I keep throwing up clips of ball games for examples of tactical thinking.
I've posted quite a few basketball clips, and now an American Football clip. So why the similarity with tactics in sword play?
At it's simplest, it's because in these sports you have to get past the opposition to score ... in other words there is an 'after' to the interaction with the opposing team, a thing you have to do once you are past them.
Replace the idea of protecting the prized object that the other side wants to take from you (the ball), with protecting your life which the other side wants to take from you, and replace the goal line or the basket with 'going home', and the parallel is clear.
You don't win if you lose your ball.
A long time ago I was part of an on line debate about how to make knife sparring more 'sensible', I mean as sensible as it can. The problem was that everyone, without exception, was running at each other and dying in the process. Didn't matter how many hits one person got on the other, they took about the same amount in return.
Obviously if both carried real, live weapons, the behavior might change, but acting completely differently with training blades is pointless - there is nothing useful to be learned here, and in fact reactions detrimental to one's health are superseding smart decision making! Kinda the opposite of what training is meant to be FOR ......
So way back when, in this conversation, I suggested a scenario where one person needed to get past another with a 'prize', to emphasize this idea of exit and that there was meant to be an 'after' to the interaction. I also suggested a similar idea where every minute or so, another threat would get added, introducing some necessity to leave the area as soon as possible as the odds would get worse and worse the longer one stayed .....
My ideas were never tried as far as I know ... but the fact still remains - There is an AFTER .... at least there should be .... And that thing you hold so precious, that you need to protect? Get it home safely for the win.