Chuck Taylor on Competition.

M

matthew temkin

Moderator
This from the new edition of G&A Personal Defense magazine...


"And yet, much of what has appeared in the last four decades is relatively worthless for self defense because it's the result of competition target shooting in one form or the other. from good old-fashioned bullseye competition to PPC shooting to IPSC and it's related endeavors, competition
has contributed little to useful self defense.
...Competition shooting allows the participant to examine the course of fire, determine how best to deal with it and even practice it in advance until he feels he has reached an acceptable efficiency level.....In combat the opposite is true, which is why for well over 100 years, competition shooting techniques have always failed to save lives when applied to life and death situations.
Self defense is a serious business, a business in which ego drive, the primary motivator of all forms of competition, can quite literally get you killed.
Please understand that I have nothing against competition. in fact, I was once a world class IPSC shooter, but sport shooting did not teach me how to stay alive in the multiple gunfights I've been in during my lifetime...
..Again, in spite of what some competition shooters think, I am not anti-competition. On the other hand, having been both a sucessful competitor and a survivor of multiple gunfights, I believe that I am uniquely qualified to judge the difference, which is nothing less than extreme....
..Competition is fine, but let's not call it combat. To do otherwise is just plain wrong--dangerously wrong, in fact." ( pg 20-22)
 
On the other hand, having been both a sucessful competitor and a survivor of multiple gunfights, I believe that I am uniquely qualified to judge the difference, which is nothing less than extreme..
Click to expand...
Self defense is a serious business, a business in which ego drive, the primary motivator of all forms of competition, can quite literally get you killed.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Sort of looks like Chuck would suggest that competition techniques and tactics might get you killed in a real fight.
 
To be honest, I didn't realize that was a big secret. Competition and combat are two very different animals. Some of the fundamentals certainly carry over and competition (being a form of practice) can make you better at those basic tasks, but the two aren't 100% interchangeable. Never have been.
 
To be honest, I didn't realize that was a big secret. Competition and combat are two very different animals.
Click to expand...
Some folks have a hard time understanding the difference, and try to argue that doing good in the game means you will do good in the fight. Others try to point out that what wins the game can get you hurt in the fight.
 
Don't get me wrong- we agree. I guess I just haven't talked to anyone who thought that their .8 sec IPSC mag changes were going to win them combat gunfights. I know plenty of people who compete for the fun of it and to keep their raw skills sharp, but they all know what translates and what doesn't. That's what I meant by me not realizing it was a secret.
 
Someone should probably tell all those SWAT teams and federal agencies that all that stuff that guys like Todd Jarrett are teaching them is totally wrong because it was learned in competition.

Reminds me of the "combatives vs. MMA" debate in the martial arts community.

I'm not knocking Chuck, mind you; however it's kind of silly to outright dismiss competition shooting as a method of training simply because of personal experiences.
 
Someone should probably tell all those SWAT teams and federal agencies that all that stuff that guys like Todd Jarrett are teaching them is totally wrong because it was learned in competition.

Reminds me of the "combatives vs. MMA" debate in the martial arts community.

I'm not knocking Chuck, mind you; however it's kind of silly to outright dismiss competition shooting as a method of training simply because of personal experiences.
Click to expand...

I don't think he outright dismissed anything. I think he is encouraging that things be put into perspective.

I know many people who can go to the driving range and hit beautiful looking golf shots all day long, but then they get stomped into the ground when they go head to head with someone "for real." Some people can do martial arts routines pefectly and they look really good, then they get demolished by someone who just knows how to "fight".

Is that to say that a golfer shouldn't ever go to the range or that a fighter shouldn't get some mat/bag work in? Not at all. What it does say though is that there's a major difference between "not for real" and "for real" and people shouldn't handicap themselves by thinking that because they can do one thing in competition/practice, they'll be able to use the same application in a "for real" situation.
 
I guess I just haven't talked to anyone who thought that their .8 sec IPSC mag changes were going to win them combat gunfights. I know plenty of people who compete for the fun of it and to keep their raw skills sharp, but they all know what translates and what doesn't.
Click to expand...
Just haven't met the right people<G>. On another forum we just got finished with a 10-page thread where some were arguing since nobody could provide an example of an IDPA competitor getting killed in a fight while using IDPA tactics that proved nothing in IDPA was a problem in actual gunfights. In fact, in response to the statement (discussing IDPA techniques) "The issue is if one also learns bad habits or tactics or techniques that can get one hurt." was answered with "Since no one here has shown one shred of proof 'bad habits' or 'bad tactics' of any IDPA method has ever gotten anyone hurt or kill, and at the same time the many tactics and habits learned in IDPA have been used successfully on the street, well the answer is clear."
 
Someone should probably tell all those SWAT teams and federal agencies that all that stuff that guys like Todd Jarrett are teaching them is totally wrong because it was learned in competition.
Click to expand...
that is where this argument always falls apart. Nobody has ever said, AFAIK, that all the stuff guys like Todd teach is totally wrong. Nobody, AFAIK, says that if something is learned in competition that it can't be of value in reality. The typical thrust of the argument is that some of the things pushed in competition are not good for actual gunfights. Some of the tactics and techniques used to win matches can be counterproductive in real gunfights.
 
I think that Taylor is talking about someone who's ONLY experience/training is with competition and instructors who teach solely competition methods.
Quite a few serious men with impressive service records also compete with no ill effect, but they are in a position to know the difference.
 
You definately need to know the difference. I think some people do, and some don't. To dismiss competition and to say if offers no value to a persons gun handling skills is a naive statement. Competition is "practice" . It is not "training". Understanding the difference between the two is crucial. Competion builds skill that most will not get otherwise. For the most part, it does not offer "real life" tactics, but it does offer practice in gun handling skills under "some" simulated stress. I say compete, AND train, just make sure you know the difference.
 
that is where this argument always falls apart. Nobody has ever said, AFAIK, that all the stuff guys like Todd teach is totally wrong. Nobody, AFAIK, says that if something is learned in competition that it can't be of value in reality. The typical thrust of the argument is that some of the things pushed in competition are not good for actual gunfights. Some of the tactics and techniques used to win matches can be counterproductive in real gunfights.
Click to expand...

I agree. And the same can be said for posts on gun boards.

Some of the tactics and concepts posted on gun forums can be good, and some can be fatal, if applied in an armed confrontation.
 
If ya'll want to see the "competition vs. real life" argument taken to it's insane extreme sometime, head over to the forums at Bullshido.com and check out the guys arguing about which is better for "real fights", practice combatives or Mixed Martial Arts competition.

My big concern as an active competitor is that some people are too fast to dismiss the lessons learned in competition because "it's not a real gunfight". I'd hope that most people are smart enough to realize that smoking down pepper poppers and reloading in 1.3 seconds aren't the same as actually having bullets fly past your dome.

However, they do reinforce skills that are useful in those situations, like shooting on the move, multiple rapid target engagement, and even quick reloading skills. It's just frustrating when certain groups act like because it's not "a gunfight" it's automatically invalid.
 
Only thing that puzzles me guys is why the DEA, FBI, SS, SEALS, Marines, SF, etc.. actually have such as Letham teach classes and they learn from what the 'games' people show them. Why they might get killed learning all that stuff!
 
...Competition shooting allows the participant to examine the course of fire, determine how best to deal with it and even practice it in advance until he feels he has reached an acceptable efficiency level.....In combat the opposite is true, which is why for well over 100 years, competition shooting techniques have always failed to save lives when applied to life and death situations.
Click to expand...

I highlighted this with bold, because it is a bold statement. I want to see some empirical evidence. No one in a hundred years life has been saved, because they practiced shooting in competition? No police officers successfully defended themselves back in the days of the revolver and PPC competition? None of Coopers students who shot ISPC saved their lives with the shooting skills they learned? All of them always failed?

Taylor is OK. but I'm calling BS on this one and just exactly who are these people who can't differentiate between ISPC, IDPA, etc and having someone shooting back trying to kill you anyway?
 
If I'm not mistaken, Jim Cirillo was a top PPC shooter. He got all his trophies BEFORE he joined the stakeout squad. He was a police instructor on the range and not beat cop. He had never fired a weapon at anyone before the stakeout squad.

And then he capped three of them all the while 'seeing the front sight'.

Hmmm I wonder if all that competition shooting he did had any effect on being able to shoot all three so fast.
 
Only thing that puzzles me guys is why the DEA, FBI, SS, SEALS, Marines, SF, etc.. actually have such as Letham teach classes and they learn from what the 'games' people show them. Why they might get killed learning all that stuff!
Click to expand...
As you seem to have missed the post earlier, nobody is saying that there is nothing to learn from the games. Top gamers are great at some skills. Again, nobody has ever said, AFAIK, that all the stuff guys like Todd teach is totally wrong. Nobody, AFAIK, says that if something is learned in competition that it can't be of value in reality. They have gamers teach them shooting skills, not necessarily tactical moves.
He was a police instructor on the range and not beat cop.
Click to expand...
I believe you will find that Jim did his time on a beat before becoming an instructor. And again, you keep tossing up this strawman that folks are saying everything in competition is bad and nothing from competition is any good for gunfighting. It's easy to attack, but nobody is making that claim that I have seen.
 
No one in a hundred years life has been saved, because they practiced shooting in competition? No police officers successfully defended themselves back in the days of the revolver and PPC competition? None of Coopers students who shot ISPC saved their lives with the shooting skills they learned? All of them always failed?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that is what he is implying. From where I am, it looks more like he is saying techniques designed solely to win competitions ("competition shooting techniques") as opposed to broader techniques that are applicable both for competition and real fights. The meaning isn't clear, and your version of it can certainly be valid, but the "ego driven" phrasing seems to me to be referring to that "let's use the game technique to win even though that technique could get you killed in an actual gunfight" mentality.
 
It's just frustrating when certain groups act like because it's not "a gunfight" it's automatically invalid.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and the opposite is just as frustrating---since it works in the game it must be good for a gunfight. The games are good for shooting skills, which can certainly be important in a real fight. The games are not so good for fighting skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top