Matthew Temkin
Member
A close friend of mine—-a 26 year veteran of Airborne Infantry and combat veteran—sent me this.
After years of pondering this issue—-and going back and forth with him for years—-he finally (IMHO) hit the nail on the head.
Here goes:
“To me, arguments about point shooting versus aimed fire is about as useless as arguing the benefits of MMA versus combatives. Both indicate, to me, a lack of understanding about the subject.
The proponents of both MMA and Shaw get their experience from the range or the ring. And, we know we cannot duplicate life or death fight or flight in either. I don't buy that introducing yelling or other stress factors even comes close to simulating fight or fight. Force On Force probably comes the closest.
So how do they measure success? On the range it is what I used to call the "3 T's: Timer, Tape Measure, and Target. If one can hit a certain size target, within a certain time limit, at a specified range, then we call that success. If you can do that better then the other guy you "win". In MMA, we determine what works by pitting two individuals against each other and whoever wins did what worked - right?
When one's experience is all range and ring than can be forgiven for thinking what works there is best. After all, like a high ranking BJJ guy once said, we can see what works just look!
What they fail to consider is "what works" only works in terms of that endeavor. What they fail to grasp is real life violence rarely resembles the range or ring. Tactics are different, techniques better work under extreme SNS stress, and mindset is paramount.
It is my belief that no matter what people say, few are training for real life self-defense. Shooters train because they like to shoot. They like being accurate. If they can shoot faster and more accurately, then that is good. A little different with MMA but still the same principle.
What we are talking about is EGO. It is about learning a skill instead of learning survival. Skills make one feel good when can accomplish. Survival is a rather grim business and not ego satisfying.
And, we know the secret appeal of skill is the belief that if my skill level greatly exceeds the other persons than I can fight and win in relative safety without getting hurt. Trying to substitute skill for guts.
That is why the first thing I do when someone asks me about training is to ask them what is their mission. Most are puzzled. I make a big deal about this as few really know what their true mission is.
In the gun world, even the defensive gun culture, I submit their true mission is skill building and having fun. Not survival.
I'll give an example. In Varg Freeborn's class he talked about really coming to terms with killing another human being. A large part of the class was about the willingness to drop the hammer on another live human being instead of a paper target. There was a guy in class who was not a snowflake, but he admitted that he had never thought about it before the class and the class made him realize he couldn't do it.
Varg talked about examining your deep-seated beliefs about violence, your morals, beliefs, and cultural norms installed as a child. Your attachments. Lecture was backed up with realistic role-playing with students playing various good guy and bad guy role. The purpose to make one think about real violence.
The guy admitted that he couldn't shoot a live human being even if they were trying to kill him. Now here is the point: he was a combat competition shooter. He was part of an organization that gathered every Sunday afternoon at that range and staged combat competitions. He had his fancy race gun and deluxe holster with 15 magazines. All the cool gear. His wife participated and afterward the couples would all have a tailgate food and drinks in their folding chairs. It was a party. A social event. I'm sure they all felt they were bad eggs, including this guy, till he got a dose of reality from Varg.
Trying to wrap this up, but my point is most are just playing games for fun and ego and not survival. Their opinions about point shooting are all based from the range mentality perspective.
I believe one reason is because most "gun guys" don't train unarmed. I agree with many astute instructors that unarmed should be learned first even though we use weapons first in reality. Having a good unarmed base and then adding weapons reinforces the idea of a fight and the gun being only one fighting tool. When one's world is shaped by the "3 T's" they get unrealistic ideas.
That is for students. We know why instructors don't like PS. Can't make any money. No "Advanced Point Shooting" classes. No Level 1-2-3-4 point shooting. And they can start to believe their own BS.
The reason I like Fairbairn shooting and unarmed is both comply to a set of principles that work under SNS stress: simplicity, gross motor skills, and trained till instinctive and convulsive. Opps! There I go again using the "I" word. ”
After years of pondering this issue—-and going back and forth with him for years—-he finally (IMHO) hit the nail on the head.
Here goes:
“To me, arguments about point shooting versus aimed fire is about as useless as arguing the benefits of MMA versus combatives. Both indicate, to me, a lack of understanding about the subject.
The proponents of both MMA and Shaw get their experience from the range or the ring. And, we know we cannot duplicate life or death fight or flight in either. I don't buy that introducing yelling or other stress factors even comes close to simulating fight or fight. Force On Force probably comes the closest.
So how do they measure success? On the range it is what I used to call the "3 T's: Timer, Tape Measure, and Target. If one can hit a certain size target, within a certain time limit, at a specified range, then we call that success. If you can do that better then the other guy you "win". In MMA, we determine what works by pitting two individuals against each other and whoever wins did what worked - right?
When one's experience is all range and ring than can be forgiven for thinking what works there is best. After all, like a high ranking BJJ guy once said, we can see what works just look!
What they fail to consider is "what works" only works in terms of that endeavor. What they fail to grasp is real life violence rarely resembles the range or ring. Tactics are different, techniques better work under extreme SNS stress, and mindset is paramount.
It is my belief that no matter what people say, few are training for real life self-defense. Shooters train because they like to shoot. They like being accurate. If they can shoot faster and more accurately, then that is good. A little different with MMA but still the same principle.
What we are talking about is EGO. It is about learning a skill instead of learning survival. Skills make one feel good when can accomplish. Survival is a rather grim business and not ego satisfying.
And, we know the secret appeal of skill is the belief that if my skill level greatly exceeds the other persons than I can fight and win in relative safety without getting hurt. Trying to substitute skill for guts.
That is why the first thing I do when someone asks me about training is to ask them what is their mission. Most are puzzled. I make a big deal about this as few really know what their true mission is.
In the gun world, even the defensive gun culture, I submit their true mission is skill building and having fun. Not survival.
I'll give an example. In Varg Freeborn's class he talked about really coming to terms with killing another human being. A large part of the class was about the willingness to drop the hammer on another live human being instead of a paper target. There was a guy in class who was not a snowflake, but he admitted that he had never thought about it before the class and the class made him realize he couldn't do it.
Varg talked about examining your deep-seated beliefs about violence, your morals, beliefs, and cultural norms installed as a child. Your attachments. Lecture was backed up with realistic role-playing with students playing various good guy and bad guy role. The purpose to make one think about real violence.
The guy admitted that he couldn't shoot a live human being even if they were trying to kill him. Now here is the point: he was a combat competition shooter. He was part of an organization that gathered every Sunday afternoon at that range and staged combat competitions. He had his fancy race gun and deluxe holster with 15 magazines. All the cool gear. His wife participated and afterward the couples would all have a tailgate food and drinks in their folding chairs. It was a party. A social event. I'm sure they all felt they were bad eggs, including this guy, till he got a dose of reality from Varg.
Trying to wrap this up, but my point is most are just playing games for fun and ego and not survival. Their opinions about point shooting are all based from the range mentality perspective.
I believe one reason is because most "gun guys" don't train unarmed. I agree with many astute instructors that unarmed should be learned first even though we use weapons first in reality. Having a good unarmed base and then adding weapons reinforces the idea of a fight and the gun being only one fighting tool. When one's world is shaped by the "3 T's" they get unrealistic ideas.
That is for students. We know why instructors don't like PS. Can't make any money. No "Advanced Point Shooting" classes. No Level 1-2-3-4 point shooting. And they can start to believe their own BS.
The reason I like Fairbairn shooting and unarmed is both comply to a set of principles that work under SNS stress: simplicity, gross motor skills, and trained till instinctive and convulsive. Opps! There I go again using the "I" word. ”