I see the value in both. I know we've disagreed about "high noon" exercises in the past, but from my experience of social violence there is a lot of waiting for someone to move involved. When I talk about "high noon" though, I'm actually talking about hands-down gunslinging toe-to-toe, not two people in some kind of "martial" stance waiting for a command to move. It's the aggressor picking the moment, and the anticipation of the defender that I find useful. Church bells tolling, a bead of sweat running down your brow... all of that Anyway, as to the kind of thing I think you are on about, again free and fixed footwork. I'm all about permutations, and most often this kind of thing comes out of me seeing someone get caught out a few times by the same combination of moves in sparring. I'll get the person getting caught out to formulate a response, then it will go from a recreation of the footwork used to free footwork and working different angles, ranges etc.. If we get into it then we'll switch out techniques and other variables, possibly giving a few options of moves rather than entirely prescribed. On the rare occasion I'll dictate a set of moves (never more than 2 techniques each), then the footwork will be free, so that angles, range and timing are all part of the exercise. I see it as like a fixed pad sequence, but with a person.
I think creating a more dynamic and realistic feed through footwork and rhythmic variation is a good thing as makes the drill more realistic... I'm not sure about fakes though. I don't know how helpful they are given the limited parameters of the drill (uke - Tori and single techniques). I've seen people take the Mick with faking when they know they are the only permitted aggressor and it gets highly counter productive pretty fast. Ultimately, the attacker ends up landing and nobody learns. Variation is certainly good. Regarding the highnoon bit: it seems to me that the aggressor's ability to dictate the timing of the attack in a face off is something you'd want to train to eliminate rather than train to respond to?
Again, it's about the permutations. Train best case scenarios, train worst case scenarios, training everything in between. The utility, IMO, is about reading telegraphs and cues. Of course preemptive action is best, but to presume that will always happen seems like hubris to me.
Fair enough. It just seems to me that standing facing an aggressor with hands down at close proximity can be avoided in all instances and as it breaks the social rules regarding proximity and personal space it'd be unusual to ever find yourself there awaiting physical aggression.
I would say that it is one of the most applicable bits of training to the violence I've personally witnessed or had attempted on me. Social ambush from friendly banter to sucker punch or head butt out of the blue. But that isn't to say that it is a preferred position. It is the second most dangerous standing position to work from, so it gives insight into reading cues and responding at speed in extremis. I've never seen a fight break out from across a room where two people approach each other cautiously in a guarded position, but no-one seems to have a problem with sparring like that as building skills and attributes applicable to real world violence.
Well fair enough. I understand what your rationale is better now I guess and I'm not trying to imply that the drill is useless; however I do think its utility exists in symbiosis with how well you replicate the conditions of a conversational surprise attack within that framework and I'm not sure a Uke-Tori one-step in the typical sense is anywhere near the best way to do so. If it's more dynamic and you are both talking, assessing body position and proximity, reading body language, there is the potential for no attack ect ect then I think that is going some way to implementing the actual tools you want to sharpen and which you would be using in an actual engagement. But I dunno. If it works for you and you do it as part of a larger whole then I won't knock it.
I'm also mindful of the fact that I've never done the Uke-Tori traditional one-step stuff, so I don't know how close this is. I certainly wouldn't limit these exercises to one attack and one response, even though it may initially start like that before more variation is added, all the way to initiating sparring from that position.
