![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In February 1921, catch wrestlers Ad Santel and Henry Weber traveled to Japan to engage in several public bouts against fighters from the Kōdōkan judo school. The matches were held in a sumo ring at Tokyo’s Yasukuni shrine and became a mega-event, attracting between 20,000 and 25,000 spectators. The Kōdōkan judo headquarters and the center’s founder Kanō Jigorō positioned themselves in opposition to the bouts to protect the Kōdōkan brand. What became known as the ‘Santel Incident’ (Santeru jiken) caused major controversy in Japan’s judo community. To understand the significance of the Santel Incident in the history of Kōdōkan judo, this article focusses on the aspects of medialization, commercialization, and eventization of sports, thus placing the bouts within the larger context of contemporary Japanese and global sport history. We demonstrate that the challenge by the American professional wrestlers brought to the surface generational tensions as well as divergent visions concerning the definition of judo between sports and martial art, and professionalism and amateurism. Our analysis is based on close readings of contemporary primary sources, including Japanese newspaper articles, research essays in judo magazines, and (auto)biographical writings, some of which are analyzed and discussed for the first time.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 ‘Kentō no yūsha kuru’, Yomiuri Shimbun, 27 February 1921, 7. As the term wrestling was not known to the general audience, the newspapers often used terms like kentō or sumō to refer to the fights. See also below.
2 Ad Santel was one of the pioneers and stars of the North American catch (catch-as-catch-can) wrestling scene. He debuted in 1907 and won the title of World Light Heavyweight Champion in 1913 and only retired from wrestling in 1933. ‘Last rites held for Ad Santel’, Oakland Tribune, 12 November 1966, 13; ‘Santel was the best’, Oakland Tribune, 17 November 1966, 39.
3 The database wrestlingdata.com lists one Austrian born wrestler by the name of Henry Weber (1886-1936). According to this database, Weber had a total of forty-six matches, but was still rather inexperienced in 1921. According to Japanese newspapers, Weber was from Portland, US. ‘Jūdōka to tatakaubeku beikoku ni senshu kitaru’, Jiji Shimpō, 27 February 1922, 11.
4 Catch wrestling or Catch-as-catch-can wrestling, from which modern-day professional wrestling developed, was a legitimate competitive sport in North America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, with professional wrestlers barnstorming the country and fighting at circuses, theatres, or carnivals.
5 Kanō Jigorō not only had developed judo and had founded the Kōdōkan, he was also the first Asian member of the International Olympic Committee. He was founder and chairman of Japan’s first sports promotion organization, the Japan Amateur Sports Association (Dai Nippon Taiiku Kyōkai), principal of the Tokyo Higher Normal School, and a member of the House of Peers. Kanō’s authority extended beyond the world of judo to the worlds of sports, education, politics, and business in Japan. See Andreas Niehaus, Leben und Werk Kanō Jigorōs: Judo – Sport – Erziehung (Würzburg: Nomos/Ergon, 2019). As of 1921, the Kōdōkan had registered 22,000 students and over 6,400 dan rank holders. See Kōdōkan Bunkakai, ed. Jūdō nenkan (Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Bunkakai, 1922), 27. With these membership numbers, the Kōdōkan was by far the largest single martial arts organization in Japan, and it exerted a very strong influence even on the Dai Nippon Butokukai, the largest general martial arts organization throughout pre-war and wartime Japan. For the Butokukai see, for example, Denis Gainty, Martial Arts and the Body Politic in Meiji Japan (London: Routledge, 2013).
6 E.g. ‘Kentō shiaisha wa jijitsu jō jomei’, Yomiuri Shimbun, 3 March 1921.
7 Kanō Jigorō, ‘Santeru jiken no ketsumatsu’, Yūkō no katsudō 7, no. 5 (1921): 2–4. The term ‘Santel-Incident’ takes into account the fact that Santel was the main challenger and the more established fighter. Additionally, there had been already a number of bouts between Santel and representatives of Kōdōkan judo in the Unites States that had received considerable media attention, both in the US and in Japan.
8 Marushima Takao, Kōdōkan jūdō tai puroresu hatsutaiketsu: Shōwa 10nen, Santeru jiken (Saitama: Shimazu Shobō, 2006), 234.
9 Ibid., 234.
10 Nagaki Kōsuke. ‘‘Jūdō’ to ‘supōtsu’ no sōkoku: Kanō ga motometa bujutsusei to iu kadai’, in Gendai supōtsu wa Kanō Jigorō kara nani o manabu no ka: Orimpikku taiiku jūdō no arata na bijon, ed. Kiku Kōichi (Kyōto: Minerva Shobō, 2014), 156.
11 Ikemoto Jun’ichi, Jitsuroku jūdō tai kentō – nageru ka, naguru ka (Tōkyō: BAB Japan, 2018), 151.
12 Ibid., 152.
13 Ibid., 158.
14 Kanō Jigorō, ‘Sekaiteki ka sen to suru nihon no jūdō’, Shin Kōron 36, no. 9 (1921): 106.
15 Minami Hiroshi, ed. Taishō bunka (Tōkyō: Keisō shobō, 1965).
16 Nihon fūzokushi gakkai, ed. Kindai nihon fūzokushi (Tōkyō: Yūzankaku, 1968), 187–246.
17 Tsuganezawa Toshihiro, ed. Kindai nihon no media, ibento (Tōkyō: Dōbunkan, 1996).
18 The Hōchi Shimbun argued that the ‘Japan-US wrestling match between wrestling and judo was fueled by the Kōdōkan dispute,’ but it was not least the newspapers that made increased interest in this topic. ‘Nichibei mushōbu’, Hōchi Shimbun, 6 March 1921, 9.
19 ‘Mondai no nichibei kyōgi’, Tōkyō Nichinichi Shimbun, 23 February 1921, 9.
20 For the propagation of judo in the US in the early twentieth century, see Yabu Kōtarō, Jūjutsu kyō jidai – 20 seiki shotō Amerika ni okeru jūjutsu būmu to sono shūhen (Tōkyō: Asahi Shimbun Shuppan, 2021). Around 1900, mixed martial arts matches between judo practitioners and boxers were sporadically held, but by 1919, a show bearing the name ‘Jūken Kōgyō’ (Judo Boxing Entertainment) began to be held on a regular basis. It is possible that Kanō approved of this activity for three reasons: (1) The box office was based in the Kansai region, far from Tokyo, the Kōdōkan’s home base; (2) the box office did not carry the Kōdōkan sign, even though it bore the name judo; and (3) the owner was Kanō’s nephew, Kanō Kenji, who was a well-known mobster (yakuza) in the Kansai region. Jūken Kōgyō lost popularity in the late 1920s and ceased to exist in 1931. For Jūken Kōgyō, see Ikemoto, Jitsuroku jūdō.
21 Diana Looser, ‘Radical Bodies and Dangerous Ladies: Martial Arts and Women’s Performance, 1900–1918’, Theatre Research International 36, no. 1 (2011): 3–19.
22 Ōno Akitarō, for example, sent a letter to the Kōdōkan from the US detailing the popularity of mixed martial art matches in the US at the time and also mentioned his own participation in such matches. Yokoyama Sakujirō, ‘Kaigai no nihon jūdō’, Seikō 7, no. 5 (1905): 44–8.
23 Santel was not the only wrestler to have matches with judo practitioners, but he had a significantly higher number of matches than anyone else. Analyzing articles published in Nichibei Shimbun and Shin Sekai between 1915 and 1920 suggest, that his overall record before coming to Japan was four wins, two draws, and one loss. See also Marushima, Kōdōkan jūdō, 87–113.
24 ‘Santeru ga sōkō ni konu wake’, Shin Sekai, 27 November 1918, 3.
25 The Japanese language press in the US reported about Santel’s plans to visit Japan from January 1919, ‘Santeru no tonichi’, Nichibei Shimbun, 21 January 1919, 5) and in January 1920 the newspapers wrote, that Santel was looking for a manager (‘Santeru nihon-iki’, Shin Sekai, 13 January 1920, 7). In November of the same year the Nichibei Shimbun then announced that Mashiko Kōji took over the position of manager. ‘Santeru tonichi maebure’, Nichibei Shimbun, 29 November 1920, 3.
26 ‘Denshinsha uttaeraru’, Kororado Shimbun, 5 April 1915, 3; ‘Masuko Tōzan Kōji Roku tōshū dōhō shokumin jijō’, Santō Jiji, 18 May 1917, 1; ‘Hikyō naru rokkī jihō no taido ni tsuite’, Yuta Nippō, 9 September 1919, 2. On Masuko Kōji and his activities in the entertainment business, his baseball club as well as the accusations of fraud see Suzuki Mutsuhiko et al. ed. ‘Intā maunten dōhō hattatsushi’. (Denver: Denbā Shimpōsha 1910), 141–3.
27 For more details on Kushibiki’s biography see below. Hashizume Shinya, Jinsei wa hakurankai: Nihon rankaiya retsuden (Tōkyō: Shōbunsha 2001), 35–61.
28 ‘Tōkyō ni Santeru kai’, Nippu Jiji, 21 February 1921, 2. ‘Seiyō zumō kitaru – Nihon no jūdō to kyōgi’, Miyako Shimbun, 23 February 1921, 7.
29 ‘Santeru shuppatsu’, Nichibei Shimbun, 8 February 1921, 2.
30 ‘Kawanuma Hajime shi kikō’, Hawai Hōchi, 15 February 1921, 2; ‘Beikoku kentō no ryō ōzeki wo mukau’, Yokohama Bōeki Shimpō, 27 February 1921, 5.
31 In Yokohama the group was welcomed by members of the International Wrestling Club of America, but also by Yamashita Yoshitsugu, who held the highest rank of 8th dan in the Kōdōkan at that time, Fujimura Kenkichi, a 2nd dan judo instructor at a town dojo (machi dōjō), Harishige Keiki, the owner and chief editor of the famous youth magazine Bukyō Sekai (The World of Heroism), and Yamada Toshiyuki, a 4th dan judo instructor and an employee of the Bukyō Sekai Company, which would be sponsoring Santel’s matches at Yasukuni Shrine. ‘Beikoku kentō no ryō ōzeki wo mukau’, Yokohama Bōeki Shimpō, 27 February 1921, 5.
32 The Yasukuni Shrine (established 1869) as a memorial facility for soldiers who died in Japan’s wars and civil wars since the Meiji era, is a typical ‘ideological apparatus of the state.’ At the same time, the shrine was popular among the common people as a venue for entertainment and festivals. In addition, the shrine also had a sumo facility within its precincts, which could be used for a fee. At that time, there was also the Ryōgoku Kokugikan in Tokyo, which could accommodate 20,000 visitors, but access was limited to professional sumo wrestling. There were hardly any sports facilities with spectator seating except for baseball fields. Yasukuni was therefore chosen as venue for the matches because of practical reasons related to infrastructure and not political reasons. For details, see Tsubouchi Yūzo, Yasukuni (Tōkyō: Shinchōsha, 1999).
33 Concerning the venues, see below. Sasaki Shigetsu, Amerika yawa (Tōkyō: Nihon Hyōronsha Shuppanbu, 1922), 168–227.
34 Shibusawa had been secretary of the Kōdōkan Foundation since it became an incorporated foundation in 1909.
35 ‘Weber zampai Santeru wa hikiwake’, Hōchi Shimbun, 7 March, 1921.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Masuda won the first round, while Weber was able to win the second round. The third round was ruled to be a draw. As the rules stipulated, that the fighter who had won the first round would be declared winner, Masuda was able to claim—very much to the surprise of the audience which expected a draw—victory for this fight. Marushima, Kōdōkan jūdō, 161–4.
39 Some newspapers also categorized this bout as ‘no match’ (shōbu nashi). For a detailed description of the fights, see Marushima, Kōdōkan jūdō, 161–74.
40 The rules for the matches were as follows: ‘1. Three bouts of twenty minutes each (with two wins required to win). 2. Wrestlers are required to wear a judo jacket and belt, but pants and shoes are allowed. 3. Striking techniques such as punches and kicks, attacks to the groin, and hair grabbing are prohibited. 4. Victory is achieved through submission or knockout, rather than wrestling falls or judo throws. 5. Two referees, one from Japan and one from the United States will be selected.’ ‘Issai no kujō o haishite jūdōkaren no kaoawase’, Miyako Shimbun, 5 March 1921, 7.
41 ‘Manyo no kanshū ni kakomarete chikara to waza no ōshiai’, Yomiuri Shimbun, 6 March 1921, 5.
42 Ibid.
43 Kisaki Masaru, Kisaki nikki (jō): ‘Chūō kōron’ to Yoshino, Tanizaki, Akutagawa no jidai (Tōkyō: Chūō kōron, 2016), 270. Sasaki Shigetsu would go on to establish the Buddhist Society of America in 1930.
44 In the actual matches, the use of the headlock wrestling technique was disputed (Santel used this technique on Nagata in the second match on the first day). The match was declared a draw, and the use of the headlock was banned for the following matches. Santel’s mistake was due to the interpreter’s failure to correctly convey the rules to Santel’s side. There were also problems with the judges, and both judges for the second day’s fights were Japanese: One was Yamada Toshiyuki, as on the first day, and the other was Watanabe Yūjirō, one of the first Japanese professional boxers. Watanabe had just returned from the US in 1921.
45 Hardly anything is known about the fights in Osaka, but the fights on April 1st ended in a draw for Santel and Shimizu Hajime, while Weber defeated Masuda Sōtaro. ‘Nichibei shiai’, Ōsaka Mainichi Shimbun, 2 April 1921, 7. Ōsaka Mainichi Shimbun, 31 March 1921, 2 (Advertisement). Ōsaka Mainichi Shimbun, 1 April 1921, 2 (Advertisement). Ōsaka Mainichi Shimbun, 3 April 1921, 2 (Advertisement).
46 Tōkyō Asahi Shimbun, 12 March 1921, 3 (Advertisement). These events also received no press coverage, and the admission fee was the same as in Osaka. In addition, Santel and his team were betrayed by the promoter in Osaka, who absconded with most of their earnings, and they returned home at the end of May without any significant achievements. ‘Santeru wa keizaiteki songai’, Shin Sekai, 1 June 1921, 2.
47 ‘Santel to no kyōgi ni jomei kakugo de shussen’, Tōkyō Nichinichi Shimbun, 4 March 1921, 8.
48 ‘Tōkyō ni Santeru kai’, Nippu Jiji, 21 February 1921, 2.
49 Okabe Heita, Supōtsu to zen no hanashi (Tōkyō: Fumaidō, 1957), 283.
50 Although there is no clear definition for machi dōjō, the term generally refers to a small dojo with a few to several dozen students run by a private owner. Examples of the general understanding of a town dojo include: ‘Within the Kōdōkan, a private dojo in Tokyo is called a town dojo’ (Fujita Kamezō, Wagahai to Kōdōkan jūdō (Shanghai: privately published, 1927), 29; and ‘I think the definition of what a ‘town dojo’ is, is quite problematic, but if we speak from a commonsense perspective, it is a place which is managed by an individual in his own name and where body and mind are trained through judo.’ Kawakami Chū, ‘Machi dōjō no genjō’, in Jūdō kōza Vol. 5, eds. Mifune Kyūzō, Kudō Kazumi, Matsumoto Yoshizō (Tōkyō: Hakusuisha, 1956), 141. These dojos generally taught various styles of judo and jūjutsu, and there were approximately sixty to seventy dojos in the Tokyo area. Ōtaki Tadao, Jūdō jikkō (jō) (Tōkyō: Fumaidō, 1959), 64–9. By the 1920s, the success of the Kōdōkan had resulted in a marginalization of traditional jujutsu schools, especially as Kanō had successfully lobbied to place Kōdōkan judo, and not jujutsu, in middle school curricula. The dominance of the Kōdōkan made it increasingly difficult for small, local training halls, called town dojo (machi dōjō) to attract disciples and to economically survive. The Santel Incident could therefore be analyzed from the perspective of hegemonic center vs. marginalized periphery, but also from the perspective of traditional vs. modern institutional structures, as the town dojo were still based master-disciple relationships, while the Kōdōkan already had developed into client-oriented sport institution.
51 ‘Issai no kujō o haishite jūdōkaren no kaoawase,’ Miyako Shimbun, 5 March 1921, 7.
52 Ibid.
53 ‘Santel to wa tatakawanu to yūdasha kaigi kessu’, Tōkyō Nichinichi Shimbun, 2 March 1921, 9.
54 ‘Seiyō zumō senshu to no kyōgi ni jūdōka kekki su’, Miyako Shimbun, 3 March 1921, 7.
55 ‘Kanō kanchō to iken awazu – Okabe 5 dan dakkai su’, Tōkyō Nichinichi Shimbun, 1 March 1921, 9.
56 For Okabe’s career see Takashima Kō, Kokka to supōtsu: Okabe Heita to Manshū no yume (Tōkyō: Kadokawa, 2020).
57 Kanō Jigorō, ‘Santeru to no shiai ni tsuite’, Yūkō no katsudō 7, no 4 (1921): 5.
58 Okabe, Supōtsu to zen, 245–70.
59 Okabe Heita, ‘Raibei jūdōka shokun teisu’, Nichibei Shimbun, 14 November 1917, 1.
60 Ibid.
61 Okabe Heita, Supōtsu angya (Tokyo: Nihon Hyōronsha, 1931), 27. Okabe later went to Chicago University, where he became a believer in amateurism under the tutelage of Amos Alonzo Stagg, the university’s football coach.
62 Ibid.
63 Okabe, Supōtsu to zen, 282.
64 ‘Kanō kanchō to iken awazu – Okabe 5 dan dakkai su’, Tōkyō Nichinichi Shimbun, 1 March 1921, 9.
65 On Coubertin’s idea of amateurism, see: International Olympic Committee, ed. Olympism: Selected Writings. Pierre de Coubertin, 1863–1937 (Lausanne: 2000), 633–57.
66 Kanō Jigorō, ‘Kōdōkan jūdō kōgi dai-nikai’, Kokushi 1, no. 3 (1898): 10.
67 Kanō Jigorō, ‘Jūdō ippan narabi ni sono kyōiku jō no kachi’, Dainihon kyōikukai zasshi 87 (1889): 446–81.
68 ‘Orinpikku kyōgi no nihon senshu wa kōseiseki’, Shin Sekai, 23 January 1921, 3.
69 Kanō Jigorō, ‘Ōbei no taiiku shisatsu’, Kokumin taiiku 7, no. 1 (1921): 6–7. There is no historical record, to our knowledge, that reveals whether the judo wrestlers, that participated in the Santel matches received any compensation.
70 Okabe, Supōtsu to zen, 283. In the Yomiuri Shimbun, Kanō exemplifies his point further: ‘As head of the Kōdōkan, I do not want to limit the principles of the Kōdōkan too much. If we were to limit our principles, we would have to expulse judoka who had experienced mixed martial arts fights abroad in the past, which would be impossible.’ ‘Santel no shiai wa Kōdōkan no seishin ni motoru to Okabe go dan dattai’, Yomiuri Shimbun, 1 March 1921, 5.
71 Tomita Tsunejirō, ‘Jūdō o sekai teki narashime yo’, Jūdō 3 no. 1 (1916): 79–82.
72 Kanō Jigorō, ‘Jūdō no sekaika’, Kokuhon 1, no.9 (1921): 98.
73 Kanō initially stated ‘I cannot expel Okabe, but if he insists, I have no choice,’ and finally accepted Okabe’s resignation. ‘Santeru no shiai wa Kōdōkan no seishin ni motoru to Okabe go dan dattai’, Yomiuri Shimbun, 1 March 1921, 5.
74 Honda Chikatami had been appointed secretary-general of the Kōdōkan during Kanō’s overseas trip from June 1920 to February 1921.
75 ‘Seiyō zumō senshu to no kyōgi ni jūdōka kekki su’, Miyako Shimbun, 3 March 1921, 7.
76 E.g. ‘Kentō shiaisha wa jijitsu jō jomei’, Yomiuri Shimbun, 3 March 1921.
77 ‘Santeru to no kyōgi ni jomei kakugo de shussen’, Tōkyō Nichinichi Shimbun, 4 March 1921.
78 ‘Issai no kujō o haishite jūdōka ren no kao awase’, Miyako Shimbun, 5 March 1921.
79 Two major articles on the Santel Incident were published in Yūkō no katsudō in April and May: Kanō Jigorō, ‘Santeru to no shiai’, 2–7; Kanō Jigorō, ‘Santeru jiken no ketsumatsu’, Yūkō no katsudō 7, no. 5 (1921): 2–4.
80 Kanō, ‘Santeru to no shiai’, 2–7.
81 Ibid.
82 Kanō Jigorō, ‘Jūdōka ni zehi motte ite moraitai seishi’, Yūkō no katsudō 6, no. 5 (May 1920) and Kanō, ‘Santeru to no shiai’, 5. See also Maruyama, Sanzō, Dainihon jūdōshi (Tōkyō: Kōdōkan, 1939), 193. In his article about the spirit of judo, Murakami shows a small figure in which the techniques of judo and wrestling are categorized according to their objectives. See Murakami Tetsuji, ‘Santari jūdō no seishin (Santeru mondai no shinsō)’, ‘Yūkō no katsudō 7, no. 4 (1921): 36–9.
83 Kanō, ‘Santeru to no shiai’, 5. See also Jigorō, ‘Sekaiteki ka sen’, 106.
84 Kanō, ‘Santeru jiken’, 4.
85 Ibid., 3. In the 1930s, Kanō further stressed amateurism in judo to prevent judo from entering the world of entertainment: ‘According to those who have returned from abroad, I heard that there is a trend in foreign countries to strictly distinguish between those who exercise for the sake of athletic competition itself and those who exercise for money, and to greatly despise those who do so for money. … In Japan, athletic competitions have also become a part of the Japanese sports culture. I believe that athletic competitions in Japan should also be conducted in the same spirit, and I insist that Kōdōkan judo should be no different.’ Kanō. ‘Santeru to no shiai’, 3. By the mid-1920s, Kanō also began to explore the possibility of judo being ‘actively promoted by newspapers and magazines,’ like a sport and ‘being shown to a large number of people to attract their interest.’ Kanō Jigorō, ‘Tenran budō shiai shokan’, in Shōwa tenran shiai, ed. Dai Nippon Yūbenkai Kōdansha (Tōkyō: Dai Nippon Yūbenkai Kōdansha, 1930), 443. On sportification, see especially Nakajima Tetsuya’s detailed analysis Kindai nihon no budōron: ‘Budō no supōtsuka’ mondai no tanjō (Tōkyō: Kokusho Kankōkai, 2017).
86 Kanō, Jigorō, ‘Jūdōka ni zehi motte ite moraitai seishin’, Yūkō no katsudō 6, no 5 (1920): 6; Kanō, ‘Santeru to no shiai’; Kanō, ‘Santeru jiken’; Kanō, ‘Sekaiteki ka sen’, 106. The idea of the refined judoka matches the definition of the amateur sportsman and gentleman in the Anglo-Saxon world.
87 In the late 1920s, Kanō also clarified the policy of charging admission fees, allowing it only in cases when ‘not for personal gain.’ Kanō Jigorō, ‘Jūdō to kyōgi undō’, Sakkō 8, no. 11 (1929): 3.
88 Mizutani Chikushi, ‘Jūdōka no seikatsu’, Yo no naka 3, no. 1 (1917): 106–13.
89 Ibid., 108; Ōmura Ichizō, ‘Jūdō kōgyōron’, Bukyō Sekai 10, no. 5 (1921): 6.
90 Harishige Keiki, ‘Kiryoku katsuryoku o yashinae yo’, Bukyō Sekai 10, no. 5 (1921): 3.
91 Ibid.
92 Coincidentally, in March 1921, the month after Kano stepped down as president and Okabe stopped his administrative duties, the Japan Amateur Athletic Association announced that athlete qualification to compete would be based on professional status. Zaidan Hōjin Dai Nippon Taiiku Kyōkai, ed. Dai Nippon Taiiku kyōkai shi (jō) (Tōkyō: Zaidan Hōjin Dai Nippon Taiiku Kyōkai, 1936), 35. This regulation targeted manual laborers such as rickshaw men and milkmen and excluded them from amateur athletic competitions on the grounds that they were training through their work. At the same time, Japan’s first professional baseball team was founded. Kiku Kōichi, Kozonoi Masaki, ‘Taishō-ki no yakyū ni okeru professhonaru ideorogī no hōga ni kansuru kenkyū’, Taiikugaku Kenkyū 37, no 1 (1992): 1–14.
93 Harishige, ‘Kiryoku katsuryoku’, 1.
94 Ibid., 2.
95 Ibid., 3.
96 Ibid.
97 Kanō, ‘Santeru jiken’, 3. After Kanō discussed the issue with different members of the Kōdōkan, it was decided to demote seven members: Masuda Sōtarō (2nd dan), Fujimura Kenkichi (2nd dan), Nagata Reijirō (2nd dan), Shimizu Hajime (2nd dan), Shōji Hikoo (3rd dan), Yamada Toshiyuki (3rd dan), and Kodama Kōtarō (4th dan). See Kanō, ‘Santeru jiken,’, 2–4. It is interesting to note that Okabe Heita’s name was not added to this list. Most likely because the Kōdōkan and Okabe had already gone separate ways by this time. Their break was announced by Yomiuri Shimbun and other newspapers on 1 March (‘Santeru no shiai wa Kōdōkan no seishin ni motoru to Okabe godan dattai’, Yomiuri Shimbun, 1 March 1921, 5) with the headline: ‘Santeru Fight against Spirit of Kōdōkan: 5th dan Okabe Withdrawal’.
98 Kōdōkan Bunkakai, ed. Jūdō nenkan (Tōkyō: Kōdōkan Bunkakai, 1922).
99 Kanō, ‘Santeru jiken no ketsumatsu’, 3. See also Kanō, ‘Santeru to no shiai’, 2–7.
100 Marushima Takao, Kōdōkan jūdō.
101 Iizuka Kunisaburō (7th dan), who regretted the loss of experimental freedom, characterized Kōdōkan judo as ‘incompetent and stagnant,’ decided to create an ‘entirely free judo’ (mattaku jiyū na jūdō) incorporating boxing and wrestling while remaining a member of the Kōdōkan. Iizuka Ichiyō, Jūdō o tsukutta otokotachi: Kanō Jigorō to Kōdōkan no seishun (Tōkyō: Bungei Shunjū, 1990), 180. In November 1921, he established the Shigōkan dojo. These expressions were only found in the draft prepared by Iizuka and were deleted in the text submitted to the Kōdōkan. The main aim of the dojo was a ‘totally free judo’ (mattaku jiyū na jūdō). Author unknown, ‘Shigōkan Jūdō Kenkyūjo no setsuritsu’, Yūkō no katsudō 8, no 3 (1922): 58.
102 Sasaki Kibizaburō, ‘Jūdō shimpan kitei nit suite Kōdōkan kitei o tanzu’, Teikoku Daigaku Shimbun 180 (1926): 4.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Kōtarō Yabu
Kōtarō Yabu is associate professor at Ritsumeikan University. His research mainly focuses on the history of sports in Japan and especially the dissemination of Japanese martial arts overseas. His recent writings include Challenging Olympic Narratives: Japan, the Olympic Games and Tokyo 2020/21 (2021), co-edited with Andreas Niehaus and Jūjutsukyō jidai: 20 seiki shotō Amerika ni okeru jujutsu būmu to sono shūhen (2021). For his work, he has been awarded the research prize of the Japanese Society of Sports History (2022) as well as the 44th Suntory Prize for Social Sciences and Humanities (2022). E-mail: [email protected]
Andreas Niehaus
Andreas Niehaus is full professor of Japanese Studies at Ghent University. His research focuses on body cultures, sports history, and the Olympic Games in Japan. Publications include Sport, Memory, and Nationhood in Japan: Remembering the Glory Days co-edited with Christian Tagold (Routledge, 2012), Leben und Werk Kano Jigorôs (1860-1938): Judo, Sport, Erziehung (Ergon/Nomos 2019) and together with Eduardo de la Fuente “From Olympic Sport to UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage : Okinawa Karate between Local, National, and International Identities in Contemporary Japan”, in Traditional Martial Arts as Intangible Heritage (2020).