Typically an asset allocation isn't 100% stocks. This gives you the freedom to sell either the stocks or the bonds when you need to withdraw money. This means that when the stocks tank you can live off the bonds and wait out the recovery. When the stocks do great you can replenish your bonds.
The down side of this proposed strategy, of course, is that stocks can continue to go down long after you've depleted all of your bonds. At that point you'd be forced to sell stocks at an even greater loss, and you would have been better off selling the stocks early in the downturn, and then selling the bonds later. Selling bonds when the stock market tanks is the opposite of sound portfolio management. That's rebalancing in reverse.
Any strategy that recommends selling stocks vs bonds at particular points in the business cycle is, by definition, market timing of some sort.
A more MMM-friendly strategy is to maintain your asset allocation all through the cycle. When stocks tank, your losses will be mitigated by your bond holdings and you'll automatically be buying more stocks as you rebalance. When stocks explode, you'll still get the benefit of the extra stocks you bought while they were down, but your rebalancing will put your new money more into bonds to protect you against the next downturn.
Holding your asset allocation constant all through economic cycles, as you continue to DCA into the market while working, is the safest and most conservative play available, and it also happens to be the easiest to execute. You don't need to forecast the market. You don't need to get the timing or the severity of the business cycle right. Just keep investing while keeping your chosen percentages constant, and focus on earning more and saving more instead of trying to game the system. You've already found the winningest strategy by doing as little as possible, so why risk anything else?