Idolatry in the training community

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • turnandshoot4

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 29, 2008
    8,625
    48
    Kouts
    What role does idolatry play in the training industry?

    So much is pushed out about an instructor having a resume. Were they a navy seal, cop, MMA fighter, grand master, black belt, etc?

    Rarely does someone ask if they can teach. Shouldn't this be in the equation? Somewhere near the top? Why isn't it? In the end, someone being able to teach isn't something to idolize. A sub 1 second draw is. A trident is. Tattoos and cool beard is. A youtube channel with lots of followers is. No one asked about Phil Jackson's illustrious career as a basketball player. Yet he made better basketball players better than he could ever be. Isn't this our goal as instructors? Ultimately, it would lead to less "street cred" because we aren't top dog anymore. Curiously, this isn't the case in any other sport arena. Boxing coaches push out awesome boxers all the time that didn't do much at a pro level. Where is the disconnect for those IN the industry?

    People starting out firearms training schools is a good thing. Yes, you can throw a rock and hit one. That being said waiting for PatMac (or pick your other national level trainers) to teach the masses is the wrong approach. While the person that has been shooting for 2 years might not be the BEST to start a school they are better than the other option. (Limited opportunities like it was in the 00s) These people are usually local, available, and affordable.

    While we get in purity battles what actually matters gets lost in the shuffle and that is who we are actually doing this for. At the end of the day there just aren't enough of the guys with relevant experience that can/will teach those that want to learn. In that vacuum some concessions have to be made. At one point learning from the Gracie/Fadda family was the only way to learn jiu jitsu. That had to end for it to grow. I believe we are there now as a firearms training collective.

    Thoughts anyone?
     

    Ziggidy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 7, 2018
    7,266
    113
    Ziggidyville
    Interesting. I also believe much has to do with the students ability to learn. Some students learn regardless of the teacher. Some teachers stink regardless of the student. Sort of like the question, what would you rather have, wisdom or expertise?

    I remember taking chemistry in college. The first attempt resulted in me dropping the class before I failed. I tried again and had a different teacher. We were told the first day of class that we would be graded on what the teacher "thought we new" and not necessarily how we graded. It was a great class and I actually learned (retained) much more.
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    You need to be able to teach in order to do a good job as a firearms instructor. But I think you also need to be able to shoot. I think you should be able to provide good demonstrations of skills for your students or clients. I do not think you need to be a National Champion or have won multiple gun fights, but there has to be some level of competency. Defining what it is could lead us off into the weeds, and that is not what I want to talk about at this time. But I think it is a talk worth having.

    So let's talk about teaching. I think good teaching and good coaching are the same thing. You pick the topic, skills or subject and a good coach and good teacher will make the class better, and drastically so. I have known many good teachers of academic subjects that were pretty terrible coaches in sports. But I still stand by my previous statement. I think when you boil teaching all down to gravy it is simply being able to explain the topic in simple terms that everyone understands. Being able to dissect the topic down to the essentials and explain the who, what, when, where, how and why so that the client understands. Then if it is a hands on task show them.

    In my mind everyone who understands the topics should be able to teach it to others. For many years I operated with that mindset. Anyone can teach. In the last ten years it has become obvious to me that not only can everyone not teach, but that most people cannot teach or coach. I cannot really explain why. I was recently (this month) in a class with 12 perspective instructors that were asked to stand up and talk about any topic other than firearms that they had expert knowledge about for 3-5 minutes. Four the the twelve were able to do it. WTF?

    I think stage fright is a big part of the problem. People are afraid to speak in public in front of more than a handful of people. One year at the high school where I work we were giving the American Legion History and Government test. There were a handful of Legion guys there to help monitor the rooms and prevent cheating. Three different combat veterans were ****ting their pants being in a room of high school kids and plainly told me so. WTF. I saw in the instructor certification class stage fright chew up and spit out several people.

    I have seen people who were very good at things and not be able to explain how to do it to other who wanted to learn. Phil Jackson, Bob Knight, Lou Holtz were not high performing athletes but they knew what to do and how to get others to do it. Once those three got to a certain point in their coaching career they had credibility. I do not know how hard it was for them to establish that. There might be a huge difference in their early coaching and the mid point.

    There are a crap load of career teachers who cannot teach. That is what education is forcing collaboration and teaming and PLC's and TC's. So the strong teachers can help overcome the weaklings and bad hires.

    There are lots of certified instructors out there who cannot shoot and who cannot teach. Buyer beware.

    I also think a shooting instructor should be able to diagnose why the student is missing and get them on target pretty fast. Over coming the fear causing a flinch could be something else and take more time, but the instructor should be able to improve that on the spot as well. But you have to know how to do those things.
     

    jsx1043

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    50   0   0
    Apr 9, 2008
    4,987
    113
    Napghanistan
    The question is, "Can they do it in flip flops?"



    Social media gun idolatry should be added to the list of deadly sins. It has gotten out of hand.
     

    turnandshoot4

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 29, 2008
    8,625
    48
    Kouts
    Why people can't coach or teach -

    Watching John Danaher videos helped me understand more of why I can watch someone and be able to do it. The devil is in the details. Instead of understanding the gross movements (where most people stop) is fine but being able to watch the small details really changes the technique. Danaher goes on and on about the details, which makes it boring for me, but I already saw them.

    Coach hit the nail on the head on being able to dissect the technique. There is much more than "just shoot the target" for someone that has never done it.
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    You need to be able to teach in order to do a good job as a firearms instructor. But I think you also need to be able to shoot. I think you should be able to provide good demonstrations of skills for your students or clients. I do not think you need to be a National Champion or have won multiple gun fights, but there has to be some level of competency. Defining what it is could lead us off into the weeds, and that is not what I want to talk about at this time. But I think it is a talk worth having.

    So let's talk about teaching. I think good teaching and good coaching are the same thing. You pick the topic, skills or subject and a good coach and good teacher will make the class better, and drastically so. I have known many good teachers of academic subjects that were pretty terrible coaches in sports. But I still stand by my previous statement. I think when you boil teaching all down to gravy it is simply being able to explain the topic in simple terms that everyone understands. Being able to dissect the topic down to the essentials and explain the who, what, when, where, how and why so that the client understands. Then if it is a hands on task show them.

    In my mind everyone who understands the topics should be able to teach it to others. For many years I operated with that mindset. Anyone can teach. In the last ten years it has become obvious to me that not only can everyone not teach, but that most people cannot teach or coach. I cannot really explain why. I was recently (this month) in a class with 12 perspective instructors that were asked to stand up and talk about any topic other than firearms that they had expert knowledge about for 3-5 minutes. Four the the twelve were able to do it. WTF?

    I think stage fright is a big part of the problem. People are afraid to speak in public in front of more than a handful of people. One year at the high school where I work we were giving the American Legion History and Government test. There were a handful of Legion guys there to help monitor the rooms and prevent cheating. Three different combat veterans were ****ting their pants being in a room of high school kids and plainly told me so. WTF. I saw in the instructor certification class stage fright chew up and spit out several people.

    I have seen people who were very good at things and not be able to explain how to do it to other who wanted to learn. Phil Jackson, Bob Knight, Lou Holtz were not high performing athletes but they knew what to do and how to get others to do it. Once those three got to a certain point in their coaching career they had credibility. I do not know how hard it was for them to establish that. There might be a huge difference in their early coaching and the mid point.

    There are a crap load of career teachers who cannot teach. That is what education is forcing collaboration and teaming and PLC's and TC's. So the strong teachers can help overcome the weaklings and bad hires.

    There are lots of certified instructors out there who cannot shoot and who cannot teach. Buyer beware.

    I also think a shooting instructor should be able to diagnose why the student is missing and get them on target pretty fast. Over coming the fear causing a flinch could be something else and take more time, but the instructor should be able to improve that on the spot as well. But you have to know how to do those things.

    Everyone has a different level of "Understanding" what you are trying to teach them. How we address those people to get through to them is the sign of a good teacher/coach.
     

    jsharmon7

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    119   0   0
    Nov 24, 2008
    7,821
    113
    Freedonia
    I reject the notion that resume should be at the top of the list. Someone who served multiple combat tours may not have too much practical knowledge in civilian self defense (legal considerations, drawing from concealment, etc.). If I wanted a class in room clearing with a rifle though, I’d probably looking for that guy. The same thing goes for people who rely on being a police officer to fill classes. What I do in uniform is not the same as what someone at the grocery store can/will do. I have immunity, policy, case law, etc. that changes the approach.

    I think knowledge and communication ability are the most important considerations. I’ve known people who could shoot and fight at an extremely high level but couldn’t articulate to others how to do the same. It just came naturally to them and they couldn’t explain it well to others. I’ve also known people who were absolute geniuses when it came to tactics and explaining concepts, but they were pretty average shooters at best.

    I’d rather be educated by instructor instead of impressed by them. I think sometimes people seek out top name instructors just to put it on their own resume that they trained with so-and-so as a way to boost their own star.
     
    Last edited:

    drillsgt

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    108   0   0
    Nov 29, 2009
    9,627
    149
    Sioux Falls, SD
    I reject the notion that resume should be at the top of the list. Someone who served multiple combat tours may not have too much practical knowledge in civilian self defense (legal considerations, drawing from concealment, etc.). If I wanted a class in room clearing with a rifle though, I’d probably looking for that guy. The same thing goes for people who rely on being a police officer to fill classes. What I do in uniform is not the same as what someone at the grocery store can/will do. I have immunity, policy, case law, etc. that changes the approach.

    I think knowledge and communication ability are the most important considerations. I’ve known people who could shoot and fight at an extremely high level but couldn’t articulate to others how to do the same. It just came naturally to them and they couldn’t explain it well to others. I’ve also known people who were absolute geniuses when it came to tactics and explaining concepts, but they were pretty average shooters at best.

    I’d rather be educated by instructor instead of impressed by them. I think sometimes people seek out top name instructors just to put it on their own resume that they trained with so-and-so as a way to boost their own star.

    Great post right here, pretty much says it all. One advantage of a military background is you get a lot of experience teaching or presenting, whether you want to or not (you may not be awesome but it's good experience). It could be something as simple as teaching to your team or squad or briefing a mission to a command team. I know in the drillsgt world like anywhere we have those who can do it better than others. You have some guys that yell a lot and look like that scary DS and can run A group to death but have them give a class and it's torture. Then you have some quiet more academic DS's that can break down something like the land nav class to where even the dumbest PVT can understand it. In any field you'll find good teachers and while i'd go to a class with tmac you don't need a delta guy to show you how to competently use a firearm. In reality there isn't really anything new under the sun when it comes to handling and shooting firearms even though people try to come up with something to differentiate themselves. When I lived up in MI I taught the CPL class with a lawyer friend and we received a lot of student referrals so we must have been doing something right. When I go back up there people still ask me if i'm teaching so that's nice.
     

    turnandshoot4

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 29, 2008
    8,625
    48
    Kouts
    This podcast has interesting points about this subject in the beginning.

    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...p-12-tony-blauer/id1437718967?i=1000474054831

    For those that won't give it a listen, consider this:
    If you can shoot better than someone should you take a class from them?
    If you can win a boxing match against someone would you train under them?

    The podcast makes good points that just because someone might not be better than you they can still teach you techniques.

    I came to terms with this when I ended up at a steel challenge match with a big name trainer. (Delta and SWAT guy) He was running an RMR'd glock and I was running a DA/SA Shadow. I ended up beating him that day. At first my thought was, "Well, guess I'll have to train under someone else." After reflecting on it that view was incredibly short sighted.
     

    Brad69

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 16, 2016
    5,104
    77
    Perry county
    I enjoy discussing this subject!

    My experience in the Army you were being paid to train not just weapons but everything you do other than a deployment was training. On a myriad of subjects call for fire, land nav, blah blah blah. Weapons are just a piece of the pie not whole thing and a 10 level task (basic Soldier). That being said I enjoy taking a class with Coach as much as LAV different skill sets both have a similar approach in training and instructional techniques.e

    I look for no BS lets start shooting work on drills and ID weakness and give tips to improve work though situations and explain why things work. I want to leave with the knowledge to improve my skills on whatever subject trained on.

    The guys that want to “gear” themselves into being a whatever mentioned in a previous post need a wake up call. 71% of 17-24 year olds are not eligible to even apply to the military. Gear alone is not the answer.
    I will post a example of what a normal week of garrison physical training looks like.

    0515-0525 Sick Call
    Medic will check you if you don’t have a temp or a leg falling off you will attend PT
    BTW you cannot call in sick or miss a day, put all your “family emergencies” out of your mind

    0530 Accountability formation
    0530-0545 Warm up
    0545-0645 PT
    0645-0700 Cool Down
    0700 Formation

    Monday
    Minimum four mile run
    Can do a relay run, all runs need to 8 minute mile or faster

    Tuesday
    Upper Body- Platoons will rotate though weight room stations
    outside will be buddy carry and water and ammo can carries in body armor

    Wednesday
    Lower Body - wind sprints, leg lifts, 2mile run 7 min or faster

    Thursday
    Core training

    Friday
    Company/Battalion Run
    However fast and long the Commander wants to run?

    Oh don’t fallout!
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    How do you establish objectively that "somebody can teach?"

    Outcomes of students. Call it the Eddie Futch metric.

    Eddie Futch trained 21 world champions. He boxed well at the amateur level but, due to a heart condition, never boxed once professionally. If he could be a champion himself or not, who knows or cares. He could obviously train others to be champions. Seems like a pretty objective indication he could teach boxing.

    So, do students leave better than they arrived? If I want to learn use of force legalities, do I leave knowing more then I did arriving? If I want to learn competition shooting, do I do better in matches after the class then before?

    Obviously each student has a different capacity to learn, but if Mr. Futch makes 21 champions and I am not one of them it's likely not Mr. Futch's fault.
     

    cedartop

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 25, 2010
    6,687
    113
    North of Notre Dame.
    I enjoy discussing this subject!

    .
    0515-0525 Sick Call
    Medic will check you if you don’t have a temp or a leg falling off you will attend PT
    BTW you cannot call in sick or miss a day, put all your “family emergencies” out of your mind

    0530 Accountability formation
    0530-0545 Warm up
    0545-0645 PT
    0645-0700 Cool Down
    0700 Formation

    Monday
    Minimum four mile run
    Can do a relay run, all runs need to 8 minute mile or faster

    Tuesday
    Upper Body- Platoons will rotate though weight room stations
    outside will be buddy carry and water and ammo can carries in body armor

    Wednesday
    Lower Body - wind sprints, leg lifts, 2mile run 7 min or faster

    Thursday
    Core training

    Friday
    Company/Battalion Run
    However fast and long the Commander wants to run?

    Oh don’t fallout!

    So that would have been a slacker week when I was with the 7thID at Ord, but I imagine that is still a harder week than is average in the Army. I am going to assume you were in Combat Arms.
     

    GIJEW

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 14, 2009
    2,716
    47
    Why people can't coach or teach -

    Watching John Danaher videos helped me understand more of why I can watch someone and be able to do it. The devil is in the details. Instead of understanding the gross movements (where most people stop) is fine but being able to watch the small details really changes the technique. Danaher goes on and on about the details, which makes it boring for me, but I already saw them.

    Coach hit the nail on the head on being able to dissect the technique. There is much more than "just shoot the target" for someone that has never done it.
    I think this ability to diagnose what someone else is doing, is what separates good instructors from the rest. It doesn't matter how well you can demonstrate a skill if you can't explain the "why" behind the method and can spot and correct mistakes. It's not about what you said, but about what they heard.
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    This podcast has interesting points about this subject in the beginning.

    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...p-12-tony-blauer/id1437718967?i=1000474054831

    For those that won't give it a listen, consider this:
    If you can shoot better than someone should you take a class from them?
    If you can win a boxing match against someone would you train under them?

    The podcast makes good points that just because someone might not be better than you they can still teach you techniques.

    I came to terms with this when I ended up at a steel challenge match with a big name trainer. (Delta and SWAT guy) He was running an RMR'd glock and I was running a DA/SA Shadow. I ended up beating him that day. At first my thought was, "Well, guess I'll have to train under someone else." After reflecting on it that view was incredibly short sighted.

    I listened to the first part. I like your whole point wirh this thread in some ways. I think the ability to teach is very important. Let me ask this question. If someone knows the fundamentals why can they not shoot well? If the reason is age ok. But other than that if they know what it takes they should be able to shoot well. Do you really want to live the mantra of those who cannot do teach?
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    Outcomes of students. Call it the Eddie Futch metric.

    Eddie Futch trained 21 world champions. He boxed well at the amateur level but, due to a heart condition, never boxed once professionally. If he could be a champion himself or not, who knows or cares. He could obviously train others to be champions. Seems like a pretty objective indication he could teach boxing.

    So, do students leave better than they arrived? If I want to learn use of force legalities, do I leave knowing more then I did arriving? If I want to learn competition shooting, do I do better in matches after the class then before?

    Obviously each student has a different capacity to learn, but if Mr. Futch makes 21 champions and I am not one of them it's likely not Mr. Futch's fault.

    I agree with that, and it's precisely why I asked the question. How many "gun defense trainers" have the data to back up their craft to an "Eddie Futch" level? If the key word is "objectively," the likely answer is not many. For every Tom Givens who can back up his craft with objective data on students who met the elephant and survived...there's a whole passel of instructors of the "I really got a lot out of this class" variety. Which is who the OP seems to be sticking up for.

    So, are we simply back to idolatry again? Because that's what the OP asked about. And I was trying to generate consideration of the fact that "Idolatry" doesn't just apply to the "Uber Gods." It also applies to lesser-known local instructors whom people simply "like," and whose resumes are probably a lot shorter than the "big names." If you exclude "Idolatry" from the equation, you're not just knocking out the top dogs. There's actually a heckuva lot of people at all levels who are relying on it to a great degree, more than any kind of proven track record of the type you mention. When you start talking data, I have a feeling that sort of analysis is going to exclude a lot of the same type of instructors the OP is trying to champion.

    There is Idolatory all up and down the resume spectrum. Some have just been at it longer, and have more proponents. It shouldn't necessarily be completely tossed from consideration. It's really closely related to that other term, "reputation." Something which is not necessarily data-driven, but not totally worthless, either.
     
    Top Bottom