What actually counts as “fundamentals” in BJJ?
We’re starting a beginners course at our gym, which is something I’ve avoided previously.
My view has always been that an instructor should be able to scale things down to the level of a 5-year-old if needed, adapt to the room in front of them, and make beginners feel welcome in regular classes. That’s generally been our approach, aside from discouraging true beginners from jumping straight into things like competition class, where the nature of the session just isn’t especially beginner-friendly.
That said, I keep coming back to the same question:
What actually are “fundamentals” in BJJ?
A lot of beginner programmes still seem to mean, “Here are some basic moves”...armbar from guard, scissor sweep, hip bump, americana, and so on. Useful techniques, obviously. But are they really the best things to show absolute beginners first? I’m not convinced.
I think back to when I started: getting crushed under side control, feeling claustrophobic, and having absolutely no ability to apply any technique I’d been shown. In that situation, what would have helped me more wasn’t another named move. It was learning how to stay calm, build proper frames, organise my body, and understand what safe structure actually feels like under pressure.
That’s where my thinking has shifted. I’m starting to believe that fundamentals are less about memorising classic techniques and more about becoming familiar with the live feel of grappling another human being; grips, off-balances, pressure, posture, frames, weight, and the constant little exchanges that make jiu jitsu what it is.
The ecological approach has obviously pushed a lot of this conversation forward, with more coaches using scalable, task-based games. I think that can be incredibly useful for complete beginners, because it gives them a narrow objective, limited variables, and less verbal clutter to hold onto while they’re stressed.
But that raises another question: how do you manage expectations?
Some people come in expecting to be taught jiu jitsu, and may leave feeling like they’ve just had a supervised fight with very little direct instruction.
So I’m curious how others define fundamentals, and what they think is the best approach for true beginners.
Are fundamentals:
classic named techniques?
positions and positional understanding?
concepts like posture, frames, pressure, and balance?
or simply the ability to stay safe, stay organised, and gradually control another person?
2 Comments
Naming techniques is communication and it would be helpful if gym members would understand every instructor. So saying lets do knee cut pass gives a general idea on what is going to happen.
I know that eco-people do not like the idea of mixing eco approach with information based teaching. I don't care about what you call your teaching method. I use everything that feels suitable for a situation. I call my approach often short situational sparring or CLA sparring or games.
Jason listed what he looks in rolling - a very short list. Maybe it is the fundamentals? For me one set of fundamentals are base, posture, frames (Alignment), levers, connection and force vectors - distance and timing. Some kind of fundamental goal is to get a grip, unbalance, close distance, stabilize, isolate a limb/neck and submit. This just playes differently in various positions and most common positions has to be introduced some how.
But one has to some how teach the same way as others - well, I don't but I say that we are just playing games and problem solving situations where students need answers :-)
I completely agree with where your thinking has shifted. That feeling of being crushed under side control, unable to move, is exactly why just throwing a list of "basic moves" at a white belt often fails. The moves simply don't work if the underlying structure isn't there.
I train at an SBG school, and our philosophy looks at this through a very specific lens. Matt Thornton sums it up perfectly:
"When we use the word 'fundamentals' in SBG, we don't mean the most 'basic'—we mean the most 'important'."
So, to answer your question—are fundamentals techniques, positions, or concepts? I’d argue they are the universal concepts (Base, Posture, Connection, Pressure), but we use "beginner moves" as the vehicle to teach them.
A cross-collar choke, a scissor sweep, or an upa escape are great for complete beginners not because they are easy, but because they demonstrate these essential truths very clearly. You can’t do a proper upa without base and connection.
But those techniques aren't just a starting point you eventually leave behind. Look at Roger Gracie. He didn't use a different, secret set of "advanced" techniques to submit world-class black belts. He just had a much higher-resolution understanding of those exact same fundamentals. He was playing the same game, but his connection, weight distribution, and posture were so obsessively refined that knowing the cross-collar was coming didn't matter. The deeper level of efficiency is the advanced jiu jitsu.
Regarding the ecological approach and managing expectations: I think you hit the nail on the head. If you just throw people into task-based games without framing why, they might feel like they're just having a supervised wrestling match. But if you give them a classic "basic" technique as a framework, and then use those games to help them actually feel the base or connection required to make that move work, you bridge the gap. They get the structured "jiu jitsu instruction" they expected, but they actually absorb the live feel you know they need to survive.
Fundamentals aren't the bottom step of a ladder you climb away from; they are the foundation of the entire house.