Thread: What do you think about crossing your legs when moving laterally?

Got this youtube vid from another thread. The part in question is the 2:00 to 2:16 segment. Lots of crossing of the legs as they move laterally.

YouTube - Combat Focus Shooting Skills&Drills.


Not saying what they are teaching is wrong it's just not what I was taught. What do you guys think?

Unless I'm flat running to cover, I'm not going to cross up my legs. If the threat is still present and I'm moving to cover while covering the threat, I try to keep as stable a base as possible. Just my .02$...

Crossing legs on side movement is wrong. You can slip, turn on a small stone, catch your foot and go down. As MB says you lose stabilty. DON'T DO IT

You know if you use jazz hands and kick, shuffle, step it looks a lot cooler. Think "Three Amigos" and just go for it.

Combat Focus >> The Pinnacle of Defensive Handgun Instruction

Seems like it's a reputable place to learn. The one name I recognized in the list of instructors was Rob Pincus who I believe is recognized as reputable and knowledgeable instructor. That whole crossed legs as I move laterally stuff has me scratchin' my head. Maybe on the vid they hadn't had the chance to correct those training scars but with everyone doing it (in the vid) you would think they would stop the drill and correct the technique.

One thought I have is that the motion with crossing your steps might be smoother than the side shuffle, but like others here it is not the method I was taught. I can see a definite disadvantage in rough terrain.

Like all foot work, What you need to do the job will work. It can be all of the above depending on terrain.

In martial arts you learn to never cross your feet except for one certain side kick. You lunge while keeping your feet close to the ground, think of a fencer. With a little practice you can become very fast in all directions. And your base, or foundation remains rock solid.

in sports we did this. they called it the grape vine. we were taught this for coordination when you do get your legs crossed. also a good stretch. try it out, you never know till you try it.(sports were played on courts and grass, not gravel and dirt)

Originally Posted by Kevatc

Combat Focus >> The Pinnacle of Defensive Handgun Instruction

Seems like it's a reputable place to learn. The one name I recognized in the list of instructors was Rob Pincus who I believe is recognized as reputable and knowledgeable instructor. That whole crossed legs as I move laterally stuff has me scratchin' my head. Maybe on the vid they hadn't had the chance to correct those training scars but with everyone doing it (in the vid) you would think they would stop the drill and correct the technique.

I've never heard anything good about Rob Pincus. I hear he has a nasty tendency to badmouth other instructors. All the best instructors I know can always get something good from another instructors class. This guy just tends to insult them, so I hear. But this instruction is wrong. Crossing your legs while trying to maintain balance while shooting. It just isn't right ( I can say that, as I'm not an instructor )

Originally Posted by CWI guy

in sports we did this. they called it the grape vine. we were taught this for coordination when you do get your legs crossed. also a good stretch. try it out, you never know till you try it.(sports were played on courts and grass, not gravel and dirt)

This fat boy used to be able to pull this off kinda nice.Both directions,with big feet,not a big deal if you practice it.Actually faster than the other option if you are good at it.
You can twist an ankle doing any drills or moving any which way,other than forward.Going sideways isn't that natural

Originally Posted by Kevatc

Got this youtube vid from another thread. The part in question is the 2:00 to 2:16 segment. Lots of crossing of the legs as they move laterally.

YouTube - Combat Focus Shooting Skills&Drills.


Not saying what they are teaching is wrong it's just not what I was taught. What do you guys think?

Here's the reality: you already know how to move. You know how to walk, how to run, and how to move sideways quickly. The body does these things naturally and intuitively because it's been doing so for a long time. Layering on an artificial, overly choreographed movement technique intended to be used when the body is reacting to a lethal threat isn't efficient. The body in question is most likely to simply jettison to artificial choreography in favor of that which it has been doing since it learned to walk.

The whole notion of "twisting your ankle on a pebble" is the kind of extremely low-probability nonsense that's used to justify all sorts of unrealistic and inefficient training. You know how to move, and you do it daily on a wide variety of surfaces without twisting your ankles - why do you suddenly need to substitute something less efficient just because you've got a gun in your hand?

Originally Posted by MountainBear

I've never heard anything good about Rob Pincus. I hear he has a nasty tendency to badmouth other instructors. All the best instructors I know can always get something good from another instructors class. This guy just tends to insult them, so I hear. But this instruction is wrong. Crossing your legs while trying to maintain balance while shooting. It just isn't right ( I can say that, as I'm not an instructor )

So we have an anonymous person who says he's "heard" all this stuff from other anonymous people about someone whom he has never met. Not a lot of credibility there.

Perhaps you can share with us your real name, the real names of the people from whom you've "heard" all of what you know about Ron Pincus, and the context in which the comments were made. Then the rest of the people here would have a reliable, credible source of information from which to judge the comments.

While Rob certainly doesn't need my defense, and the quality and tenets of the Combat Focus Shooting program aren't dependent upon whether he's a nice guy, I think it's important to point out that since I know Rob and have worked with him for some time, I'm in a better position than someone hiding behind a forum handle to give a full picture.

I've never heard Rob badmouth any instructor. I have heard him badmouth some of the things they teach, but never the person who teaches them. He maintains close personal and professional relationships with people with whom he has profound disagreements, which wouldn't be possible if he was demeaning them personally.

Objecting to doctrine (and in some cases dogma) that isn't valuable in the context of training for a fight is important if the instructor is doing his/her job. Any instructor who is not critical of insufficient or inappropriate training isn't thinking about his own material enough. If his doctrine is based on reality and fact, and another is based on conjecture and hope, how is he doing his students a service by refraining from pointing out the differences?

The problem is that some may consider objectivity to be tantamount to an insult. For instance, from an objective standpoint there are certain guns which are simply less efficient relative to the goal of making a bad guy go away than others. Pointing this fact out, no matter how tactfully, to devotees of the inefficient equipment is almost certain to elicit hard feelings (I've seen it happen.) It's the instructor's job, though, to do those things - to explain to his/her students the objective realities and then allow them to decide whether they want to ignore them or not.

People who are used to training certain things in certain ways will often rebel when shown a different way, particularly if the new material is objectively superior to the way that they've been doing those things. There is often an emotional and ego investment in defensive training, and those students will project their own lack of commitment to change onto the instructor who deconstructed their previous training.

I was once an assistant in a class where a very highly skilled shooter, who was very proud of his skills that had been gained in a very limited and predefined context, made a negligent discharge into the ground just a few feet away from his toes. The 'why' isn't important, but it became clear that he wasn't very happy with the incident (and the 'teaching moment' that it engendered) and had nothing good to say afterwards.

The problem wasn't the instruction, and the other 15 people in that class definitely didn't feel the same way. The problem stemmed from the fact that this fellow had been shown objectively better techniques, couldn't (or wouldn't) learn them, then felt he was shown up by students he considered 'lesser' shooters who could. He pointed out to the staff that he just knew it was the instructor's fault and not his. No one else who was in that class saw things the way he did, but that didn't change his perspective (nor the attitude issues.)

That's why my challenge to tell us who you are, where you heard the scuttlebutt with which you are so free, and the context under which those comments were made. Without that information, it's impossible to know with any credibility if an instructor is really an unprofessional lout, or if the student - due to his own inadequacies, prejudices, habits, or lack of effort - is the problem.

Well Rob Pincus is a member on this forum, which happened by me forwarding a post to him and him wanting to respond.

As far as if Rob is a nice guy, who cares. He's a great instructor.

People get stuck in the way they have always done things and refuse to evolve and can't accept better techniques. So as Grant said don't hide behind a keyboard share your sources about your opinion/statement.

I won't add anything about crossing the legs debacle, Grant did a great job.

Originally Posted by Grant Cunningham

Here's the reality: you already know how to move. You know how to walk, how to run, and how to move sideways quickly. The body does these things naturally and intuitively because it's been doing so for a long time. Layering on an artificial, overly choreographed movement technique intended to be used when the body is reacting to a lethal threat isn't efficient. The body in question is most likely to simply jettison to artificial choreography in favor of that which it has been doing since it learned to walk.

The whole notion of "twisting your ankle on a pebble" is the kind of extremely low-probability nonsense that's used to justify all sorts of unrealistic and inefficient training. You know how to move, and you do it daily on a wide variety of surfaces without twisting your ankles - why do you suddenly need to substitute something less efficient just because you've got a gun in your hand?

Because with a gun in your hand, you're interested in making the target go away and if you're moving while still engaging, you need to have as stable a base as possible. Crossing the feet gets you off balance and possibly in quick trouble. Also, for folks whos job it is to engage threats like that, they are most likely wearing body armor, and by stepping foot to foot, you've got your torso squared to the possible threat and don't risk as nasty a shot under the armpit or such. Other side of the coin, you're a wider target. As far as overly choreographed...... sure, I've been walking for a couple years now, forward, back, side to side. I've also been using my trigger finger for a couple years too, on guns and girls. If I didn't continually practice with it (both situations) I'll lose my skills. Isn't that what training is for? Muscle memory and all that fun stuff? If you're taking SUPPRESSIVE fire, then you certainly need to run, and end up blading your body, but you're trading speed for stability and not worrying about engaging anything but the muscles needed to move you to cover. Crossing your feet, while engaging, isn't a good teaching principle. How often, "moving on a wide variety of surfaces" are you worried about shooting at someone?

iusmc2002,it depends on the agility of the person.
If you do the football drill running and crossing your legs,it isn't any big deal
I can run twice as fast sideways,crossing my legs as I can not crossing my legs

Either way has it's problems.

I'm not really very coordinated as far as moving around.I have big feet that always get in the way,and I can do this.
It takes as much dexterity to run sideways,not crossing your feet and not going up and down,as it does to just cross your feet.
Think about it.Try it out. (uses less energy too)

I can't believe this is an issue

Originally Posted by mjbskwim

iusmc2002,it depends on the agility of the person.
If you do the football drill running and crossing your legs,it isn't any big deal
I can run twice as fast sideways,crossing my legs as I can not crossing my legs

Either way has it's problems.


I'm not really very coordinated as far as moving around.I have big feet that always get in the way,and I can do this.
It takes as much dexterity to run sideways,not crossing your feet and not going up and down,as it does to just cross your feet.
Think about it.Try it out. (uses less energy too)

I can't believe this is an issue

Football....engaging targets. Football....engaging targets. Yeah, I'd say they are about the same. OF COURSE you can run FASTER by crossing your feet. I think everyone concedes that fact. Point OP was looking for was what people thought of crossing their feet AND shooting.

Originally Posted by iusmc2002

Because with a gun in your hand, you're interested in making the target go away and if you're moving while still engaging, you need to have as stable a base as possible. Crossing the feet gets you off balance and possibly in quick trouble. Also, for folks whos job it is to engage threats like that, they are most likely wearing body armor, and by stepping foot to foot, you've got your torso squared to the possible threat and don't risk as nasty a shot under the armpit or such. Other side of the coin, you're a wider target. As far as overly choreographed...... sure, I've been walking for a couple years now, forward, back, side to side. I've also been using my trigger finger for a couple years too, on guns and girls. If I didn't continually practice with it (both situations) I'll lose my skills. Isn't that what training is for? Muscle memory and all that fun stuff? If you're taking SUPPRESSIVE fire, then you certainly need to run, and end up blading your body, but you're trading speed for stability and not worrying about engaging anything but the muscles needed to move you to cover. Crossing your feet, while engaging, isn't a good teaching principle. How often, "moving on a wide variety of surfaces" are you worried about shooting at someone?

Moving doesn't make the bad guy go away; shooting makes the bad guy go away. If what we're interested in is making the bad guy go away as quickly as possible, then it's imperative that we be efficient in the shooting part: using the least amount of time and effort (effort includes ammunition) to reach our goal of making the bad guy go away.

Here's the reality: everyone has a better balance of speed and precision when they're planted, using a stable base, than when they're moving. That's just a fact of life, and it doesn't matter who you are. You'll shoot better, faster, if you're not moving.

If our goal is to get rid of our attacker in the least amount of time and with the least amount of effort expended, and it's the shooting that does so, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to attempt shooting while bobbing around. This is the reason to move THEN shoot, not move AND shoot. The former is more efficient in terms of the goal.

So much for outgoing fire; incoming fire isn't substantially affected by such predictable responses. Moving in a relatively slow and predictable motion (any of the foot-dragging techniques are) makes it fairly easy for the bad guy to track. Think of shooting trap versus the rabbit in sporting clays: the predictable movement is far easier to track than the unpredictable movement.

This is easily proven if you have access to a moving target system. A target in linear motion at any reasonable self defense distance, regardless of speed, isn't hard at all to track. You don't even need to lead the target: just place your sights on it. The bad guy can do that too.

It just isn't going to be hard for him to put rounds on you while you're moving, but it's a LOT harder for you to do so.

A quick side movement, then a sudden stop and an immediate engagement, is harder to track than the predictable motion. Again, easily shown if you have the proper equipment: start and stop the moving target unpredictably and see how hard it is to hit. Since I've done it, I'll tell you: MUCH harder.

So, your choreographed movement isn't going to make you substantially (if any) safer from the bad guy's bullets, while at the same time your shooting is going to be worse because of that movement. You're not going to be as efficient in making the bad guy stop what he's doing, meaning you're going to take longer and use more ammunition. How is that making you safer? It's not, which is the whole point.

(Unless you believe in the doctrine of suppressive fire, in which case you had better get a lawyer lined up before the incident - you're going to need to account for all that ammunition you spray. Private sector self defense isn't like a military action: you're responsible for your shots on the streets of the U.S.)

Is there a place for shooting while in motion? Sure - if you're at about two arms-reach distance and facing a contact weapon, then there is a good case to be made for the inevitable tradeoff in the balance of speed and precision. But the methodical foot-shuffling dance won't be fast enough to get you out of contact range against any healthy opponent; you're going to have to run. (Inside of that distance is another matter entirely, which is not germane to this discussion.

(BTW, muscles don't have memory. That term is an artifact of unrealistic training concepts.)

Originally Posted by Grant Cunningham

Moving doesn't make the bad guy go away; shooting makes the bad guy go away. If what we're interested in is making the bad guy go away as quickly as possible, then it's imperative that we be efficient in the shooting part: using the least amount of time and effort (effort includes ammunition) to reach our goal of making the bad guy go away.

Here's the reality: everyone has a better balance of speed and precision when they're planted, using a stable base, than when they're moving. That's just a fact of life, and it doesn't matter who you are. You'll shoot better, faster, if you're not moving.

If our goal is to get rid of our attacker in the least amount of time and with the least amount of effort expended, and it's the shooting that does so, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to attempt shooting while bobbing around. This is the reason to move THEN shoot, not move AND shoot. The former is more efficient in terms of the goal.

So much for outgoing fire; incoming fire isn't substantially affected by such predictable responses. Moving in a relatively slow and predictable motion (any of the foot-dragging techniques are) makes it fairly easy for the bad guy to track. Think of shooting trap versus the rabbit in sporting clays: the predictable movement is far easier to track than the unpredictable movement.

This is easily proven if you have access to a moving target system. A target in linear motion at any reasonable self defense distance, regardless of speed, isn't hard at all to track. You don't even need to lead the target: just place your sights on it. The bad guy can do that too.

It just isn't going to be hard for him to put rounds on you while you're moving, but it's a LOT harder for you to do so.

A quick side movement, then a sudden stop and an immediate engagement, is harder to track than the predictable motion. Again, easily shown if you have the proper equipment: start and stop the moving target unpredictably and see how hard it is to hit. Since I've done it, I'll tell you: MUCH harder.

So, your choreographed movement isn't going to make you substantially (if any) safer from the bad guy's bullets, while at the same time your shooting is going to be worse because of that movement. You're not going to be as efficient in making the bad guy stop what he's doing, meaning you're going to take longer and use more ammunition. How is that making you safer? It's not, which is the whole point.

(Unless you believe in the doctrine of suppressive fire, in which case you had better get a lawyer lined up before the incident - you're going to need to account for all that ammunition you spray. Private sector self defense isn't like a military action: you're responsible for your shots on the streets of the U.S.)

Is there a place for shooting while in motion? Sure - if you're at about two arms-reach distance and facing a contact weapon, then there is a good case to be made for the inevitable tradeoff in the balance of speed and precision. But the methodical foot-shuffling dance won't be fast enough to get you out of contact range against any healthy opponent; you're going to have to run. (Inside of that distance is another matter entirely, which is not germane to this discussion.

(BTW, muscles don't have memory. That term is an artifact of unrealistic training concepts.)

First, you are correct that muscles perse don't have memory but the term "muscle memory" is a valuable way for us to understand the complicated concept of the neuromuscular motor learning process. the neuromuscular system does indeed have a "memory".

Secondly, I think you brought forth some very valid points. Sometimes moving to cover as fast as possible no matter how you do it maybe the best possible thing to do. I will suggest though that there are times where crossing your feet maybe totally wrong and times where shuffling is the best way to move. For example, uneven and unpredictable ground (think forests or rocking/bumpy gravel pits) or at night in just about any environment. At night in your home you may have forgotten or not known that a kid left a toy out or in my case one of my dogs left a bone or toy right in the middle of where I need to go.

Originally Posted by Grant Cunningham

Moving doesn't make the bad guy go away; shooting makes the bad guy go away. If what we're interested in is making the bad guy go away as quickly as possible, then it's imperative that we be efficient in the shooting part: using the least amount of time and effort (effort includes ammunition) to reach our goal of making the bad guy go away.

Here's the reality: everyone has a better balance of speed and precision when they're planted, using a stable base, than when they're moving. That's just a fact of life, and it doesn't matter who you are. You'll shoot better, faster, if you're not moving.

If our goal is to get rid of our attacker in the least amount of time and with the least amount of effort expended, and it's the shooting that does so, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to attempt shooting while bobbing around. This is the reason to move THEN shoot, not move AND shoot. The former is more efficient in terms of the goal.

So much for outgoing fire; incoming fire isn't substantially affected by such predictable responses. Moving in a relatively slow and predictable motion (any of the foot-dragging techniques are) makes it fairly easy for the bad guy to track. Think of shooting trap versus the rabbit in sporting clays: the predictable movement is far easier to track than the unpredictable movement.

This is easily proven if you have access to a moving target system. A target in linear motion at any reasonable self defense distance, regardless of speed, isn't hard at all to track. You don't even need to lead the target: just place your sights on it. The bad guy can do that too.

It just isn't going to be hard for him to put rounds on you while you're moving, but it's a LOT harder for you to do so.

A quick side movement, then a sudden stop and an immediate engagement, is harder to track than the predictable motion. Again, easily shown if you have the proper equipment: start and stop the moving target unpredictably and see how hard it is to hit. Since I've done it, I'll tell you: MUCH harder.

So, your choreographed movement isn't going to make you substantially (if any) safer from the bad guy's bullets, while at the same time your shooting is going to be worse because of that movement. You're not going to be as efficient in making the bad guy stop what he's doing, meaning you're going to take longer and use more ammunition. How is that making you safer? It's not, which is the whole point.

(Unless you believe in the doctrine of suppressive fire, in which case you had better get a lawyer lined up before the incident - you're going to need to account for all that ammunition you spray. Private sector self defense isn't like a military action: you're responsible for your shots on the streets of the U.S.)

Is there a place for shooting while in motion? Sure - if you're at about two arms-reach distance and facing a contact weapon, then there is a good case to be made for the inevitable tradeoff in the balance of speed and precision. But the methodical foot-shuffling dance won't be fast enough to get you out of contact range against any healthy opponent; you're going to have to run. (Inside of that distance is another matter entirely, which is not germane to this discussion.

(BTW, muscles don't have memory. That term is an artifact of unrealistic training concepts.)

You must have learned all this at some secret squirrel, Green Delta SeAL Recon Ranger school. I just learned from, and instructed, the Enhanced Marksmanship Program the Corps taught. But thank you for validating my points even though you seemed to be trying to refute them. Being a machinegunner, I definitely believe in suppressive fire, accuracy by volume and all that stuff. As I'm sure quite a few people on this site can attest, unless you are F'ing bubblegumed or have huge balls, when you have rounds coming your way, you're going to duck or make some other attempt to get out of the way. Same GENERALLY goes for badguys or whatever you want to call them. Any farther away than 15 meters, you can fire a shot, move, fire, move, fire, move, until you've eliminated the threat or gotten to cover and can reassess the sit. As far as accounting for "all that ammunition you spray", being a private citizen isn't like being a highly trained LEO (from some of the latest gunbattles the LEO's have gotten in around the country, I use that term loosely) unless you kill some innocent bystander who was too stupid to get away from the sound of gunfire, the amount of ammunition you expend has little bearing in a court.

As far as "muscle memory", I hate to say it, but there is some sort of memory involved. I can drop an empty mag as I'm reaching in my chest rig for the next one and insert it, send the bolt home, all without taking my eyes off my target. My wife can't do that. Why is that? I couldn't POSSIBLY be that there is some sort of training concept that repetition is helpful in developing the memory and coordination to do that, could it? Nah, obviously not possible according to your highly advanced Green Delta SeAL Recon Ranger training!