If the typical gunfight is around three seconds long it would seem a good idea to have your shot on target in less than half that time. The 21 foot distance seems to be attached to a second and a half time frame as I recall. There seems to be enough correlation to that at least for me.
People with a three second draw are not skilled enough.
Is a sub 1 second draw needed? It depends. I would rather have it than not have it. The standards did not seem to be labeled what was necessary or what is good enough but the mark of a skilled gunman. Something that is out of the every day dude's reach would seem to be the level of skilled.
I would say they go beyond skilled, there are quite a few skilled gunmen in this thread who admit they couldn't meet them on demand. I think they are awesome to aspire to, and if one is going to set a top standard it should be a high one.
That said, unless you have most all of your other skills/training ducks already really well lined up, the time/money it's going to take to hit these probably has a vastly more practical application if it is truly about being a warrior rather than a gamer.
You know what matters in a gunfight. Recognizing that the fight is about to happen. Stepping off the line of force. Getting the gun up to the line of sight and pressing the trigger well. The faster the better. I will take that if my life and my families lives are on the line in an attack. I can figure the rest of the bull**** out later.
Sure all that is important and needs to be trained. Where exactly do the standards we are talking about fit into that?
Can you run them?
If you are in a situation you need to be able to clear concealment at these speeds, you have probably either failed on multiple levels of situational awareness or gotten really unlucky. Plus, even I you can run this fast with a handgun, trying to do this into an already pointed gun likely means you just both get shot. We are talking handguns after all.
You know what matters in a gunfight. Recognizing that the fight is about to happen. Stepping off the line of force. Getting the gun up to the line of sight and pressing the trigger well. The faster the better.
They come into as a way of measuring skill with a hand gun. They are a high standard of that. Being able to meet a high standard is going to equal being more prepared.
Can I run them? I don't know. What does run them mean? Be able to do it once? How many attempts? Being able to do it 3 out of 4 times? One my best day on my worst day? On demand any day? I don't know. Probably can do it at least some times. Does that matter in the discussion of how do these fit into the world of self defense. The fact that I can run them does not make them more valid. The fact that I cannot run them does not make them less valid. They are as valid as I want them to be. What I hear from many in this thread and throughout INGO is that if I cannot do X Y of Z it is because it is unnecessary, or it is simply based on something arbitrary and therefore is not meaningful. If a skill or standard can be tied to an actual event then we can argue about what it is based upon and dispute that, and instead of I suck and need to get better, or I need to get some training, or I need to practice more
What I find frustrating is the folks and INGO is full of them that want to rationalize their lack of skill. The folks that want to explain away their lack of ability or skill or point out where the skilled folks have over done something or the mark is arbitrary or it is just for show or on and on. Or that if this is needed you have failed on so many other levels.
Seems like a standard of 7 feet. So how have I failed if someone has gotten within 7 feet of me
Sure, they are a high standard of stationary, non-stressed, presentation from concealment. All of which should be practiced, but none of which are any sort of be all end all.
You are a professional trainer, no? You really think that standards you haven't mastered yourself are somehow relevant to your STUDENT base?
Nobody did that in this thread. Riverman, BBI, and I all said that there were other aspects of training currently more important/relevant to us than stationary, non-stressed presentation/engagement from concealment.
Which of the standards are 7 feet? Regardless, if you have allowed an armed assailant to close within 7 feet without recognizing/responding, you have likely failed because you are shot/stabbed if they have even a basic degree of competence.
No one in this thread said anything about not training. Some of us just think that that time/money can be applied better than trying to run stationary presentation drills at gamer speeds. It is awesome if you can and I'm not knocking it, I'm just saying that my current needs are way better suited by working things like moving and shooting, awareness, retention, low light, FoF etc.
And if you already have that stuff covered, is it ok to strive for excellence rather than mediocrity?
Its fine to strive for it even if you haven't got all that other stuff covered, different people have different styles/needs/talents/priorities. That's not my point.And if you already have that stuff covered, is it ok to strive for excellence rather than mediocrity? The guys I was mainly talking about in this thread as examples, Gabe White and Scott Jedlinski have tons of training in those areas and more. There is no doubt that there are a lot of different aspects to the self defense puzzle. It is a balancing act. For me, I have somewhere close to 1,000 hours of "tactical" training (handgun, pistol, medical, etc.) along with some experience. I am now choosing to work on furthering my Technical skills while maintaining the tactical. We are all at different points along the journey.
I appreciate how people try to relate shooting to other more traditional martial arts. I have referred to Pistol shooting as a modern western martial art for some time now. Just for reference I practice TaeKwonDo. Both TKD and Pistol shooting have forms, techniques, drills. Both martial arts have practical application as well as competitive sports. How a person chooses to apply these techniques is unique to the individual. As far as “Black Belt” is concerned I think there is a lot romantisicm and misunderstanding about a black belt. People with black belts are not Masters or even experts in a particular martial art. This obviously varies according to what is being studied, but a black belt is not the goal or destination. A black belt is simply a “trained student” that has shown required proficiency in a technique. Only after the black belt begins to help teach, mentor, perfect their own techniques do they become a Master. This takes many years.
I would love to see an accepted standard for “belt” rank among pistoleros. I think Hojitsu does this and offers brown and black belts. But maybe something more universally recognized. Go for it guys. What should they be?
This is why I think the standards in this topic go well beyond the equivalent of a black belt.
I appreciate how people try to relate shooting to other more traditional martial arts. I have referred to Pistol shooting as a modern western martial art for some time now. Just for reference I practice TaeKwonDo. Both TKD and Pistol shooting have forms, techniques, drills. Both martial arts have practical application as well as competitive sports. How a person chooses to apply these techniques is unique to the individual. As far as “Black Belt” is concerned I think there is a lot romantisicm and misunderstanding about a black belt. People with black belts are not Masters or even experts in a particular martial art. This obviously varies according to what is being studied, but a black belt is not the goal or destination. A black belt is simply a “trained student” that has shown required proficiency in a technique. Only after the black belt begins to help teach, mentor, perfect their own techniques do they become a Master. This takes many years.
I would love to see an accepted standard for “belt” rank among pistoleros. I think Hojitsu does this and offers brown and black belts. But maybe something more universally recognized. Go for it guys. What should they be?
You are a professional trainer, no? You really think that standards you haven't mastered yourself are somehow relevant to your STUDENT base?
.
I am not married to any particular standard. I am not married to concealment. A fast and accurate draw that this standard demands is relevant to anyone that carrys a gun and hopes to use it from defense. You say there are bigger fish to fry. Fine. You are saying it is too hard or too high level and not worth the time it takes to get there. Ok. How you dismiss the importance of importance of a fast and accurate draw? Or are you just dismissing a draw that is too fast?
There is such a thing as being too focused on one aspect of a gunfight to the detriment of other equally important facets.
Gunfights aren't stationary, unstressed events occurring where you already know exactly what you need to do and have gotten to practice beforehand.