Deblass and Keenan

[mataleaos]

In my view, not many/enough were doing it explicitly like Danaher seems to do. There's a quick mention of a potential counter then they cut out to the next technique whereas I find with Danaher he makes it a point to discuss the counter/potential movements, why it's done then moves to the counter and why.

It's also why his instructionals are like 8 hrs long. Being able to stream has definitely helped in that regard whereas in the hardcopy days, he might've been restricted by time/storage for a DVD on what he could cover.

I think the biggest reasons his instructionals are so long is because he’s verbose and repeats things a lot. They could definitely be condensed down.

I think one of the best things he’s done by far is take all the most high percentage submissions and really explain in the simplest terms possible, the main 2-3 Most critical details that will make or break the actual finish.

He’s one of the first people to sell instructionals that have as much time spent on finishing mechanics as anything else. Lots of teachers spent most of their time on the positional advancements and the submission was more of an afterthought and not given as much detail.

 

[Os3y3ris]

Can't throw you enough likes for posting a Jim Jones joint on f12

You don't wanna know how much I spent on that situation. But then he put on for the culture.

 

[Mikey Triangles]

I get the impression that they believe if they come up with it there that it's theirs. Regardless of whether or not anyone else came up with it on their own elsewhere. Danaher is big into the scientific method in training but he seems to sometimes overlook that Multiple Discovery is a very real thing.

This forum is actually a great example. Mikey Triangles (jiujitsu coach at Alan Belcher's academy) is a legendary f12 poster that was talking back in 2010 about Danaher's rotational finish for no gi arm chokes like the RNC, darce, and others. Danaher comes out with this method for these same chokes in 2018 on his Enter the System back attack and front headlock sets. Preaching it over and over on the same chokes Mikey was 10 years ago. I have a feeling (I'd love to be wrong) that if Mikey made a video on those and had trained in the basement before that Danaher might think Mikey just stole his concepts. And honestly I never saw anyone talking about it before Mikey.

Aww schucks….

 

[shunyata]

This thread is wild.

I'm looking forward to one day being accused of stealing from Danaher when I teach something I learned from Gokor.

To be fair, Danaher never said these people were stealing moves, it was Gordon. As far as I know, Danaher has no problem with Keenan, it's Gordon and Gary who don't like him. Gordon also accused Lachlan Giles of stealing moves from Danaher on his escapes DVD when it was released. He seemed to think that Lachlan couldn't have come up with material for escapes on his own, despite being a full-time Bjj instructor that has coached 2 world class competitors. Gordon seems to hate Lachlan for some reason, but Danaher has had nothing, but good things to say about him. I'd take anything Gordon says with a grain of salt.

Danaher and Tonon have both mentioned that they collected and studied every available leglock resource and studied the hell out of them before republishing it as a unified system. There's going to be so much stuff drawn from one source or another that was good technique back in the day and still is. They were watching Koulikov, Gokor, and everyone else with John dissecting it all like he's sourcing his PhD thesis from those old tapes and dvds.

 

[Mikey Triangles]

This thread is wild.

I'm looking forward to one day being accused of stealing from Danaher when I teach something I learned from Gokor.





Danaher and Tonon have both mentioned that they collected and studied every available leglock resource and studied the hell out of them before republishing it as a unified system. There's going to be so much stuff drawn from one source or another that was good technique back in the day and still is. They were watching Koulikov, Gokor, and everyone else with John dissecting it all like he's sourcing his PhD thesis from those old tapes and dvds.

Danaher came up to Alan Belcher once and said he was a big fan and the Palhares fight was influential on his system. That was the first big important fight camp I ever organized.

 

[mattemate]

Aww schucks….

Danaher came up to Alan Belcher once and said he was a big fan and the Palhares fight was influential on his system. That was the first big important fight camp I ever organized.

Didn't you bring in Daniel Moraes for that? I assume you know Phil Cardella? Because the post from mataleaos that you replied to reminded me of the way he taught triangles. Phil still has the best triangles of anyone I've ever trained with, and he was teaching them the way that Ryan Hall taught them years before anyone had ever heard of Hall, but he didn't bellyache about it or make a big deal.

It's silly for people to try to take credit for biomechanics. That's why Dan the Wolfman is butthurt all the time.

 

[Mikey Triangles]

Didn't you bring in Daniel Moraes for that? I assume you know Phil Cardella? Because the post from mataleaos that you replied to reminded me of the way he taught triangles. Phil still has the best triangles of anyone I've ever trained with, and he was teaching them the way that Ryan Hall taught them years before anyone had ever heard of Hall, but he didn't bellyache about it or make a big deal.

It's silly for people to try to take credit for biomechanics. That's why Dan the Wolfman is butthurt all the time.

yeah, I actually got my black belt from Daniel Moraes. I trained with Phil a couple times also and he is excellent.

I’m honestly very big on ecological dynamics these days as far as teaching and learning goes. I’ve found teaching too many details has a detrimental impact in the long term.

 

[mattemate]

yeah, I actually got my black belt from Daniel Moraes. I trained with Phil a couple times also and he is excellent.

I’m honestly very big on ecological dynamics these days as far as teaching and learning goes. I’ve found teaching too many details has a detrimental impact in the long term.

Interesting. Daniel was there when I got my blue belt, many moons ago.

I guess it depends on your learning style. I like details, but I think mostly it's better to get the gist of a move and roll a lot. The details tend to sort themselves out along the way.

 

[Mikey Triangles]

Interesting. Daniel was there when I got my blue belt, many moons ago.

I guess it depends on your learning style. I like details, but I think mostly it's better to get the gist of a move and roll a lot. The details tend to sort themselves out along the way.

I think everyone likes details better, but that doesn’t necessarily make them better for development. Also details is kind of a blanket term. I’m not talking about macro details. I think it’s very important to explain how something can work, what the goal is, and some broad strokes, but the deeper you get into fine details the more problems we will see in the long run.

in my years coaching I noticed this (I used to be very detail oriented in instruction), but there have actually been double blind peer reviewed studies on it in recent years. They have found that in the short time frame athletes coached with extreme attention to detail can see seemingly faster improvement in the first few months, and that athletes coached by a constraints led approach start to take over in the long run… but that’s just at first glance. The real value is in performance under pressure.

Under pressure the athletes coached with detailed instruction absolutely flopped across the board compared to the athletes coached with a constraints led approach who mostly performed at the same level under competitive pressure as they displayed without anything on the line.

They believe the main reason for this is that learning details from an expert instructor can help you find your groove quicker, but it’s just that, you’re groove that you have to learn, and when the pressure is on the details you were told are what you tend to go back to, and it brings you back down to a day one beginner level running your instructors words through your mind rather than just focusing on what you’ve been actually doing. This is one reason why many athletes who are killers in the gym can sometimes under perform in competition.

Nikolai Bernstein ran a study in Russia in the 20th century trying to figure out the perfect mechanics to swing a hammer. So he found the absolute best blacksmith in the country and measured the exact motions of his swing, and the muscles used in the kenetic chain expecting to find a measurable pattern. They found that their subject perfectly hit his target with every swing with the perfect amount of force and no wasted time or movement, but they unexpectedly found that he never swung his hammer the same way twice. This kind of made them throw away the idea of a “perfect technique” that needs to be repetitively practiced and opened up the doors to the idea of instead using constraints and a goal to force people to be able to repeat the perfect result rather than try to copy a perfect technique.

in training people find their way to results, but if they were trained to learn a perfect technique they tend to think back to that when it matters most, throwing them off their game a bit. An d a bit can be the difference between success and disaster when it matters most.

I train my athletes mostly in a way of trying to get repetition of a perfect result by giving them strict constraints and rules to follow, rather then explain the perfect way to do a technique and have them repeat that. Some details can help lead to breakthroughs and quicker improvement, but I sprinkle them in sparingly these days:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...e-arm-and-hammer-movements-are_fig1_285324801

 

[rmongler]

I think everyone likes details better, but that doesn’t necessarily make them better for development. Also details is kind of a blanket term. I’m not talking about macro details. I think it’s very important to explain how something can work, what the goal is, and some broad strokes, but the deeper you get into fine details the more problems we will see in the long run.

in my years coaching I noticed this (I used to be very detail oriented in instruction), but there have actually been double blind peer reviewed studies on it in recent years. They have found that in the short time frame athletes coached with extreme attention to detail can see seemingly faster improvement in the first few months, and that athletes coached by a constraints led approach start to take over in the long run… but that’s just at first glance. The real value is in performance under pressure.

Under pressure the athletes coached with detailed instruction absolutely flopped across the board compared to the athletes coached with a constraints led approach who mostly performed at the same level under competitive pressure as they displayed without anything on the line.

They believe the main reason for this is that learning details from an expert instructor can help you find your groove quicker, but it’s just that, you’re groove that you have to learn, and when the pressure is on the details you were told are what you tend to go back to, and it brings you back down to a day one beginner level running your instructors words through your mind rather than just focusing on what you’ve been actually doing. This is one reason why many athletes who are killers in the gym can sometimes under perform in competition.

Nikolai Bernstein ran a study in Russia in the 20th century trying to figure out the perfect mechanics to swing a hammer. So he found the absolute best blacksmith in the country and measured the exact motions of his swing, and the muscles used in the kenetic chain expecting to find a measurable pattern. They found that their subject perfectly hit his target with every swing with the perfect amount of force and no wasted time or movement, but they unexpectedly found that he never swung his hammer the same way twice. This kind of made them throw away the idea of a “perfect technique” that needs to be repetitively practiced and opened up the doors to the idea of instead using constraints and a goal to force people to be able to repeat the perfect result rather than try to copy a perfect technique.

in training people find their way to results, but if they were trained to learn a perfect technique they tend to think back to that when it matters most, throwing them off their game a bit. An d a bit can be the difference between success and disaster when it matters most.

I train my athletes mostly in a way of trying to get repetition of a perfect result by giving them strict constraints and rules to follow, rather then explain the perfect way to do a technique and have them repeat that. Some details can help lead to breakthroughs and quicker improvement, but I sprinkle them in sparingly these days:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...e-arm-and-hammer-movements-are_fig1_285324801

There's an old saying in folkstyle circles that often goes something like, "don't ruin a good wrestler by trying to coach him".

You can see the point reading between the lines. Reality is always bigger than any system that can fit inside your head - let alone on a sheet of paper. You always get more adaptive results from setting criteria and leaving more of an opening for the principles figure out their way towards them, like slime molds forming networks between food sources, rather than by trying to create some sort of universal algorithm ahead of time.