pointblank4445
Established
Not sure if anybody but the "bots" will see this, but the weather is crap and this has been on my mind...
I could go into a long, boring rant about the things I've witnessed for the sake of "development" over the last 15 years. But I'll keep it simple.
In most circles, time to train/develop is often the most limited resource.
I've noticed in some circles that some insist upon things like:
"Irons only"....because optics/batteries fail
"No WML" ...because things bread/batteries fail
or
"We don't use that light technique because of the possibility of where the suspect may hit IF they shoot"
Mind you these are also places that won't allow weak-hand only shooting because of the issues/liability with the transition aspect.
Rather than developing skilled, capable individuals...there can be a limit of how much planning for the worst case scenario can detract from being capable.
In fighting, YES, I need to know how to take a punch....how to get back up....how to face adversity and adapt as needed. However, I don't go in everyday to the gym and get used to taking a full-on beating.
Because at some point, it seems to reason that if I hone MY game, I can significant decrease the amount of say/input/options my opposition has in the matter (maybe not all but as much as possible).
This occurred to me decades ago playing varsity basketball in high school for a complete clown...whose every practice was to learn a new defense or play to counter our upcoming opposition's strength. We were 3-21 that season. So I think there's something to be said for playing your game so well that the OTHER guy is forced to panic/adapt/change. Playing to win and playing to not lose are NOT the same things.
If we are to quantify this, what SHOULD the numbers look like to consider "worst case scenario" in our precious training/development time?
0% isn't correct, nor is 100%.
10%?....20%?....30%?
I could go into a long, boring rant about the things I've witnessed for the sake of "development" over the last 15 years. But I'll keep it simple.
In most circles, time to train/develop is often the most limited resource.
I've noticed in some circles that some insist upon things like:
"Irons only"....because optics/batteries fail
"No WML" ...because things bread/batteries fail
or
"We don't use that light technique because of the possibility of where the suspect may hit IF they shoot"
Mind you these are also places that won't allow weak-hand only shooting because of the issues/liability with the transition aspect.
Rather than developing skilled, capable individuals...there can be a limit of how much planning for the worst case scenario can detract from being capable.
In fighting, YES, I need to know how to take a punch....how to get back up....how to face adversity and adapt as needed. However, I don't go in everyday to the gym and get used to taking a full-on beating.
Because at some point, it seems to reason that if I hone MY game, I can significant decrease the amount of say/input/options my opposition has in the matter (maybe not all but as much as possible).
This occurred to me decades ago playing varsity basketball in high school for a complete clown...whose every practice was to learn a new defense or play to counter our upcoming opposition's strength. We were 3-21 that season. So I think there's something to be said for playing your game so well that the OTHER guy is forced to panic/adapt/change. Playing to win and playing to not lose are NOT the same things.
If we are to quantify this, what SHOULD the numbers look like to consider "worst case scenario" in our precious training/development time?
0% isn't correct, nor is 100%.
10%?....20%?....30%?