Tactics: A Working Definition

[Durando]

Since no one else has I would suggest;

Pattern.

As a way of linking a variety of different concepts.

Would you elaborate? If you're talking about repeated or instintive preparation, I would say that it neatly fits under Adversary and wouldn't merit another category.

[Durando]

I think, depending on which weapon you're talking about (and obviously the drills themselves), the referee is an important consideration. How you would incorporate how to deal with their interpretations of actions into a drill, though, I'd have no idea, and is maybe even not very wise to try to.

Possibly more relevant is the fencer's experience though IMHO.

Hence the utility of posting to an open forum. Thank you D'Art. Yes, of course. And I had a recent excellent example of a friend blowing a high-level bout based on a poor tactical choice that was in every way correct except in this aspect.

[Durando]

I don't tend to think of an action like feint disengage as a tactic. However, the choice to use feint disengage is.

I like to think of Strategy as the overall theme: "my strategy is to be aggressive" and tactics as the choices we make in applying that strategy. Feint disengage mixed with straight attack with different distance and timing patterns.

How do you separate strategy and tactics?

I don't think you're wrong, but I don't care about strategy vs. tactics here. I want to have a narrow discussion about what tactics are in order to produce drills that make you think about these aspects. Little clarity, and much madness, lies in the direction of what discussing what tactics are not.

[Durando]

This definition of tactics assumes the presence of “another”, from which you must obtain what you want, and evidently they have the power to keep it from you....

....Deception doesn't mean feint-disengage, it means these four:

1) Giving false information;
2) Repeating the same information, then altering it to confuse the opponent;
3) Reducing the time available;
4) Increasing the opponent’s costs.

Yes. This is a very keen observation that sounds obvious once articulated. You've very neatly differentiated real fencing versus fencing a beginner who cannot manage distance or visually conjugate fencing actions--there is no "conversation" going on.

[Durando]

While you are probably right about the specific application of tactics to Epee fencing, I think a more general idea of the components of a tactic in any armed combat or sport would maybe point out why your 3 choices of components seem to beg for others. The three I would select are, in no particular order:

* Psychological
* Physical
* Statistical

I think generally there *is* an order of relevance to tactical dimensions. And I don't want to widen the conversation to other combat sports.

Pyschological reflects your adversary but it also includes yourself and the referee. Generalizing it to this degree does make for some rather broad areas to explore. One could look at the opponent's strengths and weakenesses as considerations for tactical choices, but there is also his mental state. Is he angry, happy, scared, confident, exasperated, or calm?

Surely this would be subsumed under Adversary. It's a big part of my own fencing and the training culture here. Although, it's funny, when I fence "mechanistic" fencers, those who have a limited repetoire of actions they rarely depart from, the pyschological effect one expects to have on them seems disappointingly absent! Fencing to them isn't tactical--it is about performing gratifying actions which do or do not fit together logically.

Statistical. Any selection of tactics has to be based on the success such tactics enjoy. If a tactic has a low probability of success or possibly fails often against a particular opponent, you should probably use it only sparingly, or modify it. In the recent book "Modern Saber Fencing" for example, the author broke down the kinds of ways points were scored in modern tournaments and how often these were successful. This kind of information is very valuable tactically.

Nah. This is an analytical consideration. I think "tactics" evolve within a specific bout on a given day. Sure statistics can help you learn to train actions and even show you quite about about tactics you've employed but I'm not sure if it has a place in the kind of in-the-moment thinking I'm trying to provoke in my students.

[Durando]

-Tactics are the procedure for gaining the hit (through deception) by getting the opponent to cooperate and reducing the overall cost of winning.
-Deception is the attempt to distort the opponent's view of the situation in order to earn their collaboration as a way to gain an advantage over them.

Most excellent, especially "reducing the cost of winning." And everyone goes through a moment when the light bulb goes on and they understand that getting the opponent to cooperate in a touch is what produces some of the most stunning moments in the sport.

Who was the coach that set it out that way?

[D'Art]

Hence the utility of posting to an open forum. Thank you D'Art. Yes, of course. And I had a recent excellent example of a friend blowing a high-level bout based on a poor tactical choice that was in every way correct except in this aspect.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the bit about the ref's interpretation or the bit about experience in your reply, but it's actually probably the easiest thing to deal with in this thread. All that needs to be done in this case is a 5 minute discussion about how to phrase their objections to the ref's opinions in a constructive way, thereby giving your fencer the chance to a) calm down a bit more, and b) be able to formulate a way of getting round the ref. For example, if your fencer thinks the ref is calling an action as attack - counter, and your fencer thinks it's attack - attack, he can ask the ref how close it was to being together. Obviously the ref doesn't have to answer, but if they do, then more power to your fencer. If they don't they've bought some more time to clear their head.

Fairly basic, but not something that many inexperienced fencers will think of.


Obviously, this isn't completely relevant to what your trying to discuss in this threa, but still hopefully useful nonetheless

[Sean Butler]

I think generally there *is* an order of relevance to tactical dimensions. And I don't want to widen the conversation to other combat sports.

I wasn't suggesting that the thread needed to be broadened. In fact narrowed would probably be better. For example maybe we could talk about epee tactics specifically. However, I think a broader inclusion of the kinds of considerations that go into tactical choices might help in some of the terminology you use. I was only suggesting that your own terms might be absorbed into these broader terms.

Surely this would be subsumed under Adversary. It's a big part of my own fencing and the training culture here. Although, it's funny, when I fence "mechanistic" fencers, those who have a limited repetoire of actions they rarely depart from, the pyschological effect one expects to have on them seems disappointingly absent! Fencing to them isn't tactical--it is about performing gratifying actions which do or do not fit together logically.

The reason I suggested Psychology rather than Adversary is that it sounds less limiting. Your own mental state must be wrapped up tactical considerations, and even the referee to a lesser extent. Afterall, you don't want to continue to use a tactic in a RoW weapon which the referee continually fails to call your way.

Nah. This is an analytical consideration. I think "tactics" evolve within a specific bout on a given day. Sure statistics can help you learn to train actions and even show you quite about about tactics you've employed but I'm not sure if it has a place in the kind of in-the-moment thinking I'm trying to provoke in my students.

You are absolutely right that it's analytical, but I feel that's a big part of tactics. While it doesn't play a big role in on the spot thinking, it does shape the actual tactics you choose to employ. For example one might realize that a sabre fencer almost always ripostes to the head. That can certainly be used against him tactically in the heat of the moment.

[keith]

Would you elaborate? If you're talking about repeated or instintive preparation, I would say that it neatly fits under Adversary and wouldn't merit another category.

Yes it would fit in that category. But,

I was pondering from another point of view. Considering the two most common tactical falilures;

You know your opponent will hit you if you allow them to make a given action.

You tell a fencer their opponent has a weakness.

We all know how these often end.

One of the things that gets overlooked (I blame the tactical wheel) is the dependency of all this sort of thing on the interaction between the two fencers.


On a purely nitpicky note; your definition of time does not include the number of failed actions (that haven't triggered a halt) in the current phrase.

[Hauptman]

I don't think you're wrong, but I don't care about strategy vs. tactics here. I want to have a narrow discussion about what tactics are in order to produce drills that make you think about these aspects. Little clarity, and much madness, lies in the direction of what discussing what tactics are not.

If you want to define "tactics" wouldn't you have to consider the definition in relation to strategy?

My understanding is that strategy is general while tactics are specific. My strategy may simply be to be aggressive and push my opponent while the tactics I use would be the specific actions I use. My strategy can easily stay the same even as my tactics change, and there are different factors I would use to choose my strategy versus my tactics.

Or if I want to hang back and counter-attack as a simple strategy, my choice of which counter-attacks to use would be the tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_(method)

"The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution."

[Durando]

On a purely nitpicky note; your definition of time does not include the number of failed actions (that haven't triggered a halt) in the current phrase.

Yes. Very astute. But this would be subsumed under Adversary as, presumably, the action failed because of the adversary's action. Otherwise, we are back to talking about technique.

[Durando]

If you want to define "tactics" wouldn't you have to consider the definition in relation to strategy?

Erm. No. See above. I actually meant what I wrote. I don't care about defining strategy. I'm not saying that one shouldn't--I just don't. Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I don' t think so. I wanted this coversation to arrive at tactical dimesnions around which to construct a handful of drills which move students and coaches away from obsession with technique. Parse it the way it is useful to you.

I think I have more than enough. I'll write a summary tomorrow.

[keith]

Very astute.

You're posting drunk aren't you?

But this would be subsumed under Adversary as, presumably, the action failed because of the adversary's action. Otherwise, we are back to talking about technique.

Stick it in which ever bin you'd like. I'm not sure the enterprise of naming all the tactical things and then sorting them into categories helps. It's mainly a listing endeavor with occasional bouts of wrangling over whose 3, 15 or 339 basic categories are best suited to describe tactics.

I can see how defining tactics independent of technique is a useful exercise, how else do you evaluate what technique you teach. Of course if you are going to use this list to structure drills, technique becomes kind of important (stick it under adversary so as to subsume it perhaps?).

Also Concentration hasn't been put in yet.

I think perhaps the category missing is Self. Unless your opponent is your Doppelganger I suppose.

I think I have more than enough. I'll write a summary tomorrow.

A three section list containing all things tactical correctly classified? Cool.

[Durando]

You're posting drunk aren't you?

A fair question to ask anyone on the board, but "Nope." What might seem obvious to you (the importance of previous failed actions) is something that surprisingly few fencers of a certain level seem to understand. Talked with an intermediate fencer recently and we got round to the idea the gratifying effect of winning an early touch off a particular action (Adversary) can be grounds for constructing the next touch by an alert adversary. Yeah, seems totally banal once articulated but I think the lightbulb went on for my friend. So it seemed worth remarking. In fact, this realization alone is probably the ticket into a higher level of fencing for three-quarters of the fencing public.

I'm not sure the enterprise of naming all the tactical things and then sorting them into categories helps. It's mainly a listing endeavor with occasional bouts of wrangling over whose 3, 15 or 339 basic categories are best suited to describe tactics.... I can see how defining tactics independent of technique is a useful exercise, how else do you evaluate what technique you teach. Of course if you are going to use this list to structure drills, technique becomes kind of important (stick it under adversary so as to subsume it perhaps?).

I'm certain that simply listing aspects of tactics doesn't help. I appreciate your patience and that of the other participants in helping me think about this. ("How do I know what I think until I see what I say" are sometimes words to live by.) Yes, the objective is to construct situations where students concentrate on a tactical task rather than technical ones. One reason I dislike technical drills as a teacher and a student is that experimentation is curtailed but I also feel such drills do little to build the cognitive skills necessary to win touches in a competitive bout.

Also Concentration hasn't been put in yet.
I think perhaps the category missing is Self. Unless your opponent is your Doppelganger I suppose.

Get ready to laugh. Ready? Concentration--paying attention--is assumed. How would you construct a drill where the instruction would be "think about something else"? Oh sure, you could play loud music and flash bright lights at your students, maybe. I would rather, say, set a drill limiting the Time or Terrain aspect with the expectation that taking them off the table would improve concentration in another area.

My prejudice about fencing, and tactical situations in general, is that the winner more often than not pays more attention to his adversary than himself. Psychologically speaking, ninety-nine percent of fencers are a little too in love with themselves. Stepping out of bouting for a moment, think of how much time in the fencing room gets spent in behavior whose objective is to broadcast "Who I am," whether this behavior is solicited or not. This behavior very often gets carried on to the strip where it becomes an impediment to paying attention.

[D'Art]

Get ready to laugh. Ready? Concentration--paying attention--is assumed. How would you construct a drill where the instruction would be "think about something else"? Oh sure, you could play loud music and flash bright lights at your students, maybe.

Actually, in the intermediate level fencers (especially the younger ones with less experience), I'd say this could be quite a good idea, so that when they (hopefully) do reach the later stages of competitions (or are involved in team matches against rivals etc) where there is more likely to be a lot of distractions of this type, they are more able to block it out. Obviously not going to be one of your main lesson plans, but could still be useful, possibly?

[Allen Evans]

While concentration is a necessary component of fencing itself, I am with Durando on this: concentration has to be summed up in the fencer's abilities. After all, we aren't specifically seperating things such as height, physical ability, or other such factors. All of these may have a role to play in an individual bout, but these become variations on tactical themes, rather than a basis for tactics themselves, I think.

A

[Hauptman]

Erm. No. See above. I actually meant what I wrote. I don't care about defining strategy. I'm not saying that one shouldn't--I just don't. Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I don' t think so. I wanted this coversation to arrive at tactical dimesnions around which to construct a handful of drills which move students and coaches away from obsession with technique. Parse it the way it is useful to you.

I think I have more than enough. I'll write a summary tomorrow.

Ok, let me see if I understand; you want to define the parameters by which a fencer would select a tactic to execute?

[keith]

My prejudice about fencing, and tactical situations in general, is that the winner more often than not pays more attention to his adversary than himself. Psychologically speaking, ninety-nine percent of fencers are a little too in love with themselves. Stepping out of bouting for a moment, think of how much time in the fencing room gets spent in behavior whose objective is to broadcast "Who I am," whether this behavior is solicited or not. This behavior very often gets carried on to the strip where it becomes an impediment to paying attention.

Of course they focus more on their opponent - after all they know what they are and are not capable of, in a dynamic way. This is quite different from what you are talking about.

[keith]

While concentration is a necessary component of fencing itself, I am with Durando on this: concentration has to be summed up in the fencer's abilities.

Fair enough, but is it perhaps reasonable to posit that some of a fencers abilities have varying impacts on their practical application of tactics in the bout?

After all, we aren't specifically seperating things such as height, physical ability, or other such factors. All of these may have a role to play in an individual bout, but these become variations on tactical themes, rather than a basis for tactics themselves, I think.

Are you suggesting that concentration is a fixed attributed that can not be trained?

[darius]

I think the problems here stem from the fact that everybody's trying to throw things into different buckets and then arguing about them. I'm going to take a stab at it:

Self:
- Preferred Actions (ability to execute those actions ... bah, technique!!)
- Prerequisites for those Actions (specific blade preparations, specific distance, location on the strip, certain action from fencer)
- Physical State (strength/power, fatigue level, injuries, etc)
- Psychological State (concentration/focus/arousal levels)

Adversary:
... same as self, only knowledge of certain states can only come from observation than feeling ...

Referee:
- Preferred Calls (ability to see actions, or not)
- Prerequisites for those Actions (screaming, needs to see extended arm, everything is simultaneous)
- Physical State (blind, doesn't move with action due to injury, etc)
- Psychological State (concentration/focus/arousal/hunger levels)

Bout State:
- Time
- Score
- Current Strip Positioning

So to make a drill, you're controlling for certain factors. Neal, I don't quite get what you're looking to do; is your goal to identify all the variables which can be changed?

darius