4 ms·

Not a black belt myself, but agree with GP. Sparring frequently tends to be "people trying to murder each other on the mats in pursuit of their egos". There's a

Not a black belt myself, but agree with GP. Sparring frequently tends to be "people trying to murder each other on the mats in pursuit of their egos". There's a level of dynamism in good sparring that can immediately get shut down if one or both practioners are overly motivated by "winning". You need to take a lot of risks to learn in practice even if it means getting clowned by someone who you could beat if you had to, but you do see people sticking to conservative games in order to dominate. Which often doesn't teach them (as they aren't learning new aspects) but it also doesn't teach their opponent (as it's very hard to learn new stuff when trapped in someone's well-rehearsed "A Game"). The advantage of positional sparring (i.e. go from one position and stop when someone gets out of it to some outcome - not necessarily a tap) is that everyone gets to sharpen a single position. The ego motivation isn't as strong there as it is with full sparring.

borroka 5y ago
Yes, that's my approach when I am teaching. Positional sparring is way superior to free sparring for learning. Lower stakes, people are more relaxed, the same position is presented multiple times and that's where learning happens. And I explain it to students beforehand. I say to students: there are interesting games going on in positional sparring and one is that who is trying to escape (say, from mount) is in a better mental, but not physical, position. You are already mounted, now if you "lose", that's ok, but if you "win" (that is escape the position or finish), it is a big win! And for the who's in mount, finishing is ok (already in mount), but letting the mounted escape is a big "loss". Winning when all, including yourself, know that anything else than winning is a bad loss, is being in the "ugly zone", like Dave Alred says, high pressure, low margin for error, when things are not pretty. But that's where one learns (it sounds like it is high stakes, but it not, because the activity/drill is repeated multiple times). I do positional for takedowns, side control, mount, from flat half guard, favorite guard (and I say, this is your favorite guard, you should be hard to pass!).
- glangdale 5y ago
  I like this approach. I always wanted more positional sparring and less free sparring. I've noticed that high pressure "expected to win" situation (which, frankly, I love in mount/side control as I've got a better game, relative to expectation of a submission, while my back control/submissions game underperforms). I've noticed the defender from 'bad positions' does better in specific training than they do in sparring in the same position, probably because they can put everything into getting the "W" - while the attacker in sparring would probably be cooking them or switching to a different position. There are still weird ego-driven things going on here. My least favorite: being on bottom open guard and having people disengage and run around to win - it's like, bro, if we weren't positional sparring I can just stand up and we can see who has better takedowns. Personally I think this one should begin with at least one grip to avoid time-wasting. Do you do the "5 minutes on top / 5 minutes on bottom" approach? Or alternating? Or "3-5 people down with a line of people coming in". I think each of them has good/bad elements (without "3 wins and you're out", the latter tends to reduce to the top 3 students annihilating the newer people and not facing each other :-) ).
  - borroka 5y ago
    Yes, I have found positional sparring to lead to the quickest improvement from blue to black (novices have different needs, typically) "I've noticed the defender from 'bad positions' does better in specific training than they do in sparring in the same position" - It varies, but my rationale is that when somebody is passing your guard and then mounting you, you are typically dog tired and mentally you go from bad position to worse. In positional sparring, the guy in a bad spot starts from that position, so mentally is in a good place, and not as tired or positionally compromised. "My least favorite: being on bottom open guard and having people disengage and run around to win" - Agreed, like typically new guys not engaging and wasting a couple of minutes by running around. In that case, I simply say, "come here my friend, let's practice", and they start getting in. And the same when I am the coach, I just encourage a more low-stake environment (which does not mean low effort or low quality) and I must say that I never got any pushback. "Let's practice, that's how we improve". "Do you do the "5 minutes on top / 5 minutes on bottom" approach?" - I typically do two bottom and two top for each position (one top and bottom with one person and one top and one bottom with another), with rounds of 2 to 3 minutes, encouraging students to push the pace (2 minutes go by real quick and I don't like wasting opportunities to improve). My coach likes the line of people getting in, winner stays in, and 3 wins and you are out. I think that both have a place, but I have prefer the two minutes round because it creates good competition (you pass my guard, we restart, now I am trying to avoid that same pass, while with the line there is not this immediate opportunity of a comeback).

borroka 5y ago

Yes, that's my approach when I am teaching. Positional sparring is way superior to free sparring for learning. Lower stakes, people are more relaxed, the same position is presented multiple times and that's where learning happens. And I explain it to students beforehand. I say to students: there are interesting games going on in positional sparring and one is that who is trying to escape (say, from mount) is in a better mental, but not physical, position. You are already mounted, now if you "lose", that's ok, but if you "win" (that is escape the position or finish), it is a big win! And for the who's in mount, finishing is ok (already in mount), but letting the mounted escape is a big "loss". Winning when all, including yourself, know that anything else than winning is a bad loss, is being in the "ugly zone", like Dave Alred says, high pressure, low margin for error, when things are not pretty. But that's where one learns (it sounds like it is high stakes, but it not, because the activity/drill is repeated multiple times). I do positional for takedowns, side control, mount, from flat half guard, favorite guard (and I say, this is your favorite guard, you should be hard to pass!).

glangdale 5y ago
I like this approach. I always wanted more positional sparring and less free sparring. I've noticed that high pressure "expected to win" situation (which, frankly, I love in mount/side control as I've got a better game, relative to expectation of a submission, while my back control/submissions game underperforms). I've noticed the defender from 'bad positions' does better in specific training than they do in sparring in the same position, probably because they can put everything into getting the "W" - while the attacker in sparring would probably be cooking them or switching to a different position. There are still weird ego-driven things going on here. My least favorite: being on bottom open guard and having people disengage and run around to win - it's like, bro, if we weren't positional sparring I can just stand up and we can see who has better takedowns. Personally I think this one should begin with at least one grip to avoid time-wasting. Do you do the "5 minutes on top / 5 minutes on bottom" approach? Or alternating? Or "3-5 people down with a line of people coming in". I think each of them has good/bad elements (without "3 wins and you're out", the latter tends to reduce to the top 3 students annihilating the newer people and not facing each other :-) ).
- borroka 5y ago
  Yes, I have found positional sparring to lead to the quickest improvement from blue to black (novices have different needs, typically) "I've noticed the defender from 'bad positions' does better in specific training than they do in sparring in the same position" - It varies, but my rationale is that when somebody is passing your guard and then mounting you, you are typically dog tired and mentally you go from bad position to worse. In positional sparring, the guy in a bad spot starts from that position, so mentally is in a good place, and not as tired or positionally compromised. "My least favorite: being on bottom open guard and having people disengage and run around to win" - Agreed, like typically new guys not engaging and wasting a couple of minutes by running around. In that case, I simply say, "come here my friend, let's practice", and they start getting in. And the same when I am the coach, I just encourage a more low-stake environment (which does not mean low effort or low quality) and I must say that I never got any pushback. "Let's practice, that's how we improve". "Do you do the "5 minutes on top / 5 minutes on bottom" approach?" - I typically do two bottom and two top for each position (one top and bottom with one person and one top and one bottom with another), with rounds of 2 to 3 minutes, encouraging students to push the pace (2 minutes go by real quick and I don't like wasting opportunities to improve). My coach likes the line of people getting in, winner stays in, and 3 wins and you are out. I think that both have a place, but I have prefer the two minutes round because it creates good competition (you pass my guard, we restart, now I am trying to avoid that same pass, while with the line there is not this immediate opportunity of a comeback).