NFOA MEMBERS FORUM

General Categories => Information Arsenal => Topic started by: sjwsti on April 24, 2013, 01:48:09 PM

Title: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: sjwsti on April 24, 2013, 01:48:09 PM: Good little read on self defense training from a guy who has been in a few scrapes.

Someone asked why so many martial artists 'fall apart' under stress. Here's my reply.
****

A big part of the problem comes from marketing in a world where society has accepted the premise 'violence is bad.'

In order to stay in business one must claim what you're teaching is 'self-defense.' That seriously waters down the understanding of what SD is. Then you have to turn it into a fun game -- a game that is safe, but exciting (sport). Often what is called sparring is pathetic, but even the more macho full contact stuff is still sports. (Watered down for the safety of the participants and to draw it out for the entertainment of the audience.) Once someone is 'in' one of these rugged manly arts, then you can secretly admit it's a 'fighting system.' But then it becomes an esprit de corps and 'I'm such a bad ass for being a secret fighter.'

Yeah right -- as opposed to us assholes out there getting punched as part of our job by people we have to say no to. (Folk who also recognize the two greatest inventions ever are the wetvac and power-washers.)

The nature of the 'sparring' has a lot to do with the problem of falling apart. In the weakest form of 'one step' there's one person who does what I call a 'seminar punch' (stopping six inches away and freezes) Then the other person goes to town with six or seven pulled punches and kicks. This is very common in systems whose mechanics suck. Often such systems then 'go uptown' with point sparring. This kind of sparring teaches crappy habits. Again the light contact doesn't reveal the flaws of the system -- and usually these devolve into kick boxing matches for white middle class folks.

I've also seen 'classic' one step -- which is both an adrenal stress inducer and something that will drive your nose through the back of your skull. You scale it to push the envelop of the person, but you tell them what's coming and they decide which 'technique' they're going to use. Then with no tricks, you come in as hard and fast as they can handle. Failure to perform on their part means they get nailed.

Now you're talking learning to function adrenal stress and ingraining mechanics. But most importantly you're showing the person's Lizard brain that this **** works in a pinch. This is critical because if the Lizard brain doesn't trust it to work, it ain't going to do it! (There's your reverting to flailing.)

Then come's Rory's version of one-step which is just chocked full of yummy goodness about learning to think on your feet and recognize opportunity.

Here's another problem. ****ty mechanics will tell.

That's a book unto itself but there are two main ways this problem manifests. First is the 'We do not rise to the level of our expectations, but fall to the level of our training.' If you have bad mechanics to start, under adrenaline they go to hell in a handbasket. Now admittedly, even if you have good mechanics the first time you get hit with adrenalin things are going to get ****ed up. But that's a matter of learning how to 'surf' the adrenalin wave. I liken this to learning how to swim in a pool, then getting into ocean, with waves, currents and ****. It's still swimming, but the conditions have changed. If you're a bad swimmer, you're in trouble.

The other problem is the number of people who say the martial arts are crap they don't work in a REAL fight because adrenaline wipes it all out. I consider this like saying 'You don't need to know how to swim because those waves make it useless." Usually people who reject the idea of good mechanics replace it with physical fitness, speed, aggression and some ****ty mechanics from some bad ass 'fighting system.' And then pat themselves on the back about how smart/cool/awesome they are for knowing this 'truth.' Which is fine and dandy until they meet someone who is bigger, stronger, more aggressive or who knows what they are doing.

So you got a confluence of issues coming together. A big problem I see with many groups is that -- while all aspects are necessary for effectiveness -- often people take only one aspect, over-emphasize it, hold it up and say "This is the ONLY thing that matters!"

Well no. All these different elements matter. They especially matter when you're training folks to apply this stuff outside the safety of the school and or sports ring.

Personally I don't let my guys 'spar' in the sports context. Yet every attack in every drill they aim for 'over in three.' The complexity there is that 'three' the dude flying away from you (towards a door or over furniture)? You two have broken contact and are eyeing each other in the 'Awww ****, I done treed myself a bad un'? He's down on the ground and you kneeling on him in a lock? Or is he laying there broken at your feet? Or is he dead at your feet.

I tell you this because the goal of the training largely dictates the outcome. If you train people to 'fight' they will fight. If you train them to engage in spots competition/unrealistic point sparring, that's what they will try to apply in any situation. Personally, I train my guys to end it -- the question is how much force is it going to take to do that?
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: bullit on April 24, 2013, 02:35:44 PM: Thus my reason for carrying a gun(s).....
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: sjwsti on April 24, 2013, 03:06:07 PM: Quote from: bullit on April 24, 2013, 02:35:44 PM
Thus my reason for carrying a gun(s).....

IMO everything he said applies to training with a gun as well. Learn and practice good fundamentals and then learn to apply those fundamentals against a live opponent in high stress force on force scenarios. Scenarios that will activate your fight or flight response, your amygdala, or lizard brain, as Marc calls it. This is how you condition proper responses.

Whether you are fighting with your hands or fighting with a gun, its still fighting. "the goal of the training largely dictates the outcome. 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."

- Shawn
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: bullit on April 24, 2013, 03:39:00 PM: Quote from: sjwsti on April 24, 2013, 03:06:07 PM
IIf 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."[/b]

I'm totally on board with the concept ... have lots of respect for MacYoung and familiar with his work with ACLDN.

Not going to comment on the "sports competition" thingy as it opens too many cans of worms. Have my opinions on it though..... :)
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: sjwsti on April 24, 2013, 04:15:40 PM: Quote from: bullit on April 24, 2013, 03:39:00 PM
Not going to comment on the "sports competition" thingy as it opens too many cans of worms. Have my opinions on it though..... :)

Im not interested in a debate either, its been beat to death. Just offering another point of view from someone who has some very unique, and extensive, experience.

- Shawn
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: bullit on April 24, 2013, 04:39:10 PM: We're on the same page brother....
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: SeanN on April 26, 2013, 12:40:59 PM: 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.
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: dcjulie on April 26, 2013, 01:45:02 PM: 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.
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: JTH on April 27, 2013, 02:13:30 PM: 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?
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: AAllen on April 29, 2013, 01:47:17 PM: 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.
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: JTH on April 29, 2013, 09:38:25 PM: I'll give a better response when I have more time, but for now I wanted to respond to this point:

Quote from: AAllen on April 29, 2013, 01:47:17 PM
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.

You know, I hear that type of comment all the time, and I don't really understand it. I mean, I know that some people DO shoot tricked-out raceguns in USPSA competitions...but:

The PRODUCTION division is not only the fastest growing division nationally, it happens to be the one of the (continually) largest divisions locally. And in Production, we don't use raceguns. Matter of fact, on a local level, most people use stock full-size duty pistols. (We aren't ALLOWED to use raceguns. Nor are we allowed to use race holsters.)

Yes, some people fiddle with them a bit more than simply leaving them stock--but there is a limit on what can be done in this division. As an example---my carry gun IS a former competition gun of mine. I used to shoot a Gen 4 G17 in Production division, and for that I just changed out the sights, smoothed the trigger out (both things that everyone should do with their Glock no matter how you plan to use it because the stock sights suck and the trigger needs work) and changed out the recoil spring for one that made it shoot flatter.

That's it. And you know what? Works great for self-defense AND competition. Won 1st Master at several major matches with it in competition. Just as reliable for daily carry.

So, please, folks--don't give me the "but race gun!" excuse. You don't have to shoot a race gun. If you do---have fun! You know, for driving, some people like to drag race instead of road rally---I don't believe we tell those people that it'll harm their defensive driving capability, do we? It just doesn't add to it. Race guns don't hurt anything, as long as you also practice with your defensive choice of weapon.

As for Production division--I currently shoot a G34 in competition. Perfectly good home defense gun. (A bit too long for me to carry.) Changed out the sights, smoothed the trigger, different recoil spring---just like my carry gun. (I did put in a KKM barrel because the Glock factory barrel wasn't grouping small enough at 50 yards, and it made a significant difference in accuracy, but that isn't going to change the reliability with factory defense ammo, and doesn't make it any different for self-defense purposes.)

Don't tell me that I'm shooting a competition race gun, and that it won't prepare me for shooting a "real defense weapon". This is a real defense weapon---and competition tests my shooting skills with it.

Doesn't EVERYONE change out their Glock sights? If not, why not? Do you like having plastic sights that shear off given minimal trauma, and a rear sight that slides to the side if you bash it on something, and that isn't tough enough to use to rack the slide?

Doesn't everyone smooth out their trigger? WHY NOT? The stock Glock trigger pretty much sucks. Sure, you can shoot it decently--but give it the 25-cent trigger job and a minus connector, and it'll feel like a completely different gun, which you WILL be able to shoot more accurately. And don't tell me "the minus connector makes it into a hair trigger!" ---seriously?! No, it doesn't. Put it on a trigger scale sometime. It brings it down to 4 or 4.5 pounds. This is a perfectly decent self-defense trigger, and you will be able to shoot it better.

THIS is a racegun:
(http://www.plate-tacular.com/RedOne.jpg)

Here is what *I* shoot:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8257/8693878991_df67a2bded_z.jpg)

(I'm wearing my multigun gear, so ignore the AR mag and the basepads on the pistol mags. In Production division, we shoot with standard magazines.)
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: AAllen on April 30, 2013, 08:20:45 AM: I'm sorry I think my comment was taken a little more broad than it was meant to be, yes many people compete with normal self defense guns and can be quite successful. But there are also people in martial arts that study in a self defense based system that go to tournaments and are also very successful. It's not because the system is necessarily so great, its because the trainer teaches fundamentals and how to build upon that. A good instructor and lots of practice makes the shooter and the martial artist better in self defense and in competition.
Title: Re: Marc MacYoung on training
Post by: JTH on April 30, 2013, 10:38:07 AM: Quote from: AAllen on April 30, 2013, 08:20:45 AM
I'm sorry I think my comment was taken a little more broad than it was meant to be, yes many people compete with normal self defense guns and can be quite successful. But there are also people in martial arts that study in a self defense based system that go to tournaments and are also very successful. It's not because the system is necessarily so great, its because the trainer teaches fundamentals and how to build upon that. A good instructor and lots of practice makes the shooter and the martial artist better in self defense and in competition.

No argument with the point in italics. However, the original contention was that competition shooting was just like competition martial arts, and my point was that there was a significant difference---specifically, that competitions in martial arts do not test all fundamentals (the specific example I gave was power) and that competition shooting DOES test all fundamental shooting skills.

That isn't a function of the instructor. And while students who learn martial arts from good instructors can also do well in point-sparring tournaments, that isn't a function of the tournament--that is a function of how the individual practices. (After all, a person can do very well in a point-sparring tournament without good fundamentals, too.)

In a similar fashion, for shooting, how the person practices will be the determining factor. Except the main difference is that in competition shooting, you still have to have good fundamentals to do well. If you don't have good fundamentals, your scores will show that directly.

I also note that "yes many people compete with normal self defense guns and can be quite successful" while true, it is a little misleading. It makes it seem as if people compete with normal guns against raceguns, and they can still do all right---and what is actually true is that there is an entire division devoted specifically to full-size duty pistols who compete solely against each other.

In other words---people who dismiss competitions because people are supposedly using raceguns are dismissing the second-largest division in USPSA. And in Nebraska. (Some days, Limited has more people, some days, Production has more people. Limited has the edge slightly, but not always.)

In terms of people who are classified (meaning they shoot fairly regularly in that division, on average), here is what it looks like both on a National and on a local level:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8543/8696371672_98b6349949_z.jpg)

The extreme racegun division (Open) is quite a bit smaller than the Production division. (Single Stack isn't included because USPSA doesn't have records by state for that division, for some weird reason. Nationally, Single Stack is at 12%, and locally is it probably similar--between revolver and L-10.)

So---in many martial arts competitions, not all technique fundamentals are tested. In a shooting competition, all shooting fundamentals ARE tested--and for many people, they are tested using perfectly normal duty/carry weapons.