Sure, except that the article was talking about changing your OODA loop to somehow disorient an opponent. And while that might be useful the same can be achieved by having so many more OODA loops than your opponent that you can simply choose to drop packets in order to take advantage of some timing benefit. Generally, when you're doing sampling data, it's much better to sample at the highest frequency possible, and downsample as needed. Even with dumb linear interpolation you'll still generally have higher resolution with less uncertainty than if you try to reduce your sampling to match some kind of signal.

I do like you bringing up starcraft though. Clicks per second can largely be mapped to the frequency of the OODA loop. When I was following the broodwarAI bots a couple of years ago, usually the better bots tended to have a much higher meaningful clicks per second than worse bots. This of course, isn't necessarily causative, since the better algorithm may spend more time on analysis so that it clicks less, but each click is more valuable.

But I think you are right, in that the bigger idea OODA was that the reason the pilot who came up with the idea originally was using it to describe why his largely inferior plane was able out dogfight enemy planes. That the plane he was in had more responsive controls, which allowed him to react faster to his opponent, and also to keep forcing his opponent to get stuck reacting to his actions. His basic tenet was that because his plane was more responsive, he was able to keep forcing his opponent to have to go back the start of the opponent's OODA loop every time he changed course, thus wasting precious time observing and reorienting.

You're not "changing" your own OODA loop. I think you are misunderstanding OODA. Your understanding of it is precisely what that article was saying is ... oversimplistic at best. One of the ways to beat someone with a faster OODA loop is to change conditions in a way where small divergances with what is observed and what is actual will start to stack on top of each other. Once the opponent starts panicking and flailing, you can lead him around pretty easily.

Col. Boyd wasn't just talking about fighter pilots. Much of what he was talking about have a lot of relevance to fighting in general. I find a lot of skilled martial artists breaking someone's tempo. Musashi and Sun Tzu have talked about it in each in their own way.

Put it this way. I have a friend who regularly beats people on first person shooters. He does not have fast reflexes. He just knows how people think and react and can manipulate them.

But I don't really care. It isn't as if I were going to go out fighting someone seriously anytime soon. And if I were, I wouldn't want to teach my adversary how to use OODA properly.

This. I've applied Musashi's principles in competitive re-enactment combat successfully. Faster is generally better, and there's a point where a raw speed difference is enough to win any fight. But manipulating the tempo of the fight so you can hit them on the off-beat is definitely a thing, and that might involve slowing down a bit to manipulate that tempo. Which is exactly what TFA was saying.