Judo is a striking skill

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Spartan506

I think what is missing from your original post, which is of critical importance, is the very first line of the Judo skill: “This skill represents any advanced training at unarmed throws and grapples – not just the eponymous Japanese martial art.”
..
Frankly, your answer is right there: Boxing specifically states that it is used for punching (but not kicking, which requires Brawling or Karate--note that it does not say Judo, Wrestling, or Sumo Wrestling), Brawling specifically allows you to hit with a punch or kick, or other “natural weapons,” and Karate is described as “advanced training at unarmed striking.” Judo mentions nothing about striking.

Instead, what Judo indicates is what you can do with it:
(1) unarmed throws and grapples, which is in the first sentence;
(2) parry two different attacks per turn, one with each hand;
(3) throw your attacker after a Judo parry;
(4) substitute that skill for your DX for any DX roll made in close combat, excepting two specific situations.

MrFix has a legit point that the 4th could refer to punching. The 4th is a very broadly-worded thing.

The 4th does not for example isolate the example of "DX rolls to keep your footing" even though Kromm later verified it includes that. So it doesn't actually need to call out striking to include it: the wording itself shows that it needs to be excluded via inclusion on the "except to" list.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

we realize that reading those four skills in conjunction means that there are three skills defined as assisting with striking, because they explicitly state that they pertain to punching or kicking, and give damage bonuses if one is more skilled. Judo is not one of them. That, if not dispositive, is at least suggestive that the correct way to interpret the Judo skill is to say that it does not assist with striking such as punching or kicking.

Why are you only reading 4 skills? There are 6.

I think you're oversimplifying the combat skills. Sumo for example, can be used to strike with a Shove or Slam, and both it and Judo can also do the "Sweeping Kick" (B232).

MA68 also gifted the "Drop Kick" to both Wrestilng and Sumo Wrestling.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

if we look at the first sentence of the Judo skill, which states that “advanced training at unarmed throws and grapples,” using the expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon, we realize that the list (which does not use terms like “such as,” or “including”) is exclusionary, and only contains two items: grappling and throwing. That is yet another reason why Judo is not a striking skill.

Fancy latin, but if you're arguing that something needs to be a grapple or a throw to fall under Judo's purvey just because those things are singled out in the first sentence, that's clearly a wrong assumption. There's consensus that Judo does plenty of other stuff:
1) parrying
2) sweeping kick
3) maintain balance
4) evading (B368, affirmed MA71)
5) breakfall (MA68)
6) trip (MA81)

Originally Posted by Spartan506

I’d like to briefly mention the whole absurdity of the conventions “RAW” and “RAI,” because to lawyers, those distinctions really make no sense. Rules are [/FONT][/COLOR]always[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial] interpreted. Sometimes the plain meaning is the easiest and clearest interpretation, and that’s fine. But the concept of “rules as written,” which suggests reading them literally, without trying to interpret the meaning, is, to lawyers, nonsensical.

I've always understood the I in RAI to stand for "intended", not "interpreted".

Meaning that there is no absurdity in making the distinction: I often write something intending one meaning and come back and look at it later and realize it came out either ambiguous (could mean at least 2 things) or even in a way that can't logically be interpreted to mean what I had in mind.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

if this were a rule that I had to interpret for a client, with no written opinions from judges specifically addressing it, I'm advising them that Judo is not a striking skill in GURPS.

Grappling/Striking is a false dichotomy.

I've given examples of the 2 other "mostly grappling" skills (wrestling and sumo) also having strikes in their repertoire, plus Judo (sweeping kick IS a strike, it's just a non-damaging one, like a shove)

If you're responding just to the title then I agree: even if we allow "roll vs DX to punch in close combat" that would not characterize judo as mostly-striking (like brawl/karate/box) it's still mostly-grappling like wrestling/sumo.

I think however that's probably fixating too much on the title: I think all MrFix intended with his choice of title is to say "you can roll vs Judo to make a strike" (thus "Conclusion: Judo can make strikes with hands, legs, fist loads and strikers as they're used by DX.")

This is sort of like me saying "if I take the Clinch perk it turns Boxing/Brawling/Karate into a grappling skill!". Doing so DOES allow me to roll against the skill I take the perk for to make a grapple (head/neck/torso only!) so I might intend that, but I would not intend "grappling skill" to mean "a skill primarily useful for and characterized by grappling" since BBK would still be a mostly-striking skill.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

The plain meaning of the terms "grapples" and "throws" do not include strikes such as punches or kicks. There's no "esoteric interpretation" there.

Irrelevant, it doesn't include Feinting or Resisting Feinting or Parrying or Sweeping Kick or Evade or Maintain Balance either, get Judo can do all those things. There's no reason to limit what these skills do merely by the star-features mentioned in a 1st sentence.

Originally Posted by Spartan506

Since Kromm's answer in the uFAQ seems to agree...I'm not clear on what the issue is here. How is Kromm's answer different from Curmudgeon's (or mine)?

Kromm's FAQ answer rejected the idea of being able to "punch at Judo in close combat".
You and Curmudgeon seem to be agreeing with the idea?

Originally Posted by Spartan506

how does your answer differ from Curmudgeon's (or mine)?
Seems to me that we all agree that in close combat, Judo can substitute for DX.
That still doesn't make it a "striking skill," which was the OP's premise.

I think you guys are getting wires crossed about what the central premise is. Probably due to OP's choice of title.

I don't think OP means to say the Judo should (even allowing "punch at judo" and so on) be characterized as "more striking than grappling".

I think his title choice is just representing "you can use judo to make strikes".

I propose we already know the answer to this: yes it can, because a Sweeping Kick is a (non-damaging, like a Shove) strike, therefore even if you reject the idea of "roll Judo to punch", there is already an estabilshed Basic Set strike (Sweeping Kick) which Judo (and Sumo) can make.

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

getting hung up on the non-specialist usage in the OP refering to Judo as a "striking skill".

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I don't think the OP's main point is about the nomenclature of whether Judo is a "striking skill" (a phrase which nothing turns on, btw).
I think he was remarking on being surprised to find Judo can be used for strikes and he expressed that surprise in an off-the-cuff phrase.

THIS

Originally Posted by MrFix

In the list of Kromm Templates, he suggests getting both Striking and Grappling skill. It's linked earlier in the thread.

In this post, he does NOT mention DX for striking, just Brawling/Boxing/Karate. That's why when I wrote what I wrote, I quoted the post that said so.

I guess I'm not following the argument here, not mentioning DX for striking doesn't mean you're ruling it out.