Are big guys less technical?

EnjoyChoke

This is a bit of a generalisation but do you think, on the whole, that bigger guys (100k+) have a tendency to be less technical than their lighter counterparts?

Killme00

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

This is a bit of a generalisation but do you think, on the whole, that bigger guys (100k+) have a tendency to be less technical than their lighter counterparts?

As beginners = yes
Intermediate = yes but not so much
Advanced = depends on the person but ideally no

heno86

i think it depends on the guy,a lot of times if i was sparring someone smaller then me i'd find myself relying more on strength inadvertantly, where as if your strength is matched or surpassed your forced to use technique...so i could see how someone who is naturally very big or strong might fall into some bad habits but so long as there's a good coach to point this out i reckon they would be fine

Furious-Dave

Yes and no As a big guy myself I'm very familiar with the "big guy mentality". Where the big guys have an instinct that if it comes to it they will fall back on their natural strength and mass to get them out of a tight situation. Having this strength and their mass means that even with mediocre technique their strikes will still be powerful. This, I believe, is why you see a lot of brawlers in the heavier weight classes of MMA. They seem to be content with relying on their natural attributes and "ok" technical skill. Technical big guys, on the other hand, are truly devastating I do think though that professional fighters who compete on the international and global stage are more technical than the guys who compete at local and national level. (I'd like to add that I don't think this is the same in all sports).
Wrestling and grappling are a different matter entirely, where the "big guy mentality" can work against them, particularly against BJJ and similar styles.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I wouldn't say we're more or less, I'd say we're technically different.

Speaking for myself, against opponents my own weight I tend to set up my opponents for my bigger throw's (ie Osoto Gari, Harai Goshi, Uchimata) with my ashiwaza (foot sweeps).. Where as against smaller lighter opponents I'd expect to score with those feet sweeps alone, while my lighter opponent would be throwing everything in their arsenal against me, so to the outsider it would look like the smaller, less strong lad is far more technical.

I think with lighter opponents there might not be as much different in strenght between the different techniques and combinations, whereas with the bigger lads there's a massive difference in the strength/power between one techque or combination and another - so we favour our power advantage in the bigger/stronger throw's.

Good question.

Burnt

Devils advocat: Are small guys less technical because they are fast?

Furious-Dave

Burnt wrote: »

Devils advocat: Are small guys less technical because they are fast?

If you consider that smaller guys don't have the natural strength and body mass to the same extent that bigger guys have, and so can't fall back on them in the same way as the bigger guys can, and then if you consider that technique, for any strike or wrestling technique, is, in reality, the body mechanics that the founders and pioneers of a style believed to be the best, within the scope of principles of their system, for generating power, then it stands to reason, or at least to me it does , that smaller guys need to be more technical than the bigger guys.

I'm not saying that smaller guys can't be freakishly strong for their size, as I know from experience that they well can be, especially with training. It's just it's more common with bigger guys.

EnjoyChoke

Burnt wrote: »

Devils advocat: Are small guys less technical because they are fast?

Small does not equate fast.

Barry.Oglesby

I think there's an anti big guy bias in Jiu Jitsu generally. Yes big dudes early on are more likely to smash but they can't make themselves smaller and I reckon smaller guys probably do as much attempted squeezing, but the experienced guys can handle it better because it's not amplified by size.

Weight is a factor no matter what and everyone accepts that. But I don't think that there's anything to stop a big guy drilling and training properly and becoming just as technical as anyone else. I think a lot of the time it's their smaller counterparts assuming it's just size that's kicking their ass

I think it's a bit like when you get a guy in a guillotine and he taps and then says "aw it was just a crank really" If you control a smaller guy you don't get too much credit for your technique .

EnjoyChoke

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

I think there's an anti big guy bias in Jiu Jitsu generally. Yes big dudes early on are more likely to smash but they can't make themselves smaller and I reckon smaller guys probably do as much attempted squeezing, but the experienced guys can handle it better because it's not amplified by size.

Weight is a factor no matter what and everyone accepts that. But I don't think that there's anything to stop a big guy drilling and training properly and becoming just as technical as anyone else. I think a lot of the time it's their smaller counterparts assuming it's just size that's kicking their ass

I think it's a bit like when you get a guy in a guillotine and he taps and then says "aw it was just a crank really" If you control a smaller guy you don't get too much credit for your technique .

Agree to a point. What I have noticed in BJJ though, with a few noteable exceptions, is that big guys (below purple belt) tend to have underdevolped guard and bottom games. Lighter guys have to sharpen these to do well in day to day training. Bigger guys don't. This isn't a problem, that is until they're up against someone their own size or bigger.

BobbyOLeary

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

But I don't think that there's anything to stop a big guy drilling and training properly and becoming just as technical as anyone else. I think a lot of the time it's their smaller counterparts assuming it's just size that's kicking their ass

Yes and no. There's nothing to stop them but the vast majority of big guys I've rolled with have trouble toning down their strength. Obviously big guys can become technical otherwise we'd never have any big BBs. As for smaller guys just assuming it's the bulk, well a lot of the time it is. You can feel when someone gets out of a position because they've timed it perfectly or when they've benched you off them. Both work but I'm surprised you say that most of the time it's the smaller guys ego at play.

cardio,shoot me

well i dont really have much to add other than if you look at mma,

take shane carwin and overeem, both big and powerful men, but its obvious one relies less on brute strength and more on technique than the other.

da-bres

I dont think big guys have a general disadvantage in the way they pick up there technique.

Its all about the learning environment,
I know two polish grapplers training less than 6 months, both over 100 kilo, They have the right mentality and have progressed quicker than most people have there size.

Its all in the mind of the individual, and the coaching.

onlyasuggestion

The problem with big guys (thinking BJJ here) is that they often spend so much time rolling with people smaller than them against whom they can pull moves off even if they're not doing them perfectly. As such the necessity isn't always there in training to be technical. There's not real reason why they can't be just as technical as smaller guys though especially if they're training with a lot of other big guys.

Barry.Oglesby

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

Agree to a point. What I have noticed in BJJ though, with a few noteable exceptions, is that big guys (below purple belt) tend to have underdevolped guard and bottom games. Lighter guys have to sharpen these to do well in day to day training. Bigger guys don't. This isn't a problem, that is until they're up against someone their own size or bigger.

Agree to a point too. That being said I think we could all point to a small speedy guy who uses that to pass guard/keep knee on belly for example until he meets someone just as quick.

My point isn't that big guys are awesome, just that we all have different physical attributes and no matter how much we try to say otherwise, all of these play a part in how we train. I just think sometimes our pie eating brethren get the ****ty end of the stick.

Bobby I didn't say that happens all the time, just sometimes. For example, we both know a 130+kg guy and he can tap me despite my superior technique and most of that is due to size (though not all as he is very good too). But trying to figure out what's due to what (size or technique) is a futile exercise as he can't make himself any smaller. He is what he is so as a coach it's my challenge to put him in situations where he has to work technically and his challenge to keep mixing his training up so he advances. When he taps me I can't just say "oh well that's just cos he's big". I have to give him credit for successfully using his attributes in conjunction with his technique. And as anyone will tell you, things like size, limb length etc. directly effect how you apply technique. He does it the way he works for him.

Burnt

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

Small does not equate fast.

Just as big don't equal a slow clumbsy brute. The idea that big guys are
inherently untechnical is ridiculus, it comes down to the person.

As Barry says there is general chauvism in most grappling against big guys.
I feel it's because when the catch you they can exploit it to the maximum.

I'm +81Kgs I've fought guys from less than 50Kgs to well over 120Kgs
When I fight 50kgs i'm the big guy when I fight 120kgs I'm the small guy.
I get to see it from both sides.

I beat and have been beaten by everything in between I could say well
the small guys were too fast or the big guys were too strong. Or I could
accept that I wasn't good enough and get on with getting better.

Edit: As a medium size guy I type too slow and Barry got there first

colinlaird000

I don't really agree with the "less technical" aspect of being a "big guy". I think this boils down to the old arguement of attributes. For example, is a small guy working his guard really effectively against me because -
A. He's more technical.
or
B. Hes lighter, faster, and has more hip flexibility.

If a guy over 85kg is just lying on you and waiting for you to gas out, then i agree, hes not using a wide range of techniques (It's still good top control. You can't escape, therefore you have to assume to some degree, its effective, if not super technical.)
Again, Barry and Burnt beat me to it, so i'll stop typing now

colinlaird000

Totally with Barry on his point about body shape, and how different techniques, set ups and game plans are totally reliant on individual physiques, body differences, and general thought patterns. I have short legs, therefore me playing a long legged guys guard game is, well, silly. I'm small for my weight catagory, so its also silly for me to play a smashing top game. I suppose then, to a degree, I'm using "attributes". I know the fundamental techniques, and when all things are equal, they work great. Its just that things aren't equal. People naturally play a game suited to their physical make up, which regardless of super conditioning isn't going to change. My skeleton is the same shape, my arms and legs will still be the same length. I just have to work with the things i have.

EnjoyChoke

Burnt wrote: »

Just as big don't equal a slow clumbsy brute. The idea that big guys are
inherently untechnical is ridiculus, it comes down to the person.

As Barry says there is general chauvism in most grappling against big guys.
I feel it's because when the catch you they can exploit it to the maximum.

I'm +81Kgs I've fought guys from less than 50Kgs to well over 120Kgs
When I fight 50kgs i'm the big guy when I fight 120kgs I'm the small guy.
I get to see it from both sides.

I beat and have been beaten by everything in between I could say well
the small guys were too fast or the big guys were too strong. Or I could
accept that I wasn't good enough and get on with getting better.

Edit: As a medium size guy I type too slow and Barry got there first

No one said that big guys were "inherently untechnical".
My argument is that they have an above average tendency to rely on their attributes which has a limiting effect on their technical development.
Maybe thats just my ego talking having been smashed by too many larger men

And I don't buy "small equals faster", all the big athletic guys I know are far to quick for my liking!

arybvtcw0eolkf

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

No one said that big guys were "inherently untechnical".
My argument is that they have an above average tendency to rely on their attributes which has a limiting effect on their technical development.
Maybe thats just my ego talking having been smashed by too many larger men

And I don't buy "small equals faster", all the big athletic guys I know are far to quick for my liking!

I think 'Killme00' hit the nail on the head with this reply.

Killme00 wrote: »

As beginners = yes
Intermediate = yes but not so much
Advanced = depends on the person but ideally no

Burnt

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

No one said that big guys were "inherently untechnical".


And I don't buy "small equals faster", all the big athletic guys I know are far to quick for my liking!

I have exaggerated ever so slightly for illustrative purposes

Mark Hamill

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

No one said that big guys were "inherently untechnical".
My argument is that they have an above average tendency to rely on their attributes which has a limiting effect on their technical development.

Having trained with new newbies every year in college, I think that its actually a case that newbies have an above average tendency to rely on their attributes (or at least to try to).
I have seen people of every size head squeeze, try to weigh down on their opponent and try to pass guardwith speed instead of skill. Its just that bigger guys can head squeeze harder and weigh down heavier and, at least when training with smaller newbies, they think it can work for them.
A good training mentality gets rid of this though, I've trained with really big guys who purposefully did not throw their weight at me, because they where generally trying to improve their skill.

Killme00

Aylin Important Trapdoor wrote: »

I think 'Killme00' hit the nail on the head with this reply.

I need a new username, i'm not the killer i once was in my poker days.



As a reformed head squeezer here's my opinion. When i first started BJJ i tried to muscle out of everything. Anyone who has been in a good side control or scarf hold knows how pointless muscling or big movements are (they just wear you out more quickly). After a while you learn where to put your body, when to apply pressure and how quickly to move. That doesnt mean that you are no longer using power merely that you are using it better.

I often comment that a girl/lady/woman has gotten better more quickly than most people in the gym. There can be many reasons for this but i am convinced that one of them is that she will roll with anyone, and not being as strong as the guys she was forced to be more technical and has learned a lot more quickly than us knuckleheads.

Making progress is most of our sports (BJJ for me) regardless of whether you are big or small is based on the little details (dont miss those details by using your bicep instead of your brain)

BobbyOLeary

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

But trying to figure out what's due to what (size or technique) is a futile exercise as he can't make himself any smaller.

Ah now. We both know situations where you just get benched off or thrown off a top position. A strategy that just won't work for smaller guys or against more skilled opposition. I realise we all play our own game but

1. That game isn't established fully at white/blue level

2. That game can't revolve around the fact that you're a strong mofo

I don't know any other big guys but a lot of the moves that have flipped me won't work against a 90 or 100kg dude. I'm not knocking the entirety of big guy's games but in my experience they use their strength to patch over bad technique more than little guys do.

Opinicus

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

In my experience they use their strength to patch over bad technique more than little guys do.

When you're naturally big isn't your size/strength part of your technique? You use every advantage you have.

EnjoyChoke

Opinicus wrote: »

When you're naturally big isn't your size/strength part of your technique? You use every advantage you have.

I don't remember being show how to be big and strong in any BJJ class I've ever been to. Maybe I was off sick that day.

Opinicus

Opinicus wrote: »

You use every advantage you have.

Sure you do, in competition.

Opinicus

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

I don't remember being show how to be big and strong in any BJJ class I've ever been to. Maybe I was off sick that day.

I just mean that if your against a lighter opponent you might try a move/throw you wouldn't try with someone your own weight or bigger

arybvtcw0eolkf

EnjoyChoke wrote: »

I don't remember being show how to be big and strong in any BJJ class I've ever been to. Maybe I was off sick that day.

Drop the attitude, this is the second and last time I pull you on something.

BobbyOLeary

Opinicus wrote: »

I just mean that if your against a lighter opponent you might try a move/throw you wouldn't try with someone your own weight or bigger

Why wouldn't you try it anyway? Unless you were in competition and it would result in a loss or negative positional change it should make no difference. If you're treating each roll as the be all and end all of your BJJ worth you're going to progress at a snails pace.

The best way I've heard it said is that whoever you roll against aim to use slightly less strength than they do.

RearNakedJim

When I became a coach I was told that I should roll with guys on their first day, and as a small guy, I have had my share of 100kg+ guys trying to rip me apart on the first day.

I think as a coach we want these naturally big guys to tone strength back a bit for many reasons:
1. If they are really big they can end up hurting someone.
2. They won't develop as quickly technique wise.
3. If we tell them to tone back the strength, then when we roll with them they will instantly become a lot easier to beat when rolling .

I will admit in my first year as a coach I fell into this trap, and told big guys to not use their strength when rolling, but what I found was, telling bigger guys to tone down the strength retarded their learning as they lost aggression/tenacity.
These days I don't care about 3 anymore, and 2 is all I care about as a coach, so I advise everyone in my club to be aggressive in the pursuit of a position, submission, an arm, leg etc. whatever, but to never force something, as there is always another option, and secondly from their first day I single out big guys to make them start from bottom, forcing them to earn top position which bigger guys tend to develop quicker than their bottom game.

gstack

If you are 50% more technical than someone but they are 100% stronger who is going to win ?
I know who I would put my money on and I know there is a reason you compete in single sex and weighted brackets.
Big guys shouldnt be less technical but if they are always rolling against smaller guys/gals they simply wont be tested as much unless their opponent is very skilled.
When they roll against someone closer to their weight thats when you see the more technical aspect of their game.

Also I have seen guys around 70kg play a very technical slow tight game with opponents much heavier than them as well as guys at 90-100 play a very loose fast game with opponents much lighter or smaller than them.

Tim_Murphy

Well said Jim!

Dyr

Big guys shouldnt be less technical but if they are always rolling against smaller guys/gals they simply wont be tested as much unless their opponent is very skilled.

If big guys (and lets assume that "big" here includes ate-all-the-pies "big") are prone to being less technical how should they train to avoid this? And lets open this up from the assumption that we're just talking about rolling.

gstack

Im assuming big means heavier not necessarily fatter and i you are -94 then you need to roll with guys in the same weight category who are better/worse/same level as you.

That doesent mean you cant roll with lighter guys , you just cant go all out with lighter guys who are not technically better than you . Thats just my opinion anyway.

EnjoyChoke

Bambi wrote: »

If big guys (and lets assume that "big" here includes ate-all-the-pies "big") are prone to being less technical how should they train to avoid this? And lets open this up from the assumption that we're just talking about rolling.

What Jim said pretty much covers it.

RearNakedJim

Bambi wrote: »

If big guys (and lets assume that "big" here includes ate-all-the-pies "big") are prone to being less technical how should they train to avoid this?

I look to get my larger guys to always start from a disadvantaged position when sparring with smaller people, forcing them to really work for better positions.

The idea behind not trying to force any submission, postion or move etc is to hopefully help them realise that there are other options, ie if you have to try and force something then it is probably not on in the first place. So don't force by overpowering, but remain agressive in the persuit of what you want, and remember that when one door closes, another one opens.

Bambi wrote: »

And lets open this up from the assumption that we're just talking about rolling.

I can only come from a bjj/sub-wrestling/mma point of few here. From a clinch point of view i repeat what i have said above, don't force anything.