The 7th Kyu (Red Belt) grading includes a section where the grading candidate has to demonstrate four throwing techniques: (nage waza): hip throw (o goshi nage), shoulder throw (ippon seio nage), minor inner reaping (ko uchi gari), and minor outer reaping (ko soto gari; see image with Shihan Hans de Jong executing on myself).
The Shodan revision grading (kime no kata) requires the grading candidate to select and demonstrate, among other things, five different throwing techniques (nage waza) and five different takedown techniques (taoshi waza) for each of five different wrist/forearm holds.
Chapter two in my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques is about the core of all learning. The core of all learning is the identification of similarities and differences. Nage waza and taoshi waza are similar in that they are techniques which cause the opponent to fall to the ground. How are they different? The lack of understanding about the differences between these two types of similar but different techniques is explored in another chapter in TSBAFT.
When I was preparing to engage in this grading, I asked my instructors what the difference was between throwing techniques and takedown techniques. I was met with silence from all of them except one. He said that a throwing technique involves both of the opponent's feet being forced to leave the ground whereas with takedown techniques do not. This, as I explain in the abovementioned chapter, is the definitive distinction between these two types of techniques, which I demonstrate in mechanical terms.
When, as a prospective yudansha (black belt holder), I applied that theory to the abovementioned 7th Kyu grading, ko uchi gari and ko soto gari would be classified as takedowns rather than throws. When I raised this issue/question with my instructors, I was told that if the technique is performed correctly then both of the opponent's feet will leave the ground. If that is the case, then not one person in the entire history of the Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system has performed those techniques correctly.
That explanation is a classic case of 'shoehorning.' Forcing one thing to fit another, even though it doesn't fit.
These techniques, the way they are performed in the Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system, are technically takedown techiques/taoshi waza. Having come to that (technically correct) understanding, the next question is, what do we do about it?
One option is to continue to teach the grading system as it was handed down by JDJ (the first draft). An option that is mostly being pursued, albeit with the absence of a knowledge of the error.
Another option is to correct the error, however, so much valuable learning is lost in doing so if the error is not incorporated into the learning some way.
How did JDJ make this error? Firstly, there is no definitive distinction, until my book, distinguishing between throwing techniques and takedown techniques (which makes the abovementioned shodan grading an interesting exercise). Secondly, judo includes those techniques in their list of nage waza, specifically ashi waza (leg techniques). Did judo make the same mistake? Firstly, judo was the leader in classifying martial arts techniques. Secondly, judo includes a category for nage waza but none for taoshi waza. This begs the question - does judo teach taoshi waza? As I demonstrate in my book, judo does teach taoshi waza but do not recognise it as a separate class of techniques, instead classifying all techniques that cause an opponent to fall to the ground as nage waza.
What would you do with this identified error in Jan de Jong's jujutsu grading system?
Why does it have to be a mechanical distinction between taoshiwaza and nagewaza? Could it not just be intent? The same technique can be done with the intent of taking the opponent down and following up with another technique (taoshi) or thrown with intent to injure as a finishing technique (nage)?
ReplyDeleteBecause a mechanical distinction goes to the very heart of the technique - what makes it work. Intent is subjective and does not distinguish between types of techniques. The distinction to which you refer, takedowns being taking the fight to the ground and throws finishing intended to finish the fight, does not, in any way shape or form, distinguish between techniques. All throws in Jan de Jong jujutsu are followed up with techniques while the opponent is on the ground. Does that make all those throws takedowns? A mechanical understanding of martial arts techniques goes to the heart of the techniques; to what makes them work. Good question though and glad of the opportunity of explaining this common, but misguided, distinction between throws and takedowns.
Delete