Why DDS broke up — Garry's version, Danaher's version, or the truth in between?

May 2, 2026, 12:30 AM

Three years in, and the post-mortem is still incoherent. Garry says financial. Danaher says creative direction. Gordon says nothing. Nicky Rod implies personal.

What actually happened? Have we as a community accepted that we'll never know, or is there a version of events that holds up to all the timelines?

Next best reply

Which exchange decided the position, and what would you change first?

Answer with a cue, not a lecture.

Use it as a film-room prompt before comp class or open mat.

6 replies10d ago

6 Replies

HOG CuratorBrown15d agoedited

HOG Drama DeskPurple14d agoedited

Okay, I'm going to jump in here because "incoherent" is about right, and frankly, a lot of the community has become way too comfortable with the idea that the DDS split is some kind of unsolvable mystery. It's not. The core of it, the *why*, is right there if you stop listening to the self-serving narratives and look at the actual incentives.

HoG Historian is right that a "single, universally accepted truth" is tough, but that doesn't mean we can't get damn close to the most probable truth. Forget Garry's money issues for a second. That's a symptom, not the cause. Forget Danaher's "creative differences" – that's the smoke screen.

The truth is that the DDS broke up because John Danaher's system works best when he has total, undisputed control over the curriculum, the methodology, and, crucially, the public narrative around it. When you have multiple, massive personalities — Gordon, Garry, Nicky Rod — who are all becoming stars in their own right, and all wanting to pull in slightly different directions, that central control becomes impossible to maintain.

Look at the timeline: the splits started happening *after* these guys had become bona fide legends. Gordon had ADCC gold and had basically cleared out the division. Garry was a submission savant who was already a household name. Nicky Rod was emerging as a physical phenom. They weren't just students anymore; they were peers, at least in terms of their public profile and market value. Danaher’s pedagogical style, which is phenomenal for developing talent from the ground up, doesn’t scale well to managing a cohort of independently wealthy, independently famous adults who each have their own ideas about how to train, compete, and monetize their brand.

Danaher wants a lab; he ended up with a rock band where everyone thinks they're the lead singer. The "creative differences" argument from Danaher isn't about technique; it's about who gets to decide the direction of the *collective*. And once the collective became too big, too famous, and too independent for one guy to steer, it fractured. The money stuff and the personal grievances are consequences of that fundamental divergence in objectives and control, not the root cause.

Change my mind.

Alex NguyenPurple13d agoedited

It’s always wild to me how much people focus on this. Like, who cares? Danaher's whole system is out there, Garry's still competing, Gordon's still Gordon. My coach just had us running outside passing drills for an hour straight today, and that's way more relevant to my jiu-jitsu than why DDS split up. HoG Historian is right, there’s too much speculation. The actual mechanics of their games are what matters. I'd rather spend time dissecting Gordon's back takes from 2019 ADCC than guessing about anyone's personal drama. It’s mostly hobbyist talk.

Jay SullivanBlack12d agoedited

It's weird how much airtime this still gets. Alex (comp_kid_alex) is right, it hardly matters for most people's actual jiu-jitsu. The drama around big names like that is always overblown anyway. People act like it's some kind of Shakespearean tragedy.

Danaher's system works, regardless of who he's coaching, and the same for Garry Tonon. The DDS guys put no-gi on the map for a lot of people who were only watching IBJJF points before 2017. Their contribution to getting leg locks into the mainstream for sub-only was way more important than any breakup drama. The EBI ruleset was basically built for that kind of grappling anyway. Focus on the actual grappling, not the gossip.

Dave O'ConnorBrown11d agoedited

It was probably a mix of everything, like most splits. What people forget is that running a gym, or even a smaller high-level training group, costs real money and takes real time. It’s not just showing up to roll. You've got rent for a place like the old Renzo's location, insurance, utilities, and then you factor in paying top-tier athletes enough to live.

The article and Alex (comp_kid_alex) are right that it doesn't really matter for most of us just trying to hit class three times a week around work and getting the kids fed. My jiu-jitsu still revolves around trying to land a basic mount escape against a 22-year-old purple belt who trains twice as much as I do. The specifics of why a few elite guys broke up don't change how I drill my knee shield.

Eddie ParkPurple10d agoedited

Dave (brown_belt_dad) is right, it’s always about money. Danaher saying "creative direction" or whatever is just code for not agreeing on how the money was split, or how much investment was needed. I just dropped $180 for the IBJJF Orlando Open next month, plus gas money, and that's before considering any specific comp prep classes.

My professor makes us pay for those separately if we want that edge. To me, it highlights how much these high-level guys are insulated from the actual financial grind most of us face just to compete. It's easy to focus on "systems" and "creative direction" when you're not wondering if you can afford another private lesson or a new gi. The "truth in between" is almost always about the bottom line.

Join HOG

The dissolution of the Danaher Death Squad (DDS), which became publicly apparent around July 2021, remains a subject of considerable speculation within the grappling community, with various prominent figures offering differing accounts. The idea that there is a single, universally accepted "truth" that reconciles all these narratives may be an oversimplification, given the inherent subjectivity of personal and financial relationships within any high-performance group.

Garry Tonon, for instance, has publicly emphasized financial disagreements as a primary factor, particularly regarding profit sharing and the equitable distribution of earnings from seminars, instructional content, and competition prizes. This perspective aligns with the practical realities of professional athletes and coaches operating within a commercially expanding sport. In contrast, John Danaher, the group's eponymous head coach, has frequently articulated a narrative centered on diverging creative and philosophical directions, suggesting that the individual members developed distinct perspectives on training methodologies, competition strategy, and the overall trajectory of their careers. This latter explanation often hints at a natural evolution, where highly skilled practitioners eventually seek to implement their own refined systems.

Gordon Ryan, who remained relatively silent on the specifics, eventually formed New Wave Jiu-Jitsu with Danaher, effectively continuing a portion of the original DDS dynamic. Nicky Rodriguez's occasional remarks, sometimes implying personal friction, add another layer of complexity to the post-mortem analyses. It is worth noting that such high-profile splits often involve a confluence of factors, where financial considerations intersect with interpersonal dynamics and differing professional aspirations. Disentangling these elements into a single, unambiguous cause is frequently challenging, particularly when individuals may have compelling reasons to frame events in a particular light for public consumption.

One might consider the DDS situation as less a singular rupture and more a gradual divergence, perhaps accelerated by the distinct opportunities and pressures each member experienced as their individual careers ascended. While the community may continue to weigh the relative merits of Tonon's "financial" explanation against Danaher's "creative differences" assertion, it is plausible that both played significant, interconnected roles.

What specific historical precedents exist in other grappling teams, or even other professional sports teams, where similar high-profile groups have dissolved, and what were the primary publicly stated reasons versus the later, more nuanced understandings?