Greetings again, Obata Sensei,
this time I will address your sword art instead of the Taijutsu-related question in my first post. I have to admit that I know virtually nothing about Shinkendo, except from what I've read here. Therefore, the first (technical) question is in reference to your books 'Naked Blade', 'Crimson Steel' and your video with the same title, containing Toyama Ryu Battojutsu.
1.) In the books and video already mentioned, you show a straight downward cut called Shin Choku-Giri. It obviously is done with a very big Furikaburi (I don't know, if this term applies to your art), that surprises me. To me it seems that you even make a hollow back, arching your back to the rear when the sword is raised.
I practice a style of Iaijutsu, that has it's roots in Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu (as well as the techniques taught in the Toyama Gakko, as far as I know). While I suppose that art cannot be classified as 'battlefield-oriented', I was taught never to 'open' the upper body that much, not only because that makes one extremly vulnerable while in this position, but also because it seems to destroy the proper feeling and 'tension' in the Tanden and the whole body-position. Would you mind to explain about this technique? Is it possible that it is specifically designed as a means for some of the forms of Tameshigiri you mentioned in another thread, instead of being a 'fighting-technique'?
2.a) That technical question directly led me to a more general consideration I've had for some time now, and I would be glad to here your opinion on this. Guessing that with the creation of Shinkendo you did not intend to invent a new sport, nor to train people for using swords in actual combat, I think of it as something I usually call 'Budo' (which is, in my opinion, something different than mere sport, despite how it is viewed nowadays by a lot of people, it seems). After that, could you please explain your view of the purpose of Shinkendo, or the purpose of practicing Shinkendo?
2.b) Now we come to the part that I'm thinking over for some time now. If a martial art (in general) is
I. not intended for providing one with techniques for actual combat on the battlefield or in self-defense,
II. not intended to win any (sport-) competitions with, and
III. is not a traditional school that should be preserved in it's original, unchanged entity,
and the techniques are sometimes mentioned as being only the surface of such arts, why does it really matter if the techniques are still original, in the sense of 'battlefield-oriented'? (of course, I don't think about completely fancy bogus techniques, but simply about authentic techniques that have changed with times and may have become what is called 'Dojo-techniques'). I'm not sure what I should think about that and would love to hear your opinion on the matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Reinberger