Seperate Gi and No Gi game?

I was listening to a Demian Maia podcast, and he mentioned having the same game gi and no gi game, so you don't have to split your time between the two learning timing/grips/etc. which makes a lot of sense to me. I was just curious how your game was set up?

Is your Gi and No Gi game completely different from one another? 
 

 

I believe theres a venn diagram where mma meets bjj meets street fiighting and those are the moves i want to learn and practice

Lucas Maximus -

I believe theres a venn diagram where mma meets bjj meets street fiighting and those are the moves i want to learn and practice

Link me.

Different because if you're doing No Gi and not taking advantage of all the leg attacks and the guillotine type game that naturally opens up you're missing out IMO

And vice versa, thats why concepts are important and not just "moves"

liquidrob - Different because if you're doing No Gi and not taking advantage of all the leg attacks and the guillotine type game that naturally opens up you're missing out IMO

And vice versa, thats why concepts are important and not just "moves"

Right, Im speaking in terms more so of "structure" And main staples of a game. I.e playing a half guard/x guard vs playing spider


guard gi and butterfly no gi. 
 


again, kinda like a Maia or Marcelo vs a Keenan

I agree with Maia and with Luke.  I've always wanted a no-frills, "core" game that is equally applicable across contexts.

Yes, I spend some time on pieces that are gi-specific, but overall I try to stay in that broadly applicable realm. 

1 Like

Yeah. Like in both cases, for me, side control is merely a transitional position between passing and getting mount/taking the back. 

Bend The Knee - 
Lucas Maximus -

I believe theres a venn diagram where mma meets bjj meets street fiighting and those are the moves i want to learn and practice

Link me.


I'm saying that I believe in the concept, but I've not seen it put out by someone else.  I know Roger Gracie said something like there's only 4 out of 100 moves from BJJ that fit the street fighting / mma criteria

1 Like

I try to have a very similar game offensively. A couple of gi grips I use in open guard for dela riva etc. I’m primarily a half guard player that is pretty much the same gi and no gi. But it’s much harder to play open guard without a gi. So I often just wrestle up to single legs instead of open guards. But when it comes to guard passing in the gi, I find there are lots of potential gi grips and open guards you often have to deal with and nullify before settling into my familiar passing positions that I do no gi as well. 

If you want to have really good guard retention play the long distance guards in the Gi, when you go No Gi it will be much easier to retain IMO

You can not simulate No Gi what its like playing Spider, DLR etc...with someone gripping, dragging, pinning your legs etc...the Gi is a great training tool

i disagree- because of ground and pound and upkicks the long guard is not useful in mma

correct me if i'm wrong i would appreciate examples to study

1 Like

I think it makes sense for the masses to have “one game” that applies across the spectrum.  That way it’s most useful if they ever find themselves in a fight and the limited time they train is put to best use. 
 

If you are going the serious competitor route, you probably have to specialize and have somewhat separate games...(worm, spider, rubber guard...whatever road fits your body and wishes)

hedgefunder -

I think it makes sense for the masses to have “one game” that applies across the spectrum.  That way it’s most useful if they ever find themselves in a fight and the limited time they train is put to best use. 
 


If you are going the serious competitor route, you probably have to specialize and have somewhat separate games...(worm, spider, rubber guard...whatever road fits your body and wishes)

I always think about Braulio when I think about sport games. That guy has a new game every time I see him compete lol

I agree with hedgefunder.

There are a lot of good people who advocate the "dual game" approach so you have --as much as possible-- basically one game that you use gi & no gi.

I asked a very experienced BJJ Professor about this thinking he would agree, but he said the exact opposite. He said if you want a good gi game you have to exploit the gi and use it. You don't want to ignore the lapels and all that stuff. Gi & no gi are differnt and require different tactics to operate at the highest levels.

I personally, prefer the "dual game" (one game for both gi & no gi), because I am a simpleton, but at a higher level of sport BJJ, I think there is truth to what he said. IF you are basically sub wrestling in a gi and not using those gi handles, you are at somewhat of a disadvantage.

I also agree with Luke; I like to make my game even smaller by just using things that are usful in a fight context. The older I get the less interest I have in any jiu jitsu that can't be used in a fight. It's fine for others, I am just no longer interested in it for me.

shen - I agree with hedgefunder.

There are a lot of good people who advocate the "dual game" approach so you have --as much as possible-- basically one game that you use gi & no gi.

I asked a very experienced BJJ Professor about this thinking he would agree, but he said the exact opposite. He said if you want a good gi game you have to exploit the gi and use it. You don't want to ignore the lapels and all that stuff. Gi & no gi are differnt and require different tactics to operate at the highest levels.

I personally, prefer the "dual game" (one game for both gi & no gi), because I am a simpleton, but at a higher level of sport BJJ, I think there is truth to what he said. IF you are basically sub wrestling in a gi and not using those gi handles, you are at somewhat of a disadvantage.

I also agree with Luke; I like to make my game even smaller by just using things that are usful in a fight context. The older I get the less interest I have in any jiu jitsu that can't be used in a fight. It's fine for others, I am just no longer interested in it for me.

I think MG mentioned something like "why would I wanna learn two different games and play them 50% of the time, when I can learn one, change some grips but play the same core stuff 100% of the time". Kinda makes sense.


 


I guess it all depends what you wanna get out of it. If you wanna compete I suppose you want some strong stuff, if you wanna teach its most likely better to know it all, if you're a hobbiest you can likely do whatever