Training the caveman vs. training the athlete

[Rob377]

Rob, we teach combatives not martial arts. One of the reasons is that it is very effective while being easier to learn. We tell the students you still have to practice it to make it work, but since it is distilled down to many fewer "caveman" techniques, it is much easier to learn well enough to make it work. We then have them practice it against real resistance. I always make the point that even though this is simpler, that DOES NOT mean you don't have to ingrain it through practice. To me this is the same whether we are talking knives, hands, guns, whatever. There is no answer for the truly lazy.

Fair enough. The problem is that the alleged benefit of requiring less training gets oversold. It's possible that what we've got here is, failure to communicate.

Moreover, the marginal training requirement for learning better, more efficient techniques is much less than people think. Probably because "trainers" intent on defending their lowest-common-denominator curriculum have to make the alternative look expensive, overly time consuming, and difficult. They seem to have that messaging down, as you can see looking through this thread: "If I had tons more money, I'd train like an 'athlete"' or "If I had hours every day to practice..."

The fact is none of those are true. This isn't quantum physics, or advanced capoeira. It's simple gun handling.

To put a number on it, 3 months or so of 2 reasonably well designed, 30 minute dryfire sessions (which cost NOTHING) per week should be enough to get just about anyone to get to roughly USPSA B class/IDPA Expert class level gun-handling skills. That's about the level where 2nd nature responses are the norm, give or take. Shooters below that level more often than not responding immediately to whatever happens, no matter many or few techniques they've decided to learn. They just don't have the quality reps put in.

It does NOT take hours every day, or thousands of dollars to train more efficient techniques.

 

[Jackson]

It seems we're back on topic. :-) I don't necessarily think "caveman" techniques are easier to learn than "athlete" techniques. It doesn't take any extra time to learn to use the slide stop vs racking the slide. I also don't think it is difficult to use a slide catch (stop, release, pick your term) under stress. The military teaches it and our soldiers and marines do it regularly in combat. I don't know of a more stressful way to test it. I don't think there is any real evidence to prove that tactical reloads will get you killed but speed reloads will save your life, but keeping the gun topped up in some way is an essential skill. I think the value is in consistency with other manipulations. If the shooter is using the same motion to rack the slide for a slide-lock reload as an in-battery reload, and as a malfunction clearance, then practicing for one of those techniques is building skills ("muscle memory") for each of them.

There are very many gun owners who will never put in the time and practice required to become a "high level competitor" or extremely proficient shooter. There are all kinds of reasons ranging from disinterest to lack of resources. We see it all the time here on INGO. Just go look in the Handgun forum. There are plenty of people in there with 15 handguns who shoot less than 1000 rounds a year. So, maybe these trainers just know their target audience. They know the average gun owner will think a $200 weekend training class is ridiculously expensive and way too much of a time committment. They know the average gun owner is likley to have only 50 rounds of ammo on hand to practice with at any given time. They know this gun owner might go to the range one time in any given three month period. Knowing all that, they choose to teach techniques with consistent movements, that theoretically require less repitition to gain a workable level of proficiency. The trainer can't go in to a class full of average gun owners and pretend they are going to be teaching a high-level USPSA shooter.

Is it worth it to attend the class at all if you aren't going to practice to that level? What level of practice makes the class worthwhile? Is it all or nothing? Should a person decide that, if they aren't going to practice an hour a day they shouldn't practice at all? What is the minimum level of practice before it isn't worth putting in the time? I guess I think any practice, no matter how little, is better than none. If you will only practice enough to be proficient in one or two techniques, they should be as widely applicable as possible.

The average "defensive pistol" classes all teach pretty much the same gun handling stuff. They all typically cover basic marksmanship, draw stroke, reloads, malfunctions, and sometimes they throw in topics like cover and movement. These are pretty much the essential skills for practical application of a pistol regardless of the specific reload or malfunction technique being taught. They can all be learned in shooting competition (except maybe that proper use of cover part). They can also be distilled down in to a day of class. If a prospective student isn't interested in competing, or wont go to enough competitions to learn this stuff over time on their own, what is the down side to going to a class to get it all at one time?

 

[Fourtrax]

They can also be distilled down in to a day of class. If a prospective student isn't interested in competing, or wont go to enough competitions to learn this stuff over time on their own, what is the down side to going to a class to get it all at one time?

Nothing if all that is sought is KNOWLEDGE.

If they developed a good practice regimen after the class, then the only other downside I could think of would be not learning something in a pressure environment by not competing.

This is is kinda what brought me into the discussion. I was mulling over what I've heard about tactical classes and such and thinking some (not you Jackson) people are thinking a class is great and then they are some kind of "operator". To get right to the heart of the question, the downside is a false sense of security based on knowledge and just knowledge, given the person does nothing after the class. I give much respect to some of the trainers that have stated that without practice, it's not gonna help you.

There is a huge difference in knowledge VS skill set.

The best trainers probably have reached some kind of equilibrium between the two, but always seek more of each.

 

[ATM]

I'm more interested in developing and maintaining a general competency across many disciplines than mastering a select few.

...If they developed a good practice regimen after the class, then the only other downside I could think of would be not learning something in a pressure environment by not competing...

As if competition was the only pressure environment to practice and train in? I'm glad it works for you, but it wouldn't be the best option for many others.

 

[Rob377]

I'm more interested in developing and maintaining a general competency across many disciplines than mastering a select few.



As if competition was the only pressure environment to practice and train in? I'm glad it works for you, but it wouldn't be the best option for many others.

Why not?

What "pressure environments" have you tested in to make that comparison?

 

[ATM]

Why not?

Most competitions are scheduled on weekends. Not everyone works M-F 9-5 jobs.

What "pressure environments" have you tested in to make that comparison?

Force on force classes are designed for this - pressure testing.

I can generate a certain amount of pressure myself and typically do so during training and practice because I know how valuable it is.

 

[Fourtrax]

Most competitions are scheduled on weekends. Not everyone works M-F 9-5 jobs.



Force on force classes are designed for this - pressure testing.

I can generate a certain amount of pressure myself and typically do so during training and practice because I know how valuable it is.

First, as a bacon lover (it is meat candy) we connect on some level, so we have that and I appreciate the bond.


Yes, of course FoF is designed for this. It's a great pressure cooker. How often do you do the training? Are you training FoF enough so that your body understands subconsciously how to handle the adrenaline?

This is a great byproduct of high level competing, the competitors learn how to deal with the adrenaline dump. They are competing so often that their bodies adjust to the adrenaline and this becomes part of how they shoot.

I would love love to learn the techniques you use outside of FoF training that simulates FoF type stress or match type stress. This would be beneficial.

 

[Jackson]

Jackson
If you are serious about actually competing and live close to Peru, I have my own little range. I'd be more than willing to pour out 10+ years of competition gun handling on you. The last guy I helped went to Master and I'm not sure I'll ever beat him again, damn kids. Of course, he spent countless hours perfecting everything, so mostly it was him, not me. But, nevertheless, dialing things in correctly, beats trying to fix training scars down the road.

I wouldn't charge a dime either. I just love helping people who want to compete.

Be careful. Jackson might rub off on you just a bit too...

If the guy is serious and passes this up then I am speechless.

I see offers like this extended on the board from time to time. I've extended a few myself. I rarely see anyone actually take the person up on it. Because of that, and because I like to shoot, and especially becuase I do not want to leave churchmouse speechless, Fourtrax and I have set up a range session this coming weekend. I expect it will be a good time.

 

[Fourtrax]

Game on!!!

 

[Killion]

WTF....no invite?

 

[ATM]

...I would love love to learn the techniques you use outside of FoF training that simulates FoF type stress or match type stress. This would be beneficial.

Here's my secret: even for relatively static defensive drills, I really consider the targets to be threats.

I know what you're thinking, "C'mon, ATM, that's just silly - they're harmless targets. Just relax, have some bacon and you'll shoot better."
Yep, but I'm not out there for sport or score so I might as well play mind games with myself and attempt to summon a bit of life or death intensity despite the fact that they aren't truly shooting back.

Morpheus agrees. "Your mind makes it real." - YouTube

Also, I like to be as jacked up on caffeine as possible, something most high level competitors probably avoid.

I'm going to participate in more FoF, but not likely enough to truly inoculate me against the physiological effects of adrenaline.
However, I do think it still helps to tame the psychological effects while learning and pushing our limits.

 

[Jackson]

I tend to think good Force on Force scenario training is as much about learning to make decisions in real time, under stress as it is about simply dealing with stress or adrenaline in itself. It is the decision making factor that sets FoF apart from competition or other stressful endeavors. Sure there are some decisions to be made in competition or in timed drills. There aren't nearly as many decisions to make, or as many available options as you might be presented with in a well-developed scenario. As I understand it, most competitors, while highly stressed, make every effort to remove as many decisions from the equations as possible through stage breakdown, repetitive practice of specific scenarios commonly found in stages, pre planning of magazine changes and movements prior to the buzzer, etc. So while probably highly stressful, the development of on-the-fly decision making is minimized compared to a scenrio where you have no idea what is going to happen.

 

[VERT]

I see offers like this extended on the board from time to time. I've extended a few myself. I rarely see anyone actually take the person up on it. Because of that, and because I like to shoot, and especially becuase I do not want to leave churchmouse speechless, Fourtrax and I have set up a range session this coming weekend. I expect it will be a good time.

Game on!!!

WTF....no invite?

Exactly. I am jealous. I know for a fact that Jackson is the type to take someone up on an offer. Seen him do it twice. Expect him to listen, take notes and post an AAR.

So Jackson are you going to join us at South Central for a match this year? I will pay your entry fee. Since Freetown is not close I bet somebody else will make a similar offer.

 

[Jackson]

So Jackson are you going to join us at South Central for a match this year? I will pay your entry fee. Since Freetown is not close I bet somebody else will make a similar offer.

That all depends on the schedule and my work situation, I guess. I spend much of my time out of state. I'll see what I can do.

 

[Fourtrax]

WTF....no invite?

That's bs and you know it. You don't need an invite, mi range su range brother!

But, the range will be crowded on Sunday, so take that advice before you drive up here!

I would like to touch off some rounds on that trigger!

and oh, ATM,.......I'm always thinking "have some bacon"

 

[esrice]

Whoa, this thread really took off! I look forward to going back and reading the new posts.

One area I did want to address, just so we're all on the same page here. . . .

My current position with Mindset Laboratory is and always has been voluntary and un-paid. I got involved as a roleplayer and helped with the marketing and advertising earlier this year because I believe in the principles of FoF and have benefited from the training personally. I was taking a course every month back in 2012 as a student, and have helped in several more as a roleplayer in 2013. I learned something new about myself in each experience. I wish my schedule would allow me even more time to help out.

I offered this thread as a thought-provoking discussion starter. I'm not a trainer with Mindset Laboratory and my goal isn't to dupe people into taking a course. Even if you took all of them, I wouldn't make any money. Whether from Mindset Lab or another reputable outfit, I think FoF training is an essential piece of the puzzle and offers regular folks the opportunity to test themselves in an environment unlike any other.

Many thanks to those who took the time to participate in this discussion and provide their own unique perspectives.

 

[rhino]

How much stress is imposed in any kind of training or practice depends heavily on the attitude and intent of the participant. You can go through a week of force on force with people pelting you with sims and not gain much if you don't immerse yourself mentally and emotionally into the scenarios and drills at some point. If you do immerse yourself, though, the experience is unlike other activities I've tried. Understanding the speed at which you can or can't do things is a lot do things is significantly different than seeing firsthand how quickly things can happen when other people are acting both against and with you.

While I sense some disdain for non-competition training, I do agree that practice after instruction is an integral component of both developing skills and adaptations as well as maintaining skills already possessed. One of the things that we try to communicate in our classes (and we're not alone in this) is that one of the take-aways from the classes is how and what to practice. Another thing to mention is that the shooting and gun handling skills are an essential but not comprehensive part of using a firearm for defense. Few years ago I purposely seeded a class with a high-level defensive tactics trainer with several people who were excellent competition shooters, but who had never attended any defense-oriented training. They all approached it with an open mind and I believe they were surprised by that brief two-day introduction by the aspects of defense that they'd never considered, nor would they ever arise for someone whose sole exposure to shooting skills was in the context of competition.

I've long been irritated by the "IPSC will get you killed" nonsense espoused by those we lovingly refer to as "tactical tommies" as well as the insistence that shooting in competition isn't training (it may not be comprehensive defensive training, but practice is "training" as much as receiving instruction is). On the other hand, it's virtually the same thing for those on the other side to dismiss what happens in defensive classes, especially in the absence of personal experience. Much of that dismissal seems to be based on the arguably lower level of shooting skills exhibited. That's understandable, especially given the perspective, but fails to address that shooting skills are only part of a much bigger picture.

Ultimately I think that competition vs. defense is as much of a false dichotomy as "speed vs. accuracy" or "sighted fire vs. point shooting." In my opinion, people need as much of both as they can assimilate. Bringing it back to the actual topic, I think caveman vs. athlete is also better addressed as "which elements of my overall package will be best served caveman style and which will be better if I go for the athletic approach." Not an either/or for a person, but an either/or based on a specific aspect of that person's needs.

 

[Fourtrax]

Shut up you big sexy bast$&%!!

Who asked you to provide logic and common sense? Geez o pete!

 

[rhino]

Shut up you big sexy bast$&%!!

Who asked you to provide logic and common sense? Geez o pete!

I couldn't help myself. At least I waited until message #157 before I had to run my mouth.

I also had to be reminded who you were after the first go-round in this topic! I had forgotten your userid! At least now I've removed you from my IGNORE list. HAHAHA!

I think you should enroll in a class with Frank Sharpe (Fortress Defense) the next time he does one of his classes at Rochester. Not that far from you, and I think that you will be favorably impressed by what they offer. I may join you, in fact.

See you in the spring, sir.

 

[Fourtrax]

Sir, yes sir.

I will ill give that some serious thought.