In response to a video posted of a vaunted Point Shooting instructor I asked the following:
I’d be curious what sort of hits he’s obtaining like this. Is there any sort of standard these guys adhere to? What is a trained student expected to do? Instructor? Master?
Warning: Mute the sound to avoid the lame, over-played, fake metal song in the background.
Here’s the response to my question, which is an example of how badly messed up shooting training is.
I can tell you his hits are good. At the end of two days everyone’s hits were good. I don’t know about other PS trainers but Roger Phillips does not have “standards” or any scoring system. The “scoring” is the students and instructor evaluating whether or not the desired result is achieved. Good hits on target. No scoring rings or other artificial stuff. Was that an effective shot or not? Did you accomplish the desired result of holes where you wanted them?
What is “good”? So the students and instructor get to decide what constitutes a “good” hit after shooting? Sort of like putting a golf ball and then deciding where the hole should be.
Admittedly, a point scoring process can become arbitrary if you let it but reducing the effort into a number adds much needed objectivity. Is the shooter improving? Does a technique work better or worse? How much? Rather than a feel-good assessment, we need a way to put a hard number on it. Failing to measure, or devising a means to do so, is much worse than any potential problems scoring might create.
On silhouette targets we can create one zone to represent the thoracic cavity. Scoring is now center hit, edge hit and miss. How bad is a complete miss? How much better is a center vs. an edge hit? Assign a number to this that encourages what you believe is an optimum balance. An individual instructor can change this to meet his class needs as he sees fit.
If that’s too much, scoring can be a simple hit or miss. Again, how terrible is a complete miss? If it will open your student up to incredible liability or failure it needs to be heavily penalized.
Putting some thought into this is the mark of a good instructor. What are the goals and how will you measure them?
Firearm User Network 
Jan 04, 2013 @ 18:34:22
John, I agree that having a formal means of evaluating performance is an absolute necessity. The reality is, however, that all scoring systems provide you with is a means to evaluate 1) shot placement and 2) adherence to time standards. In addition to the training performance evaluation, students must also be taught that bad guys don’t necessarily stop fighting after 2, 3, or sometimes more seemingly good hits. Still, a system without a formal means of external evaluation is nothing more than someone’s excuse to screw around.
LikeLike
Jan 04, 2013 @ 19:05:21
>> … a system without a formal means of external evaluation is nothing more than someone’s excuse to screw around.
Exactly. Meeting a standard is not the final word. Ideally, the evaluation should be stringent enough that room for skill development exists well beyond a “passing” score. Many public sector qualifications (military and police) can be maxed at low levels of skill and these folks seldom know how far back at the end of the skill spectrum their quals are.
Consider the El Presidente and the old par score of 6.0 (hit factor/ratio of 60 points in 10 seconds.) This is hardly a complete training metric but it was intended as a periodic test, preferably shot cold, to indicate skill progression. Meeting that par doesn’t guarantee anything but it does demonstrate a base level of competence. Failing to meet such a mark indicates problems.
Better still, the course can be used well beyond the “passing” par time. My personal best in competition (USPSA Limited) is 10.9. Others have done considerably better than that.
Put a line in the sand, challenge yourself and others to cross it and then see how far beyond you can go.
LikeLike
Jan 08, 2013 @ 20:18:00
I don’t know about Roger Phillips or Suarez’ methods of deciding what is ‘adequate’ for these kind of techniques, but it doesn’t stop me from practicing them. And, honestly, i couldn’t care less about ‘others” adequate. I have to meet my own standards of adequacy.
For myself, I’m striving for all CM hits regardless my activity/direction/speed. If one day I get ten for ten CM (that’s heart area) then I feel I’ve done a fair job. The next step is to get the group size smaller in the same area. No, I don’t always succeed. Seldom do, in fact. I find that one good day accounts for ten bad days. (Or is it ten bad days lead to one good day?)
But the point is, I’m measuring myself against myself, not some arbitrary standard supported by some SpecOps or LEO grade school I will never attend. Honestly, what I could do at 25, I do not expect of myself any longer at 65. I do what I can and know that it’s practice and when I need the skill, it will either be there or it won’t: but I do know that with practice, I won’t be spraying 19 rounds into the crowd or buildings around me (dare I mention certain police units?). And, hopefully, at least: can we believe ‘you’ll be half as good in combat as practice’?
So I can see, ‘his hits are good’. He has to achieve his own level of competance and what he feels he must accomplish, for himself, rather than what the FEEBS or some outside source desires. Time standards? Mine will be ‘how long does it take for the perp to hit the ground?’ I couldn’t care less about the stop watch other than as a guide line for my own gratification. My means of ‘external evaluation’ are simply one thing: Am I improving? That’s all I need to know, and is ‘formal’ enough for me.
LikeLike
Jan 09, 2013 @ 14:31:09
>> I don’t know about Roger Phillips or Suarez’ methods of deciding what is ‘adequate’ for these kind of techniques
Neither do I. Apparently, neither do their students.
>> I have to meet my own standards of adequacy.
Which is? Regardless, having your own, personal standard of “good” performance IS a standard. It’s something to compare against next time and, hopefully, do better than (or at least match up to.)
>> For myself, I’m striving for all CM hits regardless my activity/direction/speed. The next step is to get the group size smaller in the same area. … I couldn’t care less about the stop watch other than as a guide line for my own gratification. Am I improving? That’s all I need to know, and is ‘formal’ enough for me.
That’s exactly what I’m recommending. Numbers (distances, target sizes, MOA, elapsed times) are an objective way to realistically assess that “am I improving?” question.
LikeLike
Jan 26, 2013 @ 12:07:39
I am always amazed when people view a very short video and then make comments with such a low amount of information. There should be a standard applied on commenting on things with extremely limited knowledge and information. I am qualified to teach over two dozen different courses including marksmanship based course that push the standard out to 200 yards with a pistol and 400 yards with a rifle.
The video above is a skill set called “the movement matrix” and it is designed to let shooter know what they are really capable of inside of the most difficult situations. The status quo training of the past and the marksmanship based aspect of it have left our LEO in a position where the nationally recognized hit ratio is between 15-25 %. They trained and qualified using a “standard” yet when the reality of the fight became a reality their training standard was much to low to. The standard that they trained in did not take the reality of the fight into consideration.
Any standard that does not take the reality of the fight and make it the highest of priorities is a sub-par standard. The situation of the fight is the predominant factor and if the bad guys do their job right (they are not as stupid as people would leave you to be) you will be in a reactionary position and when you are in a reactionary position the balance of “to hit and to not be hit” must be taken into consideration. The movement matrix above helps dramatically to not be hit. this has been proven beyond any doubt inside of actual gunfight and in force on force testing.
There is a phenomenon out there in the training world and I call it “you do not know what you do not know.” Unless you have studied actual reactive gunfights and the reality that 70% are in low light, both adversaries are usually moving dynamically, and you are dealing with an activation of the sympathetic nervous system it is hard to evaluate what is being taught in that very short video clip. At Suarez International we teach force on force courses and the students that have trained with me in “Point Shooting Progressions” absolutely dominant the other students. It is so unfair that most of the other SI Instructors separate the two groups.
As far as teaching to a lower standard, I have extensive training at one of the premier marksmanship based shools in the country. They tested on a standard non-stop. Their standard looked good on paper, but was an absolute joke inside of the reality of the fight. Since I have trained in both methods extensively, I know for a fact what method trains to the lower standard.
“Situations dictate strategy, strategy dictate tactics, and tactics dictate techniques…….techniques should never dictate anything.”
If you are not training in “the reality of the fight” you are training to a lower standard.
LikeLike
Jan 26, 2013 @ 12:41:42
>> I am always amazed when people view a very short video and then make comments with such a low amount of information.
I commented AFTER asking questions where this video was originally posted and receiving a non-answer. My original question and the response received is in italics above and below the video embedded here.
>> our LEO in a position where the nationally recognized hit ratio is between 15-25 %.
Another commenter here has bandied about such numbers in other posts but he hasn’t presented any documentation backing it up either. I dug into some NYPD and LAPD stats to see what their results actually are:
>> They trained and qualified using a “standard”
Largely because LEO and military standards are designed to be taught and passed by personnel at the novice level. More here:
>> Any standard that does not take the reality of the fight and make it the highest of priorities is a sub-par standard.
I agree and believe you and others with Suarez International are teaching good things in this realm. While I haven’t been able to take a course, I have studied a number of SI DVDs and books. But you still haven’t told us what your standard for measuring and achieving skill is.
LikeLike
Jan 26, 2013 @ 13:03:20
>>I agree and believe you and others with Suarez International are teaching good things in this realm. While I haven’t been able to take a course, I have studied a number of SI DVDs and books. But you still haven’t told us what your standard for measuring and achieving skill is.<<
As far as this one piece of the puzzle that you see in the video clip, our standard is just like the standard set down by the Gracie's during the birth of MMA. We fight people in force on force. We train for the reality of the fight and we test the standard in the reality of the fight.
When it can not be tested this way due to distance, or lack of opponents we test it just as any other marksmanship based training. The pump house and cranial ocular cavity being or primary targeting area's. The head and the upper thoracic cavity being secondary. Center of mass and the central nervous system are always taken into consideration.
Since inside of the balance "to hit and to not be hit"
"to not be hit" is more important, therefore our standard changes are the feces gets deeper. If I am a full second behind in the reactionary curve due to being distracted, I will accept a standard less than perfect.
"Perfection is the enemy of good enough."
Perfection is to not sustain damage while dishing out damage. That is the context of the movement matrix.
LikeLike
Jan 26, 2013 @ 17:40:05
>> What is “good”? So the students and instructor get to decide what constitutes a “good” hit after shooting? Sort of like putting a golf ball and then deciding where the hole should be.
>> Admittedly, a point scoring process can become arbitrary if you let it but reducing the effort into a number adds much needed objectivity. Is the shooter improving? Does a technique work better or worse? How much? Rather than a feel-good assessment, we need a way to put a hard number on it. Failing to measure, or devising a means to do so, is much worse than any potential problems scoring might create.
>> On silhouette targets we can create one zone to represent the thoracic cavity. Scoring is now center hit, edge hit and miss. How bad is a complete miss? How much better is a center vs. an edge hit? Assign a number to this that encourages what you believe is an optimum balance. An individual instructor can change this to meet his class needs as he sees fit. If that’s too much, scoring can be a simple hit or miss. Again, how terrible is a complete miss? If it will open your student up to incredible liability or failure it needs to be heavily penalized. Putting some thought into this is the mark of a good instructor. What are the goals and how will you measure them?
Since I have put so much thought, time, effort, empirical data, fighting, and testing into this, I will take that as a compliment.
My goal is to be as dangerous as I can possibly be no matter what fight shows up at my front door. I will measure it by continuing to fight other extremely dangerous men, by watching extremely dangerous men fight other extremely dangerous men, and compiling the empirical data that comes out it. Then I will pass it on to my students.
In short, I will keep doing what I am doing until somebody can show me a better way and then I will switch to that.
There are two test on a standard.
1) Does it make common sense
2) Will it work against a live, thinking, and resisting adversary
All else is moderately interesting.
One last thing, I am all for competition, because in the right situations it will be all that is necessary to dominate the fight. But, it will not carry you in a vast number of situations.
LikeLike
Jan 26, 2013 @ 20:40:39
I am very sorry about the formatting problem that I am having. I would like to have my contributions make sense and that is not possible with the problems that I have had with the last couple of posts, please forgive me as I try to make the adjustments.
(quote) What is “good”? So the students and instructor get to decide what constitutes a “good” hit after shooting? Sort of like putting a golf ball and then deciding where the hole should be.(quote)
“Good” is how well you perform when your training partner is trying to run you down, smack you upside of your head with a training club, or toss you to the ground while going “Singer” on you with a training knife.
“Good” is how good were you at keeping from taking any damage, at two yards, from behind in the reactionary curve, and how quickly you get out of the kill zone while getting your tools into play and putting fast and accurate hits on the adversary, all while at the same time using your movement so that he has no chance to ever touch you.
“Good” is how good you were at dodging your adversaries aim, from being behind in the reactionary curve, getting your gun out and on target while sprinting out of the kill zone, and putting fast and accurate hits on your adversary to take back the lost initiative.
“Good” is also about getting fast and accurate hits outside of seven yards using the fundamentals of marksmanship. But this is just one segment of “good” and not the most likely one that will occur in a typical life threatening encounter.
(quote) Admittedly, a point scoring process can become arbitrary if you let it but reducing the effort into a number adds much needed objectivity. Is the shooter improving? Does a technique work better or worse? How much? Rather than a feel-good assessment, we need a way to put a hard number on it. Failing to measure, or devising a means to do so, is much worse than any potential problems scoring might create. (quote)
There is nothing arbitrary about properly structured force on force (FOF.) All you have to do is imagine every fight (the situation) that can show up at your door step and fight it with excellent training partners. Throw out all preconceived notions, all biases, and all agendas. The truth will become perfectly clear and the results will be very different from the status quo training of the recent past. Of course this is not a “setting of a standard” for marksmanship. It is a “setting of a standard” for actually fighting inside of the fluid dynamics of a violent encounter. If people believe that this is a lower standard, I would humbly submit that they simply have not done the testing or did not test the standard in properly structured FOF.
(quote) On silhouette targets we can create one zone to represent the thoracic cavity. Scoring is now center hit, edge hit and miss. How bad is a complete miss? How much better is a center vs. an edge hit? Assign a number to this that encourages what you believe is an optimum balance. An individual instructor can change this to meet his class needs as he sees fit. (quote)
The problem this is that it does not take into consideration the very best hits, which are central nervous system hits.
(quote) If that’s too much, scoring can be a simple hit or miss. Again, how terrible is a complete miss? If it will open your student up to incredible liability or failure it needs to be heavily penalized. (quote)
Misses happen in combat!
What people see as “dangerous to innocents” I see as a way to keep innocents as safe as I can, all while trying to make sure that I go home to my family. If I can do what most people believe to be impossible and I can teach my students to do the very same thing, how could this be more dangerous to the innocents? People like to point out that LEO’s are trained to a very low level, but it is much bigger than that……..most gun people are trained to a very low level when it comes to training inside of the realities of the fight. Most people do not know the realities, do not train for the realities, and have not experienced the reality of the fight. Training is just one tool that helps us improve, competition is another tool that helps us improve, and FOF is another tool that helps us improve.
I have done all three to one extent or another and it is the FOF that taught me the most. At Suarez International we call it “The FOF epiphany.”
Once you have participated in properly structured FOF your world is never the same. Everything that you see in that short video clip comes to light right after the FOF epiphany smacks you in the face.
(quote) Putting some thought into this is the mark of a good instructor. What are the goals and how will you measure them? (quote)
Since I have put so much thought, time, effort, empirical data, fighting, testing, and successful instruction into this, I will take that as a compliment.
My goal is to be as dangerous as I can possibly be no matter what fight shows up at my front door. I will measure it by continuing to fight other extremely dangerous men, by watching extremely dangerous men fight other extremely dangerous men, and compiling the empirical data that comes out it. Then I will pass it on to my students.
In short, I will keep doing what I am doing until somebody can show me a better way and then I will switch to that.
There are two test on a standard.
1) Does it make common sense
2) Will it work against a live, thinking, and resisting adversary
All else is moderately interesting.
One last thing, I am all for competition, because in the right situations it will be all that is necessary to dominate the fight. But, it will not carry you in a vast number of situations.
LikeLike
Jan 28, 2013 @ 17:53:23
Thanks for your comments. If you’d like to expand on this, and give all the readers here a more thorough overview of your classes and teaching methodology, please send me some articles and I’ll post them here with links to your websites.
Writer’s Guidelines here:
LikeLike
Jun 22, 2013 @ 19:40:36
Reviewing this post after some time, my original question remains unanswered. Let me repeat it:
I’d be curious what sort of hits he’s obtaining like this. Is there any sort of standard these guys adhere to? What is a trained student expected to do? Instructor? Master?
After all this, I still don’t have an answer to what should have been a simple question. I’ll run anything Mr. Phillips sends me, if he ever bothers to do so.
LikeLike
Sep 15, 2014 @ 07:53:49