Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Skill Transfer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Skill Transfer

    Good stuff here

    If you are trying to improve your performance for the explicit purpose of getting better, then you are on the right track. If however, you are trying to pursue these drills so you can be better than the next guy doing the same thing then you are making a big mistake.

    https://medium.com/@jefflgonzales/sk...r-a14b8756c83c


    "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

    "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

  • #2
    I'm not a fan of standards. Standards hold people back, people who would otherwise excel. It's human nature.

    Failure is awesome. It means you're pushing yourself.

    How do I know I'm getting better at something? Well, if I'm pushing myself as hard as I can then there's only one likely outcome, improvement.

    Failure is an opportunity to learn.

    Comment


    • #3
      Standards allow classification or progress reports. In training you can train to meet the minimum standard for a task or license. The FAA for example requires a private pilot to hold heading and altitude to a very loose standard. It is possible to training to a very high standard to exceeds the private pilot requirements by a factor of 10. A student pilot training to just meet the 200 foot standard will fail half the time, trained to be correcting any altitude deviation of 20 feet will never fail an FAA test.
      Both students will feel they are working just as hard in training.
      The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
      If your religion says suicide and murder are wrong; Aren't you doing both if you are not prepared to defend your life and the lives of others?
      I am not a lawyer, but I have personal opinions.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jim Macklin View Post
        Standards allow classification or progress reports. In training you can train to meet the minimum standard for a task or license. The FAA for example requires a private pilot to hold heading and altitude to a very loose standard. It is possible to training to a very high standard to exceeds the private pilot requirements by a factor of 10. A student pilot training to just meet the 200 foot standard will fail half the time, trained to be correcting any altitude deviation of 20 feet will never fail an FAA test.
        Both students will feel they are working just as hard in training.
        But will they be doing the best that they can? +/-20 ft. still isn't +/-0ft. And there's the flaw in performing to a standard regardless of how difficult it is instead of performing to the best of your ability to the point of failure. Plus who's to say the standard is even worth a **** in context of an actual fight. Prove it. It likely can't be due to the nature of the beast.

        How about th flip side of this? Not being able to meet a standard. What if someone isn't capable of meeting some convoluted made up no context standard? Should they give up? Not try? Not carry? Not take personal safety seriously? What should they do? Is their inability to achieve some B.S. split time or score proof that they're not going to be able to defend themselves?

        Standards, split times and scores in the context of personal defense are excuses not to reach ones greatest potential and in no way predict ability outside of that isolated and choreographed circle jerk.

        That stuff is for playtime and/or mutual masturbation between gun guys.
        Failure is an opportunity to learn.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jim Macklin View Post
          Standards allow classification or progress reports. In training you can train to meet the minimum standard for a task or license. The FAA for example requires a private pilot to hold heading and altitude to a very loose standard. It is possible to training to a very high standard to exceeds the private pilot requirements by a factor of 10. A student pilot training to just meet the 200 foot standard will fail half the time, trained to be correcting any altitude deviation of 20 feet will never fail an FAA test.
          Both students will feel they are working just as hard in training.
          I'm a big believer in standards and assessments as long as your doing performance VS outcome training. Without standards there really is no way to assess IOT identify weak areas to work on. I also like "performance on demand" type drills VS. warm-ups. Famous business quote:

          "That which is measured, improves"

          Case in point a couple years ago I took a class that convened over multiple range days spread out over a few weeks. The start of each live fire day consisted of each student; on the 7 yard line weapon loaded, holstered, no concealment, facing a standard paper plate. Each student would draw and fire 1 shot at the plate on a standard timer. The instructors recorded scores and tracked improvement as a way to see if students were doing their homework; dryfire drills etc.

          The stated "goal" was a hit in under 1.75 seconds, (not a particularly tough drill). It was amazing how many couldn't do it, whether it was a miss or failed time. These were guys that for the most part were decent shots, but either the time standard or the increased stress from having an audience had an effect. Many either had not shot on a timer or in front of an audience, almost none except for the match guys had done any type of performance on demand shooting.

          Generally standards in training (not certification/qualification) aren't an in "concrete sort of thing", nobody says that once you're regularly achieving the minimum standards you can ratchet things up. Usually it's pretty easy to do just by modifying the conditions, tgt size and time are just a couple.
          The Lion Does Not Turn Around When the Small Dog Barks

          Which is a nice way of saying I don't interact with Azzclowns..........

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chuck R. View Post

            I'm a big believer in standards and assessments as long as your doing performance VS outcome training. Without standards there really is no way to assess IOT identify weak areas to work on. I also like "performance on demand" type drills VS. warm-ups. Famous business quote:

            "That which is measured, improves"

            Case in point a couple years ago I took a class that convened over multiple range days spread out over a few weeks. The start of each live fire day consisted of each student; on the 7 yard line weapon loaded, holstered, no concealment, facing a standard paper plate. Each student would draw and fire 1 shot at the plate on a standard timer. The instructors recorded scores and tracked improvement as a way to see if students were doing their homework; dryfire drills etc.

            The stated "goal" was a hit in under 1.75 seconds, (not a particularly tough drill). It was amazing how many couldn't do it, whether it was a miss or failed time. These were guys that for the most part were decent shots, but either the time standard or the increased stress from having an audience had an effect. Many either had not shot on a timer or in front of an audience, almost none except for the match guys had done any type of performance on demand shooting.

            Generally standards in training (not certification/qualification) aren't an in "concrete sort of thing", nobody says that once you're regularly achieving the minimum standards you can ratchet things up. Usually it's pretty easy to do just by modifying the conditions, tgt size and time are just a couple.
            Agreed. You can't tell you are improving or even where you start from unless there are some standards to measure it by.
            Taceant colloquia. Effugiat risus. Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae.
            The Pale Horse available on Amazon for your digital reader.

            Comment


            • #7
              How do you measure how well you'll do in a sudden surprising and violent attack? Does being able to get 1 hit on a paper target from an open carry set-up while motionless and not under the conditions of such a chaotic attack allow us to do So?

              I get it, people like to play range games and timers are a sort of validation although they can't predict performance in an event so far removed from what was being timed. I view it as a waste of time because of this fact. Some don't. The likelihood of convincing someone of the flaw in such things is low as they likely have so much self worth and money tied up in it even logic cannot penetrate the defensive mechanisms put into place. I'm cool with that. Even if I wasn't, who cares.

              Shooter ready, beep, bang, swing gun, bang, swing gun, bang, show clear, reholster.
              Failure is an opportunity to learn.

              Comment

              Working...
              X