In particular our difference lie in how we like to solve tactical problems that we encounter. What I mean is that I like to create general solutions that work +90% of the time and he likes to create unique solutions for everything.
SourceJason Wuestenberg wrote: I was the same way at one time. I wanted to learn all the CQB tactics that were known. That way I could be ready for any situation or floor plan. I’m still not sure where the turning point was, but suddenly I started to shift my focus on the principles to CQB, and not so much on memorizing specific tactics. I realized that learning specific tactics is like learning dance steps. You don’t have to think about it. And, I can see how that would be appealing to many trainers and tactical teams. The problem is if you encounter an environment that you are unfamiliar with, then a pause or hesitation occurs because you’re trying to figure out how to make a specific tactic work. If officers are taught the principles, and drilled in a manner that forces them to think on the move, then you have a more fluid operator. But, this is harder than teaching dance steps.
The only advantage I can think of with making unique solutions is that you can create something that will work better than a general one that's made to "fit all sizes".