Stephano Salani

I.  Introduction

Negotiations and dispute resolution require quick thinking and strategic reactions to developing situations, dynamic relationships, and power shifting.  The mindset of a negotiator in such a dynamically evolving situation has been frequently defined in a binary manner.  A negotiator may be considered to take either a competitive/distributive approach or be considered to take a collaborative/integrative approach.[1]  Scholars have suggested that the determination of which approach to take should be governed by the relationship of the parties, the nature of the negotiation, or the personality of the negotiator.[2]  Thus, such suggestions appear to conclude that an effective negotiator should come to the table with either a distributive or an integrative bargaining mindset depending on predetermined factors of the negotiation and relationship of the parties negotiating.

However, negotiation is seldom static.  On the contrary, negotiation is commonly in flux with respect to changing circumstances, relations between the parties, timing, etc.  Peter Adler analogizes negotiation to jazz as being various, contextual, situational, and performance oriented.  In his analogy, Adler states:

“It tends to be what you actually do that counts. It is less about what you feel, think, or profess.  Negotiation like jazz, builds on paradoxes.  It is usually someone’s burden as an agent or leader, but it often requires teamwork either at the table or behind it.  In negotiation, as in jazz, there is a structure, but there is also spontaneity and ad-libbing.  There are beginnings, middles, and ends; themes and variations; dynamic ranges and the testing of thresholds and tolerances.  There are discussions and actions that may be harmonic or dissonant, moments of great virtuosity, and the inevitable ups and downs of good, bad, magnificent and horrible days.”[3]

Although Adler’s analogy of negotiation to jazz is accurate with respect to the situational and performance-oriented nature of negotiation, jazz is generally much more collaborative than negotiation usually is.  Negotiation is generally adversarial at a fundamental basis.  Even when parties come together to negotiate a ‘win-win’ result, the problems to be solved in such a negotiation emanate from the dissonance between the interests of each party.  Without such dissonance, there would not be any negotiation in the first place; there would only be ‘agreement’.  Musicians in a jazz ensemble, on the other hand, fundamentally collaborate to facilitate each other’s musicianship and maximize audience pleasure.  As such, this jazz analogy falls short of describing the tension between the parties’ interests in a negotiation.

Due to the adversarial tension between parties, an arguably better suited analogy is that of the fluidity of negotiation to the dynamics of hand-to-hand combat as taught by the legendary samurai of feudal Japan.  As will be further described in this paper, samurai were trained in various forms of combat and were required to adapt to the changing circumstances of battle to effectively use each form of combat.  Because of the multi-faceted and fluid nature of party position, it is apparent that a well-prepared negotiation mindset should be adept at interweaving the integrative and distributive approaches so as to fluidly interchange between each approach with newly gathered information and changing circumstances.  Conveniently, the strategies underpinning martial arts used by the samurai can be compared to the strategical mindset of negotiators using structured integrative and distributive approaches thereby allowing for a visualized assessment of how these approaches may be interwoven.

II. The Samurai

Before making any seemingly outlandish comparisons of negotiation to combat techniques of ancient Japanese warriors, it is helpful to briefly review history and some of the fundamental teachings of the samurai culture.  The samurai were privileged aristocrats and members of a warrior class that were considered part of Japanese nobility.[4]  In addition to an ethical code known as bushidō and various fine arts, the samurai were trained in a variety of combative arts ranging from large-scale military strategy to the martial arts that form individual hand-to-hand combat.

The vast array of martial arts practised by samurai were very situation specific.  Naginatajutsu focuses on techniques of using a naginata, a polearm having a blade affixed to the end.[5]  Kyūdō is focused on archery, while kenjutsu martial arts, such as kendo and iaido, focus on swordsmanship.[6]  It was not until a samurai was unarmed that he had to rely solely on unarmed combat techniques. Depending on the situational factors such as relative size and weight of the opponent, whether the opponent was armed, the amount of space available to move around in, and distance from the opponent, the samurai had to quickly decide on whether to use striking techniques taught in karate or grappling techniques taught in jujitsu.

Similar to how a negotiator should have a multitude of techniques and tactics to overcome power imbalances, dissonant relationships or perceived vulnerabilities, a samurai was trained to have techniques for using every tool at their disposal for overcoming an opponent.  Studying how a samurai interweaved differing martial arts sheds light on how a negotiator may interweave bargaining approaches.

III. Analogous Negotiation Schools of Thought

Approaches to negotiation have been generally categorised into two types: distributive and integrative.[7]  Each approach has its inherent benefits and detriments, and each approach is most appropriate at certain instances during a negotiation.  Understanding when each approach is best utilised requires an understanding of the approaches themselves as well as the foundational mindset behind each approach.

A. Karate and the Distributive Approach

The distributive approach is mainly focused on “gaining ground” on an opponent.  Distributive bargaining results in compromise agreements whereby the value discrepancy between one parties’ position and another parties’ position is the central theme of the negotiation.  As such, the goal of distributive bargaining is very linear, very one-dimensional: attaining as much ground as possible from your opponent, or simply put- ‘value claiming.’[8]

Due to its confrontational nature, the distributive approach can be analogised to Karate.  Karate literally means “empty hand” in Japanese language and is mainly focused on striking and blocking techniques with one’s hands, arms, and legs.[9]  Correct stance and form are essential in karate as techniques are formed to optimize one’s own strength in delivering a blow to the opponent while avoiding attacks from the opponent.[10]  For example, the correct rotation of the hip will multiply the strength of a kick and the correct rotation of the fist will multiply the strength of the punch.  As such, karate effectively maximizes one’s opportunity to make a strike as well as one’s strength in the strike.

B. Distributive Mindset

Although the value of multiple factors may be negotiated (e.g., more money vs less money, more time vs less time, more risk vs less risk, etc.), distributive bargaining focuses the negotiation on each factor.  For example, a negotiation using the distributive bargaining approach may trade an increase in risk for one party with an increase in money saved or earned for that same party.  As a helpful visualization, Batra explains that:

“By focusing on the capture of value, distributive bargainers are said to be working with a ‘fixed pie’ where each ‘slice’ that goes to the other side is a ‘slice’ that does not go to themselves.  Success in this approach consists of influencing the other party to agree to a deal that allows your side to get as much as possible, with little to no regard for the value captured by the other side.”[11]

As such, the distributive bargaining mindset does not concern itself with the other side’s loss of the ‘slice’ because it is merely concerned with the gain of the ‘slice’ by their own side.  Also, because the attainment of a ‘slice’ by one side is considered a loss of the ‘slice’ by the opposite side, this approach is considered a “win-lose” approach.[12]  Similar to how one’s focus in karate is on maximizing effectiveness of their own strike, distributive bargainers place emphasis on their relative position, with respect to both viewpoint and power, to that of the opponent’s.

C. Distributive Preparation

Research on the interests of the opponent is performed with an emphasis on their weaknesses.  One’s ability to leverage more value in a bargain is based on their positional strength with respect to that of their opponent’s.  Thus, understanding the opponent’s interests is relevant to understanding advantages that one’s party has over the opponent party.  Even if more than one item is being negotiated, one’s bargaining approach is distributive if their focus is solely on maximizing the value claimed in each item being negotiated or if their strategy is merely to maximize on the total value claimed across all the negotiated items.

In negotiation, information is always valuable.  However, how each approach handles information is quite different.  Under the distributive bargaining approach, information of one’s own side is well-guarded as one’s shared information, such as attitudes toward settlement or preferences, can be exploited by the other side.  For example, a distributive bargainer may mask their preferences by pretending that certain concessions were made “at a great cost” to extract greater concessions on a preferred negotiated factor.  In addition, a distributive bargainer may use gathered information about the other side’s preferences to gain concessions from them knowing that those concessions will be easier to attain without having to compromise much in return.  To avoid being taken advantage of in a similar manner, a distributive bargainer will often choose to hide information or give misleading information that relates to their preferential outcomes of the negotiation or positional deficits.[13]

D. Distributive Performance

Techniques that are associated with distributive bargaining include making extreme claims and following with small, slow concessions, asking the other side to make a unilateral concession on an offer they have made earlier, making take-it-or-leave-it offers followed by threats to walk away from the negotiation.  In certain egregious cases, communication by one using the distributive bargaining approach may be made to inflame the other side to belittle the other parties’ best alternatives to a negotiated agreement (BATNAs), or to make threats regarding consequences if demands are not met.[14]  Although hard distributive bargaining can include dishonest and seemingly hostile tactics such as puffing, using time pressure, or brazen power moves, distributive bargaining may also include more subtle, less hostile tactics such as manipulation of contextual factors such as the day, time and location of their negotiations, beginning at a negotiation point determined to be an end point of a rational party and not altering from that position, or making false demands to feign that they are giving up valued items in the negotiation and thereby deserve an equal concession from the other side on an actually valued item.[15]

Due to the various aggressive techniques used in the distributive bargaining approach, maintaining a positive working relationship with the other side is not prioritized.  Overly hostile and dishonest maneuvers by a distributive bargainer may sour a relationship between the parties at the table or end a relationship after the bargain is fulfilled.  As such, the distributive bargaining approach is best used in situations where a continuing or repeated working relationship is unlikely, or when a substantial power imbalance exists to the distributive bargainer’s benefit.

E. Jujitsu and the Integrative Approach

The integrative approach is mainly concerned with problem-solving to come to a negotiated solution that benefits both parties in a symbiotic way.  The integrative approach may be considered less linear than distributive bargaining approach and is known as ‘value creating’ due to its shifted focus with respect to value in negotiation.[16]

Integrative bargaining can be compared to jujitsu, which literally means “the soft/yielding technique” in Japanese language and is mainly focused on grappling techniques including throwing, trapping, takedowns, joint locks, etc.  Correct stance and form are also essential in jujutsu, but unlike karate, jujitsu form is designed with emphasis on using the opponent’s own force against themselves instead of maximizing one’s own striking force.[17]  For example, the correct jujitsu form will enable one to transfer their opponent’s momentum in their attack to a submissive position without much strength by the user.  By understanding the opponent’s force and momentum, a smaller, lighter person can place a larger and stronger opponent in a submissive position.

F. Integrative Mindset

Because integrative bargaining is founded upon creating value, the integrative bargaining approach is centered on maximizing the overall value that can be created by the collaboration of the two parties regarding the negotiated items.  Using the same pie analogy as made earlier, Batra distinguishes integrative bargaining by explaining that:

“…integrative bargainers are said to be ‘expanding the pie,’ that is, increasing the amount of value that can be divided between the negotiating parties… Negotiators using this approach prioritize finding joint gains based on value creating trades that satisfy the interests of both parties, rather than just their own.”[18]

To assess the effectiveness of integrative bargaining, the value created during negotiation is compared to the position of the parties where there would be a lack of agreement and resorting to the parties’ BATNAs.  As such, the integrative bargaining approach is referred to as a “win-win” approach, where both sides “win” or are better off than their alternative opportunities would make them.[19]

G. Integrative Preparation

In order to make value-creating trades, the integrative bargaining approach focuses on both parties’ interests to determine what trades may simultaneously further those interests.  Similar to how one’s focus in jujitsu is on the opponent’s directional momentum, the integrative bargainer places significant emphasis on the interests underpinning the other party’s position.  As such, integrative bargainers are more likely to share information with the other side with the hope that the other side will reciprocate and value-creating trade opportunities that further both parties’ interests may be more clearly identified.  The integrative bargaining approach is considered “investigative” as integrative bargainers tend to be inquisitive about information from the other side regarding interests, preferences, and values, to facilitate the creation of options that meet both parties’ needs and are likely to be agreed to.[20]

H. Integrative Performance

The joint gains of the parties in negotiation are made possible by leveraging differences between the parties in terms of their relative valuations, resources, risk preferences, time preferences, etc.  Understanding the interests of both parties and the respective reasons for those interests facilitates devising a proposal whereby the interests of each party are mutually fulfilled without much or any value lost by the opposite party.  Under the integrative approach, value in a negotiation can also be created by maximizing shared similarities through economies of scale, increased scope, and/or by reducing transaction costs of the negotiation.

Techniques used by integrative bargainers include not only understanding one’s own interests and prioritisation of those interests, but also understanding and prioritizing the possible interests of the other side so that mutually beneficial offers can be effectively determined.  The integrative approach requires that both sides of the negotiation maintain a welcoming and cooperative tone in order to foster an environment where both parties can work together as joint problem solvers on the shared problem before them: sufficiently fulfilling both parties’ interests.  Because the parties should work together as joint problem solvers under the integrative approach, it is in their best interest to be open with each other about their own interests.  Participation in value creating brainstorming is encouraged from both sides of the negotiation table to facilitate devising as many value creating propositions as possible.

Reason and principle are used to persuade the other side rather than the pressure tactics used by distributive bargaining approach.[21]  Other tactics that may be used by integrative bargainers to shift the focus of the negotiation include adding or subtracting other issues, involving other parties, or creating new relationships.  Rather than be direct and confrontational, these tactics are indirect maneuvers to achieve alignment of interests by the parties.

Due to clear communication, welcoming and cooperative tone, and relative openness with information that can help create value, a negotiation under the integrative approach usually maintains a positive future relationship between parties.  This is enabled by the inherent practice of empathy by the parties in demonstrating their concern in the other side’s needs, interests, and perspectives.  However, integrative bargainers must remain vigilant that they are not prioritising the value of parties’ relationship over the value of the substantive results in the negotiation because they may become vulnerable to exploitation by the other side if they make unreciprocated concessions to maximize the relationship.[22]

IV. Interweaving Arts: The Effective Samurai

A samurai not only trained in each martial art form, but was also required to be able to seamlessly switch from one martial art to the next depending on the development of circumstances in battle.  Regardless of a samurai’s personality or preference, if his best chance at surviving combat was using his sword, he used kenjutsu to defend and attack.  Meanwhile, if he was in a circumstance where he had no available weapons, he resorted to his training in unarmed combat by using karate or jujitsu.  Moreover, factors such as whether the opponent was armed, and the relative position, strength, and size of the opponent were relevant to the samurai to determine whether his next move was a karate or a jujitsu technique.  For example, while using karate techniques to block an opponent’s strike is quick and efficient, a strike of a larger, stronger opponent may break one’s block.  In this instance, a jujitsu technique that redirects the stronger opponent’s momentum may be more effective.

Although negotiators may have a personal preference for which approach to use based on their own personality or the kind of negotiation at hand, both approaches should be used in an effective negotiation because negotiations may have both value creating and value claiming opportunities.  For example, although value creation may be maximized under an integrative approach, the created value must be divided between the parties and a distributive mindset may be important for doing so.  Batra describes the need for using both approaches as arising from the “negotiators dilemma”:

“Even if the ‘pie’ is expanded to be as large as possible, thereby maximizing the value created, at some point this value surplus must be divided among the parties.  While integrative bargainers may prefer to create as much value as possible in a negotiation, they leave themselves open to exploitation if they focus solely on value creation and ignore value-claiming opportunities.  Similarly, distributive bargainers leave themselves vulnerable to sub-optimal outcomes and potential no-agreements if they focus solely on value claiming.”[23]

Just as samurai would interweave their response to a situation with karate and jujitsu based on their immediate circumstances and the actions by the opponent, a negotiator should not only be able to adopt either a distributive or an integrative approach but should also be able to interweave aspects of both approaches in their negotiation as needed.  While interweaving approaches in theory and in practice may not always align, it is helpful to consider theoretical tips in using techniques of both approaches while also reflecting on practical experiences of doing so in actual negotiation.

A. Interweaving Approaches in Theory

Before negotiation has begun and the parties are sharing information in preparation thereof, one does not know for sure whether the opposing side will take a distributive or integrative bargaining approach.  Information at this stage is very valuable and revealing information about your position, preferences, and interests is very much a ‘double-edged sword.’  Specifically, if the other side is an integrative bargainer, such information can be used by the other side to better understand your interests and facilitate brainstorming of a mutually beneficial solution to create value.  However, if the other side is a distributive bargainer, such information can be used for exploitation by the other side to claim value.  As such, in most cases, information should be shared cautiously so as to provide only enough information to trigger brainstorming of a value creating solution.  A negotiator should not assume that the other side will take an integrative approach because they will leave themselves vulnerable to exploitation.  Where the other side is more likely to take a distributive bargaining approach, it is advisable to be even more cautious with divulging information.

With respect to gathering information from the other side, a negotiator may gain more from using the integrative approach techniques.  Importantly, inquiring about the reasons for the other side’s interests and their associated values, as practiced under the integrative approach, provides a deeper insight into the other side’s mentality and preferences.  This insight can be used not only for formulating value creating offers, but can also be used for determining whether the other side is using distributive hard bargaining techniques or as fuel for countering the other side with one’s own distributive bargaining tactics.  For example, information such as (i) understanding both sides’ bottom line, (ii) relative ranking of the other side’s preferences for different outcomes, (iii) the other side’s priorities, (iv) the goals and values of the other negotiator, (v) information about fee structures, and (vi) relationships between principals and agents in a representation situation can help in justifying and framing offers.

Because negotiation is dynamic, various factors may change, resulting in multiple opportunities where a negotiator should change their approach towards the other side.  If the parties do not have a previous relationship, the approach taken by the other side and their attitude towards an offer may likely be unknown.  As such, regardless of any preconceived expectations of the other side, a prudent negotiator should enter a negotiation with an open mind and willingness to switch approach.  When there is a large power differential between the parties, the negotiator with more leverage may lean towards using a purely distributive strategy to maximize their outcome, as they will not be harmed by a poor negotiation outcome at the table.  However, they will also be limiting their outcome to a portion of the value already on the table (i.e., limiting their outcome to “claiming a slice of an existing pie” instead of seeking opportunities to “expand the pie” and possibly “claim a larger slice” of the expanded pie).

Batra has suggested trying a “two-stage negotiation process” whereby the maximum possible value is created between all parties in a first stage and the value is distributed among the participants in a second stage.[24] Also, with respect to substantive issues in the negotiation, Batra suggests that “value may be created on some issues and distributed on others depending on the nature of the issue.”[25]  As such, switching between approaches may be as dynamic as the negotiation itself.  In addition, if it becomes apparent that a relationship with the other side may extend beyond the one occurrence, a negotiator may find it worthwhile to switch to a more integrative approach to foster a more welcoming environment during the negotiation, and thus, a more positive relationship with the other side.

B. Interweaving Approaches in Practice

Reflecting on personal experience, it was noted that switching between the integrative and distributive approach has occurred seamlessly without notice on various occasions.  The following two negotiations could have been categorized as either ‘integrative’ or ‘distributive’ bargaining.  However, upon further consideration, it became apparent that each one of the two negotiations discussed below had elements of either type of bargaining.

A brief background to the first negotiation was as follows: a manager of an art gallery (Live8 Art Galleries) that owns the domain name to was contacted via email by a manager of an internet development firm (LCA) engaged to handle the technical arrangement and public relations issues for an upcoming charity musical event called the Live8 concert.  The concert provides proceeds from the event to alleviate poverty and promote sustainable development in Africa.  Live8 Art Galleries intended to use the “” website as an online gallery where clients can purchase artistic works having themes of survival, finding hope in the depths of tragedy, self-dependency, and human courage.  Due to a mishap with the domain name previously used for the concert, LCA was under time pressure to provide a suitable website for the Live8 concert – an event expected to attract bands, celebrities, and viewers worldwide.

At the first point of contact between the parties, the email from LCA included (i) a summary of the charitable purpose of the concert, (ii) a vague description as to why the domain name was needed, and (iii) multiple key phrases indicating an integrative approach, such as “I am reaching out for an opportunity to work with you…”, “we are interested to have a conversation with you regarding this matter”, and “please can you advise your most suitable time for a discussion through online meetings, or if you prefer email communication…”  Without any further inquiry, it was clear from the email that LCA was in a difficult position and vulnerable to a distributive response from Live8 Art Galleries because, unlike LCA, Live8 Art Galleries did not have anything to lose by walking away from negotiations.  However, it was also noted that aggressive hard balling could result in the loss of a commercial opportunity and possibly bad public relations for Live8 Art Galleries due to the concert’s charitable nature and wide audience.

The response from Live8 Art Galleries was a mixture of the integrative and distributive approaches.  Specifically, the response included a brief description of Live8 Art Galleries as a charitable organization and emphasised the value of the domain name to the company by describing how much effort was invested in the website.  This shared information not only gave sufficient information to the other side to invite integrative problem-solving, but also ‘leveled the playing field’ with respect to the emotive characterisation of the charitable cause.  In addition, the response from Live8 Art Galleries included a single sentence that demonstrated a boundary for negotiations: “Just as a preliminary matter, I would like to let you know that we have absolutely no interest in selling our domain name.”  Such a sentence may be considered distributive in nature as it asserts the party’s willingness to leave the negotiation but is also valuable for integrative bargaining as it provides the other side with information regarding what will not be acceptable from a problem-solving perspective.  Following that sentence was a more welcoming sentence inviting integrative bargaining and providing a direction for problem-solving: “However, if you would like to broadcast your concert on our website, I believe we can discuss such a possibility.”

Afterward, the negotiation on both sides kept a mostly integrative nature and resulted in a symbiotic solution whereby for a payment of $12,750 to Live8 Art Galleries, LCA was able to include a hyperlink in the Live8 Art Galleries website at connecting viewers to another domain owned by LCA that can broadcast the Live8 concert.  It was the Live8 Art Galleries’ manager’s goal to obtain funds to build physical art galleries in various cities resulting in increased artist exposure to the public.  Despite forgoing the opportunity for Live8 Art Galleries to take a more distributive approach and collect more money for selling or leasing the domain name, the negotiated integrative solution allowed Live8 Art Galleries to target their overall goal directly – artist exposure.

The second negotiation, while mainly distributive, also featured several integrative elements interweaved within.  The second negotiation constituted a pre-settlement negotiation for a discrimination lawsuit, whereby a fired employee with potential legal grounds for a discrimination claim attempted to settle with a maximum payout from their previous employer (CES).

Due to the hostility between the parties that led up to the pre-settlement negotiation, the negotiation began with a mainly distributive character with either party on very distant positions with respect to agreement.  As the time available to negotiate came to a close, it became apparent that the two parties were not going to be able to reach a settlement by purely distributive means.  Unbeknownst to CES, the fired employee needed to settle due to the severe emotional and legal ramifications threatened by going to court.  Accordingly, the fired employee switched to a more integrative bargaining approach by seeking value in alternative options to add to the settlement payout such as a change of termination status, a strong reference letter, and a year-long license to use company software for further computer-related moonlighting work.  As such, the switch to an integrative bargaining approach at the apparent limit of the distributive approach yielded value at a point where negotiations were about to fall apart.

V. Conclusion

While analogising negotiation to an improvised jazz performance is poetic, it misses the true confrontational and positional nature that negotiation can become.  Like jazz, negotiation is improvisational and performance-driven, but it can also be confrontational, uncollaborative and not cordial – much like combat.  Power imbalances occur regularly.  The ability to walk away from negotiations, sheer market power, legal position, or financial position may be factors that strategically place one party in a powerful position, prompting the powerful party to adopt a distributive approach and the weaker party to focus on an integrative approach.  However, either party should not be focused on approaching the negotiation with a fixed positional mindset but should rather take a more holistic approach to assessing their position in every aspect.

Much like the well-trained samurai were experienced in interweaving various martial art techniques, a negotiator that interweaves distributive and integrative elements increases the size of the pie and maximizes the amount claimed from the overall pie.  Accordingly, the multi-faceted, fluid nature of negotiation requires a negotiator to not only be able to take an integrative or distributive approach, but to also interchange between each approach fluidly and in syncopation with the dynamics of the negotiation and changing circumstances.


[1] See Honeyman, C. and Andrea Schneider, The Negotiator’s Desk Reference, (2017) Vol. 1and 2 (Rishi Batra, “Integrative and Distributive Bargaining”)

[2] Honeyman, C. and Andrea Schneider, The Negotiator’s Desk Reference, (2017) Vol. 1and 2 (Charles Craver, “Distributive Negotiation Techniques”), 76.

[3] Honeyman, C. and Andrea Schneider, The Negotiator’s Desk Reference, (2017) Vol. 1and 2 (Peter S. Adler, “Protean Negotiation: A Further Exploration”), 106.

[4] ‘Samurai | Meaning, History, & Facts’, Encyclopedia Britannica <>.

[5] ‘SAMURAI AND MARTIAL ARTS’, Tea Ceremony Japan Experiences MAIKOYA <>.

[6] Ibid.

[7] See Batra supra n 1, 33.

[8] See ibid, 37.

[9] ‘What Is Karate’ Tulane Karate Club <>.

[10] ‘The Importance of Stance and Posture’, Dunham’s Martial Arts <>.

[11] See Batra supra n 1, 35-36.

[12] See ibid.

[13] See ibid, 39.

[14] See ibid.

[15] See Craver supra n 2, 76-79, 83-84.

[16] See Batra supra n 1, 34.

[17] ‘Base, Posture and Structure, the 3 Most Important Concepts in BJJ’, Grapplearts (12 August 2016) <>.

[18] Batra supra n 1, 35.

[19] See Batra supra n 1, 35.

[20] See ibid, 38.

[21] See ibid, 37.

[22] See ibid, 39.

[23] Ibid, 40.

[24] See ibid, 40-41.

[25] Ibid.