The other day, my long-time judo friend, Jason, asked me an interesting question while we were having supper after a judo session. "Back when you were a competitor did you know the names of all the Kodokan throws?"
He's referring to the 68 official throws that the Kodokan recognizes. He was surprised when I told him, "Yes". That's probably because competitors usually do not bother to learn the entire range of Kodokan throws, many of which are rather obscure (and some of which are actually illegal).
My judo training had been competition-oriented from the start and it was competition that I was interested in. But I always made it a point to learn the Kodokan throws, even the obscure ones.
I think back then it was because I was hungry for knowledge and wanted to learn as much about judo as possible. There weren't that many resources available back then. There was no such thing as YouTube and there were not that many books or videos by famous world champions. What was readily available were the Kodokan throws in the form of books. The Kodokan itself had also released an official video guide (VHS tape), which was very helpful.
Today, there are plenty of resources available online so someone who wants to learn only competition stuff can focus on that aspect of judo exclusively, and never run out of material to learn from. They wouldn't have to refer to the Kodokan's list of official throws which, as I had mentioned earlier, contains many obscure and irrelevant techniques as far competition judo is concerned.
So, is it worth learning still? I think so. Certainly more so than kata, which is even more irrelevant to competitors than the Kodokan throws. I've heard some people claim that kata is relevant to competitors because it will teach them the basics. I think that is a bunch of hokum. If somebody has reached the level of being a top competitor, that person would have mastered the basics. Besides, if they want to have a good, well-rounded understanding of judo, learning the 68 official Kodokan throws would be more useful than kata.
Note: I'm not saying kata has no value. Kata has value for those who want to learn kata. But it's just not relevant for competition, that's all. That doesn't diminish its value. It is what it is. And it isn't what it isn't.
So, what can a competitor learn from the Kodokan throws that is relevant and useful? Well, certain principles are well defined, for example the difference between a throw and a drop (nage vs otoshi). In Europe, the term seoi-otoshi tends to be used to refer to any situation where tori extends his leg to block uke and throw him over. In the Japanese understanding of seoi-otoshi, it's not whether the leg is extended or not but whether uke is thrown or dropped. What is commonly known as drop seoi-nage can sometimes be seoi-otoshi if tori doesn't spring upwards after dropping underneath uke. If all tori does is unload uke or roll him over, it's seoi-otoshi (according to the Kodokan).
As for the leg block, if tori extends his leg to block uke but still hoists him up into the air (the way Angelo Parisi used to do), in Europe this would be referred to as seoi-otoshi. In Japan, it's seoi-nage. It doesn't matter whether tori's leg is extended or not. What's important is whether uke is thrown or dropped.
This distinction is also why what we commonly know as "reverse seoi-nage" is referred to in Japan as gyaku seoi-otoshi (reverse seoi-otoshi). Why? Because when this technique is done, uke is usually dropped (or rolled) and not thrown into the air. If you go by the Japanese understanding of seoi-otoshi, "reverse seoi-otoshi" is a more accurate description of the technique, although I must say "reverse seoi-nage" rolls off the tongue better.
This kind of stuff, I learned from studying the Kodokan throws. And I think to be a complete judo player, you should know these kinds of things. It might not necessarily make you a better competitor but it will give you a better, holistic understanding of judo.
So, if someone were to ask me, what should be emphasized for grading: contest skills or technical knowledge, I would say both. You need both. If all you know is how to win contests, it doesn't make you a complete player. Similarly if all you are able to do is to demonstrate throws with a fully-cooperative partner, it doesn't make you a complete player either. You must be able to fight and to demonstrate techniques well. That makes you a complete player.
No comments:
Post a Comment