Archetypes in grappling?

[CELS]

In boxing, analysts have come up with a way of breaking down fighter styles into common archetypes, based on their style and how the different styles match up against each other. There are many ways of breaking it down, but one common way is the rock, paper, scissor system:
slugger > swarmer > boxer > slugger.

A slugger beats a swarmer, a swarmer beats a boxer, a boxer beats a slugger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_styles_and_technique

Is it possible to devise a similar breakdown for grappling styles? Either for grappling arts that focus predominantly on takedowns (e.g. wrestling and judo) or for the arts that focus on submissions and the ground game? But are there clear archetypes in BJJ or wrestling or judo, in the same sense as there are clear archetypes in boxing?

You could say that some grapplers have a strong pressure game, for example, which may be compared to swarming. Some grapplers might be particularly skilled at scrambles. Some grapplers might be exceptionally explosive.

In boxing you also talk about counterfighting, and while I can see how countering is a thing when you're talking about takedowns, I'm not sure how well it can be applied to the ground game. You can bait someone in BJJ, letting them think they're about to pass your guard or set up as a submission, and then use this to improve your position or counter with a submission. But are there any practicioners who develop baiting into a style of grappling, the same way boxers develop into dedicated counterfighters?

I'd appreciate help with this. I have trained some grappling, but I haven't studied enough tape to really know how this plays out among elite wrestlers, elite judoka, elite BJJ practicioners, etc.

 

[SteelHammer]

Well, this may sound like it's not what you're looking for, but the obvious archetypes are just the styles. They are: the gracie bjj practitioner, looking to use sleeves collars etc; the wrestler, who has sub defense and a smothering top game; the 10th planet guy, using unorthodox moves to catch the opponent off-guard; the mma fighter, who focus on getting to positions which may be just "ok" in grappling but which are good for delivering strikes; the judo guy who utilizes scarf hold etc; the leg-hunting sambo guy; the generic fat guy; and the super-light mobile guy. Those last two aren't really in boxing because in bjj you often have "absolute divisions", plus of course just regular rolls at a school, in which you're going against someone 100 lb lighter or heavier than you, and having an unusual weight, whether super heavy or super light, really does affect your game.

 

[Calibur]

I would divide it into guard players, top players and hybrid.

Than sub divisions of both.

Guard player sub divisions = submission based. Sweep based. Back take based.

Top position style sub divions = speed based, pressure based or submission based.

Hybrid sub divisions = reactive or proactive.

 

[chunglii]

Spaz: the most hated of all grappling styles

 

[Linthec]

There's a lot of ways you can categorize styles into archetypes. Here's one:

a. Guy with a complex open guard, great flexibility, and passes tall and awkwardly with a lot of movement and footwork.

b. Guy that scrambles hard, likes to bully his way on top, passes fast and aggressively, and dives on submissions when they present themselves.

c. Guy that slows everything down, sees everything as a series of positions and progressions, and utilizes great pressure, strong defense, and cunning patience to win by checkmate.

 

[Linthec]

In my system:

a. Leandro Lo, Keenan
b. Marcelo, Jacare
c. Roger, Lucas Lepri

Buchecha and Terere would be an a.b. combination.
Rafa and Braulio would be an a.c. combination.
Xande and Rodolfo would be a b.c. combination.

 

[Ice 9 Cobra]

In my opinion it would break down to (in point based tournaments)

Bottom based
Top based
Wrestling based

Top based beats bottom based, bottom based beats wrestling based and wrestling beats top based.

 

[cjd]

In my opinion it would break down to (in point based tournaments)

Bottom based
Top based
Wrestling based

Top based beats bottom based, bottom based beats wrestling based and wrestling beats bottom based.

You mean wrestling based beats top based?

 

[Samuel Reynoso]

There's a lot of ways you can categorize styles into archetypes. Here's one:

a. Guy with a complex open guard, great flexibility, and passes tall and awkwardly with a lot of movement and footwork.

b. Guy that scrambles hard, likes to bully his way on top, passes fast and aggressively, and dives on submissions when they present themselves.

c. Guy that slows everything down, sees everything as a series of positions and progressions, and utilizes great pressure, strong defense, and cunning patience to win by checkmate.

Good post. This might be the 3 true archetypes. Movement/technique based. Leverage/pressure based. Counter/Mistake-hunting base.

 

[Ice 9 Cobra]

You mean wrestling based beats top based?

Yeah, thanks.

The idea is that someone with a solid top game but mediocre wrestling can beat a solid bottom game that pulls, but a wrestler can continually take down the same individual. Then the wrestler doesn't get the opportunity to score because the bottom player pulls and then wins with advantages.

 

[EndlessCritic]

The wet noodle: Unathletic, poor takedowns, but contorts and inverts well.

 

[CELS]

Thanks guys! I had all but given up hope on this thread!

Well, this may sound like it's not what you're looking for, but the obvious archetypes are just the styles. They are: the gracie bjj practitioner, looking to use sleeves collars etc; the wrestler, who has sub defense and a smothering top game; the 10th planet guy, using unorthodox moves to catch the opponent off-guard; the mma fighter, who focus on getting to positions which may be just "ok" in grappling but which are good for delivering strikes; the judo guy who utilizes scarf hold etc; the leg-hunting sambo guy; the generic fat guy; and the super-light mobile guy. Those last two aren't really in boxing because in bjj you often have "absolute divisions", plus of course just regular rolls at a school, in which you're going against someone 100 lb lighter or heavier than you, and having an unusual weight, whether super heavy or super light, really does affect your game.

That's not quite what I'm looking for though. That's kind of like dividing striking into boxing guys, kickboxing guys, karate guys, mma striking guys, etc.

I'm not looking for different styles, so much as categories of how people play the game, regardless of what their background and weapons are. If those categories do exist. They may not.

I would divide it into guard players, top players and hybrid.
Than sub divisions of both.
Guard player sub divisions = submission based. Sweep based. Back take based.
Top position style sub divions = speed based, pressure based or submission based.
Hybrid sub divisions = reactive or proactive.

This is an interesting breakdown, although I don't understand the subdivisions. I thought pretty much everyone used submissions, sweeps and back takes from the guard in combination. E.g. threaten with a submission to get the sweep. And same thing from the top, using different passes and submission attempts in combination.

The reactive and proactive aspect is more interesting to me, although I haven't watched enough grappling competitions to be sure about the reactive part. It seems like everyone's trying to seize the initiative all the time.

There's a lot of ways you can categorize styles into archetypes. Here's one:
a. Guy with a complex open guard, great flexibility, and passes tall and awkwardly with a lot of movement and footwork.
b. Guy that scrambles hard, likes to bully his way on top, passes fast and aggressively, and dives on submissions when they present themselves.
c. Guy that slows everything down, sees everything as a series of positions and progressions, and utilizes great pressure, strong defense, and cunning patience to win by checkmate.

I quite like this, although I can't verify that these are common archetypes. It just fits my own experience.

In your breakdown, the variables seem to be pace and distance. By distance I mean whether you prefer to smash pass or pass tall, or whether you like open guards with lots of space to move or locking your opponent down in closed guard, rubber guard, etc.

C is slow pace, short distance.
B is fast pace, short distance.
A is clearly about distance, at either a slow or a fast pace (A or D).

So we end up with four combinations of two variables - A, B, C and D.

How does that sound?

In my system:
a. Leandro Lo, Keenan
b. Marcelo, Jacare
c. Roger, Lucas Lepri
Buchecha and Terere would be an a.b. combination.
Rafa and Braulio would be an a.c. combination.
Xande and Rodolfo would be a b.c. combination.

Would you say there's any kind of rock, paper, scissors involved?

In my opinion it would break down to (in point based tournaments)
Bottom based
Top based
Wrestling based
Top based beats bottom based, bottom based beats wrestling based and wrestling beats top based.

I like this one too. It also seems consistent with my experience. But it's just a bit too simplistic and also too specific to point based tournaments. I'd like to see something that works regardless of rulesets, although I imagine any kind of breakdown would work better with some rulesets than with others. For example, you won't find any slow-paced methodical pressure games in judo, because they don't have time to work on the ground.

Good post. This might be the 3 true archetypes. Movement/technique based. Leverage/pressure based. Counter/Mistake-hunting base.

This is something I'm very interested in. How common is the third archetype? Which grapplers would you say are consistently looking for counters and waiting for the opponent to make a mistake, instead of enforcing their own will and creating their own openings?

 

[Thai Otoshi]

The problem is boxing is just that... boxing. Everyone's fighting under roughly the same ruleset, equipment, and uniforms. It's easy to have specific archetypes in that setting.

"grappling" is a broad, oh so broad, sport complete with different rulesets, equipment, and uniforms.

You would need to either accept that each individual sport (sambo, judo, BJJ, folkstyle wrestling, combat wrestling, etc...) is inherently an archetype, or partition them so that each individual sport has it's own subarchetypes.

 

[CELS]

The problem is boxing is just that... boxing. Everyone's fighting under roughly the same ruleset, equipment, and uniforms. It's easy to have specific archetypes in that setting.

"grappling" is a broad, oh so broad, sport complete with different rulesets, equipment, and uniforms.

You would need to either accept that each individual sport (sambo, judo, BJJ, folkstyle wrestling, combat wrestling, etc...) is inherently an archetype, or partition them so that each individual sport has it's own subarchetypes.

It is very broad. But you could arguably generalize the boxing archetypes to other full contact striking sports, like kickboxing, kyokushin karate, thai boxing, etc. In light contact striking, you don't really have the sluggers, but there's still counter fighters, outfighters, pressure fighters and swarmers.

I am prepared to say that it may be too hard to generalize between the ground phase and the stand-up (i.e. takedown) phase. There may be no correlation between the way people wrestle and the way they grapple on the ground. But I'm interested to see if there is some correlation.

My own personal theory is that it's actually possible to find common variables that define large groups of fighters in any combat sports. But I don't have enough knowledge of high level grappling competitions to really say for sure. One obvious variable is the proactive vs reactive. I would be thrilled if this is an important element in grappling as it is in striking, but I'm worried it works better with freestyle wrestling than with any other style of grappling.

In order for counters to be a thing, you really need moments of relatively neutral positions, such as when wrestlers or strikers are both on their feet, without controlling the other person. I'm not sure counter fighters are that common in folkstyle wrestling or BJJ, simply because there are so many dominant positions. It's hard to rely on counters when someone has your back or when someone is riding you.

Another way to look at it would be to say that certan martial arts tend to breed more fighters from a certain archetype. I.e. wrestling tends to breed pressure fighters, just like shotokan karate tends to breed more outfighters and counterfighters and fewer sluggers and swarmers.

 

[Ckaa]

It hasn't any sense to categorize grapplers as, even if most begginers can't understand it, grapplers are most of the time pretty well rounded.

Someone like Rafa Mendes, who pulls guard all the time and submits/takes the back also is a great mouvement based passer AND a good pressure passer (as we have seen at the last ADCC).

To be good at jiujitsu, you need to know all and to be able to use all the strategies, to merge the approaches.

Boxing doesn't work like this.

 

[Linthec]

In your breakdown, the variables seem to be pace and distance. By distance I mean whether you prefer to smash pass or pass tall, or whether you like open guards with lots of space to move or locking your opponent down in closed guard, rubber guard, etc.

C is slow pace, short distance.
B is fast pace, short distance.
A is clearly about distance, at either a slow or a fast pace (A or D).

I wasn't thinking of it in terms of pace and distance, but now that you break it down that way I think you may be correct. Most people do tend to swing one way or the other when it comes to aggressive pace vs. calculated pace and staying tied up vs. having room to move.

With that said, don't think there is a 4th option because you can't grapple with space and move at a calculated pace. The more distance you create the quicker and more aggressively you have to attack.

 

[winterbike]

I wasn't thinking of it in terms of pace and distance, but now that you break it down that way I think you may be correct. Most people do tend to swing one way or the other when it comes to aggressive pace vs. calculated pace and staying tied up vs. having room to move.

With that said, don't think there is a 4th option because you can't grapple with space and move at a calculated pace. The more distance you create the quicker and more aggressively you have to attack.

For me your 3 types were spot the fuck on. I can fit pretty much anyone I train with in them.

Good job sir!

 

[platfox]

You can choose from this longer list:

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f12/what-grappler-you-very-long-466943/