I find these studies interesting for a couple of reasons.

Defensively, the statistics show the kinds of things we should be training to defend (e.g., arm bar, triangle, RNC, bow and arrow choke, etc.). If you are preparing athletes for competition, they need to know what to watch out for.

Offensively, it gives us a good idea of the kinds of techniques that we should potentially prioritize during training, particularly at the lower belt levels. It’s easy for white belts to succumb to analysis paralysis, so having a list of submissions that are high percentage can give a white belt a good idea of what to work on in each position to become functional as quickly as possible. Upper belts should work whatever works for them.

That said, my favorite submission is the triangle choke, which is #2 on the list. I saw a similar list of judo throws a few years ago that listed seoi nage as #1 (which I never do), uchi mata as #2 (my second favorite throw), and o soto gari as #3 (my favorite throw). I was pleased to see some of my favorites so highly ranked, but it didn’t change my personal game. I train what works for me (and my admittedly goofy body type).

I find it useful to know what is "in vogue" at the present, but it changes dramatically over time, although some techniques consistently rank quite highly. It's good to teach / learn those consistent winning techniques, but it's also important to teach / learn techniques that are less popular, both so you aren't surprised by them and also they may turn out to be extremely good for your body type or particular style. Also the techniques which may be the most consistent winners at high level competition aren't necessarily the best techniques for recreational sport or for an older practitioner.

I just spam wrist locks and hope to catch somebody being lazy.

It's like playing Cinder in Killer Instinct.

I'd be interested to see each submission success rate.

RNC (and bow&arrow in gi) is an odd one out because it can be only done from back position and it is highly likely that anyone who is ABLE to get the back position is way more likely to be better in many areas than their opponent ergo likely to be able to submit them anyway but since positional hierarchy makes them strive towards back first then they go there and once they arrive there are likely to succeed with least risky subs.

I don't this is true.

There was a study some time ago about all the points scored across all the black belt finals in a major IBJJF event (all weight classes and both genres). The majority of the points scored by far was via sweeps. Second from back control. I think there was only one (1) case of passing points and one case of mount points awarded across all the finals, and those were from the same match.

Which indicates that in the modern jiujitsu game at the highest level (at least in the IBJJF), a lot of competitors pull guard rather than attempt takedowns, and people tend to get directly to the back from guard rather than sweep & pass. Also passing is fucking difficult and likely passing attempts will result into the passée turning away and enabling a back attack, rather than them giving out the passing points.

(Data is interesting.)

That site is awesome! Thank you for sharing this with us!

It's interesting to compare these data from BJJ tournaments with similar studies of MMA. BJJ Heroes posted this article about UFC submissions in 2018: https://www.bjjheroes.com[...]mbers-2018. The RNC is the undisputed champion, followed by the guillotine and arm triangle (according to the pie chart about midway through the article). When strikes are involved, getting to the back is even more of a priority (not to mention having strong takedowns and a solid top game).

I love when I can find any sort of quantitive or qualitative data on the efficacy of BJJ. I really look at that and ask myself the hard questions before I train and coach.

I think it is :) And it doesn't contradict what you said.

Don't forget at high level you get the back because opponent does not want to give up passing points.

Also if you're able to get to back straight from guard - you still are likely better than your opponent.

I guess my point was that at the high level, back takes happen frequently even when the athletes are relatively evenly matched (e.g. both made it to the final) and likely these athletes are way better at subbing from the back than defending it. (In fact, it amazes me how sometimes it looks like the person who gets their back taken just kinda gives up the choke without defending it much...) Passing to side control or to mount displays more dominance at this level, as there many tricky pathways to the back.

But the athlete who can take the back in a match, is highly likely able to also finish from there, yes. Although in my personal opinion that's because the general level of back defence is worse than the level of attacking from there.

Lol this is also very curious to me - I think often times the sub comes not so much from technical superiority as much as the person getting choked has had their spirit broken. It's not that they are too tired, or don't know what to do. But they're frustrated and butthurt at having given up the back take. So ultimately they failed to remain emotionless and stay within the present moment. That's what gets them subbed.

When I'm rolling the best I feel the same thing - there are plenty of times where it has nothing to do with technique or cardio, but when things went poorly for me - I gave up the pass, bad position, etc, and sometimes it's a mistake on my part and sometimes it's just a great move by the other person; but if I just stay in the moment and don't worry about anything except addressing the real, current problem, my rolls go way better. And it works both ways - you can't get too excited about something going well anymore than you can get too frustrated about something not going well. Have to just remain chill and keep working the problem, even as that problem can change multiple times in the same second.

Over finish rate would be good.