E-Judo

Judo network and forum


    What technique is this?

    Share

    Ryvai

    Posts : 158
    Join date : 2013-07-16
    Location : Norway

    What technique is this?

    Post by Ryvai on Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:48 pm

    When I first started Judo I watched Toshihiko Koga's New Wind and fell in love with his Ura-nage counter to seoi-nage. It can be seen here:

    Ura-nage counter starts at 0:33


    After watching it I went on to join my first Judo-competition ever and in my first match I was matched up against a black belt. I tried to replicate the technique in competition and it worked perfectly. Would you classify my counter as Ura-nage, Yoko-guruma or Daki-wakare? Thanks Smile



    PS! Please be nice, I'm pretty new to judo, so my technique aint that crips ^_^

    JudoMojo

    Posts : 46
    Join date : 2012-12-29
    Location : UK

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by JudoMojo on Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:57 pm

    Looks quite like this:


    Ryvai

    Posts : 158
    Join date : 2013-07-16
    Location : Norway

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Ryvai on Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:33 am

    JudoMojo wrote:Looks quite like this:


    Exactly, that's why I am a bit confused as many people call similar techniques ura-nage.

    Wish Cichorei would say his opinion. He seems like the kind of guy to clarify Smile

    JudoMojo

    Posts : 46
    Join date : 2012-12-29
    Location : UK

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by JudoMojo on Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:05 am

    Ryvai wrote:
    Exactly, that's why I am a bit confused as many people call similar techniques ura-nage.
    Wish Cichorei would say his opinion. He seems like the kind of guy to clarify Smile

    I try not to get tied up on technique classification these days (I'm just glad I threw someone!).
    I might easily call that throw ura nage too, and maybe be wrong.
    A lot of the time a rear counter looking like that will simply be called ura nage for the sake of simplicity.

    I personally believe it to be daki wakare, but I'm no expert. It might well be a variation of ura nage, or something else entirely.

    Cichorei Kano

    Posts : 1948
    Join date : 2013-01-16
    Age : 856
    Location : the Holy See

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Cichorei Kano on Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:47 am

    Ryvai wrote:
    JudoMojo wrote:Looks quite like this:


    Exactly, that's why I am a bit confused as many people call similar techniques ura-nage.

    Wish Cichorei would say his opinion. He seems like the kind of guy to clarify Smile

    It's standing daki-wakare, not ura-nage. However, many people are not very aware of daki-wakare as it is not featured in the gokyô, whereas ura-nage is and if you don't know the exact principles you will not recognize the difference. Ura-nage requires lifting someone and throwing him in the direction you are not facing thus behind you. Grabbing someone who is in front of you, lifting him and then turning sideways and dragging the opponent in a twisting motion is not ura-nage, although in contests they will virtually always erroneously label it as ura-nage. This is not unique. There are many erroneous terms assigned by some people and organization to certain techniques. The error sometimes is quite obvious if you understand the lexicological meaning of the throw. "Ko-uchi-makikomi" is such an example. "Ko-uchi-makikomi" does not exist in judo. Applying ko-uchi-gari and falling to the ground has nothing to do with a makikomi movement. If you know how the term makikomi is written in kanji then that is also obvious. It's a 2-kanji word that implies both entering and rolling. The sutemi-part in this ko-uchi-makikomi is definitely not a rolling movement, so it cannot be makikomi.


    _________________


    "The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
    "Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
    "Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
    "I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

    Ryvai

    Posts : 158
    Join date : 2013-07-16
    Location : Norway

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Ryvai on Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:23 am

    Cichorei Kano wrote:"Ko-uchi-makikomi" is such an example. "Ko-uchi-makikomi" does not exist in judo. Applying ko-uchi-gari and falling to the ground has nothing to do with a makikomi movement. If you know how the term makikomi is written in kanji then that is also obvious. It's a 2-kanji word that implies both entering and rolling. The sutemi-part in this ko-uchi-makikomi is definitely not a rolling movement, so it cannot be makikomi.  

    Okay, I will bite. Ko-uchi-makikomi is interesting. The makikomi movement in this sense has to do with the folding-in, either on the leg or with a eri-seoi-nage grip gripping it with two hands and folding your leg around like gake (hands and feet). Kodokan defines it is Ko-uchi-gari (Ashi-waza)? But in reality this particular application is a sutemi-waza, thus being the popular name sutemi-kouchi-gari. This throw then falls outside regular classification, like Kagato-jime, but is still call Ko-uchi-gari for simplicity. Daigo-sensei explained this particular classification-problem in his book Kodokan Throwing Techniques. What are we then to call this throw? I dont like names like makura-kesa-gatame (Kuzure-kesa-gatame, Kodokan) either, but they serve a certain educational purpose no? It makes it easier to explain a certain technique, as long as you explain what it is really called, I think it is okay. For example: most people know what a drop-seoi-nage is, even though the name is stupid and has nothing do with Judo. I ask these questions to educate myself, I am curious and I would love this discussion, even though it probably exist on the old Judoforum. NOTE: (AJJF has classified Ko-uchi-makikomi as seperate technique outside Ko-uchi-gari. Like the IJF has obi-tori-gaeshi AND hikikomi-gaeshi as seperate techniques, for some reason I would love to know.

    Digression: drop Seoi-nage is not always Seoi-otoshi, it can be either Seoi-nage, Ippon-seoi-nage or Seoi-otoshi, depending on what Tori does with his feet after he drops down and completes Kake. Just droping and pulling uke down is seoi-otoshi, but if Tori puts his toes in the mat and continues to launch forward (up from the mat) and carries uke on his back it is Seoi-nage/Ippon-seoi-nage depending on the grip.

    Cichorei Kano

    Posts : 1948
    Join date : 2013-01-16
    Age : 856
    Location : the Holy See

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Cichorei Kano on Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:27 pm

    Ryvai wrote:
    Cichorei Kano wrote:"Ko-uchi-makikomi" is such an example. "Ko-uchi-makikomi" does not exist in judo. Applying ko-uchi-gari and falling to the ground has nothing to do with a makikomi movement. If you know how the term makikomi is written in kanji then that is also obvious. It's a 2-kanji word that implies both entering and rolling. The sutemi-part in this ko-uchi-makikomi is definitely not a rolling movement, so it cannot be makikomi.  

    Okay, I will bite. Ko-uchi-makikomi is interesting. The makikomi movement in this sense has to do with the folding-in, either on the leg or with a eri-seoi-nage grip gripping it with two hands and folding your leg around like gake (hands and feet). Kodokan defines it is Ko-uchi-gari (Ashi-waza)? But in reality this particular application is a sutemi-waza, thus being the popular name sutemi-kouchi-gari. This throw then falls outside regular classification, like Kagato-jime, but is still call Ko-uchi-gari for simplicity. Daigo-sensei explained this particular classification-problem in his book Kodokan Throwing Techniques. What are we then to call this throw? I dont like names like makura-kesa-gatame (Kuzure-kesa-gatame, Kodokan) either, but they serve a certain educational purpose no? It makes it easier to explain a certain technique, as long as you explain what it is really called, I think it is okay. For example: most people know what a drop-seoi-nage is, even though the name is stupid and has nothing do with Judo. I ask these questions to educate myself, I am curious and I would love this discussion, even though it probably exist on the old Judoforum. NOTE: (AJJF has classified Ko-uchi-makikomi as seperate technique outside Ko-uchi-gari. Like the IJF has obi-tori-gaeshi AND hikikomi-gaeshi as seperate techniques, for some reason I would love to know.

    Digression: drop Seoi-nage is not always Seoi-otoshi, it can be either Seoi-nage, Ippon-seoi-nage or Seoi-otoshi, depending on what Tori does with his feet after he drops down and completes Kake. Just droping and pulling uke down is seoi-otoshi, but if Tori puts his toes in the mat and continues to launch forward (up from the mat) and carries uke on his back it is Seoi-nage/Ippon-seoi-nage depending on the grip.

    I wrote a lengthy response addressing your questions. Unfortunately my browser crashed and all is now gone.

    "Digression: drop Seoi-nage is not always Seoi-otoshi, it can be either Seoi-nage, Ippon-seoi-nage or Seoi-otoshi, depending on what Tori does with his feet after he drops down and completes Kake. Just droping and pulling uke down is seoi-otoshi, but if Tori puts his toes in the mat and continues to launch forward (up from the mat) and carries uke on his back it is Seoi-nage/Ippon-seoi-nage depending on the grip." (...)

    What can I say ? I have no idea what "drop seoi-nage" is or means. Let me clarify. There is no term in Japanese jûdô like that. It is essentially an Anglo-Saxon-American invention, probably more American than Anglo-saxon, and from that moment you can get all sorts of things. Who came up with that term ? I don't know. I had never heard it before the 1990s and sure that what it seems to cover exists a long time before. From that point of view it becomes a senseless discussion, because we are then wondering what an erroneous term means. What is the 'drop' in "drop seoi-nage" ? I assume that the genius who came up with that term wanted to imply "the dropping of tori on his knees", not the "dropping of uke by tori", which is essentially the otoshi part, which ... coincidentally ... in English is also translated as ... that's right ... 'drop'. So talking about a genial term.

    The proper term and correct categorization for these shoulder throws is "suwari seoi" 坐背負. The term literally means "seated seoi", that is "seated on one's knees, which is ... how the Japanese traditionally sit, thus not on your butt". That's it. There is no further specification, and hence ippon-seoi-nage-, morote-seoi-nage, and seoi-otoshi can all be performed in suwari-seoi version. Suwari-seoi is not a separate throw, it is a mode of performing any of the above throws, and thus represents as henka for each of them.

    "The makikomi movement in this sense has to do with the folding-in, either on the leg or with a eri-seoi-nage grip gripping it with two hands and folding your leg around like gake (hands and feet). Kodokan defines it is Ko-uchi-gari (Ashi-waza)? But in reality this particular application is a sutemi-waza, thus being the popular name sutemi-kouchi-gari. This throw then falls outside regular classification, like Kagato-jime, but is still call Ko-uchi-gari for simplicity. Daigo-sensei explained this particular classification-problem in his book Kodokan Throwing Techniques. What are we then to call this throw?" (...)

    Throws do not have a name in jûdô. It is a misunderstanding due to poor translation. What is named in jûdô are throwing PRINCIPLES.

    I understand that you are saying that "The makikomi movement in this sense has to do with the folding-in, either on the leg or with a eri-seoi-nage grip gripping it with two hands and folding your leg around like gake", yes, but that is not what makikomi means. There is no meaning of 'folding' in the word 巻, which means spiraling, rolling, winding, whatever, but not 'folding'. The term implies a circular movement by tori. The circular thing is quite obvious. The term, for example, also means a reel of a film. It does not mean something you ply, fold, beng and close. Sorry. Still in doubt ? OK, let's look at the origin of the word. Where does it come from ? It comes from the Chinese juǎn. What does it mean in its original Chinese lexicological meaning ? Right, it means literally to roll up, to spool, to reel, or from there also implies the cylindrical mass of an object. Nothing 'folding' or 'folding in' there. It is true that in the figurative application of the term makikomi, thus not jûdô-related, the term can imply to be "involved in something", and one can then say that when you are involved in something that you got ... "dragged into something"; only, that is ... English, and not Japanese or Chinese, and it is not because in English the word "to become involved" is in one meaning identical or similar to "to get dragged" that the exact equivalent of either word in another language also means the same as the other.

    It is quit common for either ko-uchi-gari, ô-uchi-gari, or even ô-soto-gari to continue with your opponent to the ground. That is not sutemi in the real sense of word, i.e. as shown in the pair movements of the Omote-series of Koshiki-no-kata, i.e. where you give up your own body to weakness so that you overcome the gô of the opponent. Whereas today, yes, continuing on to the ground, such as in harai-makikomi, uchi-makikomi, uchi-mata-makikomi, is now also considered sutemi, it is an extension from the real meaning of the principle of 'sutemi'. Kô-uchi-gari is a somewhat different animal though. What we often see is people who do not properly master ko-uchi-gari, simply hang on the opponent's leg eventually dragging him to the ground. That really isn't even jûdô, but just poor technique. Releasing the tsurite (right hand from the lapel) during its execution does not change the throwing principle and neither does it merit a new name. These are all nothing but henka of the same principle, of reaping the right foot from the inside with the right foot.

    The binomen 'makikomi' is obviously not just identical to 'maki', but building on the meaning of that word simply indicates that one enters to then continue with it in a rolling movement.

    You pedagogy. That's a whole different kind of worms. The categorization of jûdô has pedagogical purpose, but I have suggested many times before that Kanô was not the genius he is often portrayed at, but essentially as so many Japanese and Chinese 'authors' and 'creators', mainly was a 'compiler'. His understanding of science was limited and in several cases wrong, and therefore the pedagogy is flawed, not useless, not completely wrong, but flawed. Add to that that throwing principles had different origins. Some were imported by him, some by others, some had poetic names, some had descripted ways, some had logical names, etc. It is possible to re-categorize jûdô according to scientific principles, and that has been done too. It has advantages, but since there are only two major scientific principles on which jûdô throws rely, it's a different approach. While the scientific approach has merit in teaching learning and skill acquisition, it does not solve the problem of name-giving, and those who have suggested different names, such as for example, Anton Geesink, inflate their system with new flaws. The Japanese system as it exists is not perfect, oftentimes inconsistent, but it has historic roots, just like grammar rules of a language are not always consistent, but for the most part allow an educated native population to master it reasonably, though it may pose problems for newbies. An example of this are the irregular conjugations of a couple of major verbs in French. A native French usually has no problems knowing that être and avoir do not follow the conjugation of 'manger" or 'préparer', but as a foreigner, yes, it does not make it easier at first.

    The newaza and katame-waza system are a different animal because they are far less structured than the tachi-waza and nage-waza system, and the structure that does exist is poorly known outside the katame-waza. The sheer number of henka make near impossible to remember. You say that you find it helpful to refer to one variation of kuzure-kesa-gatame. I can see this, but one of the reasons this is helpful is because the options for most jûdôka are limited. I can name you 3 dozen jûdô chokes you have never heard of. I guarantee you will not find it helpful. They are 36 more Japanese term you all have to memorize, and guarantee you will not be able to keep the apart. Different names is OK for pedagogical reasons, if we are talking limited things, but it is a pain in the butt if it becomes a lot more. The weird things we see in BJJ where the use of eponyms seems to be fond (The Kimura, The Ezekiel, The Omote-plata, the Fish & Chips plata whatever) suffer from the same problem seen in eponymic names in medicine or biochemistry. You cannot derive from the name what it is unless you already know what it is, and it is not conducive to structuring.

    Ben and myself talked about this previously. There is an "in-between". What you could do is simply say "kuzure-kesa-gatame, the henka sometimes referred to as makura-kesa-gatame". That does not do any harm and preserves the structure and pedagogy and meaning.


    _________________


    "The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
    "Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
    "Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
    "I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by afulldeck on Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:18 am

    Cichorei Kano wrote: I can name you 3 dozen jûdô chokes you have never heard of. I guarantee you will not find it helpful. They are 36 more Japanese term you all have to memorize, and guarantee you will not be able to keep the apart. Different names is OK for pedagogical reasons, if we are talking limited things, but it is a pain in the butt if it becomes a lot more. The weird things we see in BJJ where the use of eponyms seems to be fond (The Kimura, The Ezekiel, The Omote-plata, the Fish & Chips plata whatever) suffer from the same problem seen in eponymic names in medicine or biochemistry. You cannot derive from the name what it is unless you already know what it is, and it is not conducive to structuring.

    CK, I agreed with most of what you said until I came to your point on chokes. I must admit I'm struggling with this one. What exactly is the issue?  So what if the name is somewhat eponymic? As Shakespeare said "...A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.."  Take the word "tire" it could mean the rubber things on my car, bike, motorcyle or to be in need of rest or sleep. Sometimes it clear what the word means because it can be derived from the root, other times you need to be told. 

    So calling something by its eponymic name like 'ezekiel' or 'paper cutter' or a more traditional sode guruma jime does it matter? In the course of instruction one will be shown the actual movement. When I first heard the word Ezekiel I didn't understand what people where referring too, however after a quick show and tell I made the connection to sode guruma jime. 

    So in your example, if you showed me 36 chokes and named them Choke 1, choke 2, ...choke 36. I would simply learn them as choke 1, 2 etc. So what if the name has no meaning to the action?


    _________________
    “I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know.” ... Epicurus at Sen. Lucil, 29.10

    Cichorei Kano

    Posts : 1948
    Join date : 2013-01-16
    Age : 856
    Location : the Holy See

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Cichorei Kano on Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:31 am

    afulldeck wrote:
    Cichorei Kano wrote: I can name you 3 dozen jûdô chokes you have never heard of. I guarantee you will not find it helpful. They are 36 more Japanese term you all have to memorize, and guarantee you will not be able to keep the apart. Different names is OK for pedagogical reasons, if we are talking limited things, but it is a pain in the butt if it becomes a lot more. The weird things we see in BJJ where the use of eponyms seems to be fond (The Kimura, The Ezekiel, The Omote-plata, the Fish & Chips plata whatever) suffer from the same problem seen in eponymic names in medicine or biochemistry. You cannot derive from the name what it is unless you already know what it is, and it is not conducive to structuring.

    CK, I agreed with most of what you said until I came to your point on chokes. I must admit I'm struggling with this one. What exactly is the issue?  So what if the name is somewhat eponymic? As Shakespeare said "...A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.."  Take the word "tire" it could mean the rubber things on my car, bike, motorcyle or to be in need of rest or sleep. Sometimes it clear what the word means because it can be derived from the root, other times you need to be told. 

    So calling something by its eponymic name like 'ezekiel' or 'paper cutter' or a more traditional sode guruma jime does it matter? In the course of instruction one will be shown the actual movement. When I first heard the word Ezekiel I didn't understand what people where referring too, however after a quick show and tell I made the connection to sode guruma jime. 

    So in your example, if you showed me 36 chokes and named them Choke 1, choke 2, ...choke 36. I would simply learn them as choke 1, 2 etc. So what if the name has no meaning to the action?

    No, no, no, no. I thought I had explained that. If you give something an eponymic name, you cannot derive from the name what it is. THAT is the problem. This is a huge problem in medicine. It is not systematic. If I tell you: The patient has Hashimoto's Disease, or Morbus Basedow, you have no idea what he has unless you already know what the name means. It is thus rather elitist instead of pedagogical. After all, you can know those names only if you have an enormous memory. It can easily be used to show off in a sense if you pick a rare name no one knows. That may be fun at certain points in time, but it isn't the best pedagogical way to train new people. Now if instead, you used a systematic name, then you can derive what actually the problem is: autoimmune thyroiditis --> inflammation of the thyroid not due to infection but due to creation of antibdodies; this is crystal clear to someone with basic medical knowledge like a medical student without the need of an encyclopedic memory. Hyperthyroidism --> overactive thyroid gland, again crystal clear.

    If I tell you I choked my opponent with kamakiri-jime, you likely have no idea what I did or what went on, not even if I tell you that the name means "praying mantis joke". Sure, you have google, but you wouldn't have if you were on a tatami and I told you. Neither would you, if used an eponymic name for it, let's say "Inokuma's choke" (I invented this name, it's not real). If instead, a systematic name is applied, it would change the whole picture as you would be able to derive it to some extent and hence better be able to remember, teach, and understand the principle: kata-jûji-jime is such a systematic name. It is easy to understand what the principle entails: it's a crossed choke, with the hands crossed, one hand different.

    You write "So in your example, if you showed me 36 chokes and named them Choke 1, choke 2, ...choke 36. I would simply learn them as choke 1, 2 etc. So what if the name has no meaning to the action?"

    I do not want to be rude, by I think you are overestimating yourself unless you are indeed blessed with an enormous memory. The numbers is exactly what Kawaishi did to some extent . You still have some old school followers of that, but one of the reasons why the system was given up (there are evidently several other reasons) is that the Kôdôkan categorization was easier to remember, and pedagogically considered more successful, even though Kawaishi's motive apparently had to do with pedagogy, at least if you can called it pedagogy to assume that Westerners are too stupid to memorize Japanese names.


    _________________


    "The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
    "Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
    "Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
    "I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by afulldeck on Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:51 am

    Cichorei Kano wrote:
    afulldeck wrote:
    Cichorei Kano wrote: I can name you 3 dozen jûdô chokes you have never heard of. I guarantee you will not find it helpful. They are 36 more Japanese term you all have to memorize, and guarantee you will not be able to keep the apart. Different names is OK for pedagogical reasons, if we are talking limited things, but it is a pain in the butt if it becomes a lot more. The weird things we see in BJJ where the use of eponyms seems to be fond (The Kimura, The Ezekiel, The Omote-plata, the Fish & Chips plata whatever) suffer from the same problem seen in eponymic names in medicine or biochemistry. You cannot derive from the name what it is unless you already know what it is, and it is not conducive to structuring.

    CK, I agreed with most of what you said until I came to your point on chokes. I must admit I'm struggling with this one. What exactly is the issue?  So what if the name is somewhat eponymic? As Shakespeare said "...A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.."  Take the word "tire" it could mean the rubber things on my car, bike, motorcyle or to be in need of rest or sleep. Sometimes it clear what the word means because it can be derived from the root, other times you need to be told. 

    So calling something by its eponymic name like 'ezekiel' or 'paper cutter' or a more traditional sode guruma jime does it matter? In the course of instruction one will be shown the actual movement. When I first heard the word Ezekiel I didn't understand what people where referring too, however after a quick show and tell I made the connection to sode guruma jime. 

    So in your example, if you showed me 36 chokes and named them Choke 1, choke 2, ...choke 36. I would simply learn them as choke 1, 2 etc. So what if the name has no meaning to the action?

    No, no, no, no. I thought I had explained that. If you give something an eponymic name, you cannot derive from the name what it is. THAT is the problem. This is a huge problem in medicine. It is not systematic. If I tell you: The patient has Hashimoto's Disease, or Morbus Basedow, you have no idea what he has unless you already know what the name means. It is thus rather elitist instead of pedagogical. After all, you can know those names only if you have an enormous memory. It can easily be used to show off in a sense if you pick a rare name no one knows. That may be fun at certain points in time, but it isn't the best pedagogical way to train new people. Now if instead, you used a systematic name, then you can derive what actually the problem is: autoimmune thyroiditis --> inflammation of the thyroid not due to infection but due to creation of antibdodies; this is crystal clear to someone with basic medical knowledge like a medical student without the need of an encyclopedic memory. Hyperthyroidism --> overactive thyroid gland, again crystal clear.

    I agree with your analysis of the problem. That said, eponymic naming is not just a huge problem in medicine, its a problem in every science;  indeed I would think in every field of study that we have. When someone refers to Tellegen's Theory, how would you know what it is unless you memorized it or studied it at somepoint?  How would you know that it was developed as an electrical theory, but applies to fluid mechanics networks and chemical process networks? You certainly could not derive it from the name. We humans are capable of learning even when the pedagogical method is soured with a meaningless name.

    Cichorei Kano wrote:
    You write "So in your example, if you showed me 36 chokes and named them Choke 1, choke 2, ...choke 36. I would simply learn them as choke 1, 2 etc. So what if the name has no meaning to the action?"

    I do not want to be rude, by I think you are overestimating yourself unless you are indeed blessed with an enormous memory. The numbers is exactly what Kawaishi did to some extent . You still have some old school followers of that, but one of the reasons why the system was given up (there are evidently several other reasons) is that the Kôdôkan categorization was easier to remember, and pedagogically considered more successful, even though Kawaishi's motive apparently had to do with pedagogy, at least if you can called it pedagogy to assume that Westerners are too stupid to memorize Japanese names.

    You are absolutely correct to imply that with a pedagogically sound method, it would be easier to learn and recall. And I don't take your comment above to be rude at; but I do think your underestimating people's abilities to learn without a sound pedagogical method. If my dog can learn 200 meaningless actions through training why can't I learn 10,000 or millions of actions that I deem meaningful? Language (and its ability to categorize) is not the only method of learning and gaining meaning, we can draw upon kinaesthetic and spatial methods as well.  So even though "...Kôdôkan categorization was easier to remember..." there are other ways to remember. I am partial to the Kinaesthetic methods of learning and I would have no problem learning 36 chokes whatever you wanted to call them.


    _________________
    “I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know.” ... Epicurus at Sen. Lucil, 29.10

    Ricebale

    Posts : 423
    Join date : 2013-01-01
    Location : Wollongong Australia

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Ricebale on Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:36 am

    I use this throwing action a lot, it falls under "across the chest" throws, the orange belt has done a sitting version.

    The Judo name is always hard for these things, I avoid trying to invent judo names as I'm not fluent in japanese.

    Cichorei Kano

    Posts : 1948
    Join date : 2013-01-16
    Age : 856
    Location : the Holy See

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Cichorei Kano on Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:05 pm

    afulldeck wrote:

    You are absolutely correct to imply that with a pedagogically sound method, it would be easier to learn and recall. And I don't take your comment above to be rude at; but I do think your underestimating people's abilities to learn without a sound pedagogical method. If my dog can learn 200 meaningless actions through training why can't I learn 10,000 or millions of actions that I deem meaningful? Language (and its ability to categorize) is not the only method of learning and gaining meaning, we can draw upon kinaesthetic and spatial methods as well.  So even though "...Kôdôkan categorization was easier to remember..." there are other ways to remember. I am partial to the Kinaesthetic methods of learning and I would have no problem learning 36 chokes whatever you wanted to call them.

    Oh, I don't disagree with you. The human memory CAN do a lot, BUT there is a difference between 'can' and 'wanting to'. Maybe that is also the difference between you and others. You mention your dog, but why not take a cat as an example. Cats are known to have extraordinary abilities as well some that exceed those of dogs, but ... overall cats are far more difficult to train; they tend to 'resist' more. Many judoka simply do not WANT to do things; they do not want to just wear a white gi, they do not WANT to not wear a rash guard, they do not want to study kata because they find kata stupid, yet they could do judo without their rashguard and in a white gi, and they could do kata.


    _________________


    "The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
    "Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
    "Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
    "I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

    finarashi

    Posts : 449
    Join date : 2013-01-11
    Location : Finland

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by finarashi on Sat Jul 27, 2013 7:44 pm

    I'll throw one name to the arena; Carl Linnaeus. Before his time all the plants had names. But he created the system for classifying plants that we use today.

    If we have classification (and we understand it) it is easier to tell that some throw belongs to this 'principle' of throws. In these pages one still often sees posts "In throw YYYY the hands are like this so if the hands are not like this then it must be XXXX." Whereas if we understand the classification of throwing principles we know that it rarely makes any difference whatever the grip is.

    One problem before internet and Daigo's book is that we very rarely had any discussion on how to classify throwing principles. We just had books with throws and their names and any and all classification was only attmpts without any understanding, We were the firstgraders trying to discover grammar. We were not helped by the Japanese tradition of teaching by copying not by trying to understand.

    Why should we not have scientific classification of throws instead of having each an individual name? On the other hand you need maybe 20 names for throws you can do and teach. And then up to 100 to throws that you can recognize and show but do not understand the principle behind.


    _________________
    ... even professors make mistakes!

    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by afulldeck on Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:39 am

    Cichorei Kano wrote:
    afulldeck wrote:

    You are absolutely correct to imply that with a pedagogically sound method, it would be easier to learn and recall. And I don't take your comment above to be rude at; but I do think your underestimating people's abilities to learn without a sound pedagogical method. If my dog can learn 200 meaningless actions through training why can't I learn 10,000 or millions of actions that I deem meaningful? Language (and its ability to categorize) is not the only method of learning and gaining meaning, we can draw upon kinaesthetic and spatial methods as well.  So even though "...Kôdôkan categorization was easier to remember..." there are other ways to remember. I am partial to the Kinaesthetic methods of learning and I would have no problem learning 36 chokes whatever you wanted to call them.

    Oh, I don't disagree with you. The human memory CAN do a lot, BUT there is a difference between 'can' and 'wanting to'. Maybe that is also the difference between you and others. You mention your dog, but why not take a cat as an example. Cats are known to have extraordinary abilities as well some that exceed those of dogs, but ... overall cats are far more difficult to train; they tend to 'resist' more. Many judoka simply do not WANT to do things; they do not want to just wear a white gi, they do not WANT to not wear a rash guard, they do not want to study kata because they find kata stupid, yet they could do judo without their rashguard and in a white gi, and they could do kata.

    Isn't this like I want to be in a band, but I don't want to practice playing? If the judoka are adults and they do not want to do things you've mentioned--I would be asking why they are interested in judo because it sounds like they are interested in something else completely. If its kids, that is a completely different story since you need to bring psychology into the game. Kids, in may cases, need to be tricked into learning.  

    finarashi wrote:I'll throw one name to the arena; Carl Linnaeus. Before his time all the plants had names. But he created the system for classifying plants that we use today.

    If we have classification (and we understand it) it is easier to tell that some throw belongs to this 'principle' of throws. In these pages one still often sees posts "In throw YYYY the hands are like this so if the hands are not like this then it must be XXXX." Whereas if we understand the classification of throwing principles we know that it rarely makes any difference whatever the grip is.

    One problem before internet and Daigo's book is that we very rarely had any discussion on how to classify throwing principles. We just had books with throws and their names and any and all classification was only attmpts without any understanding, We were the firstgraders trying to discover grammar. We were not helped by the Japanese tradition of teaching by copying not by trying to understand.  

    Why should we not have scientific classification of throws instead of having each an individual name? On the other hand you need maybe 20 names for throws you can do and teach. And then up to 100 to throws that you can recognize and show but do not understand the principle behind.  

    A number of years ago, I attended a seminar with Andrzej Sajei who had everyone reclassify the throws based on scientific principles of their own choosing and explain their method of classification. It was a unique and fun experience. We had folks classify throws through Tori actions, by Uke actions, by ukemi, by Tsukri, by Kake, by kime, etc. Absolutely amazing what people could come up with as a classification method.

    Cichorei Kano

    Posts : 1948
    Join date : 2013-01-16
    Age : 856
    Location : the Holy See

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Cichorei Kano on Mon Jul 29, 2013 12:41 am

    afulldeck wrote:

    Isn't this like I want to be in a band, but I don't want to practice playing? If the judoka are adults and they do not want to do things you've mentioned--I would be asking why they are interested in judo because it sounds like they are interested in something else completely. If its kids, that is a completely different story since you need to bring psychology into the game. Kids, in may cases, need to be tricked into learning.  

    Hey, you've got to ask 'the' jûdôka, not me, I am only 'a' jûdôka, not 'the' jûdôka.


    _________________


    "The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
    "Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
    "Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
    "I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by afulldeck on Mon Jul 29, 2013 4:45 am

    Cichorei Kano wrote:
    afulldeck wrote:

    Isn't this like I want to be in a band, but I don't want to practice playing? If the judoka are adults and they do not want to do things you've mentioned--I would be asking why they are interested in judo because it sounds like they are interested in something else completely. If its kids, that is a completely different story since you need to bring psychology into the game. Kids, in may cases, need to be tricked into learning.  

    Hey, you've got to ask 'the' jûdôka, not me, I am only 'a' jûdôka, not 'the' jûdôka.

    LOL. That made my Sunday ... :-)


    _________________
    “I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know.” ... Epicurus at Sen. Lucil, 29.10

    contrarian

    Posts : 63
    Join date : 2013-04-28

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by contrarian on Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:03 pm

    Cichorei Kano wrote:
    Ryvai wrote:
    Cichorei Kano wrote:"Ko-uchi-makikomi" is such an example. "Ko-uchi-makikomi" does not exist in judo. Applying ko-uchi-gari and falling to the ground has nothing to do with a makikomi movement. If you know how the term makikomi is written in kanji then that is also obvious. It's a 2-kanji word that implies both entering and rolling. The sutemi-part in this ko-uchi-makikomi is definitely not a rolling movement, so it cannot be makikomi.  
    Okay, I will bite. Ko-uchi-makikomi is interesting. The makikomi movement in this sense has to do with the folding-in, either on the leg or with a eri-seoi-nage grip gripping it with two hands and folding your leg around like gake (hands and feet). Kodokan defines it is Ko-uchi-gari (Ashi-waza)? But in reality this particular application is a sutemi-waza, thus being the popular name sutemi-kouchi-gari. This throw then falls outside regular classification, like Kagato-jime, but is still call Ko-uchi-gari for simplicity. Daigo-sensei explained this particular classification-problem in his book Kodokan Throwing Techniques. What are we then to call this throw? I dont like names like makura-kesa-gatame (Kuzure-kesa-gatame, Kodokan) either, but they serve a certain educational purpose no? It makes it easier to explain a certain technique, as long as you explain what it is really called, I think it is okay. For example: most people know what a drop-seoi-nage is, even though the name is stupid and has nothing do with Judo. I ask these questions to educate myself, I am curious and I would love this discussion, even though it probably exist on the old Judoforum. NOTE: (AJJF has classified Ko-uchi-makikomi as seperate technique outside Ko-uchi-gari. Like the IJF has obi-tori-gaeshi AND hikikomi-gaeshi as seperate techniques, for some reason I would love to know.

    Digression: drop Seoi-nage is not always Seoi-otoshi, it can be either Seoi-nage, Ippon-seoi-nage or Seoi-otoshi, depending on what Tori does with his feet after he drops down and completes Kake. Just droping and pulling uke down is seoi-otoshi, but if Tori puts his toes in the mat and continues to launch forward (up from the mat) and carries uke on his back it is Seoi-nage/Ippon-seoi-nage depending on the grip.
    I wrote a lengthy response addressing your questions. Unfortunately my browser crashed and all is now gone.

    "Digression: drop Seoi-nage is not always Seoi-otoshi, it can be either Seoi-nage, Ippon-seoi-nage or Seoi-otoshi, depending on what Tori does with his feet after he drops down and completes Kake. Just droping and pulling uke down is seoi-otoshi, but if Tori puts his toes in the mat and continues to launch forward (up from the mat) and carries uke on his back it is Seoi-nage/Ippon-seoi-nage depending on the grip."  (...)

    What can I say ?  I have no idea what "drop seoi-nage" is or means. Let me clarify. There is no term in Japanese jûdô like that. It is essentially an Anglo-Saxon-American invention, probably more American than Anglo-saxon, and from that moment you can get all sorts of things. Who came up with that term ?  I don't know. I had never heard it before the 1990s and sure that what it seems to cover exists a long time before. From that point of view it becomes a senseless discussion, because we are then wondering what an erroneous term means. What is the 'drop' in "drop seoi-nage" ?  I assume that the genius who came up with that term wanted to imply "the dropping of tori on his knees", not the "dropping of uke by tori", which is essentially the otoshi part, which ... coincidentally ... in English is also translated as ... that's right ... 'drop'. So talking about a genial term.

    The proper term and correct categorization for these shoulder throws is "suwari seoi" 坐背負. The term literally means "seated seoi", that is "seated on one's knees, which is ... how the Japanese traditionally sit, thus not on your butt". That's it. There is no further specification, and hence ippon-seoi-nage-, morote-seoi-nage, and seoi-otoshi can all be performed in suwari-seoi version. Suwari-seoi is not a separate throw, it is a mode of performing any of the above throws, and thus represents as henka for each of them.

    "The makikomi movement in this sense has to do with the folding-in, either on the leg or with a eri-seoi-nage grip gripping it with two hands and folding your leg around like gake (hands and feet). Kodokan defines it is Ko-uchi-gari (Ashi-waza)? But in reality this particular application is a sutemi-waza, thus being the popular name sutemi-kouchi-gari. This throw then falls outside regular classification, like Kagato-jime, but is still call Ko-uchi-gari for simplicity. Daigo-sensei explained this particular classification-problem in his book Kodokan Throwing Techniques. What are we then to call this throw?" (...)

    Throws do not have a name in jûdô. It is a misunderstanding due to poor translation. What is named in jûdô are throwing PRINCIPLES.

    I understand that you are saying that "The makikomi movement in this sense has to do with the folding-in, either on the leg or with a eri-seoi-nage grip gripping it with two hands and folding your leg around like gake", yes, but that is not what makikomi means. There is no meaning of 'folding' in the word 巻, which means spiraling, rolling, winding, whatever, but not 'folding'. The term implies a circular movement by tori. The circular thing is quite obvious. The term, for example, also means a reel of a film. It does not mean something you ply, fold, beng and close. Sorry. Still in doubt ?  OK, let's look at the origin of the word. Where does it come from ?  It comes from the Chinese juǎn. What does it mean in its original Chinese lexicological meaning ?  Right, it means literally to roll up, to spool, to reel, or from there also implies the cylindrical mass of an object. Nothing 'folding' or 'folding in' there. It is true that in the figurative application of the term makikomi, thus not jûdô-related, the term can imply to be "involved in something", and one can then say that when you are involved in something that you got ... "dragged into something"; only, that is ... English, and not Japanese or Chinese, and it is not because in English the word "to become involved" is in one meaning identical or similar to "to get dragged" that the exact equivalent of either word in another language also means the same as the other.

    It is quit common for either ko-uchi-gari, ô-uchi-gari, or even ô-soto-gari to continue with your opponent to the ground. That is not sutemi in the real sense of word, i.e. as shown in the pair movements of the Omote-series of Koshiki-no-kata, i.e. where you give up your own body to weakness so that you overcome the gô of the opponent. Whereas today, yes, continuing on to the ground, such as in harai-makikomi, uchi-makikomi, uchi-mata-makikomi, is now also considered sutemi, it is an extension from the real meaning of the principle of 'sutemi'. Kô-uchi-gari is a somewhat different animal though. What we often see is people who do not properly master ko-uchi-gari, simply hang on the opponent's leg eventually dragging him to the ground. That really isn't even jûdô, but just poor technique. Releasing the tsurite (right hand from the lapel) during its execution does not change the throwing principle and neither does it merit a new name. These are all nothing but henka of the same principle, of reaping the right foot from the inside with the right foot.

    The binomen 'makikomi' is obviously not just identical to 'maki', but building on the meaning of that word simply indicates that one enters to then continue with it in a rolling movement.

    You pedagogy. That's a whole different kind of worms. The categorization of jûdô has pedagogical purpose, but I have suggested many times before that Kanô was not the genius he is often portrayed at, but essentially as so many Japanese and Chinese 'authors' and 'creators', mainly was a 'compiler'. His understanding of science was limited and in several cases wrong, and therefore the pedagogy is flawed, not useless, not completely wrong, but flawed. Add to that that throwing principles had different origins. Some were imported by him, some by others, some had poetic names, some had descripted ways, some had logical names, etc. It is possible to re-categorize jûdô according to scientific principles, and that has been done too. It has advantages, but since there are only two major scientific principles on which jûdô throws rely, it's a different approach. While the scientific approach has merit in teaching learning and skill acquisition, it does not solve the problem of name-giving, and those who have suggested different names, such as for example, Anton Geesink, inflate their system with new flaws. The Japanese system as it exists is not perfect, oftentimes inconsistent, but it has historic roots, just like grammar rules of a language are not always consistent, but for the most part allow an educated native population to master it reasonably, though it may pose problems for newbies. An example of this are the irregular conjugations of a couple of major verbs in French. A native French usually has no problems knowing that être and avoir do not follow the conjugation of 'manger" or 'préparer', but as a foreigner, yes, it does not make it easier at first.

    The newaza and katame-waza system are a different animal because they are far less structured than the tachi-waza and nage-waza system, and the structure that does exist is poorly known outside the katame-waza. The sheer number of henka make near impossible to remember. You say that you find it helpful to refer to one variation of kuzure-kesa-gatame. I can see this, but one of the reasons this is helpful is because the options for most jûdôka are limited. I can name you 3 dozen jûdô chokes you have never heard of. I guarantee you will not find it helpful. They are 36 more Japanese term you all have to memorize, and guarantee you will not be able to keep the apart. Different names is OK for pedagogical reasons, if we are talking limited things, but it is a pain in the butt if it becomes a lot more. The weird things we see in BJJ where the use of eponyms seems to be fond (The Kimura, The Ezekiel, The Omote-plata, the Fish & Chips plata whatever) suffer from the same problem seen in eponymic names in medicine or biochemistry. You cannot derive from the name what it is unless you already know what it is, and it is not conducive to structuring.

    Ben and myself talked about this previously. There is an "in-between". What you could do is simply say "kuzure-kesa-gatame, the henka sometimes referred to as makura-kesa-gatame". That does not do any harm and preserves the structure and pedagogy and meaning.
    the first time i heard 'drop-seoi' was from watching 101 ippons, narrated by Neil Adams.

    and i've heard Koga describe his kouchi and 'kouchi makikomi' in his own words, and i think Ippon book's Seoi-nage by Nakanishi also identifies the throw as kouchi makikomi, and it does mention its other name, sutemi kouchi as well.

    i took people like Adam, Nakanishi, & Koga as authority, and used the same terminologies.

    it's great that you are clearing up the terminologies, but i do not understand people's annoyance either, when people use the 'incorrect' terms. without either Kodokan or IJF stepping in to define the differences, you can't expect people to reference a semi-fictitious figure on an internet forum to figure out what is the right japanese way to describe a technique. standadised dictionaries have controlled how people spell and define words, and without it, variations will be rampant, and i think this is what we are seeing with judo technique naming today.

    Ryvai

    Posts : 158
    Join date : 2013-07-16
    Location : Norway

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Ryvai on Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:46 pm

    contrarian wrote:it's great that you are clearing up the terminologies, but i do not understand people's annoyance either, when people use the 'incorrect' terms. without either Kodokan or IJF stepping in to define the differences, you can't expect people to reference a semi-fictitious figure on an internet forum to figure out what is the right japanese way to describe a technique. standadised dictionaries have controlled how people spell and define words, and without it, variations will be rampant, and i think this is what we are seeing with judo technique naming today.
    People want "names" that relate directly to a specific technique to remember it, but at the same time know the correct naming of it. I normaly do what Cichorei mentioned earlier. When I demonstrate some technique I explain that I am doing what is refered to as a "ushiro-kesa-gatame, which is an application of kuzure-kesa-gatame and explain what ushiro means and that kuzure-kesa-gatame does not refer to a specific technique but a principle which leads to many techniques and when someone asks what kuzure really means I try to explain that aswell. Cichorei has explained the meaning of Kuzure in great detail previously and it was very interesting, since most westerners believe kuzure means variation while it really means falling part or desintegrating, much like kuzushi refers to the "falling apart" of balance. Below is a quote for Cichorei regarding Kuzure, which in my opinion is the best explaination of the meaning:

    It may help to understand what the Japanese names really indicate. As I have indicated many times before there is a lot that is not accurately understood. "Kesa-gatame" and "kuzure-gesa-gatame" are not just names. They mean something specifically in the sense that there is a specific relationship between both, and that relationship is not accurately reflected in Western sources. "Kuzure-gesa-gatame" is often translated as a "variation to kesa-gatame", but that isn't really what it means. 'Kuzure' is not variation. 'Kuzure' is the same word essentially as 'kuzushi'. Of course, if you take the translation from most Western books it sounds like they mean something entirely different, namely 'variation' vs. 'breaking balance'. What the terms really mean is 'falling apart', 'disintegrating'. Thus 'kuzushi' means that your normal (stable) body position is falling apart or disintegrating hence a broken balance. "Kuzure-gesa-gatame" really means that kesa-gatame is falling apart or you can't hold on to "kesa-gatame" and are forced to let that form partially "fall apart". This is why taking basic kesa-gatame position, and grabing elsewhere or moving around the body are considered all "kesa-gatame" positions that fell apart and you could not hold onto the basic position hence why they all fall under the term "kuzure-gesa-gatame". -Cichorei Kano (Judoforum.com)

    The word 'drop' in seoi-nage is not a name of a technique or whatever, it is just a reference of a specific tsukuri, namely to drop down, not nececarily bringing uke with you. 'drop' seoi-nage is not always seoi-otoshi. The kodokan has refered to this in their videos. If you drop down between uke's legs for example, this is where it gets decided if it is otoshi or nage. If you, after dropping down, put your toes into the mat and launch forward carrying uke on your back OR lift up your feet from the ground from this position it becomes seoi-nage. However if you just 'drop' and pull uke down with you it becomes seoi-otoshi. There are many competition examples of this.

    Regarding Kouchi-makikomi. Daigo-sensei explained in his book Kodokan throwing techniques that this variation of kouchi-gari is a yoko-sutemi-waza and is often refered to as daki-kouchi or sutemi-kouchi, it was given its name by the AJJF in 1995, seperating it from the traditional kouchi-gari. This is what Daigo-sensei wrote in this book:

    This technique is also known as daki-kouchi and sutemi-kouchi. Kouchi-gari is an ashi-waza technique, but in this situation the technique comes under yoko-sutemi-waza. Thus, kouchi-gari comes under two classifications. In some situations, tori throws uke at this point by rotating forward of his own volition. This means dropping in a rotating movement with the aim of seperating from uke's body, because uke is held on tori's back and can therefore continue to a shime-waza. In 1995, the AJJF set daki-kouchi apart from kouchi-gari, and gave it the name kouchi-makikomi under the classification of yoko-sutemi-waza. (Daigo-sensei, Kodokan Throwing Techniques)

    Cichorei Kano

    Posts : 1948
    Join date : 2013-01-16
    Age : 856
    Location : the Holy See

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Cichorei Kano on Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:56 am

    contrarian wrote:
    the first time i heard 'drop-seoi' was from watching 101 ippons, narrated by Neil Adams.

    and i've heard Koga describe his kouchi and 'kouchi makikomi' in his own words, and i think Ippon book's Seoi-nage by Nakanishi also identifies the throw as kouchi makikomi, and it does mention its other name, sutemi kouchi as well.

    i took people like Adam, Nakanishi, & Koga as authority, and used the same terminologies.

    it's great that you are clearing up the terminologies, but i do not understand people's annoyance either, when people use the 'incorrect' terms. without either Kodokan or IJF stepping in to define the differences, you can't expect people to reference a semi-fictitious figure on an internet forum to figure out what is the right japanese way to describe a technique. standardised dictionaries have controlled how people spell and define words, and without it, variations will be rampant, and i think this is what we are seeing with judo technique naming today.  
    The problem, in my opinion, is not as complicated as you suggest. You need to distinguish between popular literature written by sports heroes and scholarly literature. That is not unique to judo, and the same for any subject area. Pardon me the comparison  --it's not my intent to cause any offense to anybody--  but you would not be reading Martha Stewart if you want to understand the correct biochemical processes that take place during cooking, though she might be an outstanding cook.

    The annoyance you are referring to has to do with good communication being the primary purpose. We can't properly communicate if you do not understand the terminology I use, or if you understand something different under the terminology I use. I thought I had explained it. Assuming you have no Internet and are expert, and if I say that X suffers from Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome, you have no clue what the person has, because you have no clue what this terminology encompasses. Secondly, one can temporarily communicate if one uses wrong terminology and the addressee has the same knowledge or accepts the wrong terminology. If I say to you "I fell with my car this morning when I was riding on the sidewalk", then there is no problem in you understanding what happened if we previously agree that we will use the term car to indicate and object with two wheels, a handling bar, a seat, and a chain and pedals. However, anyone else would understand something different.

    With regard to the constraints of the Internet, there's a variety of reasons why they exist, and there also exists ... 'scholarly' literature on Internet use describing these issues. I can only speak for myself, but I certain would be willing to come teach the same on the tatami to anyone paying me the same as they pay to any of the sensei you are making reference to. However, what I do here, the time that I devote to patiently responding to people's queries and explaining things, I do in my own time all for free. In addition, I have authored a considerable body of scholarly work on these issues, and much of it is available to the reader for free too. That is stuff I do not get paid for either, and in fact I do not even own the copyright because as an author you have to transfer it to the publisher. Moreover, I actually have to pay myself to get it published and likely I pay more doing so than that any of the sensei you mention earn for their clinics. So, I think you get a pretty good deal, namely people who put the time into earning everything necessary to get that knowledge, who then pay themselves to get that knowledge to you, and you having the ability to get that knowledge all for free. That in the end there are still constraints, yes, no doubt there are, but this is not new. It's commonly known that when you give free advice, people will often not take it up, but if you charge a lot of money for it, they will. That is a common thing in my professional field and one of the reasons that professionally we were taught not to give free advice (in real life). There is no doubt that I and many others would very much appreciate if, let's say, Daigo-sensei himself starting tomorrow would join this forum and devote hours per day to patiently respond to queries all for free. I, personally, would embrace this. Or, any other senior sensei for that matter. They are all welcome here, and I'd be more than happy to retire and let them do the job. I fear though chances are remote as few people are such idiots, that they would. Most senior sensei who once were active on this forum have retired from doing so or have sharply reduced their activity to a bare minimum. My point simply is, you can't have everything exactly the way you want it, and one has to row using the paddles that are available.


    _________________


    "The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
    "Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
    "Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
    "I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

    Richard Riehle

    Posts : 79
    Join date : 2013-06-22
    Location : California

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Richard Riehle on Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:04 am

    Cichorei Kano wrote:
    afulldeck wrote:
    Cichorei Kano wrote: I can name you 3 dozen jûdô chokes you have never heard of. I guarantee you will not find it helpful. They are 36 more Japanese term you all have to memorize, and guarantee you will not be able to keep the apart. Different names is OK for pedagogical reasons, if we are talking limited things, but it is a pain in the butt if it becomes a lot more. The weird things we see in BJJ where the use of eponyms seems to be fond (The Kimura, The Ezekiel, The Omote-plata, the Fish & Chips plata whatever) suffer from the same problem seen in eponymic names in medicine or biochemistry. You cannot derive from the name what it is unless you already know what it is, and it is not conducive to structuring.
    CK, I agreed with most of what you said until I came to your point on chokes. I must admit I'm struggling with this one. What exactly is the issue?  So what if the name is somewhat eponymic? As Shakespeare said "...A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.."  Take the word "tire" it could mean the rubber things on my car, bike, motorcyle or to be in need of rest or sleep. Sometimes it clear what the word means because it can be derived from the root, other times you need to be told. 

    So calling something by its eponymic name like 'ezekiel' or 'paper cutter' or a more traditional sode guruma jime does it matter? In the course of instruction one will be shown the actual movement. When I first heard the word Ezekiel I didn't understand what people where referring too, however after a quick show and tell I made the connection to sode guruma jime. 

    So in your example, if you showed me 36 chokes and named them Choke 1, choke 2, ...choke 36. I would simply learn them as choke 1, 2 etc. So what if the name has no meaning to the action?
    No, no, no, no. I thought I had explained that. If you give something an eponymic name, you cannot derive from the name what it is. THAT is the problem. This is a huge problem in medicine. It is not systematic. If I tell you: The patient has Hashimoto's Disease, or Morbus Basedow, you have no idea what he has unless you already know what the name means. It is thus rather elitist instead of pedagogical. After all, you can know those names only if you have an enormous memory. It can easily be used to show off in a sense if you pick a rare name no one knows. That may be fun at certain points in time, but it isn't the best pedagogical way to train new people. Now if instead, you used a systematic name, then you can derive what actually the problem is: autoimmune thyroiditis --> inflammation of the thyroid not due to infection but due to creation of antibdodies; this is crystal clear to someone with basic medical knowledge like a medical student without the need of an encyclopedic memory. Hyperthyroidism --> overactive thyroid gland, again crystal clear.

    If I tell you I choked my opponent with kamakiri-jime, you likely have no idea what I did or what went on, not even if I tell you that the name means "praying mantis joke". Sure, you have google, but you wouldn't have if you were on a tatami and I told you. Neither would you, if used an eponymic name for it, let's say "Inokuma's choke" (I invented this name, it's not real). If instead, a systematic name is applied, it would change the whole picture as you would be able to derive it to some extent and hence better be able to remember, teach, and understand the principle: kata-jûji-jime is such a systematic name. It is easy to understand what the principle entails: it's a crossed choke, with the hands crossed, one hand different.

    You write "So in your example, if you showed me 36 chokes and named them Choke 1, choke 2, ...choke 36. I would simply learn them as choke 1, 2 etc. So what if the name has no meaning to the action?"

    I do not want to be rude, by I think you are overestimating yourself unless you are indeed blessed with an enormous memory. The numbers is exactly what Kawaishi did to some extent . You still have some old school followers of that, but one of the reasons why the system was given up (there are evidently several other reasons) is that the Kôdôkan categorization was easier to remember, and pedagogically considered more successful, even though Kawaishi's motive apparently had to do with pedagogy, at least if you can called it pedagogy to assume that Westerners are too stupid to memorize Japanese names.
    Birds, elementary physics particles, algorithms, and acrobatic tricks, all have variations with eponyms. In the Judo discussions, we have the "CK Elaboration", the "CK Pivot", the "CK Irony", and the "CK Overwhelm" each of which combines the eponym with a partial description.

    Cichorei Kano

    Posts : 1948
    Join date : 2013-01-16
    Age : 856
    Location : the Holy See

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Cichorei Kano on Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:52 am

    Richard Riehle wrote:Birds, elementary physics particles, algorithms, and acrobatic tricks, all have variations with eponyms.   In the Judo discussions, we have the "CK Elaboration", the "CK Pivot", the "CK Irony", and the "CK Overwhelm" each of which combines the eponym with a partial description.
    I don't want to keep beating the dead horse, RIP. Eponymic bird (or plant) names are very complicated when one has to cross languages, because the eponyms do not correspond. If one's only language is English and one only has to converse in English, OK, but if you have to translate those names into other languages, it is very difficult because the names are different. However, if you use the scientific genus name everyone understands it irrespective of language. Sine good communication is the prime purpose of language, it's something to bear in mind especially in times when modern ways of communication such as Internet brings people in contact.

    Sure, saying 'testosterone' for most is simpler than its systematic name "8R,9S,10R,13S,14S,17S)- 17-hydroxy-10,13-dimethyl- 1,2,6,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16,17- dodecahydrocyclopenta[a]phenanthren-3-one, but that is fine if all one needs is to superficially know the name without its origin and metabolism and chemical structure. If one also has to know all the other closely related substances it becomes a lot more problematic. As to the medical eponyms, these are a notorious nightmare for medical students. If you're bored, why not have a go at it. Here is a short list:

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

    When done, one can move to the list of eponymous medical signs:

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

    and of eponymous surgical procedures.

    In judo luckily it is NOT that complicated although I have to put effort into remembering every single of the dozens of eponymic names of rare armbars and chokes sometimes too.

    Phew, I am getting hungry from writing all this, time for a CK burger ... or some CK nuggets ...




    _________________


    "The world is a republic of mediocrities, and always was." (Thomas Carlyle)
    "Nothing is as approved as mediocrity, the majority has established it and it fixes it fangs on whatever gets beyond it either way." (Blaise Pascal)
    "Quand on essaie, c'est difficile. Quand on n'essaie pas, c'est impossible" (Guess Who ?)
    "I am never wrong. Once I thought I was, and that was a mistake."

    aspenrebel

    Posts : 38
    Join date : 2013-03-04

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by aspenrebel on Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:25 pm

    Cichorei Kano wrote:
    Ryvai wrote:
    JudoMojo wrote:Looks quite like this:

    Exactly, that's why I am a bit confused as many people call similar techniques ura-nage.

    Wish Cichorei would say his opinion. He seems like the kind of guy to clarify Smile
    It's standing daki-wakare, not ura-nage. However, many people are not very aware of daki-wakare as it is not featured in the gokyô, whereas ura-nage is and if you don't know the exact principles you will not recognize the difference. Ura-nage requires lifting someone and throwing him in the direction you are not facing thus behind you. Grabbing someone who is in front of you, lifting him and then turning sideways and dragging the opponent in a twisting motion is not ura-nage, although in contests they will virtually always erroneously label it as ura-nage. This is not unique. There are many erroneous terms assigned by some people and organization to certain techniques. The error sometimes is quite obvious if you understand the lexicological meaning of the throw. "Ko-uchi-makikomi" is such an example. "Ko-uchi-makikomi" does not exist in judo. Applying ko-uchi-gari and falling to the ground has nothing to do with a makikomi movement. If you know how the term makikomi is written in kanji then that is also obvious. It's a 2-kanji word that implies both entering and rolling. The sutemi-part in this ko-uchi-makikomi is definitely not a rolling movement, so it cannot be makikomi.  
    I fully agree with you CK [this is "Todd" from the old Forum, from Boston]. I'd have to watch the OP's video again, was he "standing"? My first thought was "daki wakare". You are correct, so many people just simply throw on an easily known and acceptable label to things, rather than providing the correct terminology. That is just laziness. In my writings, I have a number of different versions of daki wakare (albeit I'm not all that certain they will all work, but.....). I agree with you on "Ko Uchi Makikomi", I always had a problem with that terminology. I was always asking myself "where is the makikomi? Such as in Soto Makikomi. But then again, I have a version which has a whole lot of makikomi in it, but no real "kouchi".. hee hee hee!!! A whole lot of "rolling" going on!!!

    aspenrebel

    Posts : 38
    Join date : 2013-03-04

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by aspenrebel on Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:09 pm

    @CK, I did not have a chance to read everything you wrote here, but yes, we American Anglos do tend to Americanize and Anglo-ize everything. I seem to recall before, on previous Forum, that you had stated that these are not "throws", that that is an English term. That in Judo they are "nage" from the verb "nageru" meaning "to separate" or "separation". That these are Separation Principles and not "throws". I concluded to mean to separate uke from tori. That each "technique" has an underlying "principle", and each of the Groups teaches underlying "principles". That, therefore, such other "throws" such as "ko-uchi-makikomi" are simply variations, different methods, or modifications upon these underlying "principle" technigues, i.e. "Ko-Uchi-Gari".

    In my writings, I've been working on for my own edification and reference, I'm almost up to some 400 "significantly different".... "throws, takedowns, push down, pull downs, put downs". Many come from many different martial arts other than Judo, from the military, and from "street wise" applications. Most I've been able to "classify" within the 67 Kodokan "underlying principles", but many I can't because they really don't involve any actually Judo technique (i.e. just some way of getting someone to the ground, without any punching, kicking, or striking). I too have tried to assign "names" or "terminology" to these numerous techniques (other than simply saying "variation 1, variation 2, .... and so on) simply as a means to "identify" them and to remember them. But without going to the outlandish extreme of British Judo Terminology (I'm sure I still have that paper you sent me one time on all the British Judo naming of techniques). But I do not yet know if all that I have written up will actually work. Haven't had the chance to test them all out yet. Many, I know, are just too complex to be "doable" in a real situation, but they are still interesting.

    I have one technique, which I have been doing for ages. I learned it before I began studying Kenpo, did it all through Kenpo, then when just a white belt in judo, black belt instructor would always ask me to demonstate it. Never knew what to call it. It's late here now, and dark, and my notebook is way over there. I can't think what I've called it. Maybe I call it "One Arm Makikomi". I forget right now. It comes off of "Ko-Uchi Gari/Makikomi", but there is never any "ko-uchi" involved. Grabbing uke's right sleeve with my left hand, I simply reach down low and across uke's front, and wrap my right arm around uke's right leg, from outside of his leg, and wrapping my hand/forearm around behind his right knee, turning my back towards uke's front, maintaining my left hand grip on uke's right sleeve. I then simply throw my entire body up and into uke's body, his front midsection, while "rolling" into him, with my right arm wrapped around and behind uke's right leg, thus picking up uke's right leg. I get both my feet up off the ground, and keep them off to uke's left side. Uke goes easily down onto his back. As uke is going down, I release my left hand grip on his right sleeve. I do the "rolling" into uke's body, so that when I land on top of uke, uke now on the ground on his back, I am lying on top of uke, my back on top of his front/midsection, but in such away so that my hips are slightly off to his left side (i.e. not too high up on uke, else it presents him with the possibility of a counter). I post both my feet firmly on the ground. I keep my right arm wrapped around uke's right leg,pulling it up. I can easily strike with an elbow to uke's face, head, throat, etc. I can also easily enter into a hold. I can also easily release my right arm from being wrapped around uke's right leg, and strike with a right elbow to uke's groin. Again, this is not for Judo Tournament, but for "real life". I can also continue to roll over my left side, and strike with my right hand/forearm/elbow to uke's face/head, and entering to any number of holds or chokes. This techniques has always worked for me every time. There are some things, a few things, I do very well.

    Sponsored content

    Re: What technique is this?

    Post by Sponsored content Today at 1:38 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 1:38 am