Jonesy wrote:I had this http://judoinfo.com/katagosh1.htm brought to my attention because Tomiki-sensei's name is conspicuous by its absence - which must be an error. I have also seen different names as panel members: http://www.judoka.britishjudocouncil.org/issue/18/april-2013-issue-121/335/kodokan-goshin-jutsu.html
Goshin Jutsu Judo Working Group
President:
Kotani Sumiyuki, 10. Dan
Members:
Kinebuchi Masamitsu, 9. Dan
Ôtaki Tadao, 9.Dan
KuharaYoshiyuki, 9. Dan
MatsumotoYoshizô, 9. Dan
Hosokawa Kusuo,9. Dan
Hosokawa Kumazô,9. Dan
Oimatsu Shinichi, 9. Dan
Kobiki Yasumasa, 8. Dan
Daigo Toshirô, 8. Dan
Kawamura Teizô, 8. Dan
Abe Ichirô, 8. Dan
Ôsawa Yoshimi, 8. Dan
Takamura Tokuichi, 8. Dan
Kudô Nobuo, 8. Dan
Takata Katsuyoshi, 8. Dan
Shibayama Kenji, 8. Dan
Satô Yoshihara, 8. Dan
Kawabe Katsuhiko, 8. Dan
Matsushita Saburô, 8. Dan
Takeuchi Yoshinori, 8. Dan
Yamamoto Shirô, 7. Dan
Satô Tsuyoshi, 7. Dan
Yamamoto Nobuaki, 7. Dan
Onozawa Hiroshi, 7. Dan
Source: Goshin-Jitsu-no-Kata oder die "Form der Verteidigungstechniken"by Jochen Kohnert (translated from "Goshin Jitsu" by the Kodokan).
Thanks to Andreas Quast who provided this list to the Judo Information Site. Last updated March 13, 2006.
Interesting, but of course completely wrong in that respect. I think that "the Judo Information Site" is meant to be a valuable popular resource for the average jûdôka, but that does not make it a scholarly database that is even remotely accurate, due to the simple reason that there was not peer review process involved in the selection of material, which makes it a bit of a jûdô potpourri.
You should have picked up on the many red flags in the list above. Several of the names are wrong, which suggest that simply because someone has the ability to translate Japanese, that still does not make him/her an experienced jûdô scholar. This actually is not just a 'suggestion' but is really so, as many other stories would confirm. No matter how well one speaks Japanese or even is a Japanese scholar, one can't be an accomplished jûdô scholar if this isn't matched by a similar abundance of experience on the tatami which always needs to function as a cross-check of scientific conclusion can be actually meaningful in the context. It just does not work, no matter what some might believe. I do not mean this as a 'personal' criticism to the author of the list on the Judo Information site, but as a general criticism.
"Onozawa Hiroshi" ? Everyone with the least jûdô scholarly experience authoring the list printed above would immediately have recognized and know that the first name in 小野沢弘史 in this case is not pronounced 'Hiroshi' but 'Kôshi'. The author of the list clearly didn't and also did not sufficiently carry out cross-checks.
Kotani, 10th dan and Abe, 8th dan ? That implies that the dataset dates from between 1984-1992.
If this indeed would the Goshinjutsu Committee, then Nagaoka, Mifune and Samura would have all been kicked out by little kids such as Onozawa, who would have been 9 years old in 1956 !
Conclusion: this list has nothing to do with the Committee that 'composed' Kôdôkan goshinjutsu, but simply is a list of people involved in the making of one of the two previous Goshinjutsu brochures, which were produced in 1988 and 1993, respectively. Since Abe Ichirô became a 9th dan in 1992 and is listed here still as 8th dan, this suggest that this is the list of people who collaborated to the 1988 brochure.
Of course, Tomiki was part of THE Goshinjutsu committee, and so were Mifune and so was Nagaoka (but only for a couple of months as the man died towards the end of 1952). He 'created' the kata with Ôtaki during the Kagami Biraki in 1956 ('creating' meant in the sense of the 'creation' of a music piece, i.e., the "world premiere", not 'authoring').
Then again, in defense of the Judo Information Site, it does not actually say or imply that this list would be of the committee that made the original Goshinjutsu. It is only a list of 'a' Goshinjutsu working group, but the information in the text printed below which was written by Kanô Risei in 1958, in conjunction with the above list dating from three decades later, probably prompts misinterpretation to many.