Chuck Taylor on Competition.

[David Armstrong]

But still Matt, you didn't know people can and do move much faster in a confrontation than in training.

Now Deaf, you're making things up again. Let's look at what Matt really said: "Hey Deaf, how come you never mention that Cirillo--in fact no one else but Chapman--was ever able to duplicate in competition what he had done for real that day in the bodega?"
How you can stretch that into "you didn't know people can and do move much faster in a confrontation than in training" is such a strange leap of illogic, and one that you do so often, that it is nothing short of astounding.

 

[matthew temkin]

Deaf..thank goodness some gamer--probably with a smug smirk of self importance-- did not tell Cirillo that what he with his life on the line is not possible because it can't work in competition.
Which was my original point.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Now Deaf, you're making things up again.

Now david... surely you didn't miss the question right before my statement in the post above that? Or do you even read all the post before pounding something out? The one where I said, 'You didn't know that?". And notice Matt never said he was aware if it after that. So one presumes he didn't. Instead he went into why he didn't do traditional martial arts anymore.

And Matt, where and when has any 'gamer' ever said "if it does not work in competition it cannot work the street?" You have any specific person in mind? Rob, Enos, Matt Burkett, Miculk, er... anybody? Or is this you saying some 'gamer' saying...

 

[MrNiceGuy]

i know that competition shooting wont help me out in a real gunfight...


that's why i play paintball

self defense is serious business, and that's why people who are serious about self defense play paintball

 

[NRAhab]

Dave...true..but I have a problem with the top sport shooters teaching cops.
As I would with Mike Tyson teaching boxing self defense to a 40 year old housewife.
What works for the expert with unlimited time and ammo--not to mention inborn natural talent--will probably not work for the typical Joe/Jane police officer.

See, this is where we disagree, because I know for a fact that the top pros are more than capable of imparting some of their basic skill sets to both cops and armed citizens. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Things like drawing, proper grip, shooting on the move, engaging multiple targets, and reloading in a big damn hurry are all skills that the top pros have in spades, and skills that your average beat cop and armed citizen would definitely be better off for having. That's specifically why law enforcement agencies pay top dollar to have guys like Todd Jarrett and Robbie Leatham teach their cops those very fundamentals. No, those cops are not going to win an IDPA championship, or an IPSC world title, and they shouldn't be - but they are certainly going to be better prepared to execute the fundamental shooting skills necessary to win in a violent encounter.

 

[matthew temkin]

Deaf..I am well aware that under stress people can do amazing things.
I am also aware that the sky is blue.
NRAHab...to some extent I will agree with you.
However, the typical shooter will realize that there is no way in heck they could ever emulate such an instructor and it could lead to a lack of self confidence.

 

[Sarge]

Chuck has definitely 'been and done' and he is a hell of a good shot. He didn't get that way by shoving the gun out front and just yanking the trigger as fast as he could. Taylor has a series of drills that involve speed and not inconsiderable marksmanship; presumably, one must 'compete' against the clock and the scoring rings if one is to achieve high ranking by his standards.

Chuck was a prolific writer in years past. I have a little trouble finishing his articles, mostly because he comes across as arrogant and pretty dogmatic in his recommendations. I respect the fact that he's been in a few scrapes but the fact is that current events have supplied us with 19-20 year old kids who've been in more gunfights than this old dog ever hopes to see.

Gunsmoke eventually wafts away and all you are left with is the lessons you took from the experience. Sorting through these collective 'lessons', in search of relevant data, seems to be the real question.

 

[NRAhab]

NRAHab...to some extent I will agree with you.
However, the typical shooter will realize that there is no way in heck they could ever emulate such an instructor and it could lead to a lack of self confidence.

See, I don't buy that. I was in a three day class with Todd Jarrett, where the skill level of the attendees varied from experienced competition shooters all the way down to guys who all they had ever done was plink on the range. Not a single one of them got discouraged, primarily because Todd was such an excellent teacher - the people at low skill levels were encouraged because they were able to see their accuracy and speed improve because they listened, and the people at higher skill levels were engaged because they were able to sharpen existing skills.

So, I would only agree with you if the instructor/top level pro who is running the class is a poor teacher, because then the newbies would discouraged. However, a good teacher is going to be able to effectively impart his or her skills without discouraging newbies. It's just like the self-defense classes that Kay Miculek (Jerry's wife) teaches. Of course the women who take these class aren't going to win an IPSC championship, but none of them expect to. Kay is such a good teacher that she can work with even the worst student and keep them engaged in the class.

 

[matthew temkin]

A good teacher can do wonders.

 

[David Armstrong]

Now david... surely you didn't miss the question right before my statement in the post above that? Or do you even read all the post before pounding something out? The one where I said, 'You didn't know that?"

No, I didn't miss a thing, deaf.

And notice Matt never said he was aware if it after that. So one presumes he didn't.

So we see that once again, rather than deal with facts, you "presume" something negative and then treat it as a fact. Thank you for proving my case.

 

[Marty Hayes]

Well, having trained and taught with both Jimmy when he was alive, and still active with Taylor on a bi-yearly basis, I believe I have some comments that folks might find credible. (Then again, this is an Internet forum).

Anyway, it is my belief that Jimmy believed that competition was best used as stress innoculation therapy. Shooting under stress helps the shooter control his emotions, and thus keep clear-headed under fire.

I believe Taylor's feelings are more along the line that today's shooting games do not instill the correct mindset necessary for winning gunfights. I believe Taylor would say that much in the discipline is way overthought, and it is the primary skills that will win the day, along with the mindset to engage immediately and decisively.

 

[NRAhab]

A good teacher can do wonders.

So when under instruction by a good teacher, would you then agree that having top competitive shooters instruct law enforcement officers on the fundamental skills of shooting is a good thing?

 

[David Armstrong]

If I can jump in here, I don't think it is a bad thing, but it certainly may not be a good thing. Given the cost, would it be better to have the fundamentals taught to most folks by less-gifted but still competent instructors and have the super-shooters teaching the high-speed low-drag types?

 

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

I think top IPSC or IDPA shooters training law enforcement on the fundamentals of handgun shooting (drawing, reloads, grip, stance, trigger control, techniques for shooting while mobile, shooting mobile targets) is a great thing.

However those top shooters are not tactical wizards or combat ready JUST BECAUSE they are competition shooters. These guys run and gun with the best of 'em but IPSC courses are not real tactical hostage situations or kill'em all scenarios. Some of these guys may be former SWAT or special forces but gaming a course of fire and surviving a home invasion are two different animals.

IDPA is a good tool for making sure you utilize cover/concealment while engaging targets. IPSC is a good tool for thinking on your feet while moving and shooting due to it's freestyle approach.

I hate to bust out the logical fallacies but to say that something is true because no evidence to the contrary exists doesn't make any sense. If you want to prove something is right in the world of statistics you generally try to prove that it's NOT WRONG. Lack of supporting evidence or lack of supporting evidence just means that no one really knows.

Being a good IDPA or IPSC shooter gives an individual an edge in a SD situation in my eyes simply because they have shot a gun while moving under a very mild stress (that stupid buzzer).

But it's no replacement for the mental advice and lessons taught during combative pistol or tactics taught to survive a short range gunfight with one or more attackers where cover may or may not be. Situational awareness is one thing stressed to me during my few training courses and that's one thing that no amount of IPSC or IDPA shooting can replace.

I have been thinking about taking a class from a TX IDPA guru in Greenville, TX to learn tips and tricks about shooting in matches and hope to apply some of that to what I picked up from Tom Givens in my combative pistol class.

 

[NRAhab]

If I can jump in here, I don't think it is a bad thing, but it certainly may not be a good thing. Given the cost, would it be better to have the fundamentals taught to most folks by less-gifted but still competent instructors and have the super-shooters teaching the high-speed low-drag types?

I would agree with that, since we do live in a world where cost is an issue - however my point was a disagreement with the assertion that "competitive shooters teaching cops is a bad thing". But I think that Joe Beat Cop stands to gain as much value from learning from Todd Jarrett (for example) as Bob SWAT Operator; it's just that Joe will be learning a completely different skill set than Bob.

 

[Sarge]

I believe Taylor's feelings are more along the line that today's shooting games do not instill the correct mindset necessary for winning gunfights. I believe Taylor would say that much in the discipline is way overthought, and it is the primary skills that will win the day, along with the mindset to engage immediately and decisively.
__________________
Marty Hayes,

That 'primary skills' comment is downright golden. I've been training cops at all levels for a long time and the folks who require the most correction are the ones who act like they're holding a foreign object, when a gun is in their hands. Revisiting the fundamentals is what fixes that, combined with exposure to the weapon until it becomes an extension of the shooter- instead of an encumbrance.

BTW the only difference between Joe Cop and Bob Swat is their daily field assignment- and it isn't uncommon to have guys assigned to patrol who are also subject to SWAT callout. They have the same problems, which have the same solution: identify the threat and neutralize it before your opponent can cut you, cave your head in or get a shot off at you.

A ricochet will kill you just a surely as a direct hit. You have to be good. The other guy only has to be lucky.

 

[matthew temkin]

NRA--what Dave said.

 

[Brit]

Let us think!

Originally Posted by matthew tempkin
Dave...true..but I have a problem with the top sport shooters teaching cops.
As I would with Mike Tyson teaching boxing self defense to a 40 year old housewife.
What works for the expert with unlimited time and ammo--not to mention inborn natural talent--will probably not work for the typical Joe/Jane police officer.

Mike Tyson teaching boxing self defense to a 40 year old housewife.

If Mike Tyson could impart a tenth of his aggression. and the same ratio of how to, and were to, hit! The ability to come out of the corner, so to speak, like a mad woman! Come on Mike!

 

[NRAhab]

NRA--what Dave said.

Fair enough, but all things being equal and cost not being an issue, wouldn't you want to have the best of the best training our nation's cops on the fundamentals?

 

[Sarge]

The fundamentals are what's important; the delivery is irrelevant so long as the basics are conveyed, retained, and most importantly- practiced until they become second nature.