Assessing the Merits of an Instructor

[synergy]

You and I have had discussion about this in previous threads but I still maintain that Weaver / Push-Pull is not an overly complicated process to teach. I'm not the brightest crayon in the box and I was able to learn and apply it.

And you are suggesting that Isos is more complicated??

Here is a picture of me before I ever talked to anyone else who owned a handgun. This was pure "self discovery". I bought a Glock 32, went out to a gravel pit, and started shooting. These pics were taken in '05, IIRC.





If you had to characterize what kind of "stance" that is...I think we can both agree that's it some approximation of Isos.

I put both hands on the gun, and held it out away from me. I didn't have a hard time figuring out that holding it away from my face and in my line of sight was a good idea. I experimented with where my hands fell on it until my hands didn't break away from it in recoil (really hard to do on a .357Sig pistol when you have no idea what you're doing, BTW).

I cant honestly believe that the added "pull back with this hand" and "drop this elbow", and "turn the much" is any simpler to present to beginners than "hold it with two hands, get as much contact with your support hand as possible, and drive the gun out away from you".

The other reason is that we believe it is a better "fighting stance" and thus translates and integrates better than Iso into contact distance training.

Who is using 2 hands or doing push/pull at contact distance?

Are you really going to turn your feet and shoulder away from a deadly threat in a dynamic ugly situation?

What about the startle response of turning to observe something?

The essence of Weaver is not that the feet are offset distance wise from the target, it's what the upper body is doing with the gun.

You can easily offset your feet while still driving the gun using Isos techniques and not "push pull".

Examples:

Jerry Barnhart

Now, this "integration" aspect is subject matter for another thread and we should not get into that here.

That's fine, but I don't think the staggered feet of a "fighting stance" mean a damn thing about what your upper body has to do.

[synergy]

I just acknowledged that leatherslap was a game but that it's intent was to eventually evolve into something "practical" and "realistic" whereas IPSC started out as something practical and evolved into a game.

I don't know how else to explain this point.

I'm not understanding the relevance. You are saying that a technique that was created to be able to shoot a 18" target 21' away is suitable for shooting people....while techniques that evolved from shooting THIS way are not??



I really don't understand that.

Are you saying that in a game where you need to shoot targets of varying size and distance while moving, for speed...that how a person handles the gun is completely different from the requirements of shooting an unknown exposure target, at an unknown distance, while you try to end the confrontation as quickly as possible (before the other guy can shoot you)?

The mechanics of shooting fast don't change because the target has a pulse.

Col. Cooper was a much more complex individual than that statement implies. He was also an intellectual and a professor of history at Standford University. He brought the "careful examination" that is characteristic of someone with an interest in accurately sorting out historical events to the MT curriculum he developed at Gunsite.

None of that changes the facts.

Yes I do. OK, so one or more spec ops units approached Shaw and one of the east coast SEAL teams chose Leatham (or was it Enos) to contract them to teach them how to shoot.

Um, he pretty much created USAR SOCOM's shooting program.

What does that tell us about the process involved in selecting Shaw and Leatham? Was there one guy in charge of training for those units who was given arbitrary and unilateral authority to make the selection? Was he an IPSC competitor and as such, did that influence his decision? Were Shaw and Leatham selected by consensus? Did somebody post a bunch of names on a wall a throw a dart while blindfolded?

I think an orginization with the mission statement including "counter terrorism" and "hostage rescue" sought out the best shooters they could find and started taking notes. You know MSSI is closed to civilians because of all the .gov/.mil training they do now, right?
http://www.weaponstraining.com/pages/courses.htm
Sounds like they're pretty happy with the results.

Threw a dart? Really??

What exactly does that prove? Each time I've been to Gunsite there have been SEALS training there. What does that prove?

ETA: It only proves that .mil spec ops units are granted permission to go outside of the Armed Forces for training.

In that instance, pretty much. There have been SEALs who went to Front Sight too...

However, there are a number of civilian trainers who provide a LOT of instruction to military units on a contractual basis...and many have been doing it for LONG time.

With the GWOT, there was a lot of data captured with regards to what works and what doesn't. Strangely guys like LAV, Barnhart, Coolie, and Shaw are still getting contracts. Guess if they threw a dart, they landed on some real winners.

[TonyF]

And you are suggesting that Isos is more complicated??

No.

I cant honestly believe that the added "pull back with this hand" and "drop this elbow", and "turn the much" is any simpler to present to beginners than "hold it with two hands, get as much contact with your support hand as possible, and drive the gun out away from you".

I didn't state that Weaver was less complicated than Iso. I said Weaver isn't as complicated to teach and learn as some claim it is. There is a difference.

Who is using 2 hands or doing push/pull at contact distance?

Are you really going to turn your feet and shoulder away from a deadly threat in a dynamic ugly situation?

What about the startle response of turning to observe something?

That's not a correct frame of reference for that subject matter but what I will say is just about every (if not every) martial arts discipline teaches a bladed stance. There is a good reason boxers also use a bladed stance.

The essence of Weaver is not that the feet are offset distance wise from the target, it's what the upper body is doing with the gun.

You can easily offset your feet while still driving the gun using Isos techniques and not "push pull".

Yes, I know.

That's fine, but I don't think the staggered feet of a "fighting stance" mean a damn thing about what your upper body has to do.

I'm not a martial arts expert so aside from some of the contact distance training I've had, I'm not qualified to discuss this subject matter in detail.

[TonyF]

I'm not understanding the relevance. You are saying that a technique that was created to be able to shoot a 18" target 21' away is suitable for shooting people....while techniques that evolved from shooting THIS way are not??

No Jim.

I was simply trying to explain the intent of leatherslap and the evolutionary process into IPSC.

I think an orginization with the mission statement including "counter terrorism" and "hostage rescue" sought out the best shooters they could find and started taking notes. You know MSSI is closed to civilians because of all the .gov/.mil training they do now, right?
http://www.weaponstraining.com/pages/courses.htm
Sounds like they're pretty happy with the results.

Threw a dart? Really??

You're taking that out of context. I was trying to speculate as to the process involved whereby somebody made the decision to contract Shaw.

[synergy]

I didn't state that Weaver was less complicated than Iso. I said Weaver isn't as complicated to teach and learn as some claim it is. There is a difference.

Ok, but then I don't understand why there is a preference to teach it?

That's not a correct frame of reference for that subject matter but what I will say is just about every (if not every) martial arts discipline teaches a bladed stance. There is a good reason boxers also use a bladed stance.

To build energy for a stong side blow? Ok. But again, you can use the same footwork...what you do "moment to moment" isn't that complicated with regards to which direction your chest is facing. Turning from a punch happens without changing footwork, for example.

Basically, I fail to see the substantive connection between how you shoot a pistol and how you throw a punch. I don't see the reason the two need to go together, nor why they can't exist separately.

I'm not a martial arts expert so aside from some of the contact distance training I've had, I'm not qualified to discuss this subject matter in detail.

Ok....so why did you say that it influences your decision to teach a given method if you can't articulate the specific benefits of it?

[synergy]

No Jim.

I was simply trying to explain the intent of leatherslap and the evolutionary process into IPSC.

Does intent somehow make the nuts and bolts of a technique more/less valid?

You're taking that out of context. I was trying to speculate as to the process involved whereby somebody made the decision to contract Shaw.

You're suggesting that the decision to go with Shaw and other modern trainers was political and not performance based. In the absence of evidence to back claims like this up, statements like this are typically referred to as "unqualified".

[TonyF]

Ok, but then I don't understand why there is a preference to teach it?

To build energy for a stong side blow? Ok. But again, you can use the same footwork...what you do "moment to moment" isn't that complicated with regards to which direction your chest is facing. Turning from a punch happens without changing footwork, for example.

Basically, I fail to see the substantive connection between how you shoot a pistol and how you throw a punch. I don't see the reason the two need to go together, nor why they can't exist separately.

Ok....so why did you say that it influences your decision to teach a given method if you can't articulate the specific benefits of it?

Jim,

I'm going to chalk this up to my inability to clearly articulate my thoughts.

And like I said, this is a topic for a separate thread.

I'm sorry but I have nothing more to add.

[TonyF]

Does intent somehow make the nuts and bolts of a technique more/less valid?

Good grief. I wasn't commenting about technique.

You're suggesting that the decision to go with Shaw and other modern trainers was political and not performance based. In the absence of evidence to back claims like this up, statements like this are typically referred to as "unqualified".

I did qualify it by stating that I was speculating.

Have good evening.

[synergy]

Good grief. I wasn't commenting about technique.

So why are you talking about it then like it's some sub-par technique because it came out of a game?

You keep talking about Weaver as "it came out of practical purposes" and Isos as "it came out of a game". You clearly made a distinction MULTIPLE times to imply something. Now that clarifying questions get asked, all of a sudden it doesn't matter anymore.

I did qualify it by stating that I was speculating.

Have good evening.

What are you speculating for??

For God's sake Tony, you are the one who made a decision about what TO teach or NOT TO teach. Are you telling me that you never objectively sat down, and asked a lot of hard questions like this before you said "hmm, lets teach THIS"?

You implied that Isos is for "gamers, you implied that Shaw got a technique because of who he knew and not because of his ability/training package, and yet you don't back any of it up. Why? Does it give your chosen technique any more credibility to imply something, but never back it up?

Is this really why you have so much faith in a technique that has fallen out of favor with almost everyone who shoots for money, or shoots people in the face?

I think a friend of mine nailed it on the head when he said "They have decided what to teach based upon their emotions...it's like a religion to them."

I don't know if it's complacency, or its an ego saying "I know what I'm doing"...but an instructor who doesn't constantly ask the question "how can I do this better" is not an instructor I could ever want to train with, nor recommend.

[TonyF]

So why are you talking about it then like it's some sub-par technique because it came out of a game?

You keep talking about Weaver as "it came out of practical purposes" and Isos as "it came out of a game". You clearly made a distinction MULTIPLE times to imply something. Now that clarifying questions get asked, all of a sudden it doesn't matter anymore.


What are you speculating for??

For God's sake Tony, you are the one who made a decision about what TO teach or NOT TO teach. Are you telling me that you never objectively sat down, and asked a lot of hard questions like this before you said "hmm, lets teach THIS"?

You implied that Isos is for "gamers, you implied that Shaw got a technique because of who he knew and not because of his ability/training package, and yet you don't back any of it up. Why? Does it give your chosen technique any more credibility to imply something, but never back it up?

Is this really why you have so much faith in a technique that has fallen out of favor with almost everyone who shoots for money, or shoots people in the face?

I think a friend of mine nailed it on the head when he said "They have decided what to teach based upon their emotions...it's like a religion to them."

I don't know if it's complacency, or its an ego saying "I know what I'm doing"...but an instructor who doesn't constantly ask the question "how can I do this better" is not an instructor I could ever want to train with, nor recommend.

Would you like me to go back and count how many times I clearly stated "Iso works" and "so do allot of other competition oriented techniques" and "That Modern Iso is an effective method for civilians, LE and .mil to employ firearms in self defense is not in dispute"?

Would you like me to admit that I'm a dinosaur using outdated methods?

OK. I'm a dinosaur using outdated methods.

The End.