Kimuras are back (in top level MMA)

[rmongler]

what does mma has to do with what you said???

I think RNCs are a better move on the margin than triangles, and the numbers more or less bear this out.

The best moves at your own size are also the best moves at a big size.

Understand what i mean when i say this: its not that your opponents exact dimensions are not a factor in technical success, its that barring freakshow mismatches, other factors are even more important, and its those that you should highlight and emphasize.

Whenever someone asks a question like 'what are the best moves to use against bigger opponents', what they are really asking for, what the conclusion they will draw from your answer is, 'what are the best moves, tout court, which i will then start training now'. The hypothetical construct of the mythical 'big man' opponent is simply a framework the person is using, to render the question into a more intelligible form they can understand.

But then once we've become conscious of what the animating impulse really is ('what moves are better than other moves'), we are in better position to assess the question more realistically. Which is to say, Its Complicated(tm). But to the extent that such a thing can be communicated in a single sentence (let alone a book full of essays on the subject), the most important thing is not so much the move in and of itself, but how it fits into an over all game plan, that covers or obviates all the potential use-cases you can expect to encounter frequently with a minimum of 'moving parts', in order to apportion the greater amount of training time to each to elevate their effectiveness (hence the pithy saying, 'your best move is the best move against a bigger opponent').

There are a lot of good moves out there, that can work effectively when trained competitively, but in the end you still have to come up with a way to pick between them, a means to decide which few you will emphasize and elevate over all the others.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

I think RNCs are a better move on the margin than triangles, and the numbers more or less bear this out.

The best moves at your own size are also the best moves at a big size.

Understand what i mean when i say this: its not that your opponents exact dimensions are not a factor in technical success, its that barring freakshow mismatches, other factors are even more important, and its those that you should highlight and emphasize.

Whenever someone asks a question like 'what are the best moves to use against bigger opponents', what they are really asking for, what the conclusion they will draw from your answer is, 'what are the best moves, tout court, which i will then start training now'. The hypothetical construct of the mythical 'big man' opponent is simply a framework the person is using, to render the question into a more intelligible form they can understand.

But then once we've become conscious of what the animating impulse really is ('what moves are better than other moves), we are in better position to assess the question more realistically. Which is to say, Its Complicated(tm). But to the extent that such a thing can be communicated in a single sentence (let alone a book full of essays on the subject), the most important thing is not so much the move in and of itself, but how it fits into an over all game plan, that covers or obviates all the potential use-cases you can expect to encounter frequently with a minimum of 'moving parts', in order to apportion the greater amount of training time to each to elevate their effectiveness.

There are a lot of good moves out there, that can work effectively when trained competitively, but in the end you still have to come up with a way to pick between them, a means to decide which few you will emphasize and elevate over all the others.

wut? dude in english, thats way too much for my english comprehension lol....

 

[mataleaos]

wut? dude in english, thats way too much for my english comprehension lol....

I'll try to help, as best I can, with my own interpretation. I think it's a good post. My writing is in bold.

I think RNCs are a better move on the margin than triangles, and the numbers more or less bear this out.

- RNCs are only slightly better than triangles, and the data shows that RNCs are slightly more common.

The best moves at your own size are also the best moves at a big size.

- The best moves are generally the best moves, and all the most efficient jiu-jitsu techniques likely work well on larger opponents, since jiu-jitsu in general allows for smaller people to defeat bigger people.

Understand what i mean when i say this: its not that your opponents exact dimensions are not a factor in technical success, its that barring freakshow mismatches, other factors are even more important, and its those that you should highlight and emphasize.

- There are more important factors than giant size mismatches when it comes to the efficiency and success of any given technique.

Whenever someone asks a question like 'what are the best moves to use against bigger opponents', what they are really asking for, what the conclusion they will draw from your answer is, 'what are the best moves, tout court, which i will then start training now'. The hypothetical construct of the mythical 'big man' opponent is simply a framework the person is using, to render the question into a more intelligible form they can understand.

- When people ask what the 'best moves' are to use 'against bigger opponents' they are usually just asking what are 'the best moves' in general. They may not even realize that's what they're asking.

But then once we've become conscious of what the animating impulse really is ('what moves are better than other moves'), we are in better position to assess the question more realistically. Which is to say, Its Complicated(tm). But to the extent that such a thing can be communicated in a single sentence (let alone a book full of essays on the subject), the most important thing is not so much the move in and of itself, but how it fits into an over all game plan, that covers or obviates all the potential use-cases you can expect to encounter frequently with a minimum of 'moving parts', in order to apportion the greater amount of training time to each to elevate their effectiveness (hence the pithy saying, 'your best move is the best move against a bigger opponent').

- This paragraph was tough. I'll give it a shot. Trying to figure out what moves are better than other moves is very complicated. Assuming it can be done in a brief sentence (an entire book could be written on this) the most important thing isn't the move, but how the move fits into an overall system or game plan that is well thought out, and a game plan that accounts for all of the situations where you can expect to be able to use the move. You want moves that have the least number of moving parts, so you can spend more of your time training it, as it will be effective broadly, in many situations.

There are a lot of good moves out there, that can work effectively when trained competitively, but in the end you still have to come up with a way to pick between them, a means to decide which few you will emphasize and elevate over all the others.

- You've got to decide what moves are best to use, and you'll have to choose between a lot of them, because there are a lot of very effective ones.

 

[mataleaos]

The best moves against guys your own size are also the best moves against guys heavier than you.

I agree.

wrong.

My best move is the triangle choke, I can triangle people left and right, from many positions and quite honestly, im quite good at it. I cant however triangle 280 pounds brock lesnar type of monsters, my legs arent long enough.

I can however Rnc all type of human beings, small my size or brock lesnar size.

In theory I think that sounds good, and it might be true. But how often do you roll with people that are 280 lbs? If you do, wouldn't you just adjust and do something else, like the RNC that you mentioned?

If you look at it from an economic point of view, then I think someone would be losing more than they'd be gaining by neglecting the triangle, for the rare occasions that they'll be grappling someone so much bigger than them. If the triangle is your best move, then it's most likely going to be your best move against almost everyone, because of all the time and energy you've put into it.

Marcelo has competed in way more absolutes than Rafa Mendes, but you can see Rafa having success with his techniques in some absolute matches and sparring against much bigger people. So I like to use them both as examples of this.

They both are very strong in their convictions regarding what techniques work best against guys bigger than them. And they both use different techniques, and they can both give good reasons for it. Rafa Mendes believes Delariva and reverse Delariva work great on people of all sizes. Marcelo does not, and favors butterfly, single leg x guard, and x guard. Rafa Mendes prefers arm triangles over guillotines because "there is more control over them, they have less free space, and there is more of them to choke, so you have a better bite." Marcelo prefers guillotines because "2 arms versus one neck is easier than 2 arms versus one neck and one shoulder." Rafa prefers the body triangle "because you can hold larger opponents easier". Marcelo prefers the hooks "because you can stay with larger opponents easier if they move." Marcelo believes in having a good move on each side, but not necessarily drilling everything on both sides. Rafa believes in drilling things on both sides.

What they have in common that @rmongler talks about is that they both have spent a lot of time training their most effective moves in a variety of situations, and their most effective moves aren't the same, but they can each use what's effective for them against much bigger opponents.

 

[Bubblun]

I agree.



In theory I think that sounds good, and it might be true. But how often do you roll with people that are 280 lbs? If you do, wouldn't you just adjust and do something else, like the RNC that you mentioned?

If you look at it from an economic point of view, then I think someone would be losing more than they'd be gaining by neglecting the triangle, for the rare occasions that they'll be grappling someone so much bigger than them. If the triangle is your best move, then it's most likely going to be your best move against almost everyone, because of all the time and energy you've put into it.

Marcelo has competed in way more absolutes than Rafa Mendes, but you can see Rafa having success with his techniques in some absolute matches and sparring against much bigger people. So I like to use them both as examples of this.

They both are very strong in their convictions regarding what techniques work best against guys bigger than them. And they both use different techniques, and they can both give good reasons for it. Rafa Mendes believes Delariva and reverse Delariva work great on people of all sizes. Marcelo does not, and favors butterfly, single leg x guard, and x guard. Rafa Mendes prefers arm triangles over guillotines because "there is more control over them, they have less free space, and there is more of them to choke, so you have a better bite." Marcelo prefers guillotines because "2 arms versus one neck is easier than 2 arms versus one neck and one shoulder." Rafa prefers the body triangle "because you can hold larger opponents easier". Marcelo prefers the hooks "because you can stay with larger opponents easier if they move." Marcelo believes in having a good move on each side, but not necessarily drilling everything on both sides. Rafa believes in drilling things on both sides.

What they have in common that @rmongler talks about is that they both have spent a lot of time training their most effective moves in a variety of situations, and their most effective moves aren't the same, but they can each use what's effective for them against much bigger opponents.

Exactly, not to mention that even when they like to use the same techniques they do them in completely different ways, for instance, how Marcelo does the guillotine and the butterfly sweep is completely different compared to how Rafa Mendes does the the guillotine and the butterfly sweep.
Different school of thought and different body type, but if a move is battle tested it works against everyone.

 

[jcandoitbig]

I agree.



In theory I think that sounds good, and it might be true. But how often do you roll with people that are 280 lbs? If you do, wouldn't you just adjust and do something else, like the RNC that you mentioned?

If you look at it from an economic point of view, then I think someone would be losing more than they'd be gaining by neglecting the triangle, for the rare occasions that they'll be grappling someone so much bigger than them. If the triangle is your best move, then it's most likely going to be your best move against almost everyone, because of all the time and energy you've put into it.

Marcelo has competed in way more absolutes than Rafa Mendes, but you can see Rafa having success with his techniques in some absolute matches and sparring against much bigger people. So I like to use them both as examples of this.

They both are very strong in their convictions regarding what techniques work best against guys bigger than them. And they both use different techniques, and they can both give good reasons for it. Rafa Mendes believes Delariva and reverse Delariva work great on people of all sizes. Marcelo does not, and favors butterfly, single leg x guard, and x guard. Rafa Mendes prefers arm triangles over guillotines because "there is more control over them, they have less free space, and there is more of them to choke, so you have a better bite." Marcelo prefers guillotines because "2 arms versus one neck is easier than 2 arms versus one neck and one shoulder." Rafa prefers the body triangle "because you can hold larger opponents easier". Marcelo prefers the hooks "because you can stay with larger opponents easier if they move." Marcelo believes in having a good move on each side, but not necessarily drilling everything on both sides. Rafa believes in drilling things on both sides.

What they have in common that @rmongler talks about is that they both have spent a lot of time training their most effective moves in a variety of situations, and their most effective moves aren't the same, but they can each use what's effective for them against much bigger opponents.

/thread

 

[mataleaos]

Exactly, not to mention that even when they like to use the same techniques they do them in completely different ways, for instance, how Marcelo does the guillotine and the butterfly sweep is completely different compared to how Rafa Mendes does the the guillotine and the butterfly sweep.
Different school of thought and different body type, but if a move is battle tested it works against everyone.

That's another great point that I didn't even mention. I did a no gi seminar with the Mendes brothers and the no gi day was dedicated entirely to butterfly guard and they taught it very different than Marcelo. But I use elements of what I learned that day and elements of Marcelo's butterfly guard as well.

Also they taught a high elbow guillotine grip that they claimed was effective for the exact same reason Marcelo prefers his grip. But they were different grips. And they both are great.