On a related note, however, this does bring a useful issue of how we should deal with escalation -- in training and otherwise. I have been thinking about this bit.

It seems to me that one school of thought likes to keep the escalation very low -- and with a lessening of the "rate" of escalation, if you will. The thought seems to be that the ramp up to possibly damaging intensity is thereby made less likely.

I think that is actually wrong, and that the "shape" of a safer escalation dynamic is actually less obvious than the "low-key" approach. I think in images for abstract concepts quite often, and they are hard to capture sometimes, but I think work quite well on this one.

This is the dynamic 'shape' that I think most people try to adopt when escalation is a concern.



This is the image of the dynamic I have, or strive for:



In martial terms, it is very necessary to be very close to the border between mere discomfort or threat and actual wounding. Thus, ramping quickly up to, and maintaining, the dynamic in that borderline area or dynamic cusp level is very important.

I think people have a false sense of comfort with the 'width' of the relatively flat part on top of the bell curve dynamic. Staying there involves a lot of second-guessing about the direction or sign of the immediate dynamic as well maintaining level of intensity, (i.e -- alternately pressing or relenting), to avoiding falling off into irrevocable injury or back into (martially) pointless "dance."

The second one seems far better than the first to me. The defining line between discomfort and irrevocable damage is very clear on the second one, and depends on intensity alone, not the direction of the pressure-- which is always in the same direction, so there is only one variable, not a change of sign or 'wobble' in the action. there is not relenting only pressing and then only the moderation of rate of increase to guage absolute intensity.

In the first image however, "dynamic" momentum could very easily put you over the hump into damaging territory, and perhaps unnecessarily or very likely unintentionally. The first image puts a sharper and more defined "point" or cusp on the dynamic, and at the same time makes the intensity ramp up sharply rather than tail off or become "wobbly".

That gives fairly definite dynamic goal for training --- the same one as for actual engagement -- just shy of the point of doing real injury in the given circumstance with a steep (and natural) slope of de-escalation or a narrow but very sharp and distinct boundary into real damage if necessity provokes the extra intensity needed to "push" over that sharp peak.

The "dynamic" cusp approach would seem to result in a deterrent to initial aggression (a bonus factor, not a goal) -- the lower "ramp up" seems to have little deterrent advantage, and actually seems more dangerous for "carrying over" inadvertently into the irrevocable injury territory. There seem to a number of "cusps" shown in various scenarios, or waza, (or bunkai or batto for the weapons folks), This perspective seems to me somewhat important as a training observation as well as in the management of actual violence and a way to tie them meaningfully together.

Just a thought raised by the pinning discussion.