PDA

View Full Version : "You fight like you train and train like you fight" OR DO YOU?



Gareth Del Monte
1st February 2014, 10:46
Hello.
We all understand "you fight like you train and you train like you fight"because it is the truth.
If you are familiar with Hicks Law you will understand that the less options one has to choose from,the faster their decision and reaction time will be.
Most here practice in the Traditional Martial Arts or even Koryu.
Many cross train due to the modern violence experienced in our more contemporary society.
My question is about the choices we make and how can we make them under stress?
Eg. If you train in Aikijujutsu religiously and only,then would you not have more of a chance of combative success over someone who trains in Aikijujutsu as well as modern Combatives,KravMaga etc.
When you get the adrenal dump,experience auditory exclusion,loss of fine motor skills etc.you cannot rationally decide to suddenly change from one style to the next.You just do what you do.Less would be better.
"I fear the man who throws the same punch 1000 times over the man who throws the a 1000 different punches 1 time"(Sorry for butchering that!)
I am not an instructor of any Arts or Systems,so I am just curious on how this approach of cross training works from a mental and physical point of view?
Thank you
Gareth.

Brian Owens
1st February 2014, 20:58
If one had to choose which option to use (which implies conscious decision-making), too many options might be a hindering factor; but if one instinctively takes the correct action -- without "choosing" -- then I don't think it applies.

Since one "fights like one trains," the more varied the training, up to a point, the more varied and appropriate the fighting method(s) will be. To a man who has only ever used a hammer, the only response to any problem will be to pound it; but someone who has regularly used all the tools in a tool bag will be more likely to grab the best tool for the job when the time comes.

Gareth Del Monte
2nd February 2014, 06:17
Hi Brian.
You are right."If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail"
I was just wondering when how much is too much?
We often see Martial Arts Instructors who have various Gradings in multiple disciplines.
They also train in more modern systems as well as the usage of modern tactics.
I think my question is just,when is it too much?
I guess this will however always fall into the lap of the student,their individual goals and or needs for self defense,eg.Military,Law Enforcement or Civilian.
It will always be looking for the correct school that caters as closely as possible to your direct needs based on your individual circumstance.
Thank you,
Gareth.

Richard Scardina
2nd February 2014, 06:37
I fear the man who throws the same punch 1000 times over the man who throws the a 1000 different punches 1 time"(Sorry for butchering that!)

Actually, it is "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.
The quote of 10,000 kicks is from Bruce Lee, and it was never to state to not train in as many things. He, himself, studied martial arts beyond styles, and studied/trained with martial artists from a variety.

It means that it would be better to perfect one thing than to "incorrectly" or "needlessly" practice a lot "non-useful".

Less would be better.
Not so. The more one does, studies, and applies, the better one becomes

Look at it this way, if you want to be a auto mechanic, would you just study or work only on brakes?

The MORE you learn or do, APPLIES to a variety of skill one can achieve


As for You fight like you train and train like you fight-
Let's examine the first portion;
"You fight like you train"
What if someone trains in self defense, which it is not training to fight, but to survive
Martial arts is NOT ONLY about fighting. In modern society, it is better to have common sense and prevent a physical altercation.

The second portion:
"Train like you fight"
This is a dumbfounded statement to be used in reciprocal
No one can train like they fight. Training, no matter what, is still in a closed/vacuum environment. It will not prepare for EVERY situation and/or variable

Anyway, just my 2 cents

Gareth Del Monte
2nd February 2014, 06:58
Hello.
My apologies for butchering the quotation.
In your analogy you say that it is like being an auto-mechanic on learning on how to fix the breaks.
That's a good metaphor.
What about the jack of all trades and master of none quotation.
Yes,I am pretty good at fixing cars,but in this day in age the most prominent problem with cars might happen to be the breaks,carburetor and radiator.
So instead of spending precious hours on learning about the combustible engine and other intricate parts of the vehicle,shouldn't you focus on the problems that are most common and then expand from there as opposed to working backwards.
People do not throw Karate punches,nor do they lurch forward and grab your lapel while they basically allow you to put on a kote geashi or other locking technique.
People do not kick for the head,like in Taekwondo,nor do we walk and fight with Swords,Spears,Staff or Sickles.
Therefore I can be a black belt in Aikido,Karate,Taekwondo and Kenjutsu,but now I start adding situational awareness,the use of modern weaponry,firearms,tactical folders,collapsible batons,pepper spray etc.as well as a no mess no fuss Martial Arts System.
Some of the modern systems are so complex themselves like Krav Maga where you learn 100 different methods of gun disarms as opposed to maybe 3 which can be used on the the 3 levels of your body with either hand(left or right etc)
It seems like "too many cooks in kitchen spoil the broth"
I am sorry if I am going a bit off point.
Gareth.

Richard Scardina
2nd February 2014, 07:22
Hello.
My apologies for butchering the quotation.
No apology necessary as long as you understand the quote's meaning



In your analogy you say that it is like being an auto-mechanic on learning on how to fix the breaks.
That's a good metaphor.


What about the jack of all trades and master of none quotation.
Think of martial arts like a trade (like auto mechanics) One should learn everything pertaining to that trade


Yes,I am pretty good at fixing cars,but in this day in age the most prominent problem with cars might happen to be the breaks,carburetor and radiator.
So instead of spending precious hours on learning about the combustible engine and other intricate parts of the vehicle,shouldn't you focus on the problems that are most common and then expand from there as opposed to working backwards.
This is not correct thinking. In order to be fully applicable, one has to understand all aspects. Knowing about the workings of the engine, is part of knowing what to apply for whatever breakdown. True, some things have more hours spent than others, but the knowledge of everything (within a subject) will have one with applied skills.




People do not throw Karate punches,nor do they lurch forward and grab your lapel while they basically allow you to put on a kote geashi or other locking technique.
People do not kick for the head,like in Taekwondo,nor do we walk and fight with Swords,Spears,Staff or Sickles.
You are looking upon traditional methods in strict comparison to modern. This is incorrect as well. The type of Karate punches, kicks, blocks,etc., are not meant to be used in actual combat. These are for developing other aspects like distance, timing, balance, etc. As for kicking to the head, this is the sport aspect of TKD. I had two TKD instructors over a span, one was strictly sport, the other had great methods and kicks were not to the head. Do not make error into lumping everything into one basket. As for swords, spears, staffs, sickles, etc., I had practiced Kendo for a little while, and a skilled practitioner could use many of the same sword-like methods while using a small cudgel (like wise to spears-staff) Stop thinking of how archaic the device is because you haven't truly studied what other applications beyond what you see




Therefore I can be a black belt in Aikido,Karate,Taekwondo and Kenjutsu,but now I start adding situational awareness,the use of modern weaponry,firearms,tactical folders,collapsible batons,pepper spray etc.as well as a no mess no fuss Martial Arts System.
If you are doing these, this would almost be like the "Jack of All Trades"


Some of the modern systems are so complex themselves like Krav Maga where you learn 100 different methods of gun disarms as opposed to maybe 3 which can be used on the the 3 levels of your body with either hand(left or right etc)
From this statement, it clearly shows that you did not understand the 10,000 kicks quote.


It seems like "too many cooks in kitchen spoil the broth"
Not really. Where do you think a cook learned to make a broth...by understanding and learning from other cooks


I am sorry if I am going a bit off point.
Gareth.
I would say that you are a anti-traditionalist looking for avenues to dismiss and close things, which a strict comparison to be biased for your own sake

Gareth Del Monte
2nd February 2014, 07:43
Hello.
I can agree with much of your counter comments to what I have said.
I am not an anti-traditionalist with some type of Modern Agenda.(I practice and have practiced Traditional MA since I was young)
This is why I am sorry that I went off topic.
My original thread was based on learning a Traditional Martial Arts or Koryu Arts which is an admirable thing to do.
However many top level instructors and students practice modern combat applications for a modern setting as well.
Great(in theory)
Why?Because we always believe that we never have enough of something and keep adding to our repertoire.
If I have spent much of my time reacting to certain attacks in a specific way,it finds its way into my motor memory.
If I then learn a different way for"Combat" or whatever you like to call it,then I have to override my initial instincts that I have spent years developing in order to accommodate this.Fine.
When I am attacked and I receive an adrenal dump and all the things that go with that,then I will basically react in a certain way(the way in which I have trained)
My point being if I have trained in a traditional art,GREAT,then I can react with that art.
If I train in a Traditional Art for the Dojo,but a Modern System for the street,my reaction time will be a bit slower.
I understand that the underlying principles in Old and New systems overlap each other.
My question pertains less to the Art that you use and more to "is less more?" and how the mind works in these terrifying situations?
Thank you,
Gareth.

Richard Scardina
2nd February 2014, 08:39
Hello.
I can agree with much of your counter comments to what I have said.
First off, please understand, I am not one to debate just for the sake of it. I put much time and effort in my responses (hence the responses to sections of your posts)




I am not an anti-traditionalist with some type of Modern Agenda.(I practice and have practiced Traditional MA since I was young)This is why I am sorry that I went off topic.
Apology for me going off topic as well-moving on>>>




My original thread was based on learning a Traditional Martial Arts or Koryu Arts which is an admirable thing to do.
Just as long as there is the equal understanding that with these, there are some things that have good and/or not so good purposes. A balance




However many top level instructors and students practice modern combat applications for a modern setting as well.
Great(in theory)
Why?Because we always believe that we never have enough of something and keep adding to our repertoire.
Well, this would almost come close to the misused quote "Jack of All Trades" :)







If I have spent much of my time reacting to certain attacks in a specific way,it finds its way into my motor memory.
If I then learn a different way for"Combat" or whatever you like to call it,then I have to override my initial instincts that I have spent years developing in order to accommodate this.Fine.
Not quite sure what you are trying to convey, but I can say, not everything will go "according to plan-training"




When I am attacked and I receive an adrenal dump and all the things that go with that,then I will basically react in a certain way(the way in which I have trained)
When I started martial arts, I was also young. When I got into my teens, to young adult, physical confrontations happened more. People tend to over elaborate on their confrontations (as all wins-victories) which in truth, one has to loose in order to learn-to a degree. Also, after having many,(win or loose) this becomes experience, and with experience, comes "less of a adrenal dump"




My point being if I have trained in a traditional art,GREAT,then I can react with that art.
Not quite sure what are you trying to convey





If I train in a Traditional Art for the Dojo,but a Modern System for the street,my reaction time will be a bit slower.
Not quite sure what are you trying to convey



I understand that the underlying principles in Old and New systems overlap each other.
My question pertains less to the Art that you use and more to "is less more?" and how the mind works in these terrifying situations?
Thank you,
Gareth.
I guess you haven't understood-"Less is not more"

Let's review;

If someone is a Carpenter that builds homes. That carpenter will know, not only working with tools of the trade, but they will also understand all aspects of the build from plumbing, electrical, etc This is valuable information (within the subject of their trade) they can use

Gareth Del Monte
2nd February 2014, 12:04
Hello Mr.Scardina.
I am glad you are not the debating type,because I was dreading that this might become some long drawn out thread(I am not the debating type either,just looking for answers)
I really do take to heart what you have said and definitely agree with much of what is said to the point of having to look at myself,my lack of knowledge and own hands on experience.I appreciate your comments as they have definitely helped me to grow by questioning my own thoughts and beliefs on this topic.It has definitely made me take a harder look into cross training and trying to see the bigger picture,rather than try to isolate certain components of these strategies.
Keep Well,
Gareth.

Hissho
2nd February 2014, 23:29
Gareth -

You are very gracious.

You might check out http://www.forcescience.org/ for more information and specific research related to your questions as to how your mind may work under stress. You are definitely in the ball park.

There CAN be a problem with training too many diverse things. This has in fact cost lives due to specific concepts having to do with motor programming, task fixation, hand confusion, etc. Less sometimes IS more.

But other times its not and having more options makes you more adaptable and flexible. Its not that simple and its not a one size fits all answer.


My personal advice would be to a) not think of martial arts as a venue for self protection training. Most martial arts are relevant to self protection, but at about the same level of crossover that fitness training offers. Indeed you'd be better off in some cases doing a fitness program than martial arts.

b) Don't think of self protection as purely "survival" training. Mostly it won't be a survival situation and the techniques and mindset required
there are inappropriate for lower level encounters. This is one reason that cross training and having other skillsets can be important.

c) Remember its more in how you train - are you practicing with realistic self defense situations, dynamics, and stress? Or are you practicing combat sports or ancient battle skills with a lot of assumptions and little regard for to what is or isnt practical for self protection needs.

Gareth Del Monte
3rd February 2014, 03:25
Hello.
Thank you very much for the link you have provided.It is fantastic and I would not have found it without your help.Thank you!
I agree with you that not one size fits all.Unfortunately I have the personality that tends to think in Black or white,yes or no(if you get the gist of what I am saying)
I couldn't agree more that a physically fit individual is always more prepared for whatever type of altercation may occur(if it even comes to that) as well as being physically fit seems to increase a person's general state of alertness and increases one's levels of concentration for extended periods of time which is also a good quality to have as it generally makes one more aware of their surroundings etc.
Also as mentioned by yourself,how you train is indeed probably the most relevant part to a "force on force"situation,or any kind of altercation be it verbal de-escalation or whatever be the case.
I guess that is in fact where the "You fight like you train and Train like you fight" adage actually comes into play.
Thank you for sharing this information with me.I will definitely take it to heart!
Stay Safe,
Gareth.

Richard Scardina
3rd February 2014, 04:00
I guess that is in fact where the "You fight like you train and Train like you fight" adage actually comes into play.


Not really. I am still at odds with this.

The word "fight" seems to suggest that every confrontation has to be concluded with a actual fight.

"You prepare in training to be trained to prepare" may suggest more of survival in modern situations


BTW-Welcome to the forum

Gareth Del Monte
3rd February 2014, 04:06
Hello again,
Thank you,its good to be here!
Stay safe,
Gareth.

Hissho
3rd February 2014, 08:31
Gareth

Sure thing. And there is indeed a lot of truth to "train as you'll fight, fight as you train."

'Force on Force' is actually a training methodology, the 'use of force' is probably what you intended. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions regarding the Force Science link.

Gareth Del Monte
3rd February 2014, 09:07
Hello,
Thank you so much.
I will definitely PM you if I have any questions about the Site.
I really appreciate the offer!
Keep well,
Gareth.

cxt
5th February 2014, 14:27
Gareth

Please explain how "modern" violence or a "modern setting" is in any fashion "different" than violence in other times.

Other than firearms of course........a punch is a punch, a club is club and a knife is a knife.

In terms of mindset etc. I would say its debatable that we have all much on the folks of times past. Sure we have far more advanced neuro-linguistic programming and fight science.....but times were far more violent back in the day and many more people likely had direct personal experience with violence.

Its one thing to train it and learn it.....quite something else to confront it personally and frequently.......which would help cope with the various physiological/pysch problems.

By way of a small scale comparison---in the States many kids have gown up in a "Zero Tolerance" environment for physical altercations........whereas 25 years ago MOST kids had at least "some" experience in school-yard punch-ups or physical altercations........heck its why many of us started training in the first place.
Take my nephew for example---the kid is 16 years old and has never been a fight in his life.......which is actually a GOOD thing.......but without any practical experience with the ad dump the fear etc. how well is he likely to do?

In any case I'm not sure that the assumption "modern/contemporary " violence is all that accurate--other than firearms of course.

Gareth Del Monte
5th February 2014, 14:49
Hello.
You sound like you have more knowledge and experience than me,so I could just end up talking myself into a flogging.
By the way,as you bring up your country and violence amongst youth,I live in a country where violence crosses all boards and it is not uncommon at all to see youths routinely stab and kill each other in "school yard settings".
My original post and what I was trying to understand basically had to do with "less is more"
I tried to point out that learning Traditional Arts such as Aikijujutsu for example by itself for whatever reason you choose,might in fact be better than learning Aikijutsu and a "modern Combative System"
When an assault goes down,you only have so many options to choose from.Theoretically the less you have to choose from,the faster your reaction time will be.
Thus having training in multiple disciplines old or new can cause problems as there are too many chooses to be made in a stressful environment.
With regards to Traditional Martial Arts and Violence,the difference is theoretically there is none.
I am not a Historian,but I would imagine that the violence experienced in 1500 Japan was done so amongst trained warriors.
Very much like violence in warfare today is done by trained warriors,insurgents or 3rd party aggressors.
I do not know what the civilian population was like in Sengoku Japan,but I would expect that they were not that violent towards each other(although I could be wrong)
However statistically today as a civilian you are very likely to be raped,assaulted,murdered,robbed etc.
In don't live in the United States so I cannot speak for your Country.South Africa is pretty horrific.
I am also not sure how many Japanese women were victims of some form of sexual assault back in the day.If you keep up with the times,nowadays its pretty much 1 in 4 or so.
Thank you,
Gareth.

cxt
5th February 2014, 20:49
Gareth

Sorry if it came across that way......I just wanted to discuss it. :)

In the States violent crime of all sorts/overall has been falling for decades--although its often not reported that way. Most folks--depending on where they live are statistically unlikely to encounter much violence of any sort.

On the other hand depending on where you live--many people have easy and ready access to firearms--which now that think about might account---in part--for both the lack of violence in places and the high level of shootings. When everyone is armed....or likely to be....then you better be pretty peaceful or ready to shoot.

I suspect you are correct in terms of the potential danger of having to run through 1000's of POTENTIAL "moves" to get to the one you want to use.

Richard Scardina
6th February 2014, 03:29
Hello.

By the way,as you bring up your country and violence amongst youth,I live in a country where violence crosses all boards and it is not uncommon at all to see youths routinely stab and kill each other in "school yard settings".
And which country is this?




My original post and what I was trying to understand basically had to do with "less is more"
Incorrect. I gave examples why one should learn as much as possbile




I tried to point out that learning Traditional Arts such as Aikijujutsu for example by itself for whatever reason you choose,might in fact be better than learning Aikijutsu and a "modern Combative System"
Dont understand this



When an assault goes down,you only have so many options to choose from.Theoretically the less you have to choose from,the faster your reaction time will be.
When a assault "goes down" there is no time to "choose" Either you Win or Loose and hopefully you live on to train in other methods adding "MORE" to your skills


Thus having training in multiple disciplines old or new can cause problems as there are too many chooses to be made in a stressful environment.
Incorrect. The more you study, the better your skill sets



With regards to Traditional Martial Arts and Violence,the difference is theoretically there is none.
I am not a Historian,but I would imagine that the violence experienced in 1500 Japan was done so amongst trained warriors.
Not totally correct. Warriors often slaughtered civilians



Very much like violence in warfare today is done by trained warriors,insurgents or 3rd party aggressors.
???




I do not know what the civilian population was like in Sengoku Japan,but I would expect that they were not that violent towards each other(although I could be wrong)
This is such a statement of contradiction. if you don't know something, then why would you state what you "expect"



However statistically today as a civilian you are very likely to be raped,assaulted,murdered,robbed etc.
Nonsense. It depends on your culture and especially the environment/area you reside



I am also not sure how many Japanese women were victims of some form of sexual assault back in the day.If you keep up with the times,nowadays its pretty much 1 in 4 or so.
Where are you getting your information?

Gareth Del Monte
6th February 2014, 04:23
Hello Mr Thomas.
You do not need to apologize for anything.
I thought you raised some good points and offered some awesome insights,especially with regards to how many of our children today don't get involved in schoolyard fights,which in turn might be the case why I believe the violence amongst the youth is more lethal.
In the old days people would get into schoolyard fistfights.Usually it would end there.Nowadays where schools have metal detectors and security guards at their entrances,if you challenge certain individuals it could very well lead to you getting stabbed or shot after school.In my own opinion and experience.
Keep well.
Gareth.
Mr Scardina,I live in Cape Town South Africa which if you actually bothered to take the time to read what I had written instead of cherry pick things to critique you may have seen that I mentioned this in my thread that I wrote.
Its pointless you jumping back into the argument now and rehashing your opinion on the same points you did originally as I was explaining to the individual who posted the new comment what I had said in my original post(which we discussed since then).
Yes Bushi slaughtered civilians.And American Soldiers,PMC's and CIA drones kill thousands of innocent people in warfare today wholesale and with little or no provocation,so In this case you ARE correct.
A warrior,a trained individual sanctioned by their country to conduct warfare against the combatants of another country.An insurgent,an individual who carries out combative action who has no allegiance to a country but possibly to a paramilitary or terrorist group.A 3rd party aggressor would basically be an opportunist who has not been designated or prepared to conduct violent action,but may decide to do so based on time,situation and opportunity.Sorry,this is off the top of my head so feel free to Google it for better definitions.
I live in CT,South Africa so I base my opinions on this environment.(Maybe venture outside your comfort zone of only looking at your own country and look at the culture and statistics of my country to understand this.)
I do stand corrected on my comment of how many women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime.It is difficult to know as much of it is unreported.
Than you,
Gareth.

Gareth Del Monte
6th February 2014, 05:24
Lets take a police officer who might be issued his department sidearm a Beretta 92FS for example and is required to shoot a certain amount of rounds through it and pass various tests in order for him deemed to be fit to be able to carry this weapon.
This police officer does so and therefore carries his Beretta on patrol.
He enjoys shooting but he prefers his GLOCK 17.
He shoots his privately owned GLOCK 17 all the time,with thousands of rounds going through it and is even a National Competitor is competitions like IPSC for example.
The Beretta and the GLOCK ar both great weapons,roughly the same size and caliber.They do however operate slightly differently.The GLOCK has no external safeties and has the same trigger pull on every stroke while the Beretta has an external safety and has a double action trigger meaning you have an incredibly long initial pull to cock the hammer.(Not Rocket Science)
Our Cop then walks into a convenience store and is faced by 2 armed robbers.He draws his weapon quickly and aims accurately with means to use lethal force(this is done in the flash of an eye as he has done this thousands of times)Unfortunately when he pulls the trigger it locks and won't fire the gun!Malfunction?NO!He realizes in this "fog of war"that this is not his trusty GLOCK 17, but rather his designated combat pistol which operates slightly differently.He then has to work the weapon accordingly while only getting more stressed by having rounds fired down range at him.Everyone will jump in at this point and tell me that it is really not that difficult to suddenly go from one platform to another.Then WHY is it you read about these situations a fair amount of the time.
Yes,more is better.If he could fire thousands of rounds all day through the Beretta and then thousands all day through the GLOCK it would work out better.Unfortunately this is impossible as we all live under time and financial restraints coupled with our own likes,dislikes and preferences whether it be Firearms,Martial Arts or the Cereal we eat!
My point of THIS ENTIRE POST INITIALLY was would it theoretically not make more sense that our cop buddy who was issued his Beretta carried the same weapons and shot it in his free time as much as he did the GLOCK,(and instead of the GLOCK)and would this not have set up for a more victorious outcome?
I know that every Traditional Martial Artist,Modern Martial Artist,Gun Nut and 13 year old who has played Call of Duty on their XBOX has an opinion on this,so I would really love to hear your thoughts if you believe this to be flawed logic so that I can amend my thinking based on your personal experience.
Thank you,
Gareth.

Hissho
6th February 2014, 08:01
Gareth

You are exactly on the right track, and this is the kind of thing Force Science researches....it has cost cops like you describe their lives.

The human mind and body are really no different in 'combat' than they were hundreds, and thousands, of years ago. Technology has changed, and our understanding of how we mesh with it - or don't - is becoming more important in modern terms. That would be the main difference. Little things like weapon safeties, like holster retention devices, like magazine pouches, like where you carry your tools and have the most repetitions ingrained can all make a huge difference.

Gareth Del Monte
6th February 2014, 08:09
Hello.
Thank you so much for your informative reply.
I really appreciate the knowledge shared,and the points made about our minds being the same today as it was many years ago really intrigues me.Its basically the technology that we have to adapt to.
I also really appreciated in an earlier post when you mentioned the importance of the context of training over method trained in(I am sorry if I got that wrong,but I think that was the gist of it)
Thank you so much and keep well,
Gareth.

Richard Scardina
11th February 2014, 02:13
Ok, It took me a little while to respond due to working more at work


Lets take a police officer who might be issued his department sidearm a Beretta 92FS for example and is required to shoot a certain amount of rounds through it and pass various tests in order for him deemed to be fit to be able to carry this weapon.
This police officer does so and therefore carries his Beretta on patrol.
He enjoys shooting but he prefers his GLOCK 17.
He shoots his privately owned GLOCK 17 all the time,with thousands of rounds going through it and is even a National Competitor is competitions like IPSC for example.
The Beretta and the GLOCK ar both great weapons,roughly the same size and caliber.They do however operate slightly differently.The GLOCK has no external safeties and has the same trigger pull on every stroke while the Beretta has an external safety and has a double action trigger meaning you have an incredibly long initial pull to cock the hammer.(Not Rocket Science)
Our Cop then walks into a convenience store and is faced by 2 armed robbers.He draws his weapon quickly and aims accurately with means to use lethal force(this is done in the flash of an eye as he has done this thousands of times)Unfortunately when he pulls the trigger it locks and won't fire the gun!Malfunction?NO!He realizes in this "fog of war"that this is not his trusty GLOCK 17, but rather his designated combat pistol which operates slightly differently.He then has to work the weapon accordingly while only getting more stressed by having rounds fired down range at him.Everyone will jump in at this point and tell me that it is really not that difficult to suddenly go from one platform to another.Then WHY is it you read about these situations a fair amount of the time.
Yes,more is better.If he could fire thousands of rounds all day through the Beretta and then thousands all day through the GLOCK it would work out better.Unfortunately this is impossible as we all live under time and financial restraints coupled with our own likes,dislikes and preferences whether it be Firearms,Martial Arts or the Cereal we eat!
My point of THIS ENTIRE POST INITIALLY was would it theoretically not make more sense that our cop buddy who was issued his Beretta carried the same weapons and shot it in his free time as much as he did the GLOCK,(and instead of the GLOCK)and would this not have set up for a more victorious outcome?
I know that every Traditional Martial Artist,Modern Martial Artist,Gun Nut and 13 year old who has played Call of Duty on their XBOX has an opinion on this,so I would really love to hear your thoughts if you believe this to be flawed logic so that I can amend my thinking based on your personal experience.
Thank you,
Gareth.

The police scenario you posted is along the lines of a relative of mine who had came out of the military (training and obtaining many high levels of marksmanship with the service pistol) who he had recently became a police officer.

Of course, many LEOs are carrying the Glock 22

And although he was familiar and skilled with his military side arm, he had to get familiar with the firearm his department had mandated
And, with training, he became as accurate with this one as well

This is what has to be considered;

1.) If one already has vast training in firearms, and will start to practice with another unfamiliar, the transition isnt going to be that greatly different (if adequate training is performed). Basically, if you train with one type of pistol or rifle, you already have skillsets that only need other training/practice to acquire

2.) Accuracy is not subject to the weapon, but also the individual.

My relative had to draw his department weapon more than his personal weapon, and I asked him (long before this thread), will it impede his reaction to draw, fire, or effect the moment of truth...

His simple reply....."proper training"

This difference of firearm analogy does not hold to my total agreement.

If I can drive a standard vehicle, I can drive a automatic one..the transition is easy via practice

If one can drive a automatic vehicle, may not be so easy for them to drive a standard, the transition my be difficult-at first...but again, VIA PRACTICE, then can overcome

After having great practice from either, I can drive a standard, get out and drive a auto, (or vice versa) without and difference

So, as with martial arts, the more, is better, to develop more necessary skillsets

The less does not apply to martial arts nor mechanics, nor carpentry, nor medical

Gareth Del Monte
11th February 2014, 04:01
Hello Sir.
I completely agree with you.
As long as one puts in the practice and adapts to the new situation one will prevail.
Also as you mentioned to move from one platform of weapon be it pistol,rifle etc. to another can be relatively easy if someone is willing to train properly with their newly issued weapon,has experience with the overall concepts of the weaponry being used and understands them.
It is definitely a mindset.
I guess therefore a good foundation is essential in order to build upon in order to increase your skill-set into a system that best suits you and is multifaceted.
I do understand from this discussion that we have had now that more is better.As long as it is built on a solid foundation of good Martial practice taught and learnt in the correct manner and setting.
Thank you for helping me learn and understand this as it definitely will help me grow as a person and will make me train differently and hopefully more effectively!
Keep well Sir,
Gareth.

Hissho
11th February 2014, 07:09
Even with proper training issues can still arise, such as recovery of previously "trained out" or "trained over" behaviors. Some of it is how we as humans process stress, and some is how the individual processes it.

So it simply is not that simple.

A stark example of this is an officer in the Midwest - a newer officer and so not so far away from his basic training. One also known to practice extensively with his chosen sidearm and holster and to be very skilled.

This officer decided to switch to a holster with a higher level of retention. For the uninitiated what that means that he added a finger break retention in addition to a thumb break retention.

He practiced with it. A lot. His department even had a qualification for people switching holsters in this manner, which he readily passed. So, a minor stress was added and he was able to perform...

Until one early morning when he checked on a suspicious vehicle, and on walking back to his patrol car came under fire from the driver. A citizen witness stated that the officer in question - who died that day - was "tugging and tugging at his holster and couldn't seem to get his gun out." An armed citizen ended up engaging the suspect after the officer was killed.

What did investigators find? The finger break was not released on the holster, though the thumb break was....even though he had proper training and qualified as trained under a given standard, when experiencing a direct, immediate threat to his life, the level of stress was so high that he could not "remember" - cognitively or physically - to disengage a safety that he had practiced many times to do before.

Many other examples exist - the Mehserle situation (the BART shooting) is another fascinating example of something similar - called a "slip and capture error" in force science terms. I have several of my own.

These are human factors that are always present no matter how much training you do. The fact of the matter is that it has been scientifically and, unfortunately, practically at the cost of human life, demonstrated that too much and too varied training can be a problem under increasing levels of stress and perception of personal danger. Motor programs are dependent on context, on speed, and on our perception of the immediate threat to our lives.

Proper training, proper contextual basis for the skills we practice , a high level of practical experience with those contextualized skills, and an ability to perceive properly and manage even lethal threat stress well and recover from in-the-moment errors (avoiding an internal focus on the error) are what helps us. And you will still have other environmental and human factors to contend with.

To a point, adding training modalities will help. This usually means adding, say, a groundfighting component to a base skill set that does not include said training. Otherwise, staying within a specific training modality and gaining more and more repetitions will make it more robust. For redundancy, adding training that allows you to use the same motor programs in different situations is valid.

Adding different motor programs for the sake of having a wide range of things to do in a single context can actually have the opposite effect.

Its also an inefficient use of training time. Neither of these things is good when you rely on your training to help you when you are legitimately in fear for your life.

Gareth Del Monte
11th February 2014, 08:32
Hello Sir.
I really enjoyed and learnt a lot from your post.
It obviously covers a wide range of issues and various paradigms experienced within these stressful environments.
I would just like to ask a basic question.
With regards to the officer who passed his exams with his newly assigned holster under "stress induced"training conditions.
However the level of stress in those conditions could obviously not match the level of stress faced when dealing with a real life or death confrontation.
Thus proving that the "stress induced training"that qualified him was flawed.
How can one match the amount of stress faced in a real confrontation and duplicate that in a "training environment."
I don't want to sound totally ignorant,but the very fact that people in any form of Martial or Combative pursuit understand that "this is training."Therefore obviously they know that their lives are not really in jeopardy.
I understand that through well designed and realistic training programs one can slowly desensitize that fight or flight reaction to the level that one becomes a better combatant,but at what level of duress and how do you reach that level in order for it to be effective outside the training arena.
It obviously can be done,based on many of the LEO and Military Units,specifically the tactical ones,who experience this stress all the time and basically just deal with it.
But does one have to become a Delta Force Operator and work under those conditions as well as the training received,in order to become desensitized to stress to the point where one can operate in this terrible environment?Most of the stress received these types of individuals are used to it and its just another day at the office based on their work and training.
How does your average Martial Artist then receive this type of mentality and stress control when they are training in a relatively risk free environment and only for infrequent amounts of time?
Thank you,
Gareth.

TonyU
11th February 2014, 12:33
Kit, as always, nice post.

Richard Scardina
12th February 2014, 03:06
The discussion upon Law Enforcement, training of, firearms, etc., can go on infinity. Finding situations on either side.

A LEO, has to not only be accustomed and trained with his firearm, but other tools such as driving skills, PR24 or other cudgel (were applicable in county), X26 Taser, communications-radio, perp submission-basic hand training, etc.

THEREFORE, HE HAS TO STUDY AND LEARN "MORE"


The basic concept I hold to is more is better (as long as it is applicable)

For example, to fight better, one should not solely rely on stand-up methods. The "more" or add to this is also to study grappling art

To learn or apply self defense better, the "more" or add to this is the study of legal, applicable, etc., per beyond martial art physical methods

Hissho
12th February 2014, 18:29
Another way to think of this would be to consider the negligent discharge.

The negligent discharge - formerly known as the accidental discharge (and probably still should be....) is when the finger presses the trigger when the shooter does not want to do so.

NO ONE is immune to these things, and some of the most highly trained shooters/operators in the world have had them, or take note of them in their weapons handling skills. Why do they need to do this, when all of these shooters have been trained since day one to keep their fingers off the trigger until they are ready to shoot?

Stuff happens. The brain farts. The body has a mind of its own sometimes. Stress exacerbates these things, always, and for some people far worse than others. And sometimes the people most comfortable with firearms get the most complacent.

Add other bells and whistles - more stuff like flashlights, like having to draw and shoot at speed, shooting while moving, shooting while moving and communicating, shooting while moving and communicating and using a flashlight.....and the potential goes up for these things to happen.

That potential goes up for EVERYBODY, because the layers are being added.

Now do it hunting for real suspects, or even under fire...

As an example, Tony and I have done all these things and to the level that they became routine, but only because we practiced the same things over and over. There was still a recognized potential for an N.D. when we did these things. There was a greater potential for people who were new on our respective SWAT teams of doing this, and a far greater potential for patrol officers who maybe trained this one once a year, if that.... and so on.

Now start adding multiple ways to operate a light - or different lights with different switches in different places, different guns with different safeties and things, even things like different magazine pouches with open tops versus velcro covers versus snap covers, with mags drawn out from the side or the top. Mix all this in and after a while you have a jumbled mess and your brain never gets a chance to hard wire certain movements because rather than spending all that time on one operating system it has to divide time for many different alternatives/options.

....and still has to keep the finger off the trigger.

Joseph Svinth
13th February 2014, 00:28
Don't forget the other proviso. Got to take the weapon off SAFE for the weapon to go bang. I saw that particular thing happen to an Olympic-level shooter at a demo. It's ha-ha funny at a demo, but it could be messy in a social situation.

Brian Owens
13th February 2014, 03:42
...The negligent discharge - formerly known as the accidental discharge (and probably still should be....) is when the finger presses the trigger when the shooter does not want to do so.

Sorry for the off-topic tangent, but I agree with you. "Negligent discharge" should be reserved for cases where the shooter intended to fire but shouldn't have, which is different from firing when one didn't intend to.

If you're shooting in your back yard and the round goes through your fence and kills the neighbor's dog, that is a negligent discharge. If you're drawing from a SERPA holster and your finger goes into the trigger guard after pressing the release button, firing the gun as you go to put it in your locker, that is an accidental discharge.

(And no, neither has ever happened to me.)

JS3
14th February 2014, 01:44
When I was in the academy the firearms instructors told us of a shoot out in which the officers died with pockets full of spent brass.
Why?
During training instead of dumping the spent brass (they were using revolvers so that tells you how old this story is) on the floor they were made to put the brass in their pockets, keeping the range clean and all that.
Well, during the stress of a shoot out muscle memory took over and they kept pocketing their brass and it cost them.

During our training magazines were just dropped to the floor during an exchange and not picked up until we were cleaning up.
We were also not allowed to eject the current magazine until we had our free hand on the replacement.
To this day when I go to a private range where it is not practical to just let the magazine drop I have to stop and make myself take out the magazine.

This is also why anyone designing a replacement rifle for the military (U.S.) designs it with the same control groupings as the current issue.
Less retraining and chance for mishap.

You will fight how you train, hell you'll do anything the same way you train, that's the point of training.
The question is, do you know how to properly train to "fight"?

In regards to less is more.
They say when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Well, there are over 20 types of hammers and over 40 types of nails.
That's enough variety for me.

JS3
14th February 2014, 02:03
The discussion upon Law Enforcement, training of, firearms, etc., can go on infinity. Finding situations on either side.
A LEO, has to not only be accustomed and trained with his firearm, but other tools such as driving skills, PR24 or other cudgel (were applicable in county), X26 Taser, communications-radio, perp submission-basic hand training, etc.

THEREFORE, HE HAS TO STUDY AND LEARN "MORE"

The basic concept I hold to is more is better (as long as it is applicable)

For example, to fight better, one should not solely rely on stand-up methods. The "more" or add to this is also to study grappling art


Richard,
May I offer a different take?
If my talents and genetics make me a better stand up fighter, why would I split my already limited training time on another competing skill set.
Wouldn't my training time be better spent on how to leverage my skill set against a grappler?
i.e. learning how to get back to my feet quickly if taken down, preventing myself from being taken down in the first place?

Japanese Judo players tend to only have 2 throws, a number one technique and a number two technique.
The thing is, they know them so well they can apply them in almost any situation or know how to create the situation that will allow them to use one of these two techniques.

In the examples you gave for the LEO the "More" were different skill sets, not competing skills.
i.e. he is training with one pistol, using one type of baton, driving one type of vehicle.
in regards to the taser, there have been incidents where the office thinks he is reaching for his taser and shoots his pistol,
That's why you will more often than not see the taser carried on the opposite hip as opposed to a drop holster on the gun side as it was once done.

Hissho
14th February 2014, 05:57
When I was in the academy the firearms instructors told us of a shoot out in which the officers died with pockets full of spent brass.
Why?
During training instead of dumping the spent brass (they were using revolvers so that tells you how old this story is) on the floor they were made to put the brass in their pockets, keeping the range clean and all that.
Well, during the stress of a shoot out muscle memory took over and they kept pocketing their brass and it cost them.

.

Joe's referring to the Newhall Incident (https://www.google.com/search?q=newhall+incident&oq=Newhall+&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.4602j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8)here. And some other good points.

Brian Owens
14th February 2014, 19:03
When I was in the academy the firearms instructors told us of a shoot out in which the officers died with pockets full of spent brass.
Why? During training instead of dumping the spent brass (they were using revolvers so that tells you how old this story is) on the floor they were made to put the brass in their pockets, keeping the range clean and all that. Well, during the stress of a shoot out muscle memory took over and they kept pocketing their brass and it cost them.

I was told the same story at my academy, except in the version I was told it was a lone NYPD officer; and while it makes a good story, it turns out not to be true. It didn't happen at Newhall, either.

Richard Scardina
17th February 2014, 01:06
In the examples you gave for the LEO the "More" were different skill sets, not competing skills.
i.e. he is training with one pistol, using one type of baton, driving one type of vehicle.
in regards to the taser, there have been incidents where the office thinks he is reaching for his taser and shoots his pistol,
That's why you will more often than not see the taser carried on the opposite hip as opposed to a drop holster on the gun side as it was once done.
The more is in the number of things he has to learn in order to become better

The more is in the items as well as his training with these items.

Police of this era has "more" than the police decades ago

I am not concerned on the mistakes of what has to be done, as this applies to "more" training" and understanding

As for Judo, the Judoka better study more for street survival, esp in the areas I know of where two throws will never be enough

Hissho
19th February 2014, 07:28
It didn't happen at Newhall, either.

Hey Brian - do you have a reputable, quotable source for this? I know there is a new book out on Newhall but haven't seen a review that specifically talks about that element.

Seen people do some things under even the stress of simuntion that I would not be surprised that this did/could occur, but it would be nice to debunk it if it has been shown not to be true.

Joseph Svinth
19th February 2014, 07:57
Kit --

Is this what you're looking for? http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/5504658-Setting-the-record-straight-on-the-Newhall-Incident/

Hissho
19th February 2014, 11:58
Thanks Joe, I never saw that one!

Goes to show how much we "think" we know is simply legend repeated oft enough that it becomes truth. How much moreso the hundreds of years old "traditions" we have in martial arts. This one is but decades old and has been repeated umpteen times in training as "what happened."

Richard Scardina
21st February 2014, 02:47
One must always seek to "discover" rather than "just follow"

Brian Owens
22nd February 2014, 07:29
Hey Brian - do you have a reputable, quotable source for this? I know there is a new book out on Newhall but haven't seen a review that specifically talks about that element.

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I've been off the forum for a few days.

Joe provided the PoliceOne link, but here's another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhall_massacre

HTH.

Kevin73
22nd February 2014, 14:01
Hick's law is the most often misquoted and misapplied thing in martial arts/police/military training today. If someone mentions Hick's law to support what they do, I already know they don't know much or they would have found out it doesn't apply.

Here is an article also discussing the misapplication of Hicks Law and WHERE and HOW Hick's law was originally used (hint 1950's computers) and how newer studies based on PEOPLE have shown it doesn't apply.

Also, studies have found that once a skill is trained so much that it becomes automatic, it bypasses the adrenaline dump and does NOT effect performance of fine motor skills. For example, fighter pilots executing multiple high level fine motor skills, or Navy SEALS taking precisions shots with their sidearms during entries.

http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/hickslaw.htm

Hissho
23rd February 2014, 03:07
Studies are showing that certain people actually have genetic characteristics in body chemistry allowing them to process stress better than others; perhaps not surprisingly those successfully completing special operations selections tend to have these characteristics.

Some interesting early reading on something akin to this is The Ace Factor by Mike Spick. Even novices scoring high on natural situational awareness (SA) skills tests performed closely with well trained performers scoring similarly on the same tests; and well trained individuals who did not score highly in SA dd not perform as well as novices....

FWIW - and I can't quote where I got this from though it was noted at a Force Science seminar I attended - even the lauded Navy SEALS engaged in unconscious "trigger checks" when tested on realistic entry training. That is, despite the protests of the SEALS themselves that they "never touched their triggers unless they needed to shoot," many actually did - multiple times - during training when sensors were applied to their trigger.

NO level of training and experience makes you immune to human foibles. It CAN make you complacent, which is equally problematic.

GOOD training does go a long way to making for better performance under stress, IF that training mimics similar stress and dynamics as the real thing; and some people exist on both ends of the spectrum: those that respond much better to training and are even quite effective without it, and some people just never do get it despite extensive training.

And EVERYBODY has a tendency to overestimate their own abilities and how they'll "do...." some even despite mounting evidence that they are the latter kind of "never get it" people. ;)

Joseph Svinth
24th February 2014, 08:03
Something else the training does is it lets co-workers see who routinely a) chokes or b) just as routinely grandstands. Once you know that, you know who to send for coffee and who to put out in front of the media, while everybody else settles in to do some heavy lifting.

Richard Scardina
24th February 2014, 12:37
Something else the training does is it lets co-workers see who routinely a) chokes or b) just as routinely grandstands. Once you know that, you know who to send for coffee and who to put out in front of the media, while everybody else settles in to do some heavy lifting.

Sorry, a tad confused. Please elaborate further

Hissho
24th February 2014, 16:06
Joe you are exactly right, though most often people tend to select themselves out of those things they can't do.

Not so much going to get coffee- but more than one person has driven very slowly to a call or even pulled over and waited until enough people got there that they could choose to block traffic rather than do anything scary.

TonyU
24th February 2014, 19:42
Joe you are exactly right, though most often people tend to select themselves out of those things they can't do.

Not so much going to get coffee- but more than one person has driven very slowly to a call or even pulled over and waited until enough people got there that they could choose to block traffic rather than do anything scary.
Yeap, been a "victim' of that once or twice. :redhot:

Joseph Svinth
25th February 2014, 01:13
Richard --

That description doesn't apply just to risky business. It's found in any job. After a while training with folks, you know who tries hard but lacks the skills, who is a glory hound, and who should be kept in a box marked "Open only during catastrophes." The problem is that many supervisors haven't been in the field recently enough to figure this out for themselves, and as a result, they make decisions on what the self-inflating balloons tell them rather than what their eyes should have told them. Thus, in heaven, things are arranged so that everybody's aptitudes are best used, whereas in hell, it's the same people, they're just arranged so that their aptitudes are misused.

Kendoguy9
25th February 2014, 20:28
Joe you are exactly right, though most often people tend to select themselves out of those things they can't do.

Not so much going to get coffee- but more than one person has driven very slowly to a call or even pulled over and waited until enough people got there that they could choose to block traffic rather than do anything scary.

We had one of those guys. He'd be standing 20' from an incident and hide around a corner until more able units showed up. The guy was a real piece of work. He got "hurt" while taking the agility test (well, after he found out he failed it). I think they gave him a medical retirement or some sort of BS. He was one of the old security guards who got grandfathered into the academy when we became police. The Sgt. even recommended termination during the academy but he was buddy buddy with a lot of the civilian folks in the college. Oh well, such is life.