Who wrote the judo moral code?
A poster headed 'Judo Moral Code' can look like a document handed down unchanged from the founder. The source trail tells a more specific story. France Judo dates Bernard Midan's code to 1985; the International Judo Federation also distinguishes this later formulation from Kano's philosophical foundations. That distinction matters when a school project, club presentation or article attributes the list. It is accurate to describe an educational expression of judo's values. It is not accurate to label the eight-item list a verbatim quotation from Kano.
Separate three questions when reading such a poster: who formulated this version, which organisation currently presents it, and how your club explains it. The answers may involve different people and dates. A modern formulation can be useful without being ancient, and a familiar translation can express an idea without reproducing a historical sentence. This guide compares the published frameworks; the practical situations below are our illustrative interpretations, not observations from a research study or additional official rules.
Sources: France Judo · International Judo Federation
What are the eight values?
The eight-value framework covers politeness, courage, sincerity, honour, modesty, respect, self-control and friendship. France Judo and the IJF present the same set in different orders on the pages consulted. The IJF explicitly warns against treating a displayed sequence as a hierarchy justified by Kano. Friendship does not become less important because it appears at the bottom of a poster, and politeness does not replace the other responsibilities because it appears first.
For a reader, the useful distinction is between a word and the behaviour being discussed. An orderly bow is visible; consideration for a partner is a wider question. A player can follow a greeting ritual while failing to listen during a shared exercise. Equally, somebody unfamiliar with the local ritual should not be judged to have an entire character defect. Ask what happened, what was expected, and whether the expectation was explained. That gives a conversation somewhere concrete to begin instead of using a value word as a label attached to a person.
Sources: France Judo · International Judo Federation
Why does the German federation list ten values?
The Deutscher Judo-Bund highlights ten values: politeness, helpfulness, honesty, seriousness, respect, modesty, appreciation, courage, self-control and friendship. Its helpfulness section makes the partner's role especially explicit, including being a good uke and helping newcomers. This is a national educational framework. It is not evidence that the French list is missing two universally required entries, or that the German list contains two unauthorised additions.
Comparing only the totals loses the interesting part. Several labels overlap, while some separate ideas that another framework discusses together. A club translating a poster therefore has two sensible tasks: preserve the identity of the source framework and explain its vocabulary naturally. It should not quietly combine both lists and attribute the result to one federation. For an international reader, keeping the original organisation beside the translation makes differences understandable. The comparison is about how values are organised for teaching, not which country's judoka are more moral or which list produces better competitors.
Sources: Deutscher Judo-Bund
How do seiryoku-zenyo and jita-kyoei fit?
Kodokan explains seiryoku-zenyo through the effective use of mind and body, and connects jita-kyoei with development that benefits oneself and others. Its jita-kyoei page reproduces a Kano text attributed to a 1925 issue of Sakko. These are broader principles rather than another numbered poster competing with eight or ten values. Read a historical quotation in its source context, particularly when a short English rendering seems to settle every question about how to behave.
Our interpretation is that a principle can prompt a question without automatically deciding its answer. In a shared exercise, 'effective for what?' is more informative than assuming the least tiring movement is always best. In a club decision, 'who benefits, and who bears the cost?' is more informative than assuming the majority's convenience benefits everybody. Those questions do not turn the principles into a calculation or a rulebook. Different purposes and constraints remain relevant, and a sincere disagreement cannot be resolved merely by declaring one's own preference to be the most efficient choice.
What could the values look like in a partner exercise?
Consider an invented dojo situation. Two judoka begin an exercise that their instructor has already explained. One expects a predictable partner response; the other thinks the task includes freely changing that response. The movement breaks down and both become frustrated. Calling the second person 'unhelpful' immediately would skip a crucial unknown: did they understand the same task? A more useful account separates what was agreed, what each partner did and what still needs clarification.
In this example, a conversation about helpfulness might begin by checking the assigned roles. A conversation about sincerity might concern admitting that an instruction was not understood. A conversation about respect might concern allowing both partners to describe the mismatch. None of this prescribes a technique, resistance level or progression. Those remain questions for the actual teaching context. The example shows why values need observable situations: they can help name a shared problem without pretending to diagnose a person's character from one failed attempt or equating compliant performance with learning.
Does respect mean never disagreeing?
Not in the interpretation used here. Imagine a spectator describing a disputed moment in a contest. 'The athlete looked away after the decision' is an observation; 'the athlete has no respect' is an interpretation about motive and character. The second statement needs more information than the first. A brief clip may omit the preceding exchange, the words spoken or the subsequent response. It can support a question, but it is a poor basis for awarding a moral score.
Within a club, disagreement can likewise concern an unclear instruction, unequal access to a shared opportunity or an expectation that was never explained. A value discussion should make the issue clearer, not close it with 'a good judoka would stay silent'. This article does not set complaint procedures, safeguarding policy or competition appeals: those require the relevant organisation's current channels and responsibilities. Its narrower point is that courtesy in expression and the substance of a concern are separate questions. A polite appearance cannot by itself show that a concern has been heard or resolved.
Does practising judo automatically improve character?
The sources cited for this comparison establish what organisations teach and how they describe the frameworks. They do not, by themselves, establish that every participant becomes more honest, respectful or self-controlled. An educational aim is different from a measured effect. A personal success story is also different from evidence that the same outcome will follow for children, recreational adults and elite competitors in other settings.
To evaluate an effect claim, the reader would need to know who was studied, what was measured, the comparison group, the time period and what else changed. A questionnaire response is not identical to behaviour in a disagreement, and a winning record is not a measure of kindness. None of that makes values pointless. It keeps the claim proportionate: a club can choose to teach and discuss a principle while still asking whether its everyday practices support it. Promises of automatic character transformation should not be inferred from the presence of a poster or a source link.
How should you compare or cite a judo values poster?
Start with the named organisation and the exact page, then distinguish a list, a historical quotation and your own explanation. Keep the date of the historical formulation separate from the date on which you accessed the webpage. If you translate a value, preserve the original label where useful and make clear that the explanatory sentence is a translation or paraphrase. Do not put your own interpretation inside quotation marks or describe this comparison as an original study.
For a club discussion, choose one real situation rather than asking everybody to prove all the values at once. What was seen? What was assumed? What expectation was shared? What remains unclear? These questions make room for both good examples and problems without creating a personality leaderboard. When writing for other readers, link to the relevant source beside the historical or organisational fact and mark invented examples as invented. The result is more useful than memorising a number: readers can understand which framework they are seeing, trace its origin and discuss its application without overstating what the evidence shows.
Sources
- Le code moral du judo — France Judo. Sources checked:
- Understanding the Judo Moral Code — International Judo Federation. Sources checked:
- Die Judowerte — Deutscher Judo-Bund. Sources checked:
- 講道館柔道の歴史 — 公益財団法人講道館. Sources checked:
- 自他共栄とは — 公益財団法人講道館. Sources checked:
Sources & editorial approach
We link factual claims to their original sources and distinguish research findings from interpretation. Study populations, dates and limitations matter.
Translations are prepared with AI assistance. They are not certified by a federation or independently reviewed by native-speaking judo experts. Articles do not replace qualified instruction.