Presentation from the Holster [Archive]

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 08:52

From all of the training I have done over the years, I have seen many ways of presenting or drawing your handgun from a holster. They were all pretty much the same. It was a choppy step by step method. I never liked this to begin with. The draws always seemed jerky and never seemed really smooth. Some could say I was doing it wrong. That wasn’t it. Because of the motion required and so many reps to get down, it is difficult to have everything
flow together. It required stopping or having a designated spot for your weak hand to grip the gun. I believe this method is an inferior method.

With the help of empirical evidence, we have seen time and time again that people who have trained with a designated spot for their hands to meet are shooting one handed. Subconsciously they are realizing it is more important to get the gun out on the bad guy then stop to get a two handed grip. Because of this, they are shooting one handed. This is mainly seen with the Weaver Stance.

Combat Focus® Shooting’s method, which I am a certified active instructor, is the best method. Here is the method.

1. Grip the gun and beat any retention devices.
13226

2. Pull the gun straight up and out of holster.
13227

3. Orient the gun to the threat.
13228

4. Extend the gun into and parallel with your line of sight and at some point as you are pushing the gun out, establish your grip with your weak hand.
13229

This requires less time, effort, and energy to perform. Starting out it will be a little jerky as you learn the new skill. Only after a few reps, people are able to smooth the presentation out. This makes it the most efficient draw I have seen. I am open to the idea of a better way. If there is a better way, I want to see it and try it out.

Moltke

08-14-12, 08:59

I usually just come out of the holster shooting wildly. By putting a few into the dirt as I raise the muzzle to presentation level, you really let the bad guy know that you mean business...
-----------

No but seriously, the draw looks good. I notice that you are going very high with the gun before orienting it towards the target (at least in your pictures). Are you really doing a 90 degree turn with it and driving it towards the target, or is the gun following a curve to eye level as you raise it and drive it towards the target at the same time?

What I mean is - once you've cleared your holster, why wait to start driving the gun?

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 09:36

Moltke

08-14-12, 09:45

So was that a yes to my question of what you are doing? You are going straight up then straight out?

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 09:47

Sorry about that. Yes, straight up then straight out.

Moltke

08-14-12, 09:59

I think that drawing is situationally dependent and that it's good to practice different methods, this looks like a decent method. I wasn't knocking it when I was asking, I was just curious about what exactly was happening and the reasoning behind it. I think you could be faster for a forward threat if you drive the gun on a curve instead of at a right angle. Have you tested this on a timer?

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 10:33

You have to look at effective and efficient. Effective is achieving a stated goal. Alone it is irrelevant. Effective takes least time, effort, and energy. The method you are describing might be faster in isolation by a tenth of a second or whatever number it is. It may not be. We need to look at it within human error. Your method also runs the risk of seesawing the gun, either canting the muzzle backwards or forwards. This requires controlling more unnecessary movement to the gun. Remember we are not robots that can magic the gun in our hands when we need to shoot a threat. So if it’s faster to bring the gun to our face, but takes more time to insure the gun is parallel with our line of sight. It makes it slower. The CFS method mitigates all of the stated issues.

Moltke

08-14-12, 11:08

Both methods would be effective because the end goal is going to be met both ways when the target is shot accurately. So by what standard will you measure efficiency if not by time?

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 11:35

All of these technique are well within the same time frame taking human error in account. And correct, both ways completes the stated goal. It's all about what is efficient. Pulling the gun straight up and extending the gun straight out into and parallel with your line of site is efficient because it is more consistent. Consistency increase our efficiency. Consistency is the standard. By limiting the movement on the gun, it will be more consistent, which will increase our efficiency, thus making it the preferred technique.

Arctic1

08-14-12, 11:41

For some context, is this technique superior regardless of holster/carry, or specifically for concealed carry?

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 11:51

This technique is superior regardless of holster/carry. If it the gear requires you to alter the the psychical skill, change the gear if you are able to.

Failure2Stop

08-14-12, 11:56

Combat Focus® Shooting’s method, which I am a certified active instructor, is the best method.

I find this statement to be highly debatable.

Moltke

08-14-12, 12:00

What human error are you taking into account? The inability to perform the action of bringing the gun up correctly? Just because you can't do it right doesn't mean it's a lesser way to do it.

There are several ways to accomplish drawing a gun and your method is sound but is not going to be ideal for every shooter even though it may be your "preferred method".

Pressing the gun out on a curve is just one example of a way to get the gun on target faster. Another method could be bringing the pistol into the center of your chest and clasping both hands at that point; instead of raising the pistol high to your strong side then clasping hands so far in front of your body during the press out motion.

Additionally, you're not talking about when to start pressing on the trigger. Do you take up the slack in your trigger during the press out, or do you take up slack when fully pressed out. When you move your finger from finger guard to trigger it's going to move the sights, so when do you choose to move to the trigger? When you press it? Do you stage the trigger to the break point, or slap it?

Since you're toting this as a one size fits all drawing method then there's also drawing and firing from retention. How well will this work for firing from retention? If you draw and raise your pistol as high as you're going, then do your 90 degree rotation, you may have to move the pistol lower again to fire accurately. On the other hand, if you clear your holster and rotate the pistol, it may already be in the appropriate firing position for you as a shooter, which could be faster.

Thanks for the pics and opinion, but I see no reason to not be driving the gun as soon as it clears the holster. Get it out of the holster, sights on target, break the shot and get your hit. There is no single method to doing this but there are several that work well.

I didn't notice you were so new to the website, welcome to M4C.

Aray

08-14-12, 12:05

"Combat Focus® Shooting’s method, which I am a certified active instructor, is the best method." "This technique is superior regardless of holster/carry."

These statements are quite broad, could you please be specific as to how your method is superior to other specific methods?

Ironman8

08-14-12, 12:11

I find this statement to be highly debatable.

This.

Saying that something is the "best method" is very much a statement that I would expect from someone who has drank the koolaid and refuses any other flavor. :rolleyes:

Arctic1

08-14-12, 12:21

This technique is superior regardless of holster/carry. If it the gear requires you to alter the the psychical skill, change the gear if you are able to.

Making a blanket statement like this is quite arrogant, to be honest.

There are many factors that will influence weapon manipulation skills, gear is one of them. Often, specific pieces of gear is not something the individual can choose to discard/change. Often compromise is neccessary, to achieve best possible integration of technique and gear.

I am no super duper pistolero, but my draw stroke is 4 steps:

1. Hand to pistol
2. Clear holster and acquire firing grip
3. Presentation
4. Shoot

A video of me shooting from the draw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMEYKLSVHS0

I can certainly be faster, but I am pretty consistent in what I do every single time. I don't find it choppy at least. No particular positions or timing neccessary. My draw will be affected if I am transitioning from my primary, for example.

C4IGrant

08-14-12, 12:32

This will be good. Now where is that popcorn eating emoticon at. :sarcastic:

To the OP, I think you will find that NOT speaking in absolutes will save you some pain.

C4

orionz06

08-14-12, 12:46

I am hoping this is in 3D!

http://img.playground.ru/images/8/8/popcorn.gif

Shawn.L

08-14-12, 13:26

not to pile on.... but besides getting one into a proper superman armpit smelling stance what exactly is this "best" at ?

Ive been exposed to a number of different techniques for draws, and they all have different priorities and thus address those concerns. The draw through retention and through a compressed position EXCELS at Extreme Close Quarters inside 5 yards with a real opponent , while drawing up to get your front sight in your line of sight and drive the gun on rails out to the target (while looking out the front of your eyes, NOT through your eyebrows) EXCELS at taking the first shot on a tight or distant target , meeting the hands lower leveling the gun and driving up onto target though is much much faster, eso to an indexed or large hit where you dont need to maximize sight time.

l

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 13:27

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMEYKLSVHS0

You are basically doing the CFS method. Up then out into and parallel your line of sight. The only thing we don't teach is bringing the hand to the chest. If you can do that great, do it. The weak hand may be busy doing something else. So at some point as you are extending the gun out, get your grip.

There is no stopping in the presentation. It is a continual movement. Go back and reread the original post.

For the trigger press, touch the trigger and press it reward when you reach extension. No need to prep it in the context of the course. This is not shooting for competition. This for a combative application.

orionz06

08-14-12, 13:29

This is not shooting for competition. This for a combative application.

What is the difference between shooting a target or targets as fast and accurate as possible with a set of conditions you do not determine and combat?

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 13:30

This can go back in forth all day long. Take a Combat Focus Shooting class. There are instructors all of the US. That's where you are going to get the gist of the whole program, not here on a forum.

orionz06

08-14-12, 13:31

So this is just an advertisement then?

Grant Tactical Training

08-14-12, 13:37

Call it what ever you want. But ask yourself can you really learn about the program from one thread or one technique. No, you cannot. So that's why I'm saying take a class. You can't become an expert about something you have limited or no exposure , especially on a forum. That's why I stated, take the course.

orionz06

08-14-12, 13:42

Then wouldn't speaking in absolutes also be best left to classes?

Multiple instructors I respect give Rob lots of praise, don't take this as me slamming him or CFS, but none of those guys cite anything as 100% no questions asked the best. Clarification as to how it has been determined this is the best would be nice.

Have you recorded any amount of objective data to compare techniques?

militarymoron

08-14-12, 13:53

Moltke

08-14-12, 14:04

that would be the cold steel/lynn thompson method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEFMul65PUA#t=7m00s

Holy crap...

Zhurdan

08-14-12, 14:15

that would be the cold steel/lynn thompson method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEFMul65PUA#t=7m00s

SWEET Eight and a half pound baby Jesus!!!

theblackknight

08-14-12, 14:16

Zhurdan

08-14-12, 14:19

Wow cool, OP, do I have to be one of your combat shooting teachers to get the little "registered" symbol on my keyboard?

sent from my gun using my sights

Nope ®
Type alt+0174 and you can be a registered trademark too!

6933

08-14-12, 15:14

And, as Rob Pincus, has pointed out in his ground breaking work on the topic

Bullshit. Pincus is far, far from being a Tier 1 trainer. He's not in the same league as Kyle DeFoor, Kyle Lamb, LAV, Jeff Gonzalez, Paul Howe, or anyone at TigerSwan.

When I steer someone towards quality training, Pincus is on the list of those not to use. When one can train with a former SEAL or Delta, and their methodolgy differs from Pincus', who do you think should be listened to?

Moltke

08-14-12, 15:40

GTT, how many other methods have you actually practiced and tried and timed yourself on? Do you think the time difference between your method and a faster method is significant?

M4Guru

08-14-12, 15:59

Arctic1

08-14-12, 16:13

Looks like someone is doing their best to pimp their brand:

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1369724#post1369724

An unknown poster (LadyAR), posts a review saying how fantastic Grant Tactical is on the same day Grant Tactical starts this thread as well as advertising his company....

May be just me, but something smells....

sammage

08-14-12, 16:25

theblackknight

08-14-12, 16:35

Just last week I invented the only way to conduct cardio thoracic surgery, without even being a doctor, so I can respect that....:rolleyes:

Hey, Holiday Inn is a hell of a drug.
Or was that cocaine? -rickjamesproblems-

scotty45

08-14-12, 16:38

It's a pretty good method - certainly better than I reckon many who don't train at all and learn from Mel and Bruce and the cast of The Expendables. However, I've gotta say that surely you're bound to draw debate/comparisons/criticism for just saying that it's the best...ever...period, and we are all to change and adapt if we don't agree or like it rather than ask for input or opinions.

I'm no rifle expert...that's why I'm here (and new here at that...Howdy, all!...), but I'm very pistol proficient and training with someone whom I esteem highly - one of Col. Cooper's closest friend's and one of the twelve left to take over Gunsite in his absence. Larry teaches close to a similar presentation but teaches that you want a firm firing grip (excluding finger from the trigger guard, of course) before it leaves the holster.

Overall, good stuff though. :)

"Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth." -- Mark Twain

Ed L.

08-14-12, 16:56

And, as Rob Pincus, has pointed out in his ground breaking work on the topic, by training to bring the gun up to the side and orient it towards the threat consistently, the start of your draw stroke is the same for threats that you will engage at extension and while in contact.

Groundbreaking?

I don't think so, at least not in regard to the drawstroke.

I can't trace the history to the actual person who originated it, but I have a DVD of Kelly McCann (Jim Grover) in the early 1990s teaching a similar drawstroke.

Introducing yourself as an instructor in this manner on this messageboard tends not to go well.

Since I have over 1000 posts here and established, I am taking this opportunity to introduce my own unarmed self defense system: Peshido--the art of Joe Pesci. Watch the movies Casino, Raging Bull, or Goodfellas to see the art I teach as depicted in the cinema.

theblackknight

08-14-12, 17:02

Nope ®
Type alt+0174 and you can be a registered trademark too!

Holy shit man, this alt key thing is like the ****ing rosetta stone of online program promotion. I'm going to go copyright, trademark, and make my sig line the verbal representation of π! Good thing no one has every thought of that or said it in different words. It's pay$ to be first. I can also refer to L∆V in a more fitting way. because his shooting method is way better

So does this one † mean jesus, or like when a supplement company dosent want to tell you how much bull semen is in their superpowder?

scotty45

08-14-12, 17:21

Groundbreaking?

I don't think so, at least not in regard to the drawstroke.

I can't trace the history to the actual person who originated it, but I have a DVD of Kelly McCann (Jim Grover) in the early 1990s teaching a similar drawstroke.

Introducing yourself as an instructor in this manner on this messageboard tends not to go well.

Since I have over 1000 posts here and established, I am taking this opportunity to introduce my own unarmed self defense system: Peshido--the art of Joe Pesci. Watch the movies Casino, Raging Bull, or Goodfellas to see the art I teach as depicted in the cinema.

But NOT "Eight Heads In A Duffel Bag". :)

"Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth." -- Mark Twain

Shadow1198

08-14-12, 17:35

Groundbreaking?

I don't think so, at least not in regard to the drawstroke.

I can't trace the history to the actual person who originated it, but I have a DVD of Kelly McCann (Jim Grover) in the early 1990s teaching a similar drawstroke.

Read my mind. In fact, I think I remember watching that back in the day on VHS if that's any indicator of the groundbreaking-ness going on.

For ****'s sake, want to simplify it? Lets call it grip and rip, straight up and straight out. This is a poor way to represent and advertise a business IMO. It's shit like this that's the reason I don't support companies like Frog Lube. Stop trying to hard sell us, we're not idiots. Good shit sells itself.

theblackknight

08-14-12, 17:36

Actually, from a marketing standpoint, this is brilliant,groundbreaking even. Mix and repackage some previously good idea's and methods into your own new one, give it a new name and maybe a couple cool sounding industry specific buzzwords, then claim no other product is like it. Then get some of those who jump on your wagon to buy into the franchise, which is exclusive and needs visibility. Training in this brand new method isnt cheap, but no good thing is! After that, the people who buy into your new method will be impressed and, defend and even scoff at anyone who dosent train in the one true method. You now have a staff of crusading instructors and converts spreading the good word of simple draws and craning your neck to dodge incoming fire. You might even reach a point to were you only teach possible instructors, if that! I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this.

Oh wait
http://www.five17fitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Crossfit-Logo.jpeg

orionz06

08-14-12, 18:16

The Virus

08-14-12, 18:31

These guys are snake oil salesmen.
One of the "instructors" was in a course with me 6 months ago and was flagged 3 times for safety, could not zero his long gun, could not hit a 8" target from 7 yds with his handgun, failed to follow commands on multiple occasions, this was 6 months ago and now this guy is a CFS certified instructor?

CFS teaches marketing and sales to there instructors. The instructors do not shoot demos during the classes.

They sell franchises.

Disclaimer , the person to whom I'm reffering was not a CFS instructor at the time of the course.

NCPatrolAR

08-14-12, 18:36

Guys:

Its ok to tear apart someone's presented material, videos, etc but please do so without any personal insults

theblackknight

08-14-12, 18:45

Dang, I was just about to junk on that vids choice of musical artist being a pants shitting, chickenhawk draft dodger.

What if we could just rebrand a rebrand with our own rebrand?

That's a rank up to at least Sergeant Majoperator of the internet.

SOWT

08-14-12, 18:59

RamZar

08-14-12, 19:11

Combat Focus® Shooting’s method, which I am a certified active instructor, is the best method.

RED FLAG.

The CFS method mitigates all of the stated issues.

RED FLAG.

This technique is superior regardless of holster/carry. If it the gear requires you to alter the the psychical skill, change the gear if you are able to.

RED FLAG.

For the trigger press, touch the trigger and press it reward when you reach extension. No need to prep it in the context of the course. This is not shooting for competition. This for a combative application.

RED FLAG.

This can go back in forth all day long. Take a Combat Focus Shooting class. There are instructors all of the US. That's where you are going to get the gist of the whole program, not here on a forum.

RED FLAG.

Failure2Stop

08-14-12, 19:12

Your profile here doesn't list any LEO or Military Experience. Would you mind telling where your weapons combative experience came from?

Just a heads up-
Notice how his name is in yellow, and underneath it reads "Subject Matter Expert".

Here, on M4Carbine.net, that indicator means that the member is a verified and contributing member of a tiered Socom unit.

Maybe you didn't know that, or maybe you are reading this on a device that does not show the indicators, so, no harm, no foul, but M4Guru most definitely speaks from a position of experience and knowledge.

Clint

08-15-12, 00:42

that would be the cold steel/lynn thompson method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEFMul65PUA#t=7m00s

That's some impressive 200 yard pistol shooting!

How may here regularly practice pistol at extended ranges?

Nippy

08-15-12, 01:30

I read the title thinking, "oh something constructive that I can look into to improve my draw from the holster", you know BECAUSE this is M4C.net.

I skim through and see "Combat Focus Shooting"... Damn, so they've made it here now :shakesfist: :rolleyes:

I don't even have to read the rest to know what this is. Basically another guy that wants to put on the instructor hat and make some $$$. You know, he got that $1500.00 certificate and passed that course which has a whopping 50% failure rate. This is the step where he posts about something... anything really...But in such a way that makes sheeps think he knows everything and then plug his school. That probably works on other forums, but this one... no sheep here, just sheepdogs.

This same thing happened on another forum with two peeps from CFS, but they plugged the "Only Way to Reload". So much popcorn spilled over that even Mr. Pincus stopped by. Too bad for Mr. Tyler (http://combatfocusshooting.com/people/tyler-grant), M4C isn't that forum and they sniffed out the marketing BS with a split faster than the OP's draw ;)

KD made a post on his blog a long time ago about instructors and these CFS boys fit the "bad" descriptions as if they read it and decided to fit one of the archetypes to the F'n letter.

So yeah CFS a.k.a. Combat Focused Shooting = Stay The F Away

orionz06

08-15-12, 06:49

Would I call them bad? No. Poor use of words? Yeah. Is someone better of with no training or this? Probably this. Not so sure you can call it bad with only a poor discussion on the internet and an affiliation to someone you don't agree with. I think you might have to do a little more work than that. I won't write them off simply because too many people I respect have favorable opinions of Pincus. That said I am not currently flying across country to take a class either.

All I do want to know is how they concluded their absolutes if that is what they are sticking to.

My Bio
Tyler Grant is currently the owner of Grant Tactical Training. He started is quest for firearm training while he was serving in the Arkansas National Guard. During his time in the Guard, he became a Sniper, Small Arms Master Gunner, and had two deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Tyler was his company’s weapons instructor his last few years in the Guard. In 2010, Tyler was awarded the Governors’ Twenty Tab for his performance the Arkansas National Guard Tag Matches. Tyler is also Certified in Personal Defense Readiness TM from Blauer Tactical Systems.

Why I teach Combat Focus Shooting...
I teach Combat Focus Shooting because it is the best defensive shooting system. What makes this system so great is not matter what your profession is, this applicable to you. We show you what you can do. Not what we can do. Another reason I teach Combat Focus Shooting is we explain why. I was tired of hearing; a way, works for me, worked in combat, and etc. This system is based off of science, neuroscience, empirical evidence, and more. If you have a threat within the context of the program, you will be more efficient to eliminate the threat.

SOWT

08-15-12, 09:26

Just a heads up-
Notice how his name is in yellow, and underneath it reads "Subject Matter Expert".

Here, on M4Carbine.net, that indicator means that the member is a verified and contributing member of a tiered Socom unit.

Maybe you didn't know that, or maybe you are reading this on a device that does not show the indicators, so, no harm, no foul, but M4Guru most definitely speaks from a position of experience and knowledge.

Didn't come out right, I was actually quoting M4Guru and directing the question at the OP.

Failure2Stop

08-15-12, 09:30

Didn't come out right, I was actually quoting M4Guru and directing the question at the OP.

Ah!
Well then, that makes sense.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

The Virus

08-15-12, 10:02

Mc Tactical training franchise.
$1500 and 5 day marketing course gets you in the CFS franchise family!

Army Chief

08-15-12, 10:04

Get out there, try new things, glean things from people with more or different experience. Roll it into what works, not what one guy says works. If you're gonna subscribe to hero worship, at least worship a real hero. Just a little advice from someone who's been continually ****ing up for a long time and learned some things about absolutes along the way. Best of luck to you and your company.

This post bears worth repeating.

I suspect that, at the end of the day, the OP is absolutely oriented in the right direction and committed to doing some real good out there -- I give full props for that.

It just takes some time and seasoning in life to recognize the hubris of youth for what it is, and to exchange that kind of cocksure enthusiasm for a more useful tendency to contemplate, question and assimilate a bit more selectively.

Remember when you took true/false tests in school and figured out that any question containing the words "always" or "never" was probably a trick? The corresponding lesson about absolutes applies just as readily here. There are good ways and better ways of task accomplishment (whether we're talking about drawing a sidearm, reducing a malfunction or eating an Oreo®), but rarely is there ever just one best way. Anyone who suggests otherwise is probably selling something.

AC

Grizzly16

08-15-12, 10:13

Your profile here doesn't list any LEO or Military Experience. Would you mind telling where your weapons combative experience came from?

Only one pistol battle under my belt, so I won't claim to be an expert; I will say there is no "best" technique as each shooter reacts to training differently, and that is one reason why we have different successful techniques.

Thor tactical where this is hosted has a link to a listing for Tyler Grant and his experience which I would assume is the grant training here.

http://www.thortraining.com/grant-tactical-training/

Also, not to defend or decry him but I *think* I've met him at a few gun shows. When the booths around him are peddling dpms/bush stuff their table usually has barret and noveske gear instead of the popular crap.

Grant Tactical Training

08-15-12, 10:20

Jim Fuller owner of Rifle Dynamics attended a CFS course Jeff Varner taught on 8/5/12 with Matt DeVito president of Down Range Firearms Training. Here's what Jim had to say to say about the course.

CFS
With Jeff Varner and Matt DeVito
Pahrump, Nevada 8/5/12

I have always wanted to experience the CFS training from Rob Pincus, last Sunday Jeff Dykes of Acme Consulting Group hosted Jeff Varner and Matt DeVito (both instructors with Pincus) to put on this class at Lone Wolf Shooters in Pahrump, Nv.

With my schedule I don’t get to train as much as I used to so it was a nice opportunity to do something close to home and on my arranged day off.

CFS is a modern program based on close range confrontations, getting multiple hits on target while balancing speed and accuracy based on the complexity of the situation. The exercises were well thought out for this as well as a good target design that lends itself to this type of training.

Jeff Varner is an established instructor with Pincus and Matt DeVito was recently added to their line-up of instructors. Jeff and Matt worked well as a team sharing the duties of lecturing and working the line.

My fundamental skill set is based on a modified Weaver stance as opposed to the squared off isoscoles stance that is more popular in today’s training classes. To Jeff and Matt’s credit once they realized that I could actually use my ingrained skills they didn’t see the need to make me change my skill set. I do believe that the more modern techniques of today are solid and proven skills that should be learned and practiced, however intuitive shooting means that you will (under stress) revert to your basic skill set, body type for movement/performance this is important to understand when it comes to “truth in training”. If I was starting over in my training today I would use the newer methods over my standard skill set as I see and understand the benefits. No matter what skill set you use if you don’t practice it to the point of ingraining; your performance under stress will suffer and when fighting for your life that’s unacceptable.
Since this was an introductory class it was only one day so only so much info could be covered. I hope to take another class soon to expand on what the whole program offers. Jeff and Matt were knowledgeable and entertaining, seriousness seasoned with humor is a great approach to serious work. Making the learning experience fun as well as educational benefits all in the process. Jeff and Matt did this well.

In closing I would highly recommend this class to serious students of the fighting arts. The info and skill sets are valid/proven fighting skills that anyone who owns guns for self-defense should know and will benefit from. Great class guys!

Jim Fuller
Rifle Dynamics

Nippy

08-15-12, 10:40

So is there a CFS textbook on how to market on the forums or something. Your response pattern mirrors your CFS colleagues. I mean you even used the same AAR.

Moltke

08-15-12, 10:48

However you can get your hits fastest wins a gunfight.

So...

Have you tested yourself on a timer? - from pg1 of this thread

How many other methods have you practiced, tried, timed? Do you think the time difference is significant? - from pg2 of this thread

The Virus

08-15-12, 10:54

Great, a student testimonial.
Funny you never read a "negative" student testimonial.
These CFS guys are like robots reading from a script, after the script runs out the name calling begins.

theblackknight

08-15-12, 11:04

I'm not sure a timer is critically dynamic enough for a strategically operatable incident, plus tachipsychia dosent effect it, how can that be realistic?

sent from my gun using my sights

Army Chief

08-15-12, 11:05

Sending this one to a temp lock to forestall the inevitable feeding frenzy.

I was just reading some comments from Ken Hackathorn over at The Tactical Wire (http://www.thetacticalwire.com/features/226318) this morning that provide some interesting context on trainers and the training business. As with most things that come from the mind of Hackathorn, this is well worth the read while we're cooling our jets here (specifically, look for the "How's The Training Business?" question).

AC

Army Chief

08-15-12, 14:39

Back open for business. Civil business. Please don't be the guy that forces us to define "civility" in this context.

Thanks,
AC

SHIVAN

08-15-12, 15:09

The Virus

08-15-12, 17:17

Buh bye......

Moltke

08-15-12, 17:22

Well... guess I'll never get those questions answered... I wonder if he even has a timer.

The Virus

08-15-12, 17:31

Well... guess I'll never get those questions answered... I wonder if he even has a timer.

I went through this with a couple of there guys on another forum.
The response is always the same scripted dogma.
Ironically another of there instructors showed up at a IDPA match last weekend in So. Cal and didn't do so well.

167

08-16-12, 08:39

I know Tyler, he isn't a bad guy. I know his intentions are good.

I took a CFS class from a different instructor back in the spring. You can read my thoughts about it on my blog linked in the sig. The one sentence summary would be that it is an entry level pistol course.

Grizzly16 - Cool to see you on another forum.

M4Guru

08-16-12, 09:20

I know Tyler, he isn't a bad guy. I know his intentions are good.

Tell me more about how good of a dude the guy posting awesome AARs of his own courses under false pretenses is. I learned at my old day job when you vouch for someone that's an agreement to take their successes and failures and stake your own reputation on them.

NCPatrolAR

08-16-12, 09:25

I took a CFS class from a different instructor back in the spring. You can read my thoughts about it on my blog linked in the sig.

How about actually posting the class review here instead of making people dig through your blog to find it?

orionz06

08-16-12, 09:28

I took a CFS class from a different instructor back in the spring. You can read my thoughts about it on my blog linked in the sig.

If the review wasn't worth posting here I will assume the class wasn't so mind blowing and full of the absolute best techniques.

C4IGrant

08-16-12, 09:33

I learned at my old day job when you vouch for someone that's an agreement to take their successes and failures and stake your own reputation on them.

This. I have warned many people on this forum about being associated with certain "instructors" in that they are judged by THEIR conduct.

So if that person if viewed as a COMPLETE ASSHAT in the gun community, well you are too.

C4

Grizzly16

08-16-12, 10:05

Tyler Grant, we conversed when you hit the forum, and I warned you not to astro-turf stuff and to be a gray man. I told you that if you had legit, paying students to review your material, they could post without having to be an advertiser.

Turns out the "review" was from someone with an email "dmgrant@xxxxxx.com". Combined with the content in this thread, I've decided it would be best for both of us if we parted ways.

Good luck in your endeavors. Thanks.

This speaks volumes to integrity and assures I'll not be going to them for training.

Which is sad. I was excited at first that a good carbine/pistol training program would be available with out hoping on a plane. Oh well back to saving pennies to fly out and visit F2S.

It is also sad to see that CFS guys are in general little more than robots. Our local indoor range is run by a cfs grad. But he is by no means dogmatic. He runs a good pistol range and brings in trainers from various disciplines and doesn't push cfs as "the way". Just one among many that you can learn from and find what works best.

167

08-16-12, 10:17

How about actually posting the class review here instead of making people dig through your blog to find it?

I cannot access my blog from work, otherwise I would. I will cross post later when I get a chance.

If the review wasn't worth posting here I will assume the class wasn't so mind blowing and full of the absolute best techniques.

I would say that sums it up pretty well. It isn't great, it isn't utterly horrible. I have not been too impressed with the CFS material in general.

This. I have warned many people on this forum about being associated with certain "instructors" in that they are judged by THEIR conduct.

So if that person if viewed as a COMPLETE ASSHAT in the gun community, well you are too.

Thanks for the warning.

DacoRoman

08-16-12, 11:21

167

08-16-12, 11:28

Here you go guys.

Combat Focus Shooting - Tom DuPriest

Tom DuPriest is a Combat Focus Shooting instructor who is local to my area and when I heard he was offering the course locally I jumped on the opportunity to take it since Rob Pincus doesn't make the rounds in my neck of the woods. I knew some about Combat Focus Shooting before hand, and keep up with Rob Pincus a little and think some of his stuff is pretty solid. I was a bit hesitant taking the course from someone other than Pincus, but it was convenient.

The Combat Focus Shooting course that I attended was hosted by Last Resort Firearms Training in White Hall, AR, also about 30 minutes away from where I live. This is the first time I had been there and other than being a little hard to find because it is tucked back into the woods it is a pretty decent place to shoot. From what I understand the only open to the public shooting they have are monthly IDPA matches, everything else is either a course they are hosting, a course they are teaching, or personal instruction by appointment. Otherwise, they do not allow people to just show up and shoot. They had three bays, all about the same size at around 15-20 yards deep and 15-20 yards wide. Big enough to do most things with a pistol as long as you didn't have too many people on the line at a time. There was a class room as well, but we didn't make use of it and I didn't take the time to check it out. Mike and Ed Monk who run Last Resort were also in the class and by far were the most skilled shooters there.

Tom Dupriest is the owner/operator of Shoothouse USA in Conway, AR . I have not been to his range to shoot so I cannot speak to it directly but I have second hand information that it is a pretty decent place to go shooting. Worth checking out if you live in the Conway area I am sure. He also offers courses at Shoothouse USA that are probably worth looking into if you want some training.

I place a lot of emphasis on instructor quality or teaching ability when I attend courses because I believe an instructor will make or break a course. Generally speaking, most good firearms courses have a lot of over lap in terms of course material so it isn't always that you learn something completely new, but that the instructor did a better job of teaching it. From a teaching stand point, the best instructor I have trained under is Mike Seeklander. Not because his course material was necessarily any different than anyone else's, but because his teaching ability was more developed.

For this class I thought Tom did a pretty good job. Is he a Mike Seeklander? Not in my opinion, but he is pretty good and I imagine will get even better with time. As far as instructors in the central Arkansas area go I would say he is near the top of the pile. He has enough understanding and knowledge to back up what he teaches. If you have a question about something that is being taught, or why it is being taught a certain way he generally has an well thought out explanation. Up to you if you buy into the explanation or not. The only thing I like to see in an instructor that Tom did not do is live fire demonstrations. He would demo a skill dry, usually at a slower pace so that students could track the skill which is good but I also like to see drills run live at near full speed so that the students can see what it is supposed to look like in real time. This also lends a touch of credibility to the material showing that it can be done, and also to the instructor. I understand the danger of fumbling a demo, but I think the reward outweighs the risk. Personally I think if an instructor fumbles a demo as long as they recognize it, use it as a teaching point and re-demo the skill correctly it doesn't hurt anything.

As for the Combat Focus Shooting course material. From my perspective it isn't anything special. I do not think I came out of the class knowing anything that I didn't already know going in or with any significant improvement. There is a lot of balance of speed and precision shooting and cognitive processing drills which are all good drills and the weapon manipulations are generally sound but if I were to rename the course to something other than Combat Focus Shooting I would call it Defensive Handgunning 101.

I would recommend this course to a relatively new shooter who has a basic grasp of fundamental shooting concepts. For someone with a solid training background and well developed skill level I think the resources could probably be better invested somewhere else. There were perfect examples of this in the course itself. Some shooters who coming into the course were not as skilled showed improvement, others who came into the course already at a relatively high skill level didn't show significant improvement. If you are a well rounded, well developed shooter with good fundamentals, an existing understanding of balancing speed and precision, good cognitive processing skills, sound weapon manipulation skills and good movement skills then that $700 ($400 course fee, 1,200 rounds of ammo) could probably be put to better use somewhere else.So if you are a relatively new shooter who has a good grasp of fundamental shooting but not much beyond that, then it might be a good place to invest $700.

Nippy

08-16-12, 12:27

The only thing I like to see in an instructor that Tom did not do is live fire demonstrations.
This is something that CFS tells their instructors to do. They do not demo at full speed and usually they don't shoot targets. If they were to shoot they shoot the berm. They are specifically told not to demonstrate their shooting skill.

...Students generally don't have any clear idea what they are supposed to do without demos of the actual motions that are most efficient in these areas, so the time for the demo is well worth it. But, if I bothered to take a shot at the end of the presentations, that would require me to only demo at angles that I could point into a berm AND for students to wear eyes/ears through the demo... both of which detract from my ability to teach efficiently and the student's ability to learn as efficiently as possible. So, we may have some semantic issues here... there are plenty of "demos" in our program, but NO Demonstrations of our shooting ability... in fact, when I do shoot in a class (unless checking a firearms sights for a student, etc), I rarely shoot at a target.... for example, when shooting to get to slide lock and slo-mo demo a reload.

As for the Combat Focus Shooting course material. From my perspective it isn't anything special.
I think their reloading technique was unique. It is like that one loose thread you start to pull and everything kind of starts to fall apart. But that is me, and I have never been in a gun fight so I tell myself what would I know.

For those who don't know what I am talking about, when they reload they don't look at the gun and use muscle memory and feel to load the magazine.

CFS Reload (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzjC-b4TfjI)
CFS Reload Drill (blindfolded) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4PlDXzzxM)

Shawn.L

08-16-12, 12:39

This is something that CFS tells their instructors to do. They do not demo at full speed and usually they don't shoot targets. If they were to shoot they shoot the berm. They are specifically told not to demonstrate their shooting skill.

I think their reloading technique was unique. It is like that one loose thread you start to pull and everything kind of starts to fall apart. But that is me, and I have never been in a gun fight so I tell myself what would I know.

For those who don't know what I am talking about, when they reload they don't look at the gun and use muscle memory and feel to load the magazine.

CFS Reload (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzjC-b4TfjI)
CFS Reload Drill (blindfolded) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4PlDXzzxM)

thats some super fast not prepping for a follow up shot so he can hurry up and wave his head around !
Holy shit these guys dont even shoot targets in videos !

SHIVAN

08-16-12, 12:52

CFS Reload (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzjC-b4TfjI)

Did that threat require more work after that third shot? I like Pat McNamara's catch phrase of "check your work through your sights".

Is it better? I don't know, I defer to their experience at that point. SFOD-A versus ...?

Failure2Stop

08-16-12, 13:26

Did that threat require more work after that third shot? I like Pat McNamara's catch phrase of "check your work through your sights".

Is it better? I don't know, I defer to their experience at that point. SFOD-A versus ...?

Pat's a great dude, and this is in no way taking away from him or his background, but quite a few teach to assess thought the sights. Doesn't take a tier one operator to figure out why that's a good idea when dealing with things that you "have to" get hits/effect on.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

SHIVAN

08-16-12, 13:30

Pat's a great dude, and this is in no way taking away from him or his background, but quite a few teach to assess thought the sights. Doesn't take a tier one operator to figure out why that's a good idea when dealing with things that you "have to" get hits/effect on.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

Completely agree, and my world view is small in comparison to many. Pat's simple, repetitive recitation of that catch phrase stuck with me.

It seemed like a good use of compare, and contrast, at this juncture. :D

Littlelebowski

08-16-12, 13:32

This. I have warned many people on this forum about being associated with certain "instructors" in that they are judged by THEIR conduct.

So if that person if viewed as a COMPLETE ASSHAT in the gun community, well you are too.

C4

Grab some beers tonight?

Failure2Stop

08-16-12, 13:34

Completely agree, and my world view is small in comparison to many. Pat's simple, repetitive recitation of that catch phrase stuck with me.

It seemed like a good use of compare, and contrast, at this juncture. :D

Well then let's hold hands and sing cumbayah, cuz I agree too.

My point was that those that do this for real all seem to work off a very similar sheet of music. Some things are a little different, but the underlying concept and goals are the same. When you see something that is distinctly different, it's usually a good idea to figure out why.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

C4IGrant

08-16-12, 13:41

Grab some beers tonight?

LOL, you in Ohio??

C4

M4Guru

08-16-12, 13:51

LOL, you in Ohio??

C4

I will be in like 3 weeks! We'll go burn some ammo.

Better yet, lets hang upside down and do crunches on the range shed rafters while shooting Glocks at the berm. I'm all about practical training.

C4IGrant

08-16-12, 13:58

I will be in like 3 weeks! We'll go burn some ammo.

Better yet, lets hang upside down and do crunches on the range shed rafters while shooting Glocks at the berm. I'm all about practical training.

You were actually the "questionable" instructor I was talking about. :D

If you are coming to Ohio, let me know when/where so I can notify the Ohio Militia to let you in (don't take to kindly to you Southern boys sneaking into the State). ;)

C4

SHIVAN

08-16-12, 14:04

My point was that those that do this for real all seem to work off a very similar sheet of music. Some things are a little different, but the underlying concept and goals are the same. When you see something that is distinctly different, it's usually a good idea to figure out why.

Werd. :jester:

M4Guru

08-16-12, 14:28

You were actually the "questionable" instructor I was talking about. :D

If you are coming to Ohio, let me know when/where so I can notify the Ohio Militia to let you in (don't take to kindly to you Southern boys sneaking into the State). ;)

C4

I will be sure to tell the border guards that I don't believe in State's rights

:D

Littlelebowski

08-16-12, 19:16

LOL, you in Ohio??

C4

Nah, but I'll let you know if and when I am.

hogfan1911

08-16-12, 22:01

I'm glad a guy with no combat experience developed the one and only absolute way to conduct gunhandling in combat. Just last week I invented the only way to conduct cardio thoracic surgery, without even being a doctor, so I can respect that....:rolleyes:

Get out there, try new things, glean things from people with more or different experience. Roll it into what works, not what one guy says works. If you're gonna subscribe to hero worship, at least worship a real hero. Just a little advice from someone who's been continually ****ing up for a long time and learned some things about absolutes along the way. Best of luck to you and your company.

I suspect that, at the end of the day, the OP is absolutely oriented in the right direction and committed to doing some real good out there -- I give full props for that.

It just takes some time and seasoning in life to recognize the hubris of youth for what it is, and to exchange that kind of cocksure enthusiasm for a more useful tendency to contemplate, question and assimilate a bit more selectively.

Remember when you took true/false tests in school and figured out that any question containing the words "always" or "never" was probably a trick? The corresponding lesson about absolutes applies just as readily here. There are good ways and better ways of task accomplishment (whether we're talking about drawing a sidearm, reducing a malfunction or eating an Oreo®), but rarely is there ever just one best way. Anyone who suggests otherwise is probably selling something.

AC
Stuff like this is the reason I hang out here, so I can learn more and therefore (hopefully) suck less. Too bad the OP decided to ignore it, his loss. But like Grizzly16 said, this thread saved me some time and money.

hogfan1911

08-16-12, 22:05

Grizzly16 - Cool to see you on another forum.

Good to see you on another one too, 167. I go by paxcolt on the other one.

Re: Tom DuPriest. I've trained a little with him too, good guy. He never tried to present the CFS method as the "only way to do it".

Littlelebowski

08-17-12, 05:33

167

08-17-12, 06:26

Good to see you on another one too, 167. I go by paxcolt on the other one.

Re: Tom DuPriest. I've trained a little with him too, good guy. He never tried to present the CFS method as the "only way to do it".

Cool.

My experience with Tom DuPriest is limited to that single CFS class, and I would generally agree he didn't tout the CFS methods as the only way, but he certainly made a point of it being the "better" way.

That could have just been because it was a CFS course and not one of his regular courses.

167

08-17-12, 06:48

Integrity counts.

You know, I have no problem with non combat vets teaching shooting. I do get skittish over folks that have never seen combat teaching something they've never seen outside of YouTube videos. I do understand that the fat guy can train the world's best athletes but how can a guy who's never personally seen combat, teach "combat focus" shooting? The fat coach is at least there, watching what works for the athletes whereas the "trainer" is just watching videos without the whole picture. If you want to learn combat oriented shooting, learn it from a combat veteran.

Just seems impossible and disingenuous.

I think the whole CFS thing is that it is supposedly based on science and natural body reactions. In my experience, the general gist of everything they did was "Your body will do this (whatever that is) under stress, so you should use this method." The problem arises when you don't agree with the science/studies they reference.

Pretty much a lot of the stuff they teach is stuff I had already heard/seen/been taught before, they just use more descriptive (read: bigger) words and generally have better explanations about why they use a particular technique.

I am also leery of taking a class from someone just because they are a combat veteran. There is more to it than that. While I care what worked for someone else in combat, I care more about what is going to work for me in combat. Given that my experiences, level of skill, etc. are all going to be different than your typical military or even LE operator I am not convinced everything will cross over.

orionz06

08-17-12, 06:56

I think the whole CFS thing is that it is supposedly based on science and natural body reactions.

Then show me the proof. Not a canned infomercial, the actual proof that it is better. I mean if we did really use real science to get there it should be nothing to provide some evidence without giving away the class. Just a taste.

I am also leery of taking a class from someone just because they are a combat veteran. There is more to it than that. While I care what worked for someone else in combat, I care more about what is going to work for me in combat. Given that my experiences, level of skill, etc. are all going to be different than your typical military or even LE operator I am not convinced everything will cross over.
I agree. At some point having shot a bunch of people matters but it doesn't take 4 deployments to be able to teach some old lady how to line the sights up and press the trigger without disturbing them.

167

08-17-12, 07:06

Then show me the proof. Not a canned infomercial, the actual proof that it is better. I mean if we did really use real science to get there it should be nothing to provide some evidence without giving away the class. Just a taste.

I don't have the proof, I just took the class. They don't pass out reference materials.

May not be a bad idea for them to at least provide a list of sources to students.

Really, the stuff they teach is no different than what a lot of other people seem to be teaching (with the exception of how to run mags for the reload maybe), they just use different words to explain it and call it Combat Focus Shooting.

At least that has been my experience.

orionz06

08-17-12, 07:14

IReally, the stuff they teach is no different than what a lot of other people seem to be teaching (with the exception of how to run mags for the reload maybe), they just use different words to explain it and call it Combat Focus Shooting.
That's what I don't get. Their differences aren't too extreme so really their techniques shouldn't be far off from "acceptable"... Doesn't seem like it should be too far from being "M4C approved" assuming that is a goal of theirs. I am guessing it is because their franchise instructors post here as does Rob himself.

I mentioned it before, lots of good guys associate with Rob as well. Those same guys don't need to in order to have their name out there to the people they want to get their name to.

So... is it worded as such to get us into classes or worded as such to get more franchise instructors?

167

08-17-12, 07:42

My personal opinion, they are trying to sell slots in classes, just like everyone else.

Using the tag line "I am selling the same stuff as everyone else." usually doesn't do much when you are trying to pitch a product.

orionz06

08-17-12, 07:56

Depends on how you look at it. I don't wish to be on record saying that if you take a pistol class from any of the SME's here that it will be the same as any of the other SME's but they sure as shit won't be that far apart, and for good reason. While there is no one technique to rule them all one former tier 1 instructor shooting looks very similar to 1 grand master shooting looks very similar to a master class IDPA guy shooting. There is probably a reason for that.

167

08-17-12, 08:07

orionz06

08-17-12, 08:09

This thread really has me wanting to take a CFS class now, just so I can get to the source.

167

08-17-12, 08:55

I would say it isn't worth the money/ammo because that is pretty much why I took the class. I wanted to be exposed to the material.

If you do go that route, I would make a point of taking it from Pincus and not one of the other CFS instructors.

orionz06

08-17-12, 08:57

If you do go that route, I would make a point of taking it from Pincus and not one of the other CFS instructors.

That would be the idea. I have enough money tied up into all sorts of other training, would be hypocritical to not make an effort to get as much as I can from everywhere I can. And if it turns out to be a complete waste it wouldn't be the first time but I am willing to bet he has at least something different to say that is worth hearing.

Jeff Franz

08-17-12, 09:54

The OP posted the EXACT same first two posts on TOS, where I responded that all of the instructors I have trained with (Hackathorn, Falla, McNamara, Costa, etc.) have taught a draw stroke that was pretty much the same. He mentions all of the training he has received with the exception of the ground breaking material he learned from CFS as being "choppy." I pondered who he had been training with, but he never specified. Interestingly enough, the OP requested that the thread be locked after a few responses similar to mine.

I have no problem with what Pincus teaches or his beliefs, though I don't necessarily agree with many of them. I just don't much care for all the "based on science" and "the only/best/coolest way to get the job done" talk. I think it boils down to an attempt to separate CFS from myriad of other trainers out there by selling it as "new and improved" and the be-all, end-all of shooting. I think this poor kid thought he paid for the certificate, and now he was going to jump into the world of firearms training and make a bunch of money with such a well-marketed, highly desirable name behind him, not realizing that the name is not so desirable or well marketed. Reality is a bitch.

Shawn.L

08-17-12, 10:23

That would be the idea. I have enough money tied up into all sorts of other training, would be hypocritical to not make an effort to get as much as I can from everywhere I can. And if it turns out to be a complete waste it wouldn't be the first time but I am willing to bet he has at least something different to say that is worth hearing.

I had this line of thought for a while, and while there is some benefit in variety and def good things to learn from many of the top tier instructors at this point in my training Im not looking for variety , or to be a tactical tourist.
Im searching for depth, not breadth.
I know where the good stuff is, I dont need to waste my time and energy on nonsense anymore just so i can say Ive tried it. **** that, been there.

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 10:31

Well..... that didn't go the way Tyler expected, huh?

:-)

To those of you who are familiar with me and the CFS Program, I appreciate the objective stance. Personally, I also cringed at a couple of the phrases and miss-steps. Everyone gets passionate about things they believe in.
Tyler has been through a lot of training in the military and private sector and the CFS Methodology 'clicked' with him and he has been very successful with his students since he has started teaching. A little over-zealous in his evangelism? Possibly.

I did pop in to point out the "dmgrant@..." is actually... and this is stated with full awareness of the ammunition I am providing to trolls/internet snipers/etc... Tyler's Mom. The post/endorsement wasn't nefarious in nature, it was her being proud of her son's work and being impressed with it. Her, a woman in her 60's that was "just trying to help", being banned caused a little drama. **** happens.

Anyway, back to business:

-Virus and I have met on another forum where he also shared his in depth non-knowledge of what we teach in the CFS Instructor Development Class. For the record, out of a 50+ hr week, there is about an hour of marketing. Maybe I should add more so that people don't inadvertently get in over their heads in discussion forums ??

-The stuff that I/we base the program on (natural reactions of the body, empirical evidence from actual defensive shootings, etc) is readily available to anyone wanting to do the research. My favorite starting point? www.google.com. Though I have repeatedly been contracted by the highest level military units in our country as an instructor, I don't reference a combat vet XYW guy as a source of knowledge, because they haven't studied the way the anterior cingulate cortex is involved in the execution of learned skills in response to learned stimuli. I don't reference BTDT Cops as sources because they don't study the effect of dopamine loss when expectations aren't met in a training environment on motivation to change behaviors and/or expectations, because that's not their area of expertise. I put the explanations for our stuff in front of doctors and researchers in the appropriate related fields and they give it a thumbs up or they correct my understanding or they point me to newer/better research/information. So, I don't expect that someone who hasn't studied those things, and may not even understand their value or application to defensive training, to necessarily agree or be teaching the same things. That's okay.

-I, personally, think it is incredibly important to know what other people are teaching, find out why they are teaching it and train with & collaborate with other top instructors as much as possible... as has hopefully been demonstrated in many of my projects such as S.W.A.T. Magazine TV, The Personal Defense Network, the PFD DVD Series and The Training Log Book... all of which involved some of the top names in the industry, including many of the people often referenced as resources supposedly in opposition to what I teach. Do people really think those BTDT guys, experienced instructors and industry professionals are so desperate for exposure/marketing that they work with me even though I am a "snake oil salesman" or a "fraud" ?? Maybe they believe that... or maybe they are just talking out of their @ZZ and not thinking critically. :rolleyes:

-One thing I have definitely seen is that, as CFS has become more popular, and more and more instructors are offering the program, there are more frequent attacks on the business model and uses of word like "franchise". The fact is that the idea of adjunct instructors teaching one school's material has existed since the start of the private sector training industry (Gunsite has had adjuncts (and graduates with no authorization/training) teaching "Modern Technique" for decades, for example). It is nothing new. We may be the biggest, fastest growing, highest profile of the "we're bigger than one person" doctrines, but that doesn't make it evil. I think providing a framework for teaching, resources for development, monthly conference calls for discussion/problem solving and an annual conference for Continuing Education and Professional Development is a good thing. (BTW- I saw Ohio was mentioned... this year's conference is at the end of Sept near Columbus... if anyone is interested in observing/participating/meeting. We also have end user courses going on that weekend in Zanesville.)

So, sorry to see that Tyler, a great young instructor, has been banned for his enthusiasm and what was rightfully/understandably perceived as a 'marketing through education' attempt. One thing I DO tell our new instructors is that it is better to use the internet to share information and let people know where they can get more than it is to buy a banner ad and hope someone recognizes the brand and sees value. Sometimes that is well received, sometimes not.

I don't post much here (or any other forum) very much, but I am always available by email: vscrob@msn.com.

-RJP

wahoo95

08-17-12, 10:50

This is something that CFS tells their instructors to do. They do not demo at full speed and usually they don't shoot targets. If they were to shoot they shoot the berm. They are specifically told not to demonstrate their shooting skill.

I think their reloading technique was unique. It is like that one loose thread you start to pull and everything kind of starts to fall apart. But that is me, and I have never been in a gun fight so I tell myself what would I know.

For those who don't know what I am talking about, when they reload they don't look at the gun and use muscle memory and feel to load the magazine.

CFS Reload (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzjC-b4TfjI)
CFS Reload Drill (blindfolded) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4PlDXzzxM)

Whats up with the throwing his two hands up in front before drawing thing he does?

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 10:55

The integration of the startle response prior to presentation from the holster is one of the most controversial things in our program. This is a great article from Tony Blauer, the guy who taught me the importance of this aspect of physical skills training for counter-ambush response, on the topic:

http://www.policeone.com/SWAT/articles/107557-The-Universal-Flinch-Theory-A-picture-of-reality/

Also, just to clarify, the second link in the quote above is actually students in an Advanced Pistol Handling course going through both malfunction response and reloads while blinded (after extensive training/practice with the techniques).

-RJP

Arctic1

08-17-12, 11:08

A few questions:

Though I have repeatedly been contracted by the highest level military units in our country as an instructor, I don't reference a combat vet XYW guy as a source of knowledge, because they haven't studied the way the anterior cingulate cortex is involved in the execution of learned skills in response to learned stimuli. I don't reference BTDT Cops as sources because they don't study the effect of dopamine loss when expectations aren't met in a training environment on motivation to change behaviors and/or expectations, because that's not their area of expertise.

The points I highlighted, why is that neccessary knowledge? For whom is it neccessary?

ETA: I, for one, had no clue what it did so I googled it.

It is seemingly involved in the reward/loss reactions. That humans react to these type of stimuli is not exactly groundbreaking stuff. Does it lend credibility that you can explain where in the brain it happens? Motivation theory, reward/penalty approach to teaching/human interaction, these are basic principles for anyone who has ever been instructed in leadership. Knowing where it happens does not change the effect of correct application of these principles.

Sorry if I seem overly critical, but I am very skeptical when people exaggerate the use of physiological findings to back up training theories. Looking at how some people talk about the sympathetic response, it is seemingly a miracle that humans can cope with stressful situations at all.

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 11:20

I think it is absolutely necessary for those of us in program development to understand those things. We are trying to help people develop complex physical skills that they can utilize under extreme and unexpected stress. We (as an industry) are not supposed to be just "teaching people how to shoot". People who aren't studying the way we learn and the way we best execute skills under the type of reactions that we can predict occurring during an (unexpected) lethal encounter are missing a huge and important piece of the pie, I think. The danger is that they may just be passing on what they learned under a flawed model... or at least a model that may have been the best at one time in the past OR a model that only excels in delivering results in a controlled environment (qual tests, competition, etc)

In order to maximize efficiency in the learning environment, retention afterwards and the likelihood of seeing the skills we teach on the range actually used in defensive shootings, I think it is vital to understand as much of ^^That^^ type of stuff as possible. For years, for example, people were taught to shoot in the weaver position and we were told by our gurus that you will "Fight like you Train"... yet, there aren't any video examples of anyone shooting in the weaver position during a counter ambush shooting situation.... so, the cliche is wrong and/or the training model was apparently flawed. I don't think that the answers to fixing that come from continuing to go to the same fountain (great shooters, combat vets) or repeating the same training models, even with evolved techniques.

-RJP

Arctic1

08-17-12, 11:36

For years, for example, people were taught to shoot in the weaver position and we were told by our gurus that you will "Fight like you Train"... yet, there aren't any video examples of anyone shooting in the weaver position during a counter ambush shooting situation.... so, the cliche is wrong and/or the training model was apparently flawed.

I am not sure if you are limiting this observation to the application of the Weaver stance, though it sounds as you are painting with a pretty broad brush.

I can, being a sample of one, attest to the fact that you will fight as you have trained. We did it in combat exactly like we did it in training, from individual skills to unit tactics/battle drills. That also mirrors the experiences of my colleagues who have been in combat as well.

There is a lot of focus on what people won't be able to do during stress. Isn't it more conducive to good training to focus on actually doing these things? Ingraining a mindset that you will succeed? "You won't be able to use your sights", "you won't be able to use the slide lock", "you won't be able to see what is going on around you", "you lose fine-motor skills" etc etc. My perspective is mine, and probably narrow, but I think many of these statements are a bit exaggerated.

As for the need to pinpoint where in the brain a certain reaction takes place, see my edit in the above post.

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 11:53

Two Things:

1. "we did it in combat...." .. There was a reason I added the word "unexpected" to the description I gave above. Even when I have taught for the most assertive units we have on our side, I was teaching Counter Ambush stuff.... I teach defensive shooting, not on-balance stuff. There is no doubt that it is much easier to execute learned skills from a controlled environment when you are expecting to be fighting. There is huge difference between generic 'readiness' (the CCW guy with a gun at the mall) and specific 'anticipation' (the combat soldier about to hit a target).

2. I try to avoid the "you won't be able to XXXX" stuff... although I will admit to falling into that trap in the past. At this point, I have evolved my thought and expression of the idea to, in most cases, "it will be harder to....". So, if we know that it is going to be harder to do something and there isn't a high value in being able to do it, then I don't see any point of teaching it. Of course, "value" is the variable... for the new shooter in a 4 hour introductory class that may never train formally again, I don't think there is a high value in teaching a skill set to achieve headshots at 21'... but, for an experienced shooter with some significant number of hours in training and practice, the skill to do that should absolutely have been taught, learned and practiced. Training resources are always limited, so it is important to maximize the value for any given student at their level of development for their context.

3. Going back to your edits/thoughts on the sciency stuff: No, knowing where in the brain those things happens is NOT specifically important... knowing that it happens (learned skills can be tied to learned responses) IS vital. Knowing that it isn't all big-word-mumbo-jumbo is important because the physiology makes it more real for many people... especially, in my experience, "Type A"/ "I want to control my world" type people. The education that this stuff isn't all "soft psycho-babble", but there are real structures and actions/reactions/changes occurring, does help people understand that some of the stuff can't be trained away and some of the stuff is incredibly empowering, if it is capitalized on during training.
I was the keynote speaker at the Georgia Association of LE Firearm's Instructors annual conference last week and, the day after my presentation, I got to attend a great lecture presentation on how the traditional training environment can create errors in police officer decision making and motor skill performance. The presentation was given by a trainer from Fulton County, Rich Nable, and it was based on cutting edge research in human behavior and psychology, not a timer drill on the range. I think many people have realized (in many industries) that looking outside the box is a great way to gain insight into solving problems that might, at first, seem to be very specific to an exclusive body of knowledge.

4.
Sorry if I seem overly critical, but I am very skeptical when people exaggerate the use of physiological findings to back up training theories. Looking at how some people talk about the sympathetic response, it is seemingly a miracle that humans can cope with stressful situations at all.

and

There is a lot of focus on what people won't be able to do during stress. Isn't it more conducive to good training to focus on actually doing these things? Ingraining a mindset that you will succeed? "You won't be able to use your sights", "you won't be able to use the slide lock", "you won't be able to see what is going on around you", "you lose fine-motor skills" etc etc. My perspective is mine, and probably narrow, but I think many of these statements are a bit exaggerated.

Actually, we agree there... and I was with some of those guys in the past. Our understanding (as a society, and as an industry) of this stuff takes leaps every year... the original reaction to some of the research and early data from video-evidence (not "it happened to my buddy" anecdote or, generally unreliable, first person testimony) suggested that very little of our training was actually showing up in defensive shootings (again, table much of the military action...). So many people in the industry probably over-reacted with the "OMG, we can't do anything complex or ever make a decision under stress!". That obviously isn't the case.

-RJP

C4IGrant

08-17-12, 12:35

http://www.alien109.com/junk/images/popcorn.gif

C4

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 12:38

Can you bring some of that to the conference? Where the hell is "Mineral City" ?

SHIVAN

08-17-12, 12:41

I did pop in to point out the "dmgrant@..." is actually... and this is stated with full awareness of the ammunition I am providing to trolls/internet snipers/etc... Tyler's Mom. The post/endorsement wasn't nefarious in nature, it was her being proud of her son's work and being impressed with it. Her, a woman in her 60's that was "just trying to help", being banned caused a little drama. **** happens.

I specifically told him we don't do astro-turfing. I also specifically said that if he had a paying student who would like to post an AAR, that would be fine.

Even if his mom technically paid for the course, come on. If he would like to advertise here, I can have the rates sent to him, and then he can have his own training sub-forum, and his mom can post to her heart's content.

So, sorry to see that Tyler, a great young instructor, has been banned for his enthusiasm and what was rightfully/understandably perceived as a 'marketing through education' attempt. One thing I DO tell our new instructors is that it is better to use the internet to share information and let people know where they can get more than it is to buy a banner ad and hope someone recognizes the brand and sees value. Sometimes that is well received, sometimes not.

You do not recognize the entire story, or were not made aware of the entire story. Your guy was warned, before he attempted the shill AAR from his mom, and before he dove headlong in with this thread.

He was told, be a gray man, do not call attention to yourself and you will not need to be a paying advertiser. He chose poorly.

When I connected the dots, his account and his mom's account, were banned. It has nothing to do with you, your curriculum, your instructors, or anything else but this:

It has to do with what he was told and what he chose to do in the face of those instructions.

orionz06

08-17-12, 12:41

How does the CFS method correlate with incidents involved trained shooters (cops and civilians) and how they respond? I imagine much of the footage out there is of people who hardly shoot (as statistics show us).

C4IGrant

08-17-12, 12:41

Can you bring some of that to the conference? Where the hell is "Mineral City" ?

Sure can, but ONLY if we get this quality of a discussion though! :D

C4

C4IGrant

08-17-12, 12:43

.

Even if his mom technically paid for the course, come on. If he would like to advertise here, I can have the rates sent to him, and then he can have his own training sub-forum, and his mom can post to her heart's content.

I am sorry, but this just makes me laugh. :jester:

C4

JEL458

08-17-12, 12:55

Mr. Pincus,

I have read, several times, that your instructors will not do live fire demonstrations (at speed, on targets) due to specific instruction not to. Is this correct? If it is correct, what is the rationale behind such a decision? I am not trying to be an ass, I am trying to separate rumor from fact.

Mr. Grant, as I see that you are online and probably reading this, a little tip for your future endeavors:

You will probably need to be able to explain more than just "take my course and you'll see". Being unwilling or unable to explain why your material is ground breaking after calling it ground breaking seems indicative of a lack of true knowledge of the subject matter.

oldtexan

08-17-12, 12:57

.........

With the help of empirical evidence, we have seen time and time again that people who have trained with a designated spot for their hands to meet are shooting one handed. ........

Combat Focus® Shooting’s method, which I am a certified active instructor, is the best method. .........

To Mr. Pincus,

I understand that the person who posted this quoted material is unable to respond, but would you provide the following?

1. the empirical evidence he mentioned in the quoted material above.

2. Also I'm very interested in how he was able to determine what the best method was for conducting the draw. What other methods were evaluated? What criteria were used use in the evaluation to determine what the "best" would mean in this context? How did the study ensure that no bias entered into the testing design, execution, or the analysis of data? How big was the sample of test subjects in the study ? How were test subjects selected? What controls were used? Has the paper detailing the study and its conclusions been peer reviewed anywhere? If so where?

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 13:02

Sure can, but ONLY if we get this quality of a discussion though!

At least.

You do not recognize the entire story, or were not made aware of the entire story. Your guy was warned, before he attempted the shill AAR from his mom, and before he dove headlong in with this thread.

He was told, be a gray man, do not call attention to yourself and you will not need to be a paying advertiser. He chose poorly.

When I connected the dots, his account and his mom's account, were banned. It has nothing to do with you, your curriculum, your instructors, or anything else but this:

It has to do with what he was told and what he chose to do in the face of those instructions.

I get it, man.. I'm not here lobbying for his return or arguing with the decision. One thing I have told ANY new instructor (CFS of otherwise) is that Forums are communities and you've got to be a part of them before you go in and start opining too assertively, etc., etc...
This debacle has been a learning opportunity for several of his peers as well. It is what it is... I just showed up to make sure that the program was represented fairly, despite the debacle.

How does the CFS method correlate with incidents involved trained shooters (cops and civilians) and how they respond? I imagine much of the footage out there is of people who hardly shoot (as statistics show us).

Using the examples we have objective data for (dash cams from cop students), the skills we teach are showing up in the shootings. Of course, I think that since we are largely teaching skills that look like stuff we see most people do in fights (go to full extension, focus on the threat at close range, lower their center of gravity, etc.), I think that is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you reverse the process, the stuff we teach is based on what I see in the wide spectrum (trained & untrained) shooters that we have on video and the empirical evidence of the types of situations that we are training our students for (FBI data for LE, Tom Given's data for civilians, Various mission specific contexts for military, etc.,etc..).

-RJP

SHIVAN

08-17-12, 13:09

I get it, man.. I'm not here lobbying for his return or arguing with the decision.

Rob:

Understood. That being said, you framed your response in a way that put forth the notion that he was banned because of what he wanted to tell us about your curriculum, what he wanted to share about CFS and his training, and his positive attitude that bubbled over.

That wasn't it. It is my role to make sure we have a clarity of the situation for you, our members, and anyone else reading this from the weeds for whom I can not account.

Thanks,
Ed

Arctic1

08-17-12, 13:14

There was a reason I added the word "unexpected" to the description I gave above. Even when I have taught for the most assertive units we have on our side, I was teaching Counter Ambush stuff.... I teach defensive shooting, not on-balance stuff. There is no doubt that it is much easier to execute learned skills from a controlled environment when you are expecting to be fighting. There is huge difference between generic 'readiness' (the CCW guy with a gun at the mall) and specific 'anticipation' (the combat soldier about to hit a target).

I am going to disagree with this.

We have specific battle drills for handling an ambush, both close range and further out, known direction and unknown direction. None of these entail not using our fundamental marksmanship/shooting skills, movement skills, small unit tactics etc. There is, in my mind no real difference in the application of the skills, but it is a difference in mindset and speed, meaning a close range target/threat gives you less time to react and needing a more resolute/determined course of action.

And they work. No need for unsighted fire or the like.

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 13:16

Please be so kind as to point us toward the empirical evidence you mentioned in the quoted material above.

Also I'm very interested in how you were able to determine what the best method was for conducting the draw. What other methods did you evaluate? What criteria did you use in your evaluation to determine what the "best" would mean in this context? How did you ensure that no bias entered into the testing design, execution, or the analysis of data? How big was the sample of test subjects in your tests? How did you select your test subjects? What controls did you use? Has the paper detailing your test and its conclusions been peer reviewed anywhere? If so where?

Oldtexan,

While that wasn't my quote... I'll try to help you understand.

Take a look at traditional training methods used in most LE academies, for example. Most cadets are taught that there is a specific time/place to get your weak hand on the gun. Similarly, most civilian programs have taught ("4 count" and "5 count" techniques) that there is a specific time/place. Yet, the propensity for one handed defensive shooting when two hands are available is well known and observable in defensive videos from civilian & LE events.
CFS theory is that once the forward motion of the gun is started (from the side, traditionally, above the holster at 3 o 4 o'clock) it should be as direct as possible to the shooting position and not be stopped... which removes the time/place specificity of getting the weak hand on the gun and opens up a training model where that hand gets on the gun while it is moving, whenever it gets there. I believe this will make it more likely to see two handed shooting in people who have trained in this method. Other schools have taken the position that since we see so much one handed shooting, we should just focus more on one handed shooting in training and, essentially, give up on two handed shooting as the primary response. Which school of thought is right? Time will give us more data to evaluate... in the, very few, examples we have of situations where two handed shooting was an option for CFS Students and we have objective evidence of whether or not it was used, it was. So far, so good.

I've looked at every other option for teaching the draw stroke I could find and evaluated it. After many hundreds of hours of classes as a student, observing/researching dozens of instructors and schools, thousands of students and over a decade teaching, I can't begin to list every variation that I've been exposed to and either put serious thought into considering or dismissed pretty quickly.

Without creating actual defensive shooting incidents, I cannot think of an evaluation for the legitimacy of the theory, so I have not endeavored to created any controlled studies. In any high-level reality based simulations/scenarios (hundreds of which have been run with students from those with less than 20 rounds down range to NSWDG), I have seen enough evidence of efficacy to believe we are moving in the right direction. I admit that the pressure seen in those situations, however, is not 1:1 with an actual defensive shooting. Since there isn't a peer reviewed journal or established process for peer review in our industry I'm inclined to assume you question about the existence of a paper on the topic to be nothing more than trolling.

-RJP

JEL458

08-17-12, 13:23

[QUOTE=Nippy;1371502]This is something that CFS tells their instructors to do. They do not demo at full speed and usually they don't shoot targets. If they were to shoot they shoot the berm. They are specifically told not to demonstrate their shooting skill. QUOTE]

Mr. Pincus,

My post got buried, but this is what I am referring to.

Is this correct? If so, what is the rationale behind this (not demoing at speed on targets)? I am trying to sort rumor from fact.

NCPatrolAR

08-17-12, 13:24

Who teaches to stop the motion of the gun during presentation, attach the support hand, and then resume travel to the threat during actual lethal force situations?

Also, I find the amount of attention paid to shooting in from a startle response/unbalanced position a waste of training time for most people. If shooters have problems properly applying marksmanship fundamentals on a square range, how are they going to be able to do so when acting like they've been startled?

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 13:29

Artic1,

I am going to disagree with this.

We have specific battle drills for handling an ambush, both close range and further out, known direction and unknown direction. None of these entail not using our fundamental marksmanship/shooting skills, movement skills, small unit tactics etc. There is, in my mind no real difference in the application of the skills, but it is a difference in mindset and speed, meaning a close range target/threat gives you less time to react and needing a more resolute/determined course of action.

And they work. No need for unsighted fire or the like.

At some point, we can agree to disagree. But, a lot of BTDT Guys who have been through the training have said that it was eye-opening to see the gaps in their preparation and understand the need to be open to them existing... not imagining that they could come up with a million plans for a million variables.
We've also gotten a few "it happened to me" stories back after the training and been told we saved some lives.
I believe those who move forward towards the threat, expecting violence, should train for both the on-balance and the counter-ambush moment.

Note that when I say "ambush", I don't mean a bunch of guys in an L-shape at a corner in the road... I am talking about a guy getting missed in a corner and jumping up to grab the end of the M4 or a person firing shots in a Mall Food Court while you're biting into a Big Mac or getting jumped and pushed down to the floor by the buddy of the guy that you were supposed to be meeting with to get intelligence. The ambush is whatever you aren't prepared for or anticipating. Surely, you don't think that you can have a plan for everything?

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 13:33

Also, I find the amount of attention paid to shooting in from a startle response/unbalanced position a waste of training time for most people. If shooters have problems properly applying marksmanship fundamentals on a square range, how are they going to be able to do so when acting like they've been startled?

That is a big part of the issue... if they aren't taught to and forced to deal with processing information prior to shooting, they may never be able to do it well.

There is also the issue of "marksmanship fundamentals " and what we mean by them. Technically, I think we probably agree on Marksmanship fundamentals... but I don't agree with many that sights need come into play for close quarters defensive shooting fundamentals, where I consider the fundamentals to simply be Proper Extension and not Slapping the trigger... which refer to as "extend-touch-press".

-RJP

G_M

08-17-12, 13:39

I had this line of thought for a while, and while there is some benefit in variety and def good things to learn from many of the top tier instructors at this point in my training Im not looking for variety , or to be a tactical tourist.
Im searching for depth, not breadth.
I know where the good stuff is, I dont need to waste my time and energy on nonsense anymore just so i can say Ive tried it. **** that, been there.

Tactical Tourist, that's a good one.

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 13:42

Is this correct? If so, what is the rationale behind this (not demoing at speed on targets)? I am trying to sort rumor from fact.

Jel,

Yes, it is fact.

At the extreme, it is based on the principle that if you cut off the arms of ANY top level instructor (pick your favorite), I believe that they can still help people shoot better and be better prepared for defensive action.
If that is true, then demonstration isn't necessary.
If that is true, then we should only use demonstrations when they are more valuable than the time we give up doing them. Time that could be spent letting the students DO things, instead of WATCH things.
If students are watching things, then we should probably be doing them slow enough, precisely enough and at angles that are actually conducive to them being able to see whatever it is we believe they need to see. If I,or any other instructor, am demonstrating the precise body movements, manipulations, positions, etc. that we want them to see, why does it matter where the shot goes? If there is any doubt to the effectiveness of a technique, it will go away much more definitively when the student themselves performs it and see their own ability to get results.

Most superficially, many people talk about how they want to see their instructor perform so that they can have confidence in the material... I think that is fanboy stuff and I have written/spoken about it extensively. At the end of the day, what your instructor can do with a gun is just advertising... it is what he help you be able to do with a gun that is going to matter in your fight.

I recognize that we miss a huge marketing opportunity by not demoing to the type of student who is looking for that... but, the integrity of the program's approach is more important to me. And, honestly, the "we're not here to show off" approach does attract some students as well.

-RJP

Arctic1

08-17-12, 13:52

Surely, you don't think that you can have a plan for everything?

Of course not, and not what I said. There are many scenarios one can face when carrying a gun, and the point is that you learn principles that you have to apply as quickly and efficiently in the scenario you are faced with.

That is why we are repeatedly practicing small unit tactics in various terrain over and over again, so that we are able to apply those principles quickly when shit does hit the fan, REGARDLESS of terrain. The principles remain the same. The same with mag changes, malfunction clearance and other individual skills/weapon manipulation skills.

An ambush is an ambush, regardless of shape and form. The term ambush indicates that you are attacked when unaware of the threat. And I would at least hope that the majority of responsible CCW carriers in your country carry it because they are expecting danger.

About the startle response, here is a video showing one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH8koMzxZks

Why train on something when it is not guaranteed to happen? Why ingrain a startle response when it is not needed?

Arctic1

08-17-12, 14:10

Jel,

Yes, it is fact.

At the extreme, it is based on the principle that if you cut off the arms of ANY top level instructor (pick your favorite), I believe that they can still help people shoot better and be better prepared for defensive action.
If that is true, then demonstration isn't necessary.
If that is true, then we should only use demonstrations when they are more valuable than the time we give up doing them. Time that could be spent letting the students DO things, instead of WATCH things.
If students are watching things, then we should probably be doing them slow enough, precisely enough and at angles that are actually conducive to them being able to see whatever it is we believe they need to see. If I,or any other instructor, am demonstrating the precise body movements, manipulations, positions, etc. that we want them to see, why does it matter where the shot goes? If there is any doubt to the effectiveness of a technique, it will go away much more definitively when the student themselves performs it and see their own ability to get results.

Most superficially, many people talk about how they want to see their instructor perform so that they can have confidence in the material... I think that is fanboy stuff and I have written/spoken about it extensively. At the end of the day, what your instructor can do with a gun is just advertising... it is what he help you be able to do with a gun that is going to matter in your fight.

I recognize that we miss a huge marketing opportunity by not demoing to the type of student who is looking for that... but, the integrity of the program's approach is more important to me. And, honestly, the "we're not here to show off" approach does attract some students as well.

-RJP

Demoing your standards or techniques is a very good way of validating that technique or standard.

Would you have faith in a technique being taught, or a standard being enforced, if the instructor was not up to par? If the standard required during a course of fire is 1-hole groups, but the instructor groups like a shotgun when not pushing the envelope, then the credibility of that instructor is certainly weakened.

As to the whole "showing off" thing, the key is balancing the amount of demoing being done. If it reaches the point where the students are mostly watching, then the instructors are off base. But some demoing can help students see and believe what is possible when applying said technique.

Before my deployment to Afghanistan, I attended a Patrol Medic Course at the ISTC in Pfüllendorf, Germany. The main instructor was an 18D, a very experienced one. During his first brief he related his actual experience as a medic, including combat experience rendering medical aid. Later that day he demoed the drill that we were to be taught. At full speed, doing the procedures.

He was not showing off. The instructors were not "creating fanboys". The demo showed us the standard that was expected of us as students, something to aspire to, as well as validating the course curriculum. If an 18D with actual combat experience having applied the techniques being taught to save lives, say they work, you believe it.

If I say or teach something that I cannot back up with skill or theoretical knowledge, my credibility takes a beating.

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 14:13

About the startle response,....
Why train on something when it is not guaranteed to happen? Why ingrain a startle response when it is not needed?

Very valid, and common, concern. In over a decade of integrating this into firearms training and over 2 decades of it being integrated into unarmed training, I am unaware of even one example of a "double flinch" or people "flinching when they don't need to". It is something that is integrated as a starting point for presenting from the holster (or conducting some type of unarmed defense, etc, etc) because it is the worst case scenario. We have to be doing something right before we draw... some people just hover their hand over the gun, others simulate defensive hand positions, some practice "indexing" positions or "interview stances"... we do all of that stuff (well, except the hovering) in context, but the default approach for the newly trained person looking for defensive shooting skills is to integrate the flinch. Last week at GALEFI, during the live fire portion, we also did some drills from the a "staged position", which certainly fits an LE context).

-RJP

NCPatrolAR

08-17-12, 14:14

but I don't agree with many that sights need come into play for close quarters defensive shooting fundamentals,

-RJP

We'll be disagreeing on that. The only time I'll not try to use the sights is when I'm shooting from a position of retention or if I'm in contact with the suspect and trying to put rounds down into his body

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 14:17

Artic1,

Demoing your standards or techniques is a very good way of validating that technique or standard.

Would you have faith in a technique being taught, or a standard being enforced, if the instructor was not up to par? If the standard required during a course of fire is 1-hole groups, but the instructor groups like a shotgun when not pushing the envelope, then the credibility of that instructor is certainly weakened.

As to the whole "showing off" thing, the key is balancing the amount of demoing being done. If it reaches the point where the students are mostly watching, then the instructors are off base. But some demoing can help students see and believe what is possible when applying said technique.

Before my deployment to Afghanistan, I attended a Patrol Medic Course at the ISTC in Pfüllendorf, Germany. The main instructor was an 18D, a very experienced one. During his first brief he related his actual experience as a medic, including combat experience rendering medical aid. Later that day he demoed the drill that we were to be taught. At full speed, doing the procedures.

He was not showing off. The instructors were not "creating fanboys". The demo showed us the standard that was expected of us as students, something to aspire to, as well as validating the course curriculum. If an 18D with actual combat experience having applied the techniques being taught to save lives, say they work, you believe it.

And I don't really believe much just because of the resume of the person delivering the information. A demo shows me that they can do something, but it doesn't show me that I can do something. Ultimately, people learn the most and gain the most confidence by DOING. the Demo is a warm up and often used to get students invested in the concept. Again, at worst, it is just advertising to get the student to pay attention.
I prefer to do conceptual explanations and use logic to explain why the techniques I prefer are the ones I prefer... not "it works for me!", which I tend to blow off when it is the best an instructor can offer. That forces me to have to evaluate and compare the technique and see if it really makes the most sense. Just because some guy Did something or Can Do something doesn't prove value by itself.

I get that some people like to see the demo and like to know that there instructor has BTDT with the techniques... that is where we can just agree to disagree, I guess. If it means you aren't interested in training with me/us, I can accept that.

It should be noted however, for all the guys that love saying they don't want to train with me because I'm not SF/NSW and/or have never been in combat or been in a shooting: Many, many Certified CFS Instructors and proponents of training with us do fit those descriptions. So, if that's your thing, maybe find one of the BTDT CFS Guys to train with... or do their experiences and resume cred not count??

Respectfully,

-RJP

rackham1

08-17-12, 14:19

If I,or any other instructor, am demonstrating the precise body movements, manipulations, positions, etc. that we want them to see, why does it matter where the shot goes? If there is any doubt to the effectiveness of a technique, it will go away much more definitively when the student themselves performs it and see their own ability to get results.

Oooof. While wading through this thread has been paralyzingly difficult, I was honestly willing to give CFS a chance to explain itself until you wrote this. If there is any doubt to the effectiveness of a technique, then the guy TEACHING it to me should be able to demonstrate its real time application. Chalking that up to fanboy-ism is silly AND at odds with the psychology/physiology of learning referenced earlier in the thread.

NCPatrolAR

08-17-12, 14:21

Live fire demos are far from the instructor showing off or creating fan boys. They are about the instructor showing that the material being presented is perform-able. The only people I see discounting the use of demos are the ones that dont do them.

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 14:31

They are about the instructor showing that the material being presented is perform-able. The only people I see discounting the use of demos are the ones that dont do them.

Well, that's like saying the only people not touting 1911's are the ones who don't like them... no shit.

How is having the student's do it themselves not showing that the material being presented is perform-able ??

For NCp and Rakham:

the guy TEACHING it to me should be able to demonstrate its real time application.

Ultimately, if you cut the arm's off Super Dave, Mike Seeklander, Jeff Gonzales, Kyle Lamb, Paul Howe, et al, do you really think they should stop teaching others or can't teach others??

-RJP

SHIVAN

08-17-12, 14:34

A "startle" response done every single time becomes a scar.

Want to train it??

Have someone throw something at you, hit you in the face, or whatever.

If you fake to the head, fake to the head, fake to the head....the next time you move towards striking at someone they will block the face from being hit. That's when you hit them in the gut. Try it some time.

You can watch it happen in UFC matches where one opponent is clearly overmatched by inside leg kicks, or straight punches, or some particular move. The slightest movement from someone who has landed 10 straight inside leg kicks makes their opponent move to check the kick. At which point the aggressor lands a straight kick to the midsection, or a roundhouse/high kick to the side of the face.

Respond to the stimuli you have, if that is an object coming at your face, react to it. If none, I would not react in a pre-scripted motion.

Zhurdan

08-17-12, 14:34

How does the old saying go..."Those that can't do, teach" :) It's not absolute, but often times, it's a matter of if the shoe fits or not.

I find value in demonstrations as I'm sure many people do. Why? Some people are visual learners. One way I learn faster is by seeing. That's not the only way I can learn something, but it's far more effective than me fumble ****ing a PLF to prone with a loaded weapon having not seen it done once or twice.

People learn differently, teaching them something in the manner in which they learn best would save far more time than wondering why participant #3 just doesn't seem to get it. (within reason of course to keep the tempo of the class straight)

The Virus

08-17-12, 14:36

How much actual time is "wasted" by having the instructor shoot demos?
I actually timed the total shooting time for a 9 hr course.
The instructor shot demos for everything he explained the entire day,
The total time spent shooting by the instructor was 4 minutes and 23 seconds.

It doesn't seem like a huge chunk of time in the course of a 9 hr day.

NCPatrolAR

08-17-12, 14:45

How is having the student's do it themselves not showing that the material being presented is perform-able ??

Because you arent showing them the exact way to perform the drill. There are certainly things you can talk your way through, but there are also things that come across better when shown. Also, a fair number of students want to see the drill demo'ed so they know exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Ultimately, if you cut the arm's off Super Dave, Mike Seeklander, Jeff Gonzales, Kyle Lamb, Paul Howe, et al, do you really think they should stop teaching others or can't teach others??

-RJP

You're wasting your time throwing something like that out because no one said anything remotely close to it.

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 14:46

zhurdan,

that whole "visual learner" thing popular with people who have the cliff notes on teaching. At the end of the day you can't learn physical skills until you DO physical skills.

Anyone want to back the guy who ONLY watched a Demo verses the guy who ONLY performed the skill himself? Didn't think so. We're right back to valuable use of limited time/energy. The nature of the material being taught is infinitely more important than the pre-disposed wiring of the student when it comes to how teaching should be done.

*****

With that, I'm going to bow out... at least for now. Much of what we are discussing now has been discussed to death previously and a simple Google Search "Pincus Demonstrations" will probably give you much the same results as asking me the same questions over and over again. In fact, I'd bet that much of this has been posted on this very forum before in some other thread.

I've got a very busy next 14 days of teaching at a conference OH, teaching at a press event on behalf of Winchester Ammunition in IL and teaching back to back 3 day courses in New England to a couple of mixed student groups. I'll pop back in if I can.. but, if someone has a pressing question, Email would be best: vscrob@msn.com... I also find that invitation separates those posting real questions and those just posting to tell others what THEY think about my program.

I actually have enjoyed much of the convo today, especially with those of you who seem genuinely interested in discussion or discovery and not just posting contrarian opinions.

Thanks.

-RJP

Rob Pincus

08-17-12, 14:49

NCp,

Before I go, clarification is needed... 'cuz you missed something important:

Because you arent showing them the exact way to perform the drill. There are certainly things you can talk your way through, but there are also things that come across better when shown. Also, a fair number of students want to see the drill demo'ed so they know exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Go back a couple of pages and re-read the part were we DO show things and we DO demo... In fact, specifically and slowly so that the students do know exactly what to do, not just try to impress them with our ability. The question was about performing "at speed" or instructors being able to "perform to standard" and all that other stuff.

-RJP

rackham1

08-17-12, 15:00

Ultimately, if you cut the arm's off Super Dave, Mike Seeklander, Jeff Gonzales, Kyle Lamb, Paul Howe, et al, do you really think they should stop teaching others or can't teach others??

Yep, I get your point: A good teacher is a good teacher regardless. But those guys are already known teachers AND performers. Given the choice between armless Kyle Lamb and armless "me" (whom you don't know from Adam), whose class will you automatically begin with a more receptive frame of mind for accomplishing the taught skills? How much instruction time will be wasted in "my" class as the student wrestles with "does this guy even know what he's talking about?" Quite a bit more than if I could just show the student that I know what I'm talking about.

I'm sure your method works for some or many of your students. And public school works for some or many of our kids. But I believe the excuse-making "learn by discovery" method should be balanced by a healthy dose of the old-school's "let me kick your ass so you know you should listen to me" method.

I know neither of us will change position so I think I'll just bow out. I have great respect for you engaging in this thread. I'll never tell anyone that CFS is full of shit because I haven't taken a class, but I'm now also sure enough it's not for me that I'll save my money. Regards, Rob Pincus...

Zhurdan

08-17-12, 15:05

zhurdan,

that whole "visual learner" thing popular with people who have the cliff notes on teaching. At the end of the day you can't learn physical skills until you DO physical skills.
Cliff notes... now that's funny. ;-)
While not a teacher in the arena of firearms, I've taught many (read as 1000+) folks to do complex/dangerous tasks. You'll note that I never said that seeing it means one learns it. As someone else pointed out, it doesn't take that much time to demo something BEFORE a student tries it themselves. Same end result. They get to see that they can do it, but may find some mechanical "tips" in watching someone else do it.

Anyone want to back the guy who ONLY watched a Demo verses the guy who ONLY performed the skill himself? Didn't think so. We're right back to valuable use of limited time/energy. The nature of the material being taught is infinitely more important than the pre-disposed wiring of the student when it comes to how teaching should be done.
While I agree that the information is important, asking someone to do a task that is dangerous without giving visual guidance seems... well, foolish. Especially considering the "dangerous" part we're referring to here is a firearm. I'm no super bad ass instructor so take it for what it's worth, but I AM a student. A paying student for the classes I attend. I think the overwhelming voice here is that demo's are valuable. Knowing that piece of information in relation to a business model, it seems like you may be limiting your audience, but it's your audience to limit, and I have no issue with that or you whatsoever. It just wouldn't be the type of instruction that I'd pay for.

*****

With that, I'm going to bow out... at least for now. Much of what we are discussing now has been discussed to death previously and a simple Google Search "Pincus Demonstrations" will probably give you much the same results as asking me the same questions over and over again. In fact, I'd bet that much of this has been posted on this very forum before in some other thread.

I've got a very busy next 14 days of teaching at a conference OH, teaching at a press event on behalf of Winchester Ammunition in IL and teaching back to back 3 day courses in New England to a couple of mixed student groups. I'll pop back in if I can.. but, if someone has a pressing question, Email would be best: vscrob@msn.com... I also find that invitation separates those posting real questions and those just posting to tell others what THEY think about my program.

I actually have enjoyed much of the convo today, especially with those of you who seem genuinely interested in discussion or discovery and not just posting contrarian opinions.

Thanks.

-RJP

Have a great two weeks, stay safe.

NCPatrolAR

08-17-12, 15:27

NCp,

Before I go, clarification is needed... 'cuz you missed something important:

Go back a couple of pages and re-read the part were we DO show things and we DO demo... In fact, specifically and slowly so that the students do know exactly what to do, not just try to impress them with our ability. The question was about performing "at speed" or instructors being able to "perform to standard" and all that other stuff.

-RJP

Nothing was missed. It's obvious that you equate the demos with ego stroking.

C4IGrant

08-17-12, 15:35

As I got into learning what I didn't know about shooting firearms, the instructors that I chose to learn from shot EVERY drill. So for me, it is normal and abnormal would be an instructor that wouldn't shoot the drill.

Since I do teach new shooters the fundamentals (and have so for many years now), I demo everything. I do it for two reasons. The first one is because I need to set the bar for that drill or test. This gives the students something to aim for. If the student beats me on that drill, good for them and that means that they have grasped the concept well (which is the goal here). The second reason I like to shoot every drill is because I want to test myself. Can I deliver cold with no "warm ups?" If I can't then that was a good learning point for me (as a shooter) and I will need to address it at a later time.

On the flip side, I have been in classes where the instructor shot way too much. So much so that it seemed like THEY were there to shoot (not the students). This isn't a common problem though.

So for me, an instructor that doesn't shoot at the target is most likely afraid that they won't perform well and believe it will be harder to teach/motivate the students to do well (when they can't). I can understand this point of view and is why we practice what we teach. ;)

C4

C4IGrant

08-17-12, 15:37

Nothing was missed. It's obvious that you equate the demos with ego stroking.

Something I have started to do in classes that I teach is I ASK the students if they need me to demo it. This way, I avoid anyone thinking that I am there to "show off." If a third of the students say yes, then I demo it.

C4

NCPatrolAR

08-17-12, 15:43

Something I have started to do in classes that I teach is I ASK the students if they need me to demo it.

Same thing here. I will typically ask when Im getting the "deer looking at the headlights" look after explaining something.

C4IGrant

08-17-12, 15:48

Same thing here. I will typically ask when Im getting the "deer looking at the headlights" look at explaining something.

I think this tells the students that you are paying attention to THEIR level of attention (which they appreciate).

C4

Failure2Stop

08-17-12, 16:08

I taught a class in December while having a pinched nerve. I hardly demoed anything due to loses of strength and a decent amount of pain in my neck, back, shoulder, and support side arm/hand.
I still kick myself in the ass for not doing more shooting in the class.
At the end of the day following any class, I always think I could have done more demos.
For many drills I do the same that C4 does: ask if they want to see it done. As certain skills/drills are introduced, they benefit from demonstration, though not all of them require it.

Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.

Arctic1

08-17-12, 16:44

that whole "visual learner" thing popular with people who have the cliff notes on teaching. At the end of the day you can't learn physical skills until you DO physical skills.

So you are saying that understanding the role of the anterior cingulate cortex has in regards to learning is important, and understanding the effects dopamine loss has on motivation, yet you claim that adherence to one of the oldest principles of teaching, individual adaptation, is just popular opinion?

People learn in different ways, and in order to help them learn you must provide them stimuli that is valuable to them. Some people don't learn very well by reading, but learn very fast by seeing. Some people don't learn very fast by seeing, but learn very fast by reading. Some learn very fast by seeing, then doing. Some grasp concepts just by listening.

Yes, they need to DO it as well, but different stimuli will decide how FAST individuals manage to do it.

The nature of the material being taught is infinitely more important than the pre-disposed wiring of the student when it comes to how teaching should be done.

So you are saying that the student is at fault if they cannot grasp or master the technique being taught? Because they cannot understand the theory or logic presented by the instructors? As instructors, it is our responsibility to make sure that students are showing the required progression. If they are not, with very few exceptions, that failure is on us as instructors.

If you fail to acknowledge the fact that people have different dispositions when it comes to learning, then you are failing as an instructor, and the nature of the material being taught is useless.

Just because some guy Did something or Can Do something doesn't prove value by itself.

Of course it does, it shows that the technique is being used by the instructors and it has value in real life situations. It does not mean it is the only valid technique, but it certainly lends credibility to what is being taught. Especially when it is an "original" concept.

But then again, what does an 18D know about casualty care.....:rolleyes:

Let's say I want my guys to shoot 6 shots rapidly at a target from 7 meters, only hits inside an 8" circle count, and I need to do it in less than 2.5 seconds. If I can do that, in a calm and accurate manner, then it shows that the technique I have taught them allows them to accomplish the task. If I push it and do it faster while still maintaining the accuracy requirement, it shows that it is possible to progress with that technique.

And I don't really believe much just because of the resume of the person delivering the information.

Then why should people take what you teach/say at face value? You reference BTDT's in your classes sharing anecdotes, you claim that you have taught military units (insinuating SOF) to reinforce your technique. Why do you not demo it as well? In order to show that it works? Or do the points I listed above lend enough credibility in itself, in regards to the validity of your technique/philosophy?

theblackknight

08-17-12, 17:23

Holy shit, I missed Jim Jones himself.

Rob, why do you and so many pysudo tactical people roll your shoulders forward, and tuck your head like a turtle? I don't see people Like Pat Mac,Kyle Lamb or GM IPSC shooters don't do this crap.Hell, Lamb looked like a Open shooter with his elbows bent down yet his splits seem pretty good.

Also, if you're trying to reach a everyman audience, why on earth do you use these wannabe coolguy industry buzzword phrases like"nondiagnostic, strategically operational,practitactical malfunction of stoppages clearing enguagment drill®"?

I'm no trainer, but it seems the whole movement,which is mostly dead:cool:, of "finding" what your body does under a critically stressful dynamic incident® and training for it based off that was a miss guided phase the industry went thru after certain people got done reading thier copy on On Combat and decided to apply those things they knew happened, instead of just using the ****ing slide release(it's like a trigger.. . . .for your slide!) and reloading in their workspace.

JEL458

08-17-12, 17:25

Mr. Pincus,

I can appreciate not wanting your instructors to show off or spend an exorbitant amount of time shooting themselves. Unfortunately, I believe it does give the impression that they are teaching something that they themselves do not have a solid grasp of.

One of the YouTube links in this thread showed (what I believe was) a CFS Instructor actually firing on a paper target. The shot grouping from the distance he was shooting at was not impressive. Granted, he could have been firing from 50 yards before and that was where the group came from.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

As I got into learning what I didn't know about shooting firearms, the instructors that I chose to learn from shot EVERY drill. So for me, it is normal and abnormal would be an instructor that wouldn't shoot the drill. C4

This has been my experience as well. Ken Hackathorn, LAV, Mike Pannone, Pat Rogers, Jeff Gonzales, etc. all demonstrated the drills that they asked us to shoot.

Apricotshot

08-17-12, 19:19

There is a well known instructor out there, who is getting on in age, that has a assistant instructor do position demos. Since he has got to the age where demo-ing every drill and position for 3 straight days would injure or curtail his instruction he utilizes a younger man that is well versed in what he teaches and does it for him. The fact is, demos are still being done. Just not by the main instructor. I have no problem with that.

G_M

08-17-12, 19:51

One important aspect of training I feel is to have a visual image of your goal. That is why instructors demonstrating at full speed are a great reference tool for me. The key thing though is to see true speed with hits and not something at ludicrous speed without showing hits like on youtube or a DVD.

On a side note I am starting to notice that teaching ability is emphasized to try and fill the lack of experience. Granted it is an important aspect, I find that the depth of this ability is as deep as their experience. Like their skills, the teaching is more form factor rather than substance. Kind of like the coaches that start with the pep talk, chalk talk, praise alot and run drills. Versus the "John Wooden's" who don't fit that cliche and intuitively understand deep practice and building myelin even though they don't know what that is.

Surf

08-17-12, 20:24

Tyler, I get your passion and if you are reading this, here is a tip.... "Never say never" and "don't always say always." Comments that are in absolutes are best avoided and there are ways of phrasing things in print, or verbally face to face, that stress your beliefs without discounting any other possible / viable options.

As for the "demo" topic....for myself throughout my shooting career as a student, I 99.9% benefit from seeing something done. I am very much a visual learner and that from my own experience in learning ANYTHING, visual demonstration is by far and away the most effective method for me to grasp new materials / concepts etc...However it was not critically important for me to see every single drill being run by the instructor and there have been some 100% demo instructors that I did not like. But that was more of a personality conflict or something that rubbed me wrong about them, or an instructor that couldn't run a demo to save their life. Anyone that scoffs at visual learning is kidding themselves.

My student base is 99% LE (Local, State or Fed) or Military and my courses are predominantly advanced level shooting / tactics. That makeup of a student base tends to be a very tough crowd and I know this because I come from within that same crowd also. Because of this "tough crowd" they pretty much demand "proof". I start off doing demo's to ensure that the students have confidence in my shooting competency. I do not however demo 100% of the drills based on their experience levels. So it is my belief, in this student base especially, that demo is necessary to serve multiple purposes. Capture the audience and instill confidence of the instructors competency as a shooter, paint a moving picture for students to learn from / replicate and also to set a performance or achievement standard. The students will formulate confidence in the instructors verbal skills and their efficacy in relating or teaching the information quickly enough and personality goes a long way here. As an instructor, lacking in the ability to perform skills, or in the personality / verbal area and you will often lose many students and your effectiveness to teach goes out the window. Now when I do happen to teach on the civilian side of things, reputation is more easily taken at face value as to my shooting skills and teaching ability, but that does not mean that demo is not equally or sometimes more important. And by demo I believe in showing correct mechanics and marksmanship skills and how that reflects with results on target. Even an occasional roughly run demo by an instructor can have value provide the occurrence is minimal and what kind of context the instructor places on it, perhaps by pointing out mistakes he/she made that made the drill not a success. Of course these occurrences should be infrequent.

Having said that, when teaching a course, I will make it perfectly clear that I do not demo 100%. I also note that I will not ask a student to perform anything that I will not perform at a drop of a hat and this goes beyond just shooting skills, it can be anything topic that I teach. I will also make it 100% clear to students that I am a visual learner, so if any student is confused about how to perform any task don't be afraid to ask to see the drill performed because it may help them more to see it performed and then to perform it themselves. Of course common teaching sense in a good instructor will dictate the speed at which you may initially perform the drill, but even if the drill is performed slowly to show mechanics etc, I will also eventually perform the drill at full speed and this is by no means to show off. I always like to see a great shooter do a drill at full speed as it gives me a level of achievement to strive for.

I will also note that there are instances where I will purposely NOT demo a drill until perhaps after the drill had been shot. This is often done for difficult students or hard learners who may be very set in their ways. This is a very specific technique and needs to be done correctly or it can be very detrimental in the student / instructor relationship. Or it is sometimes a technique that I may use especially in advanced shooters to get a students creative juices flowing in an attempt to create thinkers.

As for the startle response, I do not discount it, but I will note that if you train a shooter to be sound in their base fundamentals, be it shooting, tactics etc and get them proficient in them, then that person can adapt to the situation presented, be it starting from a hands up, hands down startle, etc, etc, etc... Their proficiency and experience in training and correct repetition of practice that allows them the ability to effectively adapt to a given situation that may be "outside" of their normal training routine.

beltjones

08-28-12, 22:36

MMA was mentioned previously in this thread, and it reminded me of some behavioral patterns I've seen from Rob Pincus.

In MMA, and more specifically BJJ, there are loads of guys faking black belts, or otherwise faking MMA teaching credentials. A quick google search of Matt Barvo, David Lang, Matt Malice, etc will show the types of things these guys do, but I'll give you the cliffs notes.

They have dubious credentials, they refuse to demonstrate the technique, they prefer to speak and point rather than "do," and their go-to validation is, "yeah, but some of my students have had some success."

Sound familiar? It should. It's Rob Pincus's MO to a T.

In short, I think he avoids demos for a reason. If he could really shoot - or if his students could really shoot they would put something out there to quiet the critics, if for no other reason.

I also think that there is a reason a part of his instructors' program is how to act online. Read through his posts here and you will see many references to him telling his instructors to do this or do that online. Seriously? I get having guidelines for how the program is promoted, but "be a grey man on the forums" et al seem a little... off.

I think Rob Pincus has probably had some classes here and there, he has definitely had some deep thoughts on a lot of things, and he has strategized this quite well. But when the rubber meets the road, we see big, big problems.

To bring it back to the BJJ / MMA thing, I know a lot of people here have trained before. I'm sure many of you have been exposed to the basic Gracie Self Defense stuff, including the very simple headlock escapes taught as part of that system. To you guys, I'm really sorry, but you're about to vomit all over your keyboards, because here is Rob Pincus teaching what he described on facebook as a headlock escape "for the street, not sport."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X6IDbtnNNI&feature=share&list=PLFE2A278482210277

If this guy thinks the best way to escape a headlock on the street is to first slam your face into the ground and nearly put yourself in scarf hold he's nuts. Or maybe his training is bad. In any case he shouldn't be teaching or ordaining other teachers.