Talk:Mitsuyo Maeda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitsuyo Maeda article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Mitsuyo Maeda has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed


Contents

[edit] ¿Gracie@?

I haven´t edited the article in order to avoid an stupid "holy war" here, but there is way more in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu than the Gracies. And for the Gracie (Trademark) thingie, It´s just a savvy Royron´s strategy to market BJJ in the USA. TheDago 22:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undocumented facts

Most of this article contains facts neither verified nor emphansizing the most relevant facets of his life. There are several "facts" which are actually opinions which are not commonly held as I know it. I will try to write a better article based on this one which provides a more descriptive account of Maeda based on this one. -- Jimmy C. 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 68.227.137.38 Vandalism

This user is vandalising these pages. The user is trying to emphasize, without citing sources, historical facts, etc that Maeda and his teacher were defeated at West Point. He is also appending this information carelessly in the end of the article, in a blatantly detrimental act.

First, who was Maeda teacher? Maeda was for the most time he was traveling by himself, all alone. Yamashita was in USA and was never defeated in a fight there. But Yamashita wasn´t Maeda´s master. There is no source indicating that Maeda ever lost any fights in Europe. To the contrary, the many sources used to compile Maeda´s article are unanimous in that he was regarded as an unstopable fighter. It´s just not stated in this way in the article because it would be regarded as non NPOV. Loudenvier 12:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh! This user is also vandalising the article Masutatsu_Oyama. If he could bring evidence of Maeda´s losses it would be fine to list in the article all those. But to emphasize it as if he was a loser or a weak fighter is blatantly POV and also very stupid. Loudenvier 12:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maeda's losses in Europe

Actually, fellahs, its well-documented that Maeda lost 2 matches in catch-wrestling competition....though they were in a world championship tournament, in which he placed 3rd in the heavyweight class and was elimninated in the first round from one of the lighter classes. In other words, it doesn't indicate whatsoever that he was a weak fighter...in fact, its something pretty darned impressive. However, lets not add that to his bio until we can get the specific documentation.

[edit] Cleanup

The article reads a bit listy - short dated paragraphs. It really needs to be in prose. Also there should be more in-line references.Peter Rehse 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite started

Hi, I am making a complete rewrite of this article. I would very much like that people contributed with small changes until I can provide a final article that looks better than the current one. I am trying to provide inline citations to anything that is controversial or could be controversial, and I will also remove POV and original researches as I find them (Theory of Combat, Controversies sections will probably be deleted!). Regards Loudenvier 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A really good idea. By the way there is no C-class and there is more than enough information and content for B-class. However once the rewrite is done we should go through Good article review, followed by peer review.Peter Rehse 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I went through and made links to the places that I cited. I will now leave well enough alone, and let you have at it.Joseph Svinth 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work, there is one large block in the middle which needs sub headings and/or pictures to break up, don't know enough of the facts to input much but will go through & nit pick once your finished with the overhaul. --Nate 10:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am working top to bottom. I have left the original content on purpose to let people who can make inline references do their work as Joseph just done! In the end, with my prime sources and yours this will probably ending up as a good article. Perhaps a featured article? Let's try... Regards. Loudenvier 13:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Per Nate's suggestion, I added sub-headings in the career section. I have one photo of Maeda ca. 1910 that is much better than the one currently used. Sadly, it is also the only relevant photo in my collection. Joseph Svinth 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA-Review

Damm you guys are fast with the re-write. I think its ready for GA status now and am going to nominate it. I did include the old pici elsewhere in the article.Peter Rehse 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The old picture works nicely; I should have thought of that. As for textual edits, I'm about done, but I'm guessing that Loudenvier is still digging through his notes. That said, since you're requesting peer review and all that, I'd recommend eliminating the sections called "Theory of Combat," "His Influence on the Creation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu," and "Controversies." Why? Because, to my thinking, these sections are conjectural rather than documented. For example, "In Maeda's mind, it was a smart fighter's task to keep the fight located in the phase of combat that best suited his own strengths. Because Maeda's strength lay primarily in grappling, he put much effort towards finding means to efficiently close the distance between himself and fighters specialized in striking." I have no problem with the theory presented, but where is the reference to the letter or newspaper article in which Maeda said (or was at least attributed with saying) those things? Without citations, then who are we to say what was in Maeda's mind? Likewise, is there quantification for the statement, "Being small and lacking in physical strength, Hélio Gracie was forced to improvise heavily upon Maeda's teachings"? Small compared to whom? Forced by whom? More importantly, where is documentation explaining why the Kodokan methods worked okay for Japanese men (Mifune Kyuzo, for example), but did not work equally well for comparably sized Brazilian men? "Legacy," on the other hand, I really like. Joseph Svinth 04:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And another thing: Maeda was smaller than Helio. Jigoro Kano once said: "There wasn't and there will never be in the history of judo another yondan so strong as him", refering to Maeda. I do not think he was good only at grappling, he should have been a throwing specialist too to be so highly regarded by Kano. The fact is that he hadn't the time to train the Gracies throwing which took up decades to become really proficient, he started with ground work which is easier to approach (but equally difficult to master, and the Gracies they have mastered Ground Work like no other since!) Loudenvier 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree - I am removing those two sections since a) they don't add that much to the article and b) they can easily be added back in when citations become available.Peter Rehse 04:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I whacked the hyperbole regarding Gracie, and I think I'm done. (At least for tonight!) Joseph Svinth 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I would wait a little more for the GA review... I haven't finished the rewrite yet! :-) I have plenty, reliable of info to add to the article, mainly on his influence over BJJ. I just haven't the time yet... Regards Loudenvier 13:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure we can wait but GA status does not prevent you from further editing and in any case after a few months I would recommend a WP:Peer review as the next step before promotion to A-class. By the way you guys are doing a great job - I think this is a great example of what a martial art bio should look like.Peter Rehse 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would be loath to promote an article I nominated, especially since I suggested the re-write, and did a bit of tweaking here and there but ... so shoot me - the article is well within the GA criteria. I suggest that in a month or so the article get sent to peer review with an eye to promotion to A-class or higher.Peter Rehse 11:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter Rehse! I do agree with you, but (and that is a big but) we need to solve the date contradiction about Maeda in the states. My sources state that he earned the 4th dan in 1905, but according to the current source in the article, by that time he was in the states. Since Satake is only refered in the USA by early 1907 I'm inclined to believe that Tomita went alone to the USA in 1905, and Maeda and Satake went later. I am trying to find more info on that but unfortunately the [1] website seems to ignore Maeda's existence (the greatest promoter of Judo according to Mifune). Any help is appreciated. Loudenvier 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have correct my dates. They seemed to be wrong as I analized more sources. The article now does not seems to contradict itself anymoreLoudenvier 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Hi, my sources state that Maeda, Tomita e Satake went to USA in 1906, not 1904. The timeline seems to be precise, so I guess I will have to change this in the article, but I would like to discuss this first, perhaps the other source can substantiate. Unfortunatelly I do not have access to it, so please, help me figuring it out! Loudenvier 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that in 1904 it was Yamashita who was alone at USA. [2]. Regards Loudenvier 16:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There were lots of Japanese, to include a handful of jujutsuka and kendoka, in the USA before 1903. As for Hawaii, well, the first judo club in Honolulu dates to about 1902. Anyway, of the people named, Yamashita came to the USA in October 1903. Source: "List or Manifest of Alien Passengers for the U.S. Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival," SS Shinano Maru, 8 Oct 1903, in M1383, "Passenger and Crew Lists of Vessels Arriving at Seattle, Washington, 1890-1957," Roll 2 (Apr. 17, 1900, SS GOODWIN - Jan. 17, 1904, SS TOSA MARU). You can view the microfilm at the National Archives in Seattle. Alternatively, you can trust me on this: [3]. Yamashita was in Washington, DC, by early 1904. The 1902 date is part of a load of nonsense spread by USJI during the 1970s via a series of articles written by Dennis Helm. His source appears to have been an article about the Charley Olson-Akitaro Ono contest published in the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 1905, p. 8. Maeda was in the USA by February 1905, otherwise he wouldn't have been mentioned in the referenced New York Times articles. Go to NYT Archives, pre-1980[4], type in the name "Tomita," and you can see for yourself. ("Oldest first", then page 2. The article is dated April 6, 1905.) The earliest sighting of Satake in the USA of which I am aware is the Chicago Daily News photo of Hitachiyama in Chicago in 1907. That picture has already been uploaded to the German Wikipedia site, at [5]. (Last time I saw that photo, it was copyrighted on the Chicago Historical Society's web site, but we won't go there.) For more on Hitachiyama in the USA, see Juryo.net, 1907[6] Joseph Svinth 02:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that seems accurate. Perhaps Satake wasn't acknowledge as Maeda and Tomita were the prominent fighters, even being Tomita defeated. Satake was more of a teacher. Maeda was in the spotlight, etc. Loudenvier 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't able to see Maeda referenced in the NYT article. It tells about Tomita in the first paragraph (which is the only available for free). It seems that Maeda was in the Kodokan in 1905 so I don't know now what is the most accurate source. If I stick with the timeline here presented then Maeda's 4th dan graduation and also many of his later fights would be contradictory. Loudenvier 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting to note that our sources differ only in Maeda's date of arrival, since the date of fights, his travel to Europa and UK and coming back to Cuba they all match. Couldn't that be a case of another Japanese with the same name? Loudenvier 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy of Sakujiro Yokoyama's 1915 book? If you're looking for roots of Maeda's groundwork, I'd bet they would be found there. At least, that's what Taro Miyake implied in an article published in the Racine, Wisconsin, Journal-News on March 4, 1915. This is of course not what one usually hears on the Internet, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway. It would also be very useful if someone who reads Japanese were to read through Maeda's published letters, and the couple of recent biographies of the man. If somebody is interested in working on such translations, please contact me offline, as I know people who would be very happy to discuss BJJ, Vale Tudo, and so on in a more private venue. Probably somebody should go through Kano's judo magazines of the 1910s and 1920s, too. They're available at the University of British Columbia, so one doesn't even need to leave North America to find them; one simply needs to know how to read pre-WWII formal Japanese.Joseph Svinth 02:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm using brazilian newspapers (available at the Biblioteca Nacional) and mostly Stanlei Virgílio's Conde Koma. The previous references seems accurate too and substantiated, that's why I did not changed them to reflect the book (which could also spot the wrong date because of typo errors, who knows?). Regards. Loudenvier 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with this timeline: How could Maeda have earn his 4th dan in 1905 at the Kodokan if he was in the USA? Now the contradictions are too big to stand like that. We will have to work it out!. Regards. Loudenvier 16:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have correct my dates. They seemed to be wrong as I analized more sources. The article now does not seems to contradict itself anymore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loudenvier (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Professional wrestling

The professional wrestling fights that Maeda took part was really Professional Wrestling (the fake fighting style)? If so, then his losses are not accountable. If it was instead some kind of Greco-roman wrestling then his losses also does not account to his overall score since they were from a different style of fighting, not free-real-fights or Judo fights. It seems that Maeda only lost 2 fights: in his 4th dan promotion by Hane Goshi, and against Satake in 1917 in Brazil. Can someone clarify to me what those wrestling fights was about? Regards Loudenvier 16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think at the time there was 'real' pro wrestling, same as pro boxing is now, it was WW1&2 that killed it, double check but you amy need to modify your link --Nate 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have read that his two wrestling losses were under Catch-as-catch-can rules; Catch wrestling was still very popular in Britain and even the mainland then. Catch was win by pin or submission - see Karl Gotch and catch wrestling for a start on the modern descendent of that sport. This is the style that the fake Professional Wrestling evolved out of in the US, yes. FlowWTG 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
After a little research I think the wikilink to professional wrestling to be accurate, as you said it was in catch-as-catch rules. That's probably why some Kodokan judoka complained against Maeda demoralization of Budo... Loudenvier 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do

I will add more of his fights in the Mexico time and then I will update his career in Brazil which does not list much info. After that I will be able to work in the BJJ influence. In the meantime, if any of you could provide more info, that will be very welcome. Regards Loudenvier 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement under "His Influence on the Creation of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu"

(5/7/07)quote:

"Even teachers of both arts didn't try too hard to make the distinction clear. For example, Tomita himself appeared in a book called Judo: The Modern School of Jiu-Jitsu."

Judo was itself a very new art at the time. Kano, it's founder, was still alive. It is not a stretch to call Judo the modern JiuJitsu; it was developed from Jiu-Jitsu. Just as the subject under this header is 'Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, created from Judo,' the subject of the book denotes 'Judo, created from JuJitsu.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BorisB73 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Theory of Combat

Everything I said about Maeda's theory of combat was straight from Renzo Gracie's book, "Mastering Jujutsu." If someone can re-introduce that section and cite "Mastering Jujutsu" I'd appreciate it. I don't know how to cite on Wiki.

Yes, you are right. Now that it is properly referenced it fits the article just fine. Thanx! :-) Loudenvier 13:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto-review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nate1481( t/c) 11:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)