Shiai rules in context of Kanos "First Level" of Judo

Hanon wrote:

Fritz wrote:

Hanon wrote:

Fritz wrote:Beside of
sodo's opinion regarding atemi, i think its not a bad idea
to think from time to time during ne-waza about
what could happen if the opponent would strike and kick...
(There are some BJJ videos somewhere, dealing with this topic...)

I think it then becomes MMA?

Hallo Mike,
is not Judo a good example of MMA? Did not Kano "mix" several martial arts together? ;-)

My point here was this:
Shiai ist part of Judo, to protect the participants there are rules, so some behaviours will be forbidden.
But what could be the reason, that shiai is necessary at the background,
that Kano spoke about the first level of Judo in terms of "defence against
attack" and "fighting in earnest" - as we can read it in the atemi
thread?
In my opinion shiai should be a safe "simulation" of the real fight.
But according to the restrictions by the rule set regarding the
dangerous/unhealthy techniques now it will be possible to show
behaviours which would be "in real" perhaps deadly for oneself.
E.g. Being thrown done and going into turtle or flat on stomach position - according to the rules
- fine - referee stops fight and restarts - but in real? Okay i dont need
to elaborate further, there are lots of cruel videos in the net...
For some of this "bad" (in context of reality) behaviours there are rules
to condemn them but its a recursive problem and not for all situations
its possible to have a rule...
So its our own responsibility what and how we train and teach.
For instance i try to teach my students to avoid the turtle and instead
pulling guard if below... (emphasis is on "try" ;-) ) Maybe the turtling
is a typical german problem, i dont know...
My opinion is, if someone studies Judo seriously, then its necessary to think about the
meaning and implications of rules, tactics, techniques
and so on.
And if some stuff would be dangerous for oneself if tried outside the safe
dojo, then it could be no judo, because first level of judo is ...

And i have an anecdote:
Some time ago i wanted to show some transition from an Osae-Komi to something else - armlock or choke - i don't know anymore...
And i showed and talked about the keypoints and i was just saying:
Take care about his (free) hand (or was it the knee?) it could be
dangerous to you if he would strike and wanted to show how to avoid the danger
- just in this moment my uke does the move (by accident) and i got headaches... ;-)

Hiya,
Could
I ask you to paste and copy this and start a new thread. This thread is
now so distorted its impossible to answer a question as there are so
many subjects covered and justice cant be done to any of them. I would
also imagine the OP is unhappy to see his thread so diverted?
Many thanks,
Mike

Hallo Mike,

as you wished, here is the new thread :-)

Only to find a good title is an awkward thing...

Hi Fritz,
I owe you one. Thanks for opening a new thread.
You wrote "Is not Judo a good example of MMA? Did not Kano "mix" several martial arts together? ;-) "
Yes and no! Good start eh?
To understand kodokan judo it is perhaps important to move away from the physical aspect FOR A WHILE and look at the philosophical. I can already hear the moans.. Non the less..
When I shout at a driver who has just done something I don't like the intent is not with love it is with anger.
When I shout at my son or grandson for doing something I don't think is correct the intent is from love.
I simply hate to have to yet again go down this road as this subject has been cooked to death, however. MMA is the exact opposite in terms of philosophy to the ideals kano founded judo upon.
To class judo as even a part of MMA narrows judo to a physical activity. In reality if we look at real MMA, the real fight, just who in their right mind would choice Judo as their main subject of learning? There are exceptions to this notion but please note they are exceptions and this leads me nicely into my next point that being, the person who fights is often THE art itself and its more about the individuals personality more than the art that will decide the outcome much more than what art they learn.
I would also like to mention that after the time I spent practicing judo I no longer have the desire to hurt someone not even in a sport, it just feels wrong and against my nature.
The two main areas judo diverted away from other fighting arts where, 1) Judo was to be practiced as a physical education. That physical education was to make the body healthy. There is little physically healthy about real MMA.
2) Education of the mind, the attitude. Building of the character. Please not I do not write that judoka are saints, I do not write that judoka should even become saint like. I write of the theory, for in practice, as in all things, its a very long road and judo is practiced by human beings not machines and more to that we are thinking beings so will make mistakes. The point in the education of judo is to make the best we can for ourselves while helping others do the same. Again it goes without saying (but desperately needs to be said) that because we join a judo club, achieve 10th dan, does not make us a perfect person in any way shape or form, what it should-could have done is make us a better person than had we not have practiced judo to that level.
Some judo waza are a refined theme on an already established technique from another fighting system. O soto geri becomes 'the safe' o soto gari. Now can o soto gari be dangerous? You bet, if the INTENT of tori is to harm a person he can do so with great ease. In terms of judo what is the point of harming our partner though? The ides is we are there to practice together, if we are hurt we cannot practice so we cannot learn nor can our partner so the whole point of mutual welfare and benefit becomes moot as no one is practicing judo due to injury! PHEW.
I have written so many times the objective of judo is to fight. BUT fight safely. IF a partner is hurt this is, or certainly should be, as the result of an injury. Blood in a dojo is an accident not y design. Blood in MMA shows the job has been well done as the objectives are different.
You mention there are rules to protect the participant. In shiai yes, in randori and general practice no. The only 'rule' is the unwritten one that says look after your partner as you would have him look after you. Look after your pupils as you would have a teacher look after your own child.
You are correct when you write that shiai is a safe fight. It is safe in that the skill in judo is to throw safely and safe as in the intent of each participant. We have all fought people in judo who have been animals and tried to kill us. They just don't get the point. FIGHT with all ones heart and mind but fight not to hurt but to win with ju do and the philosophy that made judo what it was.
Mike

so what is the first level of judo?

The goal of judo is:
- Physical growth and development of the body
- Mastery of competition techniques
- Training of the spirit
but expanding upon these, they become:
- a method of tempering the spirit for the development of the body
- a method of competition for the mastery of competition techniques
- a method of disciplining the spirit for training of the spirit

atb

sodo

sodo wrote:so what is the first level of judo?

The goal of judo is:
- Physical growth and development of the body
- Mastery of competition techniques
- Training of the spirit
but expanding upon these, they become:
- a method of tempering the spirit for the development of the body
- a method of competition for the mastery of competition techniques
- a method of disciplining the spirit for training of the spirit

atb

sodo

This also applies to all physical activities even kamikaze! What is missing from that list?
Mike

Hi Mike,

i would be not so lucky if that thread drifts to a MMA discussion.

I stated, it would be good to consider, what could be happened (during ne-waza for instance) if the other could
do the ugly things - normally forbidden according the judo rules.

You asked, that this then would be MMA.

I "joked" what the problem with that? Because Judo itself is a example for an mixed martial art.

I know, you have a problem with the stuff called today MMA. Some of your points sound valid, but i'm hesitating to judge about
MMA and MMA trainees because i have simply no experience how they train, how the fight.
Ok, the fights look brutal, because of the blood, but blood i've seen at judo tournament, broken bones too,
people going unconscious and so on.
Now you can say, such harms are accidents, but choking someone out is no accident, breaking the arm applying Juji-Gatame
is no accident... Now you can say, ok that were no or misled judoka...
But maybe they have an ethic in MMA too?

Your border line is obviously the blood, but imagine what would be your opinion about judo as a not involved person
if your mental border between acceptable and not acceptable is simply the willful application of pain or chokes for instance?

I've read the original intense of the MMA circus was to test the usability of different martial art while fighting against each other.
So a judoka participating there is not forced to forget the judo pedagogical teachings, i think...

Ok so far that for now ;-)

Fritz wrote:

I've read the original intense of the MMA circus was to test the usability of different martial art while fighting against each other.
So a judoka participating there is not forced to forget the judo pedagogical teachings, i think...

Ok so far that for now ;-)

that's what they'd have liked us to believe was the original intent, but really the original intent of the UFC (at least the original version of it) was to showcase the so-called "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu" by putting Royce Gracie against hand picked opponents with no grappling experience that way their martial art was sure to win. it was owned in part by the Gracies.

relevance to this discussion? none.

genetic judoka wrote:

Fritz wrote:

I've read the original intense of the MMA circus was to test the usability of different martial art while fighting against each other.
So a judoka participating there is not forced to forget the judo pedagogical teachings, i think...

Ok so far that for now ;-)

that's what they'd have liked us to believe was the original intent, but really the original intent of the UFC (at least the original version of it) was to showcase the so-called "Gracie Jiu-Jitsu" by putting Royce Gracie against hand picked opponents with no grappling experience that way their martial art was sure to win. it was owned in part by the Gracies.

relevance to this discussion? none.

I didn't know that. Sounds like the sort of thing kano Shihan would have done to promote judo. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Mike

The principle that is different between real fighting activities versus pseudo fighting activities is mutual welfare and benefit.. make of judo what one will but it is never the intention to harm a partner in judo.
I am not so naïve to think some judoka do not deliberately harm another partner. I have been on the end of some of there behaviours, non the less judo is not a philosophical free fighting art it has a correct mind set a well as correct techniques. To me going into a judo shiai with the intent of harming a partner is a disgusting as going into a shiai with a hammer or knife.
Mike

Hanon wrote:The principle that is different between real fighting activities versus pseudo fighting activities is mutual welfare and benefit.. make of judo what one will but it is never the intention to harm a partner in judo.
I am not so naïve to think some judoka do not deliberately harm another
partner. I have been on the end of some of there behaviours, non the
less judo is not a philosophical free fighting art it has a correct mind
set a well as correct techniques. To me going into a judo shiai with
the intent of harming a partner is a disgusting as going into a shiai
with a hammer or knife.
Mike

This is the keyword: "partner". In Judo we do all that not only ourself but also our trainings partners may develop further.
Thats fine. I believe i've heard that this in grappling, BJJ, MMA training groups is often similar.

But to be prepared to "fight in earnest", to handle "defence against attack", we have to assume at least, that our real opponent is not a partner but an enemy - an enemy
who will strike, kick, maybe owns a weapon etc.
(And it seems that above a certain level in competition regardless
if judo or MMA, some athletes see their opponents even not as partner
but as enemy :-( )

And then it would be a very pity if the painful and hard trained "tactics" and "behaviours" - which are so nice and allowed and useful
in during randori/shiai between "partners" - lead to serious injuries or worse...
Behaviours like: "turtle position", "flat on belly position", turning the back to the other,
jumping at own knee with full speed while trying Seoi-Otoshi, O-Uchi-Gari, fighting bent over, stalling for Mate in newaza and so on...
What i want to say is simply: If we do play randori or learn/teach techniques, we should always be aware where are the pitfalls which can cause
harm to ourself in case the other one would not be limited by the pedagogical system of judo.

That was my other point of the post in the beginning. I thought its worth to discuss.

Fritz wrote:

Hanon wrote:The principle that is different between real fighting activities versus pseudo fighting activities is mutual welfare and benefit.. make of judo what one will but it is never the intention to harm a partner in judo.
I am not so naïve to think some judoka do not deliberately harm another
partner. I have been on the end of some of there behaviours, non the
less judo is not a philosophical free fighting art it has a correct mind
set a well as correct techniques. To me going into a judo shiai with
the intent of harming a partner is a disgusting as going into a shiai
with a hammer or knife.
Mike

This is the keyword: "partner". In Judo we do all that not only ourself but also our trainings partners may develop further.
Thats fine. I believe i've heard that this in grappling, BJJ, MMA training groups is often similar.

But to be prepared to "fight in earnest", to handle "defence against attack", we have to assume at least, that our real opponent is not a partner but an enemy - an enemy
who will strike, kick, maybe owns a weapon etc.
(And it seems that above a certain level in competition regardless
if judo or MMA, some athletes see their opponents even not as partner
but as enemy :-( )

And then it would be a very pity if the painful and hard trained "tactics" and "behaviours" - which are so nice and allowed and useful
in during randori/shiai between "partners" - lead to serious injuries or worse...
Behaviours like: "turtle position", "flat on belly position", turning the back to the other,
jumping at own knee with full speed while trying Seoi-Otoshi, O-Uchi-Gari, fighting bent over, stalling for Mate in newaza and so on...
What i want to say is simply: If we do play randori or learn/teach techniques, we should always be aware where are the pitfalls which can cause
harm to ourself in case the other one would not be limited by the pedagogical system of judo.

That was my other point of the post in the beginning. I thought its worth to discuss.

Hi,
Thanks for the reply. I think we are on the same page.
I have NEVER deliberately harmed a judo partner. I need to add to that.
I was at an event where several of my top pupils where fighting in a club shiai. One chap repeatedly used o uchi geri rather than o uchimata against my pupils he seriously hurt them all. I fought this chap and threw him on top of the sensei's table bam. I didn't hurt him I did shake him up. I felt great at the time but latter that evening I felt rather bad about what I had done. In mitigation I was young and foolish but what I did was no excuse.
I have never cheated in a shiai. I have fought partners who have scored waza ari against me then dug into jigotai playing for time. I have scored a waza ari and continued to fight for the ippon for the remainder of the fight sometimes losing because I left myself open.
I have been hurt badly in shiai and randori and playing 'judo games'! it is not the intention in judo to harm the body but maintain it in a healthy state. That is the theory and of course many years ago in japan this philosophy may have worked. In the west with our competitive attitudes and complex on what we see as failure we have destroyed much of the culture of judo teaching the Japanese along the way to join us.
I write on the theory in practice and without sensei teaching and supervising a dojo so many things can and do go wrong. This should never mean we have to accept second best for judo as in doing so we are accepting mediocrity and second best for ourselves and those we teach.
Kindest regards,
Mike

I felt great at the time but latter that evening I felt rather bad about
what I had done. In mitigation I was young and foolish but what I did
was no excuse.

If the chap had learned his lecture by you then you had no reason to feel bad, maybe you had prevented many other judoka to be hurt in advance...
If the chap had nothing learned, okay... maybe you had to be more clear to him ;-)

Fritz wrote:

I felt great at the time but latter that evening I felt rather bad about
what I had done. In mitigation I was young and foolish but what I did
was no excuse.

If the chap had learned his lecture by you then you had no reason to feel bad, maybe you had prevented many other judoka to be hurt in advance...
If the chap had nothing learned, okay... maybe you had to be more clear to him ;-)

The chap in question was abusing judo this was and is wrong.
I then also abused judo so how could he learn from one idiot fighting another idiot both abusing judo?
This is one tiny example of some of the crap I have pulled in a dojo. I thank my lucky stars I had the sensei I had. many teachers would have sent me packing many many years ago. This is one of the major reasons I have time and patience for those who misbehave in judo. I am in no place to judge them.
Mike

But to be prepared to "fight in earnest", to handle "defence against
attack", we have to assume at least, that our real opponent is not a
partner but an enemy - an enemy
who will strike, kick, maybe owns a weapon etc.
(And it seems that above a certain level in competition regardless
if judo or MMA, some athletes see their opponents even not as partner
but as enemy :-( )

And what has this got to do with judo and why tf is it in the yudansha section

Judop is done in on a Tatami in a Dojo, what happens out side in the street is called fighting and has no rules, ettiquette or philosophy other than smash your opponent. The two are not compatible and any decent judo instructor would kick out any students that were using judo for street fighting.

Please DO NOT answer this point with fantasies about Self defence and being in a position where you have no choice but to fight, that belongs in the kiddies corner and LARP world of SD and not in a serious Judo Yudansha forum.

atb

sodo

I then also abused judo so how could he learn from one idiot fighting another idiot both abusing judo?

Was you really abusing judo - ok you give him a piece of his own medicine, but you did not harm him as you said - or
was your intention indeed to harm him, but it was a accident, that was nothing happened? - then of course i understand your point.

@sodo: No need to reconfirm my statement about the BS thing in the newaza-tactic-thread again and again

Fritz wrote:
@sodo: No need to reconfirm my statement about the BS thing in the newaza-tactic-thread again and again

Then why do you keep trying to bring up the "real fighting" in judo. as has been quite effectively pointed out in the Ne Waza thread there is NO historic basis for the assumtion that Judo was ever intended as a "Real" fighting art.

The missquoted texts have been put back into the context in which they were written, not only by me and better still cuivien by but also by an real expert like JonZ.

Nobody denies that techniques that you learn in judo can be usefull for self defence but then again so can learning to swing a bat in baseball, that does not make it reason for learning baseball though.

atb

sodo

This is why judo cannot be compared to many other sports like swimming or football etc.
Judo is a safe full contact art. I write 'full contact' without reservation. In shiai we intend to throw our partner as fast and hard as we can flat on his back for an ippon, a pseudo killing. THE point is we do NOT kill and the all important factor is 'pseudo' killing. The act of actually taking a life is sacrificed so we may continue to keep killing our partners......In reality this killing of a partner is in fact the building block of our character and what we use in every day life. .One cannot like the character of a swimmer 24-24 yet that is the whole point of learning judo, judo doesn't end when we leave the dojo judo becomes us and its a way we behave in every day life.
Being human beings each person will may make character changes in either a positive, neutral of negative way. being human and practicing judo does not mean at 10th dan we are ready for saint hood. The travel the road is the work not the end of it.
Each time we shiai we have the life of our partner right in the ball of our hands. make NO MISTAKE if some twit decided to make a killing throw he could. That is not the goal of shiai though. Fight like tigers with every ounce of spirit and will power but fight never with the intent of harming. Arm lock, strangle, squeeze the crap out of a partner in katame waza BUT when our partner says matte we stop instantly.
In swimming are we in any way shape or form responsible for our fellow swimmers, same with football etc? Judo is different, judo has shiai and that shiai is full contact, it can be dangerous if the mind set of one partner is to harm the other.
Mike

@Mike Hanon:
But for what reason one should train this "pseudo killing"?
What should be the pedagogical benefit of that?

Fritz wrote:@Mike Hanon:
But for what reason one should train this "pseudo killing"?
What should be the pedagogical benefit of that?

Tbh I do not buy into this "pseudo killing" thing, how often do you need to kill someone to win?
Usually only onec but tzhe original rules of Judo were similar to Karate, best of three i.e. 2 ippons, whch by the "pseudo killing" logic would mean killing your opponent twice.


Kano always insisted that Shiai was primarily a fight against oneself. what happens to your partner is secondary. Maybe one of the more knowledgeable Historians could post about the origins of the "pseudo killing" concept and if it played any role in 19th century Japanese culture.

atb

sodo

Fritz wrote:@Mike Hanon:
But for what reason one should train this "pseudo killing"?
What should be the pedagogical benefit of that?

To preserve a life when we have the capacity to take it. Through this we learn compassion and empathy, two key elements that make a human being human and fit to walk this planet.
We can have the most awful day enter the tatami and shiai until we no longer experience that feeling of despair bought on by some days work and life in general.
I have hurt myself and badly to avoid hurting my partner being hurt when something when tits up in shiai.
To fight like a wild tiger using brain, cunning, speed and skill yet not to harm but sense the feeling of a partner coming over the top and landing 'splat', safely on his back, is indeed a feeling a great achievement, honourable and satisfying. To know the feeling of being thrown and taste defeat yet know one is walking away thinking to ones self 'next time I will have you' is also a very powerful feeling and is what drives us, motivates us forward to face our losses and not see them as an end but just a stage in a much bigger picture.
The difference between los and win are so close they are one and the same. Both make us fight on as we should do in life. The world is a dojo to a budoka not just some practice room for two hours per week. Perhaps this is where my sensei where so absolutely different to their pupils. They where full time budoka from a very early age and died budoka. 'Recreational', that describes me no way in a thousand years could one mention that word in terms of my sensei. Now that I write this I realise this is why I have never and never will master even a tiny part of any budo.
Mike

sodo wrote:

Fritz wrote:@Mike Hanon:
But for what reason one should train this "pseudo killing"?
What should be the pedagogical benefit of that?

Tbh I do not buy into this "pseudo killing" thing, how often do you need to kill someone to win?
Usually only onec but tzhe original rules of Judo were similar to Karate, best of three i.e. 2 ippons, whch by the "pseudo killing" logic would mean killing your opponent twice.


Kano always insisted that Shiai was primarily a fight against oneself. what happens to your partner is secondary. Maybe one of the more knowledgeable Historians could post about the origins of the "pseudo killing" concept and if it played any role in 19th century Japanese culture.

atb

sodo

It will be hard to offer hard evidence to support either way, as these are matters were philosophy, pedagogy, metaphors intersect. So, allow me to just make to remarks in the margin. Firstly, consider that when we do armbars we only "pseudo-break", and when we choke someone we only "pseudo-choke" if the rules of the game are applied and the opponent taps out; only in contest for arm bars people might go a bit further, although choking out someone might now and then occur in randori too depending on individual and club atmosphere etc. In any case, our object usually is not to actually break arms during judo or each time to actually choke the opponent unconscious. We stop in time hence emphasizing the pedagogical effects of the exercise.

Philosophically, and I understand this may somewhat sound cliché, but nevertheless ... there are all kinds of legendary figures, anecdotes, legends that are so pervasive in Japanese budô and koryû that references are made to them all the time. This is, of course, not the same as hard evidence, but on the other hand it isn't always just BS either. In this context the one might point out the person of Yagyû Munenori and what is known as his theory of the "life-giving sword". His text, the Heihô kadensho 兵法家伝書 is about as important in Japanese martial arts as Musashi's Gorin no sho. Munenori, a highly-skilled swordsman is intertwined with lots of warrior-related philosophical views. He is linked with the monk Takuan and Zen Buddhist influences in budô but he is also linked with Kitô-ryû. The writing of the Heihô kadensho, by the way, dates to about the same time as the creation of Kitô-ryû jûjutsu. Here is in a few simple words a references to kendô which in this context is somewhat comparable to jûdô. There obviously exist far more elaborated papers and books that examine all kinds of angles and and cross-references to/with this topic, but that are here a bit beyond the purpose. But before Kanô started getting more into some of the Western utilitarianists, pragmatists and pedagogues such as Dewey, Stuart-Mill, these more spiritual ideas emerging from some martial art schools seem to have attracted him more than perhaps schools or figures that were rather or just characterized by their high fighting abilities and skills (for example, Takenouchi-ryû).

If one looks through Kanô's numerous writings one will likely be able to come up with some statements by him that may show some relevance to this topic. However, in another thread our valued contributor Jon Z wrote something very important that is often ignored in discussions on this forum, namely that ... Kanô's ideas evolved, and that oftentimes it simply is not possible to track down the exact origin of certain ideas. This, I think, is very important to remember. Kanô was not some monolithic source of truth or of consistent progressive development. Sometimes he was all over the place, and sometimes his views seem more affected by the frustrations of projects he was working at than by a progressive development. Kanô's outright obsession with getting jûdô accepted as the national physical education, for example, at points in time almost leads to anachronistic developments that almost seem to counter earlier ideas about the budô aspects or technical development of jûdô. If one does not fully realize this, then one can argue and argue defending positions that appear diametrically opposed when reality they just refer to different stages in Kanô's development. Perhaps even the term 'development' is not correct as it implies 'growth' whereas Kanô's views are sometimes rather one step forward, two steps back. It all depends what exactly one is talking about and what period one is referring to.

Hanon wrote:This is why judo cannot be compared to many other sports like swimming or football etc.
Judo is a safe full contact art. I write 'full contact' without reservation. In shiai we intend to throw our partner as fast and hard as we can flat on his back for an ippon, a pseudo killing. THE point is we do NOT kill and the all important factor is 'pseudo' killing. The act of actually taking a life is sacrificed so we may continue to keep killing our partners......In reality this killing of a partner is in fact the building block of our character and what we use in every day life. .One cannot like the character of a swimmer 24-24 yet that is the whole point of learning judo, judo doesn't end when we leave the dojo judo becomes us and its a way we behave in every day life.

Hello Mike,

if we are capable on taking the responsibility of our opponent, why do we need such a restrictive system of rules?
In the one hand we are able to stop a shiai whenever we want (not to get hurt) but in the other hand we should be not responsible enough to use leglocks, wristlocks, toe holds?
The people would be eve more aware of their body and their vulnerability if they would pratctise them as well, wouldn't say?
Same thing to atemi-waza:
Of course it's a dangerous weapon, but not as dangerous as all the other stuff we pratics. I mean, whats most harmfull?
A seoi-nage with a uke landing on his head due to false throwing/falling skills (I mean seoi-nage is a basic throw, one of the first you learn in the gokyo, so even beginners will throw it early), or a hadaka-jime, when uke can shout out loud "stop" oder "matte", or an atemi strike which will cause a hematomia or a sprain?

As you said...we are responsible for eath other...but somehow not respeonsible enough?
Can it be the intention of the founder to let the students not use their own mind/brain in considering the results of their habbit?

Hanon wrote:
To preserve a life when we have the capacity to take it. Through this we learn compassion and empathy, two key elements that make a human being human and fit to walk this planet.

Interesting point:
So IF don't have the capacity, we won't preserve it?
So we are able to TAKE someones life?
Physically? Maybe.
Mentally? I don't think that you will be able to do it, unless you practise your "mental attitude" in such situations.
Therefore you possibly need teacher....but obviously noone is willing (or able??) to prepare his students for that case.

My kindest regards,

ogre

Ogre wrote:

Hanon wrote:This is why judo cannot be compared to many other sports like swimming or football etc.
Judo is a safe full contact art. I write 'full contact' without reservation. In shiai we intend to throw our partner as fast and hard as we can flat on his back for an ippon, a pseudo killing. THE point is we do NOT kill and the all important factor is 'pseudo' killing. The act of actually taking a life is sacrificed so we may continue to keep killing our partners......In reality this killing of a partner is in fact the building block of our character and what we use in every day life. .One cannot like the character of a swimmer 24-24 yet that is the whole point of learning judo, judo doesn't end when we leave the dojo judo becomes us and its a way we behave in every day life.

Hello Mike,

if we are capable on taking the responsibility of our opponent, why do we need such a restrictive system of rules?
In the one hand we are able to stop a shiai whenever we want (not to get hurt) but in the other hand we should be not responsible enough to use leglocks, wristlocks, toe holds?
The people would be eve more aware of their body and their vulnerability if they would pratctise them as well, wouldn't say?
Same thing to atemi-waza:
Of course it's a dangerous weapon, but not as dangerous as all the other stuff we pratics. I mean, whats most harmfull?
A seoi-nage with a uke landing on his head due to false throwing/falling skills (I mean seoi-nage is a basic throw, one of the first you learn in the gokyo, so even beginners will throw it early), or a hadaka-jime, when uke can shout out loud "stop" oder "matte", or an atemi strike which will cause a hematomia or a sprain?

As you said...we are responsible for eath other...but somehow not respeonsible enough?
Can it be the intention of the founder to let the students not use their own mind/brain in considering the results of their habbit?

Hanon wrote:
To preserve a life when we have the capacity to take it. Through this we learn compassion and empathy, two key elements that make a human being human and fit to walk this planet.

Interesting point:
So IF don't have the capacity, we won't preserve it?
So we are able to TAKE someones life?
Physically? Maybe.
Mentally? I don't think that you will be able to do it, unless you practise your "mental attitude" in such situations.
Therefore you possibly need teacher....but obviously noone is willing (or able??) to prepare his students for that case.

My kindest regards,

ogre

ogre

You seem to advocate that
a) either nobody never ever practices some dangerous techniques
b) everybody everywhere always practices dangerous techniques

In Judo there is balance;
a) In shiai dangerous techniques are eleiminated as our desire to win (and our clumsiness) easily overcomes our consideration of our opponent. I hae unintentionally hurt people during shiai.
b) Dangerous techniques are not to be practiced untill we learn to control our body and to some degree our mind i.e. there is Judo pre back belt and after black belt
c) to those young of age we restrict pracicing of dangerous techniques
d) in Judo we first start practicing dangerous techniques using kata so the uke and the tori get to know the techniques before one tries it really

But again the purpose in Judo to practice dangerous techniques is not to harm others and not to overpower others so exploring this dark side is up to individual Judoka.

Judo is good, Judoka are human!

finarashi wrote:

You seem to advocate that
a) either nobody never ever practices some dangerous techniques
b) everybody everywhere always practices dangerous techniques

In Judo there is balance;
a) In shiai dangerous techniques are eleiminated as our desire to win (and our clumsiness) easily overcomes our consideration of our opponent. I hae unintentionally hurt people during shiai.
b) Dangerous techniques are not to be practiced untill we learn to control our body and to some degree our mind i.e. there is Judo pre back belt and after black belt
c) to those young of age we restrict pracicing of dangerous techniques
d) in Judo we first start practicing dangerous techniques using kata so the uke and the tori get to know the techniques before one tries it really

But again the purpose in Judo to practice dangerous techniques is not to harm others and not to overpower others so exploring this dark side is up to individual Judoka.

Judo is good, Judoka are human!

Hello finarashi,

I think you do missunderstand me.
I'm saying that EVERY judo-technique IS dangerous. Man, it's based on koryu....
I just don't see the difference of "harmfullness" between an armlock, a choke, a strike, a kick or a throw...?
Since a throw is the most dynamical one (since you stand stop it when uke falls...) it's IN MY OPINION the most dangerous one.

Sometimes I practise Muay Thai and MMA to complete my judo (since judoka are usually unwilling to practise atemi...). In those classes we punch our faces and kick in our livers like f******* hell, but everybody is aware of eath other.
There is noone being brutally hurt (and I do it for a couple of years now).

Why are the judoka so afraid of practicing atemi? Or joint-locks to minor joints?

It's not that we can't prevent ourselves from injuries. We can. We proof in every day throwing-practising.

I'd accept that you start using atemi (or any other mentioned "dangerous" technique) in your later education. But do you really do?
Do you use atemi waza? Do you practise leg locks? (even though they are a part of judo kata)

And if you don't...why?
I mean... I don't care about other peoples judo training. You gotta do whatever you want and whatever you mean to be effective.
You cut your own system for NO reason.

No, it's (in my opinion) not dangerous! Seriously...(and thats what I wanted to stress with my example on seoi-nage), you do a shitfull of dangerous stuff, but avoid things for no reason.
Yes, we are human...that's why we are intelligent enough not to harm our partners, neither with throwing nor with striking.

YOu can have a complete system, either for your way of education (of body and mind) and my system of self-defense (to return back to the topic), but you refuse this one big part intentionally, even though it would be so easy to integrate it in your practise).

But I think I won't understand.

My kindest regards,

your ogre

some competitors are assholes. I refuse to compete in a situation where my ability to make it up and down the stairs in my house is reliant on my opponent having my best interests in mind as he cranks away at a leg lock. many competitors care about their opponent, but not all do. leg locks were allowed in judo shiai for a long time, and due to the high number of injuries it was banned, and rightfully so.

yes, other arts practice atemi, but judo is primarily about throws and holds. there are arts that practice throws and holds in addition to strikes, and in many cases their throws are terrible as is their groudwork. we in judo focus on throws and holds, and as a result can develop them to a high degree. jack of all trades and a master of none, is not the way I wanna be. I have no interest whatsoever in practicing striking, why should I do striking because YOU who are not my sensei think I'm not practicing it enough? what if I really don't care about striking? because really, I don't care about striking.

throwing people is tons of fun, and that's why I do it.

sodo wrote:

Fritz wrote:@Mike Hanon:
But for what reason one should train this "pseudo killing"?
What should be the pedagogical benefit of that?

Tbh I do not buy into this "pseudo killing" thing, how often do you need to kill someone to win?
Usually only onec but tzhe original rules of Judo were similar to Karate, best of three i.e. 2 ippons, whch by the "pseudo killing" logic would mean killing your opponent twice.


Kano always insisted that Shiai was primarily a fight against oneself. what happens to your partner is secondary. Maybe one of the more knowledgeable Historians could post about the origins of the "pseudo killing" concept and if it played any role in 19th century Japanese culture.

atb

sodo

I've often wondered about the whole "psuedo killing" thing myself. Did Kano ever write about that? Maybe it's a meji era right wing military thing, not something Kano intended. I think it is documented that the first judo contests were best two out of three? How does that align with "pseudo killing". Plus the fact that we train to deliberatly throw each other on our backs.

I suppose it could be all symbolic, as many suggest. A tad dramatic, though.