question about training

[blitzen]

How many of the high dollar training gurus have ever been on a two way range? Just thinking out loud but it seems that anyone who has survived enough gunfights to know enough about it to teach others would either have spent half a lifetime in the courthouse or a bit of time in the military were the rubber meets the road. (not just the military but let's say Fallugjah during the warm season.) No disrespect intended, just wondering were the most famous instructors get there hands on experience. I'm baffled and at the same time impressed by there lack of jail time or bullet wounds.

 

[happygeek]

Well in the case of Gabe Suarez, whose name keeps coming up in the FoF discussion here:

http://www.suarezinternationalstore.com/aboutus.aspx

Everything we teach has been proven in combat. I began my study in human combatives in 1970 with Kyokushin Karate. This was a very violent and powerful type of karate that focused on bare-knuckle full-contact combat applications long before padded full-contact or UFC became popular. After 13 years in Kyokushin (and a Sandan - 3rd Degree Black Belt), I began cross training in other fighting systems in a quest to learn the very best methods available. These studies included Tae Kwon Do (combat not sport oriented), Shi Pal Ki Kung Fu, Hapkido, Western Knife Fighting, JKD, Silat, Western Boxing, Tantojutsu, Ju jitsu, Muay Thai, Krav Maga, Kali, and a handful of other fighting systems.

I owned and operated a martial training school between 1983 and 1987 teaching integrated combative concepts in the "old style". In the mid 1980's, seeking greater challenges, I joined a Southern California police agency where I worked single man patrol, undercover gangs and narcotics, and was one of the founding member of both SWAT and Sniper Units. Throughout my time in uniform, I was involved in a large number of gun battles. In 1991, I was awarded the Police Medal of Valor for actions during a major fatal gunfight with armed gang members.

The stuff I teach you, and that my instructors teach you was not learned from a tape or a book. To the contrary, it was learned in the famous school of hard knocks and paid for in blood. Combat Proven.

 

[JoeSlomo]

I guess it depends on the type of training you are looking for, but L. Vickers, K. Lamb, and P. Howe all have real world military experience.

 

[Jenrick]

Off of the top of my head, Paul Howe, Pat Macnamara, Jim Smith, Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, Max Joseph, Gabe Suarez, John Farnam, Massad Ayoob, and those are just the one's that immediately came to mind.

-Jenrick

 

[Wadero]

Not every Drill Sergeant or Drill Instructor was in combat and they still train troops effectively. Take your example of Fallujah for instance. Unless the troops there had either a very young Drill Sergeant that just came from OIE/OEF or they had an instructor that made it to Desert Storm they were probably not trained by anyone with personal experience.

Some people with first hand knowledge of violence would make terrible instructors but their experience still changes the doctrine from which others are taught.

 

[happygeek]

I'm not sure a Drill Sergeant makes the best comparison to Gabe Suarez, due to the fact that you're getting paid to be trained by a DS, whereas you're paying $350 or more for a 2 day class with Suarez Int.

 

[shockwave]

This is actually a rather profound question. We can all agree, I'm sure, that a person with a lot of experience in something may not be very good at teaching others what he knows. Let's look at three levels of teaching:

Instructor: This person may have little experience in the subject matter, but an extensive knowledge of it and the skills to impart that knowledge.

Coach: Often, a coach has little experience personally engaged in performing a given activity, but knows exactly how to spot flaws in a student's execution of material and knows how to help a student reach the limits of his or her potential.

Master: A top-level practitioner who may or may not have exceptional teaching skills. May teach best by performing or demonstrating for students, correcting student errors, etc.

In my own case, many of my university teachers were instructors who were damn good at their business. My fencing coach was a small woman who didn't fence much (or well) herself, but she had the knack for building the willing student into a formidable opponent. And one of my karate teachers could speak almost no English and taught by example and correction. But he was a master and had a way of making you try your best, showing you that your best was not your limit, and raising your performance to a level you didn't know was possible.

So, given all that, I'm less concerned with what a teacher can do, and more concerned with what he can teach.

 

[David E]

I'm less concerned with what a teacher can do, and more concerned with what he can teach.

I'm with you to a point, but if the teacher can't teach himself how to do it, how can he teach you?

If I were to take a shooting class and the instructor can't pass his own graduation drill, I'd think I just wasted my money.

 

[shockwave]

I'm with you to a point, but if the teacher can't teach himself how to do it, how can he teach you?

We see this all time with, say, tennis and football coaches, ice skating coaches, all kinds of trainers are short, squat, dumpy little bald people, and they often produce Olympic champions. There are also cases of former athletes who turn to coaching later in life when their playing careers are over. It also depends on what is being taught. For example, I'm looking to overhaul my speed-loading technique and Mas Ayoob's demo here is great. And here's one by Michael de Bethencourt.

According to his bio, Bethencourt is "a 20 year student of police defense tactics," but apparently he hasn't worked as a police officer. I don't think that disqualifies him from teaching law enforcement personnel techniques regarding self-defense. Different kinds of teachers do different kinds of things. In the search for quality instruction, there are many things to look for; the point of my comment is simply that "experience" per se is not necessarily the grounds by which to assess the qualifications of a given instructor.

This probably applies to our interest here in the use of firearms for defensive purposes. We'll never know what exact situation may require us to bring a firearm into play or how we'll have to use it. Hopefully we'll have some training and practice that applies, but most importantly we'll have to be fluid and adaptable to a dynamic environment. Whoever can teach me that will have my attention.

 

[mrokern]

According to his bio, Bethencourt is "a 20 year student of police defense tactics," but apparently he hasn't worked as a police officer. I don't think that disqualifies him from teaching law enforcement personnel techniques regarding self-defense. Different kinds of teachers do different kinds of things. In the search for quality instruction, there are many things to look for; the point of my comment is simply that "experience" per se is not necessarily the grounds by which to assess the qualifications of a given instructor.

We have an instructor here in MN whose classes are POST certified for continuing ed credits. The officers he trains are regularly the top shooters in their departments (often having gone from mediocre or even poor to those top slots after working with him for awhile).

He's never worn a badge in his life, but he's got the respect of a lot of folks who have.

-Mark

 

[9mmepiphany]

Let's look at three levels of teaching:

i think you left out another level: the Teacher

they completely understands the subject (not just the how, but the why), but more importantly they understand how students learn and how to frame the instruction in a way that students understand it and can reproduce it...rather a cross between your Instructor and Master.

part of teaching is understanding why students do things a certain way, just showing them the correct way isn't enough because they don't understand "why" they need to do it that way...this cheats them of a deeper understanding of why it is correct....much like a parent will say "because i say so"

correcting faults is the same thing, unless you can explain to the student why they are making the mistake...how their perception of of "right" is actually "wrong"

it has been my experience that:
1. Instructors will show you how it should be done as they learned it..."do as i do"
2. Teachers explain it in a way that you can understand how and way it should be done that way

many Masters are horrible teachers, because they have not had to struggle to do something and don't understand why you would. it's why players like Michael Jordan or Jerry Rice don't make good coaches

 

[BullfrogKen]

many Masters are horrible teachers, because they have not had to struggle to do something and don't understand why you would. it's why players like Michael Jordan or Jerry Rice don't make good coaches

Agreed 100%.


Plenty of major league sports players hire personal coaches who have never won a title, or in some cases ever played at a professional level.

I'm not interested in what a trainer can do. As someone training me, I'm not hiring him to escort me outside of the Green Zone, or through East Baltimore at 2am.

I'm interested specifically in his ability to teach. Even more specifically, I'm interested in what his students were able to do with the teaching and program he put them through.

Major League Football owners and managers don't hire coaches because they pass the football well, or got the most touchdowns or MVP award. They hire them because they know how to design a solid program around what it takes to win.


Furthermore, what business do I have as a private citizen contracting a career military professional to teach me? Or a career police officer? His mission was not mine. His students were all young, fit people. While the pure mechanics of shooting remain the same, there are differences in approach to solving the problem, and in particular the legal implications of the different solutions. If pure shooting skill were all I was after, I could hire a Bullseye shooting champion.

Again, the mission is important. What do career military men or police officers know about my mission, and the sort of student population in the market of Armed Citizens looking for training?

 

[Fred Fuller]

There's an old, sort of humorous saying about the education business (my wife is a retired professor, I'm a retired librarian with several years spent in the university environment):

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

And when I was working in the College of Education Library at the University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa) in the mid-1970's, I heard another variation:

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach teachers."

fwiw...

I spent the longest part of my working life at USAJFKSWCS at Ft. Bragg, NC. That's the schoolhouse where Special Forces soldiers are trained. The first class everyone took when they were assigned to JFK when I was there was the ITC- Instructor Training Course. They taught you how to teach the Army way (tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em, is the old joke about that one). A lot of people don't really get it that SF soldiers are basically schoolteachers who get to work via parachute, but their primary role is as trainers and teachers.

And they are good, as a rule. Many of them are VERY good. Then you get to see that special class of people like the dozens of folks I knew who were in uniform for a full SF career, retired, and then spent another 20 years or more teaching new SFers the tricks of the trade. Many of them were and are exceptional trainers and teachers.

I've paid for training with a number of professional defensive firearms trainers. I think I'm in as good a position as anyone I know to evaluate that training. And so far, every pro I have trained with has been more than worth my time and money. How many of them have shot and been shot at? I know Louis Awerbuck has, there was no doubt about Jim Cirillo. I don't know about some of the others, some were or are wearing badges, have spent time in the military, etc. but I don't know personal histories. No one notches their guns after all, at least no one I would consider worth training with.

What it boils down to as far as I am concerned is #1, what do they know, and #2, how well can they impart that knowledge to their students?

The absolute best do what they do because they can't NOT do it. Training is not what they do, it's what they ARE. It takes seeing someone like Louis Awerbuck at work to really appreciate what you're watching- if you know what you're looking at, that is. I genuinely love to see an exceptional trainer at work. It's a remarkable experience, and one I wish everyone here could- and would- share.

lpl

 

[9mmepiphany]

The absolute best do what they do because they can't NOT do it. Training is not what they do, it's what they ARE. It takes seeing someone like Louis Awerbuck at work to really appreciate what you're watching- if you know what you're looking at, that is. I genuinely love to see an exceptional trainer at work. It's a remarkable experience, and one I wish everyone here could- and would- share.

i didn't used to understand, until i actually met someone like this.

i met Bruce Gray USPSA Grandmaster and one of the most impressive gunsmiths in the world, when i happened across a local shooting class that he was charging $250 for 2 days. i figured, how can you go wrong on a class that only cost $125/day. he didn't think there was a demand for what he taught, because it had been around forever.

that class changed my whole understanding of shooting at speed which has been priceless. over the years, i've taught several classes with Bruce and i've been overwhelm by the history of USPSA shooting from it's birth and the evolution of the equipment and techniques they use.

the downside is that now i know the weaknesses of various pistol designs and it raised my standards of what is acceptable as a defensive pistol ($$$)

 

[BullfrogKen]

the downside is that now i know the weaknesses of various pistol designs and it raised my standards of what is acceptable as a defensive pistol ($$$)

Ah well, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?


And when you try to share that with someone else who hasn't had that awakening, you get pegged a snob, elitist, or some other high-brow label.


These days I just keep my opinion on hardware to myself. Frankly most folk don't shoot enough to realize they're using a poorly designed gun, anyway.

 

[mljdeckard]

The trouble is, there is no way to guarantee that you will see combat in your career as a soldier or cop, even if you seek it out.

There is no such thing as training that's as good as the real thing. But training is all we've got.

 

[9mmepiphany]

posted by BullfrogKen
Frankly most folk don't shoot enough to realize they're using a poorly designed gun, anyway.

i know, it's very hard when you see someone going down a path that only leads to disappointment at the very least.

now holsters on the other hand...everyone is entitled to a whole draw full

 

[David E]

apparently he hasn't worked as a police officer. I don't think that disqualifies him from teaching law enforcement personnel techniques

That's not what I was talking about. My point is, the teacher/instructor needs to be able to properly execute the drill he wants his students to do.

If he expects me to be able to run a certain drill in a certain time frame, he should be able to do it. That doesn't mean he must do it better than everyone else all the time, it simply means he should be able to perform the task he expects others to do.

One thing about John Farnam and Massad Ayoob is that they shoot in front of their students. They demonstrate the drill for the class. Might a student outshoot them? Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that they were able to do the drill.

I know many instructors, many of them cops, that refuse to shoot in front of the students. Why? Because, in their mind, they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. If they screw up, everyone will wonder why they should pay attention to them. (good question, actually) If they dont' screw up, it was expected anyway.

If I'm teaching a Speed Skills class and can't draw and break 1.5 seconds for a 7 yd shot, why are they paying me money?

I demo for my students so they get the idea better than me explaining it. If I show them the technique instead of onlytelling them the technique, they make progress faster.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I have mixed opinions on the instructor/teacher shooting the drill in front of class.

 

[Wadero]

I think it depends on what is being instructed. In the example of a law enforcement instructor it would probably be easier for them to demonstrate an arm lock into cuffing techniques


Either way we are not talking about the OPs topic anymore.... he wants his intructors to have been shot before they are qualified to instruct.

 

[9mmepiphany]

i also have mixed feelings about shooting it before they try it

i find that if i shoot a drill first, the student will give up some technique in going for speed. the teaching point is ingraining the correct technique.

i'll show them how each step/motion should look...at extremely slow speed...so that visual learners have proper instruction. but my style of teaching isn't to show you how much better i can do it then they can. once they have learned the correct technique, i will shoot it at speed to demo the advantage of doing it different ways

 

[Zoogster]

If he expects me to be able to run a certain drill in a certain time frame, he should be able to do it. That doesn't mean he must do it better than everyone else all the time, it simply means he should be able to perform the task he expects others to do.

I have mixed opinions on the instructor/teacher shooting the drill in front of class.

It is certainly good that a trainer knows what he is teaching, and such a demonstration can show that.
However it can also work contrary to the intended result.
Many new soldiers and new police officers are young men. Some new civilian shooters will be as well.
Many people, but especially young men tend to be arrogant or have inflated egos.
They may have one of the best teachers teaching them, but if some of the students perform on par or slightly better than him on just a simple drill this can hurt the training.
It can cause the young arrogant trainee to feel superior to a much more knowledgeable trainer, and more of what the trainer is teaching goes in one ear and out the other. Reducing the overall effectiveness of the trainer.
It can also cause some other students to look to the guy that did better than the trainer as some sort of pro or guy doing the right thing, or take tips or pointers from the guy that scored slightly better. Even if his advice or technique is poor and could even get them killed when they really need the training.

So it can be better that the students learn all they need to know from the trainer before some may discover some students can actually shoot better than the person training them (who may be getting old), at least on some simple drills.

This is especially true when the same person may be teaching tactics and teamwork beyond just the scope of simple individual shooting. Which must be digested by the student when their life and lives of those they are working with may depend on it.
Training and leading young naive men can often require some of those being trained to see the teacher as some sort of superman or they won't hear half of what they are being taught. The trainer demonstrating he is not in fact a superman early on can therefore hurt the process.
They will take in more of the training that way.

 

[David E]

Ayoob and Farnam get around that by shooting a "Pacing drill," making it clear that they are not going for speed, only showing the dynamics of the shooting required.

But back to the OP. I don't think someone needs to have killed someone to be qualified to teach. They could've done everything wrong and came out on top thru no fault of their own.

 

[FM12]

A good coach,ie Bear Bryant,Bobby Bowden, Nick Saban,et al is priceless, regardless of their performance during their playing days.
(Michael Jordan, et al) rarely make good coaches.

You need to be coached and taught to learn, regardless of the instuctors experience. Or lack of. You'll default to your training, get good stuff while you're getting. (Back to the OPs question, arent we?)

 

[rocky branch]

Being in combat does not necessarily make someone an expert or even an authority on the subject.

There are many variables, ranging from 1000m sniping to hair teeth and eyeball hand to hand combat.
These make it impossible and even foolish to suggest any generalizations.

"I've been under fire," goes from hearing a round impact half a mile away to a surprised Charlie dumping a full AK mag at 10 feet and missing you.

I'm active in lots of vet activities and associations and have heard some amazing perceptions on combat.

"Two way range" is a new one.