How judo worldwide improved thanks to Marius Vizer

http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=43352

Cichorei Kano wrote:http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=43352

I'm not certain what all of this grouping talk means but I'm guessing it ultimately means more money for the IJF from the IOC. In some respects this is a good thing but on the other side of the spectrum such a recognition would only further reinforce that what Mr. Vizer is doing in regards to rule changes and such. Most judoka I have come across in person and on this forum do not like the changes to the rules.

Dave R. wrote:... Most judoka I have come across in person and on this forum do not like the changes to the rules.

That's because ... I humbly submit ... that many judoka have finally noticed that the IJF has not been doing judo for some time. Something else entirely ... just using the name "judo."

Others might argue that judo is what the IJF says it is ... many disagree.

I am restating the obvious and the oft-repeated ... but then I think it cannot be repeated enough.

BillC wrote:

Dave R. wrote:... Most judoka I have come across in person and on this forum do not like the changes to the rules.

That's because ... I humbly submit ... that many judoka have finally noticed that the IJF has not been doing judo for some time. Something else entirely ... just using the name "judo."

Others might argue that judo is what the IJF says it is ... many disagree.

I am restating the obvious and the oft-repeated ... but then I think it cannot be repeated enough.

I think the new rules have been a step in the right direction that is encouraging more throwing. I don't really understand the comments of why the IJF is not Judo? Having worked with some and been coached by some world class judoka I cannot disagree more?

Billy bongo wrote:I think the new rules have been a step in the right direction that is encouraging more throwing. I don't really understand the comments of why the IJF is not Judo? Having worked with some and been coached by some world class judoka I cannot disagree more?

This is a long and complicated subject, certainly more than one post. Again, repeating myself a bit how one judges this issue depends on ones' point of view about what judo is. The answer used to be quite simple ... "that which was created by Jigoro Kano." One can argue that this is no longer the case, that this basis has been abandoned, sometimes by folks that measure judo success by Olympic medals earned, some by viewership, sponsorship and government support.

For example, the first and most basic questions on every promotion test worldwide used to include questions like "Who founded judo? When and where was it established? From which martial art did the founder derive judo? What are the principles of judo, and what is the goal of judo according to the founder?"

Go to the IJF web site. Try to find the answer to these questions and you will have a difficult time as they have all been relegated to the "history" section, the most important of these questions to a literal "corner" of that section. The values of judo are no longer "front and center" but in their place is a Eurocentric, Olympic set of values ... many of which are not universally shared by judoka. A modern sports business in place of judo.

No? Go again to the IJF web site and find the Japanese language front page ... or even the rules and statutes ... in the common language of judo.

I have to say in big bold letters that I am not critical of the IJF, they are in fact doing their job in the sports entertainment business and doing it better each year. It's just that I am personally not interested in the sports entertainment business, I am interested in judo.

I am also well acquainted with people who have competed successfully in judo internationally including Olympic and world medalists, but even among them I hear the complaint "This is not judo any more, has not been judo for a long time. This is money-driven jacket wrestling and there are better things I can do with my time and talent."

Heard it at the dojo just last night in fact ... so this is not my forum rant, I am merely reporting and responding.

BillC wrote:

Billy bongo wrote:I think the new rules have been a step in the right direction that is encouraging more throwing. I don't really understand the comments of why the IJF is not Judo? Having worked with some and been coached by some world class judoka I cannot disagree more?

This is a long and complicated subject, certainly more than one post. Again, repeating myself a bit how one judges this issue depends on ones' point of view about what judo is. The answer used to be quite simple ... "that which was created by Jigoro Kano." One can argue that this is no longer the case, that this basis has been abandoned, sometimes by folks that measure judo success by Olympic medals earned, some by viewership, sponsorship and government support.

For example, the first and most basic questions on every promotion test worldwide used to include questions like "Who founded judo? When and where was it established? From which martial art did the founder derive judo? What are the principles of judo, and what is the goal of judo according to the founder?"

Go to the IJF web site. Try to find the answer to these questions and you will have a difficult time as they have all been relegated to the "history" section, the most important of these questions to a literal "corner" of that section. The values of judo are no longer "front and center" but in their place is a Eurocentric, Olympic set of values ... many of which are not universally shared by judoka. A modern sports business in place of judo.

No? Go again to the IJF web site and find the Japanese language front page ... or even the rules and statutes ... in the common language of judo.

I have to say in big bold letters that I am not critical of the IJF, they are in fact doing their job in the sports entertainment business and doing it better each year. It's just that I am personally not interested in the sports entertainment business, I am interested in judo.

I am also well acquainted with people who have competed successfully in judo internationally including Olympic and world medalists, but even among them I hear the complaint "This is not judo any more, has not been judo for a long time. This is money-driven jacket wrestling and there are better things I can do with my time and talent."

Heard it at the dojo just last night in fact ... so this is not my forum rant, I am merely reporting and responding.

Do you not think that the IJF are part of the whole family of judo. One of my friends works for the IJF and is someone who helps organise events for beginners, teaches and volunteers, has an interest in judo history and volunteers his time to help the judo family...... Is this not one of the principles of judo? Maybe IJF are just one part of the bigger picture, when I see other sports governing bodies at work, take karate for example, I am glad we have the IJF, at least they have some kind of idea.

BillC wrote:

Billy bongo wrote:I think the new rules have been a step in the right direction that is encouraging more throwing. I don't really understand the comments of why the IJF is not Judo? Having worked with some and been coached by some world class judoka I cannot disagree more?

This is a long and complicated subject, certainly more than one post. Again, repeating myself a bit how one judges this issue depends on ones' point of view about what judo is. The answer used to be quite simple ... "that which was created by Jigoro Kano." One can argue that this is no longer the case, that this basis has been abandoned, sometimes by folks that measure judo success by Olympic medals earned, some by viewership, sponsorship and government support.

For example, the first and most basic questions on every promotion test worldwide used to include questions like "Who founded judo? When and where was it established? From which martial art did the founder derive judo? What are the principles of judo, and what is the goal of judo according to the founder?"

Go to the IJF web site. Try to find the answer to these questions and you will have a difficult time as they have all been relegated to the "history" section, the most important of these questions to a literal "corner" of that section. The values of judo are no longer "front and center" but in their place is a Eurocentric, Olympic set of values ... many of which are not universally shared by judoka. A modern sports business in place of judo.

No? Go again to the IJF web site and find the Japanese language front page ... or even the rules and statutes ... in the common language of judo.

I have to say in big bold letters that I am not critical of the IJF, they are in fact doing their job in the sports entertainment business and doing it better each year. It's just that I am personally not interested in the sports entertainment business, I am interested in judo.

I am also well acquainted with people who have competed successfully in judo internationally including Olympic and world medalists, but even among them I hear the complaint "This is not judo any more, has not been judo for a long time. This is money-driven jacket wrestling and there are better things I can do with my time and talent."

Heard it at the dojo just last night in fact ... so this is not my forum rant, I am merely reporting and responding.

Great post Bill. Agree with every last word.

Billy bongo wrote:
Do you not think that the IJF are part of the whole family of judo. One of my friends works for the IJF and is someone who helps organise events for beginners, teaches and volunteers, has an interest in judo history and volunteers his time to help the judo family...... Is this not one of the principles of judo? Maybe IJF are just one part of the bigger picture, when I see other sports governing bodies at work, take karate for example, I am glad we have the IJF, at least they have some kind of idea.

What is wrong with karate bodies? I mainly see well organised entities, running well organised events and gradings with certainly more adults participating than in judo? I also do not see karate being run as a sport.....

The IJF is just like FIFA and UEFA - a commercial sports management organisation. No more, no less.

Billy bongo wrote:Do you not think that the IJF are part of the whole family of judo. One of my friends works for the IJF and is someone who helps organise events for beginners, teaches and volunteers, has an interest in judo history and volunteers his time to help the judo family...... Is this not one of the principles of judo? Maybe IJF are just one part of the bigger picture, when I see other sports governing bodies at work, take karate for example, I am glad we have the IJF, at least they have some kind of idea.

Part of judo? Certainly.

All of judo? Center of judo? Certainly not.

As for me ... if judo left the Olympics and the IJF ceased to exist I would be temporarily unhappy for the couple of people I know who are kind and knowledgeable and would be unemployed. The rest, well they'll just have to find some other game to siphon money off of, which I am sure most would do in a heartbeat.

Again ... and I don't want to beat this to death ... if one's first and only exposure to judo was explained as some pyramid starting with local competition and reaching the apex with an Olympic gold medal ... then one's view will be formed by that experience.

When I started judo, however, there had been only one Olympics in which judo was included ... Tokyo ... and my first judo was as a sort of stepchild in a tradition of Japanese-American parent to child transmission of custom and attitude. That in turn was given structure and content from a US Marine who had started judo in Japan. The judo taught, and more importantly the reasons judo was taught were quite different.

Once more you seem to be putting me at odds with the IJF, so I must not be writing clearly. I think the IJF is doing their job admirably as the administrator and chief promoter of a sport entertainment business. The IJF clearly is focused on winning, on excitement ... because that is what drives financial support for their business.

But in doing so they seem to have trimmed away so much of the judo "cell" that they have discarded its "nucleus." A cell without its nucleus, loses its heritage. Putting another nucleus in its place hijacks the cell ... a cuckoos egg in the nest.

Edit: With the name "Billy" to go with your bongo, you must be a gentleman ... though there is as of yet nothing on your profile that would clue me in on that
I do want to acknowledge a point you made however. I think you were pointing out that at least judo has a "nucleus" right now, that the "cell" was not dying ... which otherwise it might well be doing. Certainly there were huge moral and ethical issues of a different nature in the previous IJF, and to make matters worse there was an inertia that may have well been fatal. You seem to be saying "well, at least these guys are doing something" and that has to be noted.

I'm really enjoying the discussion on both sides.

I remember watching Judo comps before IJF started modifying the rules against leg grabs and thinking it was too much like wrestling.. the fighters were bent-over, clean forward throwing techniques were rarely used, and it was simply not that interesting too watch.

Do you, Bill C and the others criticizing the IJF rule changes, miss those times?

I have watched all the major competitions this year not to simply see how the new rules have affected the game, but because it's been a lot more interesting. The fighters are taking more risks with forward throws, golden score usage has dropped significantly, and overall I think this is a lot more in the spirit of the original tenets of Judo.

Javalina wrote:I remember watching Judo comps before IJF started modifying the rules against leg grabs and thinking it was too much like wrestling.. the fighters were bent-over, clean forward throwing techniques were rarely used, and it was simply not that interesting too watch.

Do you, Bill C and the others criticizing the IJF rule changes, miss those times?

I have watched all the major competitions this year not to simply see how the new rules have affected the game, but because it's been a lot more interesting. The fighters are taking more risks with forward throws, golden score usage has dropped significantly, and overall I think this is a lot more in the spirit of the original tenets of Judo.

Here again it is a matter of context ... and identity politics which tends to push people into one of only two corners ... and if I may be so bold a matter of not reading carefully. I have not been writing about the recent rule changes, except indirectly.

Your statement presumes that judo sort of started as a competitive sport, with everyone playing against bent over troglodytes from some vague Central Asian location and that the IJF is taking necessary steps to correct that for the purpose of differentiating judo from wrestling. Probably for a lot of people on this forum that is in fact where judo started. Their judo exists because of funding and structure provided for the purpose of growing athletes, some of them ultimately to compete in events associated with the IJF. A farm system, nothing wrong with that and quite a bit of good.

But if judo is about the medals and getting of medals for someone or for the people they cheer for, and that is their only context, if competitive judo is all one knows, then it's difficult to imagine judo in any other way, where competition is only an aspect of judo, part of the method, a test perhaps. An important part to be sure, but only another aspect of practice.

"The original tenets of judo" as you put it, have nothing to do with competitive style, nothing to do with forward throws. Golden score? Didn't exist until a microsecond ago. Bent over? One doesn't bend over because it is a poor fighting posture, because it is unwise to fight ... and I mean fight ... in a position where one begs for a knee to the face.

I don't "miss those times" because they are indistinguishable really from what I see now. The IJF didn't just start modifying rules, it's been going on for decades. Rule upon rule upon rule does not judo make.

OK, let's talk about rules.

In judo, competition rules are primarily about keeping people safe, especially children. I think the judo historians on this forum would support that summary generally, if not in minute detail.

But gradually as competitive interest grew, other rules started showing up. Some admittedly were about the style of play and differentiation, but if you look though the refereeing rules of judo most are about uniform competition and determining the "winner" of a specific type of tournament. Short way of saying "there must a be a 'fair' winner at the end of every tournament." Now that has become the alpha and omega of judo for many people ... but to others it is not.

So the recent rule changes are only the last straw. For some, who invested time and energy in a style of competition that was dependent on things that are now penalized, it is matter of them not being able to win with the techniques they trained their entire lives. I think the is the type of player you are thinking of when you lump everyone into the "criticizing the IJF rule changes" category. I happen to fall into that category because I find it ridiculous to lose because I used a technique that I not only learned from the first day on the mat, but also techniques which fall squarely into the "maximum efficiency" category. Can't flip a flopper? Dumb. Can't use my hand to float over a throw? Ridiculous. Can't use a two on one grip break to pry loose some monster that wants to crush me? Ridiculous and dangerous. And the monku list goes on.

But more than these issues of style, please do recognize that there are others who finally realized that in its emphasis judo has been creeping away from its values all around the world for decades, in some cases since before they were born.

Note: When I seem to be in agreement with Jonesy and Gerry Lafon ... we are through the looking glass

Javalina wrote:I remember watching Judo comps before IJF started modifying the rules against leg grabs and thinking it was too much like wrestling.. the fighters were bent-over, clean forward throwing techniques were rarely used, and it was simply not that interesting too watch.

Do you, Bill C and the others criticizing the IJF rule changes, miss those times?

I have watched all the major competitions this year not to simply see how the new rules have affected the game, but because it's been a lot more interesting. The fighters are taking more risks with forward throws, golden score usage has dropped significantly, and overall I think this is a lot more in the spirit of the original tenets of Judo.

The contest style you talk about was a direct result of other rule changes that the IJF made. You should look at the contests from the 1981 World Judo Championships held in Maastricht, Netherlands in 1981. That was arguably the finest Worlds, ever.

BillC wrote:

Javalina wrote:I remember watching Judo comps before IJF started modifying the rules against leg grabs and thinking it was too much like wrestling.. the fighters were bent-over, clean forward throwing techniques were rarely used, and it was simply not that interesting too watch.

Do you, Bill C and the others criticizing the IJF rule changes, miss those times?

I have watched all the major competitions this year not to simply see how the new rules have affected the game, but because it's been a lot more interesting. The fighters are taking more risks with forward throws, golden score usage has dropped significantly, and overall I think this is a lot more in the spirit of the original tenets of Judo.

....So the recent rule changes are only the last straw. For some, who invested time and energy in a style of competition that was dependent on things that are now penalized, it is matter of them not being able to win with the techniques they trained their entire lives. I think the is the type of player you are thinking of when you lump everyone into the "criticizing the IJF rule changes" category. I happen to fall into that category because I find it ridiculous to lose because I used a technique that I not only learned from the first day on the mat, but also techniques which fall squarely into the "maximum efficiency" category. Can't flip a flopper? Dumb. Can't use my hand to float over a throw? Ridiculous. Can't use a two on one grip break to pry loose some monster that wants to crush me? Ridiculous and dangerous. And the monku list goes on.

But more than these issues of style, please do recognize that there are others who finally realized that in its emphasis judo has been creeping away from its values all around the world for decades, in some cases since before they were born.

Note: When I seem to be in agreement with Jonesy and Gerry Lafon ... we are through the looking glass

I agree with Jonesy that Maastricht 1981 were a wonderful Championships. Why wouldn't I as that years marks 7 years of judo practice for me and as we all know everything was better then

The point I want to make is that if you look at Maastrich then I do not see bent stances in low weights. I do not see the style of play saying that only thing one does is leg grabs. If I remeber right then there was very few leg grabs then? If I remeber right there were lots of big throw attempts. For some reason my heart does not care about players who thought that by skirting the edge of the rules and creating a style where you are
- bent over
- attempt a leg grab every time the other player is about to get a throw
If they wanted to do something different and get ahead not by Judo but by creating a modified style of play, then they should not complain.

as stated often before the key question with modern Judo as well as modern Olympic wrestling is how to get some action to the matches. All national coaches of players that would loose doing old fashioned randori are seeking ways to attack with 'low percentage counter' technique so that if challenged they can do that attack to get mate. Examples of those are seoi-nage to the knees, tomoe-nage, bent style morote-gari etc.

I am first to admit thet there should be ways to separate this passive play from real attacks, but what are they?

finarashi wrote:I am first to admit thet there should be ways to separate this passive play from real attacks, but what are they?

The current rules and their interpretation would have a referee or someone sitting in front of a camera making such quality of play judgments. I joke about ice dancing, but the comparison is increasingly valid.

Another idea ... an old idea ... is to penalize non-ippon wins and advance by prejudice ippon winners. Ippon defined by the amount of dust that flies from under the tatami. In such scoring one could win every match by the lowest level of decision, yet lose the tournament.

It's probably not a coincidence the wrestlers are considering similar schemes.

So the answer to your question could be ... don't separate them ... just let the players suffer the consequence.

The recent rule changes crept in that direction by eliminating wins which result from a very few penalty points from the other side. If course, they also added ridiculous "death sentence" penalties too.

Whilst watching Paris grand slam this year, one thing that was evident to me was the referee's on a whole were becoming redundant. They are just becoming starters and stoppers of contest action. oK obvious scores the referees were awarding but anything contentious was directed by the care system.

On other points I maybe got my message over poorly. What I was trying to say was, judokas involved in elite performance are not all poor in what a lot of people would class as original judo and its meaning, ethics etc. the IJF as I understand have a very political agenda, but they do in my opinion do a good job on the whole, this is being reflected in the upgrade in the status of the sport by the IOC.
Donations to poorer countries, donations of tatami ang judo gi, judo for children scheme, development projects, getting judo on the curriculum in schools in Croatia etc etc. are all good examples of the work they are doing.

I would like to see less of "judo is not judo anymore" type comments as I think judo is what you feel it is for yourself, wether that be kata, contest judo, recreational judo, old judo, modern judo.

One style of judo I would like everyone to strive for is "ippon judo". I saw a Japanese official once give a lecture to a group of children just before they were to competing and it must of lasted for nearly an hour. The judo on display was amazing, the spirit of judo was truly alive and well!

Jonesy wrote:
The contest style you talk about was a direct result of other rule changes that the IJF made. You should look at the contests from the 1981 World Judo Championships held in Maastricht, Netherlands in 1981. That was arguably the finest Worlds, ever.

Maastricht 1981 indeed was truly a great World Championship ! Paris 1979 and Vienna 1975 weren't bad either !

The most attractive judo today is arguably displayed by Japanese school kids fighting according to Kôdôkan rules. The Referee Committee of one of the federations I am a member of is currently debating definitively abandoning IJF rules and implementing Kôdôkan rules instead to save what is still savable in terms of jûdô.

If the federation you make reference to does adopt Kodokan rules and abandons the IJF rule system I would applaud them. The problem is, how many other federations would follow suit?

Udon wrote:If the federation you make reference to does adopt Kodokan rules and abandons the IJF rule system I would applaud them. The problem is, how many other federations would follow suit?

The main difficulty for IJF federations obviously is that they want to prepare their top competitors as well as possible for medals in IJF competitions. In that view it is difficult for them to defend primarily using a different set of rules during domestic contests as one might argue it could create confusio during critical moments. The same could be said for referees active on the international scene.

The World Judo Federation, currently is also using a system which they call 'Traditional Kôdôkan Rules' although they really aren't, since they still contain mostly IJF rules including the new tatami lay-out. What I was referring to are really the Kôdôkan rules as used in Japan, that completely ditch all the IJF disco stuff including the blue gi, yellow/blue tatami, dynamic border tatami, encho-sen (golden score), etc.

[quote="BillC"]

finarashi wrote:
Another idea ... an old idea ... is to penalize non-ippon wins and advance by prejudice ippon winners. Ippon defined by the amount of dust that flies from under the tatami.

I have been involved with Judo for a relatively short amount of time but I agree. That being said I feel if the standard was raised for rewarding a score there would have been no need to change rules for grabbing the legs. Why would a competitor care about ippon if (years ago) they could do morote gari or kuchiki taoshi for a koka and then essentially stall/fake engagement for the rest of the contest? I know a lot of people, especially competitors, would challenge me on that notion.

Dave R. wrote:

BillC wrote:
Another idea ... an old idea ... is to penalize non-ippon wins and advance by prejudice ippon winners. Ippon defined by the amount of dust that flies from under the tatami.

I have been involved with Judo for a relatively short amount of time but I agree. That being said I feel if the standard was raised for rewarding a score there would have been no need to change rules for grabbing the legs. Why would a competitor care about ippon if (years ago) they could do morote gari or kuchiki taoshi for a koka and then essentially stall/fake engagement for the rest of the contest? I know a lot of people, especially competitors, would challenge me on that notion.

One reason is because not so many years ago there was no koka, no yuko, and no soft ippon. Also in many locations and under many tournament rules if one didn't score, if one won by decision one took the risk of not advancing over someone who did (look up "black point" tournaments).

Second reason ... I recall that referees were reluctant to award points for leg grabbing techniques at all, or sutemiwaza, or even many ashiwaza much less an ippon score. Although techniques certainly can be applied to gain ippongachi they often did not meet the criteria of "force" required for a full point. It's just not the usual and obvious result, usually the tewaza you decribe result in bulldozing to the mat.

Third and best reason ... this point is arguable as to how widespread this was at any particular time or venue ... in addition to stalling penalties, among the best players there would be overt shame if one stopped trying early in a match. To those players the word "tactics" had negative connotations ... there was a cultural inhibition to the stalling behavior you describe.

Note: None of these things were perfect arrangements for competition, so I am not posting one of those "good old days" laments. The black point system for example was more difficult to use than double elimination, as noted previously in an international event there must be an undisputed winner and a perception of "fairness." Similarly, the koka/yuko system solved the problem of yuseigachi by making posting consideration points on the scoreboard.

Javalina wrote:I remember watching Judo comps before IJF started modifying the rules against leg grabs and thinking it was too much like wrestling.. the fighters were bent-over, clean forward throwing techniques were rarely used, and it was simply not that interesting too watch.

I honestly don't get where people got this impression from. Playing bent over judo is stupid and doesn't do anything for you by the old rules or the new. It might help you stall for time, but that's illegal in itself.

'Clean' techniques weren't seen because combat isn't clean and judo shiai is a kind of combat. Wrestling like techniques were used because judo shiai is a kind of wrestling. If you're living in a world of Platonic forms that's fine but don't get mad at reality for being different.

Billy bongo wrote:

I would like to see less of "judo is not judo anymore" type comments as I think judo is what you feel it is for yourself, wether that be kata, contest judo, recreational judo, old judo, modern judo.

My sensei in the 80s would typically refer to judo as judo but occasionally he would pipe up and let the class know that what we were doing wasn't 'judo', but was 'sport judo'. He would refer to real judo as Japanese.

It wasn't when we were teching or drilling either. It would most often be during bow out. He was serious.