I think that one of the most fundamental errors combat athletes make is a failure to understand the difference between strategy and tactics. All too often we will lose a match and immediately assume we lost because of a tactical error, when in reality we most often lose do to strategic errors.
Essentially tactics are the actual physical things we do to attempt to win an exchange or objective. Strategy is the overall philosophy which governs those tactics. Tactics are micro, strategy is macro. The route a wide receiver runs is tactical, the west coast offence the head coach runs is strategic.
In grappling we too often focus on matching tactic for tactic. "I got armbarred, I need to work on my armbar defence." To a certain extent this makes sense, it is the easiest answer to sink your teeth into. You can grab a partner and drill the hitchhiker escape for hours and next time you get armbarred you might get out. But it doesn't address why you got armbarred. It doesn't address that strategic failures that lead to it.
I read a post on Reddit today from a woman who said she was 4'11 and 110lbs. She described rolling with other white belts as them just "using raw force to choke me out quickly." She talked about it as if the failing was theirs. As if the reason she was losing matches was because they were being mean or using their size advantage in a way that is "cheap." I understand the frustration she feels and I understand that it is a lot to ask a new white belt to see past that frustration or even have the tools to do so, but the failure is not theirs, it is hers. She is making bad strategic decisions and they are not.
The basic strategy of chess is simple. Get up a piece, then exchange down to maximise that advantage. Lets say I win your bishop cleanly. I now have a slight advantage because I have one more piece than you on a crowded board. Call it an 8/7 advantage to me. Next we exchange knights, I kill yours, you kill mine. Neutral exchange right? Wrong. The exchange is a win for me. Now my advantage is 7/6, slightly larger then 8/7. My goal is to keep that happening until I can reduce the board to 2/1 advantage for me. Two against one isn't an advantage, it is insurmountable. Even though every exchange other than me initially winning the bishop was one for one, and seemingly neutral, they all work in my favour. Additionally, the tactics I need to use become simpler once I have a lead. It is tactically much harder to win a piece cleanly than it is to simply set up an exchange. What's more, it is harder still for a player at a disadvantage to win a piece cleanly and remove that advantage. The strategy is simple; win a piece, reduce down to maximise that advantage. The tactics of chess starting on a neutral board are complicated, forks, pins, and x rays, but the strategy, the goal, is simple.
Returning to our 110 lb white belt, what she fails to see is that she is starting the match a piece down and then not understanding why the exchanges are working against her. She is saying, "these guys are not playing 'technical' chess. Every time they take a piece they lose one too!" or "These guys are not using technical jiu jitsu, they are just choking me." The "raw force" line kills me. We get told all the time that technique beats force, however, I hate to break it to you but all technique is is the application of force from a position of advantage. That's why you have to squeeze an RNC, that's why you have to bridge into a knee bar. You need force. What distinguishes good technique from bad, isn't the force, it's the position of advantage. Trying to choke someone in their full guard isn't bad because of the force, it's bad because of the position. The truth is size plays a role in those positions. A large one. If one person is significantly larger than the other, than positions we are told are neutral, are no longer neutral. Positions we are told are an advantage can become neutral, and positions that are a disadvantage become insurmountable. Therefor, a larger stronger opponent has more options. They have more positions of advantage from which to apply force. It isn't 'strong jitsu' to utilise this, it's 'dumb jitsu' to fail to realise it.
When you are a smaller person you are starting a piece down. The exchanges work against you. The positions you think of as neutral are not neutral and you can't grapple as if they are. You need a different strategy. We have a guy at our club who has such a size advantage on me that I have to completely remap my positional hierarchy when we roll. Typically, if I have your back, both hooks in, my back on the mat, your back on my chest, I'm on the mountaintop. There is arguably no better position in grappling. I will not go here rolling with him. It doesn't matter what this position is supposed to be, what matters is what it is in this circumstance, and with enough of a size disadvantage it is a liability not an advantage. I need to change my strategy to say 'I will stay on top no matter what." If our 110 lb white belt fails to make a similar diagnosis of the situation, if she doesn't see that she is starting a piece down, the exchanges will always go against her. Don't get me wrong, these guys she is rolling with sound like dicks, but in the end they might be doing her a favour. If she learns early on to account for the difference in size she will always do it. If they always pretend they are not larger, if they pretend they are not starting a piece up, she will never learn to adapt her strategy. She will never learn that you can't play neutral when neutral is losing.
The idea here doesn't just apply to size. It applies to speed, It applies to flexibility, it applies to knowledge. You see this in boxing a lot. They will line up the 'keys to victory' and inevitably say "X can't out box Y, he needs to make it into a slugfest." If your opponent has a knowledge advantage, make it contest of cardio. If they have a cardio advantage, you may need to end it fast. If you can't diagnose how you match up with your opponent and adapt your strategy, your grappling will not improve. Sometimes your tactics suck. For sure. Maybe he got out because you need to drill and fix your armbar. That said, most of the time he got out because you went for an ill advised armbar. Maybe your heelhook needs work, or maybe you shouldn't have played footsie with Gordon Ryan.
I guess the point of this long and rambling post is this, past the initial stage of learning to grappling, once you have a basic toolkit, if you want to improve you will get more out of examining your macro game than drilling your micro game. Spend more time looking at your own internal play calling than trying to run a faster skinny post. If you win, ask what were the keys to your success. If you lose, ask if you should have even been in the position in which you lost. If you examine your strategy, you will by definition examine your tactics. If you only ever focus on tactics, you may miss the bigger picture.
