When I was informed about the All Women’s Judo Championships, my first thought was why do we need a special tournament for such a small segment of our already small Judo population? After attending my first All Women’s Judo Championships as a spectator, my opinion hasn’t changed. But that’s only because what Deb Fergus, the founder of this event, wants for women, I want for all Judoplayers, namely special development events held for the benefit of the players, not the officials and especially not the referees. Although the head referees tried hard to ruin it for the athletes, the gals who showed up got what they came for; lots of matches in individual and team competition.

Living up to my recommendations to others, I had told Fergus and USJA President AnnMaria DeMars weeks before that I would not bring athletes to the tournament if the new rules were used. Apparently, DeMars deferred to two international referees who don’t know any better than to parrot what the IJF says, regardless of the consequences. Thus it was decided the new rules would be used, although we still don’t know what they are, and four of my gals stayed home.

I got an earful from many of the referees who dislike the new rules, and felt the heavy-handedness of the international referees. Thankfully, hansoku make was not invoked for the first illegal leg grab. On the other hand, Martin Bregman stopped the action to inform us that not wearing the proper white t-shirt with the proper sleeve length would merit hansoku make in the future! Why does it matter what the sleeves look like? And while we’re discussing ridiculous rules, since color seems to be important- we don’t want to confuse the referees any further- why don’t we require a blue t-shirt under a blue gi? Maybe color coordination doesn’t matter. In that case, why require a white shirt? Why not wear any color t-shirt?

In talking with several of the lower-certified referees, it became evident to me that they want to object to what’s going on, but don’t know how to, or won’t because they fear their upward mobility in the refereeing ranks will come to a screeching halt. For me, there’s a rather simple solution: make your concerns known, accept the consequences, and stop refereeing if you don’t agree with what is happening to Judo or to you.

Since we are already so short of referees in the U.S.- we are encouraging children, some as young as ten, to referee- imagine what our leaders will do if more of our officials refused to referee. Change will not come from the top without some help. Thus it must be “encouraged” from the bottom. Every voice of dissent counts and there is strength in numbers. Maybe you don’t get to be an N2 referee or you don’t get promoted to 4th dan in a timely fashion. Big deal. Start doing what is right for Judo! Injustices will sort themselves out later. You’ll feel better and the sport will be stronger.

One of the lessons learned in Las Vegas by the organizers is that having head referees who have not bought into the concept and objective of the tournament is disastrous, and it should not be repeated in the future. I applaud that. There is no doubt in my mind that head referees don’t care about anything other than the power they wield over the rest of us, and enforcing rules that make no sense for grassroots Judo. This must not be allowed to continue. Tournament directors and organizers need to take the sport back from the referees. If they don’t, coaches, players and even lower-certified referees will stop participating in events, and in the worst case scenario will drop out of Judo. We can afford neither outcome, so we must protest.

Speaking of protesting, I received the following gem today from Oded Zyssman, a courageous, concerned Judoplayer, who understands that the IJF works for us, and not the other way around!

Dear Mr. Vizer,

Judo’s popularity in the world is declining. With the introduction of several mma organizations and the ever increasing popularity of Brazilian jiu–jitsu, it seems that judo participation has been on the decline worldwide.

The latest 2010 new rules have certainly, in my opinion, not helped judo as a whole. In fact, they seem to actually contribute to the decline in judo’s popularity.

When I began practicing judo more than 20 years ago, judo was dynamic, fast–paced, with explosive techniques and moves, that were both beautiful to watch as they were to practice.

Today’s judo is a lot different. It requires each participant to remember a long list of “nos”, and can’ts”. Instead of it being an open sport, where creativity, athleticism, and a wide variety of techniques can be utilized, today’s judo is rather limited in its scope, negative in its orientation and seems to abandon its clear original message.

With the introduction of the 2010 rules, 3 main techniques were outlawed: Seated kata-guruma, kuchiki-taoshi, and a variation of tani-otoshi. When I teach newcomers to judo the 66 tachi-waza techniques, am I simply to skip over the aforementioned 3?

Judo has always been a way of life and a great fun to practice and teach. I’m afraid that with the heavy-handed rules and regulations that the IJF introduces so very frequently, that fun is no longer there.

I wish that you and the rest of the IJF officials would recognize the fragile and unattractive position international judo has found itself in. A complete and comprehensive overhaul in today’s judo rules and regulation is in order.

Most respectfully,

Oded Zyssman–yondan
Atlanta GA USA

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made possible for evil to triumph. If you would like to join us in the fight against the evil IJF, and go straight to the top with your comments, email IJF President Marius Vizer at office@ijf.org.

In The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle, there’s a section on the development of Brazilian soccer that got my immediate attention. Soccer is a sport I know, having played it since I was ten years old, but the development of Brazilian soccer was a story I was not familiar with. From a coaching viewpoint, it’s a fascinating story that has repercussions for Judo.

Soccer’s World Cup, first held in 1930, is the Olympic Games of soccer, and like the Olympics it’s held just once every four years. Prior to 1958, Brazil had not been very successful. However, since 1958, Brazil has won five World Cups, the most of any nation. Why?

In the 1950s, the Brazilians started using in earnest a training tool that had been invented in 1930 by a Uruguayan coach as a rainy-day option. The Brazilians adopted the concept and called it futebol de salao, which is Portuguese for “football in a room.” Futebol de salao became futsal.

With the adoption of futsal, the Brazilians soon developed many great technically skilled players. According to The Talent Code, “futsal was soccer played inside a phone booth and dosed with amphetamines.” It was played anywhere on a basketball-sized court, with a smaller but heavier ball that hardly bounced, with five or six players instead of eleven. The game required sharper passing and ball handling skills in a smaller area, quicker decisions, and better vision of the game than normal soccer. According to a Liverpool University study, futsal players touched the ball six times more per minute than soccer players! Futsal was a deep, deliberate sort of practice, and it increased players’ learning velocity. It better prepared players for the regular game played on a larger field with eleven players.

By now, I hope that you are asking the $64,000 question. How do we develop a Judo version of futsal? How do we pack more opportunities for skill development into our training and into the game of Judo? What aspect of Judo training and competition can we manipulate to create a laboratory for skill development? The obvious answer is that we must change the rules of the game.

Because I believe that most Judo tournaments should be deemed developmental, we should feel free to manipulate IJF rules. Yes, I hear the uproar! If you don’t teach players to fight under IJF rules, they won’t be successful on the major scenes, whether national or international. My retort has always been that American wrestlers have no problem wrestling under different sets of rules (high school, AAU, freestyle, collegiate, Greco-Roman, Olympic, etc.) while still winning at the Olympics and World Championships. Why should it be any different for Judoplayers? It’s doable.

I don’t have all the answers right now, but I do know that our current rules are not conducive to lots of attacking. I believe that our insistence on terminating a match when ippon is scored is detrimental to skill development. Because we have terminal ippon, we also have great risk in the game of Judo. With risk, and the mind-boggling devaluation of ippon, there is reluctance to attack. With reluctance to attack, we have fewer attempts, and thus fewer opportunities to develop skills, which is the exact opposite of what we want if we are trying to develop skill rather than designate winners and losers.

For development purposes, we must devise rules that encourage attacks while keeping failure in proper perspective. One of the solutions, in my opinion, is to do away with terminal ippon!  There’s historical precedence for this since terminal ippon, symbolizing death on the battlefield, wasn’t always the rule of the day. A touchdown doesn’t end a football game, and neither does a home run end a baseball game. Why does ippon terminate a Judo match?

Other solutions might be to to let matches run their full course regardless of scores, and to award numerical values to yuko, waza ari and ippon to make scores cumulative. We could use periods like they do in wrestling. Shorter periods of combat interspersed with a minute of rest may lead to quicker paced matches with more attacks.

Soccer has been called the beautiful game. Sadly, Judo has degenerated into the ugly game. Hopefully, the new IJF rules will bring back our own beautiful game of stand-up Judo with huge throws. To help this along, greater scoring values could be given to the big, high amplitude throws, while lesser values could be given to the flop and drop throws.

Lastly, we should not have a scoring system that allows negative points to win matches.  How can three penalties for gripping have a greater value than a throw that earns a yuko? It’s abominable. Award penalties by all means, but assign them a small numerical value. This prevents ugly, penalty-driven, tactical wins that most of us abhor. To increase technical proficiency, we must simply make it hard to win solely by penalties.

I’ve only scratched the surface in the search to develop a Judo version of futsal. My suggestions are mere food for thought. Hopefully, they will get your own creative juices flowing. I encourage you to help me discover futsal for Judo.

Today, San Diego County has fewer than ten clubs- I’m being generous as to what constitutes a club. In an average year, we have four tournaments, two of which are usually boycotted by the local Judo clubs because I run them as non-sanctioned events in my own facility. Clinics are few and far between, with more emphasis on kata clinics than the more pertinent clinics on coaching, refereeing and competition training. And the personal feuds between coaches continue unabated.

What is happening in San Diego is happening all around the country. Judo is dying because we are letting it die. So, in an effort to shake things up in San Diego County, I petitioned the Pacific Southwest Judo Association (PSJA) to speak at its board meeting on October 23. PSJA is a USJF yudanshakai that I belonged to in 1972-75. PSJA members and I have been at odds for years for a variety of reasons, mostly childish differences. It took the PSJA four days and countless emails between its members before I was “authorized” to speak for fifteen minutes.

To fix our problems we need to recognize whom our enemies are, where our competition comes from, and what is wrong with Judo. We need to recognize the shackles that we impose upon ourselves, shackles that in many instances prevent us from doing what is right for Judo in San Diego.

One of my favorite quotes from General George Patton is, “May God deliver us from our friends; we can handle the enemy.”  Patton’s enemies were not the Germans, but the British and American generals and politicians who prevented him, often out of jealousy, from doing what he did best. We face a similar situation in the San Diego Judo community. We coaches are our worst enemies. Our lack of cooperation, mutual benefit and welfare, business sense, coaching skills, and willingness to think outside the box is compounded by being stuck with a traditional paradigm in a sport that most people can’t find because we have so few clubs, many of which have no Internet or yellow page presence.

Years ago, our competition was kung fu, then it was taekwondo, and now it’s mostly Brazilian jiujitsu (BJJ) with a sprinkling of mixed martial arts (MMA). In every case, we have stood by and done nothing to fight back. This brings us to what’s wrong with Judo?

First of all, Judo is a hard sport: hard to learn and hard on the body, while our society is soft and requires immediate gratification. It doesn’t help that most clubs have terrible mats. Anyone can kick and punch the air, and anyone can roll around on the ground. Taking hard falls on crappy mats is not for everyone, and that’s something we have to acknowledge and fix. So, BJJ fills a need for grappling without having to take hard falls. But why can’t we take advantage of the ne waza craze sweeping the country? Why not increase our time spent in ne waza and improve our ne waza curriculum? Why not revive Kosen Judo with its own program, classes, promotions, and competition?

BJJ is a young, vibrant, dynamic, macho sport. Most BJJ instructors are young, fit, and “Pan-American” or “World” champions. It’s true that in the BJJ world there are many versions of the Pan-American and World Championships unlike in Judo, but the general public doesn’t know this. Conversely, many Judo clubs are run by older, overweight coaches, with a minimal competition background. This is 1882 revisited except that roles between Judo and jujitsu have been reversed. Judo is the old, tired, irrelevant and marginalized sport, while BJJ is youthful, progressive, relevant, and ascendant.

We have a stagnant, “go kyo no waza” driven curriculum which operates in an emasculated environment thanks to the IJF rules. Can’t grab there, can’t do this, and can’t do that unless you do x, y and z first. Good grief!  Much of our training revolves around methods that have little to do with actual performance. This includes kata, a mere historical relic whose initial purpose has passed. Meanwhile BJJ has none of these technical and training hang-ups.

Now what about those shackles?  How about controlling national governing bodies, IJF rules, referees who enforce IJF rules and think they own Judo, liability insurance, rank, and event sanctions. All of these place unwarranted restrictions on what we can do to better Judo, and they increase our cost of doing business. In the worst-case scenario, they create paranoia and paralysis, which lead us to make decisions that are not in our best interest. For example, why do we follow to the letter IJF rules that are designed for World Championships and Olympic Games, and not five- and six- year old beginners?  Wrestling in the U.S. has four or five different sets of rules. Why doesn’t Judo? Why are sanctions needed if you run a clinic in your own facility?  Why require national membership for all of your students when you can purchase liability insurance on the open market for a better price?  Why are dojo ranks considered so evil and worthless? There are many options out there that we should look at and implement if they make sense for us. If Judo is to survive locally and nationally, we must emphasize the strengthening of each and every local club, even if this means that it weakens the national organizations. Judo lives only because local coaches run local programs. It will also die when we no longer have coaches willing to run programs.

To revive Judo in San Diego, and in many other areas of the United States, we should stop bickering among ourselves like six-year olds. We must start holding some simple, cost-effective events like area open workouts, no frills tournaments out of our own dojos, team competition, and coach education programs. We need to rethink our relationship with national and international organizations. We must be willing to change our model of instruction to make Judo more fun and more relevant. And for God’s sake, we must have an Internet presence! It goes without saying that we also need to develop more clubs. This can be done by encouraging some of our assistant instructors to start their own satellite programs in areas not currently served in the county.

From what I was told, my comments at the PSJA board meeting were well received. However, will those shackles prevent my colleagues from doing what’s best for their clubs? Will they be able to think outside the box? That remains to be seen.

During the “State of USA Judo” meeting, I was sitting peacefully when Jose Rodriguez, our executive director, claimed that the International Judo Federation (IJF) had made decisions about Judo and there was nothing we could do about it! I’m not sure whether it was the Marine or the contrarian in me, but that defeatist statement sent me into orbit. I immediately challenged the assertion that we were impotent.

Mr. Rodriguez explained that the European Judo Union (EJU) and the African Judo Union (AJU) were voting in block and now dominated IJF politics. The EJU had provided the AJU with gis, mats, technical advisors, and coaching mentors, and now found itself beholden to the Europeans.

It is true that the EJU and AJU have some 97 votes, which is either a majority or very close to a majority vote. What is incomprehensible to me is that many countries go along with the majority vote in spite of not being in favor of the proposals. In other words, there are few opposition votes because of the fear that the IJF will punish countries for not getting on board. How can you overcome policies if you are not willing to stand up, speak your mind, and vote your conscience even if you know you’ll be on the losing side? Voting your conscience may help other nations to vote theirs. So Mr. Rodriguez is partially right: there is nothing we can do when nations don’t register opposition votes, or can be bought off with a few gifts.

I accept that USA Judo can’t change IJF policies just yet, but I would like to see us do two things: speak our mind and not vote with the flow when it obviously doesn’t benefit our athletes; and think about not implementing in the U.S. every twist and turn the IJF throws at us. What’s good for the IJF’s international events may not be good for the development of Judo in the IJF member nations.

During the 2009 U.S. Open, I managed to corral a very busy Eddie Liddie, USA Judo’s high performance director. I addressed with him my concerns about the drop off in the quality of players and the number of foreign nations participating in our international event.

I suggested to him that we return to the pool format that the U.S. Open used at its inception and for a number of years thereafter until it did away with it and retained the repechage system. In the old days, players were placed in 3- or 4-man round-robin pools, which guaranteed all players at least two or three fights. The top two players from each pool then moved on to the regular repechage tournament. This format, which is currently used for the Ladies Belgian Open, should help us attract more fighters, foreign and domestic, to our event. Mr. Liddie told me that he was contemplating a return to the pool system.

The other suggestion I had was that we should start using the mutual benefit and welfare mantra with foreign nations. For years, we have supported many small events in the Pan American Judo Union, like the Benito Juarez tournament in Mexico, but foreign nations have not reciprocated by supporting the U.S. Open. Without U.S. participation in some of these events, they become domestic events.

One of the ways to improve foreign participation is to place or remove foreign tournaments from our list of point-earning tournaments. This is apparently what Mr. Liddie did with the Puerto Rican Open. The event was withdrawn from our list. The reaction from Puerto Rico was immediate. Puerto Ricans attended the 2009 U.S. Open for the first time in many years. Let’s hope that Mr. Liddie does the same with the Benito Juarez tournament and others like it.

There is some talk that the U.S. Open might be obsolete, and that it should be abandoned. Many of our top players failed to show up this year. The new Olympic qualifying system will force them to bypass our event in favor of point-earning events. Foreign participation has fallen off. Yet, in spite of all of this, there is hope. Mr. Liddie is spending some of his development funds to bring in foreign players just like Frank Fullerton used to do out of his own pocket, and he has bought into the “you come to our event and we’ll come to your event” concept. The U.S. Open might not be much compared to other international events, but it is the only one we have. We need to build it up, if not for the few U.S. players who can win medals on the Olympic circuit, then for our up and coming players.

I always thought that a coach was an advocate for his players. As such, I find it inconceivable that a coach would abrogate a portion of his responsibilities to his players without trying to be part of the decision-making process. It’s true that presently coaches have few political means of being part of that process. Voicing our concerns through email would be a good start.

Coach X states that he has no time to decide whether a rule is good or bad. Maybe he doesn’t, but for coaches who struggle to make Judo relevant at the grassroots level, we can’t afford to meekly accept IJF decisions because ultimately they impact our programs. We have a sport where referees not only enforce the rules, but make the rules as well. And the referees keep tweaking them and tweaking them without much thought as to what it is doing to Judo. In fact, one of my assistant coaches, who is a PJC referee, shocked me when he said that he didn’t care what the rule changes did to Judo or to our own club!  Meanwhile back at the dude ranch, we are losing students and competitors to Brazilian jiujitsu and submission wrestling because the IJF has sissified, emasculated, and sterilized Judo, and laden it with a list of things you can’t do that is longer than the list of things you can do.

Coach X states that the IJF is doing some wonderful things developing Judo in the Judo-underdeveloped nations. Yes, it is, but this doesn’t mitigate the rules catastrophe foisted on all of us in Judo, whether we go to the Olympics or not. The level of dissatisfaction with Judo rules has grown by leaps and bounds over the last few years. The number of competitors has dropped all across the U.S. I don’t think it’s just because the economy is in the tank. It’s obvious that in addition to hijacking our sport, referees are at a loss on how to right our ship.  There is a strong need for outside-the-box thinking, and a stronger need that that come from coaches and athletes, possibly former high level competitors.

So, yes, Coach X, we must get on with the business of doing, promoting, teaching and training Judo, but we coaches must also use our right to dissent in order to advocate for our athletes, and for our sport.  We can no longer sit back and watch the IJF parade, or the USA Judo parade, go right past us. In many sports, coaches and athletes serve on committees that make the rules. In Judo, this is clearly not the case. This must change. It won’t until we coaches decide to voice our concerns to our national, continental and international bodies, and do what Coach X won’t do.

Through our silence, we have allowed the IJF, really the IJF refereeing commission, to hijack our sport. Without coaches, there are no athletes, and thus no need for referees and championships. Coaches, don’t be silent. Raise holy hell. Find a way to become part of the decision-making process.

Jan Snijders, a Dutchman who is the EJU Refereeing Director, issued this statement at the conclusion of the Rotterdam World Championships that ended a few days ago:

We are very satisfied with the new system. Nobody wants to see the losers. Championships are all about the medal winners, and are not training competitions.

Snijders’ statement is appalling considering his own strong competitive accomplishments in the 60s and 70s. I would expect this type of disdain from a referee who had not competed or had not competed at a high level, but coming from a former competitor shows how out of touch the IJF and EJU Refereeing Commissions are with the rest of the Judo community.

I think it’s safe to say that most of us like to see good Judo performed even by players who wind up losing matches. Muneta from Japan is one player who can excite spectators with his upright, classical Judo, win or lose. Some of the best matches may in fact occur in the first or second rounds, pitting current or former World and Olympic medalists. It’s disappointing to know that we don’t get to see those players later on in the repechage because someone has arbitrarily decided that “nobody wants to see losers.” Logically, if it’s true that “nobody wants to see losers,” why do the losing quarter-finalists get to fight again? I know, nobody has ever accused the refereeing commission of being logical. Reactive is a more appropriate description.

It’s also fairly safe to say that the ugly, penalty-driven Judo that was performed at the Rotterdam World Championships is not likely to gain us many non-Judo fans. Frankly, after being in this sport for over 45 years, I too am becoming more and more disgusted by what pretends to be Judo. I’d prefer to see great Judo performed by losers than to have to sit through ugly medal matches watching players flop and drop, or exchange shidos while pretending they are doing Judo. We’ve all breathed a sigh of relief at the conclusion of such matches.

When Snijders said that “we are very satisfied” he clearly must have been talking about the refereeing commissions because no intelligent athlete or coach after years of dedication to training and lifestyle sacrifices could possibly be satisfied with having fewer chances to medal, especially in the presence of incompetent referees and ever-changing rules, often implemented weeks or months before a major event. I pity the players going to the Junior Worlds in Paris!

The only thing that Snijders got right was that the World Championships is not a training competition. I’m pretty sure we already knew that.

If you agree with me that Snijders was out of line and out of touch, and that the new repechage system needs to be abandoned as quickly as possible, I would encourage you to email him and voice your opinion. In order to reclaim our sport from the refereeing commissions- national, continental or international- we must let their members know how we feel. Mr. Snijders can be reached at snijdersjan@eju.net Mr. Juan Carlos Barcos, the IJF Refereeing Director can be reached at jbarcos@rfejudo.com