BJJ Black belt: Women’s self-defense classes are such bs It’s a complete lie and total garbage to get people in the door

In a recent episode of the Jits and Giggles podcast, Danny Moira, a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu black belt under Mikey Musumeci, didn’t hold back his criticism of short-format women’s self-defense classes, calling them “a complete lie” and potentially dangerous.

“It’s insulting,” Moira stated emphatically during the podcast. “If someone is telling you that they’re going to make you safer in an hour, they are now setting you up to be more confident than you should be, to maybe take more risks than you should be. It’s potentially dangerous.”

Moira went on to compare these quick-fix self-defense programs to medical malpractice. “If this was medicine, they would be sued,” he said.

The black belt did acknowledge that there can be legitimate approaches to women’s self-defense training. He explained that he recently helped at a women’s self-defense class and discussed with his fiancée the difference between deceptive marketing and honest instruction.

According to Moira, if gyms are transparent about using these introductory classes as a pathway to proper Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu training rather than claiming to provide comprehensive protection in a single session, that represents a more ethical approach.

The criticism highlights a growing concern within the martial arts community about misleading claims in self-defense marketing, especially those targeting women. Experts like Moira suggest that effective self-defense skills require consistent training over time rather than quick solutions.

For women interested in legitimate self-defense training, martial arts professionals recommend seeking established programs with qualified instructors who are honest about the time commitment required to develop practical skills.

Posted inBJJ in pop culture

Greg Souders: “I don’t memorize moves. I attune to information sources”

Traditional Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu instruction tends to emphasize the memorization of specific moves, repeated drilling, and step-by-step technique. Greg Souders, a coach known for promoting the “ecological approach” to grappling, rejects this model entirely. He presents a radically different framework for skill acquisition—one rooted in abstract psychology jargon and wrapped in what can only be described as cult-like semantics.

“I don’t memorize moves. I attune to information sources,” Souders told The Charles Eoghan Experience.

A phrase that might earn nods in an undergrad psych seminar, but for anyone seriously studying learning science, it signals everything wrong with how he frames his coaching philosophy. He claims to offer a more intellectual, refined model of instruction, yet his language often descends into meaningless complexity. It’s less clarity, more camouflage.

At the heart of his method is the “constraints-led approach” (CLA), a framework that encourages athletes to learn through tailored training environments rather than direct instruction. In theory, this isn’t new—many sports incorporate task variation and live feedback—but Souders packages it as revolutionary. His rejection of traditional drills, however, rests on a false dichotomy: either you follow the ecological model or you’re stuck in robotic, ineffective patterns. There’s no middle ground in his world.

He insists that memory isn’t a sufficient foundation for learning. Instead, he claims learning occurs through “attunement to affordances”—a term borrowed from ecological psychology, but repurposed here to sound more mysterious than meaningful.

“All that means is when I go to do a behavior, I know where to look to create the conditions that create the possibility for the effects that I’m looking for,” he explains, in a quote that manages to say nothing while sounding vaguely profound.

Souders‘ method involves reducing variability for beginners to manage cognitive load, then gradually increasing complexity as they progress. On paper, this mirrors standard scaffolding techniques found in education and motor learning. But rather than acknowledging this continuity, he positions his approach as a clean break from everything that came before—an overstatement at best, a branding ploy at worst.

The real issue is how Souders communicates these ideas. Asked to explain his approach simply, he offered,

“All the movements that you learn are dependent on the context in which you learn them.”

That’s not revolutionary; it’s basic learning theory, long accepted across fields. Yet he laces his commentary with terminology like “metastable regions,” “emergent properties,” and “interacting systems,” none of which are defined clearly for his audience. It’s less about insight and more about sounding insightful.

When pressed on how he would teach something specific—say, arm trapping—Souders avoids direct answers.

“I would show them the condition that I’m asking them to perform,” he says.

Would he demonstrate the move?

“I could do that,” he replies, “but how I like to do it is very specific to me.”

This evasiveness is a pattern, not an exception. Rather than providing concrete, replicable methods, he retreats into abstraction.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of his philosophy is how it resists scrutiny. When critics point out that “everything is a constraint” under his system, rendering the term meaningless, Souders leans in:

“Well that’s the beauty of the method.”

This unfalsifiability—where every possible scenario still supports the model—signals pseudoscientific thinking. If every behavior, regardless of teaching method, can be labeled as ecological, then the term loses all instructional value.

Souders’ rejection of explicit instruction ignores the reality of how people actually learn. Modern psychology recognizes multiple avenues for skill acquisition, including demonstration, deliberate practice, feedback, and contextual application. The best coaches in combat sports blend these strategies based on the learner, the context, and the desired outcome. Souders, by contrast, presents a one-size-fits-all ideology dressed up in cognitive science cosplay.

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with exploring new models of teaching. Grappling is an evolving art, and experimentation should be welcomed. But when a coach uses academic jargon to mask vague ideas, discredits alternative methods without evidence, and evades basic questions about implementation, it’s worth asking whether the emperor has any gis at all.

Ultimately, Souders’ ecological approach is less about innovation and more about obfuscation. For students genuinely trying to improve, clarity and evidence-based practice should matter more than poetic abstractions. Skill development doesn’t require decoding metaphysical riddles—it requires grounded, adaptable coaching rooted in reality. And that’s something you won’t find in a word salad.

Literature:

1. Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. and Tesch-Römer, C., 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), pp.363–406.

2. Schmidt, R.A. and Lee, T.D., 2011. Motor learning and performance: From principles to application. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

3. Sweller, J., Ayres, P. and Kalyuga, S., 2011. Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

4. Magill, R.A. and Anderson, D.I., 2017. Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications. 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

5. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E., 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), pp.75–86.

6. Wulf, G. and Shea, C.H., 2002. Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), pp.185–211.

7. Newell, K.M., 1986. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: M.G. Wade and H.T.A. Whiting, eds. Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. pp.341–360.

8. Davids, K., Button, C. and Bennett, S., 2008. Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

9. Norman, D.A., 1988. The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. (Useful for discussing affordances in a more grounded cognitive context.)

10. Reber, A.S., 1993. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.

Greg Souders: The big issue in the jiu-jitsu community is that everyone’s a copy of John Danaher and Gordon Ryan

According to Greg Souders, who recently appeared on The Charles Eoghan Experience podcast, the BJJ community is facing a significant challenge: homogenization of teaching methodologies and technical approaches.

“The big issue in the jiu-jitsu community right now is literally everyone’s a copy of John Danaher and Gordon Ryan,” Souders stated during the interview. “If you go on YouTube or Instagram and look at all the way techniques are being described, it’s pure John Danaher’s language and his ideas, and people are just regurgitating the step-by-step stuff they’re being taught by somebody else.”

This observation highlights a concerning trend in jiu-jitsu instruction where creativity and individual expression are being replaced by carbon copies of popular methodologies. Souders, who advocates for an ecological approach to teaching jiu-jitsu, believes this copycat phenomenon limits growth and understanding of the art.

The ecological approach that Souders champions focuses on creating appropriate learning environments rather than dictating specific movement patterns. It emphasizes learning through live interactions where students can discover solutions organically rather than memorizing predetermined sequences.

Souders explained that when instructors simply copy Danaher‘s language and teaching style, they miss the opportunity to develop their own understanding and teaching methodology that might better serve their specific student population. While acknowledging the brilliance of Danaher’s system, Souders suggests that blindly following it without adaptation or personal innovation stifles the evolution of jiu-jitsu.

The conversation touched on how practitioners who train with resistance, test techniques in competition, and adapt movements to their own bodies naturally transform what they’ve learned.

“You guys are actually out there doing the live work. You’re actually out there sparring, testing it, putting it into the competition stress. And so of course you’re changing it because ideas are context dependent,” Souders noted.

Souders previously butted heads with Dan Manisoiu and Gordon Ryan who called his methodology ‘r*tarded’.

While learning from masters like Danaher and Ryan is valuable, the future of the art depends on practitioners finding their own voice rather than becoming mere echoes of others.

But Souders is perhaps intentionally failing to see that more than Danaher‘s terminology it is his methodology that’s leaving a lasting impression. Danaher led multiple athletic men to becoming ADCC medalists in just a couple years of training.

BJJ Black Belt: Sport Jiu-Jitsu Is Better Than Self-Defense Jiu-Jitsu for Real Self-Defense

The Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu community finds itself embroiled in one of its most contentious debates: Does sport-focused training or traditional self-defense oriented instruction better prepare practitioners for real-world confrontations? While this question has simmered beneath the surface for years, recent high-profile discussions have brought it into sharp focus, with compelling arguments emerging that challenge long-held assumptions about the effectiveness of different training methodologies.

In a revealing discussion on The Strenuous Life podcast, host Stephan Kesting shared a provocative perspective that has reverberated throughout the BJJ community. Speaking with black belt Seymour Yang (Meerkatsu), Kesting presented an argument that directly challenges the conventional wisdom separating sport and self-defense training.

“If you had somebody who’s only ever trained sport jiu-jitsu and they’ve done the most sporty of the sport jiu-jitsu, they’re only berimbolos, crab rides, rolling back takes, that’s their whole game. But they’re training against resistance and they compete, especially if they compete. They are 100 times better at self-defense than a guy who just practices the self-defense techniques in isolation,” Kesting declared.

This statement cuts to the heart of a fundamental question: What truly matters more in preparing for real confrontation—the specific techniques being practiced or the method of training itself?

Why Pressure Testing Trumps Technique Selection

Kesting’s argument rests on a crucial principle that extends far beyond Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: the irreplaceable value of training against genuine resistance. When examining the effectiveness of any martial art for real-world application, the ability to execute techniques against an opponent who is actively trying to prevent you from succeeding becomes paramount.

Consider the sport BJJ practitioner who spends hours perfecting complex guard transitions, intricate sweeps, and modern competition techniques. While these moves might seem removed from self-defense scenarios, the practitioner is constantly problem-solving against opponents who know exactly what they’re trying to do and are working equally hard to counter every attempt. This creates a level of pressure and adaptability that simply cannot be replicated in choreographed self-defense drills.

In contrast, traditional self-defense oriented training often relies on compliant partners who allow techniques to work as demonstrated. While this approach can teach proper mechanics and build initial confidence, it fails to develop the crucial ability to adapt when things don’t go according to plan—which is exactly what happens in real confrontations.

Carlos Gracie Jr. Perspective

The debate gains additional complexity when considering the perspective of Carlos Gracie Jr., one of the most influential figures in modern BJJ development. In a classic interview, Gracie Jr. has argued that the distinction between sport and self-defense jiu-jitsu represents a false dichotomy that misunderstands the nature of martial arts progression.

“Jiu-Jitsu is one thing,” Gracie Jr. states. “When a person enters the gym, they don’t know Jiu-Jitsu. They will learn a Jiu-Jitsu style that would be how to defend yourself from a hypothetical attack.”

According to Gracie Jr., the evolution from basic self-defense techniques to advanced sport applications represents natural progression rather than divergence. As practitioners develop, they inevitably encounter training partners who know the defenses to basic attacks, forcing them to develop more sophisticated approaches.

“A Jiu-Jitsu technician, a graduate, he knows the defenses of the assembly and he will not let you put together, because he will know all those defenses. Then you will have to mock all this, you will have to create technique, create positions to be able to put together that person.”

This perspective suggests that sport BJJ techniques aren’t departures from self-defense principles but rather evolutionary responses to increasingly sophisticated opposition.

The Valente Brothers

Standing in stark contrast to this evolutionary view are schools like the Valente Brothers academy, which maintains a steadfast commitment to traditional self-defense focused training. Their approach represents perhaps the purest continuation of Helio Gracie‘s original vision, complete with lighter kimonos styled after traditional Japanese clothing and black belt tests centered on self-defense scenarios rather than competitive achievement.

This philosophical divide raises important questions about authenticity and effectiveness. Are the Valente Brothers preserving essential elements that sport-focused schools have abandoned, or are they clinging to methods that have been superseded by more effective training approaches?

The answer may depend largely on individual goals and the specific nature of threats one expects to face. However, even within traditional self-defense contexts, the principle of resistance-based training remains crucial.

The Critics

Not everyone agrees with the sport-centric perspective. BJJ black belt Guro Ilan Srulovicz has mounted a compelling counter-argument, suggesting that modern BJJ has become “a martial art designed to beat itself” rather than address real-world confrontation needs.

Srulovicz highlights several concerning trends in contemporary BJJ training: over-emphasis on complex guard positions, guard pulling as a primary strategy, and reduced focus on takedowns. These elements, while highly effective within BJJ’s competitive framework, may prove counterproductive or dangerous in unpredictable real-world scenarios.

“These moves might work on soft mats in a controlled environment, but on concrete or against multiple attackers, they can be disastrous,”

he warns, advocating instead for approaches drawn from judo, wrestling, or catch wrestling.

This criticism touches on a genuine concern: as martial arts evolve to succeed within their own competitive environments, they may develop characteristics that are counterintuitive to their original purposes. The guard positions that dominate sport BJJ, for instance, make perfect sense when facing a single opponent on mats with established rules, but become problematic when considering multiple attackers or unforgiving surfaces.

The Synthesis

Perhaps the most reasonable approach lies not in choosing between sport and self-defense training, but in understanding how each contributes to overall martial effectiveness. Kesting himself acknowledged this nuance, noting that specialized self-defense training incorporating realistic pressure testing represents the ideal approach.

The key insight from this debate may be that the method of training matters more than the specific techniques being practiced. A sport BJJ practitioner who regularly competes develops several attributes crucial for real confrontation: comfort under pressure, ability to think clearly while exhausted, experience with genuine resistance, and most importantly, understanding of what it feels like when techniques fail and adaptation becomes necessary.

These attributes cannot be developed through compliant drilling alone, regardless of how applicable in real life the techniques might appear. Conversely, self-defense techniques practiced without genuine resistance may create false confidence that proves dangerous in actual confrontations.