Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do?

[Steve]

Gun Safety? I wouldnt pay the cash these guys demand for gun safety. I'd go to an NRA class.

What experience does Jarrett have in regards to actual military/LE operations? If I wanted to improve my draw/split times and my multiple target engagement times sure I may go to Jarrett. What if I was looking for training on how to engage a gunman during a building assault? Are you suggesting Jarrett's "expertise" would still be sufficient? Damn skippy I may still go with the Soldier even though Jarrett is a better tecnician...

This is an interesting tangent into the original intent of the thread. Simply because a MA teacher may be a good technician doesn't mean that hes an "expert" in self-defense. The actual "fight" portion of a defensive engagement is but one aspect of self-defense. What about pre-fight indicators? What about self-defense law? What about post engagement?

Tgace, this isn't a tangent. This is exactly what I was hoping this thread would discuss. Whether I could articulate it clearly or not, this is central to the questions I was hoping to talk about.

 

[Steve]

The "advantage" war brings to the firearms "arts" is that it results in a number of experienced instructors that inject the "art" with current and relevant experience.

http://www.kylelamb.com/

http://www.panteaoproductions.com/instructors/paul-howe

http://vickerstactical.com/

http://www.redbackone.com/

...and on and on.

I'd wager that quite a few Samurai broke into the teaching biz when wars started to run short and their "experience" was part and parcel of what they codified.

Im not trying to extend this into an argument that "if your instructor hasnt seen the elephant than his stuff sucks". All I'm trying to say is that combat/street (what have you) experience...current and relevant..should be influencing, updating and developing any modern combative system. Otherwise all you are doing is period reenactment.

For my part, I was just trying to get the topic to the point that we could all agree that there is a distinction. Technical, clinical expertise can be extremely valuable. It's the difference between theoretical expertise and practical expertise. It's the bridge that must be made between classroom expertise and real world application, understanding where that gap is.

I love the "staying in your lane" concept. It encapsulates exactly what I was thinking, that you have to correctly identify what you're doing, what skills you're developing, and where your area of expertise really lies. And, for the purposes of this thread, I see this lack of awareness in martial arts more often than in any other area where people train and seek to acquire skills. People in martial arts can be alarming ignorant of what they are learning and what they AREN'T learning.

And to the points made earlier, the term self defense is so generic as to be, IMO, almost completely unhelpful. Yet, it's used all the time in martial arts schools flyers, on their doors and in their sales pitches. Over the last few posts, I've been exposed to eight or 10 different subsets of gun training, each with its own set of skills, and in which people are instructing others in their own area of expertise. The key distinction, as I see it, is that everyone involved in the training courses knows all of this. It's overt. I am the instructor of this course. My expertise is this. This is what I will teach you. This is what you will NOT learn in this course.

You get that in just about every other activity/endeavor a human can be involved with, except martial arts. Some martial arts...

 

[Steve]

This probably won't be short...

Chris, could you tell me what your areas of expertise are? Specifically? You don't have to list them. Again, to be clear, I don't really want you to list them. I'm wondering if you've ever thought about it to the level of specificity that the instructors Tgace listed have. What I mean is, within the broad category of "self defense", for example, could you tell a prospective student, "This is what I can teach you and this is what I cannot teach you."

Then, if the answer to the above is yes, you could do this, do you? And finally, at some point, if you have never bridged the gap between training and practice, can you claim to have that expertise? Kind of like the distinction between tactics and strategy.

 

[Tgace]

Over the last few posts, I've been exposed to eight or 10 different subsets of gun training, each with its own set of skills, and in which people are instructing others in their own area of expertise. The key distinction, as I see it, is that everyone involved in the training courses knows all of this. It's overt. I am the instructor of this course. My expertise is this. This is what I will teach you. This is what you will NOT learn in this course.

Not to take the topic off track, but IMO firearms use is as much a "martial art" as any other ancient weapon art:

http://tgace.com/2012/11/26/the-mystical-and-the-mundane/

I've often wondred how people (especially martial artists) can consider this:

an Art with all the benefits we ascribe to martial arts (discipline, mental clairty, improved concentration, moving meditation...etc.).


While they dismiss this:

As simply "shooting"...a hobby enjoyed by "gun nuts", right wing extremists, rednecks and "preppers".


Not that Iaido is NOT an "Art" or that it doesn't have those benefits mind you, but the physical mechanics of drawing a sword are not "mystical". The discipline of a trained firearms user is little different IMO. I laugh at the idea that a sub 2 second failure drill is somehow "less" than a clean sword cut.


Don't confuse people out shooting at tin cans with skilled shooters. There are plenty of people out swinging martial arts weapons in their back yards with no training (as we all know)...they do not seem to taint the entire pool of martial artists though.

So...If I wanted to make "Pistolcraft" Koryu-like, what would that mean? Would I have to codify what "pistolcraft" is today and pass it through the centuries unchanged? At what point do you "preserve" an art?

 

[Steve]

Cheesy as this might sound, I agree but still think of the Christian bale movie.

The next question would be which koryu. Would the combat koryu argue that the leo oriented arts are less effective, and then the sport arts have too many rules. Which arts would prohibit actual firing of rounds because they're too deadly? Which arts would focus on muskets?

sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Not to take the topic off track, but IMO firearms use is as much a "martial art" as any other ancient weapon art:

http://tgace.com/2012/11/26/the-mystical-and-the-mundane/



So...If I wanted to make "Pistolcraft" Koryu-like, what would that mean? Would I have to codify what "pistolcraft" is today and pass it through the centuries unchanged? At what point do you "preserve" an art?

Absolutely Tgace firearms are a martial science! A very important one if you want to stay relevant in this world!

 

[Tgace]

Relevant article:

http://stevereichert.com/differences-and-similarities-of-civilian-competition-and-combat-shooting/

I thought I would share a good article my friend Craig “Sawman” Sawyer wrote on the differences and similarities of civilian competition and combat shooting. Sawman is a Former Marine, Navy SEAL (DEV) & now a TV Personality on numerous TV shows and documentaries. Here you go…

Read it and see if you can't draw parallels to our discussion here.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Nice link Tgace!!!

 

[Tgace]

Now let me throw this old writing of mine into the mix!

http://tgace.com/2013/04/05/martial-art-or-art-form/

I find Kyudo an interesting art and an interesting subject for discussion of the term "martial art". While Kyudo has its roots in combat archery and does use a weapon, it is obviously a spiritual and meditative pursuit rather than a combative skill. While Kyudo is called a "martial art", I doubt that any Kyudo practitioner has delusions of being "combat effective" or believe that they are training in an art that will provide them with "street survival" skills. However I do believe that there are practitioners of various stylistic, meditative and "traditional" arts that DO believe such things. These are the people who believe that working on their "Chi" rather than their punching skills or physical conditioning will help them survive a confrontation. They are the people who think that a fight will somehow adhere to the protocols they follow at the dojo. These are the people who equate "martial art" with "combatives". A Kyudo practitioner is not the same as a historic Japanese combat archer. A sport fencing master is not automatically someone who could survive a real sword fight and a master in a "martial art" who has never faced a resisting opponent should not be presumed to be more likely to prevail against someone who has.

 

[Steve]

Relevant article:

http://stevereichert.com/differences-and-similarities-of-civilian-competition-and-combat-shooting/



Read it and see if you can't draw parallels to our discussion here.

it seems to me that this the author has experience that gives him a credibility that is obvious. The swat team members who lack this experience whom he mentions in the article make mistakes that are clear and obvious to the author. And to a complete layman, like me, it's all foreign. The comments were interesting, too.

I would certainly defer to a Leo on issues like this, but it sounds like Leo would be foolish not to defer to the author of the article. As Tgace said earlier, there are experts and EXPERTS.

I still think that experience is an integral part of developing expertise. And on the other hand, A SWAT team member has specialized expertise that the author of this article does not, I'm sure, based upon the specific experience of that person. It's about knowing what you know, and also knowing what you don't know.

 

[Tgace]

it seems to me that this the author has experience that gives him a credibility that is obvious. The swat team members who lack this experience whom he mentions in the article make mistakes that are clear and obvious to the author. And to a complete layman, like me, it's all foreign. The comments were interesting, too.

I would certainly defer to a Leo on issues like this, but it sounds like Leo would be foolish not to defer to the author of the article. As Tgace said earlier, there are experts and EXPERTS.

I still think that experience is an integral part of developing expertise. And on the other hand, A SWAT team member has specialized expertise that the author of this article does not, I'm sure, based upon the specific experience of that person. It's about knowing what you know, and also knowing what you don't know.

Good point. SWAT operations are not analogous to military operations. SWAT operators can maintain those "princess guns" and not be crawling through mud flats (for the most part). They also wont typically be firing as many rounds as a SEAL may. That being said I agree with the authors premise and prefer a GLOCK.

All that aside though...what I found most interesting was his discussion of the physical effects if combat and their impact on technique.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MJS]

But do you require an instructor to have successfully (and, presumably, repeatedly in order to ascertain consistent skill) defended against groups, knives, guns, bats, on the ground, ambush assaults, and more? As well as having a deep understanding of everything else they're teaching? I mean, I've dealt with a number of assaults, including one which was 5 on one (me)... so do I pass? Or not, because I haven't dealt with much in the way of weaponry in real encounters?

In other words, while you might prefer someone who has some real world experience, is it really essential?

Hi Chris,

In my very first post in this thread, I talked about CPR/First Aid. I mentioned how someone with a simple 8hr course, may/may not be as reliable as compared to someone such as a Paramedic, Doctor, etc, who's odds of using their skills, are much higher. My next post was in response to something TGace said, to which I commented that someone who trains in an art with more contact, would probably be better prepared for the stress, the contact, etc, than someone who never got hit hard before. My next post was in response to Steve, in which I compared training with someone closer to the source of something, rather than someone 5 times removed, and how you may gain more out of the training.

I've been training for 20+yrs, and during that time, I've seen a wide variety of teachers. I've seen those that've taught those 'questionable' things, and used the excuse that they learned XYZ from instructor A and he said those things will work, so...blah, blah blah. I've also seen those that've have and still do, work in fields in which they've had to use what they know, those that've seen and had to deal with knife attacks in a prison setting, etc. For me, I'd tend to lean more towards the latter of the groups I mentioned.

Now, you put yourself into the group as well, and asked if you fit the bill, after having dealt with numerous assaults. Yes Chris, you'd pass. I say that, because IMO, if someone has the experience, chances are, their entire training program will most likely consist of things that'll stand a high chance of working.

Let me ask you this: In your opinion, when do you feel that experience isn't necessary?

 

[jks9199]

Good point. SWAT operations are not analogous to military operations. SWAT operators can maintain those "princess guns" and not be crawling through mud flats (for the most part). They also wont typically be firing as many rounds as a SEAL may. That being said I agree with the authors premise and prefer a GLOCK.

All that aside though...what I found most interesting was his discussion of the physical effects if combat and their impact on technique.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

In theory, maybe a LE tactical unit can maintain a gun like that. In reality -- they need a gun that's able to move through different environments every bit as much as that military special forces operator. They may not be as likely to crawl through mud... but a lot of other stuff can happen. However -- it's also dangerous drawing too much from military tactics for LE. Once they engage, a SWAT unit almost always MUST finish the mission themselves. I like what one of the SF operators said when he visited our shoothouse and watched some of our SWAT guys training: "we get in a situation like that, we just lob a grenade, back out, and call for artillery or air support..." Not exactly an option for LE, where we are responsible for each round we fire, and must always be concerned about innocent civilians in the area.

Training must be reasonable and appropriate to the desired and needed outcome. A boxer would be foolish to spend their time worrying about takedowns and kicks as they prepare for a title match. Cops can't use some military tactics and some LE tactics had to be adapted and modified for military urban ops -- both because of different threats and different rules of engagement. Stuff that a police tac team does isn't going to work for corrections tac team... and vice versa.

But -- the original question here was whether it is possible to prepare for something without doing it directly. YES - if you have proper guidance and do proper research. I'll probably never know what it's like to deal with someone who outweighs me by half again, has a massive edge in upper body strength, etc. which are normal concerns for a woman. That doesn't mean I can't gather appropriate information and knowledge, and offer meaningful training. I don't train for MMA competitions, and haven't fought in one. I still think I could prepare someone reasonably well for it -- though I'd probably pull in some folks with specific skills to help me.

 

[Tgace]

But -- the original question here was whether it is possible to prepare for something without doing it directly.

Actually..and Steve can correct me if Im wrong. I think the question is if a "style/school" and possibly an instructor should have some experience actually doing something vs an instructor who is teaching something thats was based on the real world experience of a person 10 generations ago.

How many times removed from "doing it" can a teacher get before what he/she is teaching becomes questionable in regards to combat application?

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm going to come back to this tomorrow... there's a lot to deal with, and it's a bit after midnight here right now... tomorrow will be fun, though...

 

[FullPotentialMA]

The short answer: yes!
That is what pilots do to be prepared for (thankfully rare) emergencies.

The key, in my humble opinion, is to make the training as realistic and close to the "real thing" as possible. Pilots today have full motion simulators.
We must balance safety with efficacy. Suffering a life debilitating injury, while training for something that may never take place, is a bad tradeoff to make.

 

[Blindside]

Reminds me of Aliens:

Dialog -
Ripley: How many drops for you is this, lieutenant?
Gorman: Thirty-eight. Simulated.
Vasquez: How many combat drops?
Gorman: Uh, two. Including this one.
Hudson: Oh-ho, man...

 

[Steve]

The short answer: yes!
That is what pilots do to be prepared for (thankfully rare) emergencies.

The key, in my humble opinion, is to make the training as realistic and close to the "real thing" as possible. Pilots today have full motion simulators.
We must balance safety with efficacy. Suffering a life debilitating injury, while training for something that may never take place, is a bad tradeoff to make.

This is very interesting, as I have two close friends in flight school right now and they've been excitedly sharing with me their progress. I learned today what a CFIT is (controlled flight into terrain). But, they actually do a lot of flying. They're logging many, many hours in a plane, in addition to the simulators and the classroom instruction.

This brings up another aspect of learning... how to teach beginners vs how to teach someone who has expertise.

You're talking about emergencies, and what you're said is very reasonable. Keep it as realistic as possible. But, of course, you have to balance safety and no one wants to be an expert in recovering from dangerous situations. Well, I guess unless you're a professional stunt pilot.

To the point, though, the emergency skills learned in a simulator are only going to be effective for pilots who are experienced. In other words, the pilots are building their expertise with certain classes of aircraft and in certain conditions. And things are learned in a particular order. You don't, if I understand things correctly, you don't become instrument rated until you've been visual rated. You don't fly until you've got the classroom training. The expertise is built in stages, and at each stage, you are required to apply the skills. So, as you learn the emergency procedures, you are marrying them to the skill you already have.

 

[Tgace]

This is very interesting, as I have two close friends in flight school right now and they've been excitedly sharing with me their progress. I learned today what a CFIT is (controlled flight into terrain). But, they actually do a lot of flying. They're logging many, many hours in a plane, in addition to the simulators and the classroom instruction.

This brings up another aspect of learning... how to teach beginners vs how to teach someone who has expertise.

You're talking about emergencies, and what you're said is very reasonable. Keep it as realistic as possible. But, of course, you have to balance safety and no one wants to be an expert in recovering from dangerous situations. Well, I guess unless you're a professional stunt pilot.

To the point, though, the emergency skills learned in a simulator are only going to be effective for pilots who are experienced. In other words, the pilots are building their expertise with certain classes of aircraft and in certain conditions. And things are learned in a particular order. You don't, if I understand things correctly, you don't become instrument rated until you've been visual rated. You don't fly until you've got the classroom training. The expertise is built in stages, and at each stage, you are required to apply the skills. So, as you learn the emergency procedures, you are marrying them to the skill you already have.

Beat me to it.

I question the use of simulators as "from scratch" trainers (learn it in simulation then DO it). They are GREAT for maintaining training or practicing skills..."learning" something? Perhaps to an extent but only in conjunction with physical experience (IMO).

 

[Steve]

But -- the original question here was whether it is possible to prepare for something without doing it directly. YES - if you have proper guidance and do proper research. I'll probably never know what it's like to deal with someone who outweighs me by half again, has a massive edge in upper body strength, etc. which are normal concerns for a woman. That doesn't mean I can't gather appropriate information and knowledge, and offer meaningful training. I don't train for MMA competitions, and haven't fought in one. I still think I could prepare someone reasonably well for it -- though I'd probably pull in some folks with specific skills to help me.

I'll take full responsibility for being unclear. The title of the thread wasn't well thought out, but in the first post, I said this: "Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?"

The nature of expertise is really what I was interested in from the beginning, and I'm glad to see that the thread went that direction in spite of my original lack of clarity. I think it's been very well established that someone can transition from understanding something to doing something. We make that leap all the time, and in fact, it's an unavoidable step. What I was thinking about from the beginning was this idea that a person is an expert on something he or she has never actually done.

Hope this clears it up.