HOW MANY TYPES OF JUDO ARE THERE?

The simple answer is no, there are no strikes in judo. There may be some schools that are self defense oriented and include some striking, BUT the vast majority(as in 99.9%) of judo schools teach no striking whatsoever. They are dedicated to the sport of judo which is throws on the feet, and pins, strangles and arm locks on the ground.

If you're looking for strikes with grappling then jujitsu is a better bet, but I advise you not to overlook Judo. The training is full-on and is a fantastic preparation for fighting because each person can go 100% effort all the time. It is, as Neko said, a rough sport which can lead to lots of injuries, indeed I have seen many more injuries in judo classes than in kickboxing and taekwon-do ones.

Hi Ken

As Supermor said, most Judo classes nowadays aren't going to teach any striking. The striking taught in Kodokan Goshin Jutsu is simulated anyway (i.e. they don't actually hit each other properly).

Regarding Kata in Judo, most modern clubs don't bother with in in the UK until students are at a high level. Personally I think this is madness .

Regarding "types" of Judo, there is basically one kind of Judo. There are variations on the way it is taught e.g. Kosen Judo focus on Ne Waza, or some clubs teaching Kata and Randori, but essentially they are all teaching Judo. I read an interview with a Kosen Judo Sensei in Japan. He said that Kosen Judo was a different approach to Kodokan Judo, but they still taught Kodokan Judo.

There are some orginizations in the UK outside the British Judo Association who teach Judo. The BJA are sports orientated Judo. The British Judo Council and the Zen Judo Family teach traditional Judo, with more emphasis on kata.

In fact, Zen Judo have a club in the Greater Manchester Area:

http://zenjudo.co.uk/content-3.html

I've trained with the ZJF club in Ireland. They are fantastic for a traditional approach to Judo. They better understood the principles of Judo and were better able to educate people on these principles. And the knowledge on kata was first class.

This may be more up your street. One more point about the traditional Judo class I noted: They didn't have a single injury in the few classes I attended. This is increbibly unusual when compared to a sports Judo class. They still did great randori, but they didn't seem to have any injuries. That said they spent about 20-30 minutes on ukemi, so that may be a factor.

Hope this helps.

So-called "old-school" judo taught strikes (atemi) that are much less sophisticated than karate. In fact, the popular key chain accessory (Kubotan) is based on the so-called "Judo-stick" or Yawara. The Yawara could be used in offensive as well as defensive techniques & nerve/pressure point strikes/techniques.

The strikes gradually de-evolved due to the competitive nature of Judo vis-a-vis Olympics. Japanese Ju-jutsu kept the strikes & low-line kicks. You'll look long & hard to find a Judo dojo that uses atemi in anything other than kata.

It only hurts for a second!

There are some variations, but you'll be hard pressed to find them.

Remember: judo is first and foremost a sport. The overwhelming majority of dojos focus on training students to compete in judo tournaments.

Can judo be used for self-defense? Sure, much as a boxer might use his or her skills in a street fight. But that is not what most judo dojos are primarily interested in.

Fileboy is right. It is very rare to find any Judo classes that teach atemi.

I remember reading Kodokan Judo by Jirgo Kano. If I compare the content of the book to the modern Judo classes, much of what is in the book has been dispensed with. Things like Kata and Atemi don't feature much in most Judo clubs today. As Fileboy said, for most people and clubs Judo is a sport. Atemi isn't allowed under modern randori rules, so most places aren't going to train it.

I agree that a lot of the lack of atemi training in modern Judo relates to it being trained mostly for sport now. That being said, the atemi that is present in the kata's...well maybe there is another reason why many don't train it, lol. I think Judoka's simply realized that the strongest part of Judo is the throws, and, more importantly, the method of training those throws. I also think that that was the birth of the sport movement in Judo. In other words, modern Judo in the way it is, not because it lost it's self defense roots, but rather because it was distilled closer to its essence, at least that is the way I see it. I very much doubt that those who encouraged shiai to be a bigger part of Judo thought they were weakening the art.

I also think that modern Judo promotes self defense skills much more rapidly than many 'combat' or 'battle field' oriented JJ systems, and those s.d. skills are brought about on a more consistent, standardized level (due to a lot of randori, and the overall pedagogical approach).

--Chris

If judo focused more on strikes, then what difference would there be between kano's judo and the other jjj ryu's?

Hence.. he had to discourage striking.

~Donnie out

Hey Taison, long time no see!!! Good to hear from you.

Some spread styles of Judo in Europe:
* Kodokan
* Gleeson method
* Kosen
* Kawashi

*waves*

~Donnie

The primary training methods of Judo are (1) kata, which was a main attribute Kano took from Kito ryu, means "form," and is a system of prearranged movements that teach the fundamentals of attack and defense. In addition to throwing and holding (also practiced in randori), it originally included hitting, kicking, stabbing, slashing and a number of other weapons techniques.(2) randori, the standard training method of Tenjin-Shinyo ryu. means "free practice", or "freestyle exercise". Partners pair off and vie with each other as they would in an actual match. They may throw, pin, choke and apply joint locks, but they may not hit, kick or employ other techniques appropriate only to actual combat. The main conditions in randori are that participants take care not to injure each other and that they follow judo etiquette. Randori might be considered the Judo version of sparring.