John, do you have a reference elaborating on this, or do I just need to get my butt to a CSAT class (I know that)?Originally Posted by John Hearne
John, do you have a reference elaborating on this, or do I just need to get my butt to a CSAT class (I know that)?
Whole body - hand - hand - waist - face
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
Whole body at Walmart and I might need some eye bleach…
You could well be right. I listened to it at 0230 while dealing with insomnia, so that may have impaired my ability to understand. Or it could have simply been over my head. Thanks for elaborating on the main thrust of the podcast. Thanks also for the link to PFC - that place tends to fly beneath my radar, but appears to be top notch.
Ironic that you mention JJ. My buddy "Dave" who is the worst offender at refusing to slow down, and frequently shoots "hostages", has trained with JJ. When we call out Dave for hosing the hostage, he reminds us that JJ says "you gotta get your misses if you're gonna get better". *eyeroll* Dave is the most naturally gifted shooter in our crew, but he's also the guy I least want around in a gunfight.
I think this is what rightfully gives action pistol a bad name.
B/A class shooters that don’t quite get the concept.
“Get your misses” would be hitting Charlie’s rather than alphas, not missing or hitting no shoots.
It’s like a racer practicing and being 2 inches over the Apex line or 2 inches inside. They are close to getting it. The person who bombs through the corner at 15 miles over and 16° over rotated is not.
But yet you might hear the person bombing through saying that some racer told them that they need to miss some apexes in order to learn how to hit them at speed.
They misinterpreted what the racer was trying to say… they need to work on accuracy at speed.
The scale of being close “misses” is what drives improvement. But a miss in this case doesn’t mean missing the target. Or missing the target badly.
Over slow or grossly inaccurate, neither is good.
In order to avoid this kind of behavior, I understand why institutional training would make the compromise of saying no misses. Ever.
I think that is entirely appropriate for a tier 3 student and in your friend’s case, a tier 2 student.
It does not mean that it is best practice for a tier 1 student or for best long-term learning.
IMO, this is what the Bakersfield did very well for their police officers. They were motivated and likely tier 1 and 2 students. They practiced this as well as qualified with it. It was a drill and a test.
The important part of the hit factor scoring is that the center 10 point circle was modest size and the nine point rectangle wasn’t much wider, just taller.
In my opinion, this is necessary for the goals that they were trying to achieve.
Making the secondary scoring ring, wider but less points would meaningfully change the hit factor math (negatively), and not be as effective at training and feedback.
Using the modified USPSA target, like I suggested above with a 4 inch circle inside an A zone would accomplish a similar goal.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MUE...bSA7yxsGG/view
Howe's write-up is there.
Another unpopular opinion I’m sure but isn’t the landscape of (in)ability in the professional world the product of “legacy” training methods? Decades of accuracy focused training clearly hasn’t produced the skills needed to limit misses and bad shots at realistic speeds. I feel like the big disconnect is traditional training spends a lot of time hoping to ingrain disciplined careful reactive shooting which is totally ignored in the field. We see cops bill drilling suspects with abysmal accuracy mostly due to fundamentals, especially grip. The realiity is folks are going to move at the limit of human function and they need techniques and training that hold up under that pressure. I feel like the repetition (correct frequent dry practice) and performance (hit factor scoring driven) required to ingrain a good grip and sufficient vision on demand is wildly more popular among those who train practically.
Another potentially extremely unpopular opinion is the detractors from the practical approach really aught to give it a go on their own personally before they knock it. Maybe the best teachers for the professional world are those who grew up under the legacy methods, incorporated the practical methods and developed a mix of both?
Push your limits in practice with drills. When it’s a test, only your on demand performance counts.
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.
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost." -Arthur Ashe
Reply With Quote