Since I had announced to my club members that the World Cup would be televised, I now feel compelled to issue an apology for wasting their time. I hope that many of my juniors were unable to watch the telecast. It’ll be hard to get them to do real Judo after watching this garbage. I don’t fault the World Cup players for this ersatz Judo. They play to the rules, and do what they have to do to win matches. The guilty parties remain the IJF and the rules.

My gut feeling is that many players are more focused on not losing, rather than winning. By embracing what I call negative tactics, far too many matches are won because a player received one less penalty than his opponent. Doing Judo is passé. Who in his right mind wants to watch this, even when it’s free?

Listening to Mike Swain, the commentator, was interesting. He emphasized the grip fighting aspect of Judo, and the penalties, primarily because that’s just about all that was happening. I can’t imagine that generated too many warm fuzzy feelings in Judo neophytes. I can only remember two good throws- a Seoi nage and an Uchi mata. Normally, I would double check my facts, but I’m categorically unwilling to sit through another viewing of the Miami World Cup to confirm my count. Missing, in addition to the big Judo throws, were transitions to ne waza, ne waza, and counters. Have players lost their ability to do these things, or have the rules simply made these skills risky or less important than the ability to get one’s opponent penalized? You be the judge.

If Judo telecasts are to engage the neophytes and attract them to the sport, then something needs to be done with our vocabulary.  I can’t really fault Mike Swain, but he went back and forth between educating the non-Judo viewing crowd and commenting for the Judo savvy community. It seems to me that we need to train our commentators and develop a media specific language that makes both groups understand what is going on without throwing around superfluous, foreign terminology. For example, “that was a nice Uchi mata” is meaningful to me, but not to my neighbor who doesn’t do Judo. “Nice throw” would have been adequate for both groups of viewers. “Nice sacrifice throw” is better than “Nice Sumi gaeshi.” “Shido” also means nothing to Joe the plumber. Listening to Swain grapple with the waza aris and yukos makes me long for numerical scores like they have in wrestling.

In spite of the lack of real Judo during the World Cup, I must commend USA Judo for making the telecast possible. I have one suggestion though. Rather than showing entire, penalty-laden matches, perhaps a better approach would be to show positive highlights from all medal matches. Surely, we can find enough of those moments to fill an hour telecast. Two hours of boring, tactical Judo will not win us many fans, even among Judo die-hards.

In a few days, I’ll be flying to Japan to see the World Championships. It’s with trepidation that I do so. I’m not sure whether I can stomach to see five days of boring Judo.  My next blog post will be issued after I return home.

In talking with referees who espouse the ‘nail them’ and ‘punish them’ creed, there are three main thoughts that come out clearly. One is that the players and coaches should know better; two is that time is wasted when rules are not adhered to and gis have to be changed; and three is that it’s not fair if the gi isn’t legal, and illegal gis prevent Judo from being performed, blah, blah, blah.  All of this is fine if we are talking about the Olympics, or major national and international tournaments. It’s not fine if we are talking about grassroots development tournaments. This is what “nail them” referees don’t understand. Their pigheaded insistence on enforcing strict IJF rules at the grassroots level hurts Judo.

Sure, excessively small gis can pose a problem especially if it gives one player an advantage. But what if both players have the same fit? Small gis are worn all the time in dojos and they don’t prevent Judo from being performed. Most of the sleeves of my junior players are not legal since they might be an inch short. The gi is perfectly fine and my kids have no problem doing Judo in them. And why is it a crime if 6-year old Johnny’s pants are a half inch too short? You can’t grab the darn thing anyhow? Where’s the common sense?

Yes, time is wasted when players have to change gis. So what? What’s more important; making sure we keep players coming to tournaments or cutting the day short so referees, and the rest of us as well, can go home early? If you really want to minimize wasted time in tournaments, stop calling matte for no reason. There is far more wasted time on unnecessary calls of matte than there is for gi change stoppages. And less time would be wasted if referees off the mat were more proactive in gi control, instead of lying in wait to “nail” the players.

Regarding the statement that players and coaches should know better, at face value that makes sense. Unfortunately, rules change so quickly that there is no way to be totally sure of what’s legal and what’s not. Within the span of two recent national tournaments in the U.S. that occurred just three weeks apart, either the rules were changed or we received a new set of interpretations from a different group of referees. For example, in Irvine, California we were told that only matte should be called for the now illegal bear hug. Two weeks later, in Altanta, Georgia we were informed matte is called the first time, but shido is awarded the second time around. So, which version is correct?

Not only is the bear hug illegal, but so is a double belt grab, used ostensively to lift the opponent up before sending him crashing onto the mat. Good grief, that’s Greco-Roman wrestling! Can’t have that in Judo. One arm over and one arm under the shoulder may be legal, depending on the intent! But wait. Maybe the bear hug isn’t illegal if you are not trying to break your opponent’s spine. Oh, heck, it still looks like wrestling, so it’s probably not a good idea to try this. Get that? How the hell are coaches supposed to run programs with rulings like this? Why should we coaches send our players to tournaments so “punish them” referees can nail our players?

OK, enough of my whining. Let’s hear what an American national referee has to say about her colleagues and the referee culture. If only more of you referees would pipe up, we might return some common sense to our sport.

I just wanted to put in writing something that concerns me, and advocate on behalf of athletes.

This year, many new rules were rolled out.  I attended a tournament as a (returning national) referee.  The tournament welcomed novices.

From what I have since gathered, our area, region, and probably the country are in sore need of referees.  As always, new people taking up judo would be welcome as well.

Why, then, is gi control, even in an atmosphere of new rules, *local* tournament, and novices welcome, used as a ‘gotcha’??  There were lower-ranked judoka, and some folks who clearly came to compete whose first martial art was jiu jitsu, a sister art of judo.  When it was clear that some did not have properly-fitting gis, I inquired about who was doing gi control.  There was a passive/aggressive disgusted response about how folks ought to know better.  Well, maybe they don’t, but they *showed up*!  Why not honor that and take people at face value? Tell them the problem with the gi, encourage them to make friends with other players, and swap out until they find a legal gi….and then Get On With The Fight?!  Or is the idea to keep the judo tournament to a certain privileged few, a certain tribe, a certain etiquette and training ritual?

My fellow referees made the comment:  “Don’t do anything! Just let ‘em walk up, and we’ll nail ‘em!”  Huh?  I started to ask each judoka to please go over the fancy plastic thingy and help themselves in measuring their gis.  I was overruled and outranked by the presiding referees, but my disgust with that whole scene didn’t end there.

Two heavy-weights faced each other on the tape.  The refs paused the start of the fight to look at the gi measurements.  Well, these two guys had very ample torsos.  Their gis were legal in every measurement except that the lapels did not reach far enough around to overlap the required number of inches.  These two guys were equal in their gi fit in every way.  In my view, it was the epitome of a ‘fair fight’.  You won’t believe what happened next:  the refs decided that both players would receive hansoku make, disqualifying them from the match for ill-fitting gis.  A disgusting display of abuse of power, in my humble opinion.  But no, these refs could not leave it at that: two players having the courage to enter a dojo *to begin with*, to put on a gi and plan to go to a tournament, to step on the mat and face whatever opponent got there on that day, and then going home humiliated at not having the opportunity to even participate.  No, that was not enough.  As the next guys stepped on the mat, the tournament went on, and the refs, on the sidelines, engaged in what can only be described as playground bullying and a filthy display of immaturity and lack of decorum.  The refs gossiped, loudly, about the ‘fat guys’.  They laughed, they bellowed, they screeched their bullying comments Within Ear Shot of the two (non) players!  This joking, guffawing and laughing, throwing their heads back, wiping tears, slapping their thighs, was all Very Obviously in ridicule of the ‘fat guys’, who Dared to walk onto the mat.

I am obviously still spitting mad about this whole show.  I want to know about the morals and ethics of this organization.  What is the recourse, and how to move forward?  Judo is bleeding, and these refs are, literally, chasing new people off the mat??

In my role as an athletes’ rep, I am asking for guidance in how to address this matter.  Is judo, and more particularly, judo officiating, in such need of leadership at the highest levels that we need to workshop Bullying by the Refs?  Apparently.

I would like to report on more positive aspects, and the gains made, but I don’t see how athletes can improve and gain experience if they are not even allowed onto the mat!  I am willing to have a sit-down with yudanshakais and referee chairs, other refs, etc. In my role as athletes’ rep, it may be possible take a grievance like this and use it as a teaching tool up the ranks, but I am not that optimistic.  See, the problem that day was not only with the individual refs who acted exceedingly poorly, it was their abuse of power in the tournament milieu and among fellow refs.  It was/is a fundamental problem with how they answer the question:  Why do you want to be a judo referee?  The license-to-abuse-power people ought to be weeded out, or at least kept in check with due diligence, at the very first levels of refereeing, but that is not happening due to a lack of leadership on the mutual welfare and benefit philosophy that ought to drive judo activities at all levels.

In order to prevent what occurred that day, as a yudanshakai, I believe we can think about the role of athletes’ rep and how they can be empowered to make a difference.  I felt I was as confrontational on that day as possible, but my colleagues did not have a head’s up about what to look out for, how to address a problem such as out-of-control hansoku makes, and what redress to ask for.  Thinking out loud, perhaps athletes’ reps get together with tournament organizers/directors and lay some ground rules for referees and open the dialogue?  Refs are not irreplaceable, and perhaps, others will want to join a less corrupt organization of referees if that day comes.

Along with the above quoted national referee, there are a few ‘A’ referees who do get it. Gary Berliner is one of them. Referees are told to decline to do gi checks, which puts the onus on players to get it right. At the USA Judo Junior Olympics this past weekend, Berliner, who was the head referee, encouraged referees who are off the mat to be kind to tell players to change gis when it’s apparent the gi isn’t legal. Furthermore, he indicated for the sake of common sense that at times referees must close their eyes and allow a match to proceed. If only this were the rule rather than the exception.

My first impression was one of negativity: penalize and punish the players. Referees were told to “manage the match” by using penalties as tools. They were also informed that they should make sure matches didn’t go to Golden Score, or, heaven forbid, to a hantei decision. Use those penalties!  Are we simply looking for shorter days for the officials, or should we be allowing players to decide the outcome of the match regardless of how long it takes?

Joon Chi, the chairman of the USJF Referee Commission, was as always pretty patronizing and insulting. We few coaches who attended the meeting were made to feel like we didn’t know the rules. How could we possibly stay abreast of all the rule changes and tweaking that occur after almost every World Cup or Grand Slam event?  We’re in the same boat as all the local referees who are out of the informational loop, or if they do get the information hear it as an interpretation of an interpretation. Why can’t the IJF transmit the information to the whole international Judo community? Why does it still rely of the old, and not very effective, “referee to referee to referee to coaches/players” model of information transmittal when we have the Internet? And whatever happened to the notion that rules only change once a quadrennial?

We’ve all been told that the rules are changing because the International Olympic Committee (IOC) doesn’t want Judo to look like wrestling. We were reminded of that at the referee meeting. I don’t know whether this is true or an outright lie. It’s easy for one organization (IJF) to blame another (IOC) for the changes it is making. My gut feeling is that a few people in the IJF want Judo to be radically transformed. To push through the changes more easily the onus for the changes is placed on the IOC.

If it is true that the IOC wants Judo to change, then the IJF is not doing a good job at representing the facts and defending Judo as it is today. Judo has 198 national federation members. Wrestling has only 168. Judo at the Olympics is very popular: Judo events sell out, and do so quickly, second only to the opening and closing ceremonies, and the basketball finals. If Judo looks like wrestling, what can be said of beach volleyball and indoor volleyball? Or water polo and team handball, both of which have teams of six field players who attempt to throw balls into goals? Or how about the three disciplines of foil, epee, and saber within fencing?  Why not eliminate foil because it looks like epee? So a little honesty is required here. Is the IOC picking on Judo when it ignores the obvious similarities among other sports, or is the IJF lying to us to make it seem like we are powerless to stop the emasculation of Judo and the penaltyfest that is supposedly mandated by the IOC?

The new rules are still being talked about, tweaked, and new interpretations are making their way downward to us peons at the local level. Confusion still reigns supreme however. Combinations that end with a leg pick up still have too many ifs and whens, and words like “simultaneously” remain ill-defined to have a firm grasp of what’s legal and what isn’t. To complicate things, “intent” is now coming into the picture. Referees are being asked to guess the intent of the player when it comes to combinations that end in a leg grab. Was the player’s intent from the get-go to grab the leg after let’s say an O uchi or Ko uchi, or did he grab it as an afterthought because the first throw didn’t work? In the first case, it’s hansoku make. In the second case, you may score with it. Crazy, isn’t it? So much for combinations where the first throw is the set-up for the second throw. Another aspect of Judo fighting hits the dust.

On the positive side- I think- the rule against a hand blocking a hip as a defense is being relaxed, as is “incidental” contact with a leg. Get ready for the tweaking and interpretation of the definition of “incidental.”  Muddy as ever, isn’t it?

The IJF is not finished screwing with us. The further denuding of Judo techniques continues unabated. Now, bear hugs from the front are illegal if the arms wrap completely around the opponent’s torso, even if hands don’t interlock. We still don’t know if it matters whether you hug under or over the arms. And what if the hug is from the side? Either way, this is a new rule change, which should not be allowed in the middle of a quadrennial, let alone two months before the World Championships in Tokyo. But when did the IJF ever give a hoot about how its last-minute rule changes affect the competitors? And surprise! The illegal bear hug is not penalized. I know it’s hard to believe, but the referee merely calls matte, then restarts the match. Why couldn’t the IJF do that for leg grabs?

I’ve been a proponent of Olympic Judo for decades, and I believe in Olympism. After all, one of my daughters is a two-time Olympian, and another is vying for the 2012 Olympics. In spite of this, I am seriously questioning the wisdom of keeping Judo in the Olympics, especially if it means that the IJF will continue to mess with the repertory of acceptable techniques. I don’t know how Judo fares against other grappling arts and MMA in the rest of the world, but I know these arts are beating the snot out of Judo in the U.S., primarily because our rules have infantilized Judo and made it an unrealistic fighting form.

We have a dilemma in the U.S. Is it more important that we remain an Olympic sport or that we survive in the martial arts community? How do you feel about Judo remaining an Olympic sport? Take the ”Olympics or Survival?” survey situated at the top of my blog. Thanks.

A Dash of Color

(polls)

Olympics or Survival?

(polls)
]]> http://blog.betterjudo.com/poll-olympics-or-survival/feed/ 0 http://blog.betterjudo.com/judo-and-soccer/ http://blog.betterjudo.com/judo-and-soccer/#comments Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:18:50 +0000 admin http://blog.betterjudo.com/?p=538 Over two billion people worldwide are now watching the 2010 Soccer World Cup in South Africa. That includes me. You’re probably wondering what that has to do with a Judo blog. Well, there are things that the soccer world can teach the Judo world. If we are perceptible enough, soccer also serves as an example of what Judo should not be.

In previous blogs, I’ve talked about positive aspects of soccer that we in Judo should emulate: how soccer grew in the U.S. through the efforts of volunteer coaches and the AYSO, and how an innovative training tool, futsal, lead to an increase in the technical skills of Brazilian soccer players.

Watching this year’s World Cup reminds me that soccer also has an ugly side to it that parallels the ugly side of Judo. Both have to do with rules, referees, and the use of distasteful tactics to manipulate the outcome of matches. This is not Pele’s beautiful game at all.

Since the 1970 World Cup, soccer referees penalize players for infractions to the rules by using a yellow or red card, which correspond to shido and hansoku make in Judo. If a player receives two yellow cards (2 shidos) in a game, he is then shown a red card (hansoku make) and is sent off the field. His team then plays one man down for the rest of the game. If he receives a yellow card in two different games during a tournament run, he must sit out one game. His team is however allowed to field the requisite number of players.

Every soccer referee, like every Judo referee, seems to have a different tolerance level for awarding penalties. Some prefer to let the game flow naturally and let the players play the game, while others try to over-control the game and become penalty obsessed. Needless to say, the latter unfortunately have the power to change the outcome of, and ruin, the game.

Both Judo and soccer are low scoring sports, so the awarding of penalties becomes ultra-critical in determining the outcome of matches. Players in both sports have caught on to this and have found ways to win ugly via tactics. In Judo, far too often it’s easier to get your opponent penalized than it is to throw, pin or submit him: a little foot work here and there, some movement, a few disingenuous “foot sweeps” that make it look like you’re attacking, and voila, the opponent is penalized for non-combativity. Ugly Judo.

In soccer, players know that a good acting job of falling to the ground and writhing in pain can get the referee to issue that dreaded second yellow card or red card to the offending players. Scoring against ten players is a lot easier than scoring against eleven. If the acting job is done in the penalty box, the not-so-innocent victim of the foul is afforded a penalty shot, which almost always changes the outcome of the game. The acting and the dishonesty that goes on during a soccer match make for an unpleasant game.

Both sports have the technology to make sure that referee decisions are accurate and fair. Soccer refuses to use that technology for some reason, in spite of all the blown offside calls, disallowed goals, and phantom infractions leading to penalty shots. Judo has thankfully shown more willingness to use technology to get it right. It fails too often to get it right, but at least it’s trying.

On the bright side, more and more soccer players from Africa, Mexico and the U.S. are now playing in England, Spain, Italy and Germany, homes to the toughest professional leagues in the world. The experience gained from playing overseas helps their national teams’ efforts. U.S. Judo should one day recognize the benefit of placing some of our players overseas, whether in Japan or Europe, where they will be challenged day in and day out by numerous, high-quality training partners. Except for a very few exceptions, our domestic programs are simply not getting the job done at the international level. I think it’s time to do what our 1964 Olympians did: get more and more players to be based overseas for extended periods.

Lastly, I suggest we send our penalty-driven Judo referees to the soccer world, where I am sure they will at least be able to tell when a player is really tripped or knocked down, and when he is acting. Seems like a win-win situation for everyone.

The IJF has recognized for a small fee of $50,000 per year certain manufacturers (as I write this Mizuno, Adidas, Noris, Green Hill) as official IJF suppliers of gis. Current competitors who participate in premier international events are safe if they have a gi from an official supplier. However, starting in 2011, each piece of the Judo uniform (jacket, pants, belt) must sport a new “IJF Approved” label, because the structure of the Judo uniform is being changed by IJF fiat. Thus, all gis that are acceptable in 2010, won’t be acceptable in 2011, because they were made under the old standards.

Each manufacturer will pay the IJF $1 for each label that it affixes to the judogis it sells. That’s on top of the initial buy-in to become an official supplier.  Unfortunately, not all models of gis made by a manufacturer will carry the IJF approved label. That’s because the cost to get the model approved is significant. Manufacturers may only opt to get one or two models approved since they must submit to a testing laboratory a gi of each color, samples of jacket fabric, and belts. Bottom line: players will have fewer choices of gi models to wear, and whatever they do buy will cost them more than before. I fear national governing bodies like USA Judo might follow suit down the road and require, God forbid, USA Judo labels on gis!

I think it’s safe to say that the IJF has found a great way to make money. It even made $350,000 off Green Hill, a Pakistani company that at present doesn’t even make judogis. According to a contact in the textile industry, this company has failed to find a factory to make their new judogis since it inked the agreement with the IJF back in February.

Another source told me that the agreement called for the IJF to buy back $350,000 worth of gis from this company. I guess the IJF can then give the gis to Third World countries, and buy their support and votes for future projects. From a business standpoint, you have to ask yourself how Green Hill expects to make back even a small portion of its purported annual investment of $350,000. That’s a lot of gis. Smells fishy to me.

In spite of all the negative, there may be some good to come from the new gi standards. Apparently, the new gis might be lighter and stronger with a more supple collar. That’s good news, especially if the new standards lead to a collar that’s easier to grip.

I encourage you to read the IJF document regarding the new gi standards to get an appreciation for the hoops manufacturers have to jump through to play the game. Ultimately, I hope the new standards don’t push smaller providers out the door. Lack of competition is never a good thing for the millions of end users who just want to play Judo and be left alone.

Then, a few days ago, we received the following double whammy from USA Judo. “To help us grow Judo in the U.S., gi and no-gi jujitsu divisions will be included in all national events, and USA Judo will now be know as USA Judo/Ju-Jitsu.” Say what?

If you are like me, you should take these announcements with a sense of despair about Judo in the U.S. for they officially suggest that the ship is sinking while the captain claims all is well in la-la-land.

It’s hard to visualize the IJF respecting the United States because we are doing such a great job at developing and promoting Judo. Frank Fullerton, former USA Judo president, promoted Judo, and paid for it out of his own pocket. What has the current USA Judo done to suggest that it is developing and promoting Judo? Sure, USA Judo started a few small projects here and there, like the Boys Scouts of America program that didn’t quite reach puberty, let alone maturity. But other than those embryonic efforts, what else is there to show besides its continued attempts to thwart and bury the U.S. Judo Association? How’s that for developing and promoting Judo in the U.S.? Whatever USA Judo is doing to promote and grow Judo, it simply isn’tt filtering down to the grassroots level.

The number of competitors participating in our national/international events has diminished over time. The U.S. Open, which is almost entirely a domestic event now, should be euthanized. Its Canadian counterpart, the Montreal Rendez-Vous, has been discontinued. If we have developed Judo so much, why are we adding ju-jitsu to the fray?

USA Judo CEO Jose Rodriguez says that, “Judo and ju-jitsu are sister sports and many of the techniques are very similar.” True: similar like team handball and basketball, both of which are played with a ball that needs to go into a net to score a point, but different sports nonetheless. For obvious reasons, USA Team Handball doesn’t seek to run basketball divisions at its national events.

So what are these announcements all about? Well, I think they are merely about fundraising, not developing or promoting Judo. The latest fundraising effort will add members to USA Judo’s rolls, increase income derived from rank promotions, and probably make more money off national events. What it won’t do is create more or better judoplayers, because in spite of Judo and jujitsu being sister sports, they are not the same sport. The crossover will be negligible, especially at the elite level.

Decades ago, the USJA under Phil Porter initiated the same fundraising scheme now being launched by USA Judo. USJA brought in new members, created jujitsukas out of judokas, sold rank to them like crazy, and tried to treat them as equals. Ultimately, many of the jujitsu people realized that although there were some common grounds between the two sports, the two were in fact different. Disenchantment set in, political battles raged, and members departed.

USA Judo is diversifying because it doesn’t know how to make its main product- Judo- more palatable to the American public. By adding jujitsu to the fold, it may solve the financial crisis it’s facing, caused in part by the USOC’s cutting back on funding of NBGs that don’t produce international medals. What it won’t achieve is get more people to do Judo. Our competitive ranks will remain just as shallow as they are today, and our international medal count won’t change much.

What I find the most irritating about the latest USA Judo announcements is that it is openly admitting- at least for those who wish to read between the lines- that to survive as a sport we must embrace other sports in our midst. Contrary to that, I believe USA Judo must find ways to provide its clubs and players services that are needed and valued. It must recognize that to survive we must make our own product better by developing better coaches, better facilities, and most importantly by refusing to allow IJF rules to marginalize our sport within the grappling world. What we need is a Judo version of the Manhattan project that would include the USJA and USJF.

I am not totally against incorporating jujitsu into our programs, but it should be done for development purposes, not financial gain. If we are going to incorporate jujitsu why not make it of the Kosen Judo type? We are missing the boat by not having Kosen Judo classes and tournaments. By adopting Kosen, rather than some jujitsu mishmash, we stay truer to our Judo culture and technical base, while still being able to attract more people to our sport.

And for heaven’s sake, if we do but one thing to better Judo, let’s change the damn rules of Judo! Quickly.

I’ve been racking my brain trying to come up with another sport whose matches or games can be won by negative scores alone. I’m coming up blank. Can you imagine for one moment American football games being won because one team had one less 15-yard penalty than the other team, and neither team scored a field goal or a touch down? Will World Cup soccer games in South Africa be won because one team had one less foul than the other team, and neither team scored a goal? Of course not! But a Judo match, well, that’s a whole different story.

Sure, every sport has penalties. The big difference between Judo and the other sports is that in Judo you get a positive score because your opponent was penalized, but everywhere else, when your opponent is assessed a penalty you still have to do something positive to score to take advantage of the penalty. In basketball, you have to hit the free throw; in soccer, you have to make the penalty shot or the free kick; in American football, that 15-yard penalty might get you closer to the end zone, but you still have to score a touchdown or kick a field goal; and in ice hockey, a team plays a man down for a few minutes but you still must put the puck in the net to get a point. In Judo, unlike other sports, you get something for nothing.

Penalties are out of whack. There is no rational equivalency between penalties and scores. Penalties don’t fit the infractions. How can one innocuous non-combativity and two innocuous gripping penalties be the equivalent of a much harder to achieve throw that almost scored ippon? They aren’t equivalent. It may be that we will have to go to a numerical and cumulative scoring system to facilitate bringing the value of penalties in line with positive scores. One thing is abundantly clear. We can’t blossom as a sport, and survive in the grappling world, if we continue to use a system that allows matches to be won by negative scores alone.

Referees think they can make Judo better by punishing athletes and piling on the penalties. They are mistaken. Our love affair with penalties, and the devaluation of ippon simply encourage players to develop tactical Judo that keeps them within the rules and removes risk, but offers a very boring Judo nobody wants to see. Sadly, referees still don’t understand the unintended consequences of their penalty-mania.

Want to make Judo once again dynamic and exciting to watch? Let’s start by doing away with the incentive to do crappy Judo, by minimizing penalties and giving them a value that fits the crime. Adopt the referee advisories that the Amateur Athletic Union has implemented in its AAU Judo and Freestyle Judo rules, and players will be forced to do real Judo to win a match.

Old Kodokan tournament rules called for the best of three ippons to claim victory.  Before WWII, terminal ippon, which symbolized the end to a real combat in the street or field, replaced the best-of-three scenario. I think it’s time to do away with the symbolism of terminal ippon and once again embrace the idea of multiple ippons in a match, especially in light of how frequently what used to be koka or yuko is now awarded ippon. Multiple ippons remove some of the risk of attacking and improve the chance of seeing a dynamic, free flowing Judo. It will also push us closer to a numerical scoreboard, which Judo must adopt to stay relevant in the grappling world.

I wish the IJF would attempt to use positive reinforcement rather than heavy-handed negative reinforcement to mold and manage Judo matches. Those of us who have run tournaments using proactive referees know that Judo matches can be exciting and devoid of tactical nonsense if we neuter all the ridiculous rules that get in the way of doing good Judo. Any chance of the IJF coming to the same conclusion anytime soon?

We grumble, go back and forth on what to do, but ultimately most of us accept our lot because we appear to be powerless to effect change and can’t think of options. Our sport is supported by coaches who are out to pad their resumés. For them it’s more important to play the game (under whatever silly rules the IJF invokes,) get credit for producing junior national champions, and possibly place an athlete on one of our national teams, than it is to make sure our sport competes, survives, and thrives in an increasingly crowded grappling world.

I too played that game decades ago, albeit at a time when Judo wasn’t being squeezed from three or four directions, and the rules weren’t as negative as they are today. Today, although I still long to work with athletes who want to become Olympians, my main focus is to use Judo as a vehicle to develop character in our youth and to make better citizens. I can only do that if Judo stays relevant in the public’s eye. If we continue down our current path, Judo will no longer be relevant in the United States by the end of this decade.

Competition is an integral part of character development, but competition with rules that penalize so many actions is frustrating and often no longer a positive experience. This is where the AAU (Amateur Athletic Union) rules come into the picture.

It’s no secret that referees and IJF rules are destroying Judo. The biggest difference between AAU and IJF rules is how matches are managed by the referees. AAU uses verbal instructions and verbal warnings before penalties are actually assessed. The philosophy of AAU Judo rules can be summed up by “Talk it Up!” Here’s what the 2009 – 2010 Amateur Athletic Union Judo Handbook says about it.

Referee advisories and competitor cooperation make it possible to have tournaments without penalties. Referees can talk to competitors without interrupting the continuity of the match. They can encourage action and do things to prevent the commission of dangerous acts. A faster more exciting judo is a direct result of the referees application of these rules.
1. Referee should talk to competitors advising them of the need to be more active (attack, etc…), less defensive (take a grip, etc…) or any other need to increase or maintain the action.
2. Referee should use advisories to prevent the commission of a dangerous act. (watch the face, do not bend the spine, etc…)

AAU still retains many of the silly illegal IJF acts for some reason, but they seldom lead to scores because they are preempted by the referee’s verbal instructions and warnings. I don’t know about you, but I think this AAU mindset- a culture that accentuates the positive and minimizes the invasive, debilitating, penalty-driven IJF model- alone might guarantee Judo’s survival for many years to come. Another positive aspect of AAU rules is that kids can choke at 11 and armbar at 15, making Judo more relevant in the grappling world.

AAU Judo rules also get some kudos for almost getting it right- my opinion, of course- on some other issues. They call for a super heavyweight division (over 235lb) but the other adult weight divisions don’t correspond to IJF divisions. Since there is no reason to reinvent the wheel here, AAU should adopt the official IJF weights, while still adding a super heavyweight category at around 110kg (242lb.)

AAU rules also permit the wearing of any color, or combination of color, uniform, while retaining the old red and white belts to differentiate the competitors. Again, I see no reason to reinvent the wheel when it comes to the belts. AAU should adopt the blue and white scheme. I do, however, like the idea of any color uniform but only for one side: in this case the blue side. If we buy into the idea that different color uniforms allow the referees to be more accurate in assessing scores, then the white side should be required to wear a white uniform, and the blue side should be allowed to wear team colors.

We don’t penalize in my in-house tournaments, and it makes a difference in the Judo that is performed. Although we already tell our referees to “educate” the players, our next step is to actively manage matches by using more verbal advisories and warnings. While the IJF continues to pile penalties higher and deeper, we don’t need to follow suit.

I encourage you to read the full AAU handbook, and to implement in your neck of the woods some of the ideas within. As always, let our national and international organizations know how you feel about their latest round of messing with our sport.

The more I teach Judo, the more I don’t like what is happening to my sport. And the more I am disillusioned with the direction the IJF is taking my sport, the more I find myself agreeing with the non-sport guys who say sport Judo has strayed too far from Kano Judo. Now that’s a scary thought! I don’t necessarily want what they espouse, but neither do I want what the IJF is mandating. Surely, there’s a middle ground out there somewhere.

So many Judo rules leave you scratching your head, wondering what caused the implementation of the rules in the first place. And knowing that you can lose a match for violating some of the more puzzling rules makes our blood boil…well, at least it makes my blood boil.

I know many of the rules are on the books for the “protection of the athletes.” Nanny state! There’s protection from truly egregious acts, and there’s overprotection from innocent acts like putting your fingers inside an opponent’s sleeve or pants bottom. If there’s a remote chance you’ll hurt your own fingers doing that, you should be responsible for deciding whether it’s worth the effort. You do have the ability to release your grip, you know. No player should win a match because his opponent put his fingers inside the wrong sleeve.

The misuse of matte is another one of those needless, overprotective measures that make you wonder why. Player A is standing and B is kneeling. Just before some great Judo is performed, the referee calls matte, I’ve been told, to protect the player on his knees. I don’t understand why we need to protect someone who is in such an innocuous position. How does that reflect the martial spirit of Judo? Well, it doesn’t, does it?

Daki age is a banned technique that would spice up ne waza, specifically pulling and being in the guard. It’s no more dangerous than a devastating O soto gari or O uchi gari after a leg pick-up.  Since uke has the ability to disengage and counter the pick-up, I see no reason to ban it. It would certainly return some of the martial art to the sport.

Most of the gripping rules are overbearing. Why does it matter how you grip as long as you are attacking? Ah! The aesthetics of Judo must be the answer. Some of the grips might not look pretty, but it’s OK to stop matches constantly to award shidos for grip violation. So much for keeping the match flowing and interesting.

All the rules that define what you can’t do with your own gi or to your opponent’s gi are not very martial artsy. I can’t use my gi or belt to encircle my opponent. I’m not sure how practical this is, but if you can pull it off, why not? I can’t put my foot in my opponent’s belt or gi, but I can put my hand there. Hello! And why can’t I use my own gi to strangle my opponent?  I’m at a loss as to why these rules exist. Were they implemented to weaken Kosen Judo? Why wear gis then if you can’t use them as weapons? Why not fight naked?

The ban on scissoring (dojime) the truck, head, or neck is another perplexing rule that sissifies Judo. Yes, I’ve heard that in the old days ribs were broken. We can break arms and triangle our opponents to our heart’s content, but extending legs to apply dojime is verboten. Isn’t that why tapping out exists? Would dojime change ne waza or not?

Finally, we come to armbars and chokes for children. It’s a touchy subject fraught with emotions and overprotective thoughts. My colleagues tell me that children are not mature enough. Their vertebrae are this and that. Then there are the growth plates, blah, blah, blah. I get the message. We don’t want injuries. But folks, why can Brazilian jiujitsu make this work for kids, and we can’t even broach the subject without getting hysterical? And how does wrestling get away with teaching some of the pretzel-like holds that apply pressure to joints in ways that would make most judoplayers cringe?

The gap between the two extremes- early vs late introduction of chokes and joint manipulations- is not logical considering how closely Judo, BJJ and wrestling are related. Culture and methodology certainly play a role in why a six-year old in BJJ can armbar and choke, but a judoplayer must wait until he is 13 or 17 before he can perform those same skills. With the right training, mentality and culture, most kids should handle chokes and armbars well before the arbitrary ages designated by national and international organizations.

I’m all for being prudent and safety-conscious. That’s why I pay close attention to how my players are paired off in training, and why I spent over $8,000 to provide them with a spring-loaded mat and Judo tatami, rather than throw down wrestling or fold-out mats on concrete. But when it comes to most of the rules on the books, enough is enough. We must stop crippling Judo.

Kano created for the masses a wonderful form of physical education for the modern era by eliminating dangerous jujitsu techniques. Thanks to him, Judo ascended, and jujitsu descended into near oblivion. Those paths have now been reversed. Judo has oversimplified, overprotected, and emasculated itself into near oblivion while jujitsu has reinvented itself.  It’s obvious to me that we need to put back some of the martial art into the sport in order to survive. We can and should do that without sacrificing safety. We must do that to make Judo more effective, and thus, more respected in the grappling world.