Question for sambosteve

***WhiteShark*** · Posted On: 5/11/2009 3:20pm

I know this is the grappling forum but i wonder if this isn't one of the main differences between grappling and striking. I've seen much more success from this approach in grappling instead of striking.

I know in Muay Thai I adapted very comfortably to a straight ahead fighting style. Where I would just press forward all the time. It seemed natural "to me" and was effective against quite a few people. However, the two obvious in hindsight shortcomings are much taller opponents and opponents that like to circle off with boxing style footwork. I got trashed in a fight where I ran into both. a taller opponent with good retreating footwork. I had to go back to the basics and relearn my footwork. Being able to do both made me a better fighter in the long run but it is not something I would have developed on my own.

I wonder if it isn't related to the positional hierarchy in grappling being more "set in stone" where even if it isn't gospel it is typically true for everyone.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 5/11/2009 3:26pm

Originally Posted by sambosteve

Why the crowd guys...LOL. It was a good question...

How about adding some thoughts too?

The quote was directed at you so I didn't chime in.

***jnp*** · Posted On: 5/12/2009 8:12am

Missing posts moved here: No one is safe - No BS Martial Arts

**Ryno** · Posted On: 5/12/2009 12:29pm

I train at an ASA club as well, and we do a lot of similar stuff. Frequently with noobs, we'll do "positional" free rolling, where no subs are allowed. You only roll for dominant positions. When someone gets a pin, or someone is able to rear mount, or similar, we simply reset.

This tends to help avoid the "snatch and grab" mindset for subs. People get comfortable with various positions, and come to understand where they are weak and what they need to work on in a more broad positional sense. They tend to become adept at transitions fairly quickly, and understand the dynamics of the movements themselves.

Even for more advanced people, it's a good thing to do. Learning how to work through sticky spots positionally is really helpful. Even when rolling with noobs, you can focus on certain positions, escapes, or sweeps many times successively when you're not as focused on looking for a submission. I'll sometimes just focus on one weaker aspect of my game, and be able to drill it repeatedly in a more legitimate, live manner than I would if it were simply a drill.

Although we frequently do newaza with subs, we'll sometimes do position only work, or randori "all the way through" from standing to groundwork and submission.

***Cassius*** · Posted On: 5/12/2009 1:21pm

I don't train in SAMBO, but in my experience, teaching along similar lines to what Steve is a proponent of is the best way to teach. For me it is more of a question of self-preservation, since I often have to break Army folk of their habit of going Full Retard when we roll, but I think it still applies to this discussion.

Actually, it's refreshing to see so many grappling schools nowadays that "get it."

**1point2** · Posted On: 5/12/2009 1:39pm

To follow up on the OP:

Steve, it seems from some of the commentary (from others like DSL, Ryno, Cassius and WhiteShark) that these sorts of "natural movement" and restricted-rolling drills are oriented towards setting up an environment that is a step removed from the intensity of free rolling, where a noob (or anyone who is vastly outclassed) often gets the sense that their demise is approaching from all angles. Is this kind of training the goal, or is it an attempt to develop a certain kind of movement that you would argue is distinct from other grappling styles?

Put another way: I understand that this concept of 'flow' (which I dimly understand to be similar to the judo concept of ju; going with what is given, being opportunistic rather than direct) is fundamental to SAMBO. Is the SAMBO philosophy that this is a better method of fighting, or that this is a better method of training and teaching? Or am I misunderstanding the terms here?

**Beorn** · Posted On: 5/12/2009 2:39pm

Originally Posted by sambosteve

One drill for example, we will have students moving on the mat together, not working for submissions at all...just trying to continuously move through potitions, rolls, and falls with each other for 2 minutes straight. Then during times of movement, I may point out "here might me an opportunity for this or that type of sub". But, in the end, it all comes down to building fluidity and comfort in a students own body and awareness of body mechanics...and ability to go for subs which naturally appear.

.......

Once students start moving well and have a good ground and body awareness, it is much easier to show them this sub or that sub because they can be more relaxed and have better knowledge of context from which to apply them. This is how you build an individualized game.

So, if I am reading this right, it is all about positions before submissions? For example, my judo club rolls ne-waza all the time, but rarely "teaches" submissions on a club wide basis. Usually it is the noobs rolling with experienced guys and the experienced guy will show them something they could do on a one on one basis. Something like that?

**sambosteve** · Posted On: 5/12/2009 3:22pm

Originally Posted by 1point2

To follow up on the OP:

Steve, it seems from some of the commentary (from others like DSL, Ryno, Cassius and WhiteShark) that these sorts of "natural movement" and restricted-rolling drills are oriented towards setting up an environment that is a step removed from the intensity of free rolling, where a noob (or anyone who is vastly outclassed) often gets the sense that their demise is approaching from all angles. Is this kind of training the goal, or is it an attempt to develop a certain kind of movement that you would argue is distinct from other grappling styles?

Put another way: I understand that this concept of 'flow' (which I dimly understand to be similar to the judo concept of ju; going with what is given, being opportunistic rather than direct) is fundamental to SAMBO. Is the SAMBO philosophy that this is a better method of fighting, or that this is a better method of training and teaching? Or am I misunderstanding the terms here?

Yes, one step removed from full rolling. This way, the noob can learn to spot opportunities. If the advanced guy just goes ahead and does not let the noob play a bit it won't work as well for the noob. So, when Ido this drill, I try to match up guys with similar experience...but, if it is unmatched, the advanced guy should let the noob work at his pace. The noob will see where attacks can come from as well as where he can attack himself.

I am not saying this is better or worse than any other mothod of teaching. People have to find what works for them - as a teacher and a student. I prefer this method and it works for our guys.

**sambosteve** · Posted On: 5/12/2009 3:23pm

Originally Posted by Beorn

So, if I am reading this right, it is all about positions before submissions? For example, my judo club rolls ne-waza all the time, but rarely "teaches" submissions on a club wide basis. Usually it is the noobs rolling with experienced guys and the experienced guy will show them something they could do on a one on one basis. Something like that?

I would add that it is fluid movement before position, then position before submission. We lots of one-on-one stuff like that, but also teach subs club wide. I think you need both so there is a known baseline.

**theotherserge** · Posted On: 5/13/2009 9:47am

Originally Posted by WhiteShark

I know this is the grappling forum but i wonder if this isn't one of the main differences between grappling and striking. I've seen much more success from this approach in grappling instead of striking.

I wonder if it isn't related to the positional hierarchy in grappling being more "set in stone" where even if it isn't gospel it is typically true for everyone.

yeah, unless you're in a clinch, there isn't the feedback you get in wrestling (I wouldn't call getting hit in the head feedback!). So much begins to happen when you grab each other that doesn't happen when you hit each other.

Posture, positioning, stance and so forth are kind of more rigid in striking training. It has to be that way IMO. You need to be able to throw strikes form a balanced position and be able to recover your posture/guard as quickly as you can.

For grappling you can exploit certain principles and get alot done with just that. However, from watching the MT guys up close, I had this revelation about how the hips are used in both "throwing" and "throwing a kick". Power generation is the same, which seems obvious because its all with the human body, but with some subtlties and differences of execution.

I should've started training in Muay Thai a decade ago, it would've improved my wrestling!!!