What is ''the basics''???

[Quebec Nick]

Technique shaming is something I see all the time here on sherdog and also at my gym.

People arguing that you should concentrate on the basics and never try the funky stuff.

But what I find annoying is that the basics vary from people to people. For some anything, outside of closed guard is funky sporty stuff for others it's just lapel play and berimbolo that should'nt even be in the sport.

I want to know what is good basic techniques for you and what should be avoided for being too funky.

 

[Quebec Nick]

I'll start

I think that every open guard that are useful to sweep are part of the basics (DLR, RDLR, SLX, X guard) and you should master them before trying to play complex lapel games.

I also think that trying to get to the back from open guard (kiss of the dragon, DLR X...) are very complex moves and should be learned at an higher level

 

[SidRon]

After thinking about this for a few minutes in my opinion basic techniques probably meet the following criteria.
- They work both with and without the gi and with strikes
- They can be performed by people of varying body types
- They do not require special physical attributes such as great flexibility or explosiveness to perform
- If done properly they work on high level opponents
- They are effective against varying body shapes and sizes

 

[ChainFlow]

The basics, IMO, are the tree trunk elements of grappling. The things that everyone has to be somewhat competent at to be a good grappler. Those can further be divided into movements, holds, positions, and submissions.

Examples of movements:
Level changing (standing)
Breaking posture
Shrimping
Bridging
Recomposing guard (knee to elbow)
Footwork (guard passing + standing)
Moving on top of someone while maintaining pressure
Hip switching, hip heisting
Inverting (whether to retain guard, regain guard, or take the back)
Knee slicing
Arm and leg dragging

Examples of holds:
Front headlock
Kimura
Triangle
Crab riding
D’arce
2-on-1 (Russian, baseball bat)

Examples of positions:
Back control
Saddle
Mount
Outside ashi
Butterfly guard
Half guard

Submissions:
Heelhook
Armbar
Triangle
Kimura
RNC

Significant overlap between holds and submissions, of course.

For every aspect of grappling, I try to think if there’s someone who doesn’t do it who is generally recognized as a great grappler. If there are enough people who don’t do it, I don’t really think of it as a “basic”. For instance, I don’t think of lapel guard as a basic. But I also don’t think old school half guard really is, either.

I also differentiate between grappling and sport BJJ in that I don’t think anyone should be called a good grappler who isn’t competent in standing.

 

[DatCutman]

I'm going to sound lame, but you should be focusing on the basics in every technique. Posture, balance, leverage, positioning. You can't physically do complex techniques (which are usually chained together basics) unless you have good basics. For example, it's a waste of your time to drill the berimbolo if you have a shit shoulder-to-shoulder roll, or if you don't know how to knock someone down from DLR, or if you don't know how to advance up the body towards the back. If you're shit at one (even worse, all 3) then you're going to have a shit berimbolo, and it's a waste of your time to keep drilling a move you can't physically perform well without addressing the underlying problems. You can tell this to people, but then they'll just ask dumb questions like a counter to someone's better fundamentals.

Which is another complaint regarding basics v. advanced. Using open guard as an example, it's a waste of time looking for a silver bullet guard against your training partners if you don't understand how to hold an open guard in the first place. Many moves or positions are situational to deal with certain responses, but if you never do the initial attack which results in these responses, then you just have to hope the person grapples a certain way (i.e., that you luck out). The mindset of jiu jitsu being an endless chain of if/then's is tempting, but a false prophet. There's a series of small battles in each position (usually all ongoing at the same time), and as you win/lose each battle your position strengthens/weakens, and the move becomes like butter to do. For example, there was a white belt asking me to show him DLR, because collar and sleeve open guard didn't work for him. I asked to see it. He had a lapel grip halfway down the damn gi, so that his partner could stand straight up. He wasn't pulling on the sleeve grip at all, so his opponent had no problem getting his elbow in tight. His legs were lax and not pushing on the hip/bicep, so his opponent could move either way freely. He thought he "knew" it, but he doesn't understand the point of any of the details beyond "grab collar, grab sleeve, foot here, foot there." He didn't understand the various battles (break posture with the collar grip, pull elbow out of power position/open attack space with sleeve grip, block passing on one side with a foot on the hip, fight the guardpass with the foot on the bicep), so he didn't get the purpose of the guard or its details, and couldn't tell when he had a good collar/sleeve guard or was about to be passed. There was a "technique," but the technique failed, so he was looking for a counter to the way his technique was being beat, rather than trying to do a better job the first time around. Same sort of shit when people ask for sub escapes or armbar counters once the armbar is sunk in 99%. How do I get out of this hell of my own design, they ask, rather than answering why their elbow was flared open to high heaven.

To clarify, I have no problems with white belts doing DLR/RDLR, as long as they understand the point of those guards and how to hold them. "Advanced" techniques to me just mean situational techniques or techniques comprised of multiple basic movements. Basic techniques are fundamental ways of moving (i.e., forward roll, backward roll, granby roll, etc.), or high percentage techniques used by everybody (i.e., rear naked choke). If you can't do the basic movements that comprise an advanced move, or understand the concepts therein, the move will never work. Even if it works, if you build a game of nothing but situational answers, you're going to be at the mercy of your opponent acting in certain ways, and you're going to get steam rolled by people worse than you because they didn't act "like they should."

 

[Quebec Nick]

Which is another complaint regarding basics v. advanced. Using open guard as an example, it's a waste of time looking for a silver bullet guard against your training partners if you don't understand how to hold an open guard in the first place. Many moves or positions are situational to deal with certain responses, but if you never do the initial attack which results in these responses, then you just have to hope the person grapples a certain way (i.e., that you luck out). The mindset of jiu jitsu being an endless chain of if/then's is tempting, but a false prophet. There's a series of small battles in each position (usually all ongoing at the same time), and as you win/lose each battle your position strengthens/weakens, and the move becomes like butter to do. For example, there was a white belt asking me to show him DLR, because collar and sleeve open guard didn't work for him. I asked to see it. He had a lapel grip halfway down the damn gi, so that his partner could stand straight up. He wasn't pulling on the sleeve grip at all, so his opponent had no problem getting his elbow in tight. His legs were lax and not pushing on the hip/bicep, so his opponent could move either way freely. He thought he "knew" it, but he doesn't understand the point of any of the details beyond "grab collar, grab sleeve, foot here, foot there." He didn't understand the various battles (break posture with the collar grip, pull elbow out of power position/open attack space with sleeve grip, block passing on one side with a foot on the hip, fight the guardpass with the foot on the bicep), so he didn't get the purpose of the guard or its details, and couldn't tell when he had a good collar/sleeve guard or was about to be passed. There was a "technique," but the technique failed, so he was looking for a counter to the way his technique was being beat, rather than trying to do a better job the first time around. Same sort of shit when people ask for sub escapes or armbar counters once the armbar is sunk in 99%. How do I get out of this hell of my own design, they ask, rather than answering why their elbow was flared open to high heaven.

Yeah, open guards tend to lead you to try a lot of stuff instead of trying to understand how to do it right. If it doesn't work, you want to try something else instead of perfecting it.

I have to admit that I did that with DLR, collar and sleeve and spider guard. But I also wanted something usefull for nogi and I settled on Butterfly, SLX, X guard.

But the way classes are given, it's not the best way to understand all those subtle things like positionning, retention and how to react against passing attempts

In class, to keep the attention of everybody you need to do techniques (sweeps, subs) you can put some emphasis on positionning but I can't do a long speech about a technique.

I was introduced to the open guards I used in class, but I started doing well with them after watching a lot of videos on positionning, entries and retention against the most common passes for those positions.

 

[DatCutman]

But the way classes are given, it's not the best way to understand all those subtle things like positionning, retention and how to react against passing attempts

In class, to keep the attention of everybody you need to do techniques (sweeps, subs) you can put some emphasis on positionning but I can't do a long speech about a technique.

I disagree. It's not the way most people do things, but it can be done. I do it. To use collar and sleeve as an example, I'll have the opening "move" be the key points of collar and sleeve, and a 5 minute controlled positional spar to warm up, where you have collar/sleeve and you try to prevent the pass, and the other person is trying to pass. Then I'll show the techniques from that position. Or with leglocks, practice controlling an entanglement before we talk finishes. Sometimes rather than just tell them a fact, I'll let them experience it themselves (set timer for two minutes; a round of how long they can control inside sankaku without using their hands, a round of how long they can control when they can use their hands but aren't allowed to control the free leg, and a round of how long they can control when they start with free leg overhook); it creates a concrete fact they know in their bones. If I'm showing the berimbolo, we work on the fundamental skills that make it up, with rounds of resistance drilling interspersed, so that chaining it all together happens naturally. I'm not saying I lecture strategy for 30 minutes, but I will engineer situations where the result I'm trying to teach is bound to happen.

If we're talking about keeping the interest of white belts, that's why I use so much positional sparring / resistance drilling to offset the conceptual approach. Most white belts sit through the technical portion of class waiting to spar anyway. The ones who are looking to gather techniques are going to go onto youtube anyway, regardless of what you show in class. I can show ridiculous 1% success last second armbar escapes, but they'll still want to know how to recounter the .01% counter, ad infinum. I'm counting on that, and that they'll go out and find their own info. The amount of information (and high level information at that) on youtube these days is insane anyway.

Upperbelts obviously like what I'm saying a lot better, as they see the value in focusing on these sorts of granular details, and cutting a deep groove as opposed to a wide groove, and getting to spend more time actively drilling than passively drilling.

I'll also concede that I'm not the gym owner, but just a part-time instructor, so I can take more liberties without it directly impacting my bottom line. With that said, I've had more and more people creeping into my classes, because they don't understand why they're unable to pull off moves. The mileage of others may vary.

 

[tekkenfan]

basics are techniques that we were doing before 2010

 

[Quebec Nick]

I disagree. It's not the way most people do things, but it can be done. I do it. To use collar and sleeve as an example, I'll have the opening "move" be the key points of collar and sleeve, and a 5 minute controlled positional spar to warm up, where you have collar/sleeve and you try to prevent the pass, and the other person is trying to pass. Then I'll show the techniques from that position. Or with leglocks, practice controlling an entanglement before we talk finishes. Sometimes rather than just tell them a fact, I'll let them experience it themselves (set timer for two minutes; a round of how long they can control inside sankaku without using their hands, a round of how long they can control when they can use their hands but aren't allowed to control the free leg, and a round of how long they can control when they start with free leg overhook); it creates a concrete fact they know in their bones. If I'm showing the berimbolo, we work on the fundamental skills that make it up, with rounds of resistance drilling interspersed, so that chaining it all together happens naturally. I'm not saying I lecture strategy for 30 minutes, but I will engineer situations where the result I'm trying to teach is bound to happen.

If we're talking about keeping the interest of white belts, that's why I use so much positional sparring / resistance drilling to offset the conceptual approach. Most white belts sit through the technical portion of class waiting to spar anyway. The ones who are looking to gather techniques are going to go onto youtube anyway, regardless of what you show in class. I can show ridiculous 1% success last second armbar escapes, but they'll still want to know how to recounter the .01% counter, ad infinum. I'm counting on that, and that they'll go out and find their own info. The amount of information (and high level information at that) on youtube these days is insane anyway.

Upperbelts obviously like what I'm saying a lot better, as they see the value in focusing on these sorts of granular details, and cutting a deep groove as opposed to a wide groove, and getting to spend more time actively drilling than passively drilling.

I'll also concede that I'm not the gym owner, but just a part-time instructor, so I can take more liberties without it directly impacting my bottom line. With that said, I've had more and more people creeping into my classes, because they don't understand why they're unable to pull off moves. The mileage of others may vary.

Love the positionnal spar that you do during the techniques, it changes from the basic format (warm up, technique, positionnal sparring, sparring)

Sure that if you do it the way you are describing you can put a lot more concepts, grip fighting tactics and guard retention.

 

[Your Noodly Master]

Look at Roger Gracie for basics in perfection IMO. Do you want to still roll when you are 65, 75...? If so, then the fundamentals (basics) of BJJ will be mostly what's available to you: Half guard, cross chokes, kimura, arm drag etc.

DLR, Berimbolo, everything from 10th planet, etc will be trouble when the body starts to betray you. Turning upside down might be fun when you are 25, but it won't be 50 years later.

Having a solid fundamental game in any sport is a necessary base for high level competition and longevity.

 

[Your Noodly Master]

Technique shaming is something I see all the time here on sherdog and also at my gym.

The "basics" are what you need to go to in self-defense situations.

Who cares what other people think? Not all body types are capable of the same techniques. My neck doesn't handle these spinning upside down moves, but I definitely know how to defend against them. Play your game and choke the shit out of the shamers.

 

[MaxMMA]

The basics are any technique/concept that other techniques are derived from.

IE the double leg/basic shot. You can teach someone singles, HCs, duck unders, etc but if they don't have a good double leg/shot then those other techniques are going to be largely useless for them.

Armbar, kimura, triangle, omaplata. All these techniques flow into one another and into other techniques in probably 100+ different ways but if your form on these individual techniques aren't sound then your chain won't be worth a flip.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Definitions vary, but for me basics are those moves which work consistently regardless of body type, clothing, or relative size (within reason). Some of what is taught as basics at most schools I actually don't consider basic, and many more modern techniques deserve to be taught as basics even though they're often not. What passes for basics is largely a function of history, that is to say that techniques can often be considered basic just because they've been around a long time, even if they're hard to do.

 

[DatCutman]

DLR, Berimbolo, everything from 10th planet, etc will be trouble when the body starts to betray you. Turning upside down might be fun when you are 25, but it won't be 50 years later.

I think there's a baby/bathwater situation here. DLR is more than just inverting/spinning stuff, and has tons of sweep opportunities. For example, here is a good example of some non-spinny DLR stuff. It's also Roger



Also I believe Ricardo DLR himself made a second go at competing when he was older, and put up respectable results.

Do you want to still roll when you are 65, 75...? If so, then the fundamentals (basics) of BJJ will be mostly what's available to you: Half guard, cross chokes, kimura, arm drag etc.

I've thought a lot about this perspective. When I was younger I was really into Kung Fu, and I was greatly worried about having a skillset that would age well with time. For that reason I started pursuing Chen Taijiquan (yes, yes, I was young, silly, and full of dreams). I ran into an older chinese instructor who wanted to know why I was training Taijiquan, and I told him it was to have a skillset I could use when I was 75. He was shocked. He told me to go train some crazy acrobatic style and to enjoy youth while I had it! His view was that once I wasn't able to do those moves any more, then I could have something new to learn when I was older; but until then, while I could do it, live a little. He also pointed out that I'd probably get bored of doing the same thing for 50+ years, which was valid. And that there's a point of diminishing returns; we can only keep polishing something so much before it's as good as it will get.

It made sense at the time. Most of us enjoy BJJ because there's so much to learn; the worst periods in my training where when I wasn't learning anything. I doubt this is going to change by the time I'm 75. Why not train the crazy things while I've got the body to do it? Sure, if it's physically harming me I shouldn't do it (there's a right and wrong way to invert, for instance). But otherwise, if I only have so many years of breakdancing on people in me, I should enjoy it while I can. Whether I spend 20 years or 40 years working on cross chokes, I don't know if that'll make a huge difference. Maybe I'll be regretting this in the 70+ year old Masters Tournaments when I can't cross choke for shit.

Plus, you guys may not get bored of doing the same exact game plan and moves for the next 50+ years like I would. Keeping up with what all the youngsters are up to these days is kind of fun, though.

 

[Your Noodly Master]

I think there's a baby/bathwater situation here. DLR is more than just inverting/spinning stuff, and has tons of sweep opportunities. For example, here is a good example of some non-spinny DLR stuff. It's also Roger



Also I believe Ricardo DLR himself made a second go at competing when he was older, and put up respectable results.



I've thought a lot about this perspective. When I was younger I was really into Kung Fu, and I was greatly worried about having a skillset that would age well with time. For that reason I started pursuing Chen Taijiquan (yes, yes, I was young, silly, and full of dreams). I ran into an older chinese instructor who wanted to know why I was training Taijiquan, and I told him it was to have a skillset I could use when I was 75. He was shocked. He told me to go train some crazy acrobatic style and to enjoy youth while I had it! His view was that once I wasn't able to do those moves any more, then I could have something new to learn when I was older; but until then, while I could do it, live a little. He also pointed out that I'd probably get bored of doing the same thing for 50+ years, which was valid. And that there's a point of diminishing returns; we can only keep polishing something so much before it's as good as it will get.

It made sense at the time. Most of us enjoy BJJ because there's so much to learn; the worst periods in my training where when I wasn't learning anything. I doubt this is going to change by the time I'm 75. Why not train the crazy things while I've got the body to do it? Sure, if it's physically harming me I shouldn't do it (there's a right and wrong way to invert, for instance). But otherwise, if I only have so many years of breakdancing on people in me, I should enjoy it while I can. Whether I spend 20 years or 40 years working on cross chokes, I don't know if that'll make a huge difference. Maybe I'll be regretting this in the 70+ year old Masters Tournaments when I can't cross choke for shit.

Plus, you guys may not get bored of doing the same exact game plan and moves for the next 50+ years like I would. Keeping up with what all the youngsters are up to these days is kind of fun, though.

I know there is a lot to DLR, by point was about the difficulty of it in the knees and hips with age. I started BJJ at 39, but maybe a younger me would have done more of that spinning shit. I prefer to just make those guys pay for it with relentless top pressure.

 

[Quebec Nick]

I think there's a baby/bathwater situation here. DLR is more than just inverting/spinning stuff, and has tons of sweep opportunities. For example, here is a good example of some non-spinny DLR stuff. It's also Roger



Also I believe Ricardo DLR himself made a second go at competing when he was older, and put up respectable results.



I've thought a lot about this perspective. When I was younger I was really into Kung Fu, and I was greatly worried about having a skillset that would age well with time. For that reason I started pursuing Chen Taijiquan (yes, yes, I was young, silly, and full of dreams). I ran into an older chinese instructor who wanted to know why I was training Taijiquan, and I told him it was to have a skillset I could use when I was 75. He was shocked. He told me to go train some crazy acrobatic style and to enjoy youth while I had it! His view was that once I wasn't able to do those moves any more, then I could have something new to learn when I was older; but until then, while I could do it, live a little. He also pointed out that I'd probably get bored of doing the same thing for 50+ years, which was valid. And that there's a point of diminishing returns; we can only keep polishing something so much before it's as good as it will get.

It made sense at the time. Most of us enjoy BJJ because there's so much to learn; the worst periods in my training where when I wasn't learning anything. I doubt this is going to change by the time I'm 75. Why not train the crazy things while I've got the body to do it? Sure, if it's physically harming me I shouldn't do it (there's a right and wrong way to invert, for instance). But otherwise, if I only have so many years of breakdancing on people in me, I should enjoy it while I can. Whether I spend 20 years or 40 years working on cross chokes, I don't know if that'll make a huge difference. Maybe I'll be regretting this in the 70+ year old Masters Tournaments when I can't cross choke for shit.

Plus, you guys may not get bored of doing the same exact game plan and moves for the next 50+ years like I would. Keeping up with what all the youngsters are up to these days is kind of fun, though.

Just like you, I get bored of always doing the same thing. I need to try new stuff all the time.

At first I was going all over the place, anything that looked fun I was trying to put it into my game. Even if it was from a guard I never use or a top position that I never go to normally.

Now I'm a lot more picky about what I put into my game. But I always have a guard that I'm working on, I do specific drilling around it and I try new stuff from that guard when I feel like I want to try something new.


I know that those that just always do the same stuff all the time have very great results in competition. We have a guy that just do deep half guard sweeps, over under pass and chokes from side mount. He's good everywhere else but those are his go to moves and he wins a lot with them. In the club we roll so many times against him that we have some tricks up our sleeves to make it more difficult for him but in competition against guys who doesn't know him he's way too sharp on his techniques and make it look easy.

Me, sometimes I even try stuff in competition that I learned and started doing a week before the competition, and then I ask myself why it didn't go well...

 

[dimmyfinster]

basics are techniques that we were doing before 2010

Agree with this and agree with Uchimata well.

Danaher (and others) have defined"high percentage moves" as things that work across belts, weights, and ages.


I'd like to see beginners taught high percentage moves that only require one or two movements instead of this instead of this fuzzy idea of "basics"., which often just means "move from 2002".


Non high guard Armbar from closed guard is taught as "basic" for example. I don't think it's that basic. They're hard to hit on anybody above high white and even harder as you're getting punched.

Americana or kimura from top, even spin around arm bar from top. Those are basic.

 

[BIGthingsSON]

People who complain about "funky" stuff are usually just bad ( whether it be because of late start, ect). When your in a room with killers you begin to appreciate all the facets. The best part is when u all sit around and analyze a guys game and how to smash it. Once got to sit and listen to a buncha high lvl checkmat guys talk about how to break bernardos lapel grips while he was in deep half.

 

[judoka loca]

Breakfalls. O soto gari. The single leg. Scissor sweep. Upa escape. Shrimp. Guard recovery from side control. Americana. Armbar from mount. RNC.

 

[FightGuyOpenMind]

For what sport?

In general my estimation would be:
Break fall
Shrimp
1 pin
1 sub
Learning to survive a round

Basics in my mind is having enough to be competent, and not spazz on the mats.