Tactics: A Working Definition

[Durando]

Tactics is generally the word used by a coach to avoid getting into somewhat fruitless "if-then" discussions--well, more specifically, it is the word I invoke to refuse such discussions. At a camp I attended recently, I noticed that, as always, beginners show a very great interest in technique and later go on to confusing this with tactics. I have my own notion and wonder how it would fare given the attentions of other fencing teachers.

I can only claim some experience and understanding of épée and readily admit that these dimensions might be described or ordered differently in the conventional weapons, but my operating definition of "tactics" is the correct selection of a combination of preparation and real actions based on Adversary, Terrain, Time within the context of a particular bout, leading to a touch.

Adversary: a general notion of the adversary based on experience or recent observation, including previous touches given and received.
Terrain: where on the strip is the touch scored, including where previous touches were given and received.
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.

I'd like to use this definition to create tactical exchange drills where students may discover/invent actions in appropriate context or, failing such discovery, to serve as a logical basis for a technical drill.

[Allen Evans]

I think this is a good start, but it still feels like it's missing an additional dimension someplace. Anyone?

I like the fact that your definition in technique-independant.

A

[kalivor]

Missing: score.

Also, it feels as if you are using time in at least two different ways:

1. The time elapsed/remaining in the bout
2. The manner in which the referee is calling the bout -- ie, "tight" or "loose"

[Allen Evans]

I'm not always sure how much of a tactical impact the score has on a bout. If I'm ahead, it makes sense to continue to fence the way I have been to have gotten to the lead. If I'm behind, does that give me any more tactical information other than my tactics up to this point aren't working? In epee, doublle touches do have a tactical/scoring impact, but this might be considered a special situation.

"Time" is like the word "tempo". Rightly or wrongly, the words are used in a lot of ways, and take their meaning from context.

A

[kalivor]

I'm not always sure how much of a tactical impact the score has on a bout. If I'm ahead, it makes sense to continue to fence the way I have been to have gotten to the lead. If I'm behind, does that give me any more tactical information other than my tactics up to this point aren't working? In epee, doublle touches do have a tactical/scoring impact, but this might be considered a special situation.

Score, in conjunction with time, can be an important consideration: Imagine a bout with two seconds left, and one fencer up by one point.

Also, in team matches using the relay system, the score coming into the bout can be an important consideration on how the bout as a whole is treated.

[Allen Evans]

Imagine a fencer up by one point with two seconds left against an opponent that has a very powerful attack. The fencer has kept ahead by scoring with attacks of their own, keeping the opponent on the defensive and off balance.

Should that fencer accept a passive posture and allow the opponent their strongest action i n the hopes that completely changing a winning game will be successful in the last two seconds? Suppose there are five seconds left? Ten?

I'm not sure that the time/score is as important a consideration as many think.

[Jason]

"Time" is like the word "tempo". Rightly or wrongly, the words are used in a lot of ways, and take their meaning from context.

If the goal is to bring a clearer sense of the meaning of a word--in this case, "tactics"--I doubt incorporating other words with muddled meanings into the definition is ideal.

It shouldn't be too difficult to separate the different ideas Neal is proposing under the "time" banner. And, as always, I'd recommend banning the word "tempo" from any conversation about fencing in english.

[Allen Evans]

I have, in fact, started a process of re-writing all of my materials and taking out the word "tempo".

It's not as easy an addiction to give up as I thought it would be. :-)

A

(ps - on my first attempt to do this, I simply globally replaced the word "tempo" in every document with the words "surpise". it was funny that it read about the same)

[D'Art]

I think this is a good start, but it still feels like it's missing an additional dimension someplace. Anyone?

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.

[kalivor]

I'm not sure that the time/score is as important a consideration as many think.

I don't disagree -- my thought to include it is heavily influenced by the last bout I watched in person (MF final at the British Championships), which was lost on what I feel was a tactical error. The choice of action made by the losing fencer was not tactically sound with two seconds remaining in overtime, priority, and a full 3m of strip behind him. The bout could have been won with six steps backwards.

Had the same point been scored with 10 seconds left, I wouldn't have thought anything of it.

[Sean Butler]

"Tactics" is the correct selection of a combination of preparation and real actions based on Adversary, Terrain, Time within the context of a particular bout, leading to a touch.

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

Comparing these to your selections:

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?

Physical relates to the Terrain and the Time elements you describe; it amounts to: where you are, what the score is, how long you have left, the relative size, speed, reach, and accelleration of you and your opponent. It might even reflect the energy levels of the two fencers.

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.

[darius]

I think the time/score is wildly important in tactical assessment, and I'll use Allen's example.

2 seconds is most likely enough time to adopt a purely destructive game (fake forward, series of retreats with aggressive early parries). Five seconds may be (depends on opponent). Ten seconds is not, which means the fencer who is ahead must be able to fence their game.

I would posit that while time/score may not have much bearing on the final action selected, they create a context which might limit or prefer certain preparations.

darius

[pjsise1]

One of the problems is that the words strategy and tactics are often used improperly. Clearly defining them, and making the students aware of the differences, can help clear things up.

Strategy - that's the general plan to use against the opponent, for instance, if the opponent has a a weak defense then the strategy may be to fence offensively.

Tactics - these are the smaller things you do in order to fulfill the needs of your strategy. When fencing offensively, for instance, you may wish to chose tactics such as simple attacks, feint, attacks, and beat attacks.

Techniques - these are the specific actions that are used. The chosen strategy and tactics may be executed with a disengage into the high inside line, a feint into 4 with a touch in 8, and a beat in 6 with a touch in 6.

Things like terrain and time, from the original post, are part of the environment, which along with the opponent, change over time and influence the decision making, including when to act and react, because some strategies and tactics may be more or less appropriate to select during different parts of the bout.

[keith]

Since no one else has I would suggest;

Pattern.

As a way of linking a variety of different concepts.

[epeeslasher]

Some very quick and thought out definitions from a great coach:

-Strategy is the procedure for achieving a goal

-Tactics are the procedure for getting from another what you want

-Technique is a defined procedure and is reproducible to achieve a goal

And then the evolved definitions as adapted to fencing:

-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.

[acarter]

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?

[epeeslasher]

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. A student practices hitting a dummy, so later he can hit an opponent. Another example would be climbing a mountain; it undoubtedly requires a strategy, organization, a program: but not a tactic. If we are racing an opponent to the top and not thinking about them (thinking too much on strategy, no thought towards tactics), then they will reach the top first.

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.

[Durando]

Missing: score.

Also, it feels as if you are using time in at least two different ways:

1. The time elapsed/remaining in the bout
2. The manner in which the referee is calling the bout -- ie, "tight" or "loose"

Yes. And you've actually added a third, very useful aspect, as I was thinking of time from the fencer's standpoint of how hurried they might be. Which leads to score. Score structures time, yes?

[Durando]

It shouldn't be too difficult to separate the different ideas Neal is proposing under the "time" banner. And, as always, I'd recommend banning the word "tempo" from any conversation about fencing in english.

Ha! Yes! Tempo, as I understand it, applies to discussions of technique.

[Durando]

I simply globally replaced the word "tempo" in every document with the words "surpise". it was funny that it read about the same)

Brilliant and useful. This should go on your list of awesome stuff we talked about.