The role of in person classes in training versus online coaching and self-video.

[JCN]

So it's no secret that vcdgrips and I differ greatly in our opinions on training.

My hypothesis:
Using online resources from experts, self-video analysis and thoughtful and longitudinal practice, someone can get quite competent at handgun and long gun shooting.

Without in-person training.


I think I've proven that it's possible. To take that a step further, online coaching from someone competent at a high level who designs and critiques your specific performance a la SWYNTS is a VERY effective platform for improvement. In a way that people doing traditional classes and in person work don't get in a group setting.


The latest disagreement comes from:




You wont do it in public because on some level you have to know how utterly ridiculous it sounds that you would not be a better shooter for having trained with a world class one.

Only you are so special that you could not be made made better by live training with a world class shooter. (Or anyone frankly by your own prior admission.) No where else in the bodily kinesthetic world is this true at the peaks levels in any sport but you are the ONLY one.

You continue to post patently stupid shit in public, you will be called on in public to the extent that the moderator(s) do not edit or redirect the thread.


As a reply to my


To your comment:

I'd be happy to discuss if you're willing to discuss rather than just stick to your own preconceived hypothesis.

I do not think I would be meaningfully better of a pistol shooter if I had trained in person with Rob or JJ.

If you don't accept my hypothesis then there's no point in discussing further.

I can tell you WHY I believe that and then you can choose to reject my hypothesis, that's fair.

So I think I'm in a special situation but it's a proof of concept. I'm not saying it's the best for everyone, just that it's very possible in the proper situation.

So I'm happy to discuss if you're willing to accept my reply as possible: I wouldn't meaningfully be a better pistol shooter than I am had I spent time training in person with Rob or JJ.



So I'll explain my position. I don't expect vcdgrips to actually read what I'm writing, but maybe someone else can benefit from it.




1. Most of the gains in shooting comes from practice with good feedback.
2. Most people benefit greatly from external feedback.
3. Introspective students can supplement the external feedback with slow motion video analysis, especially if they have a good basic physics background.
4. Having a gold standard to compare it to is very helpful. That's where online programs and videos come into play.
5. I used videos of gold standard shooters as my model when designing my shooting stance and mechanics.
6. I would be better if I had a world class coach.
7. Spending one hour with a world class coach might have improved my skill by 0.0001% compared to what I'm doing because most of the improvement is in the work.
8. I've had world class coaches for music lessons and without the work, it doesn't go very far. Even on an ongoing coaching basis with hundreds of hours of in person work.

So basically it comes down to putting the work in and having specific coaching available when you hit a plateau is important. With a critical self analysis eye and video, you can sometimes be your own coach. That's a Charlie Perez quote from his book. That being a GM is about being a GM student of yourself.

There it is. Video learning can replace didactic in person learning. And hands on skill training in a class is meaningless without the longitudinal work outside of class.

So would I be better for training with Rob or JJ?

Yes.

Would I be meaningfully better? I don't think by much. YMMV.

As an interesting hypothesis test, I am now at the point where I'm starting to take classes and it'll be interesting to see what additional things I can learn.

But what does "meaningfully" better mean. Will one hour of time with Rob or JJ improve my shooting by 10%? Doubtful at this level. 5%? probably not.

1% maybe? If I could spend an hour and be 1% better I would totally do it.

But realistically at this level I would expect maybe 0.05% improvement or less from 1 hour of coaching.

We shall see! I'm going to test the hypothesis.

[Mark D]

I don't have a dog in the fight, but JCN I think you're something of an outlier in terms of your ability to self-assess.

[vcdgrips]

JCN

If you are going to quote a Private Message Thread that you started to me don’t cherry pick and set up strawmen like you would only train with someone world class for just one hour. I call BS.



If you going to quote me out of a private message thread that you started to me and I responded back to you privately-Then quote me as I opined:


[JCN] “I wonder how many educational/professional opportunities you have lost out on without you even knowing you were in consideration because the book on you is:

Smart as a whip
Very talented
Works super hard

BUT you cannot TEACH him a thing…just ask him.”

Edited to Add- For the record, training does not have to be a)Video or b) in person or c) self taught. It can in fact be d) all of the above.

[JCN]

I don't have a dog in the fight, but JCN I think you're something of an outlier in terms of your ability to self-assess.

I totally agree with that (and said as such) and what works for me won’t necessarily work for others.

But the concept of it CAN help. In the SWYNTS thread you can see how forcing people to video their runs has them learning how to critique themselves. You can see people learning how to learn in that thread which is huge.

And that’s why people are noticing big improvement where they had previously plateaued.

[GJM]

Being very smart can be a blessing and a curse.

[JCN]

JCN

If you are going to quote a Private Message Thread that you started to me don’t cherry pick and set up strawmen like you would only train with someone world class for just one hour. I call BS.



If you going to quote me out of a private message thread that you started to me and I responded back to you privately-Then quote me as I opined:


[JCN] “I wonder how many educational/professional opportunities you have lost out on without you even knowing you were in consideration because the book on you is:

Smart as a whip
Very talented
Works super hard

BUT you cannot TEACH him a thing…just ask him.”

That's why I was going to try and explain this to you offline, but you just rabidly foamed at the mouth. Your hypothesis was wrong. I don't mind at all posting this in public and that's the point. I don't think adding that part you added helps the discussion at hand, but happy to address it.


1. Train for an hour.

In a full day class with Rob or JJ, there will be didactic parts (that I can get online from their courses and videos).
There will be group at the line exercises. Those are replaced by video self-analysis.
Then you might, if you're lucky get a total of 1 hour of Rob or JJ intently focused on YOUR performance and giving you SPECIFIC feedback.
Probably less.

Generally speaking if there are 8 people in class and the class is 8 hours.... you'll get less than one hour of 1-on-1 time.

Also keep in mind for me, if I go fly somewhere for a class that's a day I'm not working or a day away from family. So that costs much more.

So realistically, If I trained for a day or weekend with Rob or JJ unless I hire them as a personal 1 on 1 coach, I'm getting less than an hour of their specific time.

If you say that one hour of Rob or JJ time costs me $5000 in lost wages, travel and family time and that one hour improves my skill by 0.05%... is it worth it?

Doing more than 10 hours of that isn't going to be viable and my hypothesis was just spending the time working on my shooting would have more of a benefit.




2. Regarding opportunities lost.... No doubt my personality and preferences caused me to lose out of opportunity.

I'm okay with that because I have a job and family I love, no debt, fat bank account, garage full of Porsches and objective performance in my enjoyable hobbies.

How much more would or should I want?


Same thing with the shooting. In my spare time, I got pretty good at shooting. What additional utility would in person training get me?

[JCN]

Being very smart can be a blessing and a curse.

Definitely a double edged sword.

[vcdgrips]

Mac Davis may have said it best re JCN.

https://youtu.be/0WTrMuZOZvM

[JCN]

Edited to Add- For the record, training does not have to be a)Video or b) in person or c) self taught. It can in fact be d) all of the above.

YES! Absolutely.

Now take the relative benefits of the different phases when done well or done poorly.
If you were going to remove or compromise one, which would you compromise.

Let's break that down into the pinnacle of what it means.

VIDEO: You get the words of wisdom and demonstration from the masters. JJ, Rob, Shannon, Max, Ben. You get their didactic best presentation boiled down into their most succinct and polished verbage.

IN PERSON: You get the VIDEO content live but you only get to watch it once and can't slow it down. You get one perspective but not the chance to assimilate multiple expert opinions. You get a critical eye helping you with gross errors but you might not be able to see or recognize what it is you're doing from first person perspective. Some good classes I hear use cameras and slow motion to help.

This is a good option for people who don't self-assess at a high level. It's a necessary option for most people.

SELF TAUGHT: Pure self taught would be in a vacuum with no input from anyone else. That's not what I did. The improvement part would be self analysis using tools and metrics. Cameras and slow motion and mirrors are useful tools.



So I started with VIDEO and added SELF-TAUGHT to that and skipped IN PERSON because I didn't hit a plateau.

I think that's a viable alternative to someone who does IN PERSON but doesn't learn how to learn and cannot supplement with SELF TAUGHT in between classes.

[JAD]

Being very smart can be a blessing and a curse.
My wife calls it ‘wrapping around the bell curve.” It gets leveled at me sometimes.

[Clusterfrack]

I’m a big fan of one-on-one in-person training. Most of the classes I’ve taken were 90% learning how to train and why, and 10% 1-on-1 teaching me how to improve. If I could have a full time coach, that would be great. But I can’t, so I self-diagnose, and get help from friends in person and online.

The success of the PSTG Gold level shows that online training can provide a decent proxy for in person coaching.

[DDTSGM]

I think that it might be important to determine the motivation of this mythical everyman we seem to be discussing.

How much of a person's ego is wrapped up in the task being instructed is important. Is it going to crush their self-esteem if they don't achieve mastery?

What do they perceive as mastery?

To me, this is a major determining factor in how much mental horsepower they can and will devote to the process.

This, again, in my opinion, is why some students excel in problem-based learning and other's founder.

JCN is obviously a PBL savant, at least in firearms, and it may be hard for him to understand that others don't have the drive and mental HP that he does.

The most telling argument he makes for everyman is the observation that in person you generally get one or two shots at absorbing the info, video allows you to isolate and repeat pertinent aspects.

Performing self-video diagnostics is difficult unless you have a pretty sound knowledge of the subject.

So, IMO, for the average joe, a combination of different techniques works best.

[Sal Picante]

Using online resources from experts, self-video analysis and thoughtful and longitudinal practice, someone can get quite competent at handgun and long gun shooting without in-person training.


I agree quite a bit - we live in a time where the information is so readily available - but I think I'll discuss one thing here...



7. Spending one hour with a world class coach might have improved my skill by 0.0001% compared to what I'm doing because most of the improvement is in the work.

But realistically at this level I would expect maybe 0.05% improvement or less from 1 hour of coaching.


I'm a good shooter, but spending 2 days on the range with Eric, listening to discussions with other shooters/etc was a big catalyst.
I look at my performance from Florida State Match as proof of that.

Something changed in my sequencing of the tasks, not my raw ability performing the fundamentals, that lead to a ~5-10% increase in performance.

If I really think about it, the rate of skills/performance acquisition isn't linear. Sometimes the improvements come in leaps.

Should you consider live training? Probably.
Should you do online training? Probably.
Should you train? Definitely.

[JHC]

I agree quite a bit - we live in a time where the information is so readily available - but I think I'll discuss one thing here...



I'm a good shooter, but spending 2 days on the range with Eric, listening to discussions with other shooters/etc was a big catalyst.
I look at my performance from Florida State Match as proof of that.

Something changed in my sequencing of the tasks, not my raw ability performing the fundamentals, that lead to a ~5-10% increase in performance.

If I really think about it, the rate of skills/performance acquisition isn't linear. Sometimes the improvements come in leaps.

Should you consider live training? Probably.
Should you do online training? Probably.
Should you train? Definitely.

I think you'll know the answer. Didn't Ben Stoeger go from zero in 2005 to winning national titles on his own independent study and vast amounts of work? I thought so but not sure. And a current trainer doesn't exactly say that on his "About" page. :D

[GJM]

There isn't much I am absolutely sure about. Something I am sure about, is shooters that think learning only comes from in person classes or never comes from in person classes are wrong.

Les, your 5-10 percent in a particular match may have been real, but I would bet attending a two day of class didn't do that.

[LukeNCMX]

Shooting can be learned inductively and thus remotely. Stoeger and his whole approach (high level explanation followed by specific drills and careful focus) is proof of how successful this style of learning can be.

Alternatively, if you appreciate an extremely detailed explanation with numerous props and live demos to put the correct idea of a technique in your head, then something like TPC's material can be a huge jump start in the right direction.

I appreciate and learn a lot from both.

Ultimately I think in-person classes biggest benefit is for the right people at the right point in their journey it can be a big shortcut.

Also, nothing has the same gravity as watching a high level shooter rip through a drill or stage in-person to re-frame what is possible in a student's mind.

[mizer67]

I've taken my share of in-person classes and come away mostly wanting. Not that there are not nuggets to be had, but it's few and far between given the time, expense and travel. When you have a 1:6 or 1:8 shooter to instructor ratio, you're likely to get even less personal attention than the %'s dictate if you're in the top ~quartile of the class.

I'm not pretentious enough to think that I can't benefit from 1:1 time with a competent coach from time to time, but I'm not convinced classes with 12 or 15 other people on the line are the optimal way to access that knowledge. Private training sessions may be a better use of time, either through video, live or a combination. Or at least that's the conclusion I've drawn from my experiences.

Classes teach you how to learn, or sometimes new concepts, but usually it all comes down to repetition afterwards to ingrain what you've learned anyway so...there will always be an element of individual, dedicated practice and an ability to self-assess to reach high levels of competence.

[rob_s]

There are so many factors to performance at any physical activity that extend way beyond how you train or who you train with.

To start with, natural ability and the mental (disorder? Grit? Determination? Disability?) to put I the work mean more than just about anything else imo.

And frankly, the people that have those two attributes are generally completely blind to what it takes for someone without them to get there.

Additionally, there is so much more to why a class might benefit one guy or not another than just whether or not classes are the only way to excel. Time commitments, dedication, *gasp* !fun!, “osmosis”, range availability, etc. all play a factor. Some antisocial type-a weird ass may not benefit at all while a social butterfly with no decent local range options may get a lot out of it.

Between these two, I don’t know why people keep engaging in these arguments. One guy got awesome sitting alone in his basement after his shift at Arby’s and eventually got kicked out of his game of choice? Fucking awesome. Another guy took 30 classes over 5 years and only got to “Expert” or whatever? Who cares?

[JCN]

There are so many factors to performance at any physical activity that extend way beyond how you train or who you train with.

To start with, natural ability and the mental (disorder? Grit? Determination? Disability?) to put I the work mean more than just about anything else imo.

And frankly, the people that have those two attributes are generally completely blind to what it takes for someone without them to get there.



I'm going to disagree with the above and please, please read with an open mind because that's the reason to discuss this in the first place.

1. Most physical activities have a large mental component and it's the mental component that limits most people over the physical.
2. There is such a thing as "natural" physical and mental limitation... but the bulk of what governs success is HOW PEOPLE LEARN and that's trainable.

So how do I know what I know?

1. A large part of my career training and job is teaching people HOW TO LEARN. Not just getting them to a certain point, but helping them learn how to learn.
2. I've worked with probably 15+ people on PF over the past three years in a longitudinal coaching capacity. That's not a lot of people compared to formal trainers and people who have large classes, but I have longitudinal follow up in a way that formal trainers might not.

You're right. If someone doesn't want to put the work in (20 min a day, 5 days per week) then most of the time it doesn't go anywhere. Putting in the work is a prerequisite. Sure, sometimes people get sidelined from injury or big life events and that's totally okay. But like exercise and New Year's Resolutions... if you don't put in the work it won't happen.



But....

My specialty is helping people who ARE motivated, but need help with the self-assessment... the people who have plateaued and extra classes and traditional drills haven't moved the needle.

This is where my special skills and training come into play, not just for me dry firing in my basement... but to help others. And that's a specific application where online and video coaching shines.




Some of my most fulfilling interactions are helping people learn how to learn by focusing their attention and constructing appropriate drills. If they put in the work, it's great to see them bust through the plateau.


If you haven't seen it, here are some highlights. The SWYNTS thread is the latest ongoing training endeavor to help others.

Some of the below quotes are edited for brevity


It all started a number of months back when I posted that I was looking for budget-friendly ideas for an “Open P365” for Sig Sauer Academy’s P365 EDC Championship. I’ve dabbled in local competition for the past ten or so years but never seriously trained. My erratic scores are usually a result of me going much too fast for my skill level, with the result being way too many C zone and D zone hits.

JCN was quick to offer me guidance, messaging me details of why he selected the specific components he did for his own Open P365 project. Every component was backed by data and/or video, with reasons as to why he chose that particular modification. As the conversation progressed he offered to coach me up for the competition remotely, as we live a few thousand miles apart.

Where to start? By determining where I needed to improve most.

“What are you issued?”

“Glock 17, Gen4”

“Ok great, we’ll practice with that and most of your improvements will transfer over to the smaller gun.”

“Well, there’s an issue…”

With the standard Glock trigger in the full-size frame, I *very* consistently hit left. To the point I pushed my rear sight all the way to the right, which gave me acceptable police qual groupings out to 15 yards. I have two Glock 17s where I’ve pushed the sights to the right, as well as my previously issued Glock 22.

So I was embarrassed to admit what I needed to work on was the most basic of shooting skills, trigger control.

So began a daily ten-minute regimen of dry fire. Nothing sexy or flashy, just basic trigger practice. Perfect trigger press. Work the slide. Repeat. For weeks. I would send videos and pics of my grip, trigger control and would receive personalized feedback on ways I could improve.

So after about a month I hit the range. My 10 yard groups were tight, tighter than I’d ever expect to see from a Glock 17. But they were still hitting left. Not as far left as I usually would shoot, but left nonetheless.

Over the years, my learned bad habits had me flagging my thumbs high - great for when you shoot a bunch of different guns without focusing on skill development with any one frame. One grip would work with Berettas, 1911’s, Sigs, etc. I would also put as little trigger finger pad on th

So JCN taught me some things that have changed my Glock shooting forever:

-Rotate your right hand slightly counter-clockwise. -Put more finger into the trigger.
-Curl your right thumb up and press it into the frame.
-Rotate your trigger finger “down” to minimize dragging on the frame and to isolate movement.
-Dry fire that until it feels natural.

So I did. A lot. And with a few more range sessions, this happened-

Over the summer I’ve gone from having relatively low confidence in my ability to make precise hits with my duty gun, to now knowing I can drop rounds into a 2” target at 10 yards, on demand, thanks to JCN’s extremely helpful and generous coaching.


Today was day 6 of this coaching regimen. JCN modified the dry fire routine a bit for today. Yesterday I did my second live fire session. I've got a little homestead on a bit of acreage so I shoot here at home. This makes brief but frequent live fire a possibility for me, and JCN is taking advantage of that.



Basically in that 2 weeks and 44 rounds, you now have a reliable 1.0 draw with sub-20 splits and ~20 transitions.

Lots of progress in a short period of time.

It’s only been two weeks and you’re already a big step forward from where you were! Will continue to refine accuracy at this speed and start adding in more game specific stuff.


I guess that's how I have approached dry fire, to the point where my initial training journal just was a 28 day challenge thing. Only it's funny--there, the challenge wasn't to work on some specific skill, it was just to generally dry fire every day for a certain period. I'm pretty solid in the land of abstractions, but step into the embodied world and I start to get confused.

Having a coach who has worked cognitively through the psycho-motor stuff sufficiently to be able to break down specific pathways to improvement is a tremendous blessing to me. I feel like after this 3 month interaction with JCN, I'll be much better able to coach myself. But I have definitely needed this help to get me going. We've still got more than 2 months left. Looking forward to see where we get.

We added a new drill today, which was very accuracy-focused. The program keeps changing. Exciting.


My previous training journal was a joint effort with JCN, who offered me a bunch of coaching last year to break me out what had been a long-term plateau at a lowish level of performance.

So I worked a lot with JCN on speed last year, and I made some major improvements. This fall, I need to focus on making shots at speed with confidence. I am very timid once we get out past 7 yards. Even at 7 yards I probably overaim. I'm also still inconsistent on getting my grip correct.


This is an open journal because I am definitely interested in suggestions!


It does appear that I finally made B class, which is nice, but as JCN pointed out in response to my last diatribe here, the goal isn't B class, so that's no big deal. I'm focusing on those higher classifier scores, and will be working to get my shooting more consistently up to those levels, and higher, as I go along.

JCS is one of my favorite students. We spent a lot of time up front challenging him to be more self-observant and mentally present in his work and he noticed the benefits translating over to other aspects of his life.


I'll just add that if you put in the work and learn how to self analyze and let the shark brain do the work, the results won't stop. I've similarly seen pretty incredible growth in my shooting using a tailored and focused program that's constantly pushing me just beyond my limits. My biggest gains have come after repeated failures when I stepped back and asked myself why am I doing _______? Once you determine the problem work on problem solving. If you can't figure it out reach out to someone who's further along than you and they can save you some time.

Glad to see you're progressing!!



I tried what JCN suggested last night and overall saw real improvement, particularly at the 7 yard stage.

I made the time several times at 3 yards with the gun up in my eyeline. What I noticed is that, while I did not generally have a sight picture for the first round beyond “gun in eyeline, roughly on target,” the second round was on or very close to the mark. I was breaking the second shot while the gun was still in motion and seeing the dot crossing onto the target. I think this is a positive development.


I’ll post more detailed thoughts when I’m home, but:
- I went 5/5 for sub-second draws at 3. All were mid-high .9s. I haven’t done that before. Splits in the low .2s, which put my times between 1.14 and 1.21.
- My 3yd stage did not have the hits I wanted (2/10 off the 8.5x11, basically in the shoulder of the USPSA target). I believe these rounds were both first shots.
- My 7yd stage overall felt fantastic. I had a screw up on one run but on the others, the hits were where I wanted them and the times were right (draws around 1.25, .25 splits).
- My 15yd stage went well except for one run where I placed the dot in the wrong spot and pressed the trigger anyway. That would have been fixed by patience. No issues with the times.

Thanks, JCN.


What was telling to me was my subsequent performance on my usual range drills. I shot two runs at the Test, with 1.46 and 1.50 draws, both in the black (total time around 6s for both - mid-90s scores). The Bakersfield PD qual was an easy pass for me today. Trying (and failing) a Defoor hat qual with a 2.05 draw (time was good, I just couldn’t put a round in the black to save my life on this run - most shots in the 8 ring with a 10.45s time. Should’ve slowed down and used more of the available time). Burning my remaining 5 rounds into a 3” circle at 5 yards was a 1.29s draw. None of these are overly impressive for some, but they’re consistently better times than I usually put up. Is there an argument to be made that I was warmed up? Absolutely. But nevertheless, I was happy with the results.


So that's the main reason why I'm posting this. Having someone who teaches you how to think, observe and be your own teacher can be super useful for people who need help learning how to learn but are willing to put in the work. It's more useful to give a dedicated online 5 minutes here and there when they need it rather than a lumped 1000 round class when they don't.

SWYNTS thread is here. We welcome anyone who wants to get started at any time!

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?55365-See-what-you-need-to-see-training

[YVK]

If someone starts in isolation and without in person training, how does one choose between Stoeger video material vs Mike Glover vs Corey&Erica?

[Moylan]

If someone starts in isolation and without in person training, how does one choose between Stoeger video material vs Mike Glover vs Corey&Erica?

But that's just a problem in general. How do you choose between squared away in-person trainers and non-squared-away in-person trainers? I've got about a 1:6 ratio along those lines in my immediate area. (For Twitter misinformation purposes: that's a completely made up statistic.)

[Moylan]

So that's the main reason why I'm posting this. Having someone who teaches you how to think, observe and be your own teacher can be super useful for people who need help learning how to learn but are willing to put in the work. It's more useful to give a dedicated online 5 minutes here and there when they need it rather than a lumped 1000 round class when they don't.

Since I showed up in this post, I'll just jump in here to second this. Having the willingness to do the work is one thing, but figuring out better ways to do it, to think about it, to apply what you're learning, and in other ways to use that effort to actually make improvements is another thing. And coaching, for me, has been essential. Would I have made greater strides if I'd had in-person coaching focused on one or two days of class time? Hard to say, but I suspect not. There is some evidence to support that inasmuch as I've taken several in-person shooting classes with national instructors. I've enjoyed all of them and I would say I've learned a lot at them, but not necessarily about how to improve my shooting.

Edit: I'm also glad JCN changed his sig line, because I never saw 'dickhead' in his posts, though I do see a lot of 'gadfly.' Gadflies can be unpopular, sure--the standard example being Socrates with the hemlock. But that doesn't make them dickheads. Don't sell yourself short, JCN!

[GJM]

With Covid, hasn't the country been running a multi year test of online training and coaching versus in person interactions?

[MickAK]

If someone starts in isolation and without in person training, how does one choose between Stoeger video material vs Mike Glover vs Corey&Erica?

Trial and (mostly) error.

Stoeger comes across well in print. Not sure about video.

[GJM]

Something Rob Leatham has told me, is that while there are significant mental aspects involved, shooting is very physical. As an instructor, he believes it is very important to stand close to you so as to be able to touch you to optimally diagnose and instruct.

[Clusterfrack]

If someone starts in isolation and without in person training, how does one choose between Stoeger video material vs Mike Glover vs Corey&Erica?

Good question. I think it's like how people new to combatives can't tell the difference between the real deal and a Mc Dojo. Some people don't want the real deal because it's scary, humbling, and you have to work hard.

[JCS]

I’ve taken two formal classes. One from a local trainer. The other from a GM. These were both 5+ years ago. Fast forward to today and they helped me very little. Why? Partially because I didn’t practice consistently. Also because they didn’t teach self analysis. When I look at the high level of online coaching and education now it’s much better than what I received in these classes. At some point a shooter has to start analyzing their own shooting. My biggest gains have come over the past couple years as I’ve learned how to do that.

If I had to choose between the two, I think online coaching is superior to group classes. I recently backed out of a Stoeger class. Not because I think it won’t help but because I think my resources are better spent elsewhere. Class costs, travel and ammo would’ve made it a $1200+ training session plus time off work. If I wanted I could buy several years worth of Max Michels patreon for that or an entire year of PTSG gold membership.

I have been shocked at how many of the up and coming CO gms have reached an elite level with very little to no formal group training.

The secret is not really a secret. It’s lots of time and reps of practice.

[JCS]

If someone starts in isolation and without in person training, how does one choose between Stoeger video material vs Mike Glover vs Corey&Erica?

Watching them shoot it becomes pretty clear who I would want.

But sadly Google and YouTube analytics will pop up those others before Stoeger.

[Clusterfrack]

...Corey&Erica?

Who? Literally (as in actually) never heard of them.

[JCN]

Edit: I'm also glad JCN changed his sig line, because I never saw 'dickhead' in his posts, though I do see a lot of 'gadfly.' Gadflies can be unpopular, sure--the standard example being Socrates with the hemlock. But that doesn't make them dickheads. Don't sell yourself short, JCN!

Hey thanks! I had to Google the context of gadfly and seems appropriate:

A gadfly is a person who interferes with the status quo of a society or community by posing novel, potentially upsetting questions, usually directed at authorities. The term is originally associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates in his defense when on trial for his life








If someone starts in isolation and without in person training, how does one choose between Stoeger video material vs Mike Glover vs Corey&Erica?

Like Moylan said, it’s no different than picking any type of training.

I can tell you what I personally did.

I started pistol in December 2015 for self defense purposes:

Did my CCW class before I owned a gun with a rented 22LR.

102091

Looked for videos on grip from people with military background and high level competitive shooting objective success.

Modeled grip off Shannon Smith videos because I was shooting a Glock.

Spent time with his videos and myself in front of a mirror until my grip looked like his.

Then spent time at the range with that grip shooting doubles.

Tested against an objective standard (NRA pistol).

Was too easy.

Did some work and then did FBI 50 round qual and was too easy.

So started competition shooting because the published standards were harder.

Looked through the available online training and picked Max Michel’s online Patreon program because he was Army Marksmanship and world champion and also had the kind of risk reducing philosophy and balance that resonated with me. I’m not a gambler. I learned a ton from him but mainly in the philosophy and strategy rather than the technical.

I did also learn technical gaming stuff from him in terms of atypical start positions I had not practiced (seated and table starts).

So that has been my philosophy. Pick people who have the background and objective success (different from participation credits) and who also have the style of presentation that resonate with me. I like calm so Shannon and Max are my preference to more labile personalities like Rob and Ben. But that part is personal preference only.

[45dotACP]

Not necessarily shooting related, but my BJJ skills took a significant jump from self-directed study.

Video and analysis of yourself and ruthless honesty with the realities of your game and a focus on your lowest hanging fruit.

In my BJJ game, I always got crushed on the bottom, so I had to build a better half guard. But then, as parts of my game improved, I keyed in on parts that needed to improve because of my improvement.

My half guard sweeps were better, so next, I needed to improve my guard passing because that's what happens after you sweep from half guard.

None of this was anything my coach told me or taught me. Now, I'm starting to focus heavily on standing skills and specifically the single leg takedown. Again, not anything my coaches told me, but I can recognize that I must improve certain areas because they aren't great, or even all that good.


Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

[JCN]

Something Rob Leatham has told me, is that while there are significant mental aspects involved, shooting is very physical. As an instructor, he believes it is very important to stand close to you so as to be able to touch you to optimally diagnose and instruct.

I think that’s probably correct and I’m more efficient instructing in person.

If I could have Rob living in my basement able to hop out for 5 minutes here and there I would be a much better shooter than I am now.

It’s just not realistic for my schedule and budget.

If you take the opportunity cost of travel and time into account, longitudinal online coaching might have some distinct benefits over scheduled single bolus in person training. Longitudinal in person training is superior of course, but just not realistic for most.

EDIT: with the one caveat that slow motion video is a great tool for coaching and something I often don’t have time to look at when in person with a student.

So if I had the time to review their videos even in person that would be optimal.

There were things with Jenks trigger press I could only see when I slowed down his videos.

[Mike C]

I’ve taken two formal classes. One from a local trainer. The other from a GM. These were both 5+ years ago. Fast forward to today and they helped me very little. Why? Partially because I didn’t practice consistently. Also because they didn’t teach self analysis. When I look at the high level of online coaching and education now it’s much better than what I received in these classes. At some point a shooter has to start analyzing their own shooting. My biggest gains have come over the past couple years as I’ve learned how to do that.

If I had to choose between the two, I think online coaching is superior to group classes. I recently backed out of a Stoeger class. Not because I think it won’t help but because I think my resources are better spent elsewhere. Class costs, travel and ammo would’ve made it a $1200+ training session plus time off work. If I wanted I could buy several years worth of Max Michels patreon for that or an entire year of PTSG gold membership.

I have been shocked at how many of the up and coming CO gms have reached an elite level with very little to no formal group training.

The secret is not really a secret. It’s lots of time and reps of practice.

This 100%. I take multiple classes a year, from a myriad of instructors including instructor level classes. I never quite felt like I got what I was looking for. Specifically with regards to instructor training assessing and coaching. I would have liked to or would like to see in the future more coverage of self assessment/self analysis covered in courses. It would also be nice to see modeling for skill breakdown and prioritization based on goals and needs. This is something I never quite felt I got. For example JCN has been helping me break down my reloads to speed them up. In just a few short sessions my time was halved. It is frustrating after spending a lot of money and time between, child care, travel, hotel and ammo cost for nothing more than range masterbation. I will say, Gabes class was a breath of fresh air.

Personally I have made more improvements with a 40% effort with JCN, (because that is all I can give at the moment) than I have with years of classes. That isn't because I haven't spent time dry firing or working skills on the range but because of specificity and learning to break skills down. Online and personal coaching based on my specific goals, needs and priorities is key. Being coached on what needs to be tweaked and why, understanding where there is skill over lap in doing specific drills or not has been huge for efficiency. All this while getting the feedback necessary to continue to improve while learning to self assess errors. I was never an online coaching kind of guy but there is a huge benefit to video/critique as well as one on one time to converse. I am a big believer in the online coaching methodology.

[YVK]

But that's just a problem in general. How do you choose between squared away in-person trainers and non-squared-away in-person trainers? I've got about a 1:6 ratio along those lines in my immediate area. (For Twitter misinformation purposes: that's a completely made up statistic.)

Yes, selection is a task. Taking a completely naive shooter with a goal to get real good, I think that the path will be more efficient sorting out bs from worth-it on a basis of personal observation vs watching edited video snippets.


Watching them shoot it becomes pretty clear who I would want.

But sadly Google and YouTube analytics will pop up those others before Stoeger.

Ben has a video where he says, more or less verbatim, that he ignores shooting videos that people make. Folks put highly edited content and everybody looks like a boss; you rarely see people posting their fuckups. I am going to hazard a guess that you are choosing to watch him over others because you know what he's done, not how he looks on videos. I actually think he doesn't look great when he runs.

To the subject of this thread, I do not think that not-in-person training exists at all when talking about higher levels of proficiency. Reflecting on the stuff above, we more or less agree that Ben, or Max, or competitive shooters in general produce the best technical video content. To care about and believe what gamers say, you likely have to have at least some interest in the game. If you attended a match, you attended in-person training. You had an opportunity to watch, live, people do things in a technically correct way, consistently, and with immediate and objective results. That is an in-person training in my book; at least, that's how I learned to do what pays my bills.

[Moylan]

Yes, selection is a task. Taking a completely naive shooter with a goal to get real good, I think that the path will be more efficient sorting out bs from worth-it on a basis of personal observation vs watching edited video snippets.

I feel confused, and I'm not sure if it's me not tracking, or if there's an equivocation going on in the conversation. I was thinking of 'using video' in the context of this thread as meaning 'taking video of yourself shooting (or whatever) and analyzing that yourself, or having an online coach analyze it.' And then I thought we were comparing that mode of non-in-person training to in-person training.

But some of what we're talking now about appears to be us watching videos made by instructors like Stoeger of whoever, and comparing that method of non-in-person learning to in-person learning.

I think it's likely true that watching youtube is not going to be as good as getting solid in-person instruction. But I don't think that fact tells us anything about the merits of video self-analysis or online coaching vs. in-person.

Edit: I deny that this post is more than two paragraphs. It is really only one long paragraph that I have elected to spread out visually for ease of reading.

[Gio]

Honest self critique/assessment is critical to improving on your own. I've found that most people are incapable of this, and therefore need an outside observer to tell them what they are doing wrong and how to fix it.

My path was almost entirely self taught, using video analysis and studying/emulating the movements and mechanics of the top shooters in the world.

I went from buying/owning a pistol for the first time as a young 24 yr old in 2006 to dabbling in competition right after that (without really diving in yet), to getting more serious in IDPA competition and getting my initial classification as expert (2011) and then initial USPSA classification in B class (2013) to USPSA Grandmaster (2017), super squad (2020, 2021, 2022), and multiple top 10 finishes with no formal classes by any instructor.

All that said, I finally took a class with JJ last fall, and he immediately picked up a couple movement related inefficiencies that I was doing that were as close to "low hanging fruit" as I can get at this point.

I do think the balance for me was always: Do I spend $600 on a class with a guy like Rob or Ben or JJ, or do I put that $600 into 7,000 rounds of ammo at my costs to work on the things I know I need to work on already from self analysis?

I personally train and oversee training of a lot of LEO shooters every year, and in my experience, most people cannot self diagnose. If you can't self diagnose, you can shoot 10,000 rounds/year and not move the needle on improvement. There are even people who will adamantly deny they are doing something wrong after I point it out to them, and I have to video them to show them what they're doing before they believe it.

[Mike C]

I feel confused, and I'm not sure if it's me not tracking, or if there's an equivocation going on in the conversation. I was thinking of 'using video' in the context of this thread as meaning 'taking video of yourself shooting (or whatever) and analyzing that yourself, or having an online coach analyze it.' And then I thought we were comparing that mode of non-in-person training to in-person training.

But some of what we're talking now about appears to be us watching videos made by instructors like Stoeger of whoever, and comparing that method of non-in-person learning to in-person learning.

I think it's likely true that watching youtube is not going to be as good as getting solid in-person instruction. But I don't think that fact tells us anything about the merits of video self-analysis or online coaching vs. in-person.

Edit: I deny that this post is more than two paragraphs. It is really only one long paragraph that I have elected to spread out visually for ease of reading.

I think that both conversations have to be had and there is absolute truth to what YVK said about edited content. It is important to know from what and whom you are taking information in and in what context it is applicable to you. Whether you are self analyzing or using an, "online" coach or in person coach it is an important step in getting better. Everything and everyone should be using a vetting process. Whether using in person training or online coaching the previous statement still holds true, who, what and applicable context matters. Having a trained eye for critique is a critical and necessary step but IMHO video is an absolute requirement.

The ability to record and watch things in slow motion frame by frame is incredibly important for everything but to highlight; things like a draw, reload, moving into and out of positions, movement etc. Even with a trained eye and superb vision there are little things that can be gleaned using video that someone standing there just won't see. I think this is true across the board video is not used enough. Both for self assessment and for professional instructor student assessment. It's hard to pack everything into a weekend or coach which is why I think a lot of schooling classes end up being a bunch of shoot this drill and that. I also think that there is an expectation set forth by students for their instructors. The best part about the whole ammo issue is that more explaining is getting done, less ammo wasting and more actual coaching. At least that has been my experience over the last 2 years, (though still not enough coaching).

If I were running my own shooting program I'd be running two firing orders with one filming the other shooting so I could walk the line with AI's and give constant feedback when necessary. With everyone owning a cellphone it would be a piece of cake and the feedback loop would be 100% better. In my personal use case there were so many things going on that I just wasn't aware of until I got talked into filming everything. Having an online source of technical shooters like Max Michel et al is incredible because if you don't have the money you can still film yourself and look to see who is doing what right and compare yourself to those you wish to emulate. It's not hard to find good examples even if you are just starting out. We really are living in the golden age in so many ways to coin DB.

Gio totally agree. Well put you beat me to it.

[YVK]

I feel confused, and I'm not sure if it's me not tracking, or if there's an equivocation going on in the conversation. I was thinking of 'using video' in the context of this thread as meaning 'taking video of yourself shooting (or whatever) and analyzing that yourself, or having an online coach analyze it.' And then I thought we were comparing that mode of non-in-person training to in-person training.

But some of what we're talking now about appears to be us watching videos made by instructors like Stoeger of whoever, and comparing that method of non-in-person learning to in-person learning.

I think it's likely true that watching youtube is not going to be as good as getting solid in-person instruction. But I don't think that fact tells us anything about the merits of video self-analysis or online coaching vs. in-person.

Edit: I deny that this post is more than two paragraphs. It is really only one long paragraph that I have elected to spread out visually for ease of reading.


I probably didn't pay attention to the discussion well enough, or missed the emphasis. I thought this was a general discussion about in-person training, like getting live instruction, classes, etc vs doing it by other means that don't involve personal attendance of activities that constitute training, direct or de facto.
If the discussion is very specifically about video analysis of own shooting, I do think that it is a useful learning tool but only to a degree. It helps handling the recall bias and shows readily visible mistakes. For me personally it can't show main mistakes that lead to suboptimal performance on my part.
If the discussion is about something else, please correct me. Also I don't know how the smiley face appeared up there.

[JCN]

Honest self critique/assessment is critical to improving on your own.

My path was almost entirely self taught, using video analysis and studying/emulating the movements and mechanics of the top shooters in the world.

I went from buying/owning a pistol for the first time as a young 24 yr old in 2006 to dabbling in competition right after that (without really diving in yet), to getting more serious in IDPA competition and getting my initial classification as expert (2011) and then initial USPSA classification in B class (2013) to USPSA Grandmaster (2017), super squad (2020, 2021, 2022), and multiple top 10 finishes with no formal classes by any instructor.

BUT WHAT ABOUT YOUR LACK OF TRAINING RESUME!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm kidding of course. I'm glad PF has gotten away from that cliche. If someone can do it, they can do it. And if they can't, they can't no matter what their pedigree looks like.

If you'd indulge me, I'm very interested in your journey because it sounds familiar to me....


Did you have historical success in self-analysis endeavors prior to this? Like skateboarding or other competition at a high level?

While these traits may be uncommon in general LEO, they're very common to high level athletes or highly competitive technical students.

[MVS]

Who? Literally (as in actually) never heard of them.

If you don't know, it really isn't worth your time worrying about it. Haven't heard those names in a while. Basically stolen valor and short shorts make it big until someone catches on.

[paherne]

So, to the OP, yes it is possible. I would argue that someone who put as much time, effort and money into a subject as you have would get better without any training. Dumb luck, as it were, and lots of effort would probably yield similar results. The problem is, most people don't learn like you, or have the time or commitment to the exclusion of other things in their lives.

I think you're an outlier and your results are not applicable for the vast majority of folks, for a number of reasons.

Comparing shooting to other top level sports, we almost never see professional athletes that have not received in-person coaching and evaluation. Why is that?

GJM noted an important point about the pandemic as an experiment in distance learning the last few years. It has been disastrous for childhood development. However, in that case we are talking about less-motivated subjects and oft-times poor instructors, so it may not directly correlate.

Perhaps, if I watched a number of pornos and worked on my technique, I could become the lothario I've always wanted to be.

[JCN]

So, to the OP, yes it is possible. I would argue that someone who put as much time, effort and money into a subject as you have would get better without any training. Dumb luck, as it were, and lots of effort would probably yield similar results. The problem is, most people don't learn like you, or have the time or commitment to the exclusion of other things in their lives.

Agree most people don't learn like me. But in sub-selected communities and fields, the majority of people DO.

Regarding time commitment, I spent less than 20 minutes a day to go from A to GM. Now I just do it for fun, but it's not like I'm sitting in my parents basement without a job.

Most regular folks watch more TV or play more video games than I practice. It's not exactly an arduous task. But yeah.



I think you're an outlier and your results are not applicable for the vast majority of folks, for a number of reasons.


Ahem. From the thread.


I don't have a dog in the fight, but JCN I think you're something of an outlier in terms of your ability to self-assess.


I totally agree with that (and said as such) and what works for me won’t necessarily work for others.

But the concept of it CAN help. In the SWYNTS thread you can see how forcing people to video their runs has them learning how to critique themselves. You can see people learning how to learn in that thread which is huge.

And that’s why people are noticing big improvement where they had previously plateaued.


Also this, where I say most people will require in person learning.



IN PERSON: You get the VIDEO content live but you only get to watch it once and can't slow it down. You get one perspective but not the chance to assimilate multiple expert opinions. You get a critical eye helping you with gross errors but you might not be able to see or recognize what it is you're doing from first person perspective. Some good classes I hear use cameras and slow motion to help.

This is a good option for people who don't self-assess at a high level. It's a necessary option for most people.


paherne if you read the thread, it's not about whether it's possible. Of course it's possible. I did it. Gio did it.



My path was almost entirely self taught, using video analysis and studying/emulating the movements and mechanics of the top shooters in the world.

I went from buying/owning a pistol for the first time as a young 24 yr old in 2006 to dabbling in competition right after that (without really diving in yet), to getting more serious in IDPA competition and getting my initial classification as expert (2011) and then initial USPSA classification in B class (2013) to USPSA Grandmaster (2017), super squad (2020, 2021, 2022), and multiple top 10 finishes with no formal classes by any instructor.


It's about what to do with it.

Which is the point of the thread. Read the testimonials of the people I've helped online...

People who had taken classes and put in the work... but didn't have the coaching to work on the proper things.

Working with me online they're improving at a rate previously not achieved. Not because they're doing more work (to contradict your point), but because they're working smarter. I'm helping them with that.

My statement earlier in the thread was:


My specialty is helping people who ARE motivated, but need help with the self-assessment... the people who have plateaued and extra classes and traditional drills haven't moved the needle.

This is where my special skills and training come into play, not just for me dry firing in my basement... but to help others. And that's a specific application where online and video coaching shines.



I think some people get very concrete in the literal.

I would be a better shooter if I were in the AMU.
I would be a better shooter if Max Michel was my neighbor.

None of that is realistic in my schedule, while dry firing with videos instead of watching television is.

So we aren't talking about what is ultimately possible. We are talking about what's reasonable.

If I had Ben Stoeger live in my basement for a year and paid him $200k to be my live in coach, I would probably be better than I am now.

If my goal was to be the best that I could possibly be, I would ask him to do it.

Does that make sense? World class specific coaching on an ongoing basis (like 5 hours a week minimum) is useful, but not easily available.

Group classes by random joe trainer may not be worth the opportunity cost.

Longitudinal training beats bolus training.

Etc.


I'm rare for the general population, but I'm not unique by any means. I know a dozen people like me and better than me from work and play.

What I do is teachable and trainable and you're seeing the fruits of that for people in the SWYNTS and training journal threads.

Nobody would be able to hire me for in person coaching. I'm too expensive. But it costs nothing to tap my brain for 2 minutes online.



Online coaching allows opportunities that just aren't possible in person because of opportunity cost.

That is the point of this thread.

[gringop]

Perhaps, if I watched a number of pornos and worked on my technique, I could become the lothario I've always wanted to be.



Would that be longitudinal coaching?

Gringop

[Mister X]

I agree with most what the OP says, but a lot depends on the specific individual in terms of getting the proper balance between self-directed and formal instruction correct.

Quite a bit of my training has been self-guided and that would include much of my martial art training. While not shooting related, I think it’s analogous…I was recruited right out of high school by the President of USA karate as a good candidate to bring home a Gold medal at the World championships. His opinion. At the time I had only been in a single tournament, so virtually no experience. My tryout had simply been sparring against 3 members of the US team in the dojo and I landed an offer solely based on that performance.

Once I began training with them, I came to learn how wrong I had been in what I was doing and had no idea, despite it having worked for me in the past. One example is I had been getting by effectively utilizing very poor footwork due to my athleticism and explosiveness, but they showed me much better ways. According to coach, even though my footwork had been successful in the past, it would begin presenting problems at the highest levels of world competition and I think he was correct.

Some really athletic and physically talented folks can do things and not really understand how they are doing them or even get by doing things in suboptimal ways. Really smart individuals will obviously be able to engage in more effective self-taught learning than someone who is not. A self-taught guy with both may surpass the highly trained individual, but I don’t think that’s all that typical. Getting some high quality instruction is always a good idea, but the overall degree of necessity and quantity needed will vary and depend on the specific person.

[RennBaer]

I became very proficient at racing sports cars mostly through self teaching (at least initially), but video feedback and accurate/truthful self-assessment were essential. Racing and shooting are surprisingly similar disciplines when it comes to learning and performing, so I believe that a person with the right mindset and approach to learning can absolutely teach themselves to become a highly proficient shooter. Eventually, coaching (whether in-person or remote) can help you break through plateaus or fine-tune techniques.

"Remote" coaching is actually the norm in racing in the sense that you almost never have a coach sitting in the car with you. The coaching happens off-track by reviewing data and video. You and the coach come up with a short-list of things to work on, and you go off on your own to put those things into practice to see how they affect your performance. Rinse and repeat. I don't see how this same approach wouldn't also work for shooting.

[gomerpyle]

If I really think about it, the rate of skills/performance acquisition isn't linear. Sometimes the improvements come in leaps.

Truth.

[Sal Picante]

Online coaching allows opportunities that just aren't possible in person because of opportunity cost.


I can't agree with this enough.

Again, I'll add: I think this is great importance in forging a relationship, virtual and/or meat-spaced, with someone who actually give a crap about your progression...

I see a natural, hierarchical progression of the knowledge being:

Safety --> Marksmanship --> Gun Handling --> Movement --> Refinement (shooting swinger, setups, etc)

The sad thing in most open enrollment classes is that people who can't do the first two things derail the people that are trying to work on the last three...