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

[madgrappler]

I'm failing to see how controlling your opponent after throwing him into the Earth is less effective for da streetz!

Of course, in general, it is. But as with any law or rule the biggest effects are unintended. It discourages chaining and free rolling.

 

[Discipulus]

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.

Then don't. :wink: Sounds like you're overly concerned with winning. If you hate how much points matter, then don't let them matter so much to you. Also, fortunately for everyone, sub only tournaments appear to be becoming more popular, so you'll probably get to do some of those someday soon, as well.

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.

Then go for more subs. I agree, your ultimate goal should be to win the match in conclusive fashion. And there are people out there who will play the game of Jiu Jitsu rather than fight. But that's also why you're competing in BJJ and not MMA, because a truly combat applicable match would have you getting punched while on the bottom, which I'm sure would change your mind about how relaxed you ought to be in that position.

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

I brought up Jon Fitch to point out that, no matter how boring his style is, you cannot rightfully say that his many wrestlefucked opponents were winning their fights against him. The point is, in the absence of all meaningful offense, the guy on bottom is losing. It's just an inferior place to be in a 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.

You would be if you were getting hit, and I would argue that yes, you are losing. In a street encounter, until you get the sweep or the submission from the bottom, you are in a worse position than your opponent. Doesn't matter how good your guard is, one Hail Mary punch could knock you out. That ain't happening from mount. Guard is not the same as an inverted mount position, no matter what you say. You may have options, but you have a lot more risks with your back on the ground.

And again, if you're so confident that you'll wind up back on top in competition, then do it. I don't see how the penalty affects you if you're confident in your ability to wind up on top. You'll get your points and your sub.

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.

Explain to me how this rule change punishes you? All it does is prevent you from playing the rules to your advantage, which is exactly what you're complaining about others doing. You said it yourself: you used to win a lot of matches on takedown points. Meaning you got the takedowns, did nothing with them, and won anyway. That's not realistic and effective fighting, it's gamesmanship.

If you mean to say that the rules punish you by letting someone else take you down into your guard, then I would argue that that should be punishable. It reflects, again, street combat. You get put on your back in a real fight and you're immediately going to get punched, headbutted, elbowed--whatever. All of those are illegal in BJJ, so they punish you with points instead. If they didn't, wouldn't that just encourage you to play guard, which is the exact kind of behavior that removes the sport from the art, like you were complaining about?

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.

You don't think so? I'm sure any of the blue belts at my school could handle themselves in a street fight.

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.

That's fine, then go to the top and get the choke. Or just pin his arms, sit on him, and wait for help to arrive. My point was that top position wins fights, and the rules and points rightfully reflect that.

Every time I say this some knuckle head comes in and tells me I need to learn to pass the guard.

If not passing the guard is good enough for Jon Jones, then it's good enough for me.

 

[Discipulus]

Of course, in general, it is. But as with any law or rule the biggest effects are unintended. It discourages chaining and free rolling.

It discourages winding up in a situation that would get your face pounded in in a real, adrenaline-fueled fight.

 

[Nasiello]

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.

Cool, you came to BJJ because of Royce in the UFC. GOT IT. but he took more punishment than he should, against what amounted to untrained retards when it comes to the ground game.

If you have the option of playing the bottom, or playing the top, you play the top. Hell, even Royce played top game for a bunch of his early UFC days.

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THE BUTT SCOOT about? The rules specifically punish that, and are suggesting if you get a TD, you control it.

You're taking this on a tangent that has nada to do with the OP. Re-read the rule, and understand that if you get a TD, you need to not lose the position you gained. how is that butt-scooting and spider guard?

Realistically, spider guard, DLR, inverted or whatever... are all advanced stuff when your opponent has BJJ knowledge. On the street, a trip/Double leg into a mount and punches is still the best option. So, once again, YOU MAINTAIN TOP POSITION once you get it. From there on in, you either submit using the position, or you gain points... or *gasp* both.

What is negative about that?

 

[Shemhazai]

If you still want to attack with submissions right off of the takedown, why not go for submissions that don't cause you to lose position? I've never understood people's eagerness to fall back for armbars from top positions - there are so many much safer options, and even though IBJJF rules encourage such practices by not rewarding reversals from inferior positions, you still run the risk of going from a winning to a losing proposition (top to bottom). If I fall back from a top position, it's either with seatbelt and hooks in place, or the occasional fully sunk triangle. Otherwise I'm looking to finish from top.

 

[madgrappler]

Then don't. :wink: Sounds like you're overly concerned with winning. If you hate how much points matter, then don't let them matter so much to you. Also, fortunately for everyone, sub only tournaments appear to be becoming more popular, so you'll probably get to do some of those someday soon, as well.

First of all, dammit, don't call me on my hypocrisy! What would the world be like if everybody started doing that?

OF COURSE I want to win. I sure as shit don't want to lose! I'd prefer to be undefeated forever, thanks for asking.

Essentially that is Kron Gracies' approach. Nobody wins more by sub and loses more by points that him. Shit - you are telling me to let my ego go. I hate you.

Then go for more subs. I agree, your ultimate goal should be to win the match in conclusive fashion. And there are people out there who will play the game of Jiu Jitsu rather than fight. But that's also why you're competing in BJJ and not MMA, because a truly combat applicable match would have you getting punched while on the bottom, which I'm sure would change your mind about how relaxed you ought to be in that position.

Almost right. I would prefer to do MMA really, but old school vale tudo. Modern MMA rules and points make it a game too. Some things had to change once the cat was out of the bag and everyone started training td and sub defense, at a minimum. I did that a little bit when I was younger and there were no governing bodies and did pretty well, but eventually I had to move and get a real job, there was no real money to be made in it then. But, I'm also getting a bit old for that. My last quasi-legal match (in a barn :-D ) I got KO'd ugly shooting for a td and felt the effects for weeks. I need my brain.

I brought up Jon Fitch to point out that, no matter how boring his style is, you cannot rightfully say that his many wrestlefucked opponents were winning their fights against him. The point is, in the absence of all meaningful offense, the guy on bottom is losing. It's just an inferior place to be in a fight.

agree in general. Fitch has a finely tuned game for that though. Most guys (maybe all guys), even in mma, can get stifled from the top by a good jitz guy. Heck, look at round one of Sonnen vs Silva II. Unlike the first fight Silva took almost no damage, he just tied up, bided his time and waited. That's old school jitz son, and Sonnen beating his head in in the first fight made him go back to it.

You would be if you were getting hit, and I would argue that yes, you are losing. In a street encounter, until you get the sweep or the submission from the bottom, you are in a worse position than your opponent. Doesn't matter how good your guard is, one Hail Mary punch could knock you out. That ain't happening from mount. Guard is not the same as an inverted mount position, no matter what you say. You may have options, but you have a lot more risks with your back on the ground.

In the purest sense, only the outcome matters. Silva Sonnen I. And Silva did a terrible job with his defense from the bottom and *still* got the tap. That to me was like Royce vs Severn. Same principle.

And again, if you're so confident that you'll wind up back on top in competition, then do it. I don't see how the penalty affects you if you're confident in your ability to wind up on top. You'll get your points and your sub.

I'm confident I'll get back on top eventually. The time limit makes me take more risks to do it. Its the combination that I think is really odious. Make the guy on top feel like he's the one trapped. Make him feel like he has to move and change position. No move is a move. Not one with only 5 minutes to work though.

Explain to me how this rule change punishes you? All it does is prevent you from playing the rules to your advantage, which is exactly what you're complaining about others doing. You said it yourself: you used to win a lot of matches on takedown points. Meaning you got the takedowns, did nothing with them, and won anyway. That's not realistic and effective fighting, it's gamesmanship.

If the rules are going to be played to anyones advantage, it should be mine. :-D Don't go back to pointing out my ego and hypocrisy please.

If you mean to say that the rules punish you by letting someone else take you down into your guard, then I would argue that that should be punishable. It reflects, again, street combat. You get put on your back in a real fight and you're immediately going to get punched, headbutted, elbowed--whatever. All of those are illegal in BJJ, so they punish you with points instead. If they didn't, wouldn't that just encourage you to play guard, which is the exact kind of behavior that removes the sport from the art, like you were complaining about?

Ok, so here's what it is. I'm a big guy and a better wrestler than most. When I face someone with bad wrestling I can take him down over and over. If I'm better overall I can probably just sub him, but some of the worst wrestlers I've rolled with have some of the nastiest guards. So I have to option to let him back up and take him back down. Or try a pass, if I miss nbd. Just putting his back down would score, that's ideal for me. When I face a better wrestler I am usually better at newaza so I can usually sweep or sub. Now, when i face a better wrestler with better jitz I am well and truly fucked, but thankfully that hasn't happened to me to many times.

So yes, my specific objection is that it makes it harder for me to game the rules to my advantage. There. Happy? But I'd rather go no points anyway, but I want to get back into competition and there aren't many no points comps right now. And if I compete, I plan to win. Every time.

You don't think so? I'm sure any of the blue belts at my school could handle themselves in a street fight.

I know a blue belt that got tuned up by a brawler. He tried to pull guard and the guy just went to work on him. He didn't get hurt bad, but he never practiced with punches and just got flustered, had to be rescued. Its probably school by school, individual by individual, and it shouldn't be, IMHO.

That's fine, then go to the top and get the choke. Or just pin his arms, sit on him, and wait for help to arrive. My point was that top position wins fights, and the rules and points rightfully reflect that.

Top isn't always an option - Helio Gracie developed BJJ because he was small and not that strong and knew 100% he would wind up on bottom. If you can avoid bottom, more's the better, but you can't always count on it - best to be prepared for that worst case scenario, a bigger stronger guy you can't get off you. Not something i've personally ever encountered, but I'm not exactly average.

If not passing the guard is good enough for Jon Jones, then it's good enough for me.

Also in the street - no move can be a move. If you get into the guys guard and he can't hurt you, why do anything else? Just let him get tired of trying. That's not a bad strategy either.

 

[madgrappler]

This is the BJJ I fell in love with:



And, btw, daaaamn...

this echos my own experience when i first encountered a guy waaay down the chain from the guys chuck first rolled with. I'd had a bit of wrestling and a bit of judo, a bit of a couple striking arts, so needless to say as a young man I thought I was pretty badass. The first time I finally found and rolled with somebody who had jitz, he told me I could punch or kick but he wouldn't at all. I laughed. I thought, I'll make him regret that. I took him down and was just starting to think about punching and suddenly he was behind me. I couldn't get him off my back and then he was choking me. I had a slight idea what was going on from seeing UFC1 on vhs. But I felt helpless. I knew I had to learn this.

 

[Dirty Holt]

The IBJJF doesnt give 2 shits about what works in a street fight. This is a grappling sport, not a fight with strikes. Bounce passes and pass blocking wont work in a street fight either, however, they are very useful in the sports in which they are used. Being on bottom in bjj is an offensive position. This is coming from a wrestler who avoids bottom. This is a sport, not a bar room brawl.

 

[deadlizard]

The IBJJF doesnt give 2 shits about what works in a street fight. This is a grappling sport, not a fight with strikes. Bounce passes and pass blocking wont work in a street fight either, however, they are very useful in the sports in which they are used. Being on bottom in bjj is an offensive position. This is coming from a wrestler who avoids bottom. This is a sport, not a bar room brawl.

Holt, I would assume that this rule is awesome for wrestlers.

As a wrestler, part of the training I received when being taken down is to pop back up immediately and fight the grips.

I think this rule favors the wrestlers than the judo players.

 

[madgrappler]

The IBJJF doesnt give 2 shits about what works in a street fight. This is a grappling sport, not a fight with strikes. Bounce passes and pass blocking wont work in a street fight either, however, they are very useful in the sports in which they are used. Being on bottom in bjj is an offensive position. This is coming from a wrestler who avoids bottom. This is a sport, not a bar room brawl.

Yea - I know. I'm just not sure how unhappy the growing divergence between sport and martial art is making me.

 

[esteven]

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 agree with this sentiment, but it really doesn't apply to the current rule change. In fact, this rule it just the opposite. Instead of awarding points for flashy throws that don't really do much, it reserves the points for throws that put you in an advantageous position. If your flying submission attempt is successful, then your reward is winning the match. If it's not, and you end up under side control, then clearly you aren't in an advantageous position.

It's no different than attacking an arm bar from mount and losing your position. Would you say it should still count as a submission? Of course not. So why would you get points for any takedown that failed? I'm not saying that flying submissions and sacrifice throws aren't effectve; they certainly are when they work, but when they fail, it tends to be a catastrophic failure. They are powerful but risky techniques, and in doing them, you have to accept the risk.

 

[esteven]

Of course, in general, it is. But as with any law or rule the biggest effects are unintended. It discourages chaining and free rolling.

You CAN still chain your techniques; your points will be waiting for you when you're done! You only need to be in a dominant position for three seconds (a pretty short period of time).

Really, I get your beef with sport BJJ vs SD/MMA, but now you're just shoehorning in complaints about it where they simply don't fit. If you were just saying that it throws a wrench in your personal strategy, then fine. The rules affect they way we play, and changes in rules tend to cause changes in strategy (though, in this case, that would mean that your strategy is actually more sportive than practical). But here, you're complaining that this rule will make the sport less practical. It's like you just WANT a reason to be upset with the IBJJF. Don't misinterpret this to fit your established opinion of them; you need to give the devil his due here.

 

[madgrappler]

I agree with this sentiment, but it really doesn't apply to the current rule change. In fact, this rule it just the opposite. Instead of awarding points for flashy throws that don't really do much, it reserves the points for throws that put you in an advantageous position. If your flying submission attempt is successful, then your reward is winning the match. If it's not, and you end up under side control, then clearly you aren't in an advantageous position.

It's no different than attacking an arm bar from mount and losing your position. Would you say it should still count as a submission? Of course not. So why would you get points for any takedown that failed? I'm not saying that flying submissions and sacrifice throws aren't effectve; they certainly are when they work, but when they fail, it tends to be a catastrophic failure. They are powerful but risky techniques, and in doing them, you have to accept the risk.

I guess my real issue is, an advantageous position isn't really advantageous if you don't take advantage of it. So if I hit a throw or takedown lose position going for a sub quickly, wind up on bottom for a minute but then am back on top -- it didn't hurt me to try, not really. There is no "is winning" - there really is "competing" followed by "won" or "lost" or "draw".

I think I'm starting to understand my own issue finally . I don't like being artificially constrained by the rules and points. So I have to ask myself am I going to do it or not. And if so, live with it.

--edit: I really do love to shock people going for a flying triangle sometimes, even if I miss, which I almost never lock it 100%, but at least 50% of the time I can come close enough to use it to get top position. At my size no one expects it.

 

[yodave]

The ippon in judo signifies instant victory in combat. it goes off the basis that a perfect judo throw in the battlefield would end the fight instantly.

In freestyle wrestling you get awarded 5 points if you can lift the legs over the head, called a high amplitude throw.

Now if we were to make a argument between sport and combat its obvious why you are rewarded points for throws. its not about getting top control of a person, its the damage the throw itself causes.

I see this new rule as a way to punish wrestlers by not directly rewarded them for a takedown by forcing a grappling element on them, having to have top control for 3 seconds. This can only hurt a wrestler or judoka because this will limit the points they will get in a fight by forcing a extra element on them.

ultimately dirty holt is right, its not about self defense, its about changing the rules to promote your own art. Infact I think one the most best self defense apsects of wrestling/grappling is the throw for the brute force of it without having commit to the ground. that and the technical standup, takedown defense and the clinch.

if we really wanted to look at it from a self defense point of view how is a berimbolo better than a high amplitude throw? yet if you did a high amplitude throw in bjj you would probably get disqualified for slamming because there is a perception in the bjj world that they are dangerous even thought they are 100% legal in their rule book.

 

[madgrappler]

I see this new rule as a way to punish wrestlers by not directly rewarded them for a takedown by forcing a grappling element on them, having to have top control for 3 seconds. This can only hurt a wrestler or judoka because this will limit the points they will get in a fight by forcing a extra element on them.

This is kind of what I was trying to articulate, but you said it much better than I did.

 

[yodave]

This is kind of what I was trying to articulate, but you said it much better than I did.

I thought that's what you were trying to say, but you see the people running bjj don't want to promote wrestling they want to promote grappling, so they want to make it just a little bit harder for a takedown machine to get his points, that way it promotes their art a little bit better.

 

[esteven]

The ippon in judo signifies instant victory in combat. it goes off the basis that a perfect judo throw in the battlefield would end the fight instantly.

It doesn't, though. Go to YouTube and watch judo throws in both MMA and street fights. No instant deaths going on that I've been able to find. Furthermore, ippon can also be scored by a pin. Does a pin also end fights instantly?

I see this new rule as a way to punish wrestlers by not directly rewarded them for a takedown by forcing a grappling element on them, having to have top control for 3 seconds. This can only hurt a wrestler or judoka because this will limit the points they will get in a fight by forcing a extra element on them.

Pinning people after taking them down is EXACTLY what both wrestlers and judoka train for. Since most BJJers only cross-train in wrestling for the takedown element, it's easy to forget how much positional control is involved in wrestling and (to a lesser extent) judo. Remember, matches in both of those sports can be won via pin. In wrestling, it's the primary objective. Maintaining top control after a takedown is what wrestlers DO.

 

[yodave]

It can only hurt wrestlers because invariably they will execute takedown where they didn't have control, this is simple mathematics, they have absolutely nothing to gain from this whatsoever, there is zero benefit for them, only disadvantages. if they maintained control those are points they would have gotten anyways under the previous rules.

There is a distinction between freestyle wrestling and folkstyle . In freestyle the ref stands you up fairly quickly when you are down as opposed to folkstyle where the ref never stands you up. Also folkstyle only gives you two points for takedowns and the rules favor ground work more.

In freestyle style wrestling the throw is much more important than in folkstyle and many matches are won based off of this element of the match.

Besides in both forms of wrestling you instantly get points for takedown so this new rule does not apply to wrestling at all, many wrestling matches are won based off who had the most takedown points.

I would not recommend pinning somebody in a street fight and I don't see it as a great advantage in a self defense situation because it limits you to fighting one guy. I knew a wrestler who fought three guys and he clinched them and dirty boxed them and threw them to the ground. this allows you to have a 360 degree protection instead of focusing everything on controlling one guy at a time.

 

[codemonkey76]

One strategy that works because people don't read the rules, is takedown and then let the guy get up again, and then take him down again, commonly employed by wrestlers and judoka... If you are the guy getting taken down, STAY DOWN, don't get up when the guy voluntary backs up, he will be penalized for not engaging and eventually DQ'd if he keeps doing it

 

[madgrappler]

One strategy that works because people don't read the rules, is takedown and then let the guy get up again, and then take him down again, commonly employed by wrestlers and judoka... If you are the guy getting taken down, STAY DOWN, don't get up when the guy voluntary backs up, he will be penalized for not engaging and eventually DQ'd if he keeps doing it

shhhhhhh