The previous Maekawa et al.’s9) investigation on the validation of competitive abilities scale of judo competitors determined nine items such as general motor ability, mental toughness, attention to form, stamina, tactics, assertiveness of the athlete in applying kumi-te, proper kumi-te style, standing defense, and mat skills. The aim of this study is to develop a scale on competitive ability and to verify the validity of the scale by using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) based on those nine items. As a result, data ranked by the total score of the competitive ability scale had a high correlation with predicted competition results by AHP (respectively, p<0.001, for all; Spearman’s Rank Test). Thus, this study showed that the scale on competitive ability was effective by using AHP.
The All-Japan Judo Championships (AJJC) is an open-weight tournament for determining the best judoka in Japan. The AJJC has been held under the Kodokan Judo Refereeing Rules (KDK Rules) since 1951. In 2011, the All-Japan Judo Federation (AJJF) introduced the International Judo Federation Refereeing Rules (IJF Rules), which were formulated to facilitate more dynamic judo (increased wins by ippon, decreased wins by judges’ decisions, and decreased mate-time). Although the IJF Rules has facilitated dynamic judo in international competitions, their effects on the competition contents in the AJJC are still unknown. Here, we aimed to clarify whether the introduction of the IJF Rules facilitated dynamic judo in the AJJC. The 221 judo matches in the AJJC from 2008 to 2013 were separated into two groups, the tournaments following the KDK Rules (2008-2010) and those following the IJF Rules (2011-2013). Their data were extracted from the AJJC records by Judo, the official Kodokan journal, and from the match videos recorded by the AJJF. We analyzed the proportions of winning contents (wins by ippon or superior performance), winning methods (points from techniques or penalties, or judges’ decisions), techniques for getting points (te-waza, koshi-waza, ashi-waza, sutemi-waza, or katame-waza) and the mate-time for each match. A chi-square test and an independent t-test were used to perform statistical analyses, and for each test, statistical significance was assumed at P value < 0.05. For the winning methods of the IJF Rules’ and the KDK Rules’ tournaments, the proportion of points from techniques (60.4% vs. 53.6%) and points from penalties (23.4% vs. 15.5%) showed no differences, but the proportion of wins by judges’ decisions in the IJF Rules’ tournaments was significantly lower than in the KDK Rules’ tournaments (16.2% vs. 30.9%) (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the mate-time in the IJF Rules’ tournaments was significantly shorter than in the KDK Rules’ tournaments (77 s vs. 105 s) (P < 0.01). However, the winning contents and techniques for obtaining points showed no differences between the IJF Rules’ and the KDK Rules’ tournaments. We confirmed for the first time that the IJF Rules did not affect the winning contents and techniques for getting points, but decreased the proportion of judges’ decisions and mate-time in the AJJC. These findings suggest that the IJF Rules partially facilitated dynamic judo in the AJJC.
In the present study, 104 collegiate judokas (competitive level: international, n＝26; national, n＝26; regional, n＝26; prefectural, n＝26) who had no refereeing experience watched and subsequently evaluated video footage of four types of throwing techniques recorded from four different directions. We then investigated whether conflicting evaluations or similar effects would arise among the judokas based on their competitive level. We obtained the following results. 1．No significant interactions were observed for any of the throwing techniques, indicating the absence of complex factors involving mutual interaction between viewing direction and competitive level. 2．A significant main effect was observed for the viewing direction for all four throwing techniques, indicating a relationship with the occurrence of conflicting evaluations across all competitive levels. 3．For two of the four throwing techniques, a significant main effect was observed for competitive level, indicating a high possibility that this factor is related to the occurrence of conflicting evaluations. 4．International-level judokas gave significantly more favorable evaluations for ippon-seoi-nage (one-arm shoulder throw) than prefectural-level judokas. International-level judokas also tended to give significantly more favorable evaluations for osoto-gari (major outer reaping throw) than both regional- and prefectural-level judokas. These results suggest that conflicting evaluations of throwing techniques are likely to occur when the judokas performing the evaluations are separated by two or more competitive levels. The results also suggest that judokas competing at higher levels evaluate throwing techniques more favorably than those competing at lower levels. Based on the above, conflicting evaluations of throwing techniques occur according to the viewing direction, even when those evaluating the techniques compete at the same level. This indicates that viewing direction is a primary cause of conflicting evaluations of throwing techniques, and thus that conflicting evaluations are inevitable. It is therefore important for judges to view throwing techniques from multiple directions. In addition, conflicting evaluations occur due to differences in the competitive level of the referees; therefore, it is important for those wishing to become referees to first compete at a high level as judokas.