Many systems of Judo have actually come full circle because they allow many of the techniques that were banned in 19th century Japan. Those systems of Judo are definitely martial arts in addition to being sports. Russian Sambo is an offshoot of Judo, and that also has combative applications.
I would say that contemporary judo is a sport with some martial applications, a description that would apply to boxing and MMA and various other styles.
As I understand it, Kano's idea in creating Judo was to develop a form from jujitsu, which was combat oriented, which could be used for sport and character development. Thus the "do" suffix.
"Jitsu" or "Jutsu" meaning "fighting style" and "do" (way or path) indicating a style meant less for combat and more for character development, and that in the manner of Zen Buddhism.
Some arts, like Kyudo (ritual Japanese bow and arrow) have no martial application at all, whereas during the feudal period, Kyujutsu was the primary combat method of the Samurai.
The simple answer is: It is both.
Judo is practiced worldwide as an Olympic sport. Judo is also taught as a combat art in civilian police and military units throughout the world as well. Judo is an excellent choice as a practical hand to hand combat art because it allows a person to control an assailant, antagonist or enemy without using an excessive amount of force to alleviate a situation.
Sincerely,
Orange County Judo Training Center
www.ocjudo.com
Judo is a martial art that is taught often today as a sport. Dr. Kano never intended for it to be a sport or used in sports. After being pressured by others as they were trying to spread their new art to other cultures Kano eventually agreed to allow judo to be used in sports. Then came the rules for the sports side of judo. Also you are mistaken in regards to judo.
Judo does have strikes. They are not done in competitions. Judo also has weapon defense. Again this is not done in competition. Judo also has multiple attackers training but there is no need for that in competition.
Dr. Kano was an educator. He was also a highly trained martial artist. It was his desire that martial arts be taught in school. He modified his jujutsu training and created judo. He had to remove some techniques to make this happen. He also removed techniques that you would need more strength in order to perform.
being a small guy he wanted his art to be able be used by anyone without giving the advantage to the bigger and stronger guys. Since his arts was approved to be taught in school he had two ranking systems junior/senior (children/adult). The criteria for promotion and what is taught and allowed are different. Basically what you see in tournaments is a sports version of original judo/ Judo also has wrist locks that are not done in competition.
Examples: Children under 13 can't choke. Children are not allowed to use joint locks. Things of that nature had to be put in place in order to get it approved to be taught in PE classes.
Let me also address the mutual welfare. Most martial arts were not created for "warfare". They were developed for self defense. Often from drunken soldiers on leave. Most wars are not fought using hand to hand combat. They are fought with long range weapons. Mutual welfare is not about fighting an adversary. It is about training for perfection. You must train judo with a partner. In doing so not only do you get better, but so does your partner. that is mutual welfare.
I think classifying something as one or the other is an artificial distinction.
Can this thing teach me useful combat skills? Does it have an emphasis on practical application, limited or not? Then it's a martial art.
There are a lot of "martial arts" that have stopped looking at practical skill-building drills, which include sparring, which by its nature must place restrictions for the safety of the participants. I've repeatedly seen people who studied "sports" out-fight those who did such "martial arts" because they actually had practice and experience at using their skills against someone trying to take them out.
Martial Art
I think it depends on your reasons for training. If you want to learn a good form of self defense, and you approach your training in that way, then it's a martial art. If you just want to compete or find a way to push your physical capabilities, it's a sport. If you want both, well...you get the point.
judo is a sport that can be used as a martial art ,other examples are jeet kun do and savate
never knew "dr" kano had developped striking techniques to go along with it unless otherwise
specified ,also martial arts have an attack stigma attached to them namely the shinobis
which use their highly trained methods as attacking attributes
Hey mate. Does it even matter? A taiji instructor who I should have trained with, which I didn't, said 'even if you train in the most useless sport, with the most horrendous teacher and in the direst quality, you can still learn what to not do."
It can be both...Anyhow...there is an antagonism many times between practitioners of sports and self-defense..
I disagree with several of the arguments that are to be heard many times from both sides...
My disagreements are based on facts, logic and experiences with out being really judgmental, or intolerant to opinions. It is a free world and everyone can say and believe what they please according to what is appropriate for them or anything else. Is good to have an opinion..
Anyhow.....
The truth is that people do not need to gouge anyone, or play a martial sport to be able to defend themselves.
How many people on a daily basis defend themselves, with none of those, and how many defend themselves by using those.?
Hm...Perhaps the real analogy is thousands of times to 1...Yet you hear those arguments all the time. Those arguments should be heard with the right analogy normally...which is thousands of times to 1...Right?
In addition how man times any situation starts and progress as a full life threatening situation, with no means to reduce that, in relation with anything else and how many times do you hear it? Do you hear it with the actual analogy that it happens, in relation with everything else, or much more times? Much more times obviously.
Why do you think that in a situation necessarily someone wins or lose? and do you think that what you hear, believe or saying, reflects the actual reality on the right analogy?
If not why do you think is that..?
If you want to start thinking critically, then those are questions that you may want to ask your self..
Keep on mind that critical thinking is based on facts, logic and experiences.:)
The dictionary definition of a martial art is "a codified tradition of combat practices." On the other hand combat sports are defined as "competitive sport with one vs one contact under rule and safe conditions to prolong a fight and protect participants."
Please, I'm not trying to start a troll session or debate, argument whatever, my goal here is to learn. It's just a bit difficult to put judo where it belongs.
For starters, Jigoro Kano was the 'father of Japanese P.E.' and developed judo in the purpose of 'treating it as a culture: physical, mental, and moral.'
These all makes judo a combat sport or just a cultural art with limited applications as reflected in the 'mutual welfare' principle. (You aren't going to have mutual welfare in a fight, it's either a victim or a winner and no fighters.)
There are also plenty of holes judo have that makes it fail miserably theoretically. E.g. no awareness to any weapons, no awareness to any multiple opponents, no strikes.
However, on the other hand there are other things to suggest otherwise as judo has been used in warfare. e.g.
WWI www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OLAb7tscFQ
W.E Fairbain, the chief and most influential combative instructor of WWII did despise quite a lot of judo e.g. no protection to face or groin but did burrow a small portion of judo practices, e.g. holds and chokes, idea of balance.
Moshe Feldenkrais, taught hadaka jime to WWII personels.
Judo is a martial art that can be a sport as are karate and boxing, and several other martial arts.
Martial arts have no rules, sports have rules.
if you are training and techniques are removed because of rules its a sport.
edit:> I spend two weeks of the year teaching about tournament rules. dispute how little my students train for tournaments they do quite well. you can still train a style the why it is meant to and be very good at tournaments. but if you focus on tournaments and point fighting you wont be very good at self defense.
being a sport doesnt mean its useless. take boxing the most limited one of them all yet very use in a fight and the tactics can be very useful in multiple opponents.
Both. It has grappling and throwing, no punches or kicks.
