Talking about Kenjutsu

#kenjutsu #katana #samuraisword

[@randallpetroelje3913]

I’m one of the 46 ronin!! Thanks 🙏 I love your teaching and your show. You got the “koryu “glow!

[@GodKiller97]

Love these kinds of videos from you

[@tochiro6902]

great video and great techniques thank you.

[@serpnta1267]

I thought these videos were great; I just wish I had someone to do the movements with. I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with training videos in the future.

[@scorpzgca]

Great explanation video

[@iceburn5349]

Love seeing these videos, guess wont be seeing your reconstruction of "Muye Dobo Tongji".

[@davidhoogenboom3344]

it looks more real than wat i learn on bujinkan

[@jritchey267]

A couple of points of caution: 1) Reconstruction is always an act of interpretation. None of us was there. Sources--be they textual, archeological, or traditional--can only tell us so much, and there are large gaps in our knowledge to be filled in. With sufficient diligence, strong plausibility of how it worked may be achieved, but "how it really was" is almost certainly an overstep, especially in the early stages. 2) Dismissing living tradition because of technical drift is as much a logical fallacy as claiming there is no drift. There is always a tradeoff. Being mindful of what living and analogous disciplines teach and trying to understand why is of massive benefit when studying period sources. They, combined with pressure testing, act as a check on each other. Working either sources or tradition in isolation will tend to lead to artifacts in training that can snowball quickly into full blown errors. I applaud your efforts to explore the roots of these disciplines. There is a long road ahead, and I will be interested to see how you walk it.

[@neil12392]

Thanks for this Antony your videos are brilliant and very Truthful, Coming from a martial arts background we can all get stuck in the tradition of the Technique but in reality We have to step away from the tradition to get the real meaning of the technique, Brilliant Antony keep it up I'm looking forward to doing your cours work.

[@damnyankee3558]

I for one as a Toyama Ryu practitioner and all around martial artist thank you iv wanted a Nodochi style to resurch and practice since i was 14 and started Iaido I'm 33 and you granted my wish sorry it cost so much but thank you for this

[@AntonyCummins]

I will get all of them up

[@Warriorway101]

Hi Antony great video , you have come along way since you sparred last year , I really enjoy your sword training videos,

[@AntonyCummins]

Glad you like them!

[@Apepisaniceguy]

I understand the criticism of angles seeming to be a focus on tradition and what’s really important is getting the blade in front to move the spear away, however, practicing the right angle builds a better muscle memory to not under or over commit the actual technique. Too low of an angle on the parry could still get you stabbed or cut and too much leaves you open. Personally I really enjoy this series, new commentary on the art is always a good thing imo.

[@-RONNIE]

Good video 👍🏻 thanks

[@666onfire100101]

I agree the art of the sword changes over time just as language doth

[@Omegaures]

The only think that might really make a difference is the trainers. I think it was Roland Warzecha who said that he though people used to walk differently because of the shoes they wore and he does some Reconstructive Martial Arts with Buckler and Sword and Centre grip shields and Sword. Tbf the same could be said about him, event hough his videos on are quite good they arent nearely as popular as a lot of other stuff, I thought the series in and of itself was fine, maybe a few things could be refined, but a few thing can always be refined so I wouldn't sweat it.

[@Jusangen]

I’d also be interested in the course!

[@stuartpaul9211]

I bet if you did some kendo and beat the crap out of each other, it would generate loads of interest.

[@philipcrocker4835]

the trouble with technique purists is that they can become rigid in their thinking and actions for me if it works its a good technique if your opponents head is rolling around the floor they are not going to complain that your attack angle was a couple of degrees out are they?

[@jritchey267]

It's important to be able to distinguish between techniques--specific movements or movement patterns--and Technique--body mechanics. The one is mainly intended to instill the other. Getting too hung up on specific techniques is a problem, and does lead to rigidity. However, not understanding Technique or mistaking its criticism for fixation on techniques leads to wasted effort and bad interpretation. In some circumstances, it can also lead to self-injury.

[@lusitanus6504]

Great Video! Will there be a course on Iaijutsu?

[@AntonyCummins]

Not at the moment but I think in the future yes

[@patrickmodenesi2344]

Hi, Anthony, I'm Brazilian and I'd like to know more about your school, please.

[@AntonyCummins]

No problem www.Natori.Co.uk

[@IronBodyMartialArts]

Yea. Good job mate.. i support your miasion. Its a shame.. literally if you were a Japanese guy. Yout views would be in the millions. But.. that is the way people are.. same with my channel.

[@davechopin6788]

Where did you get your bokken from? While on the subject could you do a video on proper length of weapons for Westerners please..

[@AntonyCummins]

I have put the link somewhere in the blerb

[@davechopin6788]

@@AntonyCummins thanks mate

[@copyleftclaim7112]

Hello again Anthony Cummins. I appreciate you responding to my comment in this video. However, I think you have misunderstood my argument. My contention was NOT that Cheng Zongyou's manual is Chinese swordsmanship because he was Chinese. My contention was that Cheng Zongyou's manual depicts a martial art that was likely substantially altered from its original Japanese form. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that I was insufficiently clear in my writing. I will be more clear and concise this time. You make the argument that if you went to Japan and learned Eishin Ryuu, and then returned to England, then taught Eishin Ryu with your own flare, you would still be doing Eishin Ryuu. This is a false equivalence with the case of Cheng Zongyou for several reasons, but I will follow on from your example nonetheless. That is, if you learned Eishin Ryuu in Japan, then returned to England, and proceeded to incorporate HEMA techniques and alter Eishin Ryuu techniques, then what swordsmanship are you practicing? Clearly, this is no longer Eishin Ryuu, though it is also not HEMA either. You would have created a new kind of martial art. This, I argue, is the case with Cheng Zongyou's manual. Without retreading my previous comment, you can even see that the techniques from Cheng Zongyou's manual are very different from those attributed to Yamamoto Kansuke. If you start adding your own flavor to a martial art, there is certainly a point at which it becomes a different martial art. You yourself recognize this. That's the whole reason you're trying to reconstruct 16th-17th century kenjutsu. In the case of Cheng Zongyou, he has done more than add a little flavor. For convenience, I will include my first comment below. In that comment, I had already addressed how the manual references the Japanese and Japanese techniques, and how it raises questions. I hope my argument was clearer this time. ............................................................................................. Below comment from video "Samurai Sword | Spinning Cut": kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKuagqKbidGad5I&lc=UgxByZn36juSMKkJkuJ4AaABAg.9lmEgbdJDEQ9lne2Muv0-K Hello Anthony Cummins, first let me say that I really like what you're doing in trying to reconstruct kenjutsu. However, I think it is misleading to present these videos as "Japanese Kenjutsu by Cheng Zongyou", for the following reasons. Firstly, Cheng Zongyou's master was someone by the name of Liu Yunfeng, who Cheng Zengyou describes as having "received the true transmission of the Japanese", but this Japanese master themself is never named. Further, Cheng Zongyou writes that he never got the names of the guards and techniques, which calls into question how he, or perhaps Liu Yunfeng, learned their swordsmanship in the first place. Cheng Zonyou notes certain guards and techniques as being "specialties of the Japanese slaves" (the wording is significant too). It is strange that he felt the need to point certain techniques out as being particular to the Japanese. In a similar vein, some of the techniques from Cheng Zongyou's manual also appear in his staff manual, which suggests that he either added his staff techniques to the sword manual, or added the sword techniques to his staff manual. Indeed, Cheng Zongyou wrote of the staff as being analogous to all pole-arms and long swords and he viewed his manuals as being a single cohesive system. He's a bit like Fiore del Liberi in this regard. This is also evident in that he draws no clear distinction in his manual between the longer sword, and the shorter sword to be used by crossbowmen. The longer sword being "5 feet long in total" (63 inches in modern measures), and shorter sword being "3 feet 7 inches" (46 modern inches). The former is clearly in oodachi territory, while the latter is more like a long tachi. Additionally, the entire sword manual is dedicated to defeating the spear. Every technique assumes that the opponent will be wielding a spear. This is an interesting fixation in Cheng Zongyou's swordsmanship, one that does not seem to have existed in Japanese swordsmanship. Our knowledge of the use of the oodachi/nodachi in Japan is sparse, but to my knowledge, it does not seem to have revolved around fighting against spear-men. Lastly, the word "Japanese slaves" is a problematic bit of translation. This is because the term actually translates to "dwarf slave" and was used interchangeably with "dwarf bandit" (aka wako/wokou). While the term "dwarf" was commonly used to refer to the Japanese, the term "dwarf slave/dwarf bandit" was generically used to refer to coastal pirates, Japanese or otherwise. Due to the above, I think it would be less misleading, and more accurate, to present these techniques as "Japanese kenjutsu as interpreted by the Chinese", or perhaps "Chinese swordsmanship as inspired by the Japanese". Given the evidence, or lack thereof, it is difficult to say with any level of certainty, how closely Cheng Zongyou's swordsmanship actually resembles Japanese swordsmanship of the time. While it is clear that Japanese influence exists in Cheng Zongyou's sword manual, there is much reason to believe that it no longer reflected the original Japanese form. I hope i have been constructive here, and this was by no means meant to be an attack against you.

[@AntonyCummins]

Can you email me the individual points which he changed please. With reasons how you know it changed. I’d like to see how you conclude it’s too far removed. I will make a video on it. [e-mail] if you would please.

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

You took the words out of my mouth. There are certainly certain Japanese flavours coming through in specific aspects of Zongyou’s text (at least from what I have seen). However, there are a lot of differences too that are very much Chinese influences, unsurprisingly. Also, in both of the texts by Kansuke that I have (one of which I believe these stances and techniques are meant to be coming from), a lot of these movements are actually conjecture. He speaks only in dot point form with an illustration of the position, the illustration likely came later. Very rarely he will mention exactly how you cut, usually saying something along the lines of “there is an advantage when an opponent sweep slashes you low”. Another thing as well, from what I have seen, is that in Kansuke’s text there is not really anything stating that these illustrations are guards in the way we think. In fact, they are translated as ‘positions’ which, more likely, are positions you may find yourself in during a fight. Examples of this are when Kansuke is stating things like “it seems like you attack from jō dan but you actually attack from ge dan” without even mentioning ‘kamae’ at the end. This much more likely refers to directions the attacks are coming from rather than from specific guards. It means the system is a lot more fluid and three dimensional, which makes sense for a system made during a time of war.

[@copyleftclaim7112]

​@@AntonyCummins As you asked, I will explain my reasoning and email this to you. Though I have explained my argument in my initial comment, I will elaborate on them further. Please understand that I am NOT claiming that Cheng Zongyou's sword manual has no basis in Japanese kenjutsu. Nor am I claiming that you shouldn't present them and reference them as part of reconstructing 16-17th century kenjutsu. I am not even arguing that his manual is "too far removed" from Japanese swordsmanship, because there is no way to draw that line clearly. My only claim is that there is reason to question the faithfulness of Cheng Zongyou's manual to Japanese swordsmanship of the time, and therefore I think it is worth mentioning this caveat when presenting Cheng Zongyou's material. When you asked me to write this, you asked for "...reasons how you know it changed...". This wording was interesting to me because my contention is that there is much we DON'T know, and therein lies the problem. Below I lay out my points. When reading through Cheng Zongyou's sword manual, he mentions "sneaking a step" or a "stealing step" (偷步) several times. This same term can also be found in his spear and staff manuals. This is a rather unique piece of footwork in which the legs are crossed, and is often used for lateral movement. While I cannot preclude the possibility of its use, I have never seen it in Japanese martial arts, but see it all the time in Chinese martial arts. Beyond that, I have seen a similar kind of footwork in European rapier treatises, namely, the inquartata, but that's about it. In a similar vein, there is the presence of leg lifts in the "skyward stance" and the "right/left solo stand" stances. Presumably, this is to void the leg, or otherwise remove it as a target. This kind of leg lift can be seen very clearly in the "lift foot stance" from the spear manual, as well as the "golden chicken solo stand stance" from the staff manual. Here the leg is lifted to void a low thrust before delivering one's own thrust. Much like the "sneak step", these kinds of leg lifts seem to be a peculiarity of Chinese martial arts. Though, voiding the leg is seen in HEMA, for example, it is typically done by moving the leg back, not up. It is possible that these features exist in Japanese martial arts as well, and I am simply ignorant of them, but they certainly seem more pervasive in Chinese martial arts. This tells me that, somewhere between the practice of this art in Japan and Cheng Zongyou's recording of it, a certain amount of change was introduced. Whether it was Cheng Zongyou's doing, or somebody else, I obviously cannot say. The sword manual contains a pair of stances called "left/right fixed knee". Likewise, the staff manual contains a "fixed knee stance", and they appear to serve similar purposes, with the similar "subdue tiger stance" and "fixed knee" describing "lifting the spear" to create an opening from this position. Additionally, the "enter cave stance" of the sword manual seems to function similarly to the "lift spear stance" of the staff manual. Though differing in name, they are also about pushing the spear up from a similar starting position. Then there are the swords techniques that are described as being done with one hand, both for cuts and thrusts. Most notably is the "single thrust stance", in which Cheng Zongyou tells you to thrust and withdraw with one hand. While not particularly unique, it is worth noting that Cheng Zongyou's staff and spear manuals also have single handed thrust stances. In the staff manual, he mentions that using one hand is the best way to deliver a thrust. Likewise, many of the spear techniques involve thrusting with one hand. This is interesting, considering that the sword manual is for a very long sword, and would presumably be very difficult to use with just one hand, especially in cutting motions. I do not think that these similarities in technique are a coincidence. It seems that Cheng Zongyou's staff/spear technique has influenced his sword technique, or vice-versa. Which way the influence went is hard to say, but it's worth bearing in mind. Now that I have gone over the minutia of footwork and technique described in the manual, I want to briefly mention some miscellaneous points of interest. After presenting the first 20 or so techniques/guards, Cheng Zongyou proceeds to discuss forms and presents one to be practiced. The form is something he created for the this purpose. He the continues to present 12 more techniques/stances after discussing the form, which raises the question as to why they were separated from the ones that came before. At the end of the manual, Cheng Zongyou makes two interesting statements. First, he says that the stances build on the staff fighting diagrams. Secondly, he says that because most people choose the spear for its reach advantage, the sword's techniques are based on spear techniques. The exact meaning of these statements are not entirely clear to me. At minimum however, it is clear that Cheng Zongyou saw a connection between the use of the sword, staff, and spear, and this raises questions as to how that might have effected the sword manual. Now let's examine the context of the sword, its manual, and the relevance thereof. The manual starts with the "mutual draw", in which two figures draw each other's swords. This, I imagine, is a consequence of the assumed context of the sword and its techniques. The assumption being that, the people using these swords are fighting in formation, and that these swords are a secondary weapon to a crossbow or matchlock. The need to draw the sword quickly is probably a consequence of this context. We also find that Cheng Zongyou's entire sword manual is dedicated to opposing a spear. This is also true of his spear manual, and in part, his staff manual. This fixation on combating spear-men is typical of Chinese military treatises of the time. As an example, Qi Jiguag's sword and shield manual is also dedicated to opposing spears. Thus right away, one can see that there is a very particular context the weapon is assumed to be deployed in, and informs its use. There is no mention of how to oppose a sword, for example. In fact, Cheng Zongyou's sword manual almost exclusively discusses how to defend a thrust, with hardly anything on defending against a striking motion. Furthermore, if such a long sword is to be used in formation, then clearly, there are certain limitations as to how the weapon and the wielder can maneuver. With this in mind, it is hard for me to imagine that this context has not shaped how Cheng Zongyou would have thought about its use. As a point of contrast, I have never known Japanese swordsmanship to be nearly as concerned with fighting against spear-men. More particularly, I do not know the odachi/nodachi to have primarily been used as an anti-spear weapon on Japanese battlefields. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but there certainly appears to be a difference in focus. Up until now, I have discussed how Chinese martial arts might have influenced Cheng Zongyou's sword manual. From here on however, I will primarily focus on the lack of clarity as to how exactly Japanese swordsmanship relates to Cheng Zongyou's manual. To begin, the structure of Cheng Zongyou's manual is very different from the Japanese swordsmanship we are familiar with. This is very evident in the way guards are presented. Instead of showing a fairly small number of guards like joudan, chuudan, gedan, hasso, waki, and so on, with the techniques available from those guard positions, Cheng Zongyou's manual is almost... disorganized. There appears to be no distinction between guard positions and techniques. Instead, the guard positions sort of ARE the techniques, and in a couple of instances, the technique is illustrated across mmultiple "stances". This is not to mention the fact that he doesn't include some fundamental guard positions of Japanese swordsmanship. There is no joudan, only the "skyward stance", which is somewhat different from what we might expect from joudan. There is no chuudan, or rather, there are two stances that resemble chuudan, but are angled left and right respectively. There is no hasso, nor anything that resembles it. When Cheng Zongyou presents techniques, they very from basic, single exchanges, to longer, multi-exchange affairs, giving instruction on how to react to different things the opponent might do. This is a style that is consistent in his spear and staff manuals as well, but generally uncommon in Japanese swordsmanship. Case in point, the techniques attributed to Yamamoto Kansuke lack these longer sequences. Perhaps most obviously in the inclusion of the form that I mentioned before. While you sometimes find kata that assume a somewhat larger number of exchanges, this kind of long practice routine is quite characteristic of Chinese martial arts, with perhaps the closest comparison being flow drills done in HEMA, and nothing quite like it in Japanese martial arts. ...Character limit reached. Continuing on next comment...

[@copyleftclaim7112]

Having looked at the structure of Cheng Zongyou's manual, let's also look at some of the more technical aspects. Cheng Zongyou's manual draws no distinction between the longer sword and the shorter sword. There is more than a foot of difference in total length between the two swords. I am skeptical that the original Japanese form of this swordsmanship would have used two significantly different lengths of sword in exactly the same way. While not a perfect reference point, one finds that koryuu today will have distinct techniques for katana, kodachi, wakizashi, and tanto. Similarly, if you were to learn Fiore's longsword techniques, it would be challenging to apply them using a sword of the size found in Achille Marrozo's two-handed sword material. Cheng Zongyou also provides dimensions of the swords in his manual, and when it comes to the sword to be used with a crossbow, he describes it as though the dimensions of that sword were meant specifically so that it would make a good sidearm to the crossbow. All this leads me to think that the Japanese system he learned was for one particular size of sword, and he then proceeded to generalize it. To stray briefly into the realm of speculation, I suspect that perhaps the swordsmanship he learned was not for the 5 foot long sword, as this would explain why he is comfortable with the inclusion of so many one-handed techniques. To cast more doubt on the origins of the techniques he presents, there are 4 techniques/stances specifically attributed to the Japanese. These are the "left lift stance", "right lift stance", "single carry", and "shoulder sword" stances. The "left/right lift stances" are described as "specialties" of the Japanese, while "shoulder sword" and "single carry" are described as being used by the Japanese to bait attacks. If all the techniques/stances are Japanese, why was there a need to point out these 4 in particular? Throughout the manual, Cheng Zongyou talks about "opening doors" for a spear to thrust in, and yet he chose to point out "shoulder sword" and "single carry" as Japanese methods for achieving this. The fact that 4 specific techniques are explicitly associated with the Japanese, naturally raises questions about the other techniques. Throughout this piece of writing, I have mentioned times when Cheng Zongyou references the Japanese. However, he always uses the word "dwarf" to refer to them, never actually calling them Japanese. This is a problem, because he also uses the term "dwarf slave" to refer to the coastal pirates. The issue here is that the coastal pirates were not only comprised of Japanese, in fact, by Cheng Zongyou's time, they weren't even majority Japanese. Certainly these coastal pirates had bases in Japan and had access to Japanese weapons. However, the pirates themselves were a mixed group of Chinese smugglers and merchants, Japanese mercenaries, Portuguese mercenaries, and various people from South East Asia. Therefore, when Cheng Zongyou refers to the Japanese, it is not necessarily clear that he's actually talking about Japanese people. We might assume he is, and we might even be right, but it is also possible that he's talking about other peoples who just happen to be armed with Japanese weaponry. Of course, if those people are armed with Japanese weapons, then they might also be practiced in Japanese martial arts. The point though, is that the language is frustratingly ambiguous. I must say that I am not confident in my writing ability, and hope that this has been easy to follow. None of what I have discussed above is intended to prove definitively that Cheng Zongyou's manual represents an entirely new, non-Japanese swordsmanship. Rather, it is only intended to show that the swordsmanship he recorded probably has changed from the original Japanese art. Chinese military writers of the time were not shy about changing martial systems as they liked. Qi Jiguang's version of the odachi/nodachi has an extra long blade collar (like a very long habaki) that he intends to be gripped so the sword can be used like a spear. As another example, Wu Shu, a slightly later contemporary to Cheng Zongyou also writes about the same sword in a text called the Shoubilu, but he explicitly mentions that he includes techniques from the Chinese double-edged sword (jian/gim), particularly, the principles of "sticking and scraping", which is similar to "binding and winding" in HEMA. I will also mention that quite a few things in the manual are very characteristically Japanese, namely the drawing techniques. With the exception of the "mutual draw", thy are very reminiscent of what you would find in battou/iai, though I wonder if they were intended for very long swords. While sword drawing techniques did exist in Chinese martial arts, it was never as developed and elaborate as in Japan. Likewise, the "hidden dagger" and "flying dagger" also strike me as rather Japanese, though throwing weapons is a bit of a cultural universal. The extent of the changes made to Japanese swordsmanship by the time the manual was written is hard to know, and I suspect we will never truly know. Nonetheless I think it is worth noting and being cautious of. Thus, I think presenting the contents of Cheng Zongyou's manual as an unequivocally faithful representation of Japanese swordsmanship, without acknowledging how it might have changed, and our remaining uncertainties, is inadvisable. All I ask therefore, is that you make mention of this caveat in some way, when using Cheng Zongyou's manual as a reference. I thank you if you have taken the time to read all of this.

[@NathanaelTheAussie]

@@copyleftclaim7112 great detail here, very informative as well! I learned a bunch about HCMA here 🙏 You are mostly right about the lack of crossed legs in HJMA. However, you do see it on the rare occasion in certain yari movements. Have yet to see any significant presence of them with swords and other weapons though. I have seen reference from Kansuke to HCMA fist combat techniques and, if I remember correctly, the Chinese illustrations he utilises use a leg lift of some kind. Whether or not this translated to other combat systems though I am not sure.

[@jradventure6694]

Missed this tea break chat. 🤬 I was hoping you would move on from visual kata explanation to armour real time reaction. That is where the art is removed and all the poo pooers about form can jog on, no one is going to care about 45°of blade angle when a just as heavy blade is heading to your head. I also would have like to see if some of these would actually work or are the just there for show? What ever anyone else says these string of vids have any weapons practitioner jumping and shouting "I know that movement" no matter what style or weapon. Your vids are always welcome on a cold lonely night shift. Keep it up.

[@Jusangen]

Ok, so Anthony, we DO have evidence for Samurai, physical martial arts like Kukishin, but we don’t for a Ninja, physical martial art right? If that’s true, how do you study traditional samurai martial arts and know which ones aren’t just made up? Are the 6 main physical martial art schools from Hatsumi legit or are those the dubious ones?

[@AntonyCummins]

Most of what hatsumi puts out is modern or interpretation it’s very difficult to divide his ideas from actual history

[@Jusangen]

@@AntonyCummins I see. But what I guess I'm looking for is how do people who practice Koryu (of any kind) do so with any certainty. I went to a HEMA class and I saw the manuscripts and learned they will debate whether someone's sword is on top or on the bottom of the other's in a picture, and that's fine with me. I wondering though are there ANY historical Yari, ken, bo, kyu, Tachi, schools that we can know Samurai practiced and we could learn today? For instance, you put out a video with the nunchaku specialist, supposedly there's a scroll out there somewhere for what you were demonstrating?

[@Jusangen]

I apologize if this is the wrong format to be asking this, but I'm having trouble getting to the bottom of this.

[@davidhoogenboom3344]

fine that er now is commentated bij you over the difference make it much better

[@Bb5y]

I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but unfortunately, I think your thesis is floored.You’ve made assumptions from incomplete information.

[@charlesghannoumlb2959]

Mr cummins i have a proposition for you, i have a good voice for voice over, and i have some voice samples that im gonna sendvyou one, if you'd like i will record one of your books to an audio book, my expense as a contribution to the comunity, if you so choose of course, im gonna send the sample on your email this week and if its ok by you i will proceed in recording any of your books, your choice, respect sir

[@AntonyCummins]

Send it over. Audio books need a contract with publisher but send over

[@charlesghannoumlb2959]

@@AntonyCummins sure ill send it this week