Technique has no influence on tactics. Tactics is the chicken, technique is the egg.
|Originally posted by nolo:
In another thread, Fastman says,
Am I the only one scratching her head and saying, huh? Fastman, please explain yourself. The second statement contradicts the first one, and the first statement is debatable, to be mild.
Sure Nolo, I'd be happy to elaborate.
The term tactics, in relation to skiing, was brought into prominence in the race coaching communtiy many years ago. It has since been adopted by the recreational skiing side of the sport. Where technique refers to how we use our equipment and body to produce a turn, tactics refers to the shape of that turn, the type of turn, and its placement on the hill.
Simply put, tactics are the plans we create for the type and shape of the turns we want to produce, and where we want those turns to take us. Once we have established that plan, we then decide which technique will best enable us to execute our plan. This is the basis of the chicken/egg analogy. The technique employed is a derivative of the tactics contrived, as the egg is a derivative of the chicken. Simply language, tactics come first.
And before anyone initiates a chicken/egg debate, let me inform you that the riddle has recently been solved. The egg came from the chicken, the chicken came from Cleveland! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
OK, I will concede that there are exceptions. We may be purposely focusing on a particular technique for training purposes and we set a particular tactical plan that will accomodate utilization of that desired technique. But as a rule we choose a technique that will accomadate our tactical intent. To do otherwise, to allow where we go on the hill and how we get there to be restricted by the limitations of the technique we employ, is to place unnecessary limitations on our tactical options.
Hope this helps to clarify my position for you.