Your first foray into the sword arts

“How do I even choose which art to practice?”

Introduction

Greetings, traveller.

If you're reading this, you probably are thinking of getting to know the sword arts. You might be wondering which arts are “the best”, or whatever; I'm here to help you make a bit more sense out of this murky and confusing field.

For now, a bit of a spoiler: If your main goal is knowledge, ie if –like me– you're hoping to treat swordsmanship at least as cerebrally as physically, then the question isn't which art you should train in. The question is how many of them you should train in. I, personally, didn't start feeling particularly knowledgeable until I was three arts deep; I will therefore advise you to choose at least 3 arts to train in, or at the absolute least dabble.

Fair warning: The language in this article will be a smidge more, uh, animated than usual.

What are you even looking for?

The first and fore-most thing to consider: What are your goals in learning a sword-related martial art?

Per MacYoung's taxonomy, there are five different possible focuses:

1. Self-defense/professional use of force: You care about circumstances outside of your control. Results are the only thing that matters, not learning.
2. Tradition/physical art/self-discipline: You care about circumstances outside of your control. Your goal is the journey, not the destination.
3. Spiritual/health: All your goals are internal. Your goal is the journey, not the destination.
4. Sport/tournament: You've identified specific tournaments –and, crucially, rule-sets– that govern the circumstances that interest you. Results are the only thing that matters.
5. Demonstration: All that matters is selling tickets.

My biggest personal focus, by far, is № 2. As in: I treat swordsmanship at least equally cerebrally and physically. I want to inform myself about different circumstances under which this art could be applicable. I care about learning kinesiological principles, not just fancy moves. The “art” part of “martial art” is the operative word.

Crucial to note: Different clubs/schools have different focuses. Make sure your focus and the school's are aligned. That said, № 1 is centuries away from being applicable to the sword arts; № 5 is completely outside my area of expertise; and № 3 is only amenable to very few arts such as iaidō or especially tai-chi. Thus, the main question you'll have to contend with is whether you prefer focus № 2 or focus № 4.

The sword arts I'm aware of

First things first: Every sword art I've seen has the same two huge disadvantages: It needs very expensive equipment, and it needs lots of available space. Where wing-chun can fit an entire class inside a telephone box, sword arts need entire basketball courts for, like, one or two concurrent matches. As for equipment expenses, HEMA with steel long-swords is the most expensive by far; even for the rest, however, a relatively cheap equipment set can easily set you back some 500€.

(Nb herein we'll frequently shorten the phrase “Japanese Sword Arts” to “JSA”.)

The sword arts I've personally trained and/or dabbled in are: Kendō, iaidō, kenjutsu, fencing, HEMA, and ninjutsu. Ninjutsu was the only one of those that I can say hand-in-heart was completely worthless; the club I visited was a complete McDojo, and I even left practice with a destroyed shoulder just to add injury to insult. From what I've heard, anything stemming from Bujinkan is more-or-less equally worthless; “if it ends in -kan it's probably a McDojo”, as one anonymous Internet commenter put it.

The other arts I'll briefly explain as follows:

Olympic fencing

On the one hand, barring ninjutsu, fencing is the most distant from what appears to be historical applicability. It's very distinctly a sport, not an art. On the other hand, it is nonetheless pretty far from worthless.

The most important thing that fencing teaches you is how to control your sword's tip, which is a very useful skill to have. Merely placing your tip at the right place at the right time can win you many bouts.

Even if that wasn't the case, however, modern Olympic fencing would have my deepest respect for one very big reason: when it comes to equipment safety, they don't fuck around. Olympic equipment is designed to protect you from a possible broken needle-sharp spike being thrust at you at full tilt. Attacking a fencing mask with a cheap kitchen knife will damage the knife, not the mask; kicking it will damage your foot instead. Most of what HEMA had to do in order to determine its own rules for equipment safety was to point at fencing and say “yoink”.

At the same time, it has to be admitted that, over fencing's history, every time it's had to choose between being a sport and being an art, it chose the former without a second thought. As a result, some of the rules it's accumulated are absolutely bonkers:

• In the case of épée, your thrusts don't have to be lethal to yield a point; any small graze will suffice, as long as it happens half a blink before your opponent's.
• In the case of foil, it is forbidden to “change the line of the shoulders”, ie to bring your back shoulder forwards or vice-versa. Also, it is explicitly permitted to whip your sword around the opponent's to score a point by exploiting its unrealistic flexibility.
• In the case of sabre, there is no longer a difference between edge and back because Electronic Scoring™. Also, you can't use your back leg to lunge forwards.
• In the case of all three weapons, you only fight inside a long straight line; no real 2-D navigation required or even permitted. Your weapons can be arbitrarily light and arbitrarily balanced. The question is not whether you can use a bent sword, the question is how much curvature the rules permit you to have. Neither the rules nor the equipment permit you to switch hands mid-match, even between points. Pushing your opponent's body with yours will immediately lead to the bout being paused so you can separate.

(Credit where it's due: At least, in recent years, light touches between blades are no longer considered parries, and accidental grazes between bodies are no longer considered reason enough to halt the bout.)

That said, particularly if you want a sport and tournament use, fencing is a mighty fine choice. Even if you don't, single-handed HEMA disciplines (sabre, rapier, small-sword etc) owe lots of their teaching material to fencing.

Kendō

Kendō is the art in which I've trained the most. Its biggest characteristic is that it has assloads of rules, both written and unwritten. Half of those rules are excellent and will yield a huge benefit to your technique; the other half are completely worthless and mainly exist because the Japanese tend to follow rigid and vertical social hierarchies. Much of my training consisted of trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, regarding those rules.

The benefit that IMHO sets kendō apart from all other arts I've tried is, without a doubt, finesse. Among its myriads of rules are tricks that can yield immense economy of movement, leading to very quick and powerful strikes with very small movements. Its emphasis on foot-work, on keeping the centre, and on straight-ahead lunging, are all invaluable tools in any two-handed sword-fighter's tool-box. The lightness of its sword lends itself to learning velocity of attacks. Its written rules are very permissive regarding technique. Among the knowledge that survives continuously is methodology for how to actually teach the art. Finally, for my own tastes, an important advantage is that it dual-wielding is not relegated to a separate category—everyone plays together.

For people who want sport and tournament, kendō has more than enough of that to keep you satisfied—and also things you'll find very boring, but you have to get the good with the bad. For people who want an art, however, this latter part is an important advantage of kendō: there exists a clear separation of knowledge and technique (which is what one needs for grading) and raw fighting prowess (which is what one needs for matches and tournaments).

For all its advantages, however, it also has many important draw-backs. The most important of those are the innumerable worthless unwritten rules that govern the sport. For instance: if you try something new in order to figure out what will happen, that usually is not considered an experiment that yields knowledge, it's considered an insinuation that you know better than the coach and are therefore directly challenging his authority. I'm sorry, you want to play using a stance other than the middle-level-right-handed one? Good fucking luck, everyone else will take this as a personal offence. Be prepared to holler “I'M BEING SO RUDE RIGHT NOW!” as you raise your sword overhead¹. And don't even get me started on high-ranked buffoons asserting that they must automatically know better Japanese history or language than you do, solely by virtue of their rank…

Even if we ignore this, however, there are other important disadvantages. The over-emphasis on vertical down-strokes and on keeping the pelvis straight ahead (see the immediately following sub-section) makes many kendōka incapable of launching a decent attack on the opponent's left side, even though kinesiologically it's the simplest and easiest target. The lightness of its sword can obscure mistakes in technique that a heavier weapon can immediately high-light; the first time I wielded a metal sword (after years of wielding bamboo ones) I immensely improved my technique almost over-night.

A final small draw-back of kendō compared to fencing is that it the terminology it introduces is Japanese. A final small advantage of kendō compared to HEMA is that the terminology it introduces is solely Japanese.

The equipment used in the different arts will be more properly evaluated and compared in a separate sub-section.

Intermission: On comparing Japanese and European sword arts

Please take a look at the European historical weapon called the „langes Messer“. It's not particularly similar to the long-sword: it's curved and single-edged, single-handed, and its blade is shorter.

And yet, the two swords were considered similar enough that long-sword techniques were mainly based on langes Messer techniques.

Now, if you take the blade of a langes Messer and the handle of a long-sword, you get a pretty good approximation of a japanese sword, ie a katana. Thus, if the langes Messer and the long-sword are considered similar enough to have the same techniques, then it really stands to reason that their middle point –the katana– would also be very similar to both of those weapons. Indeed, the kinesiology of katana and long-sword are so similar that IMHO it makes much more sense to teach them combined than to teach them separately.

That said, the Japanese and European sword arts do have differences. If you were to ask me which is the most crucial one, my answer would definitely be “the vertical down-stroke”. Japanese sword arts tend to consider it the most important and central technique, from which all other techniques are derived. As a matter of fact, I've encountered no less than four Japanese Sword Arts with the same technique: Both combatants attempt a central strike at the opponent's head, but one of them has a better centre and therefore wins the strike. Observe:

• Ono-ha Ittō-ryū
• Yagyū Shinkage-ryū
• Niten-Ichi ryū
• Kendō

Mean-while, in European arts, the vertical down-stroke is considered at best one technique amidst many, and at worst it's not even part of the curriculum!

The reason this technique has to be set apart is because, in order to be performed well, what matters is not so much what the practitioner does do but what the practitioner doesn't do: Namely, one must not let one's pelvis turn. The beginner kendōka will end up hearing one phrase until s/he gets sick of it: “Don't let your back foot splay outwards”. Where for diagonal strokes the pelvis must rotate to add power, for vertical strokes the pelvis must not rotate in order to avoid wasting energy.

My own philosophy is that more knowledge is always useful, so the vertical down-stroke must be taught as kendō teaches it.

Also, while I'm on the subject: One thing that happens very frequently in the JSA –and which never fails to boil my piss– is that questions are considered rude. I once wanted to create a bot for Kendo World Forums, that would answer all questions in the kendō sub-forum with “ask your sensei” and all questions in the iaidō sub-forum with “shut up and practice”. Here's a verbatim quote when someone asked why we do something: “Why is the sky blue? Because we call the blue thing above us sky.”

Iaidō

Iaidō and kendō are considered sister arts, and for very good reason. Where kendō has fake swords but real opponents, iaidō has real swords but fake opponents. Where kendō concerns itself with how battles occur, iaidō concerns itself with how battles begin and end.

Out of all the arts considered here, iaidō is the only one that concerns itself with what happens “before you roll initiative”, so to speak. As a result, it has curricula that other arts don't even think of including, including sitting techniques and, of course, unsheathing techniques.

Some important reasons why iaidō is a crucial complement to kendō:

• It helps clarify the importance of pelvis rotation in diagonal movements
• By using metal swords, it helps ensure that one's technique is adequate for more than just shinai
• It contains cutting exercises, which are generally very helpful
• It is the only art mentioned in this article where usage of sharp swords is an established (albeit high-level) part of the curriculum

At the same time, iaidō is very much not a competitive art. As soon as a battle has been established, we're in the realm of kendō, not of iaidō. Furthermore, if practiced on its own, the complete lack of paired exercises will leave immense gaps in the practitioner's knowledge. The basis of all martial arts is footwork and distance and timing, and iaidō alone teaches exactly none of those things. The heavy weight of the sword can obscure the need for finesse and tip-speed in one's techniques; the tell-tale symptom of this is that wooden practice swords afterwards feel too light to properly wield.

Finally, iaidō is the art that lends itself by far the least for left-handed usage. Even the asymmetry of the clothes and scabbard will give you trouble if you try to switch hands—ask me how I know. The established advice for left-handed practitioners is “just do it the right-handed way”—this has both advantages and disadvantages, but overall appears the least unpleasant option.

HEMA

HEMA is actually more of an umbrella term; it's possible that two different HEMA schools might have no overlap in their curricula. It is, however, generally used to refer to long-sword fencing in particular, with rapier and sabre (actual sabre, not a glorified car antenna) as side-practices.

Pros:

• Not too many rules: HEMA has yet to accumulate the silly and useless rules that govern other arts. (But also see below for the flip-side of this.)
• Many possible weapons: The same club can offer three or more different weapons. If you already have protective equipment suitable for steel long-sword fencing, it will suffice for absolutely everything.
• Immense breadth of techniques and targets, especially compared to kendō. Your thrusts can target the torso! Your cuts can target the shoulders! Freedom!
• Sparring with realistic weights: HEMA is the only art mentioned here where your sparring weapons can have a realistic weight. (If you have the right equipment, that is—see below.)

Cons:

• It's a reconstructed art: There are no surviving continuous lineages that teach long-sword or rapier, and essentially even realistic sabre has gone extinct. HEMA is as much archeology and history as it is physical practice; our main sources are books and treatises.
• Too few rules: A good strike with a sword needs a good tip-speed, and there are many small tricks that can help immensely in achieving this. HEMA tends to lack those, making strikes seem sluggish.
• Do you even care about history? As in, is “that's not how they did it back then” something you care about? It's not for me, but it might be very important for others.
• No clear distinction between match prowess and beauty of technique: As mentioned earlier, for me this is a clear advantage of the JSA.
• Teaching methodology needs to be recreated too: I personally miss it quite a bit.
• Steel long-sword sparring is expensive AF: See relevant section.

The terminology it introduces can range from English to German to Italian (frequently all three) even if the language in which the lesson is being given is none of those.

Lastly, BTW: I wish I could tell you that HEMA lacks the egos and superiority complexes that tend to appear so often in the JSA, but… no it doesn't, it has them all the same. This I say mainly via observation, but also via personal experience.

Kenjutsu

While “kenjutsu” is an umbrella term too, there do exist broad ways to compare and contrast it with modern arts like kendō and iaidō.

For one, modern arts don't really have any history. Practicing an old school, in contrast, immediately makes you part of a living branch of Japan's history. (OK, it's not 100% the same as was practiced in Japan's middle ages, but by Jove it's much closer than HEMA's “WTF does that book mean here????”.)

Another advantage of some specific arts (eg Yagyū Shinkage or Katori Shintō) is the fact that one art can have many curricula, and can include any of sword/short-sword/dual-wielding/unsheathing/staff/glaive/wrestling. This can save the need to visit more schools for the same knowledge.

In any event, however, one hill I'm willing to die on is this: Even if you practice koryū, you can't afford to just ignore sparring. I'm not telling you to organise matches and count points; even if all you do is perform the same predetermined exercises (“kata”) with sparring equipment, this can immediately permit you to perform them with full speed and power. Suddenly, the time it takes to cultivate a sense of speed and power goes from years to minutes—you can't afford to do without this!

But, if possible, I'd ask you to also do some free sparring. You'll need to experience the “dialogue” that occurs within actual matches (ie “if I do this, how will my opponent reäct?”) and just reciting pre-written dialogues won't give you the same knowledge. Remember: Foot-work, distance, timing.

Aikidō

Although Aikidō is mainly an unarmed art, it nonetheless contains sword techniques. While I don't think that Aikidō inherently has to fail at teaching them, however, I also don't really think most Aikidō dōjō have what it takes to properly teach them. Here I speak from observation, not personal experience.

The reason is as follows: Aikidō's entire philosophy revolves around ending a confrontation without hurting the opponent. As a result, it teaches only defensive techniques. Consequently, the attacks against which practitioners defend tend to occur from people haven't been trained in attacking. Therefore, aikidōka only ever encounter fake attacks; and any practitioner who only encounters fake attacks can definitionally only learn fake defenses. I can attest from personal experience a local high-ranking aikidōka who, instead of using kendō's lessons to improve his aikidō sword techniques, transplanted aikidō's mistakes to kendō! (If you're curious: The most obvious example was that his distance was merely half what it should have been.)

Equipment comparison

In the previous section, I tried to focus mainly on the kinesiology and culture of each art. In this one, I'll opine on the equipment used.

Light practice swords or heavy ones? Fast or slow practice movements? Both and both respectively, for a total of four combinations. Light weapons used slowly teaches you control; light weapons used quickly teaches you speed; heavy weapons used slowly teaches you endurance; heavy weapons used quickly teaches you technique.

Nylon or bamboo practice swords? To my surprise, I don't have a preference between the two! Nylon has a more realistic shape, and needs much less maintenance. Bamboo is a bit of a PITA to maintain, and does not make for realistic shapes. However, nylon is also much easier to bend, whereas bamboo will remain straight essentially forever. Also, nylon has to be fairly flappy in order to cushion strikes, which leads to a small lag between when your hands move and when the tip follows; this is quite unpleasant to the hand. Bamboo, mean-while, is much more “alive” in this regard. (Even in kendō, when carbon fibre practice swords were introduced, people didn't really like them for this exact reason: “they feel too plasticky”.)

That said, please bear in mind that non-steel HEMA tournaments appear to have been obsoleted in favour of steel.

Any opinions on steel sparring swords? Currently none. I'd need to actually gain some sparring experience to speak with authority on the matter. That said, going by the few ones I've wielded thus far: Their point of balance tends to be very low (very near the cross-guard) for safety reasons. This raises some doubts in me regarding whether the muscle memory one builds with a sparring weapon is similar to the one built with an actual sharp sword. I'll have to practice more and see.

Bōgu or other protective equipment? Well, I think bōgu is fairly cheaper, albeit much less protective. Also it needs more maintenance. One thing I'll note, however: I consider fencing masks to be overall waaaaaay better pieces of protective equipment compared to their kendō equivalents in almost all regards: be it protection, comfort, price, or visibility permitted. That said:

1. Kendō masks used to also protect the shoulders. But the shoulders haven't been a valid target for eons now, so this point is moot.
2. Just about the only advantage that kendō masks have is as follows: Both types of masks have an integrated bib to protect against thrusts; fencing masks have a wide and supple one and kendō masks have a rigid and narrow one. Fencing masks' bib is completely inadequate against thrusts from more rigid practice swords such as bamboo, so they will need a gorget underneath.
3. If you hit a naked fencing mask with a bamboo practice sword you'll damage the bamboo, so you'll need an extra layer of protection or two.

How do the prices fare? As mentioned earlier, HEMA long-sword is the most expensive by a fairly comfortable margin, and will hover around 2k€. I wish I could offer you alternatives, but I cannot; a steel long-sword (even one made for sparring) can easily break bone if the protection is inadequate, and that's not a risk I can accept in myself or others.

Kendō, iaidō, and fencing all hover around 500€ per set, assuming decent but not fancy equipment. I'd strongly suggest healthy market research for absolutely everything.

“Hey, article-writer! Katana or long-sword?”

Long story short:

• The long-sword is much more powerful in battle when used alone, but it's not as easy to carry.
• The katana is not as powerful in battle, but it is much easier to carry, and has well-established dual-wielding curricula.

This last point is why, for my tastes, the katana wins by a slim margin.