The 2010 Overall Gi Survey Results

Overall Gi Rankings

2010-07-21T15:23:00.000-07:00

3910

BA, the statistician who did the "Overall gi Ranking" for the survey at Aesopian has sent me graphs which analyze the data from my survey.

"I have run a multinomial logit on the whole dataset. After cleaning up a few entries and removing (Your Academy's / Association's gi) as I wasn’t clear what to do with those, I was left with 742 responses with a favorite gi and more than one gi owned, for a total of 3097 gis.
The graphs only report gi brands that have more than 10 occurrences. With 2 major exceptions (Padilla & Sons and Sirius), it is reasonably similar to Aesopian’s results with minor re-ranking (by the way his study was based on 563 responses meeting the criteria for being used for a total of 1694 gis). Some new brands are popping up."

In the following graphs, the yellow dots reflect the brand's score for the rate at which each brand is preferred (declared as a favorite) relative to Atama (the most commonly owned brand). The green bars reflect an 95% confidence interval (which is a measure which reflects the possibility for error between the sample and the total population).

This first graph reflects the Overall results among all the respondents:

A few noteworthy things about the Overall results:

1. One of the biggest differences between my survey and the Aesopian survey were the scores for the brands Sirius and Padilla&Sons:
Padilla&Sons 0.698 -> 0.484
Sirius 0.695 -> 0.286
BA suggested that my polled audience might be less price sensitive than the Aesopian audience and perhaps this is what caused the extreme drop in these two ratings.

2. Perhaps more noteworthy was the appearance of Breakpoint as the overall most preferred gi. In the Aesopian survey, Shoyoroll was the overall most preferred gi with 9 of the 16 Shoyoroll owners calling it their favorite. In my survey, 19 of the 35 owners of Breakpoint called it their favorite gi. The chart above, though, takes into account not only how many people owned the gi and how many people called it their favorite, but also what other gis they owned which they preferred Breakpoint over. Even among different groups within my survey, Breakpoint's rating is very competitive with that of Shoyoroll.

3. While Breakpoint took over the top of the board, many of the same brands from the Aesopian survey remain strong. As mentioned, Shoyoroll is still very high. Isami also remains at the top. Senki and Naja are noticeably high in the rankings, but have very wide confidence intervals (high possibility for error in their ranking) - only 12 respondents owned Senki and only 13 owned Naja.

4. Addidas, BadBoy, Kikskin and Krugans remain at the bottom of the board. They scored low on the Aesopian survey and their scores remained similarly low in my survey. Many generic gis also appeared in my survey at the bottom of the board such as Proforce, TigerClaw and Century.

BA also sent me many graphs which show which gis are preferred among various segments of my sample. Examining the differences in these graphs, we can see if a brand is more or less suited to a certain type of BJJ practitioner.

This graph reflects the rate at which each brand is preferred among people who are "short" (shorter than 5'10):

This graph reflects the rate at which each brand is preferred among people who are "tall" (taller than 5'10):

The most significant difference in score between small and tall people was for Keiko:
KeikoRaca 0.486 -> 0.707

BA had this to say:

"Keiko Raca scores well (prop = 0.579) for small (lighter than 175lbs & shorter than 5'10") people, very well (prop = 0.659) for big (heavier than 175lbs & taller than 5'10") people, extremely well (prop = 0.852) for lanky (less than 175lbs & taller than 5'10") people but very poorly for stocky/squat (heavier than 175lbs & shorter than 5'10") people, so it seems to fit slim people."

This graph reflects the rate at which each brand is preferred among people who are "light" (less than 175lbs):

This graph reflects the rate at which each brand is preferred among people who are "heavy" (greater than than 175lbs):

This graph reflects the rate at which each brand is preferred among people who are "lower belts" (white-blue):

This graph reflects the rate at which each brand is preferred among people who are "higher belts" (purple-black):

The most significant differences in scores between lower and higher belts were these:
Adidas 0.039 -> 0.456
BadBoy 0.375 -> 0
Koral 0.526 -> 0.735
Manto 0.12 -> 0.659
OTM 0.221 -> 0.604

One of the interesting trends is that as belt rank increases, the rate at which Koral is preferred also increases.

Clearly there were quite a few things that separated my survey from the survey by Aesopian's:

1. My poll occured about a year and three months after the poll that Aesopian conducted.

2. The sample populations were certainly different (mine coming almost exclusively from online forums which discuss BJJ, or more specifically, BJJ/MMA gear), otherwise we wouldn't have had so many discrepancies in our results.

3. Aesopian's poll had 905 respondents, there were 563 unique respondents who owned multiple gis for a total of 1694 gis. My poll counted 1004 respondents, there were 742 unique respondents who owned multiple gis for a total of 3097 gis.
My survey polled a slightly larger number of people, but far more of my respondents owned multiple gis. The total number of gis taken into account for the measurements of preference was far greater in my survey than the number from the Aesopian survey.

4. The way I phrased my questions and the answers I allowed as options were significantly different from Aesopian's Questions and Answers. Aesopian's survey only had 19 choices of gi brands as options (but did give space for "other" to be written in) while my survey listed 49 gi brands as options (but did not allow for "other" to be written in. My feeling was that I listed all the major gi brands and that even if I allowed for "other," there was a good chance that people who owned other gi brands might not take the time to write them in and would thus skew my responses. Perhaps people who had good experiences with other brands would be likely to write in that brands name while people who had bad experiences would choose not to write in the unlisted brands name - then the results would show that brand to test falsely high.) I felt that it was best for me not to allow "other" to be written in, but to try and list the gi brands which were available on retail websites.
One thing I did not account for were a few brands which cater to audiences that I wasn't paying attention to. The female audience complained that I did not list the brands which cater specifically to women (Fenom was mentioned by name a few times). Also, the British audience complained that I did not list some UK companies (Black Eagle and Faixa Rua).
I made my follow up survey far more open ended so respondents would be able to discuss exactly what information they felt was going to be lacking from my initial survey.

One thing that could have been done to improve the survey (and which I will perhaps implement in a later survey) would have been to have people to give a score for each brand they own rather than simply list their favorite. This would lead to more accurate overall rankings and allow us to identify more differences between the brands.

I want give a major thank you to BA, the statistician who did the rankings graphs for both my survey and the Aesopian survey. He went out of his way to process this data for the BJJ community - it's a labor of love for him!

The BJJ Gi Follow Up Survey

2010-07-18T14:30:00.000-07:00

BJJ Gi Survey Results

2010-07-17T19:25:00.000-07:00

3247

On June 16th I posted a survey on this blog entitled "The Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Gi Survey." It was based off of the survey that was done by Aesopian in 2009 which you can see here.

The intent of this survey was to expand on the current knowledge base we have about Brazilian Jiu Jitsu gis.

The top of the survey read:

"The results of the anonymous responses to this survey will be published when sufficient data has been gathered (1000+ responses).

I will spread this survey so that the participants will be varied and truly random - in this way, I hope to get an accurate representation of the current state of BJJ gis.

Please only take this survey once to ensure accurate data."

In order to get people to take the survey, I posted threads titled "The New BJJ Gi Survey" on the following websites:

Mixedmartialarts.com's Atama BJJ Forum
Sherdog.net's Gear & Equipment Discussion Forum
NHB Gear's Jiu Jitsu Gear Forum
Jiu Jitsu Forum's Jiu Jitsu Discussion Forum
CageWarriors.com's Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Forum
BJJboard.com's Gear, Equipment, Products Forum
Bullshido.net's Aesopian BJJ Advanced Grappling Forum

I made this post initially for all the threads:

"Hey,

In order to expand on the current knowledge base we have on Brazilian Jiu Jitsu gis, I've composed this survey. It is based off of the survey written by Aesopian, but more directed and comprehensive in the area of BJJ Gi Brands and sizing. I hope the results of this survey will expand the knowledge base of BJJ practitioners and Gi producers so that better products can be developed for the BJJ community.

The survey should take about 5 minutes to complete:

http://anderslamjiujitsu.blogspot.com/2010/06/brazilian-jiu-jitsu-gi-survey.html

Thanks Guys :)"

The most controversial aspect of the survey were the brands listed and the lack of an "other" option. The way I chose the 48 brands which I listed was this: I searched the web and found all the retail websites I could that were distributors for BJJ gis. I found 28 such websites. I made a spreadsheet that kept track of the brands each website listed for sale. When I had completed this spreadsheet that showed all the brands sold between these 28 websites, I felt I had a list which reflected all the major BJJ gi companies. In retrospect, I should have included an "other" option for the brands questions so that everyone could have felt their opinion to be fairly represented. However, it is highly unlikely that I missed a popular brand that a significant number of respondents would have owned.

After 33 days of bumping the threads, I received the 1000th response.

The raw results of the survey can be seen here: BJJ Gi Survey Raw Results

I managed to reach the person who did the statistical analysis to make the "Overall Gi Ranking" for the Aesopian survey. I hope to have the final "Overall Gi Ranking" for this survey posted soon.

These graphs describe the raw data:

The Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Gi Survey

2010-06-16T14:40:00.001-07:00

In order to expand on the current knowledge base we have on Brazilian Jiu Jitsu gis, I've composed this survey. It is based off of the survey written by Aesopian (http://www.aesopian.com/), but more directed and comprehensive in the area of BJJ Gi Brands and sizing. I hope the results of this survey will expand the knowledge base of BJJ practitioners and Gi producers so that better products can be developed for the BJJ community.

The survey should take about 5 minutes to complete. Please only take the survey once so we can get accurate data.

Loading...

Updated Opinion on the features of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Gis 12-10-10

2010-05-29T15:56:00.000-07:00

On Collars:

On forums people frequently cite the reason they want a wide, thick, heavy lapel on their gi is because it is more difficult to grip. I don't consider the difference in gripability between a thick and thin collar to be important. However, a thin collar does make your gi look shitty while a thick collar makes it look nice. A thick collar makes a gi look impressive.
There are collars which have folded fabric cores and collars with rubber/foam cores. The claim is a rubber/foam core collar will not develop mildew/fungus buildup in the core of the collar.

On Weave:

There are three basic types of weave that are used on gis: Single, Gold, and Double.
Single weave is standard and a very durable fabric. Double weave is heavier and extremely durable. Gold weave is supposed to provide the lightness of a single weave with the durability of a double weave.
Almost all gis that claim to be "pearl weave," "diamond weave," "summer weave" or "hybrid weave" are essentially single weave gis.
That's not to say all single weaves are the same. All of these different types of weaves can come in different fabric weights. A 350gsm (grams per square meter) single weave will be significantly lighter, flimsier and less durable than a 550gsm single weave.
Typically, single weaves are very durable and you will get a lot of wear even from a single weave gi. Of course, gold weave and double weave are heavier and more durable and will last longer.

On Patches:

Most gis come with a fair number of patches. The standard model for gi patching is one going from the collar to each shoulder, one running down the left lapel, and one on each side of the hip.
Many Jiu Jitsu greats had tons of sponsorship patches on their gis for championship fights and the image of those fighters' gis has made an impression on how people imagine Jiu Jitsu to look. Having a gi with a lot of patches doesn't mean you're showing off, it doesn't mean you're challenging the people in your gym, it just reflects how we think Jiu Jitsu looks.

On Drawstrings:

The drawstring is an area where I believe there is only one correct answer. Canvas drawstring. Your drawstring has to not stretch. You have to be able to tighten it so it will stay above your hips and ass. It must be secure so that your opponent won't pull your pants down when he makes a grip on the back.
This is the worst design feature on Shoyoroll: they have stretchy drawstrings. I saw so many black belts wearing SYR gis get their pants pulled down and their asses displayed to the crowds. Drawstrings should not be stretchy.
Also, no cord drawstrings. The reputation of cord drawstrings is that they come apart and fray immensely in the wash. They can't hold up.

On Materials/Cottons:

(Update: 12-10-10) - (from http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum.posts&thread=1739840&forum=11&page=1&pc=25)

"Shen - what I had always heard about dyed gis lasting longer than bleached gis, appears to be true. Dyed gis are generally “natural” gis that have been dyed, whereas white gis are obviously “natural” gis that have been bleached --and bleaching weakens fabric by taking moisture out of the fibers."

(from http://faq.jokerjitsu.com/faq/soreallywhatsthedifferencebetweenkimono)

"Cotton producers have a somewhat complicated formula by which they grade cotton. Cotton is graded by using a complicated system of tests that measures everything from fiber length and thickness to individual fiber strength, maturity ratio (the amount of cellulose in the fiber) and permeability of compressed fibers, to name a few. So basically, the higher the quality of the fiber, the longer, stronger, lighter, better moisture absorption, breathbalilty and better dye holding properties it has.

So in relation to gi, companies will do anything to sell and make a profit. The latest marketing tool is to market a heavier gi. You will notice that most times, the heaver the gi, the coarser it feels, right? That's because companies are using a lower grade of cotton to produce those gi. The logic is that there is a lot more fabric and it is a much denser weave so the fiber strength of the cotton doesn't have to be as high as a high quality lighter weaves. Using lower grade cotton, even in higher amounts, is cheaper than using a higher-grade cotton. Companies are also savvy with marketing research and they know very well that there are few people who really wear out gis before they buy new ones. Try asking some companies for a data sheet on the cotton they use. You'll never get it. I won't even go into the cost difference per bail between the low, mid and high-grade cottons. You would flip.

Ever wonder why some blue gi fade so fast? Bad cotton. Wonder why a DAX moskito (for instance) weighs so much more than a Mizuno double deluxe, but the advertisedâ fabric weight is only slightly heavier? The cotton used is lesser quality and has much shorter, denser fibers. This is also the reason that some gis are so hot and donât seem to breathe. Once again, itâs due to bad, dense cotton. It's like the difference between a cotton shirt that one would buy at a discount store and one bought from a shirt maker that uses a fine Egyptian cotton. Wash them both a hundred times and see which one lasts, still looks good, breathes well and shrinks less."

On how your gi affects your performance:

Some blogs that review gis make disclaimers that a gi will not affect your performance. This isn't true. A good fitting gi that you can move well in will make Jiu Jitsu much easier for you.
I'm on the border of A2 and A3 in the sizing charts and for the longest time I wore A3 gis. When I finally switched over and got used to the snugness of an A2, I couldn't wear my old A3 gis anymore. It felt like I was swimming in them. The fabric got all wrapped up around me. They felt ridiculous. Your gis should be fitted, tight, but competition legal.
The sleeves only need to be long enough for IBJJF approval. The sleeve must be at least as long as 4 fingers back from your wrist.
As I mentioned above, I don't think a heavier collar is a significant issue in gi performance, but more of an aesthetic issue.

For more articles on general information about BJJ gis, please see these links:
http://meerkat69.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-bjj-gi-should-i-buy.html
http://www.slideyfoot.com/2006/10/bjj-beginner-faq.html#buyingagi

Ryan Hall's Theory of Ideals

2010-01-31T14:02:00.000-08:00

Ryan gave a seminar on January 30, 2010. He went over a series. It was a deep half guard entry into a "waiter sweep," followed by a guard pass, into a submission.

But rather than focusing on these specific techniques, Ryan insisted that if we got anything out of the seminar it should be the principles and theories he uses to explain why he chooses these techniques and their specific details.

It's in those principles he uses to explain his techniques that Ryan reveals the various theories and principles he uses to categorize and systematize Jiu Jitsu techniques. He deconstructs each movement, trying to break it down into base elements - a small move of the hips, a placement of a hook, a foot on the floor. In doing so, he highlights the small, simple actions that make Jiu Jitsu an art which has a high efficiency of power and movement.

There is also a very interesting viewpoint he conveyed on the guard. Basically, it is "when I am fighting an opponent, he may have an excellent guard, but I never want to find that out." That is to say, he never wishes to engage his opponent's guard but rather bypass it entirely. In the series he taught at this seminar, what I described above as a "guard pass" was actually a "guard bypass." Why engage your opponent in a position in which he is strong if you don't have to? It is very nearly what I was getting at on a theory I examined in an earlier entry describing that if we define and understand a position, we can defeat more than an opponent, we can defeat the position.

In the times I have met him, he has always advocated a theory of Jiu Jitsu as follows:

If I fight a grappler in all areas superior than me, size, strength and technique, yet I make 100% correct technical choices for movement, I will win. He uses the example of fighting Marcelo Garcia or Rubens "Cobrinha" Charles to highlight this theory. Fighting Marcelo Garcia, no matter what your rank or skill level, if you make flawless movements in the fight, you will defeat Marcelo.

I largely agree with this theory, but we should deconstruct it.

We recognize that we are discussing Jiu Jitsu. We are discussing this theory within the generally accepted rules of Jiu Jitsu. We recognize that grappling is a sport whose equipment is limited to the human body. We make a few assumptions on this equipment. We assume that each body is within a limit of size and strength of the other in order to be able to reasonably manipulate the opponent. We can see that even someone of 130lbs can force some reasonable manipulation against the body of a person of 300lbs. However, it is more difficult to assume that someone with a 40lbs body could reasonably manipulate that 300lbs person in the same way. In Jiu Jitsu, we assume that human forms will be within some sort of tolerated limits, where one person will be able to have some reasonable manipulation over the other person's body.

Apart from this physical limitation, Ryan's theory has three important pieces:

First Assumption, there exists perfect progressions inside the limits of what Jiu Jitsu is.

Second Assumption, while Marcelo Garcia is a superb grappler, and arguably the best technical Jiu Jitsu fighter in the world, he and every other grappler makes technical mistakes so that their game is less than an ideal progression.

Third Assumption, anyone who fights an ideal game will defeat anyone fighting a less than ideal game.

In order to really examine this theory, I would want to deconstruct it further. I'd like to define some of the terms I've used more specifically.
What is it to "reasonably manipulate" an opponent?
What are "progressions" in Jiu Jitsu?
What is a "game" in Jiu Jitsu?
(while we all feel like it is common sense, I would even like to define)
What is it to "win" in Jiu Jitsu?

Explaining Theory

2010-01-22T00:04:00.000-08:00

I was just watching this video and it reminded me... last night, I tried to explain the theoretical approach to Jiu Jitsu to one of my fellow literature students. I felt I failed to convey the deeply theoretical aspect of fighting but also that by mentioning the theoretical aspect, I felt I failed to convey how Jiu Jitsu is grounded in reality that was proven in hundreds of MMA events.

My fellow literature student is a fellow theorist. I love the theoretical aspect of Jiu Jitsu because literature has taught me to theorize. It's taught me that theory has changed the face of subjects like art, photography, film, and writing. So can theory change the face of a subject like fighting?

I would argue that it can.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the various theories of martial arts were opened to each other as an unprecedented era of competition began. I imagine this period like hundreds of individual countries all discovering naval travel at once and opening their markets to trade. The world of martial arts was opened to free trade. Among other arts of striking and grappling, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu proved itself to be one of the martial arts with the most effective theories for this new era.

But what are those theories?

I thought today, perhaps I should have explained my "Theory of Best Move" to show that Jiu Jitsu is a deeply theoretical, yet technical art. That is, "Theory of Best Move" states that any move you employ in a fight should ideally put you closer to finishing your opponent and further from being finished. But to establish that idea, we must define what a move is; we must define what finishing a fight is; and we must define what the opponent is.

"Theory of Best Move" is a very basic theory, but a theory I feel has not been solidified, a theory that has not been made obvious and concrete in the mind of every martial artist eager to learn how to fight.

As I wondered if explaining my "Theory of Best Move" would show that Jiu Jitsu is both theoretical, practical, and technical, I asked myself, what is it to finish a fight? To finish a fight is to render an opponent incapable or unwilling to further engage in combat. In Jiu Jitsu, our aim is to maim a joint so he is demoralized or incapable of further resistance, or to render him unconscious so he is incapable of further reistance. Break something with a joint lock or put him out with a choke.

I continue to wonder on a book of Jiu Jitsu and fight theory. Would such a book be considered? Would it be read? Would it be a work that would affect the art in the same way modernism and post-modernism affected literature? Would the practitioners of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu identify with a work that tried to codify their fighting language, the theories which they unknowingly employed? Would it lead us into a more modern period of Jiu Jitsu and fighting?

Jiu Jitsu as Technology

2010-01-18T17:30:00.000-08:00

Think of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu as a technology. Like other technologies, it is a means which has developed, simplified and enlightened human art and endeavor. Also like other technologies, it changes and the old is swept out by newer revisions of the old patterns. Like other technologies, we will look back and see the old theories and ideas as flawed, incorrect, dated. We will constantly see our current iteration as the best form (even if we acknowledge it's only the best so far), the most correct.

Technology is not a straight, one-way arrow. It often braids back, taking an old idea and modifying it for new use.

The 50/50, the Conception of Positions and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

2009-10-30T13:10:00.000-07:00

----Ryan Hall's 50/50----

In the last year, the position seen here, known as the 50/50, has gone from being an unseen and awkward position to a technically developed part of the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu game. Graciemag.com encouraged the debate by hosting videos and statements from various schools which discussed the position and the escapes, transitions and counters of it.

When accepted as a valid position, the 50/50 does not feel unusual. Our bodies comfortably enter this position. But the people paying attention to BJJ for the last two years have seen its frequency of occurance skyrocket. Before, the 50/50 was unheard of and unrecognized. Now, it is accepted into the lexicon of Jiu Jitsu. But the emergence of the 50/50 as an accepted position is one example of the mental structure that is Jiu Jitsu.

----Rafael Mendes and Rubens "Cobrinha" Charles----

Before beginning Jiu Jitsu, a person does not have a concept of what the guard, the mount, half guard, side control, and the other established positions of Jiu Jitsu are. Basic positions such as these are picked up quickly by learners and immediately become large parts of the mental structure they create to understand grappling. By their relations to control, sweeps and submissions, these positions gain meaning and significance.

The closed guard is a specific position which people have attached meaning to. In most circles of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, the understanding of the closed guard is that the man on bottom has an offensive advantage and the man on top is on the defensive until he manages to open the guard and pass. While this meaning is not entirely arbitrary, it is not fixed or absolute. Every submission grappler has a unique understanding of exactly what the significance and meaning of the closed guard is.

----The Closed Guard----

And as we gain understanding of the surrounding positions, we create a mental structure, relationships and hierarchies of positions. Every Jiu Jitsu player makes this structure, mentally organizes these positions in order to understand the game. Thus our understanding of the game is controlled by the positions we recognize and accept. We try to progress towards positions we feel are advantageous and try to escape from positions we feel are disadvantageous.

I hope I have managed a little explanation so it seems clear that anyone's understanding of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is controlled by people's understandings of the individual positions. Thus, the whole of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is also controlled by individuals' understandings of individual positions. Because of this, there is upheaval when the generally accepted understanding of a position is changed, when someone uses a position in an unconventional way or when a new position is introduced.

The 50/50 was simply an example of a new position being introduced. Because people had no understanding, no place where this position fit into their mental structure of Jiu Jitsu, it was controversial. Those who understood the 50/50 were in a position to use their opponents ignorance to dominate them from the 50/50.

I've heard these upheavals have happened before. The half guard underwent a "revolution" a while back. The closed and open guard underwent revolution in the 70s when the triangle submission had a renaissance.

You can see a clash of mental structure of positions when rolling with pushy, strong, persistent white belts. (Wrestlers, anyone?) These white belts may have no mental structure to organize and understand the positions in BJJ or may have a structure which organizes the positions in a wrestling format. They do not necessarily accept or acknowledge the existence of the half-guard and the butterfly-guard. In not acknowledging the position, they react in unconventional ways. While they can be caught and can be easy to submit, it can be difficult because the paths you must use to submit them will be quite different than the paths you use against an opponent who reacts in a conventional way (in a way that someone who has a similar, BJJ understanding of the position reacts).

Is it possible to reject, to consciously stop acknowledging the validity of certain positions? In a sense we are only swept by the butterfly guard because we believe the butterfly guard can sweep us. We are only triangled out of a spider guard because we believe it breaks our posture. We are only stuck in half guard because we believe our opponent has locked us in it. If we expand the boundaries of our understandings of position, if we cross these boundaries, we defeat not just the opponent who uses the position on us, we defeat the position itself.

Great Jiu Jitsu Theory Quote

2009-06-14T15:32:00.000-07:00

From a GracieMag interview with Roger Gracie:

"I don't have a preferred style of guard, I think if you limit yourself to one style your adversaries will quickly find a way to dominate you... My favorite attack is whichever one my opponent offers me. Any attack at the right moment will always be the ideal attack and not the one you go looking for the whole time making it obvious and allowing your opponent to prevent it."

----Roger Gracie in Deep Thought----
See full article at GracieMag

Theory of "best move"

2009-02-09T23:18:00.000-08:00

While rolling I notice that I hunt for submissions a lot more than I drive for the best position. This is a bad habit I have developed.

At first in Jiu Jitsu, you simply learn the good choices to make. From standing you choose according to your strengths to go for a takedown or to pull guard. From half guard you choose to sweep or recover guard. From guard you seek to submit or sweep. Later, when chosing between these things you have to assess not just which is a good choice (because there are many), but rather, which is the best choice.

At first, it would seem that what the best choice is would be dependent on your strengths. However, you should make the converse true: that your strengths are conditioned to the best choices.

Now it is important to qualify what makes a choice the "best" choice. I believe there are two factors that you must assess, namely that the move:
1. Makes you closer to finishing your opponent
2. Furthers you from being finished by your opponent

While a good move satisfys one or both of these criteria to an extent, the best move should, of course, maximize the fulfillment of both. It is largely the classic position progression that best satisfies this qualification of what the "best" moves are. That is, sweeping from bottom positions, passing the guard, and acquiring the mount or the back.

I had found myself trying to submit from top and bottom in half-guard positions and now, assessing those choices within this theory, I see that habit was a very poor one. In half-guard, the best choice is to improve your positioning in half-guard to maximize chances of acquiring a sweep.

So I'm continuing to mill this two-point best-move theory around in my head, and it gives me a thousand critiques to my personal game. I hope I can trim my game to cut out the "good" choices and work towards making only the "best" choices.