Idolatry in the training community

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Agreed. Which is why most "defensive pistol" training is really just fundamentals training dressed up or is second-handing a proven instructor's criteria. Since SOP-9 was brought up, range scores didn't correlate to outcomes. I know I'll get push back, but shooting is often the easiest part you have any control over but shooting is the totality of so many "defensive shooting" courses with some prominent exceptions. MAG, Givens, Shivworks being traveling roadshows that come to mind.

As far as I know, nobody I taught went on to be in a shooting. So you can either believe in the product based on my resume or not. If that's objective or not, I suppose you can argue either way. Nothing in my resume gives me any credibility in teaching fundamentals, and when I do wander into that topic I'm second-handing better instructors then me. You should train with them for fundamentals. A second-hander may win on cost or availability, but probably not on quality.

But that's not the only training out there.

Lets look at legal use of force training. One could objectively measure via testing. Test on knowledge of student coming in, same test at the end of the class. Objective measurement of how well the instructor gave knowledge. Perhaps not any proof the knowledge is relevant, but again resume comes in there.

Fundamentals? There's a host of standardized shooting tests. Students leaving shoot a 20% higher score on average at the end then the beginning. Etc.

 

[bwframe]

 

[GIJEW]

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.

It's not idolatry until you put a particular instructor up on a pedestal above all others or give uncritical allegiance to whatever local "guru".

Teaching styles are part of the package. There's nothing wrong with sampling different schools and doing most of your training at one you like (that helps you advance) as long as you're honest about your selection process, recognize that your sensei might not be "Eddie Futch", and are open to training with others

 

[Coach]

I have seen a lot of new shooters get some training which is a good idea on the surface but get bad training. Primarily because the went with a local trainer who was close and because they thought the certification the trainer had meant more than it did.

One lady called me for private instruction because she was not nearly as accurate as she wanted to be. We met. We sat down and discussed sight alignment and trigger control and some other fundamentals for about 40 minutes. She listened and then commented at the end that I had pretty much told her the opposite of what her first trainer had told her. She wanted to know who to believe. I replied lets go to the range and do what I want you to do and see what the results are. She was very accurate and very happy with the results. Then she was more than a little bit angry, about wasting the time and the money on the first training experience. I told her I understand but there was not much I could do about it. Someone who does not know what they are doing should not be teaching. For example people who never draw from a holster should not be teaching classes where drawing from the holster is the main topic. This happens in central Indiana.

I had another lady that did an hour of private instruction with me a few years ago. She wanted some "advanced" training because she was not as accurate as she wanted to be. She had been through 16 hours of NRA certified courses, but I won't name the instructor. At the end she told me she learning more about shooting and hitting the target in that one hour than she had in the previous courses. She was more than a little angry. Certification may mean something and then again it may not.

Shooting ability may mean something and then again it may not.

Good training can drastically shorten the learning curve on things and be the cheaper way to figuring things out that trail and error. But you have to find good training and the context of what you are trying to do is important.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I have seen a lot of new shooters get some training which is a good idea on the surface but get bad training. Primarily because the went with a local trainer who was close and because they thought the certification the trainer had meant more than it did.

*cough* NRA *cough*

I had an NRA instructor attend a class I'd partnered up with to teach a decision making under stress portion of the class. She shot cup and saucer with her magazine fed pistol. She loaded by holding the magazine at the bottom. She could not make what I would consider acceptable hits.

She might be excellent at teaching people not to shoot themselves in the foot, I have no idea, but anybody learning fundamentals from her was basically de-training.

 

[Coach]

*cough* NRA *cough*

I had an NRA instructor attend a class I'd partnered up with to teach a decision making under stress portion of the class. She shot cup and saucer with her magazine fed pistol. She loaded by holding the magazine at the bottom. She could not make what I would consider acceptable hits.

She might be excellent at teaching people not to shoot themselves in the foot, I have no idea, but anybody learning fundamentals from her was basically de-training.

I think it is common and that is too bad. But new shooters over value the certification, and they don't know any better. They are moving into a topic on which they do not know what they do not know. I think it is incumbent on instructors to do a good job and to stay in their lanes, and even recognize if they have a lane.

 

[Jackson]

I think it is common and that is too bad. But new shooters over value the certification, and they don't know any better. They are moving into a topic on which they do not know what they do not know. I think it is incumbent on instructors to do a good job and to stay in their lanes, and even recognize if they have a lane.

These new instructors probably also don't know what they don't know. It should be the place of the industry certifications and the associated evaluations to show them what they don't know. That should be part of the value of seeking certification. It appears the certifying organizations often fail to do that.

 

[Coach]

These new instructors probably also don't know what they don't know. It should be the place of the industry certifications and the associated evaluations to show them what they don't know. That should be part of the value of seeking certification. It appears the certifying organizations often fail to do that.

I agree that the certification process should mean that the instructor is some level of acceptable. When I went through the process with Rangemaster there were several people in that class that did not pass either due to the written test or the shooting quals. I have not been through NRA yet but I am told that is coming. USCCA gives people a chance to see where they stack up and what they need to work on improving. But ultimately it is up to the individual to have themselves ready to to instruct. Sort of like performing in school. If the student and the teacher both do their part it will be a good result.

 

[Maximinus Thrax]

*cough* NRA *cough*

I had an NRA instructor attend a class I'd partnered up with to teach a decision making under stress portion of the class. She shot cup and saucer with her magazine fed pistol. She loaded by holding the magazine at the bottom. She could not make what I would consider acceptable hits.

She might be excellent at teaching people not to shoot themselves in the foot, I have no idea, but anybody learning fundamentals from her was basically de-training.

Yet the NRA basic pistol course is all that is required in many states that require training in order for their subjects to be granted permission to carry their firearms.

 

[Coach]

Another argument I hear and run into often from instructors that cannot shoot very well at all: is that they are teaching about gun safety not marksmanship. How safe is it to be shooting a firearm and the bullets not go where directed?

 

[GIJEW]

Yet the NRA basic pistol course is all that is required in many states that require training in order for their subjects to be granted permission to carry their firearms.

I understand that HunterEd classes suffice in some states. That's all about deflecting responsibility for "allowing" someone their right to be armed; a responsibility that properly sits with the individual

 

[GIJEW]

I agree that the certification process should mean that the instructor is some level of acceptable. When I went through the process with Rangemaster there were several people in that class that did not pass either due to the written test or the shooting quals. I have not been through NRA yet but I am told that is coming. USCCA gives people a chance to see where they stack up and what they need to work on improving. But ultimately it is up to the individual to have themselves ready to to instruct. Sort of like performing in school. If the student and the teacher both do their part it will be a good result.

How does USCCA's standards stack up compared to Rangemaster, MAG, etc?

 

[cedartop]

How does USCCA's standards stack up compared to Rangemaster, MAG, etc?

Coach may have to be diplomatic about it. I don't. They stack up a lot closer to the NRA than they do the organizations you mention.

 

[turnandshoot4]

If there are so many terrible instructors, why can't the good ones get more traction? Doing so would shut down the bad instructors. It isn't worth stamping them out (by name), it would turn into whack a mole.

Is there any area that the good instructors are terrible in that the terrible shooting instructors are good in?

How can we bridge the gap of social media/marketing/etc? It has to be easier, it takes years to develop shooting skill.

 

[Trapper Jim]

Like anything else the Training community is not all things to all people. A successful trainer can be very good at teaching but we all have weaknesses. all trainers have experienced students that have had training elsewhere and the results are identifiable within seconds of evaluation. Good and bad. Last fall I had a competitive shooter who took a dremel tool to his grip but compromised the material to an unsafe condition. He was trying to copy a competitive shooter that gave a "free class" on tuning equipment. Another one showed up with his 1911 with his grip safety duct taped inoperable. He claims he was shown how it's easier to shoot that way than learning the correct way to shoot a 1911 as designed with all safety controls the gun came with. Another sanded (ruined) his magazine sides so they would come out easier. A woman showed up with a slide racket product cause the "new gun orientation" where she bought her gun and racker failed in teaching how to easily rack the slide. No she did not have arthritis or was a cripple. Another trainer spoke way to softly for anyone to hear in class. As proven in these pages, there is no end to being a student of the gun, but to
Be really effective you must be a student of people as well. Just like there is good, average and bad in equipment choices, there is good, average and bad Trainers.
The good news is that even bad trainers are better than nothing for the gun owner. That is except for the ones that shoot themselves or student.

 

[Coach]

I think a lot of poor instructors have come and gone since 2008 around here. New obes spring up and new gun owners do not know what they do not know.. NRA everyine had heard of so they have name credibility. Hard to overcone that immediately. But many do.

 

[Coach]

How does USCCA's standards stack up compared to Rangemaster, MAG, etc?

NRA and USCCA are comparable.

 

[turnandshoot4]

The good news is that even bad trainers are better than nothing for the gun owner. That is except for the ones that shoot themselves or student.

This.

It might not be the BEST training but what is when you first buy? How many people bought the perfect gun the first time?

Trainers come and go because their ability to keep a customer base wanes. Well, that and losing a range will kill any training company.

 

[Coach]

How can bad trainers be better than nothing. Please explain.

 

[KellyinAvon]

How can bad trainers be better than nothing. Please explain.

Mornin Coach! Not really answering the question, but bad trainers make it possible to identify the good ones.