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.