Teaching, Training and Conditioning (Rory Miller)

[Fred Fuller]

http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2012/03/teaching-training-and-conditioning.html
TUESDAY, MARCH 06, 2012
Teaching, Training and Conditioning
========================

Some important considerations to contemplate here IMHO. Evolutionary and even perhaps radical, but very important.

Teaching is passing information from brain to brain.

Training is guided practice in how to do stuff.

Conditioning affects a deeper part of the brain.

Under immense stress, we might freeze, thinking about what has been taught. We probably, for the first several incidents won't remember our training. We will respond with our conditioning.

"You will fight the way you train" is a lie, and I am just as guilty of mouthing it as any other instructor. You will respond to any high-stress, low-time stimulus the way you have been conditioned.

Much of this goes back to an earlier question - can you access your training? http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=647216

 

[conw]

Personally I think focused visualization can bridge the gap between training and conditioning, without constant FOF exposure, for the resource limited practitioner.

Also there is a lot of ambiguity (not in the article per se, just in general) about what amount of teaching, training, and conditioning relative to each other method should be used. Tom Givens says the adult learning model is Explain, Demonstrate, Practice, Test. Paul Sharp on TPI said yesterday that the Aliveness model of training for martial skills is:

There are 3 stages to experiential learning via Aliveness. 1) Intro stage. This takes about 5 minutes. The technique is introduced by the numbers, so to speak. This is as dead as we want to be but minimal time is spent here. 2) Isolation. This is drill phase. We drill the technique against progressive resistance using drills specifically designed to optimize the technique. 3) Integration. We integrate the technique into our overall game and work it against a fully resisting opponent

Tom's more general model is more broadly applicable to skills that may not be used directly "against" an opponent, while Paul's take is designed to minimize 'dead' time, build skill as much as possible progressively, and integrate into an overall skillset in a specific context.

I think one of the most important and seldom discussed things is what that context is or should be, and how that choice relates to the practitioner's goals. Clearly you can use teaching, training, and conditioning, the adult learning model, or Aliveness in such a way it doesn't build proper habits, simply by ignoring the importance of context, or being unaware of it.

IMO Aliveness seems to be the most efficient method but the most perilous if context is ignored. If you are teaching cops subject control skills using Aliveness it's mandatory to not just mention weapon considerations, but to actually use some kind of training weapon for the RP "subjects" lest you reward the cops in the training environment for using skills "wrong" for a weapons-based environment (WBE).

Using teaching, training, conditioning, if you isolate a specific response to work on, the danger is it never gets fully integrated into the skillset. There is also not a very clear progression that most people use to go from teaching into proper conditioning, and that's where the progressive model of training TOWARD Aliveness comes in.

Finally Tom's method is more open ended and depending on how you interpret "test," the purpose/outcome of the test could be a simple skill audit, or actual conditioning or Aliveness. Or somewhere in between. I will say that I think Tom has the right ratio of teaching, training, and testing... about 1/4, 1/2, and 1/4 respectively from my experience in his pistol classes. He also uses a LOT of guided lecturing DURING training to remind students of the context of the skills they are learning. This is similar to the visualization I was discussing at the beginning of this post. I feel that proper visualization, informed by realistic events (either through Tom's guided lecture, security cam footage, whatever), done close to practicing proper neural motor patterns for SD skills, is an effective form of accelerated learning.

E.g. if you are shooting with a timer he is constantly reminding you that if you are shooting a Bad Guy, the Grim Reaper is holding the timer. If you are working on drawstroke speed, he drives home the importance of speed, smoothness, and economy of motion and not screwing up the first shot with vivid anecdotes that the student can't help but "see" in his/her mind's eye. And on and on.

I think Tom's teaching methods and ability to blend and bridge the technical shooting skills with proper mindset and integration via guided lecture, "dos" and "don't's," are the reason he has such a high success rate with actual student involved shootings, despite not using actual FOF to my knowledge.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I think Miller's points are valid. However, despite his experience and recommendations, I think few of us are going to add injury-risking shots to our unprotected heads (perhaps running into a low-hanging beam just before we draw and do a Mozambique starting from a retention position) to our training regimens.

Miller ranks one scenario as the most important: the surpise (no-time, taking-damage) attack. He wants us to train to "break the freeze" and have reflexive empty-hand counter techniques for such attacks. And because the risk in that scenario is so high (even if its probability is low), it makes sense for any of us to think about that.

But Miller's perspective is colored by his job (CO) and passion (empty-hand martial arts). Since he already knows who his threats are and must interact with them, he keys on being prepared for the surprise attack.

Most of us spending our time in a very different environment therefore have other "training" we can access much sooner than physical counter-attack. Am I lost and I should U-turn right now? Now that the home team is losing and some fans are getting upset, is it time to get out of this sportsbar? Now that this ______ who cut me off in traffic has gotten upset at my beeping my horn, has exited his car, and is walking toward me, what should I do?

If we can access our training at that level, it can make a huge difference.

I recognize that we are (most of us) trained or "programmed" to drop to the ground and stop fighting if we are really hurt. We see football players do that so they can be helped off the field and checked out. Boxers do it because their opponents can't legally kick them in the head while they're down, so they can get an eight-count that they might really need just now.

There are no eight-counts in a lethal force attack.

I'm not sure how to "train myself" to keep fighting (for example, draw a pistol and shoot) after taking a vicious, harm-was-intended-and-produced hit to the back of my head. But I'm pretty sure I'm not going to make receiving several such blows to the head on a weekly basis part of that training.

While not at all dismissing the gravity of the surprise attack, I wonder if non-LEOs aren't at least as well served by training to engage their observation, de-escalation and exiting skills. It is when those skills fail us that we stand to get into the most trouble; and I'd rather depend on my early-exit and verbal-persuasion skills than on how well I fight after receiving a concussion.