Another one of Gabe's emails that bears repeating. . .
W9ZEB and I just had this discussion at the 1500 on Saturday.
**********************************************
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I don't care who told you what. If you are not doing FOF, you are playing games and not really training for the gunfight. Here is an article I wrote a year ago. It bears revisiting.
Imagine for a moment if you will, a class of students attentively studying the art of swimming. The instructor, ostensibly an expert swimmer with vast and honorable credentials, certified by the international swimming associations and such, calmly walks up to the class wearing an impeccable gray business suit and begins lecturing on swimming. The environment is totally business-like, clinical, comfortable and dry. the students are clothed in similar business attire to the instructor, doing their very best to emulate him, and notes are being taken as they sip water or coffee.
The renowned lecturer goes on to describe the need to float, and to move the arms and legs in unison, this way and that. He discusses in passing how to breathe and what water temperature may do to the technique. He discusses warm water and cold water swimming methods, and he shows films of swimmers, and analyzes their techniques.
Finally, after discussion groups and several written tests, the class understands the concept of swimming.
Then they retire to their respective swim couches and practice their strokes carefully and incessantly. After a while they very good at this and can whip out a back stroke or breast stroke or even a dog paddle like the expert in class. They are given Swimmer Diplomas and sent out ready to swim, or teach others how to swim....should the need arise.
Eventually these would-be swimmers begin discussing the merits of pumping the arms more than the feet, or of holding the breath or the theoretical need to get the head up out of the place the water would be, if in fact they were actually swimming in water, in order to breathe. Minutia upon minutia are analyzed and discussed to perfect "the couch swim".
But the problem is that nobody ever gets into the water. You see, the water is a fearful place. One actually gets wet. "There be dragons" seems to be the attitude. "The water is not safe", some say. Others say that the mere suggestion that one would have to test the Master Swimmer's Theory Of Swimming, by actually swimming, to be a disloyal and unfaithful act.
"Analytical swimmers do not need to get into the water", others murmur as they grind through their swim kata every day.
The discussions on minutia and the unanswered questions persist. Yet if one of them dared to wander into the murky wetness, all the questions that they have spent hours and hours bemusing would be answered in one instant flash of sudden understanding.
I'll let you in on a secret. It is a dark and ugly secret that has been kept hidden like a national security issue for decades.
The master swimmer does not, in fact, know how to swim.
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The master swimmer does not, in fact, know how to swim.
He can teach you the technique for making swimming motions on a safe couch, but he knows nothing of the water. The couch swim doesn't work in a pool, much less in the ocean. His students would drown.
That is a fact he would kill to keep hidden, because he has invested so much in his teaching methods and technical presentation.
Quite an illustration isn't it? Much the same can be said for many other things in life from driving, to mating, to actually having to make a living in the "cold cruel world". One of them is Gun Fighting.
I get students from range-based schools, and their proponents all the time. These guys and gals have been drilled into the indoctrination of how to stand perfectly, how to draw correctly, and of course, how to carefully use the sights to precisely fire a surgically placed pair into a piece of paper.
They have spent their training time perfecting their stance, or focusing more on their front sight, or reacting to the first tone of the whistle or tone. Slight changes in holsters, or triggers, or grips, or other incomprehensible irrelevancies filled their study time.
These things do not last more than the first few minutes of one of our classes.
Yet, some of our heresy and blasphemies have spread through the cracks into other other's curricula. Formerly square-range based, they hesitatingly want to put a toe into the water without getting their carefully pressed Royal Robbins tuxedo wet. You see, it is impossible to hide the truth in the age of the internet.
I have seen them come and draw and fire, then and only then taking a quick single side step so as to give passing lip service to getting off the line of fire, getting off the "X", without altering their precise sight picture and carefully developed stable platform.
The open mouth and furrowed brow that results from their failure in force on force is almost uniform.
If only people would simply get into the water...into the Force on Force crucible, all things would be known immediately like the dripping swimmer who has just completed his first pool workout.
In a handful of chaotic and often intense seconds, the force on force student knows more about gunfighting than the untested range instructor who has been shooting groups all his life. And in that sudden fearful realization of what combat is really all about, and in how easy it is to still get killed in spite of all your marksmanship skills, your view on things and your focus in training will change. Things will never be the same again.
Stop being the theoretical dry couch swimmer and jump into the freaking pool. Heck, just think of all the time and money that will be saved once you have the "secret" knowledge that so many are trying to keep from you. Put down your range bag, grab an Airsoft pistol and a training partner and step into the light.
[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I often get asked a number of questions about force on force. Here are some. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]1). how much of the square range stuff does carry over successfully into FOF?
That depends on what sort of range stuff you have done. In several years and maybe a thousand students through the training I have yet to see anyone use a "proper weaver stance", nor calmly fire controlled pairs while watching their sights in a reactive encounter.
What I do see them do, in reactive drills (versus proactive ambushes) is dynamically move out of the line of fire, draw and thrust the gun out, working the trigger like the gun was a Class 3 Machinegun. There is of course, a place for proactive sighted fire, but if that is all someone has been doing (like in 99% of commercial US gun schools) they are totally unprepared for a gunfight.
2). Are skills like the draw and a two-handed grip considered secondary to learning the dynamic draws and movements in FOF that allow you to avoid the initial shot? Or, would it be better to establish a solid foundation in the basics first and then bring those skills to FOF?
After doing this for several years now, I think learning FOF first makes far more sense. In the beginning I went the other way because the vast majority of the "market" came from the range training world and then, at some point, wanted to test themselves in FOF. Today we see alot of new shooters wanting to learn gunfighting and not so much shoot like they do at a classic gunschool. It is far easier to teach aman who knows how to fight about marksmanship, than it is to teach a marksman how to fight.
3). Should I learn to experience (and then win) the fight first and then go back and develop solid gun-handling skills based on the contexts I experienced during the test.
That would be best. Once a student has felt the adrenaline of the fight, and knows exactly what he will need to do, he understands how he needs to train. The result uis a very finely tuned BS meter, an irreverance for gun gurus (our students could hand most gun guru's butts to them), and a desire to test everything to see if it works.[/FONT]
The main reason why more guys don't do this is the same reason so many martial arts schools don't do "Full Contact Fighting". After a full contact fight, both sides look like they were in a street fight. Fighting like this is humbling, but it will get you ready for the real thing.
Training for reality is not like the "martial artist" who shows up to "train" in a splendidly pressed uniform and does some classic ancient solo-form against unseen enemies with technical perfection that leaves everyone gasping and feeling good - specially the performer.
Nope. You can train for ego, or you can train to win.
I would say that 99% of all American Commercial Gun Schools are not in the business of teaching anyone to REALLY fight, they are in the business of empowering their students, or teaching people to feel good about themselves.
Its like that school that has a Handgun Combat Master certification. They teach guys to pass the test (originally invented by Chuck Taylor to challenge the existing status quo for commercial reasons) and then send them off into the world with highly inflated opinions of their own combat skills.
While these guys know how to shoot well against a piece of cardboard, when they have come to our "cage" they have not done so well. In fact, trying to hard to force their hard-trained techniques to work in a fluid situation like our drills, they often get shot to bits by more agile and less classically trained opponents.
So what does that tell me? That the majority of so called "defensive shooting" training out there is virtually worthless in a real fight. If you ain't doing FOF, you are not ready for the gunfight!
Gabe Suarez
W9ZEB and I just had this discussion at the 1500 on Saturday.
**********************************************
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I don't care who told you what. If you are not doing FOF, you are playing games and not really training for the gunfight. Here is an article I wrote a year ago. It bears revisiting.
Imagine for a moment if you will, a class of students attentively studying the art of swimming. The instructor, ostensibly an expert swimmer with vast and honorable credentials, certified by the international swimming associations and such, calmly walks up to the class wearing an impeccable gray business suit and begins lecturing on swimming. The environment is totally business-like, clinical, comfortable and dry. the students are clothed in similar business attire to the instructor, doing their very best to emulate him, and notes are being taken as they sip water or coffee.
The renowned lecturer goes on to describe the need to float, and to move the arms and legs in unison, this way and that. He discusses in passing how to breathe and what water temperature may do to the technique. He discusses warm water and cold water swimming methods, and he shows films of swimmers, and analyzes their techniques.
Finally, after discussion groups and several written tests, the class understands the concept of swimming.
Then they retire to their respective swim couches and practice their strokes carefully and incessantly. After a while they very good at this and can whip out a back stroke or breast stroke or even a dog paddle like the expert in class. They are given Swimmer Diplomas and sent out ready to swim, or teach others how to swim....should the need arise.
Eventually these would-be swimmers begin discussing the merits of pumping the arms more than the feet, or of holding the breath or the theoretical need to get the head up out of the place the water would be, if in fact they were actually swimming in water, in order to breathe. Minutia upon minutia are analyzed and discussed to perfect "the couch swim".
But the problem is that nobody ever gets into the water. You see, the water is a fearful place. One actually gets wet. "There be dragons" seems to be the attitude. "The water is not safe", some say. Others say that the mere suggestion that one would have to test the Master Swimmer's Theory Of Swimming, by actually swimming, to be a disloyal and unfaithful act.
"Analytical swimmers do not need to get into the water", others murmur as they grind through their swim kata every day.
The discussions on minutia and the unanswered questions persist. Yet if one of them dared to wander into the murky wetness, all the questions that they have spent hours and hours bemusing would be answered in one instant flash of sudden understanding.
I'll let you in on a secret. It is a dark and ugly secret that has been kept hidden like a national security issue for decades.
The master swimmer does not, in fact, know how to swim.
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The master swimmer does not, in fact, know how to swim.
He can teach you the technique for making swimming motions on a safe couch, but he knows nothing of the water. The couch swim doesn't work in a pool, much less in the ocean. His students would drown.
That is a fact he would kill to keep hidden, because he has invested so much in his teaching methods and technical presentation.
Quite an illustration isn't it? Much the same can be said for many other things in life from driving, to mating, to actually having to make a living in the "cold cruel world". One of them is Gun Fighting.
I get students from range-based schools, and their proponents all the time. These guys and gals have been drilled into the indoctrination of how to stand perfectly, how to draw correctly, and of course, how to carefully use the sights to precisely fire a surgically placed pair into a piece of paper.
They have spent their training time perfecting their stance, or focusing more on their front sight, or reacting to the first tone of the whistle or tone. Slight changes in holsters, or triggers, or grips, or other incomprehensible irrelevancies filled their study time.
These things do not last more than the first few minutes of one of our classes.
Yet, some of our heresy and blasphemies have spread through the cracks into other other's curricula. Formerly square-range based, they hesitatingly want to put a toe into the water without getting their carefully pressed Royal Robbins tuxedo wet. You see, it is impossible to hide the truth in the age of the internet.
I have seen them come and draw and fire, then and only then taking a quick single side step so as to give passing lip service to getting off the line of fire, getting off the "X", without altering their precise sight picture and carefully developed stable platform.
The open mouth and furrowed brow that results from their failure in force on force is almost uniform.
If only people would simply get into the water...into the Force on Force crucible, all things would be known immediately like the dripping swimmer who has just completed his first pool workout.
In a handful of chaotic and often intense seconds, the force on force student knows more about gunfighting than the untested range instructor who has been shooting groups all his life. And in that sudden fearful realization of what combat is really all about, and in how easy it is to still get killed in spite of all your marksmanship skills, your view on things and your focus in training will change. Things will never be the same again.
Stop being the theoretical dry couch swimmer and jump into the freaking pool. Heck, just think of all the time and money that will be saved once you have the "secret" knowledge that so many are trying to keep from you. Put down your range bag, grab an Airsoft pistol and a training partner and step into the light.
[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]I often get asked a number of questions about force on force. Here are some. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]1). how much of the square range stuff does carry over successfully into FOF?
That depends on what sort of range stuff you have done. In several years and maybe a thousand students through the training I have yet to see anyone use a "proper weaver stance", nor calmly fire controlled pairs while watching their sights in a reactive encounter.
What I do see them do, in reactive drills (versus proactive ambushes) is dynamically move out of the line of fire, draw and thrust the gun out, working the trigger like the gun was a Class 3 Machinegun. There is of course, a place for proactive sighted fire, but if that is all someone has been doing (like in 99% of commercial US gun schools) they are totally unprepared for a gunfight.
2). Are skills like the draw and a two-handed grip considered secondary to learning the dynamic draws and movements in FOF that allow you to avoid the initial shot? Or, would it be better to establish a solid foundation in the basics first and then bring those skills to FOF?
After doing this for several years now, I think learning FOF first makes far more sense. In the beginning I went the other way because the vast majority of the "market" came from the range training world and then, at some point, wanted to test themselves in FOF. Today we see alot of new shooters wanting to learn gunfighting and not so much shoot like they do at a classic gunschool. It is far easier to teach aman who knows how to fight about marksmanship, than it is to teach a marksman how to fight.
3). Should I learn to experience (and then win) the fight first and then go back and develop solid gun-handling skills based on the contexts I experienced during the test.
That would be best. Once a student has felt the adrenaline of the fight, and knows exactly what he will need to do, he understands how he needs to train. The result uis a very finely tuned BS meter, an irreverance for gun gurus (our students could hand most gun guru's butts to them), and a desire to test everything to see if it works.[/FONT]
The main reason why more guys don't do this is the same reason so many martial arts schools don't do "Full Contact Fighting". After a full contact fight, both sides look like they were in a street fight. Fighting like this is humbling, but it will get you ready for the real thing.
Training for reality is not like the "martial artist" who shows up to "train" in a splendidly pressed uniform and does some classic ancient solo-form against unseen enemies with technical perfection that leaves everyone gasping and feeling good - specially the performer.
Nope. You can train for ego, or you can train to win.
I would say that 99% of all American Commercial Gun Schools are not in the business of teaching anyone to REALLY fight, they are in the business of empowering their students, or teaching people to feel good about themselves.
Its like that school that has a Handgun Combat Master certification. They teach guys to pass the test (originally invented by Chuck Taylor to challenge the existing status quo for commercial reasons) and then send them off into the world with highly inflated opinions of their own combat skills.
While these guys know how to shoot well against a piece of cardboard, when they have come to our "cage" they have not done so well. In fact, trying to hard to force their hard-trained techniques to work in a fluid situation like our drills, they often get shot to bits by more agile and less classically trained opponents.
So what does that tell me? That the majority of so called "defensive shooting" training out there is virtually worthless in a real fight. If you ain't doing FOF, you are not ready for the gunfight!
Gabe Suarez
(no refunds).
would be nice...
