BJJ Scout: Craig Jones Guard Study
- Thread starter iYoda
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 18,578
- Reaction score
- 1
I bought his DVD. It's pretty dope. Really expands on a lot of the stuff I learned in the DDS seminars I went to, and nothing he said really conflicted other than he prefers normal ashi to outside ashi (though he even mentions that Eddie is really good at finishing from there so it can work, just not his preference). Lots of great small details of control and exposing the heel, I recommend it.
So I've been to 2 seminars by John Danaher himself. At both of them he basically said that he considers outside ashi a terrible position except when you've already dug and exposed the heel - i.e. the leg entanglement is useful for finishin/breaking once you're applying the hold, but not for digging or exposing the heel. I don't recall what Craig said on the DVD, but elsewhere I've seen him say the same thing.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 624
- Reaction score
- 102
Made the mistake of watching this at the beginning of my workday, so now I have to wait all day to try some stuff out.
One question I have though, is that the video makes it seem like the far leg control prevents the pass, which doesn't make sense to me. Is it a strong overhook-like pressure that keeps the man on top from expanding his knee into side control? Just seems strange that his arm is more powerful than their leg. Anyone have any insight? It's going to bother me all day otherwise.
One question I have though, is that the video makes it seem like the far leg control prevents the pass, which doesn't make sense to me. Is it a strong overhook-like pressure that keeps the man on top from expanding his knee into side control? Just seems strange that his arm is more powerful than their leg. Anyone have any insight? It's going to bother me all day otherwise.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 20,363
- Reaction score
- 405
Is outside ashi 50/50?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 18,578
- Reaction score
- 1
No. It's both attacker's legs on the outside with the trapped leg on the outside too.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 20,363
- Reaction score
- 405
I though That was double outside ashi
Double Outside Ashi is what the 10th planet guys call it. Danaher and company just call it outside ashi. John will literally slap you if you call it double outside ashi. Their explanation of this is that there would need to be a "single outside ashi" for the phrase "double outside ashi" to make sense. I believe the 10th planet guys like calling it "double outside ashi" because the initials - DOA - also stand for "Dead On Arrival"
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. As guys have gotten more canny in regards to the heel hooks - it's gotten extremely challenging to dig the heel from outside ashi, and guys have started to understand how to find base there etc and threaten the pass/back.
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 32,922
- Reaction score
- 4,508
Honestly single outside ashi does make sense. Ashi is just foot or leg. I’d consider one foot on the hip, aka regular ashi or single leg x, to be single ashi. Part of the problem is that ‘ashi’ is actually a terrible description for a leglock position, since by definition a leglock usually involves 4 ashi (two yours, two opponent), so referring to ‘leg’ means fuck-all without clear qualifiers.
The DDS nomenclature is ashi for 1LX, outside ashi for both legs on the outside, and inside ashi for the reaping position. In this taxonomy, I don't think double outside ashi has a place.
I suppose you could argue that single outside ashi could be a situation where : I am controlling my opponent's left leg on the outside of my body, my left leg is on the outside, and my right leg is butterflying behind my opponent's knee. I think the DDS guys call this shadow ashi?
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 32,922
- Reaction score
- 4,508
How can it be incorrect to call it double ashi when your own definition of the outside ashi position is “both legs on the outside.” Two legs = two ashi.
Part of the problem is that ‘ashi’ is shifting definitions in the usage. When Danaher calls something outside or inside ashi, that has to be shorthand for outside or inside ashi garami, where inside and outside modify *ashi garami*, and do not actually refer to ‘ashi.’ That is close to the judo usage. It could be precisely rendered, if awkwardly, as entanglement of the legs (aka regular ashi), inside entanglement of the legs, and outside entanglement of the legs.
But in a language with no case inflection, this is horribly ambiguous because most people will take ‘outside ashi’ to mean ‘outside leg,’ which is exactly what it does mean unless you implicitly interpret ashi as meaning ‘ashi garami’ instead of ‘leg.’
The problems of seeking to use weird Japanese English hybrids.....
I’m not saying that it needs any particular name, just the opposite—pedantry doesn’t make much difference here, particularly when the arguments given for the pedantic distinctions don’t make much sense.
Part of the problem is that ‘ashi’ is shifting definitions in the usage. When Danaher calls something outside or inside ashi, that has to be shorthand for outside or inside ashi garami, where inside and outside modify *ashi garami*, and do not actually refer to ‘ashi.’ That is close to the judo usage. It could be precisely rendered, if awkwardly, as entanglement of the legs (aka regular ashi), inside entanglement of the legs, and outside entanglement of the legs.
But in a language with no case inflection, this is horribly ambiguous because most people will take ‘outside ashi’ to mean ‘outside leg,’ which is exactly what it does mean unless you implicitly interpret ashi as meaning ‘ashi garami’ instead of ‘leg.’
The problems of seeking to use weird Japanese English hybrids.....
I’m not saying that it needs any particular name, just the opposite—pedantry doesn’t make much difference here, particularly when the arguments given for the pedantic distinctions don’t make much sense.
I think John's general nomenclature isn't nearly as precise as he seems to think it is. On the other hand, I do think the "double" is unnecessary verbiage, but I really don't have a horse in this race, other than having the opportunity to roll my eyes at 10th planet naming conventions
