Tactics: A Working Definition

[Allen Evans]

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

Over the course of an individual bout, I think he ability (and capacity) to concentrate isn't going to be changed, anymore than the fencer is suddenly going to "be taller".

Of course, concentration can be trained and improved, but if we're developing a tactical schema at the bout level (and this is what I understand Durando to be doing) I think we have to assume that some qualities are going to be fixed in the course of a bout.

A

[Jason]

Over the course of an individual bout, I think he ability (and capacity) to concentrate isn't going to be changed, anymore than the fencer is suddenly going to "be taller".

Of course, concentration can be trained and improved, but if we're developing a tactical schema at the bout level (and this is what I understand Durando to be doing) I think we have to assume that some qualities are going to be fixed in the course of a bout.

A

I'm not sure I'm clear on what Neal's looking for (or, perhaps, I'm no longer clear after reading the direction this thread has taken), but the level of one's concentration can certainly vary over the course of a bout. I would not expect the same to be true for one's capacity to concentrate, of course. A fencer certainly wants to maintain a high level of concentration throughout the course of a bout, and not get distracted by things like worrying about the outcome or fixating on earlier mistakes. Similarly, a fencer wants his opponent's concentration to be sub-optimal, and can use things like strong preparatory beats, bout delays (shoe-tying, arguing with the ref, etc.), overly aggressive yelling, etc., to influence that.

I'm not certain that these ideas aren't already encapsulated by Neal's schema (particularly because I'm no longer certain what the goal of that schema is).

[Durando]

Once again, I want to invent (I'd rather steal) a series of exchange drills to privilige tactical learning over technical learning. Maestro Toran’s definition of tactics seems more evocative, precise, and clear than my own--so out with the new and in with the establishment. Additions are in italics.

DEFINITION
Tactics are the procedure for gaining the hit by getting the opponent to cooperate and reducing the overall cost of winning.

ASPECTS (in order of importance). These will be the themes evoked by drills.

Adversary: a general notion of the adversary based on experience or recent observation, including habitual preparation or action; psychological state; previous touches given, received, and attempted.

Deception: the attempt to distort the opponent's view of the situation in order to earn their collaboration.

Time: at what moment in the bout (or period) a touch is scored but also the interval between touches or how "tight" or "loose" time might be with respect to the current score; how the referee calls the time of attack.

Terrain: where on the strip the touch is scored, including where previous touches were given and received.

MISC (stuff that keeps me up at night and seems too "hairy" to integrate)
Cost: Mental and physical energy expended?


So, that's my starting point.

[keith]

Once again, I want to invent (I'd rather steal) a series of exchange drills to privilige tactical learning over technical learning. Maestro Toran’s definition of tactics seems more evocative, precise, and clear than my own--so out with the new and in with the establishment. Additions are in italics.

That is your aim but what is the actual goal for the students?

I'd guess the following covers it depending on their level;

The ability to observe (not fence) and report a tactical approach for a given opponent.

To apply an appropriate tactical approach in different bouts.

To apply different tactical approaches, as required, within a single bout.


One thing that tends to be forgotten about problem/discovery pedagogy is that the aim is not entirely for the students to teach themselves*. Rather it is for them to identify the specific things they need to know in order to solve the presented problem**. The approach certainly emphasises the 'why' of learning a given thing but really it's just a motivational tool.

So I'd suggest that you have hit on a good tactical exchange drill when your students suddenly start demanding to do lots of footwork exercises (for example) in order to break the drill and move up to the next level of exercise/drill.

*Student/teacher motivation is a side benefit.
** The problem must be of an appropriate level for the students. It should include their existing knowledge and not demand them to master too many new things - otherwise the exercise is demoralising.

Which is why I think that while the following,

DEFINITION
Tactics are the procedure for gaining the hit by getting the opponent to cooperate and reducing the overall cost of winning.

ASPECTS (in order of importance). These will be the themes evoked by drills.

Adversary: a general notion of the adversary based on experience or recent observation, including habitual preparation or action; psychological state; previous touches given, received, and attempted.

Deception: the attempt to distort the opponent's view of the situation in order to earn their collaboration.

Time: at what moment in the bout (or period) a touch is scored but also the interval between touches or how "tight" or "loose" time might be with respect to the current score; how the referee calls the time of attack.

Terrain: where on the strip the touch is scored, including where previous touches were given and received.

MISC (stuff that keeps me up at night and seems too "hairy" to integrate)
Cost: Mental and physical energy expended?

is important for introducing all the dimensions that encompass tactics it is far to much to include in the type of approach you are proposing. My vote would be to pick the two or three most suitable for drill work. Perhaps focus on the opponents aggression level, distance & action patterns?

All IMHO, YMMV etc etc.

[Durando]

That is your aim but what is the actual goal for the students?

I'd guess the following covers it depending on their level;
The ability to observe (not fence) and report a tactical approach for a given opponent.
To apply an appropriate tactical approach in different bouts.
To apply different tactical approaches, as required, within a single bout.

Yes. I'm constantly surprised about how poorly fencers parse actions that they see. This is probably a side effect of staying well within the confines of fencing and teaching épée. It isn't that our junior level fencers aren't tactical but it is the case that they can't articulate phrasing; they're condemned to internalized language. I don't mean that they should be able to call a phrase like a referee but they should be able to make an attack fall short and then follow it with an appropriate action (faire tomber dans la vide).

One thing that tends to be forgotten about problem/discovery pedagogy is that the aim is not entirely for the students to teach themselves*. Rather it is for them to identify the specific things they need to know in order to solve the presented problem**. The approach certainly emphasises the 'why' of learning a given thing but really it's just a motivational tool.

Yes. I also want to provide an opportunity for students to clump discrete concepts together. Toran's emphasis on the adversary's cooperation is a huge concept that can be learned in many different ways but once observed, believed, and accepted, should have a correspondingly large influence on a wide variety of skills.

Which is why I think that while the following, is important for introducing all the dimensions that encompass tactics it is far to much to include in the type of approach you are proposing. My vote would be to pick the two or three most suitable for drill work. Perhaps focus on the opponents aggression level, distance & action patterns?

Yes. The list of aspects is just the conceptual framework to keep me on track. It is meant to remain at a decent interval from the students.

[Mr Epee]

This discussion is a non-starter and will only - can only - result in pushing words around.

I'll pick up where the previous post leaves off...

Consider:

1. Actions/Interactions exist independently from any description of the action/interaction. The description of an action/interaction is an occasioned and situated event, itself an action, undertaken for some purpose which necessarily (in-turn) serves as guidelines for subsequent determinations of the action account's adequacy. All of this, of course, is normatively governed.

2. There is a tremendous amount of highly nuanced categorization work involved that is too often overlooked in this type of discussion. Once a 'thing' is identified as a 'particular thing' there occurs event isomorphism that thins out the particulars - or more specifically problematically - the situated aspects of the exchange. While the issues are many in this game, I'll simply adumbrate one of the more obvious. That problem is that any description of an action/interaction necessarily breaks the event into a series of discrete phenomena - often in unhelpful ways that serve to complicate the matter via decontextualization.

3. Assumptions of causality and temporal sequence. In light of the above paragraph this problem should be fairly self-evident. Although, I will make particular note of the common mistake of creeping post-hoc analysis. Any action/interaction is being performed in real time. Any analysis or instruction must limit itself to those aspects - and only those aspects - that the actors had available in the developing course of the interaction.

4. Finally, something is happening when nothing is happening. This is pretty damn important.

[philly123]

This article may be interesting to you:

http://web.me.com/david_littell/Lear...Hungarian.html

It separates concepts such as 'when' and 'how' from the blade technique.

But be careful: it includes, as a critical part of the terminology, 'tempo'.

He also has videos [see the links provided at the top of the page], as well as other articles.

Reference: Alexander Technique

[Durando]

Thanks Philly123. Yeah, Littell is doing good work in continuing the conversation that will, eventually, lead to an American school of fencing. It is interesting to see foreign concepts reconstructed into English but, I admit that I have a hard time following despite having worked with Hungarian coaches both in the US and in Hungary.

While in Bordeaux recently I was once again struck by how much clarity gets lost in translation. At the camp we were lucky to have a second MdA whose English was good enough to interpret for the first. I mostly talk about fencing in French and so would translate along in my head. It made me think about the old joke about the American tourists in Paris remarking to each other that it was speaking English that caused them to be overweight. Although the interpreter was really good, it was equally clear that he could have said pretty much anything in that context and it would have been accepted with some kind of wild misunderstanding created on the spot.

Consider how many coaches say "step" in place of "advance." Denatured of context we could say ithe terms are equivalent but there is a whole generation of American fencers who has to spend time working out the differences among coaches. Although it might be difficult to do it's silly to give in to the temptation that it isn't worth the time to describe ideas in fencing, especially given the wide varience of terminology in play in the States. Though I can certainly see how it would seem that way. But like it or not, language is the cheaper alternative to physical demonstration. I started this thread here because I wanted to work my thoughts with the input of the Coaching Corner's readership, not because I'm nostalgic for undergraduate semantics courses.

[Mr Epee]

Disclaimer: I clipped your quote and switched the order a bit.

Although it might be difficult to do it's silly to give in to the temptation that it isn't worth the time to describe ideas in fencing, especially given the wide varience of terminology in play in the States. Though I can certainly see how it would seem that way.

The dream is laudable. The task is futile. Quixote is necessarily a romantic.

The enquiry, however, is terminally blocked from useful examination. The problem lies deep in the mire of tacit knowledge (ability) adequacies involved in the performance of live (unfolding) fencing interactions. The actual work (read: tactical doings) of fencing is (and will remain) off stage. Of course, participants and observers alike can offer accounts (replete with causal assumptions which are vulnerable to narrative fallacies) - but all of those are inescapably incomplete and are irremediably tied to the specific adequacy requirements of [the account's] production.

But like it or not, language is the cheaper alternative to physical demonstration. I started this thread here because I wanted to work my thoughts with the input of the Coaching Corner's readership, not because I'm nostalgic for undergraduate semantics courses.

Just because something CAN be used as an alternative doesn't imply that it is comparable or adequate.

Consider how many coaches say "step" in place of "advance." Denatured of context we could say ithe terms are equivalent but there is a whole generation of American fencers who has to spend time working out the differences among coaches.

Good example. I happen to use 'step' and 'advance' in the course of my teaching - not as synonyms, but as distinct timings of the foot action vis. a subsequent lunge. Pedagogically this can be useful for instilling a sense for variations in movement and rhythm available while fencing. I would argue that this has very little to do with the 'doings of competitive fencing' - particularly in a tactical sense.

Now - and this is important - in the course of reading a fencing bout, one of the fencers may perform a forward action which I subsequently identify as an advance-lunge, a step-lunge, or something else. Now, the recognition gate between these two distinct categories - categories that I can delineate firmly via language - is a thick fuzzy one in actual physical practice and more importantly is not one that is likely to be made by the executor of the action prior to (or even during) its appearance in the bout. Also of note is that the action could not have been identified (named) in the course of its development by any observer (including the other fencer).

The job of knowing what someone is 'doing' on a fencing strip is quite a different task from being able to say what they 'did'.

[Durando]

The job of knowing what someone is 'doing' on a fencing strip is quite a different task from being able to say what they 'did'.

But not unrelated. And neither is impossible: here I appreciate that you and I are irrevocably epeeists; conventional arms fencers must, of course, be able to say what happened within an acceptable margin of error. In any case, a teacher should be able to articulate and communicate what was done. Entirely mute teaching is just as illusory a goal as perfect description.

Now, can we please leave the philosophy classroom behind?

[keith]

But not unrelated.

No, but they can become confused. After all, as MrE' loquaciously outlines, that a fencer can articulate post hoc the tactical steps that led to a bout being won (or lost) probably doesn't map to their thought processes during the bout. It is the later which would seem to matter to you in your schema.

Conscious tactical planning, while fencing, is the structuring the distance/kinetics of the fencer and the opponent to ensure that the final two actions fall into the fencers trained strengths.

I suspect what you have here is a problem with separating curriculum from pedagogy.

[Durando]

Nope, I'm really not confused about separating curriculum from pedagogy. Just wanted to see what the membership might contribute to my thinking on my understanding of a concept. I don't deny that what y'all are calling post hoc analysis doesn't complicate the task, it just isn't pertinent to coming up wth a working definition.

[Mr Epee]

No, but [knowing what someone is 'doing' on a fencing strip is quite a different task from being able to say what they 'did'] can become confused.

They are almost always confused... haphazardly so. The result is a lot of time, effort and reputation being put into the wrong material.

After all, as MrE' loquaciously outlines, that a fencer can articulate post hoc the tactical steps that led to a bout being won (or lost) probably doesn't map to their thought processes during the bout.

Yes, this - albeit more succinctly than I was able to manage - is key. But it doesn't stop there.

Conscious tactical planning, while fencing, is the structuring the distance/kinetics of the fencer and the opponent to ensure that the final two actions fall into the fencers trained strengths.

Yep. Incredibly easy to say. Incredibly difficult to do (predictably/consistantly). Ever notice how the ways of talking about strategy and tactics haven't changed much since the writings of Sun Tzu - nor do they change much between various activities (e.g. The American Civil War, WW II, Football, Fencing, Business, etc.)? Tactical concepts are easily digested (cognitively); however, the practical execution is damn difficult.

I suspect what you have here is a problem with separating curriculum from pedagogy.

Could we say we have 'discursive' vs. 'embodied practice' problem instead?

[Mr Epee]

I appreciate that you and I are irrevocably epeeists; conventional arms fencers must, of course, be able to say what happened within an acceptable margin of error. In any case, a teacher should be able to articulate and communicate what was done. Entirely mute teaching is just as illusory a goal as perfect description.

I assume that you are referencing the referee's task of describing action on the piste and subsequently (when appropriate) awarding points. This is interesting, but is not in play, here. Referee's are doing a very different job in a very different position than the fencers. The referee's work DOES entail the coding of fuzzy physical practice into the language of the rule book, but she's starting from the other end. Also, referee's are routinely instructed not to rule based on 'what the fencer intended to do'.

]Just wanted to see what the membership might contribute to my thinking on my understanding of a concept. I don't deny that what y'all are calling post hoc analysis doesn't complicate the task, it just isn't pertinent to coming up wth a working definition.

There is as tremendous amount of 'conceptual confusion' afoot. In my mind, this is more interesting than worrisome and this is as good a place as any to discuss it. So far, so good. Yes? Yes.

I will say that if you're looking for an abstract notion of tactics viz. fencing (whatever weapon), then you won't end up with anything meaningful... because it will always escape abstract form. Fencing is an embodied practice. Fencing is specifically occasioned and its hows and whens are irremediably integrated with its whats and the whys. Oh, and don't forget whos.

That said, people do DO fencing, and they do so in ways that could be described as tactical/rational/(word of your choice). I suspect something valuable might come from considering how they are doing it... with the materials they have at hand and at the times they have them. Could such a description then be twisted into instructions or (more likely) exercises?

[keith]

Nope, I'm really not confused about separating curriculum from pedagogy.

I wasn't accusing you of doing so. The issue is what your aim is? Is your principle aim to give your students a common language to discuss tactics or to facilitate their use of tactics in a bout - hence the pedagogy observation. I am dubious that both aims can be satisfactorily pursued simultaneously as they strike me as quite different things.

I don't deny that what y'all are calling post hoc analysis doesn't complicate the task, it just isn't pertinent to coming up wth a working definition.

... but it is relevant to you pedagogical aim.

Just wanted to see what the membership might contribute to my thinking on my understanding of a concept.

And it has produced one of the more interesting threads, thanks.

[keith]

Yep. Incredibly easy to say. Incredibly difficult to do (predictably/consistantly). Ever notice how the ways of talking about strategy and tactics haven't changed much since the writings of Sun Tzu - nor do they change much between various activities (e.g. The American Civil War, WW II, Football, Fencing, Business, etc.)? Tactical concepts are easily digested (cognitively); however, the practical execution is damn difficult.

Discursive theory may not advance but embodied practice and the pedagogy to improve it certainly has.

Could we say we have 'discursive' vs. 'embodied practice' problem instead?

Certainly, anything to brighten your day.

[Forrest]

I pretty much teach tactics and choice thereof as tools. I stress on my students that developing and choosing a successful strategy is much more important. If winning a bout comes down to wheter or not your parry-riposte can beat his/her direct attact, then personal ability and chance play an inordinantly large part in the bout. You teach/learn how to develop and employ strategies that render your opponents tools(tactics) irrelevent, and you win the bout. If you beat their game, it's just a matter of execution. QED, as my dad would say.

[Mr Epee]

Welcome to the fire, Forrest.
You picked a heck of a thread to wander into for your first post.

I pretty much teach tactics and choice thereof as tools.

Ok. I'm not sure what's being said here... "tactics are the tools used to accomplish goals?"

I stress on my students that developing and choosing a successful strategy is much more important.

Successful strategies are successful. Unsuccessful strategies are unsuccessful. When in doubt choose successful strategies to achieve success. Yep, good to know.

If winning a bout comes down to wheter or not your parry-riposte can beat his/her direct attact, then personal ability and chance play an inordinantly large part in the bout.

Parry-riposte definitively beats a direct attack. The fact that a 'parry' occurs is indication of a de facto falied direct attack. This, again, is a problem with utilizing post hoc analysis to describe developing events in real fencing action/decision time.

You teach/learn how to develop and employ strategies that render your opponents tools(tactics) irrelevent, and you win the bout. If you beat their game, it's just a matter of execution. QED, as my dad would say.

This is sound theory, but poor (in the threadbare sense of the word) advice. Without the fencing nous in hand it devolves into meaningless drivel.