Analysis of Guard Passing // IBJJF Europeans 2025

Side Note: Take this analysis with a grain of salt. This study comprises data from about 5-6 matches per Black Belt adult male division (Rooster, Light Feather, Feather, Light, Middle, and Super Heavy), so be mindful that this represents a limited sample size. Matches selected for analysis were from the quarterfinal stage onward- however, in cases where there was an absence of guard passing, substitutions from the pervious elimination rounds were necessary.

It is the primary objective of this analysis to start collecting data from major tournaments in order to improve the sample size for future studies. The trends observed in this study should not be generalized to reflect broader jiujitsu patterns beyond the context of this specific tournament.

Given the small sample size, the data is inherently skewed towards the top performers in each division—athletes who maintained dominance for extended periods and demonstrated specific preferences in their passing styles.

Despite these limitations, establishing a foundation for data-driven insights is a necessary first step. Our goal is to develop a more comprehensive and accurate representation of evolving trends within the jiujitsu community as we collect additional data.

Objectives: The objective of this analysis is to identify potential patterns and trends in guard passing techniques, both within and across weight classes. To achieve this, we examined the frequency with which various “bases” are used in competition. It is important to note that this analysis focuses on the variability and frequency of base usage, rather than the duration in which these positions are sustained.

The rationale behind this approach is that the variation and frequency of bases, and the transitions between them, can provide insight into the demands placed on passers when they are confronted with high-output, aggressive guard players. Additionally, this may offer a better understanding of the types of guards that passers are confronted with in specific weight classes, compared to others.

Preliminary observations suggest that additional data may be required to draw more precise conclusions. For instance, members of the Melqui Galvão team, specifically Diogo Reis and Yuri Hendrex, exhibited a preference for the tripod and combat bases. They utilized the tripod base to better utilize hand pummeling (i.e., out of lassos) and then relied on the combat base to stabilize themselves during turbulent situations. The tripod base also positioned the passer in such a way where the guard player had to exert more effort to maintain their defensive structure.

It is worth noting that, as these athletes train together, the observed trends may reflect the practices and strategies that are prevalent in their specific training environments- rather than broader trends within their respective weight classes. Nevertheless, the data gathered can be valuable for training purposes and can be used to influence practice design and instructional approaches.

Base frequency data was collected and then averaged for each weight class.

Definition of Base:

A base is defined as the stance or posture a top player assumes when confronted with a guard. For a base to be counted in this study, two aspects of the criteria had to be met: the top player needed established connections (e.g., confronting a seated guard with no connections would not qualify as a base), and the guard player would need to be in possession of a definable guard (in other words, positions in which the guard player is seen barely hanging onto hooks and frames were excluded).

It is important to highlight that the bases analyzed are static positions. Situations where the top player was actively passing or maintaining balance against sweeps were also not included. Additionally, closed guard was excluded from this study under the assumption that most closed guard passing strategies follow a predictable progression from kneeling to standing, so in an effort to remove redundancy, we did not include it.

By using this definition, we can maintain a more consistent and focused analysis of how passers navigate guard situations across different weight classes.

Discussion: The analysis provided us with distinct patterns in the use of various bases across weight classes. Combat Base was most prevalent in the Rooster and Light Feather divisions, with the highest frequency observed in Rooster. Its usage was shown to decrease as we move up the weight classes, being least favored by Super Heavy competitors. Squat Base was evenly distributed across all divisions, with slight peaks in the Feather and Middle weight classes, suggesting its versatility across weight classes. Neutral Stance was mostly favored by Middle weight competitors, potentially indicating a preference for upright, balanced positions in the heavier divisions.

In contrast, lighter divisions, such as Light-feather and Feather, showed less frequent use of the neutral base. Deadlift Stance was shown to be the least utilized position across all weight classes. Tripod Base was observed to be most prevalent in the Rooster division, where it was used significantly more than any other base. While it was moderately used in other lighter divisions, its prevalence dropped markedly in the Super-Heavy weight class. Kneeling Position was sparsely used overall, with modest frequencies observed in the Feather and Super Heavy divisions.

These findings suggest that base preferences are influenced by both the weight class and the strategic tendencies of top competitors within those classes. However, given the limited sample size, further data collection is necessary to validate these trends and broaden the scope of the analysis.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Super Heavyweight Control Group: The use of the Super Heavyweight division as a control group presents both advantages and limitations. On the positive side, Super Heavyweights oftentimes demonstrate a more methodical, pressure-based game with less emphasis on speed and agility when compared to the lighter divisions. This can help provide a juxtaposition for analyzing variations in passing styles and usage of certain bases across weight classes. Lastly, because the heavier divisions rely on fewer techniques due to the physical demands of their weight class- this might reduce variability. As a result, this could offer a stable baseline for comparison.

Alternatively, its important to keep in mind that the heavier weight classes’ emphasis on strength and pressure could skew the baseline, making it less representative of divisions where speed, flexibility, and dynamic transitions are more prevalent. Furthermore, the smaller pool of competitors in the heavier divisions may limit the robustness of the control group, potentially affecting the overall reliability of comparisons. In conclusion, while using Super Heavyweight as a control group can provide valuable insights, it is essential to acknowledge the differences of this division when making analytical judgments.