It's possible to complicate things by simplifying them. A human is a human. Each piece of a dissected human is technically simpler than the whole human... but simplifying in that way doesn't really help you deal with the human. Same for techniques and some of the fighting skills- some, like entries, are actually diluted by breaking them down into their component parts. The spearhead is a structured motion- a single action that provides a "golden move": damages the threat; protects you from damage; betters your position; worsens his. It can be taught as separate and distinct things that you do with your left arm, right arm, hips and feet... but it isn't easier to learn that way, or more versatile or more effective. It is slower to learn AND you then have to unlearn the steps to make it a unified action, to make it work.
Does this complication work for anybody? It is easier for the instructor, but only if he is just repeating what he was taught in the way he was taught, as if it was something he memorized, not something he understood. It's not easier for the student. I can teach the unified move without a word of the student's language very quickly. The break down can take half a day with native speakers. Just odd.
All the best instructors are good at things that don't work. Don't work for other people, I mean. I've been very successful with small joint locks on big, aggressive threats. For most people they are a low probability option. JA hits people in ways that for most people who aren't genetic freaks would result in crippled hands (the exception to the big bone/little bone rule is an individual, not a system or technique). MC has been highly successful with a technique that completely violates what we know about action/reaction times. (That's not that uncommon, with a lot of ring sense there are things you can see coming, but I don't count on that ability and try to avoid teaching techniques that require it.)
I think this whole concept of Awareness Based Training, the model that Mac and Sean and I set up for the agency really changes the whole concept of teaching. The assumptions are different, not the "I know something you don't know" that typifies the standard instructor/student relationship. You do know. You know or have seen almost everything that you need. You maybe just didn't notice or didn't draw the connections or didn't give yourself permission to exploit your knowledge. You know what a splint is for a broken arm, right? Intuitively, you know the principles that splinting works from... so you already know not to grip the wrist itself when you are trying to bend it. You already know.
If there can be fighting without fighting, why not teaching without teaching?