Ryvai wrote: Cichorei Kano wrote:
If you want me to specific related current Kôdôkan terminology to alternative historic terminology, then all of the following chokes are katate-jime:
- eri-jime (but in addition to being a form of katate-jime can also be ryōte-jime or tsukkomi-jime; it depends on the position of the hands)
- hasami-jime
- jigoku-jime
- kakae-jime
- ude-shibori-jime
Tomoe-jime may or not maybe katate-jime; it depends on the exact placement of the hands; in case it isn't katate-jime it is kata-jûji-jime; it depends, but none of them is okuri-eri-jime.
The one exception is koshi-jime, which can be either okuri-eri-jime or katate-jime. In fact, though more unusual, it is even possible for koshi-jime to be kataha-jime, sode-guruma-jime or one of the jûji-jime-henka. It is quite obvious that this is precisely the reason why the term koshi-jime was not retained as terminology by the Kôdôkan as it isn't very systematic and depending on how it is performed mixes several principles. Koshi-jime is more a descriptive position than that it is a principle of choking.
Once again, thank you for a very insightful post. I do not have time for a lengthy answer, as I write this in my job-break
It is quite clear that you have very good understanding of judo. My world was turned upside down by the notion from Katanishi about okuri-eri-jime, but thanks to this response its slowly turning back to normal. Next time i'll do a bit of research before jumping to conclusions. For me the best way of understanding these things is by mundo. We are all different, but for me I need to ask questions about certain situations to understand. Where do you learn all this? I would love to learn about what okuru means etc. Is there translated works that I can study?
He also mentioned two more things that was interesting. If this is correct or not, you be the judge, but I would love to hear your thoughts:
- This was about ude-garami. He said that it is not the position of uke's arm, whether it is bent or straight, that determines if the technique is ude-garami, but the entanglement of tori's arm applying the technique. If uke is lying on his back with tori ontop in yoko-shiho-gatame (i.e. mune-gatame, a typical situation), tori can then perform a traditional ude-garami or gyaku-ude-garami (either way), but it is also ude-garami if uke straightens his arm, as long as tori still has his arms entangled like in a figure-four. Also Kannuki-gatame (either techi-waza or ne-waza?) is then ude-garami. On a sidenote: where does zempaku-gatame and kannuki-gatame come from and is it just the old name for ude-garami or different technique? And why is ude-garami not ude-hishigi?
- In the situation of yoko-sankaku-jime where the choke cannot be applied with the legs because uke is strong etc., but he legs are locked in a sankaku-jime position, if tori applies a choke with a single arm beneath his leg the technique still becomes sankaku-jime because of the position they are in. If tori bends either of ukes arms in any kind of way it becomes ude-hishigi-sankaku-gatame, because of the position they are. So not ude-hishigi-te-gatame etc, even do you apply one arm vs. one arm bending action. Does the position dictate the classification or the exact application that led to submission? Would love to hear some thoughts on this.
- When I demonstrated an unusual ne-waza technique he named it O-hiza-gatame, is there history of judo using the term O- in any ne-waza techniques?
- Kagato-jime (like gogoplata in BJJ). What is the history of this technique? Katanishi was not familiar with it, but I've seen black and white video of if being performed somewhere. It is an old technique. He said that the name was a bit problematic because you choke with your ashi-kubi (if i recall correctly), which is the front of the ankle and not kagato (the heel). Thoughts?
You ask many questions, but they all reflect a certain way of thinking, a way that does not parallel Kôdôkan's pedagogical approach. Wdax has explained this already and so have I. Kôdôkan for pedagogical reasons, divides shime-waza in to 12 principles, and kansetsu-waza in 10 principles. There are obviously unlimited ways of applying those principles within each group. What you are doing is a different approach, namely to adhere to an unlimited number of names that are not specific to a principle or group of techniques but to a specific technique, with as consequence that many people will not know unless they have at least the same encyclopedic knowledge and memory as you do.
While some of your questions are interesting, providing an in-depth answer would take many hours. I am also not sure about the sense of it, since you could repeat the same question for dozens more of names which almost no one knows. As a scholar I obviously do not reject knowledge, but you also have to understand that it is practically not possible for us to simply devote all the time to it. I would firstly repeat again, why did you not ask all those questions to Katanishi-sensei when he was teaching ? After all, people probably also paid him for his time ? I do not mean this in a condescending or arrogant way. I am very serious. If one is paid for his time, and this takes a lot of time, it does not really matter much what precisely that time is spent to doing. I would also suggest that if you insist you want to know answers to all those questions that you first do all the background reading and research, explain which sources you have consulted, what they say, reference them, and then come back to us and write it all out, and I will be more than willing to then correct it and here and there provide notes.
I will briefly address some of the issues you raise. There are flaws in the categorization of Kôdôkan, which I have already explained. The flaws have sometimes serious effects when the people who work with them do not fully understand their historic and pedagogical framework. A classical example of this is the gokyô where for many years Westerners have complained that it is wrong because certain techniques in lower kyô are more difficult to carry out than some techniques in higher kyô. Sure, but that is missing the point since the gokyô is based on progressive difficulty of ukemi, not on carrying out the throw. But, if you do not know that, well, then yes, there clearly is a problem in understanding.
I. The situation with ude-garami is somewhat more complicated. The kanji for ude-garami is 腕緘. The second kanji or karamu originates in the Chinese word
jiān. This word means to seal or to close. The meaning is preserved in Japanese where the kanji is normally pronounced in its On-pronunciation as
kan, or in its Kun-pronunciation as either
kan suru or
to jiru. The kanji is not commonly pronounced
karamu. Since the term really means to seal or to close, really in that sense ude-garami simply means "arm-lock" However, Karamu is in fact commonly written 絡these days. Written like that, the term means as Wdax says 'entanglement', but I don't think that it is the best translation. It means really 'to entwine' or 'to coil around'. But ... that is not the end of the story. What does this mean ? Does this mean that from the point you wrap your arms around someone's arm that it is then ude-garami ? Clearly not. While it is true that in ashi-garami, your leg is really coiled around your opponent's leg, I have also already indicated that there are flaws in the categorization of judo. One thing that is essential is that ude-garami is not an armbar, but a principle of performing armbars. It is a GROUP of techniques, that is opposed to the only other group of armbars in judo shiai, namely those that achieve the lock through overstretching or ude-hishigi. The group classification takes priority over the specific name. When I learn jûdô as a kyû-rank holder, performing an armbar with the same grip on a stretched arm was commonly referred to as ude-garami. The logic was like wdax explained. However, this approach is erroneous. Performing the armbar in that way cannot possibly put it in the group of techiques that is taken up by ude-garami since the arm is over-stretched. It is therefore a ude-hishigi or overstretching. Since this takes priority and since in the group of overstretchings there is no ude-garami it is not possible that this armbar is ude-garami. The armbar therefore is ude-hishigi-te-gatame. I realize that it may say something different in various books and texts, but that is not my problem. Most judo books and texts are full of nonsense, but they work fine if one does not know it is nonsense.
At issue is what is shown in the Kôdôkan video at 55'20" and at 56'08" demonstrated by Sameshima-sensei from the Kôdôkan, and also at 57'49" by Sekine-sensei; people thus have to be patient. The same is in a pretty good newaza book written by one of my sensei, Marcel Clause. Unfortunately, it is an error, and this lock should now be categorized under ude-hishigi-te-gatame. As you can understand, because of the prevalence of the error in numerous publications errors are common. Westerners exaggerate in the impact of this. If this is an issue at an exam, one simply explains the problem and go to the next one. A person doing this or that isn't exactly exhibiting a gross deficiency of lack of judo skills, so I do not see the problem. In shiai it matters even less. When you win, you win, period.
Kannuki-gatame is NOT ude-garami, but is ude-hishigi-te-gatame. 'Kannuki' 閂 means to bar or bolt, like the latch on a door. The name simply comes from old days when unlike what we are doing here, things did not have a real name one had to learn, but sensei simply 'described' what they were doing. People may use different words to describe something. Hence ... why you also have people saying ryôte-jime or morote-jime for the same thing. 'Double-handed' or 'two-handed' after all describe the same although they are a different term. When you just describe something you can choose either, but when a name is determined, you no longer can't.
'Zenpaku-gatame' is a similar case. 'Zenpaku', written 前膊 simply means 'forearm'. Thus it describes control of the forearm without specifying what happens with it. Strictly speaking as description, zenpaku-gatame can bridge both ude-garami and te-gatame depending on what variation is done.
Why is ude-garami not ude-hishigi ? Because it is a different group. There are only two groups of armbars in shiai judo today, namely:
1. ude-garami (in this group there is only one a principle: ude-garami)
2. ude-hishigi (in this group there are nine principles)
There exists a third group, but it is considered separate from armbars, namely wristlocks, and it is normally omitted since they are not allowed in shiai. This group is called kote-hishigi. This is however very interesting to point out the anomalies in judo classification. Kote-hishigi clearly means wrist-overstretching, however, both forms contained in this hishigi group, are in fact wrist-twists (the kote-hineri and kote-gaeshi). As strange as that may sound, it isn't. After all in our daily speech people are wrong about using several of those concepts too. If you study anatomy or biomechanics you would learn that bending a wrist and stretching a wrist are two different things, but often the terms are misapplied by lay people.
II. Your next question is fairly easy. It obviously depends on whether you force your opponent to submit by armbar or by choke since one of the names you mention is a choke, but the other one an armbar. It may also be possible instead of doing either to do both at the same time and simultaneously make him pass out and break his arm. It is then not A or B, but A and B simultaneously. It cannot be te-gatame, as the principle of te is considered only in the absence of a triangle, so Katanishi-sensei, or at least the way you relay what he has said, reflects a view that is correct.
III. Ô-hiza-gatame. Again, there is a difference between Japanese 'describing' a technique an 'naming' a technique. Westerners will not pick up of the difference and consider a description a name. Since most names originate in descriptions, the error is understandable. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no katame-waza in Kôdôkan where the term 'Ô' is used as in large 大. Clearly, there are unusual techniques that have the sound 'O' or 'Ô' in it, like for example
Ōten-gatame, but this is an entirely different word and has nothing to do with it.
IV. Kakato-jime. Your response relaying what Katanishi-sensei apparently explained is correct. The term kakato-jime is not commonly used in jûdô and the choke for which it is usually used as Katanishi-sensei points out does not use the heel anywhere but uses the ankle or ashi-kubi (ashi-kubi is not just the front of the ankel [shin part] but the entire 360°; it clearly is very different from the heel). Because of this issue, I find the way it is used these days historically not credible. It seems that the term rather than by jûdôka is used by BJJ-ers and MMA-ers where unlike in jûdô the main rationale behind names is not pedagogy and where they are fond of as many as possible different and exotic sounding names. I do not know the history behind this issue off the top of my head and would need to look it up. Oda Jôin's "Jûdô Taikan" would probably be my first place to look for it.
Home
