When does having a game become a limitation?
At some point, most people start developing “their game.” You find the positions that suit you, the sequences you trust, the submissions you naturally look for, and before long you’ve got a pretty clear route through a roll. That’s obviously a good thing. Having reliable A-game options gives you confidence, lets you sharpen details, and usually makes you much more effective.
But when does that become a limitation? Or does it ever become a limitation, à la Roger Gracie (limited game that's so trained it's practically unstoppable)?
There’s also a weird balance between specialising and avoiding. If you hate wrestling, never start standing and always pull guard, is that “playing your game” or just protecting a weakness? Same with always passing to your favourite side, refusing to play certain guards, or immediately bailing from unfamiliar positions.
So where do you draw the line?
2 Comments
That's actually a great question. I believe that somebody should be developing a game as soon as possible but an overall game. An example of a limitation is new people who have been training for a year or two years and they get really obsessed with the leg lock game. I find that the people who get so obsessed with a leg lock game, for example, really start lacking in other areas, especially once more experienced people start shutting down their leg locks.
However focusing on a more complete game, like:
having a specific pass that you like to do
having a specific sweep that you like to do
having a specific submission that you like to do
having a specific takedown that you like to do
I believe it's actually good to do earlier on. That way you can learn how to focus on game development earlier and not have to try to figure that skill out later on.
So 100%, it could look like somebody is developing a game when in reality they're just getting good at one very limited aspect of jiu-jitsu. They're not necessarily developing a game that's complete. They're just specializing in something that has them focus on an incomplete game, if that makes sense.
Appreciate your thoughts.
That distinction makes perfect sense. I don't think I've ever really thought about the very stark differentiation between “having a game” and “having one thing I’m really good at.” but it's one that definitely has the same linguistic connotations whilst producing very different results.
I suppose the key is having a coach or the ability to honestly self assess that can distinguish when a focus is becoming more of limitation than a genuine strength.