The Paradox Of Committed attack
I'm confused; a committed attack in training is a paradox.
For me, a committed attack would have the intent of hurting my training partner.
If my training partner is doing Aikido, there is no way I expect a single punch out of nowhere is going to hurt (or likely even hit) them.
How can such a thing then be committed? To abandon the awareness that such an attack is doomed from the start is to weaken myself before the attack, and certainly not true committment.
A true attack would consist of a systematic destruction of my opponent, not any single technique. Only techniques within such a framework can truely be committed for me.
I think that maybe real committed attacks are too dangerous for training; that the best we can hope for is simulated committed attacks. Is this what is really meant when people say "committed attack"?
Maybe it's a committed attack to a specific part of the opponent, like the stomach. Still, as long as I understand how my opponent moves, my attack is going to be adaptive, timed right, and setup (this system, again). Throwing a committed attack from out of nowhere at someone I know to be anticipating it is mentally akin to trying to throw a committed attack while standing on my head.
I'm sure this will be contraversial, and I suspect I don't understand something, so I'd love it if we could discuss this.