That concept and procedure, in different words, is what I was taught by my very experienced mentor. It is what I've experienced in pretty much every successful shooting accomplishment I've had. It is a very important point of discussion and practice in the class you'll be in.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
I agree and understand a lot of that. I have always liked single man on man in any context as more relative to me than field courses. The field courses are far more difficult to “shoot”. They don’t tend to have the same TYPE of pressure. Man on Man in my experience tends to build a type of pressure discipline I have found during street shootings. Of all the sport shooting I did way back in my youth, the Friday Night man on man steel plates was the one I felt best prepared me for the street as far as shooting. Other stuff was a better gear and manipulations Test. It is why I got permission to not attend graveyard briefing on Friday nights....I came in early, got dressed in uniform and drove a black and white to the match and shot it out for hours in multiple classes. Stock revolver and then open revolver and semi auto. Got the most out of running my duty gun against really good civilian shooters every week. Also, that was shooting a .45 Colt versus .38 light loads of my competition. Talk about building a speed and control balance under pressure.
I think the key based on where I think John is looking for the highly successful is balance. It is what I really worry about when we start assigning titles and almost rankings to this stuff as folks will focus heavily on some test to get a title or perceived status. Pure human nature, and heavily amplified in the ego fueled world of the firearms and martial arts world in general.
I spent an hour on the phone Sunday with one of the guys we use as an example in John Hearne’s study. He is pretty up front that there are tons of people who shoot better than he does, and huge technical advances have been made. Most of the heavyweights of my world look at this guy as “the goal” of where we would like to be. Every conversation I have with him reinforces the key being simple, and balance. His greatest attribute from what I have seen and what his peers respected the most was he was always dead calm in absolute chaos and hauling up fundamentals in the middle of heavy problem solving situations. How we put some performance number on that is difficult. He also got back to one of my big focuses as was his. None of it matters if you shoot the wrong thing or the force use is not perfect. Many of the successes my guys had were huge decision making performance combined with shooting performance. It isn’t that there isn’t a timer in a gunfight, it is about what is the timer really measuring.
Last edited by Dagga Boy; 07-31-2018 at 10:13 AM.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
Trying to understand exactly what the OP is looking for...
I think that context matters (which I think some folks have already touched on). Are we talking about expertise at marksmanship alone, or some more complex context like "gunfighting"?
I've generally seen most things as a scale from the minute to the more complex. So in shooting it might look like:
1) marksmanship - hitting the target
2) gun-handling - hand and arm movement (drawing, reloading)
3) time factor - marksmanship and gun-handling expeditiously
4) relocating - body movement (running, leaning, squatting, sitting, and transitions therein)
5) decision-making - target ID
6) planning - thinking ahead (stage planning, evaluating multiple threats [i.e. "he had a flap holster and he was in no itchin' hurry"])
In looking at it written out like that, arguably the first three fit into one broader group, and the second three fit into another. I could also see an argument for swapping 4 and 5, and even see some folks arguing that 5 should be first (especially from a defensive approach).
So when we're talking about defining expertise or mastery, where along that spectrum from 1-6 are we talking? And from there, as to what application? I would argue that 1-3 are basically universal whether you're talking gunfighting or action shooting games, but that as you get further down to 4-6 those two paths start to diverge in terms of defining expertise and mastery.
A man on man type of course certainly helps you build confidence in your skillset under pressure, but field courses have their place as well. On a well designed field course (or several field courses over the course of a match), your subconscious weapon handling is really tested under match pressure. You have to move, shoot a variety of targets ranging in difficulty, problem solve, and often overcome breakdowns in your plan/strategy caused by a mental errors, missed pieces of steel, malfunctions, or some other unplanned event.
Often an A or M level shooter can stand and deliver the same results as a GM on a short static drill, but they struggle to string multiple skills together at a high level over the course of a longer and more complicated "test" like a field course. The ability to string multiple different weapon handling and shooting skills together and do them at a high level is more indicative of expertise or mastery (as it relates to this discussion) to me than someone who can focus on one specific drill that only tests a couple skills, like the FAST.
Great post Gio! Exactly right IMHO. That's why you can't decide a nationals with a bill drill.
ETA: And I can't remember whether I said this earlier in this thread, but the character of my own skills increase over the last bunch of years has been in exactly the manner you describe - better ability to deliver more of my short-form raw skill in longer tests/courses. Got an awfully long way to go too.
Last edited by Mr_White; 08-06-2018 at 12:14 PM.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
When I said in the next sentence that the other stuff was a better test of gear (both use of and the hardware) and manipulations, that is exactly what I was talking about. The actual pressing the trigger part on man on man steel is pressing a trigger while someone else is pressing a trigger at the same time and trying to beat you. It is not really against a clock. It also forces you to focus on what YOU are doing with sights and trigger and not on the other guy. That is huge on street stuff. If you try to watch what your opponent is doing while trying to shoot it is instant fail....much like the street. It teaches shooting with a hard focus of fundamentals combined with situational awareness of your opponent. The field courses really test running the gun and your body while executing shooting fundamentals. It is stress but a different kind on different things. I never said nor do I think it is irrelevant, I just think it is a different kind of stress. What I have found in both my shootings and the ones my guys very successfully resolved was the stress you were trying to master was closer to the man on man kind. When I saw boat loads of failures on manipulations and gear during investigations......many of those would have been eliminated or at least heavily minimized from field type shooting competition.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".