To be honest I find the idea of categorizing flying styles both ambiguous and limiting.
Why is it ambiguous?
What "duelist" isn't "trying to engineer the fight such that the advantages of their aircraft come into play"? What "smart flyer" isn't "utilizing anything other than maneuvering and/or energy management to attain a shot in order to win an engagement"?
The same goes for comparing supposed angles vs. energy styles of fighting, or the dreaded furballer vs. strategist debate. These are all generalizations that only really apply to those who belong in the extremes.
IMHO the only real difference between the categories in this thread is the level of risk a player is willing to take, some more than others.
How is it limiting?
The danger of categorizations like these are that folks might actually believe that they are real. Take the idea of angles vs. energy styles of fighting. There ain't no such thing (in my best southern drawl). There are angles tactics and energy tactics, but there isn't an angles style vs. energy style. The style becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and before they know it people paint themselves into a corner. We see it all the time. That's when people believe that they can't maneuver fight using a Mustang or energy fight using a Spitfire VIII. They've grouped themselves into a certain style and limited themselves from employing tactics that don’t fit that style.
My $.02
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
