Hey guys...
Sorry, I've been out of the US for the last 4 weeks and internet time has been low.... I apologize for the delay, but I'm glad to see the this thread didn't turn completely into a cheerleading or badmouthing session.
I appreciate the continued professionalism of most of the posters....
The concern about whether or not CFS "re-invents" anything always seems completely beside the point to me. One of the marks of a good instructor is finding ways to articulate concepts that help his students learn. It seems that those who would say CFS is nothing new should then celebrate when someone who had been perceived as opposing its ideas are convinced by the new explanation!
Of course, at end of the day, it is not about what I say or someone else says, it is about what the students can do with the information. It is certainly not about my personality of personal experience, but the quality of the information and the training methodology that should be considered when someone looks at CFS.
As 7677 continues to bemoan, there are thousands of people who can claim LE, combat, security and other types of experience.... it doesn't make someone special. There is value in concepts that help people become safer. We should all stop worrying so much about the source.
Staring at an AK47 makes someone no more or less capable of articulating defensive concepts. Those of us with LE & investigative experience know that first hand testimony is one of the weakest and least accurate forms of evidence.
I am in favor or examining objective evidence, including the observations of others (many of the gurus of practical defensive shooting training are referenced, acknowledged and/or quoted in my book, for example.), but more importantly focusing on the wealth of information available from sources such as dash-cam videos and observation of students & other shooters under stress. It seems to me that when this path is taken, people looking at the same data (average people, average critical incidents, etc) and trying to solve the same problem will come to very similar conclusions.... only a very insecure person would feel the need to deny or criticize that reality.
When people are on that path in an objective way, I strongly suggest taking their training (as I suggested on another forum in regard to training with Matt & 7677 as being a good idea....). It is when people are teaching skills in isolation (ie- how to be the best shooter on a square range) that I start to question the value for people with limited time & budget (ie- everyone) looking for efficient defensive handgunning techniques.
CFS seeks simply to help people become more efficient shooters under critical incident stress. It is not simply sighted or unsighted shooting and wish we as a community could get beyond that antiquated and sophomoric argument. Take a listen to the podcast I posted months ago about the "Balance of Speed & Precision" concept (itunes or
Switchpod) to understand the CFS position on the topic. Through realistic training a student should be able to start to understand under what circumstances they will need their sights or not and be able to shoot as efficiently as possible.
What I do think is "new" in CFS is the articulation of concepts, outlines of training methodologies and overall perspective emphasizing efficiency as opposed to only effectiveness. At least, those who have taken the courses overwhelmingly identify these as the most important "new" things...
For the deepest level of exposure to these concepts, consider attending the CFS Instructor Development Course.
Thanks again for the discussion!
-RJP
PS- Matt, I'm setting the dates for my time in NYC within the next week. I hope to see you in April.