
Originally Posted by
AJ Camacho
I thought that he said that the RG, encourages people to play flat off of their back and that it breeds improper guard work? Or something to that effect. Which is odd, because I can't even work rubber guard until I achieve a broken posture and a proper attack angle... two things which are crucial components to most (if not all?) guard attacks.
Not long ago someone told me Ryans view's were similar to this, not wanting to be on your back because to him it is a less dominant position.

Originally Posted by
Ryan Hall
" I guess I’d say my approach to the guard has changed drastically. It isn’t to pull some whacky sweep or triangle out of my ass anymore. My whole goal is to just make you off balance to the point that you can’t, for a moment, stop me from standing up—and now I finish from a positional advantage. I feel that’s the truly reliable way to do it."
"People come to me all the time and say, ‘Teach me the inverted guard." I’ll show them if they really want to know, but I generally prefer not to. Instead, I’ll try to sell them on this: learn how to wrestle a little bit, and I’ll show you how to pass. The guard is an important position, but the purpose of the guard is not so that I can triangle you; the purpose of the guard is so that I can get on top. It’s the proper strategic choice, seeking the mechanical advantage."
Someone told me he is even giving up most of the 50/50 stuff in favor of always dominant position always offensive style play, of course he will still use whatever works in a situation, but his logic seems to be that it is a much more beneficial methodology to avoid guards and try to dominate from more 'offensive' positions with less exposure.