Back in May 2011, I wrote The Case Against Terminal Ippon. Although the idea didn’t gain much traction back then, it’s a good time to revisit this concept with all the talk going on currently about developmental rules and long-term athlete development (LTAD).
Happy New Year! Let’s start off 2012 with a bang! Here’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time. I know my ideas probably won’t get very far officially, but it’s important that we at least discuss them to see if they make sense for general skill development and self-defense.
I have often voiced my concerns that current IJF rules are undermining participation in Judo in the U.S., and perhaps in other nations as well, although I don’t have any evidence to that effect. I’ve also touched upon from time to time how these rules are also undermining the technical development of our players. With that in mind, I’d like to present a case for eliminating the match-ending terminal ippon.
As I get older, I’ve become less tolerant of things that irritate me. One big irritant has been the IJF rules. If you’ve been reading my blog, you know how many times I’ve complained about the silly rules and the clueless IJF luminaries who keep messing with my sport.
As I read the summaries of the recently held Sao Paulo World Cup and Brazil Grand Slam, I was taken aback, even though I shouldn’t be, by the relatively high number of matches during which only negative scores (penalties) were awarded, and positive scores were nowhere to be found. I think one match that ends with three penalties against two is already one too many. Unfortunately, there were other matches that wound up with the victor winning the battle of the penalties either 3-2 or 3-1 or 2-1. How exciting do you think those matches were? My daughter, Natalie, who competed at both events, said that there was a plethora of penalties, and she was bored out of her gourd watching the matches. Sounds about right.