My New Curriculum

[1point2]

Devil's advocate on the topic of teaching a technique and its counter in the same class:

How do you know what order to place the material in?

Here are three simple rules of thumb I often use:

1- Teach things in the order in which they arise naturally on the mat.

2- Teach them in the order in which you want your students to apply them as habits.

3- And don’t create problems before they arise naturally on the mat

Regarding number one, if I am teaching how to open the closed guard to a brand new group of people, I am not going to start with a couple specific leg opening movements and then proceed later into base and posture. That would be out of sequence with what they will experience when they are rolling. So obviously there we would start with base and posture, and then proceed to opening the legs.

Point number one and point number two tend to blend together when you are teaching. They are like two sides of the same coin. As a good Coach what you obviously want is for your students to develop the habit of defending and applying things in the same order in which they actually occur during a live role. And that means always trying to solve things as early as possible, not at the last possible minute.


Here is another example of point number two (you can see where it relates to point number one throughout). Lets use the example of leg lock counters. If I show a group of people new to leg locks how to counter an achilles hold, and I start with the lock almost completely on, then again I have skipped at least five different steps. The natural by product of teaching this way is that you will have a room full of beginners who will often start their counter movements at a point in which they are just about to tap. As a teacher who wants his students to be catching these things as early as possible, this would not be good.

So instead, first I would start with where to put your feet. I would follow with how to clear your foot once someone grabs it. I would follow that with how to stay attached, and not allow your opponent to lay back and get position for the leg lock (assuming you could not prevent them from grabbing it in the first place, and once grabbed you were unable to free your foot), and only after all of those things would I proceed with the last ditch counter-submission movements.


Rickson had a very simple order in which he taught his curriculum. He called it:

defense – offense – defense.

What I believe he meant by that was that he started with the fundamentals of a given position. In his case he started with escapes. As you have to teach top in order to teach bottom, we can call that first segment titled ‘defense’, fundamental positions. Your first, and by far your best means of defense is to always seek the advantage found in positional dominance. That is what BJJ is about

Following positional dominance he taught the second section of core ‘offense’, chokes, armbars, etc. All of these flow off of maintaining position first, as it’s the position that gives you the leverage for the submission. This is a point all BJJ players know and learn very quickly.

Last he would teach ‘counter-offense’, this is the third section labeled ‘defense’, which is to say the counters to the submissions. This is a very logical progression, defense – offense – defense. And it relates to the same points I have made above.

The last rule of thumb was not creating problems before they arise naturally. Here is what I mean by that.

Again lets assume you are working with a group of brand new students. The lesson for the day is the triangle. The students have already worked some fundamentals about the guard, and as such they are well prepared for introduction to this fundamental submission.

Here is the question, if the triangle is a new movement for the majority of the group, would I want to drill the counter to the submission in the same class?

My answer to that is almost always (remember warnings not rules) an emphatic no.

What I want to see first is the students in the class tapping each other out in live rolls using a triangle. In a good class, this can often occur the same day. But that stated, I would probably give the group at least a few weeks to work the submission before I started drilling the counter to it. After a few weeks every time I got to the Q & A section at the end of class I am quite sure there would be at least a few people who would raise their hand and tell me they were having trouble getting caught with triangles. The problem has now arisen, and as such it would be time to work the counter to it.

What I don’t want to do is drill the counter to the triangle before anyone in the class is really able to pull off a triangle in a competitive roll. If I do, I may actually be doing a disservice to my students. I will be shortchanging their ability to play with, and grow into this submission.

Of course I am not suggesting that you will not mention key points that will involve what others may do in an attempt to counter the movement you just taught. IE: With a triangle you will probably discuss the need to keep the opponent from getting posture. You may also work what to do if the opponent tries to pick them up and slam them, or tries to hide their own arm, make a frame, etc. But the distinction here is one of perspective. We are working from the perspective of the person applying the triangle, so the majority of drill time will be aimed at this objective. That does not mean you will not expose your students to the things that may come up while attempting the movement.

Again, as common sense as that idea seems to be, we cannot assume that anyone teaching BJJ will automatically understand it.

As good Coaches it is our job to help our staff learn how to best impart this information to others. I have seen many coaches introduce a new submission to the class, and then five minutes later teach the counter to the very same submission. The natural by product of that is that a good percentage of the students never actually learn to use the submission, as everyone counters it before they have even gotten a chance to develop it. A few weeks go by, and the move is forgotten. Perhaps only to be picked up Years later when some of the students are purple belt, and they say “Oh ya, I remember seeing that 4 Years ago but I could never do it?”

This has always made sense to me. However, I see the value of teaching a technique and its counter in the same class if it is with the goal of creating a competitive drill.

[Roidie McDouchebag]

Why is pummeling the first part of the first class?

Because it's the best way to learn stability in wrestling while you're on your feet.

Or what JNP said.

I'm not an MMA instructor, but why teach offense and defense in the same class?

Because they would get bored if they only had one or two techniques to work on for an hour. It has to be fun, or at least interesting.

Also because then when the drilling ends and the wrestling begins, everyone is going for the offence they just learned, but when the other guy gets to it first, they have something to fall back on.

Or what Slideyfoot said.

I'm used to most people knowing what they are doing

That's the thing. It's awesome when you can walk into a place and that's already the case...but we're talking about starting from scratch here. There are a small handful of guys that know what they're doing enough to drill it without help, but still need plenty of drilling, then there are the unwashed masses of crapplers which make up most of the class.

This has always made sense to me. However, I see the value of teaching a technique and its counter in the same class if it is with the goal of creating a competitive drill.

That's the plan.

Last class I had guys landing the moves I taught, and those moves being countered, it was going both ways, just as it should. It should not be "everyone lands the move because no one knows the counter", if you can't land it against someone who knows the counter, you're doing it wrong anyway.

Anyway, his objections seem a little silly to me. Compliant drilling is where you learn the proper movements, and competitive wrestling is where you learn what happens when you try it against a resisting opponent. If you learn to land a move against someone and it works simply because they don't have an idea how to stop you, that seems silly to me. That's not going to happen in an actual competition unless your opponent doesn't belong there.

Of course, when I'm drilling the offence, we drill that TO COMPLETION. Not, drill it until it's almost working, then switch to the defence drill. Drill it until it's working and the opponent is trying to resist a little, then move on.

Moreover, these guys will be returning to work on these same techniques as long as I'm teaching this class. So there will always be new guys to try stuff on as they get better, and they'll have the chance to do it to someone who can't adequately defend, just not necessarily the first class they try it in.

Thornton seems to be afraid that you'll move on from a technique and not return to it often enough that it gets learned because the counter will nullify that. This class structure is designed specifically to avoid that problem. These basics are going to be so drilled into everyone's head (and that includes the advanced guys who are all expected to show up to the beginner classes too) that they WILL know them. Period. Inside and out.

[permahudef]

Although I disagree with the "students will get bored" arguement (if they are bored with one guard pass, teach them another complimentary pass.), I see the importance of taking fresh meat, teaching them the offense with some resistance, then switch to the defense.

I think what I suggested (in line with Matt Thornton) and your view differ on two things: 1) Depth of drilling the "other half" 2) Who/what is being trained at any given time.

1) Depth of drilling the "other half". Since you train both halves (offense and defense), this is a bit of a misnomer, but bear with me on the nomenclature. You specifically train the offense, with the details and things to watch out for before you train defense (for this example). In what I suggested, you still drill the offense (i.e. everyone knows HOW to put on a triangle), but it is not based on the details and not drilled against resistance yet (i.e. "introduction" where you just make sure it works, that the mechanics are correct, but don't yet work against resistance). It's still compliant drilling (introduction) at this point, but the person isn't "giving up the triangle" (i.e. putting their arm accross), but are rather giving "natural resistance" (Not falling over, but not really fighting). This is all preliminary to the actual focus of the class (In this case triangle defense).

2) Who/What is being trained. In your instruction, you have already taught offense and drilled that against a resisting opponant. Then you teach defense (introduction: the mechanics) then drill it against the resisting opponant (Isolation). This is simultaneously training offense in one student and defense in the other student.

In my suggestion you would teach the defense (introduction: the mechanics) and then drill it against the resisting opponant (isolation). The difference here is that this is now the first time the offense is drilled with resistance. Also, the focus is on teaching the triangle defense, not the triangle. The person applying the triangle gives progressive resistance (starting at about 4 out of 10, dialing up the intensity until the person can defend about 50% of the time). At this point both offense and defense are being drilled with resistance, but the offense caters to the defense. In the last 30 seconds of driling, the offense can go all-out (so long as safety is not jeopardized).

In the second point, your students are competing against each other, while under my suggestion they are training each other. If students are competing against each other, then the weaker (skillwise and attributewise) student might get shut-down on most/all their attempts and not be able to get many/any repititions in under resistance. Under my suggestion, both people are able to get repititions in because one student is adjusting their resistance to allow their partner to get some success. In other words, it's not really training triangle defense if your partner is able to smash your defense and triangle you within 5 seconds every time. If the person feeding the triangle is weaker (skillwise and attributewise), then they can just try their best.

Of course, if you remind your students that if they are smashing their opponant on every attempt, then they should ease up a bit, then that (IMO) greatly improves on the possibility that someone simply gets smashed in drilling.

Of course, once you let them freeroll, let them smash them so long as they are keeping it safe.

[Diesel_tke]

That works if you have the exact same people coming in all the time, consistently. But sometimes you will have new people come in or old people miss because **** happens. Then you have the problem of trying to teach someone a defense when they don't know how to do the submission properly. Then they either make a shitty drilling partner, or you spend half the time anyway showing them the submission so that the other person can drill the defense.

Also if you do offense on Monday and then the guy missed the Wednesday defense class, when he gets back on the next Monday he is doing offense again and won't get to learn the defense. Some guys I roll with work swing shifts, so they miss every other class.

If you do the offense and defense in the same class, then that class is a stand alone class where you don't need any background knowledge in order to participate.

[ViciousFlamingo]

ICY, this is probably a bit off-topic, but why do you teach bridging off the head? Having only done BJJ, I don't know the benefits of bridging off the head rather than the shoulder....I'm guessing you can bridge higher?

[jnp]

There is a difference between teaching a specific counter to a submission that was just taught as opposed to teaching a guard pass and a sweep. The pass/sweep combination gives each drilling partner a tool to use during positional sparring. As long as positional sparring at progressive resistance is included in the class, it's not a bad idea to teach a mutually opposing combination of moves.

[permahudef]

That works if you have the exact same people coming in all the time, consistently. But sometimes you will have new people come in or old people miss because **** happens. Then you have the problem of trying to teach someone a defense when they don't know how to do the submission properly. Then they either make a shitty drilling partner, or you spend half the time anyway showing them the submission so that the other person can drill the defense.

Also if you do offense on Monday and then the guy missed the Wednesday defense class, when he gets back on the next Monday he is doing offense again and won't get to learn the defense. Some guys I roll with work swing shifts, so they miss every other class.

If you do the offense and defense in the same class, then that class is a stand alone class where you don't need any background knowledge in order to participate.

Yeah, this makes sense.

I'll reiterate that in my suggestion, the offense IS taught before the defense, but there is not a huge amount of focus on the offense or "what to do if...". E.g. The instructor shows how to properly do a triangle and explains common mistakes and how to correct them. Then pairs of students switch back and forth triangling each other, making sure they can do it against a compliant partner (natural resistance: they don't throw themselves into the triangle, but dont struggle) as the instructor watches and corrects as needed. At the end of that, the instructor asks if anyone had any problems, and addresses the problems if they arise.

[Roidie McDouchebag]

It might be worth mentioning that there's no submissions being taught in these classes and that when I do, then I'm not teaching specific counters, only proper posture and how not to get caught in the first place.

ICY, this is probably a bit off-topic, but why do you teach bridging off the head? Having only done BJJ, I don't know the benefits of bridging off the head rather than the shoulder....I'm guessing you can bridge higher?

Exactly, more space equals a better escape.

[permahudef]

It might be worth mentioning that there's no submissions being taught in these classes and that when I do, then I'm not teaching specific counters, only proper posture and how not to get caught in the first place.

Oops, that was a poor choice of example on my part. I hope the rest of my message was more appropriate.

[Roidie McDouchebag]

Oh, also, these classes are once a week, so I have to try and cram as much as I can into them without overwhelming students.