Taking nothing from Ryan Hall's opponent, his inactivity was an unfair handicap

[panem-et-circenses]

Far as Hall, I wouldn't call him a failure by any stretch. TUF winner, 4-1 in the UFC. He's no spring chicken, so I don't know quite where he goes from here, but he's done well for himself so far.

As far as Imanari, yes, it was Kenta's fault. He backed up and circled away the whole fight because he wanted to avoid engaging Imanari on the ground at all costs and didn't want to walk into any of his entries. You might not like Imanari, okay. But the fact is that the one retreating the entire fight was Kenta. He didn't deserve that decision. The man didn't engage at all, he backed away, he circled and did everything he could to avoid Imanari's grappling.

Kenta deserved the decision because Imanari went 0-25 on takedowns, put his hands to his side, got hit with significant punches (end of the first round got stunned), got dropped during a roll, which looked like a legit KD, didn’t land a single punch, etc. Kenta didn’t make the fight good, but he did commit a few times to trying to hurt Imanari and even went into his guard.

 

[ChickenBrother]

Let's just be honest guys.

BJJ guys have no idea how to beat anyone with even a moderate takedown defense capability. This is a big big problem in our community where assuming the opponent is going to willingly engage with you in on the ground has become the norm.

Only until you get to an MMA situation and realize your opponent has no interest in willingly engaging with you on the ground.

Two things we are sorely lacking in our community. How to get the fight where we want it to be and how to make sure we keep it there. 1. Finishing the takedown. 2. Securing the position(keeping opponents grounded when all they want to do is stand up).

To the extent folks see it as a problem (I do, some don't), this won't change IMO unless IBJJF implements a penalty for pulling guard. As it is, there's literally no incentive to get good at attacking or defending TDs because you or your opponent can pull guard resulting in no score. Why should any BJJ competitor devote training time to something that's useless in competition?

I think ADCC rules have it right. Pulling guard is a valid way to take it to the ground and it does take some skill. But it's easier than completing a TD vs. a competent opponent and it's a passive action assuming you're awarding points for a TD. 2 points for a TD but 1 point deduction for guard pull makes good sense.

 

[Kforcer]

Kenta deserved the decision because Imanari went 0-25 on takedowns, put his hands to his side, got hit with significant punches (end of the first round got stunned), got dropped during a roll, which looked like a legit KD, didn’t land a single punch, etc. Kenta didn’t make the fight good, but he did commit a few times to trying to hurt Imanari and even went into his guard.

The only meaningful offense was Imanari's leglock entry and follow up attack on the opposite leg. Kenta backed up and basically retreated the entire fight. I don't think there were any legitimate knockdowns in the fight. The only time I remember Kenta engaging with Imanari's grappling was when Imanari hit an entry on one leg, then used it as a means of attacking the other and Kenta scooted away. You can't just retreat and essentially run from a person's offense the whole fight and offer no engagement and expect to win. It'd be different if he was actually coming forward and attacking, IMO.

Who knows, maybe Kenta did deserve a win in some sense. But I definitely think his refusal to engage was what made for a poor fight.

 

[Kforcer]

To the extent folks see it as a problem (I do, some don't), this won't change IMO unless IBJJF implements a penalty for pulling guard. As it is, there's literally no incentive to get good at attacking or defending TDs because you or your opponent can pull guard resulting in no score. Why should any BJJ competitor devote training time to something that's useless in competition?

I think ADCC rules have it right. Pulling guard is a valid way to take it to the ground and it does take some skill. But it's easier than completing a TD vs. a competent opponent and it's a passive action assuming you're awarding points for a TD. 2 points for a TD but 1 point deduction for guard pull makes good sense.

But isn't the real problem not guard pulling, but butt scooting? I think people need to be stood up after an interval if there's no engagement following someone dropping to their butt and their needs to be penalties for people that do it in the first place.

 

[panem-et-circenses]

The only meaningful offense was Imanari's leglock entry. Kenta backed up and basically retreated the entire fight. I don't think there were any legitimate knockdowns in the fight. The only time I remember Kenta engaging with Imanari's grappling was when Imanari hit an entry on one leg, then used it as a means of attacking the other and Kenta scooted away. You can't just retreat and essentially run from a person's offense the whole fight and offer no engagement and expect to win. It'd be different if he was actually coming forward and attacking, IMO.

the thing is, Kenta actually landed punches with some power. Imanari failed to get ahold of him all night until the last round, which was defended. Imanari landed nothing, maybe a handful of slap kicks, whilst failing at every aspect of professional fighting. Kenta wanted to move forward. He knew the score — land some punches and nullify the grappling.

 

[Kforcer]

the thing is, Kenta actually landed punches with some power. Imanari failed to get ahold of him all night until the last round, which was defended. Imanari landed nothing, maybe a handful of slap kicks, whilst failing at every aspect of professional fighting. Kenta wanted to move forward. He knew the score — land some punches and nullify the grappling.

I mean, Kenta basically circled away and retreated from Imanari the whole fight because he didn't want to come forward and walk into a takedown or leglock entry. Certainly the only time the fight was close to being finished was Imanari's entry that led to a solid leglock attempt. I think it is clear that Kenta was the one who was in retreat and made for a dull night. You can try and neutralize someone without almost completely disengaging.

 

[panem-et-circenses]

I mean, Kenta basically circled away and retreated from Imanari the whole fight because he didn't want to come forward and walk into a takedown or leglock entry. Certainly the only time the fight was close to being finished was Imanari's entry that led to a solid leglock attempt. I think it is clear that Kenta was the one who was in retreat and made for a dull night. You can try and neutralize someone without almost completely disengaging.

I agree Kenta disengaged. The fight wasn’t good. Kenta did throw punches though. He did go into Imanari’s guard. There was that one attempt during round three, the crowd popped for it, but Kenta escaped and I’m not sure how deep it was. That was it. Imanari goofed off the rest of the bout instead of landing punches and kicks. He lost the first two rounds and wasn’t close to finishing the fight.

 

[Kforcer]

I agree Kenta disengaged. The fight wasn’t good. Kenta did throw punches though. He did go into Imanari’s guard. There was that one attempt during round three, the crowd popped for it, but Kenta escaped and I’m not sure how deep it was. That was it. Imanari goofed off the rest of the bout instead of landing punches and kicks. He lost the first two rounds and wasn’t close to finishing the fight.

That attempted was the closed anyone got to finishing the fight. As far as how deep it was, well, in spite of Imanari attempting to establish control before going for the finish, he didn't have a ton of it (control, I mean), but he did manage to attack the heel and if Kenta hadn't gotten out as soon as he did, he'd have been in trouble. He was certainly in danger, especially considering who it was. And that was, IMO, indisputably the closest anyone got to a finish. Just my take. I mean, if they are going by Pride criteria, I would have given it to Imanari based on that.

 

[panem-et-circenses]

That attempted was the closed anyone got to finishing the fight. As far as how deep it was, well, in spite of Imanari attempting to establish control before going for the finish, he didn't have a ton of it (control, I mean), but he did manage to attack the heel and if Kenta hadn't gotten out as soon as he did, he'd have been in trouble. He was certainly in danger, especially considering who it was. And that was, IMO, indisputably the closest anyone got to a finish. Just my take. I mean, if they are going by Pride criteria, I would have given it to Imanari based on that.

It didn’t seem that close to being finished iirc. Kenta was out of the first attempt, the leg was switched in the corner, and then K. immediately pulled out and went to the other side of the ring. Even in PRIDE, ugh, Kenta won. You have to land punches if the fight is mostly on the feet.

 

[Kforcer]

It didn’t seem that close to being finished iirc. Kenta was out of the first attempt, the leg was switched in the corner, and then K. immediately pulled out and went to the other side of the ring. Even in PRIDE, ugh, Kenta won. You have to land punches if the fight is mostly on the feet.

Yeah, Imanari switched legs, but on the second attempt he did get to the heel. And I certainly think he could have finished Kenta had he been able to hold the position just a little longer. I mean, he did get to his heel. Even the leg control he established before attacking the heel was bringing things closer to a finish that any prior action in the fight did.

As far as Pride, Pride said that the primary metric was who came closer to finishing. Overall damage came second. Imanari came the closest to finishing. So in that sense, I think he'd have an argument.

 

[ChickenBrother]

But isn't the real problem not guard pulling, but butt scooting? I think people need to be stood up after an interval if there's no engagement following someone dropping to their butt and their needs to be penalties for people that do it in the first place.

At least from what I've seen, ADCC does a decent job of discouraging that. In principle the passivity penalty works with the guard pulling penalty. So voluntarily going from standing to any grounded position is -1 point (you're essentially conceding a TD but giving up less points than if your opponent took you down). And if you refuse to engage, you're losing another point for passivity. But the key is actual enforcement of passivity penalties so combatants are always required to come forward and engage as they are under Judo and most wrestling rulesets.


Points (Positive Points):
Each position must be established for 3 seconds or more being out of any danger of submission in order for points to be awarded.

• Passing the guard = 3 points
• Knee on stomach = 2 points
• Mount position = 2 points
• Back mount with hooks = 3 points
• Takedown (ends Guard or Half Guard) = 2 points
• Clean Takedown (ends passed the guard) = 4 points
• Sweeps (ends Guard or Half Guard) = 2 points
• Clean Sweep (ends passed the guard) = 4 points
• Sweep is considered when two fighters are facing each other, change the position from bottom to top and establish it for 3 sec. or more.
• Reversals are considered Sweeps as well.
• When changing multiple positions, points will be awarded only for the position that has been established for 3 seconds or more.
• Every sweep has to be done in one continuous motion in order to be awarded with points.
• Points for a sweep will be awarded only if the fighter initiates the sweep, not if he is being attacked by his opponent and he ends up on top.
• When passing the guard going straight to mount or knee on the stomach in less than 3 seconds points will be given only for passing the guard.

Penalties (Negative Points):

• When a fighter voluntarily jumps in the guard or goes from standing position to a non-standing position by any means and remains down for 3 seconds or more, he will be punished by a minus point.
• When a fighter disengages from contact and starts backing up and avoids engaging again he will be punished by minus point.
• A passive fighter will be warned twice and then will be punished by minus point. The referee will warn the passive player by the words "WARNING PASSIVITY" – after the first minus given there are not going to be any more warnings and the minus points will be given right-away if the fighter continues to be passive.
• If a fighter is very passive during the first half of the regular fights when there are no minuses, the referees will still give him WARNING for passivity and will punish him with a negative point when the second half of the fight starts!
• If two fighters (team-mates) make a fixed fight, they will both be disqualified from the tournament.

 

[maximus__]

...I won't say Hall was beaten by inactivity. But I feel like the UFC, largely because of their apathy towards him, unfairly imposed what was tantamount to an exile from the sport during crucial years of his fighting life. Ryan Hall is no spring chicken. Each year of his career, an irretrievable part of his peak is gone. I mean, as a 40-year old, I can say that the jump from 34 to 36 is no joke.

That Spanish dude did great, but I just feel like, at the same time, the UFC also sort of defeated Ryan Hall by calling on the unbeatable Father Time. Sort of the same way super middleweight women boxers beat Veronica Simmons--avoiding her for so long she got too rusty to keep fighting. Now what happened to Hall isn't as extreme as that, but I feel like it was halfway there.

It sucks because he finally got a good fight that would get him a top guy and he shit the bed. He would have done alright against Ige after the Zombie fight IMO.
I see that it came out he broke his hand straight away, but he was having success on the feet with the kicks. He should have actually set the rolls up instead of diving all over the place against a skilled grappler. He could have sat on the outside spamming kicks, forced his opponent to over commit to get some offence back and then dived into the legs.
That's my armchair quarterback opinion. I hope to see him back in there with an actual well rounded strategy. He won't win a title, but he could definitely have some success.

 

[rmongler]

To the extent folks see it as a problem (I do, some don't), this won't change IMO unless IBJJF implements a penalty for pulling guard. As it is, there's literally no incentive to get good at attacking or defending TDs because you or your opponent can pull guard resulting in no score. Why should any BJJ competitor devote training time to something that's useless in competition?

I think ADCC rules have it right. Pulling guard is a valid way to take it to the ground and it does take some skill. But it's easier than completing a TD vs. a competent opponent and it's a passive action assuming you're awarding points for a TD. 2 points for a TD but 1 point deduction for guard pull makes good sense.

But isn't the real problem not guard pulling, but butt scooting? I think people need to be stood up after an interval if there's no engagement following someone dropping to their butt and their needs to be penalties for people that do it in the first place.

The real problem is lack of consistent logic. If taking someone down is scored points, why would a guard pull that results in the exact same situation not give the same points? It's like not scoring points for someone taking the back, 'because the other guy wanted him there'.

Ultimately this sort of dispute finds it's root in a philosophical debate; between bad evil conniving people who want to judge based on intentions, and brave moral virtuous people who want to judge based on actions.

 

[Normot]

Let's just be honest guys.

BJJ guys have no idea how to beat anyone with even a moderate takedown defense capability. This is a big big problem in our community where assuming the opponent is going to willingly engage with you in on the ground has become the norm.

Only until you get to an MMA situation and realize your opponent has no interest in willingly engaging with you on the ground.

Two things we are sorely lacking in our community. How to get the fight where we want it to be and how to make sure we keep it there. 1. Finishing the takedown. 2. Securing the position(keeping opponents grounded when all they want to do is stand up).

Giving points for standups would almost make sense but it will just make competitions boring for some new unexpected point strategy.
I think they found the answer. The answer is MMA. There are missing pieces of BJJ that exist, just like in wrestling and Judo. The way to fix them requires doing other martial arts.

 

[maximus__]

To the extent folks see it as a problem (I do, some don't), this won't change IMO unless IBJJF implements a penalty for pulling guard. As it is, there's literally no incentive to get good at attacking or defending TDs because you or your opponent can pull guard resulting in no score. Why should any BJJ competitor devote training time to something that's useless in competition?

I think ADCC rules have it right. Pulling guard is a valid way to take it to the ground and it does take some skill. But it's easier than completing a TD vs. a competent opponent and it's a passive action assuming you're awarding points for a TD. 2 points for a TD but 1 point deduction for guard pull makes good sense.

You could up the points for a takedown. That might make it more worthwhile for people. If you start the fight up 4 for landing a takedown and you get penalized for sitting to guard, it really makes that takedown worth it. Wrestlers would potentially dominate BJJ completely if that occurred though. Takedown, side control and ride for the victory.

 

[panem-et-circenses]

Yeah, Imanari switched legs, but on the second attempt he did get to the heel. And I certainly think he could have finished Kenta had he been able to hold the position just a little longer. I mean, he did get to his heel. Even the leg control he established before attacking the heel was bringing things closer to a finish that any prior action in the fight did.

As far as Pride, Pride said that the primary metric was who came closer to finishing. Overall damage came second. Imanari came the closest to finishing. So in that sense, I think he'd have an argument.

I’ll have to rewatch it one day. I didn’t think he had the heel though, at least not in a way where I went ‘close to being finished’. And that’s where I disagree with you: in PRIDE, which as you pointed out had a different scoring criteria from Western MMA, Kenta still would’ve won. There was no damage inflicted upon him, and the heel hook wasn’t locked up in a way where it would’ve scored significant points. The only time the fight was close to being finished was when K. was throwing punches on the feet.

10-9 Kenta
10-9 Kenta
10–10

Imanari could’ve won had he thrown any strikes. Any. The fight was a stinker on a bad card and I would bet that you and I are the only people discussing the fight still lol.

 

[TheMaster]

Let's just be honest guys.

BJJ guys have no idea how to beat anyone with even a moderate takedown defense capability. This is a big big problem in our community where assuming the opponent is going to willingly engage with you in on the ground has become the norm.

Only until you get to an MMA situation and realize your opponent has no interest in willingly engaging with you on the ground.

Two things we are sorely lacking in our community. How to get the fight where we want it to be and how to make sure we keep it there. 1. Finishing the takedown. 2. Securing the position(keeping opponents grounded when all they want to do is stand up).

This happens to all specialist arts. It's natural as in order for the style to so called 'keep evolving' it has to make people believe it's making new breakthroughs so gets more and more niche so that they end up just focussing on the ground game and then you get to the later leg lock meta game and then counters to the meta game and then variations of the counters etc

It's also how money is made. Theres an endless variety of 'variations' to learn in the pure sport and you can get people to train 5 times a week even doing this soft work and "rolling" (which is not sparring) alongside drilling.

Since BJJ comes from Judo minus throws it was a self defence art but with very rudimentary takedowns. Then even that got dropped for the most part and we have a specialist mat submission style.

Same with Judo becoming mainly a speciality throwing style although at least they do have Newaza whereas alot of BJJ has disdain for the standing grappling which traditionally was considered the main and most important part .

Ryan Hall is an example of things rolling full circle - where the original persuit of effectiveness of the style led to gradually more and more specialization leading to gradually reducing and eventually losing of the essentials leading to a warping of the style and a loss of effectiveness outside of a niche format.

 

[ChickenBrother]

The real problem is lack of consistent logic. If taking someone down is scored points, why would a guard pull that results in the exact same situation not give the same points? It's like not scoring points for someone taking the back, 'because the other guy wanted him there'.

Ultimately this sort of dispute finds it's root in a philosophical debate; between bad evil conniving people who want to judge based on intentions, and brave moral virtuous people who want to judge based on actions.

I started a thread on this point a few years ago and responses were split about 50/50. People get defensive when you criticize their style. But your point is correct: as is, it's not even internally consistent. I can pull guard, stay there for 4 and a half minutes and then sweep you with 2 seconds left in the match, putting you into the same position I just put myself in... and win 2-0. That makes as much sense as allowing me to pull you into top mount without conceding points - because I meant to do it.

But why stop there? I should be allowed to forcibly wrap your arms around my neck, triangle them and augment the squeeze with my own until I go out. I meant to do it so no points and moral victory for me, bitch!

 

[EndlessCritic]

I feel bad for anyone who watched the entirety of Kenta vs Imanari. Seemed like a pretty clear Kenta win.

Has anyone actually explained what Hall was trying to do? Seemed like he was almost trying to dive into the truck to take the back, or possibly find a triangle in a scramble. Whatever he was going for, he failed pretty miserably.

 

[dirtypablo]

I've always thought the rules in mma around this are stupid - the guys are there to fight - if one guy wants to fight from his butt and he is trying to engage you, you should have to engage him. If that means 5 minutes of one guy kicking the shit out of the other guys legs while he lays in open guard, so be it.