Matthew Temkin
10-13-2008, 07:47 AM
As far as I am concerned, the core concepts of combat shooting--mental and physical-- were worked out by 1945.
Not just in theory, mind you, but in many aspects of brutal, no holds barred, all out combat in every type of warfare possible.
I keep hearing of all of the advances since WW2 ( in techniques, not hardware) but all I see is progressive trainers taking giant steps BACKWARDS to what was taught by Applegate, Fairbairn, Sykes and many others dating back to the first world war.
Why?
Because it worked then and, as many are finally discovering via FOF, it still works.
In fact it works so well that many are having to re evaluate their positions and the effectiveness of past training.
I understand that men such as Rob Pincus feel they have come up with something new in Combat Focus, but to me it is nothing more than very basic two handed point shooting.
I can say this with some authority have read many of Rob's articles, and having watched his DVD and reading his book.
Nothing wrong with the basics, mind you, (and Rob teaches them very well) but, IMHO, he has merely reinvented the wheel.
And yes, I do find humorous that so many who have bashed point shooting for decades have embraced Combat Focus which, IMHO, does not include the vital aspects of hip, 3/4 hip and extreme close range methods.
I guess it's all in the marketing, yes?
Now saying that, I no longer teach from the WW2 perspective, since I have found that the concept was being rejected due to the teaching method.
But that is another story.
Change can be a wonderful thing, but change just for the sake of change is, IMHO, a waste of time, energy and, in some cases, effectiveness.
But hey, I could be wrong so--let us hear some specifics on what is "new and improved" in the actual techniques of combat shooting.
In other words, just how do we describe progress?
Not just in theory, mind you, but in many aspects of brutal, no holds barred, all out combat in every type of warfare possible.
I keep hearing of all of the advances since WW2 ( in techniques, not hardware) but all I see is progressive trainers taking giant steps BACKWARDS to what was taught by Applegate, Fairbairn, Sykes and many others dating back to the first world war.
Why?
Because it worked then and, as many are finally discovering via FOF, it still works.
In fact it works so well that many are having to re evaluate their positions and the effectiveness of past training.
I understand that men such as Rob Pincus feel they have come up with something new in Combat Focus, but to me it is nothing more than very basic two handed point shooting.
I can say this with some authority have read many of Rob's articles, and having watched his DVD and reading his book.
Nothing wrong with the basics, mind you, (and Rob teaches them very well) but, IMHO, he has merely reinvented the wheel.
And yes, I do find humorous that so many who have bashed point shooting for decades have embraced Combat Focus which, IMHO, does not include the vital aspects of hip, 3/4 hip and extreme close range methods.
I guess it's all in the marketing, yes?
Now saying that, I no longer teach from the WW2 perspective, since I have found that the concept was being rejected due to the teaching method.
But that is another story.
Change can be a wonderful thing, but change just for the sake of change is, IMHO, a waste of time, energy and, in some cases, effectiveness.
But hey, I could be wrong so--let us hear some specifics on what is "new and improved" in the actual techniques of combat shooting.
In other words, just how do we describe progress?