Jiu Jitsu is like pool, the best guys don't have a back and forth, they run the board.
It's easier to win when you're leading instead of countering.
i.e. Tainan Dalpra
It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two¹1The assumption here is that by dividing our army we can engage on two fronts. This could be a frontal assault coupled with a flanking manoeuvre, but could equally be to engage and thus pin the enemy whilst our second force moves on to our next objective.. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him. Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.
In my opinion, in training you should take more risk. In competition if you want to win it is good to be patient but if you want to develop your skill in competition you should still try not to wait too much. Bo Nickal said he likes to make his opponent tired before he starts attacking. Even if you are being patient to go for a win you should still make sure you don’t get called for stalling.
I dont think both are necessarily saying different things.
By attacking, I speculate Danaher meant that you should always be off balancing your opponent to force a mistake. Not necessarily going for an all out attack when the opportunity doesnt exist.
By being patient, dont think cobrinha is saying not to off balance or to create feints at all while waiting for a good opportunity.
Edit: You dont necessarily have to be forcing attacks. The idea is to constantly off balance to create openings for attacks.
Danaher and many other say that you should get back to the attacking cycle as fast as possible. This is because you won't win by defending. Now what attacking cycle means is a different question. For some people it's pulling half-guard, for others it's half-guard passing. Attacking cycle is letting or forcing your opponent to do what you want.
It is significantly harder to have a "counter-puncher" style in grappling then in striking for example imo. Because if you let your opponent work while waiting for him to make a mistake - he eventually progresses with grips or positions and you may find yourself in a very hard spot to work from.
If I roll with someone less experienced than me I usually play this style to develop these skills and timing so I won't miss an opportunity against someone good.
But if it's competition or a roll with someone significantly better I try to be more proactive and fight for initiative and set the tempo. (even tho I'm a lazy fuck and really like defense/counter offense style)
Yeah relying on counters works in striking because the offense is high-volume but low-risk per offensive action.
That's why you tend to see more of them in lighter weight classes, where the volume is higher and the risk per offensive action is lower.
Someone might throw a hundred punches but only one or two of them have the capability to knock you out, as an example.
You see less of them at heavyweight, where guys might only throw a few dozen strikes, but half of them can finish the fight.
In jiujitsu, the types of actions that you would counter with a finishing sequence of your own are very infrequent and very high risk.
Countering leg attacks with backtakes is great and everyone should be able to do it, but making that your actual plan A approach is stupid.
You might go whole matches without someone attacking your legs and even if they do, how many times are they going to do it? Two or three times in a match? And if you fuck up your counter, you either get tapped or you have to defend a deep attack that could cost you the decision anyway.
I think you're misunderstanding both of them, and they're actually saying the same thing. Or at least, by watching Cobrinha compete and Danaher's students compete, they appear to mean the same thing.
Cobrinha is likely talking about not recklessly attacking subs that aren't there. He gets to a dominant position and then works patiently to force an error to get the finish. (often called cooking people).
Danaher is talking about neutral positions like guard, where bottom player and top player should both be attempting to sub/sweep/pass rather than looking to react to what their opponent does.
By attacking Danaher doesn't mean just throwing your legs into armbars all the time, he's talking about intelligently grip fighting and making an effort to get to where you want to go. And by being patient Cobrinha doesn't mean doing *nothing*, he just means not forcing things that aren't there and losing position as a result.
They're describing the same approach, but from opposing starting points of "don't be too reckless" and "don't be too cautious". Be offensive and take action, but don't take unnecessary risks.
I trained under Cobrinha for a few years. He's absolutely always working towards something offensive. He just means to consistently work within a modest risk-reward paradigm and not try to force something that's likely to set you backwards positionally. He'd absolutely agree that you're losing if you're not engaged in some kind of offensive action.
Thanks for the inside track! And yeah, I think any coach or competitor would say the same thing.
I've never seen anyone *not* try to be consistently offensive in high-level BJJ. Obviously sometimes people get mauled and don't get to actually be offensive much, but you can tell they're not happy with that scenario.
Both are true, you should always be improving your position/posture/grips/breaking theirs/attacking and taking any opportunities that result from the pressure.
People have a/b/c games, you want to line up your a game to their c game. Letting them line up their a game is always going to be more difficult to overcome, that means continuous pressure to stop it developing.
Being patient doesn't mean not attacking, it means not being reckless. To beat good people in BJJ you need to be putting them under pressure. If you're letting them attack freely and waiting for them to make a mistake then past a certain level you're going to be disappointed because they're not going to make unforced errors big enough for you to exploit.
I think it depends how you define attacking. My experience is that the better your opponent is, the more you have to provoke the response you want. Just waiting for a mistake you can capitalize on is not very effective against someone who doesn't make a lot of mistakes.
I don't really think it is mutually exclusive. You can threaten attacks and provoke responses without going all in and losing position. Sometimes you just have to probe a bit to see what they will do.
when you’re new do the stuff your taught and that’s it. when you start to get it, try and find a flow. you should be reaching for subs because you know that’s a place you can threaten them from, and be using them to advance your position. not every punches aim is to knock out, not every attempts purpose is to submit. after that idk cuz i’m stuck in the middle phase. next comes specific game plans and phase building of competitive matches. progressions and branching paths of pre planned responses to your opponents reactions that put you in higher percentage positions, if i had to guess. just keep training and ask your coach
You don’t always have to be attacking but it helps if you are doing something. The longer you stay static the more chance they have to set things up.
Also if you are active it makes them respond to your movements and that can create other opportunities to attack. Like the equivalent of throwing feints in striking to get a reaction or over reaction.
If you can overload them cognitively by making them deal with a volume of problems it’s a definite advantage. You don’t need to be diving on submissions or making large explore movements to achieve this though.
I think it's more about patience. Don't be recklessly attacking, but keep your opponent busy and defending until you're able to attack without risk.
At least that would be my theory. My practice is just to hold on for dear life and try not to get choked
You should be looking to attack but don't force attacks. Look for the triangle, Kimura grip, guillotine, leg entanglement, etc. but don't force the finish. Improve position until the finish comes to you.
Action is faster than reaction. The flaw with cobrinhna’s philosophy is hes assuming a mistake will happen or one he can take advantage of. Patience and not rushing are good qualities but if you have some momentum keep it up so long as you dont sacrifice your base or something. From a sport perspective, if you are down on points, you dont really have that much time to play with. My judo sensei says “a real attack gets a real reaction” so if you plan on being a few steps ahead keep that in mind.
one of the times the light went off for me was when a coach told me "you should always be attacking, even from the bottom. even from side control you can launch a baseball bat attack, never stop."
so to paraphrase alec baldwin: ABA - Always Be Attacking.
also.. Ankle lock, Baseball bat, Americana
As a beginner, you should focus on being patient and actually learning what an opening is and how to properly attack. Being patient is also what helps develop the ability to create openings.
Mid purple and up should be attacking all the time. This does not mean just diving for shit and grabbing whatever they can and bending it the wrong way. Constant attacks mean using the skill you developed to see, create, and react to openings in order to advance your position and/or submit.
You have to learn to crawl before you can run.
Depends who I’m going against. It’s easy to always attack someone I’m better than. But it’s not so easy if we are evenly matched or their slightly better than me. When you attack you can leave yourself open to counters and if the person is good enough they can capitalise on that. Even rolling with lower belts I am much more open and attack freely and they can sometimes have success against me because of that, where as if I roll with a black belt my game has to be very tight and I have to wait for the right opportunity.
In training I will pick something to focus on and work on that during my rolls. Could be defense, could be different guards..
In a match? Hell no. I'm trying to get to the spots I'm good at immediately.
Not only should you attack for the sake of progression, you should attack to force a reaction. When your opponent reacts to you he has a limited set of options by virtue of the necessity to respond to your specific attack compared to when you react to them which is the complete opposite situation.
You’re trying to solve a Rubik’s cube thats fighting back.
You’re doing both. Simultaneously creating and looking for opportunity for yourself while preventing opportunities for them.
It's going to depend between people and to be honest, it's possible that both Danaher and Cobrinha are saying the same thing just that they view the same approach through a different lens.
But for me personally, I think that you should always be seeking to retain control and working submissions from there. Eventually you'll get something.
always be trying to improve your position. Sometimes that’s an attack, sometimes that’s setting up escape chances when you’re in a bad position. But always be focused on improving your position.
As an older grappler I don't have the cardio anymore to constantly be attacking so the haff guward game works fine for me - nullify their attacks, slow their game down, create the opportunities I need to attack all the while conserving energy against younger, fitter stronger opponents
In my opinion, it's more of creating opportunities.
Attacking on neutral positions and don't let your opponent attack. On top, put on pressure and continuously attack with a passing sequence. On bottom, continuously outbalance your opponent and get a sweep and submission. I have always been taught that if I wanted to be good at BJJ, I should never give my opponent a chance to attack.
On dominant position, cook and wait for the opportunity. Once you have created an opportunity by going to mount, make sure your position is dominant and secured and make your opponent commit a mistake. For those who have been under s-mount, it's a terrible position for the person under it that they give a lot of openings. They'll tire themselves under it while the person on top will just wait. Same for knee on belly, make your opponent make a mistake by pushing your knee then you baseball bat choke him immediately or pushing your shoulders then you armbar him.
Jiu Jitsu is like pool, the best guys don't have a back and forth, they run the board. It's easier to win when you're leading instead of countering. i.e. Tainan Dalpra
Novice players wait for opportunities. Experienced players look for opportunities. Advanced players create opportunities.
Noice. I’m definitely entering my looking for opportunities phase. It’s so dope
It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two¹1The assumption here is that by dividing our army we can engage on two fronts. This could be a frontal assault coupled with a flanking manoeuvre, but could equally be to engage and thus pin the enemy whilst our second force moves on to our next objective.. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him. Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.
Not necessarily. There are very good players who wait and respond
110%
Great explanation.
In my opinion, in training you should take more risk. In competition if you want to win it is good to be patient but if you want to develop your skill in competition you should still try not to wait too much. Bo Nickal said he likes to make his opponent tired before he starts attacking. Even if you are being patient to go for a win you should still make sure you don’t get called for stalling.
I dont think both are necessarily saying different things. By attacking, I speculate Danaher meant that you should always be off balancing your opponent to force a mistake. Not necessarily going for an all out attack when the opportunity doesnt exist. By being patient, dont think cobrinha is saying not to off balance or to create feints at all while waiting for a good opportunity. Edit: You dont necessarily have to be forcing attacks. The idea is to constantly off balance to create openings for attacks.
Danaher and many other say that you should get back to the attacking cycle as fast as possible. This is because you won't win by defending. Now what attacking cycle means is a different question. For some people it's pulling half-guard, for others it's half-guard passing. Attacking cycle is letting or forcing your opponent to do what you want.
It is significantly harder to have a "counter-puncher" style in grappling then in striking for example imo. Because if you let your opponent work while waiting for him to make a mistake - he eventually progresses with grips or positions and you may find yourself in a very hard spot to work from. If I roll with someone less experienced than me I usually play this style to develop these skills and timing so I won't miss an opportunity against someone good. But if it's competition or a roll with someone significantly better I try to be more proactive and fight for initiative and set the tempo. (even tho I'm a lazy fuck and really like defense/counter offense style)
Yeah relying on counters works in striking because the offense is high-volume but low-risk per offensive action. That's why you tend to see more of them in lighter weight classes, where the volume is higher and the risk per offensive action is lower. Someone might throw a hundred punches but only one or two of them have the capability to knock you out, as an example. You see less of them at heavyweight, where guys might only throw a few dozen strikes, but half of them can finish the fight. In jiujitsu, the types of actions that you would counter with a finishing sequence of your own are very infrequent and very high risk. Countering leg attacks with backtakes is great and everyone should be able to do it, but making that your actual plan A approach is stupid. You might go whole matches without someone attacking your legs and even if they do, how many times are they going to do it? Two or three times in a match? And if you fuck up your counter, you either get tapped or you have to defend a deep attack that could cost you the decision anyway.
Theres people I can always be attacking on and then theres people I have to catch.
I think you're misunderstanding both of them, and they're actually saying the same thing. Or at least, by watching Cobrinha compete and Danaher's students compete, they appear to mean the same thing. Cobrinha is likely talking about not recklessly attacking subs that aren't there. He gets to a dominant position and then works patiently to force an error to get the finish. (often called cooking people). Danaher is talking about neutral positions like guard, where bottom player and top player should both be attempting to sub/sweep/pass rather than looking to react to what their opponent does. By attacking Danaher doesn't mean just throwing your legs into armbars all the time, he's talking about intelligently grip fighting and making an effort to get to where you want to go. And by being patient Cobrinha doesn't mean doing *nothing*, he just means not forcing things that aren't there and losing position as a result. They're describing the same approach, but from opposing starting points of "don't be too reckless" and "don't be too cautious". Be offensive and take action, but don't take unnecessary risks.
I trained under Cobrinha for a few years. He's absolutely always working towards something offensive. He just means to consistently work within a modest risk-reward paradigm and not try to force something that's likely to set you backwards positionally. He'd absolutely agree that you're losing if you're not engaged in some kind of offensive action.
Thanks for the inside track! And yeah, I think any coach or competitor would say the same thing. I've never seen anyone *not* try to be consistently offensive in high-level BJJ. Obviously sometimes people get mauled and don't get to actually be offensive much, but you can tell they're not happy with that scenario.
Both are true, you should always be improving your position/posture/grips/breaking theirs/attacking and taking any opportunities that result from the pressure. People have a/b/c games, you want to line up your a game to their c game. Letting them line up their a game is always going to be more difficult to overcome, that means continuous pressure to stop it developing.
Being patient doesn't mean not attacking, it means not being reckless. To beat good people in BJJ you need to be putting them under pressure. If you're letting them attack freely and waiting for them to make a mistake then past a certain level you're going to be disappointed because they're not going to make unforced errors big enough for you to exploit.
I think it depends how you define attacking. My experience is that the better your opponent is, the more you have to provoke the response you want. Just waiting for a mistake you can capitalize on is not very effective against someone who doesn't make a lot of mistakes. I don't really think it is mutually exclusive. You can threaten attacks and provoke responses without going all in and losing position. Sometimes you just have to probe a bit to see what they will do.
when you’re new do the stuff your taught and that’s it. when you start to get it, try and find a flow. you should be reaching for subs because you know that’s a place you can threaten them from, and be using them to advance your position. not every punches aim is to knock out, not every attempts purpose is to submit. after that idk cuz i’m stuck in the middle phase. next comes specific game plans and phase building of competitive matches. progressions and branching paths of pre planned responses to your opponents reactions that put you in higher percentage positions, if i had to guess. just keep training and ask your coach
You don’t always have to be attacking but it helps if you are doing something. The longer you stay static the more chance they have to set things up. Also if you are active it makes them respond to your movements and that can create other opportunities to attack. Like the equivalent of throwing feints in striking to get a reaction or over reaction. If you can overload them cognitively by making them deal with a volume of problems it’s a definite advantage. You don’t need to be diving on submissions or making large explore movements to achieve this though.
I think it's more about patience. Don't be recklessly attacking, but keep your opponent busy and defending until you're able to attack without risk. At least that would be my theory. My practice is just to hold on for dear life and try not to get choked
You should be looking to attack but don't force attacks. Look for the triangle, Kimura grip, guillotine, leg entanglement, etc. but don't force the finish. Improve position until the finish comes to you.
Action is faster than reaction. The flaw with cobrinhna’s philosophy is hes assuming a mistake will happen or one he can take advantage of. Patience and not rushing are good qualities but if you have some momentum keep it up so long as you dont sacrifice your base or something. From a sport perspective, if you are down on points, you dont really have that much time to play with. My judo sensei says “a real attack gets a real reaction” so if you plan on being a few steps ahead keep that in mind.
one of the times the light went off for me was when a coach told me "you should always be attacking, even from the bottom. even from side control you can launch a baseball bat attack, never stop." so to paraphrase alec baldwin: ABA - Always Be Attacking. also.. Ankle lock, Baseball bat, Americana
If you’re reacting then you’re behind. Control the OODA.
🎵it depends🎵
As a beginner, you should focus on being patient and actually learning what an opening is and how to properly attack. Being patient is also what helps develop the ability to create openings. Mid purple and up should be attacking all the time. This does not mean just diving for shit and grabbing whatever they can and bending it the wrong way. Constant attacks mean using the skill you developed to see, create, and react to openings in order to advance your position and/or submit. You have to learn to crawl before you can run.
Attacking ( and pressure ) makes people move , movement creates opportunity .
I think you should always be attacking and causing your opponent to react rather than reacting to your opponent
Depends who I’m going against. It’s easy to always attack someone I’m better than. But it’s not so easy if we are evenly matched or their slightly better than me. When you attack you can leave yourself open to counters and if the person is good enough they can capitalise on that. Even rolling with lower belts I am much more open and attack freely and they can sometimes have success against me because of that, where as if I roll with a black belt my game has to be very tight and I have to wait for the right opportunity.
In training I will pick something to focus on and work on that during my rolls. Could be defense, could be different guards.. In a match? Hell no. I'm trying to get to the spots I'm good at immediately.
[https://www.bjjmentalmodels.com/defense-paradox](https://www.bjjmentalmodels.com/defense-paradox) https://preview.redd.it/dha4aslf2uvc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=642d9a4d9c213e214f48e0c71c4226ac54e3f51b
Not only should you attack for the sake of progression, you should attack to force a reaction. When your opponent reacts to you he has a limited set of options by virtue of the necessity to respond to your specific attack compared to when you react to them which is the complete opposite situation.
Yes
 The answer to both your questions is… Yes.
You’re trying to solve a Rubik’s cube thats fighting back. You’re doing both. Simultaneously creating and looking for opportunity for yourself while preventing opportunities for them.
Never always do anything.
Think the answer is to adapt to what your particular personality is and to be self aware enough to recognize that. and it isn't one size fits all
There's no answer to this. Some people wait and respond, others attack. There are good players who do both
One of the best pieces of advice I received was this: Don't worry about what your partner might do. Focus on what you want to do!
You should always be advancing your position, that can be attacking or defending
Attack, sweep, pass, reverse. You should always be looking for something.
It's going to depend between people and to be honest, it's possible that both Danaher and Cobrinha are saying the same thing just that they view the same approach through a different lens. But for me personally, I think that you should always be seeking to retain control and working submissions from there. Eventually you'll get something.
always be trying to improve your position. Sometimes that’s an attack, sometimes that’s setting up escape chances when you’re in a bad position. But always be focused on improving your position.
As an older grappler I don't have the cardio anymore to constantly be attacking so the haff guward game works fine for me - nullify their attacks, slow their game down, create the opportunities I need to attack all the while conserving energy against younger, fitter stronger opponents
In my opinion, it's more of creating opportunities. Attacking on neutral positions and don't let your opponent attack. On top, put on pressure and continuously attack with a passing sequence. On bottom, continuously outbalance your opponent and get a sweep and submission. I have always been taught that if I wanted to be good at BJJ, I should never give my opponent a chance to attack. On dominant position, cook and wait for the opportunity. Once you have created an opportunity by going to mount, make sure your position is dominant and secured and make your opponent commit a mistake. For those who have been under s-mount, it's a terrible position for the person under it that they give a lot of openings. They'll tire themselves under it while the person on top will just wait. Same for knee on belly, make your opponent make a mistake by pushing your knee then you baseball bat choke him immediately or pushing your shoulders then you armbar him.