PDA

View Full Version : Judo topics that haunt me...



Scanderson
16th January 2002, 18:17
The following topics are of interest to me, as I came from wrestling over to judo:

1) Does Judo now transcend the culture from which it came (Japan)? Isn't Judo international for the most part - hence, other than for historical purposes nationalistic pride and formal traditions, isn't the japan factor irrelevant? Should judo be most regarded for its principles and philosophy or its martial origins?

2) Was Judo designed as an "open" system that would advance and evolve as it developed as a sport and martial art? If more efficient ways are discovered with respect to grappling techniques, should they automatically replace the older, less efficient methods as a matter of refinement under the judo umbrella (personal efficiency notwithstanding)? I note in examination, we are not judged for our personal efficiency, but rather, execution of the technique as it appears. SHouldn't "maximum efficiency" reign supreme as an overiding rule?

3) Judo versus BJJ - if both are judo, as has been argued by countless judoka, could BJJ be a more refined form (in terms of maximum efficiency) of certain Judo techniques? Or inversely, has the refinement of mainstream judo stagnated somewhat due to preservation efforts? Is preservation antithesis to refinement? Is classical judo treated like Koryu in an effort to preserve?

Any thoughts or direction is appreciated in advance. I absolutely love Judo for it scientific and philosophical principles, but these questions remain.

Best regards.

S. C. Anderson

(edited for better clarity of point)

Charlie Kondek
16th January 2002, 20:52
Wow, Scanderson, as of this posting, 26 views and no replies. These are good questions, though. I haven't been involved in judo for very long, so I'm not really sure of all the issues that come to bear on some of these. But from what I can tell,

1) Yeah, judo transcends cultures in that it has become truly an international sport, but the Japanese factor is still very important, IMO. Movements to do away with some of the traditions seem kind of lame; if it is so deeply rooted in its native culture, why not honor that? I think Americans don't see it the same way because we haven't the same nationalistic expectations of our sports. We don't bow in baseball, for example, or equate the design of the football helmet with a beloved founder.

2) I'm not sure how most clubs do it, but efficiency reigns supreme where I practice. We're kind of expected to know the text book version of a move *and* the more dynamic version. I dunno, everyone I've run into is like this - also, sometimes even if a way of doing something seems anachronistic, you don't know until you've really practiced it that it really can't work that way.

3) Judo vs BJJ: I don't really know what to say there, except there's been a lot of overlap where I'm from. Overlap in the wrestling world, too. Everyone I've ever run across in the judo community is really interested in learning from BJJ or any other style of jujutsu. It hasn't really been treated like koryu, if by that you mean preservation of techniques even if they seem "outdated" is a priority.

That said, there's been a movement where I'm from to increase the quality of the players and practice, to the point where the state hosts state-wide "hell practices" with the national team. I dunno, man. Did you read Ben Holmes' judo vs. BJJ article; it did a really good job of articulating some of this...

http://www.bestjudo.com/article6.shtml

P.S. Is BJJ really that much more efficient in some ways? Can you give an example? This is not a flame, I just honestly know next to nothing technically about BJJ. Or maybe I do, cuz coach might have borrowed from it.

Scanderson
16th January 2002, 22:10
Originally posted by Charlie Kondek
[P.S. Is BJJ really that much more efficient in some ways? Can you give an example? This is not a flame, I just honestly know next to nothing technically about BJJ. Or maybe I do, cuz coach might have borrowed from it. [/B]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I can't say that BJJ is *more* efficient, as I have no experience with BJJ and am fairly new to Judo myself. I still relate to everything from a wrestling perspective. However, I am not making statements here, but just asking questions. I have done significant reading on judo history and practice though, much of which led to these questions.

As for Japanese customs, I have nothing against them, in fact kind of like them, but wonder why they are preserved. I have no problem with bowing or using Japanese terminology. Again, I am merely curious as to what others think. Judo seems to enjoy a duality that many sports do not, which strikes me as a bit odd, but then, that is why I have come before the "court of opinion" at E-Budo.

Best regards.

SCA

Charlie Kondek
16th January 2002, 23:06
Yeah, that takes some getting used to, the duality of Japanese sports/arts. If I'm understanding you correctly, it may be that you can't understand why changing the gi color would be a big deal, or why, if something is "international," it must also be "Japanese." I think it's just a foreign concept to Americans. I mean, if it was a *really* big deal that we use a wooden bat in baseball and other countries insisted on aluminum and we freaked out here in the states, maybe that's sort of what it would be like? (Drawing big, broad, slightly dumb analogy here, sorry.) Or what if they changed the number of strikes from three to four? We might have a coniption, then, eh?

Anyway, I hope some other, wiser folks will weigh in with their ideas, cuz it would interest me as well. Just curious: do you think wrestling is more efficient than judo? Sometimes I'm tempted to think it is but then it seems like both disciplines really come at the same thing from different angles. Like a "whizzer." A wrestler calls it a whizzer and a judoka calls it ippon-seionage or yoko wakare. You might be tempted to think the wrestler's whizzer is more fluid but then again it seems the ippon seionage can be done at a few different angles and under different conditions, making it more versatile, and then again aren't they sometimes the same dang throw?

This is the rambling of an amateur, BTW!

'renso
16th January 2002, 23:23
Hi Scanderson, nice questions!
I don't know if judo is international or not... I think it is open enough to accept external influences. But its beauty lies in the "maximum efficiency" principle, and its value as a philosophy, a practical one... and this concept is linked with the "traditional" aspect. I like the idea of a philosophy you practice and apply in training, slowly becoming part of you in other aspects of life, subsequently to constant training. If you put your heart in it of course. It's not like choosing an ethics and sticking to it, it's different. Without the traditional aspects, this would be lost, and it would become just a fighting system, or a sport. To me it's wonderful that this aspect is still alive, despite the fact that judo is an olympic sport as well. Actually, there are some who love to compete, and when they stop competing, they just sit back or maybe teach, but thinking of it as a set of techniques. There are others who continue practicing it, training kata, not avoiding some randori or ukemi practice even in late ages... and those are the ones I prefer to see as an example :) I've not been in judo for a lifetime like others here, but this aspect is what appeals me most.

Also, I think the key is not maximum efficiency, cause a gun is more efficient... it is the struggle for it. So you train a technique as a means to research efficiency... you don't train it because it's efficient. When you master the principle, techniques are just techniques. This is just my idea, i'm very very far from this at the moment, still thinking about how to set my feet to get a throw to work :) but my idea is that with time, that should be the... not the goal, maybe the "way it is".

About BJJ, I never seen it alive, and I must say I am very curious to see what those guys came up with... what would be those famed "better working" techniques than judo ones? I don't think there are magic techniques they know and judokas don't, I think they train more on the ground and they get better proficiency at it. Also consider they train dangerous techniques... for example, consider leg locks: when your knee is about to pop, it doesn't hurt like the elbow, especially when you're pumped with adrenaline. Allowing these is better efficiency? Maybe to cripple a deadly enemy, not to have fun for years without blowing your limbs... especially if you consider my opinion about seeking efficiency VS having "what works". When I'll see a bjj seminar here in Italy, I'll try to go and see on my own. I've seen a Kodokan osaekomi waza expert, in his seventies, maybe around 55kgs... and THAT was efficient :)

<insert flame disclaimer>

;)

Kit LeBlanc
17th January 2002, 03:11
What haunts me about judo are the endless questions and snide derision from so-called "combat" jujutsuka regarding its effectiveness in self defense...

I think Judo is transcendant. But I think that is based on its principles and its history. Judo does not seem to categorically eschew anything "different" in grappling while some traditional styles do for the purpose of preservation, or purity. or just plain snobbery. Judo seems to be more interested in adapting what is proven to work efficiently. I think it has a lot more room for variation because of that.

I don't think it is viewed as koryu by most folks, though I don't think it will be long before someone is teaching "koryu judo." Being really interested in Judo/jujutsu history and development, I think in terms of trying to find the middle ground between the koryu roots and progressive development.

BJJ can be more refined, but I am not sure it is the ART, but it is in the practitioner. I am sure there has been the newaza equivalent of Mifune in Judo....just don't know who.

I have trained with many different practitioners of BJJ, blues and a purple and a brown, and seen some black belts in action "live," but only felt one. He was truly magical. VERY soft and fluid yet with total dominating control the entire time.

I watched Fabio Santos go through an entire seminars' attendance, grappling with men half his age (he was probably in his 50's at the time)and (literally, with one guy) twice his size, and make short work of EVERYONE without betraying very much exertion at all. Very relaxed and smooth but totally dominating. That's probably why the Brazilians call it the "arte suave."

Aikido Journal even did a couple of articles on it comparing the principles and relaxation to aikido.

MarkF
17th January 2002, 13:03
One person I know who comes from BJJ and went on to practice judo, said the main difference he noticed in the newaza of BJJ and that of judo, was the stiffness and straining those he practiced with seemed to have, and it seemed too this was, at least, that club's way. He said he found just the opposite in judo newaza, and virtual opposites in those with long-term experience in both styes. As to technique, he said they were nearly identical.

As to judo being international, that was precisely what was said about Jigoro Kano and the reason for the formation of the Dai Nihon Butokukai in Kyoto ca. 1895, although the judo didn't begin until a little while later. It was basically a gentlemen's club which included royalty and the top of the yakuza as members.

Kano was thought to be too international in flavor and this was the answer to keep such things (kendo and others) as Japanese as was possible. OK, common knowledge, but as the occupation forces pretty much closed it, there was another meeting to dissolve it and was absorbed by the Kodokan, and it was then they founded the Japanese Judo Federation.

My own opinion is that it was destined to become an international pastime, but how would it not keep the Japanese influence and still call it judo? All ready, RobertW. Smith calls it "jacketed wrestling" and it basically was well-before he got involved as Pro-judo/wrestling was being practiced by about 1895.

Japan still keeps it as Japanese as possible but the Kodokan, even in their different, but also necessary changes to its own shiai, was inevitable, though still different enough from the IJF. Kangeiko is basically the same as training in any other part of the year, and the Kodokan closes for only a few weeks in the summer. All these changes, no matter what is said, is because it was impossible to stop.

The borders of the island had no way of stopping it even if they could, why would they choose to do so?

Yes, I am wondering also when judo will be considered koryu, too.

As to Mifune-quality ne-waza, well, the kosen school has the ability since its main source is newaza, there are people we just don't know about. And since most MA have wide-open holes in it, who would like to bet that there was more than one Mifune who slipped through the cracks?

Because of its international flavor, I doubt there will be the one or two, etc. anymore because they have either existed and died, exist but no one bothers to look, and also because most judoka don't go looking for the light. Most prefer the dark, but all outside Japan want to make their judo's history known. Mr. Larry Kobayashi of Nanka Yudansha kai (Southern California judo) is making noise of getting something, anything together to leave a history of LA judo. His teacher, Mr. Kuniyuki is middle age now (about 92) and Larry K. is in his late seventies. Can't wait forever.

Anyway, I forgot and am too tired to remember the other queries, but given the time, I think this is a great topic, so please, anything anyone has to offer, no matter how insignificant one may feel, well coal takes time to turn to diamonds, but every generation of judo players has something to add, and, as I still am amazed, as a coin collector, what "gems" I still find in my pocket change. Really. I've found coins more than a century old from the neighborhood convenience store.

No reason it won't happen the same way with judo.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Very nice.

Mark

MarkF
17th January 2002, 13:13
BTW: I don't think judo is stagnating at all. Some of the older folk in judo want to preserve a tradition to a degree, but why would that cause stagnation. I think the history is the future in this case. Most who are trying to preserve what was, are not attempting to stop its growth, as when I read "traditional" I think of the original shiai, or at least pre-war challenges.

Some think "traditional" means a return to something which never was. Traditional judo is the tournament and its rules we complain about, the technique which disappeared, and even those who were "too well trained" and were punished for using judo outside of the dojo, even if for self-defense, there was, to the Kodokan, a limit.

Judo was never really a fifty-fifty split of kata and randori (unless you include the few women who were learning the kata), randori was/is judo. That is what makes it distinct and what made it (and makes it so much fun to do). As a kid, we couldn't wait for tori to finish his throw so we could put on one of ours. Amazing how that never changes. Those of us who can't take the pounding anymore have those memories. And there is always, always something new to learn.

Mark

Scanderson
17th January 2002, 14:11
Thanks to all respondants for sharing their views. This probably has to do with my wrestling background, so please understand where I am coming from, but I do not view the randori factor as something unique to Judo. Perhaps it may seem that way when compared to what we consider to be "martial arts", but in wrestling and even boxing, is not the randori concept present?

Isn't wrestling and boxing a martial art too? In wrestling, we randori in the form of practice matches. As with randori, strategies and techniques are practiced at full steam. Same with boxing sparring sessions. The Indian wrestler, Gama, for instance, wrestled full steam for many consecutive hours a day as part of traditional training. Thus, it would seem the randori concept has been around for a long time before the creation of judo.

I keep coming back to the strive for maximum efficiency as the core concept that sets Judo apart from other grappling arts. Though it would seem that all grappling arts strive for efficiency to some extent, none would appear to embrace it more than Judo. Then again, I have much to learn about Judo. There is likely a synergy involved in Judo that is not yet apparent to me. A combination of the way techniques are practiced and then tested. I suppose one must look at Judo as a whole, rather than break it down into core concepts to truly appreciate it.

Comparing wrestling to judo is fascinating. Judo seems to have a certain elegance and grace, or a sophistication, that is not immediately apparent in wrestling, IMO, though my enthusiasm for and lack of skill in Judo may cloud my judgement. Both obviously require a great deal of skill.

I have no problem with the fact Judo is considered a sport. To me, that is a high accolade, indicating the high degree of skill, competion and international appeal that this martial system fosters. I always cringe when I read "...has now become a sport". No one says that about wrestling. Such a double standard. Of course, very few think of wrestling as a martial art.

Just a few further thoughts. Thanks for tolerating a wrestler (now trying out judo) in this forum.

S.C. Anderson

Charlie Kondek
17th January 2002, 14:11
It reminds me a lot of kendo, of which I am also a student. Here in the midwest, there's a lot of talk from the senior instructors (AUSKF) that I believe originates in Japan (ZNKR) about how kendo wants to preserve its integrity in the face of change, about how it does not want to become "strip mall martial arts," and how most of all it does not want the practice of kendo to become devoid of its most important aspect: the building of character. Judo broke the mold for MA in that it was pretty much the first Japanese MA to make an impact in the west. Karate/tae kwon do/kung fu followed, and I think kendo, and iaido, practitioners feel that with an upswing in sword interest in the west that they will face some of the same challenges that have faced these other MAs. (And maybe some new challenges, as well!)

What those challenges are, I think, include external influences chipping away at some of the culturally significant traditions or downgrading the quality of the techniques. In other words, the kendo community does not want to see kenshi just "flicking" or "right handing" their attacks and whatnot or, for example, disregarding traditions like the one that says you don't try to fight from the jodan posture until you are, I think it's 5-dan.

Anyway, it just reminds me of that. I think the kendo community looks to other MAs as examples of what can happen when the art takes on an international body.

Charlie Kondek
17th January 2002, 14:28
I think what's meant by randori being unique to judo is that randori was unique among jujutsu ryu around the turn of the century when judo was born and matured; not randori is unique to judo among all martial arts.

Can I just say, though, Amen! to your comment about people using the word "sport" as a put-down? That's in line a little with what Kit was saying about self-important comments from other disciplines. To me, sport denotes someone who pushes himself harder and challenges himself more. I think the celebrity American athlete of today has done a great disservice to our popular image of the sportsman. We think of the athlete as one without that all-important quality that you wrestlers know so well - heart - when in fact being an athlete used to be a badge of honor and a responsibility. Compare the cell-phone talking, sport-shoe-endorsing athlete of these days, whose biggest concern is his multimillion dollar paycheck, to someone like, say, Joe DiMaggio, who brought working-class values to his job as a professional baseball player. I remember reading once that a trainer left a heat pad on DiMaggio's foot for too long, burning it horribly. DiMaggio didn't tell anyone that his foot was hurt, but went out instead and played nine great innings because he knew the team was depending on him. That's heart, man.

This is a huge generalization, of course - there were jagoffs in DiMaggio's day and there are stand-up guys today. But I think it's time we stopped giving sport such a bad name! I think the best athletes are the ones who approach their sport as both sport and art, regardless of discipline.

'renso
18th January 2002, 01:56
I wish to clarify that I have nothing against sports or sport judo... I meant to say that overemphasizing the sports aspect of judo, leads to loss of its deeper values. This from my experience of judoists who cannot think of judo outside of shiai. I don't compete though, so i guess my view is just the opposite one.
Would you clarify about judo and bjj black belts? Judo BB are stiff?? Not in my limited experience! This is new to me. Anyway, now i'm even more curious to roll with some bjj guys!

Ben_Holmes
18th January 2002, 05:24
I noticed the discussion drifting slightly towards "sports", and it brought back to mind something a good Judo coach (Jim Hrbek) once said to a woman famous for trolling on rec.martial-arts. This statement though, came from the Judo-List:


It is ludicrous to suggest that top competitors are not capable of doing real, classical working Judo.

What could this be?

People who train and then have the Courage and Curiosity to explore further the uses of their training in competition are in some way diminished in the eyes of the folks who possess enither the Courage nor the Curiosity and who just practice and never expose themselves to the possibility of failure?

Learn to ski, never go down a real hill. Learn to hunt, never shoot anything, learn to swim, never get in a river.

Right - and then have the nerve to say that just because YOU do synchronized swimming and nothing else, that the swimmer who has just body surfed the rapids is in some way diminished because he introduced some force and expanded on the applications of the very same swimming skills you use in your little pool but did so in an environment where you dont or wont go?

Dont want to compete? Dont like to? Dont like the rules? Not good, or dedicated or mentally tough enough? Well, then - in what medium would you actually TEST your skills (it is hard these days for us to get wandering ronin to beat up, and most of us get through most of our adult lives without ever being in a fight)"



I saved it, since it stated so clearly a facet of the value of competition. Hope everyone enjoys it!

Ben_Holmes
18th January 2002, 05:36
I have trained with many different practitioners of BJJ, blues and a purple and a brown, and seen some black belts in action "live," but only felt one. He was truly magical. VERY soft and fluid yet with total dominating control the entire time.

I watched Fabio Santos go through an entire seminars' attendance, grappling with men half his age (he was probably in his 50's at the time)and (literally, with one guy) twice his size, and make short work of EVERYONE without betraying very much exertion at all. Very relaxed and smooth but totally dominating. That's probably why the Brazilians call it the "arte suave."


Kit, ever trained with a high ranking Judoka? The description you have above matches several high ranking Judoka I've had the privilege of doing randori with. Pat Burris, for example, whom I outweighed by perhaps 30 pounds at the time, felt much like what I've imagined Mifune must have felt like.

You may or may not have intended it, but I got the impression that your impressions felt unique to BJJ? If so, I'm quite sure that the higher ranks of *any* art are capable of such skill... if I misunderstood your implications, forgive me!!

MarkF
18th January 2002, 08:34
Just to clarify what I said concerning the difference in BJJ and judo nage-waza, was a very paraphrased description from one person from one club. It wasn't meant to say it was true or not of BJJ or judo, just that it was from one person from one club.

Also, without saying so, I was referring to randori of judo compared to other Japanese Martial arts. Judo certainly isn't unique in this, the idea of this type of study and training goes back to an older school of Kitoryu, jikishinryu whose teachers first used the term "judo" though probably yawara no michi or something similar to that. Randori was also one of the principles of learning.

At first, Kodokan was the only thing unique about its jujutsu in the beginning, while Kano pondered a name for his ideas. Since the oldest of judo kata is sometimes referred to as kitoryu no kata (koshiki no kata), this makes it very plausible.

Stephen, just for the record, I wrestled in college so I know where you are coming from. It was fun in the beginning when using judo technique for takedowns and pins, but those guys were the kind "fool me once," etc. I didn't do it for long as judo was more important to me. At first, it was because I needed a half-unit to come in for the minimum I needed at the time. Later, it was a lot of fun. Then it began to take time away from a lot of stuff including my studies, but yes, I think I uderstand.

Gene LeBell once said that there is *nothing* in judo which wasn't found in wrestling, and he certainly wasn't one with whom you would argue the point. Besides, I had similar thoughts after a while, as well. Do kata guruma and tell me it isn't a wrestling move. The old pro-judo/wrestling, or more appropriately, the jacket versus the jacket and the no-jacket versus the no-jacket

Mark

rsamurai2
19th January 2002, 02:49
I want to add my 2 cents worth to this thread.
First I want to clarify I was a sport martial artist for 20 years before I started the self-defense/combat side of the arts. First sport martial arts are different in techniques and scope from the combat side. Not better, not worse, just different. In sport karate, we practiced different techniques. We aimed at specific targets. I fought point karate than I moved to light and full contact karate. Those techniques we practiced were few in amounts but many in repatitionsSport ma build character; it builds endurance, heart, and athletiisim. Give you a chance to go full out against a resisting opponent. Builds friendships, gives you goals to be better than anyone else. You are in better shape than most people you will ever meet are. It doesn’t matter if it is sport karate or sport judo. I taught shotokan karate for 15 years off and on. I know teach judo and jujutsu. However, my emphasis is on self-defense now not sport. The problems I see with the sport side of the arts are the techniques are being reduced and with every generation, another technique is lost. The reason, a new rule outlawing it in competition. My judo instructor did judo in the 40’s and 50’s. he has forgotten more judo than most of us will even know exist. He knows some nasty leg locks and neck cranks. The combat side isn’t hung up so much on the perfection of self or technique. Only effectiveness. It was written in an earlier post that judo efficiency principle is its foundation. Another poster said a gun is more efficient. He is correct. In my jujutsu class, an escape for kesa gatame is fish hooking an eye socket or pushing against the bridge of the nose with your Te gatana. This isn’t allowed in sport but it sure is much more efficient than trying uphill escapes or bridge and rolls. In addition, it is much more efficient to strike/shock the body to achieve kusishi than pushing and pulling or spinning.
If all you have ever done is practice your ma within the scope of your systems competition rules you will be taken by surprise by someone who trains outside the rules. Sport ma are great, but the depth of the art is the kata or self defense techniques. Here you learn much more about body mechanics and which way the body moves because you are not limited to the sport rules. In my judo class, we have many sport judo players who have only done sport judo. When we newaza randori I constantly surprise them with different techniques. Even though we agree we can lock anything we want they still fight within there rule structure. I beat them by going outside the rules. Has anyone gotten hurt? NO! That is what control is. When I arm bar someone I don’t have to lock it in and cause them pain or a knee bar until the leg pops. When I see the look on there face I know, and they know I have the lock. IOW, sport ma are great for all the above reasons. However, do not forget there is much more to these arts than sport. When I was going through the ranks in judo, (my third black belt) I was constantly frustrated at sport judo. I was going down the evolutionary ladder. I was reducing my technique arsenal, I was always being told,”you can’t do that!” Sport is great when we are young. However, the real meat in the self defense applications of any art. Lets remember, this is the reason the martial arts were created. Self-defense/offense. Not sport. Sport is what we did to preserve the arts after they were no longer needed because of technology advancements. I.e. guns, bombs.
Just something to ponder.

Kit LeBlanc
19th January 2002, 02:59
Ben,

Yeah. Our chief instructor is a rokudan....randori with him feels like "wrestling an empty jacket" as one of our sandan once put it. We have a couple yondan (though I think some have been promoted to godan, don't quote me, though) and several sandan.

None match the rokudan for smoothness.

But I should add that I have not experienced this on the ground with them. One of the yondan is really good on the ground, the best at our club, but nowhere near as smooth as the BJJ black belt I mentioned. There is a nidan locally (probably should be sandan or yondan) who teaches judo but emphasizes/focusses on newaza and pancration. I haven't rolled with him in a while but don't remember him feeling anything like the BJJ black belt I mentioned.

Most of the others just don't seem to want to get involved in newaza. Most of the guys at our club, yudansha included, either roll to their stomach or go for a pin and hold on for dear life.

I don't think it is NECESSARILY the art. But I do believe that Brazilian Newaza Judo does emphasize the ground game and therefore, in my experience which is admittedly limited, tend to be smoother and more technical at it than judoka in general. I am sure there are judoka out there that are equally smooth on the ground, it is just that I don't think there are as many as there are in BJJ. Likewise, you will have a hard time finding a BJJ practitioner that is as smooth as a good judoka in tachiwaza. Its in whatever is their tokui-waza.

Kit LeBlanc
19th January 2002, 03:39
Deleted....can't figure out how to break up those quotes to comment on individual points...

Ahhh, doesn't matter, I've said it BEFORE.

Scanderson
19th January 2002, 14:18
Thanks for your 2 cents RSamurai2 - I am not sure I entirely agree with your arguments regarding sport judo versus combat judo. In both of the judo clubs I have been in, sport tactics and self defense applications were taught. Never has the scope been only with respect to the sport of judo. However, I never fish-hooked my randori opponents eye to get out of a pin. Maiming or killing my practice partner would not be in my best interests nor suit my practice needs. I need to keep him/her healthy.

Much of the "survival" stuff that you mention, IMO, are great to think about and would certainly apply in a one-on-one assualt, fight for your life situation, but I don't see it of great value in a training hall. You can't practice these techinques full force, only apply them when your life is threatened, so visualizing is the best you can do until it happens.

Regardless, I am all for thinking outside the box and try new things. Which is why my current instructor blends Judo, Sombo, Jiu Jutsu and even wrestling into our 2 hour class sessions (which are held three times a week) There are things you can do in Sombo that you can't in Judo, and vice versa. Same with checkers and chess. Street fighting is just another game and you have to remember there are no rules and high stakes. Is it so hard?

Therefore, with great respect and appreciation for your ideas, I must reject your "Pavlov's dog" argument regarding sport judoka, insinuating that they do not "think outside the box". You think wrestler's go for a pin in a street fight? It really isn't that black and white in my opinion.

Best regards,


Stephen C. Anderson

Jon S.
19th January 2002, 15:58
Scanderson,

About "thinking outside the box", I believe Richard's intent was more along these lines: those who choose not to do so during practice are more likely to be taken by surprise on the street. It's not that it's difficult to give consideration to the possibilities beyond the scope of the rules, it's just a matter of doing so sometimes during practice. In sport, it can be very easy to get lazy and leave the eyes unprotected while holding someone in kesa gatame, or hadaka jime, or whatever. If you train for the street, you remind yourself when such targets are vulnerable and you seek to understand ways to make them less vulnerable.

So, I don't think that any Judoka necessarily lack the skill or ability to deal with such situations - but those that focus exclusively on the sport aspect, and don't give such matters any attention in practice, run a greater risk of being surprised by such things on the street.

It comes down to practice. Like a throw becomes more natural with practice, so too does practice make one more instinctively able to seek out opportunities that would be considered illegal by sport standards. "Instinctive" is the key word here. If one takes too much time to think of what to do, the opportunity is often lost. Those who practice seizing opportunities to go for eye gouges, the groin, the fingers, etc. are going to be more likely to make such techniques successful than those who don't. Those who practice defending against such techniques are less likely to be overcome by them.

Only focusing on sport doesn't invalidate Judo for self-defense, it does, however, establish limitations which may become habitual - and this could (but not necessarily, and almost certainly not against unskilled opponents) adversely affect somebody's ability to defend themselves on the street.

Since I'm posting I'll offer my answers to your questions as well:

1) yes, yes, both.

2) I have no idea what Kano's intent was when he developed Judo; whose to judge what the intent was in regards to efficiency when a technique was developed? If something seems inefficient from observation, it could simply be that it involves a subtlety that isn't understood by those who might wish to modify it. I'm not opposed to techniques evolving, but I think the matter should be given careful consideration, and that the original technique should not be forgotten. There's no reason why evolution and preservation can't go hand in hand. Yes, maximum efficiency should remain supreme as an overriding rule, but thorough understanding should be attained before making modifications; and the original technique should be preserved in case one thinks they have thorough understanding, but they are mistaken - this way the possibility of understanding the truth in the future remains.

3) I don't think it's so much a matter of "refined technique" as it is a matter of "refined practitioners", but then, I'm not all that familiar with bjj. I think preservation is only an anti-thesis to refinement to those who choose to make it that way. As for Judo being treated like a Koryu system, I suppose some do this, but I don't typically see it. Personally, I think it wouldn't be a bad thing. Otherwise, if "refinement" continues, at what point would Judo no longer be Judo, but instead, something that is practically unrecognizable from what Judo was?



Kit,

I hope you're speaking specifically, not generally:

"What haunts me about judo are the endless questions and snide derision from so-called "combat" jujutsuka regarding its effectiveness in self defense..."

Personally I don't know of any Jujutsuka who feel that way about Judo. In fact, plenty study Judo to impove their combat effectiveness as Jujutsuka. What would Jujutsu be if you took all of the Judo out of it? Far less combat effective, that's for sure.


Jon Small

Scanderson
19th January 2002, 19:40
Originally posted by Jon S.
About "thinking outside the box", I believe Richard's intent was more along these lines: those who choose not to do so during practice are more likely to be taken by surprise on the street.
Jon Small

Jon - thanks. I suppose the argument can be made that those that study and practice strictly self defense oriented techniques will indeed be more prepared than those that ignore them. Theoretically, it would make much more sense for me to arm myself and take firearms training if self defense is my sole focus or reason for taking martial arts. Much easier too. After all, this isn't feudal Japan we live in today.

However, for the sake of accuracy and so as not to mislead anyone about Judo, I would like to add that self-defense techniques are included in Judo - specifically in the Kodokan Goshin Jutsu, which was created in 1956, however much of the regular Judo technique is obviously adaptable for combat (assuming one wishes to ignore the premise that they were actually extracted from ancient combat arts), particularly the chokes and locks. The Goshin Jutsu includes knife defenses, gun defenses, among others. Some dojos do practice these - just not all the time or as the main focus. Or maybe not. Maybe some Judoka practice them all the time. Who knows? Judo is a large buffet to choose from. One can eat what they like.

I guess the funny scene that came to mind was a judoka throwing a mugger and then when the mugger gets up and draws his gun, the Judoka says - "hey that was an Ippon...it's over....and you forgot to bow!"

Best regards to all.

S. Anderson

Jon S.
19th January 2002, 21:12
Scanderson,

I agree with just about everything you say, but I do want to elaborate on this though:

"Theoretically, it would make much more sense for me to arm myself and take firearms training if self defense is my sole focus or reason for taking martial arts."

At the surface this might seem true, but consider the following: you may not always be armed, your weapon might fail to discharge, with no training I can be dangerous with a gun too - with a little training I can get better, if you introduce a gun the stakes go up - and it may fall into your enemies hands, your assailant may be unarmed in which case you may have legal difficulties, your opponent may be your friend or kin, etc. etc.

With martial arts training, these things become less of a concern. So, it would make less sense to arm yourself if self-defense is your sole focus - though if your exposure to danger is that high, than it's an easy matter to arm yourself too.

If one is truly theorizing, than self-defense training makes more sense (funny thing is that you could put firearm training in this category).

Anyhow, I'm probably just preaching to the choir. Sorry to pick at such a detail.

You're absolutely right that Judo is a great platter to choose from. You can get a well-balanced meal containing all of the food groups if you want, and plenty of dessert too.

I'd like to add, too, that I think that Kime No Kata contains lots of useful self defense knowledge as well. I hear a lot of talk about martial arts evolving to suit todays needs. To some extent this is true, and martial arts has evolved to meet those needs; but when it comes down to it, hand to hand combat has been around for eons, and the fundamentals remain the same.


Jon Small

Scanderson
19th January 2002, 22:18
Originally posted by Jon S.
I'd like to add, too, that I think that Kime No Kata contains lots of useful self defense knowledge as well.
Jon Small

Jon - good arguments all around. However, lets focus on the short list - what do you think IS NOT useful for self defense in Judo? I can't think of anything....


Steve

Jon S.
19th January 2002, 23:07
Nor can I. Here we get into "effectiveness" which is another overriding rule regarding technique. Of course, for me, not all techniques are effective - but that doesn't mean the techniques themselves are ineffective, only my ability to apply them.

Jon Small

Kit LeBlanc
20th January 2002, 01:38
Originally posted by Jon S.



Kit,

I hope you're speaking specifically, not generally:

"What haunts me about judo are the endless questions and snide derision from so-called "combat" jujutsuka regarding its effectiveness in self defense..."

Personally I don't know of any Jujutsuka who feel that way about Judo. In fact, plenty study Judo to impove their combat effectiveness as Jujutsuka. What would Jujutsu be if you took all of the Judo out of it? Far less combat effective, that's for sure.


Jon Small

Jon,

Just go down to the jujutsu forum, or to several other boards and look around a little bit, you'll see it. Judo is seen by many people training "classical combat" forms as sport ONLY. This demonstrates a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of judo. Or a lack of knowledge of what real fighting is actually like, since many seem to consider kata as much more realistic for self defense. They aren't. Like randori, they are based on a set of rules which allows them to be practiced safely. Unlike randori, they don't train some of the most important attributes needed in dealing with actual aggressive intent.

I did a Judo/BJJ mix, did some classical stuff, and ended up back with the Judo/BJJ mix because in my opinion, and as was regularly demonstrated to me in the course of my work as an LEO on the street, the Judo training method (emphasizing randori) is what translated much more directly to street application. So, at first I was wondering why I didn't see these same things that the alleged combat stylists did. Then I read more of their posts and realized they were talking more about the way they would LIKE aggressive physical encounters to be, not the way they are. Difference is in the level of actual experience.

My training would basically be called sportive by these folks for the most part; And this is probably true, though I should say there are certain things I won't do in the street that you can get away with in dojo training with friends and colleagues.

It's all in how you see the training and how you use it, and in the limits of your imagination in applying what you do. Both kata/goshin jutsu methods and randori need to be tweaked to become anything like effective application. I think randori, even competition style, prepares you better for the tweaking.

Jon S.
24th January 2002, 21:46
Hi Kit,

Well, I've done some searching around. I have found very little talk amongst the more classical practitioners that in any way discredits the combat effectiveness of Judo. This is not without exception of course, but the exceptions seem to have occured mostly here at this Judo forum. I agree with you in that it probably results from a lack of knowledge and understanding about Judo.

It also happens that there are those who discredit the value of kata training in regards to actual combat. Again, here too, I think this is a result of a lack of knowledge and understanding about kata.

Anyone who has told you that kata is "much more realistic" for self defense are mistaken. At the same time, those who would tell you that randori is, are mistaken also. Neither is "more" realistic, both are very realistic to a certain degree, but very different. It truly is a case of apples and oranges.

Everyone develops their own ideas about what works for them based on their experiences. It's my opinion that practicing both the sporting and kata aspects of martial arts is essential for one who seeks to make themselves a more complete martial artist, especially in regards to combat. To neglect to do so is kind of like neglecting to develop a whole realm of waza. Like the karateka who doesn't learn to wrestle, or the Judoka who never practices striking. Of course, this doesn't mean that either one wouldn't possibly be a dangerous opponent. Likewise, if someone only practices kata or only practices randori, I'd still view either one as a skilled and dangerous martial artist, without making any judgements about who is more dangerous.

Kit: "Unlike randori, they don't train some of the most important attributes needed in dealing with actual aggressive intent."

Here I disagree with you. Again, it isn't that training in specific attributes doesn't happen, it just happens differently. I would be no more correct than you are if I said: unlike kata, randori doesn't train some of the most important attributes in dealing with actual aggressive intent.

Kit: "Then I read more of their posts and realized they were talking more about the way they would LIKE aggressive physical encounters to be, not the way they are. Difference is in the level of actual experience."

Anyone who understands kata and has experienced aggressive physical encounters knows that they are very different than actual kata techniques, but (in a way) very similar, as well. Those who think combat *should* go a certain way don't understand either combat or the teachings of their kata - and they are very obviously deluding themselves. Aggressive physical encounters are also very different than randori. Practicing kata can prepare you though, so can randori. Practicing both will prepare you better than either one could by itself, IMO.

Kit: "Both kata/goshin jutsu methods and randori need to be tweaked to become anything like effective application. I think randori, even competition style, prepares you better for the tweaking."

Personally, I don't really view it as "tweaking". I guess the way I see it is that you can apply your knowledge in a dynamic manner when faced with unpredictalbe circumstances, or you can't. Your opinion is that randori is better, you've come to that conclusion from your experiences and it's not wrong if that's what works for you, but I'd remind you that having done "some classical stuff" doesn't necessarily qualify you to make an accurate judgement about the value of kata in regards to combat.

From my own experiences I've concluded that generally my practice in randori has contributed more to my performance in an aggressive physical encounter than has kata; but when I've felt that my physical safety has been most threatened (when the fear really welled up inside me), I think it was my practice in kata that saved me (even in the midst of an encounter in which my randori practice was influencing my performance more). Who can say that I wouldn't have been okay anyway had I never practiced kata, but it's just the impression I'm left with.

At Budoseek, Mr. Miller has offered some of the clearest insights into the value of training in kata that I've heard. Please check out these threads:

http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=441

http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=477

I found Mr. Miller's third post of this second link to be particularly interesting.

One final note: I think that it takes considerably longer to realize the benefits of training in kata than it does to realize the benefits that come from randori. Many people make false presumptions based on limited understanding, and never come to know the depth of it's value. To me, kata is the gold that doesn't glitter.


Jon Small

Kit LeBlanc
25th January 2002, 00:46
Jon,

I am curious as to your combative experiences. What actual physical confrontations have you been involved in? I ask this not to challenge your assertions, but for a watermark as to where we are both coming from in this discussion. You seem to be intimating that you have some experience in this area.

I am aware that Mr. Miller (Rory) is a Corrections Officer with, as he writes, over 200+ uses of force, so I know that he certainly does have a background in real world application. You are aware of my background. Still, I disagree to some extent with his comments though we probably have very similar experiences. So where does that leave us?

I have read the posts you linked to before, and I simply do not agree that kata is as demanding or dangerous as he makes it out to be. If this were true, kata would result in far more injuries than it does. The techniques practiced are admittedly often more dangerous. But they are therefore often not practiced in a realistic manner. Only by practicing them in a realistic manner will the level of danger and combative commitment asserted be reached. Again, this is impossible without maiming or killing your training partners, so it doesn't happen.

But still kata is often talked about with the whole "flirting with death," "done with killing intent," and "need to have full combative commitment," which is overstating the case more than a little.

This is my pet peeve with the pure traditionalists; the effort to make of kata practice more than what it is, I guess in order to view it as more dangerous. I do not hold to this view, as it seems you do not. The downplaying of the role of freestyle practice in developing combative functioning because of the "rules" goes hand in hand with this, and is an incredibly myopic way to view effective training. It also conveniently ignores the extensive built in safety mechanisms within kata to make it a safe training modality.

To quote a classical saying "Training is just that, nothing more."

Lest I be assailed with the ol' "you haven't done kata correctly then," I studied for three years a classical system known for being very rough, with a highly experienced instructor, and we trained in some seriously painful unarmed and some demanding armed kata. The intent was palpable, and once, just standing there waiting for a kata to begin, our eyes locked, the tension was very high and I was soaking through my keikogi (with sweat, that is.) :look: So I was doing it with an uke who was very good at it, and who made it more and more stressful to perform kata against as I got better.

But not once did I think that my instructor would intentionally try to hurt me. Nor did I think that he was inexpert enough to make accidentally hurting me a real big issue either, frankly. Incidentally, he required his students to train in a freestyle grappling art as an adjunct to kata practice, and the weapons curriculum as he learned it also included freestyle fighting with shinai wearing only head protector and wrist protectors with the full body a target. Why? To make it more realistic.

Kata is a cooperative practice that is nowhere near like a real fight. Randori is of course cooperative as well, but closer to a real fight in terms of the physicality and pressure encountered. The mental stress is somewhat more demanding in kata with weapons, I think, and the margin for error makes for more of it, but still, neither is much like any serious encounter I have ever been involved in where actual aggressive intent was present.

I believe the full speed committed application of "safer" techniques in randori, against active full power resistance, to be a better aid in developing realistic application under pressure in dynamic situations. Kata may have some of the mental pressure, but it lacks the dynamism, no matter how fast you are going, if the other guy knows what you are going to do before you do it.

The more kata tries to capture that dynamism, the more it is "broken," the closer one is getting to freestyle or force on force training, thus closer to NOT being kata. But without a 100% resisting opponent trying to undo what you are attempting it does not draw out or reinforce the attributes necessary to dominating physically antagonistic encounters in which resistance is present. This was really driven home to me in watching police officers function in force on force weapon retention and weapon takeaway training we recently conducted at my agency.

Being familiar with the kata syllabus of Rory's tradition, they do not strike me as anything more or less special than any other kata I have been exposed to. I have not had the opportunity to compare notes with Rory, as he has not been attending the Obukan judo dojo we are both members of lately, due to injury, I think. I would like to see what he is doing now, and trade thoughts with him on this very topic.

Kata are important, don't get me wrong. I think people should practice both. Kata are a demonstration of an art's principles in action, and an aid in conceptualizing and passing on those principles. They are an aid in practicing things which cannot be practiced full contact without injury. I find them also to be a performance baseline for application of principles as well. But they must take second place to fully resistive randori and realistic force on force training to develop the same skills in a practitioner. Or be modified to the extent that they are far closer to the former than they are to pre-arranged patterns of attack and defense to do so (which many classical traditions do and have done for centuries).

Many of the premier swordsmen of the Edo/Bakumatsu period, whose names we conjure with today, worked hard to come up with a form of freestyle shinai geiko that allowed dynamic and full speed application of the methods of combative swordsmanship because they felt emphasis on this kind of practice was more realistic and led to better combative performance than emphasis on kata training did (see G Cameron Hurst's Armed Martial Arts of Japan by Yale University Press).

If many of the greats believed this, in an age when some of them still fought for their lives with their blades, I have little reason to think that it is not a good idea to follow in their footsteps.

Kit LeBlanc
25th January 2002, 01:42
Okay, just finished that last post and wanted to add something:

Kata are a good way to pass on knowledge, of a tradition's principles and provide "living" examples of how and when they can be applied.

But they do not pass on skill in applying principles against resistance. Randori does that. Fighting principles are worthless unless you know how to apply them against resistance.

So, kata can give you an idea of what to DO in a combative situation, but not give you the ability to actually do it under pressure, and under circumstances which are not laid out as they are in the kata.

Kata, done right, DO provide other options than what you normally do in randori, especially if you have to get nasty. But randori prepares you to decide on and take such action under pressure with the appropriate opening, and to make it effective.

Though I still think that function randori plays is more important.

'renso
25th January 2002, 02:35
Kit,
I've not been in a phisical confrontation after I started judo, I can't speak from facts... so take my thought for what it's worth.
I think that randori can help you in seeking opportunities, throwing with commitment, and reacting to sheer force attacks. But in my opinion, kata, if practiced long and well, can give you another kind of edge in extreme situations... where you can't think, or can't act, and randori skills don't have the time to kick in. Like reacting to a sudden attack, unforeseen, unjustified... the two or three times I did a decent nage no kata waza I felt just this.... like as if I reacted to something I didn't know that was coming at me, but just blended with what was around me. Of course I "knew", but somehow, in the moment I forgot. Probably this kind of attention, in daily life, can only be attained by a few gifted and selected ones... not me, not in the next 10 years at least ;)... but I do think this FOCUS could be very important. You could say that randori gives you the techniques, and how to make them actually work, while kata lets you seize the chance to use the techniques.

regards,
Lorenzo

MarkF
25th January 2002, 12:08
....randori with him feels like "wrestling an empty jacket" as one of our sandan once put it.

That is a long-standing comment about randori with Mifune, and I mostly hear it from non-judo people.

Concerning judo v. BJJ, the differences are there because the means to an end. Judoka try to maintain a standing "tai" or posture, if possible. Getting to the ground may just end things right there while the BJJ and other ground grapplers need to get there, thus not all that much resistence to do so.

I think this is the one basic reason for differences in the two. Both are grappling arts, it is just the means to an end, sportingly to the end.
*****


You could say that randori gives you the techniques, and how to make them actually work, while kata lets you seize the chance to use the techniques.


I'm not sure whether I agree or not. They could be the other way around and I would still not quite agree, not totally.

First of all, the majority of judoka who compete are in the minority in my experience over the last thirty-nine years(nineteen or so competing). There have been families of judoka who all compete from the same dojo (some friends of mine, but the obvious one would be Jimmy Pedro and his family, all judoka, mother and sister, too) but on the average, most who play judo do not compete. Thjen of those who do, most are not better than average or perhaps good enough to make state or national events. Only a very small minority win, and go on from there.

Well, yes, of course kata allows you the change to use the techniques, and that's fine, there is certainly no harm, and it definitely can help, but by which manner does this allow one to "seize the chance to use them?" Kata are don purpose fully, step by step, each side knowing what the other does. I love judo kata and wish I knew it better.

You practice, surely, you get to know them, that can't be bad. It gives you opportunity to practice techniques randori doesn't allow for. Also true (to a point). But then, no matter how much or how much one puts into the practice, how does this prepare you for the unrecognized attack found in randori? Yes, randori no kata is "kata." Each, though, has his own. In this way, it is totally an individual thing. "Randori only" are the most popular classes at the Kodokan Institute.

Randori can be down many ways, even to slow down the technique for learning, or give and take to practice your technique. You do waza which you would not do on the shiai mat or perhaps would not do in a combat situation. Still, you practice them, you learn as many as you are capable.

So we come back to what Kano called "all-out." This is what he meant (he had said so many times), and if one is not, then watch as you may learn something. Yokoyama repeats this by crediting Kano.

"All-out" is something you may not even get in a street fight or other combat situation, but nevertheless we do it this way. I say to change your quote this way:

"You could say that *kata* gives you the techniques and how they really work while randori lets you seize the chance to use them."

There is nothing as real as attack and defend and it doesn't matter how many rules it contains, just that you do so on impulse. Many times in shiai this is what happens. Hook up and throw! Ippon! In the old days, you would probably be thrown two or more times before the match was stopped by the judge. It is clearly a symbolic, combative victory. It still is, even though I don't like many of the newer rules, but the attack and defend in randori doesn't change once the reflex is conditioned to do one or the other.

Sometimes, many times that is how long a combative situation really takes. But if you do have time, the rules are clear: Firstly, you quickly check out and learn distance, area to work, and whatever is your weapon of choice (quickly look for anything, use what is in your pocket[s]; anything. This takes less time than one thinks it does. I believe it is called "ma-ai?" You also size up the opponent, look for the obvious weakness, then find more in the first instant you are forced to "get it on." You take as much time as you can. You stall, cry, beg, and in the meantime, you are creating a larger "ma-ai." Most wouldn't cry or beg, but then through randori, this does take place. It doesn't in kata. It can't because uke is attacking, and you are the taker, you know all in advance.

What I do in place of that is to have attack drills. With the advanced student, though, to a one, they instantly revert to a fighting stance. This is your conditioned reflex at work.

Randori is as close as you will get, IMO. It isn't so much the practice of techniques but how to utilize them to your advantage: "Maximum efficiency." Utilizing an opponents strength as his weakness is one way of achieving it. Sometimes it does pay to look the part of the diminuative, 99 lb weakling. The one with all the muscle and size just may take you lightly. But who knows?

People in LE know much more than I do (in combative situations, such does Kit), and have a greater knowlege of the street corner "basho" than I and I bow to that advantage, but as was said, most don't get that close, most that do, it doesn't take very long. You may get "repetitive motion" in randori as you do working at kata, but probably not as much as kata. Too much attention must be paid to the mechanics. This is an obvious advantage as well, but unless the opportunity to work, without restraint, in an all-out situation as randori, you really will never know what it is you need.
*****

All that said, I teach the kata, too. Most do not compete except in the practice shiai environment. I also try to teach some striking, though I generally teach a more "crashing in" style, as getting to the inside is most important. At a distance, there is probably a weapon involved, and as much as most do their goshin jutsu and/or kime no kata, some are just not lifelike.

Sorry to ramble on so.

Mark

Jon S.
26th January 2002, 01:24
Hi Kit,

First I'd like to address this question because I think it is a crucial point:

Kit: "I am aware that Mr. Miller (Rory) is a Corrections Officer with, as he writes, over 200+ uses of force, so I know that he certainly does have a background in real world application. You are aware of my background. Still, I disagree to some extent with his comments though we probably have very similar experiences. So where does that leave us?"

As people with differing viewpoints - none of which are necessarily wrong. The truth in this matter is subjective as it is based upon our own experiences and what we've found to work for ourselves. To debate "right or wrong" is senseless.

As for my own experiences, they stand insignificant in quantity (probably quality too) in relation to those of Rory's, and most probably those of yourself as well. Before I go into any detail, I'd like to mention that I'm not proud of my experiences, and in fact, stand ashamed of my inability to avoid conflict in my younger years, but it's my shame and I live with it. Truthfully, for some reason, I'm hesitant to spill my guts (I think I get stagefright or something); but what the hell, you asked. Be warned, it's nothing too interesting though.

To try to sum it up: starting as kid, moving from suburban Colorado to rural Maine I was quite different, especially in the way I talked. So, naturally, I found myself in frequent scraps. Rural Maine can be a tough place to grow up, and I think I had it tougher. I don't really count these though. I began studying classical Jujutsu in junior high, and learned better how to avoid conflict. Then, as I reached young adulthood, I don't know if I was in that phase where I was pissed at the world, filled with testosterone, or simply had too much doubt as to the effectiveness of what I studied - probably a combination of all, but the first one the least, since I've never had a desire to truly hurt people (and never did, to my knowledge), and the last one the most, since my own teacher has never been in a fight - for that he'll always remain a better man than I; but he had confidence in his knowledge, perhaps because his teacher had a tremendous amount of combat experience, including, but not limited to, being a marine during WWII, and a retired Denver police officer (and the H2H combat instructor for the force). In any case, as a fledgling adult, I was involved in perhaps close to a dozen altercations. My only consolation is that I never instigated these, but I probably could have avoided most, if not all, of them. In any case, I found the answers I was looking for and understood that it was the training that really mattered, not the fighting. Then, after college, I worked as a bouncer for nearly a year, and I am proud to say that during this time I only had to use physical force on three occasions. Unless you count the time that I disarmed someone of his potential weapon (beer bottle) before a fight started, and he never even knew it (the fight never happened in the end though), I don't though. After this I worked one season as a security guard for a ski resort and had to use my skills on a couple of occasions, nothing significant though, just restraining punk kids. To give insight into my more serious experiences: the first two occured during my rowdy days, one where I faced someone who armed himself with a stick, another when I was sucker-punched, got tripped up by a couch, and found myself on my back amidst a flurry of fists; two occured while bouncing, one was me against two, one who was very drunk and the other armed with a beer bottle; the second was against a brute who indicated he was armed with a knife (in the end, he had lied, but he had more than basic martial skills). In truth, I've never been injured beyond a bloody nose, cut lip, bruises on my back - I'm indebted to my art and it's teachers for this. So there you have it - curiousity satisfied? :)

For your information also, my system of Jujutsu has been primarily influenced by, and has borrowed from Judo (especially Judo), Aikido, and Tang Soo Do.

Now I'd like to address some other matters. First, I tend to agree with you about the "danger" of kata, but at the same time, I won't presume to guess how dangerous Rory's practice of kata really is. I thought his description of kata offered some good insight into the mindset that one strives to achieve in kata. Contrary to Rory's system, we learn that uke should always be in control of his attack - always striking on target, but if tori fails to move, uke should be able to stop. At the same time, uke should attack with very serious intent - this is extremely important, and tori should maintain an air of calm. Rory makes an excellent point about tori waiting until the last possible instant to go into action. Frankly, in general, I think that randori is considerably more dangerous than kata, but there can be those very rare and isolated instances when kata can be far more dangerous, and the results could be more devestating.

Kit: "Kata is a cooperative practice that is nowhere near like a real fight."

No argument here, but I'd like to add that I feel a thin slice of a kata technique can feel almost identical to a real fight, but not necessarily at any given time (in fact, rarely), only if the proper mindset is achieved.

I want to discuss some of what I think kata contributes most:

1) Training the mind - learning to remain calm in the face of danger. In kata, you can occasionally get a taste of the seriousness and the adrenalin that comes with a real confrontation. Also developing the mu-shin state. Something I perhaps get a very slight glimpse of perhaps every dozen times I do a kata. This can sometimes happen when uke screws up and executes the wrong attack, especially if he's skilled and you don't expect it. Numerous times this has happened to me, sometimes I executed the appropriate defense for the kata, other times I've executed an entirely different technique that perhaps belongs to a different kata. When it happens and you simply "react", it's a good thing.

2) Ability to move - very different from randori training that I've experienced. I'll try to explain. Randori training does very little in training you to move prior to coming to grips with a person. Kumite has far greater value here, as does kata. From my own experience, when facing the skilled opponent who claimed to have a knife, as he went to strike me, I feel it was my kata training that allowed me to slip his punch and end up behind him in an instant, thereby gaining positional advantage where I was better able to control the situation (drawing more upon randori skills) and in the end determine that, in fact, he wasn't armed.

3) Receiving an attack - pretty much tai sabaki - body management - getting out of the way of the attack. Due to the structure of kata, I think one develops a better instinct of how to deal with different incoming attacks. Again, from my own experience, when faced with the two opponents, I grabbed the real drunk one and charged out the door with him, maybe throwing him on the way, maybe he just fell. Either way, I was aware that his buddy wouldn't be far behind us, and as I turned around he was there with the bottle above his head and beginning to swing it at my head. I moved to the my right, in the same direction as he was swinging, gently received the attack and proceeded to do a 360 degree circle with the guy, during which I executed de ashi barai. He fell on his elbow and lost his spirit. It was a more "kata-like" outcome than when I faced the same type of attack against the guy with the stick some five years before hand. In that incident, when he swung the stick at my head, I didn't receive the attack. Instead I blocked it with my arm, it was a good technique though because it struck the fleshy part of my forearm and did no damage, and at the same time I actually was able to grab the stick with the same hand and take it from him. Then he ran away.

4) Poise - not all of my experiences in which I feel that kata saved me involve fights. As a carpenter I've had to react on a couple of occasions to a dangerous situation. The most memorable was a day when I'd been lugging shingles up to a roof for nine hours (my early days in the field) and was utterly exhausted. The second to last bundle and I made our way up to the staging plank at the eave some twenty five feet up. As I went to heave the bundle on to the plank on the roof bracket, I ran out of gas. The bundle didn't go far enough, but landed more than half way on the plank, so the top end went down like a teeter-totter, and the bottom end swung up toward my chin. Somehow I realized what was happening and pulled my head back as if avoiding an uppercut. The bottom of the bundle grazed my chin, lips, and nose, giving me a fat lip. Had I pulled my head back too far, I certainly would have fallen to the ground since there was no where to step to recover my balance if it was lost. Afterwords, I swear it felt like my room for error was as thin as the edge of a razor. Had I been clipped under the chin, I certainly would have fallen, most likely head first. On a related note: in high school once, I turned and suddenly saw a discus flying at my gut an instant from striking - in less than that instant I was able to shift my hips just as though avoiding a straight thrust with a knife to the stomach, and the discus flew on past.

Now, one of the most important things that I think randori allows for that kata leaves no room for is the opportunity to actively apply strategy. This can be one of the most crucial elements in a fight.

It's all good.

Sorry for the length of the post. It took me forever to type it (I type slow), but I think I've said pretty much everything I could possibly offer on the topic. If you have your desired discussion with Rory and it's written, I'd be very interested if you might be kind enough to email it to me or something.

Jon Small

Kit LeBlanc
26th January 2002, 03:24
Jon,

Actually my curiousity is more than satisfied.....I was thinking more a thumbnail sketch.:D

But I do like to hear what other people have experienced and how they handled it...gives me some good ideas and allows me to see different perspectives.

I am one of those who has never been in a physical confrontation outside of work, a fact I am very proud of. I chose the line of work I did (plainclothes hotel security first, then LEO) specifically because I thought it would be a test for my training, but also because I have a strong opinion that people who do take their budo seriously SHOULD endeavor to make the most of their skills in the real world...and I don't mean in some strained metaphorical way, I mean in an immediate and practical way.

I think people would think differently about martial arts and what they mean. I think it is sometimes why people assign much more danger to their training than really exists.

That being said, you clearly have had more than a taste of that experience and still, while I think we would probably end up in the same place at the top of the mountain, we seem to read the roadmap totally differently. Reading through your examples, I would assign to randori what you do to kata, almost across the board.

Now, I will say that many times some of techniques, the WHAT that I pull out in the field is often more from the kata side than the randori side. But my own impression of HOW and WHY I make them work is from what I have learned in randori in Judo/BJJ and sparring in striking arts.

Again, I see kata, AND randori, as training, that's it.

Training can (should) be serious, demanding, even harsh, but I simply do not feel that it engenders a better understanding of true combative intent. It can provide some stress inoculation, and can bring you to a "flow" state that is helpful in dealing with the real thing, and with the proper mindset can reinforce an intellectual understanding of combative encounter; but not the genuine feeling of dealing with an aggressive attack on the part of an unknown party, who *might be* (or is!) armed, and whose real motivations you cannot know. Fear of injury, of humiliation/looking stupid, of failure to to perform, yes, they all come into play in training. But fear of someone else trying intentionally to hurt you certainly does not.

Jon S.
26th January 2002, 06:08
Hi Kit,

Looking at the different perspective is one of the best things people can do for themselves, I think.

I get the feeling that in our approach to training we travel the same road, we just walk on opposite sides.

Like you, I see kata and randori as training; but in the end, it's the fact that we do train that can make all the difference if faced with a conflict - how and what we train is of secondary importance, and each takes his own path.

Taking the randori perspective and looking over my examples, I can come to the same conclusions as well - randori practice has contributed to my development in those aspects. It's like the yin and yang, structure and chaos. Considering a fight, they are very chaotic, yet in a sense, very structured as well.

I just want to commend you and those like you for taking your martial arts training seriously. Too many in your profession fail to. I think those that do, develop the right attitude along with the skills - and this makes a world of difference to us civilians, in more ways than one.

:toast:

Jon Small