competition value in regard to training (Split from other thread)

[Tyler Durden]

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 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!

[Rastus]

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)?

[Rob Pincus]

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

[scott.ballard]

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,

[Rob Pincus]

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

[Sponsor]

[scott.ballard]

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,

[WatchManUSA]

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.

[Rob Pincus]

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.ballard]

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,

[fullautovalmet76]

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.