Keenan talks about Saulo guard pass being wrong

[mataleaos]

I'm more focused on the facts and first hand evidence, rather than belt color. the pass works. I'm also a brown belt and I've been using it for years and I've seen it used and taught hundreds of times. by high level dudes (Saul, xande, Rigan and jean Jacques, bob bass, Chris haueter to name a few).. if I've seen it work zero times, I think there'd be more of an argument.

it was later revealed that Keenan's point when he said that pass "doesn't work" is that he feels that pass doesn't work against the highest level practitioners in competition. and maybe he's right. I'm not near that level and it seems that various standing passes are the popular and effective passes at that level. I think Keenan just off base when he flat out said "this pass does not work" etc. he went on to say that he'd armbar, break down or sweep the guy on top every time. he probably could. he's one of the best in the world. but 99% of the people can't do what he does.

Fair points.

Also not to hijack the discussion but I also think people focus way too much on doing only what works at the highest levels. It's a statement repeated by a lot of champions in our art/sport, and it's taken as gospel, but there's some nuance there related to your post that I think is often missed.

I think what most of these guys really are trying to say is to focus on stuff that can work against experienced grapplers and not just a bunch of club/hobbyist colored belts. However, I think it can be equally problematic to ONLY work on the stuff you see in the Mundials finals or the ADCC finals. Those guys are so good and are using such specialized strategies that I think you can end u missing out on a lot of useful movements and positions.

Plus, those guys at the top have had their periods of ownership of their jiu-jitsu and finding what works best for them. I think there's almost a fetishization of copying the techniques used by the highest level guys in the highest level matches with the most at stake. It's not a bad thing to do, but it's not the only thing you should do.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if more people would benefit from copying guys that are actually slightly underneath the highest tier, because the best of the best are technically outliers, and it may be more worthwhile for you to study and emulate the level just underneath that. I'm not sold on that thoery but I heard it recently.

 

[trustdoesntrust]

Fair points.

Also not to hijack the discussion but I also think people focus way too much on doing only what works at the highest levels. It's a statement repeated by a lot of champions in our art/sport, and it's taken as gospel, but there's some nuance there related to your post that I think is often missed.

I think what most of these guys really are trying to say is to focus on stuff that can work against experienced grapplers and not just a bunch of club/hobbyist colored belts. However, I think it can be equally problematic to ONLY work on the stuff you see in the Mundials finals or the ADCC finals. Those guys are so good and are using such specialized strategies that I think you can end u missing out on a lot of useful movements and positions.

Plus, those guys at the top have had their periods of ownership of their jiu-jitsu and finding what works best for them. I think there's almost a fetishization of copying the techniques used by the highest level guys in the highest level matches with the most at stake. It's not a bad thing to do, but it's not the only thing you should do.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if more people would benefit from copying guys that are actually slightly underneath the highest tier, because the best of the best are technically outliers, and it may be more worthwhile for you to study and emulate the level just underneath that. I'm not sold on that thoery but I heard it recently.

I see your point, and agree with most of it, but I also strongly believe in the principle of "would this work 100% of the time on any level of opponent?" I don't know if you've played much chess, but there's an idea of certain openings and attacks being "refuted," meaning that if your opponent follows sound countermoves then the attack will inevitably fail no matter how you play it. You may still be able to trick beginners, maybe even catch an experienced opponent napping, but ultimately you are doomed to failure by continuing to play that line.

 

[Foppa21]

Funny thing reading this thread, it reminds me of how I almost never had to open closed guard once I started passing on my toes.

Just stopped coming up as an issue. That’s one reason reason I like crouching, I hate dealing with closed guard so much.

One of the coaches I trained with for a short time drilled in into my head to never let a person close their guard. It's one of those very basic ideas that just has to be verbalised.

"Don't let them close the guard, especially if you're the one that opened it. If you opened it, you should have a huge advantage with grips etc. Even if you can't get the pass right off the bat, with set grips, good posture and frames, you make the person on the bottom burn a lot of energy trying to close the guard which for all intents and purposes is just to allow them to reset"

 

[Foppa21]

This is a good take. I never really thought about it like that before, but I am definitely a little bit harsher on old school techniques than new ones. You pointed out a bias that I didn't know I had.

Also re: the two sets of brothers...I would even say that Gui didn't do very many berimbolos. or at least not all the way to the back. he seemed to sort of drop people down and come up into leg drags or knee slides. So really you're looking at 3 legit berimbolo killers at the highest level.

Gui was the one that allowed Rafa to berimbolo him ;-) All joking aside, I'm sure he could pull them off and pull them off with aplomb.

It's probably more the Miyaos. I could be clouded by highlight videos, but the Mendes brothers seemed to demonstrate more varied techniques through the years whereas the Miyaos were more "spam berimbolos until we hit one" from purple belt onwards. However then did drop down on to their butts way faster than anyone else too taking out what should be half the game

 

[Foppa21]

Without nitpicking every single post here, I think that in the end, Keenan acknowledged that it's no a "it doesn't work" but rather more "it's low percentage". I think the "it doesn't work" was more for eyeballs (hey maybe he did pick up a few marketing tricks from his TLI days ;-)).

The move works, but it's low percentage unless there's a discrepancy between the two parties (could be size, experience etc etc). Do I teach it in my introductory classes? Heck yes. Do I shove it down throats for years on end to the same people? Heck no.

Why do I show it pretty much as the first guard break in pretty much the traditional first thread people learn (break closed guard to stack pass)? Because it's somewhat easy to show and demonstrates a few concepts that people that practitioners can use in most techniques. I find that with it, I can show:

• Posture
• Hand positioning
• Posting
• Creating pressure (keep opponents hips pinned while pushing back around a turning point)

There's also a comfort level of close contact that complete beginners may not be used to at all.

At the end you can always say "hey, in 12 months time, this won't work on your peers anymore. But people will try it so you might as well know what they're trying so you can possibly counter it"

 

[mataleaos]

I see your point, and agree with most of it, but I also strongly believe in the principle of "would this work 100% of the time on any level of opponent?" I don't know if you've played much chess, but there's an idea of certain openings and attacks being "refuted," meaning that if your opponent follows sound countermoves then the attack will inevitably fail no matter how you play it. You may still be able to trick beginners, maybe even catch an experienced opponent napping, but ultimately you are doomed to failure by continuing to play that line.

I haven't played much chess and that's a really interesting principle.

Just curious though, how do we find out what positions or movements will be doomed to fail by continuing to play them. Since there are examples of quite a lot of different strategies and specific techniques being used successfully at a high level, is it not likely that there are a solid amount of really good techniques to choose from? or am I way off on that?

 

[lechien]

Fair points.

Also not to hijack the discussion but I also think people focus way too much on doing only what works at the highest levels. It's a statement repeated by a lot of champions in our art/sport, and it's taken as gospel, but there's some nuance there related to your post that I think is often missed.

I think what most of these guys really are trying to say is to focus on stuff that can work against experienced grapplers and not just a bunch of club/hobbyist colored belts. However, I think it can be equally problematic to ONLY work on the stuff you see in the Mundials finals or the ADCC finals. Those guys are so good and are using such specialized strategies that I think you can end u missing out on a lot of useful movements and positions.

Plus, those guys at the top have had their periods of ownership of their jiu-jitsu and finding what works best for them. I think there's almost a fetishization of copying the techniques used by the highest level guys in the highest level matches with the most at stake. It's not a bad thing to do, but it's not the only thing you should do.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if more people would benefit from copying guys that are actually slightly underneath the highest tier, because the best of the best are technically outliers, and it may be more worthwhile for you to study and emulate the level just underneath that. I'm not sold on that thoery but I heard it recently.

While you make a very good point.

It is a dangerous slope of thinking you just need to know moves to beat someone that does know bjj with basic moves only.

Hell even an untrained person won't know what to do with a closed guard.

 

[trustdoesntrust]

I haven't played much chess and that's a really interesting principle.

Just curious though, how do we find out what positions or movements will be doomed to fail by continuing to play them. Since there are examples of quite a lot of different strategies and specific techniques being used successfully at a high level, is it not likely that there are a solid amount of really good techniques to choose from? or am I way off on that?

I used to play a ton of rubber guard when I was a blue belt and my first purple belt year, but I got to a point where it just would not work against black belts with experience defending it. And anecdotally, I rarely see it work at high levels without extreme unorthodoxy like dead orchard. Ironically, I started playing Keenan Cornelius' gubber guard after seeing him dominate with it at Europeans, and it's the opposite-- effective 100% of the time against every belt level at my gym. I'm not a 10th Planet student so I can't make an authoritative judgment, but it just seems like rubber guard is a position that, while very high percentage against lower belts, is ultimately refutable. It's still useful to learn, but I think at some point even the best rubber guard players should wonder whether they can get better results playing a more fundamentally sound closed guard.

 

[yetanother]

And anecdotally, I rarely see it work at high levels without extreme unorthodoxy like dead orchard.

Dead orchard is by far the best thing in the whole 10th planet arsenal. You can set it up from the superior old school high guard like Caio Terra does.

 

[yetanother]

In fact, sometimes I wonder if more people would benefit from copying guys that are actually slightly underneath the highest tier, because the best of the best are technically outliers, and it may be more worthwhile for you to study and emulate the level just underneath that. I'm not sold on that thoery but I heard it recently.

Seems like a risky strategy.
You can get fairly far in BJJ with a flawed or an inferior game. Almost all the moves used at the top level are unfairly good and not easily exploitable. You can see some of the guys that don't get to the top win with crazy shit while at the lower ranks.

 

[mataleaos]

While you make a very good point.

It is a dangerous slope of thinking you just need to know moves to beat someone that does know bjj with basic moves only.

Hell even an untrained person won't know what to do with a closed guard.

Agreed all the way.

My bad if I gave another impression

 

[Foppa21]

I used to play a ton of rubber guard when I was a blue belt and my first purple belt year, but I got to a point where it just would not work against black belts with experience defending it. And anecdotally, I rarely see it work at high levels without extreme unorthodoxy like dead orchard. Ironically, I started playing Keenan Cornelius' gubber guard after seeing him dominate with it at Europeans, and it's the opposite-- effective 100% of the time against every belt level at my gym. I'm not a 10th Planet student so I can't make an authoritative judgment, but it just seems like rubber guard is a position that, while very high percentage against lower belts, is ultimately refutable. It's still useful to learn, but I think at some point even the best rubber guard players should wonder whether they can get better results playing a more fundamentally sound closed guard.

Bearing in mind, the gubber guard has a few additional grips for control over rubber guard.

 

[trustdoesntrust]

Bearing in mind, the gubber guard has a few additional grips for control over rubber guard.

Sure, and tbh they're not really that similar aside from the names and that they're both high guards. My point was more that gubber guard is not a technique that can be refuted the way rubber guard can (you're not locking down your own hip mobility as with RG). I mean, if I was going to be a closed guard player, meaning that's the position I'm basing my entire game around, then I would want it to be as effective as Keenan was at Europeans, where he submitted highest level black belts over and over again. I've seen lower belts play rubber guard at that level of effectiveness, but it's pretty rare to see it work against a black belt who's familiar with it. By contrast, Kron Gracie, Xande Ribeiro, Roger Gracie, etc. have very effective closed guards yet rely on fundamental techniques (the Ruy Lopez of BJ, if you will).

 

[Foppa21]

Sure, and tbh they're not really that similar aside from the names and that they're both high guards. My point was more that gubber guard is not a technique that can be refuted the way rubber guard can (you're not locking down your own hip mobility as with RG). I mean, if I was going to be a closed guard player, meaning that's the position I'm basing my entire game around, then I would want it to be as effective as Keenan was at Europeans, where he submitted highest level black belts over and over again. I've seen lower belts play rubber guard at that level of effectiveness, but it's pretty rare to see it work against a black belt who's familiar with it. By contrast, Kron Gracie, Xande Ribeiro, Roger Gracie, etc. have very effective closed guards yet rely on fundamental techniques (the Ruy Lopez of BJ, if you will).

Fair enough.

I think that a lot of the time, there's just a lower focus on the closed guard position. It's not a sexy position for top or bottom a lot of the time and can become a bit of a war of attrition.

 

[yetanother]

Fair enough.

I think that a lot of the time, there's just a lower focus on the closed guard position.

Gumber guard is not Keenan main game, but it's game changing that the situation changed from fat people stalling in Keenan's guard to them being subbed from there.

 

[dimmyfinster]

Fair points.

Also not to hijack the discussion but I also think people focus way too much on doing only what works at the highest levels. It's a statement repeated by a lot of champions in our art/sport, and it's taken as gospel, but there's some nuance there related to your post that I think is often missed.

I think what most of these guys really are trying to say is to focus on stuff that can work against experienced grapplers and not just a bunch of club/hobbyist colored belts. However, I think it can be equally problematic to ONLY work on the stuff you see in the Mundials finals or the ADCC finals. Those guys are so good and are using such specialized strategies that I think you can end u missing out on a lot of useful movements and positions.

Plus, those guys at the top have had their periods of ownership of their jiu-jitsu and finding what works best for them. I think there's almost a fetishization of copying the techniques used by the highest level guys in the highest level matches with the most at stake. It's not a bad thing to do, but it's not the only thing you should do.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if more people would benefit from copying guys that are actually slightly underneath the highest tier, because the best of the best are technically outliers, and it may be more worthwhile for you to study and emulate the level just underneath that. I'm not sold on that thoery but I heard it recently.

Bjj has a ton of moves I think you can throw out 60% of it and will be a great BB. So it's really which 60% (just estimating that number there but you get idea).


There's two big advantages to making that 40% of bjj that you keep a copy of the pros. The first is obviously you know it works against everybody. The second is less obvious and only true in modern times. The pro game is now taught by pro players on all their websites. They will be better teachers than literally 90% of gyms out there. I challenge anybody to find a better instructor of the knee slide and all permutations than Gui Mendes online; a better berimbolo instructor and all counters than Rafa; a better closed guard instructor than Roger, Braulio, or Can I; a better x guard instructor than Marcelo. You might find somebody, but they are probably a pro too, or close to it. Most of us do not have access to that.

The disadvantages of copying a pro game is athleticism. As much as I want to and practiced, I am not flexible like Rafa and can't play the berimbolo game in the same way. I can't torreada like Rodolfo or Lo.

With that caveat, I think copying a pro game of copying multiple pro games is the best way to go.

 

[berimBOWLoh]

You can say this move works on everybody until you realize at that level none of the techniques they do would work for you.

It's like guys that wanna pass like rafa Mendes but actually pass like Gasa Then Dead

Better off finding shit that works for you and adjusting as you level up

 

[dimmyfinster]

You can say this move works on everybody until you realize at that level none of the techniques they do would work for you.

It's like guys that wanna pass like rafa Mendes but actually pass like Gasa Then Dead

Better off finding shit that works for you and adjusting as you level up

Passing like Rafa requires some quickness. If you don't have that at all, you can pass like Bernardo or Gui. Or Murilo. It's unlikely you're going to come up with something better than they came up with, assuming no major physical problems.

 

[yetanother]

It's like guys that wanna pass like rafa Mendes but actually pass like Gasa Then Dead

Of course the elite do stuff better, but it's better to do what they do badly then try to do the trash obsolete technique that even Rafa Mendes couldn't do.

 

[mataleaos]

You can say this move works on everybody until you realize at that level none of the techniques they do would work for you.

It's like guys that wanna pass like rafa Mendes but actually pass like Gasa Then Dead

Better off finding shit that works for you and adjusting as you level up

To be fair though a lot of times finding what works for you involves emulating someone (or multiple people's) style and then adjusting it to fit your body type, attributes, and personality. You end up discarding things, adding things, adjusting things, and then it becomes your own. So I would argue it's still better to look to what the best guys that have a style that "speaks to you" are doing and that is what will help you find the shit that works for you.