Are you allowed to takedown and let up in BJJ for points?

[Jimmy Cerra]

Yes it is . . . don't roll your eyes. If your winning and short on time stalling is perfectly acceptable. I'm not going for a triangle from full guard when I'm up two with under a minute left. I'm going to hold your ass down for the 60 to 90 seconds and win, you don't like it then pass.

I want to win too, but I'm not going to remain inactive. There is a difference between being smart and being a staller. You are not supposed to hold someone for 60-90 seconds. The IBJJF rules specify around 40 seconds as the time when they begin to call stalling IIRC. Stalling and passivity is only a short-term strategy which will eventually it will stop working. It will not win you championships in tournaments that actually matter.

 

[whipyourasstyle]

I want to win too, but I'm not going to remain inactive. There is a difference between being smart and being a staller. You are not supposed to hold someone for 60-90 seconds. The IBJJF rules specify around 40 seconds as the time when they begin to call stalling IIRC. Stalling and passivity is only a short-term strategy which will eventually it will stop working. It will not win you championships in tournaments that actually matter.

Oh yeah well your a ugly. Take that.

Yes a short term strategy, but a winning one. I do think that running up points then "stalling" for the final minute or two is "cheap" sort of like choking the face when you can't get the neck, but hey the goal is to win, and yes, by any means necessary short of a DQ.

If you don't think winning is the main goal then you should either not compete, or take up a different sport/activity (actually most activities/sports have the goal of beating an opponent, from board games to cage fighting :redface

Sportsmanship is important but winning is better. I would rather look bad and win than look good and lose. :icon_conf

Oh well I guess we disagree.

 

[Jimmy Cerra]

Oh yeah well your a ugly. Take that.

Yes a short term strategy, but a winning one. I do think that running up points then "stalling" for the final minute or two is "cheap" sort of like choking the face when you can't get the neck, but hey the goal is to win, and yes, by any means necessary short of a DQ.

If you don't think winning is the main goal then you should either not compete, or take up a different sport/activity (actually most activities/sports have the goal of beating an opponent, from board games to cage fighting :redface

Sportsmanship is important but winning is better. I would rather look bad and win than look good and lose. :icon_conf

Oh well I guess we disagree.

I want to win too of course, but your plan won't make the TS win much. From everything I've been taught, you're not going to win at a high level with that strategy. It should be few and far-between when you need that strategy. If it is your go-to move, then you will not do well in competition. Read that Brandon Slay quote for confirmation.

 

[makoa26]

I want to win too of course, but your plan won't make the TS win much. From everything I've been taught, you're not going to win at a high level with that strategy. It should be few and far-between when you need that strategy. If it is your go-to move, then you will not do well in competition. Read that Brandon Slay quote for confirmation.

The TS stated that he was new to BJJ and that he has wrestling experience. You state that you're not going to win at a high level with his strategy, but being new to BJJ, I seriously doubt that he'll be competing at a high level. If it's all he's got then why not use it? When he learns more jits he'll be able to add more to his game.

 

[Jimmy Cerra]

What Scott Said... ↓

 

[ScottErie**]

Because it's so easily negated by just sitting down, I feel it would be a bad game plan to have, because it can be shut down so quick that you'll now be in you're own head. It can work, or it can be negated, or get you dqed. You're probably just better off just playing straight up and using you're wrestling to engage, out pace, and out base.

 

[ozyabbas]

Whats the point in doing bjj if all you want to do is take people down and then disengage.

If you want to wrestle, do wrestling and compete in that.

 

[Nickynoneck]

if thats all you want to do, dont do jiu jitsu. Go back to wrestling. Or you can wait til you are comfortable with some bjj then take everyone down and then submit them.

Thats what i was gonna say i think TS is missing the point taking bjj if hes gonna do what hes saying .. take up judo the rules are in his favour he wants to just do take downs .

 

[Penkis]

Penalized how? I'm familiar with wrestling and judo, but not BJJ, so I'm curious as to what the consequences would be if you did this. In wrestling you are "penalized" somewhat for letting a guy get up. He scores 1 point for an escape even though you actually just let him up. Takedowns are worth 2 points though, so if you you do it enough you can rack up a huge lead and maybe get the tech fall.

First you will be warned, then they will take a point, then you will be dqed.
And they will also restart it everytime on the ground so you wont get any points.

 

[hayliks]

Because it's so easily negated by just sitting down, I feel it would be a bad game plan to have, because it can be shut down so quick that you'll now be in you're own head. It can work, or it can be negated, or get you dqed. You're probably just better off just playing straight up and using you're wrestling to engage, out pace, and out base.

a lot of tournaments are penalizing for sitting down without engaging first as well

 

[ScottErie**]

a lot of tournaments are penalizing for sitting down without engaging first as well

yeah but you won't be dqed for it, and losing a point or two won't entirely negate a game plan. I doubt it would stop someone from sitting down against an opponent they've watched takedown/get up in other matches. and there is no way they'd take points away if you stayed seated and butt scooted.

 

[DaRuckus337]

'Takedown and let up' = buttscooting imo. They are both cheesy ways of avoiding the parts of grappling that you suck at. Both should be frowned upon because they demonstrate a corner-cutting, fast-track way to short-run tourney success. They aren't particularly sustainable in the long-run or against better competition, they just simply give you a chance to grab some quick wins using your opponent's and/or the ref's foolishness against them. The simple solution imo is to simply 1) NOT get up if your opponent disengages on the ground, and having the ref then decide who was responsible for the stop in action (aka. the guy who broke the action to get it back standing), or to 2) NOT engage the butt-scooter, and once again let the ref decide who is responsible for ruining the flow of the match (aka. the guy who flopped to avoid the takedown). These strategies should really only work with stupid opponents who are willing to play into your one-dimensionality or with bad refs who are too stupid to see who is ruining the match.

Now, that said, I definitely see a place for backing away and returning to standing if you find yourself in a bad spot (ie. forced to trinagle escape or armbar escape which then breaks the guard and leaves you on your feet) or from a wild scramble should you end up breaking contact with your opponent (ie. you should not be obligated to walk back into guard from a loose, uncontrolled position on the mat). That's a legit way to reset the action - especially if you're a good wrestler/judoka. But that is much different than a gameplan that is based upon not engaging on the ground. There is nothing wrong with preferring standing to bad positions on the mat, but there is something wrong with preferring standing to any and every position on the mat.

 

[Deloitte]

Where's the TS?

 

[Yanoush]

I would only do that if I know the guy was better then me and I couldnt do anything else

 

[stu3ufc**]

that's a cheap and lazy way to win

i agree --they might butt scoot

but if u got good wrestling then learn to pass guard --you will do good

 

[SteMc]

also, what happens to him when someone realises what hes doing and pulls guard, with no sub defence hes boned then. AKA learn all aspects of the game first, then go with what works for you

 

[ViceGrip]

I've seen people have points taken away for ANY sort of disengagement. I'm thinking this sort of a game would fall in that category, and tbh it's probably a good thing.

 

[mtwrstlr]

First of all, to whoever said that taking your opponent down and cutting them to re engage in neutral doesnt work in high level wrestling, stick do bjj because you obviously do not know what the hell your talking about. Regarding the strategy in bjj, I think that its perfectly fine to rely on this strategy *when your first starting out*. Naturally you will have to add other aspects of jiu jitsu to your game or you will fail to progress in bjj.

 

[KickBoxer23]

You are echoing a lot of people, but what you and everybody else doesn't realize is that it's just as big a part of the opponent to prevent that tactic from working. If a bjj guy can't stop somebody from taking him down repeatedly, he is lacking a large part of his game. You can't criticize somebody on the way he wins as long as he does it legally. It's not cheap, he is using viable techniques and strategies to in a match.

If I went against a guy I KNEW was a better wrestler, I'd pull guard and work my best sweeps. I have a better chance of winning that way attacking and holding him close to me than letting him get space, disengaging and playing a standup war.

But if all you want to do is takedown, stand back up, and takedown again why not just wrestle? If you train BJJ I think you should be comfortable when it hits the ground.

 

[codemonkey76]

'Takedown and let up' = buttscooting imo. They are both cheesy ways of avoiding the parts of grappling that you suck at. Both should be frowned upon because they demonstrate a corner-cutting, fast-track way to short-run tourney success. They aren't particularly sustainable in the long-run or against better competition, they just simply give you a chance to grab some quick wins using your opponent's and/or the ref's foolishness against them. The simple solution imo is to simply 1) NOT get up if your opponent disengages on the ground, and having the ref then decide who was responsible for the stop in action (aka. the guy who broke the action to get it back standing), or to 2) NOT engage the butt-scooter, and once again let the ref decide who is responsible for ruining the flow of the match (aka. the guy who flopped to avoid the takedown). These strategies should really only work with stupid opponents who are willing to play into your one-dimensionality or with bad refs who are too stupid to see who is ruining the match.

Now, that said, I definitely see a place for backing away and returning to standing if you find yourself in a bad spot (ie. forced to trinagle escape or armbar escape which then breaks the guard and leaves you on your feet) or from a wild scramble should you end up breaking contact with your opponent (ie. you should not be obligated to walk back into guard from a loose, uncontrolled position on the mat). That's a legit way to reset the action - especially if you're a good wrestler/judoka. But that is much different than a gameplan that is based upon not engaging on the ground. There is nothing wrong with preferring standing to bad positions on the mat, but there is something wrong with preferring standing to any and every position on the mat.

QFT... i agree wholeheartedly.