What would you teach as an introduction to BJJ?

[zomoplata]

Gracie bully combatives because bjj doesn't work.

[Oleg Raktatov]

People who dont know anything about bjj except its a combat sport, want to see fighting applicability. How does it relate to a fight.


Think old school bjj, thats what sells.


Demonstrate how to duck punches, clinch, protect yourself in the clinch, simple takedown like ko soto gake or tani otoshi, secure side control, get to mount, create opening to get arm bar or the back and RNC.


Then teach them every pieces of that sequence in details, then come up with a comparable sequence but if you get rolled and have to work from guard.

spice that up with shrimping, upa, esacapes from headlocks and usual stuff, have them spar every class for 15 minutes...


They will be sold.


If the first time i saw bjj in action it would have been sport bjj instead of royce in the first ufc's, i would have laughed at the gayness and kept on training taekwondo.

[Calibur]

Originally Posted by blindgod

Hmm... One thing I've been playing around with is the order in which the material is presented. Maybe I should start with mount attacks as class 1 and mount escapes as class 2... I do want to go over both sides of mount, side control, and guard, but I'm not sure what order to go in.

But noobs don't understand or appreciate the concept of the mount cs the guard.

Show them the end result (Americana) than emphasize the mount later once they have context.

Guard stuff is hard to comprehend AND when they roll against a higher level person, the higher person just sits to guard anyway.

Passes before guard work. Classes are worthless if they can't practice what they learn in randori and in randori it's usually the noob trying to pass.

Careful with the armbar. Big movements and noobs usually hurt themselves the first time they get put in one.

I'm all about use garamis and chokes.

[zlevflnuggets]

Berimbolo

[fry_ed]

It's likely that your students will have previous martial arts experience.
Thus, I'd tell them that bjj is a "combat sport." Explain that the objective is to subdue your opponent ("combat"), with limited rules ("sport"). Your opponent is fully resisting, within the given rules.

Hopefully then, those that have previously done TMAs will have a better idea of what to expect..

As for the actual curriculum, my opinion:

1) Teach them the positions. Teach them why the "gi" is important without only discussing chokes..

2) Then, most schools teach how to recover guard (bridge/shrimp), and then how to pin.

3) Similarly, you could teach them a sub from bottom and then teach them how to escape it. Then teach them a sub from the top and how to escape it.

With that basic knowledge they all should at least be able to roll with some kind of goal in mind for most positions they find themselves in. just my 2

[fry_ed]

Originally Posted by Oleg Raktatov

People who dont know anything about bjj except its a combat sport, want to see fighting applicability. How does it relate to a fight.


Think old school bjj, thats what sells.


Demonstrate how to duck punches, clinch, protect yourself in the clinch, simple takedown like ko soto gake or tani otoshi, secure side control, get to mount, create opening to get arm bar or the back and RNC.

Truth.

Guillotine defense, headlock defense..

[Calibur]

Oh. Another thing.

The less explaining, the better. Too many people talk these days.

[blindgod]

Originally Posted by Calibur

Oh. Another thing.

The less explaining, the better. Too many people talk these days.

Quoted for truth. I've met so many teachers who were great other than the fact that they talked way too much. Rather than explaining a technique (while demonstrating), they'd go on to explain every single mistake that people make and how to fix them, etc etc.