From Rich Grassi
If you want to learn to do something well, you go to the best practitioner you can find and hope he or she can teach. Being able to perform well in terms of physical skills is one thing; being able to transmit your knowledge and abilities to others is quite something else.
The idea behind finding the best practitioner is the assumption that he had to learn to do what he does so well. He’s run across the pitfalls and obstructions to great performance and found ways over, through or around. No sense in reinventing the wheel.
When we apply this scenario to shooting in defensive combat why are we so averse to learning from champions in the action shooting disciplines? One stated reason is the tendency for the game players, in effort to get short times on a stage, to occasionally do things that wouldn’t be prudent in real life. Reloading on the move from cover to cover is an example. If someone is really shooting at you, you’d never leave cover without a loaded gun.
Guess what? In real life, neither would good competition shooters. It’s a different application of the same skills.
You need to be able to pick the wheat from the chaff. The more skilled your mentor/teacher is, as determined by measurable performance, the more skills they have to impart upon you.
Why wouldn’t you go with a champion?
Firearm User Network 
Jun 17, 2013 @ 15:16:56
Many champions in any field of endevour do many things automatically, they don’t know why or even explain how. Therefore they are lousy teachers.
I’d go to a champion who can teach.
Remember “practice makes perfect,” NO, “Perfect practice makes perfect.”
LikeLike
Jun 17, 2013 @ 15:51:39
>> Therefore they are lousy teachers.
Only if they can’t or won’t bother to explain what it took to get there. Perhaps they do things “automatically” now but can remember what it was like when they didn’t and what it took to get there. Almost nobody shows up day one and puts in a champion-level performance without substantial work. The details of this substantial work is what makes such a person a potentially good teacher.
Besides, it’s better than going to someone that can not perform at a high level. They can’t explain or demonstrate how and have never been able to do so.
>> I’d go to a champion who can teach.
Agreed.
LikeLike
Jun 17, 2013 @ 18:23:43
The problem is breaking the various tasks down to their simplest pieces. There are many who on “automatic” who are unable to do so. I’ve come across it in sales time after time. The best salesmen are usually lousy sales managers.
LikeLike
Jun 23, 2013 @ 11:57:21
I am reminded of the difference between two great athletes, basketball’s Larry
Byrd and football’s Lawrence Taylor.
Taylor would play golf to “keep in shape” in the off season, skip the first month of summer training camp, and show up ready to run rings around everyone.
Byrd said he had to really work at studying the game over a long period, deconstructing every aspect of it bit by bit over years.
I think it’s obvious which one could be the better coach.
LikeLike
Jun 23, 2013 @ 22:10:02
Indeed. Byrd’s need to work harder to improve himself gives him better insights in how to improve others. Having made it to champion levels validates his approach.
In Taylor’s case, at least he can perform and he worked, trained and played around others also at a high level. Both athletes have more valuable insights than someone that never achieved a level of success or bothered to put the work in.
LikeLike