General Categories > Information Arsenal

Avoiding the gamer trap

<< < (2/5) > >>

sjwsti:
I posted this article because the author had come to many of the same conclusions I had over six years ago, (not sure what the mall ninjas were saying or if it was a fad then..) thats when I had the opportunity to attend a two week SWAT school. The final exam was the most stressfull, elaborate and realistic force on force scenario I had ever participated in.

When placed under a level of stress that, prior to that day I had never known, my reactions were not what they should have been. I reverted back to what I had done in countless IPSC and IDPA matches. My mind was completely focused on only shooting and not equally focused on that tactics involved in not getting shot.

That day I knew that I had got all I could from sport shooting. I had learned how to shoot quickly and accurately at various targets at varying distances. But the types of  movement and unrealistic use of cover had become a liability.

Are we smart enough to know the difference between self defense tactics and sport shooting? Consciously yes. Subconsciously it is a different story. When the threat is at close range and the time frame is compressed the subconscious takes over.

When you practice tactics on Sat, shoot IPSC on Sun. what happens on Mon. when a schizophrenic wants to cut the demons out of you with a box cutter? I say its 50/50 what your going to do. Thats not good enough for me.

Any practice is good practice Not true. Continued programming of your subconscious with poor tactics, whether at the range on your own or during sport shooting, can get you in trouble.

Before this gets any longer I will leave you with the experiences of two students during one of my classes this year.

Student (A) Only has a couple of years of experience shooting handguns. His primary focus is self defense and has attended a couple of Advanced classes. When he shoots recreationally it is to work on his tactics and toward obtaining his CCW permit. He isn't involved in sport shooting.

Student (B) Has been the victim of a violent crime and has many years of shooting experience. Has attended multiple high profile shooting schools and spends more time on the range than most of the employees. Sport shoots regularly. 

Neither student had ever participated in a high stress realistic FOF scenario. Individually the students were placed in a situation were they were faced with an active shooter who had already shot at least one person before turning the gun on them and advancing.

Student (A) Immediately moved to the closest most effective cover. Didn't expose any more of his body than he had to, made effective hits and continued to shoot until the threat ceased. Scanned 360 degrees, moved and reloaded. When asked what was going through his mind he said " I was doing everything I could to be a hard target, getting to cover and shooting until he was down, then I looked for more bad guys and moved"   Shooter (A) got a gold star.

Student (B) Started near marginal cover and upon seeing the bad guy (who was pointing a weapon at him) promptly abandoned cover to move out into the open, closing the distance to get an easier shot. Several shots were fired, bad guy goes down, Student (B) continues to stand there and wait for instructions. When asked what was going through his mind he said " I`m not sure, I just knew I had to shoot him"

Both students learned quite a bit about how effective there training regimens were.

Now if every thing we do is simply a conscious choice and continuous repetition of poor tactics in practice and competition doesn't matter, how do you explain the different reactions of the students. Afterwards Student (B) could tell me what he should have done, but not why he didn't do it.

Ive seen this happen on a regular basis since I started doing this type of training. So no matter how many famous gun slingers you quote saying sport shooting doesn't effect your tactics I'm not buying it. That hasn't been my experience.

There is a lot more I could go into but my ADD is kicking in.

- Shawn

JTH:
Opinions vary.  Which is why I don't particularly like to base my decisions on anecdotes--I prefer to base it on aggregate data. 

Effective practice means effective technique when you need it.  (Which is not saying the same thing as "all practice is good," which I never said.)  If you practice effective self-defense, then that's what you'll do.   "Going to advanced classes" really doesn't mean much, unless the students actually practice what they've learned. 

I could give examples of experienced law enforcement screwing up by the numbers, and complete newbies getting it right, all under different circumstances---and yet those ALSO would be mere anecdotes.  Singular examples, which merely mean something a particular person did once.  Only in aggregate can we actually tell trends.

And oddly enough, the trends from people who actually DO those things (both competition, AND have been in defensive situations), say that it isn't a problem.  Sure, some people practice only competition techniques, and so that's what they do even when it isn't appropriate.  This isn't a surprise.  (Quite a few do just fine even with that because they can hit what they shoot at.  How many people read about people defending themselves with handguns in the NRA magazine every month?  How many of those people needed to do anything other than have a gun and shoot it well?  This isn't to say that you shouldn't be able to do more---but it is certainly true that being able to hit what you are shooting at under stress is kinda important.)

Anyway--the people who do a LOT of both, find that competitions enhance their firearms ability.  If you don't believe that, ask Ted Puente, Petros Milionis, Rob Vogel, Ben Stoeger, and any one of the other LEO USPSA GMs out there.

Matter of fact, asking Ben Stoeger would probably tell you the most----he was a USPSA GM before he went to the academy.  You know what?  He didn't have any problem with LEO tactics regarding firearms.  He even talked about the fact that he had it relatively easy compared to some others, because they had to thinking about shooting and about learning tactics.  All he had to do was think about tactics---because for him, shooting effectively was unconscious.  This includes both basic range work, and FOF work.  His "competition reflexes" didn't get him into trouble at all.

But again, that is just one person---so that may just be him.  However, put his experience together with all the other LEOs in the aggregate, and you know what?  It isn't a problem.

Again, though---opinions vary.  Everyone's got one, and that's all right.    Just remember, if you read it on the Internet, it MUST be the truth.  :)

(sjwsti:  I note that it doesn't surprise me that you've seen all sorts of different reactions from people during FOF.  That's going to happen on people's first tries all the time--I'm pretty sure you've seen reactions that were perfect, and reactions that made NO sense at all---and I'm betting the one thing that made the MOST difference in how well they did is whether or not they had done FOF before, which is why I'm a big fan of adrenaline-based scenario training.  It IS certainly true that we tend to remember circumstances that support our opinions---which again, is why I prefer to base my opinions not on merely my own personal experience, but on aggregate data.)

JTH:
Oops---just remembered one last thing:  You might ask Mas Ayoob about his opinion about whether or not shooting competitions messes up your tactical thinking.  :)

For those who don't recognize the name (anyone?  didn't think so!  :) )...

"About Massad Ayoob

Massad Ayoob has been handgun editor of GUNS magazine and law enforcement editor of AMERICAN HANDGUNNER since the 1970s, and has published thousands of articles in gun magazines, martial arts publications, and law enforcement journals. He is the author of more than a dozen books on firearms, self-defense, and related topics, including “In the Gravest Extreme,” widely considered to be the authoritative text on the topic of the use of lethal force.

The winner of the Outstanding American Handgunner of the Year Award in 1998, Mas has won several state and regional handgun shooting championships. Ayoob is one of approximately ten Five Gun Masters among the 10,000-member International Defensive Pistol Association, and was the first to earn that title. He served 19 years as chair of the Firearms Committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, and several years as a member of the Advisory Board of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. In addition to teaching for those groups, he has also taught for the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors and the International Homicide Investigators seminars.

Mas has received judicial recognition as an expert witness for the courts in weapons and shooting cases since 1979, and has been a fully sworn and empowered, part time police officer for 36 years. Ayoob founded the Lethal Force Institute in 1981 and served as its director until 2009, and now trains through Massad Ayoob Group. He has appeared on CLE-TV delivering continuing legal education for attorneys, through the American Law Institute and American Bar Association, and has been retained to train attorneys to handle deadly force cases through the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Ayoob served for two years as co-vice chair of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He also appears in each episode of Personal Defense TV (Sportsman’s Channel)."

---from http://massadayoobgroup.com/?page_id=165
(bolded emphasis mine)

sjwsti:
At what point do my experiences of over more than a decade as an instructor stop being anectodes and morph into data? Over the last six years Ive trained (and continue to do so) with some of the best instructors in the industry, three separate SWAT teams and a very motivated and skilled group of locals.  Do I have to put it on a chart or have it published?

I have had personal conversations with Henk Iverson about this very topic. If you need credentials he has them. He has combat experience as a former member of the South African Military. Experience as a Police officer in South Africa and experience as a member of the South African Special Police Task Force (look it up, there is a great documentary on you-tube about these guys). He is currently under Govt contract instructing Special Forces and when we last spoke in the fall he was in the running to obtain the contract for Delta also.

He advises against mixing self defense and sport shooting. He feels the same way about sport fighting. Once a certain level of skill is reached there is no longer a benefit. So you are right, opinions vary, even among the "experts".

I could quote others that feel the same way but I dont have the keyboard stamina that you posess JT  ;D So I`ll just copy and paste some links.

- Shawn

http://www.striketactical.com/newsletter/?id=20&archive=1

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SPORT SHOOTING IN GENERAL?

Henk Iverson: Sport shooting is just that, SPORT. Sport shooting has its place in our industry. I come from a sport shooting background, having been an IPSC shooter most of my police officer days. I represented the South African Police Service National IPSC Team and have SA Police National Colors for both open class as well as limited class.

We all love to shoot and IPSC taught me to shoot under pressure, in front of crowds of onlookers, in front of tough competitors. IPSC taught me to control adrenalin and use it to my advantage, even to this day.

As long as a sport shooter does not CONFUSE sport and proper training. Sport shooters need to know how the body reacts to a "survival adrenal dump" in a real life gunfight. When survival mode kicks in, your sub-concious mind takes over the fight, meaning your body will react EXACTLY as it has been trained. If you use a red dot scoped, compensated 38 Super competition pistol and practice contantly with that equipment, neglecting your duty gun and holster, you might be in for a deadly surprize!

I do not teach sport shooting or sport shooting techniques. As my friend John Farnam often says, there is a huge difference between gamesmen and gunmen!

The "Range Effect" A Deadly Syndrome
By Ralph Mroz

The range is flat, open, unobstructed, well lit, safe, unidirectional, stress-free, and clear of distractions. The street, or wherever else you'll have to fight for your life, is not. Range targets are flat, static, facing head-on, quiet, non-personal, and non-threatening. The person trying to kill you isn't. So obviously, range training, no matter how "practical' or "tactical" is not real-world training. This is not a hypothesis, nor an opinion. It is a plain fact. You can shoot high-speed, low-drag drills all day against paper (or steel) targets and not touch the reality of a genuine encounter.

Three Stages:

We are stuck in the second of three stages of gun skills development. These three stages are:

Grounding in the basics:

Beginning fundamentals need to be developed at this first stage. Safety, basic gun handling, marksmanship, trigger control, sight alignment, etc. (No matter haw advanced we are, we can all use occasional brushing-up on these most basic of skills.)


Range drills - simple to complex:

Progressing from beginner-level bull-eye shooting in stage 1, it's common and prudent to move on to progressively more difficult range drills. Drills such as shooting from cover, while kneeling, while prone, weak-handed, while moving, one-handed, etc. It's here that shooting for speed as well as accuracy is introduced, as is shooting at multiple targets, decision targets, and so on.
Most of the training today-either police academy training and even at national-level schools, stop at this level. But while static shooting at targets can get ingeniously complex and difficult (look at any IPSC match), it's still just shooting at paper. 


Force-on-force scenarios:

This next level of training, the place that we logically ought to be aiming for, is to replicate as closely as possible the fights we'll be in. This kind of training requires the use of real guns (or something very similar) modified to fire non-lethal projectiles. Here, we're talking about targets that think, move, and shoot back! (Admittedly, even in a simulated force-on-force exercise, we don't duplicate the level of stress you get in a real fight - afterall, we know we're not going to get killed. But it's the closest thing we have available now) Stage 1 is where we all start. Stage 2 is where we develop useful skills and instinctive motor movements under stress. Stage 3 is where we learn to actually fight.

Each stage has a point of diminishing returns. No one would argue that refining marksmanship, or breath control, or trigger control in stage 1 past a certain point is meaningless in terms of practical survival skills. What we seem to have forgotten is that there's a point of diminishing returns in stage 2, too. Shortening a little time between A-zone doubles, or shaving small fractions of a second off a reload, or working on minute decreases in draw time, is increasingly irrelevant past a certain point.

Once we've reached that point, it's time to move on to stage 3 training. But today, few trainers and students move beyond this static-target, intermediate stage of training. Indeed, many trainers today seem to actively promote their student's retardation by indefinitely perpetuating the stay at stage 2.

Feeding the Marks:

Why? There are cynical and not-cynical reasons. Certainly few students are really ready for force-on-force encounters. Their skills just aren't there yet, or they don't posses the other attributes necessary in a fight: fitness, strength, speed (of body movement), empty-hand skills (most real encounters occur within touching distance), and just plain fighting spirit. Also, this is the stage where the gamesmen live (some, such as IPSC master-class competitors, at awesomely high levels), and many shooters are primarily interested-whether they admit it or not-in playing games. For most people, games are much more comfortable and much more fun than replicating a real-life encounter. That's fine, but we shouldn't confuse skill at games with fighting skill.

From a cynical point-of-view, trainers have a vested interest in keeping their paying customers at stage 2. By making the drills here ever more complex, and by making arbitrary standards increasingly difficult - way past the point of any likely practical necessity - they insure a continued supply of students striving to meet these goals. If they then add the lure of their own self-anointed badge of mastership - usually some title including the words "Combat" and "Master" - then the student is even more driven to accomplish these artificial and arbitrary objectives - and to keep on paying to learn at the master's feet.

This is an old con - I've seen it for the last 25 years in the martial arts. Most martial arts schools keep their students busy by endlessly practicing street-useless “katas” and ineffective "advanced techniques". They grant their badge of mastership - the black belt - to people who've never punched much more than empty air. Very few do full contact/full speed sparring. This is, afterall, just good business; realistic training doesn't make the instructor look as perfect as empty-air drills, and scares the marks - I mean the students - away.

Do I wish I could break multiple bricks with my bare hands, or score a 10-yard A-zone double tap in one second from the holster? Sure. But I'd much rather have spent the training time necessary to accomplish those goals in the ring getting hit and developing a reliable left hook, or in a "fun"-house learning how to shoot thinking opponents before they "kill" me. 


Are all trainers really this deceitful? No, but it is in their best interest to perpetuate - perhaps indefinitely - their students stay at stage 2. Not the least of the reasons is that so long as they can reliably out-perform their students on stage 2 artificial drills, they continue to look good and attract more students. By contrast, anyone who's ever participated in a force-on-force exercise knows that sometimes, no matter how good you are, you lose. Real life is harsh, and is mostly a matter of probabilities. I know that I can shave two-tenths of a second off my draw and fire time if I practice hard enough, but the only result I can be sure of if I pursue force-on-force training is that I'll lose somewhat less often.

The Range Effect:

All of this results in what I call the "range effect." That is, the creeping prevalence of artificial behaviors and skills into stage 2 training. This is exactly what happened in Japan to the old Budo martial arts. These were genuine inter-personal combat disciplines, with their training dictated by the realities of constant war. When peace came to Japan, these practical disciplines devolved into the "arts" we see today on every street corner, each as different as one sort of art can be from another, but all alike in their lack of realism.

We see the range effect in operation whenever a teacher insists that the "proper' way to execute a 180 degree turn is to pirouette on a toe, or when he (or she) explains in excruciating detail the exact way to perform a simple side-step. We see it when we are told that the "right" way to shoot is to isolate our upper bodies so as to eliminate any extraneous movement, and thus get the sights on target faster. (While that's true, and while I do get accurate shots off faster that way, if someone is trying to kill me, you can bet that my behind will be in motion!)

We see the range effect in an emphasis on stepping-back techniques as a response to close-in threats (see the chapter on Extremely Close Quarter Shooting video for the numerous fatal flaws in this technique.) We see it brought to ridiculous heights by subjecting stage 2 students to hostage targets in front of "shoot" targets. And so on, and so on. (If you think that you can really shoot a moving bad guy taking cover behind a moving hostage while you're moving, then try out for your local SWAT team as a designated entry marksman. It's irresponsible to even suggest this to anyone else! Hostage/bad-guy targets, which are perversely so much a main-stay of stage 2 training, have no place in the responsible training of most people.)

The range effect, the game mentality of too many shooters, the self-interest of trainers, and the humbling difficulty of truly realistic training, all combine to make stage 2 training self-perpetuating. But there's a faint trend developing in the right direction. We are starting to see some trainers move to force-on-force training. This will truly be the area to watch, explore, and research in the next few years. Lets just hope they don't invent some sort of competitive league - complete with a rule book and a board of directors - for it.

JTH:

--- Quote from: sjwsti on August 01, 2011, 08:07:25 PM ---At what point do my experiences of over more than a decade as an instructor stop being anectodes and morph into data? Over the last six years Ive trained (and continue to do so) with some of the best instructors in the industry, three separate SWAT teams and a very motivated and skilled group of locals.  Do I have to put it on a chart or have it published?
--- End quote ---
 
Nope.  But just as my experience has shown me something different---neither one of our experiences are significant enough on their own to actually be the basis of an informed opinion.


--- Quote ---I have had personal conversations with Henk Iverson about this very topic.
--- End quote ---
Snip Iverson's resume, which was impressive...

--- Quote ---http://www.striketactical.com/newsletter/?id=20&archive=1

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT SPORT SHOOTING IN GENERAL?

Henk Iverson: Sport shooting is just that, SPORT. Sport shooting has its place in our industry. I come from a sport shooting background, having been an IPSC shooter most of my police officer days. I represented the South African Police Service National IPSC Team and have SA Police National Colors for both open class as well as limited class.

We all love to shoot and IPSC taught me to shoot under pressure, in front of crowds of onlookers, in front of tough competitors. IPSC taught me to control adrenalin and use it to my advantage, even to this day.

As long as a sport shooter does not CONFUSE sport and proper training. Sport shooters need to know how the body reacts to a "survival adrenal dump" in a real life gunfight. When survival mode kicks in, your sub-concious mind takes over the fight, meaning your body will react EXACTLY as it has been trained. If you use a red dot scoped, compensated 38 Super competition pistol and practice contantly with that equipment, neglecting your duty gun and holster, you might be in for a deadly surprize!

I do not teach sport shooting or sport shooting techniques. As my friend John Farnam often says, there is a huge difference between gamesmen and gunmen!

--- End quote ---

You'll note that his conclusion is very different from yours?  You say that competition shooting will effectively get you killed.  (Yes? ---that it will cause you to have poor tactics, and that you shouldn't do it.)  He says that sport shooting has its place, "As long as a sport shooter does not CONFUSE sport and proper training. "  He then says "If you use a red dot scoped, compensated 38 Super competition pistol and practice contantly with that equipment, neglecting your duty gun and holster, you might be in for a deadly surprize!" ---which is completely true.  Unfortunately, it doesn't say that sport shooting will ingrain bad habit/tactics---it says that if you only practice with your competition race gun, you are in trouble.  Which I completely agree with. 

I like Mroz, have his book and read a lot of his stuff.  You'll notice that what he says agrees basically with Iverson---but just like Iverson, he says that improper training will get you in trouble (the "square range" problem) which is also true, but not supportive of what you have been saying. 

If you read Mroz carefully, what he is saying is that games (IPSC or just standard range drills) only go so far as to train you for self-defense purposes.  (Which makes sense.)  He then says to be truly prepared, SD students should go farther and go through FOF drills.  (Which makes sense.)  He says that many people STOP at the range/game stage, and consider themselves prepared, and that this is a bad thing.  (Which makes sense.)

He also says that playing the game/range drill is a good way to practice accuracy/speed.

But nowhere does either one of them say that merely playing the game will cause problems.  Iverson doesn't say that at all, and the farthest Mroz gets is telling people to be careful about instructors who only get you to the range drill/game stage, and then stop, keeping you there.  He says, "The range effect, the game mentality of too many shooters, the self-interest of trainers, and the humbling difficulty of truly realistic training, all combine to make stage 2 training self-perpetuating. " ----and I agree, that is a problem.  On the other hand, truly good realistic FOF training really hasn't been around for that long.  Kenneth Murray (basically the person who started really good FOF training) talks a lot about how many people don't really know how to safely run a FOF class, and discusses the history of FOF training and how it has changed/evolved over the years in his book.  Good stuff. 

FOF training is important, but I've said from the beginning that adrenaline-based scenario training is important.  Good thing several of us around here teach it.  (I believe you do, as do I.  Signal888---hmm.  Do those guys do FOF?  I don't recall.)

That's a digression.  Back to the point:  Mroz's point seems to be that stopping at the games point doesn't appropriately prepare you.  Iverson effectively said that same thing by saying that if all you do is games, you won't be prepared.  I can completely agree with that.

And still---they don't say that sport shooting will get you killed.  Treating it like self-defense WILL, but that is something different.

I like how Mroz says:  "Lets just hope they don't invent some sort of competitive league - complete with a rule book and a board of directors - for it. "   --let's hope not.  Of course, people play AirSoft and Paintball all the time in leagues, and many teenagers seem to think it makes them shooters.  [sigh]

Lastly---reading Iverson again, I note:  "having been an IPSC shooter most of my police officer days" ---so he didn't have a problem with SD tactics and being a sport shooter.  Again---he just says you can't let your sport training be your tactical training.

Makes sense to me.  (And Ernest Langdon, too.  http://www.theppsc.org/Staff/Langdon/Ernest.htm )

Again---I try not to make my decisions based on a small data set.  There are lots of police officers, military folks, trainers, instructors---and many, many, MANY of them don't see a problem with sport shooting.  Matter of fact, your two article authors don't either.  The Army doesn't, otherwise the Army Marksmanship Unit wouldn't spend so much time doing all the different USPSA events that they do. 

Opinions vary.  But a lot of trainers with much more experience than you or I don't see the problem. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page