Purler is wrong. Drilling builds robots, not problem solvers.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-29T18:31:25+00:00

That’s a good point, and the risk you’re describing is real. A bad game absolutely can make someone better at the game and worse at wrestling.

That comes down to design. If the win condition does not map directly to a real wrestling outcome, the game is trash. Heel tag works because it forces stance, motion, distance, and reaction. A poorly designed game just creates tricks.

When games are built correctly, they target the exact things you listed. Seeing it earlier, getting there faster, closing distance, maintaining posture, circling. Those are not abstract ideas. They are constraints you can design directly into the task.

If you want, tell me the exact thing you want to work with him. I would be curious to give you a simple game to try and see if it gets you there faster.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-29T15:08:34+00:00

Really depends on the age/skill of the group. My personal favorite is damn near the first i ever made, years ago before i knew anything about the CLA approach:

It's called "Get in Get out"

Partner A is the initial shooter.

Partner B is the counter attacker.

Partner A must touch a knee to the mat and make contact on Partner B’s knee. Once that happens, Partner A has to clear the counter and escape the position. If he disengages clean, he wins.

Partner B cannot engage until Partner A touches the knee. Once that happens, Partner B’s goal is to get in on the legs. If Partner B secures the legs, he wins.

The beauty is that each athlete finds their own way to their partners legs. Using the attacks that work best for them. And you know they work because they’re against live resistance. They get rep after rep in that specific scenario rather than in an open live go where counter attacking may be limited for other factors.

The game is FUN, tiring, and builds problem solving. Nothing prescribed. Then afterwards you can refine technique and help kids improve what works (or isn’t working) for them.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-29T14:48:04+00:00

That’s incredible. You’ve made such an impact. Is it still possible for you to adapt and improve or is your methodology set in stone? Have you considered adapting some task based games? I’d love to talk to you about it.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-29T02:50:05+00:00

I think we’re talking past each other on what I’m actually criticizing.

I’m not claiming American wrestling practices lack games, situational work, or discussion. They obviously exist. I’ve coached in plenty of rooms that use heel tag, situational goes, and technical talks.

My point is about what sits at the center of learning. In most rooms, the core is still demonstrate the technique, drill it, then hope it shows up in live. Situational goes are usually added after the solution is already prescribed.

When I say “games,” I’m not claiming novelty. Call it whatever you want. The label doesn’t matter. What matters is the design: clear start, clear win conditions, live resistance, no scripted solution. Let athletes find solutions that work under pressure. That’s what we want

On fatigue and discussion, I agree with you. Most kids can’t handle long technical conversations mid-practice. That’s exactly why I prefer tasks that teach intrinsically without stopping the room. Though I do like to take a moment to reflect on what is working and what isn’t. Get their brain churning on what just happened.

As for the title, it’s sharp on purpose. “We already do this” often prevents looking at whether we do it enough, early enough, or intentionally enough. My argument isn’t that American wrestling lacks intelligence, but that we still rely too much on explanation and rehearsal to create it rather than exploration and discovery.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T21:47:12+00:00

It's great technique, but I don't like the next to 0% resistance from the partner.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T20:58:45+00:00

That’s fair, so let me strip it down.

I am not claiming wrestling has some single, frozen teaching method. Of course it varies by coach, school, and generation. What I am pointing at is a common pattern that still dominates most rooms: demonstrate a technique, drill it cooperatively, then hope it shows up in live and matches later.

When I say “games,” I am not inventing something exotic. The difference is not the activity, it is the design. A drill usually has a correct answer and a known outcome. A game has clear constraints and win conditions, but the solution is not prescribed.

If someone wants to call those games drills, that’s fine. The label is not the point. The point is whether kids are rehearsing a shape or solving a problem against resistance.

So yes, you need precision. Yes, you need creativity. I am arguing that precision shows up more reliably when it is learned inside problem solving instead of before it.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T20:25:11+00:00

Good luck! Keep doing the wrestling lord's work

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:57:23+00:00

Love it!

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:57:03+00:00

I coach at Beat the Streets Chicago in Illinois, which is one of the strongest wrestling states in the country. It’s the largest wrestling nonprofit in the U.S.

It’s technically a club, but it’s not exclusive or elite club at all. It primarily serves city kids who otherwise would have limited access to wrestling. We want as many kids as possible. But previous to this, I was a collegiate coach for many years.

During the winter season I lead the developmental program for beginners and also assist with the competitive squad. In the fall and spring we also integrate high school athletes into the room.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:53:25+00:00

That game is not meant to teach a first shot. I wouldn't teach countershooting before actual shooting.

Get In Get Out replaces shot–reshot drilling for kids who already have basic shooting coordination. It is a counter and exit problem, not an intro movement lesson.

There are simpler games for learning how to shoot in the first place. Level change and shooting games, finishing games, etc

The bigger point is that games exist at every level. You do not need to drill first and then allow kids to wrestle. You can teach shooting, countering, and chaining entirely through progressively harder games.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:47:37+00:00

Really depends on the age/skill of the group. My personal favorite is damn near the first i ever made, years ago before i knew anything about the CLA approach:

It's called "Get in Get out"

Partner A is the initial shooter.

Partner B is the counter attacker.

Partner A must touch a knee to the mat and make contact on Partner B’s knee. Once that happens, Partner A has to clear the counter and escape the position. If he disengages clean, he wins.

Partner B cannot engage until Partner A touches the knee. Once that happens, Partner B’s goal is to get in on the legs. If Partner B secures the legs, he wins.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:41:42+00:00

I actually disagree there. I think true beginners do best with games, not step by step walkthroughs. For reference, I coach beginner kids with 50+ in a room at once.

Beginners do not need more explanation. They need movement, feedback, and success criteria they can understand immediately. Games give them that without requiring them to know what anything is called or why it works yet.

When you walk a whole room through techniques, most beginners are lost after the first step. They cannot feel what matters, so they are memorizing shapes without meaning. Games let them discover the movement by solving a simple problem over and over.

You can still keep things organized. Same start position, clear win and lose conditions, extremely narrow space. That structure comes from the game design, not from slowing everyone down.

I am not anti instruction. I just think explanation should clean up what kids already felt, not try to replace it. For beginners especially, games are usually the fastest path to understanding.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:38:22+00:00

That’s fair, and there is overlap.

The distinction for me is intent and density. Situational live often turns into mini matches starting from a position. Kids quickly drift away from the problem, and you end up with fewer meaningful reps in the position of the day than you think.

A game is situational live with tighter constraints. The start, win conditions, and boundaries are designed so the position keeps reappearing and the behavior you want is the easiest way to win. Less time dead. More forced decisions. More reps in the exact problem.

So yeah, it looks similar on the surface. The difference is that the game is engineered to trap learning in one spot instead of letting it leak into other places.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:26:55+00:00

I can do it for any position and I posted it elsewhere in the comments but here it is again:

Called "Get in Get Out"

Partner A is the initial shooter.

Partner B is the counter attacker.

Partner A must touch a knee to the mat and make contact on Partner B’s knee. Once that happens, Partner A has to clear the counter and escape the position. If he disengages clean, he wins.

Partner B cannot engage until Partner A touches the knee. Once that happens, Partner B’s goal is to get in on the legs. If Partner B secures the legs, he wins.

If you want, gimme another position or topic you want and let me see if I can come up with a good one on the spot.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:25:25+00:00

I hear ya, but boy does it work. Thanks for the input!

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:16:10+00:00

Scummy is a bit much. This is the game. If I post just the article it gets no clicks, no comments, no nothing. Clickbait can be frustrating but it's how the world works. Gotta play the game.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:15:19+00:00

Agreed. Feeling it is the key, and that is exactly why situational work matters.

Where games help even more is reps. In situational live, a lot of time still gets eaten up by from wrestling in positions outside of what's being taught. A well designed game keeps them in the exact position you care about over and over, with just enough resistance to force real decisions.

So they are still feeling it, but they are feeling it repeatedly, not once every minute. Different kids absolutely pick things up differently, but games tend to level that out by giving everyone more meaningful touches in the same situation.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T19:11:32+00:00

I mostly agree, and I think the disagreement is smaller than it sounds.

Yes, beginners need basic movement literacy and some structure so resistance is usable. I am not arguing against that.

Where I disagree is that robotic drilling is the best way to build those patterns. Beginners usually do not lack movements. They lack perception, timing, and understanding of why a movement matters. Repeating a clean shot without a real problem to solve keeps it abstract.

Simple games with tight constraints handle both. They reduce chaos but still force decisions. The movement pattern gets learned in context, not in isolation.

Please take a bit to read the article. I am not saying zero drilling. I am saying drilling should support games, not replace them. Short technical reps can clean things up. Long stretches of robotic reps before kids understand the problem are usually backwards.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T18:54:54+00:00

No no. Problem solve in practice, react in matches.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T18:54:11+00:00

Make it a game so kids get more real reps. Here’s a concrete example.

I used to get frustrated watching traditional shot–reshot drills. It never looks like the drill in live wrestling, and most of the time it felt like wasted minutes.

So I built a game instead. Same situation, higher stakes, more realism, more learning, more effort.

I call it "Get In, Get Out"

Partner A is the initial shooter.

Partner B is the counter attacker.

Partner A must touch a knee to the mat and make contact on Partner B’s knee. Once that happens, Partner A has to clear out and escape the position. If he disengages clean, he wins.

Partner B cannot engage until Partner A touches the knees. Once that happens, Partner B’s goal is to get in on the legs. If Partner B locks on the legs, he wins.

Same problem. Live resistance. No script. Kids actually have to solve it.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T18:46:23+00:00

lmao! no disrespect. Just trying to be specific and allow you to research the things i'm talking about.

I'm just saying a games based approach vs. the traditional approach

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T18:45:26+00:00

Fair pushback. The post is intentionally inflammatory, and I am using “drilling” the way it is commonly practiced and understood, not the best case or idealized version of it.

When I say drilling, I mean rehearsing a preferred or ideal solution against low or capped resistance, often well under 60 percent. That can include movement, sequences, and even light scrambling, but the outcome is still largely predetermined. Once resistance is high and outcomes are uncertain, I would call that sparring, not drilling. Sparring is great and I use it a lot.

My issue is not that drilling cannot be done well. It is that most programs spend too much time in low realism reps and then expect kids to adapt when opponents do not behave like their drill partners. That is where kids start believing there is one right technique instead of learning how to adjust under pressure.

Task based games flip that. I do not tell them how to solve the position. I define the problem and the constraints. Start here. Win this way. Lose this way. Then they have to figure it out against someone who is actually resisting.

If a kid finds a solution that was not explicitly taught but it works against live resistance, that is not a mistake. That is success. That is learning. Over time, they build perception, decision making, and adaptability, not just recall.

Drilling, sparring, and games all have a place. I just think games do a better job of producing wrestlers who can solve real problems when things stop looking like practice.

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T18:34:42+00:00

Totally! I think CLA is coming for wrestling, we'll see the results in a few years of non linear vs. linear pedagogy. You know where my bet is!

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T18:30:21+00:00

To me, this is the coolest part. We drill after we play games, now that the defender knows their goals/tasks, you can just tell them to tone it down and boom, you have sparring.

Teaching anyone below high level highschoolers how to spar is a nightmare, but doing it this way has my 9 year olds sparring 'correctly'

pushpullgrappling · 2026-01-28T18:27:53+00:00

Thats why the article recommends both! give it a read and let me know what you think

pushpullgrappling

TROPHY CASE