Why do some people in the training community seem so intent on destroying each other?
For example, there’s a guy on a forum I frequent who works for a major, well respected training company. In the past month or so he’s attacked other schools and instructors for a variety of reasons: instructor ratio, lack of what he considers appropriate background, or even using AIWB (which he called “marketing – pure and simple” … hmmm). About the only things these instructors have in common are that he has never actually taken a class from any of them and they don’t work for his company.
This kind of “instructor cannibalism” is thankfully rare, but it still never ceases to amaze me. The shooting community — and the serious training community, in particular — is too mature and honorable to respond well to such silliness.
The really big names in the community don’t resort to these stupid tactics, of course. They don’t need to. Take a class from Larry Vickers and you’re sure to hear him talk about people like Ken Hackathorn and Rob Leatham. Kyle Defoor recently posted on his blog about how much other instructors influenced him, naming quite a few — including competition legend Jerry Barnhart — in detail.
It really comes down to a simple philosophy. Either you see other trainers as enemies, or allies. To me, it’s an easy choice.
For example, a student recently contacted me to say he was thinking about taking a class from another instructor. He was concerned because that instructor doesn’t teach or advocate using a press out, which is something I cover and drill heavily during Aim Fast, Hit Fast. This is my exact response to his email:
I would *highly* encourage you to bring (that instructor) out for a class. Seeing two different ways of doing something isn’t going to make your head explode. You are more than good enough to assess both approaches and find the one that works best for you. Just my opinion, but I believe the more instructors you see, the more confident and skilled you’ll be because you’ve been able to cherry pick the best techniques from everyone.
Maybe this student will never take another class from me after seeing this other instructor. OK. So what? I don’t own my students. They don’t owe me a debt of loyalty. Why would I ever discourage them from getting more training? There is no way I’d be the shooter I am today if I’d trained under just one instructor or school. Why should I expect anyone else to master their own skills by learning from just one person, including me?
The stupid feuds and vendettas some schools (or more often, their students) engage in just waste everyone’s time and energy. No one has a monopoly on skill or technique.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
I use AIWB and prefer it.
Cutting down other instructors can also decrease the likelihood of a new shooter getting the instruction that they need. Don’t make the decision scary.
Also, some instructors, like guns, are better fits for certain people. Some students learn better from a particular teacher or teaching style. Difficult as it may be to comprehend, you may not be the perfect instructor for every student.
Well said Rob
Also like to say “well said”, to many people fall for the kool-aid that one instructor teaches or one method, variety is the spice of life and different techniques and expanding your mind are all part of the learning cycle.
I see this type of behavior in my line of work. The new guy comes in, explains why his predecessor was an idiot and did something wrong, and he has a better way. He’s usually unaware of the other factors that impacted the decision, but is still spouting off.
I usually consider fluffing your own feathers, by putting down others, a flag of insecurity.
Very well put Todd. It’s unfortunate but it happens more or less in all areas where “expertise” is subjectively defined. In the area of dog training it is said that the only thing two trainers can agree on is that the third one is doing it all wrong. I don’t understand it either.
Well, couple of points. 1st, there are the students who decide after they one and only course they ever take that their instructor is now a Range God. Sort of the flip side of what your saying. Two, I find that if your interviewing a prospective school, slipping in a question about other instructors is a great judge of character. If you get anything other than nice remarks, even though sparse, run away.. Couple of folks I’ve talked to about class actually used their participation in other courses to enhance their credentials and I agree with that strategy.
Unfortunately we eat our own quite a bit in the firearms community. Unless the trainer is teaching something that could get someone hurt, it is best to take the high road in these discussions.
I was tempted to make a smartass remark, but I’ll take the higher ground this time.
I see this all the time up here, which is truly sad, as we don’t get a lot of instructors in the first place. Why people need to cut others down is beyond me. Stay in your lane, be safe and have fun.
as typical another well though out and presented article.
The “big names” like Vickers and Hackathorn aren’t typically a problem. They have a proven product and a well earned reputation. However, there are some instructors that do need watching and do need to be called out.
I know of one local instructor who pepper sprayed an unsuspecting student in a class. I know this because another student caught it on video and posted it online. That type of behavior by an instructor does need to be called out by reputable instructors.
I’ve also seen some local instructors that are fundamentally sound in what they teach, but their format may not be relevant to the real world of the student.
Attacking an instructor just because they teach a different technique or approach is in ridiculous and in poor form. Calling out an instructor for unsafe conditions in their classes is another. I think there is a distinction.
We should be seeking different approaches to validate and challenge our techniques. Perhaps the best way to do that is to take training from multiple sources.
I totally agree cannibalism of good instructors is shameful, but the firearms training industry is rife with charlatans. Some of these jokers have been reasonably successful selling unsuspecting customers and organizations ‘tactical’ training that’s essentially flashy-looking stuff they just made up.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a little more destruction of *them*.
The creator of a system that’s “great for shooting over your shoulder when in the driver’s seat of your car” comes to mind as an example of someone that I really wish was unable to find business.
I wouldn’t mind alot more instructor-on-instructor cannibalism in those sort of instances.
ZX,
I sometimes think that Cooper was right when he said that the lack of any self-regulating accrediting body would come back to haunt the industry someday.
Of course, if there was one, the worst offenders would just use their lack of accreditation as proof of their bad-boy outlaw warrior status, because they were going to teach you tactical ninja gun fu too strong and progressive for the hide-bound sissies at the accrediting body.
The problem with accreditation is that either the ruling body is dogmatic enough that it won’t certify otherwise good instructors because of different viewpoints/techniques, or it is so loose that anyone with a gun can become an official instructor.
I don’t see this ending well.
Tam – I think he was right, while at the same time, I think ToddG’s objection is right on the money.
You might be able to tailor the accreditation to some minimalist self-performance standard rather than a specific curriculum. “Credible” traditional martial arts organizations often attest to one’s skill in the established art, not the quality of one’s innovations or teaching. I wouldn’t mind a body that simply certified one’s score on some large shooting standard.
If I didn’t know anything else about how to spot frauds, I’d at least like to be able to see their El Prez time or USPSA class. If your tactical break-dance shooting technique looks weird to me, but you have a 4 second El Prez, maybe I’ll listen to you for a bit.
How about instead of cannibalism, we simply let people know what they should be looking for in a good instructor. Most people are smart enough to connect the dots.(Most)
Hear Dave Spaulding’s thoughts on this:
http://www.personalarmament.com/2010/08/combatives-podcast-selecting-a-trainer.html
Rob- The problem, as I see it, is that the people who should be smart enough to connect the dots sometimes just don’t, for some reason.
Instructors who, in my personal opinion, are less than stellar, don’t always toil in obscurity. Some, somehow, end up teaching to police departments, SWAT teams, and military units. These are people are sophisticated consumers who really should know what to look for. Maybe they just don’t own a timer?
I really don’t know how this happens, but it does, and it’s sad.
Todd,
Hence my qualifier of “sometimes”…
In the end, this is a business, and some people will settle on “controversy” as a business model. There is, after all, no such thing as bad publicity…
@Tam
I remember one course my wife and I took a few years back and the first thing the instructor said to my wife as she started getting her 9mm out at the range was, “Ohh, Honey, you really ought to have a real gun, like a 1911, but that plastic one will a have to do for now.”
I just leaned over and told her, “Relax, every instructor has an opinion.”
Dann in Ohio
A good instructor will teach you how to optimize your use of your available gear.
A bad instructor will blame his inability to teach you anything on your gear.
Why do instructors trash other instructors? Ego, belief that they’re right and another school or instructor is wrong, attempting to demonstrate superior (and therefore marketable) knowledge of the industry as they fight for a piece of the profitable firearms training pie, etc. You see ISO shooters and Weaver shooters trashing one another and tactical schools trashing non-tactical schools. It’s not unexpected to see instructors challenge or dismiss what is taught in competing schools, even if it’s a detriment to the firearms training industry as a whole.
It’s not much different in the martial arts if you think about it, with the exception that the UFC and other full-contact venues have quickly established what works against live and resisting opponents. Personally, I’m still waiting for there to develop a way for all of the various trainers out there to test their philosophies and techniques against the challenges that a typical CCWer might face in an effort to weed out the gun-school commando stuff from what is really going to save your bacon.
“Personally, I’m still waiting for there to develop a way for all of the various trainers out there to test their philosophies and techniques against the challenges that a typical CCWer might face…”
A further difficulty is added by the fact that the “typical CCWer”, the typical cop, and the typical SPECOPS door-kicker face very different scenarios, yet all receive the same prescription from your average Joe Trainer…
First I want to say thank you for bringing this up Todd. Many instructors have crossed my path in the last 20 years that I have been an instuctor of police officers. I can say that I have learned something from each one of them. I have always tried to keep my eyes open for anything that would improve myself and or my students. As Todd has said there are a few out there that teach my way or the highway method. What works for one might not work for another. We are all different and all have different ways of doing the same thing. Different and diverse is what made this country great. Try them all and use what works best for you.
Yeah Todd, I noticed the snarkiness in that thread.
Unfortunately, with the economy I think we will see more of this. There are only so many students and training dollars available. IMO, it’s going to get increasingly more difficult to fill classes and the market will hopefully separate the wheat from the chafe.
After having Todd to Indianapolis in October I consider him one of the good ones and will have him return in September.
5.5 FAST…..5.5 FAST….
I was talking with Ken Hackathorn today and related to a completely different set of circumstances, he made the comment, “We seem to eat our young in this community sometimes.”
It’s the same in the police DT training world, and in many other venues involving training.
Manners seem almost to be a thing of the past, crap talking and other douchebag behavior have replaced decorum on TV and most other public venues.
A few years ago I recall reading an article in the old ASLET journal titled ‘The Sad But True Story Of How Dinosaurs Eat Their Young’, ref the many problem between veteran and rookie officers, and the failings of the FTO system in many departments.
I’ve seen a lot of this kind of thing in the martial arts world. Usually it’s either “rival style” bullshit or rivals within the same style trying to discredit one another. This applies to both the “traditional” arts and the MMA styles from what I’ve observed personally.
The really sad thing is with the martial arts is that there are only so many ways to throw a punch and not end up breaking your own hand in the process, and yet so many people get wrapped up in the whole “my style is the ultimate” bull.
This is nothing at all new.
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html
I think every instructors should follow Kyle DeFoor’s lead and pay homage to those that have helped them along the way. Publicly.
I take a slightly different tack, much more along the lines of what ZK has posted. True, there is some cannibalism in the business, but equally true is that there are a number of instructors that are great salesmen and good at PR, but their teaching skills and programs are questionable at best and at times actually dangerous, IMO. Fortunately we’ve been able to at least get the word out that their resumes aren’t even close to what they claim at times, and that limits the damage somewhat, but whenever some yoyo starts teaching a course that is “guaranted to teach you to win when the mall is attacked by a squad of grenade-tossing AK-47 toting tangoes and you have your trusty Buck knife”, outing them is not cannibalism, it is trying to keep someone from eating poison.
For the record, the person that made the “marketing” comment isn’t an instructor. He coordinates classes for a company that serves as a booking agency for independent instructors.
He’s pretty prolific on the internet boards, and because of his work he has taken, or sat in on, or brought water to, a lot of classes. And he doesn’t hesitate to share his thoughts on training, and I have no idea what his background is or how good he is with a carbine or pistol, but I suspect it’s nothing that would make him be qualified to instruct. So maybe Todd’s post is much ado about nothing.
Which brings me to my point…
If all you have done is spend a couple thousand on chest rigs and few classes from Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn, you really should limit what you say on the internet. M4carbine started off good but the signal to noise ratio is disappointing now. Too many overweight weekend warriors trying to play Cops or Soldiers by paying $400 for a fantasy camp (and the same folks turn their nose up at Tactical Response as a fantasy camp. ha) Not sure how this new forum will be, but seem to be the same folks that are on m4carbine.
Unless I’m wrong about PH being an instructor. (see above.) Correct me if I’m wrong.