Originally Posted by perfectsplit
That’s how I usually see it introduced, though personally I find I have more luck setting it up when I move to technical mount on someone trying to turn away.
armbar from the mount is when tori has very good control from his mount and uke attempts to escape by pushing tori off and stretching his arms out. This set of circumstances is the most favorable set of circumstances in which to use basic jije-gatame.
It sounds like a rather unrealistic set of circumstances unless your training partners are all very fond of the Gracie Gift. I prefer a setup like the one we often do as a warmup drill: Partner’s in your guard; you grab both wrists, push one through, triangle; reset and go for the other side. It’s IMO a bit more realistic, and if you want to talk about Platonic ideals, it will also get you used to the idea that the ideal situation is something you may need to create, not something your opponent is going to hand you on a silver platter.
Another example would be as follows: When tori is in the guard on bottom and uke puts his head down low while sticking one arm outside tori’s guard and one arm deep inside tori’s guard, this is theoretically the ideal situation in which to apply the triangle choke.
In fact, I’m not sure that teaching a technique without also teaching at least one reasonably realistic setup is all that useful. There’s my idea: Don’t teach it starting with the assumption of an Ideal Situation; instead teach it starting with a realistic situation (albeit a realistic situation where the technique is useful!), and include a setup if necessary. Don’t teach people that they should kimura from guard only after the opponent places his hand on the mat, instead teach them right away how to provoke that action.
This doesn’t require you to invent some “theoretical ideal”. Obviously it may be a good idea to present a good situation to use the technique, and to provide caveats for circumstances that are likely to render it ineffective, but a single theoretical idea? Why?
I believe that when a teacher teaches a new move, he should also teach the theoretical ideal situation for that move as well. For example, he might teach the bridging escape from side mount by saying, “This is a good move when your opponent (in sidemount on top) has his head down low, brings his knees together, and raises his butt up high.” And also point out situations which do not favor the move. “This is not a good move when your opponent has both hands on the near side and he brings his hips down low and heavy”.
I don’t. I believe that both of those things support my theory…that is, the rather obvious fact that you have to learn to be sensitive to what your opponent is doing and respond appropriately. But this cannot rely on some set of Platonic ideals of situations, because your opponent won’t give them to you—rather, responding opportunistically requires you to be ready to find entries into techniques from highly unpredictable transitions. I also believe that the only way to gain this sensitivity is rolling, rolling, rolling—it’s all about live mat hours.
Saulo Riberio once told his seminar students, “Some moves in jiu-jitsu only work when your opponent moves a certain way.”
And my old teacher (who was a former Mundial champ) once said, “Jiu-jitsu is 90% reaction.”
I believe that what they were saying support my theory.