The original question was:
Are there any techniques which you consider totaly useless in a fight?
IMHO, that implies effective technique and in my mind that means we have a resisting opponent. As corny as it sounds, "bricks, boards, tree stumps and blocking sleds are DEAD --- they don't hit back". You can break bricks all you want, but that does nothing to help you hit a living, breathing, moving opponent. It's a dead pattern and a dead end.
So why hit a brick, or punch a bag, or pull out a tree or hit a blocking sled? The only answer that makes sense to me is to develop a physical attribute, hence, I consider such things to be conditioning exercises, just like stretching, cardio work, strength training and the like.
Deciding to go lay on the floor in the fetal position is a tactical decision. By commiting to that strategy, one limits the engagement. That may or may not be a good decision depending upon one's skill set and the situation. As a bjj'er I will cheerfully engage anyone on the ground in any sport/training setting. That's my tactical decision. In a real live "self-defense" situation, I would never willingly choose to engage anyone on the ground. That's another tactical decision. In either case, I have the same skill set and will most likely use the same techniques (practical methods applied to some particular task).
Does that make sense?
I thought that is what the different kinds of training in our Aikido classes was ... drills, techniques, tactics, training methods, conditioning?
Sigh. See Bruce, if I respond to this, then it will be very clear, very quickly why you don't want me on this thread. Let me just say this: If your assertion is true, then we have the question of tactics, conditioning, techniques, drills, training methods (yes, note the order)... for what? It is in answering the "for what" that will give us a goal, and once we have a goal we can then evaulate if the tactics, conditioning, techniques, drills and training methods are the best way to meet that goal. Which I suspect is what bujin is getting at in the original question. At least, that's how I see things....