George ⬛️🟫⬛️

Okay, I'm seeing a lot of "the game has changed" and "old school vs. new school" takes in this thread, and honestly, it's just a little too neat for me. The idea that there's some seismic, unbridgeable gap between the fundamentals preached by Renzo Gracie and the current landscape of competitive grappling isn't wrong, but it's also not the full story. It’s more complicated than just saying "things are different now."

Look, Renzo's perspective, honed over decades and a lineage that stretches back to the very bedrock of the art, emphasizes control, pressure, and the slow, deliberate progression through positions. That's not just a quaint relic; it's the *source code* for everything we do. Without that fundamental understanding of how to establish and maintain control, the flashy entries and dynamic submissions of the modern game often crumble under pressure. Go back and watch someone like Roger Gracie's run at ADCC in 2005. It wasn't about leg locks; it was about an inescapable, suffocating top game built on these exact principles.

Where the disconnect *does* legitimately emerge is in the *emphasis* and the *response* to modern rulesets. Renzo's style, in its purest form, doesn't chase points; it chases positional dominance and submission. Modern competition, particularly with the rise of the leg lock meta and the increasing prevalence of guard pulling, often rewards different inputs. If you're not drilling entries to the saddle or defensive counters to an ankle pick in your core curriculum, you're going to feel behind the curve in a competitive context.

But the real meat of it isn't "Renzo's wrong" or "Renzo's right." It's that the principles he's articulating—the importance of base, balance, posture, and pressure—are the *language* that allows you to understand *why* the modern techniques work or don't work. It's the difference between memorizing phrases and understanding grammar. You can learn a hundred leg lock entries, but if you don't grasp the underlying principles of off-balancing, controlling the hips, and creating levers that Renzo talks about, you're going to struggle against anyone who *does*.

So, while "the game has changed" is certainly true, let's not pretend it's some entirely new discipline. It's built on these bricks. The question isn't whether Renzo's techniques are outdated, but whether we're still teaching the foundational concepts that make *any* technique, old or new, effective. Is the current generation getting the full story, or just the CliffsNotes version tailored for a specific competition ruleset? My money's on the latter being the more pressing concern.

When considering the idea that "the game has changed," as HoG Drama Desk aptly notes, it is valuable to examine the historical trajectory of competitive grappling, particularly concerning the evolution of techniques and strategies that appear "new" but often have deeper roots. The distinction between "old school" and "new school" often oversimplifies the continuous adaptation inherent in grappling. For instance, while lapel guards became particularly prominent and widely adopted in competition during the 2010–2014 period, often associated with competitors like Keenan Cornelius, the manipulation of the gi for positional control and submissions is not an entirely recent innovation.

Indeed, the fundamental concept of using gi material for leverage can be traced back to the early days of Kano-era judo, where Kuzushi (off-balancing) frequently involved gripping the opponent's gi in various configurations. While the specific applications, such as the worm guard or lapel-wrapped leg entanglements, are certainly products of modern innovation and competitive environments, the underlying principle of using fabric as a mechanical advantage has always been present. The difference lies in the degree of specialization and the systematic integration of these techniques into comprehensive competitive strategies.

Moreover, the narrative of a static "old school" against a dynamic "new school" sometimes overlooks the constant refinement within established lineages. Carlson Gracie, for example, was known for his emphasis on takedowns and aggressive passing, challenging the more guard-oriented approach that some attribute to other branches of the Gracie family in earlier decades. His methodological approach, focused on pressure and forward momentum, was a distinct evolution within the broader Gracie jiu-jitsu framework, demonstrating that adaptation was not unique to the post-IBJJF or post-ADCC eras.

Therefore, when we observe techniques that might seem alien to an "old school" practitioner, it might be more accurate to view them as a natural, if accelerated, evolution of existing principles, rather than an entirely disparate phenomenon. How much of what we consider "new school" today is truly novel, and how much is a sophisticated reinterpretation or extreme specialization of techniques that have existed in some form for decades, merely awaiting the right competitive environment and strategic minds to bring them to prominence?

The idea that fundamentals from anyone like Renzo are somehow "outdated" misses the point. My GB school, like most, still runs a basics curriculum that's rooted in the 90s. Week 3 of Fundamentals covers closed guard sweeps like the scissor and the flower. Nobody’s acting like those are cutting-edge techniques for an ADCC trial, but they’re essential building blocks. The "new" stuff often just builds on that core. It's not an either/or. The politics between academies are more of a barrier than the techniques themselves. Trying to drop into some places for open mat with a GB rashguard can still feel like you've walked into the wrong saloon.

I agree with Tom (gracie_barra_4yr) that fundamentals aren't outdated, but the article's talk about "evolution" often feels like it's for people with unlimited budgets. It's easy to say the game "evolves" when you can drop thousands on private camps and travel to every major IBJJF open.

For us regular competitors, that "evolution" means figuring out how to drill the latest techniques from YouTube videos after our day job, then scrounging for the $160 entry fee for something like the Atlanta Open last month. Not to mention the gas and a cheap motel if it's more than a few hours drive. The "game has changed" argument, like HoG Drama Desk mentioned, only really applies if you can afford to play at that level. Most of us are just trying to get enough mat time to not get smoked.

I think a lot of these takes about fundamentals being “outdated” totally miss the point. It's not that scissor sweep or flower sweep aren't effective, it’s that the *context* has changed. At AOJ, we spend maybe 15-20 minutes on specific training from closed guard, and it’s usually for a very particular setup, not just general sweeping. Most of our rounds are open guard retention or passing drills.

When I competed at Pan Ams this year against guys like Mateo from Art of Jiu Jitsu, nobody was sitting in closed guard waiting for a sweep. It’s all about getting to your primary attack position as fast as possible. So, yeah, the core mechanics are still there, but how you apply them and the *priority* you give them in your training is completely different from what Tom (gracie_barra_4yr) is describing.

It's interesting to see the conversation about fundamentals and whether they're "outdated." Alex (comp_kid_alex) brings up context, which is key. The idea of core techniques being irrelevant seems to misunderstand the historical development of the art. Rolls Gracie, for instance, was always innovating but built on a strong foundation from Helio and Carlson. Even in the 1990s, when the sport aspect was really taking off, the fundamental closed guard attacks—scissor, flower—were still primary tools. What changed wasn't their effectiveness, but the counters developed, pushing further evolution. Maeda taught a very simple, direct approach; the nuances came later.