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

genetic judoka wrote: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.

Ogre wrote:

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

Thats the big difference between someones opinion and (historical) facts.
Wo says that “but judo is primarily about throws and holds”?

sodo wrote:HEy why don't we just do judo wearing American Football gear,
playing with a ball and instead of throwing for Ippon we could count the
goals scored, it would make judo much more spectator friendly wouldn't
it

OH yeah but it wouldn't be judo anymore would it

sodo wrote:In the other thread Cuivien und JonZ stated facts that are checkable
based on scientific historical research, what you are claiming as
facts are just mythycal faireytales.

Hanon wrote: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.

Fritz wrote:

sodo wrote:


@Mike Hanon: I think your "pseudo killing" argument indeed goes in the direction to my opinion that shiai is a safe "simulation of a real fight".
Then you wrote:

Hanon wrote: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.

Did i understand right:
To learn to struggle with the daily life we have to play "killing" - but if the situation occurs reality, when real fighting or combat is necessary, then for that
is Judo not for? Its very confusing.... ;-)

Hanon wrote:The lessons learned from Shiai and general judo practice are taken from the dojo into our daily lives because we DO NOT learn to kill we learn to care

Ogre wrote:

Hanon wrote:The lessons learned from Shiai and general judo practice are taken from the dojo into our daily lives because we DO NOT learn to kill we learn to care

What about that:
We learn to care by learning to kill / prevent from getting killed?
Iam still not sure what a choke (or other things I listed) has to do with taking care of people.

Oh, nice, there is something i could agree with you.

But why the hell we call this strange Olympic sport, with its colored fighting suits, with it constantly rule changing for sake of
more public attraction, with a winning by something called "ippon" obviously lacking the original 3 criteria of an "Ippon",
with penalties forcing despairing attacks regardless of the right situation trying to owerpower the opponent,
with inactivity penalties for one who is struggling to keep at his
foots being attacked by the opponent, with incomprehensible / causeless stops of Newaza, with prohibited judo techniques from
Nage-no-kata or Gokyo like Kata-guruma, Sukui-nage ... - why we still call this "judo"?
(The BJJ people there are a little bit more honest, they call their judo descendant "BJJ", well knowing that the origin was Kodokan Judo teached by Maeda ;-) )

Sorry but it seems to me you're reading a different forum, I did not read some facts here
which contradicts the Kano quotes provided by "tom herold" ... :-(

Btw.: I looked carefully at the instances of the written judo shiai rules listed at the old forum.
There is no explicit prohibition of atemi-waza, there are some restrictions regarding kicks, some "hint" not to try to injure the opponent
(regardless of technique), but not prohibition - other stuff is explicitly forbidden...

Indeed in the old forum i found a video of "Koji Komuro" where he kicks his opponent at his thigh with the intention
to create space for applying a arm lock or so...

Ogre wrote:Did you look though Kodokan curriculum? Kata? Maybe? Nage-no-Kata? Tell me about the initial attack of uke in Uki-Goshi? Or seoi-nage?
It's fairy tales? Weapon handling? If it's not an important part for you, why do you practise it?
And why do you even "argue" in this topic if there is no progressive content in your posts? No asnwers. No questions.

Fritz wrote:Its obvious:

We train to apply a choke, our partner taps, we don't go further.

cuivien wrote:

Ogre wrote:Did you look though Kodokan curriculum? Kata? Maybe? Nage-no-Kata? Tell me about the initial attack of uke in Uki-Goshi? Or seoi-nage?
It's fairy tales? Weapon handling? If it's not an important part for you, why do you practise it?
And why do you even "argue" in this topic if there is no progressive content in your posts? No asnwers. No questions.

To be honest, I do not believe that any sane attacker with actual fighting experience >0 would draw a knife high up over his head and attack with a straight downwards cut the way it is done when defending with seoi-nage. The more circular attack from uki-goshi? Maybe, but that's also stretching it IMO

To be honest, I do not believe that any sane attacker with actual fighting experience >0 would draw a knife high up over his head and attack with a straight downwards cut the way it is done when defending with seoi-nage. The more circular attack from uki-goshi? Maybe, but that's also stretching it IMO

Hanon wrote:
Hiya,

Unsure IF you are saying that the nage no kata has weapons or when Uke attacks, uke is holding an imaginary knife or whatever? Nage no kata is only blows no weapons not even imaginary ones. The attacks are atemi waza

Same with uki goshi, uke attacks the temple of tori hence the uki goshi counter.

In terms of the seoinage attack in the nage no kata it is not supposed to relate to a real street attack. The attack is real, it is an attack with the base of the fist to the head of tori. THE point of this attack is to demonstrate how tori does not block force but allows such a force to spend itself without coming into contact with its target. 'ALL' tori should do is guide ukes force to the floor, in theory and my practice I do not throw my uke. I let uke throw himself over what I put in his way, namely me! This is the classic judo use of maximum efficiency with minimum effort plus the rationale of non resistance and using ones ukes force against himself.

Interesting twist in the thread.

Best,

Mike

Actually I was hoping that someone besides you and sodo would bite

Hanon wrote:

cuivien wrote:

Ogre wrote:Did you look though Kodokan curriculum? Kata? Maybe? Nage-no-Kata? Tell me about the initial attack of uke in Uki-Goshi? Or seoi-nage?
It's fairy tales? Weapon handling? If it's not an important part for you, why do you practise it?
And why do you even "argue" in this topic if there is no progressive content in your posts? No asnwers. No questions.

To be honest, I do not believe that any sane attacker with actual fighting experience >0 would draw a knife high up over his head and attack with a straight downwards cut the way it is done when defending with seoi-nage. The more circular attack from uki-goshi? Maybe, but that's also stretching it IMO

Hiya,

Unsure IF you are saying that the nage no kata has weapons or when Uke attacks, uke is holding an imaginary knife or whatever? Nage no kata is only blows no weapons not even imaginary ones. The attacks are atemi waza

Same with uki goshi, uke attacks the temple of tori hence the uki goshi counter.

In terms of the seoinage attack in ther nage no kata it is not supposed to relate to a real street attack. The attack is real, it is an attack with the base of the fist to the head of tori. THE point of this attack is to demonstrate how tori does not block force but allows such a force to spend itself without coming into contact with its target. 'ALL' tori should do is guide ukes force to the floor, in theory and my practice I do not throw my uke. I let uke throw himself over what I put in his way, namely me! This is the classic judo use of maximum efficiency with minimum effort plus the rationale of non resistance and using ones ukes force against himself.

Interesting twist in the thread.

Best,

Mike

cuivien wrote:

Hanon wrote:
Hiya,

Unsure IF you are saying that the nage no kata has weapons or when Uke attacks, uke is holding an imaginary knife or whatever? Nage no kata is only blows no weapons not even imaginary ones. The attacks are atemi waza

Same with uki goshi, uke attacks the temple of tori hence the uki goshi counter.

In terms of the seoinage attack in the nage no kata it is not supposed to relate to a real street attack. The attack is real, it is an attack with the base of the fist to the head of tori. THE point of this attack is to demonstrate how tori does not block force but allows such a force to spend itself without coming into contact with its target. 'ALL' tori should do is guide ukes force to the floor, in theory and my practice I do not throw my uke. I let uke throw himself over what I put in his way, namely me! This is the classic judo use of maximum efficiency with minimum effort plus the rationale of non resistance and using ones ukes force against himself.

Interesting twist in the thread.

Best,

Mike

Actually I was hoping that someone besides you and sodo would bite

Like you, I have been taught that the 4 attacks are atemi, however one of my teachers have said something like "it could easily have been that uke was holding a blade, it doesn't really matter". <- This then was the background for what I wrote.
Sodo says it well when writing that kata is simply "a description of the principles that are applied in deflecting and guiding the forces of the attacker"

Hanon wrote:Unsure IF you are saying that the nage no kata has weapons or when Uke attacks, uke is holding an imaginary knife or whatever? Nage no kata is only blows no weapons not even imaginary ones. The attacks are atemi waza

Same with uki goshi, uke attacks the temple of tori hence the uki goshi counter.

Fritz wrote:

Hanon wrote:Unsure IF you are saying that the nage no kata has weapons or when Uke attacks, uke is holding an imaginary knife or whatever? Nage no kata is only blows no weapons not even imaginary ones. The attacks are atemi waza

Same with uki goshi, uke attacks the temple of tori hence the uki goshi counter.

Thats very interesting... There are atemi in the "randori-no-Kata"?
Why? - you said in randori as you know and practise there should not be atemi - under no circumstances,
whats is the reason, that they occur in the "randori-no-kata"?

Fritz wrote:

Hanon wrote:Unsure IF you are saying that the nage no kata has weapons or when Uke attacks, uke is holding an imaginary knife or whatever? Nage no kata is only blows no weapons not even imaginary ones. The attacks are atemi waza

Same with uki goshi, uke attacks the temple of tori hence the uki goshi counter.

Thats very interesting... There are atemi in the "randori-no-Kata"?
Why? - you said in randori as you know and practise there should not be atemi - under no circumstances,
whats is the reason, that they occur in the "randori-no-kata"?

Hanon wrote:A pair can 'randori' using atemi only or a mixture PROVIDING the pair understand the rules and are supervised. I have not seen either practiced in well over 30 years not even in my dojo. The risks of injury are too great for the general insurance companies federations of judoka today.

Ben Reinhardt wrote:

Seoinage against an overhead knife attack is a good way to get cut/stabbed...badly.