Fighting vs. Competition

[OBIWAN]

Some good observations from John Farnam

While he may be painting competitors with a broad brush the comparison is still valid IMO

"Too Fast?

Not long ago, I attended the demonstration of a pneumatic target system designed for pistol training. A crowd of police officers also gathered to see this new device. We all watched as pneumatically-actuated steel plates popped up and down from behind a steel sill. As you might imagine, this system allowed the operator to pop targets up and down in sequence, and for adjustable amounts of exposure time.

The manufacturer had a well-known, competitive shooter on hand to demonstrate his system. Ever the showman, the competition shooter performed several shooting exhibitions, using a typical hyper-tricked-out, race-gun/monstrosity and utterly impractical, competition leather gear. In addition, like all pistol competitors these days, he wore satin pajamas full of assorted, commercial messages. While entertaining, I wondered what the purpose of this exhibition was, other than pure amusement. When I put this question to the manufacturer, he replied that he wanted to show us all that his system can train police officers to shoot "really fast."

"Why is that important?" I asked. "Well, don't you want to be able to shoot fast?" was his exasperated reply. He went on by pointing out that his hired pretty-boy could consistently shoot plates which were exposed for a mere three-quarters of a second, from a range of eight meters, all from the ready position.

"I'm not sure I'm making myself clear," I continued, "but I need to point out that your exhibition shooter, although starting from the ready position, has his finger in contact with the trigger all the time, even when he was not on target. Further, his signal to shoot is ANY movement of the target. Again, this is all entertaining, but it is NOT training."

I reminded him that, in all legitimate, defensive firearms training, we teach students to keep trigger fingers in register until (1) there is a legitimate threat, (2) the sights are aligned on the target, and (3) the shooter has made the decision to fire.

I continued, "It's indeed dramatic to be able to hit a plate in under a second from the ready position, but I DON'T THINK ANY OF US CAN EVEN ACCESS, MUCH LESS ACCURATELY EVALUATE, A THREAT THAT FAST, and training people to shoot things simply because they move, is not something that will be found in any

legitimate defensive firearms training curriculum. Being able to neutralize a lethal threat quickly is surely an important skill, but incorporating unsafe, indeed reckless, habits into one's protocol in an effort to shoot 'really fast' is an obvious misdeed."

Not surprisingly, the manufacturer ignored my comments and went on with his

demonstration as if nothing had happened.

Lesson: SLOW DOWN AND HIT! Don't be mesmerized, or even particularly impressed, by pajama-wearing trick/exhibition shooters. They are entertainers, not fighters. They know nothing about fighting and don't even carry guns.

Our colleagues at the FBI recently re-discovered, painfully, that the " fingers-on-triggers-at-inappropriate-times" syndrome is the source of no end of grief! How many catastrophes will it take for us to cement this lesson into our being?

Legitimate training is more than just ego-massaging masturbation. We are preparing officers for the fight of their lives! There are two kinds of pain: the (1) Pain of Discipline, and the (2) Pain of Regret. You can avoid one, but not both!

"The grave is a fine and private place, But none, I think, do there embrace."

/John"

[BillCA]

For most self-defense shooting situations there will be a moment of analysis and decision about the threat and the appropriate response. Until the decision is made that lethal force is appropriate, shooting discipline must be maintained (i.e. finger off the trigger).

A gunfight is a terribly complex situation due to the dynamics and the stakes involved (lives). At the very least, it consists of threat-assessment, legal authority analysis, target identification, target acquisition, shooting mechanics (sights, trigger, follow-through), threat neutralization, tactical decisions and post-shooting scene control.

It's possible to marry speed with discipline, but it takes a lot of work. Ideally, your alertness will prevent you from needing to "speed draw" so utterly fast you can hit a target in less than 3/4 of a second.

Speed is fine. Accuracy is final.

[CarbineCaleb]

I have never been in a gunfight, and hope I never will be, but still have an opinion. To me, Mr. Farnam is being overly harsh/dismissive in his criticism. I have heard many people say the same thing about IDPA and IPSC shooters - saying it's useless, doesn't mean anything at all.

While I can understand that the regulations for IDPA and IPSC may make the optimal equipment choice and tactics different than they might be in a real gunfight (which, tactics-wise, I'd expect to be all over the map)... I still think that there are valid equipment generalizations there and valid skills that are emphasized.

For example, lots of people right here on TFL insist that the best gun is the smallest and lightest and that there is no degradation in performance with small/light handguns - if they want to be derisive, they'll say only for rank amateurs does it make a difference. While one can make all kinds of either commonsense or theoretical arguements for why gun size/weight *do* matter, one simple thing to look at is - what do competitors use? Well, it ain't the smallest and lightest gun if they want to win.

Another example - while I can see that deciding *if* to shoot is critical and absolutely must be done properly, the bottom line is, the fight doesn't end with that decision, it only begins there. And if you need to use your weapon, then speed, accuracy, familiarity with difficulties will all come into play. To me, IPSC/IDPA competition will hone these skills and can expose problem issues and how to overcome them, whether with tactics or equipment. I am not saying they cover everything or correspond exactly to real life situations, but saying that yes, I can easily see the value.

To me it's also worth noting that Mr. Farnam earns his living by having people travel to *his* training facility and buy his books. He may not be entirely impartial on discussing alternatives.

[OBIWAN]

John makes his $$$ teaching people to fight with a handgun

He does not teach them to compete

So I don't think he is trying to steal students from Brian Enos

He never said that competition could not/would not help you with the mechanics of shooting fast and accurate

But you will default to the level of your training...if you train to run fast with your finger on the trigger that is what you can expect to do in "the real world"

Too many people try to cut corners in the pursuit of pure speed

Generally the first things to go are tactics like moving ad using cover....others are basic safety like the finger on the trigger

I remember John patiently explaining and then demonstrating to a student that finger on the trigger did not save you enough time to make it worth the risk of an ND...or worse...shooting a good guy/loved one

But like John always says...you cannot miss fast enough

[Charles S]

OBIWAN,

Thanks for the post. It is easy, when training, to loose sight of your objectives. If you train for self defense pursuit of pure speed must be tempered with safety, and target identification.

I have always appreciated Mr. Farnam's views on shooting and self defense.

[CarbineCaleb]

Well, if the point is that having your finger on the trigger at any time other than when on target is a bad idea, I can't argue that, and made a post regarding this exact issue and not sacrificing safety for speed myself yesterday.

When I read Mr. Farnam's words though, there is an awful lot more going on than that, however. But, it's really no concern of mine - he can disparage whomever he wants.

[threegun]

Take a man who is a good shot with his pistol who can easily put fist sized groups in the bullseye and have him run an IDPA or IPSC competition for the first time. I guarentee that his accuracy degrades tremendously even if he resists the urge to go faster. Competition has forced me to perform under a pressure that isn't available elswhere. It has forced me to think and shoot under pressure. Reload and moveing under pressure. Being safe is not an option and competition shooters should practice safe gun handling just as they would normally. Competition shooting has made me better no matter what anyone says or thinks if done with an emphasis on safety over just winning at all costs it will make anyone better.

[Samurai]

This thread identifies the same problem with competiton vs. street pistolcraft as occurs with competiton vs. street fighting, namely, that you use different techniques and tactics when playing for "points," than you do when playing for "keeps."

On the street, I will never kick above the knees, because to do so opens up a moment of imbalance. In competition, kicks below the waist are illegal, and can result in dismissal from the competition.

Moral of the story: Never confuse people who "fight" with people who "play." A real fight is NOT a game. And, a competition is NOT a real fight.

[BlueTrain]

You all realize this controversy goes back probably at least a hundred years and probably a little further than that. So there is nothing new under the sun. It is true that combat competitions like IPSC are relatively new, less than 50 years old but basically, there is nothing new under the sun.

Some of the more successful target shooters of the previous century were also very combat oriented law enforcement officers and the better known ones apparently had considerable actual gunfighting experience. Curiously, some of them even went in for trick and demonstration shooting, something that has pretty much disappeared, at least in the public eye. But I couldn't say what any of them might have thought of today's competitive shooting. Some also seem to have believed that competitive target shooting (of the formal NRA sort) was expected and was a good thing. Others thought quite the opposite. But I imagine that was more of a reflection of different backgrounds and experiences as well as opportunity. But I would certainly agree with the previous poster about the pressure of competition.

This clearly isn't about hunting but from time to time articles appear in gun or outdoor magazines about hunters versus target shooters, which are the best shots. Same sort of thing.

I have wondered and even mentioned here if there are things the police are taught, at least about shooting or gunfighting, things that are not general knowledge not taught elsewhere? Likewise, I wonder if there are techniques that the "bad guys" use that are different from what the "good guys" use?

[Lurper]

Obviously an unbiased open minded commentary.

What Farnum and many others fail to take into account is that in the scenario used for the shooting sports (IPSC in particular), the decision to shoot, threat assesment, etc. all take place in theory before the buzzer. So those are not considerations in the sport. Nor should they be. It is about the shooting, not anything else.

Also his implication that one needs to have the finger on the trigger before the gun is pointing at the target is flat out wrong. Even when I am doing sub 1 second draws, my finger is not on the trigger until the gun is pointed at the target. That also ignores the rule that is an automatic DQ if you have your finger on the trigger while moving or reloading. Perhaps it was just the demonstrator who was unsafe?

In the confrontations I have been in with a holstered weapon, I had already made the decision to shoot before I drew. In the times when I have had the weapon in my hand, the safety was on, finger outside of the trigger guard, sights aligned on target. So to imply that one has to be unsafe to be fast is not true.

The other huge problem with his argument is the assumption that the mechanics of shooting are different for competition than defense. They are not! I have yet to have someone prove they are. But, those with a vested self interest continue to try to convince the shooting public that there is a difference. Why wouldn't they? It keeps customers coming.

Also, for civilians the most important skill is being able to put lead on the target quickly. In fairness, for LEO's there are many more considerations. The surest way to ensure your safety is to remove the threat the fastest way possible. Civilian confrontations are usually up close, short lived, usually at home and at night. That means hitting the target IMHO quickly is more important than seeking cover.

Another fallacy is that competition doesn't prepare you for the real thing. Again, it does. Many other L.E. trainers like Mas Ayoob will tell you that it does. So to dismiss the skill and training value of competition is indicative of the axe that Farnham feels he has to grind with competition shooters. I think his pajama clad comments and the obvious disdain in his writing says it all.

He never said that competition could not/would not help you with the mechanics of shooting fast and accurate

OMG, OBI, do we agree on something?

I believe that Farnham and others have valuable skills to teach about cover, pre/post shooting events, mindset, etc., but they would well served if they balanced that with acknowledgement that the top shooters in the world have the best mechanics.

[STLRN]

I cannot speak for civilian defensive encounters, but from a military stand point having done both a little 3 gun and IDPA. Neither really prepares one for combat in the military aspect. You cannot suppress, you cannot do fire and manuever, you cannot use explosives, nor team based tactics and anyone who thinks the pucker facter of working against a timer or "man against against man" can even compare to what happens when you hear a tracer sizzle by your ear or are knocked on your butt by an explosion.

[OBIWAN]

Wow...can-o-worms

What I was trying to point out was that speed is not everything and the single minded pursuit of speed at the expense of all else can be very bad.

As Pat Rogers says "smooth is fast"



"his implication that one needs to have the finger on the trigger "

Actually...if you read the post it was an observation...not an implication

"the assumption that the mechanics of shooting are different for competition than defense"

He made no such assumption...at least not that I saw..although I have seen him poo-poo the slapping of the trigger that some competitors do

Once more from the top

"Being able to neutralize a lethal threat quickly is surely an important skill, but incorporating unsafe, indeed reckless, habits into one's protocol in an effort to shoot 'really fast' is an obvious misdeed."

So you see...you and he agree....about almost everything except the costumes

And I agree wholeheartedly about civillians having somewhat different needs

Which is why I find it odd that I have never seen and IDPA or IPSC stage that was shooting at contact distance while delivering a palm strike with the off hand

Curious

[Lurper]

. . . but incorporating unsafe, indeed reckless, habits into one's protocol in an effort to shoot 'really fast' is an obvious misdeed."

As I read it, this is one of three places that he implied that the

. . . pajama-wearing trick/exhibition shooters.

have to have their fingers on the trigger to be so fast. What he is implying is that all of the sponsored shooters etc. have incorporated

. . . unsafe, indeed reckless, habits into one's protocol in an effort to shoot 'really fast'

. What I am saying is that is not true. You can be that fast without being unsafe. He wants to paint all of the competitors with the same brush based on an observation of one bonehead. As I mentioned, his disdain for competitors in general is obvious:

They are entertainers, not fighters. They know nothing about fighting and don't even carry guns.

He could have made is point in a less deprecating way. There are plenty of the pajama clad pretty boys (myself included) who do carry guns and in fact instruct others including military and LEO's.

When you have to drink a half cup of acid just to get to the cherry, it is not an enjoyable drink.

The other thing he implies is that one cannot shoot that fast and hit. I find it odd that an advocate of defensive shooting would tell someone to slow down as opposed to telling them to shoot when the sight is on the target.
Yes, you cannot miss fast enough to win, but you can be accurate enough to lose. What I advocate is that you become proficient enough to do both.

Which is why I find it odd that I have never seen and IDPA or IPSC stage that was shooting at contact distance while delivering a palm strike with the off hand

You just haven't been to enough matches!

[CarbineCaleb]

When you have to drink a half cup of acid just to get to the cherry, it is not an enjoyable drink.

That's the same way that I felt when I read it - and not only did Mr. Barnam feel a need to publically interrupt and heckle the sales presentation that day when they managed to attract a

crowd of police officers also gathered to see this new device.

... aka people who might be interested in *his* services...

...he also felt the need to recount his criticism on the internet for his fans, and considerably more strongly. The entire passage is laced with insults. If you put this in front of an elementary school class, and said, why is the author saying things like:

...he wore satin pajamas full of assorted, commercial messages...
...his hired pretty-boy...
...in all legitimate, defensive firearms training...

... i.e., what's really going on here? I think the class wouldn't have too much difficulty in understanding that there is more than informing the reader in the mind of the author...

[SeaMariner]

I'm sorry, this is so entertaining but "satin pajamas"??? I don't think I could take a person seriously if he showed up to teach "how to shoot fast", if that's what he was there for, in satin pajamas... Especially if I was some cop wearing all that crap they make cops carry these days.

Pajamas...


Although I will say this, if your paying attention, then (follow me close here) practicing a smooth, rapid draw and engagment of a KNOWN target is not a bad thing... but incorporate in the training numerous false targets... I've seen training aids where electronic guns are used and the trainee is put through a variety of scenarios where false or misleading targets are presented. I think that combination training of drawing rapidly while educating on indicators and signals of danger or threat is the best course of action.

[threegun]

Stlrn, Besides FOF training what form of training/practice puts unusually high pressure levels on the shooter? My answer is competition. No it ain't the real deal.....but the real deal is not available in practice.

In the couple of encounters (close calls) that I have been involved only competition comes close in terms of pressure (for me anyway).

[STLRN]

It all depends on your frame of context, I have done competition and I have done war. I don't find competition even close, not to mention I never showed up at a competition without having slept or eaten in 2 days. Or had to fire to do a string of fire after having been patrolling all day in 120 degree heat with a ton of gear on and done a dozen escalations of force before actually shooting at someone other than over their heads to scare them away.

If done correctly, I can see it providing some training value. But I believe most people who do competition see it as more valuable than it actually is.

[Lurper]

Comparing training for military encounters and civilian encounters is apples and oranges as are the encounters themselves. There is no need for supressive fire, fire and manuever, etc. in civilian encounters. Many experts on civilian and LE shootings and the participants themselves will tell you that competition was the best form of preperation they had.

[Hard Ball]

"What Farnum and many others fail to take into account is that in the scenario used for the shooting sports (IPSC in particular), the decision to shoot, threat assesment, etc. all take place in theory before the buzzer. So those are not considerations in the sport. Nor should they be. It is about the shooting, not anything else."

Excellent point!

[OBIWAN]

It is an excellent point...and helps highlight the differences between competing and fighting. Maybe they should have no-shoot stages in IDPA...just to screw with people

But I hit all the targets....Yes sir...but the red light was lit...DQ

"Perhaps it was just the demonstrator who was unsafe" that is in fact who he was referring to...all ruffled feathers aside

I firmly believe that if the shoe fits wear it...and if it doesn't why is everyone so darned testy

And (reading is fundamental) I said I thought he was using a broad brush

But does anyone here think that (some) competitors don't fudge on their use of cover, and other tactical realities in order to be just a little quicker than the other guys?

I remember some posts by Andy Stafford that he was noticably slower in competition if he tried to shoot the stages tactically...as in pretending the targets might shoot back

Threegun...I have been in training classes where they got us very wound up without resorting to incoming fire

"So to imply that one has to be unsafe to be fast is not true"

Once again you are hearing things that have not been said...he merely councils against sacrificing one for the other


I see lots of people try to be fast and blow it....

I see them "slow down" and shoot a course almost every bit as fast...but get the hits

Yes...you should work to be able to do it just as fast as you can...but no faster

In the real world....you don't get to rehearse...and you don't get to try again next week if you blow it

[STLRN]

It is an excellent point...and helps highlight the differences between competing and fighting. Maybe they should have no-shoot stages in IDPA...just to screw with people

But I hit all the targets....Yes sir...but the red light was lit...DQ

Well if your point is to make it training than that makes sense. Even the military now throws in target discrimination and shoot/no shoot. Agree or disagree, the military is trying to get people out of the mindset that, pointing the weapon automatically leads to deadly force.

[Deaf Smith]

Actually, we once did have a no-shoot stage in a IDPA match. It was in a blind match where people were called up on the cell phone to come down to the range and go through the whole course.

The no-shoot stage called for pivoting 180 and being exposed to several targets. They were all shown the cell phones, umbrellas, books, and guns that the targets MIGHT have. In actuallity NONE HAD A GUN.

Sure enough, the one we knew was a fu*kup, shot one of them anyway. Almost all of them ran behind cover (as was expected) and scoped out the targets from behind that cover.

It was a learning experience!

[Hard Ball]

I do not know how and on the basis of what actual combat experience Mr Farnam derived his handgun techniques. I have been in only two close range draw and fire fights with a handgun.
If I had used Mr Farnam's techniques. In both cases I would have been killed on the spot without firing a shot. I am afraid I cannot consider him to be the ultimate authority.

[OBIWAN]

What exactly does John teach that would preclude you from firing

As for combat experience http://www.defense-training.com/johnres.html

Incidently...nobody...including John would consider him the Ultimate Authority

[BlueTrain]

In addition to difference between fighting and competition, there is also a difference between training and competition, as some have hinted at. There should also probably be a difference between the training intended for the police, for soldiers and for civilians who are not law enforcement officers. In addition to the very likely differences in which they might find themselves and use a firearm, both their power (authority, that is) and their allowable responses will be different, though some of the borders are fuzzy.

Safety considerations impose some artificial constraints on competition and so does scoring. In fact, the scoring is probably the bigger of the two in its effect on the competitors and their behavior. Safety considerations are also important in training although in some countries in ages past, a certain amount of casualties were allowable (evidently). Even now, casualties are expected for airborne parachute drops. It may have been the reluctance of commanders to accept casualties which prevented air deployment of parachute troops in Afganistan to cut off the getaway of the bad guys.

Some police trainers refused to score trainees in their programs, instead using merely a pass-fail system. Yet other departments actually had a form of pro-pay for high target scores in handgun qualification.

Another factor is that some training, especially military training, has multiple goals, not all of which are relevant to the civilian, though I am at a loss to give an example at the moment. Handgun training, however, is not exactly stressed in the army.