just got rodrigo gracie 'path to black belt'. reading the section regarding choosing a school i was reminded of the debate on here. many were arguing that a person must compete in order to be considered a legitimate bjj practitioner. wow! that is not what rodrigo thinks. he breaks down three categories of shcools: self defense, competition and regular people who want to learn but not compete.
is rodrigo gracie wrong about this? is he a mcdojo guy?
I confirm that Rodrigo is NOT a McDojo guy.
He is just saying students want different things. I think if you ask him what he thinks you need to be an instructor he'll probably recommend some competition.
But again, there are truly great guys who don't compete. If they are that good the word will get out and you'll know they're legit. John Danaher comes to mind as a great guy who doesn't compete.
Formal competition is one way to gauge legitamcy. It's a good way but not the only way.
he recommends competition record if you want to compete. he says its not necessary. but if you want to compete it might help to have an instructor who is into that. but not necessary.
I respect him tremendously, but I suspect that he is being polite with his answer, or he is thinking of someone like John Danaher who rolls up top level guys even though he doesnt compete. I guarantee he isnt talking about someone who only has theoretical knowledge.
no, man. that is not what he says. it is very flexible. he says that 'a great instructor is not simply defined as someone who has great technical knowledge but also his ability to work with the class, relating to students, managing relationships, etc.'
'an impressive competition record is valueless if the instructor can not explain the techs and the reasons he uses them.
he gives none of the reasons for competition that you guys were giving such as it helps you deal with pressure, if you cant handle stress of comp. then you cant handle street fights.
in fact, he says quite clearly and explains at length that people can study and benifit from bjj without competing.
no disrespect , andre, but there is no reason for you to suspect what he meant. he says it quite clearly.
Interesting. No disrespect taken, man. Definitely not. I just find it ironic that someone like him who is such a competitor and trains with such incredible competitors would not see the value in it (regardless of the goals of the student).
"'an impressive competition record is valueless if the instructor can not explain the techs and the reasons he uses them."
I agree with that, but I dont think it is an either/or situation. Someone who doesnt compete isnt any better equipped to explain the techs and reasons that someone who competes is. Nor is someone who competes at ANY disadvantage to learn how to explain the techs and reasons.
Anyway, I disagree with Rodrigo, but respect him immensely.
i found it really interesting that he makes the distiction between helio's generation of jiu jitsu and today's generation. he explains that people think that you need to have the technical knowledge of today's mundial champion to be a black belt in bjj. not so. that type of career is a choice but not a necessity for black belt status. helios jiu jitsu did not include the complex half guard and butterfly guard and various other techniques. its as if there are various streams of technical proficiency or various paths one can take to achieve black belt status. it depends on your goals as a bjj practitioner.
That is very interesting, man. I have no idea why Ive neglected to buy the book so far. It seems like it is exactly the type of book Id like.
I've got to pick that up sometime, too. Just haven't had the cash lately. 
The cool thing about the book that seperates it from others is its theoritical base. The information is shown from a philosophical standpoint instead of just technical. The techniques are the same in all the Kid Peligro done books, but it is grouped by emphasis.
"'an impressive competition record is valueless if the instructor can not
explain the techs and the reasons he uses them."
I agree with that, but I dont think it is an either/or situation. Someone
who doesnt compete isnt any better equipped to explain the techs and
reasons that someone who competes is. Nor is someone who competes at
ANY disadvantage to learn how to explain the techs and reasons."
Totally agree with Andre here. I think like most rules there are a few
exceptions, Danaher is one of these very few exceptions. I have taken
class from him and seen him on the mat and he is the real deal, but are
there others? He is the only example people come up with this debate
surfaces.
The big problem with coming up with examples is skeptics will say "proove it". Especially since many of us feel that training is just that, and a tap in the room, is not the same as in a tourney. While I agree with that, it does lead to difficulty when discussing this topic.
Also, wouldn't it appear rude for someone to come on here and start listing all the good competitors either they or their friend has done well against in training.
". helios jiu jitsu did not include the complex half guard and butterfly guard and various other techniques. its as if there are various streams of technical proficiency or various paths one can take to achieve black belt status. it depends on your goals as a bjj practitione"
and it still dont,but you can compete on a high level
with the old mans teachings
Experience is always the best teacher. Many achievers are by nature critical of others who equally don't achieve like them. An example is a successful business guy who questions the value of a college professor teaching business that has not achieved in the real world. BJJ guys that compete seem to put a lot of value in that part of the BJJ promotion formula. I don't think it is a question of what is right or wrong but more about personal beliefs.
So one of the questions here is: are there some things that can only be learned through direct experience? Is there some learning that occurs only on an experiential level that cannot be conveyed in the theoretical?
Certainly there is that belief as people will seek out the world champion for learning probably before the other guy. Doesn't the other guy always wonder how good they really are? From my observation people who don't compete and teach seem to really try connect themselves with the competitors that do.
Competition is for competitors. If you don't have a competitors desire or heart than you shouldn't compete.
This is my view.
People speak about competition as if competition in and of itself makes on "good" or enables on to "handle" pressure etc. Competition does neither. It is the "preparation" for competition that does those things and more.
See, the problem with just compelling people to compete is, more often than not those, who "lack" the heart and desire for competition will go into competition with nothing but fear and anxiety and come out of it with nothing but fear and anxiety.
You don't use competition as therapy to deal with certain issues like fear anxiety. Competition is meant and design specifically to pit and test ones skills/abilities against others of similar size, age, weigh and ability.
The goal in competition is to do ones best, so much so that one will win. There is a possibility one won't win BUT if one puts in their best effort then ones striving won't be in vain.
And in order to ensure that one will put in their best effort one will (if they are serious about competition and have both the heart and desire for it) trained, practice, and prepare to the best of ones ability BEFORE one even enters the competition mat.
Luck favors the prepared!
The problem with compelling people to compete especially those who don't have the heart nor desire and are fearful will never learn to probably prepare themselves FOR competition which will enable them to do their best in competition. And good and proper preparation makes all the difference. I tell you right now alot of people would do much much better in competition if they prepared themselves better. Alot of people would go into competition with less fear and anxiety IF they simple prepare very well. But alot of people don't. They don't deal with their issues before they compete and go into competition with all those issues and then wonder why they don't do well.
If you're not a competitor than don't compete.
"So one of the questions here is: are there some things that can only be learned through direct experience? Is there some learning that occurs only on an experiential level that cannot be conveyed in the theoretical?"
You can convey principles, techniques, strategies, etc. People can get value from teachers in this manner. However, it doesn't change that experience is the best teacher in my opinion.
Take competition as an example. You can be the biggest stud in the gym. Until you deal with the emotional components of competition, you really don't know how you did do in a competition setting. Experience deals with the application of information to achieve a result. Can a teacher prepare someone for competition and show value? ABSOLUTELY. However, there are limitations to what they can share to prepare someone if they have not done it before.
Anyway, that is my two cents.
I agree very much with m.g.'s post at the end of page 1. Competition does not equal skill development for everyone.
I think there are a few categories of BJJ students:
1) The folks who want to compete all the time.
2) The folks who want to compete from time to time.
3) The folks who don't want to compete.
I have a couple of students who are the first category: they would compete every day if they could. I support them in this and help them prepare and compete as often as they'd like.
Personally, I'm a #2. I try to compete a couple times per year. However, it's not my priority right now. A bunch of my students are also 2's.
I also have some students who are a #3--competition doesn't have anything to do with their reasons for training. And I'm totally OK with that.
They all push themselves appropriately in class, and they are all content with their own personal pace of progress, so who am I to argue?
~Chris
I agree with Chris and m.g. Momentum, you and I speak the same language.
Competition should not be forced on anyone, it is not a requirement to practice BJJ, and does not necessarily equal skill development. I don't argue any of these points. There are all sorts of students: competitors, hobbyists, pragmatists, fitness interested, etc. and they should all be encouraged to practice in their respected zones.
... but the debate here is should an instructor, and especially one who encourages, celebrates, or advocates for competition, compete or have competed to be qualified instructor?
For example: I don't coach mma as I have never fought mma, I do coach bjj and sub wrestling because I have competed in both. This is what my gut tells me is right to do.