One last point.
I also think you're creating a false division based on how you want to segment what you see as two approaches. While I think there are differences in approach, I wouldn't categorize or align them as you did - even while I agree in tactical application you are showing the differences of someone with a connected body taking someone's center while masking their own - versus someone leaving theirs open. I do not believe anyone is advocating leaving their center open - and my experiences with the approach you are decrying are that nobody gives up their center for the taking except in drills to give someone a dumb force to react to. (just like every other legitimate place I've seen practice)
You still haven't categorized or aligned...anything!! much less defined your distinction of the differences, Budd. Give me something to cause me pause. You haven't as yet offered anything by way of rebuttal.
I said "....It is important to realize that you can affect and take someone's center, without ever attaching yourself to theirs or revealing yours."
You replied "....nobody gives up their center for the taking except in drills...
You are not making any clear distinctions, worth discussing, that produce a benefit other than repeating it might or might not be a needed step. Whereas I have outlined why it is not needed as a step.
I will assume you know you can apply weight and force without giving your center to someone, that you can manipulate their force without giving them access to your center. You seem to understand and agree to this in your replies.So, it begs the question, since you agree this can be done, why any need to "connect" to their center at all?
Do you think you "need" to connect to someones canter to throw them? That's not even necessary in external arts, much less internal. Consider their own connection -to themselves- in the equation of forces meeting. If they are muscling through a movement, and they encounter a person who is internally connected, the connected person can let the muscle guys power pull on themselves and get placed, or arrive at a place they can't manage due to the way they carry themselves. In kata it has one result, in jujutsu it will just cause a series of positional changes to take place until one has an advantage. This is what I meant by opportunistic and predatory. In the end though, the lessor connected person ends up being reactionary as the neutralizing of forces inside the connected person carries through to the outside "on contact" in such a way that it is consistently instant and in the now by default. Empty hand or weapons no matter.
To touch a hand or arm of a connected person is a different event than touching the arm of muscle/shoulder/hip driven person. The first step in managing those forces is to manage forces in you that support any contact point and dissolve the forces so they have no entry point. Hence no need to connect to their center at all. If they are not connected they can be bounced, re-directed and hit, kicked or thrown, or re-positioned. If they are connected the game can continue.
In any event, "connecting" to their center, or having their forces go through you to connect to them is unnecessary for kuzushi to occur or be created.
Thinking an internal strength drill means you can fight is stupid. Thinking because you can perform a choreographed kata means you can fight is stupid. Thinking your internal strength conditioning can be applied easily in a fight without having some progressive resistance training to give you a clue is stupid. None of these things are being argued for as near as I can tell, so please stop presenting them as if I am in favor of them.
They were examples of practicality in use... only for talking points. I know you enough to know you understand the practical fighting game, so I was talking ...to you.... not down to you...on shared end-use goals, Budd.
Nice talking with you and being able to debate without the B.S.