hey if you wanna argue with those blowhards go ahead. personally ive gotten more than enough headaches from being thrown in judo. no need to add trying to understand ck on top.
Certain people do not seem to understand the difference between “it’s not necessary to formally name this position” and “you must not give any sort of name to this position”.
Well, why don’t you help by starting it off?
I really think some of you are failing on you own end. The position is named. There’s just no distinction on where your feet are. What is distinguished is what the action is.
That would be a typo not grammar.
Could you elaborate, Omega?
From what I’ve read, it looks like SODO (and Cichorei Kano) are arguing that neither the position nor the action should be named, but only the destination: armlock, choke, or pin.
E.g., an elevator sweep and a flower sweep to mount would both be named “tate shiho gatame” despite the mechanics and starting position for each being completely different.
I can see the argument for not naming specific guard positions (especially beyond general open/closed/half) but refusing to name sweeps seems odd to me.
oh…you mean the ‘technique that shall not be named’…right?
[quote=Blue Negation;2461660]Could you elaborate, Omega?
From what I’ve read, it looks like SODO (and Cichorei Kano) are arguing that neither the position nor the action should be named, but only the destination: armlock, choke, or pin.
E.g., an elevator sweep and a flower sweep to mount would both be named “tate shiho gatame” despite the mechanics and starting position for each being completely different.
I can see the argument for not naming specific guard positions (especially beyond general open/closed/half) but refusing to name sweeps seems odd to me.[/quote]
They are not arguing they should not be named. They are pointing out, explaining, that in Judo, positions called for example “half guard”, “butterfly guard”, De La Riva Guard, X guard, etc etc bla bla ARE NOT NAMED. IN JUDO. It’s that simple.
Those positions do not have names in Judo. When teaching in Judo, you just show the position and what you intend to do from there. There is no positional heirarchy in Judo as in BJJ. It’s just one of the differences between Judo and BJJ.
Nobody is refusing to name things. Sweeps are just not named formally in Judo. Really, in a classroom setting, it is not necessary. You show the sweep from whatever position, and drill it.
Judo has a formal structure in the world, a heirarchy, and a history, and it’s own philosophy about naming things. Just accept it and move on.
BTW, I could care less if you want to call something “this sweep or that sweep”. But when I teach Judo class, I don’t use those terms, because, well, I’m teaching Judo, not BJJ, despite the fact that they are basically technically interchangable other than different rulesets for competition.
Ben
[quote=BKR;2461725]
Those positions do not have names in Judo. When teaching in Judo, you just show the position and what you intend to do from there. There is no positional heirarchy in Judo as in BJJ. It’s just one of the differences between Judo and BJJ.
Nobody is refusing to name things. Sweeps are just not named formally in Judo. Really, in a classroom setting, it is not necessary. You show the sweep from whatever position, and drill it.[/quote]Except that it kinds of shuts down higher level discussions of what makes a sweep work, for example. There’s a lot of very involved work in Judo about the exact bio-mechanics of throws. Sweeps are just as complicated and in need of discussion, if not more so. Something like the difference between ashi gurum and harai-goshi is going to be totally lost if they’re both just the one where you kind of stick your leg out and he goes over…
I think there’s a sysmatisation problem in Judo newaza, to be honest, derived ultimately from Kano not being that into groundwork. The classification of submissions, let alone sweeps, isn’t just inadequate from a BJJ or grappling point of view, it’s internally inconsistent.
[quote=PointyShinyBurn;2461730]Except that it kinds of shuts down higher level discussions of what makes a sweep work, for example. There’s a lot of very involved work in Judo about the exact bio-mechanics of throws. Sweeps are just as complicated and in need of discussion, if not more so. Something like the difference between ashi gurum and harai-goshi is going to be totally lost if they’re both just the one where you kind of stick your leg out and he goes over…
I think there’s a sysmatisation problem in Judo newaza, to be honest, derived ultimately from Kano not being that into groundwork. The classification of submissions, let alone sweeps, isn’t just inadequate from a BJJ or grappling point of view, it’s internally inconsistent.[/quote]
I disagree, respectfully. Your analogy is not even close. I understand that no analogy is perfect, by the way.
You are talking about discussing Judo, on the Internet, correct? I’m talking about teaching and learning Judo in person, on the mat. Complicated discussions and explainatins on the mat are usually a waste of time. Believe me, I know, as an instructor I’ve indulged in them enough over the years to recognize the glazed over looks and drool on the chin of my students. Oops, this practice is about them learning judo, not me listening to myself pontificate.
I get to do that here, right?
We can speculate all day about how Judo ended up the way it is. None of us is qualified to do the research to figure that out, other than inference and speculation from very limited English (or other non-Japanese sources).
Kano may have not been into ne waza much (katame waza is another thing though). But guys like Oda were, yet still we do not see/hear of any classification of transitional positions in ne waza. Anyway, that’s an inference on my part.
As CK pointed out, ne waza is the stuff we do on the ground (ne = reclining, on the ground, supine) to get to katame waza (which are the finishing techniques). In tachi waza, you can finish with katame waza (chokes or arm bars, no pins) or nage waza (throws)), but let’s ignore the katame waza part.
Judo is internally consistent, for the most part. The transistional movments between throws are pretty much not named. You have tsugi ashi, suri ashi, ayumi ashi, shizenhontai, etc, sure, and terms like oikomi, tobi, but really, those are not formal terms and are very basic. This applies to ne waza as well.
Throwing in Judo is pretty much classified into throws that operate by different principles. Kuruma, barai, etc. As i was taught, reversals/sweeps etc. in ne waza each have debana, kuzushi, tsurkuri, and kake, kime, etc. Same as in throwing. So I just apply those same principles when teaching Judo ne waza. The mechanism is not classified or named.
I do not really think, with my admitted limited understanding of BJJ terminology, that the “poetic” or pictorial descriptions of BJJ sweeps have any imputed reference to principles, other than perhaps in a general way?
Maybe if someone would put together some sort of vocabulary it would help (of BJJ sweeps and the core principles involved) that makes some sort of sense? flower, inverted flower, etc?
I think my point is, or may be, that the BJJ terms don’t really describe principles, either.
Shift over, heading home!
Ben
[quote=BKR;2461731]
You are talking about discussing Judo, on the Internet, correct? I’m talking about teaching and learning Judo in person, on the mat. Complicated discussions and explainatins on the mat are usually a waste of time. Believe me, I know, as an instructor I’ve indulged in them enough over the years to recognize the glazed over looks and drool on the chin of my students. Oops, this practice is about them learning judo, not me listening to myself pontificate.[/quote]I’m not suggesting you break for a 15-minute description of weight-transfer and joint angles when actually teaching this stuff or anything! But Judo does have a pretty long tradition of scientific research and academic analysis away from the mat and those can inform the way you teach or perform.
[quote=BKR;2461731]Judo is internally consistent, for the most part. The transistional movments between throws are pretty much not named. You have tsugi ashi, suri ashi, ayumi ashi, shizenhontai, etc, sure, and terms like oikomi, tobi, but really, those are not formal terms and are very basic. This applies to ne waza as well.[/quote]But with submissions you get several different names for various ways to hyper-extend the elbow, but only one for over-rotating it in either direction by any mechanism. Different names for each hand position on a collar-strangle but every naked strangle operates by the same ‘principle’? The historical reasons I am, as you say, not really qualified to debate, but it’s clear there’s a lot more resolution in the nomenclature for throws at the very least.
[quote=BKR;2461731]Throwing in Judo is pretty much classified into throws that operate by different principles. Kuruma, barai, etc. As i was taught, reversals/sweeps etc. in ne waza each have debana, kuzushi, tsurkuri, and kake, kime, etc. Same as in throwing. So I just apply those same principles when teaching Judo ne waza. The mechanism is not classified or named.[/quote]That makes perfect sense. But Judo isn’t happy with limiting terminology to those generalities on the feet?
Obviously some principles are shared between sweeping and throwing, you can do a tomoe-nage from the feet or from the ground, for example. But there are plenty of others that aren’t shared.
[quote=BKR;2461731]I do not really think, with my admitted limited understanding of BJJ terminology, that the “poetic” or pictorial descriptions of BJJ sweeps have any imputed reference to principles, other than perhaps in a general way?
Maybe if someone would put together some sort of vocabulary it would help (of BJJ sweeps and the core principles involved) that makes some sort of sense? flower, inverted flower, etc?
I think my point is, or may be, that the BJJ terms don’t really describe principles, either.
[/quote]Oh yeah, BJJ terminology is a totally incoherent grab-bag. It’s better than no names for anything at all, but not by very much.
I don’t think the answer to how to categorise and think about sweeps, or ground technique in general, currently exists, but I’m interested in thinking/talking about it and I think Judoka currently know better how to do that kind of thing than BJJ players.
[quote=PointyShinyBurn;2461738]I’m not suggesting you break for a 15-minute description of weight-transfer and joint angles when actually teaching this stuff or anything! But Judo does have a pretty long tradition of scientific research and academic analysis away from the mat and those can inform the way you teach or perform.
But with submissions you get several different names for various ways to hyper-extend the elbow, but only one for over-rotating it in either direction by any mechanism. Different names for each hand position on a collar-strangle but every naked strangle operates by the same ‘principle’? The historical reasons I am, as you say, not really qualified to debate, but it’s clear there’s a lot more resolution in the nomenclature for throws at the very least.
That makes perfect sense. But Judo isn’t happy with limiting terminology to those generalities on the feet?
Obviously some principles are shared between sweeping and throwing, you can do a tomoe-nage from the feet or from the ground, for example. But there are plenty of others that aren’t shared.
Oh yeah, BJJ terminology is a totally incoherent grab-bag. It’s better than no names for anything at all, but not by very much.
I don’t think the answer to how to categorise and think about sweeps, or ground technique in general, currently exists, but I’m interested in thinking/talking about it and I think Judoka currently know better how to do that kind of thing than BJJ players.[/quote]
Well, then let’s cut to the chase. Where should such a thread be started, Basic Techniques, Advanced Techniques, or Traditional Arts, Japan ?
And I think we need to examine deeper principles (as best us amateurs/non japanese speakers can).
Things like action reaction, flexibility/softness overcomes hardness, debana/kuzushi/tsukuri/kake/kime ?
I’m going to be going to bed soon (I work graveyard shift, the next two days are my days off, and I teach Judo tonight).
I think we need to agree and get mod buy-in to kick off topic stuff back here right away.
I know you and I and an few others can keep it civil.
*Edit
Or maybe back on JudoForum? Now THAT would be interesting. But I think that we would actually have a better chance at decent moderation on Bullshido, ironic as that is, especially if it were in Advanced Techniques, where JNP would I’m sure rule with an Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove And be able to contribute as well.
Or maybe we should just STFU and train?
Ben
[quote=BKR;2461725]They are not arguing they should not be named. They are pointing out, explaining, that in Judo, positions called for example “half guard”, “butterfly guard”, De La Riva Guard, X guard, etc etc bla bla ARE NOT NAMED. IN JUDO. It’s that simple.
Those positions do not have names in Judo. When teaching in Judo, you just show the position and what you intend to do from there. There is no positional heirarchy in Judo as in BJJ. It’s just one of the differences between Judo and BJJ.
Nobody is refusing to name things. Sweeps are just not named formally in Judo. Really, in a classroom setting, it is not necessary. You show the sweep from whatever position, and drill it.
Judo has a formal structure in the world, a heirarchy, and a history, and it’s own philosophy about naming things. Just accept it and move on.
BTW, I could care less if you want to call something “this sweep or that sweep”. But when I teach Judo class, I don’t use those terms, because, well, I’m teaching Judo, not BJJ, despite the fact that they are basically technically interchangable other than different rulesets for competition.
Ben[/quote]
What he said.
I have the same sorts of conversations with women. “Its not green its lime!”
I think it is just part of the OCD joy that is Judo.
You guys do realize the naming of all these maneuvers is a fairly new thing even in BJJ? The idea of naming all these maneuvers, from my experience, actually comes from Catch and pro wrestling.
I’ve also come to the understanding that naming these techniques tend to be very egocentric. Everybody is always trying to come up with newer and more creative maneuvers that have been around for years but never named. With the information age that we live in any person can name something and who ever post it more wins the naming contest. For example what are the proper distinctions between the Brabo, Shaolin, anaconda, and D’arce? Technically they’re all the same maneuver. Yet everybody calls the armbar the armbar when there are a myriad of different armbars. At our gym we name the maneuvers that get you into Juji Gatame. It’s kind fun, but they’re our names.
What I see in that thread, and I haven’t read the entire thing, is that our modern day grapplers want to throw out all the traditional teaching curriculum just to get their way. If I were still teaching traditional Judo I’d simply explain I’m going to be teaching Juji Gatame from Kesa Gatame and not give the full transition a name. I don’t believe they do that in BJJ either. So why is it so hard to understand that those Judoka don’t want to do it either?
Isnt grappling evolving though making a lot of the old teminology not accurate to what you are trying to describe?
for me its not about the names, its the mentality of the old guard that is transforming judo into a shitty style.
what i read from that thread is the similar arrogant attitude of people who know it all and cant possibly learn anything new and want to keep(or change depending how you look at it) judo into what judo should be in their opinion.
they have a very closedmindedness about them.
Of couse there is a difference between what gets discussed in the meanderings of a forum and demanding your instructor uses different terms in a Judo class. But I personally think if you are learning an art you learn all of it not just the cool bits.
[quote=Lebell;2461785]for me its not about the names, its the mentality of the old guard that is transforming judo into a shitty style.
what i read from that thread is the similar arrogant attitude of people who know it all and cant possibly learn anything new and want to keep(or change depending how you look at it) judo into what judo should be in their opinion.
they have a very closedmindedness about them.[/quote]
And sometimes the very young have a hard time listening, or in this case reading.