Gō-No-Kata: The 'Lost' Kata of Kōdōkan Jūdō?: January 2012

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/293029681
Gō-no-kata: the 'lost' kata of Kōdōkan Jūdō?
Article · January 2012
CITATIONS READS
0 2,080
2 authors:
Carl De Crée Llyr Jones

Ghent University University of Hertfordshire
88 PUBLICATIONS 541 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sexual misconduct in judo federations View project
Shōnen Jūdō-no-kata View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Carl De Crée on 18 March 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This copy is for personal use only - distrib
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Kōdōkan Jūdō’s Elusive Tenth Kata: The Gō-no-kata

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.
– ”Forms of Proper Use of Force” – Part 1

Authors’ Contribution: Carl De CréeABCDE, Llyr C. JonesABCD
SE
A Study Design
B Data Collection
C Statistical Analysis
International Association of Judo Researchers, United Kingdom
D Manuscript Preparation
E Funds Collection Source of support: Self financing
U
Received: 21 January 2009; Accepted: 13 February 2009; Published online: 7 August 2009
LY L
Abstract
Background Kōdōkan Jūdō is a Japanese form of pedagogy created by Jigorō Kanō, based inter alia on neoconfucianist values,
and Study Aim:
N A
traditional Japanese martial arts, and modern Western principles developed by John Dewey, John Stuart Mill, and
Herbert Spencer. It was Kanō’s intention to educate both the mind and body. The practical study of jūdō includes
randori (free exercise), nine different kata (predetermined and choreographed physical exercises), and kōgi (lectures).
O N
In recent years, Gō-no-kata (“Prearranged forms of correct use of force”), a generally considered obsolete and re-
clusive ‘tenth’ kata of Kōdokan jūdō, has become the subject of some renewed interest. The purpose of the present
paper is to provide a comprehensive study of this kata which once formed a part of the standard jūdō curriculum.
SO
We also aim to remove the confusion and mystery which surrounds the gō-no-kata.
Material/Methods: To achieve this, we offer a careful critical analysis of the available literature and rare source material on this kata.
Results: The name gō-no-kata sporadically appeared in some of early Western jūdō books. Flawed research methods, as well
as the appearance of a true hoax presumably created with commercial intent, have led to widespread confusion
and misinformation in the West about the contents of the elusive gō-no-kata.
R
Conclusions: The origin of the misinformation on gō-no-kata can be traced back to modern jūdō authors failing to recognize
both important mistakes contained in early Western jūdō books and the fabrication in recent years of a bogus gō-
no-kata.
PE
Key words: Gō-no-kata • Jigorō Kanō • jūdō • kata • Kōdōkan
Author’s address: Professor Carl De Crée, P.O. Box 125, B-2800 Malines, Belgium, e-mail: prof.cdecree@earthlink.net
BACKGROUND a valuable training drill in most Japanese gendai budō1

and koryū2 arts. Kata represent the grammar of jūdō,
According to the founder of jūdō’s own words, the prop- and without properly mastering them, jūdō is often re-
Jūdō: Jūdō is a Japanese
form of pedagogy, created by er study of jūdō essentially has to involve both randori duced to a crude conglomerate of isolated throws merely
Jigorō Kanō, based inter alia and kata [1–5] This important cohesion between these based on power, endurance, and athletic achievement.
on neoconfucianist values,
traditional Japanese martial two building stones of jūdō virtually has been lost in Finn [6] provides a particularly insightful definition
arts, and modern Western modern times, partly because of the International Judo of the subject:
principles developed by John
Dewey, John Stuart Mill, and Federation’s (IJF) and national governing bodies’ em-
Herbert Spencer. phasis on the sports-competitive aspects of jūdō and “Kata: Prearranged forms in Japanese martial arts that
py is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.
Kata: Predetermined and

winning medals. Kata are intended and recognized as are like a living text book. They contain all the fundamental
choreographed physical
exercises, which together 1
Gendai budō ⃻ઍᱞ㆏ are modern Japanese martial arts which were established after the Meiji Restoration (1866–1869). In that way they
with free exercises (randori) distinguish themselves from classical or traditional or old martial arts (koryū). Gendai budō often are rooted in koryū.
and lectures (kōgi) form 2
Koryū ฎᵹ is a Japanese term that is used in association with the ancient Japanese martial arts. The word literally translates as old school
the three critical pillars of or old tradition. Koryū is a general term for Japanese schools of martial arts of which the creation predates the Meiji Restoration (1866–
Kōdōkan jūdō education. 1869) which sparked major socio-political changes and led to the modernisation of Japan.
© ARCHIVES OF BUDO VOLUME 5 | 2009 | 55
Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

Original Article
information in animate form, with which to perfect technique part of the sei-ryoku-zen’yō kokumin-taiiku. Thus, unlike
and understanding of the particular skill.” (…) in the pre-1930 period, kime-shiki and jū-shiki usually are
no longer considered separate kata, and for this reason,
Kōdōkan: The specific There are nine kata in Kōdōkan jūdō today, as accept- generally no longer appear under their separate names
name of the school and
ed by the time-honored headquarters of the jūdō world, in Kōdōkan kata lists4 [15].
style of budō as given by the

founder of jūdō Jigorō Kanō the Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute in Tōkyō, Japan [7–9]. These
(1860–1938).
nine kata are named as follows [7–10]: To provide context for some of the material that follows,
it is useful to explain how the aforementioned nine kata
Nage-no-kata (Forms of Throwing); are categorized according to purpose5. See Kotani, et al.
SE
Katame-no-kata (Forms of Grappling or Holding); [17] and Otaki and Draeger [18] for further details.
Kime-no-kata (Forms of Decisiveness);
Kōdōkan goshinjutsu (Kōdōkan Forms of Self-Defense); Together, the nage-no-kata and the katame-no-kata are
Jū-no-kata (Forms of Gentleness & Flexibility); known as Randori-no-kata (Forms of Free Exercise). The
Itsutsu-no-kata (The Five Forms); main purpose of these two kata is to facilitate the de-
U
Koshiki-no-kata (The Antique Forms); velopment of randori (“free practice”) skills. The kime-
Sei-ryoku-zen’yō Kokumin-Taiiku (National Physical no-kata and the Kōdōkan goshinjutsu, but also the joshi
Education according to [the principle of] best use of goshinhō, are classified as Shōbu-no-kata (Forms of self-
energy); defense) – within these kata the central objective is to de-
LY L
Joshi goshinhō (Methods of Self-Defense for Women). feat an adversary and survive. The jū-no-kata and the sei-
ryoku-zen’yō kokumin-taiiku are grouped as Rentai-no-kata
Of those nine kata only seven are most commonly per- (Forms of physical education), where the foremost ob-
N A
formed. Because of this reason one will often find more jective is to educate the body to remain healthy. Finally,
popular literature incorrectly claiming that there would the itsutsu-no-kata and the koshiki-no-kata are grouped to-
O N
be only seven or eight Kōdōkan jūdō kata [11,12]. With gether as Ri-no-kata (Forms of theory) – their core pur-
the exception of the Kōdōkan goshinjutsu and Joshi pose is to develop a higher understanding of the funda-
goshinhō, all the above kata are commonly attributed mental and deeper goku’i ( ᭂᗧ ‘essence’), perhaps even
SO
Jigorō Kanō: The founder of to the founder of jūdō, Dr. Jigorō Kanō (1860–1938) ‘esoteric’ principles (okuden ᅏવ or shinō ᷓᅏ ) of jūdō.
Kōdōkan jūdō, born in 1860,
died in 1938.
[12]. The Kōdōkan goshinjutsu was created by a panel
of experts in 1956 (see the text Kōdōkan Judo3 [13, pag- Despite this well-structured and generally considered
es 145–251] for full details about the first eight of the ‘complete’ curriculum, one must acknowledge that in ad-
above kata). Joshi goshinhō, the ninth kata, though offi- dition to the aforementioned nine kata, other – Kōdōkan
cially recognized by the Kōdōkan, has never gained great and non-Kōdōkan – kata exist in jūdō. Most of these kata
R
Gō-no-kata: “Prearranged popularity, not in Japan and even less so abroad, and it are not well known outside Japan and are rarely taught
forms of correct use of
force”, a physical exercise
is usually omitted from lists of kata or from jūdō text- or practiced [15,18,19].
books. Goshinhō can be considered as the equivalent of

PE
created by Jigorō Kanō and

presumably the oldest jūdō
kata, which until recently was
Kōdōkan goshinjutsu, designed specifically for the female The purpose of the present paper is to provide a com-
often considered defunct. and taking into account the types of attacks of which prehensive study of a kata that once formed part of the
females usually are the victim; the creation of this kata Kōdōkan curriculum, but no longer features, namely the
was ordered by Jirō Nangō, the second President of the Gō-no-kata ೰ߩᒻ (“Prearranged forms of correct use
Kōdōkan in the 1940’s, and completed by a technical of force”). In recent years, this generally considered ob-
team of experts within the Kōdōkan. The Itsutsu-no-kata, solete ‘tenth’ kata has become the subject of some re-
though also officially attributed to Jigorō Kanō [13,14], newed interest within jūdō circles. However, much of the
according to recent research dealt with elsewhere, was information in circulation on gō-no-kata, is contradicto-
not created by Kanō-shihan either [15,16], and neither ry, ambiguous, and even blatantly erroneous; at best, its
was Koshiki-no-kata [7,9,15], the latter which consists of contents and even its existence has been the subject of
two series of forms directly taken from Kitō-ryū jūjutsu, considerable speculation. We aim to remove this con-
more particularly, from its Takenakaha-style [15]. fusion and mystery which surrounds the gō-no-kata.
Two other Kōdōkan kata which are omitted from the above Our research questions are as follows:
list, namely, kime-shiki and jū-shiki, today are considered

3
Although Kanō is presented as author of this book, it is in fact a compilation by the Kōdōkan Institute that dates from long after Kanō
had already passed away, in this way honoring Jūdō kyōhon, the only book on jūdō which Kanō ever wrote, and of which he was able to
complete only the first part (1931) [4] before he passed away in 1938.
4
Abe I. Personal communication, USJF National Judo Conference; 2004, July 5–7th; Honolulu, HI.
5
Note that this categorization is not unique. For example, the jū-no-kata could equally be classified as a Ri-no-kata since it also illustrates
the fundamental principles of attack and defence found in jūdō.
VOLUME 5 | 2009 | 56 © ARCHIVES OF BUDO

De Crée C et al – Kōdōkan Jūdō’s Gō-nō-kata
What is the veracity of various claims made by certain sistive’. Simultaneously, one could argue that jūdō is not
publications that what they propose as gō-no-kata truly devoid of force, as long as it is applied efficiently and
represents the historic gō-no-kata ? with minimal effort. We will explain later how in the
gō-no-kata it is shown that the brute gō of uke fails, but
Does there exist a gō-no-kata in Kōdōkan jūdō ? the refined gō of the tori, after first having applied jū,
is successful. In other words, assuming that gō-no-kata

If a gō-no-kata exists, then what is its contents and the- simply condemns force is wrong. The kata accepts ef-
oretical foundation ? ficient force, but it rejects brute inefficient force. This
is very, very hard to cover in a translated title. Taking
SE
If gō-no-kata exists, then who practices it and where can these restrictions and concerns in mind, we propose the
it be observed and learnt ? term “Forms of correct use of force” as an acceptable,
defining English translation for Kōdōkan jūdō’s exercise
The first part of this series of three papers will mainly known under the name gō-no-kata.
focus on the first of those four main questions. To ad-
THE GŌ-NO-KATA IN WESTERN
U
dress these questions and achieve our purpose, we of-
fer a critical evaluation of the available literature and AND TRANSLATED JŪDŌ LITERATURE
source material on this kata. Rare material drawn from THROUGHOUT HISTORY
original and reliable sources will also be introduced to
LY L
support the drawing of definitive conclusions. This pa- According to the Kōdōkan New Japanese-English Dictionary
of Jūdō [20, page 142] the gō-no-kata was established in
per offers an important contribution to our knowl-

edge of Kōdōkan jūdō. It has implications for the cur- 1887 (also the year that the jū-no-kata was formed and
N A
rent jūdō syllabus, and also represent the only critical the itsutsu-no-kata is claimed to have been created). Note
scholarly study of this kata in both Western languag- that this is the only mention made of the gō-no-kata in
O N
es and Japanese. what is otherwise a fairly comprehensive jūdō glossary.
It is not known for sure what source the editors used to
PROPER TRANSLATION OF THE NAME support this date6, but no mention of this date is made
SO
“GŌ-NO-KATA” for gō-no-kata by Sanzō Maruyama’s (1893–1984) oth-

erwise exhaustive jūdō historical work [21]. As we will
It is very difficult at times to translate words from one see later, this date is not beyond challenge.
language to another without losing the intended usage
of the word. Gō ೰ literally means ‘hard’ in the sense of For the rest, one can only find some rare cursory ap-
opposite to yawara ᨵ which means “pliable” or ‘soft’; pearances of the name ‘gō-no-kata’ in a handful of jūdō
R
the kanji ᨵ is, of course, alternately pronounced ‘jū’ in books that have appeared in Western languages. For
terms like jūdō. Whilst the term ‘yawara‘ is often also this and other associated reasons, the gō-no-kata has be-
come thought of as the “lost or forgotten kata of jūdō”.

PE
used to describe textiles or in some cases people with

gentle personalities, ‘gō’ can be used describe a cold,
callous feeling towards another or unyielding as a hard- For example, Geoffrey Gleeson (1927–1994), the one-
ened piece of steel that will not dent as a result of a time national coach for the British Judo Association, and
blow of a hammer. one of the Kōdōkan’s former research students (kenshūsei
⎇ୃ↢ ) back in the 1950’s, and known for his more in-
Gō-no-kata is, therefore, very difficult to translate pre- tellectual and comprehensive approach to jūdō, writes:
cisely, since ‘gō‘ does not simply mean ‘strength’ in the
sense of physical strength, or even ‘force’ in the sense “Unfortunately the Go-no-kata has been lost”. [22]
of physical force. “Unyielding forms” would probably
be the most accurate translation; however, this does Gleeson’s viewpoint is understandable, and reflected
not fully reflect the nature and purpose of the kata the opinion of most Western jūdōka, including that of
as intended by Kanō-shihan. In the gō-no-kata, ‘gō‘ is senior kata specialists, in both the West and Japan. We
used as the opposite to the “way-giving pliability” of have already mentioned some of the reasons why, but
jū. Thus, it implies some stiffness, but more so a ‘resis- the situation necessitates further reflection. A brief re-
tance’, or “resistive force”. After all, not all force is ‘review of literature leads to the conclusion that no known
6
The authors most likely literally interpreted a comment from Kanō that was published in his biography [14] where it reads in the rele-
vant section about kata under the subheading Jū-no-kata, gō-no-kata: “I began studying it in the 20th year of Meiji …” (…) It is not clear though
whether this date should be interpreted as referring to the creation of gō-no-kata. Kanō writes the above section after having introduced
jū-no-kata, which more likely is the object of the above date. At the end of the section, Kanō writes: “In the 20th year of Meiji also this kata
had 10 hon; that later on became 15”. (…) Only after this sentence to conclude the part on jū-no-kata, Kanō introduces gō-no-kata: “Then
there is gō-no-kata, which is totally different from jū-no-kata”. (…) It is our opinion that the syntaxes of these sentences suggest that the year
1887 as date of creation only applies to jū-no-kata, not to gō-no-kata.
www.archbudo.com 57 | 2009 | VOLUME 5

Original Article
work commonly available to the general public by an This kata was designed to develop muscular power. The opposite
author of stature, describes this kata. of ju-no-kata, force is used against force. Based on attack and
defence, in a contest of strength, the more forceful gains the
Three historic authors who fulfilled a leading role in the controlling position over the other.
development of jūdō in the West, and whose texts were
published in Western languages, did mention the gō-no- There are fifteen exercises practiced in the same manner as
kata in their books. These authors are Moshé Feldenkrais, ju-no-kata.
Gunji Koizumi, and Mikonosuke Kawaishi. However,
it must be pointed out that neither Gleeson, nor any This kata has not been popular, probably because it is too much
SE
of the above three authors are referenced or annotated, like gymnastic exercises. I am not familiar enough with it to
and the claims made are either unverifiable (they pro- give full details.” (…) [24, p. 8]
vide no details of the original primary7 sources), or else,
with a few notable exceptions, are based on uncorrob- Koizumi’s position is understandable. Together with
orated oral accounts. Kawaishi he was probably the most senior jūdōka in
U
Europe at that time, yet Koizumi’s own education was
1944 – MOSHÉ FELDENKRAIS – JUDO: not in jūdō, but in jūjutsu. By the time Koizumi … ‘con-
THE ART OF DEFENCE AND ATTACK [23] verted’ … to jūdō, Jigorō Kanō had already ceased teach-
ing gō-no-kata, and the gō-no-kata had already been in
LY L
Writing in 1944 in his book Judo: The Art of Defense and disuse in Japan for dozens of years. Therefore, Koizumi
Attack [23], Dr Moshé Feldenkrais8 (1904–1984) includes most likely never learnt it, hence his errors regarding the
the gō-no-kata in his list of most common kata as follows: number of techniques in the gō-no-kata (fifteen, instead
N A of, correctly, ten).
The most common Katas are: ”… (2) Go-No-Kata for developing
1957 – MIKONOSUKE KAWAISHI – THE
O N
strength…” (…) [23, p. 176]
COMPLETE 7 KATAS OF JUDO [25]
This is a rare reference to the gō-no-kata in a Western
SO
text. It is made rarer still in that it provides an accu- The most commonly known reference for the gō-no-kata
rate, if succinct summary of the gō-no-kata’s purpose. is the one found in the seminal book The Complete 7 Katas
However, how or where precisely Feldenkrais obtained of Judo [25] by Mikonosuke Kawaishi (1899–1970).
this information is not known, since no further details
are given, nor original references provided. It is known “There are…many other Judo Katas. I shall mention only a
though that Feldenkrais sent a copy of the manuscript few that have fallen into disuetude:
R
to Kanō-shihan for approval. It is also known that Kanō

had many deep concerns about the contents of the man- The Shobu-no-Kata10, or Kata of Attack (more literally Contest);
PE
uscript of which he thought, much was incorrect. Lack

of time did not allow Kanō to completely edit the man- The Go no Kata, or Kata of Force or of blows, more characteristic
uscript so he limited himself to providing a number of of Karate-do (the technique of the Atemis).” [25, p. 11]
suggestions and selective corrections. It is thus plausible
that the information came from Jigorō Kanō personally. This extract is the only mention that Kawaishi makes
of the gō-no-kata in his entire book. He does not pro-
1948 – GUNJI KOIZUMI – BUDOKWAI vide any further technical details on the kata, nor any
QUARTERLY BULLETIN [24] list of the techniques contained therein. To the best of
our knowledge, it is in Kawaishi’s book that the first
Writing in 1948 in the Budokwai9 Quarterly Bulletin, Gunji mention of gō-no-kata containing striking techniques is
Koizumi (1885–1965) summarized his understanding made; it is also therein that the first association of gō-
of the gō-no-kata as follows: no-kata with karate is made. Accordingly, we opine that
all other, later references of the gō-no-kata being a kata of
“Goh-no-kata (kata of forcefulness). blows, originate with Kawaishi as their original source.
7
A primary source is an original manuscript, text or material relating to a particular subject.
8
Dr. Moshé Feldenkrais was the founder of the Feldenkrais Method designed to improve human functioning by increasing self-aware-
ness in movement.
9
The Budokwai is believed to be the oldest jūdō club in Great Britain. It was founded in January 1918 by Gunji Koizumi who is known
as the “Father of British Jūdō”.
10
The Shōbu-no-kata should not be confused with the Shinken-shōbu-no-kata, the latter which merely is another name for Kime-no-kata. The
content of the original Shōbu-no-kata remains unknown to date [15].

Kawaishi’s book was translated into English, from the site. In the article [29] a summary of the available mate-
original French by the veteran British journalist and jūdōka rial on the gō-no-kata is presented. Ohlenkamp acknowl-
E.J. Harrison. It is unclear why Kawaishi expressed gō-no- edges that several versions of the kata are in existence,
kata in essentially two different ways i.e. “kata of force” but despite questioning the pedigree of some of these vari-
and ”kata of blows”. One can only conjecture that either ants, he stops short of drawing definitive conclusions and
Kawaishi was unfamiliar with the kata himself and made presenting an authoritative definition of the gō-no-kata.
a mistake, or else he was misunderstood. One possible Furthermore, in a personal communication, Ohlenkamp
explanation would be that at some point the gō-no-kata acknowledges that he simply collated some findings and
was confused with the Gohō-ate (Five-direction Strike) reprinted claims made by others as well as their referenc-
SE
section of the Tandoku-renshū (Individual Exercises) comes, without him actually critically analyzing those claims
ponent of Sei-ryoku zen’yō kokumin taiiku. What is cer- or reading many of the references quoted by either those
tain, is that the error was not made by the English trans- authors or by himself. Consequently, this particularly
lator Harrison, as the original French language version of review article contains various inaccuracies and errors.
the text [26] refers to both “kata de la force” and “kata des
U
atemis”. Most likely, what applied (and what is explained Ohlenkamp, for example, writes:
above) to Koizumi, also applies to Kawaishi, that is, that
both had their formal training in jūjutsu rather than jūdō, “According to Kodokan Professor Toshiro Daigo, the Yuko no
and that by the time they converted to jūdō, gō-no-kata Katsudo published by the Kodokan in November 1921 …”
LY L
had already disappeared from the Kōdōkan’s curriculum (…) Ohlenkamp [29].
for dozens of years, and was taught only sporadically and

kept alive by just a handful of jūdō exponents in Japan. This claim precedes a detailed list of the techniques in
N A the gō-no-kata. Ohlenkamp admitted not having person-
So, where did Kawaishi get his information about gō-no- ally checked this reference (which is very hard to find in
O N
kata from ? As you will see further, we argue that there is the West, and entirely in Japanese). After verification of
reason to believe that Kawaishi may have obtained this that particular reference [1], it can be stated here with cer-
information from no one else but Yves Klein, who had tainty that a detailed description, such as that implied by
SO
just three years earlier published his book Les fondements Ohlenkamp, is not contained therein. Having inquired di-
du judo [27] – which was entirely devoted to kata – but, rectly with Toshirō Daigo-sensei, the Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute’s
who was misread by Kawaishi. Chief-Instructor, about this statement during a conversa-
tion in August of 200511, Daigo could not recall ever hav-
For completeness, it is necessary to note that Geoffrey ing made such a statement. Daigo also added not knowing
Gleeson presents a modern (self-styled) gō-no-kata in (then) himself of any technical references on gō-no-kata
R
one of his texts – namely The Complete Book of Judo [28, p. in Japanese or other languages12, and also expressed that
113–126]. However, Gleeson freely acknowledges that he was not knowledgeable in this kata himself. However,
this gō-no-kata is his own original creation and makes no

PE
these errors do not detract significantly from what oth-

claim that it is in any way associated with the original. erwise is a valuable contribution by Ohlenkamp’s article
Accordingly, this variant will not be considered further. to the state of knowledge on the gō-no-kata.
Instead, a web-based article that summarizes much of the
available material on the gō-no-kata will be evaluated as a THE ELUSIVE CHARACTER OF GŌ-NO-KATA
starting point to the detailed literature review proper. Also, TODAY
since this article is featured on what currently (2008) prob-
ably is the most popular website on information about jūdō The scarce, yet conflicting literature data findings dem-
[29], it has some impact on the jūdō community. onstrated in the paragraphs above, suffice to establish our
case for conducting research into gō-no-kata. Recall that
2003/2008 – NEIL OHLENKAMP – GŌ- the gō-no-kata does not feature in the contemporary list
NO-KATA [29] of Kōdōkan-recognized kata. Furthermore, over the past
couple of years, the Kōdōkan Institute itself has somewhat
The most complete review of the gō-no-kata available in the obfuscated the situation by invariably ignoring most re-
West and in the English language, to date, was compiled quests for any information pertaining to gō-no-kata – on
by Neil Ohlenkamp and published on his Judo Information some occasions even having bluntly denied its very exis-
Site, a to the general public freely accessible Internet web- tence13. One can only imagine, that if at the world mec-
11
Daigo T. Personal communication; 2005, August 3rd; Tōkyo: Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute.
12
Only in his January 2009 article, Toshirō Daigo, now for the first time includes a reference (the one by Kuhara [30]) that details the
techniques of gō-no-kata.
13
Abe I. Personal communication, USJF National Judo Conference; 2004, July 5–7th; Honolulu, HI.

Original Article
ca of jūdō indeed no sensei would supposedly know any- Consequently, attempts to research or find out more
thing about gō-no-kata, then how and where would one about gō-no-kata quickly lead to considerable frustra-
be able to find a sensei that can demonstrate, let alone, action. And yet, the gō-no-kata is not extinct – it is only ex-
tually teach this kata ? tremely rare. Indeed, genuine sources are available and,
provided one knows where to look, an expert teacher
Consequently, for those kata enthusiasts, Japanese or can be found. Unfortunately, instead of trying to locate
other, who have expressed an interest in learning how such a teacher and consulting those genuine resourc-
to practice this kata, efforts to find a sensei competent es, the situation has now been complicated by the cre-
in gō-no-kata invariably prove futile. None of the three ation of fake gō-no-kata partly for the marketing pur-
SE
current (as of 2006) Kōdōkan 10th dan holders (Ichirō poses and ensuing financial gain, as will become clear
Abe, Toshirō Daigo and Yoshimi Ōsawa) teach, nor from the next chapter.
have been known to practice gō-no-kata. Having asked
Abe-sensei in summer 2004 if he personally knew about TWO CONFLICTING SCHOOLS OF
the gō-no-kata, he responded that “it did not exist” THOUGHT
U
[‘arimasen’]14. Though the Japanese word ‘arimasen’ is
somewhat ambiguous, as in addition to expressing that An examination of the literature and other media will re-
something “does not exist”, it may also express that a veal two conflicting schools of thought regarding the gō-
person himself does not have the information or knows no-kata’s development and content. These are as follows:
LY L
anything about it, without necessarily denying its actu-
One, that the gō-no-kata was developed by Kanō as a
al (historic) existence. Knowing that Abe-sensei is a di-

rect student of Hideichi Nagaoka-sensei (1876–1952), complement to the jū-no-kata. The aim of the kata was
N A
who in turn was himself a 10th dan and direct student to help the participants learn the basics of jūdō tech-
of Kanō-shihan, and knowing (according to reliable doc- niques, by first opposing each other with strength and
O N
uments, see inter alia, Kuhara [30]) that Nagaoka-sensei later switching to a skilful yielding movement. As im-
apparently knew how to perform gō-no-kata. Abe’s replied by its name, practice of kata also helped develop
sponse was somewhat disappointing, yet not entirely physical strength.
SO
unexpected. Thus, we probed further and asked Abe-

sensei if he ever had seen Nagaoka-sensei perform gō-no- The other, that the gō-no-kata is a fusion of Kano’s jūdō
kata. Once more the response was negative15. and the karate of Gichin Funakoshi (1868–1957), and
features primarily a blend of jūdō throwing techniques
So we asked the same question a couple of months later (nage-waza) and karate striking techniques (atemi-waza).
to Keiko Fukuda, another world-renown kata expert and
R
one of the longest active jūdō practitioners [she started GŌ-NO-KATA, A KATA OF BLOWS OR
jūdō in 1935] who had known Kanō-shihan personally, ATEMI-WAZA ?
and who had trained under both Kyūzō Mifune-sensei

PE
(1883–1965) and Kaichirō Samura-sensei (1880–1964), Under this heading we critically evaluate in detail the lit-
both equally 10th dan holders. Fukuda-sensei responded erature and media that argue that the gō-no-kata is based
she had never been taught gō-no-kata, and could not re- on a synthesis of jūdō and karate techniques. All of the
member with certainty if a long time ago (before World sources supporting this thesis are relatively modern. The
war-II) she might have seen it being performed16. Others major proponents responsible for distributing this vision,
have claimed having asked similar questions to Naoki are Kawaishi [25], Parulski [31,32], Muilwijk [33–35]
Murata-sensei, the present curator of the Kōdōkan muse- and Oettlin [36] will be critically evaluated. Particular
um and library, and having received similar responses. scrutiny will be applied to the claims of Muilwijk, as
his perspective on the gō-no-kata was gaining consider-
Alternative options such as conducting a search on the able momentum, especially in Europe.
Internet in Japanese on the gō-no-kata, do not yield a sin-
gle relevant source, other than two or three that have a As pointed previously, it is most likely Mikonosuke
list with yearly historical events indicating the year of the Kawaishi (1899–1970), at that time the senior jūdō
kata’s creation. For the rest, false positives are returned a teacher in France, who is originally responsible for dis-
couple of times which relate to Okinawan Gōjū-ryū karate, tributing the view of gō-no-kata, as a karate-like exercise.
within which a separate gō-no-kata or gōjū-no-kata may Indeed, in his 1957 opus magnum The Complete 7 Katas
be found, that has no relationship to jūdō whatsoever. of Judo, he literally writes [25, p. 11]: “The Go no Kata,
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Fukuda K. Personal communication. Sōkō Joshi Jūdō Club Monthly Kata Clinic; 2006, May 6th; San Francisco, CA.

or Kata of Force or of blows, more characteristic of Karate-do One has to be careful here. Though Klein does say that
(the technique of the Atemis).” (…). gō-no-kata was apparently being practiced also in karate
dōjō, Klein does nowhere say or even suggest that gō-
Though Kawaishi does not further elaborate on this no-kata would contain, or originate (partially) from,
statement anywhere else in his entire written oeuvre, re- karate. Our interpretation of Klein’s words is that gō-no-
cent developments in the jūdō world show that this re- kata was used there as a structured warm-up exercise,
grettable, erroneous statement has formed the doubtful and certainly not as a formal ceremonial exercise or as
bedrock of so-called “new discoveries”. There is no ev- a type of kihon (basics). Any interpretation from Klein’s
idence whatsoever that Kawaishi himself knew or had description that gō-no-kata would even contain actual
SE
ever even seen gō-no-kata being performed. At the time karate strikes is absolutely preposterous, and solely on
when Kawaishi ‘converted’ to jūdō, gō-no-kata was al- account of the person misreading Klein.
ready relatively elusive, and had officially disappeared
from the Kōdōkan curriculum. Moreover, the Butokukai The first person to be either misguided … or … “make
in Kyōto and its formal budō teacher school, the Busen use” of Kawaishi’s error is George Parulski in his 1985
(abbreviation for Budō Senmongakkō ᱞ㆏ኾ㐷ቇᩞ ),
U
publication. What is certain, is that the error was not
where most Japanese budō masters who came to Europe made by the English translator Harrison, as the original
in the early 20th century found their origin, never had French language version of the text [26] refers to both
gō-no-kata in its official curriculum. Kawaishi unaware “kata de la force” and “kata des atemis”.
LY L
of the later consequences of his statement, in his book
1985 – GEORGE PARULSKI – BLACK
is simply trying to provide background for the various

other kata that he does explain and for the concept of BELT JUDO [31]
N A
kata itself, by saying: “Look, kata is a form of training,
and more kata exist and could be created in future”. In In the book Black Belt Judo [31] published under the aus-
O N
doing so, Kawaishi, merely communicates the vision of pices of the now defunct American Society of Classical
Kanō, completely in line with what Mifune also states Judoka, George Parulski Jr. presents a description of the
in his Jūdō kōza [37]. gō-no-kata (and the shōbu-no-kata) that paraphrases the
SO
one provided previously by Kawaishi:

However, this explanation still does not clarify how
Kawaishi came to link jūdō and karate through the gō-no- “…there are Shobu-no-kata, or forms of attack (or contest),
kata. We assert that Kawaishi did in fact not learn this and Go-no-kata, or forms of force. The latter is more like a kata
information from any Japanese source, but from simply of karate-do than of Judo since it is a prearranged pattern of
reading Yves Klein’s 1954 book Les fondements du judo blocks, strikes and kicks done with power and focus (kime).”
R
[27], which predates Kawaishi’s book by three years, (…) [31, p. 72].
and which, interestingly, too was published in France.
Klein17 became fascinated with jūdō in the early 1950s

PE
No reference to Kawaishi’s work is made in Parulski’s text

and went to Japan for 15 months to study jūdō. Upon and, like Kawaishi, Parulski provides no further details
his return in 1954 as a 4th dan holder, he completed his of the gō-no-kata. Black Belt Judo has to be viewed careful-
book, entitled, Les fondements du judo [27]. ly, as there are many factual inaccuracies and Parulski’s
own interpretations to be found throughout the work.
What is very interesting for the purpose of this article Additionally, the instructional text and photographs that
is that in the same book, Klein writes: describe how to perform the various kata therein often de-
viate significantly from the accepted Kōdōkan standard, and
“… Autrefois on pratiquait le Kata de ‘Go’ (dix techniques), reflect considerable dilettantism. Particularly questionable,
qui était l’étude de la puissance, force physique, violence et is the material associated with the more advanced kata.
contractions. Au Japon, on pratique encore aujourd’hui ce
Kata assez étrange dans les dojos de ‘Karate’ (sorte de ‘savate’ 1998 – GEORGE PARULSKI – ISAO
japonaise)”. (…) [27, p.18]. OBATO’S LOST KATA OF JUDO – VOLUME
1, HOAX #1 ?
[“… Formerly they used to practice ‘Gō-no-kata’ (ten tech-
niques), which was the study of power, physical force, Thirteen years later, in 1998, Parulski goes a step fur-
violence and contractions. In Japan, they still practc- ther in a CD-ROM-based film [32], entitled Isao Obato’s
se this rather strange Kata in ‘Karate’ (kind of Japanese Lost Kata of Judo – Volume 1 [38, p. 7]. On this CD-ROM,
‘French boxing’) dōjō today.” (…)]. George Parulski claims that he would have re-discov-
17
Yves Klein, today is mostly remembered as an avant-gardist Jewish-French artist who also authored … and created an ultramarine-like
color, officially patented as “Klein International Blue”, which he abundantly used in some of his paintings.

Original Article
ered and restored various obsolete jūdō kata, which he

is now making available to the jūdō community to …
prevent them from falling subject to further extinction.
Parulski demonstrates a self-styled gō-no-kata that clear-
ly is a combination of contemporary jūdō nage-waza and
karate atemi-waza. His assertion that this kata would be

the genuine gō-no-kata will now be evaluated.
Parulski claims that he learnt the kata from his own sensei,
SE
Isao Obato, and asserts that Obato had direct lineages
to both Mifune and Kanō:
“The founder of the American Society of Classical Judoka,

Isao Obato held the rank of 8th dan in judo with black belt
U
certification in jo-jutsu, iai-do, aikido and jujutsu. Born
in Osaka, Japan, Obato was a student of Kyuzo Mifune, a
Kodokan 10th dan from whom Obato said to have learned 20
judo kata (pre-arranged forms). Many of these kata were not
LY L
included or completed in the Kodokan syllabus. Still others
were once there and are on longer taught.” (…) [38, p. 3]

N A
“The author of this tape, Dr. George R. Parulski, Jr. was a direct
student of Isao Obato. Obato sensei as a boy was a student of
Figure 1. Jigorō Kanō’s rare 1931 publication Jūdō kyōhon
O N
both Jigoro Kano, the founder or Judo and [Kyūzō] Mifune
Sensei. Obato sensei devoted his life to teaching what he referred jōkan [A textbook of jūdō] [4], the only major
textbook on jūdō written by its creator, and from
to as “classical judo” and taught complete judo up until his
which gō-no-kata has already been omitted.
SO
death in 1986.” (…) [32]

establishment of the final form of kime-no-kata at the
When explaining the source ‘his’ kata, Parulski expands Butokukai [15,39].
upon the description in his book [31] and claims that
the gō-no-kata as demonstrated, represents a fusion of Parulski, further claims that the gō-no-kata (and other
Kanō’s jūdō and Funakoshi’s Shōtōkan karate: so-called ‘lost’ kata) were contained in the original 1934
R
Japanese version of the book Kodokan Judo that is in com-

“This video teaches Go-no-kata (forms of hardness) showing mon use today, and also in the more common 1954 edi-
PE
the link between Funakoshi’s karate-do and Kano’s Judo.” tion which precedes the current 1986 one. Moreover,
(…) [38, p. 7]. Parulski also claims that the 1934 edition would have
been authored by Kanō-shihan himself:
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time
that an explicit connection between these two great “In defense, all we can say is that the 1934 edition of Kodokan
masters of different budō disciplines is claimed that Judo (that is the Japanese version authored by Jigoro Kano the
would have resulted in the development of the gō- founder of Judo mentions) each of these kata. The 1954 edition
no-kata. Parulski’s statement is historically incorrect. of Illustrated Kodokan Judo, authored by the Kodokan, mentions
Whilst Kanō-shihan and Funakoshi-shihan did meet some but not all of these kata, and the newest 1980s version
and did have conversations (also, see further), and mysteriously is devoid of any mention of these kata.” (…) [32]
while Kanō-shihan was open to other budō, and to-
wards the end of his life even opened up the Kōdōkan Parulski is correct in that the 1986 edition of Kodokan
for the teaching of other budō, such as for example Judo [13] does not mention the gō-no-kata. However, the
jōjutsu and bōjutsu, there is no evidence of any ongo- 1955 version entitled Illustrated Kodokan Judo [40] does
ing cooperation between Kanō and other budō-masters not either. It does make reference to nine18 kinds of kata
to further formalize jūdō techniques after the 1906 taught at the Institute [40, p. 161). As for the claims
18
Two kata that do not feature today are listed in the 1954 text [40] namely the Fujoshi-Goshin-no-Kata, “Forms of Self-Defence for Girls
and Women” and the Ippon-yō-Goshin-no-Kata, “Forms of Self-Defence for Men”. These are not existing kata, however neither are they
“lost kata”. The 1954 book was published when the Goshinjutsu Committee was still working to finalize what is now known as Kōdōkan
Goshinjutsu. The Ippon-yō-Goshin-no-kata simply became Kōdōkan goshinjutsu as we know it today. The Fujoshi-Goshin-no-kata is what we
know today as Joshi (Jūdō) goshinhō. To allow a more free way of defending and attacking, in both the exercise for males and the one for
females, the term kata was dropped, and in the one for females replaced by the word for ‘method’ – hō ᴺ . See Kotani et al. [17] for a
detailed description of the Joshi (Jūdō) goshinhō.

Table 1. Gō-no-kata: “Forms of Hardness & Strength”. From De Crée [42], by permission; data based on Parulski [32],
using Shōtōkan karate terminology.
Omote
1. Gyaku-tsuki Reverse thrust/strike
2. Oi-tsuki Stepping thrust/strike

3. Mae-geri (keage) Front snap kick
4. Ushiro-(hidari)-kata-dori (Left) Shoulder grab from behind
5. Katate-tekubi-dori Single hand wrist hold
SE
6. Ushiro-ryōte-dori Two hand hold from behind
8. Ushiro-kata-dori Shoulder grab from behind
U
10. Mae-kubi-jime Front neck choke
11. Mae-kubi-jime Front neck choke
Tachi-ai
12.
LY L Katate-tekubi-dori Single hand wrist hold


14.
N A Oi-tsuki Stepping thrust/strike
O N
16. Ushiro-jime Choke from Behind
17. Mae-kubi-jime Front Strangle
SO

19. Mawashi-tsuki Roundhouse punch
20. Yama-tsuki Mountain punch (Double hand punch)
pertaining to a 1934 text, no such 1934 edition of this ty is peculiar, to say the least. All jūdō kata created by
R
book exists. The original edition of this book was indeed Kanō-shihan (nage-no-kata, katame-no-kata, jū-no-kata,
written by Kanō-shihan, but published in 1931, not in and shōbu-no-kata) in their original form contained
PE
1934, and was never reprinted in its original version [4] just ten techniques [39,21]. It would be somewhat cu-
(Figure 1). In this book, the first volume (hence the suf- rious, for gō-no-kata, created in 1887 or earlier (pre-
fix ‘-jōkan’ ਄Ꮞ ) of what was clearly supposed to become 1885), thus following the earlier ten-technique nage-
a two-volume oeuvre, Kanō-shihan does not mention a and katame-no-kata, and chronologically in the same
word about gō-no-kata. Kanō-shihan never completed the time period as jū-no-kata, to have a completely differ-
manuscript for the subsequent volume (‘-gekan’ ਅᏎ ). ent number of techniques than any of the other kata.
The book was completely reworked by the Kōdōkan af- Note that Nage-, katame-, and jū-no-kata were then re-
ter Kanō-shihan passed away in 1938, and was greatly worked over the next twenty years (for jū-no-kata even
expanded to bridge the virtually entire jūdō curriculum. longer) until they consisted of fifteen techniques [21].
It was finally published in 1955, first in Japanese [41],
and subsequently in English [40] and French. While it is correct that today’s kime-no-kata and Kōdōkan
goshinjutsu have twenty or even twenty-one techniques,
Parulski’s gō-no-kata, contains twenty techniques. He respectively, their history and the situation is quite dif-
does not provide a formal listing of the twenty tech- ferent from that of gō-no-kata or the other Kōdōkan-
niques in his kata, although each technique is demon- specific kata. Kanō’s original shōbu-no-kata was greatly
strated consecutively. An effort to provide such a listing revamped and converted into a shinken-shōbu-no-kata and
using the most appropriate Shōtōkan karate descriptor for expanded to about thirteen or fourteen techniques [43],
each technique is made in Table 1. and it was not until the 1906 meeting of the Butokukai
that by input of various masters from different jūjutsu
A closer look at Parulski’s exercise, for most jūdō schol- schools, in particular Tenjin shinyō-ryū, Yōshin-ryū, and
ars will immediately raise concerns. The number twen- Sōsuishitsu-ryū, it resulted in the 20-technique kime-no-

Original Article
kata we know today. However, gō-no-kata never went sitting down or standing up with the wrong knee, no
through such an evolution, and Kanō left it untouched proper awareness of tsugi-ashi and a lack of coordination
from its original ten-technique form. [15] between tori and uke, to an expert, suggest that the per-
former has only a rudimentary knowledge of jūdō kata.
It is obvious that there is no commonality between the
“gō-no-kata” demonstrated by Parulski and Kōdōkan jūdō’s It is also necessary to indicate to the reader that there
gō-no-kata form described elsewhere in this paper. The is considerable controversy about the credentials and
problems with “the Parulski version” do not stop at the even the actual existence of a person by the name of
unusual number of techniques which Parulski propos- Isao Obato19. The reader interested in these reports can
SE
es. Parulski’s kata is divided into two sections: eleven access the debates by performing a simple search at an
Omote ⴫ , (translated by him as “Front Fundamental internet resource for Japanese martial arts and culture
Techniques”) and nine Tachi-ai ┙ว (“Continuous – www.e-budo.com. A Google search on the Internet will
Attacks”). It is apt to note that such a division is some- yield dozens of disqualifying discussions of the many
what curious, and that contrasting a series called Omote other claims made by Parulski.
U
with a series called Tachi-ai is highly inconsistent and
nonsystematic. While the concept of omote is not typi- Additionally, we note that Parulski himself provides a
cally used in jūdō, except for in koshiki-no-kata, which is remarkable disclaimer for ‘his’ gō-no-kata, in which he
originally a jūjutsu (kumi-uchi) exercise and which has seems refer to long-established Kōdōkan policies:
LY L
been preserved from Kitō-ryū, it is typically contrasted
with ura. The meaning of omote in Kitō-ryū also is not
“The viewer is warned that with the current state of judo politics
“front techniques” as the word is often translated into, making claims to teaching ‘lost katas’ might be met with great
N A
for example, in aikidō [7,8]. Tachi-ai in jūdō refers to a resistance and a degree of mistrust and doubtfulness on the part
standing position, to express contrast with a kneeling of many judo leaders. Even direct inquiries to the Kodokan are
O N
position, the latter which was the common formal po- answered with statements such as ‘These Katas Never Existed’,
sition which a subject typically assumes when inside a or better still, ‘We have no records of an Isao Obato training
building in the old Japan. Hence, it is in jūdō typically with this Institution.’” (…) [32]
SO
contrasted with idori ዬข .

It has already been explained in this paper how the
Whilst a detailed critique of Parulski’s actual perfor- Kōdōkan views the gō-no-kata. However, the Institution’s
mance goes beyond the purpose of this paper, it is use- genuine reticence to embrace the gō-no-kata should in no
ful to provide a summary evaluation of his alleged gō- way be used to add credence to Parulski’s gō-no-kata as be-
no-kata display. ing authentic, as all circumstantial evidence would indicate
R
that it is not. The detailed evaluation of Jan Muilwijk’s

There is no doubt that what Parulski shows are effective, gō-no-kata that follows later, will reinforce this point.
PE
sometimes even spectacular movements. However, an

overall lack of appropriate reaction and efficiency per- We also point out that there exists no such name as
meates the entire kata. For example, a basic, relatively ‘Obato’ in Japanese. None of the native Japanese schol-
innocent wrist grab is countered with disproportionate ars we have consulted, has ever heard of such a name.
nerve strikes and a throwing technique. Overall, the ex- Authoritative Japanese name reference works such as P.G.
ercise shown by Parulski more resembles torite than that O’Neil’s20 [44], do not contain an entry for the name
it resembles jūdō, which is quite unlike what Kōdōkan’s ‘Obato’ as an existing Japanese surname, nor does such
gō-no-kata does, or was aiming for. a name appear anywhere in their extensive glossaries. It
is speculated that the name “Isao Obato” is a fabrication
Careful study of the kata performance raises additional based on the person of “Isao Obata”, a known Shōtōkan
questions about Parulski’s overall jūdō education. It is karate master from Keio University ( ᘮᙥ⟵Ⴖᄢቇ , Keiō
evident that Parulski’s partner is inexperienced in kata Gijuku Daigaku) and first Chairman of the Nihon Karate
and this undoubtedly contributes to the low quality of Kyōkai or Japan Karate Association (JKA).
the performance, overall. However, the consistent errors
in elementary formalities such as the reihō (bowing cere- The roots of the ‘real’ Obata in karate, as well as his
mony), order of moving the feet forwards or backwards, links with Funakoshi, most likely fed Parulski’s other
19
This Isao Obato should not be confused with someone with a known karate-sensei with a similar name, Isao Obata, the latter who is
known to have trained under Nakayama-sensei, and Funakoshi-shihan, and who has taught karate in the US Air Force’s martial arts pro-
gram together with other sensei, such as Tsuyoshi Satō (jūdō) and Kenji Tomiki (aikidō). In the US, Walter Todd, jūdōka, karateka and
aikidōka, was one of his students.
20
P.G. O’Neil’s “Japanese names. A comprehensive indext by characters and readings” [44] is a standard reference work for Japanese name re-
search used by Japanese studies scholars containing 13,500 surnames, 11,000 personal names, 6,800 literary, historical and artistic
names, 4,400 place names, and 300 Japanese era names.

fabrication, namely that of an exercise that would com- incorporating Okinawan karate into Japanese Judo and that he
bine karate and jūdō, and that supposedly would have got the idea after becoming a close friend of Gichin Funakoshi, the
been the fruit of a collaboration between Kanō-shihan founder of Shotokan karate. It is true that Kano and Funakoshi
and Funakoshi-shihan, and that would have culminat- were good friends. Kano was instrumental in bringing Funakoshi
ed in gō-no-kata. In the evaluation of Jan Muilwijk’s gō- to Japan. He took him under his wing; he showed him the ropes.
no-kata further in this paper, particular attention will be They talked a lot about the future of martial art. The modern
paid to the claim that this kata would have been joint- karate-do, as opposed to karate jutsu, is a result of Funakoshi
ly developed by Kanō-shihan and Funakoshi-shihan. recognizing that Kano’s idea of taking Jujutsu and making it
Judo was a good idea. In the modern era, with modern weapons
SE
2002 & 2003 – LINDA YIANNAKIS and so on, it might not be as critically important to the military
AND STEVEN CUNNINGHAM – THE KATA feudal state, which also no longer existed, to continue martial
OF JUDO – PARTS I & II OF A SERIES art training. But the value of martial art training had never
[45,46] changed. So karate ought to be continued to be practiced, but with
a view to developing the individual. So Kano and Funakoshi
U
Steven Cunningham21 in an interview with Linda were good friends; Shotokan was traditionally taught at the
Yiannakis discusses the content and development of Kodokan, and Kano and Funakoshi discussed techniques and
several jūdō kata. The interview is serialized as a two- methods together. Kano even learned some of the karate kata.
part article in the journal of the United States Judo But all of this happened in the late nineteen teens and after. It
LY L
Association – American Judo, (45, p. 19–21; 46, p. 20–24). did not happen before 1900. One has to realize that Funakoshi
In the interview, Cunningham’s thoughts on the origin was quite a bit younger than Kano and that he would not be old
and nature of many of the purported ‘lost’ kata of jūdō enough to be instructing Kano at the time that Kano designed
N A
are presented as well as his theories as to why they are Go no Kata. The fact that there are a lot of atemi, as well as
no longer widely known. Additionally, other jūdō kata, throws and other things in Go no Kata is not an indication that
O N
which are not currently recognized by the Kōdōkan, are it comes from karate, but rather that there are a lot of karate-like
discussed, and Cunningham does devote some atten- elements in Jujutsu. In fact, when Funakoshi saw an exhibition
tion to the gō-no-kata. Cunningham starts by correct- of Jujutsu by Hironori Otsuka, who was menkyo kaiden of Shin
SO
ly explaining the complementary relationship between no Shindo Ryu under Nakamura, Funakoshi supposedly ran
gō- and the jū-no-kata: out on the floor and said to Otsuka, ‘You’ve studied Tode [the
old name for karate] in Okinawa, haven’t you!’ And Otsuka
“The Go no Kata, for example, was the Kata of Hardness, said that no, he only practiced the Jujutsu. And so Funakoshi
which is the counterpart of the Ju no Kata, which is the Kata discovered that there were a lot of very common elements in
of Softness. Go and ju are the opposites of one another in the the two arts. Otsuka became a student of Funakoshi and
R
Japanese thinking.” (…) [46, p. 20] ultimately became the founder of Wado Ryu karate. Wado is the
harmonizing way, and he was harmonizing or blending Jujutsu
PE
Notwithstanding his considerable pedigree, Cunningham with karate. The atemi was very strong in Jujutsu, and in fact
then proceeds to err significantly in his discussion of the Tenshin Shinyo Ryu was one of the pre-eminent atemi schools.
gō-no-kata. In particular, he wrongly states that this kata Kano had learned this since youth and it was appropriate to
contains atemi-waza. This suggests that Cunningham put it into the kata.” (…) [46, p. 20–21]
has no first-hand knowledge of the gō-no-kata either,
and that he has researched it solely from sources (most Cunningham then hypothesizes as to why the gō-no-
likely Kawaishi and Parulski) that have subsequently kata became no longer taught. He presents an unrefer-
been shown false. enced thesis based on a growing Japanese nationalism
and its impact on Kanō:
As part of his flawed analysis, Cunningham does, how-
ever, critically evaluate the alleged Kanō-Funakoshi axis. “The kata like Go no kata were hidden away, though, in the
In this analysis he correctly identifies the historical in- pre-WW-II years, I’m told, because of the fears that Kano had
consistencies that negate the claims of others that Kanō about the Kodokan being used as a training ground for soldiers.
and Funakoshi collaborated on gō-no-kata: By the 1920s the nationalistic fervor had gotten quite strong
in Japan. Kano was quite concerned about it all. He began his
“The kata was constructed right around the turn of the century. All-Japan Cultural Movement in the 1920s trying to turn the
That’s an important thing to recognize, because some people tide and get people to take a more cosmopolitan view. He did
argue that he constructed the Go no Kata with a mind to not feel he was successful. He made some inroads, but he was
21
Dr. Cunningham is a respected academic and holder of a legitimate high-dan rank in jūdō. He is among a small group that has written
about jūdō with proper referencing of sources, such as Yūkō-no-katsudō and other original material that the majority of Westerners are in
total ignorance of. Through such work he has laid the foundations of proper scholarly research in the martial arts, and as such is follow-
ing in the footsteps of Donn Draeger, work that is now being continued by others such as Diane and Meik Skoss, Serge Mol, and others.

Original Article
not successful. He also made the mistake of making himself student of the mysterious Isao Obato, who came and dis-
a target of the nationalists. They felt that he was a Western appeared without leaving a single trail, and who has nev-
sympathizer and did not recognize the true strength and destiny er been seen or met by any other martial artist. Other di-
of Japan. Some argue that that resulted in Kano’s death. So, rect students of Mifune who are still alive, such as notably
with all that in mind, Kano and the others sort of tucked away Kyoshi Kobayashi, 9th dan (Portugal), Jin Iizumi, 7th dan
the Go no Kata and essentially ‘obsoleted’ it. They said there (USA), and Nobutaka Mizoguchi, 7th dan (Japan) indeed
were problems with it and they would just no longer teach it. have never heard about either a student of Mifune by the
They stopped discussing it publicly.” (…) [46, p. 21] name of Isao Obato, about any gō-no-kata which Mifune
would have developed. Furthermore, while Mifune in the
SE
Whilst it is correct that an academic like Kanō was cau- various books he wrote, amply talks about the kata he
tious with respect to the issue of Japanese nationalism, the developed himself, there is no trace about any mythical
real reason as to why the gō-no-kata stopped being taught, gō-no-kata which he supposedly would have developed.
has nothing to do with what Cunningham suggests, as will
be explained further down in this paper. What precisely However, interestingly, less than a year after Cunningham
in 2003 erroneously links gō-no-kata to Mifune, Parulski
U
motivated Cunningham to assert that these kata “were
hidden away” we do not know. It seems though that he came up with his ‘re-discovery’ of this (nonexistent) gō-
is suggesting that these kata would contain some type of no-kata via a so-called pupil of Mifune … At the end of
secret, perhaps dangerous or lethal techniques that inten- the day, it is thus Cunningham’s rare mistake that ex-
LY L
tionally needed to be hidden away. Nothing could be fur- poses Parulski’s ‘gō-no-kata’ exercise as a complete hoax.
ther from the truth; there is nothing secret or lethal about

gō-no-kata, which in fact is a kata that is suitable for rel- 2005 & 2006 – JAN MUILWIJK –
N A
ative novices in jūdō, for example, as a warm-up or resis- GŌ-NO-KATA: RECONSTRUCTING THE
tance training exercise. True, like jū-no-kata, gō-no-kata FORGOTTEN KATA [33–35], ANOTHER
HOAX?
O N
does not only have physical education properties (mean-
ing, it makes part of the subgroup of Rentai-no-kata), but
either kata also is a theoretical kata (subgroup of Ri-no-kata) On April 3rd of 2005, the Dutch martial artist Jan
SO
examining and reflecting on the fundamentals of the art Muilwijk performed a self-styled gō-no-kata as part of
of jūdō. While grasping this aspect, no doubt, is far more his promotion examination for the jūdō rank of 6th dan.
challenging than the warm-up component, it still does The examination was conducted under the auspices of
not make gō-no-kata in any way secretive or dangerous. Judo Bond Nederland (=the Dutch Judo Federation) whose
Consequently, it would be nonsensical for any such rea- regulations require that a candidate for such a promo-
son to keep gō-no-kata in any way hidden or secretive from tion should produce a piece of original work.
R
the general jūdō practitioner. Moreover, Kanō-shihan nev-

er intentionally put an okuden ᅏવ or hiden ⒁વ (secret Muilwijk’s demonstration has been heralded as the first
or esoteric teachings) component into jūdō, inter alia pre- performance of the gō-no-kata in the Netherlands [33]
PE
cisely to distinguish his jūdō from classical koryū jūjutsu. and following the enthusiasm with which the demon-
stration was received, a well-illustrated instruction book
Cunningham, who usually is quite well informed, ended was subsequently published – originally in Dutch [34]
his exposé on gō-no-kata with another error: and subsequently in English [35].
“A sidenote is that Kyuzo Mifune, tenth dan, constructed a different It should be noted that the claim that Muilwijk had rein-
Go no Kata during the WWII years. He intended it, I think, to troduced the ‘lost’ gō-no-kata surprised many, as Muilwijk
replace the older one. Variants of Mifune’s Go no Kata, probably was not known to be an expert in any historical or heuris-
reflecting different stages in the development of his form, appear tic technical aspects of jūdō. In particular the suggestion
periodically, adding to the confusion regarding Go no Kata.” (…) that he would have been able to present the gō-no-kata re-
constructed from original sources that had eluded others
Truth is that Kyūzō Mifune never constructed a gō-no- was met with considerable disbelief by jūdō and budō schol-
kata (Forms of correct use of force) of his own, but a ars; indeed Muilwijk was not known to be either fluent in
goshinjutsu-(no-kata), thus a modern self-defense kata, with Japanese, particular Meiji-jidai Japanese, to have privileged
the ‘go’ ⼔ (meaning ‘protection) of goshinjutsu ⼔りⴚ be- access to archival sources, or to have access to an extensive
ing an entirely different word from the ‘gō’ ೰ (meaning network of relationships or experience in Japan that would
‘force’) in gō-no-kata ೰ߩᒻ . There are strong suggestions be essential to unearth such non-mainstream material.
that Parulski, unaware that Cunningham errs, decides to
capitalize on this error by coming up with the idea that Nevertheless, to be fair, the rationale that Muilwijk
he would have re-discovered this ‘lost’ kata as a privileged [34,35, p. 7–9] presents to support his gō-no-kata must

first critically evaluated. Muilwijk [34,35, p. 7] does not proceeds to present an unsubstantiated and unrefer-
claim that he constructed his gō-no-kata based on informa- enced thesis for the lineage of the so-called gō-no-kata
tion from Kawaishi – rather, he became intrigued22 sim- that features in his book.
ply because of Kawaishi’s description of the kata. Recall:
Muilwijk [34,35, p. 8] writes:
“The Go no Kata, or Kata of Force or of blows, more characteristic

of Karate-do (the technique of the Atemis).” (…) [25, p. 11] “I managed to lay my hands on some film footage from the
United States. From the performance you can see that it concerns
Muilwijk [34,35, p. 7] proceeds to describe how he, like a very good mixture of judo and karatedo techniques. According
SE
most others, was unable to discover much more about to the performer G.R. Parulski, here we have a performance
the gō-no-kata. He then provides a good account of his of Kyuzo Mifune (1883–1965), 10th dan, transferred to his
(flawed) research methodology, which rather than being pupil Isao Obato (8th dan), who, in turn taught Parulski. It
time-consuming library-based work with extensive use is presented as a fusion between the SHOTOKAN karate of
of original sources, was instead based on the consulta- Gichin Funakoshi and the judo of Jigoro Kano. I have tried to
U
tion of a limited number of (Western) books, interviews, follow this thread back to its source.” (…).
technical discussions and Internet searches [34,35, p.
7,63]. In addition to the problem that Internet research Muilwijk describes how he ‘discovers’ that Funakoshi
is highly error-prone and can lead to the drawing of spu- gave a demonstration at the Butokukai in 1917. He con-
LY L
rious conclusions, it is noticeable that the majority of tinues that Kanō would have invited Funakoshi to teach
Muilwijk’s interviews were not with jūdōka, but rath- karate at the Kōdōkan, and adds that this “…went on for
er with karateka with virtually no scholarly background several years” [34,35, p. 8]. Muilwijk also states “that Kano
N A
or no jūdō or koryū historical knowledge. Moreover, in- and Funakoshi were together many times around 1921” and
cluded amongst Muilwijk’s interviewees was George proceeds to speculate that it seems very reasonable to
O N
Parulski, whose contribution to the gō-no-kata question him that the two together “developed a completely new GO
was discussed previously. Given that Parulski is based NO KATA” [34,35, p. 8].
in the United States and Muilwijk in the Netherlands,
SO
and the two did not meet, the depth and extent of their Muilwijk does not present, and we do not know of, any
dialogue can only be a matter of conjecture. references or evidence that substantiates the claim of
the supposedly many years-long teaching of karate at the
With the exception of Kawaishi, the other sources Kōdōkan. Atemi-waza, however, was taught at the Kōdōkan,
Muilwijk lists [34,35, p. 63] are totally devoid of any but as part of a balanced jūdō syllabus. As taught by Kanō,
reference to the gō-no-kata. Moreover, Muilwijk only the principal atemi-waza were punches to the glabella, el-
R
used these sources for writing an occasional sentence. bows to the solar plexus, and front kicks to the testicles.
For example, in Ichirō Abe’s book Judo (published both Additional targets described in subsequent Kōdōkan pub-
in French and in Dutch), Abe writes that jūdō contains

PE
lications include the soft spot on top of the head, mas-

nage-waza, katame-waza, and atemi-waza. For Muilwijk toid process, temples, philtrum, chin, solar plexus, spleen,
this is a justification that a gō-no-kata in the sense of liver, and knees. Practical methods of striking these tar-
Parulski’s version might very well have been developed gets, however, do not seem to have been much studied.
by Kanō and Funakoshi – an entirely fallacious conclu- See, for example the text Kodokan Judo [13, p. 136–138].
sion that will now be shown to lack both logic and cred-
ibility. Muilwijk's deduction is absurd, as Ichirō Abe, Furthermore, classical weapons training, particular-
when asked about gō-no-kata even denied its existence. ly bōjutsu and jōjutsu were at one point taught at the
For those who know Abe-sensei personally, the idea that Kōdōkan23, and are detailed in Yūkō-no-katsudō and Jūdō.
he would deviate even a millimeter from official Kōdōkan Kanō had created in March of 1928 a new research de-
policy and syllabus, which in essence is what Muilwijk partment for kobudō, partly to emphatically counter a
implies, would be entirely unimaginable. worrying evolution of jūdō into a competitive sport, and
because towards the end of his life he increasingly start-
At the outset, Muilwijk [34,35, p. 8] acknowledges ed doubting whether jūdō alone would be truly able to
the ambiguity pertaining to the gō-no-kata and states realize his noble goals. His research group initially gath-
that there appear to be two gō-no-kata in circulation. ered at the Otsuka Kaiunzaka dōjō, next to his own house
Additionally, he provides a correct listing of the “vari- [47], and nurtured various koryū disciplines. Originally,
ant” founded by Kanō in 1887. However, he subse- the new Kōdōkan building was supposed to house mul-
quently gives no further consideration to this kata and tiple martial arts, and the fact that the Kōdōkan never
22
Since Muilwijk is a karateka (as well as a jūdōka) this is understandable.
23
Famous sensei, such as Takeshi Shimizu were among these guest-instructors.

Original Article
followed through with this idea after Kanō-shihan had ilated via Parulski … must then be Kanō’s, Funakoshi’s,
passed away, likely because of Risei Kanō’s lack of un- Mifune’s and Ōtsuka’s revised version of the kata … [35,9].
derstanding and differing vision, caused considerable
friction with the main sponsor of the new Kōdōkan build- Consistent with his entire line of reasoning, Muilwijk’s
ing, Matsutarō Shoriki [47]. In effect, this evolution conclusion here is somewhat implausible. It is known
caused such turmoil that Shoriki-sensei would become that Kanō was already skeptical about Mifune’s Ura-
a main force behind creating an entirely new building, waza kata, and reacted equally dismissively when Gunji
partly out of protest, the later Nippon Budōkan. Koizumi during Kanō’s 1933 visit to London showed
some of his own ‘innovations’ to jū-no-kata [16]. So
SE
As for karate, what is correct, is that about six years ear- it is extremely unlikely that Jigorō Kanō would have
lier (in 1922) Kanō-shihan witnessed Funakoshi giving cooperated with someone with no knowledge of jūdō
a display of Shorin-ryū karate in Tōkyō. (Note that it like Funakoshi, when even an expert jūdōka such as
was not yet Shōtōkan karate, since the term Shōtōkan was Mifune appeared philosophically too far out of line
not to be invented for another decade.) It is also cor- with himself.
rect that Kanō asked for Funakoshi to give a demon-
U
stration at the Kōdōkan (then located at Shimo-Tomisaka): For the remainder of his book, Muilwijk provides an il-
lustrated set of instructions as to how to perform ‘his’
“When I visited the Kōdōkan three days later, Funakoshi later self-styled gō-no-kata. For completeness, a list of these
LY L
recalled, I found myself face to face with a select group of around techniques is provided in Table 2.
a hundred judoka. I had no students with me, nor even anyone

to assist me. Fortunately a young man by the name of Gima Whilst Muilwijk stops short of admitting he merely
N A
Shinkin, who had been a karate instructor in Okinawa, was acquired Parulski’s CD-ROM [32] and wrote out the
in Tokyo at the time… Several kata, notably Kanku, seemed to techniques, comparison of Tables 1 and 2 confirms that
O N
be especially popular with the spectators, and we were asked to Parulski and Muilwijk are indeed describing identical
perform them several times. After the demonstration there were kata, an obvious conclusion, since Parulski’s own fantas-
question and answer sessions, first with the younger men and tic creation was Muilwijk’s only practical source. Indeed,
SO
then with the senior students. Later on, as we were having a as will become clear later in this paper, only one histor-
pleasant chat, I was asked by Kano Sensei how long it would ical source existed that actually depicted and provided
take to learn all the kata. When I replied that I thought it would a detailed description of the true gō-no-kata, a source
take over a year, he said, ‘Well, I can’t impose on asking you to not within reach of virtually anyone.
stay that long, but I wish you’d teach me at least two or three.’”
(…) [48, p. 11, 49, p. 26–27). As a point of detail it should be noted that a lack of
R
grammatical attention is evident in Muilwijk’s naming of

For completeness it is recorded that Kanō witnessed the techniques in the kata. Suspicions about Muilwijk’s
PE
more karate in Okinawa in 1927: Japanese-illiteracy had already been surfacing when in
an early section of his book [34,35, p. 10] he confuses
“Furthermore, in 1927, Kano attended a conference in Okinawa go ੖ (the number ‘five’) and gō ೰ (meaning ‘force’). In
and while there witnessed more karate, this time performed his listing of the techniques Muilwijk has simply thrown
by Chojun Miyagi and Kenwa Mabuni. The kind words he together familiar terminology from jūdō and karate of-
spoke to these men apparently helped convince these two men to ten in erroneous grammatical order resulting in rather
subsequently introduce karate to Japan.” (…) [50, p. 7–8]. nonsensical descriptors. In addition, Muilwijk does not
provide succinct designations for each of the techniques
Notwithstanding the extremely weak foundations for his – rather, he provides a lengthy descriptor for the attack
conclusions so far, Muilwijk continues to speculate and by uke and the corresponding response from tori. Such
believes he has more evidence to reinforce his arguments an approach is contrary to the established highly effi-
when he discovers that Kyūzō Mifune later was in con- cient procedure for naming techniques in a jūdō kata, as
tact with Hironori Ōtsuka (1892–1982), the creator and described by Cornish [51, p. 3]
first Grandmaster of Wadō-ryū karate. Muilwijk adds:
“The Japanese names used for the techniques in the kata only
“Presumably, Mifune used his knowledge to change or adapt describe parts of the attack. To use a comprehensive description
the GO NO KATA where necessary.” (…) [35,8]. of all the attack and the defence would make the name too
long-winded and, for the non-Japanese, difficult to remember
Muilwijk’s implied conclusion therefore is that the original whereas these short names should prove no difficulty at all. The
1887 (or even older) gō-no-kata was nothing more than an English,…is not meant to be a transcription of the Japanese
early version. Accordingly, the version he himself has assim- names, like them it is meant only as a memory aid.”

Table 2. Gō-no-kata: “Forms of Hardness & Strength”, according to Jan Muilwijk [34].
Omote (Front)
1. Migi chu–dan gyaku tsuki* Right middle reverse thrust/strike*
Migi chu–dan gyaku uchi uke ® Right middle reverse inside block ®
Hidari chu–dan tsuki ® Left middle thrust/strike ®
Hidari gedan hiza geri ® Left low knee kick ®

Hidari harai goshi Left hip sweep
2. Migi chu–dan jun tsuki* Right middle lunging thrust/strike*
Migi chu–dan gyaku uchi uke ® Right middle reverse inside block ®
Shiko dachi ® Horse stance ®
Migi chu–dan empi uchi ®
SE
Right middle elbow strike ®
Migi shiho– nage ® Right four direction throw ®
Ude garami Entangled armlock
3. Migi chu–dan mae geri* Right middle front kick*
Migi soto harai uke ® Right outside sweeping block ®
Migi gedan mae geri ® Right low front kick ®
Hidari harai goshi Left hip sweep
U
4. Ushiro kata dori* Shoulder hold from behind*
Hidari gedan ushiro geri ® Left low rear kick ®
Ude gatame ® Arm armlock ®
Hidari hiza gatame Left knee armlock
5. Jun te dori*
LY L Lunging hand hold*

Migi gedan barai ® Right low sweep ®

Hidari chu–dan kage tsuki ®
N A
Migi jo–dan mawashi empi uchi ®
Left middle short hook strike ®
Right high round elbow strike ®
Ushiro eri dori ® Collar hold from behind ®
Ushiro otoshi ® Rearward drop ®
O N
Migi gedan tate tsuki Right low straight thrust/strike
6. Ushiro ryo–te dori* Two-hand hold from behind*
Taisabaki ® Body shifting ®
SO
Chudan morote tsuki Middle two-handed thrust/strike

7. Migi jo–dan jun tsuki* Right high lunging thrust/strike*
Hidari te nagashi uke ® Left sweeping hand block ®
Migi jo–dan haito uchi ® Right high ridge hand strike ®
Ude kansetsu Armlock
8. Ushiro kata dori* Rear hand hold*
R

Hidari gedan ura mawashi geri ® Left low reverse round kick ®
Kubi shime ® Neck strangle ®
Migi –o-soto guruma ®
Right large outer wheel ®

PE
Migi gedan gyaku tsuki Right low reverse thrust/strike

Hidari te nagashi uke ® Left hand sweeping arm block ®
Hidari chu–dan teisho uchi ® Left middle palm heel strike ®
Okuri eri shime Sliding collar strangle
10. Morote shime* Two-hand strangle/choke*
Morote uke ® Two-hand block ®
Migi chu–dan tate tsuki ® Right middle straight thrust/strike ®
Shuto– uchi ® Knife hand strike ®
Migi gedan hiza geri ® Right low knee kick ®
Migi koshi guruma ® Right hip wheel ®
11. Morote shime* Two-hand strangle/choke*
Morote uke ® Two-hand block ®
Morote mawashi tsuki ® Two-hand round thrust/strike ®
Shiko dachi ® Straddle leg stance ®
Ryo– ashi dori ® Two-leg hold ®
Gedan morote tsuki Two-hand low thrust/strike
The reason that Muilwijk’s terminology as mentioned in terminology, whereas Muilwijk having a Wadō-ryū back-
Table 2 is different from that used by De Crée in Table 1, ground, relies on terminology typically used within this
though both are based on Parulski’s CD-ROM, is be- style of karatedō, terminology which he combines at ran-
cause De Crée [42] used (linguistically correct) Shōtōkan dom in an erratic and grammatically incorrect order.

Original Article
Table 2 continued. Gō-no-kata: “Forms of Hardness & Strength”, according to Jan Muilwijk [34].
Tachi-ai (Continuous Fight)
1. Jun te dori* Lunging hand hold*
Hidari soto fumikomi ® Left outer stamping kick ®
Migi chu–dan mawashi empi uchi ® Right middle round elbow strike ®
Kata ha otoshi Single-wing drop

Migi age uke ® Right rising block ®
Migi chu–dan ura tsuki ® Right middle rear thrust/strike ®
Ushiro eri otoshi Collar drop from behind
SE
3. Migi jodan jun tsuki* Right high lunging thrust/strike*
Hidari age uke ® Left rising block ®
Gedan geri ® Low kick ®
Gyaku yoko tomoe nage Reverse side circular throw
U
Hidari chu–dan mawashi hiza geri ® Left middle round knee kick ®
Migi yoko sutemi Right side sacrifice
5. Ushiro kubi shime* Neck strangle/choke from behind*
Hidari ushiro empi uchi ® Left rear elbow strike ®
LY L Ude hishigi ® Arm taking ®

Hidari yoko wakare Left side separation

N A 6. Morote shime* Two-hand strangle/choke*
Jo–dan juji uke ® High cross block ®
Hidari jo–dan haishu uchi ® Left high ®
O N
Migi jo–dan ura tsuki ® Right high rear thrust/strike ®
Migi koshi guruma ® Right neck wheel ®
SO

Hidari te nagashi uke ® Left hand sweeping arm block ®
Migi te shime tsuki ® Right hand thrusting strangle ®
Migi yoko wakare Right side separation
8. Jo–dan mawashi tsuki* High round thrust/strike*
Migi chu–dan gyaku tate tsuki ® Right middle reverse straight thrust/strike ®
Mune gatame ® Chest hold ®
R
Hidari ude mune goshi Left arm chest throw

9. Morote dori* Two-hand hold*
PE
Morote mawashi uke ® Two hand round block ®

Morote tsuki ® Two-hand thrust/strike ®
Migi yoko sutemi Right side sacrifice
* Attack; ® Defence.
Despite the fact that the ‘gō-no-kata’ as depicted in his panying his exercise, which neither historically, nor practi-
book can be easily discredited because of the reasons ex- cally has anything to do with Jigorō Kanō’s Kōdōkan jūdō.
plained above, we believe that Muilwijk has not set out Muilwijk’s conclusions remain entirely uncorroborated.
to be intentionally misleading. An accomplished research- Instead, what he proposes is nothing but a 1990’s cre-
er Muilwijk is not, but he is generally honest though na- ation from the mind of Parulski, and a form of modern
ive in his writing. He does not attempt to conceal how self-defense techniques. Whether such an exercise deserves
he came to his findings and admits that he simply took a place in jūdō, the future will prove. Much confusion and
his source information from Parulski, unfortunately a worse consequences for Muilwijk’s somewhat naive epig-
doubtful source of many claims. Muilwijk also presents onism towards Parulski, could be avoided by designating
his kata as work in progress [34,35]. the exercise by a different name, rather than by the name
of an existing, and entirely different Kōdōkan component.
The numerous and basic errors within Muilwijk’s book are

the natural consequences of flawed research, unsubstan- UNDATED – WOLFGANG OETTLIN – A
tiated contentions and speculation. In short, Muilwijk, LOST FORM: GŌ-NO-KATA [36]
in overenthusiastic but innocent ignorance, has become
a victim of Parulski’s implausible claims. We suggest that In a further web-based article, Wolfgang Oettlin [36]
Muilwijk would provide unambiguous clarification accom- outlines the Parulski ‘gō-no-kata’ and presents his own

Table 3. Gō-no-kata: “Forms of Hardness & Strength” according to Wolfgang Oettlin [36].
Omote (Frontal Attacks)
1. Migi-gyaku-zuki* Right reverse thrust/strike*
Migi-soto-uke ® Right outside block ®
Hidari-gyaku-zuki ® Left reverse thrust/strike ®
Hidari-mae-hiza-geri ® Left front knee kick ®

Harai-goshi Hip sweep
2. Migi-oi-zuki* Right stepping thrust/strike*
Migi-soto-uke ® Right outer block ®
Yoko-empi-uchi ® Side elbow strike ®
Shihō-nage ® Four direction throw ®
SE
Shihō-gatame Four direction lock
3. Migi-mae-geri* Right front kick*
Migi-sukui-uke ® Right scooping block ®
Juji-uke ® Cross block ®
Migi-mae-geri ® Right front kick ®
Harai-goshi Hip sweep
U
4. Ushiro-kata-tori* Shoulder hold from behind*
Hidari-ushiro-geri ® Left rear kick ®
Hizi-maki-komi Winding lever
5. Hidari-katate-tori* Left one-hand wrist hold*
LY L
Migi-gedan-barai ® Right lower sweep ®
Hidari-kage-zuki ® Left short hook strike ®

Migi mawashi empi uchi ® Right round elbow strike ®
N A
Gyaku-ushiro-eri-daoshi ® Reverse rear collar drop ®
Migi-seiken-zuki Right front fist strike
6. Ushiro-morote-tori* Two hand hold from behind*
O N
Heikō-zuki Parallel thrust/strike
Migi-haitō-uchi ® Right backfist strike/thrust ®
SO
Ude-daoshi ® Arm drop ®

Ude-hishigi-gatame Arm taking lock
8. Ushiro-kata-tori* Shoulder hold from behind*
Hidari-ushiro-geri-keage ® Foot impact right to the rear ®
Hadaka-jime ® Naked lock ®
Hidari-kuzure-ōsoto-gari ® Left modified large outer reap ®
Seiken-zuki Forward strike/thrust
R

Migi-teishō-uchi ® Right palm strike ®
Eri-daoshi ® Collar drop ®
PE
Okuri-eri-jime Sliding collar lock

10. Mae-kata-tori* Front shoulder hold*
Kakiwake-uke ® Wedge block ®
Migi-tate-zuki ® Right straight thrust/strike ®
Hidari-shutō-uchi ® Left knife-hand strike ®
Migi-shutō-uchi ® Right knife-hand strike ®
Hidari-shutō-uchi ® Left knife-hand strike ®
Migi-shutō-uchi ® Hand edge impact right ®
Migi-age-hiza-geri ® Right rising knee kick ®
Koshi-guruma ® Hip wheel ®
Seiken-zuki Forward strike/thrust
11. Mae-kata-tori* Front shoulder hold*
Kakiwake- uke ® Wedge block ®
Hasami-zuki ® Scissors-punch ®
Morote-gari ® Two-hand reap ®
Heikō-zuki Parallel thrust/strike
listing of the techniques contained therein. Remember – Go-No-Kata” developed by Dr. George Parulski. Whether that is
that Parulski’s CD-ROM depicts and explains the ex- now actually the original form, or one of the versions brought into
ercise, but does not name the individual techniques. circulation by Kyuzo Mifune, is beyond my knowledge…” (…).
Oettlin writes (originally in German):
The technique list as prepared by Oettlin is presented
“… the operational sequence of the kata is written down by myself in Table 3. Naturally, it shows differences with both the
on the basis the CD-ROM “Isao Obato’s The Lost Katas of Judo lists composed by De Crée [42] in Table 1 and Muilwijk

Original Article
Table 3 continued. Gō-no-kata: “Forms of Hardness & Strength” according to to Wolfgang Oettlin [36].
Tachi-ai (Beginning Combat)
1. Yoko katate tori* Side one-hand wrist hold*
Hidari yoko geri kekomi ® Left side thrust kick ®
Migi mawashi empi uchi ® Right round elbow strike ®
Ude hishigi gatame Arm stretching lock

Migi-age-uke ® Right rising block ®
Migi-ura-zuki ® Right backfist strike ®
Ushiro-eri-daoshi Rear collar drop
SE
Hidari-age-uke ® Left rising block ®
Migi-gyaku-zuki ® Right reverse punch ®
Haisoku-fumi-komi ® Instep stamping kick ®
Yoko-tomoe-nage Side round throw
4. Migi oi zuki* Right stepping thrust/strike*
U
Hidari-yoko-hiza-geri ® Left side knee kick
Yoko-guruma Side wheel
5. Migi-shime-tori* Stranglehold right from the rear*
Hidari-ushiro-empi-uchi ® Left rear elow strike ®
LY L
Daki-wakare High separation
6. Mae-kata-tori* Shoulder grasp from the front*

Morote-teisho-uke ® Two hand palm-heel block ®
N A Hidari-haisho-uchi ® Left open hand strike ®
Migi-ura-zuki ® Right rear thrust/strike ®
Tsuki-age ® Uppercut ®
Kuzure-koshi-guruma ® Modified hip wheel ®
O N
Migi-gyaku-zuki Left reverse thrust/strike
Hidari-te-osae-uke ® Left hand pressing block ®
SO
Migi-shuto-uke ® Right knife hand block ®

Migi-kōtō-uchi ® Right larynx strike ®
Kuzure yoko wakare Modified side separation
8. Migi-mawashi-zuki* Right round thrust/strike*
Migi-tate-zuki ® Right straight thrust/strike ®
Kuzure-ude-goshi Modified-arm hip (throw)
R
9. Awase-zuki* Combined punch (“U”-punch)*

Morote osae- uke ® Two hand pressing block ®
Awase- zuki ® Combined punch (“U”-punch) ®
PE
Kuzure-uki-waza Modified floating drop
* Attack; ® Defence.
[34] in Table 2. Since Oettlin does not claim any origi- While research into this area remains ongoing, there ex-
nality and admits that he simply transcribed Parulski’s ists sufficient and even ample evidence that indicates
creation, his input does not further necessitate any at- that the gō-no-kata is not, nor in any form has ever been
tention in the present discourse. a kata of blows, but an exercise examining the princi-
ple of efficient use of force and resistance. The litera-
The question that remains after critically analyzing all of ture indicates that the movements within the kata fo-
the above Western sources and concluding that they are cused on the direct resistance of force (with force) right
either erroneous or worse, is: so, what is the true gō-no- up until the very last moment when the force is over-
kata ? What does it contain, where can it be found, and come by skill, strategy and body movement. For this
who is knowledgeable in teaching it ? These questions and other reasons, including methodological as well
will be addressed in the subsequent sections. as the complete absence of any sources substantiat-
ing their claims, we firmly would dismiss as false any
CONCLUSIONS claim by Parulski [31,32], Muilwijk [34,35] and others

that the gō-no-kata is even remotely based on a blend
Serious research into the gō-no-kata is a very difficult of jūdō and karate, and that it supposedly would have
endeavor. There is a dearth of major written sources on been composed jointly by Jigorō Kanō and Gichin
the kata, and what is commonly available is often un- Funakoshi. Moreover the series of exercises as present-
verifiable, incomplete, ambiguous or factually in error. ed by Parulski [31,32] and copied by Muilwijk [33–

35] must be classified as a contemporary hoax lacking Notes:

any historic substance or roots in either Jigorō Kanō
or any of the other great jūdō masters of the past, or … Japanese names in this paper are listed by given name
even in any jūdō-specific principle. first and family name second, instead of tradition-
al Japanese usage which places the family name first.
Finally, we applaud Toshirō Daigo-sensei’s recent pa-

per [9] in which he included gō-no-kata as a legitimate For absolute rigor, long Japanese vowel sounds have been
and existing Kōdōkan kata. We hope that gō-no-kata will approximated using macrons (e.g. Kōdōkan) in order to in-
soon be reintroduced in the Kōdōkan’s formal teaching dicate their Japanese pronunciation as closely as possible.
SE
curriculum of kata. However, when referring to or quoting from the literature,
the relevant text or author is cited exactly as per the orig-
inal source, with macrons used or omitted as appropriate.
REFERENCES:
1. Kanō J: Ichiban shūgyōsha ni kata no renshū wo 16. Leggett TP: Memories of Jigoro Kano’s Visit to 35. Muilwijk JT: Go-no-Kata: Reconstructing the
U
susumeru. [General recommendations to the judo the London Budokwai in August 1933 (Reprint). forgotten kata. Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
disciple for the study of kata]. Yūkō-no-Katsudō, Journal of Combative Sport 2000 (Electronic Bookexpress.infos; 2006
1921; 7(11): 1–6 [in Japanese] publication, no volume, issue or page numbers) 36. Oettlin W: Eine verlorene Form: Go no kata
2. Kanō J: Kata randori renshū no mokuteki wo roku 17. Kotani S, Ōsawa Y, Hirose Y: Kata of Kodokan (A lost form: Gō-no-kata), Kodokan Freiburg
– 1 [The meaning of kata and randori practice – Judo. Kōbe, Japan: Koyano Bussan Kaisha Ltd., Judoschule e.V. [article online] (n.d.) [cited 2007,
Part 1]. Judo, 1930; 1(2): 2–3 [in Japanese] 1968 Apr]. Available from: URL: http://www.kodokan-
LY L
freiburg.de/GoNoKata.htm
3. Kanō J: Kata randori renshū no mokuteki wo roku 18. Otaki T, Draeger DF : Judo Formal Techniques.
– 2 [The meaning of kata and randori practice – Tōkyō: Charles E. Tuttle Company Inc., 1983 37. Mifune K, Kudō K, MatsumotoY (eds.): Jūdō Kōza
Part 1]. Judo, 1930; 1(3): 2–4 [in Japanese] [Course of jūdō]. Vol. 1–5. Tōkyō: Shiromizu-sha;
N A
4. Kanō J: Jūdō kyōhon jōkan [A textbook of jūdō].
19. Jones LC: Competition Kata and the Art of Judo.
Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 2005; 14(3): 72–85
1955–56 [in Japanese]
Tōkyō: Shushiki Kaisha; 1931; 1–127 [in Japanese] 38. Kobushi Multimedia. Interactive Martial Arts
20. Kawamura T, Daigo T (eds.): Kōdōkan New Products – Available Titles Fall 2006 / Winter
5. Murata N: What is kata? The congratulatory Japanese-English Dictionary of Judo. Tōkyō: 2007. Kobushi, Ltd. Webster, New York, USA.
O N
address to the 1st Kodokan Judo Kata International Kōdōkan Institute, 2000 [Commercial multimedia product catalogue online]
Tournament. In: Program Brochure of the 1st [2007]. Available from: URL: http://www.kobushi-
Kodokan Judo Kata International Tournament, 21. Maruyama S: Dai Nihon Judo Shi [Complete
History of Japanese Judo]. Tōkyō: Kōdōkan; 1939; media.com/pdfs/km-catalogue.pdf
2007; 27–28 October. Tōkyō: Kōdōkan, pp. 26–27
SO
1170 [in Japanese] 39. Kanō J: Kanō Jigorō jūdōka – 12. [Jigorō Kanō, the
6. Finn M: Martial Arts: A Complete Illustrated jūdōka – Part 12]. Sakkō, 1927; 6(12): 86–92 (15–21)
History. Leicester, UK: Blitz Editions; 1991 22. Gleeson GR: Judo Inside Out: A Cultural
[in Japanese]
Reconcilliation. Wakefield, UK: Lepus Books, 1983
7. Daigo T: Koshiki-no-kata. Unpublished lecture as 40. Kōdōkan (eds.), Illustrated Kodokan Judo. Tōkyō:
part of the Kōdōkan Kata Kaki Kōshūkai (Kōdōkan 23. Feldenkrais M: Judo: The Art of Defence and Kōdansha; 1955
Summer Kata Course); 2007; July 16th; Tōkyō: Attack. London: Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd., 1944
Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute [in Japanese] 41. Kōdōkan (eds.), Kōdōkan jūdō shashin kaisetsu.
24. Koizumi G: Goh-no-Kata (Kata of Forcefulness). Tōkyō: Kōdansha; 1956 [in Japanese]
8. Daigo T: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata [The kata of Kōdōkan Budokwai Quarterly Bulletin (Budokwai, London),
42. De Crée C: Gō-no-kata. Inventory of techniques
R
jūdō]. Unpublished lecture as part of the Kōdōkan 1949; 5(1): 8

Kata Kaki Kōshūkai (Kōdōkan Summer Kata from G.R. Parulski’s 1998 CD-ROM “The Lost
25. Kawaishi M: The Complete 7 Katas of Judo. Katas of Judo – Volume 1”, published by Kobushi
Course), Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute; 2008; July
Harrison EJ, tranlator. London: W. Foulsham & Multimedia, Webster, New York. Unpublished
29th; this same article is currently being reprinted in
Co. Ltd., 1957
research file. Malines; 2003, March 8th

PE
three parts in Jūdō 2008; 79 (10, 11 & 12) [in Japanese]

9. Daigo T: Kōdōkan jūdō kata ni tsuite [About the 26. Kawaishi M: Les 7 Katas Complets du Judo. Paris: 43. Oimatsu S: Kaitei shinpan jūdō hyakunen (Brand
kata of Kōdōkan jūdō]. Jūdō, 2009; 80(1): 17–22 [in Édition Privée; 1952 [in French] new revised edition of Hundred Years of Jūdō).
Japanese] Satō K, editor. Tōkyō: Tokimune Tsūshinsha; 1976;
27. Klein Y: Les fondements du judo. Reprint of the
40–53 [in Japanese]
10. Kanō Y, Kawamura T, Nakamura R et al (eds.): 1954 Grasset edition. Paris: Éditions Dilecta, 2006;
1–208; 2006 [in French] 44. O’Neil PG: Japanese Names. A comprehensive
Jūdō Daijiten. Tōkyō: Athene Shobō, 1999; 139 &
index by characters and readings. 3rd ed. New
463 [in Japanese] 28. Gleeson GR: The Complete Book of Judo. Toronto, York & Tōkyō: Weatherhill, Inc., 1993
11. Kodokan. Kata and Randori. [homepage on the Canada: Coles Publishing Company, 1976
45. Yiannakis L, Cunningham S: The Kata of Judo –
Internet]. n.d. [cited 2007; Apr 10th]. Available 29. Ohlenkamp N: Go no Kata – Forms of Hardness Part I of a Series. American Judo – A Journal of the
from: The Kōdōkan Judo Institute Homepage, / Strength. [article online] (2003/2008) [cited Apr United States Judo Association Fall, 2002; 19–21
URL: http://www.Kodokan.org/e_basic/kata.html 2007]. Available from: Judo Information Site, URL:
http://judoinfo.com/gonokata.htm 46. Yiannakis L, Cunningham S: The Kata of Judo –
12. Kanō J: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata [The kata of Part II of a Series. American Judo – A Journal of
Kōdōkan jūdō]. Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Hakkō [Kōdōkan 30. Kuhara Y: Jūdō mizu nagare. Tōkyō: Shūdōkan the United States Judo Association Fall, 2003; 2004
Publications], Nunoi shubō saisoku; reprinted Kuhara Dōjō; 1976 [in Japanese]
for the Kōdōkan Kata Kaki Kōshūkai (Kōdōkan 47. Mochizuki M: Theory of the essence of judo. Aiki
Summer Kata Course), Daigo T (ed.). 1964; July 31. Parulski GR: Black Belt Judo. Chicago: News, 1984; 65
29th; Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute [in Japanese] Contemporary Books, Inc., 1985 48. Funakoshi G: Karate-Do Kyohan – The Master
13. Kanō J: Kodokan Judo. Kōdansha International, 32. Parulski GR: Isao Obato’s Lost katas of judo – vol. Text. Ōshima T., translator. Tōkyō: Kodansha
Tōkyō, 1986 1 (#V-LKJ-04). CD-ROM and CD. Webster, New International Ltd.; 1973
York: Kobushi Multimedia, 1998 49. Funakoshi G: Karate-Do Nyumon – The Master
14. Kanō J: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata ni tsuite [About the
kata of Kōdōkan jūdō]. In: Ed. Kanō-sensei Denki 33. Muilwijk JT: Jan Muilwijk introduceert Go no Kata Introductory Text. Ōshima T., translator. Tōkyō:
Hensankai [Committee for the compilation of the (Jan Muilwijk introduces Go no Kata) (In Dutch) Kodansha International Ltd., 1998
biography of Master Kanō], Tōkyō: Satsuki Shobo; [article online] (2005) [cited 2007], Available online 50. Noble G: Master Funakoshi’s Karate: The History
1983 [in Japanese] from: Sportschool Muilwijk Website, URL: http:// & Development of the Empty Hand Art, Dragon
www.sportschoolmuilwijk.nl/Go-no-kata/ Times, 1995; 4: 7–8
15. De Crée C: Ryū-setsu. Jūdō no musha shugyō
– As snow on a willow. A pilgrimage in jūdō. 34. Muilwijk JT: Go-no-Kata: Reconstructie van een 51. Cornish JP (n.d.): Go-Shin-Jutsu – Judo Self Defence
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [In vergeten kata. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Kata. For the British Judo Association by FJR
preparation], 2010 Bookexpress.infos; 2005 [in Dutch] Publishing, UK



SE
A Study Design
B Data Collection
U
LY L
Abstract
Background In recent years, gō-no-kata (“Prearranged forms of correct use of force”), a generally considered obsolete and reclu-
and Study Aim:
N A
sive ‘tenth’ kata of Kōdokan jūdō, has become the subject of some renewed interest within jūdō circles. Most infor-
mation on gō-no-kata, as available in the West, is ambiguous and often even blatantly erroneous. The purpose of
the present paper is to remove the confusion and mystery which surrounds the gō-no-kata.
O N
Material/Methods: To achieve this, we offer a careful critical analysis of the available literature and rare source material on this kata.
Results: Gō-no-kata is not, nor in any form has it ever been a kata of blows. Its aim was to serve as an intense fitness exercise
SO
and to examine and illustrate the basic principle of efficient use of force and resistance. Original comments pro-
vided by Kanō-shihan, show beyond any doubt that the gō-no-kata was, and is, a special and never completed set of
ten exercises for two people. Kanō-shihan’s own writings indicate that he was not entirely satisfied with some el-
ements of the gō-no-kata and therefore abandoned, or at least, delayed its development. Kanō-shihan passed away
before having been able to rework, revise or expand the gō-no-kata.
Conclusions: Gō-no-kata, must be considered an unfinished exercise created by Jigorō Kanō-shihan. Kanō-shihan, however, never
R
rejected the kata or its practice; it would be overstating the case to suggest otherwise.

PE
Kata: Predetermined and BACKGROUND istence has been the subject of considerable speculation.
exercises, which together
In the first part of this series of three papers we showed
with free exercises (randori) In addition to the aforementioned nine kata, other – that the origin of the misinformation on gō-no-kata can be
and lectures (kōgi) form
the three critical pillars of
Kōdōkan and non-Kōdōkan – kata exist in jūdō. Most traced back to modern jūdō authors failing to recognize
Kōdōkan jūdō education. of these kata are not well known outside Japan and are both important mistakes contained in early Western jūdō
rarely taught or practiced [1–3]. books and the fabrication in recent years of a bogus gō-no-
Kōdōkan: The specific name
of the his school and style of kata. In this second part, we aim to further remove this
budō as given by its founder The purpose of the present paper is to provide a comprehen- confusion and mystery which surrounds the gō-no-kata.
Jigorō Kanō (1860–1938).
sive study of a kata that once formed part of the Kōdōkan
Jūdō: Jūdō is a Japanese curriculum, but no longer features, namely the Gō-no-kata Our research questions are as follows:
form of pedagogy, created by ೰ߩᒻ (“Prearranged forms of correct use of force”). In

Jigorō Kanō, based inter alia
on neoconfucianist values, recent years, this generally considered obsolete ‘tenth’ kata What is the veracity of various claims made by certain
traditional Japanese martial has become the subject of some renewed interest within publications that what they propose as gō-no-kata truly
arts, and modern Western
principles developed by John jūdō circles. However, much of the information in circula- represents the historic gō-no-kata ?
Dewey, John Stuart Mill, and tion on gō-no-kata, is contradictory, ambiguous, and even
Herbert Spencer.
blatantly erroneous; at best, its contents and even its ex- Does there exist a gō-no-kata in Kōdōkan jūdō ?

Original Article
Gō-no-kata: “Prearranged If a gō-no-kata exists, then what is its contents and the- THE QUIRKS OF HEURISTIC JŪDŌ
oretical foundation ? LITERATURE RESEARCH
If gō-no-kata exists, then who practices it and where can When reviewing the relevant literature in an attempt
often considered defunct. it be observed and learnt ? to learn more about gō-no-kata, one is confronted once
again with the same issues that have troubled techni-

The second part of this series of three papers will mainly cal and historic research into jūdō, and budō in general:
focus on the second and third of those four main ques- • absence of having consulted primary sources;
tions. To address these questions and achieve our pur- • absence of detailed references and footnotes;
SE
pose, we offer a critical evaluation of the available lit- • authors who are inexperienced in heuristics and re-
erature and source material on this kata. Rare material search methods, and whose Japanese language abili-
drawn from original and reliable sources will also be in- ty is deficient, sometimes totally.
troduced to support the drawing of definitive conclu-
sions. This paper offers an important contribution to Despite some refreshing attempts over the last 20 years,
U
our knowledge of Kōdōkan jūdō. It has implications for still there are very few truly authoritative and annotat-
the current jūdō syllabus, and also represent the only ed texts on unarmed būdō available in the West – no-
critical scholarly study of this kata in both Western lan- table exceptions being the works of Donn F. Draeger
guages and Japanese. (1922–1982), Trevor P. Leggett (1914–2000) and Serge
LY L
Mol (°1970), as well as a handful of academic disserta-
RESEARCH JAPANESE
INTO THE ORIGINAL tions [4,5]. Specifically for jūdō, Draeger, Leggett, and
AND SCHOLARLY LITERATURE ON GŌ-NO- also the translated works of Toshirō Daigo, Isao Okano
N A
KATA and Kazuzō Kudō are of importance. Moreover, even
most Japanese language jūdō books, except the few
O N
Common errors that were written by rare jūdō scholars such as Tamio
Kurihara, Sanzō Maruyama [6], Shinichi Oimatsu [7],
It should be noted that several writings claimed by some Takeshi Sakuraba [8], or Raisuke Kudō [9], often mere-
SO
to refer to the gō-no-kata, actually refer to the itsutsu- ly replicate each other’s content (without referencing,
no-kata. To understand the root cause of this error it is that is) or else have very little to add. It is for this rea-
necessary to explain the way the terms gō-no-kata and son that when errors appear in one book, they are of-
itsutsu-no-kata are written (and read) in Japanese kanji. ten promulgated in subsequent other books, without
In Japanese kanji the term gō-no-kata is written as ೰ߩᒻ much heuristic or scientific discourse, and very quickly
and itsutsu-no-kata as ੖ߩᒻ .The error arises when the become accepted as fact. The attribution of itsutsu-no-
R
Jigorō Kanō: The founder of number five ( ੖ ) in itsutsu-no-kata is misread in its kun kata as a creation of Jigorō Kanō might be one of the
died in 1938.
(= original Japanese) pronunciation, which is ‘go’ instead most blatant and commonly maintained ‘artifacts’ [10].
PE
of its quite different sounding on (Chinese-derived) pro-

nunciation, hence incorrectly reading go-no-kata instead Therefore, for serious research one is forced to work
of itsutsu-no-kata. almost exclusively from original Japanese sources and
original source books, most of which are very old, very
Yet another common error sourced from a misunder- rare and virtually unknown in the West. Such sourc-
standing of the Japanese language is to confuse the gō- es, of course, are extremely difficult to obtain, usually
no-kata with the go-no-sen-no-kata ( ᓟߩవߩᒻ ). Go in the absent in libraries, and often, when finally found, are
context of go-no-sen is unrelated to gō in the gō-no-kata. very expensive to acquire. Academic institutions usual-
The former go ( ᓟ ) means “after” or “reactive” while ly have little interest in jūdō, and relevant educational
the latter gō ( ೰ ) of course means hardness or force or support organizations, such as for example, the Japan
resistance in the context of gō-no-kata. Foundation, notoriously refuse to sponsor or have any-
thing to do with martial arts, apparently because they
As a final word of caution it is necessary to highlight that consider this area already sufficiently popular with the
much of the available material on the gō-no-kata cited so common public outside of Japan. If one does have a rare
far, contains insufficient detail to actually ‘prove’ the ve- chance to lay hands on such reclusive texts, such as for
racity of some of the claims made by others regarding example, the authoritative jūdō books by the celebrated
the kata and as a consequence much of the published 10th dan holders Yoshitsugu Yamashita1 (1865–1935),
claims about the kata amount to little more than hearsay. Hideichi Nagaoka2 (1876–1952) and Kyūzō Mifune
1
Also sometimes misspelled as Yoshiaki Yamashita; Japanese kanji indicating names sometimes have multiple pronunciations, and the cor-
rect reading often may not be known unless indicated so by the subject himself or someone else who knows for sure.
2
Also known as either Shūichi Nagaoka or Hidekazu Nagaoka.

(1883–1965), even then, one will, for the purpose of Two sensei who certainly mastered the gō-no-kata were
the present paper, not make much progress, since nei- the great Yaichibei Kanemitsu and Tamio Kurihara, both
ther author reveals anything about or even mentions 9th and 10th dan-holders, respectively. However, exam-
gō-no-kata. ination of their works (which are some of the most in-
formed and documented among all jūdō books) similar-
It is not known for certain, precisely why there are no ly will yield not a trace of the gō-no-kata.
major written sources on the gō-no-kata, though the most
prevalent speculative explanation assumes that it is be- Moreover, those texts that do make some reference to
cause the kata already when Kanō-shihan was still alive, gō-no-kata, such as Jūdō Kyōhan by Sakujirō Yokoyama
SE
no longer featured as part of the Kōdōkan curriculum. In and Eisuke Ōshima first published in Japanese in 1909,
particular, given Mifune’s extensive knowledge of jūdō and and in English in 1915 [12], usually devote only half
his life-long work with Kanō-shihan, it would not be un- a sentence to it:
reasonable to assume that he would have known the gō-
no-kata. It is therefore a source of curiosity why Mifune “…there are performed in the Kōdōkwan some kinds of kata
U
who is also known to have devised and demonstrated var- which were invented by Mr. Kanō, namely: itsutsu-no-kata, gō-
ious other uncommon jūdō kata (such as his own Nage- no-kata, jū-no-kata, shobū-no-kata, etc.” (…) [12]
and Katame-waza-ura-no-kata [properly called Nage-no-ura-
waza kenkyū] and his own early form of a very torite3-like Once more, none of these statements appearing in those
LY L
Goshinjutsu) all to the apparent displeasure of Kanō, does works, is referenced. A further issue to be overcome when
neither show, nor even mention the gō-no-kata in any of researching the gō-no-kata is that unlike some of the oth-
his books. er jūdō kata, such as the koshiki-no-kata or itsutsu-no-kata,
N A and possibly kime-no-kata, the gō-no-kata appears not to
In addition to the text known in the West as the Canon have existed previously in a complete or known partial
O N
of Judo, Mifune wrote various other jūdō books – most form in any koryū jūjutsu school. This means that for
notably (together with co-authors Kazuzō Kudō and those other kata, even if certain details cannot be found
Yoshizō Matsumoto), his large five-volume opus enti- in the oldest jūdō sources, one still has the opportunity
SO
tled Jūdō Kōza [11]. This rather voluminous work con- to access much older jūjutsu texts for source material.
tains extensive information on various technical and oth- However, since the gō-no-kata is almost certainly an orig-
er aspects of jūdō and also many unique photographs e.g. inal creation of Kanō-shihan, that option does not exist.
Kyūzō Mifune and Kazuzō Kudō performing the itsutsu-
no-kata, and Haruko Nihoshi and Keiko Fukuda show- Precisely under what circumstances gō-no-kata was cre-
ing the jū-no-kata. It can only be a matter of speculation ated or formalized is not known. There is no indication
R
why such an extensive work by such a great expert does that the gō-no-kata would have featured during the 24 July
not mention the gō-no-kata, but there must be an under- 1906 conclave of leading jūjutsu and jūdō masters held at
PE
lying reason for it as it is unlikely to be an accidental the Butokuden of the Dai Nippon Butokukai in Kyōto. This
oversight. Perhaps the answer to this is found, at least think-tank of respected jūjutsu masters presided by Jigorō
partially, in the controversy in ideological approach to Kanō had gathered to standardize and codify the offi-
jūdō between Mifune and Kudō, with Mifune being a fer- cial kata to be used by the Kōdōkan. (obviously, Kōdōkan
vent advocate of the pure jū-principle, as clearly shown goshinjutsu and goshinhō did not feature either, for the
in his own kuki-nage-based tokui-waza or favorite tech- simple reason that these two would not be invented for
niques, such as, sumi-otoshi, uki-otoshi, and tama-guruma, almost another 50 years). Jigorō Kanō writes in his bi-
and Kudō rather arguing that initial use of force is accept- ography that this conclave only dealt really with nage-
able as long as used efficiently. That being said, Kudō’s no-kata, katame-no-kata, and kime-no-kata, originally with
works, either those in Japanese or English, do not men- the aim to create kata which would be nationally uni-
tion gō-no-kata either. fied and possibly be suited for teaching outside of jūdō,
as part of a national physical education [13]. Kanō had
Furthermore, we know that there exist no works on any been instructed to do so by Viscount Ura, president of
of the original 10-techniques forms of any of Kōdōkan the Butokukai. Even jū-no-kata was not accepted by the
jūdō’s kata, not about the original nage-no-kata, the origi- Butokukai then, according to Kanō, most likely because
nal katame-no-kata, the original 10-techniques jū-no-kata, its nature and contents was too far removed from classi-
the original shōbu-no-kata, so similarly, finding anything cal jūjutsu, and thus considered too modernistic. Kanō
about the 10-techniques (never reworked, and thus orig- had been far less satisfied with his gō-no-kata than with
inal) gō-no-kata, represents a true challenge. jū-no-kata, and had not yet revised it, hence why it still
3
Torite ขᚻ literally means “grabbing the hands” and refers to a type of self-defence, that heavily relies on disarming an armed attacker,
much like what is taught to and used by the police.

Original Article
existed in its old 1887 ten-techniques version. Knowing al jūjutsu, but also who laid the foundation and concep-
that jū-no-kata would be excessive in terms of acceptance tualization of what jūdō really is, and was meant to be.
in 1906, the idea of proposing and defending his far less Frequent editorials and lengthy philosophical articles by
complete and perfected gō-no-kata to this conclave, would Kanō himself also featured. Moreover, it was in these
have been unimaginable. The impact of this is that post- magazines that certain things such as the kata were in-
1906 sources for the gō-no-kata are likely to be limited, troduced to the jūdō world, often a single technique per
hence complicating research into the gō-no-kata. issue. The nage-no-kata, kime-no-kata and jū-no-kata were
all introduced in this manner.
KŌDŌKAN PERIODICALS
SE
Accessing information from these early journals, however,
Potential reference sources for the gō-no-kata are the var- is a non-trivial task. Bound reprints in large volumes ex-
ious early journals published by the Kōdōkan. ist, covering, with a few omissions, the entire period from
1898 to 19384 totaling in excess of 20,000 pages. These
The Kōdōkan started publishing its own journal in October volumes themselves are accompanied by two booklets
U
of 1898 under the name Kokushi, ࿡჻ , loosely meaning (of about 140 pages total) that have reprinted the orig-
“The Patriot”. In December of 1914 its name was changed inal table of contents of each periodical. There exists no
into Jūdō ᨵ㆏ , only to change again in January of 1919 to further index or glossary to these volumes. Accordingly,
Yūkō-no-katsudō ᦭ഞਫᵴേ, this title being loosely translat- it is exceptionally difficult to locate an item of interest,
LY L
ed as “The Efficiency of Movement”. Likely this name was apart from each time reading both booklets and subse-
too modern, since three years later, in 1922 the name was quently verifying and reading through an entire article
changed again, now into Taisei ᄢ൓ . Taisei has an inten- of interest in the actual volume. Realistically, it is almost
N A
tional double meaning. Literally, it means “Large Crowd” impossible to locate anything unless it has been already
or “The People”, hence suggesting that jūdō is meant for found and its relevance confirmed, or unless one is pre-
O N
and suited to everyone; however, the name Taisei also pared to undertake the painstaking process described.
means something else, namely “Current Thoughts”, thus
suggesting a process of philosophical reflection on mat- De Crée [1] cites two pieces of writing on the gō-no-kata
SO
ters. This name must have appealed even less, since the attributed to Kanō himself. They are reported as featur-
magazine appeared barely a couple of months under that ing in a 1921 edition of Yūkō-no-katsudō [14] and a 1927
name before changing again, now into Jūdō Kai ᨵ㆏ળ or edition of Sakkō [15]. Kanō’s 1983 biography really re-
“The Judo Community”. The Kai-part then was dropped prints some of this information, such as the 1921 arti-
in 1929, and it continued to be known under the short- cle, and thus repeats the information on gō-no-kata; so
ened title Jūdō which has been in existence ever since. It does Masao Koyasu [16]. These two items authored by
R
is worthwhile mentioning that a second journal, Sakkō Kanō-shihan himself will be discussed at a later stage. It
૞⥝ , loosely translated as “Awakening” or “Promotion” is also likely that other, hitherto undiscovered, referenc-
PE
(as in the sense of “to market”) appeared for a couple of es on the gō-no-kata may feature somewhere in the entire
years simultaneously with Jūdō. oeuvre of Kōdōkan magazines or old leaflets.
These early journals originated from a time when jūdō THE TRUTH ABOUT GŌ-NO-KATA, A
had not been tainted or damaged by an overemphasis KATA OF FOCUSED STRENGTH
on sports-based competition and winning medals, and
thus their content focused on what really mattered to To develop a deeper understanding of the conflicting
Kanō, that is jūdō as an all-round means of education. ideas around the gō-no-kata the material indicating that
These periodicals presented a view on jūdō entirely dif- it was complementary to the jū-no-kata is now evaluat-
ferent to that promulgated today, and they contained ed. The oldest source retrieved so far, which contains
information on how to develop one’s physical, spiritu- truthful information about gō-no-kata comes from an un-
al, pedagogical and philosophical capacities. expected author, namely, Sadakazu Uenishi5.
The authors of the articles therein were great jūdō mas- 1906 – Sadakazu Uenishi – The Text of Ju-jutsu as
ters of the past, such as Yoshitsugu Yamashita, Hajime Practiced in Japan [17]
Isogai (1871–1947), Hideichi Nagaoka, and Kaichirō

Samura (1880–1964), individuals who all achieved 10th Uenishi in the preface of his book describes how the
dan. These masters were not only educated in tradition- samurai not only preserved their art of self-defense, but
4
Volumes since 1938 have not been reprinted since Kanō then passed away; Yamashita had already died in 1935.
5
The surname of Sadakazu Uenishi ਄⷏ቯ৻ as it appears in the book “The text of ju-jutsu as practiced in Japan”, is improperly transcribed
into English as ‘Uyenishi’ instead of ‘Uenishi’.

also their physical culture. The importance in combat no-kata might greatly differ from time to time depend-
of possessing superior physical strength had been rec- ing on who was teaching, just like warm-up exercises in
ognized from the days of the dawn of the human race. any jūdō club might greatly differ from time to time. In
Indeed, in era that preceded the halterophilia and meth- jūdō though, Kanō re-created a very specific gō-no-kata
ods of weightlifting that were introduced and gained and a jū-no-kata. Moreover, he made these into exercis-
some popularity in the early 20th century, 19th and pre- es that represented the fundamentals and philosophy
19th century development of physical strength heavi- of jūdō. Thus both exercises, in addition to developing
ly realized on working with heavy objects found in na- strength and flexibility, respectively, also represented
ture, or commonly used in certain handicraft jobs, as the grammar of jūdō technique, and actively contribut-
SE
well as specific exercises. Such strength-developing ex- ed towards better understanding jūdō, improving tech-
ercises also existed in some jūjutsu schools: nique, and realizing jūdō’s principles.
“Consider, for instance, the various exercises which have been 1921 (November) – Jigoro Kanō – Yūkō-no-katsudō
alleged to be essential preliminaries to Ju-jutsu training. Well, [14]
U
I have never seen any Ju-jutsuan who ever practised them. In
the old style of Ju-jutsu before my time, there was I believe an Writing in Yūkō-no-katsudō on the progression of learn-
exercise called the tai atari6 or “toughing” exercise, in which ing kata, Kanō states that the gō-no-kata contains ten
the practitioners rushed at each other, chest to chest, somewhat techniques. However, contrary to what is implied by
LY L
in the style of the exercise called dzu-dzu-ki, practised by the Ohlenkamp [18], no listing of the techniques is provided.
Sumo wrestlers, who develop their strength and hardiness by

butting each other. In fact, all these “resistance” movements, “Gō-no-kata or at times called Gō-Jū-no-kata, I remember having
N A
concerning which certain pseudo authorities on Ju-jutsu have taught it some time in the past but my study was not complete;
been so fluent, would, if of any practical value at all, be more three or four out of the total ten forms in it, I did not like. I had
O N
suitable as training for the Sumo style of wrestling than for Ju- thought of reviewing it but left it as it was. In this kata, at first
jutsu, For Sumo is contested by big heavy men, often standing both [Tori and Uke]7 will push, pull or twist each other hard
about six feet in height and weighing from eighteen to twenty and in the end one [Tori] will win by surrendering himself to
SO
stone, who rely almost entirely on their strength and avoirdupois the force. I am thinking of completing it in future and teach it
to give them the victory, not that they are without various tricks, in the Kōdōkan. As for now, you may study it or not study it,
holds and moves of their own. which is up to you.” (…) [14, p. 1–6].
Such training as the Ju-jutsu novice does indulge in is taught From this passage it can be concluded that Kanō was not
in the schools in Japan, and is styled the taiso-no-kata, or entirely satisfied with a number of points in the gō-no-
R
physical culture exercise for boys and girls, comprising go-no- kata. Also, we learnt that the gō-no-kata by Kanō-shihan
kata, which means “muscle development for strength”, and was deemed neither perfect, nor finished.
PE
ju-no-kata, or “soft exercise, – preparation in suppleness and

agility” (…). [17, preface]. The key sentence in the passage is the final one, where
Kanō states that he leaves it up to the judgment of the
Uenishi is correct, and the use of the names gō-no-kata individual jūdōka whether or not to practice the gō-no-kata.
and jū-no-kata in jūdō, unlike what some may think, is Moreover, it confirms that Kanō did not reject the kata
hardly original. Gō-no-kata in essence existed in a num- in its entirety nor did he disapprove of anyone practic-
ber of classical budō schools together with jū-no-kata as ing it. Even prior to Daigo-sensei’s recent lecture and pa-
part of taisō-no-kata. Taisō-no-kata ૕ᠲߩᒻ really means per [20,21], this suggests that the Kōdōkan’s traditional
‘gymnastics’ or ‘calisthenics’ in a broader sense. As all position i.e. that gō-no-kata does not or does no longer
gymnastics, certain exercises focus more on developing exist, or would have been discarded by Kanō and should
greater muscular strength (gō-no-kata), whereas others fo- not be studied, was overstated and open to challenge.
cus more on stretching and increasing flexibility (jū-no-
kata). Thus, such exercises existed in budō schools be- To add to the above conclusion, the late Trevor P. Leggett,
sides jūdō. Most commonly, these were much looser and for example, to name just one well-respected authori-
not as a strictly codified as choreographed patterns the ty on jūdō, recalled having once seen the gō-no-kata be-
way they exist in jūdō. They certainly did not exist pre- ing performed at the Kōdōkan in the 1930’s. Any sug-
viously in a ceremonial form like they are most often gestion in the sense that gō-no-kata does not exist, is
today performed in jūdō. In jūjutsu, a gō-no-kata or a jū- thus nonsensical.
6
Tai-atari ૕ᒰ literally means “hitting the body”, to be understood here as a toughening method.
7
Tori: the person who applies a throw or other technique... [19], p. 128). Uke: the person who receives a technique… (Ibid., p. 131).

Original Article
It is also informative to note from the source that an 1954 – Yves Klein – Les Fondements du Judo [24]
original, alternative name for the gō-no-kata was gō-jū-
no-kata (Forms of Hardness & Gentleness). This fur- Yves Klein (1928–1962), the famous avant-garde French
ther reinforces the complementary nature of the gō-no- artist, became fascinated with jūdō in the early 1950s
kata and jū-no-kata. and made the decision to travel to Japan to study jūdō
in depth. Klein had arrived in Yokohama on September

1926 – Jigoro Kanō – Shin Nihonshi – reproduced 23rd of 1952 and remained there for 15 months, until
in Mind Over Muscle [22] he returned to France in 1954, armed with a 4th dan de-
gree, issued by the Kōdōkan on December 18th of 1953.
SE
A lecture note by Kanō (which merely mentions the gō- Klein was unique in that he devoted great attention to
no-kata) dates from 1926 and was originally published kata, which was very unusual for a Westerner in those
as Jūdō no Hattatsu ᨵ㆏ߩ⊒㆐ “The Development of days. For Klein, kata had both spiritual and artistic prop-
Judo” in Shin Nihonshi ᣂᣣᧄผ “A New History of erties. His 1954 oeuvre [24] is entirely devoted to kata,
Japan”. This lecture was recently reproduced as From of which he details five: nage-no-kata, katame-no-kata, jū-
U
Jujutsu to Judo in the book Mind Over Muscle: Writings no-kata, itsutsu-no-kata, and koshiki-no-kata. Klein him-
From the Founder of Judo compiled by Naoki Murata and self functions as the tori of the first three of those kata,
translated by Nancy Ross [22, p. 8–35]: whereas for the last two kata he fulfils the role of the
uke, with the tori part being taken care of by Jōin Oda-
LY L
“So few years after I established Kōdōkan jūdō, I created fifteen sensei and Sempei Asami-sensei, respectively. The presence
kata for throws and ten kata for combat called kime-no-kata of itsutsu-no-kata, and koshiki-no-kata in a Western book
(forms of self-defense). After that, the kata for yawara were and performed by a Westerner as early as 1954 must
N A
created, so most of the kata were completed by around 1887. have been a first. In his book, Klein writes the following:
During this time, those of us undergoing training were at our
O N
most passionate about study. We have of course, made progress “… Autrefois on pratiquait le Kata de ‘Go’ (dix techniques),
since then, but it is safe to say that the technical foundation of qui était l’étude de la puissance, force physique, violence et
the Kōdōkan judo of today was established at that time. Other contractions. Au Japon, on pratique encore aujourd’hui ce
SO
kata that were established around that time included itsutsu- Kata assez étrange dans les dojos de ‘Karate’ (sorte de “savate”
no-kata (the five forms), ten kata for katame-no-kata (forms of japonaise).
grappling), and ten kata for gōjū-no-kata (also known as gō-
no-kata; forms of strength).” (…) [22, p. 25]. On pratiquait aussi le “Shobu-No-Kata” (dix techniques) qui
était l’étude du combat de guerre.
As an aside, this passage raises more questions than it
R
answers, as it suggests that the nage-no-kata and kime- Le “Seiryoku-zenyo-kokumintai-iku-no-kata”, souvent cité comme
no-kata were the first two jūdō kata created. The conse- le 7e kata, n’est plus pratiqué aujourd’hui au Kôdôkan. (…)
PE
quence of this is that it suggests that the kime-no-kata

(meant, most likely, is … in its original form, that is … [24, p. 18]
shōbu-no-kata) existed before the katame-no-kata which is
contrary to conventional thinking. [“… Formerly they used to practice ‘Gō-no-kata’ (ten tech-
niques), which was the study of power, physical force,
1927 (December) – Jigoro Kanō – Sakkō [15] violence and contractions. In Japan, they still practc-
se this rather strange Kata in ‘Karate’ (kind of Japanese
In December 1927 Kanō wrote in Sakkō: “French boxing”) dōjō today. They also used to practice
“Shōbu-no-kata” (ten techniques) which was the study of
“… in contrast to this jū-no-kata, there is a kind of kata called the combat of war. The “Sei-ryoku zenyō-kokumin taiiku-no-
gō-no-kata or gōjū-no-kata. It is a system whereby at first both kata”, often called the 7th kata, today is no longer prac-
(Tori and Uke) will fight with force against force, but later Tori ticed at the Kōdōkan. (…)]
changes to Ju (softness) and wins. I used to teach it one time
but as there were some points I was not satisfied with, I am not Klein, in addition to Trevor P. Leggett, was likely one of
teaching it nowadays. I look forward to further refinement.” [15] the first Westerners to mention and recognize gō-no-kata.
The fact that he includes advanced kata, such as koshiki-no-

It should be noted that this Sakkō extract is also quoted kata in his book, but not gō-no-kata, may suggest that al-
in a recent French language biography of Kanō (Jigoro ready then this kata had become rather elusive. Although,
Kano: Père du judo – La vie du fondateur du judo, by Michel Klein does not identify the individual techniques of gō-no-
Mazac [23, p. 160–161]), where additional contextual kata, his merit is that he clearly and correctly states that
material on the jū-no-kata is provided. the exercise contains ten individual techniques.

CONCLUSIONS Gō-no-kata: Likewise, in the gō-no-kata, the gō (hard-

ness) question is first responded to by gō and then sub-
Serious research into the gō-no-kata is a very difficult sequently by jū (softness). Specifically, the gō-no-kata
endeavor. There is a dearth of major written sources on starts with gō but ends in jū. Thus the gō-no-kata ad-
the kata, and what is commonly available is often un- heres to a fundamental tenet of jūdō namely that soft-
verifiable, incomplete, ambiguous or factually in error. ness controls hardness in the end.
While research into this area remains ongoing, there ex- Both kata convey the meaning of jū-no-ri, i.e the core
ists sufficient and even ample evidence that indicates principle of jūjutsu whereby one avoids opposing an
SE
that the gō-no-kata is not, nor in any form has ever been opponent’s force and power directly in favor of using
a kata of blows, but an exercise examining the principle it to one’s advantage. They also accord with jū yoku gō
of efficient use of force and resistance. The literature in- wo sei suru ᨵ⢻ߊ೰ࠍ೙ߔࠆ , a core principle of jūdō
dicates that the movements within the kata focused on which can be translated in a number of ways: softness
the direct resistance of force (with force) right up un- overcomes hardness, flexibility overcomes stiffness, gentleness
U
til the very last moment when the force is overcome by controls strength or win by yielding.
skill, strategy and body movement.
Kanō’s own writings indicate that he was not satisfied
Based on the original comments provided by Kanō- with elements of the gō-no-kata and therefore abandoned,
LY L
shihan [14,15], it is understood beyond any doubt that or at least, delayed its development. Furthermore, like
the gō-no-kata was and is a special and never completed with Itsutsu-no-kata, Kanō never found the time after-
set of exercises (ten in total) for two people devised by wards to rework, revise or expand the gō-no-kata and ac-
N A
Kanō-shihan that combined several aims: cordingly it must be considered as unfinished. However
the writings also confirm that Kanō did not reject the
O N
Jūdō Education: The gō-no-kata provided a framework for kata in its entirety or its practice, unlike what some
the correct learning of the basics of jūdō without throwing. claim; so the Kōdōkan is overstating the case when it
It teaches how to use force effectively, without relying on suggests otherwise.
SO
force as one’s primary means to conquer an opponent.

Finally, we applaud Toshirō Daigo-sensei’s recent paper
Physical Education: The gō-no-kata required using one’s [25] in which he included gō-no-kata as a legitimate and
body with precision, especially in the practice of using existing Kōdōkan kata. We hope that this exercise will
of both focused strength and yielding at critical timings soon be reintroduced in the Kōdōkan’s formal teaching
during jūdō techniques. curriculum of kata.
R
Physical Culture: Practice of the gō-no-kata assisted in Notes

PE
the development of physical strength itself, in a time

that power training devices were nearly nonexistent. Japanese names in this paper are listed by given name
first and family name second, instead of tradition-
Psychological Benefits: It was believed that practice al Japanese usage which places the family name first.
of the gō-no-kata contributed to increased willpower and
“spiritual energy” in the sense of mens sana in corpore sano For absolute rigor, long Japanese vowel sounds have
[a healthy spirit in a healthy body]. been approximated using macrons (e.g. Kōdōkan) in or-
der to indicate their Japanese pronunciation as close-
If indeed both kata were established in 1887, then it is ly as possible. However, when referring to or quoting
appropriate to conclude that the gō-no-kata and the jū- from the literature, the relevant text or author is cited
no-kata were created as a complementary pair, as follows: exactly as per the original source, with macrons used or
omitted as appropriate.
Jū-no-kata: Simplified, in the jū-no-kata, the jū (softness)
question is responded to by jū (softness). Specifically,
the jū-no-kata starts with jū and ends in jū.

Original Article
REFERENCES:
1. De Crée C: Ryū-setsu. Jūdō no musha shugyō – As 9. Kudō R: Hiroku nihon jūdō [Secret notes on Japanese 18. Ohlenkamp N: Go no Kata – Forms of Hardness/
snow on a willow. A pilgrimage in jūdō. Cambridge: jūdō]. Tōkyō: Tōkyō Sports Shinkaisha. 1972; p. Strength. [article online] (2003/2008) [cited Apr
Cambridge University Press, [In preparation]; 2010 70–72 & p. 84–90 [in Japanese] 2007]. Available from: Judo Information Site, URL:
2. Otaki T, Draeger DF: Judo Formal Techniques. Tōkyō: http://judoinfo.com/gonokata.htm
10. Kanō J: Kodokan Judo. Kōdansha International,
Charles E. Tuttle Company Inc.; 1983 Tōkyō; 1986 19. Kawamura T, Daigo T (eds.): Kōdōkan New Japanese-
3. Jones LC: Competition, Kata and the Art of Judo. English Dictionary of Judo. Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Institute,
Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 2005; 14(3): 72–85 11. Mifune K, Kudō K, MatsumotoY (eds.): Jūdō Kōza 2000
[Course of jūdō]. Vol. 1–5. Tōkyō: Shiromizu-sha;
4. De Crée C: De oorsprong, ontwikkeling, essentie en wed- 1955–56 [in Japanese] 20. Daigo T: Koshiki-no-kata. Unpublished lecture as
erzijdse invloed van het bushidō en de krijgskunde in Japan
part of the Kōdōkan Kata Kaki Kōshūkai (Kōdōkan
[The origin, development, essence and mutual rela- 12. Yokoyama S, Ōshima E: Jūdō Kyōhan. Tōkyō: Daigo
Summer Kata Course); 2007, July 16th; Tōkyō:
SE
tionship of bushidō and the martial arts in Japan] Shuppansha; 1915
Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute [in Japanese]
[Dissertation]; Louvain: University of Louvain,
Faculty of Letters & Philosophy, Dept. of Oriental 13. Kanō J: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata ni tsuite [About the
kata of Kōdōkan jūdō]. In: Ed. Kanō-sensei Denki 21. Daigo T: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata [The kata of Kōdōkan
Studies, Division of Eastern Philology & History: jūdō]. Unpublished lecture as part of the Kōdōkan
Chinese & Japanese Studies; 1985; [in Dutch] Hensankai [Committee for the compilation of the
biography of Master Kanō], Tōkyō: Satsuki Shobo; Kata Kaki Kōshūkai (Kōdōkan Summer Kata
5. De Crée C: Het ontstaan en de wereldwijde ontwikkeling 1983 [in Japanese] Course), Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute; 2008;
van het jūjutsu in een historisch perspectief. [A historical July 29th; this same article is currently being re-
printed in three parts in Jūdō 2008; 79 (10, 11 &
U
perspective of the origin and worldwide develop- 14. Kanō J: Ichiban shūgyōsha ni kata no renshū wo
ment of jūjutsu]. Syllabus [in Dutch] Coach certi- susumeru. [General recommendations to the judo 12) [in Japanese]
fication course A-trainer jūjutsu, Brussels: BLOSO/ disciple for the study of kata]. Yūkō-no-Katsudō
LCK [Belgian State Administration for Physical 1921; 7(11): 1–6 [in Japanese] 22. Kanō J: Mind over Muscle: Writings from the Founder
Education, Sports & Outdoor Recreation]; 1991; of Judo. Murata N, editor & Ross NH, translator.
[in Dutch] 15. Kanō J: Kanō Jigorō jūdōka – 12. [Jigorō Kanō, Tōkyō: Kōdansha International, 2006
LY L
the jūdōka – Part 12]. Sakkō, 1927; 6(12): 86–92
6. Maruyama S: Dai Nihon Judo Shi [Complete History (15–21) [in Japanese] 23. Mazac M, Kano J: Père du judo. Noisy-sur-École,
of Japanese Judo]. Tōkyō: Kōdōkan; 1939; 1170 p.
France: Budo Editions. 2006; [in French]

[in Japanese] 16. Koyasu M: Jūdō no rekishi [History of jūdō]. In:
N A
7. Oimatsu S: Kaitei shinpan jūdō hyakunen (Brand new
revised edition of Hundred Years of Jūdō). Satō
Jūdō Kōza [Course of jūdō]. Vol. 1–5. Mifune K,
Kudō K, Matsumoto Y (eds.). Tōkyō: Shiromizusha;
24. Klein Y: Les fondements du judo. Reprint of the 1954
Grasset edition. Paris: Éditions Dilecta, pp. 1–208;
K, editor. Tōkyō: Tokimune Tsūshinsha; 1976; 1955–1956 [in Japanese] 2006; [in French]
p. 40–53 [in Japanese] 17. Uenishi S: The textbook of ju-jutsu as practised in Japan. 25. Daigo T: Kōdōkan jūdō kata ni tsuite [About the
O N
8. Sakuraba T: Jūdō shiko. Tōkyō: Meguro shōten; 1935; – Being a simple treatise on the Japanese method of self- kata of Kōdōkan jūdō]. Jūdō, 2009; 80(1): 16–22
[in Japanese] defence. London: Athletic Publications, Ltd.; 1906 [in Japanese]
SO
R
PE



SE
A Study Design
B Data Collection
U
LY L
Abstract
Background Kata (“Prearranged forms”) represent the grammar of Japanese jūdō. The Kōdōkan jūdō syllabus typically contains
and Study Aim:
N A
eight or nine kata. In recent years, Gō-no-kata (“Prearranged forms of correct use of force”), a generally considered
obsolete and reclusive ‘tenth’ kata, has become the subject of some renewed interest within jūdō circles. Finding
accurate information on the gō-no-kata or locating a skilled instructor of this exercise is very difficult. The purpose
O N
of the present paper is to provide a comprehensive study of this gō-no-kata which once formed a part of the stan-
dard jūdō curriculum. We aim to remove the confusion and mystery which surrounds the gō-no-kata.
Material/Methods: To achieve this, we offer a critical evaluation of the available literature and source material on this kata.
SO
Results: Gō-no-kata is the oldest kata of Kōdōkan, probably predating the two 1885 randori-no-kata. Gō-no-kata consists of ten
forms, which depict a relatively primitive jūdō, still practiced in defensive jigotai position. Its aim was to serve both
as an intense fitness exercise as well as to illustrate the basic principle of conquering force with giving way. Despite
being popularly thought of as defunct, the gō-no-kata survives today – having initially been preserved in Tōkyō by
a small group of senior jūdōka, and now also by a handful of experts abroad.
R
Conclusions: The preservation of gō-no-kata, a 10-technique prearranged form that teaches principles of optimal use of force, is
primarily the merit of the late Yoshiyuki Kuhara-sensei and his nephew Toshiyasu Ochiai-sensei.
PE
Kata: Predetermined and BACKGROUND reason one will often find literature incorrectly claiming
exercises, which together
that there would be only seven or eight Kōdōkan jūdō kata
with free exercises (randori) Kata are intended and recognized as a valuable training [4,5]. However, other Kōdōkan and non-Kōdōkan kata
and lectures (kōgi) form
the three critical pillars of
drill in most Japanese gendai budō1 and koryū2 arts. Kata exist in jūdō. Most of these kata are not well known out-
Kōdōkan jūdō education. represent the grammar of jūdō, and without properly side Japan and are rarely taught or practiced [6–8]. One
mastering them, jūdō is often reduced to a crude con- such kata that used to form part of the Kōdōkan curric-
Jūdō: A Japanese form of
pedagogy, created by Jigorō glomerate of isolated throws merely based on power, en- ulum, but no longer features, is the Gō-no-kata ೰ߩᒻ
Kanō, based inter alia on durance, and athletic achievement. There are nine kata (“Prearranged forms of correct use of force”). In recent
neoconfucianist values,
traditional Japanese martial in Kōdōkan jūdō today, as accepted by the Kōdōkan Jūdō years, this generally considered obsolete ‘tenth’ kata
arts, and modern Western Institute in Tōkyō, Japan [1–3]. Of those nine kata only has become the subject of some renewed interest with-
principles developed by John
Dewey, John Stuart Mill, and seven are most commonly performed. Because of this in jūdō circles. However, much of the information in cir-
Herbert Spencer.
1
Gendai budō ⃻ઍᱞ㆏ are modern Japanese martial arts which were established after the Meiji Restoration (1866–1869). In that way
Kōdōkan: The specific name they distinguish themselves from classical or traditional or old martial arts (koryū). Gendai budō often are rooted in koryū.
of his school and style of 2
Koryū ฎᵹ is a Japanese term that is used in association with the ancient Japanese martial arts. The word literally translates as old school
budō as given by its founder or old tradition. Koryū is a general term for Japanese schools of martial arts that predate the Meiji Restoration (1866–1869) which sparked
Jigorō Kanō (1860–1938). major socio-political changes and led to the modernisation of Japan.

Original Article
Gō-no-kata: “Prearranged
often considered defunct.
SE
U
LY L
N A
O N
SO
Figure 1. Yoshiyuki Kuhara (1906–1985), 8th dan (later 9th Figure 2. Shōichirō Satō (1890–1973?), 8th dan, known to
dan) and a senior Kōdōkan instructor, here in have practiced gō-no-kata with Yoshiyuki Kuhara.
a picture taken towards the end of the 1970’s. The kanji on his jūdōgi read Shibaura. Satō-sensei
Kuhara-sensei devoted more than 60 years to also obtained Kumi-uchi Mokuroku of Sōsuishitsu-
R
the study of kata, and was instrumental in the ryū in Tōkyō under Hyakutarō Matsu’i before
preservation of gō-no-kata. entering the Kōdōkan.
PE
culation on gō-no-kata, is contradictory, ambiguous, and erature and source material on this kata. Rare material
even blatantly erroneous. The purpose of the present drawn from original and reliable sources will also be in-
paper is to provide a comprehensive study of the gō-no- troduced to support the drawing of definitive conclu-
kata; specifically, we aim to remove this confusion and sions. This paper offers an important contribution to
mystery which surrounds the gō-no-kata. our knowledge of Kōdōkan understanding, as it has im-
plications for the current jūdō syllabus, and also repre-
Our research questions are as follows: sent the only critical scholarly study of this kata in both
Western languages and Japanese.
• What is the veracity of various claims made by cer-
tain publications that what they propose as gō-no- RESEARCH INTO NEWLY DISCOVERED
kata truly represents the historic gō-no-kata ? SOURCE INFORMATION ON GŌ-NO-KATA
• Does there exist a gō-no-kata in Kōdōkan jūdō ?
• If a gō-no-kata exists, then what is its contents and 1976 – Yoshiyuki Kuhara – Jūdō Mizu-Nagare [9]
theoretical foundation ? & 1998 – Toshiyasu Ochiai (editor) – Gō-no-kata
• If gō-no-kata exists, then who practices it and where (based on Kuhara’s 1976 [10] text)
can it be observed and learnt ?

The most significant and detailed material on the gō-no-
This final part of a series of three papers will mainly kata can be found in one of the rarest jūdō oeuvres in
focus on the third and fourth of those four main ques- existence, namely an extensive study of kata completed
tions. To address these questions and achieve our pur- in 1976 [9] by the late Yoshiyuki Kuhara (1906–1985)
pose, we offer a critical evaluation of the available lit- (Figure 1). It is the only work that has survived, which


SE
Figure 3. Kazuzō Kudō (1898–1970), 9th dan (left), one
of Kanō’s last pupils, and Yoshiyuki Kuhara Figure 4. Facsimile with the techniques of gō-no-kata
(1906–1985), 8th dan (later 9th dan), here pictured calligraphed by Toshiyasu Ochiai as part of his
on Sunday, January 16th of 1966, shortly before 1998 instructional booklet [10].
one of their celebrated performances of Koshiki-
U
no-kata in full armor (From [9], p. 358).
contains the original gō-no-kata complete with its his-

tory, pictures of each technique and explanations. The
LY L
techniques are performed by Kuhara himself as tori, and
Shōichirō Satō-sensei, Kōdōkan 8th dan, as uke (Figure 2).

Unfortunately, this book was printed in very limited
N A
numbers and is hibaihin 㕖ᄁຠ , i.e. not openly for sale.
The book is so rare that is not even available in antique
O N
bookshops or in specialized auctions. At the time it was
printed it was only available in Kuhara’s Shūdōkan dōjō
and copies were only available to those who were long-
SO
time students of Kuhara.
Kuhara is one of the most crucial figures in jūdō kata

in the second half of the twentieth century, having per-
sonally researched the topic for some 60 years. Kuhara
mostly specialized in the Koshiki-no-kata for which he was Figure 5. Yoshiyuki Kuhara (tori) and Shōichirō Satō (uke)
R
in hidari-seoi-nage, the fourth technique of gō-

well acclaimed. He was also probably the most impor-
no-kata. Note how forceful opposition at first, is
tant jūdō performer of that particular kata in full armor,
channelled into jū or giving way, which provides
PE
regularly demonstrating it during Kagami-Biraki celebra- an opportunity to successfully enter a jūdō throw,
tions and All Japan Jūdō Championships, initially as the in this case, a left shoulder throw (hidari-seoi-
uke for Kazuzo Kudō, 9th dan (Figure 3)3. Kuhara also nage) (From [9], p. 249).
recognized the importance of koryū and actively promot-
ed its return. To that extent, he is known to have stud- a risk, and “cross-training” in koryū would strengthen
ied and practiced the kata of iaidō4. a jūdōka’s character in areas beyond that covered by a
jūdō education only.
The study of koryū is consistent with the fundamental
aims of jūdō as envisaged by Kanō himself. It is under- After Kuhara died in 1985, his teachings were fur-
stood that as his life evolved, Kanō realized that jūdō thered by his pupil and nephew Toshiyasu Ochiai, now
was not a total success, and was heading in a direction a Kōdōkan 8th dan. Although the Kuhara Shūdōkan dōjō
(sports competition) that was quite different from what no longer exists today, the tradition is continued, in-
he wanted [6,11]. Towards the end of his life he already cluding the teaching of some uncommon kata, includ-
anticipated that the increasing emphasis on shiai and di- ing gō-no-kata as well as Mifune’s ura-no-kata. Kuhara’s
lution of kata would endanger the very concept of jūdō Jūdō Mizu-Nagare [9] had quickly sold out and Kuhara-
itself. Koryū because of its tradition and because of the sensei passed away just a couple of years later. As his dōjō
impossibility to compete (mortal peril) did not have such disappeared too, his book was virtually never heard of
3
Note that Kuhara is generally referred to as being an 8th dan, however, he did receive the rank of 9th dan in 1984 shortly before his death
on April 4th of 1985.
4
Iaidō – the craft, art, or science of the sword, is a Japanese martial art that uses a specific methodology to teach the use of the katana
(Japanese sword). Generally, iaidō takes the form of partnered practice exercised through kata, as opposed to competition, solo, or freestyle
practice. Yoshiyuki Kuhara was a practitioner and instruktor of Ōmori-ryū iaidō.

Original Article
again, and so no written documentation on gō-no-kata Kanō-shihan conceived the original nage-, katame-, and
was available any longer. Because of this situation, and shōbu-no-kata [13, p. 1168]. This is a different from
to support his continued teaching of gō-no-kata, his neph- what has been suggested by Kawamura and Daigo [12].
ew Toshiyasu Ochiai-sensei, in 1998 created an instruc- Unfortunately, Kawamura and Daigo [12] do not sup-
tional booklet [10] (Figure 4) that from Kuhara’s Jūdō port their 1887 claim with any references.
Mizu-Nagare only retained the gō-no-kata.

The Kōdōkan New Japanese-English Dictionary of Jūdō in
The booklet [10] was far easier to reproduce than which Kawamura and Daigo make their 1887 claim
Kuhara’s complete oeuvre [9], and only preserved from [12, p. 142] is in fact a more recent, concise and bilin-
SE
Kuhara’s book information thought to be essential. gual Japanese/English version of the earlier Jūdō Daijiten,
Kuhara really thus remains its original author. However, which had 670 pages and was published in Japanese only
Ochiai-sensei did replace the original pictures of Kuhara- [12]. Both Kawamura and Daigo were already part of
and Satō-sensei (Figure 5), by pictures of himself as the the editorial committee of the Jūdō Daijiten. The latter,
tori5, and Yūtaka Taniguchi, 5th dan (at the time, 4th on page 139 has an entry for gō-no-kata, which references
U
dan), as the uke, presumably because the original pic- two sources [12, p. 139]. The first reference is Oimatsu
tures were in black and white, and because he no longer [15], the second is Kanō [16], neither of which contain
had the originals; the new pictures in the booklet are in any creation date for gō-no-kata.though. The only source
color6. That being said, even this newer booklet has nev- that mentions the year 1887 in the same paragraph in
LY L
er been officially published with an ISBN number, and which gō-no-kata is discussed, is indeed Kanō’s biography.
is currently also only available at Ochiai-sensei’s dōjō to

his own students. The reason for this is not to bestow a We note though that Maruyama, known for his histor-
N A
character of esoterism on gō-no-kata, but simply to avoid ical research into jūdō, does not list gō-no-kata as one of
an uncomfortable situation for the Kōdōkan, which is Kanō’s achievements in his year overview for 1887 [13].
O N
where most enthusiasts and foreigners typically address We have previously (see Part 1) explained that Daigo
their questions. Since gō-no-kata is no longer part of the and Kawamura most likely obtained the year 1887 by
actively taught Kōdōkan curriculum, and since the offi- misinterpreting a section on jū-no-kata and gō-no-kata in
SO
cial version claims … would in fact even have been re- Kanō’s biography [17]. It is our opinion that the syn-
moved from it by Kanō himself, the insistence, partic- taxes of the sentences used in that section, suggest that
ularly of foreigners for information about this obsolete the year 1887 as date of creation only applies to jū-no-
kata, puts Kōdōkan sensei and staff in a somewhat un- kata, not to gō-no-kata.
comfortable and awkward situation.
It is also unlikely that somebody as meticulous and ex-
R
Because Kuhara’s original oeuvre and the later book- haustive as Maruyama [13] would have forgotten to men-
let compiled or edited by Ochiai, as far as gō-no-kata tion ‘gō-no-kata’ as an important creative product of Kanō
PE
is concerned, are nearly identical, we will consider for the year 1887. In other words, Kuhara’s view (i.e., of
their contents together here in the same section. Both gō-no-kata being the oldest original jūdō kata and predat-
Kuhara’s book [9] and Ochiai’s booklet [10] are writing both nage-no-kata and jū-no-kata) is very plausible.
ten in Japanese, and the extracts cited in the present pa-
per are original translations. Contrary to Kuhara’s book, There is no doubt that the gō-no-kata presents an idea
Ochiai’s booklet has no page numbers. of jūdō in a somewhat archaic form that we are no lon-
ger used to seeing. Yet, it succeeds in explaining the ba-
Kuhara [9] and Ochiai [10] present the history of the sic idea of jū in a very straightforward way understand-
gō-no-kata and the rationale for its development. Kuhara, able by both laymen and novices, where, for example,
unlike Kawamura and Daigo [12], does not list a cre- itsutsu-no-kata does so in a more philosophical, almost
ation date for the gō-no-kata. However, Kuhara, does elitist way, generally incomprehensible, except to the
opine that gō-no-kata may in fact be the oldest Kōdōkan very advanced jūdōka.
kata. If Kuhara is correct, and gō-no-kata is indeed the
oldest kata of Kōdōkan, then its creation date must in Kuhara explains that gō-no-kata is loosely7 derived from the
fact be no later than 1885, since this is the year that Kitō-ryū8 and Tenjin Shin’yō-ryū9 styles of jūjutsu and was
5
Tori: the person who applies a throw or other technique… [12, p. 128]. Uke: the person who receives a technique… [Ibid., p. 131].
6
Ochiai T. Personal communication. Bunkyō Jūdōkai, T kyō-to Jūdō Renmei; 2006, August 3rd; Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute.
7
Recall that the Gō-no-kata is Kanō’s creation and did not exist as a complete form in any jūjutsu school.
8
Kitō-ryū: A style of classical jūjutsu from which the throwing methods of modern Kōdōkan jūdō originated [12, p. 91], and [18].
9
Tenjin Shin’yō-ryū: One of the last schools of classical jūjutsu to be formulated… It featured many choking and jointlock techniques, many of which form
the basis of a number of techniques in Kōdōkan jūdō. [12, p. 127], and [18].

Table 1. Gō-no-kata: “Forms of Proper Use of Force” of Kōdōkan jūdō, as constructed by Jigorō Kanō in 1887 or earlier.
From Kuhara [9], and Ochiai [19,20].
1. Seoi-nage Shoulder Throw

2. Ushiro-goshi Back Hip Throw
3. Sukui-nage Scooping Throw

4. Hidari-seoi-nage Left Shoulder Throw
5. Uki-goshi Floating Hip Throw
6. Hadaka-jime ® Koshi-kudaki Naked Lock ® Hip Crush
SE
7. Tobi-goshi ® Uki-goshi Jumping Hip Throw ® Floating Hip Throw
8. Ō-soto-otoshi Large Outer Drop
9. Ushiro-goshi Back Hip Throw
10. Kata-guruma Shoulder Wheel
U
created at the turning point from jūjutsu to jūdō [9]. As grip, thereby learning the correct timing for effective-
such they were based on the principle of self-defense so, in ly using uke’s own force to either unbalance him/her or
LY L
that sense … not necessarily suited to [modern] jūdō [9]. move into a position of advantage.
The motivation for the creation of the gō-no-kata is at- Kuhara [9] and Ochiai [10] explain why the grips and
N A
tributed to the rapid growth in the popularity of jūdō. holds of the gō-no-kata are different to the classical sleeve-
With an increasing number of students it became im- lapel grip used in jūdō:
O N
possible for Kanō to personally teach every new enrolled
student and so he created a kata to support the correct “The jūdōgi in those days were unlike those of today and did
learning of the art: not cover the elbows or the knees, so the kamaekata (posture)
SO
and kumikata (ways of holding) were necessarily defensive ones.

“In the beginning, Kanō-shihan personally taught this kata to It often happened that four fingers of one hand were inserted
his students; but as more students came to him for instruction, into the sleeve of one’s partner with the other hand taking hold
he found this harder to achieve. It seems that for this reason he of the collar from the rear.” (…) [9,10].
had to establish this basic kata so that his students could learn
from it, and not necessarily directly from him. In fact he used It is worthy of note that many of the kata’s techniques
R
to say that there was a great need for it.” (…) [9] start with tori and uke clasping each other’s hands in
various positions, whilst forcefully pulling or pushing.
PE
The essence of the gō-no-kata is described and a list of Additionally, the main body position in the kata is the
the techniques that comprise the kata is provided (see defensive posture (jigotai) and many of the low-hip move- Jigotai: A defensive basic
body position, characterized
Table 1). ments therein are also evocative of sumō. For instance, by a wide stance and low
for sukui-nage, “scooping throw” (the third technique point of gravity, that is
rooted in koryū or traditional
“The kata consists of ten techniques, in which the two in the kata) the starting position resembles a standing martial arts, probably
[participants] confront each other - at first with the utmost power arm-wrestling match. Sekiguchi-ryū, and which
was popular in early jūdō
and later [one] makes best use of the other’s power.” (…) [9] practice.
The sixth technique in the kata (hadaka-jime/koshi-kudaki or
Table 1 shows that seven distinct techniques are prac- “naked choke/hip crush”), for example, starts with tori being
ticed in the gō-no-kata. Three of these are repeated with held in ryōte-dori (two-hand hold) and transitions through
different irimi (“entry patterns”) bringing the total to ten. both tori and uke using hand pressure grips in a manner
similar to sumi-gaeshi (“corner throw”) as performed in the
In essence, the gō-no-kata focuses on functional strength nage-no-kata, before concluding with tori applying the choke.
and the application of that strength at the correct time to
create the maximum amount of kuzushi, “balance-break- Inspection of Kuhara [9] and Ochiai [10] also confirms
ing”. After hard pushing and pulling, the tori surrenders that (similar to the jū-no-kata) there are no completed
to uke’s attack up to the point where he/she almost los- throwing techniques in the gō-no-kata. Tori prepares for
es. However, the tori suddenly regains his position with the throwing technique with the correct principles of
tai-sabaki (proper body movement & position) and pre- kuzushi and tsukuri, “body positioning”, but there is no
vails (Figures 5,6). Accordingly, the gō-no-kata is also kake, “application”. As such it would have been especial-
useful in developing sensitivity to the tension in uke’s ly suited to beginners.

py is for personal use only - distribution prohibited. This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited. This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited. This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited. This copy is for personal use only - distrib
Original Article
VOLUME 5 | 2009 | 88
E
C
A
D
PE
R
SO
O N
N A
I
F
H
LY L
U
SE
© ARCHIVES OF BUDO

J K
SE
Figure 6(A–K). Makoto Hoshina, 7th dan Kōdōkan (tori) and
U
Toshiyasu Ochiai, 8th dan Kōdōkan (uke) in
ushiro-goshi, the second technique of gō-
no-kata during a demonstration as part of
a Judo Teachers Clinic held on Saturday,
LY L
February 7th, 2008 in Norwalk, CA. Note
once again how forceful opposition at first,

is channelled into jū or giving way, which
N A provides an opportunity to successfully
enter a jūdō throw, in this case, a “back-
The gō-no-kata is thought to be the only jūdō kata intended
hip throw” (ushiro-goshi). Although in this
O N
to assist in the development of actual physical strength case, the tori for instructional purposes
(see also higher, under Uenishi) with it being written is gripping the uke’s arm, normally all
that Nagaoka-sensei recommended its use before prac- exercises of gō-no-kata, similarly to jū-
SO
tice as a warm-up exercise. Additionally, Nagaoka-sensei no-kata, should be performed without

wrote that the kata contributes to increased willpower, gripping the fabric of the jūdōgi.
physical force, and ki, “spiritual energy”. Kuhara writes:
As far as it is known, Fusatarō Sakamoto-sensei of Tenjin Shin’yō-
“I often heard Sakamoto-sensei say that the late Nagaoka (10th ryū, 9th dan (age 88), and Shōichirō Satō-sensei of Sōsuishitsu-
dan) used to do this kata before keiko (practice). He probably did ryū10, 8th dan (age 82), are the ones who can practice them today.
R
this not only for the kata practice but also to prepare himself both It is known that those two elderly masters once exhibited the kata
physically and mentally for the keiko. Actually, if you make an in public at a Butoku Festival in Kyōto.”11 (…) [9].
PE
effort in performing this kata, you can keep yourself in good shape,
with your waist becoming more stable and more energy flowing to “… thanks to the writings of Nagaoka, 10th dan, and Samura,
you. I am quite sure that well before you have completed all of this 10th dan and thanks to the valuable advice from Sakamoto-
kata, you will begin to sweat even in the coldest season.” (…) [9]. sensei, I could manage to organize this. Fortunately, Sato-sensei
and Sakamoto-sensei had the same material and additionally
Kuhara [9] and Ochiai [10] then give an indication of their bodies as well as their minds had remembered the kata very
the gō-no-kata’s demise, as well as of the instrumental well. I wish to say ‘thanks’ to those two teachers.” (…) [9].
role played by two elderly koryū jūjutsu sensei (Fusatarō
Sakamoto ㈬ᧄᚱᄥ㇢ and Shōichirō Satō ૒⮮᣹৻㇢ ). “In the past there were many who tried, in every way, to pass
Finally, Kuhara [9] reproduces limited relevant writings down this kata to subsequent generations as a precious heritage
by Nagaoka- and Samura-sensei, unfortunately though – but they were unsuccessful. Sakamoto-sensei regretted this and
without bibliographic details: he asked me to do this [instructional book] and he was always
willing to support me whenever I was in need of help.” (…) [9]
“It is true that these ten techniques were, in those days, among the
best known basic forms, but conversely there are [now] relatively few It is not a coincidence that the sensei involved in the
people who know about them, and still fewer who can practice them. preservation of the gō-no-kata in the past had strong ties
10
Sōsuishitsu-ryū ෺᳓ၫᵹ , or “The School of the Pure Flowing Waters” is a koryū būjutsu school that focuses on kumi-uchi jūjutsu and
koshi-no-mawari, iaijutsu and kenjutsu. The shitsu ( ၫ ) in Sōsuishitsu in Japanese kanji is a more modern pronunciation from the Meiji-era,
whereas Sōsuishi-ryū is the Bakumatsu-era pronunciation.
11
Fusatarō Sakamoto was born in 1884 and died in 1978, whereas Shōichirō Satō was born in 1890. We do not know precisely when he
died. Satō-sensei also obtained Kumi-uchi Mokuroku of Sōsuishitsu-ryū in Tōkyō under Hyakutarō Matsu’i ᧻੗⊖ᄥ㇢ before entering the
Kōdōkan.It is equally unknown when exactly the demonstration took place to which Kuhara is referring.

Original Article
to koryū, as koryū practitioners are much closer to what It was the first time in 50 years that these kata had been seen
jūdōka were in the early 1900s than to the sports-ori- in the cradle of modern jūdō. The re-emergence of the Gō-no-
entated ‘grapplers’ of today. Kata is a significant event in the world of modern jūdō, where
it represents an important historical link between classical
1995 (December) – Yukata Shimizu – Hiden koryū practices of jujutsu and the all-round educational emphasis of
bujutsu [21] Kano Jigoro’s Kodokan Judo.” (…) [23, p. 1].
In the December 1995 issue of Hiden koryū bujutsu, an Cundy is correct. Indeed, the last known public perfor-
article appeared by Yutaka Shimizu, entitled: Kōdōkan mance of gō-no-kata at the Kōdōkan dates from the birth
SE
jūdō no kata to jissen [The kata and real fighting of Kōdōkan of the Dōyūkai back in 1948, when it was demonstrated
jūdō] [21]. In the article, Shimizu devotes approximate- by Fusatarō Sakamoto-sensei and Kiyoichi Takagi-sensei.
ly three quarters of a page to gō-no-kata. To the best of In his article, Cundy provides a basic general descrip-
our knowledge, this is the first modern day article which tion of the gō-no-kata, followed by an outline descrip-
also lists all ten techniques and provides valuable back- tion of the first technique therein:
U
ground about this kata. The contents of the article as
well as the techniques listed as part of gō-no-kata, are en- “The Gō-no-Kata in practice is a complex of prearranged
tirely in line with Kuhara [9]. Unfortunately, this valu- movement patterns, executed by two practitioners who engage
able article is neither referenced, nor annotated, mak- in short bursts of strength matching exercises, which are
LY L
ing it impossible to trace its sources. This is a pity, given then concluded by the application of a throwing or choking
that Shimizu offers an interesting point of view which technique.” (…) [23, p. 1].
seems to suggest a connection between gō-no-kata and
N A
Tenjin Shinyō-ryū jūjutsu. Since no other known docu- “…the exponents take a grapplers embrace, and then attempt to
ment provides much insight into the origins of gō-no- push each other backwards; they then reverse their efforts and
O N
kata, it would have been interesting to explore this link attempt to pull each other forward. The pushing procedure is
further, in particular, because jūdō is known to have ex- then resumed until the predetermined winner breaks from the
tensively borrowed katame-waza from this school rather pushing action, and utilizes his partner’s momentum to execute
SO
than nage-waza. One of the most noticeable characteris- a shoulder throw.” (…) [23, p.1].
tics of gō-no-kata is the ubiquitous presence of the jigotai
defensive position. However, according to Maruyama It is clear that the gō-no-kata being described by Cundy
[13] and Kudō [22], the jigotai position of Kōdōkan jūdō [23] relates to the same authentic form and based on
originates in Sekiguchi-ryū, and not in jūdō’s standard par- similar sources as what was described earlier by Kuhara
ent schools Tenjin Shinyō-ryū and Kitō-ryū. [9]. This is confirmed by Cundy’s list of techniques that
R
make up the gō-no-kata, which is identical to the one

1999 – Antony Cundy – HOP-LITE [23] provided in Table 1.
PE
Hoplology12 was very much the spiritual child of Donn Cundy reports that an amateur video of a demon-
F. Draeger, and today the International Hoplology Society stration of the gō-no-kata had been created by Ochiai-
attempts to further his work. It also produces news- sensei and that he (Ochiai) was apparently deluged
letter, called HOP-LITE. In the Fall 1999 issue of this with requests for the recording. Cundy also refers to
Newsletter [23], Antony Cundy in an article describes a the possible production of a gō-no-kata instructional
demonstration of the gō-no-kata performed by Toshiyasu manual – it is this item that was reviewed in the pre-
Ochiai and Yutaka Taniguchi under the auspices of the vious section.
Dōyūkai13 ㆏෹ળ (the “Jūdō Friendship Society”):
It is our understanding that it was not only Ochiai-sensei
“In 1998, the 51st annual meeting and tournament of the who became swamped with requests for copies of the
Dōyūkai (“Association for Friends of the Way”) was held at the gō-no-kata recording. Sources suggest that the Kōdōkan
Kodokan in Tokyo, Japan. There, Ochiai Toshiyasu, 7th dan14, too became overwhelmed by similar requests, whereas
and Taniguchi Yutaka, 4th Dan, presented an exhibition of they were not involved, nor had they endorsed the film
the Gō-no-Kata (Forms of Hardness/Inflexibility/Strength). or even the kata, which “officially” for them does not
12
“Hoplology” is a science that studies human combative behavior and performance. It began taking shape as an academic field of study
in the 1960s under the direction of Donn F. Draeger.
13
The Dōyūkai is a close affiliate of the Kōdōkan. The Dōyūkai organizes jūdō tournaments conform to the pre-War classical format and the
minor contest scores that feature in modern international championships do not count. Ample time is also given to newaza. Nowadays
the Dōyūkai is placing great emphasis on kata, and in this subject their level of expertise is at least equal, or comparable to that found
in the Kōdōkan. Moreover, the kata being studied include those which are not usually practised elsewhere such as the Nage-no-kata-ura-
waza and the Gō-no-kata.
14
Ochiai-sensei is now 8th dan.

exist15. Note that it is highly delicate (i.e. impossible) ᨵ㆏ᚻᏭ , which literally means “Judo Notebook”, and
for the Kōdōkan to publicly endorse something that did of which the date of publication is listed as the year
not meet with the full satisfaction of Kanō-shihan (al- 1999. No author is mentioned.
though as shown supra, unlike what the Kōdōkan sug-
gests, Kanō-shihan never rejected this kata or discour- Undated – Gianna Giraldi – Go no kata [24,25]
aged people from studying it).

In an undated web-based article on the Italian web-
Cundy concludes his article by promising that in the in site freeBudo.com, Gianna Giraldi presents an article
the near future he would write a detailed follow-up pa- that heavily draws on the material of Ochiai [10]. For
SE
per on the gō-no-kata: this reason it serves no purpose to critically evaluate
Giraldi’s article.
“In a future in-depth article on the Go no Kata, I intend to
examine the kata more closely, introducing important figures The interested reader is, however, directed to view
involved in its preservation. Further, I will hypothesize on why Giraldi’s article as it features three-color photographs
U
the kata were developed by Kanō Jigoro, and why then it was of Ochiai-sensei performing techniques from the gō-no-
almost lost to later generations.” (…) [23, p.2]. kata, namely sukui-nage (“scooping throw”), uki-goshi (“float-
ing hip throw”), and also a typical opposition of force
To date, to the best of our knowledge, Cundy never re- posture. These photographs also feature in the original
LY L
alized the promise he made nearly ten years ago and no Ochiai booklet (see [10]).
such follow-up article or any other information has been

published since his brief HOP-LITE article. However, It is worthy of note that Giraldi’s article has recently
N A
there can be no doubt whatsoever that the gō-no-kata de- been unofficially translated by Llyr C. Jones [25] and
scribed by Cundy is the genuine article, and no doubt made available on the Judo Info Internet website. In do-
O N
that Ochiai-sensei is truly a master of the form. Perhaps ing so, Jones has endeavored to keep his translation as
the present paper precludes that our hope would remain faithful as possible to the Italian original, and has not
in vain, and perhaps this paper might serve as a wor- corrected any factual errors; Caveat lector – there are
SO
thy sequel to Cundy’s 1999 text [23]. Where precise- some. However, when there is any ambiguity or doubt,
ly Cundy got his information, has remained a source precedence should be given to the original source [10]
of curiosity. He does not does not identify his sourc- as presented in this paper.
es, and the reclusiveness of the kata makes one wonder
how he found out. Cundy does not confirm in his ar- Additional content found in Giraldi’s article are a well
ticle that he would have been actually present himself balanced overview of kata in jūdō and a correct state-
R
during the demonstration in 1985. Fact is though, that ment that the majority of the writings that generally dis-
in November of 1999 the Jūdō Daijiten was published cuss the gō-no-kata are full of inaccuracies.
PE
by the Kōdōkan [14]. Cundy’s paper [23] was published

in late fall of that same year (1999). 2007 – Toshiyasu Ochiai (edited by Klaus Hanelt)
– Gō-no-kata [19]
November 1999 – Yukimitsu Kanō et al. – Jūdō
Daijiten [12] During a personal conversation with Ochiai-sensei in
August of 200616, he alluded to a new booklet in Japanese
The Jūdō Daijiten or Judo Encyclopedia [12] is a large work on gō-no-kata he was thinking of creating, that would be
(approx. 670 pages) written in Japanese, that contains produced more professionally and be made commercial-
numerous biographical, historical, and bibliographical en- ly available. Just three months earlier, Ochiai had wel-
tries. Unusual for works on jūdō, is that the Encyclopedia comed a group of jūdō kata enthusiasts from Germany
is actually referenced. The information it contains in in his dōjō. The German group expressed the wish to
its two entries, is mainly quoting the information con- have an accessible study text of gō-no-kata to support
tained in the November issue of Yūkō-no-katsudō [16], their practice after their return home, and they were
which we have already considered at length (vide supra). presented with a copy of Ochiai’s 1998 booklet [10].
The booklet was reproduced in German under supervi-
Rare, however, is its detailed list of the techniques con- sion of German kata guru, Klaus Hanelt [19], and this
tained in gō-no-kata [12, p. 463). It lists as a source for in a very neat way, and presented to Ochiai for approv-
these techniques, an obscure work entitled Jūdō Techō al. Despite this somewhat awkward position (= being
15
Ochiai T. Personal communication. Bunkyō Jūdōkai, Tōkyō-to Jūdō Renmei; 2006, August 3rd; Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute.
16
Ibid.

Original Article
presented with a book you have supposedly authored,

yet never seen before …), Ochiai considered that at least
the advantages for the jūdō community would outweigh
the disadvantages, so he did not object.
Thus, since 2007 a new and usable text, and this in a

Western language (German) is available to the public
[19]. There is little sense in further critically analyz-
ing the text, as it is a mere translation of Ochiai’s 1998
SE
booklet, complete with pictures of the authentic gō-no-
kata and helpful comments and notes to study the kata.
The translation is done well. Though this 35-page book-
let is officially published (Verlag Dieter Born, Bonn) and
has a proper ISBN number17, it was still printed only
U
in limited numbers and is not commonly available in a
bookstore, which makes ordering it, particularly if out-
side of Germany, and certainly outside of Europe, not
an easy thing to do. Awaiting the publication of De
LY L
Crée [6], which contains detailed descriptions and his-
tory of 17 existing jūdō kata, including gō-no-kata, at the

time this paper went in print, Ochiai [19] represents
N A
the best alternative.
O N
Since the publication of Ochiai’s German booklet on gō-
no-kata [19], his privately published new Japanese book- Figure 7. Toshiyasu Ochiai, 7th dan, during a snapshot in
Tōkyō in March 2006, about one month before
let has appeared too [20]. This booklet [20] is very well
his promotion to 8th dan on April 30th.
SO
taken care of, with the same pictures as printed in Ochiai

[19], though they appear in a larger format and some- ing by improving their understanding of the concepts
what clearer. Unfortunately, this new booklet too, has of jū and gō, gō-no-kata can be a worthwhile enrichment.
restricted availability and cannot be purchased in stores.
“Where can one learn gō-no-kata” is a frequently heard ques-
For those, who desire to have just a brief guideline in tion. Indeed, this is a reasonable question, as not every-
R
English to studying gō-no-kata, Mōri [26] produced a body has the financial means and practical opportuni-
short eleven-page summary of Ochiai’s 2007 booklet ty to travel to Japan. At the time this paper went into
PE
[18], which is distributed for free, and contains both press, gō-no-kata clinics have already been held abroad,
brief instructions and reproduced pictures. It has also in countries such as Germany. In February of 2008, a
been noted that during a recent gō-no-kata clinic which Teachers Clinic that inter alia featured gō-no-kata was
Ochiai-sensei taught abroad18, compact syllabi on gō-no- held in the US in the Los Angeles area (Norwalk, CA)
kata were distributed, which contain black-and-white (Figure 6A–K). Others will follow. While Toshiyasu
handdrawings of progressive gō-no-kata movements [27]. Ochiai (Figure 7) remains the most known proponent
of gō-no-kata today, other sensei have mastered and can
THE FUTURE OF GŌ-NO-KATA teach gō-no-kata, such as inter alia: Makoto Hoshina, 7th
dan, Yutaka Taniguchi, 5th dan, and Sumiko Akiyama,
Through the modern medium of the Internet, knowl- joshi 7th dan at the Kōdōkan. Others, such as Hiromi
edge that gō-no-kata truly exists and is not extinct, has Noguchi, 7th dan are also believed to know gō-no-kata.
already reached many jūdō kata enthusiasts, some well In Germany, Klaus Hanelt, 7th dan, has given a couple
informed, others less well informed. For those who think of basic gō-no-kata clinics, and Professor De Crée, one
that practicing gō-no-kata will suddenly make one win of the co-authors of the present paper, has intensively
contests or that it contains some secret knowledge to- studied gō-no-kata, and currently teaches it.
wards invincibility or spectacular defenses against danger-

ous arms, disappointment will be the outcome. For those It has been heard through the grapevine that there is
whose commitment it is to further their lifelong learn- some interest in the Kōdōkan to revisit the issue of gō-
17
ISBN 978-3-922006-26-8.
18
This clinic was organized by Nanka Yūdanshakai and sanctioned by the United States Judo Federation (USJF) and took place on Sunday,
February 3rd of 2008 in Norwalk, CA. This was the first time ever that Ochiai-sensei taught a kata-clinic outside of Japan.

no-kata. Whether that implies that one day it might be Jūdō Education: The gō-no-kata provided a framework
taught again, is not known. As one can imagine, the for the correct learning of the basics of jūdō without
Kōdōkan is not exactly the most progressive and liberal throwing. It teaches how to use force effectively, with-
organ in the world, so likely somewhat more water will out relying on force as one’s primary means to conquer
flow through the sea before this happens … an opponent.
Nevertheless, the fact that gō-no-kata is finally publicly Physical Education: The gō-no-kata required using one’s
mentioned, recognized, and given a place again as one body with precision, especially in the practice of using
of the existing official Kōdōkan kata in a recent publica- both focused strength and yielding at critical timings
SE
tion by Toshirō Daigo, the Kōdōkan’s Chief-Instructor during jūdō techniques.
and foremost authority on kata, is encouraging [3, p.
21–22], even if that does not yet equal that it is fea- Physical Culture: Practice of the gō-no-kata assisted in
tured again as part of the taught syllabus. the development of physical strength itself, in a time
that power training devices were nearly nonexistent.
CONCLUSIONS
U
Psychological Benefits: It was believed that practice
Serious research into the gō-no-kata is a very difficult of the gō-no-kata contributed to increased willpower and
endeavor. There is a dearth of major written sources on “spiritual energy” in the sense of mens sana in corpore sano
LY L
the kata, and what is commonly available is often un- [a healthy spirit in a healthy body].
verifiable, incomplete, ambiguous or factually in error.

If indeed both kata were established in 1887, as sug-
N A
While research into this area remains ongoing, there ex- gested by Kawamura and Daigo [12]19, then it is ap-
ists sufficient and even ample evidence that indicates propriate to conclude that the gō-no-kata and the jū-no-
O N
that the gō-no-kata is not, nor in any form has ever been kata were created as a complementary pair, as follows:
a kata of blows, but an exercise examining the princi-
ple of efficient use of force and resistance. The litera- Jū-no-kata: Simplified, in the jū-no-kata, the jū (softness)
SO
ture indicates that the movements within the kata fo- question is responded to by jū (softness). Specifically,
cused on the direct resistance of force (with force) right the jū-no-kata starts with jū and ends in jū.
up until the very last moment when the force is over-
come by skill, strategy and body movement. For this Gō-no-kata: Likewise, in the gō-no-kata, the gō (hard-
and other reasons, including methodological as well ness) question is first responded to by gō and then sub-
as their complete absence of any sources substantiat- sequently by jū (softness). Specifically, the gō-no-kata
R
ing their claims, we firmly would dismiss as false any starts with gō but ends in jū. Thus the gō-no-kata ad-
claim by Parulski [28,29], Muilwijk [31,32] and oth- heres to a fundamental tenet of jūdō namely that soft-
PE
ers that the gō-no-kata is even remotely based on a blend ness controls hardness in the end.
of jūdō and karate, and that it supposedly would have
been composed jointly by Jigorō Kanō and Gichin Both kata convey the meaning of jū-no-ri, i.e the core Jigorō Kanō: The founder of
Funakoshi. Moreover the series of exercises as present- principle of jūjutsu whereby one avoids opposing an died in 1938.
ed by Parulski [28,29] and copied by Muilwijk [30– opponent’s force and power directly in favor of using
32] must be classified as a contemporary hoax lacking it to one’s advantage. They also accord with jū yoku gō
any historic substance or roots in either Jigorō Kanō wo sei suru ᨵ⢻ߊ೰ࠍ೙ߔࠆ , a core principle of jūdō
or any of the other great jūdō masters of the past, or … which can be translated in a number of ways – softness
even in any jūdō-specific principle. overcomes hardness, flexibility overcomes stiffness, gentleness
controls strength or win by yielding.
Based on the original comments provided by Kanō-shihan
[16,33], as well as Nagaoka- and Samura-sensei, and the Despite being popularly thought of as defunct, the gō-
substantive research and notes by Yoshiyuki Kuhara- no-kata survives today having initially been preserved in
sensei and preserved by Toshiyasu Ochiai [10,19,20], Tōkyō by a small group of senior jūdōka under the guid-
it is understood beyond any doubt that the gō-no-kata ance of Toshiyasu Ochiai, and now also by a handful
was and is a special and never completed set of exercis- of experts abroad. The knowledge of two elderly koryū
es (ten in total) for two people devised by Kanō-shihan, jūjutsu sensei and the writings of Nagaoka- and Samura-
that combined several aims: sensei supported its limited preservation (Figure 8).
19
This is, however, doubtful. As suggested by Kuhara [9], gō-no-kata is likely the oldest jūdō kata, and must thus predate 1885, the year in
which the old 10-technique nage-no-kata was completed. Jū-no-kata, which is far more refined, was created years later, in 1887, and prob-
ably only then paired up with gō-no-kata, to form what was then known under their common name gōjū-no-kata.

Original Article
example, Ochiai-sensei, found out too, and why he con-

tinues practicing and teaching gō-no-kata having serious-
ly reflected on what it entails and how it can be prop-
erly incorporated into jūdō training. Consequently, we
as authors of this paper, advocate the practice of gō-no-
kata, and we do so for all of the reasons explained above,

as well as because we believe that in a time when the
message, aims and principles of Kanō’s jūdō under im-
pulse of the International Jūdō Federation become increas-
SE
ingly diluted in the light of its ever increasing emphasis
on jūdō as a performance sport and popular media cir-
Figure 8. Yoshiyuki Kuhara (left) visiting the retired Kaichirō cus, gō-no-kata helps explaining and restoring what jūdō
Samura, 10th dan (right) and wife in Kyōto, at the
is and was about.
occasion of Samura-sensei’s 80th birthday in 1960
(From [9], p. 345).
U
Finally, we applaud Toshirō Daigo-sensei’s recent paper
Additionally, having been obscured for many decades [3] in which he included gō-no-kata as a legitimate and ex-
the kata is now experiencing a minor renaissance in isting Kōdōkan kata. We hope that it will soon be reintro-
that it is taught and performed on an annual basis at duced in the Kōdōkan’s formal teaching curriculum of kata.
LY L
the Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute by Ochiai-sensei under the pa-
tronage of the Dōyūkai. Notes

N A
Kanō’s own writings indicate that he was not satisfied Japanese names in this paper are listed by given name
with elements of the gō-no-kata and therefore abandoned, first and family name second, instead of tradition-
O N
or at least, delayed its development. Furthermore, like al Japanese usage which places the family name first.
with Itsutsu-no-kata, Kanō never found the time after-
wards to rework, revise or expand the gō-no-kata and ac- For absolute rigor, long Japanese vowel sounds have
SO
cordingly it must be considered as unfinished. However been approximated using macrons (e.g. Kōdōkan) in or-
the writings also confirm that Kanō did not reject the der to indicate their Japanese pronunciation as close-
kata in its entirety or its practice, unlike what some ly as possible. However, when referring to or quoting
claim; so the Kōdōkan is overstating the case when it from the literature, the relevant text or author is cited
suggests otherwise. It is most likely that it is precisely exactly as per the original source, with macrons used or
this which devoted jūdō kata practitioners such as, for omitted as appropriate.
R
REFERENCES:
PE
1. Daigo T: Koshiki-no-kata. Unpublished lecture as 8. Jones LC: Competition, Kata and the Art of Judo. 17. Kanō J: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata ni tsuite [About the
part of the Kōdōkan Kata Kaki Kōshūkai (Kōdōkan Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 2005; 14(3): 72–85 kata of Kōdōkan jūdō]. In: Ed. Kanō-sensei Denki
Summer Kata Course); 2007; July 16th; Tōkyō: Hensankai [Committee for the compilation of the
Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute [in Japanese] 9. Kuhara Y: Jūdō mizu nagare. Tōkyō: Shūdōkan biography of Master Kanō], Tōkyō: Satsuki Shobo;
Kuhara Dōjō; 1976 [in Japanese] 1983 [in Japanese]
2. Daigo T: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata [The kata of Kōdōkan
jūdō]. Unpublished lecture as part of the Kōdōkan 10. Ochiai T: Gō-no-kata. Tōkyō: Private publication, 18. Mol S: Classical fighting arts of Japan. A complete guide
Kata Kaki Kōshūkai (Kōdōkan Summer Kata Course), based on Yoshiyuki Kuhara’s Jūdō Mizu Nagare. to koryū jūjutsu. Tōkyō: Kōdansha Int., Ltd.; 2001
Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute; 2008; July 29th; 1998; [in Japanese]
this same article is currently being reprinted in three 19. Ochiai T: Gō-no-Kata. Hanelt K (ed.), Bonn,
11. Mochizuki M: Theory of the essence of judo. Aiki Germany: Dieter Born Verlag, 2007; p. 1–35 [in
parts in Jūdō, 2008; 79 (10, 11 & 12) [in Japanese]
News, 1984; 65 German]
3. Daigo T: Kōdōkan jūdō kata ni tsuite [About the kata
of Kōdōkan jūdō]. Jūdō, 2009; 80(1): 17–22 [in 12. Kawamura T, Daigo T (eds.): Kōdōkan New Japanese- 20. Ochiai T: Gō-no-kata. Naganuma K (ed). Tōkyō:
Japanese] English Dictionary of Judo. Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Institute, Private publication; 2007; p. 1–32 [in Japanese]
2000
4. Kōdōkan: Kata and Randori. [homepage on the 21. Shimizu Y: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata to jissen [The
Internet]. n.d. [cited 2007; Apr 10th]. Available 13. Maruyama S: Dai Nihon Judo Shi [Complete History kata and real fighting of Kōdōkan jūdō]. Hiden
from: The Kōdōkan Judo Institute Homepage, of Japanese Judo]. Tōkyō: Kōdōkan; 1939; 1170 Koryū Bujutsu, 1995; 31(5): 3–16 [in Japanese]
URL:http://www.Kodokan.org/e_basic/kata.html p. [in Japanese]
22. Kudō R: Hiroku nihon jūdō [Secret notes on Japanese
5. Kanō J: Kōdōkan jūdō no kata [The kata of 14. Kanō Y, Kawamura T, Nakamura R et al (eds.): Jūdō jūdō]. Tōkyō: Tōkyō Sports Shinkaisha. 1972;
Kōdōkan jūdō]. Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Hakkō [Kōdōkan Daijiten. Tōkyō: Athene Shobō; 1999; 139 & 463 70–72 & p. 84–90 [in Japanese]
Publications], Nunoi shubō saisoku; reprinted for [in Japanese]

23. Cundy A: The Go no Kata: An Introduction to
the Kōdōkan Kata Kaki Kōshūkai (Kōdōkan Summer
15. Oimatsu S: Kaitei shinpan jūdō hyakunen (Brand new the Forgotten Form of Kodokan Judo. HOP-LITE –
Kata Course), Daigo T (ed.); 1964; July 29th; Tōkyō:
revised edition of Hundred Years of Jūdō). Satō K Newsletter of the International Hoplology Society, 1999;
Kōdōkan Jūdō Institute [in Japanese]
(ed). Tōkyō: Tokimune Tsūshinsha; 1976; 40–53 8(Fall): 1–2
6. De Crée C: Ryū-setsu. Jūdō no musha shugyō – As [in Japanese]
snow on a willow. A pilgrimage in jūdō. Cambridge: 24. Giraldi G: Go-no-Kata. freeBudoWebsite [article on-
Cambridge University Press, 2010; In preparation 16. Kanō J: Ichiban shūgyōsha ni kata no renshū wo line] (n.d.) [cited 2007 Apr]. Available from: URL:
susumeru. [General recommendations to the judo http://www.freebudo.com/articoli/judo%20tradizionale/
7. Otaki T, Draeger DF : Judo Formal Techniques. Tōkyō: disciple for the study of kata]. Yūkō-no-Katsudō, kata/1%20go%20no%20kata/1%20go%20no%20
Charles E. Tuttle Company Inc.; 1983 1921; 7(11): 1–6 [in Japanese] kata.htm [in Italian]

25. Giraldi G: Go-no-Kata: The Kata of the Force. Jones 28. Parulski GR: Black Belt Judo. Chicago: Contemporary 31. Muilwijk JT: Go-no-Kata: Reconstructie van een vergeten
L.C., translator. [article online] (2007) [cited 2007 Books, Inc.; 1985 kata. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Bookexpress. in-
Apr]. Available from: Judo Information Site, URL: 29. Parulski GR: Isao Obato’s Lost katas of judo – vol. 1 fos, 2005 [in Dutch]
http://judoinfo.com/pdf/Go-no-Kata.pdf (#V-LKJ-04). CD-ROM and CD. Webster, New York: 32. Muilwijk JT: Go-no-Kata: Reconstructing the forgotten
26. Mōri O: An Introduction to Go no Kata. Tōkyō: Private Kobushi Multimedia; 1998 kata. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Bookexpress.
publication, based on Yoshiyuki Kuhara’s Jūdō Mizu 30. Muilwijk JT: Jan Muilwijk introduceert Go no Kata infos, 2006
Nagare, 2008; pp. 1–11 (Jan Muilwijk introduces Go no Kata) [article on- 33. Kanō J: Kanō Jigorō jūdōka – 12. [Jigorō Kanō,
27. Ochiai T: Gō-no-kata. Syllabus, Gō-no-kata Clinic; line] (2005) [cited 2007], Available online from: the jūdōka – Part 12]. Sakkō, 1927; 6(12): 86–92
Nanka Yūdanshakai, 2008, February 3rd; Norwalk, Sportschool Muilwijk Website, URL:http://www. (15–21) [in Japanese]
CA, 2008; No page numbers sportschoolmuilwijk.nl/Go-no-kata/ [in Dutch]
SE
U
LY L
N A
O N
SO
R
PE

View publication stats

Gō-No-Kata: The 'Lost' Kata of Kōdōkan Jūdō?: January 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gō-No-Kata: The 'Lost' Kata of Kōdōkan Jūdō?: January 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Gō-no-kata: the 'lost' kata of Kōdōkan Jūdō?

Article · January 2012

Carl De Crée Llyr Jones

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sexual misconduct in judo federations View project

Shōnen Jūdō-no-kata View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Kōdōkan Jūdō’s Elusive Tenth Kata: The Gō-no-kata

– ”Forms of Proper Use of Force” – Part 1

Key words: Gō-no-kata • Jigorō Kanō • jūdō • kata • Kōdōkan

BACKGROUND a valuable training drill in most Japanese gendai budō1

Kata: Predetermined and

© ARCHIVES OF BUDO VOLUME 5 | 2009 | 55

Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

style of budō as given by the

books. Goshinhō can be considered as the equivalent of

created by Jigorō Kanō and

list, namely, kime-shiki and jū-shiki, today are considered

VOLUME 5 | 2009 | 56 © ARCHIVES OF BUDO

Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

De Crée C et al – Kōdōkan Jūdō’s Gō-nō-kata

is successful. In other words, assuming that gō-no-kata

per offers an important contribution to our knowl-

“GŌ-NO-KATA” for gō-no-kata by Sanzō Maruyama’s (1893–1984) oth-

come thought of as the “lost or forgotten kata of jūdō”.

used to describe textiles or in some cases people with

www.archbudo.com 57 | 2009 | VOLUME 5

Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

to Kanō-shihan for approval. It is also known that Kanō

uscript of which he thought, much was incorrect. Lack

VOLUME 5 | 2009 | 58 © ARCHIVES OF BUDO

Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

De Crée C et al – Kōdōkan Jūdō’s Gō-nō-kata

for dozens of years, and was taught only sporadically and

this gō-no-kata is his own original creation and makes no

these errors do not detract significantly from what oth-

www.archbudo.com 59 | 2009 | VOLUME 5

Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

al (historic) existence. Knowing that Abe-sensei is a di-

unexpected. Thus, we probed further and asked Abe-

and who had trained under both Kyūzō Mifune-sensei

VOLUME 5 | 2009 | 60 © ARCHIVES OF BUDO

Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

De Crée C et al – Kōdōkan Jūdō’s Gō-nō-kata

is simply trying to provide background for the various

one provided previously by Kawaishi:

Klein17 became fascinated with jūdō in the early 1950s

No reference to Kawaishi’s work is made in Parulski’s text

www.archbudo.com 61 | 2009 | VOLUME 5

Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

ered and restored various obsolete jūdō kata, which he

karate atemi-waza. His assertion that this kata would be

“The founder of the American Society of Classical Judoka,

were once there and are on longer taught.” (…) [38, p. 3]

death in 1986.” (…) [32]

Japanese version of the book Kodokan Judo that is in com-

VOLUME 5 | 2009 | 62 © ARCHIVES OF BUDO

Electronic PDF security powered by ISL-science.com

De Crée C et al – Kōdōkan Jūdō’s Gō-nō-kata

2. Oi-tsuki Stepping thrust/strike

LY L Katate-tekubi-dori Single hand wrist hold

13. Oi-tsuki Stepping thrust/strike