Sustaining the myth or finding something "new"

First up I need to say, I know;
"Stage Combat" is not real combat or violence
"Stage Combat" or the other names it gets given, is a form of artistic expression and a way to portray a narrative or ideas.

That said, I personally find it tiring when I see again and again combat used to do the same things over and over again. It feeds off itself, the inspiration comes from other stage fights and stage fighting ideas, be they from movies or stage combat videos etc. The sustaining of certain moves or actions that one sees again and again, because they look cool etc. reinforces ideas that these are the things that should be in fights, and that they can work in reality and this is real! Yet it seems that no one is questioning why one is doing them.
Or we see moves done because they can be made to work and they look cool! A kick makes contact, the person receives it flies backward with a back flip! Why? because they can do a back flip and it will make the kick look really powerful and it will be cool!

Now I have done things that look cool, have gotten people who can do acrobatics to include them in the fight. But in these cases one has to do it in a way that first can it actually work, following the Principles? Can it be done to enhance the "Reality" of the fight? Only then can we go to... and it looks cool!
Otherwise We have a situation where we go wow! I didn't believe that those characters would have done that in that situation... but it LOOKED COOL!
One can also make the argument  that when one is training someone one is getting them to expand their range but to also improve their confidence by using things they know, learning how to use misdirection etc. and if it fits within the Reality of the story

Our belief is that stage combat should be used to give an insight in to what real violence and aggression can be about, at leas in the context of what the story over all is trying to portray. Of course as mentioned it will never be it, but at least it can go some way to challenging the typical clichés and myths about the subject and which are sustained by the continual reuse of them in narrative combat.

A kick to someone in the stomach doesn't provide the physics to make them do a back flip, (I saw this recently in a filmed fight) and when we see the back flip we don't want to see the actor "do" the preparatory set/off for a gymnastic back flip, it needs to have a logic, and to be hidden or we need to be misdirected and the action/reaction/response needs to have a logic to it based in what we and the audience understand from our own experience.

I don't like Crouching Tiger etc. because when I see people run up bamboo or across water, I can not forget they are one wires, the sense of wieght and gravity is wrong, where as when I see Jacky Chan run up something, I believe it, because it look "real" though of course in case that is because it is real!

So consider using stage combat look at what the real violence and the threat fo it would do to the characters and how it would make them feel, think, act and "fight". Otherwise you can be short changing the audience or outright deceiving them, and they won'y even know it... but worse... neither will you!

Also they may not appreciate the difference... until they see it, of course they then may not like it anyway or prefer the old ways, but at least you have given them something to compare the old ways with...