Tony and I have been talking via PM. I'm going to address his questions here in the thread since it is applicable.
To restate my question again in yet another way:
You can say kata is valuable even though it doesn't include de-escalation, or improvised weapons, and it's not normally practiced on stairs or in a car. It's intended for a different purpose - it contains concept and applications which can be broken down and applied in a variety of situations.
You can say sparring is not valuable for self-defense, because it does not include de-escalation, or (typically) improvised weapons and it's not normally practiced on stairs or in a car, and so it is missing essential elements of the self-defense equation.
The question is, how do you reconcile the disconnect between these two statements?
If you say kata is valuable even though it doesn't include de-escalation, etc because it teaches applications and principles which can be applied in a variety of settings other than the normal solo practice in the dojo, then why can't you say sparring can be valuable even though it doesn't include de-escalation, etc because it teaches applications and principles which can be applied in a variety of settings other than the normal one-on-one practice in the dojo?
If you say sparring is not valuable because it is missing all these real-world factors such as de-escalation, etc, then why can't you say kata is not valuable because it is missing all these real-world factors such as de-escalation, etc?
Kata
Kata can be a valuable training tool in many martial arts. Or it can be a class filler and what many consider a colossal waste of time. Why the two extremes? In my opinion it is how kata is viewed. Kata can be viewed peripherally as a set of movement consisting of blocks, punches and kicks. For some martial artists, this is perhaps all they need. For example, if the martial artist is focused on sport competition then generally blocks, punches and kicks are all they need for those competitions (generally speaking for those martial arts that utilize kata and then compete using those skills). There is another view of kata as I described on page 9 of this thread. That view is that each movement sequence is in fact a principle that demonstrates something beyond the block, punch, kick mode of training. My purpose is not to debate between the two in this post, only that these views are two that exist. This second view is the one I espouse due to my training and research. As I detailed on page 9, the opening movement in Pinan Shodan can be viewed as a shoulder lock specifically and as a principle of locking. This lock can be applied, as per the kata, from standing either from a punch or grapple and also applied on the ground or position of disadvantage.
This is the function of the kata as a training tool. It effectively catalogs a series of movements, application of those movements and principles that those movements can further be expanded into. It is a training tool that can be passed on effectively from instructor to student. Kata does not address the additional factors I detailed in the sparring kata because they aren't a function of the kata.
Bunkai
Kata can be broken down into bunkai. These can be drills using the specific movements demonstrated in the kata or they can be movements using the principle demonstrated in the kata. Again using the opening movement in Pinan Shodan, you can drill the lock from a punch defense, from a grapple as per the kata or ou can use in on the ground or a different angle using the locking principle demonstrated and then translated to other positions. This is the function of bunkai as a training tool.
How the bunkai drill is developed depends upon the goal of that training day as well as the experience of the student training the bunkai. It could be an individual drill using by rote to stress the movement/principle to someone just learning. This type of drill does not address the additional factors I detailed in the sparring thread because they aren't a function of this type of drill. Or, a drill could be set up using a series of bunkai as I described in the sparring thread i.e. scenario based training. This would utilize the additional factors I've detailed in the sparring thread because it is a function of the training.
Sparring
Sparring can have many definitions. I was careful to detail my definition in the sparring thread. It consists of two people, and only two people abiding by a specific rule set until a specific goal has been reached i.e. a point has been scored or a submission applied or some such other goal. What is typically thought of as sport sparring. This type of sparring does not use the additional factors I detailed in the sparring thread. For a sport related art, where the goal of the training is competition, those additional factors are NOT needed or even desirable. For an art, that has self defense as a goal, those additional factors are applicable because they apply to real world confrontations/altercations.
From a
self defense perspective...
Kata can be an effective training tool if used with this goal in mind. It is sub-optimal if used without consideration to real world altercations i.e. you only train kata but never go into a hands on scenario that mimics (as closely as is safely possible) real world conditions.
Bunkai can be an effective training tool if used with this goal in mind. It is sub-optimal if used without consideration to real world altercations i.e. you train only 'by rote' without mimicking real world conditions. Two people doing bunkai on each other trains a specific movement or application, it does not train you for the totality of a real world altercation.
Sparring can be an effective training tool if used with this goal in mind. It takes 'by rote' to the next level by allowing it to free flow during movement. It is sub-optimal if used without consideration to real world altercations i.e. you only train 'sport style sparring' without mimicking real world conditions.
Each can be a valuable 'part' of the equation, but by themselves do NOT prepare a student for the realities of an altercation/confrontation. Each has it's place in the curriculum but alone do not suffice for the totality of what can and does happen.
Kata, bunkai and sparring doesn't teach a student to de-escalate a situation before it begins. Neither do they teach escape or evasion or and of the other factors I've detailed multiple times. Therefore each can be a valuable training tool but are sub-optimal in-and-of-themselves. This is where scenario based training comes into play.
Thus if you train in kata (as described above using the 'deeper' applications) you are doing well in having this as a training method. It isn't the whole of self defense training. If you drill bunkai by rote you are doing well in having this as a training method. If you spar you are doing well by having this as a training method. But none are complete until you have a free flowing drill (scenario) that can/does have some/many/all of the factors that can/are present in real life. The scenario based training method puts it all together.
