Training the caveman vs. training the athlete

[esrice]

There are two overarching themes I see often in the training realm, and for the most part they seem at opposition to one another. Due to the divergent nature of these two paths, I thought it would make for an interesting topic to discuss here.

The first is the basis that, under stress, when it's time to fight, we as humans revert back to using the part of our brain often called the "caveman brain". This is the part of the brain where gross motor skills are emphasized, decision making is grossly compartmentalized, and simpler tasks are prioritized over more complex ones.

This training path is often marked by--

• non-diagnostic malfunction clearance
• hand-over-slide charging instead of using slide stop
• low, hunched-over shooting position
• letting partial mags hit the deck on proactive reloads
• re-charging the slide on proactive reloads (thereby ejecting the chambered round)
• abandonment of "administrative" gun handling tasks
• acceptance of point- or target-focused shooting
• maintaining continuity across varying weapon platforms and techniques
• and more . . . .

The other path trains as professional athletes, pushing aside the caveman and training to a higher performance standard. This path emphasizes speed and efficiency over all else, and feels that the cavaman-like effects of stress can be minimized or even eliminated through high-level training.

This training path is often marked by--

• diagnostic malfunction clearance
• utilizing the slide stop instead of hand-over-slide charging
• relaxed, head-up shooting position
• retaining partial mags during proactive reloads
• separate "administrative" gun handling tasks
• disdain for anything that resembles point-shooting
• many specific techniques for each weapon platform and specific situation
• and more . . . .

"Cavemen" give reasoning for their methods like "it's reliable, even under stress" and "I don't have to train 10 different methods when 1 can work for the majority of circumstances". "Athletes" give reasoning like "this way is faster and more efficient-- and seconds count in a gunfight" and "why dumb down when you can rise up to a higher level of performance?"

A "caveman" might drill on 2 different knife techniques, and drill them until they are second nature. They would be simple to execute, and robust in nature. They might not be the best for some circumstances, but they would be acceptable in all circumstances. An "athlete" might drill on 10 different techniques pulled from many different disciplines. They might also practice several different combinations. They would know which technique is best used against different types of attacks.

A "caveman" might see a new technique and ask himself "Is this simpler than what I'm already doing?", "Could I do that repeatedly under stress?", "Could I do this whether I was holding a gun, a knife, or a stick?" An "athlete" might see this same new technique and ask himself "Is this faster than what I'm already doing?" "Is it a more efficient way of moving?"


So here are the questions I would pose to INGOers--

Are these themes truly opposed or is there middle ground?

Which should be more important when speaking of defensive techniques and tactics-- speed or reliability under stress?

Can a person "train out" the effects of stress? If so, what kind and how much training does it take?

Is "caveman brain" just an excuse to being lazy, inefficient, and not at the top of one's shooting potential?

Is training to the highest level foolhardy and not applicable under stress?


I look forward to hearing your responses. I'll add my own two cents sometime later.

 

[ViperJock]

IMO you should train both ways as much as possible. For many of the caveman techniques; learning 2 knife attacks,for example, an Athlete approach would eventually give you a caveman response with 10 attacks. Obviously, losing fine motor skills with adrenaline rush makes some athlete techniques difficult or impossible. There is middle ground I think. But I also think some techniques are practically exclusionary.

 

[ghuns]

Can a person "train out" the effects of stress? If so, what kind and how much training does it take?

I would say yes. But it would take much more training than the average civilian wants to endure.

Our military has learned to train out the preference that most humans have to NOT kill other humans. That seems like a bigger barrier to me than training out the effects of stress. But, whadda I know.

 

[jontheturboguy]

Im going to throw this out there.... using the slide stop imo is not practical nor ideal.

I will not write a page long thesis on this. However, when your hands are cold, numb, bloody, missing thumbs, or in gloves the slide stop is useless. End of story.

Especially on a Glock, the slide stop was never designed to send the slide forward. This is not my opinion - this is multitudes of firearms instructors and Glock themselves.

 

[esrice]

However, when your hands are cold, numb, bloody, missing thumbs, or in gloves the slide stop is useless. End of story.

So you're suggesting that, although using the slide stop is faster, you prefer not to use it because it is less reliable. So you'd put reliability over speed in this case. Your example illustrates this concept pretty well. It would put you in the "caveman" camp.

I believe the "athlete" would argue that if hitting the slide stop was ingrained into your training, hitting it would be no less reliable, and still faster. Or that if such an action failed, you could rely on several other techniques that you had trained on.

 

[jontheturboguy]

So you're suggesting that, although using the slide stop is faster, you prefer not to use it because it is less reliable. So you'd put reliability over speed in this case. Your example illustrates this concept pretty well. It would put you in the "caveman" camp.

If caveman wins the fight, you bet. The fastest race car doesn't win the race, the one that finishes first does.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I of the opinion that it just does not matter. Way A vs. Way B, utterly meaningless, or perhaps distinctions without difference.

I am of the opinions that only repetitions matter.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Yes. Muscle memory for the win. Drill the primary and simplest action into muscle memory so that it it becomes second nature.

If you would also like to train for secondary scenarios and tactics, go for it. They my or may not get used in the heat of battle.

Not a firearms instructor, but I was a licensed skydiving instructor. Lots of caveman brain when the rubber meets the road we call free fall.

 

[Latewatch]

I'm a big proponent of emphasizing "principles" over "techniques" so I don't get wrapped around the axle too much one way or the other. With that being said, a lot of this depends on your target audience. There is a big difference training people who are willing or required to train regularly and are dedicated to achieving a high level of performance and training people who are not willing or able to train regularly.

 

[N8RV]

As Kirk said, Evan, it's not one or the other for everyone. We're all different -- some of us ARE cavemen, and others are athletes by nature. Forcing a caveman to emulate an athlete would be an exercise in futility and frustration for both the teacher and the student.

And, complicating it further, sometimes circumstances force a natural athlete to train like a caveman. For instance, take a typical competitive, Type A natural athlete who wants to learn defensive shooting skills -- by nature, he wants to master the details and be on the timer, shaving hundredths off his times, or making his groups succeedingly smaller. However, his work schedule or finances don't allow him the luxury of dedicating himself to the training regimen that would fully develop those skills. He might have no choice but to approach training like a caveman, just to reach an acceptable level of competence for survival in a lethal force encounter. It's not ideal, but it's better than getting mired in the minutiae of an athletic training approach.

Conversely, a natural caveman doesn't WANT to know details. He just wants to emerge victorious. He doesn't really care if he can put 5 rounds into one hole, but just wants to make sure that all hits are juicy ones. Put a caveman into a training regimen that analyses the details of grip and sight picture that will allow him to shoot small groups after hours of practice and he'll get discouraged and quit. He's a street fighter, not a prize fighter. However, his circumstances may dictate that, because he can't hit the broad side of a barn reliably, he MUST learn to approach his skills with more athleticism, despite not wanting to know the details. Those details may be exactly what's keeping him from progressing.

Good question, but I don't think that there is a single "best" answer. Like most questions in life, the right answer is probably, "It depends."

 

[jaschutz79]

To me it comes down to people that put the work in and the people that don't. One takes more work to perfect than the other.

The "caveman" techniques are simple and reliable.

The "athlete" techniques are efficient and fast.

I look at the way you broke down the two camps. I use techniques from both. Sounds like a list of defensive vs competitive shooter.

As a side note...I don't buy the slide stop technique. I use 3 separate techniques. Overhand for my Limited 2011 gun, Left thumb on 1911s, Right thumb for my Glocks etc. They are the fastest most reliable method for me on each gun. And minus the missing thumb...I've ran them all under such circumstances.

 

[Josh Ward]

As Kirk said, Evan, it's not one or the other for everyone. We're all different -- some of us ARE cavemen, and others are athletes by nature. Forcing a caveman to emulate an athlete would be an exercise in futility and frustration for both the teacher and the student.

And, complicating it further, sometimes circumstances force a natural athlete to train like a caveman. For instance, take a typical competitive, Type A natural athlete who wants to learn defensive shooting skills -- by nature, he wants to master the details and be on the timer, shaving hundredths off his times, or making his groups succeedingly smaller. However, his work schedule or finances don't allow him the luxury of dedicating himself to the training regimen that would fully develop those skills. He might have no choice but to approach training like a caveman, just to reach an acceptable level of competence for survival in a lethal force encounter. It's not ideal, but it's better than getting mired in the minutiae of an athletic training approach.

Conversely, a natural caveman doesn't WANT to know details. He just wants to emerge victorious. He doesn't really care if he can put 5 rounds into one hole, but just wants to make sure that all hits are juicy ones. Put a caveman into a training regimen that analyses the details of grip and sight picture that will allow him to shoot small groups after hours of practice and he'll get discouraged and quit. He's a street fighter, not a prize fighter. However, his circumstances may dictate that, because he can't hit the broad side of a barn reliably, he MUST learn to approach his skills with more athleticism, despite not wanting to know the details. Those details may be exactly what's keeping him from progressing.

Good question, but I don't think that there is a single "best" answer. Like most questions in life, the right answer is probably, "It depends."

^^^THIS^^^

Pretty common sense thought process there.

I use bits and pieces from both side of your examples Evan .... ie-if I'm running a gun that I'm intimately familiar with, I'm going to use the methods that are the fastest for ME, ie slide stop on a 1911. That being said I typically train to retain mags, empty or otherwise, but I think its silly to charge the slide on a proactive reload, but when training I'm typically "hunched over", hopefully working around, over, or under some sort of cover, or busting butt off the X to cover...... so yeah, I don't know if I'm a caveman or an athlete, I just wanna pass the first rule of a fight - don't get shot or stabbed .....

 

[esrice]

Good answers so far!

Here are mine--

Are these themes truly opposed or is there middle ground?

I've seen examples on both sides of the extreme, but I personally believe there is a middle ground. As stated above, familiarity and repetition plays a big role here. I utilize techniques from both lists, and have done so under the effects of stress.

Which should be more important when speaking of defensive techniques and tactics-- speed or reliability under stress?

Between those two I believe reliability under stress is more important. Rarely do shootouts occur at high noon with shooters facing each other and attempting to outdraw one another. That's not to say that speed isn't important, just that I prefer techniques that are highly reliable, even if slightly slower overall.

Can a person "train out" the effects of stress? If so, what kind and how much training does it take?

I certainly believe that training can minimize the effects of stress. It can also show you how your body personally processes stress. But I believe it takes contextual training under stressful conditions-- something lacking in the majority of current defensive shooting courses.

I also believe more complicated techniques take more dedicated time and effort than your Regular Guy can or will put in. I understand a SF guy like Travis Haley striving for excellence, being a thinker, and diagnosing malfunctions in-fight. He's had LOTS of specialized training and actual experience in such matters. I don't necessarily believe it's wise to teach those same techniques to Joe the Plumber so he can protect his family while sitting in church. When Joe's gun goes click instead of bang he could be stuck staring at it trying desperately to remember the right acronym or formula for fixing it.

Is "caveman brain" just an excuse to being lazy, inefficient, and not at the top of one's shooting potential?

The body's response to stress and mid-brain reaction is scientifically proven. I don't think it should be ignored. If our bodies respond differently under stress than they do in training, then we need to either adjust our methods or (preferably) train under such stress.

So the expert knife fighter should either drill a "sewing machine" technique, or he should (preferably) see if his fancy moves hold up when there's a 200lb. druggie trying to "sew him up".

Is training to the highest level foolhardy and not applicable under stress?

You should be as fast and efficient as you can be under the worst of conditions, not under ideal conditions. If you can reliably hit the slide stop, juggle two mags during a proactive reload, and diagnose a malf on the fly, all under contextual and simulated stress, then it works. If your chosen techniques fail under this testing, then you can either adopt a simpler technique or put in more time to ensure you don't fail.

 

[Rob377]

Im going to throw this out there.... using the slide stop imo is not practical nor ideal.

I will not write a page long thesis on this. However, when your hands are cold, numb, bloody, missing thumbs, or in gloves the slide stop is useless. End of story.

Especially on a Glock, the slide stop was never designed to send the slide forward. This is not my opinion - this is multitudes of firearms instructors and Glock themselves.

Actually, that's not correct.

From the Manual

4. After the last round has been fired, the slide remains open. Remove the empty magazine from
the weapon by pushing the magazine catch (19). Insert a new magazine and then either push
the slide stop lever (27) downwards (see photo), or pull the slide slightly backwards and allow it
to spring forwards. The weapon is now again secured and ready to fire

They even put a pic of someone using it in a manner that it allegedly wasn't designed for in the manual.


From Gaston's Patent Application.

Patent US4539889 - Automatic pistol with counteracting spring control mechanism - Google Patents

A device can also be provided to ensure quick preparation to fire on changing the cartridge clip, whose construction is described in detail below with reference to FIGS. 32-35. To this end a lever shown generally at 301 is provided which is pivoted on the axle pin 212 of the trigger 63 and received in a laterally open recess 302 of the trigger 63. The lever 301 is provided on its underside with a hook 303 in which is hooked the end of a hairpin spring 304 which surrounds the pin 212 partially and is caught in a groove of the web 210. This spring 304 tries to pivot the lever 301 into a lower end position in which a handle 305 lies in a recess of the frame 1. In addition the lever 301 has on its upper side a nose 307 which engages in the path of a slide that is backed up by a spring in the clip as will be described below and which urges the cartridges upward. When the last cartridge of the clip is inserted into the barrel 4 the slide of the clip engages the nose 307 of the lever and tries to pivot same up. Such pivoting of the lever 301 is prevented by the lower edge of the slide 2. After firing the cartridge the lever 301 enters into a recess 308 (FIG. 29) on the lower edge of the slide 2 when this is in its end position. The lever 301 latches the slide 2 against moving forward. Swinging of the lever 301 on the pin 212 (FIG. 24) maintains this latching even when the clip is removed and replaced with a new clip. As soon as the handle 305 of the lever 301 is swung down, the slide 2 is moved by the force of the recoil spring 14 forward and pushes the first cartridge of the new clip into the barrel 4. Thus it is no longer necessary to pull back the slide after changing the cartridge clip.[/size]

 

[armedindy]

i say become a good caveman first, then if youre inclined, train more like the athlete

 

[Rob377]

i say become a good caveman first, then if youre inclined, train more like the athlete

This is actually a good point. This has been hashed over before, framed as competence v. excellence.
Excellence vs. Competence | Gun Nuts Media

 

[Trigger Time]

I haven't read any of the comments, just the OP. So if I parrot anything that's been said I apologize. I see things in both training styles that are advantageous. For example, racking the slide rather than manipulating the slide stop. I believe it forces you to observe what's happening with your handgun. I also believe in head up shooting. I just think it forces you to break tunnel vision. (Other advantages to both techniques but I'm keeping it short n sweet) So I use those 2 just for example that I like aspects of both styles.
Not everyone can be a Super Bowl winning quarterback, but I do believe everyone can be taught to play football and have a role. Something is better than nothing. For people who feel they can advance and operate flawlessly at that higher level (or have a need to), Then I think that everyone should always push themselves to the point of fail to know at what threshold you can get to. It builds confidence that leads to victory.

 

[cedartop]

Good answers so far!

Here are mine--



I've seen examples on both sides of the extreme, but I personally believe there is a middle ground. As stated above, familiarity and repetition plays a big role here. I utilize techniques from both lists, and have done so under the effects of stress.



Between those two I believe reliability under stress is more important. Rarely do shootouts occur at high noon with shooters facing each other and attempting to outdraw one another. That's not to say that speed isn't important, just that I prefer techniques that are highly reliable, even if slightly slower overall.



I certainly believe that training can minimize the effects of stress. It can also show you how your body personally processes stress. But I believe it takes contextual training under stressful conditions-- something lacking in the majority of current defensive shooting courses.

I also believe more complicated techniques take more dedicated time and effort than your Regular Guy can or will put in. I understand a SF guy like Travis Haley striving for excellence, being a thinker, and diagnosing malfunctions in-fight. He's had LOTS of specialized training and actual experience in such matters. I don't necessarily believe it's wise to teach those same techniques to Joe the Plumber so he can protect his family while sitting in church. When Joe's gun goes click instead of bang he could be stuck staring at it trying desperately to remember the right acronym or formula for fixing it.



The body's response to stress and mid-brain reaction is scientifically proven. I don't think it should be ignored. If our bodies respond differently under stress than they do in training, then we need to either adjust our methods or (preferably) train under such stress.

So the expert knife fighter should either drill a "sewing machine" technique, or he should (preferably) see if his fancy moves hold up when there's a 200lb. druggie trying to "sew him up".



You should be as fast and efficient as you can be under the worst of conditions, not under ideal conditions. If you can reliably hit the slide stop, juggle two mags during a proactive reload, and diagnose a malf on the fly, all under contextual and simulated stress, then it works. If your chosen techniques fail under this testing, then you can either adopt a simpler technique or put in more time to ensure you don't fail.

Lot of good responses to the thread Evan. I was going to type out a lengthy response but you pretty much just stole most of it. If you wanted more dissension er, I mean discussion you should add names to the styles, then we can argue. Speaking of which, I like Travis Haley but reading his class descriptions gives me a headache.

 

[esrice]

This has been hashed over before, framed as competence v. excellence.
Excellence vs. Competence | Gun Nuts Media

Looks like a good article. Will read in full when I can.

I'd be interested to get your take on the matter too Rob, unless you feel the article sums up your thoughts well enough.

 

[cedartop]

i say become a good caveman first, then if youre inclined, train more like the athlete

Yes, I agree. I was almost completely caveman but have now "evolved" (pun intended) to some athletic tendencies.