Conversation

One of the things that I have struggle expressing that can be viscerally felt is the idea that certain frameworks reduce reality in useful, good ways, while others do not. Learning to differentiate between the two becomes important if you want to accelerate expertise.

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

Sep 20

One example (and I’m sorry about this example, because it’s useless to anyone who isn’t a Judo player) is that ALL of Judo grip fighting can be reduced to a system of four rules. Once you learn the four rules, you can see way more when observing a high-level match.

Cedric Chin

@ejames_c

Sep 20

The four rules: 1. Don’t let your opponent get a usable grip. 2. If your opponent gets a usable grip, break it. 3. If you can’t break it, attack. 4. If you can’t attack, get ready to defend or counter.

Replying to

These look more like heuristics to me.

Replying to

It’s not. It’s a system. Each of these rules will take a lifetime to master. 1. What’s a usable grip? 2. How do you grip break? (There’s a metagame here also). 3. What are safe attacks to reset the exchange? (Also a metagame). 4. How do you bait counters (Another metagame).

Replying to

and

As the competition rules change and players adapt, the set of possible moves for each rule also changes. The 4 rules is thus a framework or system for thinking about the grip fight.

4:51 AM · Sep 20, 2022TweetDeck

Replying to

and

I thought about it a bit more, and I realise heuristics imply lack of universality, and therefore act as loose guidelines. Whereas the 4 rules are universal. EVERY grip fight in Judo follows the 4 rules.

Replying to

Right, that's the definition of heuristics. Although the "rules" sound like heuristics to me, I agree that they're more than heuristics if they are applicable universally.