The 3 Submissions Every Purple Belt Should Drill Before Brown — And Why 2 Of Them Aren't What You Think

Alright, HoG, let's talk about this purple belt "malaise" and the article's proposed cures. I appreciate the premise – that purple belt isn't about *more* techniques, but *deeper* understanding. That's a solid take, and the distinction between a submission as an isolated finish versus a systemic tool is important.

However, calling the mounted triangle a "pressure test" and the kimura a "positional lever" is great framing, but it sidesteps a critical point when it comes to *drilling* for purple belts. The article leans heavily on Danaher and Gordon Ryan, which is fine, but it implicitly assumes every purple belt is training under a system with that level of granularity in their curriculum. Most aren't. They're getting those moves taught in isolation precisely because their instructors, while excellent, aren't running through a ten-part DVD series on mounted triangle theory.

Here's my beef: the article suggests that purple belts are *misdiagnosing* their problems with these techniques. I'd argue it's the *curriculum itself* that often sets them up for this "malaise." When you're taught the mounted triangle as a discrete finish, and not as the culmination of 80% positional breakdown, how is a purple belt supposed to intuit the latter? It's like teaching someone to cook a soufflé by just showing them how to put it in the oven, then wondering why their soufflés collapse. The problem isn't their *understanding* of the oven; it's the missing information about egg whites, folding, and temperature control.

And the kimura as a "positional lever"? Absolutely. But again, where are purple belts consistently getting that specific, detailed instruction outside of a very specific pedagogical lineage? My money says most purple belts are still being taught the kimura as a *submission first*, and maybe a sweep *second*, if their instructor is really on it. The idea that you should be using it to proactively chain to the back or even leg entanglements is a high-level concept. It's not something you just "drill deeper" into; it's a paradigm shift in how you view the grip, and that usually requires explicit, systematic instruction.

So, while I agree with the spirit of the article – that purple belts need depth over breadth – I think the problem isn't that they're under-drilling the *right things*, it's that they're often not being taught the *right things* to drill in the first place, or perhaps more accurately, the *context* in which to drill them. This isn't a purple belt failing; it's a curriculum design challenge.

What do you all think? Are purple belts expected to just *figure out* these deeper connections, or should instructors be more explicit about teaching submissions as parts of larger systems?

This emphasis on the mounted triangle as a *diagnostic* tool for pressure and breaking posture is a good point, but it's not entirely new. Rolls Gracie, from what I've read and seen in old footage, really valued understanding how to use mount to dismantle an opponent's structure *before* the finish. He was all about the setup, not just the submission itself. I think a lot of the '90s Carlson Gracie guys also focused on creating that complete positional breakdown from mount, whether it was for a cross-collar choke or an armbar. The submission was the *result* of overwhelming pressure and control, not the primary goal from the start. It reminds me of the old adage about taking what they give you, but first, you have to force them to give something.

The mounted triangle discussion is interesting, and the article points out something GB fundamentals doesn't really touch on. We learn the basic triangle from guard in week 3 of the fundamentals program, but the mounted triangle isn't in our curriculum until the advanced classes. Even then, the focus is mostly on the mechanics of getting the arm and throwing the leg over, not really on breaking the opponent's posture and frames *before* the setup. I get what HoG Drama Desk is saying about depth, but the mounted triangle really highlights how some techniques are taught more as finishes than as part of a bigger system. We're shown the 'what,' but not always the 'why' behind the pressure needed to make it work against someone who knows what's coming.

I’m a blue belt so I'm not really looking at purple belt specific stuff yet, but I found the point about breaking down posture before committing to the mounted triangle super interesting. We did a sequence last Tuesday where our coach had us working on using knee-on-belly to force a reaction, then switching to S-mount for the arm triangle. It sounds like a similar idea of breaking down their defense and frames first.

My biggest issue with mounted triangles when I go for them is almost always them just bench-pressing my leg off and then getting to half-guard. I wonder if focusing on those smaller details the article brings up, like taking away frames, would help me even at my level with just getting to a stronger S-mount. Eli, the idea of Rolls Gracie teaching something similar definitely backs up the idea that these principles are timeless.