Gordon Ryan is top 15 in the World, possibly top 10

[IamStryker]

In many ways, yes. It encourages a meta game that doesn't work in any other environment where grappling is tested. Other tournaments, MMA, self defense...a lot of what is optimal in a sub only setting is a terrible idea in those modes.

Sub only with no Gi should be better for training MMA. I don't know why it would be worse for self defense.

 

[rmongler]

Sub only with no Gi should be better for training MMA. I don't know why it would be worse for self defense.

Scoring dominant positions better 'fits' the effect and importance of striking in ground fighting; scoring by riding time even more so.

 

[Aethyr]

I can't really compare the two in my own mind. Punches do damage while rolling around and accomplishing nothing but position doesn't do any damage. Rolling for points is just more boring to more people.

I don't see what's natural about point fighting. Getting the KO or the submission is closer to a real life situation even though nothing is exactly like a real life situation of course.

Yes, you're right, there is no damage in grappling. But the points in BJJ is supposed to mimic advantageous positions in self defense. So if you get your guard passed, and are in side control, you're probably going to eat a punch or an elbow or two. Get mounted, and you're going to eat a lot of punches. Get your back taken and you're eating a lot of punches to the back of the head (self defense). Getting your guard passed in SD or MMA is not good and not even Ryron Gracie would intentionally allow someone to pass his guard and get mounted in SD or MMA. So by awarding points for these positions, it forces the player to defend them and his opponent to seek them. But if these no longer have any value, then there is no need to defend them nor for an attacker to really seek them.

So because there are no points in sub-only, getting your guard passed is no big deal. Getting mounted is no big deal. This is especially true in no-gi, where protecting your limbs and awareness of setups for subs is enough to defend. So often times competitors don't necessarily fight hard to defend a guard pass in sub-only and the passer won't even spend too much energy maintaining it either. This is all extremely unrealistic in SD or MMA.

 

[kenetics]

Yes, you're right, there is no damage in grappling. But the points in BJJ is supposed to mimic advantageous positions in self defense. So if you get your guard passed, and are in side control, you're probably going to eat a punch or an elbow or two. Get mounted, and you're going to eat a lot of punches. Get your back taken and you're eating a lot of punches to the back of the head (self defense). Getting your guard passed in SD or MMA is not good and not even Ryron Gracie would intentionally allow someone to pass his guard and get mounted in SD or MMA. So by awarding points for these positions, it forces the player to defend them and his opponent to seek them. But if these no longer have any value, then there is no need to defend them nor for an attacker to really seek them.

So because there are no points in sub-only, getting your guard passed is no big deal. Getting mounted is no big deal. This is especially true in no-gi, where protecting your limbs and awareness of setups for subs is enough to defend. So often times competitors don't necessarily fight hard to defend a guard pass in sub-only and the passer won't even spend too much energy maintaining it either. This is all extremely unrealistic in SD or MMA.

Well put! I agree.

 

[IamStryker]

Scoring dominant positions better 'fits' the effect and importance of striking in ground fighting; scoring by riding time even more so.

And getting the sub wins a fight. Any BJJ training can add in strikes and train specifically for MMA, but No Gi is obviously better than Gi because you can't grab onto clothing in MMA.

 

[IamStryker]

Yes, you're right, there is no damage in grappling. But the points in BJJ is supposed to mimic advantageous positions in self defense. So if you get your guard passed, and are in side control, you're probably going to eat a punch or an elbow or two. Get mounted, and you're going to eat a lot of punches. Get your back taken and you're eating a lot of punches to the back of the head (self defense). Getting your guard passed in SD or MMA is not good and not even Ryron Gracie would intentionally allow someone to pass his guard and get mounted in SD or MMA. So by awarding points for these positions, it forces the player to defend them and his opponent to seek them. But if these no longer have any value, then there is no need to defend them nor for an attacker to really seek them.

I get what you are saying but this is a BJJ tournament, no striking is allowed so I don't know why anyone cares about striking positions. You called EBI an unnatural format because of that? By that logic aren't all BJJ tournaments unnatural? What's natural about having a ref? What's natural about having a time limit? What's natural about having no strikes and being awarded points by a judge? IMO I am watching two guys try to out grapple one another until one has to tap out. That's the only reason I am watching, I could care less about who could theoretically dish out strikes during the match that doesn't allow strikes.

 

[Aethyr]

I get what you are saying but this is a BJJ tournament, no striking is allowed so I don't know why anyone cares about striking positions. You called EBI an unnatural format because of that? By that logic aren't all BJJ tournaments unnatural? What's natural about having a ref? What's natural about having a time limit? What's natural about having no strikes and being awarded points by a judge? IMO I am watching two guys try to out grapple one another until one has to tap out. That's the only reason I am watching, I could care less about who could theoretically dish out strikes during the match that doesn't allow strikes.

Striking positions are important for BJJ because BJJ's roots are self defense. A lot of people start BJJ for its SD practicality. Its sold and marketed as a superior SD art. I'll bet 1 cent that even you started BJJ so that you could be effective in SD. So yeah, points based on superior SD positions are going to be important.

Now, you're making a classic black-or-white equivalence argument - that something can be only 100% one or the other, and if 2 positions of argument don't fully meet the requirements of one category, they both equally belong in the other category. In this case, you're arguing that since IBJJF bjj is not SD and neither is sub-only/EBI, they're both equally not SD. This is plainly false - because nothing is black and white, especially in martial arts. You can have a martial art CLOSER to SD than another. This is why BJJ is popular in the first place - that its more faithful to its combat roots than the watered down TMAs that have proliferated. So unfortunately, you've done nothing to show why sub-only is less unnatural. All you've done is claim that ibjjf BJJ is unnatural too, so why is sub-only any different. Which, as explained, is black-and-white equivalency, which as explained, is wrong. Thus, my claim stands, that sub-only is more unnatural.

You're, of course, free to simply prefer a more sport, less SD oriented version of grappling because you find it more entertaining. I can't, nor won't argue with your personal preference.

 

[IamStryker]

Striking positions are important for BJJ because BJJ's roots are self defense. A lot of people start BJJ for its SD practicality. Its sold and marketed as a superior SD art. I'll bet 1 cent that even you started BJJ so that you could be effective in SD. So yeah, points based on superior SD positions are going to be important.

I'm not watching a self defense demonstration, I am watching a competition of BJJ. It's just not the same thing. If those people were demonstrating self defense then they would change what they are doing. The goal of their match has nothing to do with a real life self defense situation. I could care less about any of that. I am simply enjoying the BJJ competition and adding in points isn't going to make it better or more natural for me by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, you're making a classic black-or-white equivalence argument - that something can be only 100% one or the other, and if 2 positions of argument don't fully meet the requirements of one category, they both equally belong in the other category. In this case, you're arguing that since IBJJF bjj is not SD and neither is sub-only/EBI, they're both equally not SD. This is plainly false - because nothing is black and white, especially in martial arts. You can have a martial art CLOSER to SD than another. This is why BJJ is popular in the first place - that its more faithful to its combat roots than the watered down TMAs that have proliferated. So unfortunately, you've done nothing to show why sub-only is less unnatural. All you've done is claim that ibjjf BJJ is unnatural too, so why is sub-only any different. Which, as explained, is black-and-white equivalency, which as explained, is wrong. Thus, my claim stands, that sub-only is more unnatural.

As a fan of watching BJJ competitions I personally don't care at all which is closer to self defense, makes no difference for me whatsoever. I still say that the competition itself whether with points or without has nothing to do with self defense. BJJ can be used for self defense of course and fighters in both competitions are going to know how to use it in real life situations but again this has nothing to do with the competition. I am watching to see who taps out who. If you care about positions that theoretically are better for strikes then that's great for you, I hope you love it. For me I just want to see who can get the tap. If I watch a points competition and the fighters just go for points the whole time I'm going to find that a lot more boring. I think EBI is going in the right direction of making the competition more watchable.

You're, of course, free to simply prefer a more sport, less SD oriented version of grappling because you find it more entertaining. I can't, nor won't argue with your personal preference.

Awesome, that is exactly what I was saying.

 

[JenStark]

The unrealistic part of EBI is getting a free back control and a free spider-web after somebody successfully managed to refrain from tapping during regulation time.

I am not opposed to this ruleset, I like different rule-sets as they bring different action to the game. But I can understand the frustration a competitor might have when nobody can take their back through their own means, yet they lose in overtime by sub or riding time. Take J.Miyao for instance. He has gotten his guard passed a couple of times lately, and back in the day only by Keenan. But as far as I can remember his career, NOBODY has taken his back. Come EBI, and he loses on riding time. Well... it's unrealistic.

I still like EBI format, but it should not be thought as the ultimate ruleset, it should be thought as a contribution to spice up some tournaments.

 

[rmongler]

And getting the sub wins a fight. Any BJJ training can add in strikes and train specifically for MMA, but No Gi is obviously better than Gi because you can't grab onto clothing in MMA.

GSP beat BJP twice. Looks like position beats submission.

 

[mataleaos]

Sub only is a weird rule set?

In some ways, yes, it is more artificial. That may sound odd that a sub only match, where the goal is the submission could be more weird than a points rule set. But bear with me. The points system was more or less designed around vale tudo (no rules) fighting. Points were based on positions that would put you in the maximum position to do damage to the other person via strikes and submissions, while keeping yourself safe.

For example this is why side control and north south as positions doesn't get points. The ability to throw strikes from there is much less than knee on stomach or the mount or the back. Many would argue that those positions should be worth points, but that's another debate.

So in points matches sure some people stall, as they do in every other rulset including sub only. In points matches people fight tooth and nail to defend sweeps, passes, back attacks, etc. This causes lots of openings for submissions, and it's very dynamic. The downside is that if someone gets a point differential, they may just hold tight and not risk as much.

But in sub only there is also some artificial stuff. There is no need to scramble after you get swept or passed since that doesn't score against you. If your back is being taken and you don't have to fight to defend the hooks, your neck is not as open so you are harder to choke. If you are getting passed and you don't turn in or away to stop the pass points then you are less vulnerable to chokes and armbars in transition. So many people when they feel they have lost something like a pass, back attack, or mount will just do the Home Alone and defend, biding their time to escape later. Because it's hard to defend someone that only wants to not be submitted.

Also there are certain submissions and transitions that work from inferior positions in sub only, and it's not uncommon to see people allow themselves to be mounted so they can attack heel hooks. This is unique to sub only matches. Also I could go another few paragraphs on how there is zero reason to ever work any wrestling or takedowns in sub only, and there is no reason to bother passing the guard or even sweeping. There are very dominant positions that can be attained in sub only when heel hooks are allowed that don't need you to do either thing.

Tl;Dr - Points matches and sub only matches are both awesome. They both have pros and cons. I wish there was less debate about which was "better". I think people should enjoy what they enjoy and train what they want to train.

The unrealistic part of EBI is getting a free back control and a free spider-web after somebody successfully managed to refrain from tapping during regulation time.

I am not opposed to this ruleset, I like different rule-sets as they bring different action to the game. But I can understand the frustration a competitor might have when nobody can take their back through their own means, yet they lose in overtime by sub or riding time. Take J.Miyao for instance. He has gotten his guard passed a couple of times lately, and back in the day only by Keenan. But as far as I can remember his career, NOBODY has taken his back. Come EBI, and he loses on riding time. Well... it's unrealistic.

I still like EBI format, but it should to be thought as the ultimate ruleset, it should be thought as a contribution to spice up some tournaments.

Yeah I forgot to add this. The most artificial thing about EBI is that you can start with an armbar or back control on someone that you may never have been able to get on them in regulation. Geo Martinez didn't get one second of offense on Eddie Cummings at EBI 10, was defending an inside heel hook and triangles/armbars for 8-9 of the 10 minute match, and was gifted with the armbar control because of the overtime rules.

 

[mataleaos]

Gordon is elite, as is Tonon and Cummings. I am not sure why people hate on the DDS. Is it really just because of their attitude? I mean, if they were nice guys would people like them? I think it is mostly because they wreck people with the legs/heel.

I think they're awesome. I see very little hate towards Cummings, and IMO the reason why Gordon and Garry catch flack sometimes is because of how they act on social media. I think it's definitely their attitude that turns a lot of people off.

They're all awesome guys and if you ever get a chance to train with them or do a seminar with them you should.


The person I was responding to said-
"Yuri would just pass Gordons guard in normal ADCC rules, maybe choke him as Gordon desperately tries to do something."

I responded asking why it was so different at EBI?

There are no rules that would have made that happen in the match I saw.

I am fully aware that people are going to adjust their strategy based on ruleset. I really doubt that people who are getting beat bell to bell positionaly and in sub attempts then tapped in overtime, would thrive because points were being scored. I don't think getting beat in every area is a strategy but it happens sometimes.

I know there are strategies to IBJJF(like sweeping/scoring late) and to ADCC(wrestling in the -1 Guardpull period) and to Sub Only. I don't think any strategy Yuri had would have mattered that day, they're important when it's close, this match wasn't close. It wasn't Yuri's day.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't disagree that anything I saw that day would have made things different that day. And again I predicted Gordon Ryan to win EBI 6 as soon as it was announced he was in the bracket. I do think a match between he and Yuri could look different at ADCC 2017 assuming they both do it this year. But Gordon is absolutely an elite grappler. My focus on the differences in rule sets was definitely not trying to take away from his performance.

 

[mataleaos]

Sub only with no Gi should be better for training MMA. I don't know why it would be worse for self defense.

Sub only with no gi encourages things like possum guard, where that would get you brain damage in MMA. I guarantee that the Danaher Death Squad when they go for MMA (Garry and Gordon both will move into MMA at some point) are not going to be training possum guard.



I'm doing something that I hate, which is debating this. My personal game fits sub only very well, but I get genuinely surprised to see people that watched a 90 minute match like Gordon Ryan vs Keenan Cornelius and think that's more realistic for MMA than a points match or even a sub only match with a time period and an overtime. No points with no time limit is awesome, but it is also the farthest removed grappling rule set from an MMA fight. Most of the experts that compete under those rule sets will confirm that.

Even Gordon Ryan's personal strategy changes when he does no time limit. It becomes way less active, more about conserving energy from half-butterfly guard and hunting the 4-11 when people pressure to try and pass.

I'm not watching a self defense demonstration, I am watching a competition of BJJ. It's just not the same thing. If those people were demonstrating self defense then they would change what they are doing. The goal of their match has nothing to do with a real life self defense situation. I could care less about any of that. I am simply enjoying the BJJ competition and adding in points isn't going to make it better or more natural for me by any stretch of the imagination.

As a fan of watching BJJ competitions I personally don't care at all which is closer to self defense, makes no difference for me whatsoever. I still say that the competition itself whether with points or without has nothing to do with self defense. BJJ can be used for self defense of course and fighters in both competitions are going to know how to use it in real life situations but again this has nothing to do with the competition. I am watching to see who taps out who. If you care about positions that theoretically are better for strikes then that's great for you, I hope you love it. For me I just want to see who can get the tap. If I watch a points competition and the fighters just go for points the whole time I'm going to find that a lot more boring. I think EBI is going in the right direction of making the competition more watchable.
.

I agree entirely.

 

[IamStryker]

Yeah I forgot to add this. The most artificial thing about EBI is that you can start with an armbar or back control on someone that you may never have been able to get on them in regulation. Geo Martinez didn't get one second of offense on Eddie Cummings at EBI 10, was defending an inside heel hook and triangles/armbars for 8-9 of the 10 minute match, and was gifted with the armbar control because of the overtime rules.

You are correct that this is artificial and I think it's a great solution to get a winner. I would rather watch this rule set that both guys agree to over a bunch of ties.

 

[Crotalis]

Sub only with no gi encourages things like possum guard, where that would get you brain damage in MMA. I guarantee that the Danaher Death Squad when they go for MMA (Garry and Gordon both will move into MMA at some point) are not going to be training possum guard.

Claiming "possum guard" as one of the ills of sub only nogi is a bit ... disingenuous imo. Also, Nick Diaz lying down in front of Anderson Silva, and Cody Garbrandt doing pushups in front of Cruz would like words with you ...

Either way, while I don't think he's top 15 over- all yet ... I can see him being amongst those names by the time it's all over.

 

[Aethyr]

Claiming "possum guard" as one of the ills of sub only nogi is a bit ... disingenuous imo. Also, Nick Diaz lying down in front of Anderson Silva, and Cody Garbrandt doing pushups in front of Cruz would like words with you ...

Either way, while I don't think he's top 15 over- all yet ... I can see him being amongst those names by the time it's all over.

Neither Nick or Cody actually allowed contact with their opponents when they intentionally went to the ground. They were ready to spring back up to their feet. Gordon allowed his opponent to have complete side-control. Even Nick, who is a better grappler than Anderson, quickly got to his feet the moment Anderson got too close.

The fact is, sub-only is yet another artificial ruleset, that creates strange behavior. Allowing someone to straight up side or full mount you is worse than butt scooting. At least with butt scooting, you're in some sort of defensible position. Everyone can have their personal preferences, but fucking do not try to justify sub-only as a more realistic or pure form grappling. Because that's utter horseshit.

 

[Crotalis]

Neither Nick or Cody actually allowed contact with their opponents when they intentionally went to the ground. They were ready to spring back up to their feet. Gordon allowed his opponent to have complete side-control. Even Nick, who is a better grappler than Anderson, quickly got to his feet the moment Anderson got too close.

The fact is, sub-only is yet another artificial ruleset, that creates strange behavior. Allowing someone to straight up side or full mount you is worse than butt scooting. At least with butt scooting, you're in some sort of defensible position. Everyone can have their personal preferences, but fucking do not try to justify sub-only as a more realistic or pure form grappling. Because that's utter horseshit.

lol! Angry much?

The point I was making is that you can't take something one guy does as a goof because he's so much better than a lot of his competition (like Ryan and Possum guard) and then claim that this is some kind of logical result of the sub only rule-set and the reason it is less realistic than any other ruleset.

Honestly, I don't think ANY of the current grappling rulesets are "realistic". The way the IBJJF prioritizes Guard passes (a technique your day-to-day grappler is not likely to need in a "street" situation) over takedowns (a technique a grappler will need in EVERY situation) sort of flies in the face of the whole "better for self defense" argument. I mean if we're talking "real" here, it seems to me the takedown would get more points ...

And on the subject of butt-scooting ... that is NOT comparable to possum guard. Possum Guard is a goof employed by a guy trying to get his name out there. Butt-scooting is a technique being actively employed as a legitimate bit of strategy ... not even remotely the same. So before you go dropping more swear words ... maybe take a step back and realize that all rulesets have cool parts and all rulesets have stupid parts and that isolated incidents like "possum guard" are outliers that don't actually say anything at all about those rules and that there isn't a single grappling only rule-set on the planet that IS realistic. They are all equally unrealistic in different ways.


EDIT: Just to be clear - I'm NOT defending possum guard. I think it's silly. I'm just pointing out that you can't take that one thing and base this argument off of that. It's really like people are just looking for reasons to hate on DDS and attacking sub-grappling as a way to undermine them. SMH ...

 

[FatherSauce]

As far as realistic rules goes, I really like combat wrestling and the Sambo rules of Reilly Bodycomb's tournaments.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Sub only with no Gi should be better for training MMA. I don't know why it would be worse for self defense.

Because in sub only, no one cares about position. Someone mounting you is not a big deal. Gordon Ryan will let people mount him in sub only to get to ashi garami off the escape. That's suicidal in MMA. Position matters a lot more in MMA because of punches. Being on top is extremely valuable in MMA, it doesn't matter at all in sub only. Basically sub only makes position meaningless unless it leads directly to a sub, the traditional BJJ position hierarchy that rewards passing guard, mount, and back control replicates the value of positions in MMA. Honestly in sub only mount isn't a great position since there's not a lot of no gi subs from there, in MMA it's basically the best possible position since you can rain down punches with little risk. That's why sub only is farther from actual fighting than points competition: the rewarding (or not) of the positional hierarchy.

 

[NSchoke]

I think the way I've seen Gordon in sub only is good. He gives up position, often from attacking submission, but he recovers very quickly. In a striking situation he'd be back to his guard before any damage occurred.