Clarification: Two Areas of Kendo

Jae Choi Sensei emailed me today and said that he read my blog post. He made some further clarifications, so I'm posting it with his permission. Not only the topic and the discussion (of last night) helped me, but his thorough additional clarification also helped me to understand this topic more clearly.

-------------------------------

Kiju,

I read your postings and I want to provide some further clarification about some things.

Let me start by saying that these are my own views of what I perceive as the “schools of thought” about the “discipline” of Kendo, although, these views are not in any way or form, original thoughts of my own, as they’ve been expressed to me by other Sensei, and probably been held by Kenshi in many previous generations.

The Two Areas of Kendo:

I loosely use the phrases “Shiai-Kendo” and “Iai-Kendo” to discern the two different approaches to learning and practicing Kendo.

• By Shiai-Kendo, I refer to the kind of Kendo that is viewed primarily as a sport, but with reference to martial arts foundations and principles.
  
  In this type of Kendo, there’s no specific movement taught to show how to *cut* with a katana. In fact, it takes most sensei a conscious effort to replace the term “strike” with the term “cut” when they are describing a particular Kendo technique, for example, the men.
  
  Any Kenshi who picks up a Katana and attempts to “cut” a men, utilizing the Kendo “strike” technique he has perfected, will very soon realize that his “Kendo Strike” does not “Kendo Cut” the target cleanly. The katana will be embedded in the tameshigiri target about 1/3 to 1/2 the distance through. This is hardly a “good cut”.
  
  What have you recalled when you strike a men in such a matter that it bounces down onto your motodachi’s shoulder?
  
  The motodachi will explain “ten-no-uchi” and show you the “crispness” of a strike that requires the Shinai to be “floating” a few inches above the strike zone, after the strike. Otherwise, your strike is deemed “sloppy”.
  
  If a Katana is to cut through the target, and if the Shinai represents the Katana, should not the follow-through of the shinai on the shoulder be at least the closer form to perfection than having it float a few inches above the men?

• By Iai-Kendo, I refer to the kind of Kendo that is viewed as a derivative of the martial skills utilized when wielding a sword. I use “Iai” from the word “Iaido”, as that solitary martial art refers to the “proper” usage of a Katana.
  
  In this type of Kendo, the movements of striking with the Shinai reflect the movement of cutting with a katana.
  
  However, in most cases, you will not see many practitioners of Iai-Kendo resorting to such movement. The only person that I have ever met that did such a thing is Shikai-sensei’s father-in-law.

In terms of “practicality”, here is what I mean about the practical difference between Shiai-Kendo and Iai-Kendo:

• First, let us establish the base assumption held by proponents of Iai-Kendo, that there is a “proper-way to strike the kote in order to effectively *cut* off the wrist with a katana”.

• Secondly, let us establish another assumption that performing a Kendo “strike” using a Shinai does not constitute the same motion and technique employed by Iai-Kendo proponents to properly “cut” the kote.

• Now let us imagine two opponents facing each other: one equipped with a Shinai (Shiai-Kenshi), the other equipped with a Katana (Iai-Kenshi).

• Let’s assume that the Shiai-Kensi utilizes a smaller motion, utilizing wrist movements to “strike”.

• Let’s assume that the Iai-Kenshi utilizes a larger motion, utilizing more arm/shoulder movements in order to “cut”.
  
  
• Now, let us define what objectives both of these Kenshi have.
  
  
• The Shiai-Kenshi has the objective to “strike”. If by utilizing Shiai-Kendo techniques he can manage to strike the Iai-Kenshi’s kote, or even his fingers, he may be able to disarm the Iai-Kenshi from his katana, without effectively cutting.
  
  
• The Iai-Kenshi has the objective to “cut”. He has an advantage of being able to actually “cut” his opponent, but must perform a specific motion to properly “cut”.
  
  
• From a practicality standpoint, the speed at which the Shiai-Kenshi can strike, in my opinion, is significantly faster than the speed at which the Iai-Kenshi can cut.
  
  
• With the above assumption, it is my opinion that given a particular objective, the strikes of Shiai-Kendo out-weigh the cuts of Iai-Kendo.
  
  
• If Iai-Kenshi state that their movement with Katana is the same as the movements of Shiai-Kenshi with Shinai, they there’s no need to have different perspectives about the two, and no one should be stating the obvious difference between the movements people use with Shinai as opposed to Katana.
  
  
• If Iai-Kenshi state that their cutting motions are literally faster than the striking motions of Shiai-Kenshi, then that would be an interesting match to see.

Now, what I’ve produced is a very simplified and controlled set of circumstances and assumptions in order to validate my point of view. But I hope that you see that it is just to illustrate a thought process, and is not a thorough and intellectual “proof” of why one method is more practical than the other.

The above is what I meant by the “practicality” of Shiai-Kendo vs Iai-Kendo. Basically, I don’t have to be able to “cut” using Iai-Kendo in order to practically benefit from the strikes of Shiai-Kendo.

This does not relate in any way to which method to practice later on in life, regardless of the presence or lack of youthful vitality.