by liberal japonicus
I have a ton of work, which obviously means the gods are asking me to procrastinate. The question of how a competition should work is a fascinating one to me, and I think looking at how things look from a Japanese perspective might be interesting. The lens I want to use is Judo. More below the break. A ton of video links in it, and I may have miscopied one or two, so if you are masochistic enough to look at all the videos and you see one that is wrong, let me know.
First thing, whenever a martial art is turned into a sport, its ultimate character changes. If your goal in the original activity was to kill or otherwise incapacitate your opponent, changing it into a sport is going to have dire consequences and we can see that in judo.
If you aren't familiar with it, judo is a martial art that does not use any atemi (striking techniques). The first chinese character 柔 (yawara or ju-) means soft, yielding and so judo is often called 'the gentle way'. It was founded by Jigoro Kano, the son of a merchant family who, after the Meiji Revolution, wanted to do what was challenging every Japanese thinker of the time: How to keep up with the West, but retain the essence of Japanese culture. Kano felt that physical education was the key and he saw that jiu-jitsu, the precursor of judo, which was separated into many different schools, was disappearing. So he began to train with jiu jitsu masters who had pretty much fallen on hard times. In order to make ends meet, they would often work as bone setters, so Kano was able to locate them and because his parents were pretty well to do, he could afford to spend his time doing this. He was a quick study and a voracious learner and he was able assemble bits of the system to create Judo. He was also a teacher (he was principal of the 5th Boys HS and then the 1st Boys HS, which would be come Kumamoto University and Tokyo University respectively) and diplomat and Japan's representative to the Olympic movement (he died travelling back from the IOC meeting in 1936 where it was agreed to have Tokyo host the Olympics in 1940. But... )
Judo represents some typical Japanese cultural traits and this video touches on that. It's also pretty amazing that judo is a new creation, but is able to link itself to much deeper cultural currents. One of the things I harp on in my martial arts and Japan lectures is asking the question 'why does everyone think that Japan is so central to martial arts?' That's obviously been diluted over the years, but this quote from Ian Fleming's Goldfinger is one I open up the class with.
Bond: I was very impressed by that chauffeur of yours. Where did he learn that fantastic combat stuff? Where did it come from? Is that what the Koreans use?
<br> Goldfinger: Have you ever heard of karate? No? Well that man is one of the three men in the world that have achieved the black belt in karate. Karate is a branch of judo, but it is to judo what a Spandau is to a catapult.
'That man' is Goldfinger's Korean manservant Oddjob and Fleming's observations about him and other Koreans, that's a whole nother story. But this is about rules and how they are broken.
The system Kano created was to try and embody the martial art aspect of Jiu-jitsu into a sport. So, to win a match, you had to do one of the following
1. Throw your opponent on their back with clear force and control
2. Hold your opponent down (you didn't have to pin both shoulders, just control their upper body, keeping their back largely on the ground) for 30 seconds
2a a half point is given for a near ippon or holding the opponent down for 25 seconds and 2 half points can add up to an ippon.
3. choke your opponent around the neck until they give up or pass out.
4. Apply a joint lock on their elbow (only) and make them give up
5. 1 point wins immediately, a half point, you will continue fighting unless the person scores a half point to make 1.
This was the 'gentle way' because previous incarnations would have a lot more possibilities to gain submission (finger, wrist, knee, ankle locks), strikes to initiate or strengthen techniques, and throws that did not allow the opponent to fall in a way that they could avoid injury. Kano pruned off all of these dangerous and potential lethal techniques to have a core of combat techniques that didn't kill the opponent. Really, a simple sport.
[Why I know about this. My father did Danzan Ryu Jiu-jitsu (but it was called Judo) in Hawaii (here's a video of it, it looks a lot like current judo until you notice the strikes and chokes you do at the end of some of the techniques) until he left to go to the mainland to attend engineering school in Milwaukee. He studied under Henry Sanshiro, one of those martial arts figures who got some flak because he insisted opening his teaching to any and all. (a video about him) In fact, whereas a lot of the Japanese martial arts teachers were interned in Hawaii (as opposed to the general population, because they provided so much agricultural labor, they couldn't intern them), Sanshiro wasn't because he had so many students who were connected to the military. Anyway, I did judo as a kid from 6-13, but when we moved from Maryland to Mississippi, there was no place to continue. When I came to Japan, I took it up again and got to 3rd degree black belt (which is, Ian Fleming not withstanding, not that big a deal, usually good JHS judoka get the 1st degree and a competitive high school student will get a 2nd degree black belt) and then blew out my ACL when I was finishing up in Japan, which forced me to change to aikido. end resume]
To get an idea of how amazing judo can appear, this is Kyuzo Mifune, one of Kano's students. I believe the film is from 1955, which makes Mifune 72 years old. The video repeats, and it's part of a longer film, so lots of clips floating around on YouTube. here is another video of him. This is the ideal of Japanese judo, and accounts for why it has such a hold for Japanese and Japanophiles. Size doesn't matter, if you apply yourself and train, you can beat anyone. This sounds quite American, and I think it is a reason why, despite being polar opposites, Japanese can latch on to that American tendency, but for Americans, it is technology that often holds the key while for Japanese, it is physical training and tech, when it is employed, is artfully hidden.
Another anecdote I tell my students is that the first sport to do video replay was Japanese sumo, something that doesn't appear to have any tech associated with it. Yet it does and video replay was brought in 1969. However, there is no jumbotronic screen, cameras are hidden above. There are 5 judges, all dressed in kimono, sitting at (In order of importance) North, East, South East, South West, West and who rotate each day. If one of them disagrees they all go into the dohyo (ring) and have a "conference" and then announce the result. But you can see that one of them has an earpiece and if they aren't sure, they ask a judge in the booth, who tells them what the tape says. Very Japanese.
Another aside, the 2020 Olympics also now has Team judo. I've not followed how it will be implemented in the Olympics, but I think it draws its inspiration from Japanese team judo competitions. They are basically 5 against 5, with no weight limitations. The first person fights the first person on the other team, if they win, they fight the next one, but if it is a draw, the next two fight. And winning a long, contested bout means that you have to immeidately fight the next person who may be fresh and the final winner is the last man standing. If they were all draws, the final fight would go to a decision, but it could be a tie and the two fighters would move to overtime. It's not hard to see it embodying a key Japanese term, gaman, as well as being the seed for Japanese thinking in WW2. The last man standing saves the day.
This video might help see a bit more of the Japanese nature of judo and how it appeared, very much as a Japanese creation, when it became an Olympic sport. This is about Canadian video, of Doug Rogers, the 1964 Judo silver medalist. It really captures why some folks (like me) find a home in Japan, not that I ever reached the heights of Rogers, but the finding a place really resonates with me. If you don’t want to go thru the whole thing, check out from 9:45 to 13:30. The Kimura he mentions at 13:30 is this Kimura. Rogers could have been Olympic champion but for some strange reason, judo wasn't included in the Mexico 1968 games and he couldn't really wait 8 years.
This video gives the basics of judo as it is currently played for the Olympics. Neil Adams, the narrator, has terrible Japanese pronunciation, but is probably the best Western judoka who did not win a gold medal. The game as currently played is really a creation of the Olympics, because the japanese wanted their sport in the Olympics for the 1964 Tokyo games, but the way tournaments were traditionally done, traditional Japanese rules unacceptable. Traditional Japanese rules were
-open weight class
-no set length of a match
-you won with 1 point (ippon) immediately, half point at the end of time, no decision at the end, the ref and two judges would vote to decide
Note that the longer time period makes the open weight possible. A smaller guy could wear out a bigger guy and then score a point. But when you had a tournament, that's not possible. There were Japanese who wanted to internationalize judo and so held World Championships beginning in 1956. More on that below.
However, quick rundown from the video
-1 point wins immediately, a half point, you will continue fighting unless the person scores a half point to make 1, same as above
-different color uniforms, called judogi
-5 minute matches (4 mins for women)
-a tied match has a golden time, so any point will immediately win
-minor warnings result in penalty points
-lack of attacking result in penalty points
(there have been some revisions for 2020 which are listed here)
With the exception of the first rule, ALL of these were things were introduced to the sport because of the Olympics. That first point, about winning with one point, is why judo is called 'the gentle way'. Before judo, winning a match was making the opponent either give up or make it so he could not continue, similar to bare-knuckles boxing.
While the Olympic matches are 5 minutes long, the first 3 world championships, the matches were 15 minutes. Stop for a moment and think about that. Boxing rounds are 3 minutes. Imagine having to keep your concentration so that your opponent does not throw you or score a point on your for the equivalent of 5 rounds of boxing. And for pre-war matches, there was no time limit.
The world championships were also on a double elimination, (explanation here) which itself was an adaptation. Previous tournaments I believe were single elimination. The thing is, when you have single elimination, you may be able to tell who is the best, but you've got no idea who is 2nd or 3rd. If I fought the person who was the champion in the first round and lost in a squeeker, who is to say that I'm not 2nd. In fact, maybe you could have beaten number 1, but you lost to someone else who lost to someone else, but with a different draw, who knows?
One of the special problems you have with a sport that requires submission or knockout, if the earlier matches are too competitive, you can end up knocking out all the best players. Which is why we have the concepts of seeded tournaments. But that requires a systematic approach to weighting contestants and wouldn't work for judo because there is no way system of competitions like tennis to determine who should be seeded and who shouldn't.
The initial world championships had no weight categories. It was an open tournament, and judo was/is supposed to be a sport where size did not matter. When judo was being set up for the Olympics, they insisted on weight classes and those have slowly multiplied (there were 3 + an open division for the 1964, there are 7 for these Olympics) And if you think about it, open tournaments, while they are supposed to decide who really is the champion, they also inject a measure of doubt. Did the guy beat me because I gave up 5 inches and 40 kilos? Could I have won if I had done something differently?
Here is a video from the 1st world championship, Dutch Anton Geesink (remember that name) Bronze medalist, was defeated by the silver medalist Yoshihiko Yoshimatsu. You can see Geesink being thrown at the 0:08 mark. In the 3rd world championship. Anton Geesink, defeated Koji Sone in the semifinal. Geesink scored a wazari (half point) at 3:51 and then followed up with an osaekomi (a hold) for 20 seconds to give him his second half-point to win the match and the championship. At the end, an interesting thing happens, his Dutch teammates rush on the mat and lift him up, but he tells them to put him down and finishes the match with the bow to his opponent.
Now, Geesink was the world champion, but when the Olympics came, Japan assumed that their judoka would rise to the challenge. Here is the video of that final match. As the announcers observe, because it is double elimination, the Japanese Kaminaga has been beaten once, so it is thought that he will win the second time to make sure a Japanese is the Olympic champion, only proper for a Japanese sport.
However, it didn't turn out that way and Geesink, 6'5" to Kaminaga's 5'9", is able to easily defeat Kaminaga with a 30 second hold and at the end of that, at 3:15, you see Geesink telling his teammates not to come up, which has often been cited as a reason that the Japanese loved and respected him. It is often presented as Geesink's understanding of Japanese culture, which is true, but he was also prepared to stop them because of the experience after winning the 1961 world championship. The truth is always more prosaic.
Judo was an Olympic sport in 1964, was not included in the Mexico games in 1968, but returned to the Games in Munich 72. Because it was an Olympic sport, the notion that success in the games represented the strength of that nation. For example the first American judo team was remarkably diverse and James Bregman (whose dojo I was at when I was a child) won the bronze medal. A discussion of the diversity is here and many profiles pointed that out. (on how that may obscure as much as reveal, that's another post) So, how does one cut corners in such a simple sport?
So, how does this get to short cuts and workarounds? Well, as soon as shorter times were used, then began to institute a system of partial points and violations. Japanese often talk about 'European judo', where the player gets a small advantage and then plants themselves at the edge of the boundary, so any attack moves them out of bounds and is disallowed. As contestants got a measure of the rules, then began strategizing to take advantage of them
Also, notice the judogi they wear in those early competitions, quite baggy, with lots of space. Neil Adams said when he went to his first European championship n 1977 as a 19-year old, he went up against Vladimir Nevzorov, who wore a judo gi that was tailored and resembled a wet suit more than a gi. Eventually, they had to come in with rules about the minimum requirements for gi sizing (also, this is why all those MMA octogon fights now have people in nothing but speedos. However, in the real world, your opponent can scratch and bite. I could be world champion if they would just let me use my choppers!!!)
These short cuts litter the history of competitive judo rules. The Russians came up with a grip where you held the belt and the collar, which could prevent all attacks. Outlawed. To try and have 'scores' that could determine the winner, the addition of fractional points, yuko and koka, were added, they couldn't total a winning score, but they could determine who one the match at end time. One way to get a fractional point was to basically tackle your opponent, so it got to the point that a large percentage of attacks were simply leg grabs and some matches, the players never executed a technique with their back to their opponent. So then grabbing the pants leg provided a similar ability. Outlawed. The interplay between Olympic judo and International Judo can be seen in this article.
All of this might be assigned to the fact that the martial art undergoes changes to become a sport and then goes thru more changes to become Westernized, i.e. the outcome can be reduced to logical points. I don't feel like the Japanese get that idea of reduction to logic, but their response is I won't exploit the rules, cause I'll beat you anyway. Like the line about Bear Bryant 'He could take his'n and beat your'n and then take your'n and beat his'n'. So discussions about rules and who competes are often atteunated here in Japan, thankfully.
I feel like it is the American contribution to sport to make it reducible to numbers. It was in one of the World Cups where I noted that though Americans love to talk about individual achievement, all their goals came off of set plays.
Another thing that I think is an Anglo-American inheritance is the idea of mental edge. With the Michael Jordan film Last Dance, while you can see that he did make the effort to be the best he could be, a lot of that effort was spent in trying to bully, intimidate, and get inside of the heads of not only his opponents but also his teammates. I say Anglo-American because cricket something called sledging. In relation to the discussion about MIT hacks, GftNC asks if it is ok to appreciate them even if they are from a problematic world view. Same thing here applies and I admit, I still laugh when I read some of these. But I also think, when you are dealing with ball that is functionally as hard as a rock coming at you at 150+ km an hour, getting inside your opponent's head is one strategy. In fact, when it becomes part of the fabric of the sport, it is hard to actually oppose it. But I still laugh.
This all circles around when we read about Simone Biles withdrawing from the Olympics。whcih was foreshadowed by Naomi Osaka's withdrawal from the French Open. It's a sign of changing times that people are lauding her for it, but you still the old attitudes of her being a quitter or not tough enough with a quick trawl thru google. It's hard for me to get a handle on the Japanese reaction to Osaka, I felt there was a lot of sympathy among Japanese, but a lot of (mostly older white males, judging from my FB feed) foreigners here has been precisely that 'boo hoo hoo, the millionaire can't do a press conference, cry me a river'. It is to be expected, they occupy a nice perch and so acknowledging that Osaka may have a point threatens their status in the system. But illustrates some interesting points about intersectionality.
I've got no conclusion, but my final observation is that when winning becomes a primary or even a major motivation, this is inevitable and judo provides a nice example to consider. I think that one reason Russell exhibits such equanimity is that he is totally uninterested in sports, which may stem from a lack of interest in figuring out who 'won' or 'lost'. Anyway, thoughts and examples are welcome and thanks for putting up with my rambling
Sports and competition are another overlapping set of complex and competing motivations. Sports/competition can be:
*A way of testing, challenging and bettering oneself.
*A marker for the limits of human capabilities.
*A collective, goal-oriented interaction that lets people feel a part of something.
*Training for leadership and team-building.
*A substitute venue for tribal dominance.
*A spectacle, evoking drama and awe, that people find compelling...
*...which can be packaged as a comodity.
*An opportunity for gambling.
Any particular sport or competition can end up dealing with a mix of these things, depending on the nature of the activity.
I've been thinking a lot about ultramarathoning because it is one of the few contests in which, at the upper extreme, a particular female physiology has a competitive advantage and those who have that physiology are starting to exercise that advantage. But given that the sport is small and the courses are remote and the competitions are long and not particularly varied in their moments, it's not high on the list of candidates for big media contracts and has a very small societal footprint.
We talk a lot about the value of sports for building character, but the organization of how sports get done on a large, collective scale prioritizes records and "eliteness" and spectacle, and commodification over character building.
I find myself less and less drawn to sports beyond the two things I listed first.
(I have a lot of thoughts about the martial arts/sports side of things, too, but those really don't lend themselves to wider discussion, so I'll hold off on them, even if I did enjoy reading your deeper thoughts here, lj.)
Posted by: nous | July 31, 2021 at 04:21 PM
* a way to earn bragging rights
Posted by: cleek | July 31, 2021 at 04:34 PM
* a way to earn bragging rights
Yes. Dominance, but not necessarily tribal.
So much of this is also mixed in with our views of animal behavior and of masculinity, and we dance between both in our attempts to police what is "nature" and "natural."
Posted by: nous | July 31, 2021 at 04:48 PM
-5 minute matches (4 mins for women)
Linking back to our conversation on the other thread, one might ask: Why? Why the difference?
Posted by: wj | July 31, 2021 at 05:09 PM
* a way to earn bragging rights
Possibly connected:
* a way to attract sexual partners.
As the famously gawky, not necessarily conventionally attractive Peter Crouch answered, when asked what he would have been if he hadn't been a footballer, he replied:
"A virgin"
Posted by: Girl from the North Country | July 31, 2021 at 06:50 PM
Linking back to our conversation on the other thread, one might ask: Why? Why the difference?
I can't say for certain, but here is another interesting tidbit. When women's judo was added to the Olympics as a demonstration sport in 1988, the Japanese women got trounced. Out of a total of 28 possible medals, Japanese only took 5 (1 gold/1 silver/3 bronze). When it became a regular sport in 1992, it was again 5 medals, but worse because there were no gold medals (2 slivers/3 bronze)
This led to a societal gnashing of teeth and pushing up Ryoko Tamura as the wonder girl. Previously, Kaori Yamaguchi was world champion, so it wasn't like there were no competitive female judoka, but for Japan not to sweep was a national tragedy. (I see the same thing for England and soccer)
I'm not sure what the deliberations were, but I believe that the Japanese had a large say in how these competitions were set up, so it would just be 'natural' that women would have a shorter time than men.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 31, 2021 at 08:38 PM
I don't think China is into the whole transgender thing. But they are into winning.
A Chinese womens relay team.
Pick the item that isn't like the others...
Posted by: CharlesWT | July 31, 2021 at 09:10 PM
More thoughts related to nous observation about ultra-marathons. One of the problems/challenges is that in most sports (thinking about the entire range of sports), there are women who could participate at the top level. This article is related
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/shortcuts/2019/jul/15/why-do-so-many-men-think-they-could-win-a-point-off-serena-williams
The problem is that if they were to participate in a unisex competition, there would be so few of them that it would be difficult for them to create the kind of social atmosphere that would be needed as identifed by these suggestions by nous (edited)
*A way of testing, challenging and bettering oneself.
*A collective, goal-oriented interaction that lets people feel a part of something.
*Training for leadership and team-building.
Take those out of the mix of what a sport is and the sport itself is crippled.
It's interesting that you have similar problems with elite military groups, firefighting and police. For both of those, women have abilities that may be important additions to the mix. But if they can't develop the social framework within such endeavors, it actually could detract from what they are trying to do. There has been progress, but it seems like a parallel.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 31, 2021 at 09:12 PM
Yes Charles, China is very concerned about sporting success to validate their national identity, just like East Germany and the Soviet Union, so it is possible. But an unsourced photo seems to be more indicative of homophobia on your part than some meaningful contribution to the conversation.
Here's a bit more detail
https://kissasian.is/chinese-female-athletes-go-viral-accused-looking-like-men.html
And looking at the source
https://nextshark.com/
I wonder if you think this is the sort of resource that is actually interested in presenting nuanced understandings. I think you could do better.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 31, 2021 at 09:36 PM
But an unsourced photo seems to be more indicative of homophobia on your part than some meaningful contribution to the conversation.
Who said anything about gay people.
I would guess that Yang is female though she looks a bit masculine in some of the images.
Posted by: CharlesWT | July 31, 2021 at 10:14 PM
Oftentimes, it is not what you say, but what you don't say. Is there any reason why you just shared the picture and not the article that went with it? You've acknowledged that you can be too brief, I think this is one of those times.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | July 31, 2021 at 10:46 PM
But that would run counter to the spirit of shitposting.
Posted by: nous | July 31, 2021 at 10:52 PM
"in most sports (thinking about the entire range of sports), there are women who could participate at the top level."
Since the OP is "Competition from a Japanese Perspective", that leads to thoughts of Sumo wrestling.
No way are women going to break into Sumo, although they might be able to handle the horrible health consequences a *bit* better, I'd bet that the overall reaction by fans is DO NOT WANT.
Am I despicable for even bring it up? Of course.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 02, 2021 at 09:36 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainoumi_Sh%C5%ABhei
5'7", 98 kilos
Actually, when he started, he was 5'3" and a doctor injected silcone into his scalp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MylN3Alr7fQ
The bigger problem is that women are not allowed in the dojo because they are unpure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43652428
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 02, 2021 at 11:25 AM
I've been thinking about this topic a bit, and decided to come at the question of competition not from the sex/gender angle, but from a rules angle - how do the rules of the sport influence what qualities an athlete must have to succeed.
For the sake of de-centering sex/gender, let's consider something like fencing. Fencing has been in the news a bit this Olympics due to a recent rules change in the sport: the "Unwillingness to Fight" rule that penalizes fencers who do not engage: https://academyoffencingmasters.com/blog/new-unwillingness-to-fight-rule-in-fencing/
One minute of tactical assessment without attacking and fencers get penalized.
This change will change the sport. It will push competitors to attack more and to defend and counter less. It will put pressure on a tactical approach aimed at drawing out an opponent and trying to provoke a series of attacks to set up a counter. It will privilege explosiveness and/or reach over control of distance. This adds to the drama and spectacle, but it also takes the sport farther from its historical roots in combat. It's even more a sport now and less a martial art.
Likewise in fencing and in other martial arts, how the contest is scored matters. If the contest is predicated on the idea of symbolic killing or wounding, then points get awarded for touching the opponent or performing recognized forms of attack. Does the sport also give points for escapes and reversals? Do those actions count as much as an attack? Again, this changes the nature of success and the kinds of skills that get rewarded.
How big is the field of "combat?" Is it linear like a fencing piste or circular like a wrestling mat? Does overcoming an opponent require great strength, as in wrestling, or is it a weapon sport that operates under the idea that the weapon can be wielded with deadly purpose even without greater strength?
Historical fencing generally takes place in an open space with greater latitude of movement and the competitors do not race to get a strike in first, but to get a strike in "cleanly" - it only scores if you can strike a significant target with your weapon and disengage without being struck in return.
I've sparred with padded knives before, and also with "shock knives" that deliver a non-dangerous, but unpleasant shock when you are "cut." Switching from the training knife to the shock knife quickly turns that sparring into a defensive contest.
One last permutation for thought. In our eskrima classes we used to do a drill where one person would start in a corner and be attacked by multiple opponents. The "room" was limited in size and could contain obstacles that limited the ways that one could attack or defend. There was a single exit on the far side of the "room" behind the attackers. It was the defender's job to escape the room with the fewest injuries they could manage. It might take place unarmed, or armed (empty hand, training knife, padded stick/blade) - differentially or similarly armed. If that were to be turned into a sport, how would it be scored? What would the "field" look like? What sorts of strikes would be allowed? Would there be a time limit? How would these rules decisions affect whehter it could be sex/gender neutral and still remain "fair?"
Posted by: nous | August 02, 2021 at 02:08 PM
Put a 200-lb weight limit on American football players and get rid of all illegal formation penalties and restrictions on who can catch or carry the ball. What would that look like?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 02, 2021 at 04:36 PM
Sledging, at least in the modern game, is of Australian rather than English origin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledging_(cricket)
Posted by: Nigel | August 02, 2021 at 05:14 PM
Nigel, that's interesting and I am no cricket historian, but in that wikipedia article, it has this
Despite the relatively recent coining of the term, the practice is as old as cricket itself, with historical accounts of witty banter between players being quite common. W. G. Grace and his brother E. M. were noted throughout their careers for being "noisy and boisterous" on the field. W. G. admitted that they used to "chaff" (i.e., tease) opponents, and this is seen as part of the gamesmanship for which E. M. and W. G. were always controversial.
Aussies did seem to sharpen it and they take a bit of joy in being exponents of it
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/the-joy-of-sledging-1727087.html
This is from theSun, so take it with a grain of salt but
Maxibon's research revealed hitting a six was the most exciting element of cricket.
But a fifth of fans said watching the players sledging each other was their favourite part.
That reflects life off the cricket pitch with over half that were polled admitting to regularly joking around with friends and family.
The banter isn't avoided in the workplace either showing it's not just the cricketers who like to get digs in at their colleagues.
This seems to parallel another bit of cricket history, which is the infamous bodyline bowling.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-21013615
You get, on the sports field, the whole stench of colonialism, where the mother country pulls some shit and then is shocked that it gets called on it. But a lot of people (I think) believe it was the Aussies that did it as opposed to the English.
I read (and laughed) a lot at sledges I had read, but my view changed quite a bit when I learned the back story of one famous sledge
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/the-nastiest-sledges-in-cricket-20131125-2y52y.html
Glenn McGrath v Ramnaresh Sarwan
After Glen McGrath’s wife Jane was diagnosed with breast cancer, Australia were hosting a Test against the Windies.
The circumstances didn’t deter McGrath from verbally tormenting Sarwan at the crease, however:
“Sarwan, what does Brian Lara’s d**k taste like?” the Aussie asked. “Why don’t you ask your wife?” Sarwan responded.
“If you ever mention my wife again I’ll rip your f**king throat out,” McGrath threw back. Both players looked like A1-class idiots.
A longer story
https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/glenn-mcgrath-and-ramnaresh-sarwan-reveal-the-ugly-side-of-cricket-136830
You would imagine that because the toxicity of the sledge has become known, people might take it off the list, or at least give the background. But I don't think that is the case, it is often pulled up as one of the 'greatests sledges ever!' and often stopping at what Sarwan says.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 02, 2021 at 05:53 PM
Put a 200-lb weight limit on American football players and get rid of all illegal formation penalties and restrictions on who can catch or carry the ball. What would that look like?
Rugby?
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | August 02, 2021 at 06:42 PM
Australian Rules Football?
Posted by: wj | August 02, 2021 at 07:32 PM
Wrong and wrong. Still set downs with a line of scrimmage, overhand forward passing, no kicking except on special teams, etc., etc., etc.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 02, 2021 at 08:10 PM
Put a 200-lb weight limit
https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/ufc-fighter-faints-on-scales-during-weigh-in-267326
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 02, 2021 at 09:17 PM
Re: football, initially it would look mostly like current football because no one will have any experience playing under the new rules. Sacks would be reduced because every blocker that gets beat becomes a safety valve receiver, so defenders would have to mark them. It would be faster, in that every player on the field will be sub 5.0 40-yard dash speed.
Posted by: Priest | August 02, 2021 at 10:04 PM
A book I read some years ago and some of whose crucial ideas seem somehow relevant, at least with respect to the ways cultural philosophy can be expressed in the choices of how a sport is played and governed, is E. Digby Baltzell's _Sporting Gentlemen_. It's a history of tennis, and the most salient point Baltzell makes was that until the rise of professional tennis, the point of the game was that it was a contest both against another and against oneself: e.g. you generally called out in or in for balls on your side of the court, and making the painful calls that fell against yourself correctly was part of the contest -- it wasn't worth giving yourself the lie in order to win. Playing fields of Eton and all that. Despite my love of all the traditional American team sports, it pained me for many years to see that the assumption the players were expected to make was that, if you get away with it, it isn't cheating. The point is to win. I recognize the classism that is the foundation of what Baltzell is talking about: those who don't have to play for money can afford to lose, or be willing to lose, in a way that professionals can't. But I still wish I lived in a world where sportsmanship was better treasured. (Pace Jack Nicklaus, Arthur Ashe, etc. etc.)
Posted by: JakeB | August 02, 2021 at 11:24 PM
Jake's comment reminds me of Huizinga" Homo Ludens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens
I could not find an electronic text, but *cough*library genesis*cough* It might be right
in the wheelhouse of some folks here.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 03, 2021 at 01:07 AM
nous, I'm wondering, with escrima, is there any kind of ranking system? And are there any tournaments? (I don't believe there are, but I'd be very interested in how they establish credentials)
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 03, 2021 at 04:04 AM
Fair point about WG Grace and the long history of banter, lj.
But in the modern game sledging definitely came in the 1970s, as I'm old enough to recall the (quite possibly confected) outrage that the Aussies provoked at the time.
And WG himself was an outlier in just about every respect - and pretty well single handedly responsible for the existence of the game as a national sport.
Posted by: Nigel | August 03, 2021 at 08:44 AM
Some of those links, lj....
Kimura:
...After a number of holds by the Japanese, including kesa-gatame, sankaku-jime and do-jime, the Brazilian looked unable to breathe under Kimura, but he persevered until he tried to switch position by pushing with his arm. At that moment, Kimura seized the limb and executed gyaku-ude-garami. Hélio did not surrender, and Kimura rotated the arm until it broke. As Gracie still refused to give up, Masahiko twisted the arm further and broke it again. Finally, when the judoka was about to twist it a third time, Gracie's corner threw the towel, and Kimura was declared winner....
Posted by: Nigel | August 03, 2021 at 10:35 AM
Hey all you sporty types, can we also have a new Open Thread? I just had to go through several pages of Different Skill Sets to check what the latest comment was....
Posted by: Girl from the North Country | August 03, 2021 at 11:24 AM
nous, I'm wondering, with escrima, is there any kind of ranking system? And are there any tournaments? (I don't believe there are, but I'd be very interested in how they establish credentials)
I really don't have a lot of experience with either of these topics. All my training was old school. I trained in the garage of the person who had inherited a personal system (third generation direct descent from a WWII bolo man commando. We had levels for training, but no rank system per se. Those who were motivated could push to "graduate" and test on the entire system, otherwise it was just showing up and praciticing. The only tournament we ever had was with students of another old school instructor who had known the founder, and it was organized mostly to get some cross-training in with people who fought in a different style.
The people I trained with were adamant that arnis/eskrima was a sword art and that those who trained as if it was "stickfighting" had lost the soul of the art. What we did was much closer to the sort of fencing you see described in the Spanish sword manuals from the 1600s, modified for use with agricultural blades.
I know that there has been a concerted effort in the Philippines to try to make Arnis/Eskrima/Kali a national martial art on the model of Tae Kwon Do for Korea, and a push for more standardization, but this is mostly the work of the last 40 years or so.
And like TKD, there is a tension between the schools that grew in the Philippines and the ones that are Filipino-American. It's the latter that ended up becoming an integral part of the whole Bruce Lee/Jeet Kune Do training through Guro Dan Inosanto.
Posted by: nous | August 03, 2021 at 12:34 PM
That last paragraph, the comparison is between Eskrima in the Philippines and TKD in Korea, and the transplanting of those arts via a combination of immigration and of military veterans returning from service at US bases in those countries.
Posted by: nous | August 03, 2021 at 12:37 PM
you generally called out in or in for balls on your side of the court, and making the painful calls that fell against yourself correctly was part of the contest -- it wasn't worth giving yourself the lie in order to win.
Not an entirely dead approach. In my youth, I was involved for some years in a historical recreation group called the Society for Creative Anachronism. One of its activities involves combat with (wooden!) broadswords. Blows are counted (would that be sufficient to cause injury? would that be sufficient to be fatal?) by the person struck.
Nobody ever gets to say "I won." Just "I lost." While there are social sanctions against someone who fails to acknowledge blows, the results of tournaments remain. And it works. Perhaps due, in part, to the lack of monetary rewards. But then, I know lots of people who do things entirely for non-monetary rewards.
Posted by: wj | August 03, 2021 at 01:37 PM
wj - the SCA mindset is still a large part of the Historical European Martial Arts community, even though the techniques of the combat have shifted a great deal due to historical work and cross-pollination with other weapon martial arts.
I've been dabbling in German longsword training since I left my eskrima group. There's a lot of overlap in the technique and footwork. It's easier for me to pick up than is the sword and board fighting that reverses the stance (though sword and buckler is closer, can't hide behind a tiny shield).
Posted by: nous | August 03, 2021 at 02:38 PM
sword and buckler is closer, can't hide behind a tiny shield.
In my experience, anyone who assumes he (or she) can hide behind a big shield is going to lose. I've even seen a couple guys try to get ahead with a full size Roman scutum. Didn't work -- actually, counterproductive; too heavy to move quickly.
Posted by: wj | August 03, 2021 at 03:04 PM
Large shields are for fights in formation not duelling.
Posted by: Hartmut | August 03, 2021 at 03:10 PM
The main thing with a shield is that the footwork usually puts the shield out ahead of the weapon (weak side forward - what I think of as "hiding behind") ahead of the exchange, where fencing and longsword tend to treat the weapon as both attack and defense and put strong side forward more often. Buckler is often weak side forward, but given how easy it is to cut around, the mindset stays more focused on controlling the opponent's blade rather than block-and-counter.
Posted by: nous | August 03, 2021 at 03:13 PM
weak side forward - what I think of as "hiding behind"
Ah, misunderstood your terminology.
Posted by: wj | August 03, 2021 at 03:16 PM
Ah, misunderstood your terminology.
I wasn't being very clear, so...
The viking sword and shield training I've done, the shield is held in the hand via central crosspiece rather than strapped to the arm and is used edge-on to meet the attack. That gives you about a foot of plywood to go through rather than a half inch, and keeps your vision less obstructed to watch for leg shots or short edge attacks over the top.
Posted by: nous | August 03, 2021 at 03:25 PM
Also, wj, given your vintage and location, was that the early SCA when Diana Paxson was still putting things together?
Posted by: nous | August 03, 2021 at 03:56 PM
nous, I didn't get involved until about 5 years in (circa 1970). Diana was still actively involved, but not actually running things, From then, I was quite active for a quarter of a century or so.
Mostly the shields were worn strapped across the left (for right handed fighters) forearm, which was held diagonally. When you were looking over the top, the bottom was about waist to hip level -- guarding the head or the thigh required rotation. Hence the inability to literally hide behind it.
Posted by: wj | August 03, 2021 at 04:07 PM
Nigel, yes, and a lot of people like to juxtapose that kind of stuff with judo being the 'gentle way'.
There is another post lurking about how judo became Brazilian jiu-jitsu and the Japanese diaspora, but maybe much much later.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 03, 2021 at 05:46 PM
Don't know if anyone is still (or ever) interested but I found this apropros
https://sports.yahoo.com/olympic-gold-medal-karate-match-191746870.html
Great kick, but you kicked him too hard!
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 07, 2021 at 06:55 PM
Spectators who are not aficionados might not appreciate the subtleties of karate. But is that a reason to reject it for the Olympics? After all, can most of us appreciate the nuances of dressage? I sure can't.
Posted by: wj | August 07, 2021 at 07:19 PM