Threatening with submissions on bottom vs. control on top; control shouldn’t get the win

[BJJ4Tone]

I thought Grasso’s sub attempts won her some of those rounds as Valentina was mainly controlling with some minor damage.

Attempting a submission and failing, to me, is no different than throwing a punch and missing. You FAILED at what you WANTED to do.
There's no reward for strikes ATTEMPTED, only strikes LANDED.

This is why I've NEVER understood the false narrative that Dustin Poirier has a good guillotine.
If he had a good guillotine, he would have finished one at some point in his career. But, to my knowledge, as of this moment, he has ZERO guillotine wins.


As a long-time Jiu-Jitsu practitioner, I've had had this same grievance with IBJJF rules. Getting an advantage for a submission attempt is LITERALLY REWARDING FAILURE.

If you use a submission attempt to get a sweep or an escape, then bravo. Otherwise, you just failed at what you wanted to do.

 

[sdpdude9]

Sit underneith someone for 25 mins while they are trying to advance position put their weight on your chest and pepper your face with punches and get back to me lol

Sub attempts should mean nothing if they don't do damage. if you are winning the round, your opponent should be controlling you.

If you want to blame someone for a boring fight, blame the person who can't get back up.

I’ve said this for a long time. I’ve grappled for a long time, faced many guys that had very really good control. It’s frustrating and exhausting, it does not feel like an even exchange at all. Every move you make is met with resistance. It doesn’t feel like just hugging or laying, it breaks you down.

 

[OldBoy91]

You guys have forgot to factor in Whether or not the guy (or gal) on the bottom, being controlled most the fight, is more popular or not

And by popular, you mean attractive.

 

[RockyLockridge]

I’ve never understood why control on top always seems to get the round over someone attempting subs on bottom.

Valentina vs Grasso, I thought Grasso’s sub attempts won her some of those rounds as Valentina was mainly controlling with some minor damage.

However, seems to always go to the top guy.

Control on top over subs on bottom?

See av, thanks. Have a nice day

 

[RockyLockridge]

And by popular, you mean attractive.

Yes that's how a woman's popularity is measured

 

[Myrddin Wild]

Agreed that going for chokes that dont get the submission can just be holding alot of the time.

Val said it wasnt tight, and she didnt submit so you can take her word for it.

The fact is though that Val was in danger, where Grasso wasn't. The entire 2017 re-boot of the judging criteria was specifically drawn up to address this very thing.

The wrestler gets credit for a TD, Advancing position, sub attempts & striking. It's all based on the idea that "going for a finish" is what scores points. In the first 2... Val got the TD but Grasso put Val in danger of being finished.

Under the modern judging critieria, that gives Grasso the first 2 rounds.

In what world is it meaningful that a wrestler simply holds top position and wins the round, despite being threatened with being finished by the bottom person? (twice!!!) It's ridiculous.

 

[OldBoy91]

The fact is though that Val was in danger, where Grasso wasn't. The entire 2017 re-boot of the judging criteria was specifically drawn up to address this very thing.

The wrestler gets credit for a TD, Advancing position, sub attempts & striking. It's all based on the idea that "going for a finish" is what scores points. In the first 2... Val got the TD but Grasso put Val in danger of being finished.

Under the modern judging critieria, that gives Grasso the first 2 rounds.

In what world is it meaningful that a wrestler simply holds top position and wins the round, despite being threatened with being finished by the bottom person? (twice!!!) It's ridiculous.

Being in danger is a terrible metric to use for scoring though.

Technically every second you are standing with Francis Ngannouu you are in danger, but if he isn't landing anything you can't be awarding him points.

And the revised scoring criteria is based upon damage first, and effective striking and grappling second.

Are failed submission attempts effective grappling? I mean, they failed so by definition they aren't. And Val said they weren't close or tight. Would you call a failed takedown effective grappling? What about a headkick that misses? Is that effective striking?

Keeping somebody on their back who doesn't want to be there is by definition effective grappling. It's a secondary criteria to damage for good reason, but when neither fighter does much damage then it's the deciding factor in a fight.

 

[blaseblase]

There's a difference between real submission attempts and just throwing your legs up.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

Thank you for a well thought out response. I enjoy the discussion.

Being in danger is a terrible metric to use for scoring though.

It's literally the thing that Big John said was the criteria for scoring a fight. He made the first rools... & was instrumental in the big 2017 revision. "Being in danger... that might result in the finishing of the fight" is the entire statement.

"Damage" as you point out is an obvious scoring point, but if it doesn't finish the fight, then it's just another "scoring point" toward the determination of the winner

Link to Judging criteria
Here's how it reads:
“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact."

Technically every second you are standing with Francis Ngannouu you are in danger, but if he isn't landing anything you can't be awarding him points

His first fight with Beast would say otherwise.

You know better than that. Stepping into the cage with anyone is a ramping up of that same dynamic. You actually have to do it though.

You're going for a bit of fun here... I get it, but it's not valid until he actually connects. The severity of that connection is weighted against how likely it is to contribute to ending the fight.

And the revised scoring criteria is based upon damage first, and effective striking and grappling second.

That's not true. "Effective" striking & grappling are both considered equal & are listed under the exact same heading.

The criteria is designed around the idea of who threatens the end of the fight. Damage is a very noticable indicator. Being put in a legit submission is another.

Are failed submission attempts effective grappling? I mean, they failed so by definition they aren't. And Val said they weren't close or tight. Would you call a failed takedown effective grappling? What about a headkick that misses? Is that effective striking?

A good submission "attempt" is awarded just as heavily as a good strike that does damage. The underlying mechanism of scoring is that one fighter puts the other into a situation that threatens the end the fight.

for example: A good strike that cuts the opponent open is a strong indicator that he did something significant toward the end of the fight. EQUALLY, a submission that is legit putting the fighter in danger of the fight being ended is scored just as high.

here's how it reads:

"Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative
impact.

Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position."

That last line is something that the UFC commentators... as well as many of teh fooking judges themselves... should review & understand.

Keeping somebody on their back who doesn't want to be there is by definition effective grappling. It's a secondary criteria to damage for good reason, but when neither fighter does much damage then it's the deciding factor in a fight.

"Keeping somebody on their back" is useless unless you do something with it.

Big John was very clear on the new judging criteria being specifically worded so that the person on top scores zero for just maintaining. It was a huge problem in the early UFC once the wrestlers started learning how to avoid BJJ while just holding the other guy down. The new criteria was specifically designed to address that specific issue.
"Control" scores zero. Being on the top, holding the center of the octagon, or holding someone against the cage scores zero.

Once in those positions, they can score by:

1. advancing position (going from being in guard to half guard etc...)
2. Striking
3. Submission attempts.

They get a credit for the TD, but after that... it's zero until they check one or more of the above bullet points. TD "attempts" score zero.

 

[OldBoy91]

Thank you for a well thought out response. I enjoy the discussion.

Same to you.

It's literally the thing that Big John said was the criteria for scoring a fight. He made the first rools... & was instrumental in the big 2017 revision. "Being in danger... that might result in the finishing of the fight" is the entire statement.

"Damage" as you point out is an obvious scoring point, but if it doesn't finish the fight, then it's just another "scoring point" toward the determination of the winner

Link to Judging criteria
Here's how it reads:
“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact."

Well, wouldn't be the first time Big John says something I didn't agree with. My overall point is that "being in danger" is much too vague of a concept to be used as scoring criteria. Damage is visible, a close submission attempt is visible

His first fight with Beast would say otherwise.

You know better than that. Stepping into the cage with anyone is a ramping up of that same dynamic. You actually have to do it though.

You're going for a bit of fun here... I get it, but it's not valid until he actually connects. The severity of that connection is weighted against how likely it is to contribute to ending the fight.

Well exactly, but that's entirely the point. Being in danger is something that is unavoidable and ever present in a fight. Being in danger and actively being close to losing the fight are two separate issues, though they can be linked.

That's not true. "Effective" striking & grappling are both considered equal & are listed under the exact same heading.

The criteria is designed around the idea of who threatens the end of the fight. Damage is a very noticable indicator. Being put in a legit submission is another.

A good submission "attempt" is awarded just as heavily as a good strike that does damage. The underlying mechanism of scoring is that one fighter puts the other into a situation that threatens the end the fight.

for example: A good strike that cuts the opponent open is a strong indicator that he did something significant toward the end of the fight. EQUALLY, a submission that is legit putting the fighter in danger of the fight being ended is scored just as high.

here's how it reads:

"Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative
impact.

Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position."

That last line is something that the UFC commentators... as well as many of teh fooking judges themselves... should review & understand.

"Keeping somebody on their back" is useless unless you do something with it. Big John was very clear on the new judging criteria being specifically worded so that the person on top scores zero for just maintaining. "Control" scores zero. Being on the top, holding the center of the octagon, or holding someone on the cage scores zero.

They can score by:

1. advancing position (going from being in guard to half guard etc...)
2. Striking
3. Submission attempts.

They get a credit for the TD, but after that... it's zero until they check one or more of the above bullet points.

I'm saying they are both secondary to damage, not that effective grappling is secondary to effective striking or something like that.

Not all submission attempts are created equal. The attempt itself should not be credited, only how close it is to ending the fight. For example, if you throw up and armbar but the person defending it has already cleared the elbow from the jump, you were never close to threatening the submission and they were never "in danger" if that's the terminology we are going with.

That to me at least is not a good submission attempt. It's an attempt sure, but that's all, in the same veign as a blocked strike.

I guess I have a fundamental disagreement with Big John and the scoring criteria. Keeping somebody pinned to the mat who doesn't want to be there and can't stop you from keeping them there should never be non scoring. It should always come secondary to damage, and attempts to end the fight am that are at least semi successful, but it should not be non scoring across the board.

 

[bjjwar]

The sub attempts need to be legit and despite Rogan creaming his pants every attempt Alexa had one decent guillotine attempt, the rest were never even close, just wasting energy instead of standing up.

Stil, one person is fighting the other isn’t! The one trying to cause damage should be favored in a FIGHT. This isn’t wrestling, it’s a fight where sub attempts should count more than hugging.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The sub attempts need to be legit and despite Rogan creaming his pants every attempt Alexa had one decent guillotine attempt, the rest were never even close, just wasting energy instead of standing up.

This. If you slap on a triangle and the rest of the round your opponent is trying to survive that is one thing but like you said Grass had exactly one good sub attempt.

So I agree that sub attempts should override top control with no damage but only if its a legitimate catch that threatens the top player, forces them to abandon the position to survive, and/or establishes control over the opponent for a not insignificant amount of time.

 

[Tapioca Cold]

Because it's 'control'. You've answered your own question. If your not in control on top you suck and deserve a 10-8 round.

 

[Dionysian]

Really, only strikes, slams and sub attempts that might cause damage like arm/leglocks and cranks should score points.

Sure I can agree with this conceptually.

Problem is that automatically means the guy on top is winning because strikes account for 99% of that and 99% of damage come from strikes on top because of gravity. So yeah, same end result even when you spell out the criteria.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

Stil, one person is fighting the other isn’t! The one trying to cause damage should be favored in a FIGHT. This isn’t wrestling, it’s a fight where sub attempts should count more than hugging.

That’s just your perception - wrestling is a part of fighting, it typically outweighs shitty grappling off your back.

Bad subs are pretend threats, the person isn’t at risk in actuality so it doesn’t really mean anything.

You don’t get an A for effort in fighting it’s about how you fight. If you have the energy to throw up shitty subs you have the energy to instead throw strikes off your back or stand up.