Ron Ragusa wrote:
One of the challenges of teaching is how to drill students in the basic forms so they become instinctive while getting the point across that patterned response is dangerous in a conflict; be the conflict physical, emotional or psychological. One method I have for handling this is to stress that leading and following are two sides of the same coin and that the nage must do both simultaneously.
I am not sure if we are talking the same thing again, but my feeling is that patterned response is the only way to respond in a conflict without getting damaged extensively. If you don't have the patterns built in prior to the conflict, you freeze or take to long to respond because you are thinking. In a conflict situation, the person who has the quicker response to the growing situation is the one who is able to take control. If you come under fire in a closed ambush, you have to immediately get into your patterned response to engage the attackers if you want to survive. You also have to have a patterned response to accessing and engaging your weaponry. Then, you can put yourself in autopilot so that you can think about the situation and respond accordingly. Without the patterned response, you are dead. Anyway, isn't that the purpose of training and training? So that you can develop patterned responses so that you can disengage your brain from the task at hand and think about what to do next?