Dilemma Creation

Dilemma Creation is a high complexity BJJ principle applicable at the Intermediate level. Develop over Intermediate to Expert.

Principle ID: Application Level: Intermediate Complexity: High Development Timeline: Intermediate to Expert

What is Dilemma Creation?

Dilemma Creation represents the advanced strategic principle of simultaneously presenting multiple offensive threats that cannot be defended concurrently, forcing opponent into binary or limited-option choices where every defensive response creates a different but equally significant vulnerability. Unlike simple action-reaction sequences that exploit single defensive commitments, dilemma creation is a sophisticated offensive framework that applies across positions where practitioner has established sufficient control to develop layered attack systems. This concept encompasses the construction of multi-threat structures, the strategic coverage of defensive options, and the systematic exploitation of forced defensive choices through pre-planned branching sequences. Dilemma creation serves as both a finishing mechanism that dramatically increases submission success rates through multiple simultaneous threats, and an efficiency strategy that guarantees productive outcomes regardless of opponent’s defensive choices. The ability to construct and execute effective dilemmas often determines whether a practitioner can finish elite defensive opponents who rarely succumb to single-threat attacks, making it one of the most sophisticated and powerful offensive concepts in modern BJJ.

Core Components

• Effective dilemmas require multiple simultaneous threats that cannot be defended together
• Defensive choices must be genuinely binary with clear commitment requirements
• Each defensive option must lead to a different but equally developed attacking sequence
• The position must provide sufficient control to maintain multiple threat viability
• Opponent’s defensive commitment to one threat must necessarily expose the alternative
• Dilemmas can be position-based (movement options) or technique-based (defensive actions)
• The most efficient dilemmas create situations where defender has no positive outcome regardless of choice
• Advanced dilemmas include tertiary and quaternary options covering defensive variations
• System mastery requires pre-planned sequences for every possible defensive response

Component Skills

Threat Recognition and Simultaneous Development: Ability to identify which threats can coexist from a given position and develop them simultaneously without compromising either option. Requires understanding of mechanical compatibility between attacks and positional prerequisites that allow multiple threats to remain viable concurrently.

Defensive Pattern Analysis: Capacity to recognize opponent’s defensive tendencies and predict which option they will choose when presented with binary threats. Includes reading body mechanics, recognizing trained defensive patterns, and exploiting defensive habits through strategic threat presentation.

Branching Sequence Construction: Systematic development of complete attack trees where every defensive response leads to a predetermined counter-sequence. Involves memorizing extensive decision trees with responses prepared for each branch, ensuring no defensive choice leads to opponent’s escape or neutral position.

Control Maintenance Under Dynamic Defense: Ability to maintain positional control sufficient to preserve multiple threats while opponent attempts defensive movements. Requires advanced sensitivity to maintain dominant position through opponent’s defensive scrambles without losing attacking opportunity.

Timing and Threat Presentation: Strategic control of when and how threats are revealed to opponent, including feinting, baiting specific defensive reactions, and sequencing threat development to maximize opponent’s cognitive load and decision-making difficulty.

System Integration and Drilling: Methodical practice of complete dilemma systems until all branches become automatic responses requiring minimal conscious decision-making. Includes positional drilling, flow rolling through systems, and resistance training with partners attempting each defensive option.

Positional Hierarchy and Dilemma Suitability: Understanding which positions provide sufficient control and attacking options to construct effective dilemmas versus positions where single-threat attacks are more appropriate. Includes recognizing when to establish better position before attempting dilemma-based attacks.

Defensive Counter-Coverage: Ability to anticipate and neutralize opponent’s counter-attacks within each branch of the dilemma sequence, ensuring that defensive movements don’t create offensive opportunities for opponent but instead lead directly into practitioner’s prepared counter-sequences.

Related Principles

• Creating Reactions (Prerequisite): Simple action-reaction exploitation forms the foundation for understanding how defensive commitments create vulnerabilities, which is then scaled up to simultaneous multi-threat dilemma structures
• Submission Chains (Complementary): Submission chains provide the technical sequences that comprise each branch of the dilemma structure, with dilemma creation providing the strategic framework for presenting multiple chains simultaneously
• System Building (Extension): Dilemma creation represents advanced system building where complete positional systems are constructed around forcing binary choices with developed attack sequences for each defensive option
• Control Point Hierarchy (Prerequisite): Understanding control point hierarchy is essential for recognizing which positions provide sufficient control to maintain multiple simultaneous threats while opponent attempts defensive movements
• Offensive Combinations (Advanced form): While offensive combinations involve sequential attacks, dilemmas represent the advanced evolution where attacks are presented simultaneously rather than sequentially, forcing opponent into no-win scenarios
• Position Transitions (Complementary): Understanding position transitions allows recognition of which defensive movements lead to specific position changes, enabling construction of dilemmas where each positional transition leads to different but equally developed attack sequences
• Action and Reaction (Prerequisite): Fundamental understanding of action-reaction mechanics provides the basis for predicting and exploiting defensive responses within dilemma structures
• Positional Hierarchy (Prerequisite): Knowledge of positional hierarchy helps identify which positions offer sufficient dominance to construct effective multi-threat dilemmas versus positions requiring advancement first
• Grip Fighting (Complementary): Grip fighting creates micro-dilemmas where opponent’s hand placement choices expose different vulnerabilities, serving as tactical application of dilemma principles

Application Contexts

Closed Guard: Triangle-armbar-omoplata system creates classic dilemma where opponent must choose between defending triangle (exposing arm) or defending armbar (exposing shoulder), with each defensive commitment leading to different but equally developed submission sequence

Back Control: Rear naked choke-armbar dilemma forces opponent to choose between defending neck (exposing arms) or defending arms (exposing neck), with hand fighting creating continuous binary choices where each defensive hand placement opens alternative attack

Mount: High mount position creates armbar-triangle-mounted guillotine dilemmas where opponent’s defensive framing necessarily exposes arms or neck, with each frame position leading to different but prepared submission sequence

Half Guard: Lockdown-based dilemmas present opponent with choice between defending sweep attempts or defending submission attacks from underneath, with defensive commitment to either option opening alternative attack sequence

Ashi Garami: Heel hook-kneebar dilemma from saddle positions forces opponent to choose between defending heel exposure (creating kneebar vulnerability) or defending knee position (exposing heel), with leg positioning determining which submission becomes available

Side Control: Near-side armbar-far-side armbar-kimura triangle creates multi-branch dilemma where opponent’s defensive arm positioning determines which submission sequence becomes available, with each arm placement leading to different prepared attack

Turtle: Clock choke-armbar-back take triangle presents opponent with choice between defending choke (exposing arm and creating back take opportunity) or defending arm/back (allowing choke development), with each defensive priority leading to different attack

North-South: North-south choke-kimura-armbar system creates dilemmas where opponent’s arm positioning to defend choke necessarily exposes shoulders to kimura or elbows to armbar, with defensive movements triggering prepared counter-sequences

Deep Half Guard: Waiter sweep-homer sweep-back take triangle forces opponent to choose between defending sweep directions or defending back exposure, with weight distribution and base adjustments determining which attack sequence becomes available

X-Guard: Elevator sweep-technical standup sweep-leg attack dilemma presents opponent with choice between defending sweeps (exposing legs) or defending leg attacks (compromising base), with posture adjustments determining attack path

De La Riva Guard: Berimbolo-overhead sweep-leg drag sequences create positional dilemmas where opponent’s weight distribution to defend back exposure necessarily compromises balance for sweeps, with each defensive posture leading to different positional outcome

Spider Guard: Triangle-omoplata-sweep combinations present opponent with choice between defending upper body submissions or defending sweeps, with grip-breaking attempts creating systematic pathways into prepared attack sequences

Lasso Guard: Omoplata-sweep-transition sequences force opponent to choose between defending shoulder attacks or defending positional losses, with posture recovery attempts systematically leading into alternative attack paths

Knee on Belly: Armbar-baseball choke-back take triangle creates dilemmas where opponent’s defensive framing to prevent mount or submission necessarily exposes alternative attacks, with each frame position leading to prepared sequence

Butterfly Guard: Hook sweep-single leg X entry-back take sequences create dilemmas where opponent’s base adjustments to prevent sweeps necessarily compromise posture for guard transitions or back exposure

Front Headlock: Guillotine-darce-anaconda triangle forces opponent to choose which choke defense to prioritize, with each defensive posture adjustment opening different but equally threatening submission paths

Decision Framework

1. Assess if current position provides sufficient control for dilemma construction: Evaluate whether position allows maintenance of multiple simultaneous threats without compromising control; if insufficient control, prioritize positional improvement before attempting dilemma-based attacks
2. Identify compatible simultaneous threats available from position: Determine which attacks can coexist mechanically from current position without compromising each other’s effectiveness; select threats that target different defensive requirements forcing genuine binary choice
3. Develop both threat options to equal readiness: Establish mechanical prerequisites for both attacks simultaneously, ensuring neither is telegraphed as primary threat; maintain genuine dual-threat pressure preventing opponent from specializing defense on single option
4. Read opponent’s defensive tendency and priority: Observe which threat opponent defends first based on body positioning, tension patterns, or established defensive habits; use this information to predict defensive choice when forced into commitment
5. Force defensive commitment through progressive pressure increase: Systematically increase pressure on both threats until opponent must commit defensively to one option; maintain dual-threat pressure until defensive commitment is clear and irreversible
6. Recognize defensive commitment and execute prepared counter-sequence: Immediately transition to prepared attack sequence corresponding to opponent’s defensive choice; execute counter-sequence with maximum efficiency as opponent has already committed to defending alternative threat
7. Evaluate outcome and assess need for secondary dilemma: If initial dilemma sequence leads to finish, complete submission; if opponent successfully defends both initial options, construct secondary dilemma from new position or restart dilemma sequence with modified threat presentation
8. Maintain positional control throughout sequence execution: Throughout all dilemma branches, prioritize maintaining dominant position over rushed submission attempts; if position becomes compromised during sequence, reset to previous control point rather than forcing low-percentage finish

Common Mistakes

• Mistake: Developing one threat significantly more than the other, creating false dilemma
  • Consequence: Opponent recognizes primary threat through telegraphing and can specialize entire defense on stopping that option, negating the dilemma structure and allowing effective single-focus defense
  • Correction: Develop both threats to equal readiness with equal mechanical prerequisites established; practice both branches of dilemma equally in training until neither appears as obvious primary option
• Mistake: Attempting dilemma construction from insufficient control positions
  • Consequence: Opponent escapes or reverses position during multi-threat development because control wasn’t sufficient to maintain dual threats through defensive movements; results in losing dominant position entirely
  • Correction: Only attempt dilemma-based attacks from positions with strong established control; when control is marginal, prioritize single high-percentage attacks or positional improvement before constructing complex dilemma structures
• Mistake: Failing to prepare complete sequences for each defensive option
  • Consequence: When opponent chooses the less-developed branch, practitioner has no prepared response and loses offensive momentum; partial dilemmas allow opponent to successfully defend through specialization on under-developed branch
  • Correction: Drill complete sequences for every possible defensive response including tertiary and quaternary options; ensure every branch of dilemma tree is equally developed with prepared responses extending several moves deep
• Mistake: Forcing commitment prematurely before both threats are fully established
  • Consequence: Opponent can defend both options simultaneously because mechanical prerequisites weren’t completed; results in stalled offense with no clear attacking pathway forward
  • Correction: Patiently develop both threats to full mechanical readiness before forcing defensive commitment; allow time for proper setup even if it means slower attack execution
• Mistake: Abandoning positional control to pursue submission finish
  • Consequence: Opponent escapes dominant position during rushed submission attempt, resulting in neutral position or reversal despite having created effective dilemma structure initially
  • Correction: Maintain strict adherence to position-before-submission hierarchy; if submission isn’t immediately available, maintain dominant position and reconstruct dilemma rather than forcing low-percentage finish
• Mistake: Using incompatible threats that don’t create genuine binary choice
  • Consequence: Opponent can defend both options simultaneously because defensive requirements aren’t mutually exclusive; results in ineffective dilemma that opponent nullifies with single defensive action
  • Correction: Select only genuinely incompatible threats where defensive commitment to one necessarily exposes the other; test dilemma structures in training to verify that successful defense of both simultaneously is biomechanically impossible
• Mistake: Failing to recognize opponent’s defensive commitment, hesitating between options
  • Consequence: Window for exploiting defensive commitment closes while practitioner deliberates which branch to pursue; hesitation allows opponent to recover and defend both options again
  • Correction: Develop automatic recognition patterns through repetitive drilling; when defensive commitment is recognized, immediately execute corresponding sequence without conscious deliberation
• Mistake: Neglecting counter-attack coverage within dilemma branches
  • Consequence: Opponent’s defensive movements create legitimate counter-attacking opportunities that practitioner hasn’t prepared for; results in defensive success for opponent despite being caught in structural dilemma
  • Correction: Drill each dilemma branch with resistant partners attempting maximum counter-attacks; develop prepared responses to neutralize every possible counter-offensive within each branch sequence

Training Methods

Systematic Branch Drilling (Focus: Developing automatic execution of complete dilemma trees without conscious decision-making, building muscle memory for all branches until responses become reflexive) Methodically drill each branch of a dilemma system with partner playing specific defensive roles, practicing complete sequences from initial threat presentation through finish for every possible defensive option

Progressive Resistance Integration (Focus: Maintaining dilemma structure effectiveness under realistic resistance while identifying which branches work against maximum defensive effort versus which require positional adjustment) Practice dilemma systems with incrementally increasing resistance levels, starting with compliant drilling and gradually adding realistic defensive intensity as proficiency develops

Single-Position System Development (Focus: Achieving expert-level proficiency in one positional dilemma system before expanding to other positions, building confidence through deep specialized knowledge) Select one dominant position and develop comprehensive dilemma system specific to that position, drilling all possible threat combinations and defensive responses until complete mastery achieved

Defensive Pattern Recognition Training (Focus: Developing sensitivity to recognize defensive commitments early and accurately, improving timing and efficiency of counter-sequence execution) Train specifically to recognize opponent defensive patterns and tendencies through observation and repetition with multiple partners, learning to predict which dilemma branch opponents will choose based on body mechanics and habits

Flow Rolling Through Systems (Focus: Building fluid execution and natural timing while maintaining awareness of position throughout complex branching sequences) Practice continuous movement through dilemma systems in flow rolling format where partner provides realistic but non-maximal resistance, focusing on smooth transitions between branches and complete sequence execution

Competition Simulation with Dilemma Focus (Focus: Testing dilemma structures under competition conditions while building confidence in system effectiveness and identifying gaps in preparation that require additional drilling) Conduct specific sparring rounds where practitioner only attempts finishes through dilemma-based attacks from dominant positions, forcing real-time application against resisting opponents

Mastery Indicators

Beginner Level:

• Can identify and name basic dilemma structures like triangle-armbar-omoplata system when demonstrated
• Understands concept that some defensive actions necessarily expose alternative vulnerabilities
• Can execute simple two-option dilemmas in drilling with compliant partner
• Recognizes when opponent makes obvious defensive commitment to one threat during demonstration

Intermediate Level:

• Can construct and execute basic dilemmas from 3-4 dominant positions with proper setup
• Recognizes opponent’s defensive commitment and transitions to appropriate counter-sequence smoothly
• Maintains positional control while developing multiple threats simultaneously in training
• Can drill complete two-branch dilemma systems with moderate resistance
• Begins recognizing patterns in partner defensive tendencies during regular sparring

Advanced Level:

• Executes complete dilemma systems from multiple dominant positions with branching sequences 3-4 moves deep
• Consistently finishes training partners through dilemma-based attacks when achieving dominant position
• Reads defensive commitments quickly and transitions between branches without hesitation
• Can maintain effective dilemmas against intelligent defensive opponents who recognize structure
• Demonstrates high finishing rates in competition from dominant positions using system-based approaches
• Develops position-specific customized dilemma systems based on personal physical attributes

Expert Level:

• Constructs novel dilemma structures spontaneously during rolling based on opponent’s specific defensive patterns
• Finishes elite-level training partners and competitors consistently through dilemma-based offense
• Can teach complete dilemma systems to students with detailed explanation of all branches and counters
• Demonstrates prepared responses to every possible defensive variation within personal dilemma systems
• Recognized for specific signature dilemma systems that other practitioners study and attempt to replicate
• Maintains threatening dilemma structures even when opponents have studied and prepared for specific systems

Related Content

• Creating Reactions (Principle) - Foundation concept demonstrating single action-reaction sequences that dilemma creation expands into simultaneous multi-threat structures
• Submission Chains (Principle) - Provides technical submission sequences that comprise individual branches within dilemma frameworks
• System Building (Principle) - Describes overall systematic approach to organizing techniques where dilemma creation provides specific offensive strategic framework
• Back Attack System (System) - Premier example of complete dilemma-based system with rear naked choke-armbar structure forcing binary defensive choices
• B-Team Dilemma System (System) - Comprehensive modern dilemma-based approach popularized by Craig Jones emphasizing systematic forcing of no-win scenarios
• Closed Guard (Position) - Classical position for dilemma construction with triangle-armbar-omoplata system as fundamental example
• Back Control (Position) - Highest-percentage position for dilemma application with rear naked choke-armbar creating ultimate finishing dilemma
• Mount (Position) - Dominant position allowing multiple simultaneous threats with armbar-triangle-mounted guillotine dilemma structures
• Ashi Garami (Position) - Modern leg entanglement position with heel hook-kneebar dilemmas fundamental to contemporary leg lock systems
• Triangle Setup (Transition) - Common component of guard-based dilemmas where triangle threat forces defensive responses exposing armbar or omoplata
• Offensive Combinations (Principle) - Related offensive concept focusing on sequential rather than simultaneous threat presentation
• Control Point Hierarchy (Principle) - Essential for understanding which positions provide sufficient control to maintain multiple simultaneous threats

Expert Insights

• John Danaher: Approaches dilemma creation as the fundamental architecture of effective attacking systems, emphasizing that virtually all of his positional systems are built around forcing opponent into binary or limited choices where every option leads to different but equally developed attack sequences. Focuses extensively on what he terms ‘attack systems’ rather than individual techniques, where practitioners learn comprehensive decision trees with pre-planned responses to every possible defensive variation. Systematizes dilemma construction according to position, creating formalized attack sequences like his famous triangle-armbar-omoplata system from guard or rear naked choke-armbar system from back control, where the structure guarantees attacking progress regardless of defensive choices. Emphasizes that true mastery requires equal development of all branches in the dilemma tree, preventing opponent from identifying and specializing in defending a preferred branch. Teaches that the psychological advantage of effective dilemmas is as important as the mechanical advantage, as opponents who recognize they’re in no-win scenarios often make progressively worse decisions under the mental pressure of unavoidable threat.
• Gordon Ryan: Views dilemma creation as the essential mechanism for finishing elite-level opponents who rarely make defensive errors, emphasizing that his competitive success derives largely from forcing opponents into no-win scenarios through systematic dilemma-based attacks. Focuses on what he calls ‘system-based finishing’ where individual technique success matters less than the overall structural framework that guarantees eventual finishing opportunity through progressive dilemma sequences. Particularly emphasizes the psychological impact of effective dilemmas, noting that opponents who recognize they’re in no-win scenarios often make progressively worse defensive decisions under psychological pressure, leading to mistakes they wouldn’t make against single-threat attacks. Has developed extensive competition-tested dilemma systems from dominant positions, particularly his back attack system and leg lock sequences, which demonstrate remarkably high finishing rates through comprehensive option coverage. Advocates studying opponent’s defensive patterns before matches to predict which branches of dilemma they’ll choose, allowing pre-planned exploitation of their defensive tendencies. Notes that even when opponents understand the dilemma structure intellectually, proper execution forces them into losing choices regardless of their knowledge.
• Eddie Bravo: Has constructed entire positional systems explicitly around dilemma creation, most notably his rubber guard system where virtually every position creates multiple simultaneous threats forcing opponent into binary defensive choices. When teaching dilemma concepts, emphasizes the importance of what he calls ‘the invisible storm’ where opponent faces so many threats simultaneously that cognitive overload degrades defensive decision-making quality beyond just the structural dilemma. Advocates for creative and unorthodox dilemma construction that exploits opponent’s unfamiliarity, creating situations where defensive choices are unclear due to novelty rather than clearly structured binary options, which can be even more effective through confusion and hesitation. Particularly emphasizes lockdown-based dilemmas from half guard and rubber guard-based dilemmas from closed guard, both featuring extensive branching sequences covering numerous defensive variations. Views dilemma creation as fundamentally about controlling opponent’s decision-making process rather than just their body, forcing them to make choices under time pressure and incomplete information. Notes that unconventional dilemma structures are often more effective than classical ones because opponents haven’t drilled defenses and don’t recognize the dilemma structure until they’re already trapped.