When it comes to takedowns (nage-waza), are foot sweeps NOT to be considered as throws? Or, are all foot sweeps throws? Why or why not?

I believe that all foot sweeps are in fact throws, but what do you think...and why?

Only number #4 could be classed as a ""throw"" and given a score in Shiai as Tori did not keep control during Kake......................Tori let go before the waza was complete in #1, #2 and #3 therefore no score would be given.........IMHO

So far as I understand, Nage Waza (投技) does not translate as "takedown technique" but "throwing technique", so the OP's question is nonsensical in judo terms.

In fact, again, as far as I know, there is no officially named waza in the standard judo syllabus (Go kyo no waza and Shinmeisho no waza) that would be called "takedowns".

Takedown is a concept borrowed from western wrestling where one is awarded points for getting the opponent to the mat regardless of means.  It has carried into mixed martial arts and other disciplines where getting the opponent to the mat is seen as an end in and of itself rather than as a side-effect of trying to end the fight by skillfully slamming someone into the planet.

In judo, we have the concept of "skillful entry into ne waza" which approximates what could be called "takedowns" other than those "takedowns" that are Nage waza in judo terms.
So in judo terms, any foot sweep (harai, barai) that has been classed as "Nage Waza" by the Kodokan is absolutely considered a "throw" by the Kodokan and by the judo community at large.
That said it must be executed in such a manner that it would be effective. (control, force, speed... Ikioi and Hazumi I believe are the new terms)

The whole paradigm of judo is different from other disciplines.  The objective of Nage Waza is always to finish the fight, ie do sufficient damage.  Getting the opponent to the mat so as to pin (wrestling) or submit (BJJ, MMA) is a secondary or tertiary objective.

We have to be very careful when we borrow terms from one discipline and try to apply them to another.  Jargon can have subtly or grossly differing meanings given the different context.

Y-Chromosome wrote:
Takedown is a concept borrowed from western wrestling where one is awarded points for getting the opponent to the mat regardless of means.  It has carried into mixed martial arts and other disciplines where getting the opponent to the mat is seen as an end in and of itself rather than as a side-effect of trying to end the fight by skillfully slamming someone into the planet.

Thank you for responding.  I appreciate your obvious bias for judo, but you are simply misinformed.  A takedown in Western wrestling is, and I will specifically use American Folk-style wrestling (since it is, in my opinion, the most technically advanced style of Western wrestling) NOT "where one is awarded points for getting the opponent to the mat regardless of means."  

In American Folk-style wrestling, as well as in International Free-style and Greco-Roman, one is simply not awarded points for using any means whatsoever to take another wrestler to the mat.  Some takedowns are forbidden, even in the Western styles.  For example, the low-level single leg is strictly forbidden in Greco-Roman Wrestling, while it is perfectly legal in Folk-style, Free-style, and even Brazilian jiu-jitsu.  Eastern wrestling styles, such as judo, may have a different set of rules, uniforms, and wrestling surfaces, but every throw in judo is, by definition, a takedown.  Now one may question how uke was taken down to the tatami, but if uke was thrown--uke was certainly taken down to the tatami.  Of course, you may wish to produce an example of a judo throw that did not result in uke being taken down.  Perhaps a temporary suspension of the laws of physics in your local dojo may assist you in such an unusual task.  

At any rate, I do agree with you that all judo sweeps are throws.  It should also be noted one more time for logical clarity that:  although all throws are takedowns, not all takedowns are throws.

Thanks so much for your input;  you make some interesting points.

eightball wrote:

Y-Chromosome wrote:
Takedown is a concept borrowed from western wrestling where one is awarded points for getting the opponent to the mat regardless of means.  It has carried into mixed martial arts and other disciplines where getting the opponent to the mat is seen as an end in and of itself rather than as a side-effect of trying to end the fight by skillfully slamming someone into the planet.

Thank you for responding.  I appreciate your obvious bias for judo, but you are simply misinformed.  A takedown in Western wrestling is, and I will specifically use American Folk-style wrestling (since it is, in my opinion, the most technically advanced style of Western wrestling) NOT "where one is awarded points for getting the opponent to the mat regardless of means."  

In American Folk-style wrestling, as well as in International Free-style and Greco-Roman, one is simply not awarded points for using any means whatsoever to take another wrestler to the mat.  Some takedowns are forbidden, even in the Western styles.  For example, the low-level single leg is strictly forbidden in Greco-Roman Wrestling, while it is perfectly legal in Folk-style, Free-style, and even Brazilian jiu-jitsu.  Eastern wrestling styles, such as judo, may have a different set of rules, uniforms, and wrestling surfaces, but every throw in judo is, by definition, a takedown.  Now one may question how uke was taken down to the tatami, but if uke was thrown--uke was certainly taken down to the tatami.  Of course, you may wish to produce an example of a judo throw that did not result in uke being taken down.  Perhaps a temporary suspension of the laws of physics in your local dojo may assist you in such an unusual task.  

At any rate, I do agree with you that all judo sweeps are throws.  It should also be noted one more time for logical clarity that:  although all throws are takedowns, not all takedowns are throws.

Thanks so much for your input;  you make some interesting points.

I wrestled international Freestyle before I started Judo and I'm somewhat familiar with the rules of Greco and American folkstyle as well.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's incorrect to equate the Japanese term "Nage Waza" with the English Term "Takedown".
Yes all Nage-waza would qualify as takedowns in pretty much any wrestling style, but not all takedowns qualify as nage waza. A 1 point takedown in international freestyle which results in top control but does not expose the back would not be considered a scoring waza in judo.
Neither would the 2 point take-downs shown in this video: (American Folkstyle?)

That said, a 4 or 5 point "takedown" in International freestyle which takes the opponent from the feet to the back in one motion could indeed be considered Nage waza in the judo sense.

It just make no sense to ask if any Nage Waza are thows or not. All Nage Waza, classified as such by the Kodokan, are by definition throws as far as Judo is concerned. Again, another discipline might not consider them as such but then they are free to set their own definitions.

It should also be pointed out that legality in competition is not the key factor as to whether or not something can be considered a throw. The Kodokan and for that matter the IJF, recognize multiple waza as "throws" (nage waza) that are prohibited in shiai and/or randori. Daki Age and Kawazu Gake come to mind. Definitely Nage Waza, but not permitted in randori or shiai.

I just don't see the point of the OP's question. Are these "throwing techniques" actually throwing techniques?
Of course, yes they are. Otherwise they would not have been classified as such.

So in a broad grappling sense I would agree that all throws are by definition takedowns, and that the converse is not true, not all takedowns are throws.
However, in a judo specific sense, the term "takedown" does not have a formal place. For this reason, the topic title contains the incorrect premise that the term takedown is equivalent to the term Nage waza in Japanese.

Yepp, I agree with Y-Chromosome, In judo the primary aim is to throw Uke cleanly for Ippon (ie the perfect throw) transitions are subordinate and therefore in a judo context (not Shiai) never really your aim.

The techniques in the original video are in my opinion throws or although badly executed for the reasons Steve stated. In my clubs a brown belt would get a very serious talking to if he practiced this way. It is bad judo both in practice and in competition.

eightball wrote: Thank you for responding.  I appreciate your obvious bias for judo, but you are simply misinformed.  (…)

Woaw.

You come up on a Judo forum, ask specific questions, and that is how you communicate here ?

All I know is Ashi-Waza seems to be something not utilized enough.

Ashi-waza are throws and are scored as such.

To be honest it doesnt really matter - if you put somebody on their back with a throw or a footsweep its an Ippon. Sweeps and reaps are not considered "lesser" than the big throws in Judo if thats what you're getting at.