Active Guard

Last night someone said "You have a real active guard." They were referring to, I think, the way I stay busy on the bottom. I never really thought of my guard as "busy." I simply thought of it as a GUARD. Let me explain. To me, an inactive guard isn't a guard at all. It's simply "on the bottom." The only type of guard, in my opinion, IS an active guard. Or else I call it "losing."

The first thing everyone needs to learn, if he's going to have a good guard, is how to replace guard. (I've spoken about that at length before so I won't go into it here). The second most important thing is breaking your opponent down while in the guard. I see a lot of guys lock their legs and call that a guard. I call that "the missionary position." (People, we're not having sex, so if you're going to call it a guard, do more than have someone between your thighs). You have to know how to use your hips, legs, arms and even your head to keep him off balance and always in a state of reaction. And since a real guard is a fighting guard, and not a grappling guard, it has to have strikes that cycle well and set up sweeps and subs.

I was recently reading something called the MMA Encyclopedia, trying to catch up on some of the big names in the sport. Since it's an encyclopedia, it contains definitions for all sorts of things. Defining the mount, they call it a FIGHTING position. Defining back control, they also call it a fighting position. But how do they define the guard position? They call it a GRAPPLING position. I think this is part of the reason we see so many poor guards in MMA. I think the sport still views the guard as a grappling technique from jiu jitsu. And what's even worse, I think people still think of jiu jitsu as grappling, when in fact it's fighting, not just rolling around in pajamas.

I mention this because I think how we look at the guard is how we will use it. Thinking of it as a grappling tactic, we forget to strike. I can see why some people say fighting from the guard is a losing battle. The way people tend to use the guard, they're right. But to me, the guard is the single most important position in all of fighting. If you sink all your time into it, and really think of it as an all out active fighting position, the rest of your game would seem somewhat superfluous. Hell, I PULL guard any chance I get. But then again, what I pull is active. Maybe that's why I have the confidence to pull it when others are hesitant to be on bottom. (In fact, if I ever find myself on top, I know I must have done something wrong. You won't have to sweep me. I'll do it for you).

So, if you're going to use the guard, use the guard. Locking your legs isn't the guard. You have to have a good tie up clinch to go with it, as well as a consistent barrage of strikes. If your guard is inactive, you don't have a guard. Period.

Brunettes

I love brunettes. Spanish brunettes, especially. And Japanese women? Don't even get me started. But my proclivity for these dark haired beauties doesn't blind me from the more fair haired of the populace. In other words, blondes and redheads can catch my eye from time to time. Now that we've got that settled:

The triangle is my brunette. I love everything about it: its simplicity and complexity (the two are not contradictions); its high percentage of effectiveness; its finality; its versatility; its origins; its potential; its ... Hell, I even like the smell of it. (Well, not really). And those who train with me know I almost have a fetish for it. But let's remember the blondes and red-heads, shall we?

Although my whole goal is to keep throwing the triangle, or to methodically set it up, that doesn't mean I don't use armbars, shoulder locks, guillotines, and heel hooks. In fact, I very seldom get the triangle. That might sound odd, but it's true. My effort to get the triangle usually finds me a plethora (I hate that word) of other options. For instance, I will often set up the triangle with an armbar. Many times the armbar finishes the situation before the triangle is even needed. Other times I will go for a triangle only to transition to an armbar. But in both cases it was my effort for the triangle that precipitated my opponent's tapout.

A few students have expressed concern that if everyone knows what I'm going for (the triangle), everyone will be ready for it. They think that I have shown all my cards. Wrong. The triangle is merely what gives me confidence to plod along. It gives me a clear goal. Let me explain it this way: Has anyone ever discovered the Holy Grail? No. But the effort to do so has uncovered unimaginable riches. Almost every expedition for the Grail has uncovered a cache of gold, priceless artifacts, or historical insights. In other words, going for the triangle doesn't limit you, it unearths an incalculable vista of possibilities.

I advise everyone to choose one submission. (In my case it's the triangle). Then structure your whole system around that. For instance, Rickson bases his entire system on the mount. (Yes, I'm aware the mount is not a submission. It's just an example). The mount is the centerpiece of his entire game. (Even though you know he will be working for the mount, you haven't really gained any insider information that will shut him down). And as you always work for that submission, you always have a clear goal, which helps to keep you confident and determined. And the very pursuit of it might help you find submissions and opportunities you'd otherwise miss.

I love brunettes. But I will accept a blonde or two. Master the triangle. And you might just go home with a colorful manage a trois.