By Steve Miles
Today we are going to take the ideas about methodology and material that we have covered in the last three weeks and put them to use. My intention is to walk you through the practical application of some of these concepts to unleash your critical thinking skills.
A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions. (Oliver Wendell Holmes)
Last week we talked about how material is the "moves", how a system intends to fight, and that material is developed in accordance with the system founder's basic assumption of what "winning" is. We pointed out that when the material was used in a different context than the founder's basic assumptions it usually needed to be revamped or augmented by other material more appropriate to the new context. As an example we discussed how material developed for a refereed MMA match might not fare well if used wholesale in a knife fight. That example was hypothetical, so let's now move on to a more specific example: Modern Technique.
Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
The Modern Technique is a method for using a handgun originated by Jeff Cooper and codified in his 1991 book "The Modern Technique of the Pistol". Nearly all defensive shooting courses in the US use the "two-handed grip" and "front sight focus" principles of Modern Technique as their foundation.
Before we continue, let's understand that Modern Technique shooting is itself not flawed, there are many contexts where it is entirely applicable. The problem is when the Modern Technique material is blindly applied to inappropriate contexts. We are going to deconstruct Modern Technique not to attack its validity, but to instead understand why it developed the way it did.
"Blessed is he who in the face of death thinks only of the Front Sight!" (Jeff Cooper)Although he started as an innovator, Cooper's instruction became very dogmatic. His mantra of "front sight focus" in nearly all combat contexts is echoed by instructors teaching his method today. But all contexts are not the same.
We know material is developed in accordance with the system founder's basic assumption of what "winning" is, so let's examine what Cooper had in mind when he developed Modern Technique.
Cooper was a great American who greatly advanced the shooting art. As a Marine veteran he was decisively focused on combat shooting, and many Modern Technique concepts are applicable to gunfighting. However, when we examine the context he drew basic assumptions from when developing Modern Technique, we find it was far removed from actual combat. Cooper and his contemporaries developed Modern Technique in the context of what would win sport shooting competitions. Specifically, he started a series of matches in Big Bear, California, known as "Leatherslap" where contestants were timed to see who could draw and hit a target at seven yards the fastest. Later the competitions were modified to resemble real-life shooting situations with silhouette targets, reloads, and other sophistication, but they were always done in the context of a one-way range where the shooter's only consideration was how fast he could score hits. Within a match there was no inherent risk of the contestant being shot by an opponent, "stand and deliver" shooting ruled, and the Modern Technique material derived from these competitions emphasized shooting speed and accuracy without any real consideration of return fire.
"So what?" a Modern Technique advocate might retort. "If I can get good hits faster than the bad guy I'll prevail, right?" Unfortunately the question misses the entire point of context, and this is where you must follow closely if you are to escape the Modern Technique paradigm.
Assumptions drawn from a timed sport shooting context are not the same as those drawn from an actual gunfight. Just like our earlier example of trying to use pure unmodified competitive MMA material in the context of an actual knife fight, attempting to use pure unmodified Modern Technique within the context of an actual gunfight is likewise potentially disastrous. The reasons for this are many but focus on the lack of real "life and death" pressure in sport shooting. Without a living opponent also trying to prevail and likewise shoot/stab/smash you, the context is indelibly different.
Fortunately our society doesn't have much real violence as compared to other parts of the world, and this can make the contextual distinction of sport shooting versus gunfighting difficult. Allow me to use another hypothetical example to further clarify this point, within the context of a sport that nearly everyone understands: football.
Imagine an NFL team with a new training strategy. In preparation for the Superbowl the team will exclusively train by running passing drills against an opposing team consisting of stationary cardboard silhouettes. In this context, the coach proclaims that the quaterback's speed and accuracy is everything, and the entire offense is focused on quickly getting the quaterback the ball and him delivering the pass on target. There is no consideration that the quarterback might be sacked, in fact no consideration of defense entirely, and no practice is done against living breathing opponents. How is this training going to stand up against a real live team? Not well, the training assumptions do not match the Superbowl context.
Hopefully we are starting to see the inherent problems with reliance on "stand and deliver" Modern Technique for gunfighting. To further explain this, next week we will go back to Maslow's Law of the Instrument: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." The tools of Modern Technique are speed and accuracy, but the gunfight problems are not all cardboard targets.
Cooper was a great American who greatly advanced the shooting art. As a Marine veteran he was decisively focused on combat shooting, and many Modern Technique concepts are applicable to gunfighting. However, when we examine the context he drew basic assumptions from when developing Modern Technique, we find it was far removed from actual combat. Cooper and his contemporaries developed Modern Technique in the context of what would win sport shooting competitions. Specifically, he started a series of matches in Big Bear, California, known as "Leatherslap" where contestants were timed to see who could draw and hit a target at seven yards the fastest. Later the competitions were modified to resemble real-life shooting situations with silhouette targets, reloads, and other sophistication, but they were always done in the context of a one-way range where the shooter's only consideration was how fast he could score hits. Within a match there was no inherent risk of the contestant being shot by an opponent, "stand and deliver" shooting ruled, and the Modern Technique material derived from these competitions emphasized shooting speed and accuracy without any real consideration of return fire.
"So what?" a Modern Technique advocate might retort. "If I can get good hits faster than the bad guy I'll prevail, right?" Unfortunately the question misses the entire point of context, and this is where you must follow closely if you are to escape the Modern Technique paradigm.
Assumptions drawn from a timed sport shooting context are not the same as those drawn from an actual gunfight. Just like our earlier example of trying to use pure unmodified competitive MMA material in the context of an actual knife fight, attempting to use pure unmodified Modern Technique within the context of an actual gunfight is likewise potentially disastrous. The reasons for this are many but focus on the lack of real "life and death" pressure in sport shooting. Without a living opponent also trying to prevail and likewise shoot/stab/smash you, the context is indelibly different.
Fortunately our society doesn't have much real violence as compared to other parts of the world, and this can make the contextual distinction of sport shooting versus gunfighting difficult. Allow me to use another hypothetical example to further clarify this point, within the context of a sport that nearly everyone understands: football.
Effective Training Partners?
Imagine an NFL team with a new training strategy. In preparation for the Superbowl the team will exclusively train by running passing drills against an opposing team consisting of stationary cardboard silhouettes. In this context, the coach proclaims that the quaterback's speed and accuracy is everything, and the entire offense is focused on quickly getting the quaterback the ball and him delivering the pass on target. There is no consideration that the quarterback might be sacked, in fact no consideration of defense entirely, and no practice is done against living breathing opponents. How is this training going to stand up against a real live team? Not well, the training assumptions do not match the Superbowl context.
Hopefully we are starting to see the inherent problems with reliance on "stand and deliver" Modern Technique for gunfighting. To further explain this, next week we will go back to Maslow's Law of the Instrument: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." The tools of Modern Technique are speed and accuracy, but the gunfight problems are not all cardboard targets.
To learn more about ALIVE!™ Combatives and ALIVE! Gunfighting® contact the author Steve Miles via email to steve@combativestraininggroup.com
Copyright© 2015 Alive Technology Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment