Categorisation under Techniques, Technical and Tactics

Just as we have different kata categorised under 'Kata', is it possible to have different throws, holds, subs, etc, categorised under techniques?  Maybe thread = Techniques, Technical and Tactics; subthread = Nagewaza, katamewaza, kansetsuwaza, shimewaza; sub-subthread = ogoshi, haraigoshi, etc.?  Or possibly sub-subthread should be kept a broad as koshiwaza, ashiwaza etc, as so many throws have cross-over principles.

I have learnt so many important subtleties from the Wise Ones (e.g. Hanon's explanation of the karuma principle), and I would love to have them classified to find them easily, not to mention stimulating discussion of techniques leading to greater understanding.

What say you?

Any comments for or against?

Hi Doug,

Sorry I haven't got back to you on this sooner.

I think it is a good idea, although I do feel that posts get spread all over the place with too many categories. I am willing though to give it a try.

I don't think we should use too many sub forums, so we should stick to the following;

Te Waza
Ashi waza
Koshi waza
Sutemi waza

Osaekomi waza
Kansetsu waza
Shime waza

It would be go to hear the thoughts of others before I go ahead with this.

C.

Carlo wrote:Hi Doug,

Sorry I haven't got back to you on this sooner.

I think it is a good idea, although I do feel that posts get spread all over the place with too many categories. I am willing though to give it a try.

I don't think we should use too many sub forums, so we should stick to the following;

Te Waza
Ashi waza
Koshi waza
Sutemi waza

Osaekomi waza
Kansetsu waza
Shime waza

It would be go to hear the thoughts of others before I go ahead with this.

C.

Agree, with the rationale.

One problem is that retaining these categories will confirm the misunderstanding that is already so widely spread among jûdôka, namely that these are the only parts of jûdô techniques, which is not true. The last three categories proposed are what currently makes up katame-waza, which is only part of newaza. It is also the names of these techniques which the average jûdôka is familiar with, but I am not sure if it is in the best interest of this forum to settle with that cliché. Moreover, any judo would-be book, no matter how lousy generally contains all these basic katame-waza; it's the rest they are lacking partly because most populist authors do not properly know the full structure or newaza too.

With tachi-waza it's somewhat simpler although many jûdôka confuse tachi-waza and nage-waza too; the two are not the same, the latter is only part of the first. And again, any basic jûdô book generally contains drawings or pictures of at least the techniques of the gokyô. It's all the rest they lack or fail to clearly transmit.

For these reasons I have concerns about the proposed structure.

What would you suggest then?

Carlo wrote:What would you suggest then?

Fair question. I don't know.

If I suggest the other headings, we might end up with more and go in against your concerns, with which I agreed.

I guess my answer was more intended in a sense of "sometimes there are no good solutions, and the question then becomes whether one should accept a poor alternative or none at all".

If one creates additional categories for tachi-waza (for example, hairi-kata [ways of entry], bôgyô [ways of defense]) will they attract sufficient responses ? They are more difficult for people to refer to since these have no names. Same for newaza. Should there be headings like semete [attacking], nogare-kata, nige-waza [escapes from katame-waza], turnovers, etc ?

Or should it suffice to add some broader categories like "newaza supporting techniques" and "tachi-waza supporting techniques". I am not sure. I am also not sure if it is correct to refer to these just as "supporting techniques"; I think their role in jûdô is more important than just "supporting".

Let's wait for others to chime in and see how they feel.

Good points, CK.

However, let's consider harai goshi. My question could be 'what angles can I attack from?', 'What grips should I use?', 'What set up attacks can I use?', 'What is the difference between harai goshi and ashi guruma?', 'When can I counter with harai goshi?', 'How can I defend against harai goshi attacks using grips, movement, kazushi, footwork or some other technique?', 'How was it invented?', 'What does the name really mean?'.

So under the classification 'koshi waza', we have the potential ask about all manner of background, attack, defence, combinations, counters and situational guidance on harai goshi.

DougNZ wrote:
So under the classification 'koshi waza',

Doesn't this open a rather large can of worms by itself, I've known people argue strongly that uchi mata is a koshi waza whilst others identify it as ashi waza. I fear you could have a lengthy debate that fails to achieve your objectives.

still learning wrote:

DougNZ wrote:
So under the classification 'koshi waza',

Doesn't this open a rather large can of worms by itself, I've known people argue strongly that uchi mata is a koshi waza whilst others identify it as ashi waza. I fear you could have a lengthy debate that fails to achieve your objectives.

I don't see that it matters whether uchimata is posted under koshi- or ashi-waza. Categorisation is simply to try and narrow down finding such posts at a later date.

Why would anyone want to reinvent this particular wheel? The traditional throwing categories seem clear enough - perhaps if one is not clear on why a particular waza is in one category or another, it might bear some scrutiny, some reflection on its basics, but Kano shihan himself was very precise with the top level categorizations.

And if you start cataloging minor changes (e.g., this angle, uke on his back foot, etc.) then count on thousands of possible 'categories', if not millions.

NBK

I have to agree, NBK. When in doubt, go back to the source.

How about newaza and tachi-waza?

Jonesy wrote:How about newaza and tachi-waza?

I think it would be helpful to split it to one more broad level below newaza and tachiwaza..

I think the current simple section on technique tactics etc. works just fine. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Ben Reinhardt wrote:I think the current simple section on technique tactics etc. works just fine. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

The reason I raised this is because I don't think it works fine ... or at least could be improved. Trying to find certain old posts, even with the search function, can be time-consuming and frustrating.

Maybe something broad, like Katame Waza and Nage Waza ? Would that help you find stuff easier ? This board does not get nearly the traffic of the old judo forum.

One issue is that a moderator would have to keep things straightened out among finer categories.

I do see what you are getting at.

NBK wrote:Why would anyone want to reinvent this particular wheel?   The traditional throwing categories seem clear enough - perhaps if one is not clear on why a particular waza is in one category or another, it might bear some scrutiny, some reflection on its basics, but Kano shihan himself was very precise with the top level categorizations.

And if you start cataloging minor changes (e.g., this angle, uke on his back foot, etc.) then count on thousands of possible 'categories', if not millions.  

NBK

I think that was well said. Imo, it seems that Judo has what is fine and leaves the proper room for the human potential itself. I like chatting ideas but carving things up beyond what is normal seems like just as much a waste waste of time for anyone who is listening. However, I'd like to know the names of the many techs I would just, what's the term? 'Blast'. Blast thru to get osaekomi.lol.

Blast. Good word.