Posted On:2/02/2005 12:48pm
Style: MMA, No-Gi Grappling
Originally Posted by Shuma-Gorath
In the standard juji-gatame armbar, if you cross your feet it is possible for the person to push them over their head and sit up. If the lock is tight then there might not be time for this, but you don't want to lose it over something that minor.
Like I said... it matters how your ankles are crossed, fo exactly his reason.
Posted On:2/02/2005 6:11pm
Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
Generally, you don't want to cross your ankles. One reason being, if you do the armbar from mount, by crossing your ankles you can't lift your hips as high to break the arm. You can still damage it of course, but you won't break it as well as having the head hooked by your top leg.
From guard, I prefer to have my ankles uncrossed so that my top leg is putting a lot of weight on the back of his head, affecting his posture. If I cross my ankles, that weight isn't there and he's got a better chance to posture up and pull his arm free. Some people suggest crossing the ankles to help push the guy away if he tries to stack you. I'd prefer to keep his head hooked and counter in different ways.
Crossing the ankles is good to control the guy from an armbar on top if you're "negotiating the arm" i.e. he's locked his arms to stop you armbarring him. So I'd cross my ankles to free his arm, then uncross them to break the arm.
So, I'm against it. I think there's more benefits to having the head hooked, than crossing the ankles - unless of course you're "negotiating the arm".
Neutral, or nearly so
Posted On:2/02/2005 6:43pm
I heard similar to Rance, depends on how you're set up.
Posted On:2/02/2005 10:27pm
I did an armbar tonight from the mount triple attack setup and crossed my ankles. My top foot was across the neck which seemed to work pretty good. I wasn't perfectly perpendicular to him though.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." -A. Lincoln
Vote your conscience.... Vote Libertarian!
Posted On:2/02/2005 11:18pm
Style: In Transition
I was taught not to cross, too, but last night I was rolling. I got an armbar from the mount going, but he wanted to stick his head between my legs, so I crossed my ankles and squeezed my knees tighter so he couldn't. Worked fine for me.
Posted On:2/03/2005 9:43pm
Remember that if I have guard and armbar someone and choose to cross, if I am attackjing your right arm I should never cross my left leg over my right.This gives his head too much freedom of movement.
I don't like crossing my ankles accept in occasional unusual situations, like as in he is strong enough to lift me up even though my leg is around his head/neck and he wants to slam me.
If I choose to try and ride out the slam I'd rather my ankles crossed as I don't slip off as easily.
But much better grapplers than I are on both sides of this debate so take it or leave it.
Posted On:2/04/2005 2:11am
Style: Shorin Kempo
What about the chance of the bottom man pushing up on both ankles with his free hand lifting your legs and butt killing the fulcrum, when your ankles are crossed? Like a 1 armed push up.
Host-Personal Defense TV
Posted On:2/04/2005 4:16am
For the most part crossing the ankles can cause the knees to have space in them allowing him to rotate the elbow out of the lock.
Posted On:2/04/2005 2:00pm
I'm still having trouble with this concept...
Hmmm. Going to test it right now!
Ankles uncrossed - squeeze knees. No space.
Ankles crossed - squeeze knees. No space either.
There you have it. Scientific proof that crossed ankles do not cause more space between the knees.
Posted On:2/04/2005 2:08pm
My recollection of the two sentences on the topic is that it went to where the other arm was. If it is inside your legs, cross, if not don't. The reason being what the kenpo guy said.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info