Kendo "realistic"?

[KamuSan]

I started kendo a few weeks ago, together with a friend of mine. We both really like it, but at first he didn't understand the etiquette and special clothing. I've practised martial arts before (aikido, karate and kobudo), so I'm used to the sitting in zeiza, bowing and 'weird' clothing ;-)
I told him that without the cultural and spiritual background, kendo would be just a peculiar way of hitting eachother on the head with a stick while wearing a sort of skirt. 8-) It all only makes sense if you take in account it's history as a way to practise swordmanship.

But there are still some issues, that undoubtedly have passed here before:
- If a shinai is a sword, then the way of scoring hits in kendo don't make sense. I see hits that are quick strikes from the wrist, which you couldn't do with a real sword (or even bokken).
- Most hits I see (in dojo or movieclips) are men, rarely do. The major reason for this I think is that the arms are in the way. With a real sword I wouldn't care less about the arms sitting in the way, I think.
But I don't think you would see quick men strikes like this in a 'real' swordfight.
- Dobari type shinai are a strange invention. The center of mass is really close to your hands. Excellent for making quick strikes, but I would think they are the worst thing for having the feeling that your shinai is a sword.
- In Iaido we make larger and more deliberate moves. Most of these moves look realistic (but who am I to decide whether they really are), but if you'd try to use them in kendo, you would loose the match.

Anyone who can enlighten me, or add to this discussion?

Grts, KamuSan

[LNGUYEN]

Technically, I am still a beginner. To me, Kendo is not only about actual hit with a shinai like a sword for instant kill. Kendo is more about spirit, time, instant moment, self control, quick movement, and mastermind your own spirit. The hit is just help you to know your ability. The limited targets (according to my sensei) are because they are the most difficult to hit. We, the begining, are always told to hit big all the time and don't mind those 3, 4, 5, 6 dan Kendoists who know what are they doing. For us, just listen to your sensei, and we will be there. I need more senior people advices here too.

[Charlie]

You raise some good points, Kamu-san, and some of them will never resolve themselves neatly as you continue on your journey. But let me address some of them - I've thought about them a lot, too.


- If a shinai is a sword, then the way of scoring hits in kendo don't make sense. I see hits that are quick strikes from the wrist, which you couldn't do with a real sword (or even bokken).

Actually, you could, you just don't know it yet. You're right in that a shinai lets us do things with a sword we might not do in a real fight, but quick cuts, etc. are not unknown. Also, we must be careful what we say "can" and "can't" be done with a sword. Among all the old styles of Japanese swordsmanship, there are few rights or wrongs, more like a "School X does it this way and School Y does it that way."


- Most hits I see (in dojo or movieclips) are men, rarely do. The major reason for this I think is that the arms are in the way. With a real sword I wouldn't care less about the arms sitting in the way, I think.
But I don't think you would see quick men strikes like this in a 'real' swordfight

True, the sporting nature of the contest makes do a bit harder to hit, and in a real fight you might just try to slash through his belly arms and all. BUT! Cutting to the belly also exposes your head, so the do cut is risky even in a real fight, I think.


- Dobari type shinai are a strange invention. The center of mass is really close to your hands. Excellent for making quick strikes, but I would think they are the worst thing for having the feeling that your shinai is a sword.

Can't really respond to this one. I thought there was no one set place ona sword where a center of balance should be but that, rather, it was a matter of personal preference.


- In Iaido we make larger and more deliberate moves. Most of these moves look realistic (but who am I to decide whether they really are), but if you'd try to use them in kendo, you would loose the match.

True. But here you run into the age-old problem that no one art can express the totality of swordsmanship. Kendo addresses the sparring part but not the full set of cuts and tools that iaido does. Iaido addresses these things but not the sparring part. You have prior experience in martial arts; you know two karate-ka can't spar full out and use all their tools; you'd kill each other by trying to take out knees, do palm rakes to eyes, break wrists, etc. Therefore, we must compartmentalize and hope it all comes out in the wash, you know? We always have to have rules and limitations, everything does. My formula is now and has for some time been:

kendo + iaido + kenjutsu (if you can swing it) = swordsmanship

Your thoughts?

[Kingu]

IMHO, Kendo has nothing to see with "historical realism". Sorry for those who think they learn to fight as samurai did.

[AlexM]

I must agree with Kingu on this one. I don't find I'm learning swordsmanship by doing kendo. I admit I thought I would when I first started (too many "I"s in that sentence). But I'm now rather comfortable with the idea that there is not much relation between swordsmanship and kendo in the sense that I still have no idea how to properly swing a katana... alright maybe a bit more than those karate guys with bad kamae (see e-budo thread on krappy karate kamae)

In fact, the "purpose of kendo" as listed by the ZNKR doesn't seem to say anything about learning proper swordsmanship: (http://www.kendo.or.jp/english-page/english-page2/concept-of-Kendo.htm) .

The truth is that there is no real purpose in learning the proper way to use a sword these days. The only purpose is to better oneself through training (although how one goes about doing that is still a bit beyond me... I'm the same sob I was before starting).

[KamuSan]

Charlie, thanks for your opinion! Your last remark was really interesting and I think that it is the core of the 'problem'. You also see in Judo and Karate that as soon as you make a martial art a competition sport, then you also have to introduce rules and people tend to use techniques that give the best result given the rules. Which are not necessarily the best techniques in a real situation.

Kingu and ALexM, I don't totally agree with you. You have a good point, but I think that the relationship between swordfighting and kendo is a necessary one. Otherwise kendo would be just a peculiar way of hitting eachother on the head like I said. I mean, why pay attention to how you hold your shinai? A shinai doesn't have a blunt and a sharp side? Why just hit on men, do and kote? Why wear funny clothes? Why scream at eachother? Why stamp your foot on the ground and shout if you score a hit? The reason for that is a historical one and kendo's history has to do with sword fighting. If you lose that connection, then a lot of things don't make sense anymore, IMO.

True, there is no real use today to learn how to hold your sword. But that doesn't mean that it isn't interesting or not worth the trouble. Running after a ball and kicking it also has very little use in day to day application. :-D

So, IMO, I think that kendo should pay attention to it's ties with swordmanship and take care that kendo doesn't get too far from real swordfighting. But then again, who knows what real swordfighting is these days ;-)

Charlie, your advice is a good one, that's why I also picked up Iaido. I don't know kenjutsu, can you tell me some more of it?

[Charlie]

Kamu, I agree with you, particularly when you say "as soon as you make a martial art a competition sport, then you also have to introduce rules..." The truth is, if you are going to have ANY kind of sparring in any martial art at all, there HAS to be rules and limitations. That's why there's four target areas in kendo, not because "those are the hardest areas to hit" but because that's where the armor is. And, sure, people may start concentrating on trying to do only those things that exploit the rules in a sporting contest. That's why it's usually considered important not to rely too much on sparring! (But what do you think of an art that does not include sparring in the curriculum?) Many martial arts also include kata or one-stepping as part of the mix. (Another reason to emphasize kendo kata.)

Like with kickboxing or karate; if you're going to spar, you have to impose limits. If you and I are friends and training together to get better, sure, I may throw a light kick at your knee or thigh, but I ain't gonna pop you hard there and send you out hobbling! No, more likely, I'm going to concentrate on hitting your head gear, your vest, etc. and throw in some fake claws or chops when I can as a little asterisk. Then we can both train again tomorrow and the next day. Grappling, same thing. In judo practice, if I can't get a guy off me, am I going to rip his balls off? No. Kendo, same thing. If you're going to have sparring, you have to have limits.

I don't agree that kendo is that far removed from sword fighting, particularly when you examine why kendo was invented in the first place (to let kenjutsu guys spar). But to each his own. As to why one learns the sword, well, for me, I'm kind of in this weird contest right now where me and a bunch of other guys can't die unless we cut each other's heads off, and the last man standing... just kidding.

Kenjutsu:

Kamu-san, authentic kenjutsu is usually found only in Japan. It is part of the curriculum of what's called a koryu, a system of martial arts that predated the 19th century and has a continuous line of succession. There are many different styles. Have you been reading Kendo World? Cuz they do a report on different schools of swordsmanship. Anyway, I think a lot of folks agree that if you can also study koryu kenjutsu (and the koryu may also include other weapons and hand-to-hand) it adds to and rounds out your sword education, like another wheel on the whole cart that is swordsmanship. But like I said, if you're not in Japan, you won't usually find koryu.

For more info, check out

www.koryu.com

[Kingu]

If you lose that connection, then a lot of things don't make sense anymore, IMO.


I didn't meant there were no connection, just that the kendo we can see now is not what warriors were doing with katana during japanese middle-age.

And yes, I also try to keep in mind the origins of kendo all the time. Those who only practice kendo are missing something... my two cents.

[KamuSan]

Charlie, LOL :-)

I think we all agree. When I did kobudo, I did katas where you had to cut between do and tare. Yokumen was in the neck and kote was actually an attack from below to the exposed wrists.
So, yes, when you spar you also have to introduce rules. Travelling around the country and leaving dead opponents behind like Miyamoto Musashi is just not done anymore these days ;-)

But I still think that we should keep the ties close. I think that the rules should be the way that 'realistic' moves are promoted.
Kendo made a turn towards a more pacifistic form and from sword fighting to a sport after WWII. Maybe we'll see a move back, before kendo will become just another way of hitting eachother with sticks.

Kingu, yes, I agree with you that kendo is not the way the samurai fought. But it's become that way (not just since WWII, btw).

[Charlie]

Kendo made a turn towards a more pacifistic form and from sword fighting to a sport after WWII.

Ya know, I just don't see it. I wonder if you will still feel the same way after a few years in kendo.

So, what do you find unrealistic about the moves as they are done now?

[KamuSan]

Hi Charlie, about kendo becoming more pacifistic after WWII, it says so in the description of the history of kendo in "Kendo: The definitive guide".
Also, this article http://www.auskf.info/mainpages/article2.htm is extremely interesting. It's a description of the history of kendo after the war and a bit about the experiences of someone who trained in the Tokyo police dojo right after the war.

"Shikake waza was executed as if using a real sword - ozawa (technique with small motions). There was constant and great emphasis on tenouchi (literally "within the hand"), delivering the blows, making the cuts, and the movement of the fingers and wrists, as the shinai is about to strike the men (mask) or do (plastron). In shomen the wrists were rotated even further inward and locked. There was shime (pressure at the instant of impact) for both shomen and do, the strike was completed with a slicing movement with both hands on the hilt, and the hips were lowered. All strikes were made much more strongly than now."

About some moves being unrealistic: the quick men 'taps', flick of the wrist style moves, seem unrealistic to me. You just can't do that with a 1kg (2+ lbs) sword, with usually a shorter tsuka than a shinai. Try it with a bokken or iaito. It doesn't feel right.

[Charlie]

Yeah, I had printed that article for later reading. Interesting stuff. And yet I wonder if you can't consciously make an effort to have your kendo resemble that kind of kendo, and if the older senseis aren't always doing so!

This is the heart of our discussion:

About some moves being unrealistic: the quick men 'taps', flick of the wrist style moves, seem unrealistic to me. You just can't do that with a 1kg (2+ lbs) sword, with usually a shorter tsuka than a shinai. Try it with a bokken or iaito. It doesn't feel right.

I'll admit it feels weird but over the years I have gotten to where it can feel pretty natural to me. Others may tell you that they know they are different but the differences resolve.

Something to consider, Musashi's Gorin No Sho is a primary source (from the period we are studying), in which he describes sword techniques very much like the ones we use today (and in many cases, he is critical of them; but the point is they existed then).

From the Water Book, for example:

I dislike the three walking methods known as "jumping-foot", "floating-foot" and "fixed-steps".

I'm not sure what these are, but they sort of sound like kendo footwork, don't they? In the same section (I'll include a link to an online edition though you probably have it at home) he describes what sounds like tai-atari, harai-men and quick-men-type cuts. Again, sometimes he's critical. He could be talking about a kendoist here:

To cut and slash are two different things. Cutting, whatever form of cutting it is, is decisive, with a resolute spirit. Slashing is nothing more than touching the enemy. Even if you slash strongly, and even if the enemy dies instantly, it is slashing. When you cut, your spirit is resolved. You must appreciate this. If you first slash the enemy's hands or legs, you must then cut strongly.

But my point is, these kinds of things didn't just appear after the war. Remember, Musashi is talking about these things from his perspective, the perspective of his school, critical, sometimes of other schools. He has a lot more to say about them in the Wind Book.

Neither do I like jumping foot, because it encourages the habit of jumping, and a jumpy spirit. However much you jump, there is no real justification for it, so jumping is bad.

This sounds like Musashi fighting a high school kid! I guess all I'm trying to say is a common criticism of kendo is that the lighter, slashing, quick, springy movements aren't "real," and yet it seems to me they were, either as a conscious part of a school's methods or as individual behaviors on the part of various kenshi of the day.

Your thoughts?

Gorin No Sho (Harris trans., not my favorite):

http://www.samurai.com/5rings/

[ben]

"Shikake waza was executed as if using a real sword -ozawa (technique with small motions). There was constant and great emphasis on tenouchi (literally "within the hand"), delivering the blows, making the cuts, and the movement of the fingers and wrists, as the shinai is about to strike the men (mask) or do (plastron). In shomen the wrists were rotated even further inward and locked. There was shime (pressure at the instant of impact) for both shomen and do, the strike was completed with a slicing movement with both hands on the hilt, and the hips were lowered. All strikes were made much more strongly than now."

About some moves being unrealistic: the quick men 'taps', flick of the wrist style moves, seem unrealistic to me. You just can't do that with a 1kg (2+ lbs) sword, with usually a shorter tsuka than a shinai. Try it with a bokken or iaito. It doesn't feel right.

The quote from Hazard-sensei above could equally be describing contemporary kendo. I don't think his recollections are the basis for a crisis of confidence in kendo's effectiveness. A bit of the "good-old-days" creeping in IMHO.

"Taps" and "flicks" are never desirable elements of anyone's kendo. The flipside of that is I lent my carbon fibre shinai to a visiting 4-dan, who is also apparently an adept of Nakamura ryu battodo, and his cuts were so steeped in that ryu's tameshigiri practice that he broke it! Fortunately I was not training against him at the time. >_<

b

[KamuSan]

So we all agree that taps and flicks are, like Ben said, never desirable elements of kendo?
As Charlie says, it seems that this discussion is going on for far longer than I thought :-)
I think the main problem is that as soon as your method of practising (which is the origin of kendo) moves away from real swordfighting, that you loose an element of realism and you loose some realistic moves.
In that respect, the flicks and taps *are* realistic, but for a different value of reality :-) Nameliy, the reality of kendo as a competition sport.

Still, I'd like to see people practising kendo as if the shinai was a real sword, and it would be nice if the rules favoured that kind of moves. Now you're handicapped if you try to handle your shinai as if it was a real sword when you compete with someone who doesn't, uses a dobari shinai and flicks and taps.
For me, I'll try to make sword-like moves and I'll see where I end up.

OOTH, how much fun is it when someone hits you on your men and really tries to cut inside your head and breaks a carbon shinai in the progress... ;-)

Good discussion this, thanks for your contributions!

[Charlie]

Wow. Broke it!

Like I said, Kamu-san, we'll see how you feel in a few years. May I say for now, though, that what might appear to be a flick or a tap is actually quite a good cut. You probably haven't learned sashi-men or sashi-kote yet ("quick men" and "quick kote") but I believe those cuts are not only effective but that they were around "back in the day." And, as I said, I can do them with bokken* and iaito (never had a shinken).

*In fact, quick kote is in one of the kata, #6.

[KamuSan]

<bows>

I'll start practising :-)
I'll look up kata #6 in the book.
Tomorrow kendo practise again, yippee :-)

[ZrJn89]

Charlie, thanks for your opinion! Your last remark was really interesting and I think that it is the core of the 'problem'. You also see in Judo and Karate that as soon as you make a martial art a competition sport, then you also have to introduce rules and people tend to use techniques that give the best result given the rules. Which are not necessarily the best techniques in a real situation.

Kingu and ALexM, I don't totally agree with you. You have a good point, but I think that the relationship between swordfighting and kendo is a necessary one. Otherwise kendo would be just a peculiar way of hitting eachother on the head like I said. I mean, why pay attention to how you hold your shinai? A shinai doesn't have a blunt and a sharp side? Why just hit on men, do and kote? Why wear funny clothes? Why scream at eachother? Why stamp your foot on the ground and shout if you score a hit? The reason for that is a historical one and kendo's history has to do with sword fighting. If you lose that connection, then a lot of things don't make sense anymore, IMO.

True, there is no real use today to learn how to hold your sword. But that doesn't mean that it isn't interesting or not worth the trouble. Running after a ball and kicking it also has very little use in day to day application. :-D

So, IMO, I think that kendo should pay attention to it's ties with swordmanship and take care that kendo doesn't get too far from real swordfighting. But then again, who knows what real swordfighting is these days ;-)

Charlie, your advice is a good one, that's why I also picked up Iaido. I don't know kenjutsu, can you tell me some more of it?

I also agree that kendo has some ties of the old way of samurai fighting. But kendo is an evolved version from the original style of fighting. Plus ancient samurais had many ways of fighting from wut they have been taught, an example would be the author of the Book of the Five Rings named Musashi, he invented using the wakizashi and katana simotaneously in a duel. I believe it was named Hiten something.......

[Dan Shea]

My wife studied modern kendo in high school, having grown up in Japan.
She and I just recently started studying kenjutsu, iaido and pre-war kendo under our sensei who trained at Haga Dojo in Tokyo.

There are differences, sometimes big differences. Strikes that score in modern kendo might not be counted in a pre-war style match. The intent and the follow through are very important. "Tapping" or flicking motions will not be scored. Matches are not to 3 points, but to 1 point. Foot work is somewhat different, techniques are different.

For example, if we are in shiai and I move towards you to close distance and perform leg locking or force you to drop your shinai and proceed to apply grappling or joint locks on you, you will wonder what the heck I am doing. All of this is common practice in older kendo. Leg sweeps, groundwork and leg locks are used once the distance has been closed.

Kendo has most definitely evolved and changed over the years.
I am not to say that this is for the better or for the worse, but modern kendo is very much removed from cutting with an actual sword. In fact there are organizations out there who agree and attempt to tie kendo in to kenjutsu and iaido.

There is no one true way, nor is there a superior art form.

But there are two very distinct types of kendo out there right now. Pre-war and modern kendo. There are dojos of both kinds, but I find modern kendo to be far more prevalent.

I suggest looking around for pre-war kendo if you're interested.

Please do not misconstrue this post. I'm NOT saying one is better, I am merely saying they are in fact different.

[ben]

My wife studied modern kendo in high school, having grown up in Japan.
She and I just recently started studying kenjutsu, iaido and pre-war kendo under our sensei who trained at Haga Dojo in Tokyo.

There are differences, sometimes big differences. Strikes that score in modern kendo might not be counted in a pre-war style match. The intent and the follow through are very important. "Tapping" or flicking motions will not be scored. Matches are not to 3 points, but to 1 point. Foot work is somewhat different, techniques are different.

For example, if we are in shiai and I move towards you to close distance and perform leg locking or force you to drop your shinai and proceed to apply grappling or joint locks on you, you will wonder what the heck I am doing. All of this is common practice in older kendo. Leg sweeps, groundwork and leg locks are used once the distance has been closed.

Kendo has most definitely evolved and changed over the years.
I am not to say that this is for the better or for the worse, but modern kendo is very much removed from cutting with an actual sword. In fact there are organizations out there who agree and attempt to tie kendo in to kenjutsu and iaido.

There is no one true way, nor is there a superior art form.

But there are two very distinct types of kendo out there right now. Pre-war and modern kendo. There are dojos of both kinds, but I find modern kendo to be far more prevalent.

I suggest looking around for pre-war kendo if you're interested.

Please do not misconstrue this post. I'm NOT saying one is better, I am merely saying they are in fact different.

Interesting post Dan. Sounds like you're practicing what used to be called "gekken" (attacking sword), which is pretty dangerous if taken to the level at which it used to be practiced. My sensei is deaf in both ears from strikes to the side of the head that were 'legal' in this training. The end-point of grappling was removing your opponent's men. Is this the case in your dojo? I've not actually heard of any dojos specifically teaching this old-time kendo and am genuinely curious to know how it works in a contemporary setting.

b

[Dan Shea]

Interesting post Dan. Sounds like you're practicing what used to be called "gekken" (attacking sword), which is pretty dangerous if taken to the level at which it used to be practiced. My sensei is deaf in both ears from strikes to the side of the head that were 'legal' in this training. The end-point of grappling was removing your opponent's men. Is this the case in your dojo? I've not actually heard of any dojos specifically teaching this old-time kendo and am genuinely curious to know how it works in a contemporary setting.

b
Hi Ben,

Thanks for your input. Yes, there are three men strikes, but all three are supposed to be above the third metal crossbar on the men-gane. I was warned that improper strikes could rupture a persons eardrum and some people do wear ear plugs becasuse of this.

Removing of the men is in fact the last step in a grappling situation, although I have yet to see anyone perform this in my dojo. I believe the other person usually just ends up giving up. Case in point, last session I had on Thursday one of our students was facing off with sensei and tried to start grappling with him. Sensei ending up pinning him to the ground and sitting on his do, after which all I heard was "You're done..."

I guess it saves some time, but if he wanted to he could have stripped the guy naked. If you can read Japanese, I can't (yet!) but my wife can and since our sensei studied at Haga Dojo, haga dojo has a website in Japanese. They are located in Tokyo and Haga sensei never saw fit to change his kendo. He was one of the "three crows" of kendo. If I am not mistaken Haga sensei was a student of Nakayama Hakudo sensei who was one of the foremost kenshi of his day, and I believe friends with Ueshiba sensei (founder of Aikido.)

The history of the arts fascinate me as much as studying them does, so i am trying to keep names straight here. If I have misspelled anyone's name I must apologize in advance.

There are some pre-war kendo schoosl out there, but I think that they are far more rare than modern day kendo, which as my sensei puts it, "Is as common as little league in Japan." :)

What attracted me to this particular art was the blending of this kendo with kenjutsu (Shindo Munen Ryu) and Iaido (Omori Ryu.)

I am looking forward to studying these arts for a long time and hopefully being worthy of continuing to perpetuate them when the time comes, but that is so far away in the future, I can only state that is my desire.

I hope that helps a bit, as I do not know much, only what I can glean from the web and conversation with my sensei.

[Dan Shea]

I frogt to preview and edit my typing errors. I apologize for the typos!
Also I hope no one misconstrues the above quote. Kendo being as common as little league in Japan is quite true, but it is ***NOT*** meant to demean Kendo in any way. Just wanted to clarify that.

I wish kendo was as common as little league in the States, kendo equipment would be a bit cheaper and I could get time in the dojo every night after work! :)

Have good night!

[ben]

...They are located in Tokyo and Haga sensei never saw fit to change his kendo. He was one of the "three crows" of kendo. If I am not mistaken Haga sensei was a student of Nakayama Hakudo sensei who was one of the foremost kenshi of his day, and I believe friends with Ueshiba sensei (founder of Aikido.)...

Would that be Tadatoshi Haga? And would one of those other crows be the late Kiyoshi Nakakura?

b

[Syron]

im new to kendo and im quiet amazed i didn't take this up earlier...

i've just recently starting one on one training with my sensei... me being her only pupil. i haven't learnt much but plan to take it as far as i can.

where can i find some good reading and reference material? i do not speak japanese (yet) and understanding her can be confusing sometimes so i need things i can relate to her.

my local book store has next to nothing in martial arts reading.

any help would be greatly appreciated

§

[Dan Shea]

Would that be Tadatoshi Haga? And would one of those other crows be the late Kiyoshi Nakakura?

b
I believe you are correct sir. :cool:

[chidokan]

You dont have to put a lot of force into a shinken to make it cut. 2kg of sharp steel when used against a tameshigiri mat will cut about 2 inches into the mat with a flip of the wrist, no power, letting the weight of the blade do the cut. The problem is that kendo, no matter what anyone says, is a sport. All the nasty stuff was taken out after 1952 so the Americans would lift the ban. You can learn distance, how to move with people, how to take advantage of an opening, etc. that you can transfer to iaido to help round off your understanding of the sword, but hopefully you'll never get to prove yourself right in that what you think will work actually does....

[Dan Shea]

All the nasty stuff was taken out after 1952 so the Americans would lift the ban. You can learn distance, how to move with people, how to take advantage of an opening, etc. that you can transfer to iaido to help round off your understanding of the sword, but hopefully you'll never get to prove yourself right in that what you think will work actually does....
I agree that one of the reaonss it was turned into a sport and alot of practioners no longer practice the nasty stuff is because of the American ban on anything that remotely resembled war like tendencies in Japanese culture.

Fortunately some practioners never changed their style of kendo and continued on the old tradition.

I also agree with immensely with your last statement. Alot of people who find out I'm studing Kenjutsu and Iaido ask me why I bother since I'll never get in a sword fight. I usually end up smiling and politely telling them I didn't find Kenjutsu, Kenjutsu found me. I've decided to devote my time and a considerable chunk of my income to the pursuit and study of what some people consider a useless waste of time. I could never fully put into words the pleasure and the calm I feel when practicing at home or in the dojo.

I guess it is a bit of a paradox that we train and devote so much time to something we will hopefully never use. But it is precisely in that paradox I find an immense amount of beauty. But then again...maybe I am simply weird.

[Berserker]

all very interesting, can anyone recomend a source to find out more about the grappling side to the "pre-war" kendo? Presumably some aikido techniques are taken from it?

[Nik.Koch]

Nakakura Kyoshi was married with the daughter of Ueshiba. There are even some photos showing Nakakura Sensei and Ueshiba Sensei demonstrating Kendo techiniques ind the Dojo together.

Nakakura Kyoshi had a hard way in his Kendo life. But he choosed it himself. For example: He was member of a Kendo Dojo which was famous for Tsuki. He was tsukied out of the Dojo allmost every time he practiced there. That was for a period of 1 year or even longer. Until he was able to fight with them and not be tsukied out of the Dojo.

Hard way. But this and other things made him one of the best Kenshi of the last 50 years.

[chidokan]

If you ask some of the older japanese sensei they still know the old techniques, and are usually willing to demonstrate them, usually on an unwilling (after the first one! :wink: ) friend so you can watch how its done... I quite like the throw over the head with a shinai done on an all out attack to the men against you. Kneel down and lift up your opponent from just below the waist, holding the tsuka with the right hand and the kissaki with the left so it is horizontal. Timing is difficult though...
Maybe we should try and bring this type of thing back in to kendo and stop it getting too 'cleaned up' before they add wires to the shinai and bogu for scoring and take all the spirit out of it. I feel a new thread coming on...like 'bring traditional kendo back!' Not sure how some of the people I practise with would feel about me trying to rip their men off though...

[Kozushi]

This stuff is kind of my own theory, although it seems so obvious that it might be widely known by some? Any Kendo experts please weigh in!

I remember getting frustrated with what I saw as overly stylized and fanciful rules in Kendo. In both Canada and Korea, doing Japanese Kendo, I got lots of different theories on why the rules are as they are. While these folk-theories all make some sense, ranging from some kind of Buddhist concern for not actually killing your opponent, to Zen awareness training, to the convenience of aiming just for the strongest parts of the armour for safety reasons (which is patently incorrect actually) none of them seemed to reflect practical concerns. So, for a while I just thought Kendo was a fanciful sword-dance art and lost interest in it. However, I've changed my mind. Partly from more experience with the art, but also from things I watched on that "Ultimate Warrior" program on Spike, where they discuss and test the actual damage weapons do and the counter intuitive ways they were often used (take for example the shield being used as a percussive weapon to kill by striking to the head.)

My theory is that the rules for Kendo are there to promote winning blows for armoured combat, and NOT primarily to promote some kind of Zen awareness, as many or most practitioners seem to think. I think the founders of Kendo were practical minded people and not in the mood for Zen to take over, even if it might be present in some way or other in the dojo. Heck, they used to try to throw each other to the floor! This is not evidence of a culture of artistic stylization!

In Kendo to score a point (and you have to score two to win, not just one, which I think is perhaps also a helpful hint)


Your sword's cutting edge must be on target, not the flat or back
You must hit with the foot of length near the tip (where there is the most acceleration of the blade)
You must fall forward with a stomping step onto your front foot, timed perfectly with the contact of your blade on your target
You must shout at that same moment
You must continue rapidly past the opponent after you have struck effectively, and after having taken about three paces or so, where you are completely out of range of your opponent's sword, you turn around ready to continue fighting (if you do not do this follow through, your point does not count)



I think every single one of these elements was instituted for practical fighting considerations, and not for artistic ones. Let's go through each in turn:
1 and 2 I think are obvious and self-explanatory and need not be elaborated upon.
Number 3 was a big mystery to me for years. Now I "get" it. It is frankly dangerous if you raise your sword up high to strike down with lots of power, since you are opening yourself up to lots of attacks. So, you need to be able to strike strongly without raising your sword up much. If you just use your arm strength, you will have a weak chop. If you lunge your body forward and down with a big stomping step, you put your whole body weight into the cut, enabling the cut to be effective.
4. I think the shout adds power to the blow, whether that's mainly psychological or through tightening the diaphragm or both I don't think it really matters.
5. There is no guarantee that your *effective* strike will full incapacitate your opponent let alone kill him, given that he is wearing potentially rather strong armour, so you absolutely must rush past him to avoid getting hurt in retaliation - to avoid the famous "double kill" that you read about in samurai philosophy (i.e. in a fight either you kill your opponent, he kills you, or you kill each other, there is no other way out. We are trying to minimize the third eventuality here.) You are not supposed to rush past like this if you do not hit correctly, so it is not designed as a purely defensive maneuver. It is only to be done after a SUCCESSFUL attack is delivered.

So, I think the rules for scoring a point are there to develop a powerful, yet swift and tactically sound blow.

But why the four specific scoring zones of:


Top of the Helm (any part of the top, not just the middle of the top)
The wrist of the gauntlets
The side of the breastplate
The throat?



1. This blow will not necessarily cut through into the head, since the helmets of samurai could be quite tough. Also there is no guarantee you can knock out your opponent, since there might be padding etc. However, you could do serious damage to your opponent's spine in his neck, since all the force of your blow would be transferred there if it does not penetrate his helm. I think the top of the helm blow is at the least a neck breaker, and ideally even worse.
2. The wrist bones could be broken with a hard hit, even through the armour, whereas the upper arm and the shoulder were protected with huge shoulder-shields.
3. I think the sides of the breastplate were normally laced or buckled up to the back plate, making this a good target for cutting the armour lose here. To score a point, you have to draw the blade across the side of the armour, not just hit it. This is probably why (whereas to score on the head or wrists, you have to hit percussively with no slide.)
4. The throat was a hard part to armour. It remains that way and it is actually a bit dangerous to thrust there even in modern kendo, and it can be considered rude by some people for that reason. This is why it was chosen for a target - it makes an EXCELLENT target. You will either smash right through the armour when you thrust, or you will smash the armour into the opponent's throat. Either way, you win. The fact that the throat IS a target in Kendo I think dispells the myth that the scorable zones were chosen because they were the most easily armoured and therefore safest targets. If this were the case then the shoulders and belly would have to be allowed too since they are even better armoured than the wrist, throat, and head, which actually can hurt a bit when hit!

Why two ippon strikes needed to win the match? If this was one of the original rules, then I think it was because the kind of blows being done would sometimes take more than one to actually cause sufficient disablement.

And, why the kinds of traditional cutting training (suburi) that do not seem to reflect the movements you actually do in the match (which are normally MUCH smaller)? The emphasis is put on the big huge downward chop to the head. I think this is to develop that power needed to deliver a tremendous hit to the opponent's helmet and thereby at the least hurting his neck bones through percussive force.

I think there was a tradition in Japanese education to not explain WHY things were done a certain way. It was thought enough to teach students HOW they were done and to preserve tradition that way. This is why I think the original reasons for the rules have been either blurred or forgotten.

I'm not an arrogant SOB who thinks he has definitely solved the mystery, but I do feel that this theory makes more sense than any others I have come across. It probably isn't 100% right, and some Kendo historians may be able to correct, reprove, or corroborate it.

[Are2]

Kendo has little to do with armored combat; when it began as a sort of MMA for traditionally trained swordsmen the days of armored warfare were long gone. It was and is an abstraction of dueling in (then) everyday clothes.

I've seen some helmet cutting but those things are really robust (they were, after all, designed to protect you). One needs to take a stable, static stance and make a huge swing to do significant damage, not something you'd manage if the target was moving, not to mention trying to cut you back. That's why classical styles that do deal with armored combat aim at the gaps (sides of neck, armpits, wrists from below, inside of thigh...)

<A witty comment about thread resurrection, too>

[dillon]

I like your effort but it seems most people don't ask "why these targets" but "why these targets only". I disagree with some of your points however as elaborated below.


I remember getting frustrated with what I saw as overly stylized and fanciful rules in Kendo.

If you mean the rules for yukodatostsu, they seem rather minimal to me and say very little, leaving much of it to the judgement of the shimpan (or the sensei in the case of day to day practice).


My theory is that the rules for Kendo are there to promote winning blows for armoured combat, and NOT primarily to promote some kind of Zen awareness, as many or most practitioners seem to think. I think the founders of Kendo were practical minded people and not in the mood for Zen to take over, even if it might be present in some way or other in the dojo. Heck, they used to try to throw each other to the floor! This is not evidence of a culture of artistic stylization!

I agree although probably I am not thinking of the same armor. Kendo evolved more directly from gekken-kogyo, which used armor largely like the ones we wear in kendo. The blows are practical if nothing more than to demonstrate who won the match in gekken-kogyo/kendo. Since the shinai (the focus of gekken-kogyo and kendo today) cannot draw blood, some of the characteristics of ippon are to make it clear that the strike would have been effective in absence of more obvious signs.


In Kendo to score a point (and you have to score two to win, not just one, which I think is perhaps also a helpful hint)


Your sword's cutting edge must be on target, not the flat or back
You must hit with the foot of length near the tip (where there is the most acceleration of the blade)
You must fall forward with a stomping step onto your front foot, timed perfectly with the contact of your blade on your target
You must shout at that same moment
You must continue rapidly past the opponent after you have struck effectively, and after having taken about three paces or so, where you are completely out of range of your opponent's sword, you turn around ready to continue fighting (if you do not do this follow through, your point does not count)



I think every single one of these elements was instituted for practical fighting considerations, and not for artistic ones. Let's go through each in turn:
1 and 2 I think are obvious and self-explanatory and need not be elaborated upon.
Number 3 was a big mystery to me for years. Now I "get" it. It is frankly dangerous if you raise your sword up high to strike down with lots of power, since you are opening yourself up to lots of attacks. So, you need to be able to strike strongly without raising your sword up much. If you just use your arm strength, you will have a weak chop. If you lunge your body forward and down with a big stomping step, you put your whole body weight into the cut, enabling the cut to be effective.
4. I think the shout adds power to the blow, whether that's mainly psychological or through tightening the diaphragm or both I don't think it really matters.
5. There is no guarantee that your *effective* strike will full incapacitate your opponent let alone kill him, given that he is wearing potentially rather strong armour, so you absolutely must rush past him to avoid getting hurt in retaliation - to avoid the famous "double kill" that you read about in samurai philosophy (i.e. in a fight either you kill your opponent, he kills you, or you kill each other, there is no other way out. We are trying to minimize the third eventuality here.) You are not supposed to rush past like this if you do not hit correctly, so it is not designed as a purely defensive maneuver. It is only to be done after a SUCCESSFUL attack is delivered.


Agree on 1-3 but with regards to 3, I would add that small, fast and straight-on techniques are a result of the mechanics of using a shinai as opposed to a shinken. In iaido, my understanding is that kirioroshi (analogous to shomen cut in kendo) needs to start from the sword well over the head and ideally from horizontal when it's brought back to this point during furikaburi in order to generate enough power to make an effective cut. So you probably would not have a high rate of success cutting your target with the kind of small fast cuts we do with shinai. Why don't we force people to do only big cuts in kendo? I think it's because the shinai being light means much of the spirit/connection-with-the-aite would be lost if this were a restriction. And if there's anything I'm learning in kendo and iaido, spirit/mental-part is more than half of swordsmanship as this is needed to overcome one's opponent.

On point 4, Ono-ha Itto-ryu does not have kakekoe (the audible part of kiai that we normally refer to as kiai). Like iaido's Muso Shinden Ryu and Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, Ono-ha Itto-ryu has an internalized kiai. Some schools have kakekoe, some don't and kendo went with having it.

On point 5, after the Battle of Sekigahara, yoroi was largely obsolete. So I am not of the opinion that kendo techniques come from dealing with armor since it was some 300 years after Pax Tokugawa started that gekken-kogyo appeared. What's more, unless you were a daimyo you probably couldn't afford to damage your sword by trying to cleave a kabuto or even bash it in. Nihonto are actually a bit too delicate for clubbing in armor and suppose you were in a yoroi wearing situation, why risk wrecking your blade, especially considering that the katana was usually brought out after the naginata or spear was broken. If you look at European medieval warefare however, there are plenty of weapons designed for this purpose (e.g. mace). Kendo targets seems perfectly legitimate in unarmored combat though cutting the top of a skull could be problematic (I won't go into this).


So, I think the rules for scoring a point are there to develop a powerful, yet swift and tactically sound blow.

I agree.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Thanks for resurrecting a 7 year old thread.

I can tell you that you are wrong on several points there. There is no requirement to "fall forward with a stomping step onto your right foot". You can cut with either foot, without a stomp and in some cases even without a step although that is rare. What you are required to show is coordination of the body and hands with the strike. Neither are you required to run past your opponent. What you are required to do is show zanshin, in other words that you are in control, in a good position mentally and physically, ready to attack or defend. The small strikes we see in kendo are a product of the equipment and the sporting rules. You don't see them in the kata, nor do you see them in any koryu kata I've ever seen. Your speculation on the "why" of the targets is just that, speculation. We know that the kendo bogu, and much of kendo itself, was largely developed during peacetime. Also we know that the sword is not a battlefield weapon any more than a modern sidearm is. So my theory is that the targets were developed as a combination of goals for unarmed combat and ease of protection with light practice armour. I may be wrong as well - I've never seen a definitive answer on the matter.

ETA you might find this article (http://www.kendo-world.com/forum/content.php/45-A-Brief-Synopsis-of-the-History-of-Kendo/view/1) by Alex Bennett interesting reading wrt to the development of modern kendo.

[Kozushi]

Probably a lot of the mystery of the "why" behind Kendo rules and training comes from the fact that Kendo was not invented by one individual with one goal in mind, but it evolved over time through many individuals taking part and lending their interpretations and adjustments to it. I remember reading in a Kendo history book somewhere that there were a number of practitioners back in the 19th Century who regarded Kendo as the art of the shinai specifically as opposed to the art of the katana using the shinai as a substitute.

I am aware of the formal requirement of the sword, body and shout working together (as opposed to the kind of formalized style that we normally do and see) but even this requirement of them working together seems to indicate a reason for them, and I think that since they contribute to a stronger blow, this is the reason for them. The fact that standing still and hitting, even with kiai, is not scorable, is a very important rule, and it restricts quite a lot what you can do. This also affects the fact that hitting while going backwards does not seem to get scored very often compared with moving forwards. Maybe it was just simply the necessity to see a clean, crisp, clear, powerful blow, that predicated these rules about hitting. Perhaps that is all. And this would make sense, and maybe this is the easiest thing. However, IF we were to look at the rules from the perspective of "what damage would they actually do to someone armoured?" then the hits to the head would damage the neck bones if anything, the wrist blows would hurt the wrists, etc, whereas striking to the armoured shoulder plates would get you nowhere, as would stabbing to the breastplate, or cutting horizontally at the neck (protected by the helmet and even by the shoulder guards.
There is even a judo kata (Koshiki No Kata) that is done assuming an opponent in full armour. So, even though kendo might be a bit of a fanciful recreation of what they thought the old armoured combat of the classical age was like (like the way latter day knights jousted, thinking that they were recreating the classical way of combat of Julius Caesar and Arthur etc) I think they were indeed making an effort to approximate the armoured combat of their heroic ancestors. It is kind of like what the Society for Creative Anachronisms does. They are not trying to develop a "realistic training method" for modern times, but are rather resurrecting what they imagine the old foot tourneys of the Middle Ages to have been like. Archaizing is a very common thing in cultures throughout history. Heck, the first official state sport for any state of the USA was Jousting, believe it or not (for Maryland.)

If Kendo was developed with unarmoured combat in mind, and the armour used only for protection, then cuts that would behead an opponent (like horizontal to the side flaps of the helmet), or cut through the clavicle (a diagonal downward chop to the same side-flap), especially since these are defended excellently with kendo armour, would have been pointable. I find it terribly suspicious that these instant kills on an unarmoured opponent are not scorable. I think they are not scorable because on an armoured opponent they thought they were useless. Also, the body motion being required is not necessary for cutting an unarmoured opponent...

there must have been a point in time when the perceived purpose of these coring rules were understood by the practitioners, therefore inducing them to abide by them and consider them worth following.

[Kozushi]

"scoring rules"* (typo)

[ben]

...even though kendo might be a bit of a fanciful recreation of what they thought the old armoured combat of the classical age was like (like the way latter day knights jousted, thinking that they were recreating the classical way of combat of Julius Caesar and Arthur etc) I think they were indeed making an effort to approximate the armoured combat of their heroic ancestors. It is kind of like what the Society for Creative Anachronisms does...

If Kendo was developed with unarmoured combat in mind, and the armour used only for protection, then cuts that would behead an opponent (like horizontal to the side flaps of the helmet), or cut through the clavicle (a diagonal downward chop to the same side-flap), especially since these are defended excellently with kendo armour, would have been pointable. I find it terribly suspicious that these instant kills on an unarmoured opponent are not scorable. I think they are not scorable because on an armoured opponent they thought they were useless. Also, the body motion being required is not necessary for cutting an unarmoured opponent...

Some interesting thoughts, however the two main ideas above are a little off target, so to speak.

Firstly, kendo has indeed involved over the years, but it is definitely not a "fanciful recreation" in the manner of the SCA. The skills that have informed kendo, and which continue to, have been practiced in an unbroken lineage by various schools and passed from one person to the next through practical instruction. HEMA and SCA have been reverse-engineered from documentation with the human aspect (i.e. actual teachers and teaching) missing. This is the first thing.

The second mistake is you say "if kendo was developed with unarmoured combat in mind". There is no "if". Kendo was undoubtedly based on one-on-one, unarmoured combat. There are many koryu that maintain techniques against battlefield armour (yoroi) and their techniques are very different to the ones you find in kendo.

Finally I think your last supposition, that beheading techniques not being scorable in kendo is evidence of the fact that kendo comes from battlefield fighting, is rather muddled logic that doesn't hold up. b

[Neil Gendzwill]

Not to mention that horizontal strikes to the head used to be legal some decades ago. They are no longer allowed as they are dangerous. Turns out straight-on blows to the ear or neck can be damaging, even when covered by the futon.

[Kozushi]

My first post was a hypothesis, not a manifesto, of course. These questions have been bothering me for years, and now that I'm getting back into Kendo more and more, I want to have them solved.

Is there any documentation or proof of some kind that can demonstrate that Kendo rules were instituted with unarmoured combat in mind? Without this kind of proof, I'd expect some of the generation that started Kendo perhaps had unarmoured combat in mind whereas others had armoured combat in mind. I'm not disputing it. I just want to know for certain. (I've done Kendo for almost 20 years - on and off of course, but it's been an addiction for a long time, so please forgive my "need to know".)

Strikes being limited due to safety precautions makes plenty of sense to me. If we go back to the analogy of jousting, strikes were limited to the middle of the shield, the most armoured part of the adversary, and you actually tried to break your own lance on it (although unhorsing the opponent was scored higher, but a touch without a break lower.) For safety reasons, fighting sports take on a "chivalrous" or "sportsmanlike" aspect. Judo (probably my main sport throughout my life) is like this too. Quite a number of techniques that were allowed 50 or 100 years ago are now banned due to their danger, e.g. leglocks are now banned, and picking up someone off the ground and slamming him back down, hooking the inside leg with your inside leg for a throw, etc. So we have discussions about the "practicality" or "realism" of judo rules also. It comes down to a compromize among 1. practical fighting skills 2. safety 3. ease of refereeing 4. keeping the game interesting.

I can see Kendo scoring evolving from simply hitting the guy somewhere on the armour, to having to make clear, declared, loud, big hits to make it clear to the referees that you made a good hit and not just a mere touch or whatever. (Even in Fencing a minimum amount of pressure is required for the hit to count.)

I suppose (continuing the judo analogy) that some people might want to go back to the "good old days" of Kendo where more parts were on target, and less form was needed to impress the referees, but that isn't going to happen because the evolution happened for specific practical reasons, like making it easier to referee for one (a hugely important consideration of course.)

[LarsCW]

ETA you might find this article (http://www.kendo-world.com/forum/content.php/45-A-Brief-Synopsis-of-the-History-of-Kendo/view/1) by Alex Bennett interesting reading wrt to the development of modern kendo.

Thanks for the link.

[Kozushi]

I quite enjoyed that article. It doesn't go into specifics of WHY the rules are as they are, but it does give some examples of how the rules changed. I didn't expect the big influence of "shinai-kyogi" which is clearly adopting Fencing rules to the shinai, having such a big (and now hidden as an embarrassment) influence. But, I found something important in the article that seems to go a long way to confirming my suspicions that modern Kendo rules are an atavistic or even anachronistic attempt to resurrect Samurai combat, rather than just being a kind of zen-ish or sporty thing. Here they are:

"there is one thing that needs to be understood by those engaging in Kendo around the world. And that is, through the harsh training of Kendo, our hope is that you learn not only the technical skills of the sword, but to understand the social and ethical aspects of the Samurai as well as the spirit (mental attitude) of the Samurai. In other words, we hope that you will understand Kendo as Budo and to experience the training of it. A Shinai is a Samurai’s sword. Keiko-gi and Hakama are a Samurai's formal attire. They should not be considered simply sports-wear. Without understanding this ‘spirit,’ Kendo will merely be another physical exercise. We hope that you will try to understand and appreciate the profundity and cultural values of Kendo. The AJKF hopes to promote what we believe to be authentic Kendo. We would like to ask for your full support and cooperation to our activities. Thank you for your attention."

Interestingly, he does not state that the bogu "is a samurai's armour." Maybe that is because it obviously is Japanese fencing armour, not "real" armour, whereas the kendogi and hakama are literally the garb of samurai.

[b8amack]

You've been doing kendo for 20 years and still don't know any of the terminology? "Side-flaps, helmet, gauntlets, breastplate"... Sure.

[ben]

I don't see it as necessarily "embarrassing" that kendo has had to adopt rules to govern shiai, along the lines of fencing. Before WWII, shiai was governed by many, many unwritten rules, much the same as life in Japan in still is. There was no time limit to matches, no space limit to the shiaijo other than the physical space of the dojo. There was no deliberation between shinpan. There was just one sensei who signaled when ippon had been scored. This is OK for a deeply homogenous society, but as the world changed and Japan started to open up, it became clear that rules would have to be written down. For a while, a small number of rules sufficed. However the more non-Japanese started kendo, the more the rules had to be defined. Westerners in particular started to look for loopholes in the rules, asking elaborate "what if" questions. The Japanese sensei responded at first with, "well you deal with that if and when it happens", or "it's case-by-case", but eventually the constant pressure has led to the need for more clarification on small points. Actually this pressure must be from within Japan as well, as these clarifications have appeared in Japanese first (see Stroud sensei's translation of the Shinpan Tebiki as a case in point).

This process is, I believe, how kendo rules have developed in the last 30-40 years. It's more to do with the globalisation of culture, of mindsets other than the Japanese starting to have some impact on what was once an exclusively Japanese activity, as well as the Japanese mindset itself undergoing change.

The passage you quote above is quite interesting. They say "a shinai is a Samurai's Sword" (my emphasis), but then they say, "the AJKF hopes to promote what we believe to be authentic kendo." I think the equivocation of the last statement is more due to the Japanese tendency to avoid definitive statements, rather than being an outward contradiction. Obviously the AJKF believes kendo is indeed authentic, and believes it very strongly. But for them to say, "AJKF kendo is the real kendo, all other kendos are fake" is not only arrogant but unprovable. It would make the AJKF sound like one of the many MA orgs and sensei who promote themselves as the one-and-only.

Once again I don't think kendo is an attempt to "resurrect" anything. It is an attempt to be itself, an artform based on the use of the sword which has deep and demonstrable roots is actual swordsmanship. As the world and its people changes around it, kendo also changes, but the AJKF believes that what made kendo what it was in the Edo, Meiji, Taisho and Showa eras is still present in kendo today. They also want people to work out for themselves what that is, preserve it, and not be distracted by things that can diminish it. b

[Kozushi]

You've been doing kendo for 20 years and still don't know any of the terminology? "Side-flaps, helmet, gauntlets, breastplate"... Sure.
Not everyone on these forums does Kendo, yet I'd still like their input. I'd rather not use the technical jargon if it isn't necessary. I'll impress you with my vast Japanese Kendo and Korean vocabulary another day. :)

[Kozushi]

And it's a heck of a lot of fun! :)

Even the drills are tonnes of fun. Lots of screaming, and rushing past the target.

Awesome.

[The great I AM]

Not everyone on these forums does Kendo, yet I'd still like their input. I'd rather not use the technical jargon if it isn't necessary. I'll impress you with my vast Japanese Kendo and Korean vocabulary another day. :)So what? Maybe they will learn what the things are SUPPOSED to be called by us using the correct "Technical Jargon" as you put it, though I prefer the term "terminology".

And you won't impress anyone here with the amount of Japanese or Korean you can speak, read or write, just so you know.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Not everyone on these forums does Kendo, yet I'd still like their input. I'd rather not use the technical jargon if it isn't necessary.If they're on this forum, they are doing some sort of JSA and nobody is shy about the jargon - eager to learn, mostly. Japanese is the technical language of kendo, so please use the terms if you know them - they are more precise and better understood.