I will remove ANY post that uses terms like "cheap" or "rip off", or is clearly offensive in nature rather than instructive.
I won't allow that kind of thing on EITHER side of the discussion.
So some of you might want to edit your posts before I remove them.
Are you sure Yuko isn't Luke Beston? He has that writing style where he talks out of both sides of his mouth.For example:
"judo is an easier going version of JJ more for sport"
followed by:
"judo is way better than JJ"
I have no idea. No matter as offending posts will be removed tomorrow....
...I will go over every one of them.
"Judo is way better then BJJ because the stand up part comes with the ground."
Can you prove it or just type it? So your saying Judo is better standing up and on the ground?
"For those of you who say that Judo is mainly stand up you are wrong and prob. American."
Well, in America for the most part that is true.
"If you go to a Japanese Judo school you will see that more then half the class time you do ground work."
Really? Dave and Dan Camarillo said the places they went were basically 95% standup.
"Sport Judo today is not a million miles away from sport Judo of yesteryear."
Whether this statement is true or not, Kano did not create judo to be a sport and Sport Judo today or of yesteryear is only 1 aspect of Judo as it was created
"I can only state that I am practicing what the judo Kano invented has evolved to become. "
I would say that you are practicing 1 of the many things that the Judo Kano invented has evolved to become, it just happens to be the one that kept the name.
DROC
bsrizpac...
The simplest (ie. easier to use version) is to say that a person is like a three-legged bar stool. Say you take away one leg from that bar stool, what happens? The stool is stable but you can now knock it over two ways...
Thus, at any moment, depending on how your legs are placed, you can be knocked over two different ways (just visualize the bar stool and the two possible places for the third leg)...
Now move the guy in one of those two ways (or make him move his leg to change the attack angle, etc.)...
Mark,
What's your E-mail address?
judocoach@aol.com
Mark,
What you just stated makes perfect sense to me. In fact, your explanation is very precise and clear and applicable.
A good student should haven't any problems apply what you just stated because the principle has been made into something concrete, dynamic and not abstract or strictly theoretical.
" Furthermore, any discussion on balance or leverage is flawed in the sense that combat is first a time competition before it is a competition on force."
I disagree.
Corect coaching/teaching will show that balance is attacked best through concepts of "action/reaction/new action"
Igor and I had a good laugh at what is now called in judo circles "a russian drag". He teaches it without "name" all though his 100 lessons in sambo videos. It is a basic wrestlers "snap down" from a jacket grip, then, depending on your "reaction" to my "action", a "new action" follows.
The old idea that some how by turning my arm and pulling you would be drawn off balance by some mysterious force or concept, is just silly.
IF, you fear I am about to throw you, you WILL move to defend that attack. THAT is where real "off balance" comes from, as where ever you move to defend, creates a clear line of off balance to attack.
Leverage is a simple function of the way we apply our attacks. Things like penatration and level are all a part of leverage. BUT, and most important, the real concept of leverage is to NEVER directly oppose a persons power, but rather move with and redirect it to another plane of attack.
Just my thoughts....
The problem is not with kuzushi but rather how it was explained.
We have many points of movement, rather than none in the usual telephone pole explaination.
Again, the gleeson book makes this really clear.
People learn inductively faster than they learn deductively. Much of what I see with any balance theory (including Scotts) is they require learning from a set principle into experience.
In inductive learning, the principle is learned on the basis of experience. Because of this, the experience takes it's place on the alter above and before the principle.
Furthermore, any discussion on balance or leverage is flawed in the sense that combat is first a time competition before it is a competition on force.
The true time needed to carry out an attack must be less that the true time needed to counter it. This law applies before any thought of balance, levers or muscles comes into play.
What puzzles me is that, if Judo is the same or almost the same as bjj, how come judo hasn't done so well in the ufc?