If a then b is mainly in grappling sports?

[everything]

I suspect this idea of If A, Then B, that Chris McKinley called "paint by numbers" is primarily useful in grappling sports. At least at my bjj class, it is so frigging detail oriented, it gets a bit annoying. But I don't see any way around it. The art is just like that. There are certainly principles, but there are a helluva lot of specifics.

In what bjj calls the "free movement" phase of combat, the idea of formlessness a la yiquan or even taijiquan seems much more relevant and possible. There is some force coming from this way and you can counter it with some force going this other way. That can involve striking, throwing, seizing, locking, or some combination. It can be more abstract.

If the ground involves full striking, it may be different, but ground grappling with no striking allowed seems to have proportionally more If A, Then B. Of course, this could be totally wrong. Thought I would throw it out there, though.

[Bär]

OTT?

[everything]

seemed kinda off but I could see it in the main section depending on how people answer. was kinda 50-50 where to post it.

[fuga]

I personally don't see bjj as an a to b mindset, but maybe it is because I am approaching after more training that focused on the principals.

All those specifics you talk about are tied into principals - break/maintain posture, control space/mobility, where the head goes, the body follows, stay relaxed and focus on breath, etc. Look at the first chapter in Saulo's book for an example: Survival Skills.

The specifics are just the different ways to achieve principals in action. Try to group some of those specifics into principals.

Working A to B just makes everything too slow. You lose the ability to change and the spontaneity.

At least, that's the way I see it and approach it.

-pete

[everything]

1. you are probably just a better grappler than i am
2. in my class, we pretty much always do here's a typical A. here's some typical B's for that kind of A. we don't abstract it and say btw, this particular A->B follows this principle... same thing in my judo class. whereas in taiji they come from the opposite side (and that has other issues, e.g., people who don't even do techniques)
3. in my opinion, teachers should tell you that principle part.
4. but since they don't, i guess i'll just do it and check that book out.

[fuga]

LOL I'm not sure that I am a better grappler than you are. I'm just approaching it from my own principle-based bias.

I agree that BJJ class is not typically taught in a principle-based, abstract way. That's just how I am approaching it. It is for me to learn if I focus on a fundamental idea than all the pieces put together. I think how it is taught depends on how the teacher was taught.

Also, I am not real sure if that book will give you much more than a glimpse of the principals. A lot of it is along the lines of A to B.

As an idea for turning the A to B training into more principal-based training, pick a principal and seek to explore it in all the technique that is being taught. For example, focus on maintaining or breaking posture for a month, not worrying so much about the submissions, sweeps, etc. Where are the points in the A to B teaching that are all about posture? For example, arm bar from closed guard, where is it about breaking the other's posture? Does it just happen once? What happens if you cannot break their posture? Look at a triangle choke. What's the first thing you do? How do you defend against it? In general, when you grab a collar, what are you doing? Not just setting up a potential choke, but also breaking posture.

Once you start seeing the principle all over the technqiues, when you roll/train, it is easier to focus on the principle.

But, everyone learns differently, and this is just what works for me. Hope it's helpful.

[everything]

hmm, that is very interesting. i will definitely try that. i'm sort of surprised i haven't. i am usually looking for kuzushi and borrowing some force or momentum while i'm learning, but i'm not trying to see the A to B in terms of a principle afterwards. there are several A to B's that i'm thinking of immediately just now that fit several of those you mentioned. i take some notes down for myself and will try to do that. there has to be some A to B but you can't memorize every sequence in a roll or chess game for that matter. at least most people can't.

[Jeice]

Depends on your instructor I guess. For me I tend to see BJJ in a "stuff happens" sort of way.
I think its fair to say that when you start, the basic fundamentals of position and submission line up in a very A-B way, just like the basics of striking do. Then later on you move on to having different "games" or strategies to employ: where something (a specific grip, leg position, opponent action or reaction) initiates an entirely new family tree of sweeps/reversals/submissions that are not seen in fundamental jiu jitsu.
Its not much different from someone applying the five elements and the linking form then moving on to integrating the animals. The more you learn the more freedom you have to play with it, and given the nature of BJJ you have a lot of replay value. I'll screw up and put myself in a bad place, and use that as an opportunity to work my escapes and reversals, then rinse and repeat. That's just my experience with it, like I said it is really up to who your instructor is, some go technique by technique, some give principles to explore and see what happens. YMMV

[johnwang]

You use

1. "covering step" if your opponent refuse to come toward you and you have to move toward him.
2. "stealing step" if your opponent moves toward you.

Do you have other choice? If you do the other way around then you won't be able to reach to your opponent in the 1st case. You also will collide with your opponent in the 2nd case.

The feet position in the throwing arts has to be precised. If your foot just land 1 inch short, your other leg may not be able to reach to your opponent and perform your function. How much distance that you have to move depends on how much distance that your opponent gives to you. You will have more freedom in the striking art since you only need "1 point contact".

[Jeice]

Whether throwing or groundfighting, I think john and I are touting the same thing, you have to start from somewhere. In striking you can cover distance and hit someone with any number of strikes given the volume of angles, weapons and targets available to us. Grappling on the other hand can't be done with the same instantaneous action/reward, everything has to have a setup of some sort, even if its as amorphous as a feinted jab before a leg shot. Although when you get to higher levels of boxing and other competitive striking, you're working in lengthy combinations, exploiting angles and ring position to make new things possible and effective. The main difference is the in striking you start with a striking method, and in grappling (either throwing or ground) you start with a point of contact or a position.
I think this "A then B thinking" is fundamental to all styles as you bridge the gap between the basic and the more complex (I won't dare say "advanced").

Thoughts?

[everything]

what I am guessing is that A then B in the free movement phase can be (should be?) more abstract than in grappling range. When Chris McKinley says he assumes there could be a weapon, he has abstracted an incoming force such that it doesn't matter if it appears to be a jab or a knife thrust or what. You deal with an abstract A that is outside the boundaries and assumptions of a particular striking art or sport with some abstract B. The abstract B could be "wardoff energy" or "rollback energy" or "beng energy". Having no specific training in any specific hand2hand weapons, I think that would still help one out. I guess that is a major feature of xingyi. Transference from any weapon to empty hand is easier because there is already some abstraction built in.

[TraingDummy]

In submission grappling things happen slower, if you don't have to worry about strikes then you can stall until you have a superior or neutral position. Thus you have time to think about "what's the correct response to this situation".

At my grappling gym we do way more sparring/ rolling than techniques (maybe 80/20), we teach drills when someone is having trouble with a particular position. Obviously this method is very coaching intensive, so everyone is trained to be a coach, and encouraged to coach during sparring.

[BruceP]

At my grappling gym we do way more sparring/ rolling than techniques (maybe 80/20), we teach drills when someone is having trouble with a particular position. Obviously this method is very coaching intensive, so everyone is trained to be a coach, and encouraged to coach during sparring

That's beautiful, TrainingDummy. Almost had a tear there for sec. Sounds like a cool gym

[CaliG]

I suspect this idea of If A, Then B, that Chris McKinley called "paint by numbers" is primarily useful in grappling sports. At least at my bjj class, it is so frigging detail oriented, it gets a bit annoying. But I don't see any way around it. The art is just like that. There are certainly principles, but there are a helluva lot of specifics.

In what bjj calls the "free movement" phase of combat, the idea of formlessness a la yiquan or even taijiquan seems much more relevant and possible. There is some force coming from this way and you can counter it with some force going this other way. That can involve striking, throwing, seizing, locking, or some combination. It can be more abstract.

If the ground involves full striking, it may be different, but ground grappling with no striking allowed seems to have proportionally more If A, Then B. Of course, this could be totally wrong. Thought I would throw it out there, though.

If you search the video section you'll find a sambo lecture where the speaker sees the A then B method as a mistake. Because if someone counters the B then the grappler is in trouble.

This was actually a bit of a revelation to me because I had thought that memorizing combinations was the way to go, basically thinking in terms of A then B. Of course I still do it but usally I just try to figure out what I can do from where I am rather than trying to think or be one move ahead. I think the point being that as you have to take in all the details and then decide what to do rather than having a preconceived game plan.

Steve Morris talks about breaking down a fight in MMA into snapshots. You think of the moves you want to use and execute them but you don't necessarily do them in a particular order or arrangement. I think this is a good middle ground, a little like being prepared to give a speech with a few notes written down rather than an entire speech. You know what you want to do but how you get there depends on what happens. So instead of thinking pass guard to knee on belly to armbar. You think knee on belly and when you get there you decide what would be best choice for that situation.

Fuga makes a good point too in that I believe the more you grapple or spar for that matter you the more this stuff just becomes instinct and you don't have to think so much your body just does it. In fact I measure my own progress in that way more than how often I win, because to me winning doesn't necessarily mean you're improved just as losing doesn't mean you haven't progressed.

[everything]

great post CaliG. thanks a lot. I hit a lot of sticking points, although with gi-based submission grappling there is some time. pro and a con.