Brock Larson on the gi
Saw this quote and link on the UG thought it was very interesting and that Brock succinctly states why gi training is important
Brock Larson: Absolutely. I think every fighter is athletic and theyíre probably one of the most athletic fighters in their gym. Iím probably the best athlete in two of the three gyms I compete at or train at. So what the gi does is force you to take the athleticism out of it and forces you to be more technical because if you get your arm in trouble you canít just athletically pull it out or just slip out of it. You put your arm in trouble with the gi on, the guyís got a handle and got ahold of it, and he usually bends you arm. So, itís in your best interest to not put your arm in trouble ever. You get good habits of staying out of trouble, passing the guard correctly, not just flying through uncontrolled. And just controlling your opponent better. Thatís my view on it. I think the technical aspect helps me.
Last edited by Goju - Joe; 8/03/2007 1:15pm at .
Its a flawed argument. Everyone is trying to figure out methods and hypothesis as to why training with the gi is superior to no gi, even when training for MMA.
As he states it, he says that its very difficult to escape your arm in a gi situation should someone apply an arm bar on you. Simply turn the statement around and you see the flaw-
If its more difficult to escape an armbar in gi, than it stands to reason that its more difficult to finish an armbar in no gi. As such, it requires a technical fighter whos very precise to finish that armbar, being that its so much easier for the defender to rely on his athleticism and slipperyness to escape.
I'll also address his statement about controlling someone- so many grips make it very easy to control and hold someone when, for example, one gets to cross side. In this respect, your base and weight placement both do not have to be particularly good, depending on how strong your grips are. A no gi fighter, on the other hand, needs to be much more precise with his weight displacement when attempting to control someone from a dominant position.
As a NCAA wrestler and MMA fighter I am pretty sure he trains no gi as well.
I think his point wasn't gi training as being more important to no gi training, but that it is just as important for MMA and should be part of an MMA fighters training.
I have also read interesting quites from Koscheck where he says he trains Gi as well.
Not that your points aren't wrong, but for NCAA wrestlers they already have the weight placement and controll skills from wrestling.
It's interesting I looked at Brock's Sherdog record expecting to see most of his wins come from GnP but they come from subs.
Good reason to do both.
Originally Posted by Gumby
In my opinion, gi training helps me with my defensive technique since it is easier to get caught with a gi on while no-gi helps me with my offensive technique since it is harder for me to apply submissions without being able to control the person by grasping the gi. I also believe that teaching no-gi is better for self-defense since it is more realistic to what you would be able to do in the street to defend yourself.
There's no good reason to do both FOR MMA. For self defence, sure, but for MMA, Eddie Bravo is correct. BJJ guys promote ridiculous ideas because the gi is a tradition to them.
To use his analogy, two guys train for the same amount of time, under the same instructor. One trains only in the gi, one trains only no-gi. They weigh the same, bench the same, are the same height, etc. Now, after years of training and an equal amount of success in their respective styles, they have a no-gi match...
Brock Larson isn't a BJJ guy he's a wrestler
Or at least started out as a wrestler.
Like I said I have also heard Koschek say similar things in interviews about training in the gi.
So I don't think it's purely a tradition thing.
People who have wrestling backgrounds have spent years not wearing a gi and I think they enjoy the gi because it gives them a different appraoch than they're used to.
I've always thought this argument was one really silly strawman, which doesn't consider a ridiculous number of variables. My contempt for the argument has grown since I introduced a training partner of mine to the no-gi game last week, and he took to it like a duck to water, in spite of having six to seven years of purely gi training, and in spite of having numerous specialties that don't work as well without a gi as with.
Originally Posted by Cracky McSlugHoot
Then again, look at how well Eddie Bravo's philosophy has worked for him.
- How many no-gi champions has he produced?
- How many MMA champions has he coached?
- How many fights has he won since he beat Royler?
Over time, I've rolled with a number of guys who never trained with the gi, or who do as much as possible to avoid rolling in it. Some with more training than me, some with less, some equal.
None of them have impressed me all that much, in hindsight. All have relied more on attributes (strength, speed, stamina) than technique. When I've been submitted, it's usually been by something gimmicky that I haven't been exposed to, like the twister, that I've never been caught with since.
Which is a point Larson was making.
None of them have impressed me all that much, in hindsight. All have relied more on attributes (strength, speed, stamina) than technique.
Given his wrestling and strength advantages I thing he finds the gi a great equalizer.
Which is wehy it's important to do both
I've just taken up Gi and can definitely see the value of it as it is more technical.
A couple of the purple belts have also told me that their technique gets more sloppy if they don't train with Gi for a while.
I'm gonna stick with both now, 2 classes of each per week at the moment.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO