Thanks to VolDep45 for his comment on this video:
To whit: “Bogus. Action beats reaction every time.”
No, the only thing bogus is a hackneyed training cliche worshipped without critical analysis.
I regularly do a drill in class that disproves the cliche. All you need is two shooters and some kind of accuracy standard. Ideally we do it with steel plates but if they’re not available we’ll use a low% target such as the 3×5 card of a PTC Q. One shooter is the actor, the other is the reactor. The actor gets to initiate action while the reactor cannot begin his draw until the actor moves first.
So the actor always wins, right?
Wrong. Because not all “actions” take the same amount of time.
I apologize for the unannounced use of math, but… action only beats reaction when:
actor’s speed < (reactor’s speed + reaction time)
For simplicity’s sake let’s stick with the example of hitting a 3×5 at seven yards. Suppose the actor needs 2 seconds to draw and hit the card. If the reactor can do it in 1.5 seconds and his reaction time is 0.25 second, he’ll win. The reaction time isn’t enough to nullify the shooter’s much faster draw speed.
And that is exactly what happens in class when we run this exercise. When you realize that average human reaction time is just a quarter of a second it’s easy to see how reaction will often beat action. Only when you put two equally skilled shooters up against one another does the actor win consistently. Otherwise, having just a little faster draw (or more reliable first shot accuracy) is enough to destroy the whole “action beats reaction” cliche into dust. It’s not at all uncommon to have one person who can react so quickly that he beats the action of every other student in class.
Obviously, things aren’t going to be that cut and dried outside of a range exercise. If it takes you two seconds to realize someone is swinging a bat toward your head, and it takes you another two seconds to decide whether you’re going to do something about it… your reaction time just went from 0.25 seconds to 4 seconds. Being aware of your surroundings and deciding in advance what will trigger your defensive reaction becomes critically important. The quarter second it takes the brain to turn thought into action is nothing compared to that. The fastest draw in the world won’t help you if you don’t realize you’re being hit in the face with a baseball bat until you’re… well… hit in the face with a baseball bat. (or hockey stick, for my friends in Canada)
But action doesn’t automatically beat reaction. Next time someone disagrees, ask him if he can beat a ray of light. Let him be the actor (hitting the light switch) and see if he can run to the other side of the room faster than the light can reach it…
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
In another class, I ran a drill similar to the one you described. Shooters were side-by-side. One shooter was designated the “actor”, the other was “the reactor”.
“Actor” specified the starting position of the hands, and was the first to move.
Target was the ocular window of an anatomic target.
“Actor” didn’t always win. You see a really interesting ebb and flow of accuracy v. speed in this drill.
My BS meter always pinged when people used “always” or “every time” in reference to Action verses Reaction (and vice versa.) I think you did a solid job of putting it into words (and math.)
The unconditional maxim you cite is always something that gets said that tends to make one grit one’s teeth and tune out the instructor for a bit while you focus on checking the box to get through the class…
For some folks, discussion of the range of tactics versus outcomes seems to challenge them a bit too much…
The last discussion this came up in was how the action / reaction gap (although not so named by the instructor) meant that there was no way at all to cover a proned out subject without having your finger on the trigger, as “tests” had allegedly proven the subject could roll over, draw from waistband, and kill you before you could react. Of course, no realistic times for this supposed “test”, nor conditions of testing, were discussed, other than a vague reference to the Tueller drill.
Funniest thing is this discussion segment came up not long after an in course video showing an officer ND’ing into a proned and compliant subject for no apparent reason at all…
Worse yet, this gem of wisdom was supposedly one of the only (x number) of “advanced” certified instructors from one particularly well known institution. And woe to he that tried to engage this individual in discussion around any of these or other topics – multiple folks were recycled through earlier segments of this instructor’s course because of allegedly not following the lecture plan because of “opinions” voiced as responses to discussion questions such as the above (or slide stop vs slide release, or slide manipulation technique, etc. etc).
Great review. I would respectfully request you consider the effectiveness or efficiency of both the actors/reactors nervous system. While reaction time is vitally important, if the most challenging stimulus your nervous system is exposed to is staning up off the toilet, then good luck. A fast reaction time paired with a nervous system that’s exposed to repeated and consistent explosive contractions, is a dangerous combination.
Forgot to add link for further explanation of the effect of the central nervous system on reaction and shooting speed:
http://bandatacfit.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/the-best-training-program-for-improving-shooting-speed/
Todd, good points. I’m not sure of the commentators complete message, but I do think you might be over-analyzing what he said.
Being the actor is preferred to being the reactor. It’s a given advantage, no matter how fast you are. If you have an ultra-fast reaction time, and ultra-fast draw speed, then you’re even better off. If you’re ultra-slow, then it’s still obviously better to be the actor rather than the reactor. I think this is what he meant with his message….if not, it’s definitely what I took from it. Perhaps his use of an ultimatum skewed that message….or perhaps he really is looking at it too myopically.
Good follow-up with the reality check at the end (ex: 4 seconds to react to a bat). Our reaction times are definitely going to be immensely different when you’re not expecting the other person to draw, such as the range drill. Ya’ll know, that whole OODA loop thing and Coopers color codes (other over-played cliches, IMO). The quest for ultra-quick times must be tempered with the reality that other factors can have a much, much bigger impact in an imperfect world as opposed to a controlled range, whether it be a class or at the farthest end of the spectrum a competition with pre-planned orchestrated footwork and actions.
Tyler — I see where you’re coming from, but “bogus” and “…every time” seem more absolute than that to me.
Great write up. As I was reading I was thinking that situational awareness is the KEY to winning with reaction, and why it’s so important in everyday life. Then I got to you words here:
Being aware of your surroundings and deciding in advance what will trigger your defensive reaction becomes critically important.
If action always beat reaction why would we even bother to train?
I couldn’t bring up the video to see what was said to get a feel for the context, but have some thoughts.
Have you guys looked at the data done by the guys at Force Science? Last I heard they still were finding that in a surprise attack, the suspect’s actions were beating the officer’s reaction.
I think the normally understood meaning of “action beats reaction” in most LE classes is that the suspect who begins the action of attacking an officer already knows what he is going to do and has started the process of doing it, and the officer being attacked must react by recognizing that he is being attacked and making the decision on what he is going to do to stop the attack, adds to his reaction time. Because an attack is not always done with a deadly weapon, the officer can’t just draw and fire all the time, they must have some reason to believe that the suspect is going to use the deadly weapon against them, which again slows the reaction time.
A pure exersize of having two guys who know they are going to draw and fire at the signal given by the actor does not relate to the real world of surprise attacks. While doing scenario training exersizes, in over 1000 scenarios, I don’t remember ever seeing an officer who could react fast enough to beat a suspect who pulled a gun on them beat the shooter at getting off the first shot. That was with the shooter getting the gun from waistband or small of back. The only way the officer “won” the fight was moving out of the line of fire making the suspect miss, returning fire and seeking cover.
I do agree that using terms such as “always” , “never” , “everytime” or “bogus” needs to be tempered and used very sparingly in our line of work.
This seems to be another example of someone taking a principle out of context and trying to teach it without fully understanding it. (The original post; not Todd’s comments.)
From what I understand — I could very well be wrong — the maxim/principle came from special forces. It meant, “Have a plan to act rather than react.” a.k.a. – Be prepared ahead of time and know what to do so you don’t lose your head in a critical situation. (Isn’t that why we all practice??)
Therefore, a planned, practiced response will be faster — and better executed — than a natural, unplanned, reaction. (All me instead of me vs you.)
It has little to do with, “I can draw my gun and shoot you faster than you can pull the trigger on your gun already pointed at my head because I plan to act and you’re reacting to me.”