The third submission only all-star fight card is on tomorrow and I love watching grappling matches of any sort... although the problem with this one is it starts at midnight so I doubt I'll much if any of it live.
My thoughts on the fights...
Zak Maxwell vs. Sean Roberts
From memory Maxwell has the better results overall but it's a tough one to call under Metamoris rules really.
Gui Mendes vs. Samir Chantre
A three time world champion vs. a guy around the same size who hasn't won anything really major. Mendes submission.
Dean Lister vs. Babalu
Tough to know what sort of size/shape Babalu is... his MMA career went off quickly after he'd spent a long time as a top contender. Can't see Babalu tapping Lister and he'll have a tough time not getting caught in something.
Keenan Cornelius vs. Vinny Magalhaes
Really tough fight to call. Keenan has showed he can mix with the top level of black belts but Magalhaes is an ADCC champion and could be much bigger. Maybe Keenan catches a tired Magalhaes late in the fight.
Rafael Mendes vs. Clark Gracie
Clark is good but Mendes is a different class. I don't think the weight difference will matter, both Mendes brothers get submissions.
Royler Gracie vs. Eddie Bravo
The sort of fight that has been discussed so much I don't care. Pretty much impossible to call, when was the last time either fought? I think the most likely options are either Royler wins quickly or it's a pretty boring match.
Faixa Rua/Roll Supreme banner
Friday, 28 March 2014
Keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut
Ok, that's a bit drastic, but it's basically true when you're starting jiu-jitsu. As far as learning goes, try to speak as little as possible about technique and listen to every single thing your instructor says and watch every tiny detail of their movement.
The biggest issue around talking a lot is people who ask "what if" questions. It's understandable to want to know as much as possible straight away but it's impossible, you can't learn every variation of every option in every position straight away. If you don't understand something, or can't do a movement properly, ask your instructor... but if you immediately want to know every "but what if they do this?" then you'll slow down your learning. Trust your instructor (well, pick a good one then trust them!) to teach you well.
Much rarer, but I've also encountered people who have to talk a lot to act like they understand more than they do... and it never works anyway. Don't try to impress instructors by explaining how well you understand something just listen to what everyone more experienced says and remember it all.
As you get more experienced you'll learn to be able to ask better questions :)
The biggest issue around talking a lot is people who ask "what if" questions. It's understandable to want to know as much as possible straight away but it's impossible, you can't learn every variation of every option in every position straight away. If you don't understand something, or can't do a movement properly, ask your instructor... but if you immediately want to know every "but what if they do this?" then you'll slow down your learning. Trust your instructor (well, pick a good one then trust them!) to teach you well.
Much rarer, but I've also encountered people who have to talk a lot to act like they understand more than they do... and it never works anyway. Don't try to impress instructors by explaining how well you understand something just listen to what everyone more experienced says and remember it all.
As you get more experienced you'll learn to be able to ask better questions :)
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Techniques vs. Tactics
Jiu-jitsu is a complicated sport with a lot of techniques, and although being technically good is the key to good jiu-jitsu, it's just as important to know what techniques to use against a specific opponent and also when to use them. You have to be tactically aware as well as technically proficient.
Being tactically aware is basically the same thing as having a game plan. A simple example is that if your opponent is very good on top, you want to put them on the bottom, and vice-versa, for the best chance of success. Then within each position you have to understand what are the best options for you to use. If you are fighting a much larger opponent then closed guard and triangles are probably not going to be the best idea, keeping distance and keeping the weight off you by using feet on hips or butterfly guard should work out better. Then on the opposite end, closed guard will be strong against a much smaller opponent who will struggle to put enough pressure on to open it. If your opponent is big and strong, use movement and speed... if your opponent is small and agile, use pressure and tight control.
Outside of that general aspect of tactics, you also have to consider each position you end up in. If you have a really good guard pass but your opponent is positioned in a way to easily defend it, you should try something different. If you try to force a technique to work in a bad position you will probably come off worse. Thinking tactically means you also have to bail out of things at times... you might be halfway through a sweep, but if completing it means you will end up in a triangle it's time to give it up and accept you may fail on the sweep.
Another part of the tactical aspect is trying to pick up on things your opponent does during a fight. If you've tried your favourite submission attack twice and they've defended the same way twice, you can pretty much guarantee they'll do the same thing again... so be ready for it and plan your follow up attack accordingly. Similarly, whatever attack your opponent used in a position before, they will probably try the same, or something like it again. People will tend to go for the same techniques again and again as jiu-jitsu becomes an instinctual thing when you are fighting hard... so try to take advantage of this.
Competition also has a further angle on the whole tactical thing. You might have an awesome open guard, but if you are winning on points, have 1 minute of a match left and have 3, 4 or more potential matches to win gold... why open your guard? At that point you just need to try closed guard attacks, give yourself the easy win. Or a more extreme situation, maybe you are winning on points but are under your opponent's mount... you might know plenty of techniques to escape, but in this situation it's more tactically sound to just defend. If you escape you give your opponent a chance to score more points and while escaping there is much more chance of being submitted.
So, try to think on two levels all the time; what you need to do technically and what you need to do tactically. When you're in the heat of the moment you will react naturally, but by considering these things throughout your training you will make good tactical decisions naturally.
Being tactically aware is basically the same thing as having a game plan. A simple example is that if your opponent is very good on top, you want to put them on the bottom, and vice-versa, for the best chance of success. Then within each position you have to understand what are the best options for you to use. If you are fighting a much larger opponent then closed guard and triangles are probably not going to be the best idea, keeping distance and keeping the weight off you by using feet on hips or butterfly guard should work out better. Then on the opposite end, closed guard will be strong against a much smaller opponent who will struggle to put enough pressure on to open it. If your opponent is big and strong, use movement and speed... if your opponent is small and agile, use pressure and tight control.
Outside of that general aspect of tactics, you also have to consider each position you end up in. If you have a really good guard pass but your opponent is positioned in a way to easily defend it, you should try something different. If you try to force a technique to work in a bad position you will probably come off worse. Thinking tactically means you also have to bail out of things at times... you might be halfway through a sweep, but if completing it means you will end up in a triangle it's time to give it up and accept you may fail on the sweep.
Another part of the tactical aspect is trying to pick up on things your opponent does during a fight. If you've tried your favourite submission attack twice and they've defended the same way twice, you can pretty much guarantee they'll do the same thing again... so be ready for it and plan your follow up attack accordingly. Similarly, whatever attack your opponent used in a position before, they will probably try the same, or something like it again. People will tend to go for the same techniques again and again as jiu-jitsu becomes an instinctual thing when you are fighting hard... so try to take advantage of this.
Competition also has a further angle on the whole tactical thing. You might have an awesome open guard, but if you are winning on points, have 1 minute of a match left and have 3, 4 or more potential matches to win gold... why open your guard? At that point you just need to try closed guard attacks, give yourself the easy win. Or a more extreme situation, maybe you are winning on points but are under your opponent's mount... you might know plenty of techniques to escape, but in this situation it's more tactically sound to just defend. If you escape you give your opponent a chance to score more points and while escaping there is much more chance of being submitted.
So, try to think on two levels all the time; what you need to do technically and what you need to do tactically. When you're in the heat of the moment you will react naturally, but by considering these things throughout your training you will make good tactical decisions naturally.
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Who should teach jiu-jitsu?
As with any subject, there are a broad range of people teaching jiu-jitsu and it's often discussed who should teach and what qualifies them to do so. Well, you know the deal, here's my thoughts...
It should go without saying that to teach somebody should have approval from their instructor. This ensures their instructor believes them to be capable of doing so and also legitimises the teaching as being part of their lineage. It also means that the instructor should still be training as a student and continuing their own training.
The most obvious question about teaching qualification is what belt level someone should be. Except for in certain circumstances (no higher level guys teaching in the area) there is no need for white or blue belts to be teaching (and if they are teaching, they should have regular contact with a black belt instructor). Yes, they might be excellent teachers but they will not have enough technical knowledge. An experienced purple belt and any brown/black belt should definitely have the required technical knowledge, but this is still no guarantee of teaching ability. The environment someone is teaching in also matters here; a black belt can certainly run a large academy themselves... a brown or purple might be able to, and they could definitely run a smaller affiliate. Lower level belts are also much better placed to be teaching if they are doing it at an academy run by a black belt.
Judging teaching skills is a tricky thing to do. People learn in different ways and someone might be good at teaching one sort of person but not another. There is also always a human factor, as an instructor you don't just show jiu-jitsu techniques but also have to deal with the various personalities and attitudes of students. You have to make sure the class as a whole works well; people actually drilling, avoiding subdivision into groups/cliques and various other things. Some people are definitely bad teachers; they don't plan lessons at all, they don't have a clear idea of what to teach, they don't teach connected techniques, they favour certain students... and many other potential problems.
I think the best way to learn to teach jiu-jitsu is to learn from someone good at teaching it. People shouldn't just decide to start teaching, they should spend time studying a good instructor teaching classes and ask them questions about how and why they do things. The perfect scenario for someone to start teaching is that they train with their instructor until black belt and then open an affiliate academy, but there will definitely be times when people start teaching sooner (in a country without much jiu-jitsu). The worst option for someone to start teaching is the desperate-to-be-an-instructor types who leave their instructor at white or blue belt and start their own club. These people will use any type of excuse for it... they want to have a "different philosophy" within their club or they "see themselves more as an instructor than a student", maybe they see it as a fast track method to get a promotion via a long-distance affiliate relationship or they are just the sort who rate themselves much higher than their actual skill level. The worst of them will develop their "own style" and wear a black belt... whatever it is, they are idiots.
There are no official qualifications to teach jiu-jitsu, so it's always going to be the case that anyone can go out and set up an academy, but there will also always be people willing to tell others they shouldn't be teaching... and I'm one of them, haha.
It should go without saying that to teach somebody should have approval from their instructor. This ensures their instructor believes them to be capable of doing so and also legitimises the teaching as being part of their lineage. It also means that the instructor should still be training as a student and continuing their own training.
The most obvious question about teaching qualification is what belt level someone should be. Except for in certain circumstances (no higher level guys teaching in the area) there is no need for white or blue belts to be teaching (and if they are teaching, they should have regular contact with a black belt instructor). Yes, they might be excellent teachers but they will not have enough technical knowledge. An experienced purple belt and any brown/black belt should definitely have the required technical knowledge, but this is still no guarantee of teaching ability. The environment someone is teaching in also matters here; a black belt can certainly run a large academy themselves... a brown or purple might be able to, and they could definitely run a smaller affiliate. Lower level belts are also much better placed to be teaching if they are doing it at an academy run by a black belt.
Judging teaching skills is a tricky thing to do. People learn in different ways and someone might be good at teaching one sort of person but not another. There is also always a human factor, as an instructor you don't just show jiu-jitsu techniques but also have to deal with the various personalities and attitudes of students. You have to make sure the class as a whole works well; people actually drilling, avoiding subdivision into groups/cliques and various other things. Some people are definitely bad teachers; they don't plan lessons at all, they don't have a clear idea of what to teach, they don't teach connected techniques, they favour certain students... and many other potential problems.
I think the best way to learn to teach jiu-jitsu is to learn from someone good at teaching it. People shouldn't just decide to start teaching, they should spend time studying a good instructor teaching classes and ask them questions about how and why they do things. The perfect scenario for someone to start teaching is that they train with their instructor until black belt and then open an affiliate academy, but there will definitely be times when people start teaching sooner (in a country without much jiu-jitsu). The worst option for someone to start teaching is the desperate-to-be-an-instructor types who leave their instructor at white or blue belt and start their own club. These people will use any type of excuse for it... they want to have a "different philosophy" within their club or they "see themselves more as an instructor than a student", maybe they see it as a fast track method to get a promotion via a long-distance affiliate relationship or they are just the sort who rate themselves much higher than their actual skill level. The worst of them will develop their "own style" and wear a black belt... whatever it is, they are idiots.
There are no official qualifications to teach jiu-jitsu, so it's always going to be the case that anyone can go out and set up an academy, but there will also always be people willing to tell others they shouldn't be teaching... and I'm one of them, haha.
Friday, 21 February 2014
Interview on a friend's blog
A friend and old student of mine interviewed me for his blog. You can find it HERE :-)
Thursday, 20 February 2014
Don't use strength!
This is probably one of the most common things you will hear from some people training jiu-jitsu but I think the idea of it has become confused.
Straight off... you have to use strength in jiu-jitsu. What is strength? A measure of how work your muscles can do. What do you use to move your limbs? Muscles = strength. And to go further, the entire basis of jiu-jitsu technique is to use leverage in order to multiply your strength and maximise your advantage over your opponent.
So what people really need to say is "Don't prevent yourself from learning technique by relying on strength"... I dunno, maybe it's not as catchy though. You should try to make any movement or control of your opponent be as easy as possible for you; if you're straining to do something then you're probably not doing it right. If your muscles are dead after every roll, you're probably using too much strength and not enough technique.
That said... there is nothing wrong with using your strength flat out at times. At the end of the day, jiu-jitsu is about learning to fight. Part of fighting is using your physical attributes and strength is an attribute just as much as speed, flexibility, cardio, long legs or whatever... and how many times have you heard people saying not to use those things to your advantage? Exactly. It makes me laugh when I hear a little guy telling an ultra heavy "Don't use so much strength" and then they hit a blink-of-the-eye armdrag to back take.
Basically, what it comes down to is that any physical attribute can be a bad thing in your training, but a good thing in your ability to fight. So you have to judge those things for yourself...
- when you're training in general try to maximise your use of clean technique and minimise your use of physical attributes.
- make sure you also do use physical attributes at times. You need to learn how to use these well; using an attribute correctly is a technical aspect of jiu-jitsu.
- pick your partners wisely when you want to go flat out. If you're really strong then there is little point in putting it to full use against a rooster weight.
- realise you also need to learn to deal with your opponents having superior physical attributes. It's no use just complaining when someone is really strong... it's a fact of life that some people are massive/strong. You might have to fight one in a competition or in a real fight, so get yourself prepared for it.
Straight off... you have to use strength in jiu-jitsu. What is strength? A measure of how work your muscles can do. What do you use to move your limbs? Muscles = strength. And to go further, the entire basis of jiu-jitsu technique is to use leverage in order to multiply your strength and maximise your advantage over your opponent.
So what people really need to say is "Don't prevent yourself from learning technique by relying on strength"... I dunno, maybe it's not as catchy though. You should try to make any movement or control of your opponent be as easy as possible for you; if you're straining to do something then you're probably not doing it right. If your muscles are dead after every roll, you're probably using too much strength and not enough technique.
That said... there is nothing wrong with using your strength flat out at times. At the end of the day, jiu-jitsu is about learning to fight. Part of fighting is using your physical attributes and strength is an attribute just as much as speed, flexibility, cardio, long legs or whatever... and how many times have you heard people saying not to use those things to your advantage? Exactly. It makes me laugh when I hear a little guy telling an ultra heavy "Don't use so much strength" and then they hit a blink-of-the-eye armdrag to back take.
Basically, what it comes down to is that any physical attribute can be a bad thing in your training, but a good thing in your ability to fight. So you have to judge those things for yourself...
- when you're training in general try to maximise your use of clean technique and minimise your use of physical attributes.
- make sure you also do use physical attributes at times. You need to learn how to use these well; using an attribute correctly is a technical aspect of jiu-jitsu.
- pick your partners wisely when you want to go flat out. If you're really strong then there is little point in putting it to full use against a rooster weight.
- realise you also need to learn to deal with your opponents having superior physical attributes. It's no use just complaining when someone is really strong... it's a fact of life that some people are massive/strong. You might have to fight one in a competition or in a real fight, so get yourself prepared for it.
Monday, 10 February 2014
How and why I promote...
So I did a couple of posts about promotions but didn't mention anything about my own basis for promoting people. As this varies between every instructor it's definitely worth a mention.
First off, I have only given out two purple belts so far and nothing higher. I can't promote anyone to black belt for another 6 years and don't plan on promoting anyone to brown belt any time soon either, so I'll just look at blue and purple...
For both blue and purple, the most important aspect is always grappling performance; how does someone perform against their peers and a wider range of opposition? I judge this in a variety of situations... sparring in training, jiu-jitsu competition and even MMA. My judgement of performance isn't only based on results though, no doubt it's important to be able to get the better of someone in any sort of fight but I would never promote someone just because they can beat people using strength, they have to be using technique.
With that in mind, performance against peers is what I look at most closely. How somebody does against people of similar size, age and experience is a great indicator of ability. But also important is how they do against bigger/stronger opponents... and for that I definitely just differently depending on belt. For purple belt I would expect to see not only better technical ability but also a broader understanding of different tactical approaches to take against different opponents. If someone can beat similar sized opponents but then get smashed by anyone bigger because they are trying to triangle 130kg monsters, they are not due a purple belt imo.
Within the performance aspect there are also other factors... does someone just use the same techniques all the time? A limited range of techniques could get someone a blue belt, but for a purple I would definitely expect to see them using and experimenting with a wide variety of options, especially when rolling with white belts. For a blue belt someone might be good at triangles but not have that many options off it, that's cool... but if I am considering someone for purple belt I would expect them to have options for every triangle escape or defence. Can someone fight from every position? Being able to pass guard and tap every white belt is great, but if they end up on the bottom and are lost they are not ready to be promoted. For blue belt I would expect someone to have options from every position, for purple belt I would expect them to have a range of high percentage options from every position. Cardio is another issue of performance... being able to go flat out and smash any white belt in one round is no good if that person is then gassed and unable to roll the next round. No belt is going to be given to someone who doesn't roll every round.
There are then factors outside of performance... how does someone behave towards other students? I have no problem with people smashing in sparring, but if someone takes it to the level of bullying they show they are not mature enough to be given a higher grade. If they are the sort of person who tries to teach every new student an americana from mount during drilling/rolling then they are not going to be promoted. If they ignore advice and always think they know better, no promotion. If they are lazy and skip drilling, no promotion. If they have a generally bad attitude (talking while I'm teaching, whinging about stuff or whatever), no promotion.
I always consider time spent training in promoting too. I don't really have any minimums, and I definitely don't have timescales where I automatically start to consider promotion. But, if someone is performing to a standard I consider worthy of blue or purple, and they've got their in a short amount of time, I would expect them to have a history of competition success. If not there is no need to get promoted quickly.
And that takes us back to competition... I see competition success as an indicator I need to evaluate that student for promotion, but by no means is it a guarantee of promotion. Someone might win numerous competitions but not qualify for promotion due to any other reasons I've covered above.
Other people promote based on different factors though, or give different weighting to the factors I have spoken about... and after posting this I'll probably think of something I've forgotten about. Whatever, it's a bit of insight as to how someone promotes people... just keep training, keep trying to learn new techniques, compete, think about your training and how to train better... promotions will come in time.
EDIT: something I forgot to mention originally is what happens when people have time off, or haven't been training regularly. Again, in these instances I will not promote anyone. If someone has been off for months injured, it sucks for them but I will not promote them (not even a stripe) as soon as they get back. They will need to get back into regular training for at least a few months before any promotion. People may think this is harsh, but people I promote represent me from that point on. I don't want to give a belt to someone the first day they come back from a lay off, no matter why, in case I never see them again.
A similar thing applies to anyone who joins me from a different team or with existing grappling ability. No matter what their level I would not promote them until they have trained with me for a long time. I know instructors out there who promote people within weeks or months of them joining their team (or even at the first session!!). All this does is encourage people to "belt shop" moving from one instructor to another, often getting them in for high cost seminars, in order to quickly gain belt ranks. Nobody will ever achieve that through me.
First off, I have only given out two purple belts so far and nothing higher. I can't promote anyone to black belt for another 6 years and don't plan on promoting anyone to brown belt any time soon either, so I'll just look at blue and purple...
For both blue and purple, the most important aspect is always grappling performance; how does someone perform against their peers and a wider range of opposition? I judge this in a variety of situations... sparring in training, jiu-jitsu competition and even MMA. My judgement of performance isn't only based on results though, no doubt it's important to be able to get the better of someone in any sort of fight but I would never promote someone just because they can beat people using strength, they have to be using technique.
With that in mind, performance against peers is what I look at most closely. How somebody does against people of similar size, age and experience is a great indicator of ability. But also important is how they do against bigger/stronger opponents... and for that I definitely just differently depending on belt. For purple belt I would expect to see not only better technical ability but also a broader understanding of different tactical approaches to take against different opponents. If someone can beat similar sized opponents but then get smashed by anyone bigger because they are trying to triangle 130kg monsters, they are not due a purple belt imo.
Within the performance aspect there are also other factors... does someone just use the same techniques all the time? A limited range of techniques could get someone a blue belt, but for a purple I would definitely expect to see them using and experimenting with a wide variety of options, especially when rolling with white belts. For a blue belt someone might be good at triangles but not have that many options off it, that's cool... but if I am considering someone for purple belt I would expect them to have options for every triangle escape or defence. Can someone fight from every position? Being able to pass guard and tap every white belt is great, but if they end up on the bottom and are lost they are not ready to be promoted. For blue belt I would expect someone to have options from every position, for purple belt I would expect them to have a range of high percentage options from every position. Cardio is another issue of performance... being able to go flat out and smash any white belt in one round is no good if that person is then gassed and unable to roll the next round. No belt is going to be given to someone who doesn't roll every round.
There are then factors outside of performance... how does someone behave towards other students? I have no problem with people smashing in sparring, but if someone takes it to the level of bullying they show they are not mature enough to be given a higher grade. If they are the sort of person who tries to teach every new student an americana from mount during drilling/rolling then they are not going to be promoted. If they ignore advice and always think they know better, no promotion. If they are lazy and skip drilling, no promotion. If they have a generally bad attitude (talking while I'm teaching, whinging about stuff or whatever), no promotion.
I always consider time spent training in promoting too. I don't really have any minimums, and I definitely don't have timescales where I automatically start to consider promotion. But, if someone is performing to a standard I consider worthy of blue or purple, and they've got their in a short amount of time, I would expect them to have a history of competition success. If not there is no need to get promoted quickly.
And that takes us back to competition... I see competition success as an indicator I need to evaluate that student for promotion, but by no means is it a guarantee of promotion. Someone might win numerous competitions but not qualify for promotion due to any other reasons I've covered above.
Other people promote based on different factors though, or give different weighting to the factors I have spoken about... and after posting this I'll probably think of something I've forgotten about. Whatever, it's a bit of insight as to how someone promotes people... just keep training, keep trying to learn new techniques, compete, think about your training and how to train better... promotions will come in time.
EDIT: something I forgot to mention originally is what happens when people have time off, or haven't been training regularly. Again, in these instances I will not promote anyone. If someone has been off for months injured, it sucks for them but I will not promote them (not even a stripe) as soon as they get back. They will need to get back into regular training for at least a few months before any promotion. People may think this is harsh, but people I promote represent me from that point on. I don't want to give a belt to someone the first day they come back from a lay off, no matter why, in case I never see them again.
A similar thing applies to anyone who joins me from a different team or with existing grappling ability. No matter what their level I would not promote them until they have trained with me for a long time. I know instructors out there who promote people within weeks or months of them joining their team (or even at the first session!!). All this does is encourage people to "belt shop" moving from one instructor to another, often getting them in for high cost seminars, in order to quickly gain belt ranks. Nobody will ever achieve that through me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)