PDA

View Full Version : Olympic Judo Entertaining??



Steve Williams
16th September 2000, 19:59
I dont want to anger any judoka here but I would like to hear peoples comments.

Let me first say that I have never trained in Judo but I trained for many years with somebody who used to train in Judo with the British olympic team, so have been on the recieving end of many throws, and would not let an acomplished Judoka get within an arms length of me if I could help it.

My question/ observation is this: On watching the olympic Judo on TV I can say that much of it looks very scrappy, I cannot see obviously good technique, I was watching with my brother (non MA) and he thought it was boring.
While I saw a few techniques/ throws which I would say were excellent, I was generally unimpressed.

As I said I have no "axe to grind" and do not intend to start a "flame war" but just wondered what others opinions were (both from judoka and non-judoka)?

John Lindsey
16th September 2000, 21:40
Lets move this to the Judo forum eh?

Steve Williams
16th September 2000, 22:17
Hi John

Originally put this in the members lounge as I thought it may get a more general view from both practicing judoka and non-judoka.

I thought it may get a more "one sided" view here?

Yamantaka
16th September 2000, 22:35
Originally posted by Steve Williams

I thought it may get a more "one sided" view here?

YAMANTAKA : Well, I'm also not a judoka but a taekwondoin and a hapkidoin but I'll throw my 2 cents...
In the first place, judo was created as a budo that is, as a martial way, comprising kata, randori, self-defense and competition. Today's judo is almost all competition, that is, a small part of judo. There are very few people that still practices the other aspects. The majority trains for competition. The same thing or worse is happening to Taekwondo.
In competition, two things happen : you use just one or two techniques that you feel comfortable with and you stop training all others. So, some people would say you're no longer a judoka, but a Tai Otoshi expert, for instance. In a competition, much more important than technique are the "tricks", the strategy, and more important than a sensei is a trainer, to show you "the ropes", what to use when the judge isn't watching, etc...
Also judo was intended to be practiced in a natural way (shizentai) and not attached to the ground as they fight now.
So I would say you are correct : Olympic judo is becoming more and more boring and less and less technical.
Not to start a war or to be disrespectful to any judoka but just IMHO.
Yamantaka



[Edited by YAMANTAKA on 09-16-2000 at 04:38 PM]

Ben_Holmes
17th September 2000, 04:37
> "In the first place, judo was created as a budo that is, as a martial way, comprising kata, randori, self-defense and competition. Today's judo is almost all competition, that is, a small part of judo. There are very few people that still practices the other aspects. The majority trains for competition."

It's amazing how often I run up against this sort of statement. And although it mainly is heard among non-Judoka, I've heard Judoka saying the same thing. Speaking for myself, I've been in more than my share of competition, somewhere between 150-200 tournaments. So I feel comfortable answering this sort of statement. Short answer: the above statement is a generality, and not a good one at that. Even when I was attending 15+ tournaments a year, most of my dojo training partners were NOT competing at that pace (if at all). And it's hardly a surprise to point out that not too many Judoka compete past the age of 25-30... what do they do with the rest of their life? Some, true, continue to compete, but having spent a decade in the Marine Corps, and having therefor the chance to train at more dojos than most people, I CAN say that competition hardly forms the majority of training time for more than a very small minority of Judoka.

> "In competition, two things happen : you use just one or two techniques that you feel comfortable with and you stop training all others."

This may possibly be true for some, but I can tell you that the top-level competitors must absolutely have a wider range of skills than you envision. As for training, how many top-level champions have attributed their skills to kata? Quite a number...

> "to show you "the ropes", what to use when the judge isn't watching,"

Yes... you are obviously not a Judoka. Anyone who asked me what to do when 'the judge'(referee) is not watching would regret asking me such a stupid question.

> "Also judo was intended to be practiced in a natural way (shizentai) and not attached to the ground as they fight now."

Two points... first, your statement implies that everyone is fighting jigotai... simply not true. There's a wide range of body positions, and no obvious advantage to any of them. There *have* been studies on this... probably Mr. Weers has a study on this. Second, I have photos of Judoka fighting from jigotai that date from the early 1900's. Surely that predates any tournament or Olympic influence.

But, them's just my 2cents worth. I trust it has been a one-sided opinion? :)

MarkF
17th September 2000, 08:18
I won't argue any facts with Ben, but what is going on in the Olympics is simply too many technicalties, but not from the judoka, but from the officials, and some of the newer rules to international shiai. Let's also keep in mind that none of these rules are compulsory, as is stated by the International Judo Federation. Are there problems? You bet, but after corresponding in a "'round about way" with Mr. John Cornish, possibly one of the best kata teachers anywhere, that even if the statement is true concerning one or two waza, what he calls "tokui" waza, even then it must be extracted by the coach by having the student learning the entire nage no kata. A teacher/coach may see an affinity to do throws from the left or right side, thus finding the elusive lefty (or righty). Basically, there are four (or five is one believes is true in aikijujutsu) kuzushi. If you add the off-directions, eg, right rear corner, left front corner, etc, then one needs, I would think, at least sixteen throws to cover these off-areas, from both sides, so while some do usually win with a "tokui waza," it doesn't mean all other waza will not work.

There is another problem here, and that is teaching or coaching. My teachers, and others from whom I have learned, taught all nagewaza in what I call "pieces of kata." So to make a blanket statement as this, it just isn't like that.

Ben has covered many more tournments than I have (I did about six a year), he certainly has the experience, and success, to argue his point. I played in shiai for about twenty years, with the busiest times being when I was about thirteen to about twenty-three. I don't have anywhere near his success, but in most shiai, leaving out the many rules of international tournaments, most are still as they were in the sixties and seventies, as they are where I live.

But for the record, I think the IOC has too many hands in the cookie jar, and certain rules are way over done, to the point of excluing some people from even considering katamiwaza, etc. This, I have a problem with, and I find it troubling, but most I know, and I try, do teach kata, as well as competitive judo, and a balance can be made.

Anyway, no matter how you cut it, it says "judo" on my door, not "tokui" waza only, or 7 kata, only. It cuts both ways. Since the Olympics have come in within seeing distance, many have asked how to watch judo so as to enjoy it. The best way to do this? Watch and learn. Judo is the second most popular sport in the world, only behind soccer, and interst in soccer is growing because people are taking the time to learn something. The only way to learn to enjoy it, is by participating. You don't have to do judo, only watch it. Do you think American Football is understood by everyone right away? No, it is boring, as well, until you learn. Yes, judo is boring, but you also haven't given it a chance so yes, if it is not given that chance, it will continue to be.

Mark

Yamantaka
17th September 2000, 11:28
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ben_Holmes
[B]>
"It's amazing how often I run up against this sort of statement. And although it mainly is heard among non-Judoka, I've heard Judoka saying the same thing."

YAMANTAKA : So, it seems quite an interesting question...

" Speaking for myself, I've been in more than my share of competition, somewhere between 150-200 tournaments."

YAMANTAKA : Good for you.

" So I feel comfortable answering this sort of statement. Short answer: the above statement is a generality, and not a good one at that. Even when I was attending 15+ tournaments a year, most of my dojo training partners were NOT competing at that pace (if at all). And it's hardly a surprise to point out that not too many Judoka compete past the age of 25-30... what do they do with the rest of their life? "

YAMANTAKA : I really don't know...What are they doing? Believe me, it's quite difficult today to find good judo instructors on other aspects of judo (kata, self defense...), as Mark has pointed out on other thread. I have many judo friends, some of them high ranked and always I've seen the same things : a life dedicated to competition and no time spent in other aspects. What you get when your competition is ended ? Almost always...nothing.

"Some, true, continue to compete, but having spent a decade in the Marine Corps, and having therefor the chance to train at more dojos than most people, I CAN say that competition hardly forms the majority of training time for more than a very small minority of Judoka."

YAMANTAKA : I respect your experience and your opinion but in almost sixty years of life, training and participating with judo friends, that's not what I have observed.

" "In competition, two things happen : you use just one or two techniques that you feel comfortable with and you stop training all others."
This may possibly be true for some, but I can tell you that the top-level competitors must absolutely have a wider range of skills than you envision. As for training, how many top-level champions have attributed their skills to kata? Quite a number..."

YAMANTAKA : Again we have a clash of opinions...In my experience, the majority of competing judoka DO use one or two techniques, wonderfully fast and almost unstoppable (one of my friends, Serrinha Sensei, Rokudan, used almost exclusively, in his fights, Tai Otoshi. When we watched some of his fights, we would say : "Now...He's going to use Tai Otoshi!" And he did and it connected). I would also point out that Kata isn't much practiced today (for the most part, Nage no Kata and Katame no Kata) and the old kata are almost forgotten (Itsutsu no Kata, Koshiki no Kata )and not so many top-level champions of today have praised them, at least that I know of.

" "to show you "the ropes", what to use when the judge isn't watching,"
Yes... you are obviously not a Judoka. Anyone who asked me what to do when 'the judge'(referee) is not watching would regret asking me such a stupid question."

YAMANTAKA : Probably...But I wasn't refering to you but to a thing that happens, regretably, too much in all forms of competition. If you didn't experience that, perhaps that's because your attitude discouraged that. And sorry if I'm not a judoka. I believe you do not mean by your statement that every non-judoka is forbidden to express opinions. That would lead to thinking that judo could only be appreciated by judoka...And dismissing someone's competence isn't answering a question or a statement...

" "Also judo was intended to be practiced in a natural way (shizentai) and not attached to the ground as they fight now."
Two points... first, your statement implies that everyone is fighting jigotai... simply not true. There's a wide range of body positions, and no obvious advantage to any of them. There *have* been studies on this... probably Mr. Weers has a study on this. Second, I have photos of Judoka fighting from jigotai that date from the early 1900's. Surely that predates any tournament or Olympic influence."

YAMANTAKA : There's an emphasis today in Jigotai positioning (easier to defend oneself and harder to throw). Sorry if I led you to think EVERYONE is doing Jigotai. But, for the most part, they are. And that's one of the reasons Judo is becoming so boring.

"But, them's just my 2cents worth. I trust it has been a one-sided opinion? :) "

YAMANTAKA : Guessing from Mark's e-mail, perhaps that's not so.:))
Anyway, thanks for an interesting thread (at least for a non-judoka...


[Edited by YAMANTAKA on 09-17-2000 at 05:36 AM]

Ben_Holmes
17th September 2000, 21:47
YAMANTAKA: And sorry if I'm not a judoka. I believe you do not mean by your statement that every non-judoka is forbidden to express opinions. That would lead to thinking that judo could only be appreciated by judoka...And dismissing someone's competence isn't answering a question or a statement...

Thankyou for refusing to believe the more negative expression of my statement... I'm all in favor of non-Judoka expressing an opinion... or for that matter, showing any interest in Judo!! It's just that I considered all your other statements to be quite reasonable (even if I disagreed with them), but the statement about "to show you "the ropes", what to use when the judge isn't watching,", to be far beyond anything a Judoka would do.

I'm not trying to make out like an angel here, but I've purposely failed to win matches that I *could* have won... I'm sure other Judoka here are familiar with the situation, you're competing, and your opponent injures his right foot... anyone here believe that it's now appropriate to start a series of Deashibarai's??

Anyway, thanks for your comments, since they form a 'springboard' for good conversation...

As for Mark's comments on Olympic rules... they've created so many rules that they've made competition not as fun as randori. I say, get rid of koka/yuko and go back to kinsa the mind of the ref. Don't let anyone know if they're 'ahead' or not... force Judoka to go for wazaari or ippon. Once this is done, bring back draws... and neither competitor moves forward with a draw. Then you can get rid of the 'non-combativity' penalties, they simply won't be needed anymore. Get rid of the ridiculous prohibitions on gripping (such as both hands on the same side). Allow longer periods of matwork... I say give everyone at least 30-60 seconds to get something. Say... this could be a whole 'nuther thread!!

Tony Peters
17th September 2000, 23:57
[i]Originally posted by Ben_Holmes

As for Mark's comments on Olympic rules... they've created so many rules that they've made competition not as fun as randori. I say, get rid of koka/yuko and go back to kinsa the mind of the ref. Don't let anyone know if they're 'ahead' or not... force Judoka to go for wazaari or ippon. Once this is done, bring back draws... and neither competitor moves forward with a draw. Then you can get rid of the 'non-combativity' penalties, they simply won't be needed anymore. Get rid of the ridiculous prohibitions on gripping (such as both hands on the same side). Allow longer periods of matwork... I say give everyone at least 30-60 seconds to get something. Say... this could be a whole 'nuther thread!! [/B]

This has been what I've noticed as well (yup I'm another relativly uneducated observer except that I have played a little Judo, about a year). The match always stands up too soon. Unless one is really talented going to the ground seems just a waste of time. What little I've seen of So called "Sport Judo" looks a little better because it seems to promote more activity on the ground as well as the fact that being thrown doesn't mean the end of the match. Do all these limitation on what constitutes Olympic Judo mean that I won't watch? No but something will probally need to be done to make it more entertaining that wrestling with clothes on.

Yamantaka
18th September 2000, 00:01
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ben_Holmes
[B]
Thankyou for refusing to believe the more negative expression of my statement... I'm all in favor of non-Judoka expressing an opinion... or for that matter, showing any interest in Judo!! It's just that I considered all your other statements to be quite reasonable (even if I disagreed with them), but the statement about "to show you "the ropes", what to use when the judge isn't watching,", to be far beyond anything a Judoka would do.

I'm not trying to make out like an angel here, but I've purposely failed to win matches that I *could* have won... I'm sure other Judoka here are familiar with the situation, you're competing, and your opponent injures his right foot... anyone here believe that it's now appropriate to start a series of Deashibarai's??

Anyway, thanks for your comments, since they form a 'springboard' for good conversation...

YAMANTAKA : Thank you for your understanding, Ben! And, again, I wasn't talking about YOU. I really believe you are a serious judoka and do not "use ropes", but unfortunately many people do. That's the point I was stressing.
Thank you again for a good and educated conversation.
Good Keiko
Yamantaka

Ben_Holmes
18th September 2000, 03:44
Tony: This has been what I've noticed as well (yup I'm another relativly uneducated observer except that I have played a little Judo, about a year). The match always stands up too soon. Unless one is really talented going to the ground seems just a waste of time. What little I've seen of So called "Sport Judo" looks a little better because it seems to promote more activity on the ground as well as the fact that being thrown doesn't mean the end of the match. Do all these limitation on what constitutes Olympic Judo mean that I won't watch? No but something will probally need to be done to make it more entertaining that wrestling with clothes on.


Ouch!! I guess I deserve that! I have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in making Judo more entertaining or interesting to watch. Sorry Tony, just had to make that clear!! Actually, many of these rules were designed at least in part to make Judo competition more entertaining.

I too, have closely watched and pondered the 'sport' Judo, promulgated by Michael Swain, if I'm not mistaken. I'm of mixed mind about that. I think it will lead to more spirited contests, but I'm not sure about the effect it will have on Judo itself. It would definitely turn it more towards 'sport', and that I would disagree with.

Again, just my biased 2 cents worth...

MarkF
18th September 2000, 10:07
Actually, I am not so sure that what Mike is doing will not put it into the "works" category. If they are up front about it, then fine.

Inspite of the direction Mike has in mind, judo still remains the second most popular sport in the world. Go to either http://www.olympics.com or http://www.nbcolympics.com .

Both of the US male hopefuls give a demonstration of what you will see in a tourment, even to the point of showing a nage as it is done in the dojo, and how you will see it on the shiai mat. It isn't two a piece, and from what I have seen of both, there have been more than two waza. The Japanese fired their coach when all he could coax out of the team in Atlanta was one gold and three bronzes (I think they were bronze). So far, in the current tournament (I haven't checked today yet) the Japanese have cleaned up with two golds amoung medals all ready handed out.

Maybe this is a disgreement with Ben, or not, but the only way to understand and enjoy judo is 1) study it. 2) Learn to watch, much as many around the world have done with American Football. No one is going to change anything unless you are heard from.

True, some players are going to use one waza. Why? Possibly because they just won the match with it. Some use two, as they scored only waza-ari and then one with waz-ari waza-te-Ippon. Some judoka absolutely refuse to go to the mat, even though they have the advantage, but most do, and those waza are not counted. How many shimewaza attempts are counted? How many failed but attempted kansetsu-waza, and on with osae-komi waza?

The problem is not that players are only using one or two waza, it is that they may go for one nage waza, then try to choke from numerous ways. This is why people think this way about judo.

There are so many problems that I can't keep up anymore, but what you don't see is not only what is being missed, it is the expectation of nage waza only.

Another problem, is that when the Olympics come around, the same argument is put forward: "Judo hasn't been the same since Judo became an Olympic sport in '64." How many saw the matches in 64, 1972, 1976,1980,1984 and so on?

Sure it hasn't been the same since the Internment Camps here and Canada. That, by speaking with my very seniors, is true, but some are trying, and some are not. If you want to enjoy judo, learn more about it, learn "randori no kata." Geez, the arguments and facts are in, and the Olympics just got started. Can we at least wait until the body is cold first?

Mark

MarkF
18th September 2000, 10:37
BTW: Ubaldo, of course you don't have to be judoka to talk about it, nor do you to talk about the problems. I try to make judo as entertaining as possible, but some people have problems with a martial art being entertaining. Then, it becomes something like "martial sport." I despise that term. Do you think combative sport is better? Certainly, as that is what it is whether we like it or not. There are teachers out there who teach only kata, who teach it and do not sponser the students into a tournament. This is a shame. A balance can be made, or at least, it can be attempted. But some rules, even if intended to make judo more entertaining, have done something else. The blue judogi for one. Shimban or official error has gone down by as much forty per cent. This one paid off. Rules of passivity? Good intentions, but hardly is it making it entertaining, if you are scoring a throw yuko because someone was thrown off uke's back when trying for a choke. Good defense, and it may play into a decision as it was in the old days, but a score, no.

So, to sum up, there are many waza in most matches which go the limit, but unless the waza is succesful, and unless the waza is nage waza, saying that there are only one or two techniques is way off. But, in general, I agree about the problems in judo shai, but only in international contests, as nobody can tell another how to hold shiai. But if you want to play in somebody else's yard (the IOC) you must follow the rules.

Mark

Yamantaka
18th September 2000, 12:52
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MarkF
[B]BTW: Ubaldo, of course you don't have to be judoka to talk about it, nor do you to talk about the problems.
There are teachers out there who teach only kata, who teach it and do not sponser the students into a tournament. This is a shame. A balance can be made, or at least, it can be attempted
But, in general, I agree about the problems in judo shai, but only in international contests, as nobody can tell another how to hold shiai. But if you want to play in somebody else's yard (the IOC) you must follow the rules.
Mark

YAMANTAKA : I fully agree with all those points, Mark. I guess what I had in mind was that : "BALANCE". How to achieve that with the overwhelming importance of competition in today's judo, karate or Taekwondo?

Tony Peters
18th September 2000, 19:13
[i]Originally posted by Ben_Holmes
Ouch!! I guess I deserve that! I have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in making Judo more entertaining or interesting to watch. Sorry Tony, just had to make that clear!! Actually, many of these rules were designed at least in part to make Judo competition more entertaining.

I too, have closely watched and pondered the 'sport' Judo, promulgated by Michael Swain, if I'm not mistaken. I'm of mixed mind about that. I think it will lead to more spirited contests, but I'm not sure about the effect it will have on Judo itself. It would definitely turn it more towards 'sport', and that I would disagree with.

Again, just my biased 2 cents worth... [/B]

As a longtime practicianer your opinion should carry some weight. However as someone (maybe you) stated above Judo is possiblly the second most popular sport in the wporld to practice however to watch it's not a lot more interesting to watch than Wrestling (collegiate not profesional) Seeing a match where one person is outclassed is fun to watch but two equally matched competitors is downright boring. The rules seem to promote stalling and one dimensional matches. A larger point system might alleviate this (such as wrestling or BJJ has), provide for more activity and a posibility to make mistakes and still have a chance to win. Until then as much as I like it most people will just think of it as wrestling in funny clothes. Too bad because Randori style matches are much more fun.

Steve Williams
18th September 2000, 21:13
Originally posted by Tony Peters
Seeing a match where one person is outclassed is fun to watch but two equally matched competitors is downright boring. The rules seem to promote stalling and one dimensional matches.

Just watched the 57Kg womens final, can only echo this sentiment, it was very boring to watch. Lots of grab attempts which were brushed off, probably only 3 or 4 throw attempts in the whole match !!

When you consider that a lot of people watch judo on TV, and for the vast majority: Judo=Martial arts=self defence, no wonder there are a lot of MA school with a small number of students.

Ben_Holmes
19th September 2000, 05:50
Tony: "As a longtime practicianer your opinion should carry some weight."

Well, as much weight as anyone cares to put on it. I can be a wrong 'old-timer' as easily as right... I don't see Judo from a perspective of someone who's never trained in it, and just wants to see good entertainment. But I suspect that Judo will do just fine if it ever got any airplay in the U.S. Probably not 1 in 100 Americans have ever boxed... yet 'fight night' is a tradition here... For that matter, I just got through watching an hour of Sumo on ESPN. Now, how many Americans, or for that matter, ANY nationalities, have ever practiced a little Sumo? And I'll bet not 1 in 10,000 Americans could describe why achieving 'katchikoshi' is so important to the sumotori. (By the way, I just watched a Maegashira-14 (the lowest rank) win the Emperor's cup... inspiring!!) But in spite of this vast lack of knowledge, ESPN manages to put on an hour or so everytime a basho rolls around. What gives? Why can't they do the same with Judo? And there's REALLY no excuse during the Olympics... I mean, just how many people are interested in equestrian dressage, or velodrome cycling, or whitewater rafting? I'll bet interest in Judo exceeds those!!

I'm more concerned with the Judo itself, than with any 'entertainment' value, and I don't apologize for that, just want people to understand. I'm interested in any changes (competition rules) to the extent that they help Judoka, and only secondarily, how they may affect the entertainment value.

MarkF
19th September 2000, 05:58
As a longtime practicianer your opinion should carry some weight. However as someone (maybe you) stated above Judo is possiblly the second most popular sport in the wporld to practice however to watch it's not a lot more interesting to watch than Wrestling (collegiate not profesional) Seeing a match where one person is outclassed is fun to watch but two equally matched competitors is downright boring. The rules seem to promote stalling and one dimensional matches. A larger point system might alleviate this (such as wrestling or BJJ has), provide for more activity and a posibility to make mistakes and still have a chance to win. Until then as much as I like it most people will just think of it as wrestling in funny clothes. Too bad because Randori style matches are much more fun.
__________________
Peace
Tony Peters
Honolulu Hawaii



You actually think evenly matched boxing is boring? This is particularly false in amateur boxing, and why it is so popular. The same may be said of professional boxing, as the uneven pairings have always been the basis for banning boxing altogether.

If you want to go back to "shi-ni-ai" of judo, then the judge, shimban will declare match over, and only he will be able. That the competitor may be hurt does play a role, and going over to Mike Swain's Pro Judo, in effect, does just that. If Ippon counts twenty points, how many do you need before a true winner can be seen? No, judo, with a longer time limit, Ippon being the only way to stop a match, or waza-ari waza-te Ippon being the other makes a much better match. How could, say, one obviously better judoka beating the inferior in most matches be better? It would get the same reputation as pro boxing, and that, even with the problem today, is not what we need (I am still trying to think of how an unevenly partnered match would be more exiting or entertaining, if the viewers all ready know who is going to win. I suppose there would be the occasional upset, but in so doing, the judoka, as do boxers, would take the opponent lightly, and thus, you do have "just boxing," or "just wrestling"). Who would Muhammad Ali be if not for his "equals," Frazier, Foreman, Norton? Joe Louis is considered by some to be the greatest ever, but when he went up against all the "inferior boxers" they were judged to be "the bum of the month" club.

No, what judo needs is a return to the past, where evenly matched (this is all relative) judoka fought it out, the crowed knowing they were in for a great match, win, lose, or draw, with ippon by nagewaza being the supreme moment in the match. Oh, and here is a little something: does anyone think that if a French shimban is working a match which has a French player, is not going to be the tiniest bit biased? If you don't, you'd be blind, and today's international rules, makes that much more possible, especially when a match is close to the end and no score is achieved. Whoops! One koka to none; winner! The frenchman/woman!:shot:

Most of the time when competing in the sixties and seventies, it was win, lose, or draw. OK, later, there were two judges at the corners, in case not even waza-ari wasn't scored, and this could be biased as well, but today, in Olympic judo, we hand the officials the gun, meaning a score was had because someone was knocked down on the backside, or was rolled off by uke who was preventing a choke.

Yes, it should be more like boxing, but Olympic or amateur boxing, as even when a match is stolen, everyone will know it.

Steve, I wish I had your vantage point because the most anyone in the US would see is the tail end of a match in which an American had one a medal, any medal, but of course the match was boring. The sleeve grip has been eliminated so no natural stance or grip, no one is comfortable gripping on other areas of the dogi, thus the reluctance to grip (this is all out of the IJF rulebook and the IOC), and the lapel of the uwagi being so thick as to not even consider shimewaza, all this in attempting to make judo more entertaining. Only about six weeks before the games started, a rule came down not allowing a dogi to be more than one cm thick at the lapel, nor more then three cm wide. Rules of passivity are a joke, because passivity penalties can be avoided by just attempting to grip, and then when there is matwork, if the waza hasn't been secured in about ten seconds, more penalties, or the players are stood up. Judo is NOT boring, the rules are!

I don't know about anyone else, but I hate boxing and wrestling matches in which the winner is all ready being discussed for the next match, and the present match has not begun.

BTW: I was the one who said judo is the second most popular sport. Just measured in competitors? No, as if it is more popular than basball and rounders, both who have audiences, how is that accounted? It isn't, but what is the difference? I don't have to convince myself of this.

Regards,

Mark

Tony Peters
19th September 2000, 09:28
OK let me try this again, I don't know if it's the rules or the competitors all I know is that I have a hard time keeping my dad and brother (Who both practice martial arts and are not uneducated) in front of the TV when Olympic Judo is on & this isn't true of the BJJ matches that I have on tape. Yes I know BJJ is just a bastard son of Judo in many peoples eyes and in many cases their throws Suck but the scoring system though skewwed towards ground fighting promotes activity that is interesting to watch and provides the spectator with some idea of what the art is really like/about. Judo on the other hand has rules for everything it seems, even the exact nature of the gi and how you can/can't grab someone is ruled by rules. No wonder it is more interesting to watch paint dry. I have seen two olympic matches so far and I don't care how good they are I didn't see anything that even remotely impressed me and I at least have some idea of what I'm looking at.The best set of grappling rules that I have seen are the ones used by the ADCC. Throws are rewarded but submission is the ultimate goal so much so that there are no points awarded for the first 5 minutes. This gives both guys time to feel each-other out and to try something that might "cost them points" in a normal situation but may leave them in a superior position for haveing done so. Judo is a wonderful art. Because of the risk involve in being proactive the competitors will not risk anything so instead we get shadow boxxing, opps wrestling. I can honestly say that I have never practiced anything that so thoroughly drained me while leaving a huge smile on my face, this even includes that dreaded BJJ. In a dojo/randori situation judo is great and I would likely use judo before many other arts on the street as well. Formal competition however seems to have degenerated into a a boring case of waiting for the chance that never comes because no one will take a chance in the 1st place

[Edited by Tony Peters on 09-19-2000 at 05:48 PM]

Steve Williams
19th September 2000, 23:46
Originally posted by MarkF
Steve, I wish I had your vantage point because the most anyone in the US would see is the tail end of a match in which an American had one a medal, any medal, but of course the match was boring
[/B]

I must say that we are lucky with our cable/ satelite here, the olympics is on almost 24hours a day (on Eurosport).

The Judo has been on for about an hour each night for the last 3 nights, starts at 6pm which is just the time I get in from work--how convenient.

Just wish it was more entertaining, I understand that the rules may be stifling the action, is there a glimmer of change on the horizon or will it just get worse?

MarkF
20th September 2000, 09:39
I don't disagree with you about today's standard in the International community. Of course a one koka to none is barely visible most of the time, but you are not going to like this, the rules of the IJF/IOC were enforced to make it more exciting, thus, more coverage. It isn't going to happen. This, was not the right way.

First the urge to "hook up" was eliminated by eliminating the "pistol" grip (sleeve grip). I noticed that an American hopeful lost a match because he gripped with both hands on the same side of the dogi. If that were the case when the infamous Tokyo police tournament took place late last (1800s) century, then there would have been no yama arashi and probably no judo.

Luckily, though, most tournaments are not held like that, and it is not a rule outside of the IJF/IOC jurisdiction, either, so go to your local invitationals, support them because that is where the good judo is still seen. If I had to fight that way in tournaments, as is in the Olympics, I would have dropped it like a bad habit long ago. Fortunately, it doen't have to be that way, and there is only one tournament a year which even includes corner judges. For that, I am thankful, but growing up in judo, even with all these rules. I would much rather see them then read about them. Talk about boring!

In the old days, there was one judge, and the matches were truly shi-ni-ai, the closest thing next to death. The competitors continued until one could not continue anymore, or when the shimban would call it because in, say, thirty minutes, no one could go on, and didn't have any advantage. Judo may look like wrestling to many, and it is, make no mistake, but it is still a different and unique type of wrestling, so is BJJ. BJJ has about seven nage waza so as to get the match on the ground, but what good is limiting any scoring until the match is five minutes old? That only means a match will last at least five minutes. No, adding barriers to the fight is not the way.

When I competed, you fought until you lost or a draw was called. One after the other, and the only break between matches if you were winning was the time it took for your next opponent to be announced. There were very few rules compared with today, one was not gripping the obi for more time, about three seconds, it took to do your nage. That ban was to limit injury, not to mold the them to what judges thought. For the juniors, no body drop throws as those were advanced, and had the danger of a kid being bounced on his head. It was fine for adults, though:D

Anyway, judo is not boring, if your community doen't follow the rules of olympic judo, and most didn't and don't. I still find football more boring than water polo, and I know the rules to that one.;)

(I mean football soccer)

Mark

Tony Peters
20th September 2000, 22:28
Originally posted by MarkF
I In the old days, there was one judge, and the matches were truly shi-ni-ai, the closest thing next to death. The competitors continued until one could not continue anymore, or when the shimban would call it because in, say, thirty minutes, no one could go on, and didn't have any advantage. Judo may look like wrestling to many, and it is, make no mistake, but it is still a different and unique type of wrestling, so is BJJ. BJJ has about seven nage waza so as to get the match on the ground, but what good is limiting any scoring until the match is five minutes old? That only means a match will last at least five minutes. No, adding barriers to the fight is not the way.

When I competed, you fought until you lost or a draw was called. One after the other, and the only break between matches if you were winning was the time it took for your next opponent to be announced. There were very few rules compared with today, one was not gripping the obi for more time, about three seconds, it took to do your nage. That ban was to limit injury, not to mold the them to what judges thought. For the juniors, no body drop throws as those were advanced, and had the danger of a kid being bounced on his head. It was fine for adults, though:D

Anyway, judo is not boring, if your community doen't follow the rules of olympic judo, and most didn't and don't. I still find football more boring than water polo, and I know the rules to that one.;)

(I mean football soccer)

Mark



I guess what I said about the ADCC rules has been misinterpreted. ADCC (the Abu Dhabi Combat Club) sponsors a Submission Grappling Tournament every Feb/March tha tis billed and the World Submission Grappling Championships. In many respects it lives up to it name. Artist of all style compete No Gi for a number of day in a number of weight classes. The rules concerning no point awarded for the first 5 minutes do not promote stalling reather they promote activity. During the first five minutes anything you do to attempt a submission is opk even if you put yourself at a disadvantage to do so. The 1999 66-76 KG weight class winner Jean Jaques Machado won every match by submisssion before this 5 min grace time was up (and this guy has no thumb on one hand). I only mentioned the ADCC rules because the promoter looked long and hard at evert grappling style out there while devising the rules for these matches. Activity is of primary importance and if it gets past the 5 min mark a competitor who mearly pulls into the guard to geta fight to the ground doesn't lose points via penalty but rather the guy being pulled gains points for being in a more dominate position. I have watch a number of these matches and the throws are quite explosive and can lead (just like Judo ) to the end of a match. however unlike Judo a great throw isn't the end of the match mearly the next step to the eventual submission. Olympic Judo rules need an overhaul as someone stated earlier fighting to prevent penalities isn't a match and shouldn't be how an olympic medal is awarded.

Steve Williams
20th September 2000, 22:46
Tony

This "submission grappling tournement" sounds a little like Greco-Roman wrestling, is it related ?

I tried a little Greco-Roman with my Finnish relatives, boy is that difficult :cool:

Tony Peters
21st September 2000, 00:02
Originally posted by Steve Williams
Tony

This "submission grappling tournement" sounds a little like Greco-Roman wrestling, is it related ?

I tried a little Greco-Roman with my Finnish relatives, boy is that difficult :cool:

Grapplers of all walks compete including Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestler but not just them BJJ, Judo, Shooto, Sambo and many others. This is a wrestling only tournament no striking allowed. Both stand up and ground skills are required, a great effort is made to provide a level playing feild for all competitors. It is invitation only (though there are qualification tournaments) and an invitation is highly sought after. This is likely going to be the future of this style of grappling.

MarkF
21st September 2000, 09:34
Gene LeBell used to hold grappling tournaments (he still may be), and, as tournaments go, they were not bad. They do sound very, very similar to what Mike Swain is doing these days, eg, something called, either "Sport Judo" or "New Match Judo." The problem with Ippon not ending the match is open to all kinds of abuse ("works" or tailor-made endings, keeping a match alive even when the opponent is hopelessly outclassed, much like Olympic Judo today could become if ippon didn't end the match). Also problematic is unnecessary wear and tear by multiple ippon-scorring throws, much as it was early on.

I fully admit international Judo is well, pandering to whatever will keep it alive, and this could be the future.

Randori is next, as there would really be no purpose in using up strength in defending a throw, if the throw is likely or definitely will not end the match. The same with osaekomiwaza, shimewaza, and kansetsu waza.

The problem which brought this out into politics was not that judo was entered into the Olympics, but bad moves in what the ultimate purpose is. If it is winning, and winning alone, then you have all ready dismissed nine-tenths of the purpose of contests. Since the so-called organizations are trying to please everyone at the same time, the great experiment in saving jujutsu and making it something in which anyone can participate is lost on those who take this reponsibilty to unrealistic, undefined goals, and therefore make it unimportant to the public at large.

Another problem is the number who compete is very small, and even smaller is the number who compete to the exclusion of everything else which is being lost.

If the idea is to make it entertaining to everyone, we all ready have enough sports, professional sports which will give the viewer that fix, but the contest arena has much more to it than winning. Participation is what is important, and to prove how much this has been lost, is the example of the one judoka who thought he was on the receiving end of a bad decision a few days ago. He refused to bow to the jo-seki (the ref) and to his opponent. If he hadn't, he would have been banned. So what is important here?

If your intent is to make it to the top, eg, the Olympics, you will have to put up with stumbling blocks, but if your intent is to feel you have put in a good day of training, and through that, feeling good about it, then the heirarchy of the "sport of judo" is not even worth the bother. As I said before, judo is not boring, it is becoming an insult, especially when others in Japanese Martial arts won't come near it because a slim margin of judo wants it to be a certain way, and that is not helping the cause, it is only hurting.

Judo need not be what so many say it is, indeed, the founder did not want judo to be a game. No matter what the IJF or the IOC says about it, even they must admit that it is only voluntary, and rules of these organizations are not, by any means, the do all, or the end all. That is why there is a judo community which operates all year round, in which one is free to make a choice. In the end, what we do most of the off years aways from the Olympics need not be what one doesn't like, indeed judo can be a combative art, sport, and a way of life, as is described by the founders of judo. Don't forget that the early participants did so in a do or die attitude, with judo, either making or breaking the grade, and while it has continued to evolve in a few bad ways, the good far outweighs the bad. They way I see it, is a matter of patience, but the rest of the world was not, and from that, you get "games." Even J. Kano felt sports transcended war, politics, etc., and was not pleased with the quality of teachers of judo, so would he be pleased today? That depends on a lot of factors, and one is definitely all the in fighting. Judo, as any other budo will survive in spite of itself, and inspite of all the petty bickering which usually begins with this: "Judo has gone down hill since, etc." Well, lets take it back much further and ask the few who are still around, those whose lives were interrupted by a war. They were saying "Judo hasn't been the same since" since the late forties or early fifties.

Judo has persevered through worse than the Olympics, and it will this, too.

Mark

Tony Peters
21st September 2000, 21:24
I cut a lot


Originally posted by MarkF
Gene LeBell used to hold grappling tournaments (he still may be), and, as tournaments go, they were not bad. They do sound very, very similar to what Mike Swain is doing these days, eg, something called, either "Sport Judo" or "New Match Judo." The problem with Ippon not ending the match is open to all kinds of abuse ("works" or tailor-made endings, keeping a match alive even when the opponent is hopelessly outclassed, much like Olympic Judo today could become if ippon didn't end the match). Also problematic is unnecessary wear and tear by multiple ippon-scorring throws, much as it was early on.


I fully admit international Judo is well, pandering to whatever will keep it alive, and this could be the future.

Randori is next, as there would really be no purpose in using up strength in defending a throw, if the throw is likely or definitely will not end the match. The same with osaekomiwaza, shimewaza, and kansetsu waza.

Mark



The problem of over working a match can be solved quite easilly by requiring the players to work to a conclusion instead of standing them back up immediatly after the throw as it is done now. I haven't actually seen that many Ippons in matches though they do exist usually some little mistake tends to lower the value of the throw. Judo (traditional) has so many ways of ending a match that are not used because of the stand up rules. Penalizing an opponant who over works a match can be easy the same can be said for stalling rather than a stand up place the offending player in a defensive position and force them to fight out of it. In general the assigning of a penality point does nothing to determine a winner just the person who lost less. Too much of Judo is lost in International Competition and with it so it seems is the etiquette and common politness being lost as well. Fighting not to lose is not the same as fighting to win. Defensive tactics are not those needed to win just to survive.

MarkF
22nd September 2000, 08:55
Sonomama used to be called quite often to give the judoka more room to fight it out on the ground. This is akin to sumo, in which the rikishi are hooked up with no quarter given. A break is called, and then they are put back in the closest position to the one they had, and told to continue.

Today, it is only called if osaekomi has been called, and the players are in the warning zone. The command is given, the players do not move, and are basically dragged more toward the center.

I would actually like to see it as you have described.

(I only cut a little:D )

Mark