The article was, in my opinion, pretty specific in its description of wasted concepts in training.
The issue with "metrics" is that you either do them on a square range in a vacuum or you do them in a force on force type situation and time them there. The issue is, of course, the drills will immediately change as the moment you start introducing force on force you will instantly and organic see movement added.
As such, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot want to look at metrics in the framework of tracking performance and believe those metrics (drills) are viable in real world applications. It just doesn't work that way.
The middle ground is have metrics you shoot on a square range in vacuum once in a blue moon, I am talking about once every few months and have the overwhelming majority of your training exist in the combatives/accuracy (Dryfire) arena.
That just doesn't happen now a days as people like to play games and the only way you "level up" or "get better" at the game is to play it the way everyone else does.
Again, I am not looking to hash out this debate as every time I have tried to have it the threads get trolled to death by the pro-gaming types (and there are a lot more of them than not) and the concepts get lost.
Another way to consider this - is there any real world statistical data to show that square range metrics done in a vacuum apply to real world scenario's ?
Bookmarks