Let me go at it one at a time:
Miller Sensei. Que Pasa? Long time, no hear. I hope all is well. Btu, to the subject at hand.
Forward motion or forward stepping? A matter of semantics I think. To me they are one in the same. To go forward is to go forward no matter what we do. If someone lunges at me and I move into his space without actually making a step, it is still going forward. All the old style jujitsu styles I have seen or read about do indeed deal with facing a weapon, but getting close depends on the weapon and the angle it is thrown. For example, in working with the jo - someone attacking me with the jo - (jo-jitsu), there are techniques where I back up against the attack and work at more of a distance. There are many times where I go straight back or back to my angles, as prescribed in my taesabaki exercises. Do I then move into them on the counter-attack? Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes I take the attacker in the other direction using their energy.
And where is the definitive explanation that says that closing on your opponent is a higher percentage move? Do we just take that for granted? Once again, I would say that would depend on the situation and who and where you are fighting. I could think of many instances where buying time would be a more prudent move.
I'm certainly not knocking your MA practice or style. Closing is just as viable in my opinion. I'm just saying that it's not the only way and the old styles, at least in my opinion, say just that in their tested movements.
Thanks for input. I agree that we fight how we practice. I think that is common sense, and of course we all want to think that what we practice is the best. That is why I have a hard time looking at some of this "scientific testing" of strategy and claiming its the end all. Because someone puts on a Michelin Tire Dummy suit and attacks us "all out," doesn't simulate reality to me, and thus can not be considered valid.
I don't claim that styles have not evolved over the years, I'm saying that the testing methods of the styles of old were done in REAL situations; whereas today, they simply can not. I don't quite get the Judo example, perhaps you could explain that more. Judo is a derivitive of Jujitsu. Kano, to my knowledge, never created Judo to be a "fighting art," it could not have been tested in the way described above. Is that knocking Judo or Judoka? No way! I have the utmost respect for those dudes, but I think they would even tell you that in a "controlled" atmosphere of the Judo arena, giving space to your adversary is sometimes a good thing.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone to not to go forward anymore. If you are comfortable with it then, as you say, you have to do what you practice for. However, the situation is always different, which means the defense must almost always have to be different. Don't put away going straight back either, sometimes it's the best (especially if it is the only way to go).
Good to hear from you!
I should know better than to try and persuade you of anything
But.... I will disagree with you that going nonstop is "always" better. It doesn't work in warfare, and can never be certain in "real" situations on the street. You make a great point in that you always want to improve your position, but, what is that position and where, location-wise, is the improvement? That's where going back comes into it.
I've never spoken with you, so I will say welcome and thanks for your input!
I would like to read the material you wrote about. Is it available anywhere?
I think that you are really agreeing with everyone here. Could you elaborate on it more?