What ever criteria list you want to set up is fine because this approach is meant to be personalized/stylized/goal driven, but for me concepts tactics and aliveness would all be under the same topic heading.OULobo said:
Reason being, all of them work from a goal of reading a threat and reacting appropriately. Whether it is engraining an automatic response like a simple self defense technique or a standard defense/counter all the way up to free sparring. The training activity is designed to develop responsiveness to a stimuli - thus a tactical response.
In the military tactical responses are as drilled as "immediate action" procedures which are drilled like a martial artist drills movement patterns or kata/forms for technical proficiency. THEN they drill them by responding to actual or training stimuli of an opposition force.
In the technical phase, the goal is speed, coordination, fluidity, and minimal/zero error as well as conceptual understanding of why and how it is meant to be applied - just like techincal training for the civilian individual artist.
In the tactical phase, the goal is effective, automatic and appropriate response against an "alive" opposition force" that will act differently, through curves at you and so on to force you to apply, adapt your technical skill to fit the moment - just like a 'live' training partner will do when you are developing tactical/"alive" skills of reading and reacting.
In the end, as long as you know what you want to get out of it and what parts you need to bring up to others for a balanced performance base it is all good. Just a different perspective on your categories.
I love the tradition/history stuff. That is so important for developing cultural respect and a sense of being part of a living heritage. Can inspire accountability very well.
