Neil Adams plays key role in IJF rule testing.

The only reason Neil is so cozy with the rules is that HIS style of judo is unaffected and is implicitly being called "brilliant." I use a similar set of techniques as he does in competition, so I understand how easy it is to overlook the drastic changes this causes for other people. Especially in terms of the new rules' effect on newaza, it shows a bias for entries into newaza that he and the IJF understand. Obviously they are good techniques for certain situations, but if an opponent bellies out it is a complete waste of time and energy for me to not use the legs as sources of leverage. IF they intend to grow progressive newaza people are going to start getting really good defending off of their backs and, in order not give people like Flavio Canto a field day, players have to be able to control the legs event before the opponent hits the ground. NOT after some stupid pause that allows idiotic referees to know, without a doubt, that you and uke are fighting on the ground. This is the first rule I've seen that disrupts the natural flow of judo and I'm disgusted that having to pause between tachi waza and ne waza is now a rule.

If you've turtled up and I'm on top attacking, I should be able to grab your leg to control you rolling over. Sigh.

if, as some speculate, BJJ is going to make an entry into the Olympics, then this Rule will help delineate the differences between IJF/Olympic judo and Olympic bjj.

Stacey wrote:if, as some speculate, BJJ is going to make an entry into the Olympics, then this Rule will help delineate the differences between IJF/Olympic judo and Olympic bjj.

The rule about not being able to touch the legs during transition into newaza? I've always been able to tell judo and BJJ competitions apart in spite of the fact that in both I can use the legs for control when I roll into an okuri eri jime.

Taiobroshi wrote:The only reason Neil is so cozy with the rules is that HIS style of judo is unaffected and is implicitly being called "brilliant." I use a similar set of techniques as he does in competition, so I understand how easy it is to overlook the drastic changes this causes for other people. Especially in terms of the new rules' effect on newaza, it shows a bias for entries into newaza that he and the IJF understand. Obviously they are good techniques for certain situations, but if an opponent bellies out it is a complete waste of time and energy for me to not use the legs as sources of leverage. IF they intend to grow progressive newaza people are going to start getting really good defending off of their backs and, in order not give people like Flavio Canto a field day, players have to be able to control the legs event before the opponent hits the ground. NOT after some stupid pause that allows idiotic referees to know, without a doubt, that you and uke are fighting on the ground. This is the first rule I've seen that disrupts the natural flow of judo and I'm disgusted that having to pause between tachi waza and ne waza is now a rule.

If you've turtled up and I'm on top attacking, I should be able to grab your leg to control you rolling over. Sigh.

Most of all, I'm ashamed of having respected Neil Adams' judo all of these years when, clearly, he has no judo to speak of. He has a brand and a kimono.

What a bold statement
I am speachless

Taiobroshi wrote:clearly, he has no judo to speak of.

Would you stand on the tatami and say that?

Look, I'm speaking a bit out of anger but also out frustration because he's been one of my judo heroes since I started. The way I'm interpreting the videos is that he's promoting something other than judo and calling it judo. By "no judo to speak of" I obviously don't mean that I would be able to beat him on the mat (though I appreciate sarcastic humor). Rather, he has surrendered his identity as a judoka to the IJF by acting as the poster boy of an approximation of judo that purposely adds rules to distance itself from the real thing. He seems so insincere in the 2nd video, like a used care salesman.

Taiobroshi wrote:Look, I'm speaking a bit out of anger but also out frustration because he's been one of my judo heroes since I started. The way I'm interpreting the videos is that he's promoting something other than judo and calling it judo. By "no judo to speak of" I obviously don't mean that I would be able to beat him on the mat (though I appreciate sarcastic humor). Rather, he has surrendered his identity as a judoka to the IJF by acting as the poster boy of an approximation of judo that purposely adds rules to distance itself from the real thing. He seems so insincere in the 2nd video, like a used care salesman.

I know what you mean, although Neil Adams is just doing what all judo coaches who teach high level competitive judo tactics are doing, that being coming up with ways around the latest batch of changes; its all they can do.

I think coaches and players alike are probably becoming used to altering their games by now, if you were to ask Neil Adams I wouldn't be surprised to find that its not the way he would go about things; but it is useless to fight it as a high level coach.

Neil has actually said that he does'nt agree with a lot of the changes but it is what it is.
As well respected as Neil Adams is,even he is not going to change the way the IJF tinker with judo,so as Pieman saya, he has to make the best out of the hand he is dealt as a high level coach.

Stacey wrote:if, as some speculate, BJJ is going to make an entry into the Olympics, then this Rule will help delineate the differences between IJF/Olympic judo and Olympic bjj.

I doubt BJJ will ever get into the Olympics - no governing body, no anti-doping policy (although I believe this is changing soon), not wide spread enough, not enough female participation, not spectator friendly and utterly dominated by a single nation.

Also, a large proportion of the BJJ community doesn't want it in the Olympics. They look at judo with it's constantly changing rules and think 'no thank you'.

[quote="seatea"]

Stacey wrote:

Also, a large proportion of the BJJ community doesn't want it in the Olympics. They look at judo with it's constantly changing rules and think 'no thank you'.

And I for one agree with them

ThePieman wrote:

Taiobroshi wrote:clearly, he has no judo to speak of.

Would you stand on the tatami and say that?

No he could not.
Neil is a 54yo KDK 8th dan
8 time european medalist 1st one was at 18yo three years younger than
Taiobroshi.
4 time world medalist
2 time olympic medalist

How could anyone say Neil has no judo to speak of.
BTW his rank of 8th dan KDK is 4 years old it came on Neils 50th birthday.

Taiobroshi wrote:

If you've turtled up and I'm on top attacking, I should be able to grab your leg to control you rolling over. Sigh.

So, I may be a little behind on the rules, and please, correct me if I'm wrong, but where does it say that during Newaza, you cannot use the legs at all? I read on there that DURING the TRANSITION into newaza it was illegal to use the legs, but I thought once there, it was cool to manipulate them how you see fit.

Adams showed new rules with Ezio Gamba. What dan is Gamba?

judoratt wrote:

ThePieman wrote:

Taiobroshi wrote:clearly, he has no judo to speak of.

Would you stand on the tatami and say that?

No he could not.
Neil is a 54yo KDK 8th dan

BTW his rank of 8th dan KDK is 4 years old it came on Neils 50th birthday.

"BJA 8th dan", not "KDK 8th dan". Not criticizing, simply correcting. Nothing implied towards the person. The correction I provide must be seen in the context of my previous posts where I have elaborated on the fact that apart from Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New-Zealanders, Westerners do not typically hold KDK ranks unless they obtained their black belt before 1978. This is also important for people from those countries to realize since they tend to believe that just like them people from other countries can/could just obtain KDK ranks just like they, which unfortunately is not true. Also, only 3 Westerners* have ever obtained a KDK rank of 8th dan, 2 of whom are deceased.


_________________
*I am not including Sekine here for all kinds of reasons.

ThePieman wrote:

Taiobroshi wrote:clearly, he has no judo to speak of.

Would you stand on the tatami and say that?

Pieman,

Irrespective of what one might believe in terms of rules, this is probably not a wise post as it (once again) drags a thread towards something it has nothing to do with. An argument about style or approach is not settled by which person is the strongest. In fact, it is truly absurd since all you have to do is take a heavyweight champion, who then would always be right. Any argument one has about judo would then simply be settled by placing Kuznetsov or Riner on the tatami. It seems to me that Taiobroshi (and I am not saying I disagree or agree with the argument or contents) has nowhere challenged the achievements or skills of the judoka in question. He is only expressing a personal view on style and how he believes that might have a differential effect on the impact of the rules on one's judo and teaching approach. So, please, for the sake of the discussion let's step away from criticizing him for something he is not saying or from provoking him into a discussion that has little to do with the points he is raising. His post isn't or at least 'shouldn't' really about the person or value about a person, only about the link style/new rules, although the last sentence in his original post is not helpful either.

Now, to Taiobroshi ...

You might wish to delete the last sentence in your original post. The personal appreciation of Neil appears strongly negative, and is not directly instrumental to the rest of your argument. 'Ashamed' seems a really strong emotion, and one likely to provoke reactions from people who feel inspired and supportive. I think you could have properly and sufficiently made your argument without that last sentence. You could have simply written "I do not support his approach", which as a statement would likely have attracted far less strong responses and not have started derailing the thread. I am only making a suggestion, since we need to moderate ourselves and not unnecessarily give moderators extra work. We must pay attention to not let potentially valuable threads derail into with what has little to do with the core of the original post.

Things do get emotional. The rules are there to promote certain style of play. It is OK to prefer certain style of play, but one needs strong arguments.

Personally I do not understand the argument "leg grabs are core Judo" as in my competing days 70s and 80s the leg grabs were the desperate last minute attempt to score. I much more prefer e.g. uchi-mata and harai goshi and would like to see rule changes that favor users of those throws.

One noticeable change has been the little discussed no stiff arming and no two handed breaking the grips. I know that many coaches thought that the core tactique to defeat e.g. Innoue was to stop him from taking grips. That Judo is fustrating your opponent with stiffarming and bending.

I was always better in ne-waza than tachi-waza. Dispate this I deeply understand that in modern competitive Judo ne-waza is more about advancing the clock than attacking. I am in favor of the notion that to win Judo match one does NOT need to engage in ne-waza if one so wishes.

Cichorei Kano wrote:

ThePieman wrote:

Taiobroshi wrote:clearly, he has no judo to speak of.

Would you stand on the tatami and say that?

Pieman,

Irrespective of what one might believe in terms of rules, this is probably not a wise post as it (once again) drags a thread towards something it has nothing to do with. An argument about style or approach is not settled by which person is the strongest. In fact, it is truly absurd since all you have to do is take a heavyweight champion, who then would always be right. Any argument one has about judo would then simply be settled by placing Kuznetsov or Riner on the tatami. It seems to me that Taiobroshi (and I am not saying I disagree or agree with the argument or contents) has nowhere challenged the achievements or skills of the judoka in question. He is only expressing a personal view on style and how he believes that might have a differential effect on the impact of the rules on one's judo and teaching approach. So, please, for the sake of the discussion let's step away from criticizing him for something he is not saying or from provoking him into a discussion that has little to do with the points he is raising. His post isn't or at least 'shouldn't' really about the person or value about a person, only about the link style/new rules, although the last sentence in his original post is not helpful either.

Now, to Taiobroshi ...

You might wish to delete the last sentence in your original post. The personal appreciation of Neil appears strongly negative, and is not directly instrumental to the rest of your argument. 'Ashamed' seems a really strong emotion, and one likely to provoke reactions from people who feel inspired and supportive. I think you could have properly and sufficiently made your argument without that last sentence. You could have simply written "I do not support his approach", which as a statement would likely have attracted far less strong responses and not have started derailing the thread. I am only making a suggestion, since we need to moderate ourselves and not unnecessarily give moderators extra work. We must pay attention to not let potentially valuable threads derail into with what has little to do with the core of the original post.

Taibroshi was angry when he wrote this and was venting, I understand he feels let down by one of his hero's (and one of mine). My response was tongue in cheek (with a little ) to try to get him to re-evaluate, which I think he did. As you say it would be ridiculous to take the conversation in that direction and I appreciate your level headedness here.

Taiobroshi wrote:The only reason Neil is so cozy with the rules is that HIS style of judo is unaffected and is implicitly being called "brilliant." I use a similar set of techniques as he does in competition, so I understand how easy it is to overlook the drastic changes this causes for other people. Especially in terms of the new rules' effect on newaza, it shows a bias for entries into newaza that he and the IJF understand. Obviously they are good techniques for certain situations, but if an opponent bellies out it is a complete waste of time and energy for me to not use the legs as sources of leverage. IF they intend to grow progressive newaza people are going to start getting really good defending off of their backs and, in order not give people like Flavio Canto a field day, players have to be able to control the legs event before the opponent hits the ground. NOT after some stupid pause that allows idiotic referees to know, without a doubt, that you and uke are fighting on the ground. This is the first rule I've seen that disrupts the natural flow of judo and I'm disgusted that having to pause between tachi waza and ne waza is now a rule.

If you've turtled up and I'm on top attacking, I should be able to grab your leg to control you rolling over. Sigh.

You can attack/control the legs in ne waza under the new rules. you just have to put yourself in newaza first (put a knee down).

I don't see why the new rule regarding this is necessary, though.

Ben Reinhardt wrote:
You can attack/control the legs in ne waza under the new rules. you just have to put yourself in newaza first (put a knee down).

I don't see why the new rule regarding this is necessary, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srBVhh1yZpA

In the rolling okuri eri jime example though, by one opponent being in turtle haven't we implicitly engaged in newaza? The official IJF release says you may grab the legs when there is an "impossibility to throw the opponent because he is in a complete Ne-Waza position." Because I've never seen a score happen from somebody in that position, logically I should be able to grab the legs. Neil's video says otherwise, that in that situation you must wait until after the roll to grab the leg. This implies that a person in turtle and a person attacking turtle have NOT yet engaged in newaza, taking away some of the inherent effectiveness of the rolling technique. His hand looks awkward not grabbing anything because grabbing whatever is close is the natural thing in that situation.

The knee down definition creates a lot of problems under these rules. What if I open my opponent's legs while standing, but I started on the ground? Do we both get HSM, me for controlling the legs of somebody during "transition into newaza" and my opponent for seeking control of my lower body so I can't pass his legs? This is obviously absurd. These rules, hell-bent on creating clarity, fail to address the gray area between tachi waza and ne waza wherein intent of motion is just as important as the positions themselves. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but what I see in the videos and read in the explanations don't add up as clearly as they have in past rule changes.

Taiobroshi wrote:

Ben Reinhardt wrote:
You can attack/control the legs in ne waza under the new rules. you just have to put yourself in newaza first (put a knee down).

I don't see why the new rule regarding this is necessary, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srBVhh1yZpA

In the rolling okuri eri jime example though, by one opponent being in turtle haven't we implicitly engaged in newaza? The official IJF release says you may grab the legs when there is an "impossibility to throw the opponent because he is in a complete Ne-Waza position." Because I've never seen a score happen from somebody in that position, logically I should be able to grab the legs. Neil's video says otherwise, that in that situation you must wait until after the roll to grab the leg. This implies that a person in turtle and a person attacking turtle have NOT yet engaged in newaza, taking away some of the inherent effectiveness of the rolling technique. His hand looks awkward not grabbing anything because grabbing whatever is close is the natural thing in that situation.

The knee down definition creates a lot of problems under these rules. What if I open my opponent's legs while standing, but I started on the ground? Do we both get HSM, me for controlling the legs of somebody during "transition into newaza" and my opponent for seeking control of my lower body so I can't pass his legs? This is obviously absurd. These rules, hell-bent on creating clarity, fail to address the gray area between tachi waza and ne waza wherein intent of motion is just as important as the positions themselves. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but what I see in the videos and read in the explanations don't add up as clearly as they have in past rule changes.

First off, I agree that this particular rule creates some confusion. Unfortunately, I had to leave the area just before the details of the interpretation of it were given at the Pacific International. Judo Ratt was there, maybe he can step in and repeat what was said by Mr. Sunada.

Ben

The problem most of us have with the rules is that we think too much. Read the rules follow them verbatim and you will be 98 percent of the way there. You cannot block below the belt or grab the leg in tachiwaza, this includes blocking ucimata, tomanage, and or any transition while still in tachiwaza. The ijf does a pretty good job explaining this with the published rules and videos on their web sight.

judoratt wrote: The problem most of us have with the rules is that we think too much. Read the rules follow them verbatim and you will be 98 percent of the way there. You cannot block below the belt or grab the leg in tachiwaza, this includes blocking ucimata, tomanage, and or any transition while still in tachiwaza. The ijf does a pretty good job explaining this with the published rules and videos on their web sight.

It is clear. But at the end of the day the on-going theme is that no one likes it.

Don't you like the upgrading of ippon, letting newaza continue out of bounds, no time limit for golden score, and. having offensive scores trump shidos?

In the end it doesn't matter what I think, we are moving forward with the new rules.

judoratt wrote:Don't you like the upgrading of ippon, letting newaza continue out of bounds, no time limit for golden score, and. having offensive scores trump shidos?

In the end it doesn't matter what I think, we are moving forward with the new rules.

Sure that's fantastic to have newaza to contiue out of bounds, no time limits during golden score, and having offensive scores trump shidos. But is it worth it for the elmination of many techniques and methods used in the 08 & 04 games at for the sake of the refs and TV audience who is more inclined to be apathetic to Judo.

Competitions at its highest level should be set to meet the highest standards of applying the safe techniques of the goykyo.