Shooting from Retention

[Mister X]

LOL! While you were writing your reply I was actually thinking of a time honored term used in law enforcement:

That's hilarious, but did you not read pretty much every post on this thread?

My point was just to get people to take a second look at how they're determining the validity of the material and hopefully segue into a more in-depth discussion about the process and the technical aspects. If you don't have a certain level of experience and training in martial arts, Combatives or ECQ shooting methods other than a Shivworks course or taken only them repeatedly, how can you actually have a well informed and objective opinion? Guess what, you can't. "Well, so and so said it was really good, so it must be." Not necessarily and that's been shown to be true time and time again. How about popularity? Nope. Just look at the various miltary Combatives programs throughout the years. Actually never mind, because many of you are not going to know the difference anyway, defaulting to "it must be super great since big army or the marines adopted it".

I don't need nor want Craig's material explained or proven to me personally and I don't believe I ever asked for it to be. I understand it perfectly well and think I was actually teaching functional solutions to this particular problem years before he was. I like the bulk of his ECQ shooting material, but not all of it. Coming in here cold and immediately offering unsolocited criticism and ways to improve it wouldn't be very welcome. It doesn't really matter if I presented the most brilliant solutions and tweaks, concepts or specific techniques, there would still be immediate resistance, opposition and dismissal. In person, I think it would likely be dramatically different, since it's kind of undeniable in that context, but online it's altogether different. I attempted a clumsy lead in and the devotees immediately closed ranks. A few insisted on knowing my background and experience and when I subsequently provide a portion of it, they become dismissive.

I asked what would you offer to a skeptic as evidence that Craig's material is worth exploring and there were offers to gather specific videos and whatnot, but nothing as of yet. There's really not much there in the OP's video, so it's a bit difficult to discuss specifics without writing a book unless that next step is taken, but all I've seen is mostly snide and snarky replies.

I don't know Craig, but I think he'd probably be receptive to a different approach and legitimate critiquing. And no there is not a consensus that his are the proven optimal method. Someone with a different background will approach the problem through the prism of their experience. Craig's solutions are IMO heavily filtered through his, based on what I see of his footwork, posture, positioning and angles, on which I have slightly different ideas. Same with his explanations as to why something is optimal and even his preferred carry position. Their foundation and framework are different than mine and they can keep pressure-testing it and tweaking the material, but it's still filtered through the same base.

Considering how much Craig's coursework has changed over the years, I think the open laboratory label is fairly accurate. I believe I hinted at that prior to EPF's mention of it and I apologize for not doing a better job of explaining and cropping my comment to him, which provoked his oh so clever, yet mistaken and misguided response....but in all honesty I didn't expect to have to be so careful about those kinds of things here.

It was a humorous Gabe Suarez comment that summoned me once again to this thread, but that seems to have since been removed.

Oh well, I guess I'll slink back to my cave now.

[blues]

That's hilarious, but did you not read pretty much every post on this thread?



Oh well, I guess I'll slink back to my cave now.

No need to try to use my post as a means to going back into your diatribes about Craig, Cecil or whomever. While Craig and I have LE friends and colleagues in common, we have never met in person nor have I taken any classes with either him or Cecil. In other words, I have no dog in the fight.

I respect and support your ability to question a technique and whether it's the best response to a given circumstance or situation. I don't respect your making it personal both here as well as on the S&W forum...especially when you have not had the honesty and strength of character to identify yourself and subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny, criticism and analysis.

I concur that slinking back into your cave may be the better part of valor under the circumstances. But that's your decision to make.

[Rex G]

That's hilarious, but did you not read pretty much every post on this thread?

My point was just to get people to take a second look at how they're determining the validity of the material and hopefully segue into a more in-depth discussion about the process and the technical aspects. If you don't have a certain level of experience and training in martial arts, Combatives or ECQ shooting methods other than a Shivworks course or taken only them repeatedly, how can you actually have a well informed and objective opinion? Guess what, you can't. "Well, so and so said it was really good, so it must be." Not necessarily and that's been shown to be true time and time again. How about popularity? Nope. Just look at the various miltary Combatives programs throughout the years. Actually never mind, because many of you are not going to know the difference anyway, defaulting to "it must be super great since big army or the marines adopted it".

I don't need nor want Craig's material explained or proven to me personally and I don't believe I ever asked for it to be. I understand it perfectly well and think I was actually teaching functional solutions to this particular problem years before he was. I like the bulk of his ECQ shooting material, but not all of it. Coming in here cold and immediately offering unsolocited criticism and ways to improve it wouldn't be very welcome. It doesn't really matter if I presented the most brilliant solutions and tweaks, concepts or specific techniques, there would still be immediate resistance, opposition and dismissal. In person, I think it would likely be dramatically different, since it's kind of undeniable in that context, but online it's altogether different. I attempted a clumsy lead in and the devotees immediately closed ranks. A few insisted on knowing my background and experience and when I subsequently provide a portion of it, they become dismissive.

I asked what would you offer to a skeptic as evidence that Craig's material is worth exploring and there were offers to gather specific videos and whatnot, but nothing as of yet. There's really not much there in the OP's video, so it's a bit difficult to discuss specifics without writing a book unless that next step is taken, but all I've seen is mostly snide and snarky replies.

I don't know Craig, but I think he'd probably be receptive to a different approach and legitimate critiquing. And no there is not a consensus that his are the proven optimal method. Someone with a different background will approach the problem through the prism of their experience. Craig's solutions are IMO heavily filtered through his, based on what I see of his footwork, posture, positioning and angles, on which I have slightly different ideas. Same with his explanations as to why something is optimal and even his preferred carry position. Their foundation and framework are different than mine and they can keep pressure-testing it and tweaking the material, but it's still filtered through the same base.

Considering how much Craig's coursework has changed over the years, I think the open laboratory label is fairly accurate. I believe I hinted at that prior to EPF's mention of it and I apologize for not doing a better job of explaining and cropping my comment to him, which provoked his oh so clever, yet mistaken and misguided response....but in all honesty I didn't expect to have to be so careful about those kinds of things here.

It was a humorous Gabe Suarez comment that summoned me once again to this thread, but that seems to have since been removed.

Oh well, I guess I'll slink back to my cave now.

Well, FWIW, Craig, himself, said that what he teaches is “A way, not THE way.”

Disclaimer: I attended ECQC 1.5 times. (Attended the whole class the first time, and missed one day the second time, due to a family issue.) i generally adopted his shooting-from-retention teaching, as it was more real-world relevant than what I had been taught at the PD academy.

[45dotACP]

I suppose at the end of the day, you make your choice and take your chance. I'm not so much of an expert to state that there is only one way, but I also know enough to know that the Dunning Kruger effect is a fairly string presence in both the firearms and martial arts worlds.

I trend towards taking advice from dudes who can do both to a very high degree. It just so happens that we have a few guys like that here who have verified backgrounds of having gone into harm's way and who have trained hundreds of people who have gone into harm's way and came out the other side because of what they learned.

So yeah, I totally respect the idea that someone might want their privacy to be respected. At the same time, such person should not get butthurt when they get told that their advice isn't worth much.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[HCountyGuy]

You know what, I’ve read enough of this shit...

Mister X, you boast an impressive yet so far unverifiable resume. That being said it’s one thing to critique certain techniques with valid concerns but you seem to have moved beyond that to the extent of what I would say is to insult the Shivworks methodology outright and be dismissive of members of the collective because you supposedly know better.

At no point has anyone here suggested that what is taught by Craig, Cecil and the others to be beyond reproach as the ultimate techniques. Even the Shivworks guys themselves acknowledge their techniques are but one way, yet the techniques they teach have repeatedly demonstrable effectiveness. If they find a better way to do something, they implement it and are adept at explaining the whys behind it.

You’ve reluctantly shared tidbits of your claimed background and make yourself out as one of those exclusive “I only train with the badasses” types, who tend to shroud themselves in secrecy because their actual experience doesn’t match up to their claims. I’m not saying that’s the case but that’s what I’m getting from your alleged background.

If you want your opinions to be taken seriously when you have the gall to challenge resident subject matter experts who are open about their backgrounds and experience, it might be prudent to offer yourself and your bodies of work up to be scrutinized too. Otherwise you’re another anonymous shit-poster on the bell curve of the Dunning-Kruger graph.

TL;DR:

Put up or shut up, ass.

[EPF]

At the risk of staying on topic

If someone can demonstrate a technique that works better than pectoral index, I’ll drop it like a rock. I’m not married to techniques.

I’ve yet to see a solution that better accomplishes:
1. Retaining the gun in a scramble
2. prevents shooting yourself
3. Maintains a predictable area of impact
4. Allows the gun to cycle

And can do these things from any dominant position. Standing or grounded, top or bottom and when transitioning positions.

[Totem Polar]

At the risk of staying on topic

If someone can demonstrate a technique that works better than pectoral index, I’ll drop it like a rock. I’m not married to techniques.

I’ve yet to see a solution that better accomplishes:
1. Retaining the gun in a scramble
2. prevents shooting yourself
3. Maintains a predictable area of impact
4. Allows the gun to cycle

And can do these things from any dominant position. Standing or grounded, top or bottom and when transitioning positions.

Man, that's a damn good summary. Succinct, and to the point.

[ViniVidivici]

Yes, the more I practice these techniques the more I like them. I like the "muscle-memory anchor" ( I know, kinesthetics) the TPI provides.

Gonna do more of this live-fire over the next few days.

[DWW]

I own several revolvers in addition to my semi-autos and will often carry a snubbie. Will the thumb-pectoral index work as well with revolvers(S&W 640, 442)? Do I need to make any adjustments to the technique and how I flag my thumb or position the gun?

[runcible]

I own several revolvers in addition to my semi-autos and will often carry a snubbie. Will the thumb-pectoral index work as well with revolvers(S&W 640, 442)? Do I need to make any adjustments to the technique and how I flag my thumb or position the gun?

Revolvers pair just fine with the TPI, and derive all of the same benefits as an auto when doing so - namely that the weapon is firing from a consistent position, at a consistent angle least-likely to intersect with one's own fending limbs, that same angle such that it can index off of hip orientation along the way to a firing solution, be able to remain so throughout firing the entire volume of loaded ammunition, and while minimizing opportunities for an opponent to touch the weapon.

I'm not aware of any special adaptations that are required for it; though - I do not write authoritatively on this matter. The thumb still needs to be flagged upwards and indexed against the edge of the pectoral muscle; the shoulder needs to be articulated upwards and backwards with the elbow leading that movement.

The one caveat that comes to mind still applies to autos - the prohibition on ported barrels remains in effect. This is not exclusive to the TPI as a concern, but it still bears mentioning.