Curriculums and Systems: Understanding the Difference

By OSJJ

Open Source Jiu-Jitsu

THE CURRICULUM SERIES · PART THREE

Curriculums and Systems: Understanding the Difference

The four methods answer one question: what order do you teach in. There is a second question, and it is the one that separates a good curriculum from a real system.

Justin Hall / Co-Founder, Open Source Jiu-Jitsu

In Part Two we laid out the four types of curriculum and judged each one against how people actually learn. Every one of those methods, linear, rotating, flow, and positional, is an answer to a single question: in what order do you teach the material. That question matters, and getting it right is most of the battle for most academies. But it is not the whole battle, and the piece it leaves out is the one that separates the good programs from the great ones.

There is a second question, independent of the first, that almost nobody asks out loud: what ties the whole thing together. Not the order of the positions, but the through-line that runs across all of them. Answer only the first question and you have a curriculum. Answer both and you have a system. This article is about the difference, because once you see it, you cannot unsee it, and it changes what you are trying to build.

Two axes, not one line

Picture your curriculum as sitting on two axes rather than one. The first axis is sequence, the order you teach in, and that is the axis the four methods live on. A curriculum can be anywhere on that axis, tightly linear or loosely rotating, and still be a perfectly real curriculum. That axis is about arrangement.

The second axis is connection. It asks how tightly the pieces relate to one another once they are arranged. On the low end, the positions sit side by side like books on a shelf, each complete, none of them speaking to the others. On the high end, every position is an expression of the same handful of underlying principles, so learning one deepens your understanding of all the rest. That axis is about coherence, and it is completely separate from order. You can have a beautifully sequenced curriculum with almost no connective tissue, and you can have a loosely ordered one that is tightly bound by a few principles running through all of it.

A curriculum lives mostly on the first axis. A system is what you get when you also climb the second. And the reason most owners never build a system is simply that they did not know the second axis was there. They spent all their attention on order, which is the visible axis, and never asked what connects.

What a system adds

So what actually lives on that second axis. What does a system have that a well-ordered curriculum does not. Four things, and none of them is about sequence.

• A set of universal principles. A system rests on a small number of principles that hold true in every position, regardless of where they fall in the order. Control before you attack. Connection is control. Efficiency beats effort. Whatever your core beliefs are, they are position-independent, and they turn a list of techniques into a coherent worldview a student carries into every roll.

• Explicit connections between positions. In a curriculum, mount is a topic and the back is another topic. In a system, the student is shown how mount relates to the back, how a failed attack in one becomes an entry to the next, how the positions are neighbors rather than strangers. The connections are taught, not left for the student to discover years later on their own.

• A spine, or hierarchy. A system usually has a center of gravity, a position or a path the whole game organizes around, so the positions are not equal-weight islands. Some are hubs, some are destinations, some are waypoints. That hierarchy gives a student a sense of where they are going, not just where they are.

• The why, taught alongside the what. A curriculum teaches what to do. A system teaches why it works, so that when the situation is one the student has never drilled, they can reason from principle instead of reaching for a memorized answer that is not there. The why is what makes the knowledge portable.

Notice that not one of those four is about the order of the lessons. You could add every one of them to a linear curriculum, a rotating one, a flow, or a positional one. That is what it means for connection to be a separate axis. The system layer sits on top of whatever sequence you chose.

A system is not a decision tree

Before we go further, we have to clear up a word, because it causes more confusion here than any other. People use system to mean two very different things, and this article means only one of them.

Start with what a decision tree actually is, since the most famous constructs in no-gi get called systems. Take 10th Planet, for example, which has several well-known ones: the lockdown, the truck, mission control. If you have learned one of them, you know the shape up close. If he does this, you do that. If he counters that way, you switch to this. It is a branching chain of prescribed answers. And here is the part worth being honest about: that is not really a separate, grand thing at all. It is lesson-plan content. It is what you teach on a given day inside your curriculum. If your curriculum is positional and you are working guard, then teaching mission control and its follow-ups is simply this week's material inside the guard block. In kind, it is the same animal as a beginner learning a triangle to armbar to omoplata chain. The famous version is just longer, more technical, and harder to counter. More steps, not a deeper thing.

So why did a game built on those trees run through everyone when it first appeared? Not because it was an unbeatable philosophy. Because it was unfamiliar. New, confusing techniques against people outside that ecosystem who had never seen them and did not know the counters. That is real, and it worked, but notice what kind of advantage it is. Novelty has a shelf life. The moment the room learns the technique, it gets solved, and now you need a new surprise to stay ahead. A game built on the unknown has to keep manufacturing the unknown, because every surprise expires the day it is understood. You are never actually ahead. You are temporarily unfamiliar, and you have to keep running to stay there. That is the decision tree taken to its logical end, a longer, newer branch buys you time, not mastery, and time runs out.

None of this is a knock on 10th Planet, and I want to be clear about that, because I have real appreciation for them. Set the techniques aside for a second and look at the culture. Of the groups I have encountered, they are among the most open-minded in the sport, the most willing to question a default, try something unproven, and build a thing that did not exist yet. That openness is exactly what produced all that novelty in the first place, and it is the same quality this kind of writing depends on. A culture willing to ask whether the old way is really the best way is the culture most likely to actually move the art forward, the same spirit behind asking hard questions about how we rank people or how we teach. It is not a coincidence that the people building new competitive formats for the sport tend to come from exactly that world. So this is a distinction, not a criticism. I am pulling apart two meanings of a word, not knocking a group I genuinely respect.

Sean Applegate put the coaching version of this better than I have, in a conversation that stuck with me. His school runs under a banner famous for its named systems, and I asked whether he requires his black belts to know them. He said no. His reasoning was one line: systems can be broken. So instead of drilling the scripts he leans on positional drilling and on creating dilemmas, teaching people to understand a position so completely that they solve whatever comes back. He is not arguing against systems in the sense this article means. He is arguing against mistaking a decision tree for understanding, because a scripted answer breaks the moment it is known, and understanding does not.

Which brings us to what a system actually is, and it is the opposite of novelty. Not if he does X, do Y, but the principles and concepts that tell you what to do in any situation, including the ones nobody scripted. Control the hands. Keep your posture and take theirs. Understand where control actually comes from. Those do not branch and they do not run out, because they are not answers, they are the understanding that generates an answer when the position is one you have never seen. A decision tree hands the student a finite set of responses. A system hands them the ability to build a response on the spot. One competes on surprise, which decays. The other competes on understanding, which compounds.

The clearest proof is the grappler who beats everyone with nothing new at all. Think of Roger Gracie, the most dominant competitor of his era, finishing world-class black belts with the cross collar from mount, the most telegraphed submission in the sport. Everyone he faced knew exactly what was coming. They knew the grip, the position, the finish, and they still could not stop it. That is not surprise. That is depth. He did not need a technique nobody had seen, he understood the technique everybody had seen better than they did. That is a different category of good than a longer decision tree, and it is the thing a real system is built to produce. Novelty asks, what have they not seen yet. Mastery asks, how deeply do I understand what they have already seen. Only one of those runs out.

So when we say a curriculum becomes a system, we do not mean you bolt a longer decision tree onto it. The trees are fine to teach, they are simply content, the combinations and chains that live inside the lessons. A system is the layer underneath all of it, the principles and understanding that let a student reason through any branch instead of memorizing them, and keep working long after the surprise is gone.

What this looks like on the mat

That can still feel abstract, so here is what it actually looks like on the mat, in cases any coach will recognize. Start with the armbar. Say you teach it three different weeks, from mount, from closed guard, and as a finish after taking the back. In a curriculum, those are three separate lessons filed away separately, and the student who drilled the mount armbar in March has no reason to connect it to the guard armbar in June. In a system, you teach the principle underneath all three first, isolate one arm, break its connection to the body, and attack the elbow, and then you show that the exact same mechanic is what makes the armbar work from mount, from guard, and off the back. Now it is not three techniques to memorize. It is one idea that shows up in three places, and the student who understands the idea can often find the armbar in a fourth position you never taught. That shared thread running under all three is the connective layer.

Now take two positions that look unrelated. A curriculum teaches closed guard one week and back control another, and to the student they stay strangers. A system shows the door between them. You break the opponent's posture in closed guard, they turn to relieve the pressure, and that turn is the exact moment the back opens up. Suddenly closed guard and the back are not two separate rooms, they are joined by a hallway the student has actually walked. When that student is in closed guard now, they are not only hunting a finish there, they know that one wrong move by the opponent hands them the back. The taught connection between the two positions is the connective layer again, seen from a different angle.

Here is why it matters where it counts, under live resistance. The student with only a curriculum, caught in a scramble they never drilled, reaches for a memorized answer and finds nothing, because that exact situation was not on the syllabus. The student with a system reasons from the principles instead, control the hands, take the back off the turn, isolate the arm, and finds a way through a problem nobody ever showed them. That is the whole difference in one sentence. A curriculum prepares a student for the positions you taught them. A system prepares them for the positions you did not.

A test you can run tonight

Here is how to tell, honestly, whether you have a curriculum or a system. Pick any two positions you teach, as far apart as you like, say closed guard bottom and the back. Now ask whether one of your students could tell you how those two positions relate to each other.

If the honest answer is that they are just two separate things the student learned on two separate weeks, you have a curriculum. Good, that already puts you ahead of most academies, and Part One was about getting there. But if a student can tell you that the same principle of controlling the hands governs both, that one flows into the other through a specific door, that they are two rooms in one house rather than two houses, then you have started building a system. The test is not whether the student knows both positions. It is whether they can see the thread between them.

Run the same test on yourself as the teacher. When you introduce a new position, do you connect it back to what the room already knows, or do you present it as a fresh island. The answer tells you which axis you have been building on.

Why the second axis is the ceiling

This is not a matter of taste, and it lands right back on the science from Part Two. Recall the two hardest yardsticks a curriculum has to satisfy: how well it organizes knowledge, and how well it transfers to live, novel situations. The connective layer is precisely what moves the needle on both.

Knowledge organization is the whole point of the second axis. Experts do not store two hundred separate techniques, they store a small set of principles and a web of relationships between positions, and everything else hangs off that structure. A curriculum with a strong connective layer builds the student's knowledge in that shape from the start. A curriculum without one hands the student the pieces and quietly hopes they assemble the web themselves, which most never fully do.

Transfer works the same way. A student who learned isolated techniques can only do what they drilled. A student who internalized principles that run across every position can solve a situation they have never seen, because they are reasoning from the through-line rather than searching for a memorized move. That capacity, to handle the unfamiliar, is the real ceiling of a practitioner, and it is built almost entirely on the second axis. Sequence gets a student to competent. The connective layer is what gets them to great.

What a fully built system looks like

It helps to point at real ones, because most people have seen a system without ever naming it as such. Three well-known examples are useful here precisely because each is built a different way, and together they show there is no single road up the second axis.

Consider the modern leg-lock system associated with John Danaher and his students. Whatever you think of leg locks, it is the clearest example in the sport of systematic coverage. An entire domain of the art is mapped out, a hierarchy of controlling positions, a shared set of concepts such as securing control before hunting the finish, and a defined path from entry to finish that ties the whole lower-body game into one interlocking web. It is a system as a complete map of a territory, where every piece knows its relationship to every other piece.

Now consider invisible jiu-jitsu, the concept associated with Rickson Gracie and taught most publicly by his student Henry Akins, who teaches his own version of it under the name hidden jiu-jitsu. This is almost the opposite emphasis, and it is the purest example of the principle layer standing on its own. The visible techniques matter less than the underlying reasons they work, connection, weight, leverage, the small details of control that most instructors never make explicit. It is a system as connective tissue in its rawest form, the why held up as the actual content, with the techniques treated as the places those principles happen to show up.

And consider The Master Plan, the system built by Javier Vazquez. Full disclosure, this is one I am involved in, so weigh it accordingly, but it earns its place because it shows a third route. Its skeleton is positional, each position taught as a set of goals and methods, and then laid across the top is a decision-making and mindset framework, a way of thinking under pressure and a through-line about where control comes from. It is a system as a positional structure with a way of thinking built over it, the sequence and the mindset developed together.

Three systems, three completely different shapes: a mapped domain, a set of invisible principles, and a positional structure with a mindset overlay. You do not need to build anything as complete as these, and most owners never will. But they make the distinction concrete. Strip the principles, the connections, and the through-line off any of them, and you are left with a perfectly good curriculum underneath. Those layers, the ones that turn a map into a living thing, are the difference between a curriculum and a system, and now you can see them in three real cases instead of in the abstract.

How to add a connective layer to what you already have

The good news is that climbing the second axis does not mean starting over. You keep whatever sequence you already built in Part Two and add the connective tissue on top. Here is where to start, in order of effort.

• Name your principles. Write down the handful of things you believe are true in every position. Three to five is plenty to start. These become the spine you teach through, and you begin referring to them in every class, in every position, until the students can recite them and see them everywhere.

• Make the connections out loud. The cheapest upgrade available to you. When you teach a position, spend two minutes connecting it to the ones the room already knows. This is the same principle you saw last week in a different place. Failing this attack puts you here, which we covered on Tuesday. You are not adding content, you are revealing the web that was always there.

• Give the game a center. Decide what your game organizes around, a favorite position, a preferred path, a hub, and teach the other positions in relation to it. This gives students a sense of direction and turns a flat list into a map with a destination.

• Always teach the why. For every technique, give the reason it works, tied back to one of your principles. Over time the student stops collecting moves and starts understanding a game, and that is the entire jump from curriculum to system.

None of that requires a rewrite. It requires deciding what you actually believe about Jiu-Jitsu and then teaching those beliefs across everything, instead of teaching techniques that never quite add up to a point of view.

Build a small one, step by step

Those four steps are easy to nod at and harder to picture, so let me build a small system in front of you with real positions, to show there is nothing mysterious about it. Start with your principles. You sit down and ask what you actually believe is true in every position, and you land on three plain sentences. Control the hands. Keep your posture and take theirs. Always know your next position. That is your whole spine. It took ten minutes, and you did not invent anything, you just named what you already believe.

Now you make the connections out loud, which costs nothing but a few sentences a class. Next week you teach closed guard. Instead of presenting it as its own island, you open with, remember, control the hands, that is how you break their posture right here. When the posture breaks and they turn to escape, you add, and always know your next position, that turn is your door to the back, the same back we drilled on Tuesday. In three sentences you have tied today's lesson to two of your principles and to another position the room already knows. You added no new technique. You revealed the web that was always there.

Then you give the game a center. You decide the whole thing organizes around back control, that is your destination, your hub. Now the guard becomes the place you break posture on the way to the back, mount becomes a stop you take when the back is not there yet, and the flat list turns into a map that points somewhere. And you teach the why for everything, tied to a principle. Why this grip? It controls the hands. Why break posture before attacking? Principle two. The student stops collecting moves and starts reasoning from a small set of beliefs.

Do that for a few months and here is what you have. You added zero new techniques to your curriculum, and yet it is now a system, because everything connects back to three beliefs and points toward one destination. And if even that feels like a lot, do only this, this week. Write down three things you believe are true in every position, and start saying them out loud in the classes you already run, in every position where they show up. Teach nothing new. That single habit is the first brick, and everything else in this article builds on it.

How this interacts with the four methods

Because the second axis is independent, you can add a connective layer to any of the four methods. But they do not all make it equally easy, and it is worth knowing which way the wind blows.

• Positional. The friendliest to a system, because organizing by position already forces you to state each position's goals and methods, which is halfway to a set of principles. A connective layer feels like a natural extension rather than a bolt-on.

• Flow. Also friendly, because the handoffs between weeks are already a form of connective tissue. The sequence itself is teaching relationships, so the system layer has somewhere to attach.

• Linear. Neutral. The strict order gives a natural spine, but the connective principles still have to be added deliberately on top.

• Rotating. The hardest, because the arbitrary order actively works against coherence. You can absolutely build a system on a rotating curriculum, but you have to supply all the connective tissue yourself, since the sequence gives you none. This is worth knowing if rotating is your method: the second axis is where your program will need the most deliberate attention.

Good teacher, great teacher

There is a simple way to say what this whole piece is really about. A good teacher can build a curriculum. A great teacher can build a system inside it. And the jump between the two is not just about understanding the art more deeply, though it is that. It is about being able to dissect the art and then communicate it to people who do not understand it yet. Understanding is private. Teaching is the work of turning that understanding into something a beginner can actually receive, and building a system demands both, the seeing and the translating.

But the distinction that matters most to anyone running a school is this: a curriculum can be handed off, and a system cannot, at least not easily. A curriculum is an artifact, a sequence of positions and techniques written down. You can give it to almost any competent instructor and they can run it, because the structure carries the weight. A system lives partly in the head of the person who built it, in the principles, the connections, the reasons. You cannot hand someone your system on a sheet of paper and expect them to teach it. You have to teach the system to your instructors, deliberately, the same way you would teach it to a student, before any of them can pass it on.

That is a real investment, and it is the reason most schools never make the climb. A curriculum protects you, anyone can run it, so the school does not fall apart when a coach leaves. That is its strength and also its ceiling. A system raises the quality of everything, but it concentrates the knowledge, and it only scales if you do the deliberate work of transferring it to the people who teach for you. Skip that work and the system dies with you, or walks out the door the day your one good coach does.

So the honest, final version of the ladder has three rungs, not two. A good teacher builds a curriculum. A great teacher builds a system. And the best teacher builds a system and then does the harder work of making it teachable to others, because that is the only way it outlives them. A system that lives only in the founder's head is a single point of failure wearing the costume of excellence. The real craft is not just seeing the threads of the art, it is building something coherent enough, and transferable enough, that a whole school can be better because of it long after you have stepped off the mat.

What can be handed over, and what cannot

It is worth being precise about what actually transfers here, because it changes what you can expect from anyone helping you, including us. A curriculum can be handed to you almost complete. Structure travels, and a good sequence is a good sequence in anyone's hands. A system cannot be handed over the same way, because it is built out of what you believe is true about the art, and beliefs do not transplant. Drop a finished system into a school whose owner does not hold the beliefs underneath it, and you have installed someone else's convictions on top of a person who does not share them, which is the single point of failure all over again, just relocated.

But that does not mean you are on your own with it, and this is the part worth being clear about. The system is yours to build, yet the method for building one can absolutely be taught. That is what the step-by-step section above is: a repeatable process for surfacing what you already believe and turning it into something teachable. Naming your principles, making the connections explicit, choosing a center, teaching the why, that can be coached, guided, worked through bit by bit. Most owners already have the beliefs. What they have never been shown is how to make them explicit and transmissible. So the honest version is not do it yourself and good luck. It is this: the curriculum we can hand you, the system we can teach you how to build, and the beliefs at the bottom have to be yours, because those are the one thing no one can supply for you.

There is one more difference between the two that matters, and it is a hopeful one. A curriculum can stay stable for an entire career. You can choose a positional structure in your first year of teaching and run it for the next thirty, and there is nothing wrong with that, because good structure does not expire. A system is not like that. A system is alive. It grows and shifts as you grow, because it is downstream of your understanding of the art, and your understanding in year twenty is not the one you had in year five. That means you do not build your system once and file it away. You keep building it your whole career, and it keeps deepening as you do. The curriculum is the fixed frame. The system is the living thing that matures with the teacher. That is not a burden. It is the part that stays interesting for as long as you coach.

The bottom line

Sequence is the skeleton. The connective layer is the nervous system. A curriculum with a good sequence and no connective tissue is a well-arranged body that cannot quite coordinate itself, the pieces are all present and in the right places, and they do not yet act as one. A system is what happens when the pieces start talking to each other.

Most academies do not have a curriculum at all, which is where this series started. Of the ones that do, most have a curriculum and not a system, and they never realize there was a second axis to climb. You do not have to build a system that elaborate to climb it. You have to decide what you believe, teach those beliefs across every position, make the connections out loud, and give the game a center. Do that, and the same techniques in the same order quietly become something more, a game a student can understand rather than a list they have to memorize.

Coming next

Part One made the case for having a curriculum. Part Two named the four types, the first axis, sequence. This piece drew the second axis, the line between a curriculum and a system, connection. But a system that lives only in your head is hard to follow and harder to teach, so the next piece stays with the system and makes it visible: how you map it, so its principles can actually be followed on the mat and handed to a student. We will look at how several well-known systems have been mapped, each drawn a completely different way, and at what a map does that a pile of techniques never can. After that the series turns to the third axis, delivery, and to the argument every coach is having about how you actually run the mat.

Open Source Jiu-Jitsu

Open Minds. Open Mats. Open Source.

Back to the Free Library