What constitutes a good trainer?

[TY43215]

The greatest problem I see with many people claiming to be trainers and experts is lack of credibility. They take courses, read all that is written, and feed it back to neophyte students. They have no real life experience that they can show you to prove that what they teach or what they write works.

With this in mind, I found I am very critical of people claiming to be experts and/or trainers in this day and age.

With more and more people claiming to be "Tactical Trainers", I need to ask this question. As the student paying anywhere from $200 to $4,000 for a course, what credentials do you expect your trainer to have?

Here are some of mine:

1. Credibility: In order to have credibility as a trainer I feel experience in the real world is a very important factor. Having worked in the field to gain real life experience is a way to earn the respect necessary to give me faith in the ability of the trainer. Just because someone has taken courses, read books, written books, or watched videos, does not give them the experience I feel they need to prove that what they teach works. I have no faith in someone that has no real world experience.
2. Ability to perform all of what you teach. If you can do it, you can show me how to do it. I learn better from viewing than I do from reading. If I am paying you to teach me something, I expect you to know more than I do and wait for you to impart that knowledge. You are supposed to be the expert.
3. Can you get the point across? When you are trying to teach, are you confident enough in your ability that you can convey that experience to others? Are you confident enough in your ability that you can explain reasons why you teach this way? OR do you just say, "This is the best way so do it?" You have to show me why it is better than the other guy's technique and not just something different.
4. When I ask a legitimate question, I expect an answer. If you do not know the answer, I expect you to admit it but get an answer. A good trainer needs a network of other trainers that may have answers they do not have.A good trainer needs to know his limitations but be willing to call on others for help.
5. Is the trainer safe in what he teaches? If what you are teaching is obviously unsafe, you have lost me right at the start. I expect what you do to be safe and based on sound principles. Any less is unacceptable.
6. What training do you have? If you have had good training, you will share that with me as well as your real life experience. Real life experience with no training is just as bad as good training with no real life experience.
7. Am I going to get full value for the dollar I spend? OR Will I be disappointed? I expect to get what I pay for in anything I do. You need to price your courses to your abilities. Just because Front Sight charges $1,000 for a course does not mean your course is worth the same amount. If Trainer #1 charges $50 for a basic course and you charge $500 for the same course, you will need to show me why yours is worth the extra.

I have said my piece on this, now it is up to you all to add what you want to my list. I am not in this for a debate, only for more information so I will not be commenting further.

Should this discussion become heated at any time, I will ask Derek to close it as that is not what this is for.

So play nice and have at it.

Regards,

 

[SgtUSMC8541]

Well since I can answer all your questions in a positive way about my classes, I guess I am a "Tactical Trainer"

I agree with all that you have said......

At the same time, it should also be up to the "trainee" to confirm that the "Trainer" knows what he/she is doing. Research and get proof of certifications, background, etc.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Question:

Are you saying that the trainer has to have survived a shooting experience (served in a military battle and/or LE/civilian shooting) to have credibility?

It's a serious question, as that is how I interpret what you wrote.

I basically agree with what you wrote, but question this one aspect.

I have trained with three professional defensive tactics trainers. Jim Crews (I don't believe he's ever been in a shooting), Randy Cain (former SWAT IIRC) and Gabe Suarez (former SWAT and claims to have been in 4 shoot-outs).

All three were able to impart a lot of worthwhile knowledge to me.

My cut is that the trainer needs to have the "mindset" of a warrior, but need not have been in a shoot-out to be an excellent teacher of the skills.

 

[TY43215]

Question:

Are you saying that the trainer has to have survived a shooting experience (served in a military battle and/or LE/civilian shooting) to have credibility?

No that is not what I have said. I have (poorly probably) stated they person training has to have been involved in the real world experience. They have to have been faced with the necessity to use the tactics they teach.

Again, I was not looking for comments on what I look for, I was starting the conversation where you tell me what you look for.

 

[SgtUSMC8541]

I think it is more of looking for some with "Prac App" of what he is teaching rather than just "book" or "School" learning........ a good combo of both.

 

[Chris]

My take is that it really depends on the level of instruction.

For example, I feel perfectly capable of teaching just about anything the NRA offers (with the exception of Basic Shotgun because I simply do not have the experience there)

As far as more advanced training, I have taken quite a few classes, and some at instructor levels, but I feel much as Round Gun Shooter that my 'practical' of that training isn't to the level of being able to do it justice to a class of students (nor do I believe that my own abilities have been honed to the level of presenting it properly)

I've had some great instruction and I've been to some pretty mediocre courses at some big name schools. (One in fact, I did end up 'teaching' a bit in the evening to several of the guys staying at the Motel I was at, but that is entirely another story)

The point is that anyone can get up there and claim to be an instructor.

To be an exceptional instructor, you need two very basic qualities:

1) You need to know the material to be presented COLD.
2) You need the gift to be able to present that material in a way that your students can absorb it. Some people can learn this ability, but the best instructors are the ones that do it naturally.

What I've found is that there are a lot of people out there that really do know their stuff. A large percentage of these can't convey that knowledge in any useful way. There are a good number of people out there that are VERY good at selling themselves and making the school appear to be the best thing in the world. Again, a fairly healthy percentage of these people are all flash and little substance.

It is a fairly rare person that has both the skills and the ability to present it. Further, as you progress in your training the number of such qualified people drops tremendously.

Just as you would research and plan a significant hardware purchase, similar and more extensive research needs to be done to find the proper training and trainer for the skills you wish to learn.

This is a two way street. If you don't know what kind of training you want, how do you know if the school will supply it?

Many of the past few courses I've taken had me walking into the first day with a very good idea of exactly what I was about to do. It may seem counter-intuitive to know the class material before taking a class, but I've found that it is FAR better to use the expensive class time to review, hone, and perfect things rather than struggle to learn them from scratch as well.

Does this make me a potential instructor of the advanced material? I honestly don't know. I certainly do not feel as if I've earned that privilege. I don't feel that I've done enough drills to hone the skills to perfection.

But I am almost certain that I'd be better than some of the people I see charging big $$ for such instruction. I just refuse to jump on that bandwagon. Maybe it's a lack of self-confidence. Maybe it is an honest evaluation of one's skills. Whatever the reason, I do not place myself in that category.

As for judging others, it is my own criteria for myself that I use. If I come away saying "I could have done that" or even "I could have done better than that", then it was a bad course. Perhaps I made an error and took something not geared to the level I expected, but if that is the case, I still blame the school for advertising the course above what it actually was. This is pretty rare as I do try to make the effort to weed out such things in advance.

More times than not, I shuffle off from a class completely exhausted and sore in various places with a sense of "WOAH, that was great." I can't tell you the number of times I've walked into day 2 with little sleep due to the rush of day 1. Of course, that night I usually crash really hard from sheer exhaustion. In fact, I once almost canceled a class because I was feeling absolutely lousy with a nasty head cold and fever. In talking to the instructor, he pointed out that I had little to lose by coming because it was too late for a refund. Well, once the range drills began, that cold burned right out of my system and I was fine by the middle of the second day.

So what do I do to be sure of the better experience? Some of it is reputation, some of it is catalog and course descriptions, a bit is from having taken lower level courses with the same school, but I also try to find someone that has taken the course I am interested in and asking them what it was like. Again, I'm looking to really have a basic grasp of the course before I even step in the door.

My only regret is that I don't have nearly the time or free income to take as many courses as I would like these days.

 

[Lugnut]

I agree with most things but here is one point I'd like to make:

I'm a soccer coach. I can't do everything myself, however I can tell someone how/why it should be done and when they are struggling- I can usually identify what they are doing wrong.

When I look for a good instructor- it's great if they can do everything they teach- however a great instructor can tell me what I can do to improve and find the subtle things that an average instructor doesn't notice.

 

[TonyD]

I think everybody has been pretty spot on:

*Have a degree of experience of that in which they are teaching.

*Know the information and be able demonstrate most, if not all.

*Have the ability to instruct in a manner that imparts his knowledge to all of the students and not a select few.

*Be safe


Being an instructor for anything is a difficult task. You have to have the ability to capture your students so they want to learn what you have to offer. If you have ever instructed in the military for any reason a course of instruction that GI's didn't want to be there then you know how difficult that is. You have to teach in a dynamic manner without being over-animated. In turn, you also can't be a monotone podium pigeon.

I have seen many individuals with a considerable amount experience that just can't translate that to students in an affective manner. Conversley, I've seen folks with less experience be able to convey a greater amount of information. Having proper training is also experience much like OJT relates to education.

As someone mentioned, picking the correct course of instruction for what you reasonably desire in return is important. One doesn't sign up for a CPR class expecting to learn cardiology and EKG interpretation. I will also say that most times a perspective student really has no idea "what" type of class or what type of training he actually needs.

In respect to this topic, I think too many folks get hung up on either being able to or expecting an instructor to be dead-balls accurate shooting a ragged hole at 25 yards. All the statistics I can find show 50% + shottings occur in 3 feet or less with a hit ratio around 15%. That's right!!! That's how different real life is compared to a square range. Another 25% occur out to 10 feet with a hit ratio around 9%.

It is my opinion that you don't need to be going out and shooting 2,500 rounds in a 2 1/2 day weekend course. Where is time to become educated? Mind-set, tactics and techniques are crucial. It's possible to survive a gunfight without ever having fired a shot. I know that's not the macho outcome that people vision but that's the reality.

 

[Admin]

I think I'm a good HP trainer...

 

[JimConway]

A good trainer

Round Gun Shooter

Thank you for an excellent discussion of what it takes to be a good trainer.

The hard point is what you say about credibility. This is almost impossible for anyone to determine without eye witness accounts. Let me give you 2 examples. There is a trainer that we were considering for 2008. The man has a vast amount of real world experience but totally blew it in Iraq as a private contractor. He knew the tactics that were required in a situation that left some of his team mates dead on the side of the road. He did not do what was expected of him. We decided not to bring here for a class, even though I am sure that he runs a good class. What he lacked in a word was "Honor"

The second example is of a retired officer and now a trainer that survived 2 gun fights. The problem was that he survived by pure luck not skill or knowledge.

I am going to respond the each of your items from the perspective of the teaching staff at Neshooters.

Credibility
Our staff includes a police officer, a military policeman, a jailer and a bail bond enforcement agent. As for me, I have no law enforcement experience but have been in violent situations where having a firearm was the deciding point. I have never had to shoot or even draw a weapon.

2. Ability to perform all of what you teach.
We have made it our policy to demonstrate every drill to the class before they are required to perform it. I have been in many classes where the instructor has never fired a shot. We think that this is unacceptible.

3. Can you get the point across?
I agree that they key point for any course or instructor is the ability to communicate the ideas and concepts. We take great pride in our ability to communicate to and with the students. We recently brought Ken Maurer into our group. Ken is an excellent teacher with the years spent doing it. Ken has been given the responsibility to critique each of our classes and each of our instructors. Ken's goal is to make us even better instructors.

4. When I ask a legitimate question, I expect an answer.
With the exception of personal questions, there is no question that will not be fully addressed. If we do not know the answer, we will find out and respond to the entire class. In many of our classes, we schedule open discussions where the students are encouraged to ask questions. These discussions have been very well received.

5. Is the trainer safe in what he teaches? Any less is unacceptable.
We could not agree more.

6. What training do you have?
I have responded to this question in other threads. I, for example, take over 120 hours in training every year from world class trainers. This is far in excess of what is expected of a police officer.

7. Am I going to get full value for the dollar I spend? OR Will I be disappointed?
This is a very hard item to address, since we have never had a student that expressed any form of dissatisfaction with our courses. If that were to occur, we would do everything possible to address their problem.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

"Credibility" is highly subjective and depends on the context of the course. I know of national level champions in IPSC shooting who are paid by US federal LE agencies and foreign military units to conduct training - even though they have never "been there, done that" or pulled a gun. I also know of a person who has survived 8 armed encountes in PNG who does not teach formal classes, and probably could not get the US feds or foreign military to hire him as a guest instructor just because of this.

Credibility also depends on the course. I teach an intro to USPSA/IPSC course twice a year with a few friends. My welcome lecture puts our lack of street qualifications (irrelevant for a competition course anyhow, but some seem to think that gun skills come from chasing bad guys) right on the table - It tell the class we are not grizzled, have no tales of the mean streets or gunfights won, and don't tend to insert terms like "survivability quotient" into a discussion of basic competition techniques.

 

[TY43215]

Mind-set, tactics and techniques are crucial. It's possible to survive a gunfight without ever having fired a shot. I know that's not the macho outcome that people vision but that's the reality.

I will break my own rule as I said I would not comment. The statement I made bold is the most important thing I too have learned. Proper tactics will teach you that being able to defuse a situation is one of the most important tactics you can learn. A good Trainer will be able to convey this.

Many commented on what I had written. I had hoped all responses would add to my list as I am always trying to learn and, therefore, would like my list to be longer.

Jim Conway, could you please tell me what you consider a good trainer to be?( Out of the context of your group) Since you have taken courses, tell me what you look for before you go. This will help me.

Thanks,

Gary

 

[JimConway]

My personal view of a great trainer

I was hoping that someone would ask the question. Thank you, Round Gun

I am sure that my view on this is not typical of others because I have had the opportunity to experience training under a rather large number of excellent trainers and do not expect earth shaking revelations any more. The very most important thing that anyone can get from a course is the opportunity to learn and sometimes master a new skill. Remember that with firearms, all that there is is the "Basics". Some trainers are able to explain some aspect of the basics in a different way than other trainers and the student finally fully understands a concept.
For me a great trainer is someone that I learn something valuable in a way that I will always remember. To help explain, iI will give two examples.

My first class at Front Sight was a 2 day defensive pistol class. This was my first formal class and I had been carrying for more than 20 years. I thought that with all of my knowledge I would "Ace" the class. Although I think that I did well, I learned the most important lesson in that I learned what I did not know and had never considered. This was the class that got me started with my current training regime.

My second example happened a number of classes later while going through a "Fun House" at Gunsite with the now famous Ed Stock. When I finished shooting, Ed and I reviewed the targets in reverse order and my hits were fast and accurate. When we finally got to the first target, it was the standard photographic hostage target with a man holding a woman in front of him. My hit was right between the eyes. The only problem was that the man had no gun or knife. He was an innocent and I shot him. Ed Stock lit into me with relish and my butt chewing lasted about 15 minutes (I thought that it lasted a lot longer). I have told this story a number of times and most people seemed to feel that Ed's behavior was inappropriate. I have had to explain that that Ed was completely right in what he said and did. I learned a lesson that I will never forget that shooting well is not enough. The shooters must also be looking, thinking and evaluating the situation. I have thanked Ed Stock publicly many times and will again.

I am sorry for rambling on about all of this. In my eyes the student must have confidence in the instructor's knowledge and the instructor must be able to communicate his knowledge in a way the the students all understand. The instructor must be willing to deal with questions willing and in any amount of detail that the student needs. The instructor's answers should never be dogmatic as in "Jeff Cooper said the this is the best way". Additionally, the instructor must recognise that all people are physically different and the one technique does not fit all.

One other aspect of a good instructor should be mentioned. (This is a tip for the students that may want to help some one else improve their shooting) When an instructor is dealing with a specific student's shooting problem, the instructor should encourage the other students to gather around, to listen and to learn. As an example of this, Jim crews was trying to fix a problem with a student shooting great groups that were off to the right. After he had tried all of the normal areas, he asked the student to try on several different pairs of shooting glasses. Eureka, after about the third or fourth pair, his group was suddenly all in the black. What Jim Crews found was that the student's glasses had an optical difraction problem.

When we go to a class, hopefully with an open mind, our object should be to learn and improve. The instructor's job is to make that happen safely. Nothing else matters.

 

[JimConway]

Mind-set, tactics and techniques are crucial

There are four outcomes of a gun fight
You are hit
He is hit
You both are hit
No one is hit

The very most important of these outcomes is that you are not hit. With that said do whatever you have to to not be hit. There is nothing sacred here.
Apologise for thatever is bothering him, whether true or not.
Sneak away and hide
Lie like hell and run away
In short do anything that you can do to avoid a shooting situation.

There are also only two roles that you can play in a gun fight
Ambusher, or
Ambushee

Being aware is vitally important. If you can see the confrontation developing, you can do something. There are those on the forum that say they are always in a state of heightened awareness. My comment to this is BS. I know a number of people that have been in realy bad situations and they say that it is just not possible all of the time.

Ther are many time where if is possible to reverse the roles of ambushee and ambusher. If you manage to see or sense the situation as it developes, you can be proactive, certainly upset his OODA loop and maybe even assume some or all of the ambusher role.

 

[TonyD]

There are four outcomes of a gun fight
You are hit
He is hit
You both are hit
No one is hit

The very most important of these outcomes is that you are not hit. With that said do whatever you have to to not be hit. There is nothing sacred here...

...There are those on the forum that say they are always in a state of heightened awareness. My comment to this is BS. I know a number of people that have been in realy bad situations and they say that it is just not possible all of the time.

This is getting a little of topic but, when I made the comment it was a generalization that IF you could get away then do it. Like Jim said the number one rule is to not be shot, stabbed, pummled to death, etc. This is a case of distance vs. surroundings and its simplest form. There are a multitude of other factors invovled. My point being that often times training classes never present that option and it should not be overlooked.

The "heightened awareness" topic I've been avoiding but since that egg has been cracked we might as well put it a pan and start stirring. Levels of awareness / alertness have been around long before most of us ever heard of LtCol Cooper's color code system. While the correct use of a system can prevent a great number of potential situations I don't believe most people know how to use it correctly. I don't think most have ever had to go to the last level to appreciate what it means.

However, if anyone has ever been on "point" during a patrol, or been placed in a situation where your safety was in potential peril, for a significant amount of time then you can appreciate how exhausting this becomes in very short order. I believe that most folks who think they operate in high condition are at the 2nd level. And, at any time we are focused on a task - such as work, reading, etc. - we are at the first level.

I believe this is another area where we are fooling ourselves in believing that we are more prepared than we actually are.

 

[M.Nastek]

Tony D,
Has it dead to right, To be "On Point" in a situation is as aware as you can be.
This could be Battle field point, Felony Traffic stop point, Dynamic Entry point, O Dark 30 apprehension point, and so on. How many of you can say that you have been there and done that? And those of us that have can tell you it can be like running a marathon and taking the SAT test at the same time.
The color code of awareness is great but how often are you in black, red, yellow etc.at a sustained/ constant level?

 

[Lynne]

The color code of awareness is great but how often are you in black, red, yellow etc.at a sustained/ constant level?

+1

While I'm no longer in security, I remember when hubby and I first started. It was the weekend after 9/11 and we were pulling 14 hour shifts at the entrance to the Coastie Aux. station in Boston. I didn't do any physical work, but holy cripes, I was so bloody wasted and mentally exhausted I don't really remember the drives home...and I was driving. I felt like I had just done hours of back breaking work.