Position-Over-Submission Approach

Position-Over-Submission Approach is a medium complexity BJJ principle applicable at the Intermediate level. Develop over Beginner to Advanced.

Principle ID: Application Level: Intermediate Complexity: Medium Development Timeline: Beginner to Advanced

What is Position-Over-Submission Approach?

The Position Over Submission Approach is a foundational strategic philosophy in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu that prioritizes establishing and improving positional dominance before attempting submissions. This concept recognizes that superior positioning creates more reliable submission opportunities while reducing risk of counter-attacks or position loss. The approach operates on the principle that each positional advancement increases control, reduces opponent options, and creates submission opportunities from positions of safety and dominance.

This strategic framework guides practitioners to think hierarchically about positions, moving systematically through progressively more dominant positions (guard passing to side control to mount to back control) before committing to submission attempts. By prioritizing positional advancement, practitioners develop better control mechanics, reduce energy expenditure through premature submission attempts, and create psychological pressure on opponents who face continuous positional degradation. The position-first mindset also develops superior defensive awareness, as practitioners learn to recognize when their position is compromised and prioritize recovery over offensive action.

The Position Over Submission philosophy extends beyond individual technique execution to encompass overall match strategy, training methodology, and skill development. It teaches practitioners to view grappling exchanges as strategic campaigns rather than isolated submission attempts, building cumulative advantages through positional chess rather than gambling on low-percentage finishing attempts. This approach proves particularly effective in competition, where positional points reward systematic advancement and where submission attempts from poor positions often result in sweeps, reversals, or position loss that negates earlier work.

Core Components

• Positional hierarchy dictates that dominant positions create safer, higher-percentage submission opportunities than neutral or inferior positions
• Each positional improvement compounds control advantages while reducing opponent’s offensive options and escape pathways
• Submission attempts should only be pursued when positional control is sufficiently established to prevent counters or escapes
• Position loss during failed submission attempts often negates previous positional gains and resets the strategic exchange
• Point-scoring positions in competition reward systematic advancement and create psychological pressure on opponents
• Energy efficiency improves when positional control is established before committing to submission mechanics
• Defensive security requires prioritizing position recovery over offensive submission attempts when position is compromised
• Long-term skill development benefits from position-focused training that builds control mechanics before submission finishing
• Strategic patience in advancing through positional hierarchy creates compound advantages and submission opportunities

Component Skills

Positional Assessment: The ability to accurately evaluate current positional status relative to the hierarchical framework, recognizing which positions offer submission opportunities versus which require further advancement. This includes understanding relative position quality, control point security, and opponent’s defensive capabilities from the current position.

Progressive Control Development: Systematically establishing and improving control points through each positional layer, ensuring each advancement is solidified before attempting the next. This involves securing cross-faces, underhooks, weight distribution, and base elimination appropriate to each position in the hierarchy.

Submission Timing Recognition: Identifying the optimal moment when positional control is sufficiently established to warrant submission attempts without risking position loss. This requires recognizing when opponent’s defensive options are sufficiently limited and escape pathways are blocked through superior positioning.

Position Retention Under Submission Threat: Maintaining positional advantages even when opponent defends submissions aggressively, using submission attempts as tools to further positional advancement rather than all-or-nothing finishing attempts. This includes recognizing when to abandon submissions to preserve or improve position.

Hierarchical Advancement Pathways: Understanding and executing the systematic progressions between positions in the hierarchy, knowing multiple routes from guard passing through side control, mount, and back control. This includes recognizing which transitions maintain control continuity versus which create scramble opportunities.

Risk-Reward Calculation: Evaluating whether potential submission opportunities justify the risk of position loss, considering factors like time remaining, point differential, opponent’s skill level, and available positional alternatives. This includes recognizing when positional advancement offers better strategic value than immediate submission attempts.

Defensive Position Recovery: Prioritizing positional improvement when in inferior positions rather than attempting offensive submissions from bad positions. This involves systematic escape mechanics, guard recovery protocols, and recognizing when defensive survival takes precedence over offensive action.

Cumulative Advantage Building: Creating compound control through incremental positional improvements that systematically reduce opponent options while expanding your offensive arsenal. This includes recognizing how each small positional gain contributes to overall strategic dominance and eventual submission opportunities.

Related Principles

• Positional Hierarchy (Prerequisite): Understanding the positional hierarchy is fundamental to the position-over-submission approach, as it provides the framework for determining which positions warrant submission attempts versus which require further advancement.
• Control Point Hierarchy (Complementary): Control point hierarchy works synergistically with position-over-submission philosophy by identifying specific control mechanics that must be established before submissions become high-percentage options from each position.
• Risk Assessment (Complementary): Risk assessment frameworks inform position-over-submission decisions by evaluating the potential consequences of submission attempts versus the security offered by positional advancement and consolidation.
• Energy Management System (Extension): The position-first approach extends energy management principles by reducing wasted energy on premature submission attempts, instead channeling effort into efficient positional advancement that creates sustainable control.
• Escape Hierarchy (Complementary): Understanding escape hierarchy complements position-over-submission by illustrating how defensive strategy also prioritizes positional recovery over offensive gambles when in inferior positions.
• Match Strategy (Extension): Position-over-submission philosophy serves as a foundational element of broader match strategy, particularly in point-scoring competition formats where positional advancement directly contributes to winning while reducing counter-attack risks.
• Control Maintenance (Complementary): Control maintenance principles support position-over-submission by emphasizing the importance of securing and retaining positional advantages before committing to offensive finishing attempts.
• Guard Passing (Extension): Guard passing principles exemplify position-over-submission philosophy by prioritizing systematic pass completion and consolidation before attempting submissions from top positions.
• Submission Control Position (Extension): Understanding submission control positions demonstrates how position-over-submission philosophy manifests in practice, defining the specific positional criteria that must be met before submission attempts become high-percentage.
• Defensive Strategy (Complementary): Defensive strategy aligns with position-over-submission by prioritizing positional recovery and escape over offensive actions when in inferior positions, maintaining strategic discipline under pressure.
• Position Chains (Extension): Position chains exemplify the systematic positional advancement that position-over-submission philosophy advocates, showing how positions link together to create pathways to dominance.
• Progressive Resistance Training (Complementary): Progressive resistance training methodologies support position-over-submission development by allowing practitioners to build positional control under gradually increasing resistance before adding submission finishing.

Application Contexts

Mount: From mount, the position-over-submission approach emphasizes securing high mount or technical mount control before attempting armbars or chokes, ensuring that submission attempts don’t compromise the dominant position and allow opponent to escape back to guard.

Side Control: In side control, practitioners focus on establishing cross-face, weight distribution, and base control before transitioning to mount or submissions, recognizing that premature submission attempts often result in opponent recovering guard or initiating scrambles.

Back Control: From back control, the approach prioritizes securing both hooks, seat belt grip, and preventing opponent’s defensive hand fighting before attempting rear naked chokes, understanding that rushed submission attempts allow opponents to escape the position.

Knee on Belly: When in knee on belly, practitioners use the position to score points and create submission threats while prioritizing transitions to mount or side control when opponent’s defenses create openings, rather than forcing low-percentage submissions.

North-South: From north-south, the concept guides practitioners to establish tight chest pressure and arm control before attempting north-south chokes or kimuras, recognizing that positional stability creates better finishing opportunities than rushed attempts.

Half Guard: When in bottom half guard, the position-first mindset prioritizes recovering full guard or achieving sweeps to top position rather than attempting submissions from the inferior position, recognizing the hierarchical advantage of positional improvement.

Closed Guard: From closed guard, practitioners focus on breaking opponent’s posture, establishing grips, and creating angles before attempting triangles or armbars, understanding that submission attempts from poor positions often result in guard passing.

Open Guard: In open guard positions like De La Riva or butterfly guard, the approach emphasizes using grips and hooks to off-balance opponent and create sweep opportunities before committing to submission attempts that might compromise guard retention.

Defensive Position: When in defensive positions like bottom side control or bottom mount, the concept mandates that positional escapes and recoveries are the exclusive priority, completely foregoing submission attempts until superior position is reestablished.

Butterfly Guard: From butterfly guard, practitioners use hooks and underhooks to create sweep opportunities and positional advancement before considering submission attacks, recognizing that sweeps to top position create superior finishing opportunities.

De La Riva Guard: In De La Riva guard, the position-first approach uses the hook and grip system primarily for off-balancing and sweeping opponent to achieve top position, with submissions serving as secondary opportunities when positional advancement stalls.

Turtle: From turtle position, the philosophy emphasizes either recovering guard or standing up rather than attempting submissions from the defensive position, recognizing that offensive actions from turtle often result in back takes by the opponent.

X-Guard: In X-guard, practitioners prioritize executing sweeps to achieve top position rather than attempting leg locks from the bottom position, understanding that positional advancement creates safer and more dominant finishing opportunities.

Ashi Garami: From ashi garami leg entanglements, the approach emphasizes securing proper control positions and breaking opponent’s defensive structure before committing to heel hook or kneebar finishing mechanics that might allow positional escapes.

Standing Position: In standing exchanges, the position-over-submission philosophy prioritizes executing takedowns to achieve top position rather than attempting guillotines or other submissions that might result in guard pulls or failed attempts.

Decision Framework

1. Assess current position in the hierarchy: Evaluate whether your current position is dominant (mount, back, side control), neutral (standing, closed guard), or inferior (bottom side control, bottom mount). This assessment determines whether offensive submissions are strategically viable or whether positional recovery is required.
2. Identify available positional advancements: Determine which higher positions are accessible from your current position through passes, sweeps, or transitions. Catalog the realistic pathways to improved positions based on opponent’s current defensive structure and your control points.
3. Evaluate control point security: Assess whether you have established sufficient control points (cross-face, underhooks, hooks, weight distribution) to safely attempt submissions without risking position loss. If control is incomplete, prioritize establishing additional control points.
4. Calculate submission opportunity quality: Analyze available submission options from current position, considering their success rate, required mechanics, and risk of position loss if the attempt fails. Compare the value of immediate submission attempts versus positional advancement.
5. Consider strategic context: Factor in competition scoring rules, time remaining, point differential, and opponent’s tendencies. Determine whether positional points offer strategic value or whether submission is necessary for victory. Adjust approach based on these contextual elements.
6. Execute positional advancement or submission: If position is insufficiently dominant or control is incomplete, execute transitions to improve position. If position is dominant and control is secure, attempt high-percentage submissions while maintaining escape prevention and position retention as primary priorities.
7. Monitor position integrity during submission attempts: Continuously assess whether submission attempts are compromising positional control. If opponent’s defensive actions threaten position, immediately abandon the submission to retain positional advantage and seek alternative attacks or further advancement.
8. Reassess after submission attempt or position change: Following submission attempts or positional transitions, return to step one to reassess the current hierarchy position and restart the decision-making cycle. Use failed submissions as information to inform subsequent positional strategies and identify opponent’s defensive patterns.

Common Mistakes

• Mistake: Attempting submissions from neutral or inferior positions without establishing dominant control
  • Consequence: Premature submission attempts from poor positions often result in opponent escaping, countering, or sweeping, negating previous work and potentially reversing positional advantage entirely
  • Correction: Strictly adhere to the positional hierarchy, refusing submission attempts until reaching dominant positions like mount, back control, or fully secured side control where positional loss risk is minimized
• Mistake: Abandoning established positions to chase low-percentage submissions
  • Consequence: Leaving secure dominant positions for submission attempts that lack proper setup allows opponents to escape, recover guard, or create scrambles that eliminate accumulated positional advantages
  • Correction: Maintain positional priority by only attempting submissions when control points are fully established and when submission mechanics don’t require sacrificing position to execute
• Mistake: Failing to recognize when opponent’s defense warrants position change rather than submission persistence
  • Consequence: Continuing to force submissions against strong defenses wastes energy, creates scramble opportunities, and prevents capitalizing on alternative positional advancements that opponent’s defensive structure has created
  • Correction: Develop sensitivity to opponent’s defensive reactions, using their submission defenses as cues to transition to better positions or alternative submissions rather than forcing single attacks
• Mistake: Misunderstanding position quality due to superficial position classification
  • Consequence: Treating all instances of a position as equivalent (like attempting submissions from any side control) without recognizing that control point quality varies dramatically within positions leads to premature, low-percentage submission attempts
  • Correction: Assess position quality based on specific control points achieved within each position, recognizing that side control with cross-face and weight distribution differs fundamentally from side control with minimal control
• Mistake: Neglecting positional consolidation in favor of continuous advancement
  • Consequence: Rushing through positions without establishing proper control at each stage creates weak positional foundations that collapse under opponent’s defensive efforts, resulting in position loss despite apparent advancement
  • Correction: Implement deliberate pause points in positional progressions to secure control mechanisms at each stage before advancing, ensuring each position is truly consolidated before pursuing the next
• Mistake: Applying submission-first mentality in competition contexts that reward positional advancement
  • Consequence: Foregoing available positional points to chase submissions in point-scoring competitions sacrifices guaranteed advantages for uncertain finishing attempts, often resulting in strategic disadvantages even when submissions succeed
  • Correction: Adopt competition-specific strategies that prioritize accumulating positional points before attempting submissions, using point leads to create strategic advantages and reduce submission pressure
• Mistake: Misidentifying defensive situations as neutral, leading to offensive actions from inferior positions
  • Consequence: Attempting offensive techniques including submissions when actually in inferior positions diverts energy and focus from necessary defensive actions, often resulting in further positional degradation
  • Correction: Develop clear positional assessment criteria that accurately distinguish defensive situations from neutral or offensive contexts, implementing strict defensive protocols when in inferior hierarchy positions

Training Methods

Positional Sparring with Submission Restrictions (Focus: Develops positional awareness, control mechanics, and strategic patience while removing the distraction of submission hunting that often undermines positional development) Practice rounds where submission attempts are prohibited or heavily restricted, forcing practitioners to focus exclusively on positional advancement, control establishment, and hierarchical progression. Partners start from various positions and work to improve position without finishing.

Point-Based Competition Simulation (Focus: Builds competition strategy, develops understanding of how positional points compound advantages, and creates realistic scenarios where position-first strategy offers clear strategic benefits) Training rounds scored using IBJJF or other competition point systems where positional advancement earns points and positions must be held for specified durations. This creates external motivation to prioritize positions over submissions and rewards systematic advancement.

Progressive Resistance Positional Drilling (Focus: Ingrains proper positional progression sequences, develops control point establishment habits, and builds muscle memory for maintaining position under resistance) Structured drilling where one partner focuses on advancing and maintaining positions while the other provides graduated resistance from passive to competitive. Emphasis is placed on establishing control points at each stage before advancing to the next position in the hierarchy.

Submission Opportunity Recognition Training (Focus: Develops decision-making skills for recognizing when position is sufficiently established for submissions, reducing premature attempts while increasing submission success rate from proper positions) Specific training focused on identifying the precise control points and positional indicators that signal high-percentage submission opportunities versus situations requiring further positional work. Partners freeze positions to analyze submission viability based on control quality.

Position Recovery Emphasis Rounds (Focus: Builds defensive discipline, develops position recovery mechanics, and reinforces the principle that positional improvement takes priority over offensive attempts when in inferior positions) Sparring rounds starting from inferior positions where the practitioner’s goal is exclusively to recover position to neutral or superior status before considering any offensive actions. This reinforces the defensive application of position-first philosophy.

Timed Position Maintenance Challenges (Focus: Strengthens control maintenance capabilities, builds endurance in maintaining pressure and control, and develops sensitivity to opponent’s escape attempts that must be neutralized) Training exercises where practitioners must maintain dominant positions for specified durations against opponent’s escape attempts, with submission attempts prohibited during the hold period. This develops position retention skills and control mechanics independent of submission finishing.

Mastery Indicators

Beginner Level:

• Demonstrates basic understanding of positional hierarchy but frequently abandons positions to chase submissions
• Can maintain simple dominant positions like mount for short periods when opponent provides minimal resistance
• Recognizes major position categories (guard, side control, mount) but struggles to assess quality within positions
• Attempts submissions from any position without consideration of control point establishment or positional security
• Shows inconsistent prioritization between positional advancement and submission attempts

Intermediate Level:

• Consistently prioritizes advancing through positional hierarchy before attempting submissions in most scenarios
• Establishes basic control points (cross-face, hooks, grips) before submission attempts in familiar positions
• Recognizes when position quality is insufficient for high-percentage submissions and chooses alternative actions
• Maintains dominant positions under moderate resistance while exploring submission opportunities
• Uses competition point systems effectively to build advantages through positional advancement
• Demonstrates improved decision-making about when to pursue submissions versus positional transitions

Advanced Level:

• Systematically advances through positions while maintaining comprehensive control at each stage
• Accurately assesses submission opportunity quality based on specific control points established in current position
• Uses submission threats strategically to create positional advancement opportunities rather than all-or-nothing finishing attempts
• Maintains positional dominance under strong resistance while opportunistically pursuing high-percentage submissions
• Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of risk-reward calculations in position versus submission decisions
• Adapts position-first strategy based on competition context, opponent tendencies, and strategic requirements

Expert Level:

• Exhibits seamless integration of positional advancement and submission systems where each enhances the other
• Maintains dominant position control even when opponents defend submissions aggressively or explosively
• Demonstrates precise recognition of submission timing based on subtle control point and positional indicators
• Uses position-first philosophy to create compound advantages that systematically eliminate opponent’s options
• Teaches and articulates position-over-submission principles effectively to students at various skill levels
• Adapts strategic approach fluidly based on real-time assessment of positional quality, control security, and opponent responses

Related Content

• Positional Hierarchy (Principle) - Foundational framework that defines which positions are superior and should be prioritized in the position-over-submission approach
• Control Point Hierarchy (Principle) - Identifies specific control mechanisms that must be established at each position before submissions become high-percentage options
• Mount (Position) - Exemplifies a dominant position where position-over-submission philosophy supports securing high mount before attempting submissions
• Side Control (Position) - Demonstrates intermediate dominant position where control establishment precedes submission attempts or transitions to mount
• Back Control (Position) - Represents highest position in hierarchy where position-first approach emphasizes hook and grip security before choke attempts
• Defensive Position (Position) - Illustrates defensive application of concept where positional recovery takes absolute priority over offensive actions
• Match Strategy (Principle) - Broader strategic framework that incorporates position-over-submission as fundamental principle for competition success
• Risk Assessment (Principle) - Provides analytical framework for evaluating when submission attempts justify potential position loss risks
• Energy Management System (Principle) - Complements position-first approach by demonstrating energy efficiency gained through positional control versus submission chasing
• Escape Hierarchy (Principle) - Shows defensive parallel to position-over-submission where positional recovery precedes offensive considerations
• Danaher Leg Lock System (System) - Advanced systematic approach that demonstrates position-first principles applied to leg entanglement positions before finishing attacks
• Roger Gracie Fundamental System (System) - Exemplifies traditional position-over-submission philosophy through systematic positional advancement and control-based finishing

Expert Insights

• John Danaher: The position-over-submission approach represents not merely a tactical preference but a fundamental recognition of the hierarchical nature of control in grappling. Every position exists within a spectrum of control quality, and submissions attempted from positions of insufficient control carry prohibitive risks of position loss that negate accumulated advantages. The systematic practitioner understands that positional advancement creates compound control advantages where each improvement restricts opponent’s defensive options while expanding your offensive arsenal. This is not conservative strategy but rather efficient strategy—recognizing that the path to reliable finishing proceeds through positional dominance, not premature submission gambling. The position-first philosophy teaches practitioners to view each exchange as a campaign of incremental advantage accumulation rather than isolated submission opportunities, developing the strategic patience and positional sophistication that separates elite grapplers from submission hunters.
• Gordon Ryan: In competition, the position-over-submission mindset is what separates consistent winners from athletes who occasionally pull off spectacular finishes but lose matches they should dominate. Every time you chase a low-percentage submission from mediocre position, you’re gambling away guaranteed advantages for uncertain payoffs. I’ve built my competition success on systematically advancing through positions, accumulating points, and only committing to submissions when my control is so complete that failure is nearly impossible. This approach creates psychological pressure on opponents who watch their position continuously degrade while their options disappear. The position-first strategy also provides insurance—if I attempt a submission and it fails, I haven’t sacrificed position to try it, so I maintain dominance and simply transition to the next attack. Smart competitors recognize that positional points and positional dominance win matches more reliably than submission hunting, and they build their game accordingly.
• Eddie Bravo: The position-before-submission philosophy definitely has merit, especially in traditional gi competition where points and position are everything, but I think it’s important to recognize when submission opportunities justify breaking this rule. In 10th Planet, we’ve developed systems like the rubber guard and twister side control where the position and submission are integrated—you’re not really choosing one over the other because establishing the position creates the submission threat simultaneously. That said, I completely agree that trying to finish submissions from bad positions is a recipe for getting smashed, and developing positional control creates way more finishing opportunities than scrambling for submissions. The key is understanding when your system has created a position where the submission is the next logical step versus when you’re forcing something that isn’t there. Position-first thinking keeps you safe and effective, but don’t be so rigid that you miss unconventional opportunities when they present themselves.