Ebi ot rules suggestions...

[dumbMandarin]

I agree with you BJJ_Rage that "sotoing" sucks, but i think we have to look at possible changes that can be made, and how they will affect the event as a whole.

If solutions can be made that prevent "sotoing" and they don't affect what EBI is trying to accomplish (big stage, spectator friendly, big money, incentivizing submission, fast paced, guaranteed winner).

If EBI wants to give out 100k+ as a possible grand prize, I believe they'll have to appeal to the casual fan.

Unlimited OT rounds doesn't guarantee for a more exciting match, it only guarantee's a finish. If we reverse this idea of Sotoing, the person defending the choke could "stall" for extended periods until he feels a more realistic escape is possible. You could argue if the person defending a choke stalls, he'll eventually get submitted. One could also argue if you stall from the back and don't go for the choke, you're opening up escapes with no fear of being submitted.

Knowing that OT only last's 3 rounds, can possibly give incentive for the person to escape as fast as possible. Unlimited OT rounds, could possibly suggest incentive to not rush and just survive. This could possibly make for long and slow matches.

Tennis may be able to get away with long matches, but it by far has a bigger fan base and way more money involved.

If we can change some rules and prevent Sotoing without risking how great EBI already is, than that would be awesome.

A very simple solution for preventing Sotoing in OT, is to finish him during OT, or escape faster. Miyao and Geo in fact escaped Soto's control, they had the opportunity to finish Soto 3 times. They just need to become better at escaping, and better at finishing. I'd put money down that Kron/Marcelo would finish him in OT rounds.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

I agree with you BJJ_Rage that "sotoing" sucks, but i think we have to look at possible changes that can be made, and how they will affect the event as a whole.

If solutions can be made that prevent "sotoing" and they don't affect what EBI is trying to accomplish (big stage, spectator friendly, big money, incentivizing submission, fast paced, guaranteed winner).

If EBI wants to give out 100k+ as a possible grand prize, I believe they'll have to appeal to the casual fan.

Unlimited OT rounds doesn't guarantee for a more exciting match, it only guarantee's a finish. If we reverse this idea of Sotoing, the person defending the choke could "stall" for extended periods until he feels a more realistic escape is possible. You could argue if the person defending a choke stalls, he'll eventually get submitted. One could also argue if you stall from the back and don't go for the choke, you're opening up escapes with no fear of being submitted.

Knowing that OT only last's 3 rounds, can possibly give incentive for the person to escape as fast as possible. Unlimited OT rounds, could possibly suggest incentive to not rush and just survive. This could possibly make for long and slow matches.

Tennis may be able to get away with long matches, but it by far has a bigger fan base and way more money involved.

If we can change some rules and prevent Sotoing without risking how great EBI already is, than that would be awesome.

A very simple solution for preventing Sotoing in OT, is to finish him during OT, or escape faster. Miyao and Geo in fact escaped Soto's control, they had the opportunity to finish Soto 3 times. They just need to become better at escaping, and better at finishing. I'd put money down that Kron/Marcelo would finish him in OT rounds.

you have a point, if thres no incentive to escape faster, the one defending could stall some more.

On the other side, if theres should be some stalling, it should be the guy defending not the guy attacking, thats just backwards, it should not be like that nor I think the rules should incentive that.

Unlimited OT rounds doesn't guarantee for a more exciting match, it only guarantee's a finish.

I agree that EBI has by far the most exiting format, but what makes it exiting is the lack of draws, or judges decision in a sub only format. Winning by escaping time is no more exiting than winning on points. The whole concept is for someone to actually get a fininsh, thats why there is incentive for the guy defending to escape, so the attacker can find gaps and finish. I think the casual fan will be much happier with a finish even if the match gets a little longer or boring than having winners by sotoing.

Also, I dont like mount as a deadzone, because in no gi, it is not a deadzone at all.

 

[trustdoesntrust]

I definitely agree that they need to change the definition of an escape in OT if they start in backmount. I think in every EBI so far when a competitor had backmount in OT but it transitioned to mount and time was called, they all looked at the ref like "Wait, what?"

for most of us, certainly by the gracie way of thinking, "back mount" and mount are seamless positions-- opponent turns away in mount you take the back, opponent rolls out of the back you come on top in mount. bravo allows The Truck in his OT rules because it is a seamless position with the conventional back mount in his system, so there should be no reason why full mount should not be included as well.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

for most of us, certainly by the gracie way of thinking, "back mount" and mount are seamless positions-- opponent turns away in mount you take the back, opponent rolls out of the back you come on top in mount. bravo allows The Truck in his OT rules because it is a seamless position with the conventional back mount in his system, so there should be no reason why full mount should not be included as well.

truck is a deadzone in no gi, mount is not. Actually sidecontrol is probably a more dominant position than just mount. Without strikes, mount in no gi offers you not many chances to finish the match.

 

[jack36767]

Other people have alluded to what my thoughts were after the tournament:
1. A SUB in overtime still gets you half the money of a regulation sub win if you win the tournament

2. If someone is subbed in overtime...match over. The current rules give the other guy a shot at a sub if he didn't get to pick a position first
- before anyone says this is unfair...in wrestling if someone is pinned in overtime...match over period, even if the other guy was supposed to get a chance on top.
- This will encourage guys to be willing to expend more energy get the sub and get the match over with
-To make it fair who gets to pick position first, do what wrestling does and do a "coin flip/ball grab". Not fair? Don't go to overtime

3. Keep the 3 OT's and fastest escape time wins, if there is no sub.

4. HOWEVER: like people have talked about...mount is still dominant position. So if someone escapes back control to bottom-mount keep the OT going until an escape (the top guy has subs obviously and the bottom guy can go for a hail mary heel hook)...BUT stop the riding time/escape clock
-I don't think you should start an OT in mount. It will be too easy for someone to get head-and-arm control and grapevine and just stall for riding time. But like I said if the guy escapes to their, it's still dominant position

Just my view on adjustments in the rules so the incentive for the kill continues

 

[the heed]

while it isn't perfect, so far they have done it the best out of all the submission only tourney.

 

[Drew Foster]

I wonder what the breakdown is of what EBIs had the most OTs. I know EBI 1 only had one across 2 different 16 man brackets, and that was the Geo/Glover final at 145. EBI 2 I don't really remember. EBI 3 had a few. At least 3 that I remember.

EBI 4 seemed to have a lot. At least 5 or 6?

As far as suggestions, one thing I think would be cool would be different positions to start from. Right now it's just the back and the armbar position. Maybe people could start with the front headlock, or a leglock position like ashi garami?

They could do unlimited rounds until someone gets a sub. No ride time. They could offer sub money if a sub occurs in OT, because currently I think there's only money if you get a sub in regulation. They could end the match right away if there's a sub in OT, instead of giving the other person a shot to even things out. They could make people alternate between the back and the armbar, since the armbar position seems inherently harder to hold. That might make it less beneficial to spam ride times?

If they don't change the OT rules, they at least need to show a clock to the audience for ride time.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

Other people have alluded to what my thoughts were after the tournament:
1. A SUB in overtime still gets you half the money of a regulation sub win if you win the tournament

2. If someone is subbed in overtime...match over. The current rules give the other guy a shot at a sub if he didn't get to pick a position first
- before anyone says this is unfair...in wrestling if someone is pinned in overtime...match over period, even if the other guy was supposed to get a chance on top.
- This will encourage guys to be willing to expend more energy get the sub and get the match over with
-To make it fair who gets to pick position first, do what wrestling does and do a "coin flip/ball grab". Not fair? Don't go to overtime

3. Keep the 3 OT's and fastest escape time wins, if there is no sub.

4. HOWEVER: like people have talked about...mount is still dominant position. So if someone escapes back control to bottom-mount keep the OT going until an escape (the top guy has subs obviously and the bottom guy can go for a hail mary heel hook)...BUT stop the riding time/escape clock
-I don't think you should start an OT in mount. It will be too easy for someone to get head-and-arm control and grapevine and just stall for riding time. But like I said if the guy escapes to their, it's still dominant position

Just my view on adjustments in the rules so the incentive for the kill continues

I don't agree with mount. I think we are confusing deadzones with dominant positions. Mount is a dominant position, but without strikes is far from being a dead zone.

 

[Drew Foster]

Also you could do the first 2 OT rounds time limit, and first sub wins. Coin toss to see who has dominant position first. Then, you could do ride time for the third and final OT.

 

[jack36767]

I don't agree with mount. I think we are confusing deadzones with dominant positions. Mount is a dominant position, but without strikes is far from being a dead zone.

Fair enough

 

[BJJ_Rage]

Also you could do the first 2 OT rounds time limit, and first sub wins. Coin toss to see who has dominant position first. Then, you could do ride time for the third and final OT.

Yo u mean like if you get the sub you win and the defender doesn't get the chance to attack? Woyldnt that be unfair?

 

[Drew Foster]

Yo u mean like if you get the sub you win and the defender doesn't get the chance to attack? Woyldnt that be unfair?

Yep. And it might not be fair, but it would certainly give an incentive to escape and an incentive to finish as fats as possible. You could save it for the final OT even. Or a sudden death thing. So people could do 2 or 3 OTs the way it's currently done, and then there's a sudden death coin flip. Whoever loses the coin flip has to start defending, and if they get subbed, that's it, they lose. No calculating ride times.

Just 2 or 3 OTs under the current format minus the ride times portion, then a coin flip, then a sub wins. If there's an escape, they could either alternate or coin flip again. But either way, first sub wins after the normal 2-3 OTs are over.

Defender would not get a chance to attack if they were subbed in this sudden death format.

 

[trustdoesntrust]

I wonder what the breakdown is of what EBIs had the most OTs. I know EBI 1 only had one across 2 different 16 man brackets, and that was the Geo/Glover final at 145. EBI 2 I don't really remember. EBI 3 had a few. At least 3 that I remember.

EBI 4 seemed to have a lot. At least 5 or 6?

As far as suggestions, one thing I think would be cool would be different positions to start from. Right now it's just the back and the armbar position. Maybe people could start with the front headlock, or a leglock position like ashi garami?

They could do unlimited rounds until someone gets a sub. No ride time. They could offer sub money if a sub occurs in OT, because currently I think there's only money if you get a sub in regulation. They could end the match right away if there's a sub in OT, instead of giving the other person a shot to even things out. They could make people alternate between the back and the armbar, since the armbar position seems inherently harder to hold. That might make it less beneficial to spam ride times?

If they don't change the OT rules, they at least need to show a clock to the audience for ride time.

I think this past event had the best competitors overall, so more OT's isn't a surprise. A lot of this debate about rules is a bit ironic, because EBI is seeing the same thing that every other org has seen, including IBJJF: When you put together a timed competition between similarly skilled competitors, there will not be a clear winner unless you add new rules or judges.

 

[Drew Foster]

while it isn't perfect, so far they have done it the best out of all the submission only tourney.

Totally. This last one seemed to have the longest run time but the pace was great. Everything moved right along at a solid clip. The stream quality was good, the sound was good, the commentary seemed better than last time.

They do a good job of actually getting subs in a sub only event in a timely fashion. I think that as better and better grapplers enter EBI we might see some longer matches and less subs, but I actually like mismatches for a sub only event. They're fun and many promotions do mismatches all the time.

Eddie Bravo was saying that he actually tried to get Rafa Mendes and Cobrinha for EBI 4. He said that Mendes didn't like the idea of no guaranteed money and also thought people would try to stall on him to take him to OT. But Bravo said he understood and is open to ideas to try to bring in the best guys.

For better or worse I just don't think you can have sub only matches produce submissions on a frequent basis if you have the cream of the crop in every match. This sport just doesn't lend itself to that kind of outcome. Especially in a 10-20 minute time frame.

EBI so far has been way more fun than Metamoris showing seminars and highlight videos of previous events during their broadcast in between matches. Also, I think there could be some countdown footage at EBI, but I think the fact that Metamoris plays entire countdown videos that most people have already seen is overkill. Just do like the UFC and show an abridged countdown video that's 1-2 mins long just to give unfamiliar viewers a quick taste of what to expect.

I think this past event had the best competitors overall, so more OT's isn't a surprise. A lot of this debate about rules is a bit ironic, because EBI is seeing the same thing that every other org has seen, including IBJJF: When you put together a timed competition between similarly skilled competitors, there will not be a clear winner unless you add new rules or judges.

I agree. There's not too many ways around this.

 

[rmongler]

normally the guy whos stalling is the one defending, but under the current rules, as crazy as it sounds, the guy stalling is the guy with the seatbelt ON (attacking)

Yeah, and its better that way compared to the converse. Placing the onus on the man in inferior position more naturally aligns the incentives with good grappling ideals. Sure the man in dominant position has an incentive to hang on and ride it out, but it still means that there is engagement to begin with, and that there is a built in dynamic for the athletes themselves to deal with attempts to stall (by improving their escapes and constantly working them), rather than have to use arbitrary referee punishments to crudely force action.

There is a principle in software engineering that applies here; if a certain 'bug' keeps reappearing no matter what you try to get rid of it, a more elegant solution is often to incorperate it into the system itself, turn the bug into a feature. Its gods way of telling you the 'bug' is probably more fundamental than you otherwise presume.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

Yeah, and its better that way compared to the converse. Placing the onus on the man in inferior position more naturally aligns the incentives with good grappling ideals. Sure the man in dominant position has an incentive to hang on and ride it out, but it still means that there is engagement to begin with, and that there is a built in dynamic for the athletes themselves to deal with attempts to stall (by improving their escapes and constantly working them), rather than have to use arbitrary referee punishments to crudely force action.

There is a principle in software engineering that applies here; if a certain 'bug' keeps reappearing no matter what you try to get rid of it, a more elegant solution is often to incorperate it into the system itself, turn the bug into a feature. Its gods way of telling you the 'bug' is probably more fundamental than you otherwise presume.

The problem is that a tight seatbelt and a body lock triangle it takes time to escape, it's too.much control, and I would have no problem if the guy attacking was actually looking to finish the fight, but instead he's more focus hanging on than finishing the match.

 

[Shot]

Joe Soto has made it pretty clear how to game the rules. Despite his great peeformqnce, it was clear that his main objective was to take the game to ot and then stall the most to win on time. I think by now it will be dumb to request spider web, most people will chose back control because of you can control the person for longer, so if you don't get the tap, at least you are racking some time in your favor.

So, the flaw on the rule set is evident, and the tournament and the whole ot rules are designed to avoid stalling and make the show entertaining, and somehow it still is, but this stalling from seatbelt control will get worse and worse. So, I think one change on the rules it could be implemented is that spider web must be chosen at least once...

Any suggestions to avoid sotoing the rules ( this is not a knock on Soto, I really like him, he just exposed a flaw in the rules)

I agree with looking at the OT rules, but this is silly. Soto was aggressive in each of his matches. Hell, he put his feet in Cummings's lap.

 

[rmongler]

The problem is that a tight seatbelt and a body lock triangle it takes time to escape, it's too.much control, and I would have no problem if the guy attacking was actually looking to finish the fight, but instead he's more focus hanging on than finishing the match.

I was speaking more in general terms really, but with regard to this specific situation, im not seeing many alternate methods that would not generate even more perverse incentives, or defeat the premise of ebi all together. I can see tweaks like only allowing a choice of dead zone once helping, but little that would change it essentially.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

I was speaking more in general terms really, but with regard to this specific situation, im not seeing many alternate methods that would not generate even more perverse incentives, or defeat the premise of ebi all together. I can see tweaks like only allowing a choice of dead zone once helping, but little that would change it essentially.

I think that Cuold be a partial solution implementing another dead zone thus being able to pick each dead zone only once. May be the truck or crucifix