Chuck Taylor on Competition.

[Matthew Temkin]

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)

 

[YammyMonkey]

I think Chuck's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Learning to shoot quickly & accurately with techniques that work for you, manipulating your weapon, moving & working cover all under time constraints are useless eh?

It is what you put into it. Competition is not the end-all be-all of defensive shooting & in many cases can be counter productive but there are a LOT of folks out there that have used some of the competition techniques to save a number of lives. Guys like Paul Howe, Larry Vickers & countless others that have also been in both arenas.

Since I don't have the whole article in front of me I dont' know if he's being serious, sarcastic, if there's some middle ground out there or if he's just venting or trying to stir up trouble to get people to buy his stuff & take his classes.

 

[earplug]

What came first Competion or Combat

The latest Front Sight magazine for USPSA shooters has a article on soldiers in Iraq setting up a USPSA range and they have commented on being better prepared on patrol, after playing this game.
While it would be hard to set up the perfect training game for combat or street use. I think any form of practical competition is much better then nothing. In fact as a Bullseye shooter, the stress when the bell goes off is greater then some forms of practical shooting I have done. five shots in ten seconds is tough one handed. At fifty feet the 10 ring is about the size of a nickle. I don't kid myself that this is some sort of defensive practice. But for serious shooters the stress is real.
I shoot USPSA, Steel and Bullseye. I'm not great in any, but its more fun then typing stuff on THR.
What we train for, and how we train will show up under stress.
In the end its a mental mind set and the front sight.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I don't shoot competitively. It just doesn't hold my interest.

But I do recognize that competitive shooting instills good gun handling. That said, its a poor substitute for an actual fight. Competition tests one's abilities against another's in an arena defined by rules. Some rules are necessary, some make good sense, but the rules are designed to enhance competitiveness, not survival.

20 years ago a bunch of fellows that shot IPSC got together and concluded that we needed something better. Competitive shooting is much like fencing, the best fencer might be great in a fencing match. He might even be a great swordfighter. But fencing is not an accurate depiction of fighting with a sword.

Before IDPA was founded, the NTI was developed to test students who study the art of gunfighting. The NTI pronounces no winners, and posts no scores. The Practitioner has his skills, training, and equipment selection challenged as an individual. Before the shots are counted and the debrief is conducted, he'll usually know how he did.


Like Chuck, I don't have anything against competition. But I don't fool myself into believing that performance anxiety is anything like the stress of an actual fight for my life, or the life of those I love. Nor are the rules that govern competitions, which are something I must train myself to conform with, helpful to me in that kind of a fight.

 

[Sam1911]

I believe there are two levels at which we can approach this argument.

First there is the point of view of the master-class (or grand master class) level gun game competitor. I have to believe that it is from this point of view that Chuck speaks. It is legitimate for someone from that corner of the world (as Chuck himself is) to express a word of caution to those folks who have mastered the various aspects of the shooting game -- eliminating "wasted" movements to shave thousandths of a second off their times, analyzing transitions over a known course of fire, speed and efficiency over every other concern, tweaking their gear to within ounces and fractions of an inch of the rule-book limits for their division, etc. -- that the pursuits which have taken them to mastery of their sport will not serve to keep them alive in a gunfight. And it is wise to point out to those thousands of shooters who emulate the guys at the top of the heap that, "Just because you saw Robbie L., Todd J., Dave S., or Jerry M. move this way, or reload there, or clear that hallway that quickly, or whatever, doesn't mean you should have such ideas in your head when you strap on your carry weapon every day." And to folks whose jobs, or very lives, may put them into danger from armed assailants, Chuck is saying, "Make sure you have REAL training that will save your life. Don't rely on a run-and-gun mind-set to get you through."

On quite the other hand, to look out over hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of average Joes and Janes who; 1) have hunted for years but now think that maybe they want to get their CCW and buy a pistol, or 2) who've lived without exposure to guns and just woke up to the realities of a dangerous world, or 3) who are part of that 99% of both the police and the military that draws a gun about twice a year to qualify on a static range, or 4) is a pretty sold-out "gunny" type who owns a modest, but very clean, collection of firearms and hits the range once a month or so to try as best as he can figure out (probably on his own) to put 50 holes somewhere in a silhouette target at 20 yds over the course of an hour and a couple of coffee breaks -- I say, to look at these folks and say, "IDPA & USPSA style shooting will get you KILLED!" is just insulting and ludicrous.

If you have reached that pinnacle of shooting excellence whereby your eye-hand coordination is flawless and your split times are consistently under 0.15 sec., and you're seriously griping that IDPA doesn't have a "Grand Master" class because you're so bored -- AND -- you have reason to be concerned for the validity of your training vis-a-vis life-and-death armed confrontations in the real world, then by all means leave the pure sport behind and seek out the training you need.

If, however, you are still one of the millions who can't say that, then the practice in gun-handling, worn-in safety procedures, sight alignment and trigger control under stress, unconscious manipulation of the gun's controls and the reload, etc., etc., can ONLY help. And they can make a HUGE difference. And the encouragement and coaching of a group of accomplished shooters (especially those with a "practical" mindset as well as the competitive view) will propel you far further, far faster, than you can ever hope to get on your own.

Most confrontations where a gun is used involve a very few "opponents" and, if shots are fired at all, usually it's less than three or four rounds. For the vast majority of us, having a gun with us, and being generally proficient in its use, and able to make center-of-mass hits almost unconsciously under stress, will increase our "win" rate by 100x. This is where the "gun games" shine as a strong training aid. They get people out shooting -- a lot -- and shooting while moving, trying to find and use cover (sometimes), facing an endless variety of target presentations, etc. For most folks, the alternative is either plinking at bulls-eyes and tin cans or sitting on the couch watching Starsky & Hutch re-runs.

But, hey, it's all "relatively worthless," right?

Sometimes it's hard to see the folks below from way up on that high horse, I guess.

-Sam

 

[psyopspec]

Main reason I enjoy IDPA is just that - it's enjoyable. I've never thought that it prepared me for a gunfight anymore than shooting a standard military rifle qualification. Where I've benefited from it is that it's made me aware of my weaknesses and caused me to spend a lot of hours drawing/dryfiring. Even if the rest of it is completely unrealistic, every gun fight starts with weapon acquisition. Between that and the fun I've had, it's been worth it.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Great points and I fully agree.
Yet there are many who think that competition is the end all towards combat training/proving combat effectiveness and I am glad that a man such as Chuck Taylor has set the record straight.

 

[benEzra]

I shoot IPSC/USPSA, but I don't "game" the system; I use my actual CCW pistol and a real carry holster, I don't practice stages ahead of time, and I try to approach it in as realistic a way as possible. Yes, it's just a game, and the targets don't shoot back, but it can indeed help advance your skills in shooting, moving, and general gun handling.

I also shoot a non-tricked-out AK in USPSA rifle, not a racegun.

 

[rob_s]

Yet there are many who think that competition is the end all towards combat training/proving combat effectiveness and I am glad that a man such as Chuck Taylor has set the record straight.

Frankly, these people are so few and far between as to be statistically insignificant.

and even if they exist in the thousands, ranting about it isn't going to change it.

 

[Jim Watson]

Does ol' Chuck mention the American Small Arms Academy in that piece?

Nothing wrong with a little self-promotion, but I just wondered.

 

[olyeller]

handgun manipulation.

thats what competition does for me.

 

[VegasOPM]

Chuck has always hated competition- at least after he quit doing well at it back in the late 70's. The rest of the shooters moved on, he didn't. Ken Hackathorn- another world class instructor- is one of the guys that started IDPA. Jim Cirillo, intsructor, competitor and one of the most decorated officers in NYC's Stakeout Unit competes regularly. Also tell me why so many Special Forces guys shoot in matches while they are stateside- or even set up matches in the Sandbox- if competition doesn't matter?!? Why do the hard core Spec Ops guys go to Todd Jarret for training instead of ASAA? Because the ability to get 2 COM hits in a minimal amount of time is a good skill to have in a gunfight- period. The tactics aspect becomes so much easier when you no longer have to consciously think about sight picture, trigger press, or gun manipulation (ie FTF or FTE's). Watch an "M" level shooter deal with a stove pipe- it is pretty much an instant fix.

I have never heard if Chuck has actually been in a gunfight or not. Several of my competition buddies have been- and none of them think that being fast and accurate with a firearm would put them in any more danger.

Chuck's "Weapons Master" titles are based on performance of standard exercises in a certain time frame- exactly like Classifiers in IDPA or USPSA. :banghead:

 

[rob_s]

Jim Cirillo, intsructor, competitor and one of the most decorated officers in NYC's Stakeout Unit competes regularly

That might prove a little difficult.

 

[VegasOPM]

Rob- you are correct. I should have said "competed regularly until his death".
All apologies to Mr. Cirillo.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'll put it this way. Is competition reality? No. Can you delude yourself into thinking it's just as intense? Maybe. Does a good competition mindset prepare you to kill when necessary? No.

IS IT BETTER THAN ANY MILITARY TRAINING I'VE EVER HAD? (Or the pistol training they teach at our local academy for that matter?) ABSOLUTELY. It's like any other training. Of course it's not reality, but you do it anyway. Reality is too expensive for training.

I took some hand-to-hand training from an instructor who required all of us to compete. He told us, "competition can only help you for the street." And it is true. If all you have done is spar with shadows, when it's on for real, you will be thinking, "How fast am I? Can I really follow through?" If you've competed before, you KNOW you can do it under pressure. If you've drilled it a bajillion times in competition, your motor skills will let your training pull you past your hesitation.

I tivo'd Grey's Anatomy last night, they had a battlefield trauma surgeon, fresh from Iraq, come in to do ER training. He had the interns and residents gathered into a training room, and uncovered the test subjects. Live, restrained, sedated pigs. He went down the line, injured each one with his knife, and told them, "Your job is to save them, and keep them alive until I'm done today." When the successfully did this, with much difficulty, some of them were upset they had to kill the subjects. He reminded them, "Look at it this way. Today, you did trauma surgery, sutures, heart massage, removed tumors, and KEPT THEM ALIVE. That's valuable training even if they weren't real patients."

 

[4sooth]

Chuck Taylor/Firearms skill

Go to the American Small Arms Academy web site and look at the skill required to pass the masters level handgun test.

Sounds easy--try it sometime when you get cocky(as I did)thinking you are skilled with a handgun.It is argueably the most difficult handgun skill test you will ever try.

The time limits are VERY short---especially at the close(under 10 yds)distances.You must use full power factory ammo,shoot from a duty rig(if a police officer)or a holster approved by the academy staff.This precludes IPSC gear or anything trick.

The firearm must also be "as issued"so to speak with no porting,weights, gimmicks or competition related alterations.

Possible 400 points--90% or better to pass.As I said---try this.It will be a humbling experience!

 

[SAWBONES]

The trouble with the gun games like IPSC/USPSA/IDPA is that some of the participants apparently imagine themselves to be training for real life self-protection, yet the drills and distances involved are quite impractical and unrealistic.

Nonetheless, anything that trains ones' draw, presentation, timing and sight alignment-trigger control can't be bad for fostering gun-handling skills, so it's not as though the gun games are useless, just that they don't reflect real, typical or probable self defense situations, with close-up (arms' length or less), hindered-draw scenarios, or the need to be capable of shooting accurately without using the sights.

 

[bdickens]

What does Mr. Taylor reccomend instead, going out and getting in real gunfights?

 

[VegasOPM]

My last post was a bit vitriolic. I have been to several training courses, Frontsight (14 times), Gunsite (not under Jeff Cooper), Ray Chapman's school in Columbia, Mo. and some more individualized training. I got a lot of very good info from those classes about gun handling- but mostly legal issues and tactics. Competition teaches you none of that- granted. Competing makes me a better student when I do attend those classes, and attending classes makes me a better competitor. Competing is all about speed and accuracy. Classes focus on making the hits first, speed is only a factor IF you can get the hits. Why do we have to choose one or the other?

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Competitions are not the same as real gunfights - everyone knows that. Nevertheless, shooting under time limits and for high scoring introduces an element of stress that approximates combat, as does hunting. Jim Cirillo realized that 40 years ago, if you read his book Guns, Bullets and Gunfights.

 

[Justin]

If shooting competitively is so likely to get one killed, would someone mind greatly posting the names of all of the competitive shooters who have no doubt been slain?

 

[Chris Rhines]

Yawn.

Chuck Taylor's opinions on shooting are about as relevant as my opinions on Imperial Russian iconography.

- Chris

 

[mljdeckard]

Justin probably points it out best. Do you honestly think that if Jarrett or Mickulek were cornered in a deadly encounter, they would freeze up and not know what to do? DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TEST THEM TO FIND OUT?

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Would they?
I don't know.
Could they fall apart when their life is on the line?
Yes they could.
The military/police/dojos of the world are all filled with examples of men who were, "All show and no go." when the stakes become life or death.
You, in fact, are making Taylor's case for him.
You are assuming that great skill and skill alone will assure that a sport shooter- one who has no other training/experience but sport--will assure his/her competence in combat.
And that, my friend, is a dangerous--yet common--assumption.

 

[mljdeckard]

You obviously didn't read my earlier post. And my money is still on Jarrett and Mickulek.