BJJ has throws like judo has ground work What i mean is they are there but its not that emphasied, thats why most competing BJJ blackbelts also have judo black belts, its a skill set simply not that developed (in BJJ a takedown is a takedown it cant win the match it just starts the ground war)
i did shua jiao gung-fu for 6 years before i did BJJ so im used to being thrown and break falling properly. I just didnt turn properly in my first Judo tournament.
Your art (or any art for that matter) isn't a living, breathing, sentient entity; it doesn't have a conscience, so you can't disrespect it or hurt its feelings. You can only add to or subtract from the material which comprises it - whether that is good or bad is entirely subjective. People need to get over this outdated notion that an art is a deity to be revered, like some treat it as.
Thanks icefield, that's what I was kind of getting at, because in a judo match, you do get points for takedowns, don't you. I used to wrestle and we had one or two "takedown experts" on our team. They would take the guy down, disengage, take him down again, and again, rinse and repeat, meanwhile accumulating points the whole time. Is this possible in Judo?
That is Judo. You can win via one really decisive throw (ippon!) or a few minor ones (koka, waza-ari etc). If a throw doesn't score ippon you can follow the person to the mat and try for a submission or hold-down (which also win the match outright). However you aren't allowed an indefinite time on the mat. If the action stalls you get stood up again.
The more I think about this the more I think it's a bad idea. Taken in isolation rule differences posters have pointed out like gripping, direct attacks to the legs etc may seem small; but combined with the point scoring system it's all enough to completely change the strategy and approach to the contest. If you've got 1+ year of bjj and you're up against blue belt or under judoka they'll not have much idea what to expect from your attacks or how to deal with you. Would you be able to moderate attacks like omopolatas or kimuras so they lock the elbow not the shoulder; or adapt triangles and guillotines so they don't put cranking pressure on the neck. Then, even if you can't and you get away with the ref not spotting it, your opponent may not be able to recognise when to tap. If you are competing against brown belts and upwards and the contest goes to the ground, some will not be that good, others will be - the idea that all judoka have no ground game is a generalisation, some are excellent. They all however, should be able to dump you pretty hard. I just can't see any logic in not training before competing. I went the other way, from judo to bjj and found the challenge of adapting what I already knew and learning new things more than adequate, competing can happen when you are ready.
club versus competition I think that one of the problems in judo is that there are large differences in what is done for the sake of competition versus the art itself. While being a relative newb to judo I did wrestle when I was a lad so I was hoping to see some groundwork in judo. Much to my delight the classes I ocassionally attend tend to be 50/50 goundwork and stand up. Our coach emphasizes the need for transition from the throw to the ground and the equal importance of both aspects. I think that we spend about half of each section doing training of techniques and half doing randori (sparring). Each section might have separate sparring but often the stand up section is set up to you do follow down and start to work on the ground. The unfortunate aspect of judo being a competitive art is that we do have to change our game to suit what the 'higher ups' see as the best way to promote the sport. This does control what is used when it comes to shiai irrespective of what other knowledge has been imparted. The difference between these two arts (in my limited experience and knowledge) is primarily the rule set. This is certainly why throws would not be emphasized in BJJ. I do know that when there have been meetings between high level players from both groups there was not huge evidence that judo groundwork was lacking. A comparision from another sport. What is legal in rugby league is illegal in rugby union (non arm wrapping tackles alowed, holding the opponent down and not letting him stand up etc). Both are valid games and have their merits. You can see the advantages of each under the circumstances they are played in. And there is cross over for the player who can understand and work within the rule set before him or her as Sonny Bill Williams has been showing with the All Blacks. There is one old guy up in Bedford who no longer can do stand-up but people come from miles around to get schooled by him on the ground... Just another perspective eh :' ) powchoy
^^^^ Good stuff I think we were posting at the same time because I didn't see this before mine went up.
its a very good perspective and i agree judo has real merit, i have been thrown and pinned by way too many judo guys who were at a very good level to think anything bad of the art I used to work with a lady who's an international level ref in judo and trained a lot with neil adams and her view was the same, they did a lot of ground work but competition rules meant you had to trailor the class to what the rule set wanted when people were competing, she did mention they were looking at maybe extending the amount of mat time allowed to try to stop the flow of people from judo to BJJ and allow a better balance between the mat and standing work, not sure if anything ever happened there I really will have to get my backside down to your club to see how the judo works with your kung fu
clarification Cuong Nhu, Excuse me as it wasn't my post but perhaps I might ask/clarify why you seem to be differing in your perspective from some of the others in this thread. Judo was built from an amalgamation of different things. After basic principles were derived the core philosophy was that things needed to be tested against resisting opponents in order to see if they were effective. Competition was at the heart of judo. Initially that meant competing ala UFC against anyone else so that's what happened and what got judo its rep. Tourneys were against all comers so to speak. No '' I'll only fight against judo guys'' or '' this is a martial art and we won't fight against others who aren't martial artists''. Made for a lot of excitement! Also led to judo being the method used by the police/military/schools etc. Now over time things have been codified but I bet that one of the things that have kept judo fresh has been the addition and evaluation of it's methods against other schools of thought even within the judo community. Thus the addition of the methods from one branch , the Kosen school, within judo when it was seen that their ground work was superior to other judo schools. More recently the interaction with those from the eastern block (eg Sambo practitioners who also did judo) meant that again judo had to modify it's methods to deal with a different approach to using the same techniques. So I guess what I would say is that perhaps in some ways judo is really more of a competition method than a fixed martial art. While there are core methods eg the Gokyo and kata the method is flexible and has adapted to the competition it has had to deal with. Now I am a rank beginner but that is what it seems to me is different. This is not some 'pure' martial art that is being preserved but a living breathing competitive method. Rule changes are there to ensure the preservation of certain methods (to avoid judo just becoming a one dimensional art - this statement might be a bit OTT but it's to make a point and I can understand why some might disagree with me :' ) but the art also has adapted to the competition and that is one reason why it continues to survive and flourish in many areas. I am happy to be corrected by any and all of the judoka on here as I have very limited experience but that seems the way things are to me. powchoy
^^^ Good post above. The only problem I have is the idea of Kosen judo being something separate and offering techniques that weren't in judo anyway. Kosen simply means 'high school' and referred to the rule set that school competitions used. You won't find a kosen association or any kosen clubs, there is only one judo - kodokan judo. Kosen is a huge red herring in any kind of discussion on judo, if you do a search for it on judo forum it has pretty much been done to death.
No worries mate, appreciate the input but you will notice I said ''the addition of the methods from one branch , the Kosen school, within judo when it was seen that their ground work was superior to other judo schools''. I was trying to indicate that even within a system you can find schools that focus more on one aspect of the art and thus might show where other branches are not quite as focused. Agree that 'Kosen' is nothing special but I as just trying to illiustrate that judo has been flexible in its focus. Anyone who wants to see a full range of the judo goundwork should take a look at http://judoinfo.com/pdf/Higher_Judo_Ground_Work.pdf to see the full range of what is in judo newazza. powchoy
Actually, you get 2 points for a throw or takedown. If the match stalls after it hits the ground then the winner is the person who got the fight to the ground (as long as he didn't pull or jump guard to do it).
Although I am a Judo Sensei, I am NOT a purist or traditionalist by any standard. I have my Judo students competing at BJJ & NAGA events and they all do fairly well. A few have even won "TITLE BELTS" in the advance divisions, in GI & NO GI. My opinion... GO FOR IT. If your love of the sport & competition makes you itch, then scratch it. If Judo kids can win and enjoy participating in BJJ & NAGA events, then BJJ practitioners & GRAPPLERS/WRESTLERS can compete, enjoy and be successful in JUDO.
