The definitions are marginalized, and there’s no defined authority to canonize them. It’s purely based on perceptions and discussions. From our perspective, we’re adding a layer between purely reactive shooting-as we understand it-where it’s entirely based on a visual stimulus, with the sights inside the desired area of focus on the target. What we define as predictive is a mix of having just enough visual input to anticipate when the sights will enter the target area and kinesthetic awareness of the gun’s cyclical behavior-what normal people simply call timing. 😁 What Jeff Cooper describes as hammers, we define as kinesthetic shooting-when a shooter relies purely on kinesthesia. But in the end, we could argue about this forever; it’s really just a matter of personal perception and beliefs. What truly matters is doing it as fast, accurately, efficiently, and consistently as you can.
18:12 There’s nothing better than when an instructor steals someone else’s material (Ben Stoeger and Hwansik Kim), without giving any credit, and then proceeds to teach it wrong. What you’re describing as “predictive” shooting is reactive. The way you’re doing it in this video you’re saying that you observe the dot and then predict when you need to pull the trigger again, that’s “reactive” shooting because you’re reacting to the dot’s behavior. True “predictive” shooting is when you pull the trigger twice essentially as fast as you can and you’re able to predict where the 2nd shot will go based on your inputs into the gun.
Agree, it’s what we called a hammer pair back in the way. One sight picture, two shots as fast as you can pull the trigger and is based on your experience from training doing just that at various distances to learn what you can get away with and receive the desired result.
Do you realize you’ve made a self-conflicting statement? Are we stealing content, or is what we’re teaching wrong? Pick one. TPC was founded in 2014 by Ron Avery and Ken Nelson, and the entire doctrine we teach is based on over 38 years of experience from some of the best shooters in the world. Ron formulated key concepts into principles, and those principles form the foundation of our doctrine. By definition, principles are universal, which means they’re not bound to one specific approach. In the end, high-performance shooting gravitates toward these principles. Even if techniques differ, the principles remain the same-this includes vision. I’ve personally trained with Ben, who is an incredible instructor, and Kim took our Handgun Mastery class in the past. We often discuss the evolution of training, and we all agree it’s an ongoing process. You are right about one thing-we do use one of Ben’s micro drills in our transition module because it’s spot on. And if you ask anyone who’s taken our Handgun Mastery class, they’ll tell you we always emphasize giving credit where it’s due. We recommend Ben’s training, just like we give credit to Bruce Gray for the trigger bump drill and Karl Ericson for the trigger isolation drill. We’d like to invite you to take our Handgun Mastery class. If you find that our curriculum has stolen elements from other instructors, we’ll refund your money 100%. By elements, we mean the conceptual progression and method of the delivery-not individual micro drills here and there. Let us know your thoughts!
@ it’s not self-conflicting to say that a person stole someone else’s work and then incorrectly applied it. It happens literally all the time in virtually every discipline and field. It’s very prevalent in the shooting world where an instructor attends a class and then begins including someone else’s material in their curriculum. I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t address my main point though: that what you’re incorrectly calling “predictive” is actually “reactive” because you’re REACTING to the dot’s path after the first shot. Since you’ve trained/spoken with Ben and Hwansik, then you know that predictive shooting is roughly sub-0.20 second splits while reactive shooting is roughly 0.25-0.35 sec splits. You aren’t shooting sub-0.20 splits in this video.
@ Ben has been teaching reactive and predictive shooting since AT LEAST 2016 because that’s when I learned it from him. I have a training log note on my phone that was last updated on November 5, 2016 where I wrote that I did predictive Doubles at 7 yards and reactive doubles at 15 yards in May of 2016. If I check my math, 2016 was more than 6 years ago.
@ I’ve been exploring it but my ammo budget is limited and I don’t have many places to practice. I shoot one IDPA match per month and so far I’m predictive at 5 yards and reactive beyond that.
@@Platoon_Guide Yeah, the concept definitely takes a good amount of practice to apply at longer ranges or with more challenging targets. But over time, you’ll be able to use it effectively on targets at 25 yards. You’re absolutely right, though-it does take both practice and ammo!
I think it's all Reactive shooting that your showing. Your reacting to the dot in the exceptable target. You may be reacting faster but it's still all Reactive.
Not necessarily-it’s all about perception. We completely agree with your description, but there’s a subtle layer on top where you can predict when the dot will enter the desired area on the target without actually seeing it inside. You’re still using visual guidance, but mainly for timing, combined with proprioceptive awareness. At least we differentiate between instinctive shooting (purely proprioceptive) and predictive shooting. It really comes down to how perception plays into the definition. Does that make sense to you? Thanks for sharing your perspective! 👍🏻
@TacticalPerformanceCenter For sure I get it! Thanks for the info. I've always looked at doubles under a 25 split as more predictive. Because the ability for a human to see and react at that speed is very rare. Great video. Thanks!!
@@TacticalPerformanceCenterNo, what you’re describing is reactive shooting. In this video, your “prediction” then requires an input based on the dot’s behavior. That input is a REACTION to a visual stimulus. This is, by definition, reactive shooting.
Why do we make this so difficult? SIGHTS, CENTER, TRIGGER! Put the sights, in the center and pull the trigger straight back to the rear. This is NOT complicated. Bad breadth distance - point index shooting. Self defense distance - flash sight picture. Reach out and touch - front sight/red dot.
The progression of these drills is designed for shooters who want to dive deeper into the process and are dedicated to performance training. Repeating these drills until they’re burned into your subconscious will absolutely make you a better shooter-if that’s what you’re aiming for. They don’t have direct combat value, but they’ll sharpen your technical skills and make you more efficient in real-life situations. Our approach focuses on the details: what, how, when, and why. But if someone isn’t interested in going to such a micro level, that’s totally fine. In general, there are three types of learners: academic, visual, and kinesthetic. This kind of information is geared more toward academic learners if we can put it that way.
Great content clear and diligent.
All the best from the UK...
Bedankt
Thank you for your support! 👍🏻
Thanks!
Thank you very much for the support! 👍🏻🎯
Thank you..first time i have really understood thia concept.
Glad to hear that 👍🏻
I like the progression of the drills, thanks!
Works really well when you put it into practice at the range! 👍🏻
Digging that music that kicks in at 20:45
Can be heard best with headphones ❤️
Thanks ! Great Drills and challenge !
Give it a try 👍🏻 ...please share!
Excellent tutorial. Thank you Sir.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for another great video.
Our pleasure!
Good stuff
Very thorough 👍👍
Another great one!
Thank you! Cheers!
This is a great video if it was titled something like
“Reactive Shooting - Confirmation levels”
The definitions are marginalized, and there’s no defined authority to canonize them. It’s purely based on perceptions and discussions.
From our perspective, we’re adding a layer between purely reactive shooting-as we understand it-where it’s entirely based on a visual stimulus, with the sights inside the desired area of focus on the target.
What we define as predictive is a mix of having just enough visual input to anticipate when the sights will enter the target area and kinesthetic awareness of the gun’s cyclical behavior-what normal people simply call timing. 😁
What Jeff Cooper describes as hammers, we define as kinesthetic shooting-when a shooter relies purely on kinesthesia.
But in the end, we could argue about this forever; it’s really just a matter of personal perception and beliefs. What truly matters is doing it as fast, accurately, efficiently, and consistently as you can.
Always informative and no BS
Thanks, that's our goal 👍🏻
Great stuff!!!
Thanks!
AWESOME!
Please share! Enjoy 👍🏻
Great video!!!
Give it a try and let us know your practical impressions 👍🏻
Nice CZs!
Indeed! 👍🏻
18:12 There’s nothing better than when an instructor steals someone else’s material (Ben Stoeger and Hwansik Kim), without giving any credit, and then proceeds to teach it wrong.
What you’re describing as “predictive” shooting is reactive. The way you’re doing it in this video you’re saying that you observe the dot and then predict when you need to pull the trigger again, that’s “reactive” shooting because you’re reacting to the dot’s behavior.
True “predictive” shooting is when you pull the trigger twice essentially as fast as you can and you’re able to predict where the 2nd shot will go based on your inputs into the gun.
Agree, it’s what we called a hammer pair back in the way. One sight picture, two shots as fast as you can pull the trigger and is based on your experience from training doing just that at various distances to learn what you can get away with and receive the desired result.
Do you realize you’ve made a self-conflicting statement? Are we stealing content, or is what we’re teaching wrong? Pick one.
TPC was founded in 2014 by Ron Avery and Ken Nelson, and the entire doctrine we teach is based on over 38 years of experience from some of the best shooters in the world. Ron formulated key concepts into principles, and those principles form the foundation of our doctrine. By definition, principles are universal, which means they’re not bound to one specific approach. In the end, high-performance shooting gravitates toward these principles. Even if techniques differ, the principles remain the same-this includes vision.
I’ve personally trained with Ben, who is an incredible instructor, and Kim took our Handgun Mastery class in the past. We often discuss the evolution of training, and we all agree it’s an ongoing process. You are right about one thing-we do use one of Ben’s micro drills in our transition module because it’s spot on. And if you ask anyone who’s taken our Handgun Mastery class, they’ll tell you we always emphasize giving credit where it’s due. We recommend Ben’s training, just like we give credit to Bruce Gray for the trigger bump drill and Karl Ericson for the trigger isolation drill.
We’d like to invite you to take our Handgun Mastery class. If you find that our curriculum has stolen elements from other instructors, we’ll refund your money 100%. By elements, we mean the conceptual progression and method of the delivery-not individual micro drills here and there.
Let us know your thoughts!
Here is quite an old TPC video of Brian Nelson explaining the same concept: ruclips.net/video/hYI79oN3ipo/видео.htmlfeature=shared
@ it’s not self-conflicting to say that a person stole someone else’s work and then incorrectly applied it. It happens literally all the time in virtually every discipline and field.
It’s very prevalent in the shooting world where an instructor attends a class and then begins including someone else’s material in their curriculum.
I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t address my main point though: that what you’re incorrectly calling “predictive” is actually “reactive” because you’re REACTING to the dot’s path after the first shot.
Since you’ve trained/spoken with Ben and Hwansik, then you know that predictive shooting is roughly sub-0.20 second splits while reactive shooting is roughly 0.25-0.35 sec splits. You aren’t shooting sub-0.20 splits in this video.
@ Ben has been teaching reactive and predictive shooting since AT LEAST 2016 because that’s when I learned it from him. I have a training log note on my phone that was last updated on November 5, 2016 where I wrote that I did predictive Doubles at 7 yards and reactive doubles at 15 yards in May of 2016.
If I check my math, 2016 was more than 6 years ago.
cool
Ross is boss
🍻
seriously! this dude is the best shooting instructor on the Internet by far
👍🏾💯
Let us know how you do 👍🏻
@ I’ve been exploring it but my ammo budget is limited and I don’t have many places to practice. I shoot one IDPA match per month and so far I’m predictive at 5 yards and reactive beyond that.
@@Platoon_Guide Yeah, the concept definitely takes a good amount of practice to apply at longer ranges or with more challenging targets. But over time, you’ll be able to use it effectively on targets at 25 yards. You’re absolutely right, though-it does take both practice and ammo!
I think it's all Reactive shooting that your showing. Your reacting to the dot in the exceptable target. You may be reacting faster but it's still all Reactive.
Acceptable. Acceptable target
@overbuiltlimited Thanks for the education. I'm sure all your texts are perfect.
Not necessarily-it’s all about perception. We completely agree with your description, but there’s a subtle layer on top where you can predict when the dot will enter the desired area on the target without actually seeing it inside. You’re still using visual guidance, but mainly for timing, combined with proprioceptive awareness.
At least we differentiate between instinctive shooting (purely proprioceptive) and predictive shooting. It really comes down to how perception plays into the definition.
Does that make sense to you? Thanks for sharing your perspective! 👍🏻
@TacticalPerformanceCenter For sure I get it! Thanks for the info. I've always looked at doubles under a 25 split as more predictive. Because the ability for a human to see and react at that speed is very rare. Great video. Thanks!!
@@TacticalPerformanceCenterNo, what you’re describing is reactive shooting. In this video, your “prediction” then requires an input based on the dot’s behavior. That input is a REACTION to a visual stimulus. This is, by definition, reactive shooting.
Wo
Why do we make this so difficult? SIGHTS, CENTER, TRIGGER! Put the sights, in the center and pull the trigger straight back to the rear. This is NOT complicated. Bad breadth distance - point index shooting. Self defense distance - flash sight picture. Reach out and touch - front sight/red dot.
The progression of these drills is designed for shooters who want to dive deeper into the process and are dedicated to performance training. Repeating these drills until they’re burned into your subconscious will absolutely make you a better shooter-if that’s what you’re aiming for. They don’t have direct combat value, but they’ll sharpen your technical skills and make you more efficient in real-life situations.
Our approach focuses on the details: what, how, when, and why. But if someone isn’t interested in going to such a micro level, that’s totally fine.
In general, there are three types of learners: academic, visual, and kinesthetic. This kind of information is geared more toward academic learners if we can put it that way.