That's not exactly what I said, but I can see how it could be read that way. There will be openings in anger that won't exist in a controlled fighter. Those will, often, be both larger and more pronounced than if the same person is not angry, though the timeframe may be compressed (which makes them "smaller" in one way). For untrained people, the openings will, in fact, be often both larger and more pronounced.
Yes. And if you look at those that controvert your expectations, as well, you get a more balanced view.
I don't think I was clear.
Wha-wha-What?!
Ah, gotcha. That's a reasonable entry to the discussion. People who are ill-tempered enough to take a swing at you have probably done so before. Most will stop doing it if they routinely fail. They still differ from someone who is skilled as a fighter, in that they are usually not going to face anyone with any real skill. So, they make mistakes that someone trained won't make. Someone who fights a lot, even occasionally against skilled fighters, is being trained, and will respond more like a trained fighter.
It's not an "either-or" situation, DB. If both controlled and uncontrolled attacks occur in the evidence you can find, you prepare for both.
For me... I evaluate it based on what the person was trying to do. If I can identify it. If they succeeded, or not, either way, you can learn something.
I don't see good attacks and bad attacks as the same thing. There are openings (and occasionally problems) in bad attacks that aren't the same as similar good attacks. They are different things, so I train them differently.
And you seem to assume we can't take that into account when evaluating their input.
Some do, sure.
I don't see it as the hard way. To me, treating an off-balance punch like a compact punch is senseless. My range of options is quite different, though there's some overlap between them. And sometimes I can turn the compact punch into something like the off-balance one, so that training comes back into play.
