<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I find it ironic that judo is also a "do" art rather than a "jutsu" art given its (current) emphasis on randori. I understand that randori is hardly combat, but I would contend that it is combat in a limited sense. Similarly, given jujutsu's emphasis on kata, I find it strange that it is still a "jutsu" art.
The only reason I can find for this discontinuity would be that the names are historical rather than reflecting their current nature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Rich, Nice to see you post every so often. I think your last sentence answers the previous...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
The primary tool for learning jujutsu (Nihon Jujutsu anyway) is kata. This is analogous to Uechi Ryu Karate Do (and most other traditional karate styles) as well as Aikido. However, judo seems to be taught in a reverse manner.
Donn Draeger saw or anticipated this. In his book, Judo: Formal Techniques, A Guide to Kodokan Randori no Kata, coauthored with Tadao Otaki, Dreager emphasized practicing "kata" to learn the broad range of techniques. Just practicing randori alone, he felt leads to over specialization in one or two techniques and perhaps bad form.
It should be noted that "kata" in karate is a solo exercise whereas the kata forms in jujutsu/aikido/judo are interactional in nature. In the latter, there is immediate feedback and the level of resistance can be increased according to skill levels. A good partner can keep one honest. The same cannot be said of solo kata, especially with one who wants to engage in self-delusion.