Alijamain Sterling is right re: BJJ

[Quebec Nick]

Agreed. I like the idea of overtime but I feel like too many people play conservatively with the idea of getting a faster escape or sub in OT. Still better than what we have

In that format, the judges ''could'' make it a draw and it's end up in overtime but they can declare a winner immediately most of the time

Like in TUF, 2 rounds but a third if necessary

 

[Quebec Nick]

And once again, takedowns are more common in bjj than guard pulling these days. You're forming opinions based off of clips of sub only matches instead of the more common point based format.

Guard pulling is dying

I believe that

The top players are all very good guard passers and very good at defending leg locks, everybody just attack when on top

Even the takedown game is getting better, less useless shoving and more action

 

[randomg1t]

I've said it plenty of times myself but as a BJJ guy, the BJJ scoring system is logically indefensible.

i agree at least with this part.

i say 2 points for ending up on top, no matter how it happens. you throw the guy or get a blast double on him, 2 points. he pulls guard, 2 points for you. a guy slips on a banana peel, 2 points for the top fella.

same thing for sweeps and reversals. as it is, you only get points if you initiate the movement from some sort of guard. if the guy has side control on you, and you reverse him, you should get points for top position. if you end up in side control, you should also get points for that, what the fuck kind of logic suggests that you only get points for dominant positions if you achieve them from within their guard?!

not only would the scoring make more sense, it would also make for more exciting matches.

or maybe i'm just a grumpy old man. that's also very possible.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

i agree at least with this part.

i say 2 points for ending up on top, no matter how it happens. you throw the guy or get a blast double on him, 2 points. he pulls guard, 2 points for you. a guy slips on a banana peel, 2 points for the top fella.

same thing for sweeps and reversals. as it is, you only get points if you initiate the movement from some sort of guard. if the guy has side control on you, and you reverse him, you should get points for top position. if you end up in side control, you should also get points for that, what the fuck kind of logic suggests that you only get points for dominant positions if you achieve them from within their guard?!

not only would the scoring make more sense, it would also make for more exciting matches.

or maybe i'm just a grumpy old man. that's also very possible.

I like -1 point for a pull. It puts a sense of urgency on the guard player while keeping it in a competitive range. But I like your suggestion too. More comps are scoring reversals. Hopefully ibjjf follows the trend. Personal I don't mind that side control doesn't score because knee on belly scores. I would like clean tds past guard to be worth more like in adcc.

The rules could definitely benefit from a reworking

 

[Quebec Nick]

same thing for sweeps and reversals. as it is, you only get points if you initiate the movement from some sort of guard. if the guy has side control on you, and you reverse him, you should get points for top position. if you end up in side control, you should also get points for that, what the fuck kind of logic suggests that you only get points for dominant positions if you achieve them from within their guard?!

not only would the scoring make more sense, it would also make for more exciting matches.

or maybe i'm just a grumpy old man. that's also very possible.

I believe the logic about reversals not scoring points is to make sure people will advance and try subs without fearing to get reversed.

Side control reversals are kind of rare and most of the time there was some sort of sub attempt or transition to mount in some way. They want people on top to try subs without fearing of losing on points.

You can stay all day long in mount or side control if your only goal is to not get reversed

It's not wrestling the goal is to get a sub

 

[randomg1t]

I believe the logic about reversals not scoring points is to make sure people will advance and try subs without fearing to get reversed.

Side control reversals are kind of rare and most of the time there was some sort of sub attempt or transition to mount in some way. They want people on top to try subs without fearing of losing on points.

You can stay all day long in mount or side control if your only goal is to not get reversed

It's not wrestling the goal is to get a sub

i understand that, i just disagree.

if we want to award points for positional dominance, then scoring a position should get you those points. if not, then let's not score them at all. it's silly that the rules basically state you get points for side control, but only if you start from their guard. you get points for getting on top, but only if you start from your guard. why? we're not rewarding positional dominance, and it doesn't really make sense.

if going for a submission loses you the position, then you're doing it wrong. that's like the fundamental rule of good grappling, to maintain good positioning when going for the finish. besides, i really don't think that people would just hold on for dear life in dominant positions, not any more than they do now anyway.

 

[ChickenBrother]

I like -1 point for a pull. It puts a sense of urgency on the guard player while keeping it in a competitive range. But I like your suggestion too. More comps are scoring reversals. Hopefully ibjjf follows the trend. Personal I don't mind that side control doesn't score because knee on belly scores. I would like clean tds past guard to be worth more like in adcc.

The rules could definitely benefit from a reworking

I've never liked points for neon belly because I've always considered it just a form of side control. Yes it's a great way to cook bottom guy and to make him move to create openings for mount or sub, but by itself it's neither a more dominant position nor a sub so not clear why it should score when side control alone does not. It would be like awarding 2 points for applying shoulder of justice (without a sub) from side control.

 

[ChickenBrother]

i agree at least with this part.

i say 2 points for ending up on top, no matter how it happens. you throw the guy or get a blast double on him, 2 points. he pulls guard, 2 points for you. a guy slips on a banana peel, 2 points for the top fella.

same thing for sweeps and reversals. as it is, you only get points if you initiate the movement from some sort of guard. if the guy has side control on you, and you reverse him, you should get points for top position. if you end up in side control, you should also get points for that, what the fuck kind of logic suggests that you only get points for dominant positions if you achieve them from within their guard?!

not only would the scoring make more sense, it would also make for more exciting matches.

or maybe i'm just a grumpy old man. that's also very possible.

i understand that, i just disagree.

if we want to award points for positional dominance, then scoring a position should get you those points. if not, then let's not score them at all. it's silly that the rules basically state you get points for side control, but only if you start from their guard. you get points for getting on top, but only if you start from your guard. why? we're not rewarding positional dominance, and it doesn't really make sense.

if going for a submission loses you the position, then you're doing it wrong. that's like the fundamental rule of good grappling, to maintain good positioning when going for the finish. besides, i really don't think that people would just hold on for dear life in dominant positions, not any more than they do now anyway.

Agree with all of this. No extra points for throws into side control or reversals past the guard leads to all kinds of perverse scoring outcomes. If you're good at TDs, you're actually penalized for doing a big throw into side control because you've just denied yourself the opportunity to earn 3 more points for passing guard into the same position. Doing that should be worth MORE points not less.

And if you're in bottom side control and have the opportunity to bump top guy over so you swap positions, you don't want to do that because it's worth no points. You need to recompose guard FIRST then sweep, so you need that extra step in there for no damn reason other than some dudebro says you should. And whether you do a reversal or sweep, you want to end up on top INSIDE other guy's guard, not passed it. Because to do so also denies you the opportunity to earn 3 extra guard pass points for ending up in the same position.

The more you look into the BJJ scoring system objectively, the more inane and ludicrous it seems. I love the art and the techniques but the dudebro scoring system is fucking stupid and long overdue for an overhaul.

 

[Quebec Nick]

i understand that, i just disagree.

if we want to award points for positional dominance, then scoring a position should get you those points. if not, then let's not score them at all. it's silly that the rules basically state you get points for side control, but only if you start from their guard. you get points for getting on top, but only if you start from your guard. why? we're not rewarding positional dominance, and it doesn't really make sense.

if going for a submission loses you the position, then you're doing it wrong. that's like the fundamental rule of good grappling, to maintain good positioning when going for the finish. besides, i really don't think that people would just hold on for dear life in dominant positions, not any more than they do now anyway.

So armbars from the mount, triangles from the top, even backtakes are a bad idea because you can end up on the bottom at the end of an escape or scramble.

As I always saw it, BJJ doesn't reward positional dominance as you say it. It's all about going towards a submission.

You sweep, you get points because you're closer to a finish, you pass the guard, more points, you get mount or back control, shit loads of points

Getting on top is not the real value (only 2 points), you're not getting a sub just for getting on top. For BJJ, solely being on top in a guard as no value. And it's pretty much that, you're nowhere near getting a sub.

Then there's all the unscorable actions, like leg entanglements, front headlock against turtle, sub attempts form the guard...



But I understand where you come from, you would want BJJ to be a more realistic combat sport, more geared towards the general fighting principle of never giving up top position. And it's real, you never should give up top position in MMA or a street fight.

But BJJ and sub grappling has become a speciality sport, with it's style and ruleset that show off the principle of getting a submission in a non striking fight. Also, the only grappling sport with an emphasis on the guard and working from your back. For sure, it's not supposed to be a great fighting option, to work from your back, but it's still a really useful skill and if you're not decent in it you can't really win an MMA fight.


I understand that the general public or the other fighting arts can find it weird or not up to their standards. But a lot of people like it the way it is. Personnaly, I find it way more entertaining to have options from top and bottom, there's way more action for the viewer and the practionner

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

I've never liked points for neon belly because I've always considered it just a form of side control. Yes it's a great way to cook bottom guy and to make him move to create openings for mount or sub, but by itself it's neither a more dominant position nor a sub so not clear why it should score when side control alone does not. It would be like awarding 2 points for applying shoulder of justice (without a sub) from side control.

I get the logic for it. It is the version of side control that allows for the most mobility and avenues for attack while still being a functional pin. All other variations of side control and almost purely pinning positions with limited offense without giving up the function of the pin.

Knee on belly is the central hub for transitioning to other dominant position and attacks. Plus maintaining knee onnbelly long enough to score is definitely harder than maintaining other side mount pins.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

Agree with all of this. No extra points for throws into side control or reversals past the guard leads to all kinds of perverse scoring outcomes. If you're good at TDs, you're actually penalized for doing a big throw into side control because you've just denied yourself the opportunity to earn 3 more points for passing guard into the same position. Doing that should be worth MORE points not less.

And if you're in bottom side control and have the opportunity to bump top guy over so you swap positions, you don't want to do that because it's worth no points. You need to recompose guard FIRST then sweep, so you need that extra step in there for no damn reason other than some dudebro says you should. And whether you do a reversal or sweep, you want to end up on top INSIDE other guy's guard, not passed it. Because to do so also denies you the opportunity to earn 3 extra guard pass points for ending up in the same position

This is why so many comps are moving away from ibjjf rules. It'd becoming more coming to see reversals and dynamic TDs score. But until ibjjf gets with the times, I'm gonna keep putting my foot onto quarter guard get those pass points

 

[DarthChen731]

Idk shit about BJJ but yeah butt scooting around and getting nothing done is fucking wack

 

[randomg1t]

So armbars from the mount, triangles from the top, even backtakes are a bad idea because you can end up on the bottom at the end of an escape or scramble.

As I always saw it, BJJ doesn't reward positional dominance as you say it. It's all about going towards a submission.

You sweep, you get points because you're closer to a finish, you pass the guard, more points, you get mount or back control, shit loads of points

Getting on top is not the real value (only 2 points), you're not getting a sub just for getting on top. For BJJ, solely being on top in a guard as no value. And it's pretty much that, you're nowhere near getting a sub.

Then there's all the unscorable actions, like leg entanglements, front headlock against turtle, sub attempts form the guard...



But I understand where you come from, you would want BJJ to be a more realistic combat sport, more geared towards the general fighting principle of never giving up top position. And it's real, you never should give up top position in MMA or a street fight.

But BJJ and sub grappling has become a speciality sport, with it's style and ruleset that show off the principle of getting a submission in a non striking fight. Also, the only grappling sport with an emphasis on the guard and working from your back. For sure, it's not supposed to be a great fighting option, to work from your back, but it's still a really useful skill and if you're not decent in it you can't really win an MMA fight.


I understand that the general public or the other fighting arts can find it weird or not up to their standards. But a lot of people like it the way it is. Personnaly, I find it way more entertaining to have options from top and bottom, there's way more action for the viewer and the practionner

but then we partially agree, right? you want to give points because people come closer to a finish when they sweep and mount and all that jazz. i'm 100% on board with that. what annoys me is that when you get that position from the wrong starting point, you don't get points. and that shouldn't matter! it's like there was a rule that says armbars don't count if you don't do them from the guard. the fuck? it wouldn't make any sense.

full disclosure, i've long ago stopped paying attention to IBJJF rules, so maybe things have changed. but back in the day you could get taken down and have your guard passed, the guy would get what, 2 for the TD and 3 for the pass, right? so you're sitting there, the dude is on top of you in side control, 5-0. you dig for an underhook, get on your knees and grab a single on them, put them on their ass and get side control on them, and you're still sitting at 5-0. you didn't sweep, and you didn't pass guard. you were both on the knees during the scramble so it wasn't a takedown either. but you are now in the exact same spot they were in, they were awarded 5 points for it, and you didn't get anything. it makes no sense!

oh and about the part about armbars being a bad idea from the mount.... no, of course not. not unless you fuck it up and end up losing the submission and the position. then yeah, your opponent should get points for it as far as i'm concerned.

i really have no problem with BJJ not being geared towards real fighting. it being a specialty sport is fine by me, i was never a good competitor and it certainly wasn't the rules' fault... and i really have no illusions about the rules actually changing. this is just me going off on a tangent from a guy that said BJJ rules are logically indefensible.

 

[Quebec Nick]

but then we partially agree, right? you want to give points because people come closer to a finish when they sweep and mount and all that jazz. i'm 100% on board with that. what annoys me is that when you get that position from the wrong starting point, you don't get points. and that shouldn't matter! it's like there was a rule that says armbars don't count if you don't do them from the guard. the fuck? it wouldn't make any sense.

full disclosure, i've long ago stopped paying attention to IBJJF rules, so maybe things have changed. but back in the day you could get taken down and have your guard passed, the guy would get what, 2 for the TD and 3 for the pass, right? so you're sitting there, the dude is on top of you in side control, 5-0. you dig for an underhook, get on your knees and grab a single on them, put them on their ass and get side control on them, and you're still sitting at 5-0. you didn't sweep, and you didn't pass guard. you were both on the knees during the scramble so it wasn't a takedown either. but you are now in the exact same spot they were in, they were awarded 5 points for it, and you didn't get anything. it makes no sense!

oh and about the part about armbars being a bad idea from the mount.... no, of course not. not unless you fuck it up and end up losing the submission and the position. then yeah, your opponent should get points for it as far as i'm concerned.

i really have no problem with BJJ not being geared towards real fighting. it being a specialty sport is fine by me, i was never a good competitor and it certainly wasn't the rules' fault... and i really have no illusions about the rules actually changing. this is just me going off on a tangent from a guy that said BJJ rules are logically indefensible.

Yep, there's a big huge hole in the ruleset. Your exemple is a very good one, anything that involve scrambles is un-scorable. And yes you can have huge position changes during those scrambles and nothing scores. I would be ok with anything ending up with you clearly on top will give out 2 points (scramble, sweeps, takedowns).

With an exception for clear submission attempts (that's where we won't agree I think)


But the sports needs to go towards sub only with judges decisions, at least for the big comps and prize fighting shows like WNO

 

[nonoob]

Shows, IMHO, only the desire to win by skirting rules and avoiding fighting.

Refusing to engage in actual combat is his style, it speaks volumes.

Eliminating his weak, chicken-hearted style would benefit ufc & bbj fans.​

 

[ChickenBrother]

I get the logic for it. It is the version of side control that allows for the most mobility and avenues for attack while still being a functional pin. All other variations of side control and almost purely pinning positions with limited offense without giving up the function of the pin.

Knee on belly is the central hub for transitioning to other dominant position and attacks. Plus maintaining knee onnbelly long enough to score is definitely harder than maintaining other side mount pins.

Agree to disagree here. Yes KOB is challenging to hold and can be a great transition to mount or other positions, but you could say the same for gift wrap, kimura from NS or many other positions. Scoring 2 points for it seems very arbitrary to me. It's essentially an "almost mount" which then should be worth an advantage point, not 2 full points. And this when mount itself is already worth 800,000 points if you can stabilize without even threatening a sub.

 

[Coconutwater]

It's really tough in no gi to keep someone down when on the bottom and yes it's all about using the rules to your advantage to bootscoot and make the other guy take penalties for not engaging

But the right path on top should be to yes disengage (getting rid of hooks and grips) but re-engaging instantly with an angle to attack or counter attack and the whole point is to get to a dominant position

On the bushido / real fighting point of view I don't see the point of wanting the guy to get back up. No matter how he got his ass on the ground the whole point should be to make sure he doesn't stand back up and to use that opportunity to get side control, mount or the back.

Even in MMA, it's kind of weird when someone get a takedown from a slip, a weird scramble or even a knockdown and they don't follow up to finish. They just wait for the ref to make him stand up. It might be a trap but you should be confident enough in your ground game to follow through that opening.

If someone is on the ground you should be able to make him pay for it

Without striking, the guy on the ground has an advantage over top guy, which, in absolute battle would not happen. Being on the ground, instead of your feet, having your center-line exposed to be stabbed, trampled or smashed is something ju-jitsu experts of 450 years ago, tried to avoid. Just my take.

 

[shunyata]

I believe the logic about reversals not scoring points is to make sure people will advance and try subs without fearing to get reversed.

Side control reversals are kind of rare and most of the time there was some sort of sub attempt or transition to mount in some way. They want people on top to try subs without fearing of losing on points.

You can stay all day long in mount or side control if your only goal is to not get reversed

It's not wrestling the goal is to get a sub

If getting on top gets you 2, passing the guard is 3, and getting reversed by the guy in bottom side control is 2 you'd still be up 5-2. But a side control reversal should still be just 2 points, not 5.

If you reguard, then get your guard passed, now we'd be at 5-5.

If you got the takedown or they pulled guard, you passed guard, mounted from side control and then failed an armbar attempt and ended up on the bottom in guard you'd be at 2+3+4 or 9-2 with an advantage from the sub attempt.

I kind of like this proposed scoring in theory.

But for extra spice I'd say that if knee on belly gets you 2 pts once in the sequence, north south should also get you 2 pts (once in the sequence).

 

[ChessJitsu]

He signed up for the ruleset that he did. Why complain?