From: scheid@danzan.EBay.Sun.COM (David Scheid)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Judo: the value of competition.
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:20:01 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: scheid@danzan.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: danzan.ebay.sun.com

In article Mz2@ms.uky.edu, satadd00@nx07.mik.uky.edu (scott andrew taddiken) writes:
>And Dave responded:
>>  ...the above is in dispute. Kata placed a very important role in
>>Judo. Draeger's "Formal Techniques of Judo" print several statements
>>from the diaries of Kano to this effect.
>(snip)
>
>Dave has read my quotes.  If anyone missed them, I would be happy to oblige.
>Kano clearly says that randori is the _most_ important form of training. {snip}

Ok, maybe I'll have to drag out Draeger's book. 

>In this, judo (_Kodokan_ Judo, of course) differs vastly from the many jujutsu.
>In some jujutsu schools, randori was simply not done, or was limited to what I
>would call "counterattack katas with branching", where I mean branching in the
>sense of binary trees--if tori failed, uke became tori and chose between two
>attacks, and so on.  In other jujutsu schools, randori was forbidden to the
>beginner; once he had mastered the kata, he could begin randori, but the
>emphasis on kata remained.

This is a good synopsis of many Jujutsu schools. In Kodenkan Judo (aka Okazaki
Judo), Randori was the same as Kano Judo. Okazaki was a Sandan in Kodokan Judo
when he began his system and when he pass away was a 7th in Kodokan Judo. It seems
that he maintained close ties with the Kodokan throughout his life. 

In our system, Shiai was not allowed until 3rd brown (at least). Randori 
was practiced from Green on up. It was not a choice as it is now in most 
schools, but part of the curriculum. Randori was done in 2 distinct ways. 
(Here again, I'm in a minority in my Org.)

The 1st (order is not important) is basically what is still done. Two people
trying to throw each other as in Shiai, but with less aggression because there
were others on the mat.

The 2nd (my favorite still) is where one person would be Uke, the other Tori.
Uke's job was not to be thrown, without counter-throwing (unless Tori did something
really stupid). Tori's job was to throw. Lots of movement was not allowed. 
The grip was always light. Most throws were preceded with appropriate Kiai.
After Tori's solid attempt, they would change roles. Uke would critique Tori in
how best to attack Uke if needed (Jita Kyoei). Thus, both could learn and 
develop their Nage. From this training, one would then go the the 1st method,
although it was more of an individual thing as to how much emphasis one would
eventually place on these methods. Then, one would enter Shiai.

>For some time I have been harboring a suspicion that Dave was a practicioner
>of a non-Kodokan judo.  As such, he is certainly free to criticize our art, and
>its rules for competition.  But one should realize that he does this as
>something of an outsider.

I have never hid the fact that I teach and practice Okazaki Jujutsu, (aka
Danzan Ryu, aka Kodenkan Judo). The same stuff that Wally Jay and Willy
Cahill studied and teach. I am very familiar with Kodokan Judo, but don't
accept what is passed off in American Orgs as "authentic" Judo. I am a great
admirer of Mifune (there are a few others but I'm so terrible with names I
need to look them up). So, I agree, I am an outsider to American Sport Judo.

>>So, the best working definition of Judo is not Kodokan Judo.
>(snip)
>
>I figured as much.

Thought you might. :-)

BTW, our Kata is different as well. It is the 1-2-3 throw type of Kata,
different from the "Formal Katas" and "Randori No Kata" of Kodokan. The
goal remains the same - Mushin.

---
Dave Scheid - All Disclaimers Apply


Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts