E-Judo

Judo network and forum


    Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Share
    avatar
    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by afulldeck on Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:54 am

    With all the changes that have happened with the rule set in the last two years to make judo more positive, most of which are okay (leg grab excepted) can anyone explain why the IJF hasn't tried to tackle the stall in the turtle position? For me, this is now the most obvious and gross abuse of non-judo action on the tatami. Why not add a rule requiring uki to attempt to turn on to the back immediately after they finding themselves in belly down or turtle position?

    What am I missing?
    avatar
    finarashi

    Posts : 467
    Join date : 2013-01-11
    Location : Finland

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by finarashi on Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:37 pm

    Thank you for your attempt of trolling. This forum appreciates trolls even though they taste bitter if they are to old!

    In Judo you have to engage in tachiwaza, but you can decline to engage in ne-waza. The one standing does not have to go down to mat to continue in ne-waza, nor does the one who is 'bellying up' need to move but can wait whether the other is good and strong enough to move him.


    _________________
    ... even professors make mistakes!
    avatar
    Davaro

    Posts : 224
    Join date : 2013-01-04
    Location : South Africa

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Davaro on Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:42 pm

    @ Fin - bit harsh on the trolling accusations?

    This is not "Machine" (or at least I hope its not)

    There are a few folks that believe the turtle should be penalised or done away with (I am not one of them)

    I would however, instead of penalising uke, try to force tori in engaging and attacking the turtle. I think we all know that while the turtle can be effective in Judo from a defensive point of view, if one learns enough, it is relatively easy to turn someone in turtle and gain advantage.

    Edit to add: If you are not capable of turning someone in turtle over, then you deserve to not get the advantage you are offered...


    _________________
    Dew wrote:
    We could have a poll - but if the majority vote for "Judo roly poly" its going to ignite fascist dictatorlike tendencies lurking within me.


    http://www.saizenjudo.wozaonline.co.za/
    avatar
    finarashi

    Posts : 467
    Join date : 2013-01-11
    Location : Finland

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by finarashi on Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:37 pm

    I myself liked the turtle. It was very effective position to attack fellow Judoka. Had a lot of success with it. .. and no, it is not easy to break turtle.


    _________________
    ... even professors make mistakes!
    avatar
    Fritz

    Posts : 110
    Join date : 2013-01-16

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Fritz on Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:43 pm

    There would be no need for such rule, it would be sufficient to give the other a
    little bit more time to handle the turtle.


    _________________
    Best regards

    _Fritz_
    avatar
    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by afulldeck on Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:59 am

    @finarashi -- I don't troll.

    Whether or not we agree or disagree with the IJF overall, the latest rules changes I do see as very positive. I do applaud the IJF 'attempt' to make positive judo and remove negative judo through eliminating some aspects of grip fighting. Its long over due in fact. Can't break a grip--too bad, throw anyway or be thrown. Live or die. All good. Judo is brutal and short.

    To that end, I happen to hate stalling. And in my judo education, such that it is, I see stalling a denial of judo. Stalling is good way to run from the fight (at least for a few seconds) for a preceived advantage, regardless if your winning or losing. Its anti-judo, and beyond annoying. Further, my hate for stalling is not limited to just nagewaza, but all judo including newaza. That is because philosophically, I do not separate nagewaza and newaza as being different types of judo. Maybe you do.

    If you stall you ought get a shido whether your in nagewaza or newaza. Although I do not have statistical evidence, it seems to me the biggest stalling action remaining in judo is lying face/belly down on the tatami avoid engaging with Tori until the ref calls matte. (I'm actually sorry I used the term turtle when I started this thread)

    Do you believe or think that lying face/belly down on the tatami avoiding Tori isn't stalling and anti-judo? If you believe that its anti-judo then why shouldn't IJF not do something about it? If you don't believe its anti-judo then we simply are not engaged in the same sport.




    avatar
    Davaro

    Posts : 224
    Join date : 2013-01-04
    Location : South Africa

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Davaro on Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:19 am

    Would, in shiai, blocking a throw by using tai-sabaki be considered anti-judo?

    Bad example but relevant all the same. It is stalling, albeit for a split-second is it not?

    Some people really enjoy lying belly-down in order to attack when someone tries to turn them. Is that not Judo? Using a certain position as a position to counter from is indeed judo.

    I say again, if someone is lying belly-down it should be up to the guy standing to attack this so-called negative position. I dont buy the idea that the "turtle" is a postion of strength and firmly believe that it can be very sucessfully attacked. Look at what Akimoto from JPN does to guys that belly-down on him... If you know what you are doing, one can very easily turn the tables on the guy lying down.


    _________________
    Dew wrote:
    We could have a poll - but if the majority vote for "Judo roly poly" its going to ignite fascist dictatorlike tendencies lurking within me.


    http://www.saizenjudo.wozaonline.co.za/
    avatar
    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by afulldeck on Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:45 am

    Davaro wrote:Would, in shiai, blocking a throw by using tai-sabaki be considered anti-judo?

    Bad example but relevant all the same. It is stalling, albeit for a split-second is it not?

    Some people really enjoy lying belly-down in order to attack when someone tries to turn them. Is that not Judo? Using a certain position as a position to counter from is indeed judo.

    I say again, if someone is lying belly-down it should be up to the guy standing to attack this so-called negative position. I dont buy the idea that the "turtle" is a postion of strength and firmly believe that it can be very sucessfully attacked. Look at what Akimoto from JPN does to guys that belly-down on him... If you know what you are doing, one can very easily turn the tables on the guy lying down.

    I think your tai-sabaki is not a good example. I would say tai-sabaki really just the start of your counter attack. There is no stalling, running away, or holding. Just a redirection and attempted counter that hopefully succeeds. All good.

    Let me be clarify further my thinking further. I don't have an issue of attacking from the belly-down position, in fact, if you don't attack you've forgotten your judo. Hence, my suggestion of shido if you stall in the belly down position. Also, if Tori doesn't engage and have a meaningful attack the turtle (running away or stalling) - shido. If uke doesn't engage and lies belly-down--shido. Both need to stay engaged until matte is called. That would be my suggested change.

    avatar
    genetic judoka

    Posts : 541
    Join date : 2012-12-30
    Age : 30
    Location : Florida

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by genetic judoka on Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:45 am

    so here's a scenario: you shoot uchi mata, and I block it by essentially bowling you over forward. you end up face down. should you then have to immediately roll over and hand me the pin on a silver platter to avoid a penalty?

    you've seen the methodology by which the IJF implements rules. and by that I mean heavy handedly. do you really want that?


    _________________
    Warning: I am very opinionated, and very willing to share that opinion. However I am very much aware that I am here as a student, not a teacher.
    avatar
    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by afulldeck on Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:05 am

    genetic judoka wrote:so here's a scenario: you shoot uchi mata, and I block it by essentially bowling you over forward. you end up face down. should you then have to immediately roll over and hand me the pin on a silver platter to avoid a penalty?

    you've seen the methodology by which the IJF implements rules. and by that I mean heavy handedly. do you really want that?

    Yes. If you get the oaeskomi, bully for you, you win-I loose. The gods of judo have no remorse. (How is this different from Nagewaza?) But if I happen to be better at countering and attacking than you are at securing oaeskomi then the outcome may be a surprise.

    As for methodology of implementation IJF, they been heavy handed. Agreed, but I think that is superfluous to this discussion.
    avatar
    finarashi

    Posts : 467
    Join date : 2013-01-11
    Location : Finland

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by finarashi on Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:49 am

    afulldeck, I try to throw, you block and I end up lying on my belly.

    Few seconds go and in your opinion I should get shido for not attacking.

    In my opinion you should get shido, because you stall on top position and just wait fro me to do something.

    So IJF should give shido for all those who decline to try to turn their opponet who is lying belly down.

    --- this is similar to what you are saying ----

    But really, you forget that Judo is about tachiwaza. In Judo you can not decide that the match should be fought in newaza. Therefore in Judo rules there is no stalling in newaza, but only clever action the purpose of which is .... to get back to tachiwaza Very Happy


    _________________
    ... even professors make mistakes!
    avatar
    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by afulldeck on Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:32 am

    @finarashi,

    My position, if I was god of IJF would be:

    Stalling lying down = shido
    Not engaging a downed opponent = shido

    both are denying judo by an inactivity of action that could move one forward towards the goal.

    Here is my short reasoning. Judo is a terminal ippon sport contested with Nage-waza and Ne-waza. If you miss getting a terminal ippon during Nage-waza with any tachi-waza, then your philosophically obligated to continue into Newaza looking for some sort of terminal ippon with the full scope of Katame-waza (either osaekomi-waza,shime-waza, or Kansetu-waza) until you can no longer hunt and matte is called.

    Of course, one could argue that "..de gustibus non est disputandum.." is at play. But my tastes are for as much judo I can get.
    avatar
    finarashi

    Posts : 467
    Join date : 2013-01-11
    Location : Finland

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by finarashi on Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:47 am

    But clearly the declared target of Judo is to get as much tachiwaza as possible!


    _________________
    ... even professors make mistakes!
    avatar
    Stacey

    Posts : 553
    Join date : 2013-01-17
    Location : your worst nightmares

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Stacey on Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:31 am

    stalling is not judo? LOL. Yes, in tachi waza, it can be a shido (i.e. minor penalty), but that's it. Stalling and frustrating the hell out of your partner or opponent is a very legitimate tactic. If you don't like it, it's because you get frustrated easily.

    I'm not going to be pushed into an attack because you don't think it's fair for me to take my time and create my opportunity by getting you to make a mistake. Maximum efficiency, minimum effort - can't get much more judo than that. And, having your partner/opponent waste ton of energy trying to get me out of turtle - priceless. Maybe once you're tired enough, you'll actually examine what's happening and why it's happening. You might even ask your obviously experienced partner how to deal with it.

    I am going to agree with fin; troll-job

    jkw

    Posts : 130
    Join date : 2013-01-04

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by jkw on Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:37 am

    afulldeck wrote:@finarashi,
    Stalling lying down = shido
    Not engaging a downed opponent = shido

    I think the last thing we need is more shido.
    avatar
    Ben Reinhardt

    Posts : 790
    Join date : 2012-12-28
    Location : Bonners Ferry, Idaho, USA

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Ben Reinhardt on Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:44 am

    afulldeck wrote:With all the changes that have happened with the rule set in the last two years to make judo more positive, most of which are okay (leg grab excepted) can anyone explain why the IJF hasn't tried to tackle the stall in the turtle position? For me, this is now the most obvious and gross abuse of non-judo action on the tatami. Why not add a rule requiring uki to attempt to turn on to the back immediately after they finding themselves in belly down or turtle position?

    What am I missing?

    So you force the guy on bottom to make himself more more vulnerable to attack, even though he may have ended up faced down to to a legit attempt to throw, escape attempt at being thrwon? been countered/blocked or just missed. The guy on top is going to KNOW bottom has to make a move to face him, so can be prepared. There are only so many ways to reverse out of face down/turtle.

    We could also make a rule to force each judoka to attempt to throw the other by taking turn, within 20 seconds of taking a mutual sleeve and lapel grip. That would really speed things up, get rid of kumi kata too!

    Why is Judo solely defined by frenetic attack/action? Maximum efficient use of energy might have a broader meaning/intent than that.

    avatar
    Ben Reinhardt

    Posts : 790
    Join date : 2012-12-28
    Location : Bonners Ferry, Idaho, USA

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Ben Reinhardt on Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:45 am

    finarashi wrote:I myself liked the turtle. It was very effective position to attack fellow Judoka. Had a lot of success with it. .. and no, it is not easy to break turtle.

    I agree, it's not that easy to break the turtle of a skilled opponent, and can require a lot of energy.

    avatar
    afulldeck

    Posts : 377
    Join date : 2012-12-30

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by afulldeck on Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:22 am

    Ben Reinhardt wrote: So you force the guy on bottom to make himself more more vulnerable to attack, even though he may have ended up faced down to to a legit attempt to throw, escape attempt at being thrwon? been countered/blocked or just missed. The guy on top is going to KNOW bottom has to make a move to face him, so can be prepared. There are only so many ways to reverse out of face down/turtle.

    Well that was the thought. He/she has already been made vulnerable by the attack and that is why they landed face down in the first place. Why stand up at that point? Perhaps it might be good to try the rule out and see what happens with the Judo match. Mind you, there seems to be a few folks in the forum that disagree with the premise that the fight should be continuous. Not sure why. Perhaps its simply the devil you know.

    Ben Reinhardt wrote:
    We could also make a rule to force each judoka to attempt to throw the other by taking turn, within 20 seconds of taking a mutual sleeve and lapel grip. That would really speed things up, get rid of kumi kata too!

    interesting...never say never...

    Ben Reinhardt wrote:
    Why is Judo solely defined by frenetic attack/action? Maximum efficient use of energy might have a broader meaning/intent than that.

    I certainly don't define Judo in that way.

    avatar
    Ben Reinhardt

    Posts : 790
    Join date : 2012-12-28
    Location : Bonners Ferry, Idaho, USA

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Ben Reinhardt on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:01 am

    afulldeck wrote:
    Ben Reinhardt wrote: So you force the guy on bottom to make himself more more vulnerable to attack, even though he may have ended up faced down to to a legit attempt to throw, escape attempt at being thrown? been countered/blocked or just missed. The guy on top is going to KNOW bottom has to make a move to face him, so can be prepared. There are only so many ways to reverse out of face down/turtle.

    Well that was the thought. He/she has already been made vulnerable by the attack and that is why they landed face down in the first place. Why stand up at that point? Perhaps it might be good to try the rule out and see what happens with the Judo match. Mind you, there seems to be a few folks in the forum that disagree with the premise that the fight should be continuous. Not sure why. Perhaps its simply the devil you know.

    Ben Reinhardt wrote:
    We could also make a rule to force each judoka to attempt to throw the other by taking turn, within 20 seconds of taking a mutual sleeve and lapel grip. That would really speed things up, get rid of kumi kata too!

    interesting...never say never...

    Ben Reinhardt wrote:
    Why is Judo solely defined by frenetic attack/action? Maximum efficient use of energy might have a broader meaning/intent than that.

    I certainly don't define Judo in that way.


    The person on top has the option to attack or not given her judgement of chance of success. The person on bottom can make a decision to turn and attack or not, depending on the situation. This allows each to decide the best use of their energy in the given moment.

    I tell you what, you start turning from bottom in shiai and let us know how it goes for you. Do it all the time, no matter what the situation.



    avatar
    Cichorei Kano

    Posts : 1948
    Join date : 2013-01-16
    Age : 857
    Location : the Holy See

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Cichorei Kano on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:09 am

    I agree with what Ben writes. One should not forget that competitive judo is a "strategic play", a play form of a budo, with the competitive element designed to make one's budo better. This is quite different from something developed for the mere purpose of being a competitive sport. As different as it is from a pure sport, as different it is from a pure combat form, hence why yotsunbai (position on knees and hands/forearms in Anglo-Saxon/American countries popularly referred to as 'turtling') is a valid strategic position in judo shiai but insane for the MMA-er who looks at is from a pure true fight point of view.

    Judo as a competitive activity today has enormously changed not just by fighting rules of engagement but also by its competitive framework. When I started competing virtually all tournaments had a single tatami. This made the entire atmosphere entirely different. Now the final is usually the only contest where everybody is watching a single thing, but it does not create the same effect as then because the build-up towards that final simply is missing. Saying that 40 years ago the whole was more 'intimate' is probably not the right terminology, but as an audience you were far more a part of the game than you are today. Prewar tournaments in Japan had a crowd gathered around a single tatami often in open air. The contests lasted much longer, but despite some inevitable stalling the tension was tangible and when one scored there was a relief among the audience. The stalling usually was not anti-judo but the natural process of a heavy ongoing match; the stalling did not equal 'boredom'. I remember the 1979 European Championships. The Heavyweight final positioned Rougé against Kuznetsov. It was a slow contest, with lots of blocking. Finals were 7 minutes then. And then there was this sudden explosion by Rougé with a tomoe-nage that had Kuznetsov suspended in the air for a second before landing flat on his back. That was the only thing shown in the entire contest, but it was brilliant and worth the wait for, and we all jumped up elated by this fine display of judo technique. There were just 2 tatami and the audience was part of what happened on the tatami. As competitions grew and women's contests were held on the same day the number of mats grew and the judo more and more became "conveyor belt judo" with the audience being less and less part of the game. The whole thing got something unpersonal.

    The multiple tatami is particularly disturbing in kata contests. A kata demonstration used to be something intense that could make you part of it too. Multiple kata contests going on at the same moment, different kata, with the noise of slapping the tatami while you are watching jû-no-kata is odd. Count in the disturbing noise of announcements in the middle of kata performances and there isn't much left of concentration and serenity. Judo's success or desire to expand into mass entertainment is the nail to its own coffin.

    In 1979 we still had had tears in our eyes when Fujii during the Worlds in Paris won his 4th world title, and in 1981 in Maastricht we were in awe for the display of Kashiwazaki in his category and the absolute domination of Yamashita in the double (heavy/open). The difference was not just the rules on the tatami or the personalities, but the judo framework, the number of mats, the nature of the matches.

    Around 1981 though there was a change. Penalties were increased, and the -95kg final was disturbed by a highly disputed chû'i (or was it still keikoku then, can't exactly remember) when one of the players attacked but the head referee decided that he positioned more than half of his body outside of the red border hence the action being interpreted as fleeing away from fighting, whereas the action in reality had been a sincere attempt to throw. In this way it became possible for the referees and the rules to literally destroy the flow and nature of a contest; the most offensive and leading player could lose the contest through a travesty of a rule that was being employed for something different than the spirit of that rule.

    There had been precedents before. In the 1978 European Championships in Helsinki, Finland, a te-guruma was performed while the person throwing supported his body at one point by putting down his hand outside of the red border an action therefore to be awarded with keikoku, an impossible penalty score to recover from. Penalties in judo were considered as something quite apalling, something that manipulated the true course of the fight, and we were very apprehensive when in 1981 additional penalties were going to be introduced.

    Looking back the number of penalties and number of events in contests that attracted penalties were nothing compared with what it is today. Contests had something much more spontaneous then.

    Another part that isn't really the judo itself but the framework is the availability of video equipment. The availability of video has increased and intensified the studying of opponents in a way that may have affected the spontaneity of fights. Potential opponents can now be studied and studied over and over again, analyzed in a way that previously was not possible.

    The problems judo is facing are multifactorial. It isn't just the last IJF rules that destroyed judo. It has been a slow, yet steadily ongoing process that has been going on for 30 years but that now has been pushed so far to the other side that it no longer can spontaneously recover. Judo shiai today is not a patient who is sick, but a patient in coma that is just there as a study object to experiment with rather than attract the attention of genuine human concern and efforts to make the patient healthy again.


    Last edited by Cichorei Kano on Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:28 am; edited 2 times in total


    _________________


    "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."
    avatar
    Ricebale

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

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Ricebale on Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:38 am

    I agree no more penalties especially under the new rule set

    If I throw and they turtle I must weigh up energy expenditure vs probability of getting the next throw vs time left in match and relative scores

    If I am tired then I stand back up and go for the next throw, forcing newaza is very fatiguing and in general not always the best solutuon.

    avatar
    judoratt

    Posts : 309
    Join date : 2012-12-30
    Age : 60
    Location : Seattle

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by judoratt on Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:25 am

    let's kill 2 birds with 1 stone here.I think we need to bring back atemi waza but only for the bellydown. If uke turns away in newaza I should be able to beat the heck out of him until he either turns to face me, is knocked unconscious, or taps out. Razz
    .

    BTW How did I beat Bill to this one .
    avatar
    finarashi

    Posts : 467
    Join date : 2013-01-11
    Location : Finland

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by finarashi on Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:01 pm

    So we have two guys. Player #1 does nothing. Player #2 tries to throw and during one of them ends up on the mat belly down. Tired form his attempts he does not do anything, nor does Player #1 attempt anything.

    Then ... brilliant solution ... to make more action one punishes player #2

    Actually I'm startinf to think Crying or Very sad this solution is something the IJF should take. Punishing the active player is sure way to improve Judo contests. Judoka on the belly is typically the active one not the passive one.




    _________________
    ... even professors make mistakes!
    avatar
    judoratt

    Posts : 309
    Join date : 2012-12-30
    Age : 60
    Location : Seattle

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by judoratt on Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:12 pm

    finarashi wrote:So we have two guys. Player #1 does nothing. Player #2 tries to throw and during one of them ends up on the mat belly down. Tired form his attempts he does not do anything, nor does Player #1 attempt anything.

    Then ... brilliant solution ... to make more action one punishes player #2

    Actually I'm startinf to think Crying or Very sad this solution is something the IJF should take. Punishing the active player is sure way to improve Judo contests. Judoka on the belly is typically the active one not the passive one.

    Atemi waza is the only solution. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


    avatar
    finarashi

    Posts : 467
    Join date : 2013-01-11
    Location : Finland

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by finarashi on Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:16 pm

    Solution is that the referee has a cane and if the score is slow in coming he starts beating the competitors with it.


    _________________
    ... even professors make mistakes!

    Sponsored content

    Re: Is the IJF missing a key rule?

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:07 pm