Complexity vs simplicity

**DKJr** · Posted On: 5/10/2012 3:29pm

I have tools that fit my pace and body style. If you're faster and more flexible your game should play to those strengths and be "complex". "Simple" games are great for large strong guys.

Really it's what type of game takes advantage of your physical traits, your preferences, and your personality.

**downtime** · Posted On: 5/10/2012 3:33pm

Originally Posted by danno

i think if you find you have a talent for a certain technique, you should take advantage of that and hone it. but at the same time, you should eliminate your weaknesses. always search for the weakest link and fix it. it's not either/or, it's a matter of finding balance. that's my opinion anyway.

roger has highly developed fundamentals. it's not really simple like the word "basic" implies (though roger himself describes his games as basic), that kind of skill takes many years to develop. just because he beats the best with a technique you learned on your first day doesn't mean what he does is simple or easy.

Danno would you attribute this more to Rogers sensitivity? timing? or just freak of nature. I guess what Im asking is do you feel because of his experience mat time etc. He's just developed all the nuances of his game that in turn allows him to employ these "first day moves" so effetively at such a high level?

**265lbsfist** · Posted On: 5/10/2012 3:49pm

Originally Posted by David Koresh Jr.

I have tools that fit my pace and body style. If you're faster and more flexible your game should play to those strengths and be "complex". "Simple" games are great for large strong guys.

Really it's what type of game takes advantage of your physical traits, your preferences, and your personality.

But isn't that also a bit of a defeatist approach?

I've been doing that myself for years but shouldn't we aspire to surpass our limitations?

I train with another brown who is a super super heavy and he went from powerful blue to guardplayer extraordinaire at brown. He surpassed me technically in so many ways by doing stuff most big guys can't and won't do.

**DKJr** · Posted On: 5/10/2012 5:12pm

Originally Posted by 265lbsfist

But isn't that also a bit of a defeatist approach?

I've been doing that myself for years but shouldn't we aspire to surpass our limitations?

I train with another brown who is a super super heavy and he went from powerful blue to guardplayer extraordinaire at brown. He surpassed me technically in so many ways by doing stuff most big guys can't and won't do.

This example follows the guidelines of what I laid out. He has the ability and propensity to play a more dynamic game, ala Cyborg Abreu. However this is hardly the norm. I'm saying do what comes natural, but don't try to be something you're not just cause you don't want to be "flashy" or "too basic".

As an aside Rogers's half guard is hardly basic.

**265lbsfist** · Posted On: 5/10/2012 5:21pm

Originally Posted by David Koresh Jr.

I have tools that fit my pace and body style. If you're faster and more flexible your game should play to those strengths and be "complex". "Simple" games are great for large strong guys.

Really it's what type of game takes advantage of your physical traits, your preferences, and your personality.

I might just be a bit hard on myself as I have trouble adjusting my game to MMA.

But expanding upon your game into avenues you thought weren't feasible for your body type might not just bring frustration but also new and unexpected tools too?

In competitions your opponent often type casts you by body type and if you do the unexpected and do it quite well you might have an edge?

**DKJr** · Posted On: 5/10/2012 5:38pm

Originally Posted by 265lbsfist

I might just be a bit hard on myself as I have trouble adjusting my game to MMA.

But expanding upon your game into avenues you thought weren't feasible for your body type might not just bring frustration but also new and unexpected tools too?

In competitions your opponent often type casts you by body type and if you do the unexpected and do it quite well you might have an edge?

Ah let's take your example and build upon it. Let's say Cobrinha tries to play smash passing style instead of his dynamic passing just for the sake of being surprising. Smash passing typically being a bigger persons forte due to weight and gravity playing in their favor. Now let's assume that the opponent most likely trains with heavier blackbelts that use smash passing, could Cobrinha hope to use it effectively? I doubt he'd be as successful.

Same as if a big guy who isn't naturally drawn to play inverted guard tries to Ryan Hall it up in a tournament, sure he might be good at it but unless it comes naturally why wouldn't you do something you're suited to as you'll be better at it.

It's like asking Brock Lesnar to pull guard because nobody would expect it. I think we can all agree even if Brock trained guard for 5 years straight it wouldn't be as effective if he just shot a double

I'm not saying don't experiment in practice, I'm saying there's no need to try to put a square peg in a round hole just to because you dont want to be "too simple" or "too complex".

TLDR version: play what comes natural through trial and error but don't try to force a certain style just because you think you should.

**DKJr** · Posted On: 5/10/2012 5:43pm

I will say certain games are better suited to mma. But fundamental concepts should (IMO) translate across gi, nogi, mma. These being defend your head, control the distance, control their hips, control their posture, isolate and attack.

Specialization comes into play to develop competences that excel in a certain discipline which IMO is very attribute and body style dependent.