Tactics: The Limitations of the Tactical Wheel

[Jason]

(This post is a bit long, though I'd really need it to be significantly longer to really cover this material.)

The "Tactical Wheel" is a charming little diagram invented by... who knows? (It's in Szabo's book, but there's no telling if doesn't predate that.) It's function is to demonstrate the relationships that exists between actions in a bout. Fine. As I said, "charming".

There is an enormous--and absurdly prevalent--mistake, however, in thinking that the Tactical Wheel is, in any way, a particularly advanced approach to tactics. (I'm not, in fact, entirely convinced that it's even so valuable for beginners, but I can perhaps see the argument.)

There are fencers (and coaches ) who, when discussing tactics, go no farther than the TW. Here's the problem: the TW is one, very limited way of discussing only one type of tactics--those that employ premeditated actions.

It should be understood that when we're talking about tactics in fencing, we're talking about the application of technique--not just the premeditated application of technique. Fencing tactics can be divided into three categories: premeditated, unpremeditated, and partly premeditated. Fencers generally use some combination of these tactics and, depending on the individual, may prefer one over the others.

It should also be understood, that the TW only addresses one small aspect of premeditated actions.

The TW approaches only the premeditated application of technique and it does so in the following way: a direct attack is defeated by a parry-riposte, which is defeated by a feint-attack, which is defeated by a counterattack, which is defeat by an attack, which is defeated by a parry-riposte, etc. The theory is then, if I'm a clever fencer, I will follow my simple attack with a feint-attack, for example, foreseeing my opponent's attempt at parry-riposte. It's a nice way to visualize actions for the fencer, but the problem is that it's fantastically limited. Even from the stand-point of premeditated actions alone, a top fencer will not view his fencing simply in terms of the final action--there are elements of preparation (in terms of both footwork and bladework), psychology, and change of decision which are involved in choosing premeditated actions.

Put another way, sometimes the answer to every action your opponent can use is a simple attack. It may be that the preparatory actions have to change from touch to touch--changes in the footwork, bladework, etc., affecting your opponent's concentration and readiness or simply affecting your own timing. It may be that having startled your opponent with your first attack, his confidence is now lowered, making it much easier to "break" him psychologically with the proceeding actions (the ability to affect your opponent's confidence is an enormous psychological element of tactics that goes way beyond "what action follows counterattack?")--once "broken", an opponent's actions are sure to fail, regardless of how well he spins the wheel. It may also be that after having chosen, say, feint-attack, your opponent doesn't react as you'd hoped, forcing you to finish in the same line you feinted to (and changing the action from a premeditated one to a partly premeditated one).

Extremely important, also, is to recognize that fencers who are strict TW practitioners will have enormous difficulties against fencers who employ unpremeditated and partly premeditated actions--particularly if the TW fencer is not adept at change of decision (which, if he is a strictly TW fencer, he would not be, as change of decision is, as I said, partly premeditated).

To fully demonstrate graphically the way actions relate to each other is surely impossible--though, if it were done in three or, better, four dimensions it would be more accurate than the TW.

And, of course, I'm not even touching on unpremeditated and partly premeditated actions--which many top fencers (yes, even in sabre), use far more than premeditated ones--and which are completely unthinkable in the TW structure.

The TW is an extreme simplification. Perhaps it's good for small children (though, I have certain doubts), but it is in absolutely no way an advanced approach to tactics.

[Grasshopper]

Agreed.

a direct attack is defeated by a parry-riposte, which is defeated by a feint-attack, which is defeated by a counterattack, which is defeat by an attack, which is defeated by a parry-riposte, etc.

Well, when you think about it, a direct attack can be defeated by a parry-riposte OR backing up out of distance OR a counter-attack with opposition OR ducking OR esquiving OR if the attacker is short, just by sticking out your arm and using your reach OR by swinging your blade wildly so your opponent doesn't even think to do a straight attack.

[lecrivain06]

Jason - I think you're absolutely right. The tactical wheel never did appeal to me, although I was never really sure why. You put it down pretty well. It always seemed to be reducing the complex physics of fencing to a game of rock-paper-scissors.

Altho maybe it has been really useful in sabre. Any advanced sabrists care to share?

[Peach]

I'm not particularly advanced, but I'm a sabre fencer. As a beginner, I found the tactical wheel inscrutable. Now that I've been fencing for a while, I see its main utility as suggesting that there are certain logical responses that a fencer or an opponent could have to certain actions. I think it is intended as a teaching tool to bang into students' heads the concept that fencing is not just a matter of stimulus-response but a sport of strategy. Novices tend to do one or two actions and hope they'll get lucky.

I often find myself, these days, taking a properly-trained opponent what I call "through the tactical wheel," but it's rarely in the specified order. I mean I make an action, anticipate their next response to that action, and change the action to incorporate the anticipated response. It generally works best if they don't realize what I'm doing

In my last tournament, I knew that my opponent was actually an epee fencer who relied heavily on attack in preparation, so I took it to the complicated side of the tactical wheel--I made actions intended to draw her attack in preparation. The assumption in the tactical wheel is that this would logically be counter-time, but I just wanted her to miss so I could take over the attack again in close distance--straight attack.

With a badly-trained or completely unpredictable opponent, I just try to stay out of distance until I figure out the weak spots.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Jason, you're misinterpreting the value of the tactical wheel. It's not the end-all of martial arts training -- you will not find every answer to every situation in the diagram. (Although if you retrospectively analyze a fencing phrase that ended in a point scored, you'll probably be able to see the tactical wheel progression that led to it.)

It is, however, a solid theoretical framework for introducing the interaction of fencing actions. Peach is right: It's a teaching tool. We use it to teach students to perceive what is happening so that they can apply their intelligence and figure out an answer.

The best trained among us make those decisions look like reflex. And, indeed, it is a reflex -- honed from long training within the If-X-Then-Y structure that is the foundation of the tactical wheel.

[Allen Evans]

I’ll bite on this.

I’m not sure that the tactical wheel was ever meant to be used by fencers as a way to plan or execute a bout (though I have used it, in foil, when I was fencing against a certain type of fencer). However, as a coach, I’ve found it very helpful when introducing beginning students to tactics. It helps raw beginners to sort out the information coming at them in the first year, when they start to bout. It also helps me anchor the high points of tactics before I get into the more dense actions inbetween, which can overwhelm beginning fencers.

I don't think this contradicts anything Jason is saying: beginning students tend to be “ultimate action” sort of fencers. They rarely prepare (the closest beginners come is sort of an active, frantic, waiting) and their tactics tend to be one dimensional. Beginners often fall into very strict and unique tactical categories: this fencer is an attacker, this fencer is a defender, this one, a counter-attacker, and so on. At this level, the coach can give some lessons around the tactical wheel, and the student has a chance to figure out some rudimentary tactics. The wheel is also a nice "mnemonic" to remember those tactics on the strip.

In light of the fact that many coaches I have met don’t teach tactics at all (and at least one fencing master has insisted to me that it’s impossible to teach tactics to a student), the tactical wheel -- in foil -- is better than no tactics at all, I think. For some club fencers, it’s as far as they will ever get, and it’s all they will ever need.

For a year or less, the tactical wheel is a nice crutch to hang lessons on. Better fencers, however, quickly outgrow it, as their ability to execute actions and recognize situations improves. At this point, the tactical wheel gets abandoned, and the coach moves to lessons based on preparations, rather than simply executing ultimate actions. At this point, the tactical wheel probably never gets mentioned again.

It's also a nice, colorful handout when you have to teach those college fencing classes and give the students something to read.

Allen Evans

[noodle]

its a teaching tool, nothing more.
noone is ever on strip and asks themselves what the tactical wheel says they should do next.

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by Jason

There is an enormous--and absurdly prevalent--mistake, however, in thinking that the Tactical Wheel is, in any way, a particularly advanced approach to tactics. (I'm not, in fact, entirely convinced that it's even so valuable for beginners, but I can perhaps see the argument.)

I think of it more as a simple framework that can be used to give newer students a way to start thinking about tactics.

Originally Posted by Jason

Here's the problem: the TW is one, very limited way of discussing only one type of tactics--those that employ premeditated actions.

I'm not sure that that's necessarily true.

Originally Posted by Jason

The TW approaches only the premeditated application of technique and it does so in the following way: a direct attack is defeated by a parry-riposte, which is defeated by a feint-attack, which is defeated by a counterattack, which is defeat by an attack, which is defeated by a parry-riposte, etc. The theory is then, if I'm a clever fencer, I will follow my simple attack with a feint-attack, for example, foreseeing my opponent's attempt at parry-riposte. It's a nice way to visualize actions for the fencer, but the problem is that it's fantastically limited.

I think that everyone can agree with that.

Originally Posted by Jason

Extremely important, also, is to recognize that fencers who are strict TW practitioners

Hm...I've never seen one of those. Or, I guess I've never noticed one.

I think less about the tactical wheel to give fencers a prescriptive approach to tactics. (If you just were hit by a parry-riposte, you must now make a compound attack.) I think that the TW is a nice framework for a fencer to organize fencing actions and initial ideas about tactics in his head. I don't know any strict TW practitioners, but I know fencers who don't seem to understand tactics at all. To them, it seems that fencing is a big jumble of actions. They go on strip. When one action doesn't seem to work, they randomly grab another action.

The tactical wheel is useful when teaching techniques and tactics since it provides just a few boxes so that the student can separate the jumble of actions into those boxes. It's also useful as a descriptive device to talk about what's going on in a bout.

For example, you did a direct attack three times in a row and got hit on the riposte. What change could you have made there? Shrug. Look at the tactical wheel and give at least that answer. Ah ha. Setting up a compound attack might be a good idea. But that gets us talking about how to set up the compound attack with an initial preparation. Perhaps a similar preparation could have also helped to set up the distance for a simple attack that would work.

And if none of that worked, then push to the next iteration of the tactical wheel. Turn the opponent's riposte into the "attack" of the TW. How do you defeat an attack? With a riposte. So, now you're trying to set up the counter-riposte. Now we can talk about getting the opponent to riposte to a line you control. And how might an opponent deal with your riposte? The TW says that it's a compound action. So, your opponent may realize that you are drawing his riposte, so while you're trying to draw his riposte, don't be surprised when he starts hitting you with a compound riposte.

And on and on...

So, still using the TW as a framework for the discussion, we can talk about tactics with a Div III fencer with very little experience. We're now talking about getting around a parry with a compound action, using the preparations in a compound action to decide in the action (based on distance) whether to finish the simple attack or to finish with a compound attack. We've also talked about turning the attack into a false attack to draw the riposte and (if that works) how to anticipate some things that the opponent might do.

Again, the goal is that the student eventually doesn't think about the TW at all. He's starting an attack, realizes the distance is going to be wrong, and makes a sane adjustment on the strip during the action. But I think that the tactical wheel is a nice stepping stone to help the student from "big glob of fencing actions" to "actions sorted by tactical choices" and even on to "firm grasp of tactics in the bout."

[tbryan]

Originally Posted by tbryan

I think of it more as a simple framework that can be used to give newer students a way to start thinking about tactics.

I guess I need to type faster. While I was writing my response, it looks like Allen and noodle covered everything I wanted to say.

[Sciurus-Rex]

It can also serve as a shared language construct that allows us to efficiently communicate about complex sequences. If the fencer understands the concepts underlying the tactical wheel, a coach can more easily give directions/suggestions with a few words instead of a convoluted explanation (taking time and possibly being misinterpreted).

And, no; I don't believe anyone actively calls the phrase "Tactical Wheel" to mind in the middle of a bout.

But I believe Jason is overreacting when he says

Originally Posted by Jason

The TW is an extreme simplification. Perhaps it's good for small children (though, I have certain doubts), but it is in absolutely no way an advanced approach to tactics.

It can be an effective tool for complex thought beyond the "small children" stage. Sorta depends on the coach and student, though. A stubborn, I-Know-Better mindset isn't going to see any value at all, while a bad coach might as well be serving tapioca pudding.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Just out of curiosity, Jason, what teaching structure or pedagogy would you employ instead of the 'wheel?' Certainly you must have a suggestion to make it more efficient for the teacher and student?

[edew]

I agree with others who explain it as a teaching tool. When a problem is posed ("your opponent makes a beat direct attack") there's a world of possible reactions to it. Only a few are viable solutions. The question is which ones are solutions and which ones are non-solution reactions. The tactical wheel explains how to direct your tactical thoughts to the solutions. (Simple attack => parry-riposte as opposed to simple-attack => counter-attack or simple-attack => second-intention or whatever.)

Also, it tells you what you and your opponent have learned and what might be the next logical step. Your opponent made a direct attack and you parried it. Your opponent has learned that you can parry. So now your opponent might consider simple disengage (or stick with the direct attack). It wouldn't make sense for your opponent to decide on making a counter-attack just because he got caught on a simple direct attack. So, now you know as well. You might then try making a fake parry followed by a real parry, sort of a compound parry. If the opponent kept using a direct attack, the fake parry will successfully parry it. If the opponent made a disengage, you're ready and make the real parry.

And that's about all you can do with the tactical wheel.

[jBirch]

Jason,

What are we talking about when we're talking about "tactics"?

It seems to me that hanging the game upon preparations, while fine and dandy, doesn't really communicate the purpose of preparations (namely, to create exploitable opportunity). Ok, so now I've prepared and I've created an opportunity, what next? We know that the "proper" answer to aggressive engagements of the blade is to disengage the blade (not always to follow that disengagement with straight-attack though). The feint creates an opportunity for a response-pattern to be employed which is selected based upon the reaction pattern employed by the opponent (straight attack beats brain-freeze; disengage beats parry; counter-disengage-straight-attack beats parry 4-6; beat-attack beats stop hit; parry-riposte beats counter-attack; parry-riposte w/opposition beats counter-attack w/remise; parry with distance, bind, half-step feint head, hit toe beats counter-attack w/ lunge and remise, parry high-6; etc...).

It's important to understand that the whole of fencing rests upon: action, limited selection reaction, counter-reaction (ad naseum). We initiate action (closing distance, beating the blade, waving the blade around like a wizard, etc...) which CAUSES reaction in our opponent. Yes, we can outfox ourselves (and realise that correct simple action ALWAYS beats complicated action), but that is the essence of the TW: that you can go up OR down for EACH step and that AT each step, you can BOTH execute the same action relying on speed and tempo to win the touch.

Opponent makes a simple attack. We can anticipate that simple attack and parry (with distance or the blade) and riposte OR we can try to do a simple attack ourselves and win on tempo (stop hit). It makes no sense to counter-riposte or to work counter-time since we need to be executing a THIRD INTENTION action. The only response to an attack is to either parry OR hit them first. This is the essense of ROW and of the TW (however complicated you want to get with it). The essense of ROW is that whomever CAUSES the action first, has a huge advantage. That we CAUSE our opponent to do something which we then take advantage of.

Fencing really *IS* a game of rock-paper-scissors. There are only a limited selection of actions that can be employed at any point in time. The game is to select the correct action and employ it correctly.

In the "Should he fence Sabre?" thread, you and I talked about chess (which is very similiar, tactically, to fencing): we can see a pattern of action unfolding and we employ a counter-pattern. Entirely predictable, yet entirely unstoppable. Yes, tempo and technique plays a HUGE role (correct application of the correct pattern), yet at the same time, can be considered from the perspective of action->reaction->counter-reaction (the TW). The TW is how we create, identify and analyse these individual patterns in fencing and I like it from that perspective.

Hope this helps.

- James.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Fencing really *IS* a game of rock-paper-scissors.

The point I'm making is that it absolutely is not. The problem I see with the tactical wheel is that it gets people thinking things like that.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Jason

The point I'm making is that it absolutely is not. The problem I see with the tactical wheel is that it gets people thinking things like that.

Ok. Is it a matter of perspective then? How do you see fencing?

- James.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Ok. Is it a matter of perspective then? How do you see fencing?

- James.

perhaps your statement would be true given two completely equally skilled fencers. but people aren't equal, they have strengths and weaknesses. just because you throw out the right answer to something, doesn't mean it will work. just because you always throw out the right stuff doesn't mean you will win.

[jBirch]

Jason,

A thought: do you see trained responses as "premeditated actions"? Ie// I've been trained to disengage and extend after every press.

How do you see "choice" drills encompassing the "not-TW mindset"? I feint, if coach parries, I disengage and hit. If coach does not parry, I carry through with straight attack. If coach steps back, I step lunge. If coach steps forward, I extend.

Are you thinking that the majority of tactical actions involve more TARGET SELECTION then anything else? And that tactics are more a matter of figuring out what you CAN hit rather then thinking 1-2-3 sequential type actions?

- James.

[Allen Evans]

A distinction has to be made between what tactics are: the utilization of fencing responses to actions made by the opponent, or in response to your own actions, and how tactics can be introduced or taught to the student.

I think the confusion with the tactical wheel has been that many fencers treat the wheel as a tactical framework, and not as I think it was orginally intended: a mechanism for teaching simple tactics. Using the tactical wheel outside of this scope rapidly shows its limitations -- the wheel shouldn't be asked to do more than serve as a teaching tool, and a very limited one at that.

I think that more advanced tactics comes from looking at Zbigniew Czajkowski's classification of actions (known starts and finishes, known starts with unknown finishes, and so forth). This is when the peacock tail of fencing actions really opens up.

Giving that many choices to a student at the start, however, is confusing. I wouldn't ask someone fencing for less than a year to make a preparation (say, "engage the blade on the inside") and then try to teach four, or five, actions off of it. It would overwhelm their ability to make decisions, and tax their limited ability to make technical actions.

One of the things I'm experimenting with (in attempting to put a structure on teaching epee) is to start from known preparations and a known finish to the action and gradually moving to a known preparations to an unknown finish. This has it's own problems, and still demands a very wide range of technical skills, so every lesson becomes a sort of "two steps forward" (the tactic is explored) and "one step back" (I backfill the technique failures).

It makes more sense than the tactical wheel, especially in an weapon without the structure of priority.

Allen