Below is a class I did a while back picking one position / submission, the mounted arm triangle choke, to illustrate first principles deductive reasoning at work.
(Even if you’ve seen this before, I recommend watching it again because it might resonate more at differently stages of your development.)
Here’s some additional background on it…
I chose this one because there was a post in our 40 Plus BJJ Facebook group where someone was asking for help finishing this submission from mount.
In response, he received many comments with advice:
-Palms together, dismount, and circle the head
-Palm in biceps, dismount, and circle the head
-Get your hips high and drive all your weight into your opponent while squeezing with your arms
-Just to name a few
The thing is, every one of these can work. Every one of them can get someone to tap.
But objectively speaking, none of those are the most efficient way to submit someone with an arm triangle from mount. They can’t be, because they’re not aligned to the first principles of this technique.
No judgement, but most of these well intentioned responses follow the opposite of first principles thinking, which is reasoning by analogy…
“Here’s how I like do it,” “Here’s how I was taught,” “I saw so and so do it this way in his instructional.”
When reasoning by analogy is challenged, the fallback argument is usually anecdotal: “Well, it works for me” or appeal to authority: “X top champion does it that way so who are you to question it?”
But reasoning by analogy, anecdotal argument, and appeal to authority are logical fallacies for a reason. They’re not actually addressing the real, irreducible question we’re trying to answer, are they?
And that is:
“What is the most efficient way to control a resisting opponent and apply the minimum leverage to the arteries in their neck from this position necessary to get them to tap while preventing them from escaping?”
Once we get clear on the correct question, then all of the other forms of argument go out the window.
Just keep in mind that there are many technical possibilities and variations that can work for any situation in Jiu-Jitsu, but from a first principles perspective, there will always be a most effective and efficient way.
Here’s the caveat:
Working to first principles is hard. It takes more mental energy. It might result in answers that conflict with instruction or advice you’ve been given, which I understand comes with its own challenges.
But in terms of your evolution, long-term skill development, and most importantly longevity in Jiu-Jitsu, it is so worth it.
It’s also worth mentioning that you don’t always distill down to a first principles answer in one fell swoop.
It’s an iterative process at times, requiring feedback loops of:
-Hypothesis (“here’s what I think are the irreducible first principles, and here’s how I believe they should be applied to the technique or situation”),
-Testing & iteration (isolating the skill or situation and applying adaptive resistance to test the hypothesis)
-Analysis (evaluating the results, getting feedback from training partners, and making any changes to the hypothesis as a result)
For example, I had already worked out that dismounting and circling toward the opponent’s head to finish the choke involved unnecessary movement and opened up most of the primary escapes, and that the fingers in the armpit was a better leveraged grip than the other variations.
I was about 90% there. Then thanks to an observation from Henry Akins when I asked him to feel me do it, I realized that although I “felt” like my head position was correct and lined up with the artery, it was actually an inch or two higher than ideal. That new input allowed me to create the necessary feedback loop so the “new” position (only an inch or two adjustment) now felt right to me.
Approaching your problem solving in this way changes everything for the better, because now instead of problem solving symptoms you’re able to get to the most fundamental root cause.
To your success,
Coach Stephen
