Rodolfo Vieira: Judo Analysis

You will find very interesting this analysis on the throws used by Rodolfo in his BJJ game.

Abraço

DarthVader wrote:

You will find very interesting this analysis on the throws used by Rodolfo in his BJJ game.

Abraço

I found this fascinating and worrying for a couple of reasons outside the analysis given on video: (1) I'm excited that this has come to the attention of bjj practioners as it will raise judo's profile, but at the same time (2) I'm worried that that, at least in NA, that bjj is going to continue to usurp Judo with this type of 'fun' analysis and perhaps continue to move worldwide. Through 'post framing' that is done in this video --- Rodolfo has become the 'expert' in the minds of the younger generation of grapplers whilst the true experts (both past and present) in these throws go unknown. (3) Judo has a long and very distinguished scholarly tradition, but that information seems to inaccessible to the masses. I'm not sure why judo texts, which are no longer in print, aren't freely available on the internet. I can find all known treaties of Plato (circa 500 BC), but not for Judo----- which is barely a century young. Scanners with OCR (optical character recognition) are available and not that expensive. 4) But more importantly the lack of availability of digital media for Judo, philosophy, strategy, analysis, and techniques --- is hurting judo. Yes there is digital media on Judo, but the availability is significantly less than bjj. (Although I have seen some signs that this is improving vis-a-vie Patrick Bigot, Koji Komuro, Matt Daquino, Steve Scott etc)

This "plane" concept is common knowledge among informed judoka coaches/sensei. I hammer it into my students both conceptually and practically in class.

Rodolfo uses good Judo well in context of BJJ matches against generally overmatched opponents (in terms of their "standup" fighting), thus is successful.

Judo offers BJJ the same learning opportunities standing as BJJ offers Judo on the ground.

Ben Reinhardt wrote:This "plane" concept is common knowledge among informed judoka coaches/sensei. I hammer it into my students both conceptually and practically in class.

Rodolfo uses good Judo well in context of BJJ matches against generally overmatched opponents (in terms of their "standup" fighting), thus is successful.

Judo offers BJJ the same learning opportunities standing as BJJ offers Judo on the ground.

I too would support that the concepts can be very useful as part of teaching.

I am curious though about your opinion in terms of the accuracy of what is said in the video. I think a message is brought across, and I think that the visual aspects as shown will help lay people understand it, but ... the application of some terminology and concepts is scientifically not correct. For example, "strong planes" and "weak planes" ?  I am sure one could compare Boeing vs. Airbus, but all kidding aside, a plane is a plane, and the frontal or saggital plane themselves have no power characteristics. The explanation confuses concepts such as equilibrium. Archimedes around 240 BC already dealt with the equilibrium of planes. A scientifically correct explanation no doubt would be more complicated and therefore somewhat harder to understand by laypeople, but I am not sure that simplification is justified if it infuses concepts with too much error. In judo more correctly what we have is a solid body of variable geometry and cylindrical symmetry, which can assume different postures, normally situated in unstable equilibrium into the gravitational field, over a plane surface while exerting friction, and having the ability to produced well-defined segmental rotations of joints.

Other errors in the video include the suggestions that a human would be stable. This is incorrect. A person is in unstable equilibrium. A plank on the ground is in stable equilibrium, a person on his feet never is. This equilibrium can be static or dynamic and humans continuously adapt their body situation to deal with it. It is not a matter of there being some kind of "strong plane" and "weak plane". But, humans are more capable in correcting a disturbance of that equilibrium depending on the direction in which it was disturbed". If you push against someone's chest or back, the person can relatively well recover. But if you push against someone's shoulder from the side, that ability to recover is impaired. In other words, humans are better able to recover from a loss of balance straight to the front or to the back than sideways. This has consequences for the judoka, which is of course what one is trying to explain in the video. Going even further than that, humans are in consequence better able to recover from linear loss of balance than from circular. Practically, this is precisely what aikidô has discovered and what is also very clearly visible in highly technical judo such as Mifune's and very pure kuzushi throws which Mifune often uses (uki-otoshi, sumi-otoshi). Far less known to the common judo public is that Hirano Tokio used these differences (from a pedagogical point of view rather than from a scientific point of view) extensively in his judo and actually even created a kata just on this aspect. In Kodokan judo, Kanô as with most of what he did imported the issue from Tenjin Shin'yô-ryû and later adapted it based on his limited understanding of biomechanics (unfortunately, Kanô was no Bernouilli, so Kanô did this with only limited success and limited accuracy).

It's a tricky thing. I don't want to be accused of being negative and just out to criticize everything or end up in the traditional "can you do it better" kind of debate, but the question that plays in my mind is ... when one has the talent, ambition, skill, money and time to make videos why not seek the assistance of a biomechanics expert in judo who can ensure the scientific accuracy. Otherwise, we risk having more errors slip into judo or novice judoka not knowing judo approaches/terminology but talk in BJJ terminology which from a judo-curricular point of view makes little or no sense.

Anyhow I was not sure how you felt about it. Me, it leaves with mixed feelings, from one side embracing the effort and its innovative approach, from the other side regretting certain things.

wow. Well done video.

[/quote]from the other side regretting certain things.[/quote]

It isn't too late, is it?

afulldeck wrote:

DarthVader wrote:

You will find very interesting this analysis on the throws used by Rodolfo in his BJJ game.

Abraço

(2) I'm worried that that, at least in NA, that bjj is going to continue to usurp Judo with this type of 'fun' analysis and perhaps continue to move worldwide.

Need not worry afull, it's pretty well a done deal.

Tho, with your experience, you could start a modern judo club looking for the bling ($$) and possibly help prevent it.

You could always also give most of your profit to charity or even charge just enuff to keep it running, if you like, but you could help make judo big here. There has never been opportunity like there is now.

Cichorei Kano wrote:

Ben Reinhardt wrote:This "plane" concept is common knowledge among informed judoka coaches/sensei. I hammer it into my students both conceptually and practically in class.

Rodolfo uses good Judo well in context of BJJ matches against generally overmatched opponents (in terms of their "standup" fighting), thus is successful.

Judo offers BJJ the same learning opportunities standing as BJJ offers Judo on the ground.

I too would support that the concepts can be very useful as part of teaching.

I am curious though about your opinion in terms of the accuracy of what is said in the video. I think a message is brought across, and I think that the visual aspects as shown will help lay people understand it, but ... the application of some terminology and concepts is scientifically not correct. For example, "strong planes" and "weak planes" ?  I am sure one could compare Boeing vs. Airbus, but all kidding aside, a plane is a plane, and the frontal or saggital plane themselves have no power characteristics. The explanation confuses concepts such as equilibrium. Archimedes around 240 BC already dealt with the equilibrium of planes. A scientifically correct explanation no doubt would be more complicated and therefore somewhat harder to understand by laypeople, but I am not sure that simplification is justified if it infuses concepts with too much error. In judo more correctly what we have is a solid body of variable geometry and cylindrical symmetry, which can assume different postures, normally situated in unstable equilibrium into the gravitational field, over a plane surface while exerting friction, and having the ability to produced well-defined segmental rotations of joints.

Other errors in the video include the suggestions that a human would be stable. This is incorrect. A person is in unstable equilibrium. A plank on the ground is in stable equilibrium, a person on his feet never is. This equilibrium can be static or dynamic and humans continuously adapt their body situation to deal with it. It is not a matter of there being some kind of "strong plane" and "weak plane". But, humans are more capable in correcting a disturbance of that equilibrium depending on the direction in which it was disturbed". If you push against someone's chest or back, the person can relatively well recover. But if you push against someone's shoulder from the side, that ability to recover is impaired. In other words, humans are better able to recover from a loss of balance straight to the front or to the back than sideways. This has consequences for the judoka, which is of course what one is trying to explain in the video. Going even further than that, humans are in consequence better able to recover from linear loss of balance than from circular. Practically, this is precisely what aikidô has discovered and what is also very clearly visible in highly technical judo such as Mifune's and very pure kuzushi throws which Mifune often uses (uki-otoshi, sumi-otoshi). Far less known to the common judo public is that Hirano Tokio used these differences (from a pedagogical point of view rather than from a scientific point of view) extensively in his judo and actually even created a kata just on this aspect. In Kodokan judo, Kanô as with most of what he did imported the issue from Tenjin Shin'yô-ryû and later adapted it based on his limited understanding of biomechanics (unfortunately, Kanô was no Bernouilli, so Kanô did this with only limited success and limited accuracy).

It's a tricky thing. I don't want to be accused of being negative and just out to criticize everything or end up in the traditional "can you do it better" kind of debate, but the question that plays in my mind is ... when one has the talent, ambition, skill, money and time to make videos why not seek the assistance of a biomechanics expert in judo who can ensure the scientific accuracy. Otherwise, we risk having more errors slip into judo or novice judoka not knowing judo approaches/terminology but talk in BJJ terminology which from a judo-curricular point of view makes little or no sense.

Anyhow I was not sure how you felt about it. Me, it leaves with mixed feelings, from one side embracing the effort and its innovative approach, from the other side regretting certain things.

Just a quick reply for now:

I agree, the use of the term "planes of weaknes" is not accurate. I use the term "direction of weakness", as in a vector. That vector is roughly perpendicular to the planes they illustrated but as you suggest/say, that would change depending on a lot of factors in the context of the individual circumstances.

I also teach that humans are inherently unstable as well as the importance of circular movement to create opportunities. Of course, circular movement is harder, but on the other hand, is it harder to do or is it not taught so much, but left more to self discovery? To me it seems a combination of both...

Cichorei Kano wrote:
It's a tricky thing. I don't want to be accused of being negative and just out to criticize everything or end up in the traditional "can you do it better" kind of debate, but the question that plays in my mind is ... when one has the talent, ambition, skill, money and time to make videos why not seek the assistance of a biomechanics expert in judo who can ensure the scientific accuracy. Otherwise, we risk having more errors slip into judo or novice judoka not knowing judo approaches/terminology but talk in BJJ terminology which from a judo-curricular point of view makes little or no sense.

Interesting comment. The little aristotelian in my head, suggests that I take a more generous view of the video. That even though the language may not be correct, precise or robust, it does get a certain population moving towards a better direction than not having a direction at all. I believe, hand on heart, that the education process for the most part and for the most people is an iterative one. That with progressively good education you can move bad to good to great. And its only the minority of 'exceptional people' that can be educated completely with precise knowledge from the start. We shoot ourselves in the pedagogical foot thinking that it is otherwise .

Cichorei Kano wrote:
Anyhow I was not sure how you felt about it. Me, it leaves with mixed feelings, from one side embracing the effort and its innovative approach, from the other side regretting certain things.

I like the innovative approach, its something badly lacking in Judo as far as I can tell. My regret is simply this.... there is no counter Judo explanation (be it philosophy, strategy or approach) on the youtube table to compare this video too. Its the counter arguments that help people learn.

afulldeck wrote:

Cichorei Kano wrote:
It's a tricky thing. I don't want to be accused of being negative and just out to criticize everything or end up in the traditional "can you do it better" kind of debate, but the question that plays in my mind is ... when one has the talent, ambition, skill, money and time to make videos why not seek the assistance of a biomechanics expert in judo who can ensure the scientific accuracy. Otherwise, we risk having more errors slip into judo or novice judoka not knowing judo approaches/terminology but talk in BJJ terminology which from a judo-curricular point of view makes little or no sense.

Interesting comment. The little aristotelian in my head, suggests that I take a more generous view of the video. That even though the language may not be correct, precise or robust, it does get a certain population moving towards a better direction than not having a direction at all. I believe, hand on heart, that the education process for the most part and most people is iterative one. That with progressively good education you can move bad to good to great. And its only the minority of 'exceptional people' that can be educated completely with precise knowledge from the start. We shoot ourselves in the pedagogical foot thinking that it is otherwise .

Cichorei Kano wrote:
Anyhow I was not sure how you felt about it. Me, it leaves with mixed feelings, from one side embracing the effort and its innovative approach, from the other side regretting certain things.

I like the innovative approach, its something badly lacking in Judo as far as I can tell. My regret is simply this.... there is no counter Judo explanation (be it philosophy, strategy or approach) on the youtube table to compare this video too. Its the counter arguments that help people learn.

In old Judoforum I think that RealJudo (from Russia) tried this but he was banned, appropriately, for his many insults.

Q mystic wrote:
In old Judoforum I think that RealJudo (from Russia) tried this but he was banned, appropriately, for his many insults.

I've never seen or read anything from RealJudo, so excuse my possibly rhetorical question. Are you saying that in addition to bringing judo philosophies, strategies to the table he also brought insults?

Sorry to hear that.....Education doesn't have to come with insults as far as I am concerned.

afulldeck wrote:

Q mystic wrote:
In old Judoforum I think that RealJudo (from Russia) tried this but he was banned, appropriately, for his many insults.

I've never seen or read anything from RealJudo, so excuse my possibly rhetorical question. Are you saying that in addition to bringing judo philosophies, strategies to the table he also brought insults?

Sorry to hear that.....Education doesn't have to come with insults as far as I am concerned.

Please, let's avoid mentioning anyone who is not here to avoid a conflict with forum policies where people named are essentially provoked to enter a debate. At issue is not any potential problem of bringing judo philosophies to the table, but the viewpoint that Kodokan judo is an entire invented lie by itself. It's an extreme position at the other opposite of Kanô at age 22 as a pure genius having all by himself invented the magic art of judo. The reality is in the middle, but satisfying the challenge requires a lot of work that far exceeds the purpose of limits of this of this forum. I have said many times before that a major problem is that the popular view we hold are filtered mainly because there are no critical biographies of Kano. The Japanese approach has been and is what we would call "semi-religious", the way we write about Saints. They are free of all the limits and evil thoughts that normal people have, such as getting irritated, feeling horny, wanting to kick someone in the groin, etc.

Education does not HAVE to come with insults, but those doing the education are people with feelings, and good and bad days, and are subject to the good and bad days of others as well. Additionally, depending on personality we use different educational tools. We may get more subject to those feelings when one tests established hypothesis or gets in conflict with views or policies held and distributed by federations or those earning an income through a certain established view of something. A critical inquiry of judo does not have the purpose of trashing Kanô's memory or provoking all of us who have chosen to devote our life to the discipline he created. Instead, critical inquiry is meant precisely to understand his message better and decanting it of all the noise and mist. I seem to recall that NBK ones wrote a very good post about Kanô on some of these things but I can't remember for sure. As you can imagine, a proper and critical biography of Kanô is difficulty work because you need access to difficult to find sources, and many of those sources are held in a foreign country or by organizations that thrive on a glorification of Kanô and judo. It's a little bit like ringing the doorbell of a Catholic bishop asking him to see all his files and share with he what he knows so you can write a scientific inquiry about sexual abuse in the church. In a scholarly culture this is approach is accepted. No one is going to give you a dirty look if you go to Salzburg and want to study some manuscript of Mozart to see if any work he wrote might in fact be inspired by a different composer. This could be a proper and valuable objective. However, not so in the Kôdôkan, which is the only organization that holds Kanô in higher esteem than Mozart. To the outside world, Kanô does not really have that much significance. Even as an educator, he is not exactly ranked up there among the greats. When you put the time into approaching the educational views of Kanô you will see major flaws. If Kanô would not have had his aristrocratic friends and his poltical position it's doubtful history would ever have devoted so much attention to him and nor would society likely have given him so much leeway to try and implement judo something in Japanese schools as the new physical education. To underpin those views you need to know the texts and writings and historic details of precisely what happened when. Most people do not, thus what happens is that one engages in extremes, which sometimes is name calling the kind of "Kanô was a master of Tenjin Shin'yô ryû with great fighting skills" vs. "Kanô sucked and judoka can only do kata dances which are completely useful". So, there you have too statements of opposite extremes without any historic or scholarly foundation provided to underpin that. Much of this exists in the martial arts, and much of this sticks because like the military, Japanese martial arts are strongly hierarchical with the guy with the most stripes making the law. In Kanô's view education was the most important and intellectual development more important than fighting or even physical development. Just try to sell this ! In time it was dan-rank hierarchy that somehow clearly became the thing people get obsessed by in judo, more than by Olympic medals (presumably because most people realize well enough they will never win an Olympic medal) and far more than intellectual development through judo. Today, the situation has evolved to such extremes that intellectual development in judo is seen as a threat to dan-rank authority since dan-rank authority has been stripped of most of the other developments one was to achieve through judo: physical development ? Hardly, high dan-ranks most of the time are old and slowly dying. Intellectual development ? Hardly, most high dan-ranks apart from their wide experience never read or studied Kanô either and would not be able to answer most serious historic or philosophic questions about judo. Spiritual development ? Well, people are people and high-dan ranks are probably more involved in judo politics and everything that comes with it than a low kyû rank. This is not 'reprehensible', it is simply realism of an only partly understood judo in a modern 21st century. That's really the background against which the issues you raise have developed.

Thanks for sharing... Simple (to the point), effective, and useful...

Hi fulldeck,
You raise interesting questions. Are you on sherdog? I saw it first there and was very interested by the reactions it received from bjj folks. I pointed to someone over there about better analysis of throws out there by folks like sacripanti etc who have done thorough analysis of center of gravitys, equilibriums,  biomechanics etc and put their stuff largely in the semi public domain. However I don't think it received any bites.
My opinion is that it is not the quality or availability of analysis that is lacking in the judo domain. It is the presentation factor which is missing. The sexy music, the cool graphics, how many respected sensei would be willing to go down that route. I don't think many would and I have no problem with that. After all we have seen the grotesque imagery from the dj'fication of recent tournaments. Sexified teaching material might just be the last straw lol.

nomoremondays wrote:Hi fulldeck,
You raise interesting questions. Are you on sherdog? I saw it first there and was very interested by the reactions it received from bjj folks. I pointed to someone over there about better analysis of throws out there by folks like sacripanti etc who have done thorough analysis of center of gravitys, equilibriums,  biomechanics etc and put their stuff largely in the semi public domain. However I don't think it received any bites.
My opinion is that it is not the quality or availability of analysis that is lacking in the judo domain. It is the presentation factor which is missing. The sexy music, the cool graphics, how many respected sensei would be willing to go down that route. I don't think many would and I have no problem with that. After all we have seen the grotesque imagery from the dj'fication of recent tournaments. Sexified teaching material might just be the last straw lol.

I have been over in Sherdog, but not lately. I'll go take a look at the thread.

I would agree with you on your point about the presentation factor (I called it marketing) with respects to nagewaza. I would, however, say we are missing analysis (at least publicly available) in the newaza space. Although I am seeing more of it over time.

I did comment the video on youtube page and quickly "chatted" with the guy who made it.
As CK wrote, some interesting concepts but also many things that could be improved/need improvement.
Pretty nice work anyway, everyone gotta start from somewhere.

Cichorei Kano wrote:
I have said many times before that a major problem is that the popular view we hold are filtered mainly because there are no critical biographies of Kano. The Japanese approach has been and is what we would call "semi-religious", the way we write about Saints. They are free of all the limits and evil thoughts that normal people have, such as getting irritated, feeling horny, wanting to kick someone in the groin, etc.

CK, I've been reflecting about your comment above. And while I don't disagree with your facts, or its sediments, I'm wondering if its beside the point of this thread. Let me explain why.

I'm sure that many Judoka would argue that Kano = judo, and that understanding Kano in both positive and negative light would lead to the better understanding of judo. But isn't that type of thinking more than a little misleading? I contend that studying the positive and negative facts around Kano will lead to a understanding of what 'we think' Kano wanted Judo to be and not it was, or has become. These three ideas (1) what Kano thought, (2) what 'we think' Kano thought, and (3) what Judo has become are very different. Conflating these ideas doesn't help us become better judoka.

What Kano thought (1 above)...we will never know. Its just impossible to bring back the dead. His philosophy are now in the realm of history. We might be able to glean the lineaments of his philosophy (2 above) by studying his limited writings, however as you have suggested this is inadequate. They are pre-framed towards Sainthood. But isn't the real crux of the situation the idea that Judo (3 above) has had a hundred years of percolation through many Judoka --some who were fickle, some unmutable, some great and some small --- leaving us with Judo of today. And what ever this judo is, it couldn't possibly be the same as 'the' Kano judo.

So why wouldn't we put aside the history and start with our what is on the judo mats of today and use as you suggested a bio-mechanics expert? What am I missing?

afulldeck wrote:

Cichorei Kano wrote:
I have said many times before that a major problem is that the popular view we hold are filtered mainly because there are no critical biographies of Kano. The Japanese approach has been and is what we would call "semi-religious", the way we write about Saints. They are free of all the limits and evil thoughts that normal people have, such as getting irritated, feeling horny, wanting to kick someone in the groin, etc.

CK, I've been reflecting about your comment above. And while I don't disagree with your facts, or its sediments, I'm wondering if its beside the point of this thread. Let me explain why.

I'm sure that many Judoka would argue that Kano = judo, and that understanding Kano in both positive and negative light would lead to the better understanding of judo. But isn't that type of thinking more than a little misleading? I contend that studying the positive and negative facts around Kano will lead to a understanding of what 'we think' Kano wanted Judo to be and not it was,  or has become. These three ideas (1) what Kano thought, (2) what 'we think' Kano thought, and (3) what Judo has become are very different. Conflating these ideas doesn't help us become better judoka.  

What Kano thought (1 above)...we will never know. Its just impossible to bring back the dead. His philosophy are now in the realm of history. We might be able to glean the lineaments of his philosophy (2 above) by studying his limited writings, however as you have suggested this is inadequate. They are pre-framed towards Sainthood.  But isn't the real crux of the situation the idea that Judo (3 above) has had a hundred years of percolation through many Judoka --some who were fickle, some unmutable, some great and some small --- leaving us with Judo of today. And what ever this judo is, it couldn't possibly be the same as 'the' Kano judo.

So why wouldn't we put aside the history and start with our what is on the judo mats of today and use as you suggested a bio-mechanics expert? What am I missing?  

I am a little bit confused by your line of thinking. You write: "What Kano thought (1 above)...we will never know."  

How so ?  Do you mean 'we' will never know, or 'I' will never know. The two are not the same. I have read the about 22,000 pages of Kokushi and Yûkô-no-katsudô, etc, and in the original language. Does that mean I do not know what Kanô thought ?  That depends. We are limiting the are of his thinking here to jûdô and related, although much of what is in Kokushi exceeds jûdô or anything martial arts-related unless one understands jûdô in the broad sense of Kanô's later thinking where jûdô was to encompass budô. If your argument is ... or you are implying that I do not know what Kanô thought because I never knew the man, then this applies to most of our knowledge humans have, which has been brought to them by reading, by the writings of those people, by the music people composes, by the tools they created, and the last half century through television and more modern versions such as the Internet. In fact, of all the people you communicate with here, you are only do so through writing. In other words if have a problem with communication in a sense that you are only willing to accept that one 'knows' what one is thinking if one actually talks to a person, then there is not even any sense in me writing here or your post or this forum since what we write and what we think may have little or no relevance for each other. There is a theoretical second interpretation to this, i.e. on a meta-level, namely one's skill and lack of skill of putting one's own thoughts into writings, drawings, paintings, or music. If you are serious about that being a problem, then good luck with your life, because that then implies that we do not know which music Beethoven composed because we only have his scores and no way to measure as to how accurate the score reflects what was in his mind, we then do not know what Picasso or Renoir wanted to paint because we only have their paintings which were limited by their technical skills to put on canvas what was in their mind, you can best throw away most books you own because we have no idea as how accurate those writings reflects what the writer wanted to write; in fact, this is then the end of communication since we can no longer be sure what one means simply by the limit of our skills to communicate and that skill being different between people. In fact, if that truly is your problem then really you are the only person who knows what you are thinking and the same applies to everyone. Crazy ?  No, not at all, because this is precisely what is being argued in the philosophy of solipsism. This is a quite complicated ares from an ontological and metaphysical point of view, and I am therefore referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

If the above is your view, then there is little hope for anyone. I talked about some issues regarding Kanô with Fukuda Keiko. She used to know him, though she was only a 25-year old girl when he died. However, for the solipsist that is all of very little meaning anyhow. In the solipsist view, Fukuda could then not know what Kanô thought because she was not him. And even though communication between them included two ways which we do not have (verbal and through demonstration), the same problem exists, namely the skill of the actor to accurately express his thoughts through verbal and demonstrative communication. On the side of the receiver the problem exists of abilities to accurately grasp the lesson. We know that ability was flawed too as Fukuda writes about this in Born for the mat. Fukuda, for example, at one point describes how Kanô gave the young women a task. The project that was given to Fukuda was about the meaning and sense of jûjutsu. This is very interesting as we are thus talking about the years 1935-1938 and Fukuda writes that she had no idea what jûjutsu was. Mind that nevertheless it was her own grandfather who had been Kanô's first jûjutsu teacher. Does make you wonder, but in reality it isn't strange at all since Fukuda never knew her granddad, who had died ... more than 3 decades before she was even born !  What I am trying to say, is that, yes, you can take the extreme position of a solipsist, but that is hardly convincing. Solipsism is not free from serious criticism. Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer all have quite different views on one's ability to know ...

I believe that the fact that someone is dead does not at all prevent you from better learning to know him/her. I started as a 2nd kyû under my third sensei who was a first-generation student of Hirano-sensei. He obviously had many criticisms on my jûdô-technique, which I often found frustrating, and because I couldn't do any better due to the motor skill limitations imposed by puberty, and because sometimes I did not understand what he meant. Well, I understood what he said, but I did not have the intrinsic jûdô skills at that time that they would allow me to do what I verbally understood should be done. Later when I moved away due to study, or when my teacher had taught me all the jûdô he could teach me, I still learnt from him even though I might have been at the other side of the world. Sometimes suddenly a concept transpired many years later, and I then understood and could do it. This was no doubt similar to Fukuda sensei. As a someone with only 3 years of jûdô experience in a recently started Kôdôkan Joshi-bu, her jûdô skills were very limited when Kanô was still alive, too limited to understand and do what his objectives were and the same applies to some of his philosophies. However, like myself with my teacher, she kept learning from Kanô and better understanding what he meant long after he was gone. There somewhere was even a reference in news article where she addressed some of this at the occasions of her USJI 10th dan celebration, indication that ... now she understood what Kanô meant. At that point, Kanô had been gone for 73 years and neither had he written anything new during that time. Luckily we humans with all our limitations and quirks and the limited time we are allowed to spend on this earth, we do have a few limited things that transcend these limitations. One of them is love. Love transcends life and death. Any widow or widower will tell you and those amongst you who have lost a parent or sibling will know so too. The other is knowledge. Knowledge can transcend life and death too, at least in one direction. Yes, the one-direction is the unfortunate limitation of both love and knowledge in their ability to transcend life and death since only the living party has the privilege to still experience either ..

I like to suggest that we do not need to bring back the dead (we obviously also can't unfortunately, as I have a long list of people, loved ones and others whom I would gladly like to bring back).

You write "We might be able to glean the lineaments of his philosophy (2 above) by studying his limited writings, however as you have suggested this is inadequate."

Kanô's writings aren't exactly that limited. There exist some multiple large-volume books with Kanô's writings, such as Kanô Jigorô Taikei 嘉納治五郎大系:






Read them too. You can too, anyone can. Nothing prevents people instead of investing into a car, a vacation or a house to invest instead in jûdô resources, spend years studying Japanese and Chinese, seek out those people in Japan who knew Kanô or have expertise in jûdô such as Daigo-sensei and discuss and argue with him. The only problem is that most jûdôka simply are not willing to do all that. What the average jûdôka is willing to do for jûdô is to go to a dôjô a couple of nights and fight, and for the most successful of them train some more if there is a reasonable chance for international medals. But, most of the rest, no, too hard, too difficult, too much work, not materially satisfying enough. I do hope that whilst no one can claim perfection, that there is also somewhat of a problem when those who chose not to put in all those extra years of work to get access to Kanô's original writing in the original language equal their lack of knowing or understanding what Kanô wrote, with the access to knowledge that those have who did make that investment. Valuable posts from in particular our regretted friend Dieter Born here on the forum or from Jon Z, who all put in the time to master those skills, show that they have access to a whole wealth that is not accessible for the majority of jûdôka.

On the other hand desk work does not replace tatami-work either, and having excellent scholarly knowledge about Kanô while barely mastering jûdô still creates serious tension. Thus only a holistic approach that includes having both the historic knowledge, the language ability and the jûdô-technical skills you create a bedrock for building that understanding of Kanô despite him being dead. The solipsist might still argue obviously that that understanding only exists in our minds or that we fail to see and accept the limitations of that knowledge we have.

You mention that what is written about Kanô is "pre-framed towards Sainthood". I mentioned something in that sense, but the way you paraphrase me is not quite accurate, perhaps partly due to my own expression not being as correct as intended. Kanô's own original writings are in no way "pre-framed towards Sainthood", nor are they self-glorification. I don't think they are that difficult to understand ... well, if one is thoroughly familiar with the pre-history of jûdô and the cultural concepts both Japanese and Chinese that Kanô frequently references. So, how easy of difficult to understand for MOST jûdôka, I am not sure. Where the writings regarding Kanô become problematic, is when the Kôdôkan comes into play, that is, the post-Kanô-era Kôdôkan. This is even more so when that post-Kanô Kôdôkan literature is translated into English and other languages. This is the only literature that the average jûdôka is familiar with and even then only in a limited way. Because it has a label Kôdôkan over it, it is assumed that these writings accurately reflect Kanô, but they often do not, as they are strongly distorted by Japanese socio-cultural views, such as the infallibility of a 10th an holder or a Kôdôkan kanchô even when one of them says black and other one says white. Instead of then clearly stating and showing documentary proof of who is correct and who is wrong, the Japanese can't deal with that except for in the Japanese way. The average Western jûdôka even if he knows that this is a problem still would not be able to recognize precisely when this problem occurs, who is wrong, who is right, and why. They don't have the background knowledge, they don't know or have access to the references, etc.

Something else that is very important and which Jon Z has astutely highlighted before, is that Kanô's views were not consistent. They evolved. But such evolution is not what emerges from Western popular writings, where jûdô frequently is presented as a monolithic entity.

"But isn't the real crux of the situation the idea that Judo (3 above) has had a hundred years of percolation through many Judoka --some who were fickle, some unmutable, some great and some small --- leaving us with Judo of today. And what ever this judo is, it couldn't possibly be the same as 'the' Kano judo." (...)

Jûdô obviously was supposed to evolve, but an evolution within the spirit of jûdô, thus from an understanding of jûdô. Kanô was no idiot, so he understood this too. Today's IJF stuff with judo show, wedgie entertainment, is not a natural evolution of Kôdôkan jûdô or of Kanô jûdô, but is merely and aberrant derailment resulting from a complete lack of understanding of Kanô. IJF today only does "disco judo", some kind of "judo Gangnam style", little of nothing to do with Kanô jûdô. But in the absence of the will of jûdô to do everything necessary to understand Kanô jûdô, they can learn IJF Disco Judo everywhere by simply going to a tournament and watching and engaging in the spectacle of blue jûdôgi, yellow/blue tatami, judo show, prize money and other stuff that has nothing to do with the message of education that Kanô intended.

You suggest as an alternative: "So why wouldn't we put aside the history and start with our what is on the judo mats of today and use as you suggested a bio-mechanics expert? What am I missing?" (...)

What are you missing ?  Is that not obvious. It's the same story from another angle. A biomechanics expert knows biomechanics. That is extremely useful, and also very impressive because virtually no jûdôka does. Biomechanists are an endangered species. That is even so in academics. They are hard to find. A biomechanics approach can have a constructive effect on learning, skill acquisition, match analysis, coaching, performance, and jûdô theory. However, you are now only displacing the problem. Everyone who does not know judo biomechanics will be impressed, but being impressed is no synonym for eradicating the problems I described. For example, what is the use of an extensive biomechanical analysis of a completely wrong-understood concept ?  Are you going to learn a lot from an excellent biomechanical explanation of ô-goshi when in fact what is being shown is seoi-nage, but because you are a beginner who has never seen either ô-goshi or seoi-nage, you have no way of realizing the mistake; and, to make it even worse, what if the person explaining it does not master ô-goshi and seoi-nage and is thus in fact doing something else, something wrong. Then how does this help you ? I have now explained a problem as it may occur in biomechanics, similar to the problems I explained about jûdô history and philosophy. You end up with a group of people wrongly informed but who also have the lack to correct since they are not even aware of their mistakes. Moreover, if 20 years later someone to them explains that that technique is not at all ô-goshi and seoi-nage and that it was done wrong what is the reaction going to be ? Hostility and anger, since you are talking to people who have not transmitted those errors in teaching for 20 years, possibly have written books themselves containing all those errors ...

In other words, the only way the biomechanics approach will do what it is supposed to achieve, is if it is part of a holistic approach meaning that either the single person has in addition to biomechanics expertise, also the historic expertise, the philosophic expertise, the teaching skills, the coaching skills, the Japanese skills, or alternatively you are supported by different individuals who each have one of those skills but who work smoothly together while understanding and accepting the limits of their individual skill, you are hardly any further. This is at least so if we are talking about Kanô jûdô and Kôdôkan jûdô. It is a different for IJF disco judo Gangnam style since there is no education, no philosophy or anything. It's merely a performance sport like javelin throwing and the only goal then has become to maximize performance.

I don't know if this is besides the point of this. Is anything jûdô besides the point of this thread ?  Is anything jûdô not besides the point of this thread ?  Can we even know that knowledge ?

Cichorei Kano wrote: Lot's of very good discussion topics

Well that went in all sorts of directions that I didn't expect. Disco Judo--you got to love that analogy.

Let's kill the white "baby Berkeley elephant" in my head--or should I say our collective heads and bring back hope for everyone-shall we?  Solipsism is not my taste, and I certainly wasn't in that direction I intended to go when I wrote my obviously confusing paragraph.  I agree with you that solipsism "...is not free from serious criticism". I would put it this way.  Solipsism is not a false philosophical theory, its just a totally incoherent one. It's a reason why a men and women call philosophy tripe. You can just ask my 14 week old pup. Of course I can understand when she is in pain, when likes what she is doing, or needs to go to the bathroom. And if she (a beautiful white mini-golden doodle btw) was an animal that could write, I would understand that too. I know 'it'. Its not just in my mind, its in the real world, and its in her mind as well. Its metaphysics meeting physics. Where these incoherent philosophical waters gets muddy, is that solipsism got it right in at one level. We are all carpenters who construct our interpretation of the world around us in our own minds. We are all in a sense--- perception systems that gather and process incoming information in complex ways, and indeed, some of the ways are hidden even from our own perceptions. But hidden or not, this incoming information helps us evolve "our view" but the evolution depends on where we started from and our innate skill to develop.

Cichorei Kano wrote:
I am a little bit confused by your line of thinking. You write: "What Kano thought (1 above)...we will never know."  
How so ?  Do you mean 'we' will never know, or 'I' will never know. The two are not the same.

Agreed, of course they are not the same. But I think we are looking at the same coin--only you see the head and I see the tail.  A piece of writing is a complex object for reflection with two major problems. Problem 1 is the writer himself. A writer has degrees of  "explanatory skill" ranging from complete incoherence to coherent. Problem 2 is the reader. The reader can receive it more or less completely, all the way from very little of what the writer intended to the whole thing or somewhere inbetween. The amount the reader gets will depend on his reading skills and the vigor he can put into the reading cycle. Your obviously very skilled in this area. That said, how many times have you read something and had an "understanding amounting to A", then later after reading additional material from the same author your "understanding really amounted to B"? A transformation, that leads to a different understanding? In short, I guess what I was referring too in my sentence--- was the distinction between knowing what he said vs knowing what he meant. I'm sure based on what you said further on in your paragraph that your further up the "what he meant" cylinder of knowing than the average judoka. But is that a complete understanding? The problem, of course,  is did Kano write everything he intended to make 'what he meant' completely understandable? I certainly don't know. Your in a much better position to judge.

Cichorei Kano wrote:
You mention that what is written about Kanô is "pre-framed towards Sainthood". I mentioned something in that sense, but the way you paraphrase me is not quite accurate, perhaps partly due to my own expression not being as correct as intended. Kanô's own original writings are in no way "pre-framed towards Sainthood", nor are they self-glorification.

Bad writing on my part. I didn't mean to, nor did I intend to imply Kano was in the self-glorification business. I was keying off your idea that Japanese Kano culture leans in that direction. (Gee to my point above, good thing I'm alive to correct this misunderstanding. If that was my last bit of writing in a chain of writing we would be in a pickle.)

Cichorei Kano wrote:
Something else that is very important and which Jon Z has astutely highlighted before, is that Kanô's views were not consistent. They evolved. But such evolution is not what emerges from Western popular writings, where jûdô frequently is presented as a monolithic entity.

We are learning machines, we evolve, some of us de-evolve. (I'm probably in the latter group.) Because of that, if you believe in education --- views must change Kano would be no different.

Cichorei Kano wrote:
Jûdô obviously was supposed to evolve, but an evolution within the spirit of jûdô, thus from an understanding of jûdô. Kanô was no idiot, so he understood this too. Today's IJF stuff with judo show, wedgie entertainment, is not a natural evolution of Kôdôkan jûdô or of Kanô jûdô, but is merely and aberrant derailment resulting from a complete lack of understanding of Kanô. IJF today only does "disco judo", some kind of "judo Gangnam style", little of nothing to do with Kanô jûdô.

That is indeed an embarrassing image to behold.

Outside of IJF and other branches of judo, has judo evolved? I mean, in the modern closer, smaller circles of Kano's judo and other elite non-ijf judoka, has real judo been evolving?

also, how hasn't judo with the ijf evolved judo? Isn't that 'libertarianism'?

Q mystic wrote:Outside of IJF and other branches of judo, has judo evolved? I mean, in the modern closer, smaller circles of Kano's judo and other elite non-ijf judoka, has real judo been evolving?

I am not entirely certain if I correctly understand the question. Are you asking if Kôdôkan jûdô within its Japanese confines evolved ?

If so, of course it evolved. It evolved greatly. Jûdô was nothing in 1882 when Kanô supposedly created (in reality he really only established a Dôjô named Kôdôkan in which he mostly taught Kitô-ryû jûdô, not jûdô as we know it today).

If jûdô would have not evolved then how could the kata which initially about all contained just 10 techniques came to the numbers we know they contain today ?  If jûdô would not have evolved then how come there is an 1895 Gokyô and a 1920 Gokyô. Even the dan-ranks and colors as we know them today really date only from 1931 with modfication some time after Kanô's death. Seiryoku zen'yô one of cores of jûdô despite the ignorance and contempt which Westerners show towards this exercise did not exist before 1928. So clearly an evolution. All these were during the life of Kanô.

Also after his death jûdô continued to evolve within the Kôdôkan (the IJF did not exist until 1951). Kôdôkan goshinjutsu was created only in 1956 under the impetus of people like Tomiki Kenji. Joshi jûdô goshinhô created in 1943, thus yet another evolution. Great expansions we have seen in female jûdô, where originally only solo exercises, kata and etiquette was taught. There has been evolution in ranks where originally we saw no females with ranks above 5th dan. There are several types of evolution though. Administrative evolution requires less creative geniality than technical-pedagogical evolution or philosophic evolution. Arguably, most of the evolution in jûdô that was a of a conceptual-technical nature ceased with the death of Mifune. Clearly, under Kotani this evolution stalled That likely had to do with differences in personality and geniality but even more so with the fact that Mifune virtually stood above Kanô Risei, which the latter was determined to prevent from any of Mifune's successors.

A lot of the post-Kanô evolution we fail to see, because it are nonnamed movements in particular in newaza. The Kôsen jûdô sensei, but even today with people like Kashiwazaki we see such evolution.

None of the above evolutions really are a departure from the spirit of Kôdôkan. IJF-evolution is something of an entirely different order and often embarrassing though not all. The electronic scoreboards, for example, was an excellent evolution under IJF. So, was the post-1976 evolution from a narrow red border in tape towards a wide red border that bridged the width of an entire tatami. These are good evolutions that do not show contempt towards the jûdô of Kanô.

Thanks for the response, CK.

Just to be clear, how does the IJF embarrass judo? Couldn't Kashiwazaki just as easily be considered a successful product of IJF judo?

Q mystic wrote:Thanks for the response, CK.

Just to be clear, how does the IJF embarrass judo? Couldn't Kashiwazaki just as easily be considered a successful product of IJF judo?

Not trying to split hairs, but really I didn't write about the 'person' Kashiwazaki but about the inventiveness and creativity of newaza techniques by him. This is an important difference. Apart from that, no, Kashiwazaki is not a 'product' of IJF judo or of the IJF even though his world title helped him establish international fame.

How does the IJF embarrass judo ?

The IJF primarily embarrasses judo by misrepresenting what it is, what it is meant for, what it encompasses, namely a form of education with the purpose of bettering the world through ensuring the prosperity of people irrespective of status, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed, through a threefold component of developing one's physical well-being, mental acuity, moral principles, and cultural understanding. Instead, the IJF is a casino money-laundering organization active behind the facade of professional sports power-structure which actively denies, rejects and shows contempt to other judo organizations, while ensuring the loyalty of its actors through nepotistic and plutocratic actions. IJF events strikingly and typically do not even display a picture of Kanô anymore, apart from a few exceptions. The IJF's understanding of jûdô has become shockingly low, but since the IJF feels it does not have to show any responsibility or justify itself or take lessons from anyone since it believes it is the supreme authority on jûdô, it's circular reasoning ensures its future.

Second part.