Modern Samurai Project Black Belt Standards

[riverman67]

I wasn't implying that the standards were bad.
Just unrealistic for the amount of time I would be able to allot to attaining them and then maintaining that level.
I would have to let a bunch of other equally important things slide.

 

[Fargo]

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.

 

[Coach]

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.

Why?

If you have a 2 plus second draw and the 3 second gun fight standard is right then you have a problem? Many people have a two second plus draw. I have seen it in class after class and match after match. At that point being able to plug a hole is not going to matter if the person attacking you decides to not let you live.


If the person attacking you is 4 feet away your karate skills will not matter.

 

[Coach]

There are a lot of people carrying guns around that are not truly armed. None and I mean none of us have arrived. Good enough for EDC does not exist. But many people on here want to think it does.

 

[Coach]

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.

 

[Fargo]

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.

 

[Coach]

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.

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?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I like playing with the FAST, but I recognize working reloads a lot is near useless for real world events. I'd be better off spending the time training some other aspect of gun handling. God forbid we question the relevance of any given drill or test as suitable for our own goals or ask what a given set of standards is based on.

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.

Yet the test incorporates no movement. Maybe, if someone were more concerned with gun fighting, practicing a draw on the move might be more beneficial then shaving tenths of a second off their draw. Maybe recognizing that isn't the same as "rationalizing their lack of skill". You know, because even with a .7 second draw trying to use pure speed to beat a drawn gun gets you shot if the other guy is willing to pull the trigger and is paying attention.

 

[VERT]

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?

 

[Fargo]

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.

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.

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

You are a professional trainer, no? You really think that standards you haven't mastered yourself are somehow relevant to your STUDENT base?

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.

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.

Seems like a standard of 7 feet. So how have I failed if someone has gotten within 7 feet of me

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.

 

[cedartop]

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? 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.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

And if you already have that stuff covered, is it ok to strive for excellence rather than mediocrity?

Sure. I think our exchange at #16 and #17 pretty well covers the topic, though. I've been shooting a lot of "find your level" lately. Relevant? Not particularly. Fun and challenging? Yes. When our range reopens, I'll have more opportunity to return to moving practice, etc.

 

[Fargo]

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.

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.

My point is that these are master level standards. Consider the time/money/talent it takes to run at that level. If you can, that's awesome and I think it is amazing proficiency. I just don't see the relevance to the vast majority of shooters, there is simply no way you run at Masterlevels unless you are semi professional or dedicating most all of your training time and effort to nothing but.

Being "armed" and giving yourself a good chance of surviving a violent encounter encompasses way more than the shooting levels of these failure-type standards.

 

[nakinate]

You don’t get to pick your fight. I have no clue how skilled my assailants will be if that day ever comes. So there is something be said for achieving as much excellence as you can. That being said, time and money are finite. My draw and shooting skills are probably “good enough”, but I don’t want good enough. I really should start working more on tactics and less on raw skills though. It’s a balancing act that will never be perfect.

 

[rhino]

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.

 

[Jackson]

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?

From what I understand, belt ranking systems in "traditional" martial arts (TMA) are a relatively recent phenomenon. There are plenty who believe the reason that a black belt doesn't, or shouldn't, equal expertise is because TMAs have become so watered down. The McDojo effect. Romanticism and misunderstanding happen because there is no testing and no objective criteria for what a belt holder should be able to do.

There are some people (in specific martial arts) who take pride in assuring the rankings of their system remain meaningful. In my opinion, if there is going to be a belt system it should be tied to a level of demonstrated proficiency. The highest levels should indicate expertise and the standards should set those people apart from the average student. If that isn't the case, then what is the point? It isn't supposed to be easy. Not everyone is supposed to get there. A black belt should not be a participation trophy. In too many dojos/gyms/schools belts are given out freely to keep students happily coming back and paying money.

I would actually prefer there be no belt system. Wrestlers don't need belts but every wrestler in the room knows who is good at what and who beats who. Boxers don't need belts, but every boxer at the gym knows who has the fastest hands and who beats who. If you are there to learn and improve, the color of your belt isn't going to impact that.

Belts do have a place in competitive martial arts for classifying competitors, much like USPSA classifications. You can check your performance relative to people on your level. But the Master class shooter should generally be beating the B class shooter. The black belts should generally be beating the brown belts. If not, then what's the point?

The big difference I see between shooting standards and rankings (like USPSA classification, for example) compared to TMA belts, is that there are objective criteria for many shooting skills. We can measure speed and accuracy. That may leave out some of the martial aspects of a gun fight, but it's measurable and categorical. In TMA, rankings are almost completely subjective, with no significant effort made to assure the student can actually apply the skills.

 

[Coach]

I meant yards not feet. It was a mistake.

 

[Coach]

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. I have pulled of a draw .76 seconds. That is my fastest recorded draw and it was a hit. I am not a weak sister with a pistol. 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?

 

[Fargo]

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?

I am not dismissing a fast and accurate draw, I am saying that the law of diminishing returns tends to make gains in the area of these standards time/money/talent prohibitive to most shooters unless it is all they are focusing on.

There is no such thing as too fast/accurate a draw.

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.

 

[Coach]

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.

Getting the first hit in a gunfight is a recipe for success and a draw is going to be a big part of that equation. I can practice draw stroke , trigger control, stepping off the line of force, seeing the sights at speed, and any number of other things. If I can do those things at a subconscious level then I will be faster than those that cannot.

I just re-examined the standards. Going to be at the range on Sunday.