The Education Ministry revised the term from Combat Sports to Budo in a course of study at 1990. The purpose of this revision is to pay respect on japanese culture and tradition. I wold like to point what a school judo should be as Budo. The results are as following. 1) Kuzusi and Tukuri has been valued in judo for a long time. At this revision I would like to point Kuzusi and Tukuri and throwing him lppon in teaching. 2) kata, whic literally means form has been traditionarily practiced in jujitu and judo. At this time we would create Kata according to pupil's progress. 3) The concept of ju propounded by Lao Tsu represented the fluidity, adaptability and kaleidoscopic movement characheristic of water. I would like to explain Principle of ju in teaching. 4) I would like to teach a salute controling one's mind and body in addition to respecting one's partner. 5) I would like to unify the judo's term, for example Uchikomi, Randori and Maemawari Ukemi etc, at this revision.
The general purpose of this research was to study the signification of the shout on Kendo. The focus of this study was to explore a historical formative stage and philological formative process of the shout. This investigation was carried on a condition that the shout is not essential according to The Conception of Kendo and the teaching which the shout should be voiceless in the extremity. The shout of the age at civil wars was one of the weapons. In the Edo period the existence of the shout was decided by the dogma of each Kenjutsuryuha (Kendo school). In the Meiji period the shout became to admit as one of the practice methods assuming the unconscious KAKEGOE, and in this time both modern style and understanding of KAKEGOE were formatted. To get a lot of effects on voiceless condition more than on shout, modern Kendo has a recognition about the KAKEGOE that the more skill player, the more little shout after going through an unconscious and natural shout. In the practice and the match handling a BOKUTO, the spot of the boby for DATOTSU (strike) might be named (KOSYO) before striking. In and after the 1750's, according to use SHINAI and BOGU (a protector), the original form of DATOTSUBUIKOSYO occurred. Modern style of DATOTSUBUIKOSYO can be confirmed by a bibliography of the early Meiji period. In the later Meiji Period DATOTSUBUIKOSYO was located as a necessary shout at the minimum. It is indicated by the existence of DATOTSUBUIKOSYO that Kendo is on longer a tool of an actual warfare but a movement culture. KAKEGOE and DATOTSUBUIKOSYO are coming to this day with advancing in their philological functions both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. The shout which is related to high spirits is closely connected with YUKO (valid) DATOTSU (a point). KAKEGOE may include a function that a player demonstrates one's high spirits to a third person by it. DATOTSUBUIKOSYO may also involve the possibility that it contains a potentiality of a lie. These functions of the shouts are contrary to The Conception of Kendo. Both DATOTSUBUIKOSYO by a player and YUKODATOTSU Announcement by the Chief Referee at YUKODATOTSU are the highest language level. The correspondence with a mind of player seems to DATOTSUBUIKOSYO back and forth. It may be possible for the excellent player to format DATOTSUBUIKOSYO in the speech area neverthless he or she does not shout (DATOTSUBUIKOSYO). A study on the level of a detachment may be a next theme.
In this historical study on the formation of modern kendo, we explore the system of techniques and its technical contents for shinai uchikomi geiko kendo practice, which is different from the performance of forms and styles called kata or kumitachi. We focus, among others, on master Chiba Shusaku, who constructed the practicing method and perfected the techniques into “68 winning techniques”. Further, we explore the thoughts behind and technical contents of the master's techniques, and compare the differences in techniques of “68 techniques” and what is considered to be its prototype, kumitachi of Onoha Ittoryu. In Ono School, most of the strokes are made to respond to the opponent's strokes, while “68 winning techniques” are primarily offensive, aiming at blowing or thrusting the opponent as quickly as possible to score men, tsuki, kote, or do. Thus, in both of the schools there are only three common techniques: 1. Hitotsugachi and Kiriotoshitsuki, which are to cut down opponent's stroke and to thrust; 2. Suriage and Suriagemen, which are to knock away opponent's sword and to blow opponent on the head; 3. Tsubawari and Nukizuki, which are to duck opponent's blow by stepping back and to thrust the opponent after pulling your sword. Further, there are only seven techniques which are partially common: 1. Chishou and Chishoumen, which are to put the point of the sword in opponent's arms who his trying to blow you on the head; 2. Chishou and Chishouzuki, which are the same as above; 3. Kobushi-no-harai and Kirikaeshimen, which are to blow opponent's head quicker than opponent's blowing you on the head; 4. Uragiri and Sasoihikigote, which are to invite opponent's strike on your forearm; 5. Aiha and Makiotoshimen, which are to twist down opponent's stroke and to blow opponent's head; 6. Aiha and Makiotoshizuki, which are to twist down, rightward or leftward, opponent's stroke; 7. Hariaiba and Harimen, which are to strike opponent's sword hard. From this it is clear that “68 winning techniques” were unique in its system of techniques and its technical contents, which were very different from Kumitachi of Onoha Ittoryu.
Using the continuum model of person perception the cognitive pattern and structure of opponent perception were compared between Kendo athletes on high and medium performance level, and desirable opponent perception was discussed. The subjects were 31 college Kendo athletes,9 from high performance level and 22 from medium performance level. The subjects participated in two researches. In Research 1,12 college Kendo athletes, with whom most subjects had not had a match before, were presented with their information about college grade, DAN-I (the expert level in Kendo), and high school from which they graduated. The subjects were asked to describe the 12 college Kendo athletes in free-answer method. Their descriptions were classified into 8 categories corresponding to cognitive processes of the continuum model. From their descriptions 15 bipolar scales for opponent perception were developed. In Research 2, the 12 college athletes were presented as opponents, and the subjects were asked to rate them on the scales. The subjects' responses were factor-analyzed by principal component solution with normal varimax rotation. The major findings were as follows: 1) The medium performance level athletes were more likely to describe opponents in a stereotyping way than the high performance level.2) Three factors were found for the medium performance level athletes and named as “mightiness” (Factor I ); “style of Kendo”(Factor II), and “offensiveness” (Factor III). On the other hand, four factors extracted for the high performance level athletes were named as “awkwardness” (Factor I ), “style of Kendo” (Factor II), “offensive attitude” (Factor III) and “dexterity in playing a game” (Factor IV).3) Factor II and III for the high performance level athletes were interpreted as corresponding to those for medium perfomrance level athletes. And, “mightiness” for the medium level athletes was interpreted as a mixture of “awkwardness”and “dexterity in playing a game” for high performance level athletes. The findings showed that the high performance level Kendo athletes tended to recognize opponents in less stereotyping way and had more distinctive cogntive structure than the medium performance level. athletes. Thus, it was concluded high performance level Kendo athletes showed more advanced perception of opponents than medium performance level athletes.
The Goho no Tachi no Michi is a manuscript scroll believed to have been written by Musashi Miyamoto in his own handwriting. Compared with the other handwriting of his manuscript, it also seems to be unmistakably his own handwriting. The scroll was given to Nobuyuki Terao who attended on Musashi at his deathbed and handed down to his posterity. It is written in classical Chinese quoting many classical words from Chinese classics. The document has been transcribed and published three times as the Heiho Joron (the Preface of the Strategy), but each transcript includes more than ten errors and does not render Chinese writing into Japanese. Although it was translated into Japanese once, it included too many mistakes to understand its contents correctly. After collecting the facts about the Niten-ichi-ryu school in Kumamoto, I found that a transcript, which includes marks for understanding Chinese, was given by Nobuyuki Terao to his disciple in 1666, and that two different kinds of commentaries on the manuscript written in 1700's exists today. By the help of the commentary books, it becomes possible to read and understand the manuscript accurately. In the following, the document will be devided into five paragraphs and each sentence will be translated and explicated. It seems that Goho no Tachi no Michi was written between 1642 and 1643 as the preface for the Ur-Book of Gorin. The manuscript is important because the handwriting is Musashi's and moreover it is an indispensable document for the study of the Book of Gorin.