So, that being said, this is why a) people tend to drift, cross train, etc, to other things. I mean, if something is teaching antiquated things, and passing them off as things that'll actually work in todays world, well, IMO, they're doing a dis-service to their student.
Well, yes and no... yes, they're doing a potential dis-service to their students, but at the same time, they might not be. After all, confidence is one of the biggest skills and attributes that can be bestowed by martial training, and that can be done in most systems, regardless of the actual practical applicability of the school and teaching in question. People tend to drift and cross-train, not because they are getting sub-standard information, but more often due to unresolved personal images or doubts, commonly placed there from external fears (stemming from a lack of knowledge, when it comes down to it), such as the fear of "but if they know this (say, ground fighting), I need to know it as well!" When all's said and done, that's actually a fairly unrealistic mentality... but it's also a very common one.
On the other hand, if someone is teaching an antiquated methodology, or a methodology that is exclusively dealing with an alien (different and removed) cultural or societal reality, and the instructor approaches them as being the same thing (sadly, not uncommon), then there's been a disconnect in the reality at some point. Unfortunately (and I'm going to head over to the "Modern versus Antiquated" thread with this soon...) many seem to make the mistake of thinking that violence has always been the same, which is simply far from the reality. But I'll leave that for the other thread.
B) The subject of whether or not real world experience is necessary, is also something that's come up on here, many times. Is RW experience necessary? I mean, we have people teaching that have never been in a fight, we have people teaching that have been in them. Or at the least, been in a position in which they had to defend themselves. Of course, the counter to that, is when people say, "Well, what if the instructor hasn't been attacked with a knife in the RW? Should they still teach knife defense?" I personally know people that have successfully defended themselves empty handed, yet have never had a gun pulled on them, but still teach gun defense. OTOH, those people usually tend to research things a bit more, and train a bit more realistic, ie: scenario training. These are the guys that'll use airsoft training guns, no lie blades, etc, and scenario train. I've found that those folks tend to teach things that have a higher percentage of working, compared to other things that are taught in most places.
Honestly? They don't need to have any actual first-hand experience themselves. Sure, it can help, and it can solidify or validate some or many aspects, but it's not a necessary thing for a variety of reasons. What is needed is a proper education, and an ability to both test and realistically rate methodologies. There needs to be something (based in reality, commonly experience of some kind, although not necessarily first-hand) for the methods and training to be compared to and contrasted with. After a while (when approached properly), you should be able to simply take a new concept, and have enough understanding to ascertain it's usability and realism without having to go out and get in a fight just to prove it works.
Just using my previous experience the only real place is see trouble is trying to strike with rapidity when the situation calls for it. Of course maybe im putting to much into rear side hand striking. Maybe with good power generation I can get good power and speed of striking from just the one lead hand that we do strike with.
We're not Wing Chun. Striking with rapidity just isn't what we do... we're not chain punchers, we're not in a multiple-round match where we're trying to wear down an opponent... it's just not the right context for us. But, on the other hand, you're still getting contexts confused. The stepping punch is very much the traditional methodology, and is commonly out of place in a modern situation... looking at the traditional methods and saying "hey, but a street fight is different, why do we do it this way" without taking into account that the "street" situation just isn't even on the radar of the traditional approach is to miss the point entirely. You really do have to learn to recognize what a traditional context is versus a modern one... and what applies where (and why).
I still wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the movements tend to be similar to weapons movements.
Yep.
I kind of see Ichimonji as a spear, with the lead hand being the tip of the spear.
Nope.
I don't know about you but, I still feel it is the person using the techniques that matters more.
The individual comes later. Unless a particular individual is just naturally gifted and incredibly talented (think Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee, Musashi...), then it's more down to training methods. After all, if it was just the individual, why would they need to attend a school? The old line about "well, it's up to the individual to use the techniques" is true, but flawed... they can't use the techniques without being trained in how to first, in the tactical application and so forth.
Of course, I think that our dojo may be different because I have heard repeatedly that the way they were taught to do things was different because Nagase Shihan teaches in a more "combative" method. Which is kinda vague.
Yeah... I've heard such things before, and, when it comes down to it, there's little more "combative" in most of the approaches claimed to be... what they might be is a bit harder in application, or it could be more a case of delusions of superiority, or something similar... my first question would be "okay, how is what he does more 'combative' than, say, Hatsumi? Or anyone else, really?", and see what the answer is.... but, again, I tend to take words for their meaning rather than hoped-for implications....
When it comes to striking defense, I don't see a issue. The plethora of very usable parries and the quality movement strategies are more then adequate for dealing with strikers.
With the traditional Ude Uke/Jodan Uke/Uke Nagashi movements? There's some very good principles, certainly... but the actual mechanics need to be altered quite a bit if you expect to handle Western Hands (the most dominant striking methodology around).
Its just they may not put out as much DPS as modern strikers.
Hmm..."DPS".... "Damage Per Second"... I had to look that up. Video game terminology isn't really that usable here... for a range of reasons. For the record, you'd need to clarify a lot here... what "modern strikers" are you talking about? Sporting systems (such as boxing, kickboxing, MMA) will teach you to stagger the power/impact of your strikes so you're still able to continue fighting for multiple rounds... the idea is that you gradually wear the opponent down, test their defences, look for openings, and so on. Some non-sporting systems seek to overwhelm (such as a number of Chinese systems, Wing Chun, Choy Lay Fut etc), so might focus on a large number of strikes applied in rapid-fire bursts. We don't do that. We hit to defined targets with a hell of a lot behind them, with the idea of doing as much with one strike as another might with multiples. I had a Wing Chun student once throw a series of chain punches into a pad I was holding, after which he turned to me and asked if I could tell how many strikes he'd thrown. When I couldn't, he looked satisfied, smiled, and said "Exactly! If you can't keep up, how can you block them all?". I told him to hold the pad, and hit it once. That one hit was significantly more than anything he'd thrown, as our mechanics put our entire bodyweight behind everything... he winced, turned away, and shook some feeling back into his hand. "How many was that?"
I don't need to overwhelm with multiple strikes, I'm just going to hit once or twice... any more than that, and I've missed quite badly what I'm aiming for. In other words, we give more "damage per strike", as we're not concerned about 15 rounds, or them necessarily blocking or evading anything (there are reasons for that, of course)... which can very easily be more damage per second as well. To end this little diatribe, Charles Daniel (early generation American instructor, Bujinkan) was once teaching a class for his black belts, which was being watched by one of the students girlfriends. During a break in the class, Charles was talking to her about what she was seeing, and she told him "You're so deliberate in everything you do". "Of course I'm deliberate, I'm lazy!" replied Charles... "I'm not going to throw anything that's not going to land."
However, in the context of street defense, its moot, as most don't have striking training..
Nor do they have grappling training, BJJ training, weapon training, MMA training, or anything else. However, what they need the least of is striking training... and, in a sense, they'll have a lifetimes worth of "striking training" anyway, even if they've never set foot in a gym/dojo/kwoon/dojang in their lives...
I wonder if I and many like me keep looking at every possible thug and miscreant as former UFC champs out looking for a butt to stomp. That's not the case, not in the least.
And, honestly, it's not only a false concern, it's a dangerous one, as you'll spend your time worrying about (and mentally, if not physically preparing you for) something that you won't face... and take time away from preparing for a potential reality.
As for the use of avoidance you mentioned before....as I said, I agree. If you can avoid the fight altogether, why not do it? Such tactis have saved my *** many times. LOL. 
