How many times do we hear about a fighting method being instinctive, natural even? I personally adhere to the idea that it can't be, in that very little of what we do, if anything - whatever the style, system or method - can be accurately described as truly instinctive, rather they are actually learned and conditioned responses.
I'm a confirmed believer in the whole 'swim with the current' approach regarding combative training, purely as a pragmatic and functional approach to achieving the most result with the least effort. If something is easy to do, and works 'straight out of the box' it stands to reason that with minimal further training it will improve considerably, and with lots of training huge progress will be made - compare this with something not quite so simple, and the flight-time required to achieve practice - let alone combat - proficiency.
In actual fact I still also use the term 'instinctive' to describe aspects of what I teach, though realistically I prefer the term 'ergonomic' as being more accurate, to reflect techniques and tactics that fit, not conflict, with how a human actually does, could or would want to work easily, with the least effort - both physically and mentally.
Much of this comes from establishing what is actually required from the training, if it's another tool in the box, or a more holistic lifestyle approach.
Personally I don't consider myself an artist in this game, my name is Mick not Michaelangelo! Left to me the Sistene Chapel would have had three coats of high quality gloss - no work of art to be sure but supremely functional and weatherproof to boot!
I have gone on record many times to state that I absolutely regard everything as being effective within the correct context, though it may not always be efficient. Anything and everything can be made to work for real - pick some much-maligned martial-art and I would confidently put money on being able to find someone who can pull it off for real. This said I would be twice as confident putting money on the same skilled individual being far more effective if he instead utilised more ergonomic means, and this could be achieved much sooner - so with the exact same amount of training time it stands to reason that more progress will be made with the less complex, more ergonomic option.
Greater effect with less effort is the very definition of being efficient, and this is the bedrock of my belief - everyone talks about the 'journey' as if it's actually important - maybe if you are on some great spiritual metaphysical quest, or pretending to be more like, it counts for something more than being just a glib soundbyte - but in reality, and I'm talking real reality here, the destination is everything, the result, the effect - only this counts when your life is at stake, not the means you employ to achieve it. Save the journey for the more artistic endeavours, even then it's about what is actually produced more often than not, I'll never hang an ugly painting on my wall - no matter how much pain and self-sacrifice the artist went through to create it!
This is probably why I'll never be an artist - the process is everything in art, chimpanzees can and have produced credible abstract art, that is at first critically acclaimed by experts - until they discover the source, are then outraged, and subsequently change their minds and proclaim it to be rubbish!
Essentially what I want to achieve is not making the impossible, through intense and dedicated training, just possible - I want to make the possible become probable with the same amount of time and effort spent, or much less as is always the the case. Taking something that already works and refining it is my objective these days, and in doing so I get exactly the results I want.
This function over form, substance over style, is all that concerns me. I admit
that it's not to everyone's liking, but face it - what is?