I'm not criticizing any martial arts or anything like that. But, in Judo, why do you restrict yourselves to Grappling, locks etc only, and no strikes? Surely you're not using the full potential of your body if you limit yourself. Anyway, i don't want any abuse, i just wanted to ask the question.
And if you want to get super specific/detailed... : Judo came from Jujutsu which (if old enough) came from samurai-era warfare. Striking armor clad opponents was usually a bad idea. Though throwing them by grabbing onto their breastplate was GREAT idea. Imagine how hard it would be to stand up after that (and while having a guy pull out his tanto to slice your neck at the same time) Though, when you get down to it, you could ask the same of BJJ/Wrestling etc or you could ask why boxers dont utilize throws. or why MMAers dont practice with weapons. Sterotypical yes, but you get the point.
Yes, i would ask them, but i don't want to make this topic in almost every single martial art section. And, if it was effective back then, then why doesn't it evolve to modern day combat? Or has it? just curous, but the Judo strikes are usually very poor unless they use train in another art that uses a lot of striking.
They're only in the kata and not that many people train them to any degree. Why are there only punches in boxing? Because
Because you don't need to throw someone who's been hit properly by good boxer? Because you don't need to strike someone who's been thrown properly by a good judoka? Because those are the rulesets of the sport, as MD says. Mitch
To be honest there are plenty of strikes in judo, just none of them legal, Accidental striking is a great distraction technique that's seen like in rugby as fair game. Tough buggers that are happy to bend the rules judoka
Certain martial arts restrict themselves to certain aspects of fighting. There are many reasons for this. Some people feel much more at home doing these aspects and/or believe in their effectivness more. Also its better to get expert at one aspect rather than be poor at everything and if you've only got time to train once or twice a week it may be better to focus on one aspect. Its also alot easier to pressure test one aspect, pressure testing the whole body basically involved MMA training and it is very tough to gain the fitness and technique required for this type of training, some people simply do not have the time/inclination.
But, wouldn't it be better to get the whole picture? to be able to strike if you want to, or grapple when you want or need to? Boxing a sport, and so it restricts itself. But is judo a street self-defence art as well as a sport?
I would agree, but what would he do if somebody grappled him?or kicked him in the groin before he had a chance to punch?
That's like asking why they don't use guns in archery. Judo (to put it simply) is the discipline of throwing. It claims to teach the discipline of throwing and does not claim to teach the discipline of striking. If you want to learn the techniques of throwing an opponent, you can't do much better than looking to judo. You wouldn't be suprised if you went to an archery class and were handed a bow not a gun because the tools are at the heart of the discipline. Same goes for judo. It's not "self defence" or "cage fighting" or "martial arts"; it's judo, the throwing discipline, and it can contribute to all of the above but does not claim to be the only available option.
So, would you advise people who want to learn a street effective martial art, that Judo is probably not what you're looking for, and that Judo is for traditionalism, fun, keeping fit and sport?
That's not what I'm saying at all. The point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't look at judo as an answer to every aspect of self defence and you shouldn't look at ANY MARTIAL ART as an answer to all self defence. That doesn't make it useless - far from it - it just makes it a specialised skill set. A lot of people have trouble thinking of martial arts in the same way they think of other lessons (music, art, language etc) but the differences aren't really there. When you take a lesson, you take it because you want to learn the skills that class has to offer. If you learn to play the piano, it doesn't make you a good guitarist, but it does mean you can play music. Learning judo doesn't make you a good puncher but it does mean you can fight. If you want to learn the guitar, take guitar lessons too. If you want to learn punching and kicking, take karate, taekwondo, boxing, thai boxing etc lessons too. The lack of guitar techniques in piano lessons, doesn't detract from the usefullness of the piano.
Each style has evovled to do what it does. The probable reason that Judoka don't strike well is that they don't train to strike, not that the strikes are not effective. A lot of people do Judo for the sporting side and they have chosen to do an art that doesn't compete with strikes, so they don't care about learning to strike. That's why many people cross train. Moosey is correct. Without wanting to cause offense to the OP, I think you are asking a stupid question. Judo is a specialist art that deals with a certain aspect of combat, as does BJJ, Boxing, kickboxing and plenty of other styles. If you don't like what Judo is then don't train in it, or if you want extra skills cross train. Judo does what it does fantastically well and doesn't need to change. If people want a style that covers more aspects of combat then there are plenty of them out there to choose from!
On those lines - why don't footballer's grab the ball and run towards the goal? The simple answer, because in football, you only use your feet (with some exceptions...) Judo was "designed" to take out armour-clad opponents. Over time, it has evolved with the area/oppenents it's disciples have been confronted with. But these evoutions are no longer Judo, they are different arts. I don't practice judo, but I can tell you that in CKM, more than a few of the throws are almost identical to some of judo's throws. Would you call CKM Judo just because it has "borrowed" (or evolved) some techniques from judo? M.
The easiest way to answer the OP's question is to simplify it to what it's really asking, which is - "Why is Judo not MMA?" At which point, it isn't really worth answering anyway.
Both are sports and both can also be very effective forms of self defence. You are correct in saying that neither are complete. If you are serious abot using your martial art skills for self defence you need to train for all eventualites (kicking range, punching range, grappling/throwing range/ground fighting). As well as this you need an understanding of the mental side of self protection which is sadly neglected in most martial art classes.
No, but i know a lot of judoka who don't practice anything else. Do you guys refer to Judo as a sport. or, if it is in the street, and somebody got you in a position where the only choice is to strike, would you do it? And also, Judo is restricting the human body, if you aren't using it as a sport. It seems that people would only do Judo moves, as it was the japanese way, and wouldn't use any Kali moves or anything else because it's foreign. I'm not saying that Judo is bad at all, i've seen plenty of Judo people i wouldn't want to get into a fight with, but, do you think it should evolve, and suit the purpose that it did once upon a time, where it was actually used primarily as a self defence art, or, should it stay as it is, and maybe loose practicality and become more of a tradition, instead of a Self Defence art. More and more people are using knives nowadays, do you think Judo should use more advanced knife defenses and stay up to date, or use old fashioned techniques which aren't as affective, but, are staying true to tradition?
