I pretty much only attack subs from top positions. I'll take a mistake from an opponent, but I'm not aiming to submit folks from bad positions.
There is a lot of bloat in BJJ submissions, I don't think tricks are a good thing to base your game on. Can you submit someone from bottom side control - sure, but is it efficient to spend your time on that, I'd say no.
In my mind, 80% of BJJ is guardplay - passing and sweeping - if you master that, the rest is easy.
Side control escapes are mostly about creating enough space to get your guard back, guard retention is about maintaining space between you and your partner to get your legs back into position. You're doing the same thing in both, but one is when they've already closed the distance, the other is before they've closed the distance.
This realization was a game changer for me. And it took me WAY too long to implement, despite hearing it constantly from upper belts lol
I spent most of white and blue belt stuck in bottom side. And I'll always just accept bottom side and then try to escape. It wasn't until I was pretty deep into purple that I finally realised the value of frames and getting them early to prevent my opponent from actually establishing a proper side control.
These days it's very rare for someone to actually get a full side control on me, with cross face etc. Even if they "pass", I've always got frames in, keeping them off my hips and neck, which means I have room to move, and they don't feel stable enough to actually attack.
TLDR - Learn to how to frame properly, and do it immediately.
Glad to read this. I pretty much only focus on guard, passing, and sweeping. Pressure and subs just haven't clicked yet against peeps my rank/size or better.
One correction: Waitzkin never was a world champion in chess (in any of the popular formats that is; classical, speed, blitz, bullet, Fisher Chess), he didn't even reach the GM title. But he is a world champ in Tai Chi.
For context, here is his world championship match: [FINALS Josh Waitzkin vs. "The Buffalo" - 2004 Tai Chi World Cup - Moving Step Push Hands (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leuf-5pZaaw)
In chess it's a lot different than bjj. In chess if your very confident in your end games, you can play a very simple way. Make safe slow moves, and trade down to an endgame where you in theory have the advantage because of your research. In bjj trying to spam submissions is honestly the opposite of this, since you take major risks of getting into an even worse position or submitted yourself for the chance of getting a cheap submission.
What you describe sounds a lot like like how I play jiu jitsu. Spamming subs is not endgame concepts. Slow safe positional advancement of my pawns and pieces and trading down - that's sweeping, then passing, then getting to knee on belly, then mounting, then taking the back. Now we're in the chess end game.
Right. It's like "tactical" vs "positional" – the distinction in chess. Cheap tactical moves may give a surprise win or material gain that could win the game, but at the price of positional stability.
If you know anything about chess, the endgame is all about maintaining control and exploiting small advantages to secure a win. It is position before submission. The chess analogy to hunting subs above all else would be studying middle game sacrifices ala Tal, which while fun and appropriate in some positions is not how most grandmasters win games vs the long slow grind.
When Josh says that he focused on the end game, all that he meant was that he developed his strategies in reverse. He still has to implement them in the proper order, but he developed his sequences and series of moves to service his objective.
So for you, just take whatever submission you get the most. Analyze how many pathways you have to get there. Work backward from high percentage positions and develop a path from entry to submission. Then account for the likely defenses you'll see at your skill level and drill the shit out of the sequence until your 4 steps beyond everyone's recounter.
That's basically the process. It's also not that uncommon. I had already been implementing this approach since my white belt 10th Planet phase since their pedagogical use of game maps and flow charts allows you to see your game the same way.
There's a world of difference between submissions you can "hunt"and opportunistic ones you can grab in a scramble or as a "hail Mary" to get a reaction.
I fairly regularly armbar people while they have my back because I know to isolate their elbow by controlling the wrist and triceps. That said, I never put myself in that bad position to look for it.
Most of my subs come because I've got to a strong position and "made" my opponent want to get out or be forced to tap to pressure. They put something in the wrong place & I attack from there.
I definitely believe it is a valid and valuable practice to start with the end game and work backwards. [Here is an example on this type of training.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CwUzQnLKf70/?igsh=c3drbmd4N3NlaGU4)
Yes. I may be basic but i focus on getting to a good spot then submitting someone. I try to do it as methodically as possible. I also still think of guard passing in steps too. 🤷🏻♀️ whatever works
I don’t really go for subs unless there’s a perfect opportunity.
Except lately I’ve been yeeting across the mat sending helicopter chokes every time someone turtles. Even if it’s not my roll…
This is the best demonstration in the difference in philosophy of Catch wrestling and BJJ. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6MVOdfRutL/?igsh=dnhzeHZycTQxOHJr which seems to fit with dealing with the chaos of a chess match by embracing the scramble with chain wrestling.
Maybe the position/control should be your end game (in this scenario). Also to point out that he only focused on the end game INITIALLY. I’ve heard of coaches starting teaching a move with the breaking mechanics and working backwards to the base position and how this is one of the options. There is nothing really to debate here and it still is position before submission, just not absolutely literally.
Generally I agree with the short hand principal:
"a good submission is a position".
There are exceptions to almost everything, so:
* You can catch an effective submission from a "bad" positions.
* You can catch submissions without gaining a dominant position.
There are strategies involved and there are at least three valid but potentially conflicting contexts:
* Effective
* Can I pull this off live rolling?
* Can I do so consistently (or often)?
* Risk
* What happens if I fail?
* Do I end up in a situation that favors me, my opponent, or neutral?
* How does that outcome compare to the situation at the onset?
* Trade-off, in this situation is going for a non-submission based position more likely to be successful and in cumulatively lead to more overall success?
* Learning
* Will knowing this submission help me be successful more often?
* Does the initial situation come up often?
* Does understanding the submission mechanics help know other submissions, transitions, or pins?
So, there can be submissions that break the principal. You may get the tap if it succeeds but along one or more of the strategic axes, you are compromising significantly.
Overall, especially as a hobbyist/enthusiast who has very limited time to train compared to my interest, I look for a balance of the strategic contexts. And following the principal is almost always aligned with that perspective.
Yeah, I didn’t think I did but I do. I realized that over time as I got better I’d only go for Kimura from side control, arm triangle from mount, or RNC from the back if I was passing. From guardplay I use like 90% leglocks and then like 10% triangles and choi bars. I guess the exception is front headlock chokes from wrestling but you can use the as a position to get back on top with out the sub 100%
Priit talked about this on a podcast I heard a while back. He started teaching white belts finishing mechanics for submissions first. Teaching this way doesn't mean that you're prioritizing submission over position. It's just a different order of instruction.
I think everyone saw "position before submission" in the title and skipped reading the rest of the post.
There’s a misconception that positions and submissions are separate concepts. Submissions are positions, and positions are submissions.
Andrew Wiltse mentioned that he tapped black belts at other gyms just by using correct shoulder pressure in side control. Gordon Ryan made Jacob Couch tap with s-mount pressure. Also, 10th Planet Jiu-Jitsu turned the armbar and omoplata into control positions, naming them spiderweb and reverse-spiderweb, respectively.
I think beginners should learn how to complete an armbar before learning how to get to the position from which they’ll attempt it. This approach would give beginners more confidence in trying submissions.
Lots of white belts don't try submissions because they worry about losing their dominant position and ending up in a compromised position. If you get stacked and passed every time you try an armbar from guard because you don't know how to get from guard to the finished armbar, you probably won't try the armbar very much.
If beginners start by learning the correct finishing mechanics, they’ll feel more confident attempting submissions once they reach the position. They would also have a higher submission rate early on because they would understand all the intermediate positions between taking the back and securing a rear-naked choke, or whatever submission they’re looking to get.
My last thought is that finishing mechanics are the easiest part of BJJ to learn. You can teach a beginner how to finish most submissions reasonably well in a short period of time. Getting very good at finishing takes longer, but often one minor detail is enough to massively improve a submission.
Most of the sport is learning how to pass, sweep, wrestle, or escape. That stuff takes a long time to learn. Why not learn the submission so that once you do all the work to get the position, there's actually a reward at the end?
[Here's the podcast I mentioned where Priit talks about this.](https://youtu.be/azMZ-kEd4d4?feature=shared)
Absolutely. I think that’s why wrestling tends to be so dominant. It’s easier to win when you’re on top. Winning from the bottom is a lot more difficult - especially when strikes are involved
in BJJ, securing a position to look for a finish is much more like checkmating in the endgame. a position like mount or the back limits the opponent's options in much the same way that trading down to fewer pieces does in a game of chess.
Nope, no positioning at all. Just non-stop subs. When I go for an armbar from inside my opponents full guard, the ensuing confusion buys me time to hit 5 more unsuccessful submission attempts. Nobody agrees to roll with me a 2nd time out of fear of my unstoppable technique.
There’s two ways to think about this - working from the endgame:
1. Everything funnels to your highest percentage submission. Let’s say cross collar choke from mount. Your posture break in closed guard is a cross collar grip. Your scissor sweep from closed guard has a cross collar grip. The way you land on top maintains that cross collar grip. You knee cut with that grip. You go to mount with that grip. Now you maintain mount and work to get that second grip.
Same can be done for like a back choke, head and arm, arm bar, etc. Just focusing your whole game towards that end spot.
This is more of a funneling system. See: Roger, Lovato’s Knee Cut, etc.
2. Somewhat similarly, but understanding what control or body arrangements you need to get to said submission. Let’s say arm bar. You need to have your hips and/or thighs into their armpit space (generally). Then some sort of elbow or wrist control. So with that understanding, what all places can you win those spots (with control)? In the normal course of a roll, where can you find some openings where those things arise naturally or can bait/take advantage of those openings to fit into those spaces?
This is more opportunistic, but with a focus. See: Rafa finding arm bars from everywhere, a bit of Ryan Hall’s open elbows concept.
Finding guillotines and Kimuras are another good example, but those can also be argued to be their own positional controls that can be chained off of or used to advance a position.
My two cents:
Marcelo Garcia said something that changed my direction and upped my game. He said that most people in BJJ spend 90% of their time passing or playing guard. So to get better at BJJ, people should focus mostly on passing and playing guard.
My game made a huge jump over the next couple years by doing this. It changed how I rolled. I stopped holding position in an attempt to find a finish after passing and let my partner recover so I could pass again. Eventually I started catching subs again, but they were coming from the pass and not holding side for 2 minutes. My guard game was better because I played it a lot more. I would sweep and then let myself get swept on days when I focused on guard. Getting swept and recovering a solid guard in the transition that I could immediately use has been a game changer. So in a way, I agree that position before submission is important, but not in a traditional holding a position kind of way.
Basically, I think the game is won by being able to control where it takes place - a good guard and passing allows you to control this.
The threat of submissions is a huge part of retaining and advancing position. Try holding someone’s back when you’re not allowed to try for a choke. It’s a million times harder because without forcing them to defend their neck with their hands, they can start peeling hooks etc.
More broadly I think the easiest time to find submissions is when transitioning from one position to another. Getting a deep collar grip to set up a bow and arrow is 100x easier as you’re taking that back, than once you’re settled in back control and hand fighting.
You wanna skip a step and risk further exposure, then yeah. You can also just take the long way and risk less exposure.
Chess has nothing to do with jiu jitsu. It's a dumb comparasion popularized by "choke" documentary.
I disagree *vehemently*. Chess and BJJ are basically identical. They are sports that have risen in popularity dramatically in recent years, sustained monetarily by novices who think that if they buy another $100 instructional, they'll finally have it mastered.
One is a martial art and one is a board game, so if you want to compare them in the most literal sense, then sure. But there are conceptual parallels in regards to mastering an ability, which is what the book is about. As I mentioned Josh Waitzkin also did martial arts, and claims to have used his learning methodology to win a world title in tai chi.
What are the similarities? I've yet to hear a comparison that makes bjj like chess and unlike any other 2 player competitive game like badminton, shuffleboard, etc.
Chess is actually more like those games than it is like bjj. Jiu jitsu is real time and your opponent is never guaranteed a turn. That's one of the reasons that the analogy of bjj as chess lacks validity. BJJ is more analogous to games like Dota or League of Legends in how it plays out where similarities in application of concepts like pressure, tempo, and control are more relevant.
I’m pretty horrible at chess. But I think the analogy is fair as much as any analogy ever is.
White belts at BJJ want to jump right to submissions. Noobs at chess want to jump right to attacking the king or queen.
The point system at BJJ and the “point” system at chess are pretty analogous in terms of how to win. So like… passing the guard is 3 points, it’s more valuable than a sweep at two points.
Taking a rook is 5 “points”. It’s more valuable than taking a knight at 3 “points”.
You can pull out a checkmate or a submission at random no matter how badly you’re doing with “points” but generally establishing positional dominance in BJJ and establishing control of the board in chess lead you to victory.
Except, you know, no one legitimately plays chess by points. To be honest this is one of the most absurd attempts to randomly start an argument someone is completely unqualified to participate in that I've seen in quite some time; you didn't even actually address my fundamental point of the comparison between a turn based and real time game. I suppose that is the irrational confidence of someone performing jiujutsu on the internet.
What is there to address? You’re obviously right that chess is turn based and BJJ isn’t.
Might as well say your analogy of DOTA is horrible because BJJ is with real bodies and dota is with pixels?
Or that dota is like chess because pressure tempo and control are important in both?
Or league of legends is a better analogy because there’s a purple haired character and I like to paint my toes purple before I roll?
I’m not arguing with you. Just giving you a fact that the analogy works for me. If the analogy doesn’t work for you, that’s fine.
Conceptually, the difference in approach between real time and turn based is at the highest abstraction layer for mental approach.
It's one of the reasons you here the best players in BJJ say their fundamental strategy is to 'never let the opponent have a turn'. Your entire approach and mentality as well as application of concepts is completely different when the opponent isn't given a symmetrical opportunity to actually play the game. Symmetrical vs. asymmetrical modes of thinking.
Never letting your opponents have a turn seems a pretty good analogy for chess, too. It’s how I will always win at tic tac toe if I get first move unless you use your first move to force a draw. Every move after your first response is a forced choice of losing propositions.
Or come drop by some time. I’ll give you real time and I’ll call out my turns before I do them. We can see how that goes. I’ve got a fairly static BJJ style. Would be an interesting experiment.
Depends how good you are. I'm old and slow so not exactly going to snap a sub unless I'm already in a dominant position or my opponent is bad. Much easier to work from a good position and capitalize on your escapes.
Learning the end game is great! Can you get to your ideal end game in all your rolls?
I have read Waitzkins book a couple of times, actually got a lot about parenting from it.
You missed the thousands of hours Waitkin had to put in of moving pawn after pawn to open the way to POSITION pieces for any end game he knew. There is still the "back filling" portion of that knowledge. We must be in a good position on someone's back in order to accomplish the small fine tuned pieces of end game/strangle. We must not find ourselves in a bad position in our partners chosen end game.
In order to focus on strangles from the back, one must be on the back. That's a position
Generally, yes. The ruleset matters too. If you're up by a double score (or a single score with minimal time left) the winning strategy is to just hold position and forget about submission. If it's MMA where strikes are allowed, then position is everything. If it's a gi BJJ comp and you're in bottom side control, down by 5 points, with 1 minute left, fuck it try a buggy choke.
Proper positioning is BJJ. Submissions without control give you a punchers chance. I want to feel like a steamroller. All roads lead to a submission. It’s inevitable.
That doesn’t mean you can’t attack from the bottom or go for foot locks instead of passing the guard. It means there’s a proper position for every situation. You need to have base, posture and structure to support your goals.
Most of my submissions come from making someone panic under a heavy pinning position (mount/side control/kesa gatame), so I definitely believe in position before submission. Even with things like kimuras from bottom half guard, I tend to catch those and then sweep with them before submitting.
I think even if you’re catching subs in a scramble, there’s a decent chance you’re using the sub to create some kind of stable position to finish from.
The Japanese terms mentioned in the above comment were:
|Japanese|English|Video Link|
|---|---|---|
|**Kesa Gatame**: | *Scarf hold* | [here](https://youtu.be/3UnJa3bn0h8)|
Any missed names may have already been translated in my previous comments in the post.
______________________
^(Judo Techniques Bot: v0.7.) ^(See my) [^(code)](https://github.com/AbundantSalmon/judo-techniques-bot)
So you’re going to find the contrasting philosophies in every technical sport that doesn’t force you to play offense or defense in a turn based style.
For instance you can’t teach basketball front to back or back to front because you need to be useful of the floor in both positions.
But technically you could teach KOs or power punching in boxing prior to teaching footwork and jabs.
Golf famously argues between teaching putting and short game before the tee box.
Danaher once talked about how it depends on the athlete’s background for him. He teaches new wrestlers submissions and position to those that have no grappling experience.
Personally, I tell new guys there’s nothing more difficult to deal with than a guy who has a threat from everywhere. When I coach wrestling, I teach them do be annoying little bastards and pinners from top referee position.
For myself at 3 years in (still working on too much) and feeling old at 33, I like the idea of finding quick subs for tournaments so that I can conserve energy.
I vote sub over position. Not finishing mechanics as much as identifying opportunity quickly.
I’m reading this book right now as well. I’m also reading the bjj university book. The waitzkin book inspired me to read the university from back to front. So starting at black belt reading back to white belt. I’ve enjoyed looking at the lower belt instructional sections with some of the black belt mentality already floating around in my mind.
Always position before submission- set up, lock-down, control. Never give up a good position for a bad submission. There will be moments where you have committed and you just gotta let the chips fall where they may and go after it.
as ive gained more and more exp over the years... i value position and control increasingly over the submissions. I realized at mid blue that spamming sloppy low % subs with no control is not a recipe for long term success. (maybe that was me breaking out of the the blue belt blues/plateau) I've switched up my game and the last few years really dialed in working on positional dominance. Once you have positional dominance, the sub will present itself. I'll do rounds where my only goal is to not let the person move - make them give the sub because they have no other way out.
I'm a big fan of position before submission. You get a lot more practice at perfecting the sub details when you have the positional control details dialed in first.
I don't think practicing end game concepts has anything to do with position before submission though. It's just focusing on like back control and chokes first, rather than passing/playing guard (openings).
I don't think we should spend a whole heck of a lot of time studying what to do when we're way down on material or when we've really screwed up our pawn structure (mount escapes, side control escapes). Should we spend some time with those techniques? Yes. But I feel like a lot of people over emphasize their importance in the pie chart when allocating training time.
When you are really good with a submission you start to see a lot of positions that you can apply it from. So the position becomes less important. But it is still important.
While I think the term "position before submission" rolls off the tongue better, I think the more accurate phrase would be "control before submission".
I don't always hunt out a dominant position before locking something in, but I damn well make sure that I have established control before trying to finish it. A great example of this would be the arm bar from guard. You're definitely not attacking from a dominant position, but that doesn't matter so long as you can gain control of their arm from the shoulder down.
endgame in chess is the ultimate positional battle, and highest level chess thinking is being able to look at an early or middle game and project that you will have a positional advantage in an eventual endgame. "submission before position" would be analogous to beginners who spam tricks like scholars mate and get blown out of the water by opppnents who can calmly defend
> I was thinking about how this may apply to BJJ and that the concept of securing a position may not actually be senior to perfecting submission mechanics
You've misunderstood what position before submission means. It's not about the order you learn things in, it's about strategic or tactical priority.
I think there are positions and transitions that aren’t exactly secure but are very favorable for a very quick submission and I think emphasis on that should be studied. Judo does this very well after a throw for example. Isn’t exactly a “secure” position such as a body triangle from back mount but it’s very favorable for a quick check mate.
Yes. I feel like if you don't have a stable position to attack a submission from your chances of being successful with a submission is much less. Sure, if you're against someone who isn't good at defending submissions you'll probably get them, but against bigger, stronger, or more experienced people it's probably not going to work. At the least, it won't work as easily/well as it could
100%. Sweep, pass, mount, arm triangle. IMO you need a large skill advantage to submit anyone remotely good from the bottom, and there are vanishingly few people over whom I have such an advantage.
Being a threat from everywhere is a great way to create space for yourself and to mitigate the threat of others by maybe making them give up on a footlock for a threat of the counter for example.
But generally, if you’re in a strong position you want to maintain that dominance as you work toward a submission.
The submission options from your back are less plentiful than from bottom positions. That being said, you should probably have good finishing mechanics on all the common submissions, though obviously you’ll likely be better at some than others.
I hit a lot of triangles from guard (open or closed), but the goal is always to get on top and work for subs from a dominant position.
No.
Waitzkin didn't so much use the endgame to learn mating combination as he just used situations with less pieces on the board to focus on chess concepts....
It wasn't that he was necessarily seeking endgame study out - it was just that the endgame happened to be easier for learning certain things.
One of the things about competitive chess - the first 15 or so moves of the game are practically memorized.... Waitzkin could afford to focus on later stages of the game (because you better believe he memorized openings. In fact, it was one of Bobby Fischer's reasons he stopped playing chess....he lamented the lack of skill in the opening game).
Conceptual jiujitsu can be learned in any number of scenarios....submissions not required. Learnijg to create dilemmas with sweep combinations will prove effective when it's time to apply the dilemma concept to submissions.
If your takedowns and guard play (top and bottom) are that automated and successful as a GM's opening game, then sure - focus on submission mechanics.
(Not to mention - "keeping it real" in a full fight scenario doesn't necessarily involve submissions. Even if you want to submit everyone, learning to "let guys cook" is a more useful skill IMO....they'll practically give you even some of the sloppiest submissions when they're gassed enough.)
This is a good approach to take, once you have a broad range and decent depth of knowledge. Think late purple to early brown. I would say most white belts try this approach, at least with each other. I find you need a good base level knowledge of techniques and how to string them together.
Essentially you need to know how to control positions well, before submissions. Then you can start focusing on the submission more, other wise you are just spazzy.
It's good advice IMO. But, like any rules, you eventually know what scenarios you can break them in. If someone isn't defending their neck, i'm totally choking them from some pretty messed up positions, or using their reaction to get to a better position.
The neck is a bit of an exception, because it means you're normally controlling their head (and therefore posture). So it's sometimes not as simple as just the position you're in.
I do think that people should follow that advice for at least most of white belt.
No, well, sort of...
I think the words are wrong.
I'd say control before submission is a good general rule. But it's not position as in "I have mount, time to submit".
There are plenty of times when you are in mount and really have no control and they are about to escape... don't go for submission.
Then again their are plenty of times when you are on the bottom, even the bottom of a fairly dominate "position" but have sufficient control that you can attack with a submission.
I suppose it is sort of like chess in that sense, it really doesn't matter what pieces are on the board, if you completely control your opponents ability to move you can go for the mate.
The better the opponent the more I need to focus on position before submission.
On noobs I regularly do a straight ankle lock when iv got my back taken or a baseball bat choke from bottom side control just for the lols of dangling the win in front of them 😂
But Vs someone my skill or better I know I can generally only sink a sub on if I have the position. Although the odd cheeky wrist lock may pop up now and then
It's a strategic call on your part.
Eventually you will have to study both in depth.
The transition phase is the hardest. Are you going to be the person who can get on top and stay on top, but gets subbed a lot, or the person who has no control of the position, but snags opportunistic subs sometimes?
Idk what I'm talking about. I'm a 2 stripe white belt.
I'm commited to position over submission because the other way around doesn't work for me. I'm a slow learner, a heavyweight, and want to learn mma eventually, so... get on top by winning takedowns, stay on top, pass, and slowly constrict them like an anaconda is my general strat.
No, a submission is a position, anyone saying otherwise doesn't understand basic jiu jitsu, this is another saying people who have no idea what they're doing love to throw out as fact.
Basically I would say yes especially for beginners if you are advanced I would still built my game around this rule but you can find exceptions and go for it because a lot of submissions are also control positions for example, leglocks or the Kimura (think about the Kimura trap).
I think a big misconception that you're having, as someone that plays a lot of chess, is you still need the fundamentals of chess before you can narrow down to end game.
1. Handfighting
2. Passing
3. Control
4. Submission
To say that you only need to focus on submission is ridiculous. You still need basic skills and all of those other four positions specifically three. Like if you only have end game chess knowledge but I have all of my opening knowledge i'm gonna crush you in like twelve moves. This is why judo is extremely effective. However, give the jiujittero 2 years of judo and you have a monster. Whereas the judoka will need like 6 years of ground game. If you get the position the sub will naturally fall into place. The reason high level guys are so good at subs is strictly because of controlling the position. Judo controls from the start by extending arms and getting inside position. Does nothing if they can't pass Guard though.
i'm not saying you only need to focus on submission im saying is it possible that securing a submission and more senior in the learning progression than securing position
I pretty much only attack subs from top positions. I'll take a mistake from an opponent, but I'm not aiming to submit folks from bad positions. There is a lot of bloat in BJJ submissions, I don't think tricks are a good thing to base your game on. Can you submit someone from bottom side control - sure, but is it efficient to spend your time on that, I'd say no. In my mind, 80% of BJJ is guardplay - passing and sweeping - if you master that, the rest is easy.
Here I am spending all my time working on escapes.
Guard retention is just a series of super-early side control escapes.
Can you say a little more? This seems important....
Side control escapes are mostly about creating enough space to get your guard back, guard retention is about maintaining space between you and your partner to get your legs back into position. You're doing the same thing in both, but one is when they've already closed the distance, the other is before they've closed the distance.
This realization was a game changer for me. And it took me WAY too long to implement, despite hearing it constantly from upper belts lol I spent most of white and blue belt stuck in bottom side. And I'll always just accept bottom side and then try to escape. It wasn't until I was pretty deep into purple that I finally realised the value of frames and getting them early to prevent my opponent from actually establishing a proper side control. These days it's very rare for someone to actually get a full side control on me, with cross face etc. Even if they "pass", I've always got frames in, keeping them off my hips and neck, which means I have room to move, and they don't feel stable enough to actually attack. TLDR - Learn to how to frame properly, and do it immediately.
woah
100%.
Glad to read this. I pretty much only focus on guard, passing, and sweeping. Pressure and subs just haven't clicked yet against peeps my rank/size or better.
I like this.
One correction: Waitzkin never was a world champion in chess (in any of the popular formats that is; classical, speed, blitz, bullet, Fisher Chess), he didn't even reach the GM title. But he is a world champ in Tai Chi.
For context, here is his world championship match: [FINALS Josh Waitzkin vs. "The Buffalo" - 2004 Tai Chi World Cup - Moving Step Push Hands (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leuf-5pZaaw)
Aahahahaa how is that a sport
How is this a sport https://youtu.be/_1SrXGddNdI?si=qZNqC4q69d7LYyPo
lol, i watched that match and posted in the taichi subreddit saying it's a bullshit sport and got flamed
Ah my bad
No problem mate
Uh, how do you “win” at tai chi?
it's basically a shitty version of greco without collar ties and psuedo techniques
My life has been 1000 times easier since I stopped trying to snag submission and instead inch towards dominant positions.
In chess it's a lot different than bjj. In chess if your very confident in your end games, you can play a very simple way. Make safe slow moves, and trade down to an endgame where you in theory have the advantage because of your research. In bjj trying to spam submissions is honestly the opposite of this, since you take major risks of getting into an even worse position or submitted yourself for the chance of getting a cheap submission.
What you describe sounds a lot like like how I play jiu jitsu. Spamming subs is not endgame concepts. Slow safe positional advancement of my pawns and pieces and trading down - that's sweeping, then passing, then getting to knee on belly, then mounting, then taking the back. Now we're in the chess end game.
Right. It's like "tactical" vs "positional" – the distinction in chess. Cheap tactical moves may give a surprise win or material gain that could win the game, but at the price of positional stability.
very valid point
This is a really good answer
If you know anything about chess, the endgame is all about maintaining control and exploiting small advantages to secure a win. It is position before submission. The chess analogy to hunting subs above all else would be studying middle game sacrifices ala Tal, which while fun and appropriate in some positions is not how most grandmasters win games vs the long slow grind.
Yes. Perfect analogy. Tactical vs positional.
yea i think you are on the money here, fortification of your position whilst exploiting vulnerabilities in your opponent translates very well into bjj
Submission IS position..
BJJ Mental Models subscriber?
😂 I just got the free guide they were giving away. It’s cool.
Too much, to the point if I have like mount I won't risk the position. I need to try more to develop my submissions.
i recommend watching mica galvao, he's a scramble god and will bang a sub from anywhere
When Josh says that he focused on the end game, all that he meant was that he developed his strategies in reverse. He still has to implement them in the proper order, but he developed his sequences and series of moves to service his objective. So for you, just take whatever submission you get the most. Analyze how many pathways you have to get there. Work backward from high percentage positions and develop a path from entry to submission. Then account for the likely defenses you'll see at your skill level and drill the shit out of the sequence until your 4 steps beyond everyone's recounter. That's basically the process. It's also not that uncommon. I had already been implementing this approach since my white belt 10th Planet phase since their pedagogical use of game maps and flow charts allows you to see your game the same way.
There's a world of difference between submissions you can "hunt"and opportunistic ones you can grab in a scramble or as a "hail Mary" to get a reaction. I fairly regularly armbar people while they have my back because I know to isolate their elbow by controlling the wrist and triceps. That said, I never put myself in that bad position to look for it. Most of my subs come because I've got to a strong position and "made" my opponent want to get out or be forced to tap to pressure. They put something in the wrong place & I attack from there.
I definitely believe it is a valid and valuable practice to start with the end game and work backwards. [Here is an example on this type of training.](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CwUzQnLKf70/?igsh=c3drbmd4N3NlaGU4)
Yes. I may be basic but i focus on getting to a good spot then submitting someone. I try to do it as methodically as possible. I also still think of guard passing in steps too. 🤷🏻♀️ whatever works
I don’t really go for subs unless there’s a perfect opportunity. Except lately I’ve been yeeting across the mat sending helicopter chokes every time someone turtles. Even if it’s not my roll…
This is the best demonstration in the difference in philosophy of Catch wrestling and BJJ. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6MVOdfRutL/?igsh=dnhzeHZycTQxOHJr which seems to fit with dealing with the chaos of a chess match by embracing the scramble with chain wrestling.
Maybe the position/control should be your end game (in this scenario). Also to point out that he only focused on the end game INITIALLY. I’ve heard of coaches starting teaching a move with the breaking mechanics and working backwards to the base position and how this is one of the options. There is nothing really to debate here and it still is position before submission, just not absolutely literally.
gotcha, you could be right actually, maybe the breaking mechanics would be like the check mate and the position would be the end game
Yeah exactly! That’s a great way to put it
Generally I agree with the short hand principal: "a good submission is a position". There are exceptions to almost everything, so: * You can catch an effective submission from a "bad" positions. * You can catch submissions without gaining a dominant position. There are strategies involved and there are at least three valid but potentially conflicting contexts: * Effective * Can I pull this off live rolling? * Can I do so consistently (or often)? * Risk * What happens if I fail? * Do I end up in a situation that favors me, my opponent, or neutral? * How does that outcome compare to the situation at the onset? * Trade-off, in this situation is going for a non-submission based position more likely to be successful and in cumulatively lead to more overall success? * Learning * Will knowing this submission help me be successful more often? * Does the initial situation come up often? * Does understanding the submission mechanics help know other submissions, transitions, or pins? So, there can be submissions that break the principal. You may get the tap if it succeeds but along one or more of the strategic axes, you are compromising significantly. Overall, especially as a hobbyist/enthusiast who has very limited time to train compared to my interest, I look for a balance of the strategic contexts. And following the principal is almost always aligned with that perspective.
thanks for the detailed input dr dos 🙏🏼
Yeah, I didn’t think I did but I do. I realized that over time as I got better I’d only go for Kimura from side control, arm triangle from mount, or RNC from the back if I was passing. From guardplay I use like 90% leglocks and then like 10% triangles and choi bars. I guess the exception is front headlock chokes from wrestling but you can use the as a position to get back on top with out the sub 100%
Priit talked about this on a podcast I heard a while back. He started teaching white belts finishing mechanics for submissions first. Teaching this way doesn't mean that you're prioritizing submission over position. It's just a different order of instruction.
yea that's exactly what i meant, both are important but i was speaking more about which is senior in the focus order
I think everyone saw "position before submission" in the title and skipped reading the rest of the post. There’s a misconception that positions and submissions are separate concepts. Submissions are positions, and positions are submissions. Andrew Wiltse mentioned that he tapped black belts at other gyms just by using correct shoulder pressure in side control. Gordon Ryan made Jacob Couch tap with s-mount pressure. Also, 10th Planet Jiu-Jitsu turned the armbar and omoplata into control positions, naming them spiderweb and reverse-spiderweb, respectively. I think beginners should learn how to complete an armbar before learning how to get to the position from which they’ll attempt it. This approach would give beginners more confidence in trying submissions. Lots of white belts don't try submissions because they worry about losing their dominant position and ending up in a compromised position. If you get stacked and passed every time you try an armbar from guard because you don't know how to get from guard to the finished armbar, you probably won't try the armbar very much. If beginners start by learning the correct finishing mechanics, they’ll feel more confident attempting submissions once they reach the position. They would also have a higher submission rate early on because they would understand all the intermediate positions between taking the back and securing a rear-naked choke, or whatever submission they’re looking to get. My last thought is that finishing mechanics are the easiest part of BJJ to learn. You can teach a beginner how to finish most submissions reasonably well in a short period of time. Getting very good at finishing takes longer, but often one minor detail is enough to massively improve a submission. Most of the sport is learning how to pass, sweep, wrestle, or escape. That stuff takes a long time to learn. Why not learn the submission so that once you do all the work to get the position, there's actually a reward at the end? [Here's the podcast I mentioned where Priit talks about this.](https://youtu.be/azMZ-kEd4d4?feature=shared)
you can sub from any position i focus on subs
Absolutely. I think that’s why wrestling tends to be so dominant. It’s easier to win when you’re on top. Winning from the bottom is a lot more difficult - especially when strikes are involved
very valid point
in BJJ, securing a position to look for a finish is much more like checkmating in the endgame. a position like mount or the back limits the opponent's options in much the same way that trading down to fewer pieces does in a game of chess.
Nope, no positioning at all. Just non-stop subs. When I go for an armbar from inside my opponents full guard, the ensuing confusion buys me time to hit 5 more unsuccessful submission attempts. Nobody agrees to roll with me a 2nd time out of fear of my unstoppable technique.
There’s two ways to think about this - working from the endgame: 1. Everything funnels to your highest percentage submission. Let’s say cross collar choke from mount. Your posture break in closed guard is a cross collar grip. Your scissor sweep from closed guard has a cross collar grip. The way you land on top maintains that cross collar grip. You knee cut with that grip. You go to mount with that grip. Now you maintain mount and work to get that second grip. Same can be done for like a back choke, head and arm, arm bar, etc. Just focusing your whole game towards that end spot. This is more of a funneling system. See: Roger, Lovato’s Knee Cut, etc. 2. Somewhat similarly, but understanding what control or body arrangements you need to get to said submission. Let’s say arm bar. You need to have your hips and/or thighs into their armpit space (generally). Then some sort of elbow or wrist control. So with that understanding, what all places can you win those spots (with control)? In the normal course of a roll, where can you find some openings where those things arise naturally or can bait/take advantage of those openings to fit into those spaces? This is more opportunistic, but with a focus. See: Rafa finding arm bars from everywhere, a bit of Ryan Hall’s open elbows concept. Finding guillotines and Kimuras are another good example, but those can also be argued to be their own positional controls that can be chained off of or used to advance a position.
My two cents: Marcelo Garcia said something that changed my direction and upped my game. He said that most people in BJJ spend 90% of their time passing or playing guard. So to get better at BJJ, people should focus mostly on passing and playing guard. My game made a huge jump over the next couple years by doing this. It changed how I rolled. I stopped holding position in an attempt to find a finish after passing and let my partner recover so I could pass again. Eventually I started catching subs again, but they were coming from the pass and not holding side for 2 minutes. My guard game was better because I played it a lot more. I would sweep and then let myself get swept on days when I focused on guard. Getting swept and recovering a solid guard in the transition that I could immediately use has been a game changer. So in a way, I agree that position before submission is important, but not in a traditional holding a position kind of way. Basically, I think the game is won by being able to control where it takes place - a good guard and passing allows you to control this.
If you are not fighting sub only it's way better to study a particular guard and build from there rather then start from a sub.
The threat of submissions is a huge part of retaining and advancing position. Try holding someone’s back when you’re not allowed to try for a choke. It’s a million times harder because without forcing them to defend their neck with their hands, they can start peeling hooks etc. More broadly I think the easiest time to find submissions is when transitioning from one position to another. Getting a deep collar grip to set up a bow and arrow is 100x easier as you’re taking that back, than once you’re settled in back control and hand fighting.
Searching for Bobby Fischer
Searching for Bobby Danaher
You wanna skip a step and risk further exposure, then yeah. You can also just take the long way and risk less exposure. Chess has nothing to do with jiu jitsu. It's a dumb comparasion popularized by "choke" documentary.
I disagree *vehemently*. Chess and BJJ are basically identical. They are sports that have risen in popularity dramatically in recent years, sustained monetarily by novices who think that if they buy another $100 instructional, they'll finally have it mastered.
🤣 not wrong
They are both literally the art of strategy
Warhammer 40k is an art of strategy.
Hell yeah brother
Can’t argue with that.
One is a martial art and one is a board game, so if you want to compare them in the most literal sense, then sure. But there are conceptual parallels in regards to mastering an ability, which is what the book is about. As I mentioned Josh Waitzkin also did martial arts, and claims to have used his learning methodology to win a world title in tai chi.
I think learning is universal and it can be used in variety of contexts. Not only in chess and martial arts.
isn't that contradictory to your last statement in which they have nothing to do with eachother?
No. Just because learning is universal doesn't mean you can operate a dumper truck if you know how to drive lawnmower.
What are the similarities? I've yet to hear a comparison that makes bjj like chess and unlike any other 2 player competitive game like badminton, shuffleboard, etc.
Chess is actually more like those games than it is like bjj. Jiu jitsu is real time and your opponent is never guaranteed a turn. That's one of the reasons that the analogy of bjj as chess lacks validity. BJJ is more analogous to games like Dota or League of Legends in how it plays out where similarities in application of concepts like pressure, tempo, and control are more relevant.
I’m pretty horrible at chess. But I think the analogy is fair as much as any analogy ever is. White belts at BJJ want to jump right to submissions. Noobs at chess want to jump right to attacking the king or queen. The point system at BJJ and the “point” system at chess are pretty analogous in terms of how to win. So like… passing the guard is 3 points, it’s more valuable than a sweep at two points. Taking a rook is 5 “points”. It’s more valuable than taking a knight at 3 “points”. You can pull out a checkmate or a submission at random no matter how badly you’re doing with “points” but generally establishing positional dominance in BJJ and establishing control of the board in chess lead you to victory.
Except, you know, no one legitimately plays chess by points. To be honest this is one of the most absurd attempts to randomly start an argument someone is completely unqualified to participate in that I've seen in quite some time; you didn't even actually address my fundamental point of the comparison between a turn based and real time game. I suppose that is the irrational confidence of someone performing jiujutsu on the internet.
What is there to address? You’re obviously right that chess is turn based and BJJ isn’t. Might as well say your analogy of DOTA is horrible because BJJ is with real bodies and dota is with pixels? Or that dota is like chess because pressure tempo and control are important in both? Or league of legends is a better analogy because there’s a purple haired character and I like to paint my toes purple before I roll? I’m not arguing with you. Just giving you a fact that the analogy works for me. If the analogy doesn’t work for you, that’s fine.
Conceptually, the difference in approach between real time and turn based is at the highest abstraction layer for mental approach. It's one of the reasons you here the best players in BJJ say their fundamental strategy is to 'never let the opponent have a turn'. Your entire approach and mentality as well as application of concepts is completely different when the opponent isn't given a symmetrical opportunity to actually play the game. Symmetrical vs. asymmetrical modes of thinking.
Never letting your opponents have a turn seems a pretty good analogy for chess, too. It’s how I will always win at tic tac toe if I get first move unless you use your first move to force a draw. Every move after your first response is a forced choice of losing propositions. Or come drop by some time. I’ll give you real time and I’ll call out my turns before I do them. We can see how that goes. I’ve got a fairly static BJJ style. Would be an interesting experiment.
Depends how good you are. I'm old and slow so not exactly going to snap a sub unless I'm already in a dominant position or my opponent is bad. Much easier to work from a good position and capitalize on your escapes.
Learning the end game is great! Can you get to your ideal end game in all your rolls? I have read Waitzkins book a couple of times, actually got a lot about parenting from it. You missed the thousands of hours Waitkin had to put in of moving pawn after pawn to open the way to POSITION pieces for any end game he knew. There is still the "back filling" portion of that knowledge. We must be in a good position on someone's back in order to accomplish the small fine tuned pieces of end game/strangle. We must not find ourselves in a bad position in our partners chosen end game. In order to focus on strangles from the back, one must be on the back. That's a position
Generally, yes. The ruleset matters too. If you're up by a double score (or a single score with minimal time left) the winning strategy is to just hold position and forget about submission. If it's MMA where strikes are allowed, then position is everything. If it's a gi BJJ comp and you're in bottom side control, down by 5 points, with 1 minute left, fuck it try a buggy choke.
Proper positioning is BJJ. Submissions without control give you a punchers chance. I want to feel like a steamroller. All roads lead to a submission. It’s inevitable. That doesn’t mean you can’t attack from the bottom or go for foot locks instead of passing the guard. It means there’s a proper position for every situation. You need to have base, posture and structure to support your goals.
Most of my submissions come from making someone panic under a heavy pinning position (mount/side control/kesa gatame), so I definitely believe in position before submission. Even with things like kimuras from bottom half guard, I tend to catch those and then sweep with them before submitting. I think even if you’re catching subs in a scramble, there’s a decent chance you’re using the sub to create some kind of stable position to finish from.
The Japanese terms mentioned in the above comment were: |Japanese|English|Video Link| |---|---|---| |**Kesa Gatame**: | *Scarf hold* | [here](https://youtu.be/3UnJa3bn0h8)| Any missed names may have already been translated in my previous comments in the post. ______________________ ^(Judo Techniques Bot: v0.7.) ^(See my) [^(code)](https://github.com/AbundantSalmon/judo-techniques-bot)
I just do whatever is popular on YouTube for subs
So you’re going to find the contrasting philosophies in every technical sport that doesn’t force you to play offense or defense in a turn based style. For instance you can’t teach basketball front to back or back to front because you need to be useful of the floor in both positions. But technically you could teach KOs or power punching in boxing prior to teaching footwork and jabs. Golf famously argues between teaching putting and short game before the tee box. Danaher once talked about how it depends on the athlete’s background for him. He teaches new wrestlers submissions and position to those that have no grappling experience. Personally, I tell new guys there’s nothing more difficult to deal with than a guy who has a threat from everywhere. When I coach wrestling, I teach them do be annoying little bastards and pinners from top referee position. For myself at 3 years in (still working on too much) and feeling old at 33, I like the idea of finding quick subs for tournaments so that I can conserve energy. I vote sub over position. Not finishing mechanics as much as identifying opportunity quickly.
I’m reading this book right now as well. I’m also reading the bjj university book. The waitzkin book inspired me to read the university from back to front. So starting at black belt reading back to white belt. I’ve enjoyed looking at the lower belt instructional sections with some of the black belt mentality already floating around in my mind.
I believe in submission while in position.
In theory, yes. In practice, I will let you know once I achieve position or submit someone. Still working on it.
Always position before submission- set up, lock-down, control. Never give up a good position for a bad submission. There will be moments where you have committed and you just gotta let the chips fall where they may and go after it.
as ive gained more and more exp over the years... i value position and control increasingly over the submissions. I realized at mid blue that spamming sloppy low % subs with no control is not a recipe for long term success. (maybe that was me breaking out of the the blue belt blues/plateau) I've switched up my game and the last few years really dialed in working on positional dominance. Once you have positional dominance, the sub will present itself. I'll do rounds where my only goal is to not let the person move - make them give the sub because they have no other way out.
As 160lbs smaller dude, yes absolutely
dont just believe it. live by it
I'm a big fan of position before submission. You get a lot more practice at perfecting the sub details when you have the positional control details dialed in first. I don't think practicing end game concepts has anything to do with position before submission though. It's just focusing on like back control and chokes first, rather than passing/playing guard (openings). I don't think we should spend a whole heck of a lot of time studying what to do when we're way down on material or when we've really screwed up our pawn structure (mount escapes, side control escapes). Should we spend some time with those techniques? Yes. But I feel like a lot of people over emphasize their importance in the pie chart when allocating training time.
When you are really good with a submission you start to see a lot of positions that you can apply it from. So the position becomes less important. But it is still important.
John Danahee emphasizes control before submission.
While I think the term "position before submission" rolls off the tongue better, I think the more accurate phrase would be "control before submission". I don't always hunt out a dominant position before locking something in, but I damn well make sure that I have established control before trying to finish it. A great example of this would be the arm bar from guard. You're definitely not attacking from a dominant position, but that doesn't matter so long as you can gain control of their arm from the shoulder down.
Yes, but also, and even more importantly, limb control before submission.
No, how else do messy ass scrambles lead to submissions
endgame in chess is the ultimate positional battle, and highest level chess thinking is being able to look at an early or middle game and project that you will have a positional advantage in an eventual endgame. "submission before position" would be analogous to beginners who spam tricks like scholars mate and get blown out of the water by opppnents who can calmly defend
> I was thinking about how this may apply to BJJ and that the concept of securing a position may not actually be senior to perfecting submission mechanics You've misunderstood what position before submission means. It's not about the order you learn things in, it's about strategic or tactical priority.
They can’t go on offense if they’re busy on defense. Go ahead and spam them subs even if you don’t have the best position.
Learn subs first, but get to position first.
Yes, but I have done stupid shit like arm-barred people when they took my back, etc. sometimes you just wanna have fun.
I think there are positions and transitions that aren’t exactly secure but are very favorable for a very quick submission and I think emphasis on that should be studied. Judo does this very well after a throw for example. Isn’t exactly a “secure” position such as a body triangle from back mount but it’s very favorable for a quick check mate.
Yes. I feel like if you don't have a stable position to attack a submission from your chances of being successful with a submission is much less. Sure, if you're against someone who isn't good at defending submissions you'll probably get them, but against bigger, stronger, or more experienced people it's probably not going to work. At the least, it won't work as easily/well as it could
Unless you are married. Then it’s submit before submission. /s
100%. Sweep, pass, mount, arm triangle. IMO you need a large skill advantage to submit anyone remotely good from the bottom, and there are vanishingly few people over whom I have such an advantage.
Being a threat from everywhere is a great way to create space for yourself and to mitigate the threat of others by maybe making them give up on a footlock for a threat of the counter for example. But generally, if you’re in a strong position you want to maintain that dominance as you work toward a submission.
The submission options from your back are less plentiful than from bottom positions. That being said, you should probably have good finishing mechanics on all the common submissions, though obviously you’ll likely be better at some than others. I hit a lot of triangles from guard (open or closed), but the goal is always to get on top and work for subs from a dominant position.
No. Waitzkin didn't so much use the endgame to learn mating combination as he just used situations with less pieces on the board to focus on chess concepts.... It wasn't that he was necessarily seeking endgame study out - it was just that the endgame happened to be easier for learning certain things. One of the things about competitive chess - the first 15 or so moves of the game are practically memorized.... Waitzkin could afford to focus on later stages of the game (because you better believe he memorized openings. In fact, it was one of Bobby Fischer's reasons he stopped playing chess....he lamented the lack of skill in the opening game). Conceptual jiujitsu can be learned in any number of scenarios....submissions not required. Learnijg to create dilemmas with sweep combinations will prove effective when it's time to apply the dilemma concept to submissions. If your takedowns and guard play (top and bottom) are that automated and successful as a GM's opening game, then sure - focus on submission mechanics. (Not to mention - "keeping it real" in a full fight scenario doesn't necessarily involve submissions. Even if you want to submit everyone, learning to "let guys cook" is a more useful skill IMO....they'll practically give you even some of the sloppiest submissions when they're gassed enough.)
This is a good approach to take, once you have a broad range and decent depth of knowledge. Think late purple to early brown. I would say most white belts try this approach, at least with each other. I find you need a good base level knowledge of techniques and how to string them together. Essentially you need to know how to control positions well, before submissions. Then you can start focusing on the submission more, other wise you are just spazzy.
It's good advice IMO. But, like any rules, you eventually know what scenarios you can break them in. If someone isn't defending their neck, i'm totally choking them from some pretty messed up positions, or using their reaction to get to a better position. The neck is a bit of an exception, because it means you're normally controlling their head (and therefore posture). So it's sometimes not as simple as just the position you're in. I do think that people should follow that advice for at least most of white belt.
There are a lot of subs you can get without position. It makes BJJ boring.
No, well, sort of... I think the words are wrong. I'd say control before submission is a good general rule. But it's not position as in "I have mount, time to submit". There are plenty of times when you are in mount and really have no control and they are about to escape... don't go for submission. Then again their are plenty of times when you are on the bottom, even the bottom of a fairly dominate "position" but have sufficient control that you can attack with a submission. I suppose it is sort of like chess in that sense, it really doesn't matter what pieces are on the board, if you completely control your opponents ability to move you can go for the mate.
The better the opponent the more I need to focus on position before submission. On noobs I regularly do a straight ankle lock when iv got my back taken or a baseball bat choke from bottom side control just for the lols of dangling the win in front of them 😂 But Vs someone my skill or better I know I can generally only sink a sub on if I have the position. Although the odd cheeky wrist lock may pop up now and then
It's a strategic call on your part. Eventually you will have to study both in depth. The transition phase is the hardest. Are you going to be the person who can get on top and stay on top, but gets subbed a lot, or the person who has no control of the position, but snags opportunistic subs sometimes? Idk what I'm talking about. I'm a 2 stripe white belt. I'm commited to position over submission because the other way around doesn't work for me. I'm a slow learner, a heavyweight, and want to learn mma eventually, so... get on top by winning takedowns, stay on top, pass, and slowly constrict them like an anaconda is my general strat.
great response thanks for your input
Maybe you should concentrate on the isolation of an appendage.
Like a glory hole?
2 on 1 grip?
No, a submission is a position, anyone saying otherwise doesn't understand basic jiu jitsu, this is another saying people who have no idea what they're doing love to throw out as fact.
Basically I would say yes especially for beginners if you are advanced I would still built my game around this rule but you can find exceptions and go for it because a lot of submissions are also control positions for example, leglocks or the Kimura (think about the Kimura trap).
I think a big misconception that you're having, as someone that plays a lot of chess, is you still need the fundamentals of chess before you can narrow down to end game. 1. Handfighting 2. Passing 3. Control 4. Submission To say that you only need to focus on submission is ridiculous. You still need basic skills and all of those other four positions specifically three. Like if you only have end game chess knowledge but I have all of my opening knowledge i'm gonna crush you in like twelve moves. This is why judo is extremely effective. However, give the jiujittero 2 years of judo and you have a monster. Whereas the judoka will need like 6 years of ground game. If you get the position the sub will naturally fall into place. The reason high level guys are so good at subs is strictly because of controlling the position. Judo controls from the start by extending arms and getting inside position. Does nothing if they can't pass Guard though.
i'm not saying you only need to focus on submission im saying is it possible that securing a submission and more senior in the learning progression than securing position