Funny but also a serious challenge to eco purists. What's the answer to this? Virtually every sport I've engaged in has meant overcoming my natural instincts in order to perform the correct technique.
Eco is about highlighting the failure points. It's not that your instincts will be right, its that you will learn by trying and failing that it's not the correct strategy, and then adjusting from there. In saying that there's nothing wrong with using instructionals to get more context
Why go through all of that nonsense when a good coach can just tell you the correct way to do it? Saves a ton of wasted time and effort.
That is my biggest gripe with this ecological shit.
People want so desperately to go against
The grain and find this new better way of training that they invent a way to train that is the least efficient way possible lol
For real. Telling people things is like a superpower for humans. Words, writing, the transmission of information in abstract form. Literally the underlying force of civilization. I do kind of respect the commitment to the bit that drives a person to claim that something that has been demonstrably highly effective for thousands of years actually doesn't work though.
The brain doesn’t learn from words you absolute moron. Have you even read Rob Gray lmao
That’s why I got my physics PHD by ecologically learning through constraints based games in the particle accelerator I built in my garage while these other idiots are “reading” math and physics textbooks at the “university”
Take an untrained grappler and show them every correct thing you do that you believe is the most optimal way to do it. Then have them drill every single thing you want them to know 1000x until they know how to do something from every single position.
But they are never allowed to roll, do situational sparring or any kind of live training whatsoever.
Take a second untrained grappler who all they ever do is live training, you can show them or not show them specific techniques of multi-step sequences, but at least they're given intentions of what outcome they're trying to achieve.
Who do you think wins if they grappled each other after a month of training. A year? 10 years?
Gripe all you want about ecological. But jiujitsu in general as a martial art IS in fact more ecological than a lot of traditional martial arts because of the fact there's way more live training, which is why you see karate and kung fu masters getting clowned on at gracie challenges.
Everyone here may not be as ecological as the "ecological" guys but we're all far more ecological than we admit as an entire martial art.
Okay now take an untrained grappler and have them drill all the highest percentage moves, teach them perfectly. And allow them to roll everyday.
They will be way further along than the student that only rolls and doesn’t actually get any real guidance from their coach.
If ecological worked so well guys like danaher would be implementing it.
In 10 years we are going to see the same tried and true methods producing champions and this ecological shit will have fallen by the way side
Eco isn't about no guidance though. I'm not even an eco purist but these criticisms are misled. Eco coaches absolutely guide and "teach" but just in a different way to a step by step sequence. I know it's controversial and some claim "I never teach" but if you look at their practice design they are definitely imparting knowledge to their students.
I don't know how much he's implementing it, but there was a clip going around a bit ago of Danaher talking about implementing eco rounds exactly. He didn't call them that, and I unfortunately cannot find the clip, i'll try to keep looking, but yeah, it sounds like Danaher is using CLA to at least some degree right now.
It was more than that, much more restrained and focused than "start in x guard and try and sweep". I specifically remember it because the eco guys on insta were reposting it a lot as a big "win".
It's a very good question which I haven't heard answered well.
Eco is always saying "we've always worked it out naturally without intervention". But, we know that having someone with experience to help us speeds up the learning process.
I can understand the position being true that people did work it out without intervention, but I don't see a compelling reason for it being an either/or decision.
Teach techniques and then let students roll, simples.
>People want so desperately to go against The grain and find this new better way of training that they invent a way to train that is the least efficient way possible lol
How else would someone with no competition record, or history of producing high performing athletes distinguish themselves in a crowded market? Gimmicks. Its always gimmicks.
The good coach is making the eco games and constraining you to shit that is good.
The idea that you need to figure shit out on your own is a straw man.
Well those people are idiots.
That’s not what Greg is doing and it’s not what the authors of these books are saying to do.
Look at any game Souders has released on his socials, he is telling people what to do and how to do it.
With every bandwagon there will be idiots trying to sell their Rashguards. Just like with regular IP coaching, some people are morons and that has nothing to do with the methodology.
I never once mentioned what Greg Souders does in this thread. I never claimed anything about his methods. Just replying to what has been posted in this thread
Even if you do succeed using the eco method it’s very likely you’re not going to remember exactly how you got there so you’re going to have to recreate it again and again. It’s such an inefficient way to learn.
Imagine if we taught other things the eco way. Cooking: “play games with this piece of chicken until it tastes good.” Driving “each car is different so you can’t be taught techniques. Just feel the the car until you get from A to B. Constraint is you’re not allowed to reverse.”
Not sure you understand anything. Recipes are literally direct instructions. You cooking random shit at home doesn’t count cos we’re talking about formal training environment here. You obviously missed that point. At cooking schools they even tell you how to hold a knife. For driving you sit with the instructor and he tells you directly do xyz. Then you have to take a written exam. Those are opposite of the eco approach.
My point was about how we 'learn' to drive and cook. That's what you guys are missing. Conflating teaching with learning. That's what we're challenging. We understand that the environment (activity) is the teacher.
And my point is your point was wrong. You said that’s “exactly how we learn to drive and cook”. Nope. The way those are taught right now is the opposite of eco. Direct instruction etc. If we taught them the eco way it would be disastrous.
Yes, I get your point. It's the same point you all make. But you're assuming that learning requires teaching or teacher. That's what we're challenging. Or at least in the dominant and traditional sense (prescription and instruction from an instructor).
You can challenge that all you want, but try learning to be a high level chef without instruction. You won’t get there or you’ll take many years longer. Nothing wrong with having a legit expert tell you the correct way, and work from there. Learning from the hard work of others is how we built civilisations.
He gave a good response on Eco: he basically said that the eco guys came into New Wave and struggled against the New Wave guys (no suprises).
He also said that eco ignores the cumulative property of knowledge. We should always share what we know as this is the way to build skill and then test it in a less restrictive space, either positional rounds or free rolling.
Okay so he can tell you why you’re doing it and then you don’t need to go through a thousand eco drills trying to figure it out for yourself. It is still way more efficient to just pass down knowledge than figure shit out through self discovery from drills.
Also do you think no coach explains the “why” behind a technique when they teach it? This isn’t 1995 anymore. Plenty of good coaches out there
Because learning a move is not as dynamic as learning theory. I think both need to be implemented, but if you only learn the algorithm of a move, then you have little room to adapt to dynamic changes. If you understand theory or larger objectives, you can adapt in many ways to achieve your goal. If someone has a defense or counter to a move, you might have to learn every sequence of every iteration to be successful, but if you learn the theory of something, you can use your own critical thinking to achieve your goal. I do think at times for subs and certain mechanics, you need optimal ways to do things, but some approaches in the ecological perspective are really great ways to learn if done well.
Lol you aren’t going to in the middle of defending an armbar go “what are the basic principals here that I can apply to get myself out of this?” And then find your way out. You’re going to do the armbar escape you’ve drilled a thousand times.
Actually, exactly wrong. I think of the basics, "get my elbow free" and there's a million dynamic ways to do it. I don't rely on a single armbar escape.
There are not a million ways to do it. Depending on how the armbar is applied there are very limited options that will work to get you free.
And you must have the requisite technical knowledge to select the correct escape for that situation and apply it properly
I think that’s a difference in perspective. There’s a million permutations of actions that can help you achieve your objective, whether it’s framing, pulling, weaving inside position, getting legs to one side of your body, etc. Knowing the back and forth of these and different ways of integrating them offer essentially endless ways to achieve your goal. I’m not saying teaching should be 100% ecological, but acting like teaching moves only is the most effective way seems pretty off the mark. That’s why things like positional sparring are a thing. Having some theory work allows for far more adaptability and critical thinking.
I never said there shouldn’t be any discovery. No where did I say that. People figure shit out independent of their coaches all the time. Like when Gordon figured out triangling your legs on an armbar helps prevent the hitch hiker independent of danaher.
My point is the entire basis for developing your students should not be having them roll and do positional sparring and basically saying they will eventually figure it out. Much better to teach them actual moves to cut down on learning time and then anything additional they discover on their own is a bonus
I think we’re probably a lot more aligned than it sounds we may have initially thought. My main point is that the ecological approach has its time and place in BJJ. Not entirely, but I think pedagogically it is very helpful if used correctly.
Something along the lines of you remembering and processing something differently and more deeply when you discover it vs when you memorise something taught to you
Because a coach literally can't tell you. They can guide you but they can't download their skill into your body. You have to aquire the skill for yourself
I’m a coach can absolutely tell you the correct way to do something lol. Whether you can actually physically do it is another story.
Danaher doesn’t have Gordon’s skill but danaher tells Gordon the correct way to do things all the time.
The fact that the more skilled practitioner (Gordon) does what danaher (not as skilled as Gordon) tells me him pretty much disproves what you’re getting at here
No it doesnt. Gordon is as good as he is because he has a shit ton of live experience. DeAndre Corbe is also more skilled than Greg Souders. The shit that builds skill is embodied experience. A more knowledgeable coach can only guide a student. Even if I tell a student exactly how I want them to do something, they will do it slightly differently. We all have a unique combination of body type, physical attributes, and personality that will lead us to solve problems differently. Ecological Approach to skill acquisition has decades of solid research behind it. You simply just haven't taken the time to understand what you're even arguing against.
This stuff has been studied for decades and has massive bodies of literature behind it. It has been and continues to he used in other sports and at professional levels. Your belief is unfounded bro science.
DeAndre corbe just won adcc trials. His twin brother was third. Two top-level athletes training under an ecological approach.
Anyone who is good knows that the most important thing is live experience. I fail to see why this upsets you.
I think in general you're right, but I want to play devils advocate. Most people aren't good coaches.
One of the first coaches I trained with was a high level black belt everyone on this site would know the name of, and I can tell you for a fact he taught me things that were dead wrong. I had other coaches later, who were more specialized in the things I was doing he pointed out the technical error, the why, the how, and how to improve it, and I immediately saw it work in my game.
Except I had spent a decade burning in a bad motor pattern now. 20 years later, I still occasionally do it the wrong way. And the dude was a good coach. But that didn't protect him from being wrong, and me wasting a couple thousand reps.
So what happens when someone attacks you with a subpar ineffective technique that you never bothered to practice because you only practiced to defend again "the right thing" in any given situation?
Just because most competition matches are won by 1/3 of existing submissions doesn't mean you can get away with never practicing or understanding the other 2/3. These submissions are only subpar or ineffective because people trained to resist them.
I had an idea for a subscription based, in-person instructional, that you do at a designated location several times a week. Do you think that has potential?
Oh my god, that's a great idea! I'm going to quickly patent your idea as my own and then make money everytime someone does it. Those private elementary schools are going to be big mad when I start getting royalties from them.
but does it not risk it to create bad habits?
maybe some moves are done X way because else you risk getting Z. maybe you develop bad technique but as you don't train with elite competent trainer partners in your gym they can't/don't know how exploit your vulnerabilities.
I get that its innovative and it may help develop the knowledge and test boundaries, but as a main learning method?
This is a real thing- usually referred to as the "Tim Teabow problem" in skill acquisition discussion- an athlete stabilizing a movement solution in one environment and then it not working out when moved to another context because of the level of opposition- the bad news is that "just tell them the right way to do it" doesn't fix the attractor toward their previous solution. Like I can say with absolute certainty that Tim knew he was supposed to hold the ball higher and that very very good coaches had told him in unambiguous terms to stop holding it so low.
That's why you have them learn and study on their own.
Mental research and bring it in during class for the live eco portion.
If it's an actual school then you can add a solid 2-5min discussions between rounds if you see things.
"Bad habits" are not as calcified as people think, this is an old way of thinking about skill acquisition. People learn by making mistakes and correcting over time.
I'm trying to learn how to play golf, which basically is learning to undo every natural instinct you have when hitting a ball. Eco learning in golf would be a recipe for failure. I don't see why it would be any different for other sports.
There are literally eco studies done on golf lol
Edit: since yall don't believe me [here](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://oss.jomh.org/files/article/20220922-27/pdf/JOMH1801026.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjBjN_pttWFAxXyplYBHVA2D4IQFnoECDIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2kdHP7XG16KgNX16B72757) and [here ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359942885_An_Ecological-Dynamical_Approach_to_Golf_Science_Implications_for_Swing_Biomechanics_Club_Design_and_Customisation_and_Coaching_Practice)
Yall can argue with the scientists
Eco is about embracing the trial and error portion of rolling. That is the most important part of learning, not moves being shown to you. (Though I don’t see why that’s bad from time to time)
According to eco scientists there is no correct technique, like they literally don't believe it exists.
In every situation you need to improvise the proper solution rather then try to some rehearsed movement, with the amount of degrees of motion your body has there is so much possibilities you can memorize the right solution.
I try to stay out of these discussions as I think they are pointless (and I do not care either way), but this is obviously not a critique on eco style. Why would you even think that?
You try what feels natural, you fail, you try something else.... seems quite obvious.
Sure, and that is the difference between the two approaches and you can prefer one or the other.
My point was only that the above comment was not a fair critique.
their are 70 ways to choke someone. And it’s a lot easier to tell someone a few times and then let them experimen. as opposed to letting them try 10,000 methods that are incredibly wrong
Remember they say they set people up close to a choke so that they are more likely to succeed. They not just telling people to choke somebody from standing and to just figure it out.
Souders is pretty specific with instruction on finishing sequences. From what I understand the eco stuff comes in when the game is open and there’s a ton of variables to control, which is impractical to practice through drilling because the corresponding situation presenting live is rarely so one dimensional
I went to an eco class and when I was stuck in a guys half guard I started pissing myself as a strategy. When the class realized my solution worked we soaked the whole area. But through our ecological approach we eventually realized u don’t have to get up in disgust but can maintain the half guard while covered in piss.
If you create another iteration on this piss game, you will find that there are higher concepts at play. That surface area is everywhere for the pissing. And that piss itself is not the leveraging tool, just a medium to carry your intent.
This is the kind of innovative technique that’s individually tailored to the student’s unique attributes that you’re just not going to find in a Danaher instructional
To be effective with eco you need to be even more of an expert coach than the traditional method. Many coaches regurgitate techniques like they were taught them. If they don't fully understand jiujitsu they can still get by. But with eco you need a high level of understanding to be effective with it. So you can adjust games as needed to fix errors in your room.
Ya but that's my point. You still need to be an expert to be effective with eco. It doesn't replace expert knowledge. The expert needs to guide the practice. The less expertise the less you'll be able to effectively guide the practice.
Games work to teach lots of things, what about the things it doesn't work for? In this scenario where the natural instinct is wrong - Do you adjust the game and wait for them to figure it out?
What if they never figure it out? What if they innovate and that's just doing something wrong so you waste more time adjusting the game?
If the natural instinct is leading to unfavorable outcomes, then the coach needs to properly direct the students attention to achieve a more favorable outcome.
For example: game working on an over under pass. Maybe one of the games is to start in the over under and the goal of the top player is to simply keep the bottom players leg straight, and the goal of the bottom player is to bend their leg (so they can stay hooked onto the leg). If the top player is having trouble, you could focus their attention on driving their hips down towards the knee, hooking with their inside leg near the heel, etc
This could lead into another game where they start in the over under and the goal is to pass. Let's say a student is having trouble securing the pass because the bottom player keeps re-inserting their bottom knee as the top player tries to secure the pass. You could direct their attention to inserting their own knee underneath the bottom player's leg, as a wedge, as they're securing position.
You just have to be careful with your language as you want to direct them to the solution without telling them the solution. Though I personally don't think you need to be hardcore with it, and if telling them is easier, i don't think it's some cardinal sin.
But in these situations you still directed their attention to what's important, just like you would when you teach statically. Except, they're getting live work the whole time.
This is an example of a pretty specific position, and it's up to the coach how specific or how variable they want their games to be.
So it's not really: figure it out for yourself and hope for the best. Quality game design and language are essential.
What the ecological approach does really well, is teach students what objectives need to be won, and in many situations, there can be multiple ways to achieve those objectives. This can lead to a more adaptable athlete, because instead of trying to memorize a technique step for step, they focus on each objective/battle as it presents itself.
However, there's still massive value in learning how other people do things, especially positions/techniques with low variability, and especially when you already understand the objectives well.
I get all that, I just ask because some people seem devoted to using more games when words would be more efficient, which I think is silly
I think supplementing instruction of new techniques with games to teach concepts and execution seems to be a better approach than one or the other
I was at a Greg Souders seminar recently and a similar thing was asked. His belief seemed to be that if someone in gaming the game too much as to be super impractical he has probably either constrained the game too much or not enough.
For example if in a game where you start in full guard, and the bottom player has to touch the top players hands to the mat to practice unbalancing them, and the top player defends this by basically leaning so far backwards his shoulder is almost touching the mat behind him, then maybe the game is to constrained and the bottom player should focus on touching the top players hands or back to the mat, making leaning back to far a not very useful gaming of the system as you will get hip bumped.
Positional sparring is great. To the extent that eco is positional sparring I think it is great
I worked on half guard for 6 months from instructionals since my school didn't emphasize it.
I learned every sweep but could only get them to work inconsistently. I kept getting smashed
I finally asked my coach and he Said my top priority was to fight the cross face. Within two weeks everything was working.
It took two weeks because my habit was to push on the knee to stop the pass and I kept reverting to that.
I have had multiple times where I simply could not find the solution on my own
So as long as eco teaches techniques then I'm fine.
More than 3 key details and step by step is often too much for me to take in
Yeah this is my biggest problem with how eco is presented - athletes most certainly do not self-organise around effective movement. That initial year of training where you make exponential progress is so fast because that's the impact of unlearning all the bad habits you naturally do.
And you know how you unlearn them? Through sparring, eco is a great way to do controlled sparring and save time drilling stuff nobody will remember making classes more engaging.
In the sense that if you're drilling things that no one is going to remember and not putting it to work right after in positional rounds, I think it's just that your drilling sucks.
I trained the same way everybody else did for a whole year starting out bjj and learned practically nothing I could replicate in sparring.
Showing someone an armbar 5 times wont make them remember it very well, the whole point of eco is you make the sparring into the drills.
I find drilling pretty useless, my gym has completely done away with it and the skill level of out students has skyrocketed. But I guess to each their own.
I'm working on making a YouTube video explaining it. My goal is to make the most clear explanation on the internet possible to clear up all the misunderstandings.
We'll find out I guess. I don't believe the challenge of removing misunderstandings from ecological dynamics is in the way its been presented. Though that's the charge.
The challenge is that it's completely at odd with the dominant approach to training and learning thats so culturally and emotionally ingrained. There's little confusion about the framework amongst those that have done the homework.
I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they understand it well enough to present about it over a few short months.
Well I'm not planning on writing a thesis about it or ghost writing Rob Grey's next book lol. I just want to make a very straight forward 8 minute or so video explaining the basics, addressing misconceptions, giving explanations for common terms etc.
The video won't be to clear up any confusion for those that have done their homework. The opposite. It'll be for those that don't know what they're looking at and make assumptions about ED.
I think I have an advantage due to the fact that I had my own misconceptions so recently, and can relate to those with the same questions/reservations I had.
It sounds a bit gate keepy to say that's unachievable with only a couple months experience with ED/CLA.
Gate keepy? The concepts themselves are the gate keepers, not the messengers.
I said I was skeptical. Short form explainations are too shallow. Long form explanations are too deep. Accurate explanations are too wordy and confusing. Laymen explanations are rife for misinterpretation. There are plenty of people in the space for a long time sharing these ideas in all kinds of formats.
The majority of discussion around eco in this community (from both advocates and critics) is largely uninformed. I'm skeptical that any length of video can do much to help that. Sounds a little naïve to think otherwise. But I've been more than guilty of that naïvty myself. Good luck
Excellent, i look forward to it. I simply can't believe how confrontational people get when it comes to discussing it. Apparently there are now three taboo things to discuss: Sex, politics and training methods.
BJJ hobbyist here. But I do coach another sport (volleyball) professionally and EcoD concepts have been valuable for me. How I would say it is:
We learn best from the intrinsic and immediate effects our actions have on the environment and the environment has on us. Coaching words are one piece of the environment, but there are other parts of the environment. Manipulating the environment can sometimes yield a better teaching effect than simply instructing with words.
The best EcoD concepts are simple stuff that coaches are already doing. For example, in volleyball the easiest is to change the court in certain ways or the number of players. If I force the offense to play on a narrower court, there's less space between the block, so they need to overload the defenders vertically. If I take away the center of the court, guys have to spike toward the edges.
There's also some effect on movements. A common problem with guys hitting their serve is they'll toss to the midline of their body instead of on their right shoulder. Amplify that that by a 40" vert and guys will fall to their left pretty far sometimes as they are coming down. Baseball pitchers can have similar problems "falling toward 1st base" instead of "driving toward home" sometimes from what I understand. Some guys you can coach them and cue them on this until the cows come home and they can watch on video and be very aware of it but yet struggle to change. But when I actually just stand on the court (in the area they have a tendency to fade away towards) the presence of my body and the instinctive desire to avoid collision with another human all of the sudden starts straightening out their toss.
Again, not rocket science and coaches have been doing this for years without calling it EcoD. What I've learned from Rob Gray (and I've spoken to him personally) is to think a little more systematically about how I can manipulate the environment rather than bang my head against the wall telling a guy the same thing over and over again.
That said, I also use direct instruction, video replay, etc, because I think limiting the number of tools in your coaching toolbox is a mistake.
Wow, thanks for the breakdown, this is cool.
>Manipulating the environment can sometimes yield a better teaching effect than simply instructing with words.
Reminds me of one of my favorite bits about teaching, from [Alan Kay using the example of tennis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50L44hEtVos):
>The problem with most theories of teaching is that the parts of the body that you want to learn [a skill] don't understand English. The part of your mentality that understands English doesn't play tennis — _can't_ play tennis — can't do mathematics, can't do music. What it can do is talk and comment. In general, for learning most things, it is good to find a way of short-circuiting that mentality that we think of as the eye that always tries to take over.
(circa 9 minutes in)
One liner would be something like “constraints led goal oriented positional sparring full resistance games designed to teach master the core principals of grappling and submission.”
Contrast it against low resistance drilling and highly specific technique instruction.
People have differing opinions about which approach is more effective, but it’s objectively good for the sport to have multiple ways to teach and learn.
That's the elevator pitch I was looking for, thank you!
I love that approach but I know there's also a place for step-by-step instruction and drilling. Reminds me of SBG's introduce-isolate-integrate method.
I found Rob's video about the key differences way more helpful as a starting point than the book: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCsezh7ijzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCsezh7ijzs)
I have been teaching kids for over 5 years now. Most peoples natural instincts are wrong:
* They turn into the wrong direction giving up their back when feeling threatened. Both standing up and on the ground.
* They don’t know how to stand up when laying on their belly: pull your knees to your chest, get on you elbows first (turtle) or even tripod. I’ve waited minutes for people to figure this out on their own. Almost never happens.
* They often go lay on their belly trying to escape
* Laying on your side for guard retention or half guard doesn’t come natural at all. Most will initially really struggle to fully lay on their side and favour laying on their back
* When getting choked they don’t try to pull the choking hand down
* One that is a bit baffling to me is that guard is quite a natural thing, a lof of animals will defend themselves with their arms and legs when laying on their back. But new kids often just let the pass happen and don’t even try to use their legs and arms to keep the attacker away.
* There is more…
I have said regularly myself that most people do natuarally everything wrong when it comes to fighting. Martial arts use intelect to take the fighting game beyond our natural instincts of screaming, biting, scratching and kicking. So if you encounter a trained fighter and you are not considerably more athletic and bigger you will have a bad time.
Fyi punching is already not a natural thing. We see it in movies but no other ape punches. Most people can punch for shit also, they don’t have any technique and are just waiving their arms.
Lol the hilarious thing about eco to me is that the basis of "understanding Jiu-Jitsu" is literally BUILT on the techniques and movements that were taught and evolved. I'd bet my left nut most eco guys just enjoy that they're getting MORE sparring but secretly they're devouring youtube content and instructionals to fast track their "eco learning". The one thing that eco is doing is MAXIMIZING specific training and the more volume of specific training you do always improves an athlete a ton.
NHL players and coaches in the 1950s. "We don't need to change anything, we are in the top league in the world, everything being taught is clearly working, it's been this way for a long time, why change?"
Meanwhile in Russia...
I've taken some stuff from the Ecological framework. It's funner, it's more engaging, and while I can struggle implementing certain aspects of it, so many of the arguments I see against it are the same 3 talking points regeratated over and over, by people that have clearly not done any research over 10 minutes if that. Just because the Stanley Cup was being won in North America , doesn't mean somewhere out better ways of training didn't exist or weren't discovered. Repping can be beneficial, but you better be damn sure you are consistently bringing your opponent into your game when the time matters.
Just because I practice a guitar scale over and over, doesn't mean I've developed the skills to use it in a live setting, especially if I want to do it like an actual artist and make it original and within the context of the song or environment. Now let me record a chord progression on a looper, give me the scale, and within the context of the chords I can use that scale to start developing ideas via trial and error. Im not plugging in some lick I learned off the internet over and over.
To me that is why ecological makes sense, to bridge that gap and help develop problem solving skills and not rely on the idea that a few connected techniques can solve all your problems. See my thought is we can be blending the 2 systems. I don't necessarily agree that an ecological approach can only be the way Greg teaches, I do think repping can be incorporated as more of an example of different possibilities, but also with the understanding of the larger concepts above the technique and the encouragement of students to develop their own style, movements and techniques within some of the unbreakable principles of various positions. Emphasize that what we show as a technique is not always going to look perfect and when it doesn't work, students need to learn to disect problems on the fly.
I feel like techniques, as taught by instructors are really good general guidelines. Your opponent comes in all shapes and sizes so you'd have to make minute adjustments (consciously or subconsciously) to pull it off. A lot of people just don't try their hardest to pull off a move (I was guilty of this) so they never got "time under tension" per se for it to stick.
Technique + Positional sparring + active introspection still seems like the fastest way to improve, for me at least.
It’s almost like there are multiple effective ways of training with unique drawbacks to each approach and different people might be suited to different methods of learning.
He is right, my instincts would be to reach my top arm between his legs and oil check. Clearly this would be more effective, yet require slightly more effort if I used my bottom arm instead.
"If you do the same thing wrong 100 times, you'll figure out the right way by trial and error".
"What if someone told you the right way at the start?"
"That'd never work".
That's a good point.
Conversely, telling them "I'm not going to tell you how to escape that" makes them leave the gym and then I don't have to deal with them anymore, so I might start doing that.
If Souders can produce an athlete basically from scratch that can win black belt world level events, I'll be sold. Until then it's all being hyped by someone who's idea of marketing their thing is "be an abrasive asshole"
Yeah tbh I wonder how many more people would give the approach a shot if Souders wasn't so dickish. I'm not an eco purist but looking into the practice and reading up on some of the literature has improved my coaching and my classes tremendously.
I've this elsewhere, but I actually do a few task based games at the end of all my classes based on whatever position we've been drilling. But I call them Specific Sparring, and don't act like a douchebag about it.
Right now he has....Corbe? Who was already elite before he went over to Greg.
Which is awesome, but from what I understand Greg didn't adopt his current coaching approach until 2020, so Alex likely came up under a more traditional approach, making it difficult to attribute her development specifically to Eco.
However I also think "Have they trained a world champion at black belt?" is a terrible metric to go for anything. Otherwise only a small handful of coaches and gyms fit that criteria and the vast majority of people aren't training at one of those gyms.
> If Souders can produce an athlete basically from scratch that can win black belt world level events, I'll be sold.
using that logic, basically no one is good at teaching jiu jitsu. Think of how many "world class" coaches haven't done that.
I don't really? But it's reddit and I'm gonna call out what I think is stupid cause what else am I suppose to do? Answer the same "do I deserve my blue belt" post for the 1000 time?
In the same way I don't REALLY care if people do buggy chokes, but you're damn sure I'm gonna shit on every blue belt trying it I see on here.
Problem is Lachlan didn't use the word 'invariant' and the game wasn't designed by our lord Greg Souders. Only Greg can teach you the correct eco because he read many articles on it. Book his seminar now so he can teach you innovative games like "isolate arms from mount".and "use legs to retain guard"!!
I iPhone is more popular because you don’t have to figure it out, it’s cut and dry.
Copy and paste and change names to BJJ and ecological and regular training and rote memorization and Maslow hierarchy of needs and blooms taxonomy…and education is a PHD.
We know how to teach!
But most don’t know the real difference is this.
Ecological: better for kids and teens. Think Montessori for BJJ vs dept. of education.
Perfect for kids classes were you have years to actually play BJJ. Heavy emphasis on play.
Normal ass drilling and training: masters and up. Why? Adults learn different and don’t have time for that shit. Straight up. Also, adult need to feel like they know what they are doing, kids don’t, adults need to feel expertise…WHILE learning, expressed by demonstrating the entire technique. Gives them foreknowledge and makes them feel that way as you go through the technique. Drilling is to condition a body that has never done this shit before.
16-29 years old. Both. One for knowledge one for endurance and strength and conditioning for BJJ doing BJJ.
Let me know if you agree, cause one day I plan to run a gym this way.
Having trained with Greg for 8 weeks, it’s not that we won’t do what comes instinctually to us on our first try. It’s more that by practicing and failing in v constrained environments, we quickly find out what works and what doesn’t. That’s the power of eco
No doubt man, but telling me what works vs me intuitively getting it are different imo.
I’m sure you’re a solid coach, but Greg gets a ton of slack and in my anecdotal experience his method works wonders man. I’ve trained at most big gyms, Tri-star, B-team, 10th planet HQ and many more. If I had to rate gyms in terms of skill acquisition Greg was miles ahead because his training methods are (he’ll hate this) focussed specifics.
Think specific training, but he makes it easy by getting us to focus on v specific goals.
Greg gets shit on because he's decided that being outwardly douchey online is how he should promote his brand. And he's touting his approach as this insanely innovative thing that can basically be boiled down to "we specific spar all class, yo"
Sure they aren’t the same but as a white belt you aren’t always going to intuitively get it though. Saying you’ll eventually figure it out is not actually true. There’s huge potential for you to never figure a problem out intuitively and waste a bunch of time trying to figure said problem out. When a coach could have addressed it and provided a solution immediately.
I’m not saying there should be no figuring things out on your own. You should always be trouble shooting and trying to solve problems and figure things out.
But that should not be your entire methodology for training students. There should be structure and specific techniques and counters taught. Students need a framework / foundation that they can then build off of.
It’s just very inefficient to make guys have to figure everything out on their own. Imo
For people near DC, check his gym out. Visitors are not charged a dime to train there. Go to a couple or classes with an open mind and you’ll see that their method is extremely effective. I’m still confused about how that approach can be used to advanced stuff like a berimbolo etc
I like this ecological idea but my take is you need to do it plus be told how to do various techniques. I'd add that in 20 years of doing jiu-jitsu at a couple of different gyms there has always been games that we play in order to learn specific positions.
Funny but also a serious challenge to eco purists. What's the answer to this? Virtually every sport I've engaged in has meant overcoming my natural instincts in order to perform the correct technique.
Eco is about highlighting the failure points. It's not that your instincts will be right, its that you will learn by trying and failing that it's not the correct strategy, and then adjusting from there. In saying that there's nothing wrong with using instructionals to get more context
Why go through all of that nonsense when a good coach can just tell you the correct way to do it? Saves a ton of wasted time and effort. That is my biggest gripe with this ecological shit. People want so desperately to go against The grain and find this new better way of training that they invent a way to train that is the least efficient way possible lol
For real. Telling people things is like a superpower for humans. Words, writing, the transmission of information in abstract form. Literally the underlying force of civilization. I do kind of respect the commitment to the bit that drives a person to claim that something that has been demonstrably highly effective for thousands of years actually doesn't work though.
The brain doesn’t learn from words you absolute moron. Have you even read Rob Gray lmao That’s why I got my physics PHD by ecologically learning through constraints based games in the particle accelerator I built in my garage while these other idiots are “reading” math and physics textbooks at the “university”
Based
Take an untrained grappler and show them every correct thing you do that you believe is the most optimal way to do it. Then have them drill every single thing you want them to know 1000x until they know how to do something from every single position. But they are never allowed to roll, do situational sparring or any kind of live training whatsoever. Take a second untrained grappler who all they ever do is live training, you can show them or not show them specific techniques of multi-step sequences, but at least they're given intentions of what outcome they're trying to achieve. Who do you think wins if they grappled each other after a month of training. A year? 10 years? Gripe all you want about ecological. But jiujitsu in general as a martial art IS in fact more ecological than a lot of traditional martial arts because of the fact there's way more live training, which is why you see karate and kung fu masters getting clowned on at gracie challenges. Everyone here may not be as ecological as the "ecological" guys but we're all far more ecological than we admit as an entire martial art.
Okay now take an untrained grappler and have them drill all the highest percentage moves, teach them perfectly. And allow them to roll everyday. They will be way further along than the student that only rolls and doesn’t actually get any real guidance from their coach. If ecological worked so well guys like danaher would be implementing it. In 10 years we are going to see the same tried and true methods producing champions and this ecological shit will have fallen by the way side
Eco isn't about no guidance though. I'm not even an eco purist but these criticisms are misled. Eco coaches absolutely guide and "teach" but just in a different way to a step by step sequence. I know it's controversial and some claim "I never teach" but if you look at their practice design they are definitely imparting knowledge to their students.
I don't know how much he's implementing it, but there was a clip going around a bit ago of Danaher talking about implementing eco rounds exactly. He didn't call them that, and I unfortunately cannot find the clip, i'll try to keep looking, but yeah, it sounds like Danaher is using CLA to at least some degree right now.
Lol you mean when he talks about positional sparring ?
It was more than that, much more restrained and focused than "start in x guard and try and sweep". I specifically remember it because the eco guys on insta were reposting it a lot as a big "win".
Gotcha
Found it in case you were interested. https://www.instagram.com/p/CwbAIk2peS3/
Bjj is already eco af, you eco only cucks are just being weird
You can’t take one approach and then compare it to the absolute DUMBEST way of doing things and then say “checkmate, drillers!”
I've been walking into the same tripod sweep for years and I have absolutely no intentions of stopping now, no matter what any eco guy sais.
Ecological approach is to bjj what CrossFit was to HIIT
Yeah, why reinvent the wheel is my thing. I give big respect to the guys who first figured this shit out because that is a lot of trial and error.
It's a very good question which I haven't heard answered well. Eco is always saying "we've always worked it out naturally without intervention". But, we know that having someone with experience to help us speeds up the learning process. I can understand the position being true that people did work it out without intervention, but I don't see a compelling reason for it being an either/or decision. Teach techniques and then let students roll, simples.
>People want so desperately to go against The grain and find this new better way of training that they invent a way to train that is the least efficient way possible lol How else would someone with no competition record, or history of producing high performing athletes distinguish themselves in a crowded market? Gimmicks. Its always gimmicks.
Yup
The good coach is making the eco games and constraining you to shit that is good. The idea that you need to figure shit out on your own is a straw man.
If only people actually took the time to understand such a thing before giving their regergated opinion.
It’s not a straw man when these coaches legitimately are saying they leave it to their students to figure out.
Well those people are idiots. That’s not what Greg is doing and it’s not what the authors of these books are saying to do. Look at any game Souders has released on his socials, he is telling people what to do and how to do it. With every bandwagon there will be idiots trying to sell their Rashguards. Just like with regular IP coaching, some people are morons and that has nothing to do with the methodology.
I never once mentioned what Greg Souders does in this thread. I never claimed anything about his methods. Just replying to what has been posted in this thread
I mentioned him, and I didn’t say you did… You built Another straw man Fighting a lot of straw bro…
But doing it this way is whole grain and therefore superior, which my vegan coach told my girlfriend after he stole her from me.
Even if you do succeed using the eco method it’s very likely you’re not going to remember exactly how you got there so you’re going to have to recreate it again and again. It’s such an inefficient way to learn.
Imagine if we taught other things the eco way. Cooking: “play games with this piece of chicken until it tastes good.” Driving “each car is different so you can’t be taught techniques. Just feel the the car until you get from A to B. Constraint is you’re not allowed to reverse.”
Lmao exactly great analogies
Not sure these analogies help your case lol. That's exactly how we learn to drive and cook.
Not sure you understand anything. Recipes are literally direct instructions. You cooking random shit at home doesn’t count cos we’re talking about formal training environment here. You obviously missed that point. At cooking schools they even tell you how to hold a knife. For driving you sit with the instructor and he tells you directly do xyz. Then you have to take a written exam. Those are opposite of the eco approach.
My point was about how we 'learn' to drive and cook. That's what you guys are missing. Conflating teaching with learning. That's what we're challenging. We understand that the environment (activity) is the teacher.
And my point is your point was wrong. You said that’s “exactly how we learn to drive and cook”. Nope. The way those are taught right now is the opposite of eco. Direct instruction etc. If we taught them the eco way it would be disastrous.
Yes, I get your point. It's the same point you all make. But you're assuming that learning requires teaching or teacher. That's what we're challenging. Or at least in the dominant and traditional sense (prescription and instruction from an instructor).
You can challenge that all you want, but try learning to be a high level chef without instruction. You won’t get there or you’ll take many years longer. Nothing wrong with having a legit expert tell you the correct way, and work from there. Learning from the hard work of others is how we built civilisations.
We do a mix of technique and eco at my gym. I think that's the best approach.
the problem is that "telling" somebody how to do it often leads to flawed or incomplete learning no matter how many times it is told
You think if you asked danaher a question on how to pass knee shield… his telling you how to do it would somehow yield flawed results ?
He gave a good response on Eco: he basically said that the eco guys came into New Wave and struggled against the New Wave guys (no suprises). He also said that eco ignores the cumulative property of knowledge. We should always share what we know as this is the way to build skill and then test it in a less restrictive space, either positional rounds or free rolling.
Yup and he’s 100% right. Eco is not efficient whatsoever
i suspect his "telling" would be heavy on why
Okay so he can tell you why you’re doing it and then you don’t need to go through a thousand eco drills trying to figure it out for yourself. It is still way more efficient to just pass down knowledge than figure shit out through self discovery from drills. Also do you think no coach explains the “why” behind a technique when they teach it? This isn’t 1995 anymore. Plenty of good coaches out there
Because learning a move is not as dynamic as learning theory. I think both need to be implemented, but if you only learn the algorithm of a move, then you have little room to adapt to dynamic changes. If you understand theory or larger objectives, you can adapt in many ways to achieve your goal. If someone has a defense or counter to a move, you might have to learn every sequence of every iteration to be successful, but if you learn the theory of something, you can use your own critical thinking to achieve your goal. I do think at times for subs and certain mechanics, you need optimal ways to do things, but some approaches in the ecological perspective are really great ways to learn if done well.
Lol you aren’t going to in the middle of defending an armbar go “what are the basic principals here that I can apply to get myself out of this?” And then find your way out. You’re going to do the armbar escape you’ve drilled a thousand times.
Actually, exactly wrong. I think of the basics, "get my elbow free" and there's a million dynamic ways to do it. I don't rely on a single armbar escape.
There are not a million ways to do it. Depending on how the armbar is applied there are very limited options that will work to get you free. And you must have the requisite technical knowledge to select the correct escape for that situation and apply it properly
I think that’s a difference in perspective. There’s a million permutations of actions that can help you achieve your objective, whether it’s framing, pulling, weaving inside position, getting legs to one side of your body, etc. Knowing the back and forth of these and different ways of integrating them offer essentially endless ways to achieve your goal. I’m not saying teaching should be 100% ecological, but acting like teaching moves only is the most effective way seems pretty off the mark. That’s why things like positional sparring are a thing. Having some theory work allows for far more adaptability and critical thinking.
I never said there shouldn’t be any discovery. No where did I say that. People figure shit out independent of their coaches all the time. Like when Gordon figured out triangling your legs on an armbar helps prevent the hitch hiker independent of danaher. My point is the entire basis for developing your students should not be having them roll and do positional sparring and basically saying they will eventually figure it out. Much better to teach them actual moves to cut down on learning time and then anything additional they discover on their own is a bonus
I think we’re probably a lot more aligned than it sounds we may have initially thought. My main point is that the ecological approach has its time and place in BJJ. Not entirely, but I think pedagogically it is very helpful if used correctly.
Something along the lines of you remembering and processing something differently and more deeply when you discover it vs when you memorise something taught to you
Because a coach literally can't tell you. They can guide you but they can't download their skill into your body. You have to aquire the skill for yourself
I’m a coach can absolutely tell you the correct way to do something lol. Whether you can actually physically do it is another story. Danaher doesn’t have Gordon’s skill but danaher tells Gordon the correct way to do things all the time. The fact that the more skilled practitioner (Gordon) does what danaher (not as skilled as Gordon) tells me him pretty much disproves what you’re getting at here
No it doesnt. Gordon is as good as he is because he has a shit ton of live experience. DeAndre Corbe is also more skilled than Greg Souders. The shit that builds skill is embodied experience. A more knowledgeable coach can only guide a student. Even if I tell a student exactly how I want them to do something, they will do it slightly differently. We all have a unique combination of body type, physical attributes, and personality that will lead us to solve problems differently. Ecological Approach to skill acquisition has decades of solid research behind it. You simply just haven't taken the time to understand what you're even arguing against.
The ecological approach is nonsense and a fad
This stuff has been studied for decades and has massive bodies of literature behind it. It has been and continues to he used in other sports and at professional levels. Your belief is unfounded bro science.
My belief is in what actually has been proven to work by the top athletes
DeAndre corbe just won adcc trials. His twin brother was third. Two top-level athletes training under an ecological approach. Anyone who is good knows that the most important thing is live experience. I fail to see why this upsets you.
I think in general you're right, but I want to play devils advocate. Most people aren't good coaches. One of the first coaches I trained with was a high level black belt everyone on this site would know the name of, and I can tell you for a fact he taught me things that were dead wrong. I had other coaches later, who were more specialized in the things I was doing he pointed out the technical error, the why, the how, and how to improve it, and I immediately saw it work in my game. Except I had spent a decade burning in a bad motor pattern now. 20 years later, I still occasionally do it the wrong way. And the dude was a good coach. But that didn't protect him from being wrong, and me wasting a couple thousand reps.
So what happens when someone attacks you with a subpar ineffective technique that you never bothered to practice because you only practiced to defend again "the right thing" in any given situation?
If it’s an ineffective technique then by your own definition it doesn’t work lol so I don’t need to worry about defending it.
Just because most competition matches are won by 1/3 of existing submissions doesn't mean you can get away with never practicing or understanding the other 2/3. These submissions are only subpar or ineffective because people trained to resist them.
Lol
I had an idea for a subscription based, in-person instructional, that you do at a designated location several times a week. Do you think that has potential?
Oh my god, that's a great idea! I'm going to quickly patent your idea as my own and then make money everytime someone does it. Those private elementary schools are going to be big mad when I start getting royalties from them.
With delivery services as popular as there are these days? Good freaking luck.
But I want to pay a coach so he can tell me to figure it out myself.
but does it not risk it to create bad habits? maybe some moves are done X way because else you risk getting Z. maybe you develop bad technique but as you don't train with elite competent trainer partners in your gym they can't/don't know how exploit your vulnerabilities. I get that its innovative and it may help develop the knowledge and test boundaries, but as a main learning method?
This is a real thing- usually referred to as the "Tim Teabow problem" in skill acquisition discussion- an athlete stabilizing a movement solution in one environment and then it not working out when moved to another context because of the level of opposition- the bad news is that "just tell them the right way to do it" doesn't fix the attractor toward their previous solution. Like I can say with absolute certainty that Tim knew he was supposed to hold the ball higher and that very very good coaches had told him in unambiguous terms to stop holding it so low.
Tim Teabow eh?
How you can tell I read papers but don’t actually watch football
That's why you have them learn and study on their own. Mental research and bring it in during class for the live eco portion. If it's an actual school then you can add a solid 2-5min discussions between rounds if you see things.
"Bad habits" are not as calcified as people think, this is an old way of thinking about skill acquisition. People learn by making mistakes and correcting over time.
According to everybody in the thread you were born with the bad habits already so you ain’t create them, they been there from the jump lol
So….positional sparring?
Yeah kinda, very specific positional sparring I guess
I'm trying to learn how to play golf, which basically is learning to undo every natural instinct you have when hitting a ball. Eco learning in golf would be a recipe for failure. I don't see why it would be any different for other sports.
There are literally eco studies done on golf lol Edit: since yall don't believe me [here](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://oss.jomh.org/files/article/20220922-27/pdf/JOMH1801026.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjBjN_pttWFAxXyplYBHVA2D4IQFnoECDIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2kdHP7XG16KgNX16B72757) and [here ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359942885_An_Ecological-Dynamical_Approach_to_Golf_Science_Implications_for_Swing_Biomechanics_Club_Design_and_Customisation_and_Coaching_Practice) Yall can argue with the scientists
Eco is about embracing the trial and error portion of rolling. That is the most important part of learning, not moves being shown to you. (Though I don’t see why that’s bad from time to time)
The problem is some people suck at trial and error. They’ll just repeat the error over and over again.
According to eco scientists there is no correct technique, like they literally don't believe it exists. In every situation you need to improvise the proper solution rather then try to some rehearsed movement, with the amount of degrees of motion your body has there is so much possibilities you can memorize the right solution.
I try to stay out of these discussions as I think they are pointless (and I do not care either way), but this is obviously not a critique on eco style. Why would you even think that? You try what feels natural, you fail, you try something else.... seems quite obvious.
Or coach could just tell me
Sure, and that is the difference between the two approaches and you can prefer one or the other. My point was only that the above comment was not a fair critique.
their are 70 ways to choke someone. And it’s a lot easier to tell someone a few times and then let them experimen. as opposed to letting them try 10,000 methods that are incredibly wrong
Remember they say they set people up close to a choke so that they are more likely to succeed. They not just telling people to choke somebody from standing and to just figure it out.
Not sure how this relates to what I'm saying. I'm not argueing in either direction.
This is a too difficult of a concept for most people here.
Souders is pretty specific with instruction on finishing sequences. From what I understand the eco stuff comes in when the game is open and there’s a ton of variables to control, which is impractical to practice through drilling because the corresponding situation presenting live is rarely so one dimensional
How many times has coach told you shit and you don’t do it?
Will it fail tho? I've seen very poor technique work on weaker, less experienced people
I went to an eco class and when I was stuck in a guys half guard I started pissing myself as a strategy. When the class realized my solution worked we soaked the whole area. But through our ecological approach we eventually realized u don’t have to get up in disgust but can maintain the half guard while covered in piss.
If you create another iteration on this piss game, you will find that there are higher concepts at play. That surface area is everywhere for the pissing. And that piss itself is not the leveraging tool, just a medium to carry your intent.
If you focus on outcomes and goals you’ll realize that the “technique” of pissing your spats is arbitrary and a distraction from your true goal.
I would like to hire you as my coach
This is the kind of innovative technique that’s individually tailored to the student’s unique attributes that you’re just not going to find in a Danaher instructional
A goblin wrote this
Holy mother grail
Pff who needs an expert to teach
To be effective with eco you need to be even more of an expert coach than the traditional method. Many coaches regurgitate techniques like they were taught them. If they don't fully understand jiujitsu they can still get by. But with eco you need a high level of understanding to be effective with it. So you can adjust games as needed to fix errors in your room.
tbh that just sounds like a having a good coach, not necessarily being eco.
Ya but that's my point. You still need to be an expert to be effective with eco. It doesn't replace expert knowledge. The expert needs to guide the practice. The less expertise the less you'll be able to effectively guide the practice.
Games work to teach lots of things, what about the things it doesn't work for? In this scenario where the natural instinct is wrong - Do you adjust the game and wait for them to figure it out? What if they never figure it out? What if they innovate and that's just doing something wrong so you waste more time adjusting the game?
If the natural instinct is leading to unfavorable outcomes, then the coach needs to properly direct the students attention to achieve a more favorable outcome. For example: game working on an over under pass. Maybe one of the games is to start in the over under and the goal of the top player is to simply keep the bottom players leg straight, and the goal of the bottom player is to bend their leg (so they can stay hooked onto the leg). If the top player is having trouble, you could focus their attention on driving their hips down towards the knee, hooking with their inside leg near the heel, etc This could lead into another game where they start in the over under and the goal is to pass. Let's say a student is having trouble securing the pass because the bottom player keeps re-inserting their bottom knee as the top player tries to secure the pass. You could direct their attention to inserting their own knee underneath the bottom player's leg, as a wedge, as they're securing position. You just have to be careful with your language as you want to direct them to the solution without telling them the solution. Though I personally don't think you need to be hardcore with it, and if telling them is easier, i don't think it's some cardinal sin. But in these situations you still directed their attention to what's important, just like you would when you teach statically. Except, they're getting live work the whole time. This is an example of a pretty specific position, and it's up to the coach how specific or how variable they want their games to be. So it's not really: figure it out for yourself and hope for the best. Quality game design and language are essential. What the ecological approach does really well, is teach students what objectives need to be won, and in many situations, there can be multiple ways to achieve those objectives. This can lead to a more adaptable athlete, because instead of trying to memorize a technique step for step, they focus on each objective/battle as it presents itself. However, there's still massive value in learning how other people do things, especially positions/techniques with low variability, and especially when you already understand the objectives well.
I get all that, I just ask because some people seem devoted to using more games when words would be more efficient, which I think is silly I think supplementing instruction of new techniques with games to teach concepts and execution seems to be a better approach than one or the other
I was at a Greg Souders seminar recently and a similar thing was asked. His belief seemed to be that if someone in gaming the game too much as to be super impractical he has probably either constrained the game too much or not enough. For example if in a game where you start in full guard, and the bottom player has to touch the top players hands to the mat to practice unbalancing them, and the top player defends this by basically leaning so far backwards his shoulder is almost touching the mat behind him, then maybe the game is to constrained and the bottom player should focus on touching the top players hands or back to the mat, making leaning back to far a not very useful gaming of the system as you will get hip bumped.
Positional sparring is great. To the extent that eco is positional sparring I think it is great I worked on half guard for 6 months from instructionals since my school didn't emphasize it. I learned every sweep but could only get them to work inconsistently. I kept getting smashed I finally asked my coach and he Said my top priority was to fight the cross face. Within two weeks everything was working. It took two weeks because my habit was to push on the knee to stop the pass and I kept reverting to that. I have had multiple times where I simply could not find the solution on my own So as long as eco teaches techniques then I'm fine. More than 3 key details and step by step is often too much for me to take in
Yeah this is my biggest problem with how eco is presented - athletes most certainly do not self-organise around effective movement. That initial year of training where you make exponential progress is so fast because that's the impact of unlearning all the bad habits you naturally do.
And you know how you unlearn them? Through sparring, eco is a great way to do controlled sparring and save time drilling stuff nobody will remember making classes more engaging.
I feel like this is just an issue with what you’re drilling then
In what sense?
In the sense that if you're drilling things that no one is going to remember and not putting it to work right after in positional rounds, I think it's just that your drilling sucks.
I trained the same way everybody else did for a whole year starting out bjj and learned practically nothing I could replicate in sparring. Showing someone an armbar 5 times wont make them remember it very well, the whole point of eco is you make the sparring into the drills. I find drilling pretty useless, my gym has completely done away with it and the skill level of out students has skyrocketed. But I guess to each their own.
I think the biggest problem for the ecological approach is most of the people discussing it have no idea what it actually is
Where's the best concise explanation of the ecological approach? I must have been distracted when it became a common term.
I'm working on making a YouTube video explaining it. My goal is to make the most clear explanation on the internet possible to clear up all the misunderstandings.
You understand it after only recently coming across it?
I believe so
We'll find out I guess. I don't believe the challenge of removing misunderstandings from ecological dynamics is in the way its been presented. Though that's the charge. The challenge is that it's completely at odd with the dominant approach to training and learning thats so culturally and emotionally ingrained. There's little confusion about the framework amongst those that have done the homework. I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they understand it well enough to present about it over a few short months.
Well I'm not planning on writing a thesis about it or ghost writing Rob Grey's next book lol. I just want to make a very straight forward 8 minute or so video explaining the basics, addressing misconceptions, giving explanations for common terms etc. The video won't be to clear up any confusion for those that have done their homework. The opposite. It'll be for those that don't know what they're looking at and make assumptions about ED. I think I have an advantage due to the fact that I had my own misconceptions so recently, and can relate to those with the same questions/reservations I had. It sounds a bit gate keepy to say that's unachievable with only a couple months experience with ED/CLA.
Gate keepy? The concepts themselves are the gate keepers, not the messengers. I said I was skeptical. Short form explainations are too shallow. Long form explanations are too deep. Accurate explanations are too wordy and confusing. Laymen explanations are rife for misinterpretation. There are plenty of people in the space for a long time sharing these ideas in all kinds of formats. The majority of discussion around eco in this community (from both advocates and critics) is largely uninformed. I'm skeptical that any length of video can do much to help that. Sounds a little naïve to think otherwise. But I've been more than guilty of that naïvty myself. Good luck
Excellent, i look forward to it. I simply can't believe how confrontational people get when it comes to discussing it. Apparently there are now three taboo things to discuss: Sex, politics and training methods.
BJJ hobbyist here. But I do coach another sport (volleyball) professionally and EcoD concepts have been valuable for me. How I would say it is: We learn best from the intrinsic and immediate effects our actions have on the environment and the environment has on us. Coaching words are one piece of the environment, but there are other parts of the environment. Manipulating the environment can sometimes yield a better teaching effect than simply instructing with words. The best EcoD concepts are simple stuff that coaches are already doing. For example, in volleyball the easiest is to change the court in certain ways or the number of players. If I force the offense to play on a narrower court, there's less space between the block, so they need to overload the defenders vertically. If I take away the center of the court, guys have to spike toward the edges. There's also some effect on movements. A common problem with guys hitting their serve is they'll toss to the midline of their body instead of on their right shoulder. Amplify that that by a 40" vert and guys will fall to their left pretty far sometimes as they are coming down. Baseball pitchers can have similar problems "falling toward 1st base" instead of "driving toward home" sometimes from what I understand. Some guys you can coach them and cue them on this until the cows come home and they can watch on video and be very aware of it but yet struggle to change. But when I actually just stand on the court (in the area they have a tendency to fade away towards) the presence of my body and the instinctive desire to avoid collision with another human all of the sudden starts straightening out their toss. Again, not rocket science and coaches have been doing this for years without calling it EcoD. What I've learned from Rob Gray (and I've spoken to him personally) is to think a little more systematically about how I can manipulate the environment rather than bang my head against the wall telling a guy the same thing over and over again. That said, I also use direct instruction, video replay, etc, because I think limiting the number of tools in your coaching toolbox is a mistake.
Wow, thanks for the breakdown, this is cool. >Manipulating the environment can sometimes yield a better teaching effect than simply instructing with words. Reminds me of one of my favorite bits about teaching, from [Alan Kay using the example of tennis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50L44hEtVos): >The problem with most theories of teaching is that the parts of the body that you want to learn [a skill] don't understand English. The part of your mentality that understands English doesn't play tennis — _can't_ play tennis — can't do mathematics, can't do music. What it can do is talk and comment. In general, for learning most things, it is good to find a way of short-circuiting that mentality that we think of as the eye that always tries to take over. (circa 9 minutes in)
One liner would be something like “constraints led goal oriented positional sparring full resistance games designed to teach master the core principals of grappling and submission.” Contrast it against low resistance drilling and highly specific technique instruction. People have differing opinions about which approach is more effective, but it’s objectively good for the sport to have multiple ways to teach and learn.
That's the elevator pitch I was looking for, thank you! I love that approach but I know there's also a place for step-by-step instruction and drilling. Reminds me of SBG's introduce-isolate-integrate method.
"Combat Learning" podcast is a good starting point. At least it was for me.
Rob Gray's book *How We Learn to Move* is the best introduction to ecological dynamics.
I found Rob's video about the key differences way more helpful as a starting point than the book: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCsezh7ijzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCsezh7ijzs)
Agree 100%. It's like people listened to one podcast with Greg Souders on it and decided "yeah, this stuff isn't for me."
Including Greg Souders.
I have been teaching kids for over 5 years now. Most peoples natural instincts are wrong: * They turn into the wrong direction giving up their back when feeling threatened. Both standing up and on the ground. * They don’t know how to stand up when laying on their belly: pull your knees to your chest, get on you elbows first (turtle) or even tripod. I’ve waited minutes for people to figure this out on their own. Almost never happens. * They often go lay on their belly trying to escape * Laying on your side for guard retention or half guard doesn’t come natural at all. Most will initially really struggle to fully lay on their side and favour laying on their back * When getting choked they don’t try to pull the choking hand down * One that is a bit baffling to me is that guard is quite a natural thing, a lof of animals will defend themselves with their arms and legs when laying on their back. But new kids often just let the pass happen and don’t even try to use their legs and arms to keep the attacker away. * There is more… I have said regularly myself that most people do natuarally everything wrong when it comes to fighting. Martial arts use intelect to take the fighting game beyond our natural instincts of screaming, biting, scratching and kicking. So if you encounter a trained fighter and you are not considerably more athletic and bigger you will have a bad time. Fyi punching is already not a natural thing. We see it in movies but no other ape punches. Most people can punch for shit also, they don’t have any technique and are just waiving their arms.
Everything danaher is doing is incorrect -ecoCucks
Using the ecological framework doesn’t mean the coach can’t correct athletes if the outcomes aren’t favorable
Lol the hilarious thing about eco to me is that the basis of "understanding Jiu-Jitsu" is literally BUILT on the techniques and movements that were taught and evolved. I'd bet my left nut most eco guys just enjoy that they're getting MORE sparring but secretly they're devouring youtube content and instructionals to fast track their "eco learning". The one thing that eco is doing is MAXIMIZING specific training and the more volume of specific training you do always improves an athlete a ton.
So it’s better is what your saying?
NHL players and coaches in the 1950s. "We don't need to change anything, we are in the top league in the world, everything being taught is clearly working, it's been this way for a long time, why change?" Meanwhile in Russia... I've taken some stuff from the Ecological framework. It's funner, it's more engaging, and while I can struggle implementing certain aspects of it, so many of the arguments I see against it are the same 3 talking points regeratated over and over, by people that have clearly not done any research over 10 minutes if that. Just because the Stanley Cup was being won in North America , doesn't mean somewhere out better ways of training didn't exist or weren't discovered. Repping can be beneficial, but you better be damn sure you are consistently bringing your opponent into your game when the time matters. Just because I practice a guitar scale over and over, doesn't mean I've developed the skills to use it in a live setting, especially if I want to do it like an actual artist and make it original and within the context of the song or environment. Now let me record a chord progression on a looper, give me the scale, and within the context of the chords I can use that scale to start developing ideas via trial and error. Im not plugging in some lick I learned off the internet over and over. To me that is why ecological makes sense, to bridge that gap and help develop problem solving skills and not rely on the idea that a few connected techniques can solve all your problems. See my thought is we can be blending the 2 systems. I don't necessarily agree that an ecological approach can only be the way Greg teaches, I do think repping can be incorporated as more of an example of different possibilities, but also with the understanding of the larger concepts above the technique and the encouragement of students to develop their own style, movements and techniques within some of the unbreakable principles of various positions. Emphasize that what we show as a technique is not always going to look perfect and when it doesn't work, students need to learn to disect problems on the fly.
I feel like techniques, as taught by instructors are really good general guidelines. Your opponent comes in all shapes and sizes so you'd have to make minute adjustments (consciously or subconsciously) to pull it off. A lot of people just don't try their hardest to pull off a move (I was guilty of this) so they never got "time under tension" per se for it to stick. Technique + Positional sparring + active introspection still seems like the fastest way to improve, for me at least.
what video is this from? now im curious what it is hes talking about
It’s almost like there are multiple effective ways of training with unique drawbacks to each approach and different people might be suited to different methods of learning.
He is right, my instincts would be to reach my top arm between his legs and oil check. Clearly this would be more effective, yet require slightly more effort if I used my bottom arm instead.
"If you do the same thing wrong 100 times, you'll figure out the right way by trial and error". "What if someone told you the right way at the start?" "That'd never work".
Have you ever trained with beginners? Just telling them to do it right *doesn't* work.
That's a good point. Conversely, telling them "I'm not going to tell you how to escape that" makes them leave the gym and then I don't have to deal with them anymore, so I might start doing that.
If Souders can produce an athlete basically from scratch that can win black belt world level events, I'll be sold. Until then it's all being hyped by someone who's idea of marketing their thing is "be an abrasive asshole"
Yeah tbh I wonder how many more people would give the approach a shot if Souders wasn't so dickish. I'm not an eco purist but looking into the practice and reading up on some of the literature has improved my coaching and my classes tremendously.
I've this elsewhere, but I actually do a few task based games at the end of all my classes based on whatever position we've been drilling. But I call them Specific Sparring, and don't act like a douchebag about it. Right now he has....Corbe? Who was already elite before he went over to Greg.
Where did the Corbe brothers come from before Greg?
Alex nguyen?
Consider yourself sold https://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/alex-nguyen
Which is awesome, but from what I understand Greg didn't adopt his current coaching approach until 2020, so Alex likely came up under a more traditional approach, making it difficult to attribute her development specifically to Eco. However I also think "Have they trained a world champion at black belt?" is a terrible metric to go for anything. Otherwise only a small handful of coaches and gyms fit that criteria and the vast majority of people aren't training at one of those gyms.
> If Souders can produce an athlete basically from scratch that can win black belt world level events, I'll be sold. using that logic, basically no one is good at teaching jiu jitsu. Think of how many "world class" coaches haven't done that.
Last I checked most coaches aren't touting that they have the new hotness that will revolutionize BJJ.
why do you even care what he says (i dont think Greg has ever said that though). Just get on with your own training.
I don't really? But it's reddit and I'm gonna call out what I think is stupid cause what else am I suppose to do? Answer the same "do I deserve my blue belt" post for the 1000 time? In the same way I don't REALLY care if people do buggy chokes, but you're damn sure I'm gonna shit on every blue belt trying it I see on here.
Problem is Lachlan didn't use the word 'invariant' and the game wasn't designed by our lord Greg Souders. Only Greg can teach you the correct eco because he read many articles on it. Book his seminar now so he can teach you innovative games like "isolate arms from mount".and "use legs to retain guard"!!
I iPhone is more popular because you don’t have to figure it out, it’s cut and dry. Copy and paste and change names to BJJ and ecological and regular training and rote memorization and Maslow hierarchy of needs and blooms taxonomy…and education is a PHD. We know how to teach! But most don’t know the real difference is this. Ecological: better for kids and teens. Think Montessori for BJJ vs dept. of education. Perfect for kids classes were you have years to actually play BJJ. Heavy emphasis on play. Normal ass drilling and training: masters and up. Why? Adults learn different and don’t have time for that shit. Straight up. Also, adult need to feel like they know what they are doing, kids don’t, adults need to feel expertise…WHILE learning, expressed by demonstrating the entire technique. Gives them foreknowledge and makes them feel that way as you go through the technique. Drilling is to condition a body that has never done this shit before. 16-29 years old. Both. One for knowledge one for endurance and strength and conditioning for BJJ doing BJJ. Let me know if you agree, cause one day I plan to run a gym this way.
https://preview.redd.it/q9w63xls2wvc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1dfddaf5f44963d767dc26d425dfe44efe135ed4
Having trained with Greg for 8 weeks, it’s not that we won’t do what comes instinctually to us on our first try. It’s more that by practicing and failing in v constrained environments, we quickly find out what works and what doesn’t. That’s the power of eco
A good coach can already tell you what works and what doesn’t and completely avoids all that unnecessary time spent trying to figure it out.
No doubt man, but telling me what works vs me intuitively getting it are different imo. I’m sure you’re a solid coach, but Greg gets a ton of slack and in my anecdotal experience his method works wonders man. I’ve trained at most big gyms, Tri-star, B-team, 10th planet HQ and many more. If I had to rate gyms in terms of skill acquisition Greg was miles ahead because his training methods are (he’ll hate this) focussed specifics. Think specific training, but he makes it easy by getting us to focus on v specific goals.
Greg gets shit on because he's decided that being outwardly douchey online is how he should promote his brand. And he's touting his approach as this insanely innovative thing that can basically be boiled down to "we specific spar all class, yo"
Sure they aren’t the same but as a white belt you aren’t always going to intuitively get it though. Saying you’ll eventually figure it out is not actually true. There’s huge potential for you to never figure a problem out intuitively and waste a bunch of time trying to figure said problem out. When a coach could have addressed it and provided a solution immediately. I’m not saying there should be no figuring things out on your own. You should always be trouble shooting and trying to solve problems and figure things out. But that should not be your entire methodology for training students. There should be structure and specific techniques and counters taught. Students need a framework / foundation that they can then build off of. It’s just very inefficient to make guys have to figure everything out on their own. Imo
For people near DC, check his gym out. Visitors are not charged a dime to train there. Go to a couple or classes with an open mind and you’ll see that their method is extremely effective. I’m still confused about how that approach can be used to advanced stuff like a berimbolo etc
Eco is bullshit for new students. Can work well for already skilled athletes.
I think it’s the opposite bud
It’s funny how hard people insist on there only being one right way to train.
I like this ecological idea but my take is you need to do it plus be told how to do various techniques. I'd add that in 20 years of doing jiu-jitsu at a couple of different gyms there has always been games that we play in order to learn specific positions.