Tactics Vs. Martial Art

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tgace]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[loki09789]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

:CTF:

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

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

That just made my night!

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

 

[dearnis.com]

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.....