# Tactics Vs. Martial Art



## Cruentus (Mar 28, 2005)

I am just wondering what you all think about this issue.

What is the difference between teaching or training "knife tactics" vs. teaching or training in a knife "art?" What is each for, and what are the advantages and disadvantages to each?

I know that opinions will vary here, which is why I think it will make a good discussion...

Paul


----------



## Bammx2 (Mar 28, 2005)

In my opinon,both are fine if you choose to go that route.

but personally...to me....a knife art is learning to knife "dual",which is something I have no interest in.
 A more tactical practice is pretty much "getting down to buisiness".
I have attended many different session,seminars ,clubs,etc...
 and some of the best instruction I ever got was NOT from a MA instructor or spec ops guy,but from a man who actually did 10 years in Folsom.
Absolutely NO disrespect intended to either form of training,but a lot of both(art and tactical) are based in "what if".
 The guy from Folsom did,this IS!
Even tactical training can expand on the possabilities of more realistic situations than art forms.
Kendo is an art.
Pekiti Tirsia is more tactical.
 Those are just examples...I know there are a lot more.
Just depends....


----------



## arnisador (Mar 28, 2005)

A set of tactics is an art, at least in rudimentary form, no?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 28, 2005)

Hey Paul. Do you think we could cross link our old discussion of Tactical vs. Techincal issues we had a ways back without opening up old wounds (it did get locked down) ? There were actually some very good points on it.


----------



## Drifter (Mar 28, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I am just wondering what you all think about this issue.
> 
> What is the difference between teaching or training "knife tactics" vs. teaching or training in a knife "art?" What is each for, and what are the advantages and disadvantages to each?
> 
> ...


 To me,

 Tactics: A personal style of fighting. The strategies a person finds that work best for them. Informal.  More ideas than set techniques. 

 Martial Art: Something that the person trains in to make their tactics better, and to learn the technical side of things. More formalized. Teaches set techniques.


----------



## Sifu Barry Cuda (Mar 29, 2005)

Hey guys, the way I teach the filipino arts is either for self perfection which can be considered as art, or self preservation which I guess is more "tactic" oriented, Barry   www.combatartsusa.com


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hey Paul. Do you think we could cross link our old discussion of Tactical vs. Techincal issues we had a ways back without opening up old wounds (it did get locked down) ? There were actually some very good points on it.



Sure...feel free to link it if you want to dig it up. There was good stuff there, among the silly argueing part.

The one important thing I learned from that discussion is that not everyone is going to have the same ideas or definitions for words like "tactics" "technique" or "art." The slight variations in definitions can lead to big differences in opinion. And as far as opinions go, mine changes as I learn more things.

So... anymore I like to hear what others are saying more then I like to express what I am saying, as I tend to learn more...so I guess that's why I started this thread.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

Cool. Here it is for those who are interested.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12631

Skip over the silly MA politics and theres some good stuff in here.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 29, 2005)

My $0.02 would be that the difference lies in the mindset and context that are emphasized.  To me, teaching knife _tactics_ includes accessing the weapon in the midst of a confrontation, transitioning between weapons (impact, edged, projectile), and using your empty-hand skills to buy time to access a weapon.  Basically, teaching the knife as one part of a "total package."

A knife _Art_ would be any of your FMA's, Silat, etc. that include or focus on knife training but may or may not focus on the "hard-core self defense" aspect.  Tactics are obviously found within the art but may not be emphasized.  Kind of like the difference between traditional martial-arts and reality-based or adrenal stress training.  The RBSD training includes some of the same techniques as the TMA's but the training methadology and midset are often different.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 29, 2005)

Old discussion....cringe......
Tactics are a sub-set of the art.  Whether or not the art, stick, knife, or empty hand, trains you in duelling is a matter of how you train.  Do you always square off with matched weapons?  Engage in a (relatively) fair fight?  It's a duel.  Do you train mis-matched weapons?  ambush scenarios?  mass attack scenarios?  Maybe some decent tactical development in there...
Note that both have their place; duelling does provide for good attribute development.


----------



## Bammx2 (Mar 29, 2005)

Paul...

With all due respect,may I add one question to your topic?
Maybe it will help clarify my original answer to some.
First off..to ME,"dueling" is you have a knife,I have a knife and we square off...may the better man win.

In the majority of knife based conflicts,the vistim does not die from just one stab wound.They die from multiple stab wounds.
I have never worked in a prison environment personally,but I did recieve good advice from the man I mentioned before.
Now, I do however, live in a country that has "no guns" and the knife vilonce here is on a level uncomprehensable back home in the states.
As I have stated in other threads...Glasgow,Scotland is the stabbing capital of ALL european countries.I live in London,btw.
And here...you definatley do NOT get the chance to "duel" with anyone 8 times out of 10.
Not to mention...you are almost always faced with multiples here
Now here's my question.....

Of all practitioners,tactical or artist...
How many actually train for knife against multiple opponents?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2005)

The difference between the two is focus. 

Art focuses more on the development of the artisan, his/her ability to perform the art in selected mediums, and the depth that the artist understands their internal world AND how the art links to the world around them. "Poetry is everywhere", "Everyday Martial arts..." and such phrases. The philosophy behind 'art' isn't always as clinical as tactical training.

Tactics and tactical sciences are about application and outcomes. It deals with understanding a systemized approach to reading and reacting to a given situation, sizing up your assets and those of your opponent's and forumating the best response: whether by accessing a 'canned' response (immediate actions) or by making something up on the spot (based on prior training and ingenuity of course).

"tactics" for a military leader will be different than those applied by an individual simply because the assets are different, the 'mission' may be different and the 'enemy' may be different, but the same principles will apply with a given 'philosophy' of tactical theory.

"Hard" styles are very rooted and rely on a solid stance, power deliver and intestinal fortitude of the user to gut out the contact. This would be similar to 1st Echelon tactics of large formations of spearmen or musketeers firing in volley form fixed formations that stand firm and do not give ground or break formations.  

So a 'hard' stylist would operate individually similiary to the way a unit commander of Roman Spearmen/18th century army unit on a larger scale.  Block hard, strike hard/in force, maintain a solid foundation/formation with a low mobility doctrine so that you can focus on pouring forceful attacks on the enemy.

"Soft" styles are more dynamic and rely on fluidity, speed and mobility in order to dictate the tempo of a fight and slip strikes into gaps in the opponent's defenses/attacks. This would be similar to guerilla warfare or high mobility/Combined Arms doctrine where small units infiltrate and attack supply lines, communications and do not focus on holding terrain as much as destroying the enemies ability to conduct war.  

So a 'soft' stylist would operate individually similarly to the way a Mongul chieftain in charge of mounted bowmem/warriors/Company commander of light infantry woud on a larger scale.  Strike fast/frequently from varying locations with a high tempo of mobility to make it difficult for the enemy to fix on you and deliver a solid blow.  Constantly adjusting 'depth' and 'width' of your formation and contact distance to keep the enemy off balance - creating gaps that will expose weakness/soft spots in the enemies stance/formations.

In reality, these polarities do not exist, they are always 'yin/yanged' up so that there is an element of both extremes in a tactical application: The degree of emphasis will usually create the 'defined' doctrinal approach.

The other big difference between the two is that 'artists' will have a tendency to hold true to the 'art' over application almost like a faith where a 'tactician' will be willing to adapt/adopt practices that make him/herself more effective in the application phase. This goes back to the 'internal/external' contrast in focus between the two.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2005)

Am I the only one that thinks the two are the same thing?  or at least should be?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that thinks the two are the same thing? or at least should be?


 
They can look very similar at the higher levels.  The big difference is in the curriculum design.

"Tactical" curriculums will focus on 'self defense' and application first and 'art' later (Krav for example, as far as I understand it).

"Art" curriculums will focus on 'form/technique' and performance first and 'self defense' later (Trad Arts in general).

Sport focused arts where students enter competition regularly could be considered 'tactical' in nature simply because they focus 'outward' toward the next application.  THe application may not be 'street defense' but the focus on application and outcome relates to 'tactical' thought over 'artistic' thought.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Of all practitioners,tactical or artist...
> How many actually train for knife against multiple opponents?


I do, I do....it's called the 200 meter sprint and scream , in Escrima/Arnis this is known as 'flow' as I 'flow' my butt out of there at Mach 2.  In Kenpo this is aptly named "School Girl with her hair on fire..."


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 29, 2005)

Techniques are the building blocks for the art; tactics are how techniques are employed.  For example; rifle marksmanship is a technique (or set of techniques); camouflage is a technique; noise and light discipline are techniques; coordinated fire is a technique.  All of these techniques, and others, are combined in the tactics of ambushes.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 29, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Techniques are the building blocks for the art; tactics are how techniques are employed. For example; rifle marksmanship is a technique (or set of techniques); camouflage is a technique; noise and light discipline are techniques; coordinated fire is a technique. All of these techniques, and others, are combined in the tactics of ambushes.


 Yes, and to be trained in the art of war you need all of them.  But the question wasn't techniques vs tactics, it was martial arts vs tactics.


----------



## Bammx2 (Mar 29, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I do, I do....it's called the 200 meter sprint and scream , in Escrima/Arnis this is known as 'flow' as I 'flow' my butt out of there at Mach 2. In Kenpo this is aptly named "School Girl with her hair on fire..."


 
:CTF: 

:rofl::rofl::rofl:......:rofl::rofl::rofl:

can we get that on video on ebay anywhere?!?!

That just made my night!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 29, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> :CTF:
> 
> :rofl::rofl::rofl:......:rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> ...



Loki was this caught on the Modern Arnis Symposium tapes or not?


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 29, 2005)

> Old discussion....cringe......
> Tactics are a sub-set of the art. Whether or not the art, stick, knife, or empty hand, trains you in duelling is a matter of how you train. Do you always square off with matched weapons? Engage in a (relatively) fair fight? It's a duel. Do you train mis-matched weapons? ambush scenarios? mass attack scenarios? Maybe some decent tactical development in there...
> Note that both have their place; duelling does provide for good attribute development.



As noted above.....


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Mar 29, 2005)

the dictionary describes tactical as (im just using one definition here) 2. as means to end: done or made for the purpose of trying to achieve an immediate or short-term aim. whenever i think of tactical, i think of training techniques or strategies for certain situations that will do just what the definition says: a+b=c sorta thing. quick and easy for the most part.....and practiced so many times they become automatic responses.
this is the way the military teaches hand to hand. is this a good method for self defense? i think so. you can teach a large group of people a core group of effective techniques rather quickly. does this make them a better fighter than a guy who has been studying an art for 10 years? i dont think so, simply because the guy studying the art has learned a different approach that would allow him IMO to act more naturally with or without a weapon in any situation.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 30, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yes, and to be trained in the art of war you need all of them.  But the question wasn't techniques vs tactics, it was martial arts vs tactics.



I only put "VS." because people often say "I train knife tactics" or "I train in a knife art." People often will differentiate that they do one or the other. Obviously, they don't have to "Vs." each other, though.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Loki was this caught on the Modern Arnis Symposium tapes or not?


No, I am such a master of the technique that I move faster than the camera can record....


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> the dictionary describes tactical as (im just using one definition here) 2. as means to end: done or made for the purpose of trying to achieve an immediate or short-term aim. whenever i think of tactical, i think of training techniques or strategies for certain situations that will do just what the definition says: a+b=c sorta thing. quick and easy for the most part.....and practiced so many times they become automatic responses.
> this is the way the military teaches hand to hand. is this a good method for self defense? i think so. you can teach a large group of people a core group of effective techniques rather quickly. does this make them a better fighter than a guy who has been studying an art for 10 years? i dont think so, simply because the guy studying the art has learned a different approach that would allow him IMO to act more naturally with or without a weapon in any situation.


It isn't just h2h that is taught that way, it is the whole kit n' kaboodle.  Read, react, assess and plan.... it is a scientific approach that focuses on external outcomes and goals.  This is different from 'art' because 'art' generally speaking is:

High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

So it depends on what you want to focus on.  If you primarily focus on the quality of your execution of technical skill through drill and form, than you are an 'artist.'  This doesn't mean that you are not developing tactical sense, just that you are focusing on the artistic.

If you are primarily focusing on the outcome, the maneuvering, the application and you train the techniques and skills with that goal in mind, you are a tactician.

Personally, since my approach is self defense focused, I would say I am more 'tactitican' than 'artist.'  But, I do get really jazzed when I hit those epiphanies of movement and understanding that feel like artistic enlightenment.....and then they go away   but they are addictive.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Good post. An "art" analogy Ive been trying to frame is the Potter. 

A potter can be a "utilitarian" and make simple cups, pots etc. Or an "artist" and make vessels that are more sculpture than household impliments. 

An "artist" potter can also make simple, utilliatrian vessels and his advanced skill will show through in the lines, composition and finer detail of his work.

A "utilitarian" potter, simply based on the volume of his work, can start to show elements of "art" as his ideas, beliefs and experience start to show in his work.

In the end though as long as the pot is properly constructed, each will serve its desired function no matter who made it.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Good post. An "art" analogy Ive been trying to frame is the Potter.
> 
> A potter can be a "utilitarian" and make simple cups, pots etc. Or an "artist" and make vessels that are more sculpture than household impliments.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but if the 'utilitarian' potter is an 'artist' in self promotion...he can make millions by calling it 'minimalism' and never really have to do a thing different....

just kidding.  Good comparison.

I think for most MAists the confusion over 'art' and 'tactic' is really knowing what the difference is instead of simply apeing what you hear/see from others in terms and motion.  Know what you want out of your training and be honest about what you are doing.  The rest is fluff and ego.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> No, I am such a master of the technique that I move faster than the camera can record....



I wish we caught it on tape. Either due to blinding masterful speed, or the fact that I was across the room and had to teach during the same session, I missed it.  :ultracool


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I wish we caught it on tape. Either due to blinding masterful speed, or the fact that I was across the room and had to teach during the same session, I missed it. :ultracool


Both....only because I didn't want to give up my 'secret style' to the rest of the attendees...it was a 'tactical' (ooooooooo!  I tied it back to the topic!) maneuver to position you on the other side of the room so you couldn't see...

or as Pee Wee Herman use to say:  "I meant to do that" (until he got caught in a certain ah hem, movie theater - then it became "It wasn't me!").  IF you play the DVD backwords you can hear "Walrus" like messages too..

In reality, what I was doing on the DVD was far less 'art' than it was drills and skills that were designed to promote 'tactical' sense with the "Pickle" drill and such.  Since I focus on self defense and deal primarily with adults/young adults, the 'internal/artistic' development is reinforced more by the atmosphere in the training area that allows for adaptation/individualization once the fundamental mechanics are understood and are the basis for any individualizaiton of techniques.  FMA 'conceptual' training is easy to 'translate' to 'tactical' mentallity because both use the same mentallity - just for different purposes.  That may be why, at times, FMA/Kenpoka have a hard time drawing a distinction between the two.


----------



## Airyu@hotmail.com (Apr 8, 2005)

Hello Everyone,

This has been an interesting topic but one that often gets confusing with the terminology, and application of martial arts practice.

Tactics has a variety of definitions, such as  the branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy or Plan of action of strategy to achieve particular objective. Or even  Tactic are specific techniques or actions developed by the stakeholders used to achieve a planned strategy (usually a one year time frame). Tactics are how the strategies are to be achieved. Over the last few years you are starting to see the term tactics or tactical as a buzz word to indicate that the Martial Art being practiced has something different to offer, usually on the combative end and not just for health and physical fitness benefits!

 But how does this relate to something termed a Martial Art ?? For some reason the term Martial Art has become a view of something that is watered down from some type of earlier combative practice. In some arenas maybe this is the case but not in all practices. Like any other body of knowledge a martial art starts with some foundations in basic practice and eventually progresses to art form. An art is the expression of feelings, and the movement or creation of expression through various means. This is a practitioners true expression of  feelings and self -expression of what he/she has been taught over time. Linking in tactics as a method of employing an overall strategy to survive or overcome an opponent. What most people often speak about is the training methodologies used in becoming a skilled practitioner, as many have mentioned in their posts here. 

So look at whatever you are practicing with a discerning eye. Does your art contain aspects that relate to surviving a real world encounter?  Does it wrap sparring, scenarios based training, application drills, attribute development, legal issues, medical management, tactics, strategies.. into one seamless and cohesive process? If not, then that may not what you may be looking for.(or maybe it is!)


Gumagalang
Guro Steve L.

www.Bujinkandojo.net


----------

