FORCE ON FORCE CONTRAVERSY?
Since 08-07-08
|
|
WARRIOR TALK NEWS
AUGUST
UPDATE #2
|
Randy Harris - Suarez
International Staff Instructor
The subject of Force on Force training is one that we should all consider. After
all, what are we actually training for? Do we train to avoid getting mugged by a
flat piece of cardboard that does not think move or try to hurt you or are we
training to deal with living breathing thinking adversaries? The obvious answer
is live adversaries. So if your training regimen does not or has never included
any Force on Force component then how do you know whether what you are
practicing REALLY works or not? Maybe you train with some "guru" who has been in
many fights and never lost. All that really tells you is HE has a grasp of his
material and was successful. It does not tell you how well you would fair using
that in a real confrontation. So how do we know? We have to test it.
Some may say "well what I do works in my IDPA matches". Great. You are
thoroughly ready to proactively face a 3 foot tall piece unarmed of cardboard
after being told to get ready in advance . Again, not terribly realistic. There
really is no reason to not avail oneself of FOF training today. Years ago it was
only really available to military and police. But now however , with the wide
availability of non lethal airsoft guns. The technology is there so that the
average guy can spend $150 or so and be equipped to take a force on force class.
Of course there are also Simunitions guns if you prefer to use marking
cartridges, but the availability and price of the guns and ammo is somewhat
prohibitive.
This brings us to our first controversy. Is the Airsoft gun really adequate for
FOF training? There are some that make the argument that there needs to be a
"pain penalty" for screwing up in FOF scenarios. I agree. What we are really
doing is to some degree hardwiring the ability to make good decisions at a very
fast subconscious level. In a real encounter we will not have long to make a
decision. If we just stand and dither over whether it is "really happening to
me?" or "what do I do now?" then we will likely have waited to long to do
anything useful. Getting shot with non lethal yet painful projectiles reinforces
that if we do not be decisive and act quickly then bad things will happen. This
is where our subconscious starts compiling data for positive vs negative
outcomes where action is concerned.
Now, do Sims rounds hurt more than airsoft? Absolutely. And we need that pain to
get the message across to our brain that we are doing things that are giving an
adverse outcome to what we would like. So in that respect airsoft is not as good
for FOF as simunitions. But part of the problem is that students often show up
for FOF classes looking like they are armored up for medieval combat. If you are
so padded up that you cannot feel the BBs then you are really not getting the
most out of the exercises. This is why I recommend that during scenario work you
wear virtually no protective gear at all. Just head protection and maybe
gloves.. Taking rounds in the hands , especially the knuckles, almost always
causes bleeding. This way you know where you got hit, but still protect hands
and face.I have seen people hit in the hands with airsoft pellets drop their
pistols. I have also debriefed many participants and most all agree that it
feels like a bee sting when hit. I'd have to agree. And depending on the
distance, it sometimes hurts worse than other times. So yes if we limit the
amount of padding we wear then Airsoft is perfectly adequate. In drill work I
recommend a LITTLE more padding, maybe a long sleeve shirt, because when you are
getting in maybe 50 fights or more per day there is only so much impact you are
going to take before you get tired and sore and lose concentration. So for the
drills I say pad up a little but run the scenarios with as little as possible.
The next controversy is whether you are better doing scenario work or drills. I
mentioned scenario work earlier. That is full blown scenarios with role players
who stick to a script of what they are going to do if the student does certain
things. Often the instructions might be " Go panhandle the student, ask for
money. You are not robbing him, just asking, but if he insults you or gets
physical then you amp up the situation and get in his face, but if he just tells
you he can't help you , then let him pass unmolested " . The point is that the
scenario is not just wide open, the role players are playing a realistic defined
part, not just running wild. The scenario based FOF is more in line with real
world situations sometimes involving witnesses , maybe even the Police. It is
essentially a test of your ability to negotiate whatever the situation is and
successfully "survive" the encounter. Often -just like in real life- this can be
done without getting into a fight at all.
The other type of FOF work is FOF drills. Gabe Suarez refers to the drill work
as light sparring with a partner.The drills are little fights. There is no real
decision making left on pre fight matters. In the drill the fight is unavoidable
and usually begins with the bad guy initiating some sort of attack.The purpose
is to give the students a lot of repetitions on the core skills need in a real
confrontation. Those are seeing and reacting to the attack, get off the X if
possible, access your weapon if you are armed , deploy that weapon from
concealment and if it is a pistol, get hits on the target. These may sound
simple, but many students who have never really ingrained these skills often
have trouble at first doing all of these things at the same time under stress.
After all some ranges do not even allow drawing a loaded pistol from a holster.
So unless the student takes the time to work that skill on their own they likely
will be a little behind the curve if we just drop them into scenario work from
the start.
And I really do not understand why some people have such an issue with drills.
We do drills in every other athletic endeavor we might pursue. I played
basketball in high school and you'd better believe we did more than just
scrimmage. We did drills every practice to build skill. The drills build the
skills that you will then employ in the game. The same is true in unarmed self
defense. I doubt many martial arts or combative instructors just have the
students spar without first building the individual offensive and defensive
skills through skill building drills. Even in IDPA and IPSC shooting , no one
just practices by only shooting matches. They build their shooting, reloading
and malfunction clearing ability through drills set up to build repetition in
those areas. The match is then a validation (or invalidation) of their training
regimen.
So for me the answer is simply this. Self defense, be it with empty hands or
armed is an athletic endeavor. It does not mean you have to be an Olympian to
survive. It simply means that the more athletic you are the more you will be
able to do. There really is no way around that. Many of the skills that might be
required in a violent encounter are able to be performed by everyday folks- IF
they have been exposed to those skills. The problem is the majority of people
have never found themselves in a violent confrontation, much less enough of them
to draw any real statistical data from. Hence the need for FOF drills. The
drills build the skills and allow you to use them in real time against an
uncooperative real life opponent, not just a stationary human shaped form. It
allows you to get many repetitions in being the victim of an assault and get a
better perspective of just how little time there is to act and how much time and
distance effect the dynamics of the confrontation.
Now just like in basketball or boxing or whatever, the drills will only take you
so far. There comes a time to spar or scrimmage. That is where the skills we
built in the drills is tested in the mock game. We wouldn't just work drills and
then schedule a real boxing match. Just like no sane coach would keep his team
from scrimmaging leading up to a game. To have a real idea of how everyone moves
and acts and reacts you have to have the scenario work too. The scenario work is
where you are able to work the whole package of skills from avoidance and
deescalation to getting off the X, accessing pistol, marksmanship, 360 degree
scan and even preparing witnesses and talking to the police. The first time you
ever do these things does not need to be at 3 AM on a cold rainy night when it
is for real!
Now a couple of other minor controversies. Some argue that FOF is not real
because there is no ballistic effect- especially with airsoft. I agree . No one
said it was REAL. But it is about as close as we can get without having a
serious reworking of the liability waiver and a trauma unit on standby. That is
why I recommend the least clothing you can get by with for the FOF
iterations.In fact at the National Tactical Invitational I wore cargo shorts a T
shirt and a light summer weight button down shirt as a cover garment. No padding
or layers other than the face mask and neck protection they issued.
Another controversy is that the shooting while moving
we teach leads to wild errant shooting and will get bystanders killed.
Therefore we should stand still to shoot. I'm Ok with standing still as long
as you are behind cover or you are farther than 10 yards distant form your
pistol armed adversary. The problem is that if you are in a true initiative
deficient situation where your first clue that the fight was on was seeing
the guy reach in his waistband, then standing there trying to out draw him
is not likely to have a long future to it. We really need to look at the
context of the common criminal assault. It will likely be so close that you
simply cannot make enough distance to keep from getting shot. This is one of
those things that we find out rather quickly in those drills. If you cannot
back up fast enough to avoid getting punched then how do you honestly expect
to back up far enough, fast enough to keep from being shot? This is where
guys that have only worked against motionless targets that do not shoot back
(or shoot first) have an unrealistic view of the dynamics involved.
So if we concede that we cannot always make enough space quickly enough to
just "make space and shoot" , then we will likely be in very close proximity
to the target/bad guy when we shoot. Logical? So when we are shooting and
moving this is often done at less than 3 yards. I submit that most anyone
with skill at acquiring their pistol with good grip and a modicum of trigger
control can make rapid multiple hits on targets at that distance. We are not
talking about firing haphazardly over our shoulder as we sprint 20 yards
away from the target. We are talking about drawing quickly as we explode
laterally off the X and firing a burst at the target often with the muzzle
20 INCHES from the target. Not exactly haphazard reckless shooting by a long
shot.
Also what are we looking to learn in drills? The point of the drills are to
see what gets you shot less and gets the bad guy shot more. Not who can hit
whom the most or who can run the farthest. The drill realistically is only
useful for the first 3 to 5 seconds- the time frame of most actual fights.
Anything past that is superfluous. And that 5 second and after time frame is
where all the misses happen. The drills typically go like this. The bad guy
attacks, the good guy gets off the X, shots are exchanged and they move
farther apart. As they move apart they keep shooting and that is where the
missing begins. But again, we are not looking at the last 3 seconds for data
we are looking at the first 3 seconds. In fact I limit them to 3 to 5 rounds
per fight when the drills are 1 on 1. This keeps the students focused on
getting accurate hits not on hosing down the other guy as you run as fast as
he can in the other direction. That is little more than a playground water
gun fight.
The last controversy is how is your FOF class set up. Again, there are those
who argue that only scenario work is realistic and that is all that should
be done. Ok , fine. That is an opinion, but I do not agree. I have had
students come through my FOF class (Suarez International's Interactive
Gunfighting FOF) who had been to other schools that offered Force on Force
classes. The other schools had done ONLY scenarios. The students said that
they felt they got a better understanding of the dynamics of the
confrontation and were now better prepared by doing the drills too. Now when
they got into fights in the scenarios they were able to access the
"solutions" they had been working all weekend and run those skill sets and
prevail, whereas before they had a lot of decision making to do armed with
only the skill sets they already had before they showed up. Now, let me
repeat scenario work is crucial too.You need to test your total package of
skills. And not only that, but scenario work that tests decision making, not
just draw speed and marksmanship. A FOF scenario that is a glorified "shoot
house burglar hunt" is frankly of little value.
The students need to be confronted with real life moral dilemmas and have
to decide in real time what to do. There needs to be a lot of interaction
verbally between the students and role players and there needs to be a level
of multi tasking going on. That is why I like to use scenarios that have the
student going through everyday life errands like going to the convenience
store carrying bags or coming out of the mall talking on the cell phone and
things like that where the student is engaged in more than just waiting to
draw their gun. But again, I believe best results in the scenarios are
obtained by those who have drilled the fundamentals to the point that their
"fight skills" run on auto pilot and because of that they are freed up
mentally to make decisions without worrying about what to do if the fight is
on.
So whether you are an experienced gunman or a novice there is only one
training environment that tests your total skill package and that is Force
on Force.