Usually when people start their BJJ journey they want to know what the best technique is. The longer you train you start to realize that this type of thinking makes no sense. However it seems like this gets replaced with the idea of "high percentage" techniques. I'd argue that the techniques people talk about when saying this aren't actually high percentage, but just common. This isn't really a problem most of the time, but often people will steer others to focus on these "high percentage" techniques, but their reasoning doesn't make sense IMO. I don't want to discount this type of analysis and say its worthless, because that's far from true, but this type of data doesn't tell the whole picture. Here is a very good blog with info on the most common submissions at multiple belt levels and rulesets. I appreciate this type of work and I don't want to make it seem like this type of data gathering is worthless. I just don't want people to think that this is some magic way to make you great at BJJ. Judo, etc.
https://www.highpercentagemartialarts.com/blog/2018/7/28/i-watched-100-white-belt-matches-heres-whats-actually-high-percentage
So what is high percentage?
What it is usually defined as is tap/attempts, but often times people don't have stats on that. People just look at the amount of wins that come from specific techniques and label those as high percentage. This type of data is useful, but it doesn't mean that these are the only techniques you should be focusing on. A technique like the RNC finishes tons of matches, but how often does someone go for it and the other person pulls their hand down. It might take 3-6 tries before they get the finish. That actually might make it low percentage, but I'm not sure it matters if the result is a win. On the other hand when people go for gogoplatas, they usually get them, but they are rarely attempted. I'm not saying you should abandon the RNC for gogoplatas, but I am saying the reasoning behind it is insufficient. A better way to evaluate techniques with more nuance is needed.
High percentage now, low percentage later
Another problem with saying common techniques are high percentage is, these techniques change over time. Sometimes this happens because people become aware of the counters. After a while people become familiar with techniques and learn ways to stop them. It can be argued that these techniques have become lower percentage. The other reason seems to be trends. If you've been around grappling long enough you'll know that certain techniques become popular, but then people just stop using them for one reason or another. For example sometimes a trend in passing will effect a trend in guards. I think the trend to pass standing killed butterfly guard's popularity, but leglocks in no-gi are bringing a butterfly guard revival. This presents a problem when it comes to building a competitive game. If you focus on these "high percentage" techniques as a lower belt, by the time your BJJ matures, everyone will be familiar with these techniques and their counters. After you get a technique down often it's effectiveness at the highest levels has decreased. There was a time you could play nothing but deep half guard and kill 95% of competitors. Now if you want to play it, you need to put tons of work into it and will most likely have to innovate some moves yourself. There are of course moves that seem relatively stable, most of them shift over the years and some even seem to move it cycles.
So you're saying I should do all flying triangles and Imanari rolls?
I'm not saying that looking at which moves work most often is pointless, but I'd advocate for a deeper analysis and a more thoughtful approach. Let's make sure the "art" stays in martial arts and not try to box people into specific, styles, strategies, ect. Especially if the way we came to this conclusion is dubious. The moves that are winning matches are important and should be studied, but limiting yourself and only doing these techniques is an unproven strategy. Even if we look at champions, often times they did the exact opposite of this approach. They did something new and unproven and grappling shifted in response. In another post I'll explain how I like to think of the value of certain techniques and perhaps a better way to think of them.
Comments
Post a Comment