So your differentiation between a "straight ankle lock" and an "achilles lock" is the angle that the should is at?
Honestly, there's no difference between the two moves, man. I call it an achilles lock because, well, it stresses the achilles tendon, and it doesn't actually put any stress on the ankle (that would be the joint).
Either way, with the "straight ankle lock" and the "achilles lock," there is no risk of permanent damage because it is a static, leverage-less, pain based submission. A point that you have not contradicted and the one that is really the point.
I don't care about the differentiation you are making between a "straight ankle lock" and an "achilles lock" because, as far as I'm concerned, their the same move at slightly different angles.
The question was of whether there is permanent damage from a technique that stresses the achilles tendon in the way that the achilles lock does, and the answer seems to be no.
If you want to argue that point, go ahead, but otherwise we're off topic.
You're missing the point here.
The point is that you cannot stress the muscles in the leg in a way that would cause long term damage without hooking the heel because you can't apply leverage.
You're implying that you can apply leverage to the top of the foot while keeping your arm above the heel, and you can believe that if you want to, but really all that you are doing is changing the angle that you are applying the achilles lock at. It doesn't change the point of strain in the lock at all and doesn't put any of the bones or muscles at risk.
It's a pain based lock, and that was the point that was being made. There are entire schools of thought that believe a fighter should never tap to that lock.
Again, you're confused as where to the leverage is when you are finishing this submission.
There is some mild strain in the top of the foot, but the purpose of the leverage change is the put more force on the achilles tendon by adjusting the angle that you squeeze it with your forearm bone.
Maybe you learned it differently. That doesn't mean you learned it right, man. I know armbars where you don't trap the head. They work some of the time, but I would hardly call them "right" or "substantial."
No, it's not.
The submission bases in JJJ range in everything from the small joint manipulations that appear in forms like Hapkido, Small Circle JJ and Aikido to some of the large joint manipulations that appear in judo. (the kimura appears, even rudimentary versions of the armbar show up at blackbelt levels in judo)
You can say that Japanese Jujitsu is the base for BJJ all you want, but, again, that's not an accurate representation of the connection between the two.
BJJ is a totally different system with joint locks that don't exist in JJJ, and JJJ is a system that has entire parts of its style (even beyond the tons of stuff that I mentioned already, so that we're just looking at the submissions) that aren't in BJJ.
There are no wristlocks in BJJ, but there are tons in JJJ.
There is twister in JJJ, but it's a common move in more advanced BJJ circles.
There are tons of moves and positions in BJJ I could name that have no relation to JJJ, at least as far as I'm aware, but I'll throw out the short list and see if you can find a connection. If you can, I'd love to see it.
Let's start with the positions:
Here's some submissions:
There is plenty in JJJ that was thrown out. There's also plenty in BJJ that's totally different.
bjj technically doesn't really exist. gracie juijitsu is the base form everyones referring to.
the art came directly from one of jigaro kano's students, and judo. the kimora match is just an event that happened.
all of those martial arts from from different samurai arts. samurai were a class and its members were born into it and forced to learn the martial art of their group. (we still wear gi's which are actually kimo's and thats what you wear under samurai armor, or even just around at the time) martial arts get their name from their masters, the gracies started the popular form of juijitsu, so its called gracie juijitsu, but then the break offs would need to have their juijitsu named after them...bravo juijitsu, machado jiujitsu etc.
jigaro kano learned several forms of different familys jiujitsu and combined them to form judo and create a sport.
but for the most part no one does any of the 3 arts purely anymore. im a submission wrestler a lot of my moves from from brazilian jiujitsu, but i also do wrist locks for standing control to get take downs, now is that greco roman, or JJJ, or is it all the grappling sports slowly watering into one form of grappling?