Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: AAR - Frank Proctor Rifle/Pistol Class - July 2017 - Mount Carrol, IL

  1. #31
    Member Sal Picante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SunCoast
    Quote Originally Posted by Chance View Post
    You're giving a polite, measured critique to a notable instructor's class?

    You've been warned.
    LOL!

  2. #32
    Member Sal Picante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SunCoast
    Quote Originally Posted by AJZ View Post
    This is unfortunate. Frank's class used to be very different. The first time I shot with him I don't think he was relatively well known. There were only six of us in the class and most were very competent shooters (Mick Houston, Pat Doyle, myself, and a couple others). Lots of one on one, video diagnostics, explanation, etc. Sorry to see where it is at right now.
    That's the point - you can do some of that with 3-4 students that really, truly understand a lot of the "doctrine". With 10 people of widely varying skill sets on the line, I don't believe you can do this in any sane way.

    It is ok to have a class based on line work: Roger's is really a fancy line-based system (15 slots, no more...) and Paul Sharp's REV Pistol course are examples where line work, with a structured curriculum, really helps develop good basic safety habits and techniques.

    This is where an instructor, IMHO, needs to decide how to structure things:

    Is the class aimed at a particular level/particular skill ...or... is it a master class on an advanced application/tactic?

    Is there a very structure, formalized doctrine ...or... is this dealing with more fluid concepts/insights/techniques?

    If the answers are more towards the left side of those statements, then line work might be more appropriate...

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Pepperoni View Post
    That's the point - you can do some of that with 3-4 students that really, truly understand a lot of the "doctrine". With 10 people of widely varying skill sets on the line, I don't believe you can do this in any sane way.

    It is ok to have a class based on line work: Roger's is really a fancy line-based system (15 slots, no more...) and Paul Sharp's REV Pistol course are examples where line work, with a structured curriculum, really helps develop good basic safety habits and techniques.

    This is where an instructor, IMHO, needs to decide how to structure things:

    Is the class aimed at a particular level/particular skill ...or... is it a master class on an advanced application/tactic?

    Is there a very structure, formalized doctrine ...or... is this dealing with more fluid concepts/insights/techniques?

    If the answers are more towards the left side of those statements, then line work might be more appropriate...
    Excellent points, and I whole heartedly agree. Not to derail the thread, but I fear one of the biggest downfalls of the training community has been the massive increase in class size over the past 15 years, and with that, a decrease in the average level of shooting ability of those students. The trend today seems to be that students attend more over packed "national level" courses than they practice on their own range. With these over packed courses, I think we've seen a massive oversimplification of techniques and concepts across the board. This has helped lead to the trend of teaching to the Lowest Common Denominator, which is absolutely ridiculous especially in combative style courses IMO. I agree, instructors need to take a hard look at what/how they are teaching, as well as their intended audience. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a great way for an instructor to truly vet the skill level of a student to allow them into a higher level course. I was in an "advanced" course earlier this year where 2-3 of the students readily admitted it was their first formal course...Is it Dunning-Kruger, low exposure to shooting, lack of vetting, better articulation as to what the course entails, etc? To your point, these individuals would have been better suited attending a more entry level/doctrine based course. Yet again, you've set wheels in motion Les.
    "Experience is the hardest teacher. It gives you the tests first and the lessons later." - Oscar Wilde.
    | www.PracticalPerformance.org | Facebook | Instagram |

  4. #34
    Member Sal Picante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SunCoast
    Quote Originally Posted by 45dotACP View Post
    Question, Les: Do you think at your current skill level it's less return on investment to take pistol classes?
    Short answer: Yes. I've probably seen everything at this point and going to the range with a pail full of ammo and a mandate to learn/do something specific and I'm sure I could make it happen.

    Long answer: That said, I'm sure taking a class on certain topics/etc would bootstrap that process and save me having to form those insights in a vacuum.

    E.g. Taking a class with Gabe would probably give me a ton of insights on AIWB, at minimum. Taking the Armed Parent class was excellent.

    The further things get from "basic pistol manipulation", I suppose the more value the class has to me.

    That said, from a teaching/coaching perspective, I've learned a lot from hearing Paul Sharps take on basic pistol manipulation/technique, etc...


    Quote Originally Posted by 45dotACP View Post
    Maybe it's an age old question, but do you think you can learn much from someone you can beat at nationals? Or was that less of a factor than things like the lack of structure?
    Yes! Without a doubt...

    I'll give you an example: My daughter started gymnastics lesson yesterday (which is awesome - I hope she takes to it, great physical fitness, fun, graded, coached, etc. I hope she spends time doing that rather than hanging out with shit heads in high school). The more advanced students were coached by trainers/etc that were clearly into middle age - I mean, a 14 year old girl can move physically more than a 40-some year old dude with a beer gut, right? - and yet they were all getting valuable coaching from the trainers.

    My personal case and point: My practice partner (when he doesn't have a detached retina or some other BS) is an A-class shooter that is well into his 50's. The value I get from it is that he's a pro-level golfer and has a sharp eye (well, when he isn't doing surgery) for detail and give me hugely beneficial feedback - yeah we do video, but runs that are dog shit he'll call my attention to. His help is WAY WAY WAY appreciated...

    While the skillset is important and of course there are overlaps, teaching and coaching are unique skills that requires some form of mastery too.

  5. #35
    Member Sal Picante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SunCoast
    Quote Originally Posted by AJZ View Post
    Excellent points, and I whole heartedly agree. Not to derail the thread, but I fear one of the biggest downfalls of the training community has been the massive increase in class size over the past 15 years, and with that, a decrease in the average level of shooting ability of those students. The trend today seems to be that students attend more over packed "national level" courses than they practice on their own range. With these over packed courses, I think we've seen a massive oversimplification of techniques and concepts across the board. This has helped lead to the trend of teaching to the Lowest Common Denominator, which is absolutely ridiculous especially in combative style courses
    "Enter-trainment" and the chance to hang with dudes who have War stories is a powerful fetish.

    I honestly think people are confused about their expectations of a class:
    Why are you taking this? What do you hope to learn/accomplish/have explained to you?

    I'd urge people think pretty hard and get specific about these topics when I going to take a class...


    Quote Originally Posted by AJZ View Post
    IMO. I agree, instructors need to take a hard look at what/how they are teaching, as well as their intended audience. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a great way for an instructor to truly vet the skill level of a student to allow them into a higher level course.
    Here is where competitive classification really helps. I mean, we can all agree that folks shooting...

    ... at the "SS" IDPA Level and "C"-level USPSA are somewhere in low-intermediate: They understand the basic safety rules, they've seen a timer, they can probably draw/fire without too much hassle, etc.

    ... at the "Expert" level in IDPA and B in USPSA are probably some kind of high-intermediate: They're doing all of the above and probably hitting the target and understanding the finer elements of shooting (splits/transitions/SOTM/SHO/WHO)

    ... at M-class in IDPA or A and higher in USPSA are probably pretty advanced: They're doing all of the above and are really getting specific.

    If none of that exists, prior course experience can probably help; e.g. have you taken a class with us before? Is it a graded progression? Would another instructors curriculum fill the void?

    I mean, if someone is coming out of, say, Tom Given's or Ayoob's courses, I'd probably put them into that first bucket at minimum...


    Quote Originally Posted by AJZ View Post
    I was in an "advanced" course earlier this year where 2-3 of the students readily admitted it was their first formal course...Is it Dunning-Kruger, low exposure to shooting, lack of vetting, better articulation as to what the course entails, etc? To your point, these individuals would have been better suited attending a more entry level/doctrine based course. Yet again, you've set wheels in motion Les.
    The trouble is that honestly not a lot of people want to take the "less money" route if they can pack a class of people who aren't going to know any better.
    (I'm not for a second accusing anyone of doing this, btw)

    I think instructors should do the "no-basic" option for classes (or offer it as the NRA curriculum, honestly) - I mean, who wants to shell out for the "basic curriculum" when you've got a plate carrier and NODS!? - and just do things like "2-Day Combat Pistol" that has a published "intermediate" syllabus ...

    I'll admit, one guy that has been hugely formative on my perspective has been John Krupa of Spartan Training: his courses have a curriculum. (The talking points are fairly modular and some classes mix topic/etc) but at least they're written and published.
    Last edited by Sal Picante; 08-22-2017 at 05:54 PM.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Pepperoni View Post
    Here is where competitive classification really helps. I mean, we can all agree that folks shooting...

    ... at the "SS" IDPA Level and "C"-level USPSA are somewhere in low-intermediate: They understand the basic safety rules, they've seen a timer, they can probably draw/fire without too much hassle, etc.

    ... at the "Expert" level in IDPA and B in USPSA are probably some kind of high-intermediate: They're doing all of the above and probably hitting the target and understanding the finer elements of shooting (splits/transitions/SOTM/SHO/WHO)

    ... at M-class in IDPA or A and higher in USPSA are probably pretty advanced: They're doing all of the above and are really getting specific.

    If none of that exists, prior course experience can probably help; e.g. have you taken a class with us before? Is it a graded progression? Would another instructors curriculum fill the void?
    I definitely agree with the competitive breakdown and using it as a metric, and I do. As far as prior training, this has become a really slippery slope. I have seen too many instructors give certs out to individuals that frankly were WAY out of their depth in entry level courses. While there are a few that are still willing to "certify" skills that I think are credible, there are now far too many issuing a cert for attending and nothing else. This has its place, but not at the entry/low-intermediate level IMO.
    "Experience is the hardest teacher. It gives you the tests first and the lessons later." - Oscar Wilde.
    | www.PracticalPerformance.org | Facebook | Instagram |

  7. #37
    I've trained with Frank twice: he taught a block of the FBI firearms instructor class I attended, and five of us did a private class with him.

    Here is my review of the private class.


    Reviews on Frank tend to be either glowing or negative with not a lot of in-between. Maybe its a small group vs large group thing. I had a blast and had some good take aways in his class, but maybe the lesson hit at just the perfect time for the material for me.
    I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.

  8. #38
    Member Sal Picante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SunCoast
    Quote Originally Posted by AJZ View Post
    I definitely agree with the competitive breakdown and using it as a metric, and I do. As far as prior training, this has become a really slippery slope. I have seen too many instructors give certs out to individuals that frankly were WAY out of their depth in entry level courses. While there are a few that are still willing to "certify" skills that I think are credible, there are now far too many issuing a cert for attending and nothing else. This has its place, but not at the entry/low-intermediate level IMO.
    This is one place where a fast coin, a "turbo-pin" (Gabe), or a Rogers pin really helps establish prior knowledge too ...

    The trouble is knowing and understanding everyone's "pet" tests.... "Wait, was it the red pin or the blue pin that meant he was high-speed?"

  9. #39
    Member Sal Picante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SunCoast
    Quote Originally Posted by jlw View Post
    Maybe its a small group vs large group thing.
    I really think that is a big part of it...

    You've got a small group of guys that understand the doctrine, are willing to listen and are safe/competent.

    That's huge. You can cover an amazing amount of ground with a group like that.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •