These Dirty Submissions Will Make Everyone Fear Grabbing You

The prevalence of "dirty submissions" or techniques perceived as outside the conventional competitive framework often leads to discussions about the ethical boundaries of grappling, a conversation that has existed for as long as codified rulesets have been in place. This discussion, as sparked by the Chewjitsu video, frequently touches upon the evolution of what is considered permissible, particularly within the context of jiu-jitsu.

One illustrative example of this evolution, and a point of contention regarding what constitutes a "dirty" or "low-percentage" submission, can be traced back to the early 2010s with the widespread adoption of the lapel guard. While not a submission itself, the lapel guard system, popularized notably by competitors like Keenan Cornelius, fundamentally altered grip fighting and positional control, often leading to deep entanglement and submissions that were initially unfamiliar to many practitioners and referees. Techniques such as the worm guard, which involves threading the lapel under the opponent's leg and around their back, were, by some reputation, considered "gimmicky" or "stalling" upon their introduction. The perceived "dirty" aspect often stemmed from the unusual leverage it created and the difficulty opponents initially had in understanding how to counter it, rather than any inherent danger in the technique itself. This mirrors, to a degree, the reception of certain modern leg attacks when they first began to proliferate outside of specific no-gi circles.

The introduction of these lapel-based systems created a period of significant rule adjustments and interpretations within organizations like the IBJJF, as referees and competitors alike grappled with how to assess points and advantages for these novel positions. The initial discomfort with techniques that broke from established norms highlights a recurring pattern in grappling history: innovation is often met with resistance, sometimes categorized as "dirty" or "unconventional," until it is either integrated into the mainstream or explicitly legislated against. This process reveals more about the dynamic nature of grappling rulesets and the ongoing negotiation between tradition and innovation than it does about any inherent ethical failing of the techniques themselves. The debate around "dirty submissions" is, in many ways, a continuation of this historical pattern, a discussion not just about technique, but about the very definition of the game itself.

The idea of a "dirty submission" has a historical precedent that extends back to the very early days of judo, specifically with the banning of certain techniques by the Kodokan in 1900, a move that fundamentally shaped what was considered legitimate grappling within that system. Jigoro Kano, the founder of judo, formally prohibited *ashi garami* (leg entanglement/reaping), *do jime* (body squeeze/strangle), and neck cranks (*kubi shime* variants that were deemed too dangerous or lacking proper control), among others. This decision was not merely about safety; it was also about refining judo into a system that emphasized specific principles of control and efficiency while simultaneously aspiring to be a globally accepted sport, which necessitated a certain level of standardization and perceived safety.

The prohibition of techniques like *ashi garami* is particularly relevant to contemporary discussions about leg locks, as the early judo curriculum included many joint locks and chokes, but it drew a distinct line at certain lower-body attacks. This historical exclusion, predating even Mitsuyo Maeda's arrival in Brazil in 1914, meant that *judo* as taught and propagated by the Kodokan had already pruned certain techniques that might today be categorized as "dirty" or "outside the mainstream" in some contexts. Maeda, of course, was a Kodokan judoka, and while his teachings in Brazil evolved into what would become Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, the foundational concepts of what constituted a "legitimate" technique were often inherited or reacted against.

The perception of a "dirty submission" is, therefore, often a reflection of a ruleset's specific prohibitions rather than an inherent quality of the technique itself. As the HoG Historian noted, this is a conversation that is as old as codified rulesets. For instance, the heel hook, now a staple of no-gi competition and increasingly prevalent at brown and black belt levels in certain federations, was historically viewed with significant apprehension due to its potential for rapid and severe injury. Its slow integration into mainstream competition, such as its inclusion in IBJJF no-gi events for brown and black belts relatively recently, signifies a shift in what is considered acceptable, driven by a combination of athlete demand, evolving safety protocols, and a broader understanding of its application and defense. The term "dirty," in this historical context, seems to be a label applied to techniques that either fall outside a prevailing competitive meta or carry a higher perceived risk profile, often before the community develops widespread familiarity and defensive strategies. What constitutes "dirty" is therefore less a static category and more a dynamic boundary drawn by evolving rule sets and collective perception.

The "dirty submission" concept isn't just about ethics or codified rules, as Mat Historian mentions. It's often about techniques that fall out of favor, then get rediscovered. People forget that things like heel hooks were a staple in the early days of vale tudo, especially in Brazil before the Gracies refined their specific ruleset. Rolls Gracie was known for incorporating a much wider range of submissions than some of his contemporaries. I think it was more about what was effective in a real fight, rather than what was strictly "dirty." Carlson Gracie's lineage also famously embraced a more aggressive, less restrictive approach, which would certainly include techniques some today label as "dirty." It’s a cyclical thing.

Chewjitsu probably covers a lot of the less common chokes and joint locks that get called "dirty" just because they’re not practiced as often, or maybe they involve a lot of finger-grabbing. What strikes me is how many BJJ "dirty" techniques are just old judo techniques that were de-emphasized or outlawed after 1900. I remember learning a wristlock that’s essentially kote-garami, but it was always taught as a self-defense move, not for randori. It maps to what Eli mentioned about rediscovery. There's a big gap between knowing a move and being able to apply it on a resisting opponent, and after 20 years in judo, I still find myself starting from scratch in BJJ sometimes. Just because I know *kosoto gake* doesn't mean my BJJ *kuzushi* is there for the entry.

The idea of a "dirty" submission is just something hobbyists invented because they don't want to drill the actual defense. My coach always says if you don't want to get wrist-locked, don't leave your wrist exposed. It's not rocket science. We spend a good 30 minutes every day just drilling defensive sequences for things like wrist locks, reverse omoplatas, and even that crucifix choke that Matheus Diniz hit at ADCC 2019. If you're only rolling light or just doing positional drilling from mount, then yeah, anything outside the typical armbar/triangle setup is going to feel "dirty." Just drill more. It's not the technique's fault.