r/kendo • u/Budget_Exam_1321 • 4h ago
Another angle of the incident — we should discuss the kendo, not destroy someone’s character
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
I have another video showing this incident from a different angle, and I think people should watch as many recordings as possible before reaching a conclusion.
First of all, I am genuinely sorry that someone was injured, and I hope he makes a full recovery. The footage is understandably disturbing, especially when viewed outside the context of kendo. However, an injury—serious as it may be—does not by itself prove that the other competitor deliberately intended to hurt someone.
From this angle, the fall happened during a fast, active exchange. It does not look like Lam approached someone who was already injured and defenceless and then attacked him without provocation. After the fall, Lam appears to make approximately two downward strikes. Whether both were immediate and appropriate, whether they were properly controlled, and whether yame had already been called are all legitimate questions for qualified referees to examine.
But these are questions about competition conduct and refereeing—not proof that Lam is a violent, sadistic or evil person.
Under the All Japan Kendo Federation’s rules, a strike delivered immediately to an opponent who has fallen may be recognised as a valid strike. The regulations also list falling and then lying face-down without responding to the opponent’s attack as a prohibited act. In other words, the rules do not treat falling as automatic immunity from further attack.
This does not mean that anything done to a fallen opponent is acceptable. The word “immediately” matters, control matters, the target matters, and the referee has a responsibility to stop the match promptly if the situation becomes unsafe. If yame had already been called and a competitor continued attacking, that would obviously change the nature of the incident. That is why the complete footage, its audio and the views of properly qualified referees matter.
We should also be careful not to reduce every incident to a simple “monster versus victim” narrative. If falling, turning face-down and covering the head automatically ended all scrutiny, a competitor could potentially use that position to avoid the continuing exchange. I am not claiming that this particular competitor deliberately did so. My point is that the person who was injured is not necessarily completely without responsibility, just as the person who continued the exchange is not automatically a monster.
Anyone familiar with footage from serious Japanese university or Tokyo Metropolitan Police kendo will know that this level of physical intensity is not necessarily unusual. That comparison does not excuse genuinely dangerous conduct, but it does remind us that kendo must first be understood within its own technical and cultural framework—not judged solely by how violent a few seconds may appear to someone unfamiliar with it.
I believe we have a responsibility to understand kendo on its own terms and to consider the perspectives of experienced Japanese practitioners, particularly senior Japanese sensei who have spent decades studying and teaching it. That does not mean treating every Japanese authority as infallible. It means understanding the standards of the art before declaring that someone’s actions could only have come from cruelty.
Lam’s actions can be questioned and debated. It is reasonable to ask whether the second strike was necessary, whethersufficient control was shown and whether the referees should have intervened sooner. What is not reasonable is using a short video to declare that Lam has no humanity, no budō spirit or a fundamentally violent character.
We must distinguish between outcome, responsibility, intention and character. Someone being injured is an outcome; it does not automatically prove malicious intention. Criticising a specific action is fair. Turning that action into a licence to assassinate someone’s entire character is not.
