Training the caveman vs. training the athlete

[Jackson]

I've put myself in about as stressful an environment as is possible while doing said gun handling.

Are you sure about that? You can't picture anything more stressful than a USPSA competition?

Thats fair.

Do I carry? If I do, can I draw the weapon smoothly and efficiently 100% of the time? Once drawn, can I hit what I am aiming at? Now, do I seek out legal stressful environments and practice continually by putting myself in them? See, after this, I don't find the endless debates and minutiae all that important. I find, IMHO, all that to be a detriment to the task at hand if I would happen to be a victim of a violent crime. Which, we could debate statistics all day long, but the last I looked, left me feeling pretty good.

So to sum up, in a gunfight I'd want on any number of competitors I know on my side instead of any of the endless debaters and minutiae infested tacticians.

I imagine that works well if the fight you're in looks like a USPSA competition. It excludes all of the parts that come before the gun clears the holster. It doesn't address the decision to take the gun from the holster. It excludes all of the parts that come after the shooting stops. What if the fight is at contact distance?

I'm not saying you're not adequately prepared. I'm not saying competition isn't an excellent way to build shooting skills. I am saying a live gun fight might involve a wider skill set and different problems than you face in competition.

 

[Rob377]

Geez. We're talking about very simple gun manipulations, people. Not quantum freakin' physics. Not advanced gymnastics. Not even a cover 2 defense.

Despite what the "trainers" looking to make a few hundred buck off of you may say, there is no significant difference in the difficulty and complexity of the "caveman" methods vs. the "athlete" methods.

 

[esrice]

This seems like a good time to bring up the excellent article Rob377 posted earlier. I think it applies here.

This is actually a good point. This has been hashed over before, framed as competence v. excellence.
Excellence vs. Competence | Gun Nuts Media

 

[Fourtrax]

Are you sure about that? You can't picture anything more stressful than a USPSA competition?



I imagine that works well if the fight you're in looks like a USPSA competition. It excludes all of the parts that come before the gun clears the holster. It doesn't address the decision to take the gun from the holster. It excludes all of the parts that come after the shooting stops. What if the fight is at contact distance?

I'm not saying you're not adequately prepared. I'm not saying competition isn't an excellent way to build shooting skills. I am saying a live gun fight might involve a wider skill set and different problems than you face in competition.

First, i can't think of any legal environment that places stress on a shooter like competition, any competition, not just USPSA. Are there such environments, of course, .....are they readily available to hone all the DRYFIRE, not that I'm aware. If there is a legal environment that places as much gun manipulation stress on an individual as any number of competitions that are available, then by all means, do tell. But, I don't want to hear about some training school, unless of course it involves my ex company commanders. Or, Unless of course that school somehow allows you to go every single available weekend to put yourself under some stress. If not, then I'll stick to my competition friends.

There is so much wrong in your next line of questions, frankly I don't know where to begin. Exactly what do you think competitors do? I've drawn and shot from almost every imaginable position and gun placement in which to draw and shoot. I'd wager the average competitor is more familiar with their firearm than most trainers, and probably more efficient to boot.

So you admit that the average competitor has good gun handling skills. I submit that aside from that, not much else is needed. I'm not in the least bit concerned about the before and especially the after. Unless we grew up in lala land, I'm guessing most of the people I know don't need instruction in recognizing a threat and avoiding said threat. Are you a trained psychologist? You a mind reader? I can't tell you what anyone is thinking. I know what a damn risky situation is, and I know what I'm capable of doing and I know what my fellow competitors are capable of doing, I'll still take them in a gunfight.

Let me pose this, if you had a choice, of picking the advanced competitor that's been in thousands and thousands of stressful situations and fired hundreds of thousands of rounds or picking some tactical guru that delves in theory and debate and some DRYFIRE with some rounds down range every week and a couple training classes, you would seriously pick the latter? Well, you'd both be dead.

You admit that competitors have great gun handling skills and I'm guessing most trainers/tactical types probably wouldn't finish mid pack at a good match. Which I think you already know. So they invent the whole "before and after" debate to just stay even. The "before" is plain common sense to me. I would think most people gain Enough threat recognition while growing up to recognize impending disaster, and avoid it. The "after" is easy, .....who gives a fat baby crap? It's gonna be a poop storm. If it is righteous you'll be exonerated. Hey, I still have some faith in the legal system. If it's not righteous, then you are fubared and I am wondering how your ancestors escaped the watering hole and why the hell you were playing tactical Timmy.

Here is the real rub...... most competitors can duplicate anything a tactical oriented person can do with a gun, probably almost immediately and in any scenario. But most tacticians couldn't touch half my competitor friends inside a year of serious gun handling, training and shooting.

Again, this is all my humble opinion.


edited to add: I pick Rob377 for my imaginary gunfight team. He got mad skills, the lawyer thing comes in handy too, lol

 

[Jackson]

First, I'd like to apologize for getting you so worked up. I am not attacking you. I was honestly just curious about your opinions. I have participated in a few competitions. So I have at least some idea what competitors do. I did not feel all that stressed during the competition. I do not compete consistently or at a high level. Perhaps that is why? I have been to a few training classes with Force on Force elements where I felt the stress was greater than competition, and in a manner more consistent with a real situation. I've been in real situations that were significantly more stressful than either. Between the two, I find FoF to be a better simulator for the real-life stress. However, I cannot do them as cheaply or freely as competition. So I like to mix'n'match. I guess I just don't think I can get it all in one place. :-) I know that answer isn't valid based on your criteria. I don't know who your company commanders are. So, I can't comment on that part.

I do admit (why do I have to admit it? Why would I conceal it or be ashamed of it?) that competitors develop good gun handling skills. I think that is a great benefit to competition. I don't believe I have said anything to disparage competition or the shooters who participate in it. I've done it and enjoyed it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is an excellent way to build shooting skills. Why do you assume none of the "tactical" instructors are competitors? Why do you assume people who might take a training class have never been to a competition? Can I do both?

As for who I would pick? (I'll answer assuming the problem is big enogh to require two people to solve.) I think that depends on the individuals more so than the backgrounds. First, I want the one with the fortitude to see the fight through no matter how it goes. I would prefer to pick the one who I know well enough to have an idea what he or she would do. Preferrably it would be someone who I've practiced working with enough to developed a method of communication and consistency of action. As an example, it may be the one who sees in advance that I have a limited line of movement and comes around to the opponents side, establishing a dominant position and opening up options for me. I'd like to pick the one who has some medical training to keep themselves in the fight if needed, or to keep me from bleeding out after we're done exchanging bullets. And, of course, I'd also like it to be the more proficient shooter. (Which is the point you're driving toward. Why wouldn't I want that?) If I get to pick all this though... Why couldn't I pick to stay home? :-)

I appreciate you explaining your position. I'm just here to learn. It seems you have an opinion that differs from other posters so I wanted to know more. Thanks.

First, i can't think of any legal environment that places stress on a shooter like competition, any competition, not just USPSA. Are there such environments, of course, .....are they readily available to hone all the DRYFIRE, not that I'm aware. If there is a legal environment that places as much gun manipulation stress on an individual as any number of competitions that are available, then by all means, do tell. But, I don't want to hear about some training school, unless of course it involves my ex company commanders. Or, Unless of course that school somehow allows you to go every single available weekend to put yourself under some stress. If not, then I'll stick to my competition friends.

There is so much wrong in your next line of questions, frankly I don't know where to begin. Exactly what do you think competitors do? I've drawn and shot from almost every imaginable position and gun placement in which to draw and shoot. I'd wager the average competitor is more familiar with their firearm than most trainers, and probably more efficient to boot.

So you admit that the average competitor has good gun handling skills. I submit that aside from that, not much else is needed. I'm not in the least bit concerned about the before and especially the after. Unless we grew up in lala land, I'm guessing most of the people I know don't need instruction in recognizing a threat and avoiding said threat. Are you a trained psychologist? You a mind reader? I can't tell you what anyone is thinking. I know what a damn risky situation is, and I know what I'm capable of doing and I know what my fellow competitors are capable of doing, I'll still take them in a gunfight.

Let me pose this, if you had a choice, of picking the advanced competitor that's been in thousands and thousands of stressful situations and fired hundreds of thousands of rounds or picking some tactical guru that delves in theory and debate and some DRYFIRE with some rounds down range every week and a couple training classes, you would seriously pick the latter? Well, you'd both be dead.

You admit that competitors have great gun handling skills and I'm guessing most trainers/tactical types probably wouldn't finish mid pack at a good match. Which I think you already know. So they invent the whole "before and after" debate to just stay even. The "before" is plain common sense to me. I would think most people gain Enough threat recognition while growing up to recognize impending disaster, and avoid it. The "after" is easy, .....who gives a fat baby crap? It's gonna be a poop storm. If it is righteous you'll be exonerated. Hey, I still have some faith in the legal system. If it's not righteous, then you are fubared and I am wondering how your ancestors escaped the watering hole and why the hell you were playing tactical Timmy.

Here is the real rub...... most competitors can duplicate anything a tactical oriented person can do with a gun, probably almost immediately and in any scenario. But most tacticians couldn't touch half my competitor friends inside a year of serious gun handling, training and shooting.

Again, this is all my humble opinion.

 

[bwframe]

...Here is the real rub...... most competitors can duplicate anything a tactical oriented person can do with a gun, probably almost immediately and in any scenario. But most tacticians couldn't touch half my competitor friends inside a year of serious gun handling, training and shooting. ...

So is the gun your only tool? What if your gun cannot solve the problem?

 

[Fourtrax]

Jackson

First, I am only offering my opinion. I believe an exchange of ideas is great, I don't believe I am "worked up" as you put it.

Second, I am talking about high level competitors, they may be average, but they compete a lot, not the once in a while crowd. I applaud doing both, I think you'd be better off just competing though, if you did that earnestly and aggressively.

Third, your level of arousal doesn't prove or disprove anything. For me, the amount of physical and mental investment determines my level of arousal. So, like most high level competitors, I am operating in as legal a stressful environment as possible. Granted FoF is going to present stress, but are you doing that every weekend? Are you doing FoF training so much, that operating in that environment is second nature? So, you understand what I'm getting at?

The high level competitor encounters that environment on a regular basis. IMHO they are far more equipped to deal with stress than a once in awhile competitor, who has a FoF class a couple times a year. I am guessing that FoF training would be fun, but for the average Joe civilian, I don't see the up side so to speak. Personally, I think it's much ado about nothing and a way for some to pry money out of Walter Mitty type personalities. Now, of course, if you are in the military or in some type of Law enforcement career, where you are training regularly, I want you in FoF training regularly. If the latter, I'd still recommend becoming a high level competitor. That way, you guarantee elevated stress levels regularly and your body learns to deal with it regularly.

Rub # 2. While I would bet that there are a few real life "law enforcement" operators on this forum, and I appreciate everything they do, I'm guessing the vast majority, way above 95%, have no law enforcement background or military background for that matter. I have been speaking to that group. If you find yourself reading this, and anything I'm saying rings true, then you are probably being victimized by a tactical trainer. You are a "tactical Timmy". Don't despair, there is help.

Find one of my first posts and read the question. I think it went, .... Can I draw and shoot what I am aiming at smoothly and efficiently 100% of the time? That's it, period. Beyond that it's all theory and minutiae designed to separate you from your $$$, don't fall for it.

The whole thing is a house of cards I equate to some money making college degree program. It makes the college a ton of money and leaves the student bloated with knowledge they never needed and will never have a chance to use. Useless really.


bwframe: did you read anything, or just skim?

I admit to Assuming that most people get out of childhood with a threat radar? I guess it was my up bringing, but I recognize threats and I'm as confident as one can be in dealing with them.

A gun my only tool?

Nope, first I use my brain, the best tool any of us can use. Couple a good brain with DECISIVE action and 99.999999999% of the time, .......the gun becomes an afterthought.

I can "what if" anything to death and it seems to me that is EXACTLY what some tactical/training types do. I get it, it provides an endless discussion and need for more technique, that of course requires more training and more discussion, which some poor saps dole out money to be a part of.

When, to me, paying someone to teach me threat recognition, something I think goes back to "fight or flight" instincts, is ridiculous. You either have that, or you don't. If you need to pay for that, how the heck did your family make it away from the water hole?

Teach yourself to be alert, then answer the question I've asked twice.

edited to add: as my second pick for my imaginary gunfight team I pick CB45.

 

[Rob377]

So is the gun your only tool? What if your gun cannot solve the problem?

The OP framed this as "caveman" vs. "athlete" gun-handling techniques. Is there a caveman verbal conflict de-escalation technique? "Grog no want your woman, Grog have no problem, Grog leave now"


Someone above mentioned a "magic talisman" line of thinking. So much of the "caveman" method as preached by "trainers" is exactly that. It's like one of those over blown infomercials in a way. "Get competent with a gun in one easy technique and no practice!! Act now and we'll throw in this FREE James Yeager beer coozy!"

I've seen it a number of times: Guy goes to tactical fantasy camp, where they drill all the BS about how "Hick's law" and "fine motor skills" mean that all they have to do is pay their money, do the class, and boom, they're competent "operators." That guy shows up at a match, gun goes click for whatever reason, and then they stare at it like monkey doing a math problem for awhile. They were sold a magic talisman. They thought that going to that fantasy camp and learning the "never fail" method would absolve them of any responsibility for developing their own skill to even a basic level.

It's the "8 -minute abs" of the gun world.

The want to believe that the magic hickslawgrossmotorskill talisman (tm) is going to allow them to instantly react with flawless technique when it matters, without having to put in much if any practice. Spoiler alert - it doesn't.

They're really doing themselves a tremendous disservice, and the "trainers" pushing those methods as competence without practice aren't helping anyone.

 

[churchmouse]

Yes, I agree. I was almost completely caveman but have now "evolved" (pun intended) to some athletic tendencies.

Is this not the path most normal people follow.

An athlete has the advantage of training his mind/muscles to do his/her will. Response from thought to action is reduced by the athletes training. Eye to brain to hand response is almost auto-pilot in nature.

The average person will be lucky to get a reliable muscle memory developed with the minimal training they have due to time allowed from life's responsibility's.

I have trained in some way my whole life and feel there is a lot left to do but now age has set in and that slows things down. I have passed this training to my children and see the caveman in both of them at times and both were athletes up to graduating high school.

I do see some advantage having the cave dweller mentality in a straight up empty hand brawl............JMHO

 

[bwframe]

So is the gun your only tool? What if your gun cannot solve the problem?

The OP framed this as "caveman" vs. "athlete" gun-handling techniques. Is there a caveman verbal conflict de-escalation technique? "Grog no want your woman, Grog have no problem, Grog leave now"
...

Yes, and knives were also mentioned. So what is your gun move against a knife at close range?

 

[ViperJock]

After reading this thread I have developed a new training regimine:
1: 5min -quick draw.
2: 5min -dry fire.
3: 20min-Watch Matrix.

Expertise in Under 31min/day. BOOYAH!

 

[Rob377]

Yes, and knives were also mentioned. So what is your gun move against a knife at close range?

 

[churchmouse]

Yes, and knives were also mentioned. So what is your gun move against a knife at close range?

Close range knife action to me is an empty hand response. At those ranges the time you take to draw is wasted time in your defense. Training for this is as important as any you will get. If you do prevail in such an attack a sidearm can double as a bludgeon very effectively. Even a BS plastic gun can render someone unconscious.

 

[churchmouse]

I can not rep you again for a while..........+1.....

 

[VERT]

All all really want to know is whose team do I get to be on?

 

[lucky4034]

Jackson
Third, your level of arousal doesn't prove or disprove anything. For me, the amount of physical and mental investment determines my level of arousal. So, like most high level competitors, I am operating in as legal a stressful environment as possible. Granted FoF is going to present stress, but are you doing that every weekend? Are you doing FoF training so much, that operating in that environment is second nature? So, you understand what I'm getting at?

My job is stressful, my wife is stressful... none of which prepares me for an attacker. I believe there is obvious value obtained from being a competitive shooter that translates over to a gun fight. Speed of operation, trigger control, consistency, accuracy etc.... but there are more factors than that involved in a gun fight or in warding off an attack. Situational awareness being at the top of that. To talk as if YOU YOURSELF would have nothing or very little to gain in terms of taking some of these training courses seems a bit silly to me.

In essence, it seems you are trying to make a case that instead of training our troops in urban warfare tactics, we could simply sign them up for competitive shooting.... There is more involved in it than that and I think you know that.

Is the cost/benefit there for you being a competitive shooter? I have no way of knowing.... Obviously training speed drills at a training course would be a waste of your time and money, but there is plenty of defensive training out there outside of gun handling.

 

[cedartop]

I never really got the whole competition vs. "tactical" rift till now. Like so many things it appears to be more about the person than the content. I have trained with and learned from a lot of people who meld competition with real world/tactical and it always seemed like a pretty good fit. Guys like Ayoob, Hackathorn, McNamara, Proctor, and on and on all supplement their training with competing. Up until now I had never heard anyone say that competition will prepare you for all of your lethal force encounters and that is all you need. Wow!

 

[bwframe]

...Someone above mentioned a "magic talisman" line of thinking.

Exactly! That's the way "hammer/nail guys" think knife fights end. Out of range for the knife, in range for the gun.

All all really want to know is whose team do I get to be on?

Depends on the buzz words you want to throw around. "down one, down two" "situational awareness" "caveman" "athlete" "grandmaster" "operator" blah, blah

The real answer is;
If you are one sided on this issue, you are wrong...

 

[Rob377]

I never really got the whole competition vs. "tactical" rift till now. Like so many things it appears to be more about the person than the content. I have trained with and learned from a lot of people who meld competition with real world/tactical and it always seemed like a pretty good fit. Guys like Ayoob, Hackathorn, McNamara, Proctor, and on and on all supplement their training with competing. Up until now I had never heard anyone say that competition will prepare you for all of your lethal force encounters and that is all you need. Wow!

Competition will get you killed. True story.

 

[Fourtrax]

This thread is funny.

My my point is, 99.99999999% of the people paying for this type of training have almost no chance of ever using it! none! zip! zilch.

It it a whole industry designed to take money from saps with a Walter Mitty type personality.

To to the poster who asked what I'm gonna do in a close quarter knife attack, when I have a gun, I say, ....I'm gonna probably go get stitches or operated on, my attacker is going to the morgue. The whole drawing a gun thing cracks me up, what do you think my draw to shot is at contact range anyway? See, I know these numbers, you seem caught up in the theory and minutiae.


edited to add: I pick Coach to be my third member of my fake gunfight team. If it comes to anything other than guns, Coach is beating someone to death, pretty sure. If it comes to guns, well he's damn good there too.