• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Multiple Stances?

TonyD said:
John - I think you can see that the topic has flourished since your original post. Now I understand what you are referring to as intermediate, advanced, etc. Not knowing you, or your skills, personally I'll repeat what I've stated many times in the past concerning these high dollar schools and instructors before I'm finished.

As I stated, it's not necessarily a bad thing to require a new shooter to have a solid foundation when first learning basic marksmanship fundementals. However, I believe that as soon as a person demonstrates competent firearm safety they should be required to practice those fundementals during realistic training. This is one area where I differ from the big name instructors. Why? It loses revenue. It requires the student to pay more money to come back for yet another class and can become never ending.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can agree with your statement that "it's not necessarily a bad thing". It seem to imply that it MIGHT be ok to skip the fundamentals and move right to the combat training. If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.

There's only one way to build a house. Put a solid FOUNDATION in first, then solid walls, THEN you put the roof on.

We agree, I think, that people who never progress PAST the square range fundamentals are kidding themselves if they think they are now ready for a lethal force encounter.

I would submit that IPSC/IDPA competitors are also kidding themselves.
(But that's a different thread)

That said, luck favors the prepared, and either or both are far better prepared than the average American citizen.

As for current training being driven by what put's the most money in a trainer's pockets, I would submit that the cost of liability insurance, and the highly litigous society we live in, are more likely to be the reason trainers find it necessary to keep pounding away at shooting and gunhandling fundamentals before allowing "real" combat training.

TonyD said:
You have apparently spent a great deal of money attending a number of courses with some very recognizable names in the industry.
Click to expand...

Spread out over ten years or so, yeah.

Clint Smith has refered to people who travel from school to school taking course after course as "gun camp kiddies". [lol]

Guilty as charged. :)

I work for the State of NY, I get four weeks paid vacation a year, and frankly, going off to one of these places for a week or two is a blast! The best possible way to spend a vacation, as far as I am concerned! And it doesn't end up costing me any more than a conventional vacation would.

TonyD said:
Clint Smith has said that he is AMAZED at the number of people who want to come to HIS courses and pay HIM good money to teach HIM the way THEY shoot!

So I'm not troubled by schools in the beginning and intermediate levels expecting you to do things THEIR way. After all, you're paying them good money to teach you what they believe are correct, fundamental techniques.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by the above statement. Are you saying you should, or should not, be required to do things the way the instructor demands?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that, in the beginning, it may be a good idea to do a course with a Weaver guy and a different course with an Isosceles guy and then figure out for yourself what works for YOU. After THAT, it may be a bad idea to go to teachers who insist you do it the OTHER way than the one you've decided to use.

It takes thousands of reps to build long term muscle memory, and ten's of thousands of reps to break a habit that is already instilled and substitute a new one. (or so I've read).

Some instructors are flexible enough to let you use either, and they, of course, are fine.

But it's silly to go to a course, pay good money, and then ignore what the teacher is trying to teach you.

TonyD said:
The fundemantals of marksmanship is not an ever changing animal. And, advanced marksmanship, personal protection, self-defense combat handgunning is merely the praticed refinement of the fundamentals as applied to a given situation. This refinement is up to the individual to practice the fundamentals they've been taught.
Click to expand...

The fundamentals are a good grip, good sight picture, good trigger control. Beyond that?

Mindset. Legal Considerations. Tactics. Avoidance and De-escalation. Specialist courses like no/low light and CQB shooting. Shooting moving targets. Moving while shooting targets. Force on Force training . . .

I don't know that you ever run out of things to learn . . .

Regards
John
 
John - I'll try to condense and be more precise.

I have not attended the schools run by the recognizable names in the industry. My training and experience closely mirrors theirs and I see no reason to give them my money. However, I would welcome the opportunity to train together if schedules ever permitted. I've kept my training and instruction close to home and they've chose to market theirs. For that reason my input, or creditials are often overlooked.

I do not and will not use a square (Isoseles) stance. It may be great for action pistol players to pop tin cans but I personally believe it is a detriment to realistic defensive handgunning for a number of reasons. I demand that anyone I teach or coach use some type of foot forward fighting stance. Regardless of whether we are fighting with fists, clubs, knives or guns.

I agree that square range techniques are for mastering the fundamentals. Gotta learn how to walk before you can run
Click to expand...

The important part here is to be taught how to walk correctly.

Some really good Force on Force courses are starting to pop up around the country.
Click to expand...

We used FoF two decades ago before it became vogue. The new airsoft stuff can be an excellent training aid providing good tactics are taught and used.

Interesting concept. You find yourself being chased around a gym trying to shoot a guy who's trying to brain you with a plastic baseball bat...
Click to expand...

Which is why self-defense does not begin and end with a firearm.

...leaning out around a corner to shoot at someone who's shooting at YOU as you lean out.
Click to expand...

Which will get you killed trying to use a square stance instead of cutting the pie in a strong-side fighting stance.

Missing because you haven't been trained to hit while moving will also get you killed.
Click to expand...

Illustrates the point I've been trying to make perfectly.

...move, stop to shoot, then move again.
Click to expand...

Is only acceptable if this technique is used very breifly during transitioning the student to stop shooting while stationary and requiring them to shoot while moving.

By contrast, Awerback's Handgun 1 course dealt primarily with three dimensional targets, sometimes at strange angles, and towards the end, bobbing and weaving.
Click to expand...

Excellent instruction and practice and should be followed up by shooting this target while on the move. Yes, this should be demonstrated in stages, however, as soon as the concept is understood it should be put into practice immediately. Don't train using bad habits.

Respectfully,
TonyD
 
TonyD said:
John - I'll try to condense and be more precise.

I have not attended the schools run by the recognizable names in the industry. My training and experience closely mirrors theirs and I see no reason to give them my money. However, I would welcome the opportunity to train together if schedules ever permitted. I've kept my training and instruction close to home and they've chose to market theirs. For that reason my input, or creditials are often overlooked.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that. I started out self-taught, based on Ayoob's books and articles, and then with a local police instructor when I worked for an armored car company. His training was solid and realistic.

TonyD said:
I do not and will not use a square (Isoseles) stance. It may be great for action pistol players to pop tin cans but I personally believe it is a detriment to realistic defensive handgunning for a number of reasons. I demand that anyone I teach or coach use some type of foot forward fighting stance. Regardless of whether we are fighting with fists, clubs, knives or guns.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't intend this to become a Weaver vs Isosceles debate.

We agree that the games players have reached the point where they can only win by finding ways to shave a few hundreths of a second here and a few hundreths there, and this is now driving all of their choices in equipment, techniques, etc.

That said, Ayoob's original contention was that there was a real difference between techniques that depended on gross motor skills as opposed to fine motor skills, when your body was trying to cope with a massive adrenaline dump, and he thought the Weaver was more likely to fall apart under such circumstances and the Isosceles more likely to hold together and work.

I noticed your reference to foot forward. I've seen some tapes by one of the games players, Jerry "The Burner" Barnhart, and in the first one he talks about the evolution of his shooting stance from a "pure" Weaver, through a modified Weaver, to a "pure" Isosceles and now a modified Isosceles that uses a foot forward position with slightly flexed equal distance arms.

When I talk about Weaver vs Isosceles, I'm talking primarily about the relationship between the two arms.

Regards
John
 
John - Although I have been a life-long shooter and hunter, having my first handgun at age nine, I am not self taught. My time in law enforcement and hostage rescue was the beginning of my formal instruction and training. We were writing the book the same time Ayoob was and before some of the more notable names today. Again, he who gets fame gets credit.

Sorry for the debate on Weaver v. Isoseles. It was only my intent to give you my position on stances. You've noticed that I refer to stances as square and fighting. There is a reaon for this. What can fall apart with a stance as related to gross motor skills? What can fall apart is being caught on your heels in a square stance when all else fails. Think about that.

The loss of motor skills due to adrenalin dump, fight or flight, parasympathetic nervous response, or whatever name you want to give it is overcome through realistic stressful training as I've been saying all along. Experience and exposure is what allows you to recognize, control and deal with body's natural survival response. It actually works for you, not against you as some have you believe.

One of the biggest problems I've experienced in trying to use a square stance is the relationship between the center triangle placement of the arms and the dominant eye. I'm not a cyclops and therefore do not have an eye in the center of my forehead. I am right eye dominant and my strong side needs to align with that eye naturaly! Any of these instructors ever point out that little fact?
 
There are a number of comments about top name instructors that insist on Weaver or iso for shooting. When I am talking to the top name instructors that we (neshooters) are considering, we always cover the point about whether the instructor is dogmatic about Weaver or Iso. I have explained that we will have students that like on or the other or something in between. I have told them that the most important thing that they can do is to teach the student how to perfect their chosen style. I think that it is fine to demand a given stance for a beginning student, because it gives the student a place to start. BTW, have you ever watched a large busted woman try to cope with the weaver stance? I, for one, would not even consider the Weaver in that case.

To a large degree I am also a training junkie. I have attended the Weaver only schools at Gunsite and Front Sight. At each of these schools, we were told that if we did not want toshoot Weaver that we should just say so and they would us to shoot our chosen stance the best way. Just for the record almost all of my shooting is from a Weaver or a compressed Weaver (the Langlois Stance). I am not sure that my stance is a pure weaver stance but it is close to Weaver and it is comfortible.
 
John - If you are still considering attending more schools I would advise to look at Jim Conway's website and contact him directly. Jim and I have very similar philosphies on defensive combat so I know his instructors will share many of the same thoughts and will be top-notch. And, he's in your area, sort of.
 
Two things...

This far, other than my training with my NRA instructor (who happens to be an accomplished pistol coach bringing the youth team to victory at Camp Perry this year) Jim Conway has been my main instructor for defensive pistol instruction. I think the stance I use (as instructed by Jim) works well for me. It's solid and after some practice and adjustments from Jim, it now feels very natural. I have not been able to make it to "choir practice" for some time, and hope that I can start going again soon.

Next... I really like what I am hearing from your perspective on training Tony. Maybe we could get enough of the folks here on NES that would be willing to make it worth your while to have you come up here for a long weekend and run us through some drills?

I know I would be interested!

Adam
 
Adam_MA said:
Next... I really like what I am hearing from your perspective on training Tony. Maybe we could get enough of the folks here on NES that would be willing to make it worth your while to have you come up here for a long weekend and run us through some drills?

I know I would be interested!

Adam
Click to expand...

I'd also be interested. About time I got some formal training with a handgun.
 
That's very tempting even though I swore I would avoid going back to Mass. at all costs! [wink]

Actually, I love to do it sometime and get the chance to do some training with Jim and others.
 
No legal headache... Just end the course with a shooting competition each day!

Adam

PS. Just watch those no ban mags!
 
It is official as of yesterday. Two of the Neshooter courses will be held in NH at the Pelham fish and Game Club.. These two courses are Tom Givens (Rangemaster) in June, 2006 and Jeff Gonzales (Trident Concepts) in september, 2006.
 
That still works.

ETA - I see that what I thought was correct. You appear to do most of your training in NH. That works for me. You may see me there sometime this year.
 
THat'll be easy. Will one of your courses help me with NRA Instructor Certification? I'd like to do that as well. And I see you have a POC in my state (VT). I'm in the Middlebury area.
 
TonyD said:
John - If you are still considering attending more schools I would advise to look at Jim Conway's website and contact him directly. Jim and I have very similar philosphies on defensive combat so I know his instructors will share many of the same thoughts and will be top-notch. And, he's in your area, sort of.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to travel a day or so in any direction from my home in the Hudson Valley for training, so anywhere in NH is certainly doable for me.
And I already have a NH permit, from past runs up to the Pioneer Sportsmens Club in Dunbarton. (Autumn Hills campground in Weare is a marvelous place to stay, btw)

I work for the state in a secure juvenile detention facility and have to bid for my annual leave dates every year. I go into the meeting with a list of interesting courses, and which dates I can get off pretty well determines which course(s) I am going to take. So we'll see.

That said, Chuck Taylor will be in Wallingford CT for his Advanced Handgun Course in August, and I think that one will be my number 1 priority this year.

http://www.defenseassociates.com/

Regards
John
 
Well, better late than never.... (mom's still in the rehab with her broken hip and I've been practically living at a hospital since Friday night when it happened, however, I digress...)

John, to answer your question about being able to swtich back and forth between stances.... I don't have a problem with any of the stances, whether they be I vs. W, kneeling, standing, shooting around a corner, one handed, two handed, weak hand (although I do have a tougher time reacquiring the target weak single handed with the .40), or strong hand. There are some positions where my accuracy is not as good as it is in other positions, such as shooting around a corner weak hand, compared to two handed weaver. I still hit the target, but not as well as I do with the two handed stances. Soooo...I guess the only problem I have is shooting weak hand with the .40 one handed. And, as I said, it's more reacquiring than anything else. I'm not comfie if I can't reacquire quickly, but I still practice it because something might happen where the strong hand is injured.

(And Jim, I DO believe that you made Len blush [wink] [lol] )
 
Back
Top Bottom