Posted On:2/04/2005 1:16pm
Style: Aikido, BJJ
Originally Posted by Yrkoon9
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.
repeat the experiment with your legs totally relaxed (rather than squeezing hard). You'll see that there *is* a natural tendancy for crossed ankles to lead to spread knees. Sure it can be avoided but it's one more thing to think about that may get missed. The concept I'm having trouble with is how you can cross from the guard and still keep the head down.
Strong Machine, the only "personality" I've ever heard advocate crossin the ankles is Bas. Are there others?
Posted On:2/04/2005 1:27pm
Here's a neato little video of an armbar from the guard that ends with the instructor explaining how to cross or not cross the ankles:
Posted On:2/04/2005 1:48pm
Originally Posted by Aristeia
repeat the experiment with your legs totally relaxed (rather than squeezing hard). You'll see that there *is* a natural tendancy for crossed ankles to lead to spread knees. Sure it can be avoided but it's one more thing to think about that may get missed.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I apply an armbar but decide not to squeeze my knees together and instead try to use the position of my ankles to influence gravity in order to control my opponent. Or maybe I'll just squeeze my knees regardless of foot position. Either way - there ain't no space. Myth fucking debunked.
The concept I'm having trouble with is how you can cross from the guard and still keep the head down.
Ask Roger Gracie about crossing his ankles from his guard when applying the armlock. Then ask Jacare how long he was out of training from a broken arm. Most likely both are going to tell you there is a time and place for crossing or uncrossed ankles and it doesn't matter as much as you might think.
is still hungry.
Posted On:2/04/2005 2:03pm
I just learned armbars yesterday and practiced them on a guy who is 100+ pounds heavier than I. My instructor stressed the idea of leaving your legs uncrossed with one foot tucked closely near the head. I noticed that when my hips were closer to his body and my ankle close to his head and flat on the ground, it was difficult for him to lift his head and struggle out of the position. If I had crossed my legs rather than squeezing with my knees, he could have just bucked and rolled over on me. Maybe it was his weight advantage; I'm still a n00b in BJJ.
Neutral, or nearly so
Posted On:2/04/2005 4:31pm
Posted On:2/04/2005 5:11pm
Originally Posted by JohnnyS
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".
Also, some people cross the ankles in order to control the far arm in order to secure ude gatame on the opposite arm if the juji starts to fail. Also, from the top, some people like to have both feet (uncrossed) in the opponent's arm pit area so that they can transition into a reverse triangle if necessary.
Posted On:2/04/2005 5:17pm
You know what's hella funny, the people on this thread saying "Why do you focus on trivial matters like crossing your ankles?"
Let me explain why you NEVER cross your ankles, its happened to me and I've done it to people, and when you cross your ankles you'll lose the armbar against an experienced fighter....why?
Cross your ankles and the guy being armbarred from the mount is going to roll your ankle against the other one as if it was a violin (e.g. rolling your food down into an awkward position), and it hurts like a bitch.
You'll tap out before you can get him to tap from the armbar...don't believe me? Try it.
"did Phrost just call me a 'bitch'?"-Omega
"The collective IQ of bullshido was reduced with the departure of Wastrel. It further dropped due to the retention of (Serious Harm)."
- The all knowing Dochter
"but like, it's possible to develop such a level of reflex that you can literally detect someones movements through sensitivity, and block without even thinking"-Apostol
That's the amazing thing about Ninjas, for sneeky cocksuckers, they are all over the place, like dog **** on your shoe.-Ronin69
Posted On:2/04/2005 5:39pm
Im one of those people.
And if you are going to try to fold my ankle over the other you are going to get tapped from the armbar.
I'll just reach up here and grab this foot...arggh...my elbow.
Posted On:2/04/2005 7:07pm
I'm watching one of Stephan Kesting's DVDs and he just ended an armlock with his feet crossed. OH NOS!
Posted On:2/04/2005 7:16pm
Originally Posted by Dochter
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.
that's what i was taught, but i don't really know why.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info