Rob,
Absolutely.
I see one's knowledge, skills, abilites, fitness level, alertness, etc as effecting each aspect of OODA.
I think of training as being reduced to two parts: mental and physical. Ideally, each is stressed equally. I see OOD as belonging to mental. Without a good mental game, someone might not cycle off of the first O prior to a threat appearing. I see A as belonging to physical. Without a good physical game A might not be succesful despite the rest.
Example 1: A technically proficient shooter/fighter whose involved in dynamic force on force training involving a variety of unknown role players- he fails in solving OOD adequately and as a result cannot rely on his tried and proven range skills to see him successfully through. End result? BG 1, GG 0.
Example 2: A street savy poor shooter/fighter whose involved in dynamic force on force training involving a variety of unknown role players- he excells at solving OOD but cannot rely on his poor skills to see him successfully through. End result? BG 1, GG 0.
Example 3: Both combine to wint he day. BG 0, GG 1.
Over simplified for sake of argument, obviously. (For the benefit of an open forum with readers who may or may not be familiar with such things.) There are a variaety of factors which come into play.
For the record: In my experience as a trainer most firearms enthusiasts fall into example 1. (When run through training.) They KNOW that they're in yellow or orange, that their skills are honed, adn that their plan will work... right up until it fails. Granted, often because the scenario is designed to fail it, but fail none the less it does. Why? They're too "gun centric," more often than not.
Absolutely.
I see one's knowledge, skills, abilites, fitness level, alertness, etc as effecting each aspect of OODA.
I think of training as being reduced to two parts: mental and physical. Ideally, each is stressed equally. I see OOD as belonging to mental. Without a good mental game, someone might not cycle off of the first O prior to a threat appearing. I see A as belonging to physical. Without a good physical game A might not be succesful despite the rest.
Example 1: A technically proficient shooter/fighter whose involved in dynamic force on force training involving a variety of unknown role players- he fails in solving OOD adequately and as a result cannot rely on his tried and proven range skills to see him successfully through. End result? BG 1, GG 0.
Example 2: A street savy poor shooter/fighter whose involved in dynamic force on force training involving a variety of unknown role players- he excells at solving OOD but cannot rely on his poor skills to see him successfully through. End result? BG 1, GG 0.
Example 3: Both combine to wint he day. BG 0, GG 1.
Over simplified for sake of argument, obviously. (For the benefit of an open forum with readers who may or may not be familiar with such things.) There are a variaety of factors which come into play.
For the record: In my experience as a trainer most firearms enthusiasts fall into example 1. (When run through training.) They KNOW that they're in yellow or orange, that their skills are honed, adn that their plan will work... right up until it fails. Granted, often because the scenario is designed to fail it, but fail none the less it does. Why? They're too "gun centric," more often than not.
