Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 85

Thread: Weapons free-exchanges in Japanese koryu?

  1. #46
    Finny Guest

    Default

    And before you start to argue with me, allow me to post another quote from you, six months ago (I hadn't bothered to venture beyond the first page of the other thread.):

    "As to what the Japanese probably did hundreds of years ago--yes, I am convinced that free-sparring was a part of their training, despite the popular beliefs of today which are regarded by many as fact. "

    So, it becomes clear that you have made your mind up, and aren't interested in hearing " the popular beliefs of today which are regarded by many as fact. "

    The fact is, ALL current kenjutsu schools, which have documents passed down to the current generations from centuries ago, teach via kata. The scrolls discuss kata. It ALL revolves around kata. Not just kenjutsu, but everything that has been passed down through the generations, chado, for instance. The densho don't say: "This is the entire curriculum of our school - a kata, b kata, c kata, and so on, and then at the end say 'oh yeah, and once you've done that go do a whole heap of free-sparring, cos free-sparring's vital'."

    Go to Japan and tell someone like Otake sensei that you think that 'back in the day', his ancestors trained significantly in free-sparring type practise and see what he thinks. Perhaps you could ask him about the results of the 'bout' he had with the kendoka back when TSKSR was being considered as an 'intangible cultural asset' by the government. Being an expert in free-sparring against 'live, resisting opponents', the kendoka would have it made, right???

    When the entire world disagrees with you, why ask the question if you don't want to consider "the popular beliefs of today"??

    I hope this doesn't sound like a personal attack. I actually find the subject at hand fascinating and would welcome further discussion from our resident historical gurus (Dr.'s Friday and Bodiford, for instance) on the extent of sparring type training among medieval Japanese.

    I just think perhaps you could be a bit more accepting of what is a commonly accepted (not just by amateurs, but by japanese historians who have spent their lives researching 'Ye Olde Japan'.) version of history. Especially when you're then one asking for people's opinions.


    David: "The fighting record of Japanese swordsmen argues that they probably had some kind of free-sparring in their curriculum." "The crux of my argument is that free-sparring is essential to developing functional combative skills, regardless of what one's system is. It does not matter that I am not an exponent of JSA; there are universal principles that apply to all arts."

    Why didn't you qualify your first post by saying this is your stance, and you'd argue with anyone who provided an alternative opinion? Seems like the perfect kindling for a good "Free-Sparring vs. Kata" type fire, if ever I saw it.

    Regards,
    Brendan
    Last edited by Finny; 4th August 2004 at 12:48.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Finny
    David (I hope you dont mind me calling you David), I think it's a bit rich for you to start this thread, and then get all indignant when people become tired of you refusing to accept other people's opinions.

    You say you began this stread in an effort to hear the opinions of others more knowlegable about the koryu, with regards to the existance of free-sparring before the turn of the twentieth century.

    You say to Chris "I didn't start that debate" re. the kata vs. free-sparring issue.

    I'd argue you did.

    You began a thread titled and structured almost word for word identically to this one six months ago on swordforum.com.

    Find that thread here: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthr...=free+sparring


    Hello Brendan (hope it's cool if I call you Brendan),

    I have never denied that I consider free-sparring to be an essential component--obviously, I stressed it ad nauseam on that SFI thread, and I have stated that here as well.

    However, I realize that my approach to the discussion was a flawed one, on the SFI thread in question. The discussion ended up panning out in a particular way, due largely to what (and how) I posted--JSA folks reacted as anyone else would have--and in the end, I was disappointed.

    Still, the issue of the possiblity of free-sparring in Japanese weapon arts prior to the 19th century continues to intgrigue me, despite the admittedly botched thread on SFI. When I first came to E-Budo (to inquire about some historical points regarding judo), I saw that this site was set up much like Swordforum, and appeared to be very comprehensive. I therefore decided to attempt to ask the same question regarding the history of free-sparring use in JSA, but without trying to infuse my personal opinions regarding that subject.

    I think if one compares the SFI thread with this thread, one can see the obvious difference. The only person on this thread who seemed to take exception to my inquiry was cxt/Chris, and the only reason I became "indignant" was due to his continuing condescension, obnoxiousness, and (I assume) deliberate misquoting of me. Again, I invite anyone to re-read this thread, and compare it with the SFI thread--the topic is the same, but the approach is totally different. I was certainly in error on the SFI thread, but I think it is clear that cxt/Chris was in error here.

    I was also angered by the fact that it appeared as if this thread was going to head in the same direction as the SFI thread, despite all my efforts to prevent that from happening.

    Again, I realize my approach was wrong on the SFI thread. I am also aware that I ran the risk of folks recalling that thread (and judging me based on that thread), since there are many people who post on both sites (Renfield and Hyaku, for example). I chose to give it a shot anyway.

    If anyone feels that I had any sort of "ulterior motives" regarding this thread (as cxt/Chris obviously did), I want to state right here and now that I most certainly did not. That was not my intention whatsoever. I learned a great deal from the SFI fiasco, and I never want to have a repeat of that.

    Cxt/Chris has apologized to me numerous times now; I was reluctant to initially accept, as it didn't sound sincere (though such things are admittedly difficult to gauge online), but his last post sounded different. I am now willing to accept cxt/Chris's apology, as well as offer one of my own--ie., I'm sorry if anyone took this thread the wrong way (that is, as a repeat of the SFI thread). I'm simply trying to find out more about the free-sparring issue, as it applies to JSA. And Brendan, as a goodwill gesture, I'd be willing to offer an apology on SFI's JSA Forum too, if you think it would help in any way.

    I would still like to discuss the original question. We come from different MA/CS backgrounds, and obviously have different ideas regarding training methodology, but Dr. Bodiford's statements are too compelling for any of us to ignore, IMO. In addition, I was told that Hunter Armstrong once mentioned the use of free-play in JSA, prior to the 19th century--does anyone know anything more about that?

    For the sake of our common, collective knowledge, I implore you all to continue with this discussion/debate.

    Best Regards,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Cxt/Chris,

    Originally posted by cxt
    Charles

    You have a point.

    However, still take exception to the nature of the questions.

    As far as I am concerned he did exactly what I mentioned. Both in tone, the questions themselves etc.

    Certainly not trying to speak for eveyone here--just explaining how I took it.


    Again, Chris, that was not my intention at all.

    His entire line of questioning and argumentive points are solidly grounded in western models of swordplay.


    Western and Filipino models, actually.

    In additon I made several attempts to say I was sorry for offending him.

    An offer he did not extend to me.


    I just explained my reservations in my post to Brendan.

    But if I did mis-understand--happy to offer yet another "I'm sorry"


    Thank you--and likewise.

    Peace,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Melissa, TX
    Posts
    3,160
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Did it [Weapons free-play in classical JMA] exist in any form, prior to the 18th or 19th century?
    Let's stick to answering the original question. We have plenty of threads here on E-Budo about the sparring/kata argument. Don't make me close this down.
    George Kohler

    Genbukan Kusakage dojo
    Dojo-cho

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Finny

    David: "The fighting record of Japanese swordsmen argues that they probably had some kind of free-sparring in their curriculum." "The crux of my argument is that free-sparring is essential to developing functional combative skills, regardless of what one's system is. It does not matter that I am not an exponent of JSA; there are universal principles that apply to all arts."

    Why didn't you qualify your first post by saying this is your stance, and you'd argue with anyone who provided an alternative opinion? Seems like the perfect kindling for a good "Free-Sparring vs. Kata" type fire, if ever I saw it.
    Brendan,

    Perhaps I should have stated that, but I refrained from doing so because I did not want this thread to be a "Free-sparring vs. Kata" debate--I simply wanted to know more about the history of free-sparring within JSA itself, which is something I think we can discuss without letting our personal views on the subject get in the way. However, if anyone here wants to discuss the relative merits of different training approaches, and how they relate to Japanese MA history, I have no problem with that. I am actually quite intrigued by Renfield's and Hyaku's clarifications, as to how sword katas are utilized, and I would like to know more about that.

    I don't study a Japanese martial art, but I do study Japanese military history, and so I'd like to think that we do still have some common ground here.

    Peace,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by George Kohler
    Let's stick to answering the original question. We have plenty of threads here on E-Budo about the sparring/kata argument. Don't make me close this down.
    George, I don't want that to happen--I've done everything I can to salvage this thread!

    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    Ye Olde


    Ok, maybe this one is my fault--I was less than clear.

    I am NOT and was NOT argueing historical western sword schools.

    Only current practice.

    Which for my money is so signifiactly different from what was done "back in the day" as to make comparision problematic at best.

    Feel the same way about the eastern art of kendo.

    Its not personal, its performance.

    Not questioning that historical western sword schools used "free play"

    I am questioning if that it was an "empahsis" because as far as I know.

    A-It was only ONE of a number things they did--as list which includes extensive 2-person drills, solo work on specific pattrens of lunges, parries, footwork, etc (which for my money could be considered a form of kata) a sort of target work. etc.

    B-We really don't know what folks spent more time on.

    As I said it probably varied from school to school, master to master.
    period to period.

    What we know of the Japanese method would indicate that kata was the primary means of instruction--again amoung other methods, such as solo practice, target work, drills, etc.

    NOT saying one is beter than the other, I AM saying that the question is not clear cut as it might seem.


    Chris Thomas

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    George


    In specific answer to the above question.

    I would have to say no.

    It does not appear that "free play" as we would view it, formed much of a part of classicial Japanese methods of instruction.

    The information we have, from the oldest of schools, tends to indicate that "free play" was just not a major focus.

    I think that the nature of the Japanse sword played a part, the early schools were focused on battlefield combat and the katana was primarly a cutting weapon--a fairly substantial one.

    So they really did not have a "safe" option for free-play--they bokken, safer than a "live blade" was still very, very, dangerous--lethal in fact.

    The Yagyu's developled a "safer" version--still not "safe" enough to be used for "free play."

    Then you have the nature of kata--which would take far more time and space than I have to discuss right now.

    Personally I see kata as being much closer to "free play" in terms of skill development.

    I aslo consider it possible that "people being people" there may have been more "free play" than we think.

    But the bottom line is that simply is not the method that was primarly used for the training of JApanese warriors.

    Its worth pointing out that kata was used to train, swordsmen, spearmen, naganata users, pretty much EVERY form of fighting including firearms.

    Its a fundamental part of JMA.


    Chris Thomas

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Chris,

    Originally posted by cxt


    Its worth pointing out that kata was used to train, swordsmen, spearmen, naganata users, pretty much EVERY form of fighting including firearms.

    Its a fundamental part of JMA.
    The same can be said of virtually any martial art--drill (for that is what a kata is, no?) is essential.

    But, it's also only part of the equation.

    Dr. Bodiford's post I quoted from that old thread suggests that, as in any other culture, fighting arts went thru distinct phases. The difference between the "rural fencers" and their city-bred counterparts could be compared to the "plowmen" and other rustics of Renaissance England, and their social betters, who often trained in a very different manner.

    Take for example, what the Elizabethan swordmaster George Silver said about this, in 1599:

    Whereby it grew to a common speech among the countrymen "Bring me to a fencer, I will bring him out of his fence tricks with down right blows. I will make him forget his fence tricks, I will warrant him."

    Silver suggests that the plebian swordsmen of his day had no problem dealing with "school-trained" nobles, because the former trained more realistically overall. This seems to parallel the situation in 19th century Japan, as described by Dr. Bodiford.

    Thoughts?

    Peace,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Montréal, Québec
    Posts
    33
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hear, Hear! M. Finn
    Guy Le Sieur
    Renshinkan dōjō, Tenshin shōden shintō musō-ryū jō
    錬神館道場 天真正伝神道夢想流杖

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    nanban


    But see now your mixing your examples.

    And drawing conclusions that may not be supported by the evidence.

    1st On the JMA question even if Dr. B quote should be taken as is--it does not rule out that the "rual fencers" DID NOT TRAIN IN KATA-that may well have been the base of ALL their training.

    There is no record OF ANY JMA school that did not use kata as its training base.

    So even if taken at face value (a debatable point at best) it just to weak a reed to lean a case on.

    Too much we don't know about the titular "rual swordsmen" and too much we do know about period JMA practice.

    To your latest example.

    It could also be accurately stated that many of the "plebies" mightr just ahev had more overall fighting experinece thatn did some courtier.

    Might not have had anything at all to do with training methods.

    You could also argue that the "court" fencers trained with the duel in mind-a much more regulated fighting enviorment than they were used to.

    Also could argue the weapons might just be different as well--as I recall the chances of a "plebie" owning a fine rapier is rare--maybe they are talking about useing a heavy weapon vs a much lighter one.

    Also I am not sure that you can take a line from a record--no matter who writes it--and take it at face value.

    You could equally quote english fencers as to how the use of the point is much inferior to the use cut---and I can show any number of quotes that back that up.

    Does not mean that its 100% right.

    So I overall I think that not as solid as comparison as it looks.

    Back the JMA

    There is really no record of the the actual success mentoned in Dr. B quote of the "rual swordsmen" (least don't remember it) so we really don't know how good they really were or whom they might have defeated.

    So its kinda nebulous to be drawing conclusions from either statement.

    Seriously not trying to be a pain.

    Chris Thomas
    Last edited by cxt; 4th August 2004 at 16:28.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    Nanban

    Sorry to jump back in here.

    But I was just taken to task for my last post by a buddy of mine.

    I forgot to include something he felt needed.

    Seems that many schools of JMA were considered "rual" to begain with.

    Most of Japan at the time was rual--outside of the major cities the whole country was rual.

    Again back to the Yagyus, seems the "original" line was a "rual" traditon to start with and its major branch remained so for much of its history.

    So there is no way to tell from Dr. B's quote what the "rual" swordsmen practiced--it may well have been extremly traditional just not a "city" school.

    Or it could have been a rual branch of a "city" school--the Yagyus had at least one or more "city based" (as in the then capitol based) branch schools under a different master and seperate line of descent.

    So the use of the term "rual" may not be indicitive of anything substative.

    Chris Thomas

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Chris,

    Originally posted by cxt
    nanban
    If you prefer to call me by my username, that's fine--but you can refer to me by my real name too.


    But see now your mixing your examples.

    And drawing conclusions that may not be supported by the evidence.

    1st On the JMA question even if Dr. B quote should be taken as is--it does not rule out that the "rual fencers" DID NOT TRAIN IN KATA-that may well have been the base of ALL their training.


    I'm not saying that the "rural fencers" didn't train in kata--I'm certain they did--but Dr. Bodiford's post suggests that the "rural fencers" also capitalized on some sort of free-play, wheras their cosmopolitan opponents did not.

    Again, for the record, my opinion on the training issue is that both drilling (kata, etc) AND sparring (randori, "loose play", etc) are essential.

    There is no record OF ANY JMA school that did not use kata as its training base.


    That depends on one's definition of "training base".

    Kata is useful on several levels--it's how body mechanics are taught to the student, and it is also how a given set of techniques are preserved, like a "living catalog", so to speak.

    However, that doesn't mean that it was/is the only essential element.

    So even if taken at face value (a debatable point at best) it just to weak a reed to lean a case on.

    Too much we don't know about the titular "rual swordsmen" and too much we do know about period JMA practice.


    And how much do we know about that period practice?

    To your latest example.

    It could also be accurately stated that many of the "plebies" mightr just ahev had more overall fighting experinece thatn did some courtier.


    Definitely--and admittedly, the same could apply to those Japanese "rural fencers".

    Might not have had anything at all to do with training methods.

    You could also argue that the "court" fencers trained with the duel in mind-a much more regulated fighting enviorment than they were used to.


    Amberger has written about that.

    Also could argue the weapons might just be different as well--as I recall the chances of a "plebie" owning a fine rapier is rare--maybe they are talking about useing a heavy weapon vs a much lighter one.


    FWIW, the "short sword" (broadsword) of the English and the rapier of that time were of similar weight--if anything, there were actually some examples of rapiers (which were often very long) which are heavier than their cut-and-thrust counterparts.

    Also I am not sure that you can take a line from a record--no matter who writes it--and take it at face value.


    But can we ignore it outright? Silver criticised the "gentle play" used in some schools, although it's unclear as to what exactly he was referrring to.

    You could equally quote english fencers as to how the use of the point is much inferior to the use cut---and I can show any number of quotes that back that up.


    I can honestly think of only one--Silver--and while he made an excellent case for the damage that cuts can do, he still also stressed that both cuts AND thrusts are needed. He argued for cuts to be used in rapier practice, and thrusts to be used in broadsword practice.

    Does not mean that its 100% right.


    Agreed.

    So I overall I think that not as solid as comparison as it looks.


    Fair enough--but I'm logging that comparison for future reference.

    Back the JMA

    There is really no record of the the actual success mentoned in Dr. B quote of the "rual swordsmen" (least don't remember it) so we really don't know how good they really were or whom they might have defeated.


    But, Dr. Bodiford cited sources.

    So its kinda nebulous to be drawing conclusions from either statement.

    Seriously not trying to be a pain.
    I know that now--it's cool.

    Peace,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by cxt
    Nanban

    Sorry to jump back in here.

    But I was just taken to task for my last post by a buddy of mine.

    I forgot to include something he felt needed.

    Seems that many schools of JMA were considered "rual" to begain with.

    Most of Japan at the time was rual--outside of the major cities the whole country was rual.

    Again back to the Yagyus, seems the "original" line was a "rual" traditon to start with and its major branch remained so for much of its history.

    So there is no way to tell from Dr. B's quote what the "rual" swordsmen practiced--it may well have been extremly traditional just not a "city" school.

    Or it could have been a rual branch of a "city" school--the Yagyus had at least one or more "city based" (as in the then capitol based) branch schools under a different master and seperate line of descent.

    So the use of the term "rual" may not be indicitive of anything substative.

    Chris Thomas
    Chris,

    But the fact remains that, the "rural fencers" were doing something different--something that enabled them to prevail over their opponents.

    I think we should also consider what was practiced by the last folks to wield Japanese swords in earnest--WWII officers--they trained in both kenjutsu and kendo, did they not? I don't think that is mere coincidence.

    On the "Clip Art" forum, there were some old pics of kendoists engaging in grappling, which looked very interesting, and it indicates that kendo has likewise gone thru phases.

    Peace,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    Nanban

    I am useing your user name by way of avoiding confusion as to whom I am "speaking" or typeing too.

    Your logged on as Nanban so its just easier to use that.

    No disrespect meant.

    Maybe this will help.

    Dr. B's quote-

    No names, no specific ryu, he did not know or at least did not include anything substantive about either group.

    For that reason alone its suspect.

    (This is comparable to an english rapierman haveing a match with an unkn swordsman, of unkn country (we don't know spanish school or italian school etc)
    With unkn rules, with nothing known of the relative skill of the folks involved.
    Then claming it as a "victory" for "english style" swordwork--thats way to nebulous to make that conclusion)


    For all we know the "rual" group were experts and they matched with novice students.

    We don't know how the conclusion was drawn that the rual group did free play and the city group did not.

    We don't know HOW that conclusion was reached. We know he siad it but we don't know WHY.

    Thats one interpratation, but its still a reach.

    We know quite a bit more about period practice in JMA than we do about western methods.

    And what we know is that kata was used by pretty much everyone regardless of "style" or weapon used.

    So even if "free-play" played a role--it just does not seem to be focused on as much.

    I see this as a mis-understanding as to how kata is done when coampred to "free play."

    We also do NOT know anything about the particulars about the matchs themselves.

    If it was to the death duels--then that probably would have been recorded, that there was no mention of guys killed leads to me think it might very well have been a "sport" match.

    An arguable interprataion.

    Since I would argue that the skills needed to win a heavily regulated sport match such as kendo, are NOT the skills needed to when a match with live blades--the point is not really what you conclude it to be.

    More on your last posts.

    Your missing the point--or trying to do what is called mudding the waters.

    The differnce in the weight and handleing of a rapier and broadsword is vast.

    Rapier are not "of similar weight" unless your defineing "similar" much more broadly than is standard.

    Not suggesting that "we ignore (Silver) outright"

    Am suggesting that given the nature of quoteing dead men, who penned lines 100's of years in the past--and can't be questioned as to what and why they wrote what they did.

    So what I AM suggesting is a a grain of salt in drawing conclusions.

    Again, if your argueing Silver as a "according ot Hoyle" source then you must also accept ALL of his claims--ie. the cut is superiour the thrust.

    And as we well know that idea was a hotly debated topic amoung master of Silver days and today.

    Either way you cut it, Silver is just not an empirical source, at best its questionable.

    Please cite Dr. B's sources. That might clear some of this up.

    More to the point, when speaking of kendo and kenjutsu, any number of kendo teachers--including the folks that trained the WW11 swordmen have taken great pains to point out that kendo does not provide the training needed to use a live blade in combat.

    That the skills developed were specifically designed as a method of training for SPORT match. Not combat.

    The manner of use of the kendo shinai simply is not possible with a bokken or live blade.

    In addition kendo was specifically designed NOT to get you hurt--the target areas of kendo are areas that pretty well protedced by a swordsman in armor.

    Most classical ryu focused their cuts quite specfically where the armor was NOT--such as the thumb cut in Yagyu ryu and the underside of the wrist in Katoru ryu.

    So no, your kendo example does not hold up.

    Just an FYI that topic has been run into the ground as well--the Kendo vs Kenjutsu debate I mean.

    Been argued for years, with the kenjutsu side pretty much winning.

    Chris Thomas
    Last edited by cxt; 4th August 2004 at 17:34.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •