|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Mark, I think hierarchy would really depend on coaching philosophy. My coaching philosophy would modify Rex's Law of Position to :Law of Position---Position must always be maintained while always seeking improved position, in order to gain advantage. I feel this reflects the true competitive intent of our sport for both fans and wrestler's.
Within my philosophy there would not be a hierarchy relative to Rex's Law's. If you take the Hrovat example for Law of Situation within the frame work of my wrestling philosophy, Hrovat failed to maintain position while seeking the advantage. Simply put, the shot was not there.. Not having seen the match I can only guess what he should have done, it may have been as simple as, at that moment in time he just had to get better head position relative to what his opponent was doing. May have been to only option for Hrovat within his skill sets.
From a coaching stand point, I see coaches violate Rex's Law of Situation all the time, when they chant, what I call the Mantra of bad coaching all the time "SHOOT...SHOOT...SHOOT'' when the shot is not there. Then their wrestler loses like Hrovat did and the coach says we are going to have to work on your shot all next week till you get it right. If a wrestler is maintaining position and seek the advantage sometimes the shot is not there but the front headlock, two on one ,underhook is there that may get them to a shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Grant McCormick added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
"and is willing to use it."
that seems to be the hardest part.
I know your schedule is pretty nutty, but I hope you know the room is always more than open for you when you have time.
Thanks,
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Grant McCormick added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Lou, Rex,
Within the philosophy of position---what of the kid who intentionally abandons/surrenders advantageous position to create controlled chaos (scrambles), wherein that kid has a decided advantage from balance, strength, athleticism, and conditioning? (Ben Askren?)
It violates Law of Proper Form, Law of Repeat Position, does it violate the Law of Position?
Practically--it drives me nuts, but philosophically? what say you?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Grant,
Because I believe all position is neither good or bad but relative to my opponents position, strengths and weaknesses, I don't have a problem with what they do unless they are lose matches because they can't wrestle from other positions. They are simply going to positions they know better than their opponents to score. I don't find this violates Rex's Law's relative to my philosophy of wrestling. To me, what they are doing isn't much different than me getting an under hook or did I give my opponent a over hook, I may open myself up to a duck under by coming in for a front head lock. Every wrestlers does what they do but just from positions most wrestlers are more familiar with and that's is why it may appear that type of wrestler intentionally abandons/surrenders advantageous when in fact the wrestler is only doing what every good wrestler does in my view, maintain position while seeking an advantage in position to score from within their skill sets.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Lou-
Very astute. "Always seeking to improve position" would reflect my thoughts through high school and part of my college, but you soon realize that there is more to the game than idealism and what meets the eye.
Grant-
I don't know that Askren ever violates any of these laws. You are making some assumptions which I don't believe to be correct. There is no chaos as Askren is creating positions that work for him. Unorthodoxy does not entail bad position as long as the position is constructive. Askren has been in these positions hundreds of times and knows the parameters of his ability
Proper form is unique to the individual and entails technique that is capable of improving position.
I don't see how it violates repeat position? Please explain as you lost me
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Concerning "SHOOT...SHOOT...SHOOT!" I think inherently there is the idea of "SET-UP...SET-UP...SET-UP!" (Although, not every kid gets that...or, in an evffort to give the kid the benefit of the doubt, not every coach is teachin that.)
Unfortunatley, it is MUCH easier to say "shoot!" with 12 seconds left than it is to say, "Stance, motion, level change, fake shot, shot with a finish in mind!"
That is what practice is for. To get kids to understand that in order to effectively score using your shot, you must have a set-up, which is executed in a proper stance.
We recently held a camp - with most attendees being newer wrestlers - and knowing this, I tried to simplify things to the four S's...
- Stance
- Set-up
- Shot
- Score (Finish...but that doesn't begin with S, now does it? Unless I went with the silent s, "Sfinish"???)
Granted, you don't have to shoot to score, but in the frame work of teaching kids a single and a double, it is very helpful to teach these S's.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
John Drumm added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Rex, your posts just keep getting more insightful. Keep it up!
I've attempted to break your post into somewhat of an outline form.
Does the following make sense as a hierarchy (or framework at best) using your Natural Laws?
(keep in mind some definitions are paraphrased)
Top Tier: Law of Dynamic Progression:
Defined: "A continuous sequence of Positions that alters as the opponents fight to gain an advantage of Position."
Requires compliance with the following Laws: (2)
1. Law of Active Engagement- Must comply with Law of Proper Form;
(the "offense" in the Dynamic Progression)
2. Law of Initiate Action- Must comply with Law of Proper Form.
(the "defense/counter" in the Dynamic Progression)
2nd Tier: Law of Active Engagement AND Law of Initiate Action:
Law of Active Engagement defined:
- "a wrestler must actively and continuously engage an opponent with proper Form."
Law of Initiate Action defined:
- "an initial action must be countered with an opposing force with proper Form."
3rd Tier: Law of Proper Form:
Law of Proper Form defined:
- "the correct technical application at the right Time, Position, Situation, and Opponent."
Requires compliance with the following Laws: (4)
1. Law of Proper Timing- "window of opportunity to apply skillset."
2. Law of Position- "Maintain but always work to improve position."
3. Law of Repeat Position- "Position improves due to repetition,
increased skill and conditioning."
4. Law of Situation- "to engage or not engage your opponent based on
your Position."
To summarize:
The common thread I've gleaned from Rex's philosophy in his posts is "Form". To comply with the Law of Proper Form you must first comply with four (4) underlying Laws: Timing, Position, Repeat Position and Situation.
I submit the Laws appear mutually dependent in many respects; however, it also appears they can function independently. For example, can you comply with the Law of Position without complying with the Law of Proper Form? Sure, the Law of Position can exist and function independently, but the goal is to score and win matches by following the Laws of a winning philosophy. JMO
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
Rex-
I do believe there is more than meets the eye is wrestling and at face value one might view my philosophy on wrestling as idealistic. I don't believe wrestler ahead in points must seek to score to win but I believe that what got Hrovat, Scherr and Gable for that matter to the level they where at because of this is how they wrestled always seeking advantage in position. What I believe that does not meet the eye of some wrestler's is that always seeking to gain advantage in position puts a wrestler who needs to score on the defense rather than trying to score and sometimes maintaining position is scoring. Still one has to ponder why when so many us of speak of the best wrestler's, we never really speak in awe that often of the wrestle who got a slight point advantage and wrestled just enough to win while boring us.
Mark-
I'm going to use a football to describe why SHOOT...SHOOT...SHOOT is in general useless. If a football coach tells his team to run the ball down the middle and the fans scream run down the middle, well no matter how fancy shamcy the QB gets (set up) a good defense is ready for ya. so the odds of you scoring running down the middle when they know your coming ain't good. Now if the defense is not sure if you are going wide left,wide right, short pass, long pass or right down the middle they can't concentrate their defense in just one area.
In wrestling terms, good wrestler's know how to stall out a shot to win, great wrestler's not only maintain position but gain positional advantage knowing that the only option you have in your tool belt to score is a shot. Now if your wrestler behind in points can front head lock,duck, inside trip outside trip, foot sweep,arm drag , 2 on 1 to hip toss, head and arm, arm throw,arm spin, ankle pick left, ankle pick right, just to name a few that shot might be open with a good stance, set up, shot and finish.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
John-
I believe the laws to be strong enough to merit their own consideration and by that standard they stand alone.
The laws are interlaced and a performance is codependent upon all of the laws working together. The laws provide a standard to which one can aspire and model behavior.
In assigning a hierarchy, the level of importance and integrity of the law is assigned greater or lesser value. I have always thought of position as the #1 law because all things are dependent upon it. I do like your ideas of tiersbut I have not given them much thought. I think it might be more appropriate to assign tiers for different developmental levels as meeting all laws is a highly evolved thing. Dave Schultz, Belaglasov, GSP, Musashi are names that come to mind when I think of the highest evolved combat athletes that embody laws and their actions are direct reflection of the laws at work.
Lou-
Here is my reason for stating such as I did. As you acknowledge, always seeking advantage of position does get you burned sooner or late.
In wrestling, you need to account for the intent to stay neutral as it relates to a match.i.e. ten seconds left on the clock and leading by a point, guy in on a leg who is very good at finishing so it makes more sense to stalemate; these situations are almost requisite for staying neutral. As a wrestler evolves from an offensive oriented machine that always tries to score, there become instances when it is more appropriate to remain neutral and minimize risk in order to win. Is this satisfying for the fan, not as much. But if you are the athlete or associated with the athlete, then you want them to win and by teaching them how to fight for neutrality, then you are in effect empowering them with the ability to win. If you disavow this aspect of wrestling, then you are leaving them with a gaping hole in their skillset. Help that explains my position better.
The trick is getting the wrestler to actively engage in a fight for neutrality rather than taking on any additional risk or some form of disengagement. As this area of wrestling is somewhat abstract and it is necessary to clearly outline expectations.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
Law of Technique-Technique is not a rigid thing, rather a flexible instrument which utilizes ones’ attributes toward a desired, planned or adaptive outcome. Technique requires accrual of knowledge of certain positions and utilization of that knowledge be it bodily or cognitive. Important variables relevant to technical execution are position, strength, speed, physical and mental fitness, timing, opponent’s reaction, leverage, knowledge, proficiency, mat placement, position recognition ( this list is a WIP). Technique can thought of as the medium through which our physical nature and adaptiveness can be expressed. Technique is unique to the individual and is based upon their interpretation of the situation and their collective experience. Technique is considered efficient or not. Technical efficiency denotes the most effective movements in a given situation without accessory. Successful technical application reflects utilizing accrued skills and bodily capabilities in accordance with the Law of Position. Conventional technical skills must be developed in younger wrestlers in order to provide the foundation for future growth and evolvement. As the wrestler matures, so do his capabilities and affordances of positions.
|
Last edited by Rex Holman on November 17, 2009; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
I was agreeing with you , Lou! I've been in the situation where a kid is down by one and the other kid has been warned for stalling. I said "shoot" and looking back, that's not what I really wanted. As your post detailed, it wasn't a shot I was after, it was the pushing of action that I wanted. All of the items you listed would very much serve this purpose.
My point was that I just find it easier to say "shoot!" And I admit that that isn't what I should be saying!!! I need to coach better in the practice room and find better ways to communicate what needs to occur when on the mat.
...which is why I am ABSOLUTELY loving this topic!
ps: If you get downstairs in your basement sometime this week, let the boy know I said hi! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
Rex-
I think we are just splitting hairs or or to a certain degree both to sides of the same coin. Where we differ slightly is how we view what is going on in a situation where wrestler's may want to just stay neutral. When you gave the example of "ten seconds left on the clock and leading by a point, guy in on a leg who is very good at finishing so it makes more sense to stalemate'' I say Position must always be maintained while always seeking improved position, in order to gain advantage still holds true within these types of situation's. Any time you have 10 sec left on the clock with a 1 point lead and the other wrestler is in on one of his better moves a stalemate may occur because within your skill sets the best you could do is maintain position while still seeking to gain advantage if and when he may decide change to a move or position that you know how to gain the advantage you take it. Take a wrestler like Randy Lewis in his this situation, his leg defense was so good with 10 seconds left within his given skills sets he may have chosen to score because for him the other wrestler's very good shot was a poor attempt in compared to his leg defense. I also feel that when wrestler's get in the habit of not always seeking advantage in position but get lock into the mind set that of, I will just stall this out to win, will also lose matches because sometimes the only way to maintain position is to go to a position in which you score.
Mark-
Be careful, if you agree with me to often sooner or later they will label you a lunatic!!!
P.S will say hi! to the boy next time I throw raw meat or new wresting DVD's down there!!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
Lou-
Agreed to disagree.
BTW, I appreciate the feedback as it is making me think and iron out this topic.
The distinction between us is fighting for neutrality versus fighting to gain advantage. Some situations are at best going to end up in a draw, so in essence you are maintaining a relatively neutral position as there will be no gaining advantage, although the athlete may try and do so.
Risk/reward is central to Law of Situation. You compromise Law of Situation by seeking to always gain an advantage with intent to score or counter as there is always more risk involved in those situations. You make reference to Randy Lewis, who as an wrestler possessed the quality of which you speak. But what if you are not Randy Lewis. There is a Law of Opponent, which I will work on and alluded to in Law of Situation.
You don’t want to take on added risk in certain situations, it is unwise. There are times when you are not trying to score, but to manage or control the situation, which does entail seeking an advantage, so in essence you are seeking an advantage while maintaining a relatively neutral position. This works for me as I don’t believe in the concept of always trying to score.
A master is always trying to manage and control as many variables as one can. It is in understanding our limitations that we can truly exceed them.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
Rex
I meant it when I said what you wrote, was one of the best thing's I have ever written on a forum. And I agree 99% of what you wrote and the other 1% is a grey area of disagreement, if that makes sense.
Now when it comes down the Risk/reward elements of Law of Situation this is where i think we are in some what of the grey area of disagreement. I think the Law of Situation(risk/reward) aspect of wrestling always fall within my view of my Law of Position- Maintain position while always seeking advantage in position. let's a wrestler is up by 1 point 10 seconds left and in under over position would I risk a throw at this point, no but if i only try to maintain position i may get thrown, slide by, outside duck ,front headlock or set up for a shot even. Now we are both in under over's i have the same options. For me, I be seeking to improve position not to maintain the neutral here, my opponent has just as many options as I .I would slip one arm and go to front head lock or slip one arm and go to a reverse 2 on 1 these would be positions that I feel my opponent will have to defend because they are strong within my skill sets and I can get to them with less risk of trying to maintain a neutral under over position. Say, I stay in the under over's hoping to stall him out but I'm caught in a head and my only option might be to re-throw but I have seen wrestler's fight to the point of no return and get thrown trying to maintain position.
For me the Law of Situation is most important mainly on how it relates to how an opponent position's himself wrestle within situation. if a wrestler is 1 point up he knows his opponent has to attack score late in a match so if I maintain position while seek advantage he will stalk opponent while looking for 2 on 1's if opponents reaching or front head lock if opponent is forcing shot both of these give me advantage in position if my oppenent has a good shot, Now if my opponent has better hand fighting I might just maintain good head position trying to force a bad shot, I seeking to gain advantage within my given skill sets in relationship to my opponents.
I hope my example's show we are not that far apart, I think that you if you and I coach to same kid knowing his skill sets, we would most likely make all the same calls with with slightly different reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
Lou-
excellent stuff. I am winterizing stuff and taking a break. I can create the language to make this work as I understand your viewpoint. My language is failing in some respects but I know my meaning. It strikes close to home with the over/under as my brother was pinned in the state finals from such a position while leading. Actively engaging while minimizing risks means staying the hell out of a over/under if leading in the match. It was poor coaching and I am still mad about it.
My goal is to develop the law in way in which everyone would deem functional, intelligent and mindful of all circumstance going from general to specific with independent, codependent and interdependency amongst laws as well as accounting for nuances of language. Shazam.
Rex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
