Budo as a Concept and Budo as a Definition

Jigoro Kano’s dream of internationalizing Judo was realized through its inclusion in the Olympic Games. However, about sixty years later, the internationalized form of Judo has ironically lost Kano’s original philosophy. This situation, however, should not necessarily be seen in a negative light. I have previously described this phenomenon as a kind of “chemical reaction” that occurred when Japanese practitioners, unfamiliar with the mindset of sport, and foreigners, unfamiliar with the mindset of budo, came together through the single discipline of Judo. What matters now is to take the results revealed by this reaction and move forward in a better direction. Kano was a pioneer who sought to spread Judo worldwide. His role was to open up the unknown world of internationalization; it is the task of his successors to deal with the problems that arose afterwards.

Kano’s vision of Judo’s development was for his philosophy to spread alongside its practice.

Yet, sixty years later, it must be concluded that this did not work within the framework of an Olympic sport. Still, this should be seen not only as a failure but also as a positive byproduct: Judo has successfully established itself globally as a sport. From this perspective, it is necessary to reconsider how to promote the original concept of budo. For Judo and other martial arts to be recognized worldwide, we must first gain as accurate an understanding as possible of their current situation.

For example, Chinese martial arts are now commonly referred to as “Kung Fu.” Originally, however, kung fu simply meant the level of skill attained through years of dedicated martial training, not the art itself. Through media such as films, the term came to designate Chinese martial arts in general. Thus, “kung fu” today holds a double meaning.

Similarly, the word “budo” has acquired a double meaning in the course of Judo’s internationalization. On the one hand, it refers to a martial physical activity practiced according to the concept of Do (the Way). In this sense, the expression “Judo as a sport” is contradictory, because practice must include the conceptual content of the Way. Simply attending a dojo does not automatically mean one is practicing budo; one must meet the conditions required by the concept of Do, which I will describe further.

On the other hand, “budo” is also the name of a category that includes martial disciplines originating in Japan: Kendo, Judo, Kyudo, Aikido, Karate-do, Sumo-do, and so forth. In this sense, it is entirely valid to say “Judo as a sport” or “a sport in the budo category,” and anyone attending a dojo of one of these disciplines can rightly say they are practicing budo.

In short, there are two meanings:

1. “Martial physical activity that incorporates the practice content of the Way”;

2. “Category of martial disciplines originating in Japan.”

This distinction is equivalent to differentiating between “budo as a concept” and “budo as a definition.”

Budo as a concept is practiced under a shared philosophy or belief discovered within each individual. I refer to the technique that embodies this commonality as a “Migotona ippon.” The migotona ippon is thus a concept: as each practitioner deepens their understanding and clarifies their personal convictions, their rigor in following them grows. This rigor becomes a kind of internal code of conduct—self-discipline. It is not an external rule but rather an inner sense of self-education, a conviction that one must or must not act in certain ways. When this shared discipline is recognized among multiple individuals, budo as a concept is born. In this context, awareness of external rules and boundaries weakens, and distinctions between individuals become abstract and ambiguous. For instance, when Judo was practiced only in Japan, judogi were all white, and this was never an issue—external appearances simply were not important.

Budo as a definition, by contrast, establishes clear external boundaries between what does and does not belong to it, through rules and regulations. These visible distinctions make it easier for third parties to judge differences, thereby enabling practice as a sport. In the process of Judo’s sportification as an Olympic event, for example, the blue judogi was introduced (on Hèsing’s proposal) to distinguish competitors. This symbolizes the importance of rules for Judo as a defined sport.

Budo as a definition is therefore practiced according to shared rules, and those who follow them are regarded as practicing the same category of budo. In this framework, individual beliefs and attitudes remain entirely personal.

In conclusion, budo as a concept places its criteria in one’s inner self-discipline, not in external regulations. Budo as a definition, on the other hand, bases its criteria on external rules, leaving individual inner convictions free. It is possible to bring the concept of budo into a sport, but one cannot impose sporting definitions within the concept of budo. Thus, a Japanese judoka may enter a sporting match while upholding the original spirit of budo, even if inefficient in sporting terms. Yet, since the match is within sport, their performance will be judged only by external sporting criteria, and their inner spiritual commitment to budo as a concept will not be recognized.

Today, sixty years after Kano made Judo an Olympic discipline, budo as a physical activity is practiced in a situation where budo as a concept and budo as a definition coexist and are often confused.