Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis

[Cruentus]

Please understand, I am not saying that YOU or anybody else here focuses on tactics, negating the honing of good technique and conceptual developement. I am saying that this is the danger of what can happend if one can't seperate the tactics from the martial system, and I have seen other people do this in martial arts programs (outside of "self defense" or Military/LEO type programs which are tactics oriented). I think that these schools are doing a disservice to themselves and their students who want to go beyond the basics of self defense.

I have seen instructors that play tactical games all day with their students. All they succeeded in doing was building false confidence in groups of people who can't even strike effectively. Sort of the equivelent of some womens self defense courses where all they have learned to do is sissy strike a padded attacker, and they leave with the false confidence that they can take out any large male attacker in a real life attack. This is a sad situation.

If you want to learn how to use your martial art in a live self defense scenario, tactics are the key. If you want to improve your abilities as a martial artist, tactics won't get you anywhere.

This deep conversation started because someone asked about the effectiveness of the Modern Arnis (actually it was more general in that he refered to any "arnis" but that's a mote point) empty hand system. You, followed shortly by Paul M. responded with some tactical considerations that could apply to any martial art. Your response was also in rebuke of "martial artists" who try to talk self-defense without taking tactical considerations. I felt that the thread was getting steered in a different direction. Why? Because when someone asks about the effectiveness of a martial art, they are usually talking from a technical and conceptual perspective. WHY? Because if they were talking from a tactical perspective, then they wouldn't be talking about one martial art, because tactical principles could apply to ANY martial art. your quote, "It's a framework that sits over the top and is not prescriptive about which technique to use (hence independence of style)." So am I correct?

So, I pointed this out because I believe that tactics, although important, are seperate from style. If someone asks about the effectiveness of my art, that is a technical/conceptual question. If someone asks how I would use my art if I was attacked by 3 guys, that would require a tactical answer because you can't predict what "technique" or concept will come out in real life self defense.

We are in agreement with a lot of things refering to tactics. Just because I am a "civilian" and "martial artist," I am no stranger to tactical training. In fact, a good portion of the class I teach is tactics oriented due to the needs of the students I get in my class. However, I still believe that when I am teaching Tactics, I am not teaching the art per say...I am teaching them how to put the art into the context of real life scenarios.

Also, I couldn't negate teaching tactical considerations for the reasons you illustrated; I don't want my students to have the false confidence that their "Dojo training" is the end all. Yet, I know where the seperation is between the technical, conceptual, and tactical... even if they are interelated.

So, the question is, do you believe as I do that tactics are independent from the Martial system? The article (good article by the way) seems to believe this. Do you? Paul Martin, do you?

PAUL

btw...I don't know about you guys, but I think this is a great discussion, and it seems that we are learning a lot about each other and how our opinions are both similar and different. Also, like you, I would like to see FMA take more active role in tactical research and training because I do think that FMA are well equiped for the task.

 

[Cruentus]

Here is an example of how your technical profeciency directly effects your tactical considerations.

Lets say you have a pinto of a strike. You wittic your cane with no body behind it, hitting with the belly of the stick. What if you had to defend yourself with a blunt sticklike object (such as an ASP batton, a bat, a crowbar, an actual stick, or what have you) when this is your technique? What tactical considerations do you need to have? You need to be prepared to have to strike your opponent multiple times before he goes down, for one. You need to probably consider what will happend if your strike fails horribly.
Chances are, your fight will turn into a grappling situation of some kind.

Let's say you have a Ferrari of a strike. You have good body mechanics, with your whole body behind your cane. You have pinpoint accuracy as well, meaning that you can strike the temple with only a few milimiters of your cane touching a few milimeters of bone, thus maximizing your power. Plus, you hit with the end of your cane every time, accelorating your power.

With a Ferarri of a strike, you can now deliver bone shattering blows. In one strike, you can shatter their wrist, kneecap, or crack their skull, thus putting them down. How does this change your tactical situation? You still need to consider your options if your strike fails, but with bone shattering strikes, your odds of survival are much higher then someone who strikes poorly.

Developing a ferrari takes much more then repeatition and drills. And, your tactical training won't help you build that ferrari. It takes much time spent on constant correction of body mechanics, best learned under a competitent instructor. It takes time and energy in learning your "art" that will help you with this.

 

[DoxN4cer]

Using your analogy; if the Farrari repesents technical expertise, then tactical expertise should be represented by a highly skilled mechanic that will fix your Farrari if and when it breaks down. Farrari's ain't all that... I'd rather have a Benz.

Your question:

"Is it possible for a person with a lot of training who, lets say, has never had to defend themselves to have a better understanding of the application of their art then someone who has had to defend themselves?"

My answer:

The proverbial student you speak of might have a grasp on many of the technical aspects of his chosen system and may even be considered to have a high degree of skill. However, never having applied that ability under the stress of combat; he is not able to captalize on the tactical knowledge gleaned through lessons learned from hard earned experience.

He will certainly know "how" to perform a technique in an environment that isn't 100% hostile to him. This however, isn't the case on the street. The student you speak of knows "possible" solutions rather than "probable" solutions to combative scenarios. He may not be able to apply his highly technical abilities under stress where the capacity for fine motor movement is diminished and the field of vision narrows.

In short, no; provided that we're discussing two people of similar or equal techncal ability where one has has real fighting experience ant the other has not.

Training will only get you so far, and you cannot discount the value of experience.

Tim Kashino

 

[Cruentus]

In regards to "real fighting experience," I think its overrated.

From my experience, my first "real fight" as an adult (not talking high school or grade school experiences) was an important one because I was "green" so to speak. I had to recognize how to handle myself under enviromental conditions, as well as handling my own emotions, adrinaline, etc. When you do this for the first time, it is a strange feeling. Yet, because I trained to "relax" I was able to deal with these conditions fairly quickly. After my 1st encounter as an adult, I had no problem with the few other encounters I had, because that "greeness" was gone.

My point is, outside of that "first experience", for me the rest was all the same. I only needed one experience to overcome my "greeness." And, even with that first experience, I handled it fine even though it felt different and strange to me.

Now, other people might need more then one experience to overcome problems that they might have; fear, tunnel vision, etc. Maybe I am unique, but I don't think so. I think training to "relax" made all the difference in the world for me.

My point is that although real world experience is helpful, it doesn't make or break whether or not your a good fighter. I think that in terms of personal ability, its overrated. I think it is nice to know that FMA has been combat tested, but it doesn't need to be combat tested by ME for me to know how it "truely" works. I think there are a lot of pseudo tough guys out there who ride on their "real world experience" for credability, and I think its pretty silly. I'm sure you've seen them: The military guy who comes out in desert cammos who has been through all the "secret" training the government has to offer who is going to tell you the secrets of "real" combat. Or so-and-so has been a "street fighter" since he was 13 years old on the mean streets of LA, and he is going to dispell all the "martial arts myths" with his real world experience. In fact, for more info, check here (lol): http://www.trsdirect.com/product.php

I think all that S**t is stupid as hell. My instructors all had real "world experience" to draw from, yet they let their technical powress speak for itself. I have met people with very little "real world" experience that I wouldn't mess with, and who I'd learn from. Real World experience does not make you a better fighter by itself...its just another thing to put in your mixing bowl of knowledge. It doesn't make or break your fighting ability. If it did, then we should be encouraging each other to go out and get into fights.

That's my feeling on the subject. I am not sure if it is the same, or different then yours.

 

[loki09789]

Paul J,
"So, the question is, do you believe as I do that tactics are independent from the Martial system? The article (good article by the way) seems to believe this. Do you?

Obviously, based on the past posting, no I don't agree.

"This deep conversation started because someone asked about the effectiveness of the Modern Arnis (actually it was more general in that he refered to any "arnis" but that's a mote point) empty hand system."

This is not a moot point because the original poster clarified that he meant multiple FMA systems when he referred to 'arnis' as a general term, therefore a tactical/strategic discussion is appropriate and essential..

"Because if they were talking from a tactical perspective, then they wouldn't be talking about one martial art, because tactical principles could apply to ANY martial art."

Again back to the original idea of 'arnis' and not a single art discussion.

You are discussing from the single system position and I still disagree.
Tactics/strategy of a particular system are used to accomplish the goals of the system or the 'style' of fighting that the system will teach (grappling, weapons, empty hand, warfare doctrines, police procedures...). This goal or strategy will dictate the techniques that make up the system. RP and every system head decided, based on experience and training, what the goals of his system were, picked the type of strategic/tactical skills the fighter in his system would use and those dictated the techniques the fighter would need to be successful.

I read your posts and see your interp of tactics as 'street tactics' not tactical/strategic theory. The tactical theory is an entire scientific area that has been developed over time. Every fighting system ever made has a set of tactical skills imbedded in it. Consider Balintawak and the baiting strike that pulls an opponents stick to a certain place. That is a fighting tactic that used the techniques within the system.

Paul Martin

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by loki09789
Paul J,
"
This is not a moot point because the original poster clarified that he meant multiple FMA systems when he referred to 'arnis' as a general term, therefore a tactical/strategic discussion is appropriate and essential..

I agree that because the if original question was framed at Arnis in general, the answer would have to be more tactical. Yet, we didn't know that was what he was truely asking in the beginning, so we have been talking about single systems. And even still, I am not convinced the original poster realized how general his question really was.

Regardless, we have been talking about single system (Modern Arnis mainly), and how tactics relate to single systems. So, I'll stick to that discussion.

You are discussing from the single system position and I still disagree.

No Problem...lets see where our ideas differ.

Tactics/strategy of a particular system are used to accomplish the goals of the system or the 'style' of fighting that the system will teach (grappling, weapons, empty hand, warfare doctrines, police procedures...). This goal or strategy will dictate the techniques that make up the system. RP and every system head decided, based on experience and training, what the goals of his system were, picked the type of strategic/tactical skills the fighter in his system would use and those dictated the techniques the fighter would need to be successful.

I agree that environment and experience, or "tactical" considerations dictate what makes up your martial art. However, I don't believe the "tactical considerations" IS the martial art. That is all I am saying. The "tactics" will vary from person to person, and environment to environment...and martial arts will be influenced by the tactics, but they aren't the same.

I picture it like a Vinn diagram. I like Vinn diagrams...you know, overlapping circles. It seems to work well in martial arts explainations. Picture 3 overlapping circles, and each circle you have this:

1. Technical
2. Conceptual
3. Tactical

The technical is the "movement" of your system, including your timing, angling, etc.

The conceptual is the principles behind the movement.

The Tactical is HOW you use your techniques and concepts in "real application."

The Technical and Conceptual ALONE make up your art; the tactical is HOW YOU USE the art. They have a inner working relationship. Now the tactical does not make up your art, but it is an outside consideration that effects the technical details of the art. For instance, a difference in terrain may effect your footwork. However, what does remain unchanged is the concepts...that's what is "all the same." The concept 'Countering the counter' is the same no matter what the terrain is that effects my footwork, for instance.

The relationship between the technical and conceptual is vitally important to the make-up of any martial system. The conceptual by itself is just a "philosephy," that could apply to any art, and therefore, NOT the art by itself. The Technical by itself is only a surface level understanding of the art. The relationship between these 2 is what makes your art what it is. It's a mixture of concepts (countering the counter) with gross movements and techniques (12 angles, 6 count drill) that make up the art.

The tactics effect how your art is to be used, and does effect the technical details of the art. It is not within the art itself, however, it is an outside concideration. It being an outside consideration makes it "universal" as the Krav article states.

If the tactics were within the art same as the conceptual and technical aspects, then you would have NO BASE or continuity within your art.

I read your posts and see your interp of tactics as 'street tactics' not tactical/strategic theory. The tactical theory is an entire scientific area that has been developed over time. Every fighting system ever made has a set of tactical skills imbedded in it. Consider Balintawak and the baiting strike that pulls an opponents stick to a certain place. That is a fighting tactic that used the techniques within the system.

Paul Martin

First off, I am using what you call street tactics as examples, but I do understand that tactics is more of a soft science that is being developed. Yet, I still don't think this is the same as your art.

See, a lot of what you describe, I don't consider to be tactical considerations. For example, the gross movements and body mechanics that makes up your "bait" is your technique...the "bait" is the concept. Neither is a tactical consideration. How my environment, weapons, and opponent relate to my "bait" would be the tactical considerations.

Well, unfortunatily, I got to run. I will post more later.

In a nutshell it seems that your definition of "tactics" is more encompassing then mine, and I am not sure that your definition fits the conventional definition.

PAUL

 

[loki09789]

I was always discussing in terms of 'arnis' as a general term because I understood Upnorthkyos(sp?) from the beginning.

Paul M

 

[loki09789]

It isn't my definition of tactic that is being used. It is the definition of military/strategic sciences that are used to explain and understand everything from chess and other strategy games all the way to up to war doctrines and it isn't being developed now/recently it is a respected science (if you mean soft as a distinction between human sciences and the hard sciences of chemisty ands stuff, sure) and even a degree program in some colleges under the heading of military sciences (kind of a specific term, but it is really about strategic theory).

Based on your explanation, you are using tactics as a way to consider the environment and what to do there, but concept to talk about the fight. Your use of concept is the same as my use of tactics based on my use of the term because it is the application of techniques. Your terminology is either a working definition that you use, but haven't studied based on strategic theory or internal definitions that were given to you by instructors.

Paul Martin

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by loki09789
I was always discussing in terms of 'arnis' as a general term because I understood Upnorthkyos(sp?) from the beginning.

Paul M

Um...I am dropping this point after I say this: No you didn't. :shrug:

At least, not indicated by your first response, page 2 of this thread:

MA is a good empty hand art, if you understand and train Translation constantly. Know what you are preparing yourself for and get good at the skills that you need, simple enough.

I added the bold type for emphasis, but you first responded "MA" standing for "Modern Arnis." No big deal, I assumed the same because we ARE in the Modern Arnis forum, and most of the conversation is about Modern Arnis.

Like I said, it doesn't matter...we are talking about how Tactics relate to singular arts, particularly Modern Arnis, at this point.

moving on...

 

[Tgace]

Originally posted by PAUL
This deep conversation started because someone asked about the effectiveness of the Modern Arnis (actually it was more general in that he refered to any "arnis" but that's a mote point) empty hand system. You, followed shortly by Paul M. responded with some tactical considerations that could apply to any martial art. Your response was also in rebuke of "martial artists" who try to talk self-defense without taking tactical considerations. I felt that the thread was getting steered in a different direction. Why? Because when someone asks about the effectiveness of a martial art, they are usually talking from a technical and conceptual perspective. WHY? Because if they were talking from a tactical perspective, then they wouldn't be talking about one martial art, because tactical principles could apply to ANY martial art. your quote, "It's a framework that sits over the top and is not prescriptive about which technique to use (hence independence of style)." So am I correct?...

So, the question is, do you believe as I do that tactics are independent from the Martial system? The article (good article by the way) seems to believe this. Do you? Paul Martin, do you?

PAUL

Well, yes and no. I think I see where you are coming from. No you shouldnt sacrifice technical development and say "my tactics will make up for it". I think I said that before (I loose track ). Carrying out a tactical plan is dependent on working technique, absolutely. To use your analogy though, you dont want to make a bunch of Ferari mechanics that have never driven a car either. Even if they never race competitively, you need to get them out on the practice track. The issue of if you have the time to build a Ferari when you may just need a jeep to get out to the battlefront is a different issue.

In regards to the "framework" quote the author also said...

"It isn't style related, it can be applied to all existing styles or systems intended for self defence but not without changes to those systems"

I believe hes saying that a "tactical approach" can be made by any martial art because martial arts (in the modern sense) provide the technical training/expertise but are lacking an aggressive tactical training component. Hence the change in mindset and training approach. I dont think hes implying that one can be had without the other (if you want to develop an effective "fighting" student). I believe that Tactics and technique are ineseparable. Various arts (techniques) develpoed for tactical reasons. Okinawa'n (SP?) arts developed from the from the fact that the Japanese invaded and disarned the population. In order to defend themselves against armed and armored Samurai they developed techniques and weapons to counter their foes advantages. Tactical considerations resulted in stylistic technique. On the "yang" side of the symbol, tactics also change and are selected based on the technical strengths of the combatants. US military tactics have changed due to our "technical" superiority. Its a relationship that shouldnt be split but has.

PS. I too have been enjoying the conversation. Yes it may be a tangent, but its the most Ive posted and/or read here in a long time.

 

[Cruentus]

I think we are mostly in agreement on the issue. I don't know if you got there yet, but if you read my post on the relationship between "technical," "conceptual," and "tactical," I think you'll see that we might be on the same page. Although I said "Vinn Diagram" which Implies 3 overlapping circles, I think I would rather use a different diagram to describe the relationship (I wish I could draw diagrams here on MT! Where's Bob Hubbard when you need him! )

So, we have to visualize...


Conceptual > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

...................................................................Tactical

Technical < < << < < < < < < < < < < < <



Now...with the outlay of the words above, picture 2 overlapping circles with one circle "conceptual" and the other "technical". That is your "art" or Combat System. Now, picture a seperate circle around the word "tactical". Tactics are seperate, more universal things that involve "real life" applications of the "art". Do you see the arrows? The art and the tactics feed off each other, effect each other, and build off one another. They are inseperable. Yet, do you see how they are not the same?

If you can visualize what I am saying, I think the above is an even better visual then a vinn diagram. I see tactics as more enviromental things that are vital to consider in the continuing developement of your art, but are not the same as the art. In this illustration, you can see how they effect one another, but are not exactly the same.

See, in this way, you can learn an art...Modern Arnis. Yet, as a cop you can make the tactical adjustments for your job, making adjustments for gun retention, cuffing the BG, etc. Your art, Modern Arnis, is the same as my art. Yet, your tactical adjustments for your job are different then tactical adjustments I'd have to make as a civilian. See what I mean about how they are differen't, even though they are related?

 

[Tgace]

Originally posted by PAUL
See, in this way, you can learn an art...Modern Arnis. Yet, as a cop you can make the tactical adjustments for your job, making adjustments for gun retention, cuffing the BG, etc. Your art, Modern Arnis, is the same as my art. Yet, your tactical adjustments for your job are different then tactical adjustments I'd have to make as a civilian. See what I mean about how they are differen't, even though they are related?

I see your concept...mine is a Yin/Yang diagram. While they may be separate issues, they are locked together as a whole. They dont just overlap. Technical development/perfection without a tactical reasons results in WuShu/Extreme Martial arts. Like the "Do" arts developed from the "jutsu" arts from Japan. Based in fighting but developed into something else. Im pretty certain that the "tactical" environment of the Phillipines resulted in the FMA we see today. Im just as certain that those techniques, once developed, helped Fillipino warriors select the tactics they used against opponents. Each flows into the other. When we stop taking modern "tactics" into consideration we lock into preserving "tradition" at the sake of "combat effectiveness".

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Tgace
I see your concept...mine is a Yin/Yang diagram. While they may be separate issues, they are locked together as a whole. They dont just overlap. Technical development/perfection without a tactical reasons results in WuShu/Extreme Martial arts. Like the "Do" arts developed from the "jutsu" arts from Japan. Based in fighting but developed into something else. Im pretty certain that the "tactical" environment of the Phillipines resulted in the FMA we see today. Im just as certain that those techniques, once developed, helped Fillipino warriors select the tactics they used against opponents. Each flows into the other. When we stop taking modern "tactics" into consideration we lock into preserving "tradition" at the sake of "combat effectiveness".

I agree! :asian:

 

[Cruentus]

First off, in regards to tactics being a “soft science”, I did mean it as the distinction between “hard” sciences like Chemistry, and “soft” science like psychology. Tactics or Combat science is a “soft science,” but that doesn’t make it any less credible then any other soft sciences. As with soft sciences, it becomes difficult to distinguish “correct” from “incorrect,” like in psychology. Yet, soft sciences are still both important and valid.

Having said that, we seem to be in dispute over the definition of the word “tactics.” I think that your definition goes too far beyond what has been generally excepted by Tactical experts. Your opinion is that my definition is my own, and doesn’t take in consideration what modern combat science. I disagree with your opinion.

Now, if you look for a good definition by experts on what “tactics” actually means, you’ll find it hard to find that information. It’s one of those words that is used a lot without specific definitions given. However, in the context in which the word is used, we can gather what “tactics” means.

The dictionary definition of tactics is: “A Method for Employing Forces in Combat”

Now the actual “Forces” would be your art…technical and conceptual. I believe that this dictionary definition is what Modern Combat sciences go off of.

I believe this because when you look at some of the leaders in Modern Self Defense and Combative “tactics,” They all say the same thing…that what they do is “independent from Martial Arts ‘style.’”

This is what they say, not me. Check any and every website or advertisement from every tactics instructor with credibility. I’ll let you pick, because they all say the same thing about their methods or tactics being separate from style, which fits in with the dictionary definition, and fits in with what I have been saying.

So…if you don’t agree with the dictionary definition which coincides with what the 'experts' say, then fine. So, what IS your definition of tactics, if your not going by conventional standards?

PAUL

 

[Tgace]

Strategy, Tactics and Doctrine
The terms "strategy", "tactics" and "doctrine" express three related, but distinct, concepts. The distinctions are important to note if we are to understand the concepts.



Strategy

Strategy describes a broad perspective on how resources are to be used to achieve some goal.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed., 2000): "1a. The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war. b. The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations."

The Department of Defense definition is: "The art and science of developing and using political, economic, psychological, and military forces as necessary during peace and war, to afford the maximum support to policies, in order to increase the probabilities and favorable consequences of victory and to lessen the chances of defeat." (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/)

In Foundations of Leninism, Stalin writes: "Strategy is the determination of the direction of the main blow of the proletariat at a given stage of the revolution, the elaboration of a corresponding plan for the disposition of the revolutionary forces (main and secondary reserves), the fight to carry out this plan throughout the given stage of the revolution."

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) provides this historical definition: "The art of a commander-in-chief; the art of projecting and directing the larger military movements and operations of a campaign. Usually distinguished from tactics, which is the art of handling forces in battle or in the immediate presence of the enemy."



Tactics

As the OED definition indicates, "strategy" is usually opposed to "tactics", where tactics is the deployment of forces in some specific instance of applying strategy.

For example, The American Heritage® Dictionary states: "1a. The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy"



The Department of Defense defines tactics: "1. The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities."

Stalin states: "Tactics are the determination of the line of conduct of the proletariat in the comparatively short period of the flow or ebb of the movement, of the rise or decline of the revolution, the fight to carry out this line by means of replacing old forms of struggle and organization by new ones, old slogans by new ones, by combining these forms, etc." And later in the same paragraph: "Tactics are a part of strategy, subordinate to it and serving it."

The OED, in its definition of strategy, includes this quote from A. T. Mahan's Sea Power: [Strategy applies] "efore hostile armies or fleets are brought into contact (a word which perhaps better than any other indicates the dividing line between tactics and strategy)."



Doctrine

Doctrine is an overall statement of principles as to how forces are used at any stage.

The Department of Defense defines doctrine as: "Fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application."

How does this relate to and differ from strategy and tactics? Doctrine describes how a force operates, or how an army fights. Strategy describes the overall approach to achieving the goal; tactics describes the specifics, e.g., when an army is in contact with the enemy. Doctrine describes in both cases the principles as to how the fight will be waged.

The DoD describes this relationship between doctrine, strategy and tactics: "The levels of war are doctrinal perspectives that clarify the links between strategic objectives and tactical actions. Although there are no finite limits or boundaries between them, the three levels are strategic, operational, and tactical." That is, doctrine is applied at both the strategic level, and at the tactical level. Doctrine is an abstract, general (and practical) statement. Doctrine is applied via strategy and tactics (the "strategic level", and at the "tactical level." A U.S. Marine Corps document on urban warfare suggests the distinction between doctrine and tactics: the document"provides doctrinal guidance and detailed information on tactics, techniques, and procedures to be employed in [Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain] within the operating forces."

Doctrine is a general statement of how we fight; strategy a broad description of how we are going to fulfill our mission; tactics the specific actions to implement strategy.

 

[Cruentus]

Neat post!

I don't have a lot of time today, so I'll let that digest and I'll post more later.

One question; where did you dig up the information for the dept. of defense definitions? I know with your career you have access to much cooler stuff then I do (unless you think the market is "cooler" then guns, a squad car, and info like what you posted... if so then I would have access to cooler 'stuff'! ), but I would like to be able to look at some of that information if possible. I think its a great help for someone in my position as a civilian instructor to know the military definitions of things, outside the dictonary definitions.

Anyways, gotta go...more later!

 

[Tgace]

Check out my web site (button below my screen name). Its a sort of refrence library I made for myself from when i was still in the reserves. Its kinda old and some links may not work but the DoD library links are interesting. You have to go down the rabbit hole to get to some things but its all in there.

 

[Tgace]

Since nobodys screaming at me to stop, heres some more...

FM 22-100 MILITARY LEARERSHIP 1990

"Technical Knowledge: Technical knowledge is the knowledge required to perform all tasks and funcions related to your position, including the ability to operate and maintain all assigned equipment. You should strive to learn how to use your equipment in the most effective manner to support your mission accomplishment..."

"Tactical Knowledge: Tactical knowledge is the ability to employ your soldiers and their equipment. Combat arms leaders work directly to gain an advantage over the enemy while combat support and combat service support leaders provide the necessary support for that employment. The Army recognizes 9 principles of war. You must understand these principles and consider their applicability to your situation.

-Objective
-Offensive
-Mass
-Economy of Force
-Maneuver
-Unity of Command
-Security
-Suprise
-Simplicity"

FM 3-90 TACTICS
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-90/toc.htm

 

[loki09789]

Paul,

The memory fades with age, I reread the posts and saw, as you mentioned, that I wrote MA first. But after Upnorth... clarified, I moved to the mulit-art discussion. It works either way because tactical theory, can be applied to either discussion.

Tom took the best of the sources for some of the definitions but here are some samples that I generally work from:

 

[loki09789]

Sorry, hit enter too early trying to cut and paste

Technical knowledge is the knowledge required to perform all tasks and funcions related to your position, (Same as Tom's post)

tactical

Characterized by adroitness, ingenuity, or skill ("Winning Chess").

Tactics
A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal (Strategy and tactics - USMC Officer course manual).

An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver (Dictionary).

Concept
A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences (Dictionary).

A scheme; a plan: “began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept”

strategy
n 1: an elaborate and systematic plan of action [syn: scheme]



tact - as the root word for tactics.

ready power of appreciating and doing what is required by circumstances (dictionary).


If I were to organize this stuff the techiques in a martial art would be stances,strikes,blocks...

Tactics would, in part, be the ability to organize techniques into maneuvers that would achieve a goal. Like I said before, baiting to me is an example of tactics because the techniques are being used - or force is being employed - to accomplish a goal ('fighting tactics' for the sake of clarity). The better a student's technical skill, the better/faster a student will be able to make the baiting tactic work. That is where I get the idea that tactics are imbedded in the art. Tactics that exist within a system like preset baiting or striking or blocking combinations are multiple techniques organized into a maneuver to accomplish a goal. FMA and MA specifically use these combinations to accomplish two goals: Fighting skill and conceptual understanding. The first makes fighters, the second makes artists. One drill that develops two parts of a persons ability had to be based on a strategic theory, or intricate plan - in this case FMA/MA.

Now, like you were saying earlier, environmental tactics would use the techniques of observation, mobility (walking, running, driving...) and other skills to position and maneuver based on the situation. Some martial arts include this in the curriculum, some don't. MA, on a curriculum/technical level, doesn't have it, but on the conceptual/strategic level of understanding, it can be there.

Simultaniously, there could be the concept of baiting within an art that students derive and understanding of from applying and drilling the tactics of preset baiting combinations/drills - specific instances of either fighting or training. This reminds me of a past thread on counter for counter existing as a drill and a concept.

I see where you are coming from and it is the training approach of a lot of excellent martial arts: Technical training will lead to conceptual understanding and artistic perfection. Tactical training is a separate issue because it pertains to situations and condition. Great, and I don't think that you can be doing badly if you have achieved BB and instructor levels, as well as being alive...

I come from instruction and a view that FMA's and MA as strategic theory/conceptual arts (I like how the definitions for both have a common wording in one case).

I see MA/FMA as a school of strategic/tactical theory that teaches through tactical applications or drills (counter for counter, de cadena...) giving students opportunities to use techniques to accomplish the goal of fighting skill and derived understanding of the larger concepts (sometimes with the same names as the drill which can get very confusing).
Once the student can grasp several concepts, the strategic theory of the art as a whole is possibly revealed (I don't know if that can truly happen in a single life time, in reality). How else could RP say that it is the 'art within your art'?

My Venn diagram would have the same categorized as yours, Paul J, only I would have all three circles overlapping equally in triangular pattern as such


technical


tactical conceptual



All three circles would overlap in the center and that would be where the the system would exist.

This is really long and I apologize for that, but I am really into this.

Paul Martin