Building curriculum

The challenge of curriculum building in jiu-jitsu, particularly when moving between gi and no-gi contexts, often brings to mind the historical evolution of techniques and their formalization within different grappling systems. One specific example that illustrates the adaptive nature of curriculum development, and perhaps a tension between tradition and practicality, is the journey of Mitsuyo Maeda and his instruction in Brazil during the early 20th century.

Maeda, a Kodokan Judo expert, began his travels in 1904, eventually arriving in Brazil in 1914. His primary mission was to demonstrate and teach judo, which at the time was often still referred to as *Kano jiu-jitsu*. Maeda's curriculum, as evidenced by his engagements and the accounts of his students, was not static. He adapted his instruction based on the needs and contexts of his various students, including Carlos Gracie, whom he began teaching around 1917. While the Kodokan curriculum was highly structured, emphasizing throws and pins in addition to submissions, the practical application of these techniques in different competitive or self-defense scenarios likely led to certain emphases being highlighted or de-emphasized.

For instance, the focus on ground fighting (ne-waza) that would later become a hallmark of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu may have been a natural evolution stemming from Maeda's demonstrations and the preferences of his students, particularly in a context where street self-defense was a significant concern. There is some historical debate about the exact proportion of standing versus ground techniques taught by Maeda to the Gracies. While Kodokan judo certainly contained a robust ne-waza component, the specific emphasis and subsequent development of positions like the guard and various submissions became more pronounced within the Gracie system. This suggests a curriculum that was less about rigid adherence to a pre-set sequence and more about a dynamic adaptation of principles for specific ends.

This historical example highlights that even foundational curricula were not immutable. They were shaped by the instructor's background (Maeda's judo training), the student's needs and interests (the Gracies' focus on practical application and later, competition), and the prevailing context (self-defense in Brazil). Therefore, when building a curriculum today, especially for no-gi, it might be productive to consider what foundational principles from gi-based jiu-jitsu translate effectively and where entirely new frameworks or emphases need to be constructed. How much of the "gi game" is truly dependent on the fabric, and how much is simply a matter of grip preference that can be translated through different control points?

Alright, I see the thread on curriculum building, and with all due respect to HoG Historian’s detailed dive into the "adaptive nature of curriculum development," I think we're overthinking this. The struggle isn't some deep historical conundrum; it's a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding about what most people are actually paying for.

Here’s the thing: most students, especially at a recreational level, don’t care about your meticulously crafted, horizontally integrated, vertically aligned curriculum. They care about two things: feeling like they’re improving, and not feeling lost. The entire concept of a "curriculum" in jiu-jitsu, as we often try to apply it, is a holdover from academic institutions or, even worse, the rigid, belt-test-centric model that some legacy gyms still cling to.

Let's be blunt: if you’re trying to build a year-long arc that perfectly introduces every guard retention concept before every guard pass, you’re missing the forest for the trees. The art isn't linear. It's fractal. You teach a sweep; you teach the counter to the sweep; you teach the counter to the counter. That’s not a curriculum; that’s just good instruction.

The “struggle” you’re feeling, especially moving from No-Gi (which is often more immediately applicable and less bogged down by stylistic nuances) to Gi, likely stems from trying to impose a false structure. Gi opens up a thousand more variables – grips, lapels, sleeves – and trying to fit all that into a neat, progression-based package is a fool’s errand.

My take? Stop thinking "curriculum" and start thinking "problem-solving modules." Instead of saying, "This week we learn X guard," say, "This week, we're solving the problem of getting swept from half guard," or "This week, we're solving the problem of defending a deep lapel choke." Each problem comes with tools. Some tools are sweeps, some are passes, some are submissions. They don't need to fit into some grand, overarching scheme that you’ve mapped out for the next six months. Most students are showing up for an hour of focused learning, not a semester-long course.

What’s more valuable: a perfectly sequenced year of techniques that a few dedicated students might follow, or a series of clear, actionable lessons that 80% of your class can pick up and feel better about their rolling by the end of the night? The latter is what keeps the lights on.

Are we really suggesting that every student needs to master spider guard grips before they can understand lasso? Or are we just trying to make our whiteboard look pretty? What specific, measurable outcomes are your "curriculum" actually designed to achieve for the average, inconsistent student?

Curriculum in no-gi is pretty straightforward if you're not trying to force gi concepts onto it. The whole "circling back" thing HoG Historian mentioned works better when you're focusing on submission-hunting setups that translate across positions, not just repeating grips or sweeps that depend on lapels.

You build from fundamental controls and submissions that work regardless of the fabric, or lack thereof. Start with something like head and arm control, transition to a guillotine or an arm triangle. Then chain that into a back take and a rear-naked choke. It’s all about the connection and pressure, which isn't unique to any specific historical period. Guys like Gordon Ryan didn't need a historical curriculum to dominate ADCC in 2017. They just drilled what worked.

The "circling back" concept Jay mentioned makes a lot of sense, especially when you think about how many BJJ academies approach their drilling. In judo, we often had very structured drills, almost like kata, that built on the previous week's technique. For example, a kosoto gake entry might be followed by a tsukuri for osoto gari.

The challenge I see in BJJ, both gi and no-gi, is that the mat-time gap for new students can be huge. You can show someone a sankaku choke setup one week, but if they don't drill it for weeks, it's just gone. I remember my first year in BJJ, at 35, how much I struggled to retain anything beyond a few basic escapes, even with my judo background. The mat-time gap really changes how effective any curriculum can be.

I get what Jay is saying about no-gi being more straightforward. My coach at East Side Jiu Jitsu here in Austin actually mentioned something similar last week. He said that with gi, there are so many more layers of grips and setups that it can be harder to connect everything in a coherent way across weeks. He usually plans our gi classes more around positions, like mount escapes for a few weeks, then moving to back takes.

For no-gi, it feels like we just focus on a few key attacks and how they link, then drill them every class. For example, we've been working on a particular leg lock entry from half guard for about a month now, and it’s slowly starting to click. I can see how that "circling back" idea is easier to implement without all the gi variables.

For an older student, I think the "circling back" concept Kenji and Jay mentioned is really important for retention. My current instructor, Coach Ben, is great about structuring the curriculum so we revisit core movements regularly. It's not just about drilling a new move every week. For example, we spent a whole month in 2022 really breaking down the arm triangle from mount and side control, then kept incorporating elements of it into subsequent weeks. It allowed me to work on the details without feeling like I was falling behind, especially with my aging joints. I have to avoid high-impact movements, so those focused drilling sessions are much more beneficial than just trying to keep up with younger training partners.