Thoughts on the IBJJF's new rules on takedown points?

I actually had one guy trying to tell me how to ref his teammate's match once. It was getting obnoxious, so I had to turn away for a moment and explain to him that he was wrong. His response was, "uhh, oh okay". Lots of people don't know the rules or think that they know the rules and actually don't.

I see no problem with this rule and don't think it is a big deal.

I think it's a great clarification of the rules, which previously was unfairly biased against wrestling style takedowns
 
Its more a continuing trend of mucking up the actual applicability of what you are doing in the gym.

It's not. Rather than remove the sport from combat applicability, it removes your particular style of gamesmanship from the sport. The fact that you said you won a lot on takedown points tells me that you didn't actually take advantage of your takedowns. How is that more combat applicable than, say, getting the takedown and maintaining that position. And if you go for the takedown and end up in an inferior position, that would be bad in actual combat. So the points reflect that. You fuck up the takedown, you get no points. Just because the guy falls over doesn't mean you should be stacking up points for the win. Your win on points should reflect your overall control of the fight and attempts to finish. This rule does nothing but encourage that.
 
my big problem is that I dislike how BJJ has moved from the most combat-effective art to a butt-scooting guard pulling game. I think all the rule changes have continued to move it in that direction and this will also.

For instance - I like to hit a single, slip to side control and roll into an armbar all in one motion and can hit it with a decent percentage, but when I'm worried about getting stacked and reversed I hesitate to go for it at all. Then its TD - wait - try to pass - wait - them maybe go for a sub. It emphasizes the "game" aspect and takes options to finish away.

Me no likey.

You always had to maintain control for 3 seconds for single and double leg takedowns.
 
But needing to build up a point lead makes me think more about not giving up points, and go for less.
That's the idea, it's meant to reward positional grappling with sub attempts that are high percentage rather than diving after any limb that presents itself Pancrase style with no care about where you end up.
 
You always had to maintain control for 3 seconds for single and double leg takedowns.
The old rule was instant points if he landed on his back or side regardless of what kind of take-down or throw you used. True, that's slightly less likely off a leg attack than a hip throw, but the rules didn't distinguish specifically between them.
 
I like the new rules, it takes away the Judo instant point factor and makes them use Jiu-Jitsu to hold us down instead of playing the throw, let us stand, throw us again points game.
 
the stacking of points is alright but its just the refs that aren't really good at keeping track i would have problem with.. they are so pressed on what the last move was you they will completely forget the TD and the pass points and just give you the points if you attacking the back or something else. Ive seen refs actually LOok at thier hand to make sure they were count correctly.. SMH...

Im very active when i compete and i keep track of my points but, i've gotten into stalemate positions and ask why i dont have certain amount of points before
 
I still don't get how it obliterates your particular game.
You are saying you sometimes lose position because you go straight for the submission from the takedown, yeah?

not obliterates. affects in a way I don't like.

I mean - here's the thing. I love the sport - and I love the art. But they are increasingly becoming two different things. To the point its hard not to pick one to focus on.
 
It's not. Rather than remove the sport from combat applicability, it removes your particular style of gamesmanship from the sport. The fact that you said you won a lot on takedown points tells me that you didn't actually take advantage of your takedowns. How is that more combat applicable than, say, getting the takedown and maintaining that position. And if you go for the takedown and end up in an inferior position, that would be bad in actual combat. So the points reflect that. You fuck up the takedown, you get no points. Just because the guy falls over doesn't mean you should be stacking up points for the win. Your win on points should reflect your overall control of the fight and attempts to finish. This rule does nothing but encourage that.

I don't deny that's part of it. I don't like it on two fronts: generally its continuing to drift away from reality, like judo has done, and specifically I don't think the new rules favor the way I like to roll.

I disagree the this rule encourages going for the finish - at least for me.
 
not obliterates. affects in a way I don't like.

I mean - here's the thing. I love the sport - and I love the art. But they are increasingly becoming two different things. To the point its hard not to pick one to focus on.

Again, how does not rewarding you for an ineffective takedown make the art less like combat? And how does it discourage you from going for the sub? The rule doesn't ask you to take them down and then wait. It asks that you stabilize them. You can advance position and attack for a sub as others have mentioned, and still get the points, because your takedown was obviously effective. If you wind up on the bottom after failing your submission, are you arguing that you should be awarded points for that?

I just don't get your argument. This is like saying that being on the bottom should not be considered losing in MMA, because it's less like real combat. Well, in MMA and in real combat, top game is the shit, and being on bottom means you're getting hit. Why should you be rewarded for doing something ineffectively?
 
Again, how does not rewarding you for an ineffective takedown make the art less like combat? And how does it discourage you from going for the sub? The rule doesn't ask you to take them down and then wait. It asks that you stabilize them. You can advance position and attack for a sub as others have mentioned, and still get the points, because your takedown was obviously effective. If you wind up on the bottom after failing your submission, are you arguing that you should be awarded points for that?

I just don't get your argument. This is like saying that being on the bottom should not be considered losing in MMA, because it's less like real combat. Well, in MMA and in real combat, top game is the shit, and being on bottom means you're getting hit. Why should you be rewarded for doing something ineffectively?

You can win a real fight from the bottom. You can stifle the other guys offense and land your own, not to mention land a sub from there. Of course I'd rather be on top but I'm not afraid to be on the bottom for a bit. Points make me worry about what scores rather than what wins, and I don't like that.

--edit - i've seen mma fights that I thought the guy on bottom was more effective and I would score him as winning - but I've never seen the judges score it that way.
 
So wait, a rule that suggests you need to have control of a TD, and one that also penalizes someone for a guard pull that isn't used to sweep/submit is a bad thing?

this whole "art vs sport" argument is STUPID. At no point would you be content with going for a TD and then being immediately swept in a street fight. The point is, if you take the fight down, you have to keep it down. If you lost dominant position, why in the hell would you want points for a TD? just because you changed the position of the fight to the ground isn't a good thing if your opponent takes control of the fight and puts you in a dangerous position because you over-extended a submission attempt.

The majority of the BJJ world preaches position before submission. As long as you adhere to that, and don't take crazy risks for iffy subs and terrible guard passes, it shouldn't make a difference at all. It rewards people who use high percentage moves that they've worked on to the point where they are confident in it. Not someone diving for some crazy move he learned off of youtube last weekend.
 
You can win a real fight from the bottom. You can stifle the other guys offense and land your own, not to mention land a sub from there. Of course I'd rather be on top but I'm not afraid to be on the bottom for a bit. Points make me worry about what scores rather than what wins, and I don't like that.

--edit - i've seen mma fights that I thought the guy on bottom was more effective and I would score him as winning - but I've never seen the judges score it that way.

If you're that worried about losing on points, then submit the guy and quit worrying about it.

Sure, you can win a fight from the bottom. That's obvious. But all things being equal, the guy on bottom is losing 90% of the time. See the majority of Jon Fitch's fights. He exhibits control and, no, he's not usually doing a lot of damage. But it's hard to say that his opponents are winning, right?

You can win from the bottom, but from a combat perspective, it's very obviously better to be on top. If you were attacked in the street, would you go for the takedown and immediately throw on a risky sub, giving the opponent the opportunity to put you on bottom? Or would you get a takedown, secure position, advance your position, and get a reliable sub that you know will safely win you the fight?

Put it this way: If you go for a takedown, throw up a sub, and it fails--you fucked up. I don't see how you should say that you ought to be rewarded for making a mistake.

So wait, a rule that suggests you need to have control of a TD, and one that also penalizes someone for a guard pull that isn't used to sweep/submit is a bad thing?

this whole "art vs sport" argument is STUPID. At no point would you be content with going for a TD and then being immediately swept in a street fight. The point is, if you take the fight down, you have to keep it down. If you lost dominant position, why in the hell would you want points for a TD? just because you changed the position of the fight to the ground isn't a good thing if your opponent takes control of the fight and puts you in a dangerous position because you over-extended a submission attempt.

The majority of the BJJ world preaches position before submission. As long as you adhere to that, and don't take crazy risks for iffy subs and terrible guard passes, it shouldn't make a difference at all. It rewards people who use high percentage moves that they've worked on to the point where they are confident in it. Not someone diving for some crazy move he learned off of youtube last weekend.

Well said.
 
So wait, a rule that suggests you need to have control of a TD, and one that also penalizes someone for a guard pull that isn't used to sweep/submit is a bad thing?

this whole "art vs sport" argument is STUPID. At no point would you be content with going for a TD and then being immediately swept in a street fight. The point is, if you take the fight down, you have to keep it down. If you lost dominant position, why in the hell would you want points for a TD? just because you changed the position of the fight to the ground isn't a good thing if your opponent takes control of the fight and puts you in a dangerous position because you over-extended a submission attempt.

The majority of the BJJ world preaches position before submission. As long as you adhere to that, and don't take crazy risks for iffy subs and terrible guard passes, it shouldn't make a difference at all. It rewards people who use high percentage moves that they've worked on to the point where they are confident in it. Not someone diving for some crazy move he learned off of youtube last weekend.

I'll just take on the art vs. sport aspect.

BJJ was developed and stood out and became popular because of street applicability. I saw Royce take out style after style, giant after giant, and I left the other martial arts because I thought, "I have to learn that!"

Now you have things like spider guard that only works with a gi to pull on, and guys spending long amounts of time in deep half that leaves you exposed to get smashed unless there is no striking or the guy can't hit the back of the head. Don't get me wrong I think those are interesting positions that I like. But they are a far cry from the BJJ that I fell in love with. You are going to get butt scoot and spider guard someone IRL? I don't think so. There was a time when as you trained BJJ you were also learning to protect from strikes and a lot of people seem to make black now without ever practicing while getting punched in the face or even thinking about the fact that it happens, and that's a shame.

So, you can disagree if you like - but modern sport BJJ is *not* what original BJJ was about. Again, I do love the sport as well. But the sport oriented stuff is *not* the BJJ that I wanted to learn when I started.
 
I'll just take on the art vs. sport aspect.

BJJ was developed and stood out and became popular because of street applicability. I saw Royce take out style after style, giant after giant, and I left the other martial arts because I thought, "I have to learn that!"

Now you have things like spider guard that only works with a gi to pull on, and guys spending long amounts of time in deep half that leaves you exposed to get smashed unless there is no striking or the guy can't hit the back of the head. Don't get me wrong I think those are interesting positions that I like. But they are a far cry from the BJJ that I fell in love with. You are going to get butt scoot and spider guard someone IRL? I don't think so. There was a time when as you trained BJJ you were also learning to protect from strikes and a lot of people seem to make black now without ever practicing while getting punched in the face or even thinking about the fact that it happens, and that's a shame.

So, you can disagree if you like - but modern sport BJJ is *not* what original BJJ was about. Again, I do love the sport as well. But the sport oriented stuff is *not* the BJJ that I wanted to learn when I started.

Doesn't apply to your complaints about the takedown rule.

Also, I'm confident that any of the top level BJJ guys would whoop dat azz in a street encounter. Their fundamental Jiu Jitsu is excellent, hence the need to use more advanced things to counter one another's skill in competition. I guarantee you the Mendes Bros wouldn't try to berimbolo someone in a street fight. It'd be takedown-mount-punch face x 100.
 
If you're that worried about losing on points, then submit the guy and quit worrying about it.

That's the ideal. That's why I go for more subs. And of course this is slightly theoretical because I won't be competing under these rules for a few more months - I just don't like the way I'm changing my game and thought process based on the rules and points.

On the one hand you all are arguing, submit his and nothing else matters, you shouldn't be rewarded if you don't establish control. Ok, but the time limit forces your hand - you either have to go for more subs or build a point lead. Tell me you've never stalemated for a good 20 minutes or more when you were equally matched.

Sure, you can win a fight from the bottom. That's obvious. But all things being equal, the guy on bottom is losing 90% of the time. See the majority of Jon Fitch's fights. He exhibits control and, no, he's not usually doing a lot of damage. But it's hard to say that his opponents are winning, right?

John Fitch is your argument? Um, ok. You want BJJ matches to be like Jon Fitch fights? no, thanks.

You can win from the bottom, but from a combat perspective, it's very obviously better to be on top. If you were attacked in the street, would you go for the takedown and immediately throw on a risky sub, giving the opponent the opportunity to put you on bottom? Or would you get a takedown, secure position, advance your position, and get a reliable sub that you know will safely win you the fight?

Of course I wouldn't voluntarily and intentionally go to the bottom. But if I go there i'm not panicked and I'm not necessarily losing, and I know how to tie up until I get my chance. I'll be back on top in a second, and knowing that frees me to go for the win. Othewise you become jake shields. When was the last time Shields submitted anybody.

Put it this way: If you go for a takedown, throw up a sub, and it fails--you fucked up. I don't see how you should say that you ought to be rewarded for making a mistake.

But why should I be punished either? The goal is to submit the opponent. If no one submits - the really, no one wins. Points are pretty much bullshit.
 
Last edited:
I just don't get your argument. This is like saying that being on the bottom should not be considered losing in MMA, because it's less like real combat. Well, in MMA and in real combat, top game is the shit, and being on bottom means you're getting hit. Why should you be rewarded for doing something ineffectively?

Every time I say this some knuckle head comes in and tells me I need to learn to pass the guard.
 
Doesn't apply to your complaints about the takedown rule.

Also, I'm confident that any of the top level BJJ guys would whoop dat azz in a street encounter. Their fundamental Jiu Jitsu is excellent, hence the need to use more advanced things to counter one another's skill in competition. I guarantee you the Mendes Bros wouldn't try to berimbolo someone in a street fight. It'd be takedown-mount-punch face x 100.

As I said, I have a general complaint and a specific complaint. A general complaint that the rules and points distort the art. A specific complaint that if there are rules, I'd pick a different set if it were up to me, that's 100% selfish, and mostly irrelevant because I'm not going to get to do that. I care more about the general case, and that's what we got into.

Top level - but what about their students? USed to be any blue belt was street ready. Now, not so much.

And I don't want to face punch x 100. I love jiu jitsu because it lets me gently dissuade an attacker from continuing an attack without doing him permanent damage unless he just is too damn stubborn for his own good, and if I can get a choke, "there are no tough guys when it comes to chokes." Having to resort to the same level of violence the guy wants to use on you, to me, is against the principles of jiu jitsu that I employ.
 
I'm failing to see how controlling your opponent after throwing him into the Earth is less effective for da streetz!
 
But why should I be punished either? The goal is to submit the opponent. If no one submits - the really, no one wins. Points are pretty much bullshit.
True that, someone really needs to shame Jacare for his stalling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN8iWvnc6IU
Won't someone tell Kenny Florian that Jiu Jitsu is about submissions, damn it!
elbows.gif

Rickson really needs to learn how to actually fight, rather than playing for points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFm_uMTZZSU
 
Back
Top