Shooting from Retention

[runcible]

Primarily covering the weapon with two hands. From a purely one dimensional "own the bone" perspective, two hands are generally better than one and there might be instances in a contact scenario where it would probably be a good idea to do so temporarily. Utilizing it momentarily to allow you to retain possession of your weapon and transition out to a better position or angle makes sense to me. I surely don't like it at all as a default or for effectively getting off rounds(although it's not bad to understand it), plus I'm more of a snub revolver guy. Not an ideal posture to defend against strikes and especially takedown attempts, but it could work well enough depending on the skill of the individuals involved. No absolutes.

As you stated, it may serve you initially well if your goals do not involve staying on your feet and staying conscious.

I don't think you've done the work on this one with a revolver, of any sort; or your remark about firing multiple rounds (or indeed, any singular round) would not stand.

Are those of the skill-levels and inclinations that this technique would be functional against, be the sort of people that would give you legitimate cause to use this technique?

Vaya con pastelone.

[Mister X]

As you stated, it may serve you initially well if your goals do not involve staying on your feet and staying conscious.

I don't think you've done the work on this one with a revolver, of any sort; or your remark about firing multiple rounds (or indeed, any singular round) would not stand.

Are those of the skill-levels and inclinations that this technique would be functional against, be the sort of people that would give you legitimate cause to use this technique?

Vaya con pastelone.

Like I said, it has very limited use IMO and I'm just talking about momentarily putting two hands on the gun. Obviously problematic with a revolver, hence my comment. The Gracie's apparently think they can make it work as is. Could I make it work?, yeah probably in most circumstances, but I still wouldn't utilize it. An average joe might not fair so well. There's plenty of ECQC videos on YouTube showing people having to resort to putting two hands on the weapon to retain it and I've seen the same thing in my classes over the years.

[runcible]

Like I said, it has very limited use IMO and I'm just talking about momentarily putting two hands on the gun. Obviously problematic with a revolver, hence my comment. The Gracie's apparently think they can make it work as is. Could I make it work?, yeah probably in most circumstances, but I still wouldn't utilize it. An average joe might not fair so well. There's plenty of ECQC videos on YouTube showing people having to resort to putting two hands on the weapon to retain it and I've seen the same thing in my classes over the years.

I follow.

What it really comes down to at my end, is: if there are more viable techniques that accomplishes the ever-present goals AND are more likely to accomplish immediate priorities, why maintain such an overlapped diversity, with the implied time surfeit to choose which to use?

As you wrote, you wouldn't use it even with your confidence level; this, even with your previous training experience, with it even less likely to work for those without such.

It doesn't seem like a good use of limited training time for minimal (or notional) gain; but perhaps we are guided by different metrics in these things.

[Cecil Burch]

l. There's plenty of ECQC videos on YouTube showing people having to resort to putting two hands on the weapon to retain it and I've seen the same thing in my classes over the years.

Just because someone did it in ECQC does not on its own validate a technique. Many videos show people making multiple mistakes and having to fight from a worse deficit. If you have to use two hands to retain a pistol, you have screwed up. Period. There are also plenty of videos showing people doing good work and NOT using two hands because they did not make the mistake that led them down that path.

As runcible mentions above, there are better techniques that are easily taught and don’t require any greater level of training and are more efficient for the majority of people, so doing sub-optimal stuff seems a bit counter productive

As for Renee and Ryron - yes, they have respect in BJJ circles. That does not mean they have the same level of knowledge, expertise, or amount of time studying the situation. The simple fact is that neither has ever held a LE job, nor a Mil one, and they have lived their entire lives where they cannot ever carry a pistol concealed (L.A. and Rio). The only time they have with a pistol is purely theoretical. Does that mean they they cannot come up with good answers? No, but it does mean that legitimacy in one area does not confer the same legitimacy in another at all.

[Mister X]

Just because someone did it in ECQC does not on its own validate a technique. Many videos show people making multiple mistakes and having to fight from a worse deficit. If you have to use two hands to retain a pistol, you have screwed up. Period. There are also plenty of videos showing people doing good work and NOT using two hands because they did not make the mistake that led them down that path.

As runcible mentions above, there are better techniques that are easily taught and don’t require any greater level of training and are more efficient for the majority of people, so doing sub-optimal stuff seems a bit counter productive

As for Renee and Ryron - yes, they have respect in BJJ circles. That does not mean they have the same level of knowledge, expertise, or amount of time studying the situation. The simple fact is that neither has ever held a LE job, nor a Mil one, and they have lived their entire lives where they cannot ever carry a pistol concealed (L.A. and Rio). The only time they have with a pistol is purely theoretical. Does that mean they they cannot come up with good answers? No, but it does mean that legitimacy in one area does not confer the same legitimacy in another at all.

I agree it's not ideal to have to cover you're weapon with two hands, but couldn't the same be said about a lot of things to varying degrees. Is the guard itself sub-optimal? I can't think of any situation where I would ever want to find myself on the bottom in a ground scenario on the street, but I know it's prudent to learn workable solutions to survive, defend and get back to my feet effectively should I find myself there. That doesn't mean extensive study of the guard need be a primary focus of mine and using the G-Wrap as a default response makes about as much sense to me as utilizing pulling guard as one. Or what about covering up? Considered an essential and necessary skill to learn, yet not an ideal response. That doesn't mean I'd make Keysi my primary H2H system.

Even highly trained people screw up and have to resort to less than optimal methods to survive. I know I have at times even against seemingly substantially inferior opponents. After UFC 4, Royce talked about trying to take Hackney's punches on the hardest part of his head and even head-butting his fists, plus he never was able to take Keith down in that fight IIRC and had to put himself in a vulnerable position to win that fight, but he did what he had to at the time despite it being suboptimal. I have yet to meet an athlete or fighter who never makes mistakes. Is there always better options than covering the weapon in every situation?, In theory, I'd say probably so, but that doesn't mean a given individual can effectively execute them at that moment in time.

And one size doesn't fit all. A very athletic individual may find a particular technique functional whereas a lesser skilled one doesn't. I'm simply unable to execute a proper thumb-pectoral index as defined by Craig due to my anatomy, so ideal for me in that context is different from someone else.

Good points in the last paragraph and that's what was trying to hint at when mentioning looking at the problem one dimensionally, which to me is what they are doing based on what they know and their background.

[Cecil Burch]

I agree it's not ideal to have to cover you're weapon with two hands, but couldn't the same be said about a lot of things to varying degrees. Is the guard itself sub-optimal? I can't think of any situation where I would ever want to find myself on the bottom in a ground scenario on the street, but I know it's prudent to learn workable solutions to survive, defend and get back to my feet effectively should I find myself there. That doesn't mean extensive study of the guard need be a primary focus of mine and using the G-Wrap as a default response makes about as much sense to me as utilizing pulling guard as one. Or what about covering up? Considered an essential and necessary skill to learn, yet not an ideal response. That doesn't mean I'd make Keysi my primary H2H system.
.

You are mistakenly equating sub-optimal TECHNIQUES with sub-optimal CONTEXTS/SITUATIONS. They are not the same thing at all. The first is a thing, while the second is a "what". What I do when things go wrong has nothing to do in any way with WHAT I do. Guard is a conceptual framework rather a technique, while putting two hands on a gun is a bad specific and singular technique choice to do while in a sub-optimal situation. If I find myself on the ground because an attacker has put me there, then going to guard IS THE OPTIMAL answer, because a sub-optimal one is trying to respond by being in a far more inferior position. Actually, being in a sub-optimal situation in the first place means that you should be specifically looking for ONLY optimal techniques to do. Trying to execute sub-optimal ones in a sub-optimal situation is most likely a guaranteed recipe for complete failure.

Further, you seem to conflate the idea that sub-optimal actions are a direct result of the situation, and are needed as "back up plan". What you are not seeing is that optimal techniques are optimal because they can be used in sub-optimal situations, even if there is a deficit of some kind - initiative, physical disparity between opponents, environmental concerns (ground surface, how much room you have, etc). An optimal technique for an entangled fight works no matter the extras ; it is optimal because it can be used across all contexts, and it can be done all of the time by all of the people with only a reasonable amount of training time. Regardless of what kind of mistakes I make contextually/situationally I can do the good technique and never need to resort to the far worse technique. I will never need to put two hands on the gun, no matter how many errors I make, because we have good techniques that are better and can still be utilized. I am talking about the parachute and the reserve parachute, but you are arguing that if those two fail then we need to waste limited training time by also learning how to flap our arms really, really fast. Why? That is just an utter waste. We should spend our precious training time on what works over and over, not the foolish move that may work 1 out of 100 times, when we have a move that works 98 out of 100 times. If the best we can do is a sub-optimal action and we do not have an optimal one, then yeah, go for it. But that is almost never the case. I can perform optimal actions in sub-optimal situations regardless, otherwise it is not optimal.

[Mister X]

You are mistakenly equating sub-optimal TECHNIQUES with sub-optimal CONTEXTS/SITUATIONS. They are not the same thing at all. The first is a thing, while the second is a "what". What I do when things go wrong has nothing to do in any way with WHAT I do. Guard is a conceptual framework rather a technique, while putting two hands on a gun is a bad specific and singular technique choice to do while in a sub-optimal situation. If I find myself on the ground because an attacker has put me there, then going to guard IS THE OPTIMAL answer, because a sub-optimal one is trying to respond by being in a far more inferior position. Actually, being in a sub-optimal situation in the first place means that you should be specifically looking for ONLY optimal techniques to do. Trying to execute sub-optimal ones in a sub-optimal situation is most likely a guaranteed recipe for complete failure.

Further, you seem to conflate the idea that sub-optimal actions are a direct result of the situation, and are needed as "back up plan". What you are not seeing is that optimal techniques are optimal because they can be used in sub-optimal situations, even if there is a deficit of some kind - initiative, physical disparity between opponents, environmental concerns (ground surface, how much room you have, etc). An optimal technique for an entangled fight works no matter the extras ; it is optimal because it can be used across all contexts, and it can be done all of the time by all of the people with only a reasonable amount of training time. Regardless of what kind of mistakes I make contextually/situationally I can do the good technique and never need to resort to the far worse technique. I will never need to put two hands on the gun, no matter how many errors I make, because we have good techniques that are better and can still be utilized. I am talking about the parachute and the reserve parachute, but you are arguing that if those two fail then we need to waste limited training time by also learning how to flap our arms really, really fast. Why? That is just an utter waste. We should spend our precious training time on what works over and over, not the foolish move that may work 1 out of 100 times, when we have a move that works 98 out of 100 times. If the best we can do is a sub-optimal action and we do not have an optimal one, then yeah, go for it. But that is almost never the case. I can perform optimal actions in sub-optimal situations regardless, otherwise it is not optimal.

I sure don't think I'm confused or conflating anything, but maybe I'm not all that great at putting my thoughts to typed words. Very likely true considering how much editing has always been done on my articles, so there's that.

You talk with a high degree of certainty that you have established what constitutes optimal vs sub-optimal technique. I would ask where is your proof? Show me some hard evidence, I've love to see it.

Simply saying things like we've pressure-tested it in force-on-force or whatever doesn't really mean much since pretty much everyone says that. Rener even says it in his video. I think there's a lot of folks out there reaching false conclusions based on poorly thought out simulations and not many people seem to care to question it. I remember once asking Royce why their instructional videos didn't address takedown defense and his response was..."why would the shark mind being pulled into the water". Of course all his students nodded their head in approval to such a clever statement, not daring to question his infallible wisdom, but hopefully I don't have to explain to anyone here the absurdity of his comment.

A technique that works no matter what doesn't exist. I can recall the Gracie's pushing the narrative that size, strength, athleticism doesn't really matter as far back as the 80's, but hopefully no one is buying into any of that at this point in time. That doesn't imply I think all methods have equal validity or chance of success, because they don't, but I'm obviously skeptical of anyone who claims to have all the answers or that they've developed a nearly infallible system.

[runcible]

Pretty good stuff no doubt, although I do have some concerns regarding the thinking that one individual or small group is the infallible authority or somehow the only reputable source on this issue. A heck of a lot of folks are very well versed and capable on the topic, most from a heavy martial art background rather than being gun centric. It's really nothing new, even if the presentation may be.

Here, you disclose that not only have you been unexposed to the material but have also given the matter no critical thought. Following that, you argue against the body of material on principle and then drop a throw-away remark on the very material with which you have stated no familiarity.

That's a good point. Some guys have a high level of proficiency and knowledge themselves, but just can't impart it to another person for whatever reason. And I've seen guys with very medicore skills who are great teachers. Proficiency and knowledge also being two different things, but often referenced as being synonymous. A great instructor understands the needs for an individualized approach as well as the limitations and is able to customize their methods. A really physically talented guy can often get away with things most can't and the best response for them in a given situation may be different from the average person. There will be at least some subtle differences in application between nearly everyone and physical limitations often have to be addressed and mitigated, but that often seems to get overlooked by many in the gun world, but a good teacher gets it and will teach accordingly. Fighting effectively with a gun is very much an art.

Question everything and everybody. I would encourage everyone to take the class, but ultimately think for yourself by not taking everything as being unquestionably correct and set in stone. If you look at any given instructor's curriculum, it usually changes(often drastically) over the course of time, so are they right now or before? Maybe they even swing back around to an earlier way of thinking and methodology, with a few tweaks and better understanding of it. Groupthink is human nature. Every political party, martial art style and most forums have that dynamic going on. "Outsider" opinions that differ from the group and recognized leaders aren't usually very welcome and few seem willing to challenge the established beliefs and hierarchy.

Although some guys are both, most of the ECQ stuff has pretty much always been spearheaded by martial artists, rather than defensive shooting instructors. The latter have historically been somewhat dismissive of the issue from my perspective or have come up with some less than practical solutions. I look back when I was teaching DT to cops back in the 90's and much of my material looks fairly similar to a lot of what the Shivworks guys are currently doing.

Until the closing sentence, none of this had anything to do with the OP or Shivworks in particular.

The last sentence remains mystifying, given your stated ignorance on the subject. If you haven't considered the material sufficient to call it good or bad, how do you know it well enough to liken it your own material? If it is alike to your material, was your material also of ambiguous quality?

What's everyone's opinion on this....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stBfi_iru5M

Here we have a clip posted without commentary nor tie-in to the topic.

If someone was a bit skeptical and wanted proof, what would you provide as evidence?

Here, we still don't see an opinion on the video that you posted.

I was referring to the presentation itself(teaching method, terminology, verbiage, codification, etc..) being new and/or unique, not necessarily the material itself. It seems to really resonate with certain groups, somewhat reminiscent(at least to me) of Tony Blauer and his SPEAR system.

In regard to the Gracie/"G-wrap" video, I find a lot of problems with this solution, but I do see some merit to it as well. At least certain elements of it in very specific limited applications. The Gracie's are generally well respected and considered "known goods", which gives them a great deal of credibility with many people, but they are in no way infallible(especially when venturing outside their speciality) and it's ok to disagree with them. I was kind of curious if anyone would.

Bold: we learn that certain elements of eating a punch are desirable for the specifically limited application of being taken down.

Italics: we learn that you posted the video as a discrete test, to see if we'd give deference to the Gracies in the face of a technique that does not represent well in the observations of many.

Primarily covering the weapon with two hands. From a purely one dimensional "own the bone" perspective, two hands are generally better than one and there might be instances in a contact scenario where it would probably be a good idea to do so temporarily. Utilizing it momentarily to allow you to retain possession of your weapon and transition out to a better position or angle makes sense to me. I surely don't like it at all as a default or for effectively getting off rounds(although it's not bad to understand it), plus I'm more of a snub revolver guy. Not an ideal posture to defend against strikes and especially takedown attempts, but it could work well enough depending on the skill of the individuals involved. No absolutes.

Here, optimal tug-of-war technique is cited to support getting knocked out and being assisted to the ground.

If you didn't follow earlier, any additional\over-grip upon the barrel and cylinder of a revolver intended to make it harder to take that revolver from you, will obstruct the turn of the cylinder and prevent the firing of any rounds.

Like I said, it has very limited use IMO and I'm just talking about momentarily putting two hands on the gun. Obviously problematic with a revolver, hence my comment. The Gracie's apparently think they can make it work as is. Could I make it work?, yeah probably in most circumstances, but I still wouldn't utilize it. An average joe might not fair so well. There's plenty of ECQC videos on YouTube showing people having to resort to putting two hands on the weapon to retain it and I've seen the same thing in my classes over the years.

This is cognitive dissonance writ large.

This does not resemble an honest expectation for how an opponent committed to action is going to behave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhkGNyyrmKc (jump to 4:53)

I agree it's not ideal to have to cover you're weapon with two hands, but couldn't the same be said about a lot of things to varying degrees. Is the guard itself sub-optimal? I can't think of any situation where I would ever want to find myself on the bottom in a ground scenario on the street, but I know it's prudent to learn workable solutions to survive, defend and get back to my feet effectively should I find myself there. That doesn't mean extensive study of the guard need be a primary focus of mine and using the G-Wrap as a default response makes about as much sense to me as utilizing pulling guard as one. Or what about covering up? Considered an essential and necessary skill to learn, yet not an ideal response. That doesn't mean I'd make Keysi my primary H2H system.

Even highly trained people screw up and have to resort to less than optimal methods to survive. I know I have at times even against seemingly substantially inferior opponents. After UFC 4, Royce talked about trying to take Hackney's punches on the hardest part of his head and even head-butting his fists, plus he never was able to take Keith down in that fight IIRC and had to put himself in a vulnerable position to win that fight, but he did what he had to at the time despite it being suboptimal. I have yet to meet an athlete or fighter who never makes mistakes. Is there always better options than covering the weapon in every situation?, In theory, I'd say probably so, but that doesn't mean a given individual can effectively execute them at that moment in time.

And one size doesn't fit all. A very athletic individual may find a particular technique functional whereas a lesser skilled one doesn't. I'm simply unable to execute a proper thumb-pectoral index as defined by Craig due to my anatomy, so ideal for me in that context is different from someone else.

Good points in the last paragraph and that's what was trying to hint at when mentioning looking at the problem one dimensionally, which to me is what they are doing based on what they know and their background.

Italics: what does that have anything to do with the G-Wrap? What aspect of your anatomy precludes the TPI? The TPI seemingly or truthfully being precluded from your usage has absolutely no bearing on the viability or lackthereof, of the G-Wrap.

I sure don't think I'm confused or conflating anything, but maybe I'm not all that great at putting my thoughts to typed words. Very likely true considering how much editing has always been done on my articles, so there's that.

You talk with a high degree of certainty that you have established what constitutes optimal vs sub-optimal technique. I would ask where is your proof? Show me some hard evidence, I've love to see it.

Simply saying things like we've pressure-tested it in force-on-force or whatever doesn't really mean much since pretty much everyone says that. Rener even says it in his video. I think there's a lot of folks out there reaching false conclusions based on poorly thought out simulations and not many people seem to care to question it. I remember once asking Royce why their instructional videos didn't address takedown defense and his response was..."why would the shark mind being pulled into the water". Of course all his students nodded their head in approval to such a clever statement, not daring to question his infallible wisdom, but hopefully I don't have to explain to anyone here the absurdity of his comment.

A technique that works no matter what doesn't exist. I can recall the Gracie's pushing the narrative that size, strength, athleticism doesn't really matter as far back as the 80's, but hopefully no one is buying into any of that at this point in time. That doesn't imply I think all methods have equal validity or chance of success, because they don't, but I'm obviously skeptical of anyone who claims to have all the answers or that they've developed a nearly infallible system.

Bold: http://www.iacombatives.com/seminar-schedule/

---

Mister X,

We have ever-shifting goalposts in this discussion, to the point that it seems you are either uninterested in any answer that does not justify training this technique for a 1% negative-confluence bad-day sort of thing or are being willfully argumentative.

I don't write here terribly often, and I certainly don't write long posts like this very often at all; but you read very much as if you're going to keep shifting what you claim to believe or to be defending, until such a time as someone's comportment gives way or until you have cured anyone of the desire to discuss this topic at hand.

You are unable to articulate what is specifically bad or undesirable about the original video posted, and you are unable to articulate what is worthy of practice in the video you posted. Your only consistency is as relates to posting nothing related to the original video posted, in posting nothing related to the technical discussion afterwards, and in making vague allusions to expertise. You are posting a blather of generalizations and a smattering of platitudes, and I don't think that's very helpful.

[Mister X]

Did I specifically criticize the material shown in the OP's video? I asked for evidence of its effectiveness and questioned if someone knew nothing of the subject, how would you convince them of its validity and effectiveness. I've always continually reevaluated everything I've learned and taught. A lot of folks don't seem to do that or ever question their instructor. That's a big mistake as far as I'm concerned, but apparently it's human nature since I see it so occuring frequently. I won't ever reach a point where I think I know it all or have all the answers. I'm curious as to how people are sorting out what's legitimate and what's nonsense. The other day I saw a well known gun writer recommend a particular class because so and so said it was great, despite admitting he had absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter. I see that all the time and it makes me wonder. Perhaps 'follow the money' is at the heart of it.

I don't think I have to take a class with Craig Douglas or Cecil Burch to make an informed opinion on what they teach, due to my background and because they put so much material online in the form of articles and videos for review. I think most of Craig's close-quarter shooting stuff is pretty good, even if I don't agree with everything he teaches, but that's the case with anyone as it should be. I have a significantly lower opinion of Cecil's H2H methods, attitude, skills and material to be completely honest.

[BehindBlueI's]

Did I specifically criticize the material shown in the OP's video? I asked for evidence of its effectiveness and questioned if someone knew nothing of the subject, how would you convince them of its validity and effectiveness. I've always continually reevaluated everything I've learned and taught. A lot of folks don't seem to do that or ever question their instructor. That's a big mistake as far as I'm concerned, but apparently it's human nature since I see it so occuring frequently. I won't ever reach a point where I think I know it all or have all the answers. I'm curious as to how people are sorting out what's legitimate and what's nonsense. The other day I saw a well known gun writer recommend a particular class because so and so said it was great, despite admitting he had absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter. I see that all the time and it makes me wonder. Perhaps 'follow the money' is at the heart of it.

I don't think I have to take a class with Craig Douglas or Cecil Burch to make an informed opinion on what they teach, due to my background and because they put so much material online in the form of articles and videos for review. I think most of Craig's close-quarter shooting stuff is pretty good, even if I don't agree with everything he teaches, but that's the case with anyone as it should be. I have a significantly lower opinion of Cecil's H2H methods, attitude, skills and material to be completely honest.

You come across as someone "testing us" more than someone legitimately looking for, or sharing, valid critiques. You wanted to see if there was a cult of personality that would preclude criticism. There wasn't. Are you done?