I'll be the first to say me using terms like that was for the purposes of hyperbole; the point though was to draw parallels with (hence the scare quotes)/illustrate an underlying dynamic, which i hope was understood.
As defensive and counter-attacking methodologies i have little criticism for funking; in fact, for these purposes i think it is great. I understand that going beyond analysis or even constructive criticism and into
contradiction of the way(s) a well known high level athlete does things carries significantly more social risk than either of the former ('well who the heck are
you to think you know better huh?'); if it helps you at all do
not consider this is a personal attack on Askren's 'worthiness' of a wrestler
in general; my main sticking point concerns the study of
film of Askren's college matches specifically, and what
lesions,
principles, or
essentials one might derive from it.
Let me modulate this right here: i do not mean this to be hyperbolic, so don't take it as an absolute or comprehensive statement, but as indicating a component dynamic that trends higher on a
continuum, relative to other methodologies; when you look at his feats, one of the big take aways i get is, 'this is a sublime display of superior prescience, mat sense, and balancing'. That is to say, that he did what he did
in itself was a demonstration of above and beyond such manner of ability. Or in other words, when little timmy is asking you how he can do that; "well that easy timmy, all you gotta do is be more talented than your opponent"; "thanks coach, i'll get right on that".
I've mentioned before that i had been studying several different Schalles Award winners, particularly wrestlers who have won it more than once (eg, Scott Moore, Taylor Walsh, Ben Askren, and Zain Retherford), to see how they did what they did, if there were any commonalities amongst them, and what lesions could be taken way. In preliminary brushes i had in fact found some certain common threads, such as convergence onto certain rides (crossbody with power half was very common), or certain offensive tendencies (often a preference for takedowns that can lead directly into exposure from neutral, such as the reverse headlock). Askren however, stood apart; a data point incongruent with trends observed elsewhere.
When you've got a case of someone winning big in ways noone else is, it occasions a reductive first question; are they so great as to succeed ultimately
despite their methodology? Or are their methods in fact more essentially virtuous than their competition in a way that others theretofore or since failed to appreciate? (Or is it, because they are so great, they
can access such greater methods otherwise inaccessible to lesser competitors?).
To give an example, I have never really seen someone in greco-roman do things much the same way Karelin had, but watching his film, i found it easy to appreciate the
methods underlying his dominance; in particular, his chronic and insistent pursual of the inside two-on-one/reenforced armdrag control (which, for lack of a term i could find, i've called 'polearm control'). Without fail, he would reach for that 2on1 arm drag position, and none of his opponents could really do anything about it except stall, which of course just got them penalized, putting them on the ground, where he would then go to his patented bodylock attack. He did pretty much
the exact same stuff for over a decade,
and noone ever really scouted him out on it; only father time took that L.
Of course his primary attack was sport specific, but it is also something that is not particularly inimitable; i'd say if you took another good guy and had him use the same methods in the clinch he'd also have good success with them; i'd go so far as to say that he came the closest any athlete has had to rendering a combat sport down to a
solved problem.
Watching college film on Askren though often occasioned two thoughts; 'this guy is clearly a genius', and, 'im not sure how i'd square this with teaching a system to a bunch of different athletes'.
Was Askren's method great? Or was it Askren that was great?
>well why chose when you could just teach all of it
Yeah but you can't just teach all of it; nor would you
want too, anyways.
>well what if it was both
If it's both, what reason is there to
not be all-in-ing on the method, anyways? Wrestling is an old sport; pretty much everything people do now has also been done in the past, including what Ben did. It's an honest question then; why isn't it more common?
I understand the meta-gaming; even a highly marginal strategy can be(come) adaptive if few others are gameplaning or spending training time on the matter, or if so many are overspecializing into an essential 'meat' that the field becomes vulnerable to secondary 'potatoes'. Certainly i'd try to make sure at least
one of my guys are each a specialist at different popular metas, if only for the purposes of camp preparation. The question becomes, at what point does trying to go 'uphill' through more essentially disadvantageous TTPs stop being contingently advantageous? I think in a lot of cases that margin in fact is fairly narrow, and if you've got a world class talent on your hands, and you're in charge of grooming them to stand on the podium, i think trying to make them a grappling hipster is doing them a disservice; the easiest way to beat the best is to do what the best do better (which is actually the hard way; which is the easy way).
Let me tell you, i post on these forums just as much for my own benefit as anyone elses; if you have good ideas on the matter by all means share, im interested in it. It's what we're all here for right?