At the 2016 Olympic games, where he won gold, he said: "I wanted to prove that a lightweight judoka like me could fight with a decisive, dynamic, strong and beautiful style of judo."
Most top Judo players have 3-5 techniques they can use at the top level. This means that you can deny them usable grips (which is what Takato did to Yang in the 60kg mens final) to render them ineffective.
Ono has like 8-9 techniques. He's frankly unstoppable. No matter what grip you try to deny him, he has attack options.
So, yes, he can choose to play the harder game. He can choose to go for the big scores. And that's why, I guess, he's a legend.
(This is the last Judo thread I'm posting for a bit. Unless, urm, Teddy Riner wins the +100kg category. In which case you're going to get an earful from me, because that's absolutely unbelievable. (Riner is older, and he's been defeated only once in his entire career.))
Last one for fun: this is Ono throwing Riner at a training camp. (Riner weights 140kg or 300 pounds; Ono is 73kg/160lbs).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Two days ago, in the 60kg men’s category for Judo, Naohisa Takato fought Yang Yung-wei in the finals and won Japan’s first gold of the Tokyo Olympics.
He won with zero scores. Yang simply had more penalties than he did.
My old coach was disappointed. But I wasn’t.
The Japanese attitude to Judo is that you want to win by ippon — the highest score possible. It is less ‘honourable’ to win ‘technically’, that is, to win by making your opponent commit more errors than you over the course of the match.
My old Sensei was trained in Japan.
So of course he thought it was a terrible match; Takato didn’t win decisively.
But the commentators, and my current coach, and perhaps even Kosei Inoue, Japan’s head coach, pretty much didn’t care. Modern Judo has a technical component to it. It’s just how the game is played.
One of the things I like to say is that you have to qualify for strategy.
Small companies usually die of incompetent operations, not lack of strategy, so you don’t get the luxury of thinking about strategy if you can’t execute.
Today someone pointed out to me that if you say “oh, that guy is terrible at strategy”, this is actually a compliment in disguise — it means their operations are decent enough that they get to qualify for strategy.
I realise that Hamilton Helmer (he of 7 Powers fame) says something like ‘operational excellence is table stakes’. I like that a lot.
“… we noticed that highly talented business performers are very similar to each other. (…) business is an orderly closed system of relations between principles, and so-called intuitive experts in business have an implicit grasp of this.”
3/ That's an excerpt from her chapter in the Oxford Handbook of Expertise, a chonky book that I shouldn't have any right in owning.
The excerpt was so compelling I dove into Lia DiBello's entire publication history.
My most useful tip for writing job postings is the same as my most commonly shared tip for writing, period: show, don't tell.
You want to give lots of little, hard-to-lie details that SHOW you mean what you're saying.
Don't write 'you'll have a lot of autonomy'. Write 'we want you to iterate on picking, experimenting, and measuring new marketing channels, with the support of leadership'.
Don't write 'you'll receive on-the-job training'; write 'you don't need to have domain experience because we'll teach you that. What we need you to have is a strong grasp of marketing fundamentals, so you can hit the ground running on execution.'
I think (and I’m not the first to say this) NDM really suffers from a branding problem.
If you say ‘deliberate practice’, people think “ahh, practicing deliberately, that makes sense!” (Even though it’s not about that).
But Naturalistic Decision Making? What’s that?
Whereas if I say “tacit skill extraction”, suddenly people pay attention.
And then if I follow it up with “it’s totally not theoretical, it’s been used for training and UI design in the military and in health care for three decades”, they REALLY pay attention.
“Wait, does this mean I can use these techniques on experts around me to learn from them?”
Yes.
“And I can use it to interview expert users, so I can design UIs to enable or augment their expertise?”