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

[georgejjr]

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.

The judo rule made sense up until three decades ago. At that time, an ippon throw meant your opponent was thrown very hard, landed flat on their back, and you were either still standing, or on top of them. Since then they've changed the criteria - most modern ippons wouldn't have scored at all in the 70's or before. You can get a sense of how much this has changed by watching matches from the 60's and 70's that are youtube.

The control was, in the past, always a big element of a judo score. If I threw you hard, but after the rolling you ended up on top, not only wouldn't I get a score for the initial throw, but you'd get a score for countering.

In the 80's the IJF, in its infinite wisdom, decided the way to make judo more IOC friendly was to change that, so now you get soft, rolling ippons where the "thrower" overrotates and ends up on the bottom (and which would have scored for the person who ended up on top before the change). Most of us old time judoka think the modern ippon is garbage, and think that getting into the Olympics was the worst thing to happen to judo (and would love to give its spot to BJJ, if we could get back old fashioned judo, with lots of ground work, no illegal grips except hanging onto the belt, 15 minute matches, and very stiff scoring on throws). Would you buy a used Olympic slot from us? :icon_chee

So I'd say, this new BJJ rule, where you need control, is a good thing. It was good in old time judo, and it's good for grappling in general. Of course, if BJJ gets into the Olympics, it'll be gone, because they'll figure they need a lot of scores to keep the IOC happy (and actually, I suspect the IOC didn't even care that much, so long as people watched).

 

[yodave]

The judo rule made sense up until three decades ago. At that time, an ippon throw meant your opponent was thrown very hard, landed flat on their back, and you were either still standing, or on top of them. Since then they've changed the criteria - most modern ippons wouldn't have scored at all in the 70's or before. You can get a sense of how much this has changed by watching matches from the 60's and 70's that are youtube.

The control was, in the past, always a big element of a judo score. If I threw you hard, but after the rolling you ended up on top, not only wouldn't I get a score for the initial throw, but you'd get a score for countering.

In the 80's the IJF, in its infinite wisdom, decided the way to make judo more IOC friendly was to change that, so now you get soft, rolling ippons where the "thrower" overrotates and ends up on the bottom (and which would have scored for the person who ended up on top before the change). Most of us old time judoka think the modern ippon is garbage, and think that getting into the Olympics was the worst thing to happen to judo (and would love to give its spot to BJJ, if we could get back old fashioned judo, with lots of ground work, no illegal grips except hanging onto the belt, 15 minute matches, and very stiff scoring on throws). Would you buy a used Olympic slot from us? :icon_chee

So I'd say, this new BJJ rule, where you need control, is a good thing. It was good in old time judo, and it's good for grappling in general. Of course, if BJJ gets into the Olympics, it'll be gone, because they'll figure they need a lot of scores to keep the IOC happy (and actually, I suspect the IOC didn't even care that much, so long as people watched).

yeah what your saying here makes a lot of sense, god knows what will happen to bjj if they make the Olympics. I see the new no leg grab rule in judo as being a killer for that art because they had their own version of the takedown game aka leg attacks as part of the official kano curriculum so this goes 100% against their tradition in my opinion. and probably all of that will be phased out and forgotten about because people's obsession of the rules and politics.

 

[Dirty Holt]

I like the rule, even though it greatly effects my point scoring coming from a high level greco background. Although I do think there should be points for getting on top, whether it be from takedown or guard pull, a large portion of this sport is ground based and focused on making your opponent submit to your physical will. Making definite and lasting control a more focused aspect of point scoring from the feet is a good thing for the sport IMO. Pulling guard and not getting penalized with points is also bad for the sport IMO when you factor in failed sweep advantage points.

 

[BJJ Coffee Drinker]

pulling guard should not count against the puller. that would be retarded if it were.

takedowns get points because the one initiating the takedown forced the other person to the ground against their will. For guard pulling, the guard puller initiated the action (pulling guard) and got there so they can start to attack. It was their own action to pull guard. WHy should they get penalized for putting themself into a position to attack and further the action?

It doesn't make sense when people say they want to penalize guard pullers. If people don't want guard to be pulled, then try to stop the guy from pulling (which is very hard). Or if guard pulling is as pathetic as some point out, it shouldn't be hard to slap their ankle as they pull to make points and then proceed to pass.

 

[KJGould]

pulling guard should not count against the puller. that would be retarded if it were.

takedowns get points because the one initiating the takedown forced the other person to the ground against their will. For guard pulling, the guard puller initiated the action (pulling guard) and got there so they can start to attack. It was their own action to pull guard. WHy should they get penalized for putting themself into a position to attack and further the action?

It doesn't make sense when people say they want to penalize guard pullers. If people don't want guard to be pulled, then try to stop the guy from pulling (which is very hard). Or if guard pulling is as pathetic as some point out, it shouldn't be hard to slap their ankle as they pull to make points and then proceed to pass.

Or let them slam their head into the mat ...

Guard pulling is for the offensively bankrupt. Sacrifice throws or flying attacks are a different matter.

 

[Dirty Holt]

pulling guard should not count against the puller. that would be retarded if it were.

takedowns get points because the one initiating the takedown forced the other person to the ground against their will. For guard pulling, the guard puller initiated the action (pulling guard) and got there so they can start to attack. It was their own action to pull guard. WHy should they get penalized for putting themself into a position to attack and further the action?

It doesn't make sense when people say they want to penalize guard pullers. If people don't want guard to be pulled, then try to stop the guy from pulling (which is very hard). Or if guard pulling is as pathetic as some point out, it shouldn't be hard to slap their ankle as they pull to make points and then proceed to pass.

Getting near sweeps gets you advantage points, where as getting near passes does not. Often times this leads to both guys wanting bottom, and one guy winning on an advantage. To many, watching a 10 minute match get won by an advantage is boring and counterproductive to the sport. Those that are in that train of thought feel that there should be some kind of reward for getting top, or advantages should be removed from the sport.

 

[madgrappler]

Getting near sweeps gets you advantage points, where as getting near passes does not. Often times this leads to both guys wanting bottom, and one guy winning on an advantage. To many, watching a 10 minute match get won by an advantage is boring and counterproductive to the sport. Those that are in that train of thought feel that there should be some kind of reward for getting top, or advantages should be removed from the sport.

Yes, exactly. The way the rules are now, its better to continually go on bottom under your own power and try to get points from there. As long as you can come close to a sweep more than x2 how much your guard gets passed.

I also agree with the sentiment that getting into the olympics will basically ruin bjj just as it did judo. No leg attacks, no grabbing around the waist... really?

 

[Sub Dude]

Getting near sweeps gets you advantage points, where as getting near passes does not. Often times this leads to both guys wanting bottom, and one guy winning on an advantage. To many, watching a 10 minute match get won by an advantage is boring and counterproductive to the sport. Those that are in that train of thought feel that there should be some kind of reward for getting top, or advantages should be removed from the sport.

This is incorrect. A near pass scores an advantage just as a near sweep does.

 

[madgrappler]

This is incorrect. A near pass scores an advantage just as a near sweep does.

Its in the rules, but I don't think it is commonly scored, is it? I don't remember seeing it very much.

 

[Vitamin C]

So wait. The argument is "I can't just cycle takedowns and not actually engage on the ground anymore"? And by making this change they are intentionally biased against wrestlers?
They also have rules that limit your ability to gain endless points from cycling between KoB, mount, back to KoB again, or putting yourself back into halfguard just to get guard pass points over and over. I guess they are biased against bjj as well as wrestling!

 

[kintana]

I would imagine the trouble lies with the definition of "stabilise".

I agree. If I do a double leg takedown but he manages to quickly get half guard or guard did I stabilise or did he get guard and didn't count.

 

[madgrappler]

So wait. The argument is "I can't just cycle takedowns and not actually engage on the ground anymore"? And by making this change they are intentionally biased against wrestlers?
They also have rules that limit your ability to gain endless points from cycling between KoB, mount, back to KoB again, or putting yourself back into halfguard just to get guard pass points over and over. I guess they are biased against bjj as well as wrestling!

Yes, that's the problem. If it is a points game, play the points game.

 

[yodave]

what I am getting at with all of this is that they should just leave the rules the way they are.

Kano invented judo and created a rule set. The gracies invented bjj and created a rule set for the ibjjf to follow.

When you involve politics your going to have these control freaks that are going to want to change all the rules and fuck up the sport for whatever influence. At first these rule changes seem reasonable but this is what's going to prelude to the bigger changes.

I think we should just not be allowed to change any rules. The rule sets were there to preserve the art and the only way you can fuck up the art is by changing them, so why change what the rule sets the gracies originally created?

 

[Vitamin C]

what I am getting at with all of this is that they should just leave the rules the way they are.

Kano invented judo and created a rule set. The gracies invented bjj and created a rule set for the ibjjf to follow.

When you involve politics your going to have these control freaks that are going to want to change all the rules and fuck up the sport for whatever influence. At first these rule changes seem reasonable but this is what's going to prelude to the bigger changes.

I think we should just not be allowed to change any rules. The rule sets were there to preserve the art and the only way you can fuck up the art is by changing them, so why change what the rule sets the gracies originally created?

I guess the UFC should still be no time limit with headbutts and punches to the groin legal. Things change. Laws change and are amended, sports add or change rules to address discrepancies or loopholes.

This is ridiculous. This change is hardly more than a clarification, and serves to bring the takedown rule more in line with the requirements of the other positional points requirements. I'm honestly surprised that this has caused any kind of backlash at all. Reading it I took it to be a non issue.

 

[madgrappler]

I guess the UFC should still be no time limit with headbutts and punches to the groin legal.

Yes! Now you get it? Chin-in-eye submission!

 

[yodave]

I guess the UFC should still be no time limit with headbutts and punches to the groin legal. Things change. Laws change and are amended, sports add or change rules to address discrepancies or loopholes.

This is ridiculous. This change is hardly more than a clarification, and serves to bring the takedown rule more in line with the requirements of the other positional points requirements. I'm honestly surprised that this has caused any kind of backlash at all. Reading it I took it to be a non issue.

so your comparing the old ufc to bjj? groin shots and headbutting, right.

by the way that's how vale tudos were fought and the brazilians didn't see anything wrong with it, and the gracies didn't see anything wrong with it either. I think the gracies knew what they were doing when they created the original ibjjf rules and I don't think there is anything ridiculous about that.

The only thing that's ridiculous is giving the chance for somebody to change all the rule sets for some political influence, and fuck up an art that's just fine the way it is. Look at what happened to judo. The original rules should be applied and not be allowed to be changed period.

The ufc had to adopt to the masses, that's the reason they changed.

 

[Dirty Holt]

This is incorrect. A near pass scores an advantage just as a near sweep does.

Yes, but it is never scored and the criteria is much much more stringent. All you have to do from bottom is simply "unbalance" your opponent. If near passes were scored like near sweeps, everyone wouldnt be trying to pull guard.

 

[Sub Dude]

Yes, but it is never scored and the criteria is much much more stringent. All you have to do from bottom is simply "unbalance" your opponent. If near passes were scored like near sweeps, everyone wouldnt be trying to pull guard.

I wouldn't say that's really accurate either...I really don't know where this argument comes from, I've seen it scored quite frequently, and have scored it myself quite frequently. It's not any more or less common than the advantage for the near sweep (which by the way requires quite a bit more than simply "unbalancing" your opponent).

 

[Vitamin C]

so your comparing the old ufc to bjj? groin shots and headbutting, right.

by the way that's how vale tudos were fought and the brazilians didn't see anything wrong with it, and the gracies didn't see anything wrong with it either. I think the gracies knew what they were doing when they created the original ibjjf rules and I don't think there is anything ridiculous about that.

The only thing that's ridiculous is giving the chance for somebody to change all the rule sets for some political influence, and fuck up an art that's just fine the way it is. Look at what happened to judo. The original rules should be applied and not be allowed to be changed period.

The ufc had to adopt to the masses, that's the reason they changed.

No.

You keep saying politics, and you are making a slippery slope argument in relation to this very minor change. You said;

...
At first these rule changes seem reasonable but this is what's going to prelude to the bigger changes.

I think we should just not be allowed to change any rules. The rule sets were there to preserve the art and the only way you can fuck up the art is by changing them, so why change what the rule sets the gracies originally created?

This is preposterous. The art is preserved through the instruction, guidance, and lectures of our respective coaches. The rules were created to facilitate sport competition. As such, they should be expected to change now and then in response to perceived issues within the sport realm of the martial art.

And yeah, it's IBJJF. They are going to want to encourage BJJ, gasp. If changing the rule concerning earning points for a takedown involves actively engaging on the ground following the takedown (for three whole seconds, oh no!) discourages "wrestlers" who want to wrack up points by just getting takedown after takedown, I am perfectly cool with that.
Just like if I were to enter a wrestling competition I understand that I am not allowed to guillotine a guy when he shoots in with his neck open.
Now, if they said they were going to award points for a guard pull, I would be right there with you, that would be some ridiculous stylistic political BS. But they aren't, and this rule change isn't political.

 

[yodave]

you're right, it is a slippery slope. I feel like the best way to preserve the art is by making it impossible to change the art. This rule seems reasonable but I don't really see why we need to make changes.

To be clear I think pulling guard is a huge part of bjj and helio's philosophy. If you don't like wrestling, pulling guard is how you are intended to avoid it. This goes 100% towards the bjj philosophy, not changing the rules to facilitate things.