It is a known fact that the lack of a technique or a system in any affair means no  result. The most vivid example is a combat unit where no result means death of  comrades and mission failure. So if we talk about a result from the military point of  view, that means where there is a result – there is a technique. And these  techniques will always exist, because the result is needed. I think this is exactly  what some schools lack on some reason or other. Here is a knife. Here is an  enemy. What's so difficult about killing him? To be honest, everything is difficult:  from the unknown situation (where and when the knife will be necessary) to inner  parameters (reaction speed, precision and variety of actions).

 Example: there is a shot in close contact to you. You seem to understand  everything, but your body stiffens, your breath becomes more frequent and  unstable, your hands disobey you. These are psychophysical barriers that affect  your actions. And if you add pain, death fear and something else – you'll get a  situation in which very few people can act quickly and clearly. The aim of a  technique is to minimise psychophysical barriers by arranging the simplest and  most primitive actions for the fighter.

 Jumping ahead of myself I can say that the most difficult thing is to teach a fighter to choose actions rapidly and to switch from one action to another. Again a military example: there is a fight, you shoot, come closer to the opponent and suddenly run out of ammo. You pick your gun and continue shooting. If this happens in a room and your opponent comes closer and escapes from the firing line, it would be better to strike with a leg and to shoot again. It will be necessary to apply your knowledge of close fight and maybe to pull out a knife. This example is necessary for understanding and not for the reflection of truth. The question is how to make your body do all this under stress and emotional pressure. The answer: to rely on your survival instinct which makes your body protect itself with any means varying them according to their effectiveness.

This instinct is also necessary when an ordinary attack turns into a murder attempt. Civil example: the opponent starts attacking you with fists wanting to hit you in the face, but then he suddenly pulls out his knife in order to kill you. In this situation you must notice and react to this change immediately. Strange to say but there is also a methodological approach in such a situation. I know three such approaches. There are three schemes, two of them suitable for everybody and one only for people with experience in order to improve their results. So two schemes for any level and one for profies.