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

Fritz wrote:Maybe this is the reason of the whole misunderstandings in these threads:

but even he acknowledges the fact that there's more to the art than just fighting

No one of the discussants denies that judo is more than just fighting.
But some of us deny that judo should be no fighting.
The ability to fight is the/a basement of the whole remaining part (pedagogic, moral)...
Maybe there are other ways the achieve the pedagogical goals from Kano (somewhere there is a statement about that),
but the way of ju is via the ability to fight...

Fritz wrote:Maybe this is the reason of the whole misunderstandings in these threads:

but even he acknowledges the fact that there's more to the art than just fighting

No one of the discussants denies that judo is more than just fighting.
But some of us deny that judo should be no fighting.
The ability to fight is the/a basement of the whole remaining part (pedagogic, moral)...
Maybe there are other ways the achieve the pedagogical goals from Kano (somewhere there is a statement about that),
but the way of ju is via the ability to fight...

finarashi wrote:

Fritz wrote:Maybe this is the reason of the whole misunderstandings in these threads:

but even he acknowledges the fact that there's more to the art than just fighting

No one of the discussants denies that judo is more than just fighting.
But some of us deny that judo should be no fighting.
The ability to fight is the/a basement of the whole remaining part (pedagogic, moral)...
Maybe there are other ways the achieve the pedagogical goals from Kano (somewhere there is a statement about that),
but the way of ju is via the ability to fight...

But what is ability to fight? Does to the ability to fight belong the ability to plug an eye from its socket. If you look at US and more than 100 years ago one sees that this kind of fighting was very popular, effective and depended on technical ability both offensive and defensive. So should we train it to be complete fighters. Should we do randori where we try to do this to each other? How do we define the limit of the violence we do to each other to become ... able to fight?

finarashii wrote:But what is ability to fight? Does to the ability to fight belong
the ability to plug an eye from its socket. If you look at US and more
than 100 years ago one sees that this kind of fighting was very popular,
effective and depended on technical ability both offensive and
defensive. So should we train it to be complete fighters.

Should we do
randori where we try to do this to each other? How do we define the
limit of the violence we do to each other to become ... able to fight?

Fritz wrote:

finarashii wrote:But what is ability to fight? Does to the ability to fight belong
the ability to plug an eye from its socket. If you look at US and more
than 100 years ago one sees that this kind of fighting was very popular,
effective and depended on technical ability both offensive and
defensive. So should we train it to be complete fighters.

Maybe its the ability to defend against such nice attempts...

Should we do
randori where we try to do this to each other? How do we define the
limit of the violence we do to each other to become ... able to fight?

Thats the interesting and difficult point - and comes back to my initial posting...
In the first step we should encourage our students, that althought in usual randori / shiai its not allowd to "poke eyes", always to be aware of such attacks -
because it may happen (by accident) or intentionally outside the dojo ... so the student should keep attention to maintain correct posture, let their
face out of reach of the opponents arms, always be able and prepared to deflect movements of the oponents hands against their face and so on.

Indeed its a difficult topic, obviously training is always a simulation of real combat, because we must apply serious harm or worse
to our _partners_ - Mike Hanon elaborates this in detail...

But exactly this questions - how far we can go with randori practice, how we can train to be prepared of such attacks, were those
Tom offered to discuss and to share experiences in the self defence section...

It is clear that we have a language problem here. Different posters using different languages and that is perhaps leading to some difficulties in exact translation and the vital nuances that this type of debate demands?

Hanon wrote:May I ask one question and I am not being flippant. Why would a
person desire to train judo to learn self defence or use judo as a self
defence when there are numerous other far more effective forms of
specific self defence schools available?

Hanon wrote:Just out of interest, as this thread got me thinking, how many of you would choose to learn judo as a self defence? Thanks.

Mike

some said "because my mother said...", the most of them said "because i want to be able to defend myself".

Now there are this options: "oh here you are wrong for that please go to XYZ"

The victory of the Second Higher School [Sendai] in their jūdō match with the First Higher School [Tokyo] despite having very few black belts [yūdansha] has unexpectedly brought forth criticism of the Kōdōkan’s system of promotion thus Kanō Shihan gave a lecture at 10 a.m. on the 9th [June 9, 1918] about the true meaning of shōbu (victory and defeat) in jūdō: “The aim of jūdō is both as a method of attack and defense and also the training of the body and the cultivation of the mind. The true ability of jūdō emerges when one faces a life or death situation and victory or defeat on the tatami (tatami no ue no shōbu) cannot be a basis for criticism. From what I hear the Sendai side [the Second Higher School] has been secretly studying only newaza as the key to victory but this is mistake for true life and death situations (shinken shōbu) are decided by tachiwaza and newaza is but a small part (no no ichibu). Newaza is the degeneration of jūdō (jūdō no daraku) and should be outlawed (kinzubeki) as a method.”

This is an extremely interesting post in part because it was precisely through an analogy with the pre-reformation Catholic church that Oda Jōin made his critique of the Kōdōkan that I mentioned in post #67 above. He even called his essay "Personal Reflections of the Reformation of Jūdō" and in his rebuttal on behalf of the Kōdōkan Sakuraba Takeshi mentions how Oda was seen as "the Luther of the jūdō world." Fairly near the beginning of the essay, Oda writes that "In jūdō the era of faith -- and there was an era of faith -- is over. Now is the time of critique. The time of innovation. An era of great reform" again alluding to the reformation and he seems to be likening the awarding of high ranks to a kind of form of indulgences.

Oda's essay (and Sakuraba's response) are so interesting to read because they touch directly on so many of the major debates that are going on right now on JudoForum […]. Once you see this it really helps to understand how the current debates have taken shape and how they are basically structurally integral to the historical development of jūdō quite early on (at least from the 1910s) and not some kind of weird aberration that can be laid at the feet of the hapless seeming Kanō Risei or the internationalization of jūdō and its misunderstanding by westerners or jūdō becoming an Olympic sport. Jūdō was already a collegiate sport in Japan in the 1910s and it was seen (primarily) as a sport by many, many of its practitioners. That's actually part of the disagreement between Oda (who takes the view that "win or lose, win or lose, jūdō's lifeblood lies only here") and Sakuraba (who stresses shōbu as but a small part of jūdō). Oda would actually recant (after some kind of a resolution with the Kōdōkan was reached) but the questions he raised about dan rank in relation to ability and about the question of jūdō's efficacy would have enormous impacts on the subsequent development of jūdō's history and really what happens with jūdō in the '20s can't be understood apart from this.

I've written about the historical background to this schism with the Kōdōkan already (see here: http://JudoForum.com...post__p__571215 and here: http://JudoForum.com...ost__p__573822) so I won't repeat it but it's important to understand that Oda wanted to show that one could beat an athletically and technically superior jūdōka through tactics [...]. Thus he seems to have basically invented the idea of pulling or jumping guard and transitioning to newaza directly, a strategy for which the visiting team from Tokyo was completely unprepared. A debacle ensued and the focus came to rest on whether jūdō as it was practiced actually worked in real life or not. That's why Oda focusses so incessantly on the problem of shōbu (win or loss). Oda writes: "Some people belittle new discoveries, some fear them. And this tends to be the view especially among those high dan rank holders who are without any real ability of their own.” Oda continued that "the jūdō of the present has fallen into indolence. Let us freely explore how to win, let us develop new methods of attack and defense which take advantage of our opponents weaknesses. ... When one looks objectively at the inner workings of the current jūdō world, one cannot help but feeling something one might call shame, or sadness, or pity."

And it was on the problem of dan ranks (and esp. high dan ranks) that Oda expressed his greatest vitriol: "High dan ranks work for the promotion of their own progeny. That is perhaps ok. There is nothing wrong with the promotion of a person if that person has real ability and has put real effort into his jūdō. What is regrettible is that the reality is the exact opposite of this. High dan ranks use their connections to the examining committees to promote those close to them regardless of whether or not they have ability and work only to erect a sort of security fence around themselves." Oda's main point is that rank should be based _solely_ on ability and he goes so far as to argue that as a jūdōka ages rank should be lowered to reflect the decline in ability and that perhaps a different form of recognition be provided bearing no relation to dan rank.

So what does all of this mean? I think the main point is that the tensions we see in jūdō today (including or even especially about rank and its meanings) have very, very deep roots. Most of the problems and disagreements we see today (on JudoForum and in the real world) cannot be understood without a clearer and more accurate account of jūdō's history. Kanō lived through and guided the Kōdōkan through a period in which all of these problems were already being debated (very publicly) and much of what we have of jūdō today is the result of compromises that were authored or authorized by Kanō himself during his lifetime. So that when people make recourse to history to score (essentially ideological) points it's important that they actually understand that history correctly. Maybe it's just me and because I love history but the complex history of prewar jūdō is actually so much more interesting than the anodyne fantasy some its often made out to be.

Der Bodenkampf wurde nach seiner (KANŌs) Wahrnehmung zu dominant, was die Eignung des Jūdō für die Selbstverteidigung, die Leibesertüchtigung und auch die Fortschritte des Einzelnen beeinträchtigt hat. Infolgedessen wurde 1924 in den Kōdōkan-Regeln (1925 von der Butokukai übernommen) festgelegt, dass der Bodenkampf unter zwei Bedingungen aufgenommen werden darf:

1. wenn die Hälfte der Kampfzeit im Stand gekämpft, aber keine Wertung erreicht wurde,
2. als Folge einer nicht geglückten Wurftechnik oder nach einem besonders geschickten, flüssigen Übergang in die Bodenlage. Diese letzte Regelung besteht noch heute.

KANŌ kritisierte im Übrigen auch, dass viele Kämpfer eine abgebeugte Haltung einnehmen würden, um nicht zu verlieren. Dies sei aus Sicht der Selbstverteidigung sehr ungünstig (....). Entsprechende Regeländerungen, die dies unterbinden würden, wurden aber nicht vorgenommen.

Jonesy wrote:Lets go back to some basics. The most complete definition of judo available in the literature is that found in Join Oda-sensei’s encyclopedic work of 1929 - “Judo Taikan” (“An Overview of Judo.”) Therein, Oda-sensei (a 9 dan) uses and builds on an original quote by Kano-shihan . Oda-sensei writes (originally in Japanese):

“Judo is the most effective way to use the power of the mind and body. Its training cultivates the body and spirit through the practice of attack and defence; the essence of this principled moral code (or “path”) is learning through self-awareness. Therefore, judo was innovated so that the ultimate objective is to perfect oneself and benefit from life. In summary, judo is the most effective way of using the mind and body for the benefit of oneself and others.”

Kano articulated judo’s core concepts via the sayings seiryoku zen’yo (“good use of mind and body”) and jita kyo ei (“mutual welfare and benefit.”) A spirit of generosity and mutual assistance is therefore integral to judo. Kano envisaged that through the application of judo principles to everyday-life a judoist achieves balance and self-mastery - thereby becoming better enabled to deal with routine stresses and to interact with other human being in positive and mutually beneficial way.

So, within the comprehensive system that judo represents can be found a physical education system, a mental education system, a self-defence system, an intellectual philosophical system and even a medical emergency resuscitation system (kappo). Very simply, Kano's aim was to produce better people and all the elements of judo were fused for that very purpose.

"Fighting" techniques were restricted to kata - at first, in the main the Kime-no-Kata, and much later the Kodokan Goshin Jutsu and the Joshi Goshin Ho. These are all classified as Shobu-no-Kata (“Forms of self-defense.”) These kata reflect that what is crucial when involved in shinken shobu (a “real” fight [to the death]) - where the central objective is to defeat an adversary and survive. They teach effective tai-sabaki, speed, coordination and control of posture whilst controlling another person - irrespective of the particular technique or kata being studied.

Jon Z wrote:Oh my! First Uchida Ryōhei and now Oda Jōin … all we need is for Inaba Tarō to make an appearance and we’ll have hit the trifecta for the jūdōka with the most heterodox views and with whom Kanō had the tensest relationship during his life. It’s never made much sense to me why Oda – who waged the most public feud with the KDK up until Inaba – would be given pride of place in defining what jūdō is. Of course there was a reconciliation but still given the genuine and profound contempt for the KDK as an institution that Oda displayed in the national press it’s hard for me to imagine either side really making anything more than a superficial (and mutually self serving) peace, probably aided along by Kanō’s falling out with Oda’s great rival Okabe Heita.

But Oda really is an interesting figure for this particular thread because of the crisis he provoked and the particular response that Kanō gave which pretty much hits the themes of this discussion head on. Since I wrote all this out several years ago, I won’t rewrite it here and I hope I’ll be forgiven to just quoting myself (and linking to the original contexts). It’s probably worth talking about the split between Okabe and Kanō, the Ad Santel matches etc. in the context of this thread but I’ll leave that for another occasion. But once you get beyond the narrowly circumscribed history of the founding of the KDK in the 1880s things start to get pretty messy pretty fast for the kinds of arguments that are being put forward here. That’s what I meant on that other thread about the ambivalences and ambiguities in Kanō’s legacy.

Basic context:

Oda’s school team (The Second Higher School in Sendai) absolutely demolished the visiting First Higher School (from Tokyo) in a jūdō meet in June of 1918 with Mifune Kyūzō refereeing. The teams each had 18 athletes but only 14 matches were contested and Oda's team either won or drew all of the matches despite being an inferior team on paper (the Tokyo Team had 1 sandan, 3 nidans, and 13 shodans while Sendai had 1 nidan, 4 shodans and 13 mudansha).

Kanō Shihan was not amused

From a newspaper article from 1918 [emphasis added in the context of the current thread; pay special attention to the use of the term shōbu]:

Newaza is the Degeneration of Jūdō

The victory of the Second Higher School [Sendai] in their jūdō match with the First Higher School [Tokyo] despite having very few black belts [yūdansha] has unexpectedly brought forth criticism of the Kōdōkan’s system of promotion thus Kanō Shihan gave a lecture at 10 a.m. on the 9th [June 9, 1918] about the true meaning of shōbu (victory and defeat) in jūdō: “The aim of jūdō is both as a method of attack and defense and also the training of the body and the cultivation of the mind.
The true ability of jūdō emerges when one faces a life or death situation and victory or defeat on the tatami (tatami no ue no shōbu) cannot be a basis for criticism. From what I hear the Sendai side [the Second Higher School] has been secretly studying only newaza as the key to victory but this is mistake for true life and death situations (shinken shōbu) are decided by tachiwaza and newaza is but a small part (no no ichibu). Newaza is the degeneration of jūdō (jūdō no daraku) and should be outlawed (kinzubeki) as a method.”

.................{snip snip}.............

For the original thread, see here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:D-eja_SNLBkJ:judoforum.com/index.php%3F/topic/45807-kosen-judo-is-real/page__st__39+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

…….

NBK wrote:
...
But, I don’t see how Oda’s heterodoxy and Kano’s reaction to his favorite school team being used to wipe the mats by Oda’s boys detracts from Oda’s detailed definition of judo. Did I miss something?

NBK

Jon Z wrote:

NBK wrote:
...
But, I don’t see how Oda’s heterodoxy and Kano’s reaction to his favorite school team being used to wipe the mats by Oda’s boys detracts from Oda’s detailed definition of judo. Did I miss something?

NBK

Hi NBK --

Detract is not the word I would use. Contextualize, perhaps?

The point is, declaring something “the most complete definition of jūdō” is not a value neutral statement, something important in the context of this thread. Who decides on what is most complete and how? Why this passage and not another? Why take the definition of someone who had a notorious and very public feud with the KDK and not one of the definitions given by Kanō himself? Or someone else close to Kanō, even Sakuraba Takeshi who was asked to defend the KDK against Oda. Or Okabe. Or Mifune. Or, if we want less conventional we could go with Uchida Ryōhei who would qualify as one of the earliest published definitions. Or Inaba Tarō in the late ‘30s. Etc. etc. Or why choose 1930 as opposed to 1886 or 1904, or something more contemporary? There are countless iterations of the definition of jūdō, many quite similar to this one, how do we decide which is most complete? And what does it mean that we choose one over another? None of this is value neutral. If we find a definition of jūdō that particularly suits our own desires for jūdō because we happen to value those aspects of jūdō that are foregrounded by that definition and then pronounce it to be the most complete, to supersede all other definitions, isn’t this a sleight of hand?

What I would say is most important to draw out is the idea that the 1930s represent the moment of the most complete enunciation of jūdō which foregrounds a particular narrative of development on the one hand (from Meiji through Shōwa) and then decline (the postwar sportification of jūdō). This is (not to beat a dead horse) an ideological position. Which is fine. We all have our own ideological positions. But what matters is when the ideological dimensions of our positions become obscured because they are treated as settled.

Hope all is well in Tokyo. Cheers.
Jon Z

NBK wrote:
...
If I understand your (academic? imagine that...) point reduced to somewhat fewer words...

NBK wrote:
...
Stop by sometime and I'll let you buy me beer.

NBK

If I understand your (academic? imagine that...) point reduced to somewhat fewer words, the definition of judo changes numerous times according to who is defining it and when, and that context is important.

Hanon wrote:The passive attitude of the judoka is the opposite of the attitude a professional soldier must adopt to survive real battles and fights (a generalisation).

First I want to state that I would like to thank the people for their work in providing and analyzing historical sources, which, without that work (here and now in this actual forum), I would not know or at least not in this dept.
It is work like this that often hinders me in writing or asking something, because I feel the deep gap between an average, "uneducated" user like me and people that really know where to find sources, have the knowlege of the history to put it in the correct context and so on...

But, to be honest, I think now for almost two days about this statement Mr. Hanon wrote, and I come to no conclusion...

Hanon wrote:The passive attitude of the judoka is the opposite of the attitude a professional soldier must adopt to survive real battles and fights (a generalisation).

In the context of this thread, would it not be apt to teach to your Judo-students things like sen sen no sen? And if you do so, how can you call this a 'passive' attitude? And if you don't teach it, may I ask why you limit your training in that way?
I think, in my personal opinion, sen-sen no sen is one of the best examples where a mental principle can be directly applied from Randori to Shiai to Shinken Shobu...

I, for myself, don't want to be limited by a 'passive' attitude - but on the other hand, I would be glad to learn about that 'passiveness' just for the sake of knowledge... what are you referring to?

As far as I know, Tomiki Kenji teached Jûdô to units of the Kempetai...
And was Jûdô not also hand-to-hand combat training for japanese soldiers, which had as far an impact as in this context the ONE 'Ippon' was invented? (Before it seemed to be three Ippons if I remember correct?)
And HERE we are BTT -- the ONE Ippon in shiai as a reminder of the seriousness of the things testet in shiai... just my 2 cents... please correct me, if I am wrong on that Ippon-thing, but I think i remember it like this... 'Ippon' as the 'symbolic death' of the opponent (don't wanna speak of a 'partner' in this context). While one can argue about the 'symbolic' in a sportive context, I think there is no doubt about 'symbolic' referring only to the current shiai/training, when used in the context of an armed forces training. 'Symbolic', because we don't want to kill our own people...
I am not sure and would therefore be intereseted if, and if so, what these soldiers have been taught besides Jûdô to complete their fighting abilities...? Or, to overcome the 'passiveness' of a Jûdô fighter, as Mr. Hanon maybe would call it?

...
It's where they put their focus - I think, for example, at Fritz's dojo you can learn "SD", while Sodo statet he wouldn't/couldn't teach it.

So, I think this question is to general to be answered -- but I think it is verry sad and confusing, that people practising a Martial Art (!!) are so loudly and PROUD(!) stating, that their art is all but about fighting.

I myself am eager to master the level of "defence against attack" good enough to progress to the higher levels of Jûdô.

Josef_Z wrote:
I myself am eager to master the level of "defence against attack" good enough to progress to the higher levels of Jûdô.

Maybe "sodo" should read carefully and try to understand the article provided by "wdax" in the German "Judo Magazine" 02/13,
where is very clear stated that self defense is one of three aims of Kodokan Judo...

Maybe this help "sodo" to get a better understanding of sources and arguments given here in this forum...
Perhaps the he will a little more self critical about his statements regarding "selective interpretation" and his
almighty BS argument...

statements of this article
were already stated and discussed very extensively in the german judo forum (www.dasjudoforum.de) during the last ten years
initiated mostly by "tom herold".

WDax article is a very nice compact abstract/collection of the results of these discussions - thanks to wdax for this insightful article ;-) )