I.c.e.

[BWayne]

I found this on former SEAL Jeff Gonzales' website:
http://www.tridentconcepts.com/index.asp?page=Proficiency%20Modules&leftm=fire#I.C.E.%20Program%20(ICE)

I.C.E. Program (ICE)
One-day (10 hours) $175.00
Master the hard and soft focus then let the situation shape the outcome. We know there are physiological effects that can hinder our ability to reliably see our sights under high stress. During ultra close encounters the situation may not allow us to physically focus or accommodate on objects closer than 2-3 yards. This puts our sights well within that range. Instead what you may notice is a relative depth of focus or a more blurry vision on close objects.

In general, it is a product of our physiological make up. There are several factors that can affect this phenomenon of which the most important is experience. Experience will help build a strong foundation and perhaps even stall the physiological effects. Training and attitudes helps bridge the gaps to minimize the influence of this physiological condition.

I.C.E. Program™
The I.C.E. Program™ was designed to help counter these effects and maximize the human potential under high stress. The 1-day (10 hours) course will familiarize individuals with the effects of the body alarm reaction (BAR) and training methodologies to help combat them. The course will correct the negative effects and provide the end user with tools necessary to win at close quarters.

My questions are: is he teaching point shooting? Has anyone here trained with him? Anyone familiar with what I.C.E. is?

[Brownie]

Haven't heard of Jeffs I. C. E. program.

The hard and soft focus comes from Brian Enos' writings. I think Ankeny or Flex should be able to give more insight into exactly what hard and soft focus means. Hopefully they'll see this and respond.

[Matthew Temkin]

I found this on former SEAL Jeff Gonzales' website:
http://www.tridentconcepts.com/index.asp?page=Proficiency%20Modules&leftm=fire#I.C.E.%20Program%20(ICE)

I.C.E. Program (ICE)
One-day (10 hours) $175.00
Master the hard and soft focus then let the situation shape the outcome. We know there are physiological effects that can hinder our ability to reliably see our sights under high stress. During ultra close encounters the situation may not allow us to physically focus or accommodate on objects closer than 2-3 yards. This puts our sights well within that range. Instead what you may notice is a relative depth of focus or a more blurry vision on close objects.

In general, it is a product of our physiological make up. There are several factors that can affect this phenomenon of which the most important is experience. Experience will help build a strong foundation and perhaps even stall the physiological effects. Training and attitudes helps bridge the gaps to minimize the influence of this physiological condition.

I.C.E. Program™
The I.C.E. Program™ was designed to help counter these effects and maximize the human potential under high stress. The 1-day (10 hours) course will familiarize individuals with the effects of the body alarm reaction (BAR) and training methodologies to help combat them. The course will correct the negative effects and provide the end user with tools necessary to win at close quarters.

My questions are: is he teaching point shooting? Has anyone here trained with him? Anyone familiar with what I.C.E. is?
My NYPD friend and I took Jeff out for dinner a few years ago when he was teaching a class--that we set up for him---for the NYPD.
For the record Jeff does not believe in point shooting, but in his book he stresses something that seems awfully similar to PSing but without the dreaded P word.
Be that as it may...I do not see how it takes 10 hours and $175.00 to learn how to shoot a pistol with one hand.
Heck..in 10 hours 7677, Brownie and myself could probably give a way the store.
Perhaps it is time for us to burn some incense, talk in riddles and, naturally, jack up our priices.

[Roundeyesamurai]

No comment.

[Matthew Temkin]

Here is Jeff G. talking about point shooting in 2004...
This is the link. http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6383&highlight=Jeff+Gonzales+point+shooting



Sorry for the delay, but I have been going 120 mph with my hair on fire lately. I had a really elaborate and politically correct statement to make, but for some reason my login didn't work and the whole message was lost. Outside of being pissed, I didn't have the time to really rewrite it so that should tell you something.

Let me see if I can address some of the issues at hand. As far as classes being canceled; I have had some issues with some facilities, but there I had no control over the net result. Then my wife was in an auto accident on my way to the airport for a different course and I turned around. The last one was about the only one I lost sleep over for several reasons. So, if you are not interested in training with us I totally understand and you won't hurt my feelings. That is the beautiful thing about this country, the choices we can make. Now, if you don't train with use because of an incident we had not control over then while it is your choice it seems silly.

OK, now off to the fun stuff. Here it is right in front for everyone to see. I don't believe in point shooting! With that being said, anyone who places all their eggs into one basket either has a really big basket or really lacks the understanding of the dynamics involved in these encounters. Folks, you have got to understand that there is no simple solution or guaranteed response. If you seem to think one technique will work over another, no problem. I have the fortune or misfortune depending on you look at it to know what works and more importantly what doesn't. As a result we teach two types of focused shooting.

A Hard Focus where you have a distinct visual on your front sight and a Soft Focus where you look "through" the sights at your target. Pay attention to the through part as you have to bring the weapon up into your visual plane to "reliably and consistently" get hits. Look, I can replicate lots of things on a square range with a static target you know you are going to shot that isn't moving or shooting back at you. That really doesn't depict reality, but some people will blindly follow the light. I cannot make you do anything, I can only lead you to the door. You will have to step through it.

In our Combative Pistol 2 (CP2) classes we have managed to hold a hit ratio in the scenario based training evolutions of 73%. Now, I don't know about you, but that is a pretty high ratio when you consider the dynamics of what is happening.

I really appreciate those folks who came in here to speak their mind on our behalf. Thanks. As for those who want to pass up on our training, I cannot do anything about that. We are all grownups here and more importantly you have live with your decisions. I think it is important you stick with somebody of like mind when it comes to training. I am an open minded and dynamic individual, in my job and I am not talking about the instructional job. I cannot afford to get bogged down by dogma. When people come to me to train part of it is for the actual mechancial skills we provide, but another large part is in developing the combat mindset. I can teach a monkey to shoot, but I cannot teach him to fight.

Later,
__________________
Jeff Gonzales
Director of Training
Trident Concepts, LLC.

[ Post #22 from the above link. Italicized & block indented to clarify the quote. SCC 3-21-2006]

[Matthew Temkin]

No comment.
Nothing wrong with posting the truth.
I, for one, am sick and tired of the sacred cow syndrome.

[Roundeyesamurai]

In our Combative Pistol 2 (CP2) classes we have managed to hold a hit ratio in the scenario based training evolutions of 73%. Now, I don't know about you, but that is a pretty high ratio when you consider the dynamics of what is happening.

The number "73" should seem particularly odd to those familiar with my rule of fairy tale numbers.

Nothing wrong with posting the truth.
I, for one, am sick and tired of the sacred cow syndrome.

I would, but the last thing this board needs, are "defenders" coming here en masse.

[sweatnbullets]

My questions are: is he teaching point shooting? Has anyone here trained with him? Anyone familiar with what I.C.E. is?

Well, I know that some of you will disagree with me and some will vehemently disagree with me.:D But, I tend to use the historical definition of point shooting and it is obvious that Jeff does not. No big deal, many of our competition friends do not use the historical definition. That is cool, as long as we understand that it does not matter what we call it, but that we are very much doing the same thing.

Soft focus on the sights with a hard focus on the threat/target is point shooting by the historical definition. This is why we do not call point shooting, point shooting. There is way to much idiotic baggage attached to that term. There is no way to get past the idiotic debate of the past until we bury that term. There are those out there, and Jeff is one of them, that will never admit to point shooting, but they will admit to threat/target focus.

Being threat focus and seeing your sights in your soft focus in the line of sight is a form of point shooting.....the most basic form of point shooting. There is nothing that anyone can say to change my mind or wipe away that historical facts. People can disagree with that all they want, it does not matter to me or change history. The bottom line is that we are very much doing the same thing.

The competitors have this technique down to a fine art and I am very interested in seeing what they have learned. On the other hand, my threat focus friends and I have taken this very basic technique and taken it as far as you can possibly take it. I feel that many can learn from us. Because you may not know, what you may not know.

While at brownies house last January, we were shooting threat focus exclusively. At the end of two long hard days we were running some timed drills. The drills were to compare my QK to my flash sight picture. But after doing nothing but threat focus shooting, I had a hard time bringing my focus back to the sights. What I got was a threat focus drill, with the HG at the line of sight, with a perfect soft focus sight picture. It was an epithany, this is what guys like Flex and Ankeny had been saying all along over the years. Now I knew what they were talking about and it was a solid technique. But, the bottom line is that it was a threat focused drill and historically that means that it was point shooting.

FIRE AT WILL!

[Brownie]

So are you saying that when you tried to shoot MT [ gun at line of sight ] with a pure threat focus it became what you believe to be called soft focus by others?.

Were you faster or slower with that soft focus over pure QK from below line of sight? It may not be relevant as this drill really was just an experiment and not being familiar with soft focus shooting for the most part, more training in this type of shooting could make a difference.

[Ankeny]

Looks like you guys pretty much have it covered. I might add that for a "soft sight focus" the gun is in front of your face, you are "looking through" the gun at the target, and the sights don't even need to be in alignment so long as you are aware of the relationship of the bore to the target face. The technique is especially useful for us middle aged guys that can't even get a hard sight focus because of failing vision.

[sweatnbullets]

So are you saying that when you tried to shoot MT [ gun at line of sight ] with a pure threat focus it became what you believe to be called soft focus by others?.

Yes, I saw what would be a soft focus on the sight picture and a hard focus on the threat.

Were you faster or slower with that soft focus over pure QK from below line of sight? It may not be relevant as this drill really was just an experiment and not being familiar with soft focus shooting for the most part, more training in this type of shooting could make a difference.

I was not happy with the way the drill was going due to me not pulling my focal point back, so I did not pay attention to the time. But, I was pleasantly surprise to find a new skill and a new understanding. That is what I took away from that drill.

WTS, there are other factors that are byproducts of QK than just pure speed. The speed is nice but is actuallly not the biggest factor in regards to me using QK as a technique.;)

[Brownie]

WTS, there are other factors that are byproducts of QK than just pure speed. The speed is nice but is actuallly not the biggest factor in regards to me using QK as a technique

I understand completely:D

[7677]

No comment.
That is a first ;)

I have had several discussions with Jeff on several boards and Matt is correct that Jeff has openly stated that he didn't believe in point shooting! It was a subject that Jeff and I both agreed to disagree about.

My how times have changed since 2002.

[Roundeyesamurai]

That is a first ;)

Carpal tunnel syndrome will do that to you, sometimes :p

[Matthew Temkin]

That is a first ;)

I have had several discussions with Jeff on several boards and Matt is correct that Jeff has openly stated that he didn't believe in point shooting! It was a subject that Jeff and I both agreed to disagree about.

My how times have changed since 2002.
I just wish that some well known instructors would say something like, "Hey, I was wrong about point shooting in the past"
Some have said that, but others have either tried to reinvent the wheel, or use other terms which mean the exact same thing ( but in very wordy explinations)

[Matthew Temkin]

So are you saying that when you tried to shoot MT [ gun at line of sight ] with a pure threat focus it became what you believe to be called soft focus by others?.

Were you faster or slower with that soft focus over pure QK from below line of sight? It may not be relevant as this drill really was just an experiment and not being familiar with soft focus shooting for the most part, more training in this type of shooting could make a difference.
Let me ask a dumb question...
What "focus" is it called when the gun is at hip level?
Chest level?
Just curious as how many words are being invented to avoid the P word.
Or the T.F. word(s) for that matter.

[Brownie]

I just wish that some well known instructors would say something like, "Hey, I was wrong about point shooting in the past"
Some have said that,

I don't know of any well known [ or otherwise ] instructor that has changed their thinking on the subject AND admitted they were wrong in the past.

I know of a few who want people to now forget what they are on record saying about PSing, but they haven't admitted they were wrong, nor would I hold my breath waiting for that statement in the future.

One who touts himself as a pointshooter in his classes, taking money from unsuspecting students, and has had NO formal training from any of the known instructors who are recognized for being able to impart the skills to others.

I have more problems with someone like this than JG mentioned here myself. Knowing and teaching something that you know and not admitting it is a form of PSing, is less damaging to the group of threat focused instructors as a whole than the instructor who doesn't know anything about what he teaches with the exception of his self teachings from books and the internet and sells it to the student who is shortchanged.

Who does the student trust? An instructor who has been formally trained and used that training for 25 years?, or the instructor who denigrated it for a decade in writings, argued with everyone it didn't work and now wants to take their money just claiming he is a pointshooter and can impart more than someone can get from a book or video when that is the only thing he has to offer himself.

If an instructor is going to take money from students to impart some specific skill, they ought to have more training and background in that particular skill [ and not by just a few months ] than the students. This situation above reminds me of the commercial we see of a person who everyone thinks is knowledgeable about something and then states "But I did spend a night at a ???? inn"

[BWayne]

The number "73" should seem particularly odd to those familiar with my rule of fairy tale numbers.

I would, but the last thing this board needs, are "defenders" coming here en masse.

What is the rule of fairy tale numbers? :confused:

I did a Yahoo! seartch for this board and it did not turn up in the list. Given that, hopefully we will not have people showing up en masse to defend the instructor.

Thanks for all of the replies.

[Roundeyesamurai]

What is the rule of fairy tale numbers? :confused:

Ask a developmental psychologist (I won't say it on the board, because I'm sure there are plenty of lurkers watching whom I wouldn't want to make into better liars).

[7677]

I would, but the last thing this board needs, are "defenders" coming here en masse.
I honestly do not see what there is to defend as it is public knowledge that he made those statements in the past and the posts on the various forums are still out there as a reminder to those that doubt.

I also find it funny that out of the trainers that were so against point shooting in 2002 that four years later that all of them now teach some sort of threat focused shooting. However, none of them have been to a known threat focused school or instructor. Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

[Ankeny]

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Maybe they called it something else. Afterall, I was using target/threat focus before I ever heard of Point Shooting.

[Brownie]

Ron,

There's a difference between what people who have followed Enos' writings about soft focus and trainers who have been front sight or hard sight focused only advocates and belittled, argued and about anything they coud get away with about threat focused methodologies being voodoo, calling us snake oil salesmen and that threat focused anything could not/would not work.

Those people/trainers who were wrong [ about threat focus skills being voodoo, etc ] need to admit they were wrong, have come out of the darkeness of sighted fire only methodoligies ] or else stop taking money from unsuspecting students who now think this trainer can impart threat focused skills to them when in fact the trainer hasn't any more knowledge of what he is doing than the student who is spending hard earned money.

As in my previous post, thats the difference between one who used a threat focused method and called it anything else [ you, Enos, Flex, etc ] and a charlatan trainer who advocated you either use your sights [ sights focus ], denigrated threat focused skills and now attempts to get people to believe they know something they don't and take money from unsuspecting students.

[7677]

Maybe they called it something else. Afterall, I was using target/threat focus before I ever heard of Point Shooting.
No, this is very distinct group of people and everyone on board was on the same page and they simply believed that point shooting did not work. As a matter of fact, Matt, Brownie and I were challenged to put our money were our mouths were and Matt and I did just that. In Tucson, Matt, Brownie and I proved the depth and range of point shooting can be taken and how well it intergrated with sighted fire plus H2H techniques.

[Matthew Temkin]

No, this is very distinct group of people and everyone on board was on the same page and they simply believed that point shooting did not work. As a matter of fact, Matt, Brownie and I were challenged to put our money were our mouths were and Matt and I did just that. In Tucson, Matt, Brownie and I proved the depth and range of point shooting can be taken and how well it intergrated with sighted fire plus H2H techniques.
I think Memphis was more of a challenge--meaning having to deal with some hostility, as well as some who were hoping that we would fall on our faces---than any other course I have given.
Quite frankly, some there made me feel as welcome as a AIDS patient at a kindergarden picnic.
("Golly, Christina, not only is he a NYC Jew, but a point shooter as well!!!")
But it was fun and we met some good people and, hopefully, proved some points.

[Ankeny]

No, this is very distinct group of people and everyone on board was on the same page and they simply believed that point shooting did not work.

Even us IPSC gamers know point shooting (as defined in another thread) works. When and how it is deployed might be a topic for debate, but we all know PS'ing is a viable technique in the proper setting. Well, anyhow I thought everyone knew that, lol. ;)

[7677]

Ron,
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with competition shooters but debates and statements that took place on various forum in 2002 and 2003.

[7677]

I think Memphis was more of a challenge--meaning having to deal with some hostility, as well as some who were hoping that we would fall on our faces---than any other course I have given.
Quite frankly, some there made me feel as welcome as a AIDS patient at a kindergarden picnic.
("Golly, Christina, not only is he a NYC Jew, but a point shooter as well!!!")
But it was fun and we met some good people and, hopefully, proved some points.
Matt,
We made it out of Memphis with a whole new type of respect and we proved that pointshooting worked just like we said it would.

[Dino]

Let me get this right. A Jewish guy from NYC, who point shoots, favorite gun is an old beat up S&W model 10, and is a Jets fan. Man I gotta get some new friends:)

[Nscale]

So, what I am reading is.. He is teaching what many here say is a form of point shooting but he does not call it point shooting. However, what he is teaching is a good technique. Is that right?

[Ankeny]

7677:

Yeah, I kind of put that all together. As a consumer and a possible candidate for attending a shooting school, I would have a lot more respect for someone who is openly honest about adapting or adopting a technique that they previously thought was not viable. There is nothing wrong with approaching a concept with skepticism and/or rejecting a concept on the surface, only to find out a later time that your skepticsm was unfounded. Of course, if a person's ego gets in the way that's another story.

[7677]

7677:

Yeah, I kind of put that all together. As a consumer and a possible candidate for attending a shooting school, I would have a lot more respect for someone who is openly honest about adapting or adopting a technique that they previously thought was not viable. There is nothing wrong with approaching a concept with skepticism and/or rejecting a concept on the surface, only to find out a later time that your skepticsm was unfounded. Of course, if a person's ego gets in the way that's another story.

Ron,
Good points. I agree there is nothing wrong with adapting or adopting new tatics and techniques, but you also have to ask yourself where did they suddenly get these new found skills and who trained them? This is something that I have not observed with most of the trainers that were against point shooting in 2002.

[Nscale]

I am not sure this is not just an issue with semantics. Doesnt really matter what he calls the technique as long as it is a technique I can use. This guy spends alot of time in my area and that makes his training an option.

So far I havent heard anything wrong with the agenda, just what it is called.

[7677]

I am not sure this is not just an issue with semantics. Doesnt really matter what he calls the technique as long as it is a technique I can use. This guy spends alot of time in my area and that makes his training an option.

So far I havent heard anything wrong with the agenda, just what it is called.

Jeff Gonzales is a great instructor and the guys at Rodmans Neck had only good things to say about him. This thread has moved past Jeff Gonzales and ICE to a time where the mention of point shooting broke out in fights and locked threads. On this note, I must state that respect both Jeff Gonzales and Paul Howe because they simply stated their opinion(s) discussed the matters at hand and did not get involved in mud slinging.

[Nscale]

Thank you 7677.
Yes this thread moved in a different direction.
I reserve my comments further.

[Roundeyesamurai]

Let me get this right. A Jewish guy from NYC, who point shoots, favorite gun is an old beat up S&W model 10, and is a Jets fan. Man I gotta get some new friends:)

Hey now, don't hold it against him- some Joizey Jets fans are decent folks! :D

[Matthew Temkin]

Let me get this right. A Jewish guy from NYC, who point shoots, favorite gun is an old beat up S&W model 10, and is a Jets fan. Man I gotta get some new friends:)
My dad has refused to die until the Jets win another Superbowl.
Looks as if he will be around for awhile.

[Dino]

My dad has refused to die until the Jets win another Superbowl.
Looks as if he will be around for awhile.


ANOTHER SUPERBOWL???? You mean those guys already won it once.:D