Another SME rips on feel good trainers and shooters

[theblackknight]

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/09/29...e-performance/

Canipe Correspondence – Why Measure Performance?
I recently started following an online debate about performance related to shooting, where one group of high-performing individuals (serious USPSA shooters) were conversing about a training philosophy that doesn’t use any set, specific metrics for performance. There were a number of interesting thoughts on the topic, most everyone being in agreement that you need to be able to track your level of proficiency, work to improve it, and measure it to see how that level has risen or fallen. The arguments piqued my interest because I come from a background strongly rooted in tactics versus competition, but I personally found that the methods used for improvement among that crowd carry over nicely, even if some specific things don’t work for my uses. I like what they had so say, and likewise had a fair amount of negative feelings over the notion of not working towards a measurable goal or standards in my training. This isn’t a rant against a specific organization or trainer, because frankly I’m not going to worry much about people or organizations who are unconcerned with quantifiable performance. It’s mostly just because I find the notion of not using performance standards in general preposterous.

I am not sure why we would fall into some category in a gunfight that is unlike other forms of competition in terms of the level of preparation and performance tracking helping us out. What do pro football, motocross, ultramarathon running, or even golf have in common with fighting? Easy: there is a clear cut winner and loser, and there are tremendous penalties for screwing up the details. I challenge you to find a quarterback in the NFL who the coach sends out onto the field because the player felt he had to confidence to prevail, without ever measuring his ability to perform the tasks required to do so. I challenge you to find a Badwater winner who just trotted around the neighborhood a little bit and said “I’m ready to win this. What the hell is this stopwatch I keep hearing about?” Golf would be even more boring if we didn’t keep score. Nobody who just goes out and swings clubs around until it feels right wins a green jacket at Augusta. So why would we not use a performance-based system of improvement to meet out full potential when the difference in a win or loss isn’t a championship, a trophy, bragging rights, or a personal record, it is being dead? There was an argument made that if someone failed to meet a standard, then they would not have the confidence to perform in a real-life fight. When someone decides to kill you, you’re in the big leagues now, whether you want to be or not. Sure would be nice to have big-league skills right around then, wouldn’t it? I don’t need someone to tell me I’m ready, I want to know I’m ready because I can do (insert task) to (insert standard)!

I have been fortunate enough to attend a number of schools and a selection process, and then work in them later in my career. I’ve also trained with most of the reputable tactical trainers in the industry as well as some top-level competitors. There is a common bond between all of these places and people that I’ve encountered: they have all had a set of performance standards you are measured against and then you know whether you’re as good as you think you are. If you don’t know where you’re at, you have no idea where to go from there. Like one of my partners says, “It’s not hard to be the fastest motherf**ker in a one man race.” I shudder to think at the state of the force had I passed people on their confidence to perform rather than their abilities. I would have had a 100% GO rate. Fortunately, it was never a floating set of standards based on one guys individual potential or my intuition. I’m not some master educator, I’m more of a knuckle dragger. But I know we could afford to hire people that were, and they all dealt in standards. You stand in the hallway with a list of #1-150 for all of your peers to see, and nobody other than #1 feels good about it. Lesson: It’s important to know if you suck or not. Feeling like you can win something that you can’t isn’t “confidence”, it’s stupidity. Working to meet that standard is where the greatness comes out.

This little piece has been pure opinion, experience, and a little bit of a rant. Everyone else is welcome to theirs as well, but I doubt anyone is going to change my mind, that you can’t reach your full potential in anything without tracking your progress and seeing where you stack up against yourself and others. You have to be measured in training, because when the time comes for real you’re going to be measured, whether you’re ready or not.

Jon Canipe served on Active Duty with the US Army as a Special Forces Weapons Sergeant at 5th SFG(A) and was a Senior Instructor at the JFKSWCS, training SFQC students in planning, unconventional warfare, small unit tactics, CQB, and advanced marksmanship. He is a veteran of multiple combat tours, and still serves in the Army National Guard’s 20th SFG(A) in addition to working as an industry consultant and small arms instructor.

[thopkins22]

Paul Howe wrote a great article he separated the notion of being tactically proficient and technically proficient. Competition is a great avenue to achieving technical proficiency, or improving on said skills. Tactical proficiency is harder to measure.


http://panteaoproductions.com/articl...ctor-and-tiers

[theblackknight]

There was also something interesting in there that I mentally bookmarked for a thread like this; they had to teach their shooters to slow down and shoot slower. They were literally running shoot houses faster than they could discriminate small things like weapons in the hands. He didn't make the point that fast transitions and splits were a bad thing, but rather that don't kid yourself into thinking that technical proficiency was the end all be all goal.

You have to move slowly enough that you see what and why you're shooting, and be able to shoot quickly and accurately once you see that. It would seem that a set of standards/qualifier courses are a great way to track your progress and allow yourself attainable goals. Competition can no doubt speed up your ability to attain those goals.

A group or person's failure to apply certain things is were the infamous "games will get you killed" thing breeds from.

Teaching someone how to transition just as fast as they split means they will see that shoot/no shoot indicator faster.

[7 RING]

Deleted. Bailing out of all threads.

[Surf]

I always love the guys who like to criticize or critique by saying "well a gunfight isn't going to be standing still" or "lets see you do that when the bullets are flying" or "its the fight in the dog". Now I don't disagree but lets ponder this....

I have 2 people who are equally knowledgeable and proficient in the application of tactics and both have equal doses of "kick ass" in them. Now shooter A is clearly more proficient in their weapons handling skills vs shooter B who is still a good shooter. On drills that judge performance in regards to speed, accuracy, precision and overall weapons manipulations, or any combined or balanced variation of these skills, shooter A is clearly a much better performer and consistently hands shooter B his ass when running drills. Now in either a competitive environment or a dealing death realm, who would we expect to have an advantage? Shooters A and B are sound tacticians on a level playing field with one another here. Both A and B have the internal fortitude to stare death in the face and spit on him. But one can shoot the proverbial shit out of their damn weapon.

Having said this, who would you rather be?

Shooter A or Shooter B?

I also get the "well I don't have the time" or "you will react the same way in a real fight as the way you trained." Well that's fine. If your time and resources are limited which does not allow you to process and apply information in the prescribed manner, then "KISS" has a good argument.

Now if you clock runs a bit quicker or you have more gigabits of RAM and a larger hard drive AND have the time and resources well then tactical or defensive shooting does not have to be a singular life endeavor. IMO, heavy use of quantifiable drills or measures of weapons skills in regards to speed, accuracy, precision and weapons manipulations is a critical component to high level combat type shooters. Even breaking down components to simplistic or singular skills, movements or manipulations in order to analyze, diagnose and correct issues, leads to the creation of a highly skilled and proficient shooter. Now drilling of competency and tactics is a huge or larger part of the equation, but to ignore the other components is just as damning.

For many years I have seen professional "tactical" types go through the same or similar motions for years with what IMO is a stagnated, or non progressive methodology. I tire of the "well if ain't broke" or "well we have been doing it this way for years and haven't had a problem yet" mentality that it sickened me. At face value this may seem to contradict with my stance on basic fundamentals being King and learning them in a manner that I subscribe to as being the most beneficial to the shooter. And yes, I am often accused of being "old school" or "dinosaurish" because of my steadfast beliefs in fundamentals and base learning techniques and establishing a sound foundation of skills.

I will say that without a doubt the biggest thing that has taken my own peers and those that I teach to "the next level" and beyond in a tactical shooting or combat shooting world, is my own personal shooting style or the infusion of standard or traditional competition types of training and static or movement drills and adapting them to work for those who work in a defensive or combat oriented environment. In the last 5-6 years or so, I have fused the two very successfully, tweaking my methodology by adding certain things and scrapping others. Always attempting to remain progressive while maintaining a solid base foundation and core of what we do. I know I produce much higher quality of student but my own set of teams and tracking their skills and progression over the years is really what clearly shows the efficacy of this style that I believe in and clearly works for us and many others that I train. Might be something to it?

[BLACK LION]

Bravo Zulu Surf...I enjoyed that tour into your mind.

[Diz]

But I can say I have been privelaged to train and talk with some solid folks in the SF communiity. What I found (to my surprise) is that they aren't really that "high-speed" if you will, when it comes to weapons proficiency, the latest gear and/or techniques, etc. But what they do possess is a very solid base of fundamentals that they continously train or re-train on. The actual trigger-pulling is but a very small part of their overall package. Unless you are on a dedicated direct-action team, the vast majority of your time is spent doing other things.

That being said, I think they would still kick the highly skilled guy's ass because they have the combat mindset and the real-world experience to go with it. The guy with more experience in life and death gunfights can leverage good skills against a guy with no experience but excellent skills. Just my opinion.

The OP stated that all things being equal, the guy with better gunfighting skills (through measurable metrics) would prevail over the guy with just say "average" skills. I would say, yeah , probably but my guess is that the guys with more real-world experience are gonna have better performance under stress, which could trump superior gun-handling skill. And they are sometimes too busy to concentrate on just shooting skills alone. So really it's gonna be hard to get "all things equal" including combat mind-set, and just measure pure gunfighting skill.

I am not against measurable metrics, I'm just saying that other variables come into play here. Besides experience, sustainability may be a more important factor, over time, than a sharper edge that can't be realistically maintained.

[militarymoron]

diz, they're not comparing weapon handling skills to real world experience. they're talking about two shooters with similar tactical proficiency - for example, two SOF guys with similar experience levels. one measures his performance with timed drills, one doesn't.

[glocktogo]

But I can say I have been privelaged to train and talk with some solid folks in the SF communiity. What I found (to my surprise) is that they aren't really that "high-speed" if you will, when it comes to weapons proficiency, the latest gear and/or techniques, etc. But what they do possess is a very solid base of fundamentals that they continously train or re-train on. The actual trigger-pulling is but a very small part of their overall package. Unless you are on a dedicated direct-action team, the vast majority of your time is spent doing other things.

That being said, I think they would still kick the highly skilled guy's ass because they have the combat mindset and the real-world experience to go with it. The guy with more experience in life and death gunfights can leverage good skills against a guy with no experience but excellent skills. Just my opinion.

The OP stated that all things being equal, the guy with better gunfighting skills (through measurable metrics) would prevail over the guy with just say "average" skills. I would say, yeah , probably but my guess is that the guys with more real-world experience are gonna have better performance under stress, which could trump superior gun-handling skill. And they are sometimes too busy to concentrate on just shooting skills alone. So really it's gonna be hard to get "all things equal" including combat mind-set, and just measure pure gunfighting skill.

I am not against measurable metrics, I'm just saying that other variables come into play here. Besides experience, sustainability may be a more important factor, over time, than a sharper edge that can't be realistically maintained.

We all realize that it's a combination of things greater than simple skill with a gun. However, I know of no one that would agree that having more of each wouldn't be better. Some simply aren't going to have nor want an opportunity to do it "real world" any more than necessary for their situation. Take the guy who only carries for self-defense and never professionally. He's likely to never even do it "real world" in his life. Without the training and stress of classes and/or competition, he's going into it with much less in the toolbox than either the competition shooter or the operator.

It simply is what it is. Measuring performance is as much about knowing what you can't do on a given day as what you can.

[T2C]

If you feel good at the end of a course, that does not necessarily mean the course prepared you for an armed engagement. If you feel good at the end of a course AND you have blistered hands, bleeding cuts, bumps and bruises, you probably learned something useful.