Developing Curriculum
The developing learning path (6–24 months) — building a connected game, primary systems, and plugging the gaps in the foundations.
The Developing Principle
The shift from foundations to developing is a shift from positions and techniques to systems and connections. A foundations practitioner knows positions — they can survive guard bottom, they can pass, they can take the back, they have an ankle lock. A developing practitioner starts to understand how those positions connect to each other: why a failed pass attempt creates a specific back take opportunity, why a defensive response to a kimura grip opens a triangle, why a leg entanglement refused on one side becomes available on the other.
This is the most important developmental shift in the first two years of training, and it is the one most commonly bypassed by instruction that prioritises breadth of technique over depth of connection. A student who collects 200 techniques without understanding how they link has a poor foundation for progress. A student who understands how 30 techniques link into a coherent game has a platform they can build on indefinitely.
The developing curriculum is not a completion list. Each element listed here is an area of focused development, not a technique to tick off. A student is not done with the kimura system because they have drilled the basic shoulder lock — they are developing the kimura system as long as they are continuing to find new entries, new follow-up options, and deeper mechanical understanding. The developing curriculum is the practitioner’s primary framework for 6 to 24 months, and elements within it remain relevant at proficient and beyond.
Prerequisites — foundations curriculum
This curriculum assumes completion of all ten stages of the foundations curriculum: functional guard bottom and top, back position in both directions, side control and mount survival and basic attack, front headlock and turtle, basic standing, straight ankle lock, and basic ashi garami control and escape.
Coaches should assess foundations completion criteria directly before introducing developing content — do not assume completion based on time trained. A student who has been training for eight months but cannot maintain guard bottom against moderate pressure under the foundations criteria has not completed Stage 3.
Half Guard System
Demonstrates competence when Student can sweep from Z-guard and deep half against resisting partners and convert the dogfight to a back take or top position.
Half guard is introduced as a full system at the developing level — not a single position but a family of related positions and transitions. The prerequisite from foundations is POS-GRD-HALF-BOT (flat half guard survival and basic frames). The developing curriculum builds on this into the Z-guard (knee shield half guard), the deep half guard, and the lockdown concept as a control mechanism.
From each half guard position, the student learns the primary sweeps and the primary submission entries. Z-guard: the sit-up sweep to dog fight, and the basic kimura entry from the knee shield. Deep half: the Homer Simpson sweep (back roll to top), and the wrestling-up back take. The connection between half guard bottom and the dogfight position — the neutral scramble state that both half guard sweep and guard recovery run through — is the structural concept that ties the system together.
Common failure pattern
Students who learn half guard sweeps in isolation without understanding the dogfight often execute the sweep successfully and then fail to convert because they have not developed dogfight competence. Half guard and dogfight must be developed together.
X Guard, SLX, and Butterfly Entries
Demonstrates competence when Student can enter X guard from butterfly, execute a primary X guard sweep against resistance, and identify the SLX entry from inside position.
X guard and single-leg X (SLX) are developed as an extension of the butterfly guard system. The entry concept — converting from butterfly hooks to X guard when the opponent steps into a specific stance — is the primary curriculum content, not the X guard sweeps in isolation. A student who can only perform X guard sweeps from a static starting position has a drilling competency, not a functional skill.
Content: butterfly guard entries and basic sweep threats (elevator sweep, hook sweep), the X guard entry from butterfly when the opponent stands, the primary X guard sweeps (tilt sweep, back take), the SLX entry from inside position or existing ashi garami, and the SLX to outside heel hook connection — which is introduced here as a concept but developed fully in the heel hook content later in the developing curriculum. The connection between SLX and ashi garami is the structural link: SLX is an ashi garami variant, and the student should recognise it as such rather than treating it as a completely separate system.
Common failure pattern
Treating X guard as a static position rather than a transitional system. X guard that is not immediately threatening sweep or submission is likely to be escaped.
Back Attack System
Demonstrates competence when Student can maintain back control for 60 seconds against a resisting partner, execute the transition from seatbelt to body triangle when the partner defends, and finish the rear naked choke against moderate resistance.
The foundations curriculum introduces back position and the rear naked choke setup. The developing curriculum builds the full back attack system: maintaining back control against advanced escape attempts, the transition between seatbelt and body triangle, and the full submission sequence (rear naked choke finish mechanics, bow-and-arrow concept in no-gi, and the arm trap for practitioners who defend the RNC effectively).
The back attack system also includes the back take entries: from turtle (gut wrench entry, clock choke setup to back), from single leg (the single leg to back when the leg is lifted), from the dogfight (the standard seat-belt back take), and from a failed triangle or armbar (the back take when the opponent postures strongly). The system is developed as an interconnected set of entries and position management concepts, not as isolated techniques.
Common failure pattern
Students who can finish the rear naked choke from a static starting position but cannot maintain back control long enough to complete the setup against a competent defensive partner. Back control maintenance is the skill that makes the submission system functional.
Kimura System
Demonstrates competence when Student can enter the kimura from two different positions, maintain the grip through the primary defensive movements, and convert to a back take or triangle when the finish is defended.
The kimura is introduced as a primary submission system in the developing curriculum because it is one of the most versatile submission families in no-gi grappling: it attacks from top, bottom, and back positions; it produces sweeps when not finished; and its entry points appear across every major position family. A student who has a functional kimura system has a submission threat from almost every position in their game.
Content: the basic shoulder lock mechanics (the figure-four grip, the rotation of the arm to apply stress), kimura entries from guard bottom (butterfly guard sit-up, closed guard), kimura from top (side control, north-south), the kimura trap concept (using the grip to restrict movement before submitting), the kimura to back take when the opponent defends by rolling, and the kimura to triangle when the opponent defends by pulling the arm.
Common failure pattern
Applying the kimura as a static submission without the trap concept. Students who try to finish immediately often find the grip stripped before the finish is available. The kimura trap — using the grip to control position before rotating to the finish — is what makes the system functional under resistance.
Triangle System
Demonstrates competence when Student can set the triangle from guard bottom against moderate resistance, transition to armbar or omoplata when the triangle is defended, and explain the mechanical role of the hip angle.
The triangle is the other primary submission system developed at the developing level. Like the kimura, its value is not only as a single submission but as an entry point into a system: the triangle connects to the armbar (when the opponent pulls the trapped arm out), to the omoplata (when the opponent postures and turns), and to sweeps when neither submission is available. A functional triangle system gives the guard player a persistent threat from the bottom.
Content: the triangle setup from guard (the angle, the figure-four leg position, the head position), the closed guard triangle entry from the cross-choke setup, the open guard triangle entry from the failed arm drag, the armbar transition when the arm is pulled, the omoplata transition when the opponent postures, and the triangle sweep when the opponent base-reacts to the submission attempt. The omoplata is introduced here as a triangle system element rather than as a standalone technique — it functions best when understood as one of several options available from a triangle attempt.
Common failure pattern
Students who can achieve the triangle position but cannot finish because they have not set the angle correctly. The hip angle is the mechanical prerequisite for both the choke and the armbar from triangle; drilling the finish without establishing the angle first produces a technique that works in isolation but fails under resistance.
Leg Entanglement Expansion — Outside Ashi, 50/50, K-Guard
Demonstrates competence when Student can navigate between inside ashi, outside ashi, and 50/50 under moderate resistance in each, and submit from at least two positions using the straight ankle lock.
The foundations curriculum established basic ashi garami and the straight ankle lock. The developing curriculum expands the leg entanglement game to outside ashi, 50/50, and K-guard. These positions are introduced before heel hooks because each one has functional value with the straight ankle lock and knee bar options available within the developing curriculum, and because understanding these positions as an interconnected system prepares the student for the heel hook content that follows.
Outside ashi garami: the outside position, how it differs from inside ashi in terms of heel exposure and control mechanics, the straight ankle lock from outside ashi, and the entry from a failed inside ashi when the opponent frames out. 50/50: the mutual entanglement and its implications (both practitioners have the same finishing options; the first to establish control wins), the primary exit options, and why 50/50 literacy matters for anyone competing in leg entanglement-heavy environments. K-guard: the knee-shield variant that maintains guard while establishing a leg entanglement entry, and its relationship to ashi garami.
Common failure pattern
Treating these positions as isolated techniques rather than as an interconnected system. The leg entanglement game is a positional game with submission options — the student who understands the positional logic can navigate between positions fluidly; the student who has learned individual techniques cannot.
Inside and Outside Heel Hooks — Defence Before Offence, Gated
Demonstrates competence when Student can enter outside and inside heel hook from established positions, apply the finishing mechanic at controlled speed, tap before the submission is tight in drilling, and escape both heel hooks using primary escape mechanics.
Heel hooks are the most consequential gating decision in the developing curriculum. The inside heel hook in particular — especially from cross-ashi/saddle — operates on an injury timeline that is faster than any other submission in no-gi grappling. The knee joint can be damaged before the defender registers the signal to tap. This is not a reason to avoid the technique indefinitely; it is a reason to ensure that the student has the escape literacy and tap discipline to engage with it safely before it is introduced.
The gate conditions are explicit. First, demonstrated competence in all prior leg entanglement content: inside ashi, outside ashi, 50/50, K-guard, and the straight ankle lock. Second, the ability to execute the primary escape from inside and outside ashi against moderate resistance — not just from a static position. Third, assessed tap discipline: do they tap before pain? Do they tap promptly? Have they demonstrated consistent tapping behaviour across multiple training sessions?
The outside heel hook is introduced before the inside heel hook. It has a marginally longer injury timeline and is legal in more competition formats. Defence is drilled first: the student can escape the outside heel hook before they apply it. The inside heel hook follows with the same structure. The cross-ashi/saddle position is introduced here as a concept but treated as the advanced variant — it is the entry point for the proficient curriculum, not a completing element of the developing curriculum.
Common failure pattern
Students given early access to heel hooks without the prerequisite foundation often have the finishing mechanic without the positional fluency to enter safely, and without the defensive knowledge to manage the position when they are on the receiving end. These students are the most likely to injure training partners through uncontrolled entry or escalating finishing speed.
Standing Game Expansion
Demonstrates competence when Student can execute a body lock or arm drag to a takedown against moderate resistance, identify when a guard pull is tactically appropriate, and connect a successful takedown to their guard passing game.
The foundations curriculum established a basic standing game: sprawl, single leg entry, and a defensive clinch. The developing curriculum expands this substantially. Content: the wrestling-up from turtle (connecting the ground and standing games), arm drag entries to single and double leg, the body lock and trip system, and basic foot sweeps from the clinch. Wrestlers who cross-train will find this content relatively familiar; practitioners without a wrestling background need deliberate, focused development here.
The competition-facing standing game is also developed at this stage: understanding when to engage from standing in different rulesets, when a guard pull is tactically sound (and when it is not), and how standing entries connect to the guard bottom game developed in foundations. A practitioner who pulls guard needs to pull into a functional position, not simply to the ground.
Common failure pattern
Treating the standing game as separate from the ground game rather than as the first transition into the positions the student has been developing.
What Comes Next
A student who has completed the developing curriculum has a connected game across all major position families, functional submission threats from multiple positions, a leg entanglement system that includes heel hooks with appropriate competence gating, and a standing game that connects to the ground game. They are ready to begin specialising — developing a primary game built around their physical attributes and competitive interests.
The proficient curriculum at /curriculum/proficient marks the shift from curriculum to game development. The coach’s role changes from sequencing instruction to providing frameworks for specialisation. The site’s role shifts from curriculum to reference: the invariable and position pages become analysis tools rather than learning guides.
Coaches who want a structured approach to delivering these systems as focused training blocks can use the Developing Focus Blocks guide — a system-by-system framework with session templates.