Times change, do you?

ToddG · 06-29-09, 14:17

Originally Posted by Vinh

Sometimes I think I would be better off just choosing a system and training exclusively with that instructor/school.

There's good and bad in that.

I tell students all the time, go take classes elsewhere. As long as you know what you're doing and you're confident, it's never a bad thing to get exposed to different viewpoints. Try it, assess it, decide, move on. If you know three ways to hold a pistol, use the one that gives you the best results today. Six months from now if you feel you've hit a plateau, look back at some of the things you discarded. Will any of them help you past that plateau? You might already know a "better way" ...

On the other hand, if you go to three different schools that teach three radically divergent approaches to things, you're killing yourself. You can't practice Weaver for a month, then Iso for a month, then CAR for a month, and expect to have a grasp of any of it.

The most important thing, not to sound cliche, is don't sweat the small stuff. If Instructor-A tells you to stand completely square to the target and Instructor-B tells you to blade off 10 degrees, just do whatever feels/works best. If the instructor is absolutely unrelenting and insistent, do it his way during class and then, if you feel it's necessary, switch back. But consider not going back to an instructor who absolutely insists you do something in a way you know won't work for you.

**rob_s** · 06-29-09, 14:44

Originally Posted by ToddG

On the other hand, if you go to three different schools that teach three radically divergent approaches to things, you're killing yourself. You can't practice Weaver for a month, then Iso for a month, then CAR for a month, and expect to have a grasp of any of it.

I agree, but...

There's also now three methods that you've tried, and hopefully tried enough to get an idea of what works for you, and what you want to focus on. If you reach that point and have figured out which is your chosen method, then you can start to look for other instructors that fall within that method but also offer other pieces of the pie.

**Failure2Stop** · 06-29-09, 14:59

This thread has struck me again with something I have learned-
Handy catch-phrases are usually wrong.

Here are two that came readily-

"Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast."
Slow is slow. Efficient is smooth. Performing an inefficient movement slowly does not make it fast. The goal is to increase efficiency while decreasing time required to correctly perform an action. It takes a conscious effort to make yourself push to failure, reassemble yourself, and pick back up. You don't get fast by just going slow.
If I ruled the world, the quote would be, "Smooth is efficient, and efficiency is effectiveness."

"Advanced techniques are nothing but mastery of the fundamentals."
Eh, kinda. I would however, prefer if exactly what "advanced techniques" they are talking about, and what they consider to be "fundamental". Ask the instructors of four different disciplines of shooting what the findamentals are, and what they consider to be mastery would yield four very different answers.
Once again, if I ruled the world the quote would be changed to,
"Advanced techniques are nothing more than the proficient application of the fundamentals applied rapidly to ensure effective timely delivery of bullets while moving in or to unconventional and uncomfortable positions, firing at unusual angles at moving lethal threats, and doing so with aplomb."

Topic shift
Building the tool-box.
It is a common occurence for people to go to different courses to form the basis of their marksmanship proficiency. I have never attended a course that was identical to any other course. Good courses, while rarely claiming to be "the" way will usually explain that their way is simply "a" way, usually explained when a student points out a preceived flaw in a technique or to say that so and so does is differently. It's usually a simple way to get the student to be quiet and let them get on with the teaching. It's unfortunate that so many prefer to concede their choice as a decent program will be laid out to work in a specific skill-flow.

Example- a school teaches engaging from cover with skill X. Student prefers skill Y, taught somewhere else. Instructors do the whole "A" way, not the "the" way, "tool in the toolbox" song and dance, and the student continues on with skill Y. Now the course moves onto kinetically supported dynamic movement into cover. Now the student's Y skill set falls apart because the other place he went to did not cover this, and he finds out that skill Y sucks for this. At this point he is behind the power-curve, and will either have to admit that he was wrong and try to learn skill X, or try to make skill Y fit. Either way, he is not going to get much out of this portion of the course other than to discover that he sucks, that he needs to reconsider his chosen skill-sets, or bad-mouth the course lest others find out that he sucks.

What this boils down to is to follow what the course lays out before making random choices before undertanding the whole picture. Building a tool collection of metric snap-on tools and then throwing in a handful of standard bolts isn't going to do much for the usability of the existing set. Compatability issueas are not limited to computers.

Anyway, I don't mean to preach or lecture, just some things that came to mind and I am more than happy to discuss if anyone disagrees.

My parting thought (it was kinda nudged to the surface by a statement from SSFD from lightfighter)-
I do not train simply to be better than my anticipated adversary. I train to be the best. I strive to be better than I was yesterday.

**RogerinTPA** · 06-29-09, 16:34

F2S, I agree with much of what you have to say about building the "toolbox" but would like to add, that anyone who attends a course with such a myopic mindset, is wasting their time, money and a valuable training resource (The course he/she has signed up for). If a student is unwilling, unable, or incapable of grasping the course content, because of brain lock, personal stubbornness, preference, or "cult following" of a previous training methodology, then it is his loss and no amount of new skill training will change his mindset. On the other hand, a good student will absorb all the available information presented, then mold that info, along with previous training (Toolbox), to choose which TTPs to apply, which are (here's another catch phase) "situationally dependent" to his/her's, own particular set of circumstances. Variety in training, I feel, is a key to learning.

Your sigline says it all.

**John_Wayne777** · 06-29-09, 20:52

Originally Posted by rharris2163

On the other hand, a good student will absorb all the available information presented, then mold that info, along with previous training (Toolbox), to choose which TTPs to apply, which are (here's another catch phase) "situationally dependent" to his/her's, own particular set of circumstances. Variety in training, I feel, is a key to learning.

That leads me to something I should have mentioned in my initial post:

One of the most important things that I've learned over the years is what I dub the "Turn, Turn!" philosophy....named after that great song by the Byrds.

"....a time for immediate action, a time to seek cover! A time to shoot, a time to just run! A time to cast away mags! A time to keep spent mags on your person!"

The ability to read a situation properly, pull the right "tool" from the "toolbox" and apply it effectively is ultimately what all this is about.

**Gutshot John** · 06-29-09, 21:23

Originally Posted by John_Wayne777

One of the most important things that I've learned over the years is what I dub the "Turn, Turn!" philosophy....named after that great song by the Byrds.

One of those useless interjections...

That's actually the Bible, Ecclesiastes.