG's on their M-4's/M-16's. No, I am not saying that cops need to be set up with Open guns as their duty weapons.
I caNOT adequately grasp what training concepts need to be scrapped. I can only tell you from my own anecdotal evidence that just about every cop I have seen show up to a match like never returns. The only guy I saw shoot it on a regular basis was a local cop who worked with the DEA. He was one of those door kicker types. He was or is also a gun nut, shooting trap once a week.
Most cops are not gun nuts. (shrugs shoulders)
Just from talking to cops, though, I will tell you this... I had one cop friend tell me that the departments don't like sending their cops to training or for qualifications because that means they are on the clock and at some point they have to pay them overtime. The mayors of all these towns would rather have their officers out on the streets making their presence known, not out at the range NOT being seen by the taxpaying public.
Otherwise, on the topic of competition as a training tool, we should probably just disagree and be done with it.I think getting hung up on the word "training" is really where you and I differ. I think you think of training with a capital "T" . I think of training as whatever experience or learning you bring away from say a match. That could also be part of the rub too. At least with IDPA and USPSA matches there is none of this repetitive, over and over, rote muscle memory...well... memorization. I haven't been to a polic academy, but somehow I suspect it is kinda like being in a dojo doing all these different punches and kicks in synch with all the people around you. Which is why I suspect those dead cops ended up with brass in their pockets. (and in all actuality that must have been a long...long time ago that they were still training with revolvers, where they emptied the brass in their hands and then dumped it into their pockets.) I think our ideals, beliefs and life experiences are much too different to find common ground. Ya, know, just because you think we can't find common ground, it doesn't mean that the conversation has to end. It has been a polite/civil conversation so far...unlike other threads on other forums.
I'll leave the last word to you. That's nice of you, but really not necessary. I'm not so close minded enough to skip over and NOT read what you have written.
Thank you for working this over with me. I'll look forward to the next time. Ditto!
Best Wishes,
By the way, since I am not a cop and I haven't been through any sort of police academy, I really don't have a handle on what you guys think "tactics" are.
In the interest of full disclosure...I'm like a one trick pony. I can draw a gun fast, shoot fast, hit accurately, move fast to wherever (cover/concealment/next shooting location) and reload fast.
If you could fill me in (probably better in a PM) on what just one example of a tactic is I would certainly be all ears.
Thanks!
-
My experience has led me to find that the actions I practiced and engrained during training are the same ones I reverted to while under the stresses of a deadly force encounter. Others I work with, have worked with, or had the opportunity to discuss the topic with all relayed very similar impressions. That's the reason I believe a person will fight in the same manner in which they train.
No need to stop the thread! I've enjoyed it. I am intriqued by the statement quoted above, and do in fact agree with it in principle. I just wonder 1) what % of the time "everything" that has been trained (competition is training as well) is repeated as well as 2) what common conditions were experienced during instances where training overcame what was needed and the conditions that were experienced when training was suppressed? Interesting indeed and worth additional banter...I don't have a lot of those experiences to draw upon.
What is presence of mind and under what conditions does it operate....under what conditions is it overridden? Can presence of mind override training/competition....yes, but how, why and under what conditiions? Is there something that can be gleaned here and incorporated into training/competition? Does the effectiveness of presence of mind work on a time to task basis that is overridden by immediate need and replaced by training habits or competition? Or, does presence of mind work on the basis of multiple tasks much like a preference curve (something from statistics)?
-
Scott,
Only if the competitor is not over-exposed to the stressor.
Someone who competes every week will get into certain habits which could prove fatal?
I think you missed my point... as you pointed out "high level skill development" is not always a good thing. There area lot of Bad Habits that are formed by competition and other range-only approaches to shooting/weapons handling.
Tyler,
First, you have a PM inbound. Next:
You brought up an excellent point about the "train like you fight" issue.... here is an excerpt from a book I finished last week addressing the topic:
"You may have heard people talk about how we are going to “fight like we train”. Usually, this is supposed to mean that we have to train in a certain way so that, when we are in a real fight, we will react appropriately.
The problem with this line of thought is that if we train hard or often enough, we can overcome our natural reactions. This simply will not happen. We need to Train Like We Will Fight. Our training needs to incorporate our likely context and the reactions that we know our bodies will have or we will not be able to fight like we trained."
-RJP
-
RJP,
Doesn't it all get down to the same basic point?
We train in the proper context. We apply that training when fighting. Therefore we train to fight a certain way then, we fight like we train.
I'm beginning to see where we all may be touting the same concepts, but with a different way of verbalizing it.
Stay Safe,
-
Not necessarily, Scott.
What I, and I think "tyler", are saying is that if you train in a way that is significantly incongruent with what the body and brain do naturally (without training) or in the context of real fights (eg- pre-memorized courses of fire vs. random recognition of threats) you may find all of you training going out the window during an actual fight. How many dash camera videos are out there of cops shooting in ways that look nothing like the perfect target shooting stances that they use at the training range, for example?
When you say We train in the proper context.
I think that sentence could be assuming a lot and that is where the danger lies. I've seen many examples of things that are completely unrealistic and out of context that people believe are the height of tactical training and skill development (things like the "el presidente" drill come to mind...).
-RJP
-
Hey Rob,
Absolutely! Most drills like "el pres" are fairly useless. You are right. The dash cams prove that it all goes out the window once the first shot is fired. My counter to that is: Very few departments are willing to invest the time and money into a proper training program. Very few LE firearms training programs are worth more than the paper they are written upon. Bi-annual or annual training is not sufficient to engrain the proper techniques. When I have discussed firearms training with LE leadership I typically get the, "make sure they are safe, understand the laws regarding use and that they qualify," response. LE firearms training is largely a ticket punching evolution.
The FOF cert I did had 11 LE officers in attendance. 7 of them were there on their own money in hopes of "selling" a program to their command and administration. LE gives lip service to training and balks at the cost of an actual program. Using LE dash cam footage as a support for your position is not valid as LEOs are poorly trained when i) you examine their training programs and ii) compare them to the training and practice that a competition shooter gets.
I have never seen anyone take a perfect "range stance" when placed under stress. They do the best they can with what they have to deal with in the moment.
This leads me back to my other point about anything which creates stress in a context other than a life or death situation is a nice way to gain exposure, but is not the same as a deadly force encounter.
I see competition shooters placed into the proper frame of mind ahead of time. They are usually permitted to see the course of fire before they begin. They are fully aware that the situation is as safe as it can be. There are no moving "no shoot" targets crossing their path. There are no bystanders interfering with their ability to gain a sight picture. There is no chaos, panic or screaming. They are fully aware that there is no one shooting back. Once they hit the target they move on without assessment. They know that when they are in the box, the encounter is about to start. Most importantly, they always shoot once the buzzer sounds.
What I am attempting to convey is that those things are not realistic representations of actual deadly force encounters.
Yes, you can plan ahead. Yes, you can visualize your way through things. However, you can't see the course of fire ahead of time. You can not know if, or how, the target will react should you hit it. You have no presetting factor, other than a constant state of readiness which is a desensitizer, like "Shooter Ready." You may not be justified in shooting. Your backstop may not be appropriate forcing you move to another spot. Audio starts are not buzzers; rather they are things like screaming, the word Gun, actual gunfire or for trained personnel the words, "contact left, right," etc. Sometimes there are no audio starts at all. Sometimes the only way you know you're in a gun fight is because bullets are flying at you or are hitting you and those around you.
Competition is a nice way to gain experience. High end athletic competition or high risk adventures are a good way to experience stress and gain confidence in one's abilities. They are not a replacement for actually shooting at a human being who is shooting at you.
I used to flinch at the sound of outgoing gunfire. After I learned the difference in the sounds I stopped flinching. Why, because I trained myself to stop that natural reaction. Instincts can be developed and honed. Therefore instincts can be set aside through training and experience.
Proper context is actual human on human training with very little information (beyond safety guidelines) given to the participants. A free form, 3 dimensional encounter between an attacker and a responder. Each one attempting to achieve a specific goal. As it would be in a an actual deadly force encounter. H2H skill development without actual contact, resistance and counter is nothing more than dancing. MJ shows us on TV that using a training knife on an actual human is the way to train. He shows us that using a real blade on actual flesh is the best way to feel how an actual cut will feel. Why would using a firearm be any different? If you don't hit and get hit, you will never know what it feels like until the real encounter. If you don't make the cuts on a real human (Training Blade) you won't know what it feels like in the fight. If you don't cut on real flesh you can't know what it will feel like until the real encounter. If you don't train to shoot an actual human (FOF) you can't know for sure that you will do so in the real encounter.
Respectfully,
-
Here is how I look at this topic but I’m going to use a non-gun related analogy to make general points. I’m going to make an analogy with cooking. The analogy may not fit 100% but, then again, analogies seldom do.
Chefs spend years and countless hours in training and real-world situations learning their trade. Some even compete in cooking competitions.
Training is not real world.
The term training refers to the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competencies as a result of the teaching practical skills and knowledge that relate to specific useful competencies.
Training lets a Chef learn the principles and methodology of cooking. However, since we have all been students in some form over the years, we know that training (education) rarely transfers 100% into the real world. One quickly finds out that you have much to learn about how to cook for paying customers and how to make a profit from cooking.
Does this mean that training has little value? Of course not! A chef can move their career forward with training and learning new techniques to become more successful.
Competition is not training nor is it real world
The term competition refers to a contest for some prize, honor, or advantage between two or more persons or groups for an object desired in common, usually resulting in a victor and a loser but not necessarily involving the destruction of the latter.
If you turn on the Food Channel on any particular night you will find one or more cooking related competitions. These competitions have rules, time limits and some have limits on the ingredients or even the total cost of the ingredients contestants can use. All of these rules, limitations and constraints are real-world limitations that try to mimic real-world constraints/conditions and stressors.
There are times when the person with the highest level of training and real world experience does not win the competition. The reason – the skills required to win a competition are not always the skills needed to build a thriving and profitable restaurant.
A competition by definition is not designed to train someone. Rather it is an execution of skill. If the competitor does not come with a certain level of skill it will be difficult to compete (not impossible). Can a competitor learn something as a result of the competition? Of course! There is nothing wrong with a chef, cook or cooking enthusiast participating in a food competition.
-
Scott,
You have some misunderstandings about the power of training and there may be some terminology issues. Instincts cannot be "developed". [This sentence modified after re-read for clarification] The conversion from instinctive reaction to learned responses (quickly going from a flinch to a drawstroke, for example) is about the best we an hope for. Your assertion that you have conditioned yourself to react differently to "outgoing gunfire" is hard to swallow, at best. Not flinching when you shoot or when you are expecting gunfire (on a range, etc) is not a "honing" of your instincts it is simply not being startled. This has nothing to do with what you will do when you ARE startled. Conditioning does not obfuscate the relationship between natural stimuli and natural reactions... in fact, it specifically ties learned stimuli to natural reactions. Those natural reactions are incredibly powerful and offer huge real world survival benefits, so you should focus more on working with them and less on trying to get around or deny them. There are piles of clinical evidence for these principles and we have a fair amount of real world and training video showing learned responses being trumped by natural (instinctive) reaction time and time again when people are truly startled.
As for this part:
Very few departments are willing to invest the time and money into a proper training program.
Again, there is a fundamental difference between "willing" and "able". No person/department/unit is going to be able to train as much as some guys on the internet think they should. That is why I stress efficiency in all our training models. Our resources are always limited. Time, range access, ammo, interest, whatever. Accepting that, as well as the limitations of training (as noted above) are key to developing realistic training approaches.
And this:
If you don't make the cuts on a real human (Training Blade) you won't know what it feels like in the fight. If you don't cut on real flesh you can't know what it will feel like until the real encounter. If you don't train to shoot an actual human (FOF) you can't know for sure that you will do so in the real encounter.
I won't pretend to speak for Janich, but I can tell you that I buy into what Janich says about the value of cutting meat because there is a HUGE physical difference between swinging a blade through the air and actually having it meet meat (and the resistance that comes with it). This feeling is largely very different from training to let a fake blade bounce or slide off a person. It is the difference between martial artsy training to pull punches or stop at contact and learning what it feels like to really punch someone and follow through. Worlds of value there. The physical skill of shooting isn't any different between shooting paper and shooting a person, here you are dealing with psychological issues. Many of those psychological issues (most importantly these dealing with being caught off guard and in actual fear) are not present during most F-o-F, so you're comparing apples and oranges.
-RJP
-
Scott,
You have some misunderstandings about the power of training and there may be some terminology issues. Instincts cannot be "developed".
-RJP
You say "misunderstandings." I say disagreement in the way we see things.
Time to agree to disagree on this one.
Your point is valid to you, I respect it and I understand why you must vehemently defend it.
Looking forward to what others may think. The Chef analogy is pretty good!
Stay safe,
-
A few points:
Competition can be training for someone if they choose to use it that way. For me practice-->training-->competition kind of blur into one. I see them all on the same continuum.
I would like to postulate that our brains are very savvy about discerning between what is realistic and what is not. Meaning that when we have to act in life threatening situations, our survival instincts come out and use what was ingrained in training/practice/competition to survive and overcome. Whether we have the perfect stance or not is irrelevant to the brain as it knows to call on the skills of shooting (for instance) to eliminate the threat.
Like Tyler, I did some skydiving about seven years ago. I performed six jumps (5 static; 1 free fall). I can remember leaving the plane on the free fall and freaking out. My survival instincts kicked in and told me to solve the problem quickly, which I did using all of the training and prior jumps to get the right form and pull the rip cord. My point here is my brain knew that I had been rehearsing what I would do when leaving the plane, during free fall, deployment and landing. And it knew that it was no time to put that to use and use only what it needed. I don't have any stats, just my anecdotal experience but this is what I have.
I guess what I discern from what others have written is the issue of whether shooting competition will get you killed or seriously injured in a real encounter. I suppose the possibility exists if the shooter competed and trained in the most unrealistic conditions all the time. From my experiences, it clearly is not the case. I have shot "blind" stages in IDPA several times, shot at moving targets numerous times, shot at disappearing targets, shot at targets with no-shoots around them, etc.
I think some of the anti-competition rants here are dogmatic and really need to be backed up with some hard core research for me to take them seriously.
-
I think some of the anti-competition rants here are dogmatic and really need to be backed up with some hard core research for me to take them seriously.
[/quote]
Did not intend them as rants. My apologies if they came across that way.
I've been instructed to not be so verbose so he goes.
Concessions: Competition has a place. It is helpful training.
My Point: Competition is not the same as an actual deadly force encounter and stands behind actual FOF when it comes to training alternatives. My opinion. Not a statement of fact you must abide by.
Use whatever training method(s) works best for you.
Stay safe,
-
I, like many, do competative shooting. Mine is IDPA. However, I have never considered IDPA as training. Like most clubs my club tries to provide creative and interesting stages for members. Many of these stages contain elements that I and others have never had to execute. Members plan out their approach based on the walk through and sometimes change a (or should I say adapt) based upon seeing what others try.
Now I may learn something from the stage. However, I consider it a stretch to call this gained knowledge and experience training. The reason is that the knowledge gain is a byproduct. Gaining knowledge is not the primary objective of most IDPA Match Directors. Success of the event does not hinge on what people learn. The event is judged successful on the amount of trigger time and that people enjoy themselves.
Training (as I defined in my Chef post earlier) is only successful if the training objectives are met. Fun and entertainment is desired but not required.
I guess forsome competative shooting may be training but then your definition of training must be different than mine. Nothing wrong with that... ;D
-
Could it not be said that the mere execution of more complex shooting skills such as moving and shooting, multiple target transitions, and the need for performing quick reloads under stress (time) be the real value of competition? Especially IDPA which pushed the use of common everyday gear? I think we are overcomplicating the issue. Sure the stages may or may not be realistic for the average person but the fact that the "competitor" has to put practical skills into action and practice those skills in a non-square range way is absolutely valuable. Especially given that you can't perform these functions on a normal square range. Plus it adds in a lot of cases the additional stress of having to recall certain regulations which could easily carry over to the real world. Knowing when you can shoot or forcing you to identify your target before engaging are good things to have to think about instead of just point and shoot. It breaks the mold of standing on a firing line and putting holes in paper. I love the idea of competition as a training tool.
-
I love the idea of competition as a training tool
That sorta skews the ability for objectivity. ;)
but the fact that the "competitor" has to put practical skills into action
Again, this is the crux of the issue. Are the skills "practical"? If you are grabbing your gun from a buzzer, swinging from target to pre-known target, arbitrarily pausing in the middle of a "scenario" to top off your gun because of instructions, "proving" use of cover by engaging targets in a specific order without regard for actual use of cover and racing to "empty and show clear" at the completion of your string of fire, you are not training "practical skills". In fact, you may be forming some really bad habits.
There is no doubt that you can become a better shooter through competition and you will get better at the skills you are practicing... just be careful what you are practicing.
Also, by the way, competition is FUN. Sometimes that is enough... it doesn't need to be rationalized beyond that.
-RJP
-
Scott,
You have some misunderstandings about the power of training and there may be some terminology issues. Instincts cannot be "developed". [This sentence modified after re-read for clarification] The conversion from instinctive reaction to learned responses (quickly going from a flinch to a drawstroke, for example) is about the best we an hope for. Your assertion that you have conditioned yourself to react differently to "outgoing gunfire" is hard to swallow, at best. Not flinching when you shoot or when you are expecting gunfire (on a range, etc) is not a "honing" of your instincts it is simply not being startled. This has nothing to do with what you will do when you ARE startled. Conditioning does not obfuscate the relationship between natural stimuli and natural reactions... in fact, it specifically ties learned stimuli to natural reactions. Those natural reactions are incredibly powerful and offer huge real world survival benefits, so you should focus more on working with them and less on trying to get around or deny them. There are piles of clinical evidence for these principles and we have a fair amount of real world and training video showing learned responses being trumped by natural (instinctive) reaction time and time again when people are truly startled.
-RJP
Instincts evolve on a daily basis.
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html
Excerpts from summary:
Man has been a tribal animal since he first walked erect, more than four million years ago. With the impediment of being bipedal, he could not out-climb or outrun his predators. Only through tribal cooperation could he hold his predators at bay.
For two million years, the early hominid was a herd/tribal animal, primarily a herd herbivore. During the next two million years the human was a tribal hunter/warrior. He still is. All of the human's social drives developed long before he developed intellectually. They are, therefore, instinctive. Such instincts as mother-love, compassion, cooperation, curiosity, inventiveness and competitiveness are ancient and embedded in the human. They were all necessary for the survival of the human and pre-human. Since human social drives are instinctive (not intellectual), they can not be modified through education (presentation of knowledge for future assimilation and use). As with all other higher order animals, however, proper behavior may be obtained through training (edict and explanation followed by enforcement).
The intellect, the magnitude of which separates the human from all other animals, developed slowly over the entire four million years or more of the human development. The intellect is not unique to the human, it is quite well developed in a number of the other higher animals. The intellect developed as a control over instincts to provide adaptable behavior. The human is designed by nature (evolution) to modify any behavior that would normally be instinctive to one that would provide optimum benefit (survivability). This process is called self-control or self-discipline, and is the major difference between the human and the lower order animals, those that apply only instinct to their behavioral decisions. Self-discipline, therefore, is the measuring stick of the human. The more disciplined behavior (behavior determined by intellect) displayed by the individual, the more human he becomes. The less disciplined behavior (behavior in response to instinct) displayed by an individual, the more he becomes like the lower order animals that are lacking in intellect and are driven by their instincts.[/b]
If our instincts can evolve and be trained through intellect, the great variable is the method used for said training. Competition or other? Use what you feel works best for you.
Stay safe,
-
" Just be careful what you are practicing " Right on, as both a competitor and what we used to call " marshal artist with a gun "
The original practical shooting was more prone to training, Hot range, which meant you were loaded and holstered when you got on the range, you firearm was loaded until the end of the night. We did lots of skill sets, Weak hand shooting, drawing, reloading, strong hand only as well, shooting from awkward positions, including on your back over your feet, shooting from moving vehicles, or at moving targets, inside vehicles, over walls, swinging on ropes etc... I have no doubt this helped me. We also shot ( secret ) stages in the dark, grab your flashlight and go find bad guys, don't shoot the innocent, don't talk to anybody after you go through as to give them an advantage. When I became a match director for our home grown tactical/practical match, My goal was to make each stage stress a skill, fast and furious, low round count, reloading, cover and concealment, long range pistol shots, out to 100 yards, and usually a secret stage, you get a scenario, but no look at the stage design. We might mock a building, or you would negotiate paths, that provided targets as you came to them, We used the photographic targets, that allow you to put an insert into the hand of the target, gun, knife, cell phone, badge, drill motor, cigs etc... I would have stages holding a sack that was weighted and it was your child, to protect as you go through the stage. Many shooters did not like it, low round count = less fun, skills they did not possess like shooting 50 to 100 yrds. The martial artist crowd loved it, I even made a target like Thunder Ranch uses, but not as expensive, and ipsc target with balloons on the back side where you cannot see them but placed in strategic places, head, chest and pelvis, you shoot until the target drops, I hate to tell you how many competitors ran out of ammo on those stages, the hits still have to be on point. We even put a water sprayer that was remote controlled, so if you exposed yourself too far, you would get wet, and penalized. The range officer could even give a shooter " style points " if he or she made and exceptional solution. We ran our matches with what we called " do right rules "
if your trying to game it, and it is out of context, you lose points or gain time, completely arbitrary, very little discussion if you f up.
A suggestion to other match or stage designers, I did one stage that I think was really a good idea, and it was an exposure drill, par times of 2 seconds, allowed I think .15 second to respond to the stop buzzer, shooter starts behind cover with gun in hand, ready to fire, he or she only gets 2 seconds to expose and fire, then has to go back to cover and come out the next from a different spot of cover, repeat until all targets are down, and add up the time at the end. Would have been better if we could have moved away from the targets to create distance, but retreating ( moving backwards ) is not allowed on our range. Best shooting I have ever done in my life, I won't say what I did, but man I wished I had it on video. ;D
The point is we tried to make it challenging, not a target shoot, our range will not allow 75% of what we could do in the old days, and I'm not griping, but that is what made me a better shooter, we did not have a rule book, just a scenario and your ability to solve it. I learned a lot from other shooters solutions as well, just like I do when I watch the BD shows. A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from other peoples mistakes.
I think both Pincus and Janich bring a passion and intensity, that is rare, and Michael B, finds other instructors who seem to share a lot the same strengths.
Something Rob said is what is strongest, " when you are truly startled " Thank God, every time I have been truly startled, my reactions have been instant, and so far I have survived, there are a few men out there that wished they had not startled me, I am usually a slow twitch guy, not so when scared. They say you are one or the other, my fast twitch fu, scares me. It takes an exceptional competition event to reveal this response, wisely so I would offer. Water boarding comes to mind as a real response maker, in a controlled environment, and no I don't want to try it, kudos to you warriors that did it.
-
Just an interesting comment:
"The thing to remember is...How you train is how you're going to fight. The more practical exercises that can be done with Simunitions or Airsoft or Paintball, the better."
Mark Keefe, Editor in Chief of American Rifleman Magazine, on the TV show American Guardian aired on 2010 MAR 10.
-
A point that seems to be lost in many of these discussions is that for a great many people, the choice is not between regular tactical training and competition. If that were the choice, and the goal was to be as tactically prepared as possible, then we'd all choose tactical training.
But that isn't the typical real world choice. Most gun owners will never compete, never take a self defense class, have no military or LE experience, and their shooting will likely be limited to occasional plinking or target shooting. Their training will be limited to watching TV and maybe reading a magazine or two.
Shooters who choose to graduate beyond the Plinker Corps and compete do, in fact, develop a host of skills that will prove useful in a self defense situation. These shooters will gain increased accuracy, familiarity with their gun, ability to shoot on the move, improved target acquisition, and stress inoculation. Compared to the average gun owner, these shooters have made a quantum leap in preparedness.
Granted, this isn't the same thing as SD or tactical training. Ideally, competitive shooters will supplement their competitive regimen with training for real world scenarios. But to dismiss competition and competitive training is akin to arguing that basketball players shouldn't run laps because they seldom run in a straight line during a game.
It might also be worth noting that the vast majority of top competitors are also current or former LEOs or members of teh military. Most of them are also actively working as trainers for the military, LE, or private security firms. Insights gained through competition have changed the way we train for combat and the way weapons are designed. Clearly these organizations value the skills and insight gained through competition.
-
Competition you can prepare and calm yourself down a notch. Breathing and such. Getting time to prep your gear and run the event through your head. Are all things you can do to better prepare.
Real sh@@ it is on and there is no comparison. No time to get ready just go time.
-
Sorry for slow response...been traveling (there's a shock).
Let me go back to a couple of high-risk sports analogies. In cave diving there is a basic philosophy: Learn what keeps you alive! Figure out what you need to do 100% right 100% of the time and train to do that. That philosophy takes you back to the basics.In a self-defense context, there are 2 fundamental "basics" — shoot/no-shoot and can you deliver the shot. Each of those breaks down into specific mental and physical training specifics.
Second point — all my high-risk sports training assumed the startle reflex. How I rigged my gear as a cave/technical diver and as a mountaineer both assumed that when the SHTF my hands would be able to find the tools I needed to survive following startle. My first cave diving instructor put it best: NEVER TRAIN AGAINST THE OPERATING SYSTEM! Given the monkey startle reflex and the incredible stress of a life/death decision, training that was in direct conflict to the "operating system," the fundamental set of reflexes that are wired into our heads, will fail.
One of the reasons Rob is on the shows is that I think the Combat Focus Shooting program he developed takes both of my 2 points into consideration and quickly evolves a Real World training program that addresses those points. Not that Rob and I agree on every point of training...no 2 trainers will ever agree on all points.
Couple of Real World examples on the points:
• I'm a long way back in a cave in central Florida, maybe 80-90 feel down in a very narrow tunnel. Somehow I manage to smack my regulator against a rock outcropping, cracking a critical art and causing it to go "free-flow," that is, the air begins blowing out. Startle, followed by a second of pure white light fear...HOLY CRAP I'M LOSING MY AIR!!!...followed by a sense of calm — I could actually feel my breathing slow down and my heartbeat dropping out of stratospheric levels — and a step-by-step execution of a "basic," shutting off the air, changing over my tanks' manifold to a new regulator, turning on the new regulator, all fine motor actions performed in a cramped space in the dark. Probably took much less time that it did to write it here.
• I walked into the "mud room" of a mountain market to be confronted by a bkier dude type who smiled and said quite fraternally, "Give me all your money." As he made his request his right hand went into the left side of his leather jacket. Startle, then My right hand went into the left side of my leather jacket and I execute 2 "basics" — step offline and a standard presentation from a crossdraw holster. I win and get to keep my money and my life; because biker dude type quickly responds to my verbal commands (another basic) he gets to keep living and visit the local jail.
It is always better to train like you intend to use the tool. I remember a training session with Rob at the old Valhalla facility against reactive targets. I hit one target twice, then twice more. Rob asked why I fired the extra shots, and I said, "Because it wasn't falling fast enough." If I have to shoot in the Real World, I have "programmed" myself to shoot decisively and end the fight right there.
A high-risk sports analogy...as a mountain guy I first learn to "self-arrest," that is, stop yourself from a wild slide or fall with your ice axe, in New Hampshire on fairly shallow slopes. From that session I understood the fundamentals (think "square range training") but I didnt think I was ready for big mountains. So I went to the water-ice coated fire roads outside of Ouray, CO (colder than brass balls in the Klondike, I might add) for a harsher training regimen (think "F-on-F"). In short — and for GOD'S SAKE don't try this at home, kids! — 2 trainers and I started hiking up a steep, totally iced-over fire road...they were several steps behind me carrying a 50-pound bag of rocks that was connected by 10-15 feet of rope to my climbing harness. I was instructed to look straight ahead and hike at a normal pace. At some point, my trainers threw the bag over the edge of the road, about a 50-foot drop into jagged rocks. The first I knew something was wrong was when I was snatched off my feet and jerked toward the drop. The drill was for me to self-arrest with my ice axe before I slid over the edge with the sack of rocks, then devise a rope system to free me and allow me to "rescue" the sack of rocks.
Big fun, I tell you! But when I punched through a crevass on Mt. McKinley the following year, I flawlessly self-arrested before my rope could snatch any of my team members off their feet (although I was irrationally happy to see them drop and self-arrest on their own to hold my fall if I needed it!).
I've said before that my depth of competitive experience and firearms training helped me deal with the Real World stresses of sports that could kill me. I was once surprised to read in an outdoors magazine that my veins apparently "flowed pure icewater." Totally untrue...I handle high stress well because I have specifically developed the tools necessary to allow me to function when I need to function. Relentlessly focus on the basics; constantly evaluate your training in Real World terms and take every opportunity to "innoculate" yourself against stress...
Michael B
-
......Not that Rob and I agree on every point of training...no 2 trainers will ever agree on all points.......
And Rob's a tactical snob anyway.... ;) Michael after reading your stories about cave diving in Trail Safe, I did some research on it and what I learned convinced me that I did not want to try it. The idea of suffocating in a dark, cramped hole somewhere underwater scared the crap out of me. I particularly remember reading a story about the diver who died in the deepest cave in the world (in South Africa IIRC) trying to recover the remains of another diver who perished there several years before. Moral of that story to me was even the best can have a bad day- in cave diving it can be fatal.I would rather take my chances jumping out of a plane several thousand feet up and trying to land on a DZ without breaking my legs or getting hit by a plane (that almost happen to me....)
I know you have covered it before on the podcasts, but maybe you should do some review and talk about this topic again; maybe like a topic you cover annually or something....
Many thanks!
-FullAuto
-
More???
Best Defense aired on 2010 MAR 17
Presenter: Michael Janich ( an industry professional)
Segment: Empty Hand Techniques
When discussing the differences between MMA and Self Defense, he said, "One of the things you need to keep in mind is that sport is not self defense."
During his closing statement after the demonstration he was discussing proper mindset and said, "you're gonna fight the way you train, so train appropriately."
Since this came directly from the mouth of one of DRTV's 3 wise men of self defense, I am fairly certain that he meant it as he said it. Since he had time to plan the segment and seemed very comfortable and knowledgeable I would submit that he most likely had plenty of time to prepare the wording of his statement. Since he is a well known and highly skilled self defense instructor, I am going to refer to him as an industry professional without caveat.
SO...did he not really mean it? No wait, out of context? Was Mr. Janich, "over-generalizing?" No. I got it! Because he was discussing H2H techniques, it doesn't really apply to the use of a firearm. Yeah...that's it! That's the ticket!!! (sic)
Yes I am being sarcastic. I'll own that. Primarily because I took a lot of flack over statements that I made about these points regarding training. Both in the forum and through PM. It just isn't in me to let something drop when someone comes after me personally.
Stay Safe,
-
Well done Scott!
I figured you were gonna pick up on that one.
;D ;D