If I am reading it right, I don't think Jon's point (at its core, similar to Asim's) is that hard to swallow:
No matter what the origins of our attacks, they shouldn't be a joke to people who study attacking, even if their context is different, as in boxing or technical sword arts. (And Michael, even if you are confident in your personal sword usage skill, I am thinking of the population as a whole here, which is addressed by the story Phi referenced.)
Cliff's idea in post 43 is quite reasonable, and the response as I see it is that if we have solid BASICS in things like punching-- if our punching can match the essence of a simple, good punch even from foreign points of view like boxing-- then we don't need years of study in striking arts. We just need the basics. In other words the first steps in Cliff's hypothetical progression are fine, if they start with solid basics.
That's the happy medium between ineptitude and the extreme painted in post 43.
IMO, Jon, you arent talking about these types of things when you refer to Aiki. ... This has nothing to do with power or being immovable IMO...but I may be wrong about that.
I understand your reasoning but I think the method of postural management that is called "standing on ame no ukihashi" in fact brings about solid stability just as much as it does quick movement that lacks "anticipatory postural adjustments" etc. (It's about becoming internally unified, which affects ability to move as much as ability to not move.) Just want to put that thought into this thread to explicitly voice the other point of view - not to get into a discussion about it in this thread, but just so that they are both on the page.