"First priority is always to make the judo more spectacular" (Vizer)

"First priority is always to make the judo more spectacular" (Vizer)

Vizer running for president of SportAccord

Nice to know that judo is not in danger for the next olympic games but what is disturbing is...the purpose of judo is not to please spectators, the fact that efforts are made in order to attract more spectators is rather useless for the average judoist who is practicing that discipline for other purposes. When parents bring me their children they don't really care about spectators, they are looking for the benefits their kids can obtain. If judo is an educational tool it means that from this point of view the most important person is the one who is practicing.

In the last decades what we can observe with the IOC is that they are looking for spectacular sports that sell tickets and TV rights. Are they forgetting De Coubertin's ideas? I do believe so.

What are the advantages for judo to be included in the Olympics? Sure it is a good exposure, i have seen several young boys coming to my dojo following the games however their motivation doesn't last long. On the other hand I have people who came with the simple goal of getting in shape who obtained their dan ranks so...

I know for a fact that the present shiai rules are rather frustrating for a lot among us. Should we have rules for those who are trying to reach the highest level of competition and some rules for those who are rather hobyists. Something that can see in boxing, amators vs professionals?

in a way I agree with this. in practicing my own waza my goal is always to make it more spectacular. however I try to do this by refining the techniques to a high degree through dedicated practice. trying to do this by changing the rules is not the way to go. at least not in my opinion.

It has been said many times before, in mmany forums, judo is not and never will be a spectator sport.
Only people who pracrise,or who are around judo all the time, will appreciate what is going on.
The amount of times I have had to try to explain what is going on in an olympic judo shiai is crazy.
They are still none the wiser after I have tried to explain to them either.

genetic judoka wrote:in a way I agree with this. in practicing my own waza my goal is always to make it more spectacular. however I try to do this by refining the techniques to a high degree through dedicated practice. trying to do this by changing the rules is not the way to go. at least not in my opinion.

"Spectacular" is the antithesis of "maximum efficiency".

Jonesy wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:in a way I agree with this. in practicing my own waza my goal is always to make it more spectacular. however I try to do this by refining the techniques to a high degree through dedicated practice. trying to do this by changing the rules is not the way to go. at least not in my opinion.

"Spectacular" is the antithesis of "maximum efficiency".

I disagree. to me spectacular is a logical conclusion of maximum efficiency. ever see an awesome demonstration of NNK? to me, that's spectacular looking. in fact i find it more spectacular to see someone fly through the air as a result of a throw that nears maximum efficiency, compared to a throw done with brute force. I think we may just have different definitions of the word "spectacular."

genetic judoka wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:in a way I agree with this. in practicing my own waza my goal is always to make it more spectacular. however I try to do this by refining the techniques to a high degree through dedicated practice. trying to do this by changing the rules is not the way to go. at least not in my opinion.

"Spectacular" is the antithesis of "maximum efficiency".

I disagree. to me spectacular is a logical conclusion of maximum efficiency. ever see an awesome demonstration of NNK? to me, that's spectacular looking. in fact i find it more spectacular to see someone fly through the air as a result of a throw that nears maximum efficiency, compared to a throw done with brute force. I think we may just have different definitions of the word "spectacular."

I don't believe that Mr. Vizer cares too much about maximum efficiency and that what you see as being spectacular meets his own criterias. Jonesy is right, spectacular, (as being attractive for someone who doesn't know judo) has nothing to do with what you must have in mind when you are participating in a shiai.

genetic judoka wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:in a way I agree with this. in practicing my own waza my goal is always to make it more spectacular. however I try to do this by refining the techniques to a high degree through dedicated practice. trying to do this by changing the rules is not the way to go. at least not in my opinion.

"Spectacular" is the antithesis of "maximum efficiency".

I disagree. to me spectacular is a logical conclusion of maximum efficiency. ever see an awesome demonstration of NNK? to me, that's spectacular looking. in fact i find it more spectacular to see someone fly through the air as a result of a throw that nears maximum efficiency, compared to a throw done with brute force. I think we may just have different definitions of the word "spectacular."

spec·tac·u·lar (spk-tky-lr)
adjective:
Of the nature of a spectacle; impressive or sensational.

noun
Something that is spectacular, as:
a. A single dramatic production of unusual length or lavishness.
b. An elaborate display

If you believe that "spectacular" judo has uke or your opponent travelling through the air in large arcs then that is inefficient.

In shiai efficient judo gets your opponent onto the mat on his back, hard and fast - the criteria for ippon. Large arcs give him the opportunity and time to twist out of the throw. In a more general sense efficient judo makes use of kuzushi and debana to achieve the desired effect - no more, no less. Big "spectacular" throws tend only to occur when there is a large gap in skill between the two judoka involved.

When you talk about a NnK rendition, what in your mind makes one performance more spectacular than another. NnK is a randori no kata - the waza need to be performed in a spirit and style that is consistent with randori practice - no more, no less.

Jonesy wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

genetic judoka wrote:in a way I agree with this. in practicing my own waza my goal is always to make it more spectacular. however I try to do this by refining the techniques to a high degree through dedicated practice. trying to do this by changing the rules is not the way to go. at least not in my opinion.

"Spectacular" is the antithesis of "maximum efficiency".

I disagree. to me spectacular is a logical conclusion of maximum efficiency. ever see an awesome demonstration of NNK? to me, that's spectacular looking. in fact i find it more spectacular to see someone fly through the air as a result of a throw that nears maximum efficiency, compared to a throw done with brute force. I think we may just have different definitions of the word "spectacular."

spec·tac·u·lar (spk-tky-lr)
adjective:
Of the nature of a spectacle; impressive or sensational.

noun
Something that is spectacular, as:
a. A single dramatic production of unusual length or lavishness.
b. An elaborate display

If you believe that "spectacular" judo has uke or your opponent travelling through the air in large arcs then that is inefficient.

In shiai efficient judo gets your opponent onto the mat on his back, hard and fast - the criteria for ippon. Large arcs give him the opportunity and time to twist out of the throw. In a more general sense efficient judo makes use of kuzushi and debana to achieve the desired effect - no more, no less. Big "spectacular" throws tend only to occur when there is a large gap in skill between the two judoka involved.

When you talk about a NnK rendition, what in your mind makes one performance more spectacular than another. NnK is a randori no kata - the waza need to be performed in a spirit and style that is consistent with randori practice - no more, no less.

spec·tac·u·lar [spek-tak-yuh-ler]

Synonyms
2. hair-raising, dramatic, breathtaking.

Genetic Judoka has a valid point.

Waza executed with maximum efficiency are by nature aesthetically pleasing.

Regarding the comment about "spectacular" throws occurring only when there is a large gap in skill between two judoka - that is only partially true. Frequency of "spectacular" ippon throws in matches with evenly matched judoka is significantly increased by lowering the threshold of what is deemed "passivity". Current IJF competition rules force judoka to be in constant attack mode, effectively increasing the incidence of errors, which in turn can be exploited for ippon worthy waza.

JFTW wrote:

Waza executed with maximum efficiency are by nature aesthetically pleasing.

Regarding the comment about "spectacular" throws occurring only when there is a large gap in skill between two judoka - that is only partially true. Frequency of "spectacular" ippon throws in matches with evenly matched judoka is significantly increased by lowering the threshold of what is deemed "passivity". Current IJF competition rules force judoka to be in constant attack mode, effectively increasing the incidence of errors, which in turn can be exploited for ippon worthy waza.

In how far a waza is generally considered aesthetically pleasing will also depend on the type of waza. Few people find most osae-komi-waza that lead to ippon "aesthetically pleasing", although they could if, for example, a rather small person is able to control a much bigger opponent through optimal action/reaction. People tend to also see some connection between larger movements and degree of spectacle. For the judo of some champions of the past that was considered 'spectacular' often involved those who applied a lot of techniques that would send the opponent 'flying' rather than just land on his back.

As logical as it may sounds from a Western point of view to talk in the same context of 'spectacular' and 'aesthetically pleasing', it really isn't such a good idea. The reason is that Kanô himself has addressed aesthetics. This is an area that is commonly unknown among both Western and Japanese jûdô people, yet quite important. In fact it is one of the reasons why people are so clueless about kata, more specifically because Japanese aesthetics are thoroughly different from Western aesthetics, hence also why the idea that a perfect mechanically copy cat rendition of a Kôdôkan kata DVD and performance according to current IJF/EJU kata competition is complete nonsense. This is a rather complicated area which I am addressing in future published work. However, as you point out, and as long as we are talking randori-no-kata then indeed the application of maximal efficiency contributes to to its aesthetics, and this to a larger degree than in those kata where the emphasis is not on randori.

The question remains as to why we are engaging in judo practice. For recreational, educational or competitive objectives? Should we not try to improve ourself constantly by doing our utmost and to make use of our new talents to help others succeed? Seek out the sublime (suko)in whatever we do and let others decide what is to be branded as spectacular or not.

yes, a distinction should be made between "aesthetically pleasing" and "spectacular." I failed to make that distinction. JFTW brought up a good point too that I had intended to make, but he beat me to it. throws that are impressive looking don't necessarily require a large gap in skill. they do however require someone to make an exploitable mistake, and their opponent needs to be good enough to take advantage of that opportunity. now this certainly happens more often when there's a skill disparity, but that's not the only time it happens.

what IMHO is the only constant requirement for a spectacular throw to happen, is full committal to an attack. you have to do it like you mean it.

is osaekomi spectacular? I wonder.

nomoremondays wrote:is osaekomi spectacular? I wonder.

In my opinion it can be, but rarely can it compare to an ippon worthy throw.

It is precisely becauese of this that IJF spent last 30+ years deemphasizing Ne Waza.

oh, heck, just add fireworks

and, instead of having different colored mats out of bounds, have a moat filled with gators or crocodiles

the refs can have paintball guns, and shoot the players whenever they're passive

how about amputation of hands that make illegal grabs?

Stacey wrote:oh, heck, just add fireworks

and, instead of having different colored mats out of bounds, have a moat filled with gators or crocodiles

the refs can have paintball guns, and shoot the players whenever they're passive

how about amputation of hands that make illegal grabs?

I literally laughed out loud after reading this. Well done! If any of your suggestions were implemented I'd certainly tune in more frequently.

Imo wrestling for example was a victim of its own success, the wrestlers of the top countries developed texhnique advantage on the rules to the nth degree, the fila also developed a criteria for olympic entry which excluded less skilled nations, this resulted in a lot of highly technical victories which equalled boring matches. This its unpopularity imo.

Judo looks its best when there is a sufficient skill disparity between national competitors imo, bigger throws and shorter matches, still very good judo by the victor but is also publically digestable. The ijf should forget rule refinement and get more gumby nations spots in the olympics if they want to see "spectacle" results

Ricebale wrote:Imo wrestling for example was a victim of its own success, the wrestlers of the top countries developed texhnique advantage on the rules to the nth degree, the fila also developed a criteria for olympic entry which excluded less skilled nations, this resulted in a lot of highly technical victories which equalled boring matches. This its unpopularity imo.

Judo looks its best when there is a sufficient skill disparity between national competitors imo, bigger throws and shorter matches, still very good judo by the victor but is also publically digestable. The ijf should forget rule refinement and get more gumby nations spots in the olympics if they want to see "spectacle" results

That makes no sense - the medal rounds would feature evenly matched competitors, and by your reasoning, full length, boring matches.

Instead, lets just give the competitors matches, entire books of matches, or better yet, flame throwers.

Stacey wrote:oh, heck, just add fireworks

and, instead of having different colored mats out of bounds, have a moat filled with gators or crocodiles

the refs can have paintball guns, and shoot the players whenever they're passive

how about amputation of hands that make illegal grabs?

All in favor, say 'Aye':

AYE !!

It's been my opinion that the majority of getting good at any grappling art is learning and applying the details that happen far before the end of the technique. The majority of Judo, I think, is all about things that happen before the end of the throw (this is true for BJJ too and more easily demonstrable with the slower pace). White belts don't usually like to do this though. They want things that could be put on a highlight reel.

Marius Viszer is engaging in white belt reasoning. I'm guessing it's been so long since he's done randori, much less competed, that he's forgotten how to see those details.

Go Stacey.

How about a free punch instaed of shido

hedgehogey wrote:It's been my opinion that the majority of getting good at any grappling art is learning and applying the details that happen far before the end of the technique. The majority of Judo, I think, is all about things that happen before the end of the throw (this is true for BJJ too and more easily demonstrable with the slower pace). White belts don't usually like to do this though. They want things that could be put on a highlight reel.

Marius Viszer is engaging in white belt reasoning. I'm guessing it's been so long since he's done randori, much less competed, that he's forgotten how to see those details.

You are way off on this Visar is on an other planet compared to Hedgehoggey judo. JMHO

Probably the best thing that could happen for judo would be for the IOC to punt it and eliminate this need to pander to the public.

BJJ seems to have taken the least spectacular (most boring to watch) aspect of judo, its newaza, and completely changed North America's opinion of grappling along with its memberships to grappling.

It's ironic where I live. I've wanted judo to become more popular for over 30 years, and now, when I believe it has more respect as a 'combat' sport than it ever has, the numbers of judoka are less than they have ever been, especially in the youth and competitive ages. BJJ member numbers here for competitives ages, from say 18-30, are probably 20:1 that of judoka. Paying a heftier amount for membership as well.lol

Seems like the priority for North Americans is realistic combat sport over spectacle. Is it that different in the rest of the world?

What that tells us is that the public is not nearly as stupid as we're told they are.