throw or takedown

[mikemurphy]

In Dana's forum, we have been discussing throws in the Uechi kata (no...we won't go there quite yet). As Dana explains them, I wondered if she were talking about takedowns and not actual throws. It seems that we have different views about what a throw actually is.

So here is the question, before I start spitting out my rhetoric once again, what definitions do you folks have for throws (nage waza) and takedowns?

mike

[f.Channell]

Mike,
In my mind a throw is disrupting a persons balance and throwing them at the ground or object to create injury.
A takedown is a technique to get them on the ground to continue the conflict there.
A lot of throws become takedowns if partially or totally unsuccessful.
The wrist lock throws etc.. I'm somewhat unfamiliar with-so I leave them out of my description.
Fred

[RA Miller]

Mike-

This is a purely personal breakdown with no claims to semantics or traditions but it really helps with a framework for teaching.

A 'true' throw, for me, is rotating uke's center of gravity around yours, like a classic hip or shoulder technique.

I break Takedowns into these categories:

A)'True' Throws
1) Full entry throws
2) Half entry throws
B) Momentum Ploys
C) Leverage Takedowns
D) Sweep
1) Static
2) Moving
2a) Cross
2b) Extension
E) Joint Lock Takedowns
1) Upward locks
2) Downward locks


Real takedowns in real life are almost always a combination of the types. Osot gari , for example is the classic static sweep but by applying pressure higher on the body, you exploit the principle of the leverage takedown....

It works for me, anyway. Even made it a canned class "The Art of the Takedown".

Rory

[mikemurphy]

Rory,

I hear where you are coming from. Classifying them all as takedowns is probably the safest way to describe them.

Fred,

Remember that all is not Judo my son ;-) After the throw, the fight is not done, so I would find a wrinkle in your description of a throw.

I have always taught a sequence of techniques that we try to practice:
1. Atemi (disruption)
1a. You could even say kozushi here if you were so inclined.
2. Nage waza (throw)
3. Osae or Kansetsu waza (lock or hold) to finish them off

This sequence is for a throw or takedown.

mike

[f.Channell]

Mike,
When I say successful throw I mean one on the street where they break a collarbone, arm or get knocked out.
If this doesn't happen I do know it continues.
Do either yourself or Rory see a difference of intent with the throws you mentioned, and what I would call a takedown which doesn't really intend to injure but to continue the fight on the ground, such as a shoot? Not that they can't hurt)
f.

[mikemurphy]

Fred,

You keep using the work "intent" as if there would be a difference whether I was throwing someone or taking them down. I would think that if under attack, if I bring someone down either way, my intent is to cause as much human injury as possible. For example, if I throw someone with a major hip throw (ogoshi), I'm going to pop them and then drill them into the ground (then do something really nasty :-) ) If I take someone down with Kotegaishi, Kotehineri, or Kotegatame, I'm breaking something in the process whether it be fingers, wrist, elbow, or shoulder. Then refer to my nasty comment again.

mike

[f.Channell]

Mike,
I really wasn't referring to your throws in Nihon, I was speaking more in terms of wrestling or sport jujitsu takedowns where the desire is just to take it down to the mat.
The Kote techniques I'm unfamiliar with,
now I got to break out my Nihon book.
I'm guessing their illegal in my game.
fred

[Karateka]

Mike,
In my mind a throw is disrupting a persons balance and throwing them at the ground or object to create injury.
A takedown is a technique to get them on the ground to continue the conflict there.
A lot of throws become takedowns if partially or totally unsuccessful.
The wrist lock throws etc.. I'm somewhat unfamiliar with-so I leave them out of my description.
Fred

That is true. In Japanese jiujitsu you would never try a takedown in the battle field but throw to end the fight.

[mikemurphy]

Karateka,

This is not entirely true. I study Japanese Jujitsu and I do learn both takedowns and throws, and I would use both in battle given a particular situation. If you are speaking of what a Samurai would do in battle, well then I would say he would use his sword. If his sword was unavailable, once again, he would do what was necessary in battle.

Jujitsu is a sword art, and a takedown is just a much part of the curriculum as a throw.

mike

That is true. In Japanese jiujitsu you would never try a takedown in the battle field but throw to end the fight. [/quote]

[Karateka]

I disagree. I too have studied Japanese ju jitsu and the point behind the takedowns that are taught are to remain standing or return to your feet as quickly as possible. If you were unarmed during a battle it’s hard to see someone trying to take the fight to the ground. BBJ for the street teaches this as well. At least we can agree to disagree , yours in the arts.

Karateka

[Steve]

Hey - you two are saying essentially the same thing. It all "hinges" on the definition of a takedown.

Mike began the thread by asking for definitions/differences. He then followed Rory's lead and broadly classified anything that puts the opponent on the ground as a takedown - meaning that a throw is a type of takedown. This is true but forms the basis for the confusion that follows.

Mike comes from a Japanese ju-jitsu and judo perspective. So does Fred and Karateka. In judo there is ground fighting similar to BJJ - but only after a controlled throw for additional points if the throw wasn't ruled an ippon (is this correct - working from memory?).

The ju-jitsu that Mike teaches focuses on throws (similar/same to judo) and control of the uke after the throw - not so much on groundfighting although it is also covered. I believe that this is the same for Karateka.

How about pondering this: "Are all throws takedowns?" contrasted with "Are all takedowns throws?" I believe that the former is true while the latter is false. I also agree with Karateka - and think that Mike, Rory and Fred may as well - that on the battlefield a nicely executed naga waza has more utility than a perfect double-leg takedown to the mount position - especially if there's more than one opponent. But Mike cautions about getting too focused on one technique - adding that he'd use whatever technique seemed right for the situation.

The missunderstanding is thus based upon the broader definition of takedown to include throws - Mike and Rory accept this, Fred and Karateka have not bought into this definition. I agree that all throws are takedowns, but suggest using the terms in the sense that Fred suggests - takedowns are more from a grappling (BJJ) perspective for one-on-one grappling arts and throws are more from a ju-jitsu/judo perspective.

Finally, having had my a** handed to me by Mike more than once on the mat (I'm a grappler), I'd rather be taken down by him than thrown by him. Something about gravity and landing correctly that I haven't figured out!