Fighting is a game of strategy, and that is something that is often forgotten.
When I first started there really wasn't any actual instruction on how to spar, there was techniques, a few drills, pointers along the way, but never did anyone really try to look at fighting as a subject that needed detailed instruction. Techniques where fine tuned, combinations learnt, and patterns drilled. But fighting was still something largely learnt through trial and error.
I think that still goes on a lot today. There are countless books on fighting, most of which are a encyclopedia of techniques. Some show relationships between them, and counters, and counters to the counters, but they are still books on techniques.
On internet discussions there are countless threads beating down every last detail on perfecting a technique, closing off escapes, etc. That is cetainely important, if your technique is sloppy your strategy is irrelevant.
Of course the hard part is not doing a technique, anyone can do a technique. The hard part, well hard parts as there really is two things, is making that technique work on someone that knows what you are doing, knows the counters and is trying to stop you. That requires a much greater knowledge of the little details of a technique.
The other hard part, the one that is often neglected, is in creating the opportunity to be able to do that technique. That is the part I want to discuss right now.
Strategy is not a one size fits all formula, which is perhaps what makes it difficult to really delve into. I can teach a technique to 10 different people, and they will all do it in more or less the exact same way. The finishing technique is like a end game sequence in a game of Chess. Where one player has a unavoidable path to victory, providing they make all the right movements and don't let the other guy escape. Whether its a KO or a submission, the game is over and there is nothing the other guy can do about it, unless you mess up.
However like Chess, the end game is important in fighting, but not the whole fight by a long shot. The winner in a fight between two skilled opponents is the one that can put himself in a position to use a finishing technique, not the one who knows the most of them.
Simply trying to roll around and force a end game sequence by luck or brute force is only going to get you so far. Granted if you know enough of them the chances of ending up in one go up, but its still only a piece of the game, with a big part missing.
So for the sake of discussion lets assume you know a little about the guy you are fighting. Maybe you train with him, maybe you've just seen him fight before. Self-defence is a entirely different sort of game.
What do you want to do to him?
What does he want to do to you?
Those seem to be the obvious first questions, but they aren't. At least not the first one. You need to look at what things could happen that would benefit you, what things would benefit him, and which are possible fight enders on either side.
So if you answer “I want to use kicks, he wants me on the ground.” that is a bad game plan for you. Because chances are you will end up on the ground if he is a decent wrestler and you start throwing kicks. Of course that might change if you also want to end up on the ground and are confident you're safe enough on your back to risk it.
But supposing that him taking you down is a big swing in his favour and you will be in serious risk of losing, you need a new game plan. Probably a jab and sprawl approach for much of the fight. Now on the other side of it, if his game plan is to take you down when you over commit, and you play a jab and sprawl approach, his game plan now needs to change.
A similar sort of matchup was the recent Tim Sylvia vs Randy Couture fight. For Sylvia, getting taken down would have been a very bad thing, so he approached the fight from a jab and sprawl plan. He wasn't going to take Randy down, and he wasn't going to commit to anything that would put him in a position to be taken down, like a kick or some in tight combination punching.
On the other side is Randy, he called the fight a little better. He went in knowing that Tim was not going to take him down, and not likely to throw any kicks, but had probably been working his Jab and Sprawl game which has served him well in the past. So rather then try and take him down, Randy took a risk and approached the fight with more of a traditional boxing style to the way he fought. Lots of bobbing and weaving, using head movement and staying low to get inside Tim's reach and land overhands.
Now had Tim switched strategy mid way through and started trying to set up a head kick off Randy's Bobbing and weaving, there might have been a different outcome. Or, he might have been taken down. But I very much doubt that Randy will fight Crocop, who has a highlight reel full of head kick KO's with that same bobbing and weaving style.
Another nice example of a superior strategy winning the fight, and to make use of Randy Couture again, is Randy Couture vs Vitor Belfort. Now Belfort is known for two things. Incredibly fast hands, and his BJJ. Still, it would be unlikely he would try and take Randy down, but more likely he would try to out box him, a area he had a definate advantage.
So Randy, although strong on the ground, was probably somewhat in danger of a submission on the ground. Sitting in the guard of a BJJ black belt is a dangerous thing to do. And on the other hand, boxing with Vitor Belfort is not a safe thing either. Now going into the fight I imagine Vitor would have been expecting Randy to take him down, or at least try too. So, probably spent a good deal of time working his takedown defences and fighting off his back.
How do you beat this? Hit the middle ground. Don't take him down and let him play his ground game which is very strong, and don't box with him as he has a habit of knocking people out when they try that. Force a clinch and dirty box, taking away his BJJ and his boxing.
So it is not simply a matter of what do you want to do, and making him play your game. Different strategies trump each other. You need to think about where you're best chance at winning is, and how to get there. That doesn't always mean trying to force the fight to where you are strongest.
If I know that on the ground I am stronger, and you will not take me down and will fight to stay up at all costs, that gives my standup a little more freedom, and yours a little less. If you get sloppy or over commit, I get to take you down. If I get sloppy or overcommit, you aren't goping to take me down. My takedowns and groundfighting can give me the fight, even if I don't use either.
Another way to take away a persons strengths is through attacking what they need to carry out there plan. Something any Muay Thai practitioner knows is that if someone kicks your leg till it feels like jello, you suddenly stop being as powerful, explosive and light on your feet. In the MMA world a classic example of that was Marco Ruas vs Paul Varlens.
Ruas at 6'1” and 210lbs, chopped away at the 6'8” 330lbs Varlens leg through better speed and hit and move tactics. In the end Varlens, a much larger and more pwerful opponent, couldn't stand and fight anymore. Percision hits to the same spot took away his size, strength, explosiveness and turned the fight over to a much smaller opponent.
This similar sort of tactic was also put too use by Royce Gracie (and other BJJ fighters) back in the early days to great effect. Granted it was a very different way of doing it, but the idea was the same. He'd get people down and then use strikes, not ones that would end the fight on there own, or even cause much damage on there own, but enough of them in the same spot is going to get a reaction eventually. When you're the smaller guy, fighting someone a lot stronger then you, it's not going to be a easy task to submit them by moving them around. But if you can take away that by getting them to move themself, its less of an issue.
Same thing if you want to hit someone, if you can get them to lean into your punch or kick at just the right time, your punch is going to have a lot more punch to it. Forcing a person to move a certain way, or get into a certain position is hard work, but if you can get them to put themselves there, things get easier.
Another example of this is something every grappler learns, and that is often you can get a person to open there guard and give you a chance to pass by baiting them with a arm bar. Offering up bait to get a person to move how you want them to becomes a common tactic in ground fighting and stand up fighting is no different.
Face off with a person and have a really good look at their positioning. Some targets are covered, others not as much. What can you hit? Now consider the same about yourself, what targets are you presenting based on hand positon, angles, how high / low you are standing, what's your posture like, etc. How does he have to move to take advantage of appealing targets. Are you covered in such a way that he has to angle to the right a little to gain advantage? Can you position yourself in such a way that if he steps slightly to the right he will have an advantage? What can you do to him, based on his positioning, posturing and angling if he does step to the right?
Also look at what his positioning indicates he might try and throw at you. Does he look like he is trying to line up a kick? a takedown? How a person is standing tells you what they can effectively throw without repositioning, are you able defend all of them based on your posture and angling?
Now how does your opponrent react? If you throw a jab what does he do? if you step in what does he do? If you step left and jab what does he do? Is he predictable in anyway? Can you force a specific reaction? What do you need to do to get him to react in such a way as to open up a clean target?
And of course how do you react? What does he see looking at you?
A athletic person could be taught all the motions of boxing fairly quickly, and probably be able to perform them fairly well. But fighting is a lot more then techniques and motions. While those are important a person with less clean technique can win, if they have more speed, strength, instinct, strategy, heart, or any other number of factors. I think it is unfortunate that a lot of people tend to ignore strategy. They focus on strength and conditioning, they learn every technique they can, but they don't take the time to actually forumate a strategy and look at the game as a strategy game.
When I first started there really wasn't any actual instruction on how to spar, there was techniques, a few drills, pointers along the way, but never did anyone really try to look at fighting as a subject that needed detailed instruction. Techniques where fine tuned, combinations learnt, and patterns drilled. But fighting was still something largely learnt through trial and error.
I think that still goes on a lot today. There are countless books on fighting, most of which are a encyclopedia of techniques. Some show relationships between them, and counters, and counters to the counters, but they are still books on techniques.
On internet discussions there are countless threads beating down every last detail on perfecting a technique, closing off escapes, etc. That is cetainely important, if your technique is sloppy your strategy is irrelevant.
Of course the hard part is not doing a technique, anyone can do a technique. The hard part, well hard parts as there really is two things, is making that technique work on someone that knows what you are doing, knows the counters and is trying to stop you. That requires a much greater knowledge of the little details of a technique.
The other hard part, the one that is often neglected, is in creating the opportunity to be able to do that technique. That is the part I want to discuss right now.
Strategy is not a one size fits all formula, which is perhaps what makes it difficult to really delve into. I can teach a technique to 10 different people, and they will all do it in more or less the exact same way. The finishing technique is like a end game sequence in a game of Chess. Where one player has a unavoidable path to victory, providing they make all the right movements and don't let the other guy escape. Whether its a KO or a submission, the game is over and there is nothing the other guy can do about it, unless you mess up.
However like Chess, the end game is important in fighting, but not the whole fight by a long shot. The winner in a fight between two skilled opponents is the one that can put himself in a position to use a finishing technique, not the one who knows the most of them.
Simply trying to roll around and force a end game sequence by luck or brute force is only going to get you so far. Granted if you know enough of them the chances of ending up in one go up, but its still only a piece of the game, with a big part missing.
So for the sake of discussion lets assume you know a little about the guy you are fighting. Maybe you train with him, maybe you've just seen him fight before. Self-defence is a entirely different sort of game.
What do you want to do to him?
What does he want to do to you?
Those seem to be the obvious first questions, but they aren't. At least not the first one. You need to look at what things could happen that would benefit you, what things would benefit him, and which are possible fight enders on either side.
So if you answer “I want to use kicks, he wants me on the ground.” that is a bad game plan for you. Because chances are you will end up on the ground if he is a decent wrestler and you start throwing kicks. Of course that might change if you also want to end up on the ground and are confident you're safe enough on your back to risk it.
But supposing that him taking you down is a big swing in his favour and you will be in serious risk of losing, you need a new game plan. Probably a jab and sprawl approach for much of the fight. Now on the other side of it, if his game plan is to take you down when you over commit, and you play a jab and sprawl approach, his game plan now needs to change.
A similar sort of matchup was the recent Tim Sylvia vs Randy Couture fight. For Sylvia, getting taken down would have been a very bad thing, so he approached the fight from a jab and sprawl plan. He wasn't going to take Randy down, and he wasn't going to commit to anything that would put him in a position to be taken down, like a kick or some in tight combination punching.
On the other side is Randy, he called the fight a little better. He went in knowing that Tim was not going to take him down, and not likely to throw any kicks, but had probably been working his Jab and Sprawl game which has served him well in the past. So rather then try and take him down, Randy took a risk and approached the fight with more of a traditional boxing style to the way he fought. Lots of bobbing and weaving, using head movement and staying low to get inside Tim's reach and land overhands.
Now had Tim switched strategy mid way through and started trying to set up a head kick off Randy's Bobbing and weaving, there might have been a different outcome. Or, he might have been taken down. But I very much doubt that Randy will fight Crocop, who has a highlight reel full of head kick KO's with that same bobbing and weaving style.
Another nice example of a superior strategy winning the fight, and to make use of Randy Couture again, is Randy Couture vs Vitor Belfort. Now Belfort is known for two things. Incredibly fast hands, and his BJJ. Still, it would be unlikely he would try and take Randy down, but more likely he would try to out box him, a area he had a definate advantage.
So Randy, although strong on the ground, was probably somewhat in danger of a submission on the ground. Sitting in the guard of a BJJ black belt is a dangerous thing to do. And on the other hand, boxing with Vitor Belfort is not a safe thing either. Now going into the fight I imagine Vitor would have been expecting Randy to take him down, or at least try too. So, probably spent a good deal of time working his takedown defences and fighting off his back.
How do you beat this? Hit the middle ground. Don't take him down and let him play his ground game which is very strong, and don't box with him as he has a habit of knocking people out when they try that. Force a clinch and dirty box, taking away his BJJ and his boxing.
So it is not simply a matter of what do you want to do, and making him play your game. Different strategies trump each other. You need to think about where you're best chance at winning is, and how to get there. That doesn't always mean trying to force the fight to where you are strongest.
If I know that on the ground I am stronger, and you will not take me down and will fight to stay up at all costs, that gives my standup a little more freedom, and yours a little less. If you get sloppy or over commit, I get to take you down. If I get sloppy or overcommit, you aren't goping to take me down. My takedowns and groundfighting can give me the fight, even if I don't use either.
Another way to take away a persons strengths is through attacking what they need to carry out there plan. Something any Muay Thai practitioner knows is that if someone kicks your leg till it feels like jello, you suddenly stop being as powerful, explosive and light on your feet. In the MMA world a classic example of that was Marco Ruas vs Paul Varlens.
Ruas at 6'1” and 210lbs, chopped away at the 6'8” 330lbs Varlens leg through better speed and hit and move tactics. In the end Varlens, a much larger and more pwerful opponent, couldn't stand and fight anymore. Percision hits to the same spot took away his size, strength, explosiveness and turned the fight over to a much smaller opponent.
This similar sort of tactic was also put too use by Royce Gracie (and other BJJ fighters) back in the early days to great effect. Granted it was a very different way of doing it, but the idea was the same. He'd get people down and then use strikes, not ones that would end the fight on there own, or even cause much damage on there own, but enough of them in the same spot is going to get a reaction eventually. When you're the smaller guy, fighting someone a lot stronger then you, it's not going to be a easy task to submit them by moving them around. But if you can take away that by getting them to move themself, its less of an issue.
Same thing if you want to hit someone, if you can get them to lean into your punch or kick at just the right time, your punch is going to have a lot more punch to it. Forcing a person to move a certain way, or get into a certain position is hard work, but if you can get them to put themselves there, things get easier.
Another example of this is something every grappler learns, and that is often you can get a person to open there guard and give you a chance to pass by baiting them with a arm bar. Offering up bait to get a person to move how you want them to becomes a common tactic in ground fighting and stand up fighting is no different.
Face off with a person and have a really good look at their positioning. Some targets are covered, others not as much. What can you hit? Now consider the same about yourself, what targets are you presenting based on hand positon, angles, how high / low you are standing, what's your posture like, etc. How does he have to move to take advantage of appealing targets. Are you covered in such a way that he has to angle to the right a little to gain advantage? Can you position yourself in such a way that if he steps slightly to the right he will have an advantage? What can you do to him, based on his positioning, posturing and angling if he does step to the right?
Also look at what his positioning indicates he might try and throw at you. Does he look like he is trying to line up a kick? a takedown? How a person is standing tells you what they can effectively throw without repositioning, are you able defend all of them based on your posture and angling?
Now how does your opponrent react? If you throw a jab what does he do? if you step in what does he do? If you step left and jab what does he do? Is he predictable in anyway? Can you force a specific reaction? What do you need to do to get him to react in such a way as to open up a clean target?
And of course how do you react? What does he see looking at you?
A athletic person could be taught all the motions of boxing fairly quickly, and probably be able to perform them fairly well. But fighting is a lot more then techniques and motions. While those are important a person with less clean technique can win, if they have more speed, strength, instinct, strategy, heart, or any other number of factors. I think it is unfortunate that a lot of people tend to ignore strategy. They focus on strength and conditioning, they learn every technique they can, but they don't take the time to actually forumate a strategy and look at the game as a strategy game.
