Garry Tonon makes post about sub only versus points matches on instagram

[mataleaos]

"If you genuinely believe you are going to submit someone, and you tell people that's your "real" goal, to submit, and you were given a choice of ruleset, why on earth would you choose any other ruleset besides sub only? I don't understand it. Remember I've given numerous interviews stating that I still like competing in points tournaments and believe they have a place in the sport. However, I just don't understand why you would choose a ruleset besides sub only if you genuinely thought you were going to submit the other person. O wait, nevermind, I get it, it's because you're scared you can't submit them, and that they will submit you, and you're hoping for a way to win or lose with your so called "dignity" in tact. I suppose the only other reason would be because you want to take advantage of someone who is afraid to get their guard passed or being taken down so you have a better chance at taking their back, other than that I don't really get it.

When you're reading this and you think I'm slandering competing in points tournaments I am not. Ill likely compete in points tournaments till I die because I want to be the best at everything. I am saying, very specifically, if given a dream matchup, and your own choice of rules, and you believed you were going to submit your opponent, even boldly stated so in public, why would you not choose a sub only ruleset?
Why am I bringing this hypothetical situation to light? Because myself and my teammates have had this happen time and time again. We go to setup a superfight were the tournament organizer is willing to setup whatever ruleset both parties agree upon, and our opponents refuse the sub only ruleset or opt for a points oriented match. I just want to know why."

 

[throwboes]

Because positional dominance is just as important if not more so than rolling underneath people trying to tie up a leg.

Edit: I might have missed the point of his post.

 

[Uchi Mata]

"If you genuinely believe you are going to submit someone, and you tell people that's your "real" goal, to submit, and you were given a choice of ruleset, why on earth would you choose any other ruleset besides sub only? I don't understand it. Remember I've given numerous interviews stating that I still like competing in points tournaments and believe they have a place in the sport. However, I just don't understand why you would choose a ruleset besides sub only if you genuinely thought you were going to submit the other person. O wait, nevermind, I get it, it's because you're scared you can't submit them, and that they will submit you, and you're hoping for a way to win or lose with your so called "dignity" in tact. I suppose the only other reason would be because you want to take advantage of someone who is afraid to get their guard passed or being taken down so you have a better chance at taking their back, other than that I don't really get it.

When you're reading this and you think I'm slandering competing in points tournaments I am not. Ill likely compete in points tournaments till I die because I want to be the best at everything. I am saying, very specifically, if given a dream matchup, and your own choice of rules, and you believed you were going to submit your opponent, even boldly stated so in public, why would you not choose a sub only ruleset?
Why am I bringing this hypothetical situation to light? Because myself and my teammates have had this happen time and time again. We go to setup a superfight were the tournament organizer is willing to setup whatever ruleset both parties agree upon, and our opponents refuse the sub only ruleset or opt for a points oriented match. I just want to know why."

He must have put nanoseconds of thought into that post. Why would you want points?

1. You recognize that your opponents are also good, and you want to be able to win if you've demonstrated positional dominance even if you can't submit them within the time limit. Going for a submission and being sure you're going to submit someone are not the same thing. Rafa Mendes is trying to submit Cobrinha every time they fight (and vice versa), but they both know that a sub is unlikely because they're both so damn good.

2. Most tournaments are points based, the most prestigious tournaments are points based, as such that's what you train for, and as such that's the rule set you're most comfortable competing under. If you're going up against someone who trains a somewhat esoteric sub only game, why wouldn't you want to have the rules reflect the style you're used to? Especially with money on the line?

3. If you're sure you're going to sub someone, why would you care what the rule set is? It shouldn't matter either way. Sub wins under any rules. So you should be agnostic. The 'scared' comment is stupid. You could just as easily say that Garry and his buddies are 'scared' they can't sub their opponents and will be positionally dominated and lose and so they don't choose points rule sets. No one is scared they can't submit their opponents, but they do recognize that submissions don't happen 100% of the time in even matchups and they want their dominance reflected. If anything, sub only gives the inferior guy the advantage, because it means that an ultra defensive style can get you a draw. Ryron vs. Galvao is a great example of the downside of not having points. It allows a defensive guy to do nothing and claim a moral victory even if he got dominated.

I've been a fan of Garry's but he's really starting to rub me the wrong way. I love their style, but having your own style and defending it doesn't mean you have to shit on other peoples' styles, especially those who have objectively accomplished a lot more than you.

 

[CYKO]

I've been a fan of Garry's but he's really starting to rub me the wrong way. I love their style, but having your own style and defending it doesn't mean you have to shit on other peoples' styles, especially those who have objectively accomplished a lot more than you.

I'm feeling the same way. Lately, he's been a bit full of himself and his team, talking a lot of trash and getting big-headed. I like his style but c'mon now.

 

[NoGiRonin]

I agree with Garry. Position is important, but it is about the kill (the finish). People that disagree are foolish.

 

[anaconda]

I agree with Garry. Position is important, but it is about the kill (the finish). People that disagree are foolish.

Well then you're both wrong.

Read Uchi Mata's post above. Garry is getting more and more annoying with his shtick. I hope he loses a bunch of matches and gets put in his place. Way too arrogant for my liking. Honestly it's making me dislike Jon Danaher bc of the stupid stuff Garry says.

 

[Leify]

We go to setup a superfight were the tournament organizer is willing to setup whatever ruleset both parties agree upon, and our opponents refuse the sub only ruleset or opt for a points oriented match. I just want to know why.

Maybe because it's the ruleset they want?

'I love ribeye. EVERYONE ELSE MUST EAT RIBEYE ALL THE TIME.' I assume this is how Tonnon thinks.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Well then you're both wrong.

Read Uchi Mata's post above. Garry is getting more and more annoying with his shtick. I hope he loses a bunch of matches and gets put in his place. Way too arrogant for my liking. Honestly it's making me dislike Jon Danaher bc of the stupid stuff Garry says.

It's doubly stupid because buying into the 'sub only' dogma ignores the roots of what made BJJ a great martial art for its original purpose, winning vale tudo fights. The reason the positional hierarchy exists is because those are positions where you can hurt without being hurt. That's why mount and back are worth more than side control, and passing guard scores points. When you start saying 'only the sub matters' as if that's the attitude of a badass, you're ignoring the fact that BJJ competition was originally seen more as an indicator of ability to dominate a NHB fight than a sport in its own right. Sub only isn't taking BJJ back to its roots, it's ignoring those roots in favor of a more artificial sport that's farther divorced from MMA than points because it ignores what can happen when punches are involved. Position matters. Every grappling art recognizes this other than submission only BJJ.

The ideal old school BJJ guy isn't someone like Garry Tonon, it's Demian Maia. Takedown, pass guard, punch until they give up a sub. That is the real roots of BJJ. You can argue that modern points tournaments are farther divorced from MMA than sub only, but that's not a function of the positional hierarchy, that's a function of specialization related mostly to the use of the gi. And I'd still take Rafa Mendes in an MMA fight over someone like Garry any day.

 

[German Supplex]

Maybe because it's the ruleset they want?

'I love ribeye. EVERYONE ELSE MUST EAT RIBEYE ALL THE TIME.' I assume this is how Tonnon thinks.

Your analogy isnt good.

What Gary is accusing people of is

"I really love ribeye. Its the best thing in the world. I could eat it all the time. If I could have any of the best ribeye in the world, I will choose top sirloin, not ribeye."

 

[McA]

1) Submission-only tournaments are always going to make their money from participant entry fees.
2) points allow for a timed event. Waiting around an extra hour to fight, because Larry and Moe are still cuddling, is horrible for everybody else.
3) Getting a submission because the other person gassed out is good, in theory. But in practice, having two dead-tired people grappling is dangerous. People start to get spazzy when their gas tank is empty and dry. A super-tired guy is more likely to cause permanent joint damage on the submission attempt. A super-tired guy is less likely to tap as soon as he needs to.

 

[Leify]

Your analogy isnt good.

What Gary is accusing people of is

"I really love ribeye. Its the best thing in the world. I could eat it all the time. If I could have any of the best ribeye in the world, I will choose top sirloin, not ribeye."

You might want to re-read his statement. He's talking about people who claim to have a goal of submitting someone but can't understand why they'd prefer a points ruleset. The analogy could use tweaking, but it's along the lines of, "You love ribeye? WHY DON'T YOU ALWAYS EAT RIBEYE WITH MASHED POTATOES?!'

And it's really an inane statement in the first place. I don't know anyone who's goal in competition isn't to get a submission. That has little bearing on what format they prefer.

He'd have a point if people talked up the format as the best, and then shied from competing in it. But he's not talking about that.

 

[mataleaos]

I agree with Garry. Position is important, but it is about the kill (the finish). People that disagree are foolish.

It is but it's also about dominant grappling. All bjj is is just the same as wrestling or judo or sambo or any other grappling art but the emphasis is different. In bjj there is more of an emphasis on submissions but to say that bjj is all about the sub is not true. bjj started as a means to fight vale tudo. That''s where the points system comes from. To be a reflection of a real fight.

What I don't like is a lot of people (not all) that say that sub only is so pure and the tap is the only thing that matters is that a lot of them tend to be not all that great. Instead of taking someone down, passing them, mounting them, and choking them, they would rather get taken down, passed, mounted, and magically get some wrist lock on you from bottom mount. They'd rather get completely dominated and get a sub than completely dominate someone and not get one.

Look at a few of the older school guys that say "the tap is what matters the most" and see if you can spot a trend. Marcelo Garcia. Braulio Estima. Roger Gracie. Jeff Glover. Kron Gracie. Robert Drysdale.

See a trend yet? First of they are winners. Second they all are great at submitting people in any rule set. They don't care. Marcelo had 31 no-gi matches from 2003-2011 and submitted 28 of them. Roger subbed all 8 opponents at adcc 2005 and all 8 opponents (with the same choke) at the 2010 worlds. Glover would do crazy shit and let people pass his guard just to darce, guillotine, or kneebar them. But he is a no-gi world champ and an adcc medalist. Kron subbed everyone at adcc 2013 when he won. Braulio will do crazy inverted triangles on you from bottom side control but he also will double gold at adcc, win worlds and pans, and tap you with basic shoulder pressure from side control. Drysdale is a world champ and an adcc absolute champ.

Where are the resumes for all these sub only diehard supporters popping off at the mouth? What is rubbing people wrong about Tonon is that he's talking so much but he hasn't even gotten on the podium at adcc. Has he won the no-gi worlds? No. Who is his biggest win? Someone that has won or gotten on the podium at adcc, worlds, pans, or no-gi worlds? Joao Miyao. He beat him on points too. What happened against the really elite guys he faced? Kron took his back and choked him out and Lucas Lepri beat him 10-0 in a match that only counted points for half of it and Lepri was going hard for submissions while doing it. BTW I wonder if Tonon would have had a problem if he'd lasted an extra 3 seconds without tapping to Kron and won on points. I wonder if he would've disowned the win or kept it off his resume because it wasn't a sub win.

I hespect that he's able to generate interest and make money. But it's getting tiresome. At least Eddie Cummngs had the sense to not blame the rules when he lost to Tanquinho at adcc. He said he didn't get the job done and needed to work harder. I like that he's not calling out people with resumes 3 times as long as his.

 

[mataleaos]

I can't knock Tonon's hustle. He has never won a major title yet, has no wins over any previous adcc/worlds/pans/no-gi worlds champs. But he is one of the most popular grapplers on the planet. He's always looking for big matches for himself. He's not afraid to speak his mind. He's looking to prove his system and his beliefs. He's making way more money than people with better resumes than him. With enough time I do think he will be a no-gi world champ and podium at adcc more than once if not win it one day.

He's on his way and has massive potential but the mouthing off in the past few months is just wearing thin.

He's keeping his name out there in the mix and he's gaining more and more success in the process.

 

[trustdoesntrust]

sub-only with time limits is not really sub-only in my opinion. if there were no time limits then dominant position would be far more meaningful, and if there were strikes then dominant position would be of the highest value. EBI-type rulesets add a certain 'home run derby' component that can certainly be exciting, but also can cause an artificial element. i don't love points either, especially the stupid ibjjf rules, but there's a value if you're going to have time limits.

 

[codemonkey76]

Sub only is no time limit, if there is a time limit, then it's just a normal bjj match with probably some arbritrary decision by the ref, or a draw.

 

[DrJitsu]

Uchi's posts are on point.

How about just the simple fact that competition with points allows an avenue to win in the event that you cannot submit. No one likes a tie.

 

[discrawg]

Well then you're both wrong.

Honestly it's making me dislike Jon Danaher bc of the stupid stuff Garry says.

That's a bit harsh.

 

[discrawg]

It's doubly stupid because buying into the 'sub only' dogma ignores the roots of what made BJJ a great martial art for its original purpose, winning vale tudo fights. The reason the positional hierarchy exists is because those are positions where you can hurt without being hurt. That's why mount and back are worth more than side control, and passing guard scores points. When you start saying 'only the sub matters' as if that's the attitude of a badass, you're ignoring the fact that BJJ competition was originally seen more as an indicator of ability to dominate a NHB fight than a sport in its own right. Sub only isn't taking BJJ back to its roots, it's ignoring those roots in favor of a more artificial sport that's farther divorced from MMA than points because it ignores what can happen when punches are involved. Position matters. Every grappling art recognizes this other than submission only BJJ.

The ideal old school BJJ guy isn't someone like Garry Tonon, it's Demian Maia. Takedown, pass guard, punch until they give up a sub. That is the real roots of BJJ. You can argue that modern points tournaments are farther divorced from MMA than sub only, but that's not a function of the positional hierarchy, that's a function of specialization related mostly to the use of the gi. And I'd still take Rafa Mendes in an MMA fight over someone like Garry any day.

Great post. I do like Sub only, both as a competitor and as a fan, however your post outlines the entire unquestionable truth of the matter. There is a trade off though, Sub only will gain more fans, therefor more money, therefor more interest in BJJ, & while it will ultimately change the natural evolution and very nature of the art. It will also (hopefully) bring more money for BJJ competitors.

 

[trustdoesntrust]

I can't knock Tonon's hustle. He has never won a major title yet, has no wins over any previous adcc/worlds/pans/no-gi worlds champs. But he is one of the most popular grapplers on the planet. He's always looking for big matches for himself. He's not afraid to speak his mind. He's looking to prove his system and his beliefs. He's making way more money than people with better resumes than him. With enough time I do think he will be a no-gi world champ and podium at adcc more than once if not win it one day.

He's on his way and has massive potential but the mouthing off in the past few months is just wearing thin.

He's keeping his name out there in the mix and he's gaining more and more success in the process.

You indirectly bring up a good counterargument, which is that these sub-only-with-time-limits rule sets favor Tonon's style. EBI in particular favors the 10th Planet style, which has a weakness (or de-emphasis if you're being nice) for traditional positional hierarchy, and thus has an overtime that gifts dominant position after a relatively short main round that disincentivizes a positional game (both in terms of the time it takes to set this up, and the short time limit negating the impact of wearing out an opponent stuck on bottom).

 

[mataleaos]

You indirectly bring up a good counterargument, which is that these sub-only-with-time-limits rule sets favor Tonon's style. EBI in particular favors the 10th Planet style, which has a weakness (or de-emphasis if you're being nice) for traditional positional hierarchy, and thus has an overtime that gifts dominant position after a relatively short main round that disincentivizes a positional game (both in terms of the time it takes to set this up, and the short time limit negating the impact of wearing out an opponent stuck on bottom).

yep! and that's also why off the record a lot of the top guys didn't want to do ebi before the money got big. A lot of them didn't like that someone that could never take their back or get them in an armbar in a million years could stall on them and just pull a home alone and defend for 10 mins then all of a sudden get to start all the way in arguably the 2 strongest spots to get a submission.