Shinai V Katana
 

Dear all, I have a question........

Why did'nt the Katana evolve into something more realistic than the Shinai in kendo, made out of bamboo but with the correct curvature. Having done Kendo one can do attacks ( as accepted in competition ) that just would not be realistic with a real sword....that is competition I have experienced myself.....

There is bound to be an expert on the subject out there and I am dying to find out the reason. Is it a techincal reason of the shinai being stronger if it has no curve....or just that in the old days to curve the bamboo would have been too expensive and time consuming....

Also why is the Shinai so much longer than most of the Katana of Japan..or is this a modern transformation.

Don't get me wrong....this question is not in any way meant as an insult to kendo...


Thanks

Rob Anderson

As to the lack of a curve, I doubt it makes all that much difference really. It's not like a katana is a scimitar. The curve isn't usually severe enough to make that big a difference.

I don't know the answer, good question. Although I would like to note that I have seen curved shinai. Perhaps it's just too much work to curve them? (Something that will be destroyed eventually anyway through repeated use?)

Wasnt the sword curved to make the draw easier? Why should a shinai then be curved, when it has no saya? You can get shinai with a curve, and shinais with oval tsuka, and there are long discussions on pros and cons. Like: Ordinary shinais are more easily fixed, because the four parts are similar. On a shinai with oval handle and curvature, each of the parts would look different.

The curve isn't much of an issue. The main problems are the lightness (about half the weight of a steel sword), the fact that the blade is round (much wider than steel) and most of all the fact that there aren't any real consequences to getting hit.

The length of the blade is only a couple of inches longer than a "standard" iaito blade. The long handle is most of the difference. That's easily remedied. But you can't make it much heavier or skinnier without running serious injury risks.

I'll take a guess, but I don't know for sure historically why the modern shinai developed the way it did.

First of all, modern kendo is a sporting art, not a combative art. Thus, the shinai doesn't need to mirror the sword as much as it needs to fit whithin the context of the art itself.

Secondly, the first shinai used was the fukuro shinai (a short, split bamboo sword wrapped in leather), developed by Kamiizumi of Shinkage ryu fame, for the express purpose of allowing for full contact practice and duels without injuring the opponent. While the size of the fukuro shinai more closely resembles the sword than modern shinai, the weight is still different (lighter). Then again, depending on the bokken one uses, it can be lighter or heavier than a real sword, so I don't think weight is as critical if one assumes that a practitioner of a combative sword art would be quite used to the weight of his own sword that he carried around with him all the time anyway.

For modern students of classical sword arts, however, many never practice with a real sword, or even iato, and thus if they were forced to translate what they are learning with a bokken or shinai to the real thing in a real fight, there might be some initial problems getting used to the weight, and/or length differences. But how likely is that?

Far more important to classical sword arts is the strategy and tactics of the use of the sword/bokken/shinai and the infusion of the particular physio-psychological framework of the art. If you learn that, you should be able to use your skills with a sword at least approximating the general length and weight of the japanese katana. OTOH, one must not forget the importance the weapon plays in setting boundaries on the strategy and tactics of the art. For example, you would never wield a spanish rapier the same way you would a japanese katana.

Just some thoughts, FWIW,

Best regards,

Arman Partamian
Daito ryu Study Group (mainline)
Maryland

www.e-bogu.com sells curved shinai.

Neil Streart

Arman, not to jump on you, buddy, but, if I hear this one more time:

...modern kendo is a sporting art, not a combative art. Thus, the shinai doesn't need to mirror the sword as much as it needs to fit within the context of the art itself.

I'll scream!

First off, kendo *is* a combative art, and anyone that practices it as "only for sport" - and I don't know anyone that does - isn't getting the whole package. We could debate that, but more to the point: the shinai was developed in the first place to emulate combat! They didn't, in 1760-something, go: "You know, Takashi, I'm sick of badminton. You know what'd be a cool game? A game based on swordsmanship. Now, how would we do it...?"

So the shinai's shape/function isn't a modern concern, it's a couple hundred years old by now. Thus, it's a valid question - why didn't they make it more "sword-like"?

It is my understanding that it was mainly due to the superior cutting efficiency of a curved blade, the same reason that most cavalry sabres and sjamshir('scimitar') are curved.

This is my understanding as well. Nihonto are made for cutting moreso that thrusting, and the curve and single edge assist this.

Keep in mind also that there are many koryu that use straight bokuto, or bokuto that are essentially tree branches, etc. They could use tools that more closely resembled real swords, but the benefit wouldn't be all that great, vs. the simplicity of the straight tool. I'd venture that a kendo shinai developed as it did for the same reason. It's simpler and cheaper for a tool that's just gonna get destroyed anyway.

Bokuto Jutsu: Straight, Curved, Fat, Thin, Why? by Karl Friday, PhD.

Charlie,

I didn't mean to offend you, or kendo players in general. I must say, however, that I respectfully disagree with you. I'm sure you have read Draeger on this point, and while I don't agree with all he has to say, he does make some very good analytical points regarding the evolution of sword arts from the battlefield, to peace-time, to the modern world. Assuming you have read it, I won't go into it in any detail.

Also, the method of kendo today is vastly different than the method of combative arts in the past. For instance, the point in kendo is to score more points than your opponent. You must call out the general target area, and one need not focus on "vulnerable" points in armor (e.g., underneath the kote, as opposed to on top of it). The entire engagement is a sportive one, including the methods of attack and defend. Any time spent in a classical sword style, however, will demonstrate a vastly different philosophy and strategy. The emphasis is on killing your opponent, and the goal is for an immediate kill, if possible. Much attention is placed on open spots in armor (if pre-Edo kata), and the entire psychological curriculum is designed to create a lethal swordsman. Modern kendo does none of this.

Not to say that modern kendo does not contain elements of classical swordsmanship - specifically, Itto ryu. But this is obvious, as the sport of kendo developed from the martial practice of the sword. You will see the same problems in western fencing (foil, epee and saber). The method of these styles is vastly different than those of the old fencing masters.

Respectfully,

Arman Partamian
Daito ryu Study Group(mainline)
Maryland

Arman,

I agree with a lot of what you say. Kendo is a vague approximation of classical Japanese swordsmanship, and kendo competitions are very much sportive events.

But kendo is not kendo competitions. Kendo would still be kendo if competitions were never held, and point sparring never took place. I only have a little bit of experience training in kendo, and before I started, I thought a lot like you do now, but after the first practice I quickly changed my mind. I was astounded by what kendo has to offer to me as a martial artist, even if it doesn't follow the same practices as the other sword arts I study. I have no doubt kendo training would improve my skills in other arts as well.

You say that kendo and koryu sword arts demonstrate a vastly different philosophy; I disagree with this - I think much of the philosophy is very similar, and it's the choice of practical application that differs. Kendo has to be safe, so we wear armor, but the style of fighting is as if we didn't.

I must disagree. I have witnessed kendo matches, and seen people take full cuts to the abdomen, and fight on because it was not a point area. this is not realistic at all. i have, however, been told about a non sport style of kendo that is realistic. but, i have never met anyone that studied the non-sport version.

Some interesting comments............

I can see both sides of the kendo discussion 'sport or Budo' and having trained at a few dojos I believe it is down to the sensei, some concentrate on competition and thus the students all have the shallow Men cuts with the snap of the wrists ( that in real life would only give the opponant a headach ) but other schools have true open and large cuts, these are good schools ( in my point of view )

However since we are on the topic does anyone have any views as to why kendo only incorporated the three cuts and one thrust. I'll further my question..

Why did'nt kendo keep to the original style of sword fighting with all body parts being targets...I understand that these were designated as the three main targets but there are a lot more.....e.g why not thrusts to the Do or cuts from the lower stance to the Kote or rising cuts like in Iai.. etc etc

Look forward to your responses

Rob Anderson