This was a wonderful article. It ties in perfectly with my recent approach of forgoing submissions for absolute control--pins, leg rides, etc. I don't know if I'd consider it 'eco', but it does get granular. And yes, being too granular has its drawbacks--the dogged determination to get the arm drag being a great example.
Glad you enjoyed Bradley. I too had a long phase of prioritising absolute control. Lots of fascinating pins and leg rides to be learnt from Dagestani competitors here. Interesting to see how this approach has seeped into mainstream no gi grappling in recent years as well
Me too. It can be really hard to deal with someone who is focusing all of their energy on control. I felt this pin system provided such a small opportunity to escape when I was training with people who implemented it as a strategy.
Also really interesting example of a meta that started in MMA and crossed over to jiu-jitsu.
Hi thanks for your comment. Never pedantic, appreciate the question and curiosity.
There’s a few things here, so let me go one by one:
1. Invariants = Heuristics - In the context that they are applied during ‘games’ in Jiu Jitsu, I still think invariants play a very similar role to heuristics/ general rules of thumb. Fundamentally they are the ‘things that never change’ (to quote Souders) and therefore provide students with some sort of stasis in an ever evolving, complex environment that is jiu jitsu. I also agree there is no ‘one technique’ although I’m assuming you’re quoting someone else here?
2. On personal invariants - The question of what techniques do and don’t work based on someone’s personal attributes has always been central to my coaching - but I don’t feel the need to use eco/CLA terms to describe this.
My ultimate goal with this piece and my coaching is to take complexity and create clarity, not the other way around.
For example, I regularly talk to my students about how they can adjust their approach based on their attributes. I don’t see the need to say that they need to see how their affordances change in light of their personal invariants. Unless the student specifically wants to dive deep in ecological dynamics/ CLA, I think it’s too jargony.
3) On environmental invariants: My last post did make a point that pressure passing is fundamentally about using gravity to your advantage - but I can’t think of many other examples where I’d use environmental invariants to teach jiu-jitsu. The same way that getting too granular can confuse students, getting too high level and conceptual can risk doing the same.
At the end of the day The Constraints Led Approach is an area of research that is adjacent to jiu-jitsu. Meaning we need to be cautious where we decide repurpose these terms.
This is also why if you’re looking for someone to talk more in depth about CLA, I’m probably not your man. My concern is only about how CLA is and isn’t useful to jiu-jitsu.
In a nutshell, this is my opinion on the use of CLA vocabulary in a jiu-jitsu context:
Good coaches need to be prescriptive with the terms they repurpose and only keep what is useful for jiu-jitsu and their students. That way, it won’t allow bad coaches to hijack an ambiguous vocabulary to hide their own inexperience.
Thanks for writing this. Agree that Eco D has some unique terms which make it harder to grasp and no doubt puts people off. I don’t think Invariants=heuristics. Yes there might be cross over, but an invariant is broader. So there are personal invariants (height), environmental invariants (gravity). These invariants shape intentional and attention, which shape which affordances. So as a short person, a basketball hoop invites a shot over a dunk. This height invariant shapes my entire field of “affordances”.
I find this useful in coaching for understanding how different invariants invite multiple ways of achieving the same goal but through different methods. There is no “one technique”.
Please note, this article—and anything I write about the eco approach—is specifically about its application to jiu-jitsu, not about the CLA as an independent body of research.
“Application” is the key word here. You know the CLA did not originate from BJJ, so the conversation about where it does and doesn’t belong in jiu-jitsu is meaningful. It has been applied to our sport just as it was to basketball and other sports before it.
I accept that it has given us an interesting way to sharpen tactics and evolve class practices.
But I’m convinced that half the jargon isn’t needed, and I genuinely believe that, a lot of the time, complex terms are used to repackage old principles that have existed for decades in BJJ as new ones.
To give examples - I think we had way simpler terms to explain ‘Invariants’, (both personal and environmental) that came from jiu-jitsu - so don’t see why the language is needed.
Teaching should be about taking complexity and turning it into clarity. By overusing vocabulary from an adjacent area of research - we do the opposite.
That is the first inaccuracy. You described that as our coaching language. It isn't. But it is how we access the science that informs the approach.
Directing or guiding attention is a critically important aspect of the coaching side of things, but the approach is for the learner, not the coach, and the fundamental idea of the approach as a learner-centered methodology is to explore and adapt to all aspects of the sport.
Invariants are not heuristics. Invariant has a few usages in the literature and in ecological dynamics, the two most dominant regarding (a) visual invariants that help us identify the same object as its shape changes due to motion, and (b) the elements of a complex system that remain constant or rarely change.
Heuristics are abstractions, strategies for navigating a system, not a description of the system itself nor even how it works.
The language around "chest to chest" is about leveraging the very strong and bi-partisan literature on external focus of attention. This is a well attested effect in the literature recognized by both IP and eco people.
An aside, I do find it humorous "pedagogy" and "variability" are problematic but the word "heuristics" is not. I think familiarity and openness (or lack thereof) are the real problem, and instructors have never and will never care for the number of jiu jitsu terms their students have to learn. It just doesn't pass the smell test as a real criticism. These words were never for students anyway; they're for coaches to connect to literature that can make them better.
Eco practice design isn't necessarily addition by subtraction. Specific tasks are for beginners or to shore up weaknesses (for more advanced players), but that is not the extent, nor should it be, to the eco approach.
Manipulating constraints is a part of eco/nonlinear pedagogy so there is no getting away from CLA. But that means that designing practice doesn't necessarily entail removing or limiting. It could mean a simple change or even a broadening of the game, or finding unusual ways to add more variability. The biggest mistake most people make when applying eco is removing submissions from the game and spending too much time in those environments.
I’ll repeat my main criticism of CLA is in its application to jiu-jitsu. I’m not here to debate the semantics of the CLA literature. I purely want to determine where these terms do and do not belong in jiu-jitsu.
I concede that ‘coaching language’ sounds like the words used during practice. But I also spoke positively in this article about eco-coaches who use concrete language—physical cues like ‘chest-to-chest’—to guide students through training.
However, when anyone asks about the ‘big ideas’ behind the training approach, they are given a glossary of terms from an adjacent area of research. I think the same concepts can be, and already have been, explained within the jiu-jitsu sphere.
In the simplest terms:
1. Invariants/heuristics: The point was not that the terms mean the same thing. They are different terms from different disciplines. But, in their application to jiu-jitsu, they guide practice by highlighting ‘the things that do not change’. Terms like ‘rules of thumb’ or ‘general rules’ have served the same function for years - and are clear for students.
2. Directing attention: I agree in the article that guiding students’ focus is crucial. The fact that this is for the student, and not the coach, should be implicit. I’ll add that being student-focused isn’t an approach that can be attributed to CLA—it’s just good teaching.
3. Language like ‘Chest-to-chest’ or basic physical cues: There are much simpler ways to describe the ‘why?’ behind this language than “leveraging the very strong and bi-partisan literature on external focus of attention.” It’s a physical cue, helping someone position themselves in relation to someone else. It does not need to be so contrived.
4. Endless names of techniques: Your aside is a criticism of traditional jiu-jitsu I share. But I’ve consistently argued for a principles-based approach over a technique-by-technique approach in this article? My whole Substack is written with this message in mind. Critiquing aspects of the CLA doesn’t mean I endorse traditionalism by default. I’m even more critical of traditional methods.
5. Innovation to coaching: It’s an overstatement to say “instructors have never and will never care for the number of jiu-jitsu terms their students have to learn”. There were massive shifts towards a more conceptual/systematic approach to teaching from 2015 onwards with the aim of reducing the no. of jiu-jitsu terms for students - way before any mention of the eco approach, ‘pedagogies’ or ‘variability’.
In short, the CLA represents the tail end of a larger evolution in jiu-jitsu teaching—but it’s not a paradigm shift.
You can't criticize CLA at all because you don't know it. It aounds like you listened to a bunch of disparate podcasts from Greg to cobble this post together.
"Principles-based coaching" never meant getting away from the technique-based approach -- it barely means anything at all -- and it never meant using live environments as primarily learning activities.
Interesting read, thanks
Thanks for commenting Tammi, this subsequently appeared in my feed as a consequence.
This was a wonderful article. It ties in perfectly with my recent approach of forgoing submissions for absolute control--pins, leg rides, etc. I don't know if I'd consider it 'eco', but it does get granular. And yes, being too granular has its drawbacks--the dogged determination to get the arm drag being a great example.
Glad you enjoyed Bradley. I too had a long phase of prioritising absolute control. Lots of fascinating pins and leg rides to be learnt from Dagestani competitors here. Interesting to see how this approach has seeped into mainstream no gi grappling in recent years as well
I really liked Craig Jones's Power Ride stuff ( claws, Dagestani handcuffs) along with Danaher's Positional Dominance (belly wizzer, turtle attacks).
Me too. It can be really hard to deal with someone who is focusing all of their energy on control. I felt this pin system provided such a small opportunity to escape when I was training with people who implemented it as a strategy.
Also really interesting example of a meta that started in MMA and crossed over to jiu-jitsu.
Hi thanks for your comment. Never pedantic, appreciate the question and curiosity.
There’s a few things here, so let me go one by one:
1. Invariants = Heuristics - In the context that they are applied during ‘games’ in Jiu Jitsu, I still think invariants play a very similar role to heuristics/ general rules of thumb. Fundamentally they are the ‘things that never change’ (to quote Souders) and therefore provide students with some sort of stasis in an ever evolving, complex environment that is jiu jitsu. I also agree there is no ‘one technique’ although I’m assuming you’re quoting someone else here?
2. On personal invariants - The question of what techniques do and don’t work based on someone’s personal attributes has always been central to my coaching - but I don’t feel the need to use eco/CLA terms to describe this.
My ultimate goal with this piece and my coaching is to take complexity and create clarity, not the other way around.
For example, I regularly talk to my students about how they can adjust their approach based on their attributes. I don’t see the need to say that they need to see how their affordances change in light of their personal invariants. Unless the student specifically wants to dive deep in ecological dynamics/ CLA, I think it’s too jargony.
3) On environmental invariants: My last post did make a point that pressure passing is fundamentally about using gravity to your advantage - but I can’t think of many other examples where I’d use environmental invariants to teach jiu-jitsu. The same way that getting too granular can confuse students, getting too high level and conceptual can risk doing the same.
At the end of the day The Constraints Led Approach is an area of research that is adjacent to jiu-jitsu. Meaning we need to be cautious where we decide repurpose these terms.
This is also why if you’re looking for someone to talk more in depth about CLA, I’m probably not your man. My concern is only about how CLA is and isn’t useful to jiu-jitsu.
In a nutshell, this is my opinion on the use of CLA vocabulary in a jiu-jitsu context:
Good coaches need to be prescriptive with the terms they repurpose and only keep what is useful for jiu-jitsu and their students. That way, it won’t allow bad coaches to hijack an ambiguous vocabulary to hide their own inexperience.
Thanks for writing this. Agree that Eco D has some unique terms which make it harder to grasp and no doubt puts people off. I don’t think Invariants=heuristics. Yes there might be cross over, but an invariant is broader. So there are personal invariants (height), environmental invariants (gravity). These invariants shape intentional and attention, which shape which affordances. So as a short person, a basketball hoop invites a shot over a dunk. This height invariant shapes my entire field of “affordances”.
I find this useful in coaching for understanding how different invariants invite multiple ways of achieving the same goal but through different methods. There is no “one technique”.
Am I being too pedantic??
This is not an accurate presentation of the ecological approach
I’d love to know why Josh.
Please note, this article—and anything I write about the eco approach—is specifically about its application to jiu-jitsu, not about the CLA as an independent body of research.
“Application” is the key word here. You know the CLA did not originate from BJJ, so the conversation about where it does and doesn’t belong in jiu-jitsu is meaningful. It has been applied to our sport just as it was to basketball and other sports before it.
I accept that it has given us an interesting way to sharpen tactics and evolve class practices.
But I’m convinced that half the jargon isn’t needed, and I genuinely believe that, a lot of the time, complex terms are used to repackage old principles that have existed for decades in BJJ as new ones.
To give examples - I think we had way simpler terms to explain ‘Invariants’, (both personal and environmental) that came from jiu-jitsu - so don’t see why the language is needed.
Teaching should be about taking complexity and turning it into clarity. By overusing vocabulary from an adjacent area of research - we do the opposite.
We don't use the science terms with students unless they want to know more about why we do things.
Ok, so where was the inaccuracy.
That is the first inaccuracy. You described that as our coaching language. It isn't. But it is how we access the science that informs the approach.
Directing or guiding attention is a critically important aspect of the coaching side of things, but the approach is for the learner, not the coach, and the fundamental idea of the approach as a learner-centered methodology is to explore and adapt to all aspects of the sport.
Invariants are not heuristics. Invariant has a few usages in the literature and in ecological dynamics, the two most dominant regarding (a) visual invariants that help us identify the same object as its shape changes due to motion, and (b) the elements of a complex system that remain constant or rarely change.
Heuristics are abstractions, strategies for navigating a system, not a description of the system itself nor even how it works.
The language around "chest to chest" is about leveraging the very strong and bi-partisan literature on external focus of attention. This is a well attested effect in the literature recognized by both IP and eco people.
An aside, I do find it humorous "pedagogy" and "variability" are problematic but the word "heuristics" is not. I think familiarity and openness (or lack thereof) are the real problem, and instructors have never and will never care for the number of jiu jitsu terms their students have to learn. It just doesn't pass the smell test as a real criticism. These words were never for students anyway; they're for coaches to connect to literature that can make them better.
Eco practice design isn't necessarily addition by subtraction. Specific tasks are for beginners or to shore up weaknesses (for more advanced players), but that is not the extent, nor should it be, to the eco approach.
Manipulating constraints is a part of eco/nonlinear pedagogy so there is no getting away from CLA. But that means that designing practice doesn't necessarily entail removing or limiting. It could mean a simple change or even a broadening of the game, or finding unusual ways to add more variability. The biggest mistake most people make when applying eco is removing submissions from the game and spending too much time in those environments.
I’ll repeat my main criticism of CLA is in its application to jiu-jitsu. I’m not here to debate the semantics of the CLA literature. I purely want to determine where these terms do and do not belong in jiu-jitsu.
I concede that ‘coaching language’ sounds like the words used during practice. But I also spoke positively in this article about eco-coaches who use concrete language—physical cues like ‘chest-to-chest’—to guide students through training.
However, when anyone asks about the ‘big ideas’ behind the training approach, they are given a glossary of terms from an adjacent area of research. I think the same concepts can be, and already have been, explained within the jiu-jitsu sphere.
In the simplest terms:
1. Invariants/heuristics: The point was not that the terms mean the same thing. They are different terms from different disciplines. But, in their application to jiu-jitsu, they guide practice by highlighting ‘the things that do not change’. Terms like ‘rules of thumb’ or ‘general rules’ have served the same function for years - and are clear for students.
2. Directing attention: I agree in the article that guiding students’ focus is crucial. The fact that this is for the student, and not the coach, should be implicit. I’ll add that being student-focused isn’t an approach that can be attributed to CLA—it’s just good teaching.
3. Language like ‘Chest-to-chest’ or basic physical cues: There are much simpler ways to describe the ‘why?’ behind this language than “leveraging the very strong and bi-partisan literature on external focus of attention.” It’s a physical cue, helping someone position themselves in relation to someone else. It does not need to be so contrived.
4. Endless names of techniques: Your aside is a criticism of traditional jiu-jitsu I share. But I’ve consistently argued for a principles-based approach over a technique-by-technique approach in this article? My whole Substack is written with this message in mind. Critiquing aspects of the CLA doesn’t mean I endorse traditionalism by default. I’m even more critical of traditional methods.
5. Innovation to coaching: It’s an overstatement to say “instructors have never and will never care for the number of jiu-jitsu terms their students have to learn”. There were massive shifts towards a more conceptual/systematic approach to teaching from 2015 onwards with the aim of reducing the no. of jiu-jitsu terms for students - way before any mention of the eco approach, ‘pedagogies’ or ‘variability’.
In short, the CLA represents the tail end of a larger evolution in jiu-jitsu teaching—but it’s not a paradigm shift.
You can't criticize CLA at all because you don't know it. It aounds like you listened to a bunch of disparate podcasts from Greg to cobble this post together.
"Principles-based coaching" never meant getting away from the technique-based approach -- it barely means anything at all -- and it never meant using live environments as primarily learning activities.