General Categories > Information Arsenal

Marc MacYoung on training

<< < (2/3) > >>

bullit:
We're on the same page brother....

SeanN:
I would argue that there is a significant difference between sports competition in martial arts and in firearms. The main difference being, in martial arts competition, many different techniques are banned due to being "too dangerous" for use (which makes sense, for example: breaking bones in a competition isn't really acceptable). This would, over time, train you to not use these techniques even though they may be the quickest way to end a violent encounter. This is obviously undesirable.

The only thing that's banned in firearms competition is doing unsafe things, which, well, you shouldn't be doing in 99% of "real life" situations anyway. If you're flagging people with your muzzle unnecessarily in any situation, that's not good. You aren't using the firearm in any less effective way, especially if you compete with your carry/self-defense gun or one exactly like it. And the vast majority of self-defense shooting situations simply require a quick draw and hits on target. Which competitive shooting definitely helps you learn.

I could see this argument for people that shoot in Open division, for example, where they have a large compensator, an optic, a hair trigger, and a "race gun," which is generally impractical for carry or self-defense use. But even that still helps you with your shooting skills. And heck, for all I know, that IS their home defense gun.

There's also the argument out there that competition doesn't help you at all because you walk the stage and learn the targets ahead of time and thus it's nothing like a real life situation. I agree that it is nothing like a real life situation, however, reading Paul Howe's book, Leadership and Training for the Fight, he discusses how the most successful tactical teams (whether military or law enforcement) have a set of conditions and pre-set reactions to them. They drill and practice performing these tactics many times to get them engrained. In a way, they are "walking the stage" before it occurs. Sure, the bad guys are not all going to be in the same place, but he says to setup a single method of movement for all situations where you're approaching a possibly fortified enemy. Whether it's a high-risk warrant, a search warrant, a hostage situation, or a barricaded bad guy. I would argue that walking the stage, setting up a plan of engagement, and executing it is actually, in a way, training your mind the same way military and law enforcement guys do it for real life engagements. Everything should be automatic. You want to reduce the decision-making you're required to make in a life-or-death situation to the minimum. Just like you want to reduce the decision-making you're required to perform in a competition, because making decisions as you go will make you significantly slower.

Is competition a replacement for tactical and/or self-defense training? Absolutely not. But it certainly helps you build and test your shooting skills, which are invaluable in any form of firearms self-defense situation.

My opinion entirely.

Thanks for sharing the quote.

dcjulie:
I'd offer the argument that many people do not and will not go out and "train" for self-defense with firearms but they will go out and shoot in competitions.  I figure trigger time in sport is better than no trigger time.

JTH:
Marc says some good stuff.  I let him know that you posted some of his material here, hopefully he'll comment on it, and on your extension of it (from martial arts to firearms).  I invited him to do so, but he may not have time, however.

I will say that while I completely agree with Marc regarding the way many martial arts are taught (that's been a pet peeve of mine ever since I started teaching martial arts, and Marc MacYoung and Rory Miller have an excellent set of comments/books/videos on the topic), I almost completely disagree with your extension of poor martial arts training into firearms training and practice.

Because in that simple change of context, you are talking about completely different things. 

Before I continue, I note that Shawn said:  "I'm not interested in a debate either, its been beat to death. "  ---if you aren't interested in a debate, then you probably shouldn't post something in a public forum that you know other people disagree with.  :)

Poor martial arts training, as Marc discusses it, talks about improper mechanics and application of those mechanics, and also talks about tactics and choices.  The vast majority of his commentary discussed how improper mechanics means no power (and thus, no use in physical altercations).

All of his comments are certainly demonstrably true in terms of martial arts training and physical altercations.

However, you generalize from this to shooting---and there, this falls apart.  Because the mechanics of basic shooting don't change like the mechanics of martial arts do, at least not to that extent.  If you can draw and get accurate shots on target quickly, it doesn't really matter where you've learned it--on a square range, in your backyard, from the military, or in a tactical training class.  Getting the gun out, getting it on target, and getting shots on target, and doing it all quickly IS the measure of that set of mechanics.  As such, objective measurements of this are equal no matter where or why you do so.

This is different from martial arts--because in a self-defense situation, you need to cover yourself and stop the attacker using the mechanics of technique, which requires speed, timing, and power.  In point-sparring in a class, or practicing against air on your own, techniques that work (particularly in point-sparring) do not need power. (There is no penalty for lack of power, and there is no indication of lack of power.) As such, a specific mechanic component of technique can be missing from martial arts practice, and will never be known until that person gets thumped in a self-defense situation. (This is also true of timing and speed in some respects, but the easiest to see is power.)

In a shooting situation---if you are missing any aspect of shooting mechanics, you don't get a good draw nor accurate shots on target.  You can't get away from this.  As such, there is no gap here with respect to mechanics as there is in martial arts practice.

From this, your assertion that the quote from Marc regarding martial arts is equally as applicable to shooting is obviously false.  In a shooting situation, WE don't provide the power.  We get the gun out, put it on target, and get multiple shots on target quickly.  Lots of different things test our ability to do this--and they include a requirement for all of those mechanics to be in place.  This makes it very different from martial arts practice, wherein many schools never test ALL aspects of mechanics, merely some of them.

As such, when you highlight: "If you train people to 'fight' they will fight. If you train them to engage in sports competition/unrealistic point sparring, that's what they will try to apply in any situation."

...it is completely true in martial arts.  But it is only partially true in self-defense training with firearms.    The ONLY area in which it is true is with regard to tactics--and as anyone who has looked at self-defense situations with firearms over time knows, MOST by far are solved by seeing the situation, getting the gun out quickly, and if necessary, firing accurate shots on target.

Matter of fact, I recall that when I once took a class with Shawn (Advanced Pistol I), what he told the entire class was that the top issue most people had with using a gun for self-defense WASN'T a lack of tactics, wasn't an issue with gear, wasn't a whole host of things---it was an inability to get accurate shots on target. 

Read the Armed Citizen.  Read about self-defense shootings.  And you'll see---in by far the majority of situations, being able to get the gun out quickly and rapidly put shots on target was the only thing necessary to succeed.

Now---I'm not saying that tactical training is unnecessary.  (Claude Werner had an interesting discussion of this the other day, though.)  I firmly believe that an understanding of choices, practice of awareness, and scenario training (including force-on-force) can make a HUGE difference in a person's ability to defend themselves.

However, I think just looking at the difference in the mechanics of effective technique, comparing martial arts physical movement to firearms physical movement, makes it obvious that Marc's point, while completely valid for empty-hand self-defense, does NOT hold when transferred to shooting, particularly with respect to competition shooting.

Matter of fact, it is quite the opposite.  If your competition gun is similar to your self-defense gun, and you practice hard for action competition shooting, your ability to draw quickly, shoot quickly, and shoot accurately will be increased.  (If you don't believe that statement, then go to a competition and compare your ability to draw and shoot quickly, and be accurate.  Try it.)  And THOSE mechanics will hold true for any use of a firearm.

As such, adding on training for awareness and tactics will add to your abilities--which are already high because the gun-handling skills already are pushed to high levels.  (I note also that something often said is that the better your gun-handling skills, the less of your brain is taken up by using those skills, and the more of your brain is available for thinking about other things---like tactics.)

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it:  competition makes you a better shooter.  If you are a better shooter, according to Shawn, you'll be better at self-defense, because getting accurate shots on target quickly is the top main issue most people have with firearms self-defense.

Don't agree?  Ok, how about this---can you agree that mechanically speaking, getting the gun out quickly and getting accurate shots on target is important?  Yes?  Then why wouldn't a Steel Challenge match test you?  After all, that is ALL that competition is about!  Practicing for it will work on your mechanical skills of draw, transitions, recoil management, and accuracy--all while pushing your speed.

Marc's commentary is mostly about mechanics.  And there is a significant difference between testing open-hand mechanics and testing shooting mechanics. 

His commentary regarding live training (for stress) is spot-on.  However, does ALL your training consist of stress training?  I doubt it.  (If you never spend time on mechanics, your mechanics will suck.)  Shooting competitions are tests, they aren't training.  They test of shooting skills---mechanics.  For many people, shooting competitions give people the impetus to train more on their own time, and increase their shooting skills.  (Which, obviously, increases self-defense ability.)  Does it cover all aspects of self-defense training?  Of course not!  But people who compete DO spend more time learning shooting mechanics, which again, is what Shawn said is the largest problem people have with self-defense.

But then again, force-on-force stress training doesn't cover all aspects either.  You need to train skills, train tactics, AND train awareness and stress reactions.  Competitions give you tests on shooting skills, and give many people motivation to increase their shooting skills.

And getting shots on target accurately and quickly is important.

So no---Marc's comments don't hold for the mechanics of shooting, and therefore I don't think the comparison of sport sparring and sport shooting is valid.  It seems obvious to me that people who are good shooters in competition will be good shooters outside of competition, and adding training on tactics and awareness puts them far above people who train mechanics on their own (without comparison with others) and add training on tactics and awareness.

After all---Shawn, didn't the company who trained you have tests for you?  Shooting tests?  I recall you being proud of how you did on the Strategos shooting skills tests, and how we did one in class--and it was all about shooting mechanics.  How are those different from shooting competitions from a mechanical perspective?

AAllen:
See here is a discussion where I can agree with everyone, and yet no one.  If done properly and in combination all of these things in both martial arts and firearms work together to make for better self defense responses.

In martial arts the one step, or the set someone throws a punch and the other person does some pre planned response is to teach putting together combinations, when shooting do instructors teach you to shoot once and put your gun away.  No they have you continue to fire, in a controlled manner, until the threat is neutralized.  Teaching martial arts students to use combinations is the same thing.  Is sport sparring the same thing as firearms competitions, no, but again it tests your ability to think and react, sometimes the tactics and tools used are limited for safety (ever have a gun class that used blue guns or barrel blocks?) but should be designed to induce stress and force a student to react to a problem and look for their openings.

While there are many differences there are also similarities, but they are not so similar that one system can be used to replace or draw direct conclusions about the other.  In both cases the quality of the instructor and what the instructor is teaching you to do is more important than anything else.  A good instructor will be challenging you physically, mentally and in your mechanics; all of these things will be worked together to give you the best opportunity to fight and survive.

A poor instructor, well you can win some trophies for competing in the games.  Yes that can even happen in shooting games if the trainer is not preparing you mentally to use the skills that you are using in compition for self defense.  I also agree that sparring does nothing to test the real use of power being delivered on target in martial arts, but does using the race guns truly test the students reactions with a common self defense firearm.  Differing tests must be used for some of these things, for fun, for convenience and for safety.

The competitions are a test of a piece of the skillset you should be acquiring, not the end all of the training.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page