Eddie Bravo Invitational 14: The Absolutes

I was kind of surprised to see no discussion of this anywhere on the Dog:
Travis Newaza Alleges He Was Pulled From EBI After Refusing To Sleep With Onnit CEO

Love the comments. Hilarious. We finally found a conspiracy theory that Eddie Bravo doesn't believe, and won't even entertain.

Interesting how that works.
omg...I haven't looked into this yet but...for a few years now I have considered creating an elaborate conspiracy involving the Clintons harvesting alien parts that would somehow be linked to EBI or Joe Rogan or something else Eddie related. Then pump it up on social media, SEO etc, and force Eddie to pay attention to it.
 
In soccer, the penalty period occurs after a long match (plus sudden death overtime) that is tied because neither team could score on the other, or because both teams scored equally. Further, the winner is the team that actually scores the most penalty goals, not whoever ran the fastest.

At the last EBI, Rustam Chisiev completely dominated some no-name muscled super heavyweight, who did nothing but stall from bottom. Rustam had a deep neck crank the last thirty seconds that the guy almost tapped to, but he was able to last to the horn. Then in OT Rustam escapes the guy's back mount in like 15 seconds. When it's Rustam's turn he quickly transitions from back to an arm triangle and then to a similar neck crank, but the ref calls the neck crank an "escape," thus declaring the no-name guy the winner. Total complete bullshit on so many levels. Huge failure of that ruleset.


You are referng to Edi as a whole, talking about the ot alone. If that match would’ve happened under adcc rules, rustan would’ve won, on advantage. I’m proposing ebi ot rules instead of judges decision.

Anyways, ebi is a sub only tournament, if there’s no sub then you need to find a winner, and if you are going to include judges, then we are back to who looks better, this case might have had a clear winner, but that doesn’t mean you will always have a clear winner.

In. Soccer you get penalty shots after regulation time also straight away, not necessarily after an over Time, that’s only the case in World Cup matches. The winner it’s decided on who score the most penalty shots out of 5. Ebi last resort is who escaped the fastest, that’s not the n1 criteria, if there wasn’t a sub after a round of 3 tries, then the one with the fastest escape wins, and there’s a reason for this, which is logical, if there is no incentive to escape, then one could stall for ever. Right now, it could be said that the stalling part happenes with the attacker, which is true, but its the best situation. I believe there should be rounds until someone gets a tap and defends his tap (by escaping in the same round), may be introducing other positions as well, may be ashi, or limitating the amount of times one could be able to pick the same position, you can pick back control only 2 out of 3 rounds, right now you can pick back control all rounds.
 
Last edited:
You are referng to Edi as a whole, talking about the ot alone. If that match would’ve happened under adcc rules, rustan would’ve won, on advantage. I’m proposing ebi ot rules instead of judges decision.

Anyways, ebi is a sub only tournament, if there’s no sub then you need to find a winner, and if you are going to include judges, then we are back to who looks better, this case might have had a clear winner, but that doesn’t mean you will always have a clear winner.

In. Soccer you get penalty shots after regulation time also straight away, not necessarily after an over Time, that’s only the case in World Cup matches. The winner it’s decided on who score the most penalty shots out of 5. Ebi last resort is who escaped the fastest, that’s not the n1 criteria, if there wasn’t a sub after a round of 3 tries, then the one with the fastest escape wins, and there’s a reason for this, which is logical, if there is no incentive to escape, then one could stall for ever. Right now, it could be said that the stalling part happenes with the attacker, which is true, but its the best situation. I believe there should be rounds until someone gets a tap and defends his tap (by escaping in the same round), may be introducing other positions as well, may be ashi, or limitating the amount of times one could be able to pick the same position, you can pick back control only 2 out of 3 rounds, right now you can pick back control all rounds.

In ADCC Rustam would have won by points, and maybe submission since the muscular guy couldn't just lay there and stall. Either way, when you think about it all these events are "sub-only" since a submission instantly wins no matter what. The only difference is what they do to determine a winner if there is no sub, which is of course a common occurrence between highest level competitors. IBJJF says points and advantages if no sub, Fight to Win says judges, while EBI has this OT where an esoteric definition of "ride time" is a frequent decider. Whatever the ruleset, the goal should always be to encourage an "authentic" contest where both competitors try to beat the other, with the secondary criteria justly determining who came closest. The problem comes when guys are able to manufacture a "win" by manipulating the rules, despite losing in the holistic sense. EBI does many good things with its urgent atmosphere, but the OT just creates too much incentive for the losing competitor to stall, and creates too many awkward victories based on a nebulous concept of escape. I rolled with a 10th Planet brown belt last week and it was just confounding how much he'd tailored his game to manipulate that ruleset-- minimal guard defense or offense, just well-practiced elbow tucking such that I spent most of the roll with my knee on his neck in side control. The only offense he had was a badly telegraphed leglock attempt off a mount escape, after which he resumed stalling with my knee on his neck. He had no-doubt trained significantly to wait for the OT and start on my back, which to him is "winning."
 
In ADCC Rustam would have won by points, and maybe submission since the muscular guy couldn't just lay there and stall. Either way, when you think about it all these events are "sub-only" since a submission instantly wins no matter what. The only difference is what they do to determine a winner if there is no sub, which is of course a common occurrence between highest level competitors. IBJJF says points and advantages if no sub, Fight to Win says judges, while EBI has this OT where an esoteric definition of "ride time" is a frequent decider. Whatever the ruleset, the goal should always be to encourage an "authentic" contest where both competitors try to beat the other, with the secondary criteria justly determining who came closest. The problem comes when guys are able to manufacture a "win" by manipulating the rules, despite losing in the holistic sense. EBI does many good things with its urgent atmosphere, but the OT just creates too much incentive for the losing competitor to stall, and creates too many awkward victories based on a nebulous concept of escape. I rolled with a 10th Planet brown belt last week and it was just confounding how much he'd tailored his game to manipulate that ruleset-- minimal guard defense or offense, just well-practiced elbow tucking such that I spent most of the roll with my knee on his neck in side control. The only offense he had was a badly telegraphed leglock attempt off a mount escape, after which he resumed stalling with my knee on his neck. He had no-doubt trained significantly to wait for the OT and start on my back, which to him is "winning."

again, you are still talking about EBI as a whole, im merely talking about the OT as a deciding factor.

IBJJF holds no sub only tournaments, what the heck are you talking about, sub only doesnt have points, when you have points and advantages the game is totally different, and players tailor their game for such event.

now fight to win just as metamoris did once, have judges decision, I dont like them, I think you could have a couple of overtimes, and then if still tied up, well go to EBI OT.

10th planet guys that tailor their game for ebi is retarded, since ebi is by no means the biggest tournament no gi. ADCC is, and adcc has sub only on regulation, points and advantages, and overtimes. I believe replacing judges decision as the last resort in tournaments like ADCC will be much much better. It would be totally moronic to trrain to get to the OT, you first have to get through the points facet and a couple of Over times.

also, because you had one bad experience with a 10th planet guy doesnt mean all of them will be doing the same, im quite sure you aint doing that to big red, geo his brother or orchard.
 
again, you are still talking about EBI as a whole, im merely talking about the OT as a deciding factor.

IBJJF holds no sub only tournaments, what the heck are you talking about, sub only doesnt have points, when you have points and advantages the game is totally different, and players tailor their game for such event.

now fight to win just as metamoris did once, have judges decision, I dont like them, I think you could have a couple of overtimes, and then if still tied up, well go to EBI OT.

10th planet guys that tailor their game for ebi is retarded, since ebi is by no means the biggest tournament no gi. ADCC is, and adcc has sub only on regulation, points and advantages, and overtimes. I believe replacing judges decision as the last resort in tournaments like ADCC will be much much better. It would be totally moronic to trrain to get to the OT, you first have to get through the points facet and a couple of Over times.

also, because you had one bad experience with a 10th planet guy doesnt mean all of them will be doing the same, im quite sure you aint doing that to big red, geo his brother or orchard.

I definitely don't think I would be able do this against 10th Planet's top pro black belts, just making the point that my opponent's strategy seemed the result of specific training, and I have indeed seen both Orchard and Geo behave similarly. IBJJF isn't sub only, of course, but the goal is to submit your opponent, and then the points are there if nobody can. EBI has a weird OT if nobody can submit. I'm not a fan of shootout overtimes in general, but I concede they are a necessary last resort in situations where a tie must be broken. The problem with the EBI OT is that it doesn't always settle a stalemate-- often it takes a guy who was getting dominated and magically awards him dominant position. Thus, it becomes a strong strategy to go for low risk/high reward submissions (quick strike heel hooks), and stall to the OT otherwise. Again, what really stuck out to me in the personal example I mentioned was that my sparring partner had clearly trained significantly in stalling.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a big flaw in the rules is the overtime. I don't think you should be given positions if not earned.

So imagine if someone like cobrina or mended competed in ebi. No one would be able to pass their guard or even get close to subbing them. However they could lose in theory if you could make it to overtime.

THIS.
The most egregious instance of this was when Joao Miyao lost in OT to Joe Soto because Soto escaped the back faster. I've been watching the Miyaos since Purple belt and in dozens of matches against the best in the World(Gi and NoGi) of all weights, Joao has never gotten his back taken. Paulo has gotten his back taken twice since Purple and both times it was Light heavyweights that did it (Travis Stevens and Keenan Cornelious). EBI just doesn't respect positional dominance. A huge part of BJJ being a self defense and MMA art is having the ability to dominate positions. This is why there aren't many 10th Planet guys killing it in MMA even though their schools are so numerous and distributed. I can't think of many sub only guys killing it in MMA in general. People talk shit about advantages, but defending advantages is a skill that transfers to keeping people from getting favorable positions.IMO the OT rules are the biggest BS rules in Grappling.
I played high level soccer and disagree with Penalty kicks(I'd favor 3v2 for OT), and really don't think comparing a team sport like soccer to grapling makes much sense. Imagine boxing matches endong in an OT session where the fighters get to punch each other in the Liver.
 
I definitely don't think I would be able do this against 10th Planet's top pro black belts, just making the point that my opponent's strategy seemed the result of specific training, and I have indeed seen both Orchard and Geo behave similarly. IBJJF isn't sub only, of course, but the goal is to submit your opponent, and then the points are there if nobody can. EBI has a weird OT if nobody can submit. I'm not a fan of shootout overtimes in general, but I concede they are a necessary last resort in situations where a tie must be broken. The problem with the EBI OT is that it doesn't always settle a stalemate-- often it takes a guy who was getting dominated and magically awards him dominant position. Thus, it becomes a strong strategy to go for low risk/high reward submissions (quick strike heel hooks), and stall to the OT otherwise. Again, what really stuck out to me in the personal example I mentioned was that my sparring partner had clearly trained significantly in stalling.

I’ve encountered plenty guys who love to stall and probably don’t even know what ebi is. Is just the person. Gordon Ryan and the whole dds train a Lot for these rule set, as you have seen, didn’t stop Gordon from wrecking guys at adcc.

Ebi ot does settle an stalemate, there must be a winner, and is decided by ot, pretty simple, no different than a guy that hasn’t done enough to clearly Erin a match an magically judges award him the win, there’s a shiiiiiit ton of these calls, even in sports where the scoring criteria is much better, we still get bad calls, with ebi ot rules, at least you win or lose based on your skills to sub or escape certain positions.
 
THIS.
The most egregious instance of this was when Joao Miyao lost in OT to Joe Soto because Soto escaped the back faster. I've been watching the Miyaos since Purple belt and in dozens of matches against the best in the World(Gi and NoGi) of all weights, Joao has never gotten his back taken. Paulo has gotten his back taken twice since Purple and both times it was Light heavyweights that did it (Travis Stevens and Keenan Cornelious). EBI just doesn't respect positional dominance. A huge part of BJJ being a self defense and MMA art is having the ability to dominate positions. This is why there aren't many 10th Planet guys killing it in MMA even though their schools are so numerous and distributed. I can't think of many sub only guys killing it in MMA in general. People talk shit about advantages, but defending advantages is a skill that transfers to keeping people from getting favorable positions.IMO the OT rules are the biggest BS rules in Grappling.
I played high level soccer and disagree with Penalty kicks(I'd favor 3v2 for OT), and really don't think comparing a team sport like soccer to grapling makes much sense. Imagine boxing matches endong in an OT session where the fighters get to punch each other in the Liver.

Do Kevin gastelum and el cucuy sound familiar to you?

The soccer analogy is perfect. Is the last resort to untie a game, you see for people who live soccer, is not about who is the best team, is who wins the game, it’s a pro sport with fans that treat the game as religion. You are an americanC, I can tell you with 100% certainty there’s no way you know what the soccer religion is like, you guys have absolutely no clue about it.

So, in tournaments like the World Cup, champions copa libertadores, finding who’s the best team means jack shit, finding the winner of the match does, simple as that. You think people go bitching around because how they lost on penalty’s shoot out and how the other team is not the best? No one Cares, it’s accepted that the best team doesn’t always win, and it’s a valid strategy in short type of tournaments.

The boxing analogy is what’s retarded, because it Involves strikes, I don’t think many guys will be glad to participate in a sport where to untie a match you need to stick up your head to be punch clean on the head, nice head trauma.
 
Last edited:
You are an americanC, I can tell you with 100% certainty there’s no way you know what the soccer religion is like, you guys have absolutely no clue about it.

.

This is accurate. Though, my parent's are european born so I DO know how it's a religion for many. It just never really took root in the US and is the 5th most popular sport in the states.
 
THIS.
The most egregious instance of this was when Joao Miyao lost in OT to Joe Soto because Soto escaped the back faster. I've been watching the Miyaos since Purple belt and in dozens of matches against the best in the World(Gi and NoGi) of all weights, Joao has never gotten his back taken. Paulo has gotten his back taken twice since Purple and both times it was Light heavyweights that did it (Travis Stevens and Keenan Cornelious). EBI just doesn't respect positional dominance. A huge part of BJJ being a self defense and MMA art is having the ability to dominate positions. This is why there aren't many 10th Planet guys killing it in MMA even though their schools are so numerous and distributed. I can't think of many sub only guys killing it in MMA in general. People talk shit about advantages, but defending advantages is a skill that transfers to keeping people from getting favorable positions.IMO the OT rules are the biggest BS rules in Grappling.
I played high level soccer and disagree with Penalty kicks(I'd favor 3v2 for OT), and really don't think comparing a team sport like soccer to grapling makes much sense. Imagine boxing matches endong in an OT session where the fighters get to punch each other in the Liver.
Also another thing across the board with sub-only, is that objectively there are less opportunities to submit people in sub-only. Ironically.

Grappling with points as well as MMA means there are more variables. Assuming the points rules still allow for reaping and heel hooks and neck cranks, etc. More variables means more ways to win/lose. So opportunistic subs like guillotines or brabos or transitional RNCs or armbars for example are just less likely to be there. In sub only when you sweep people they're less likely to pop up. When you pass they're less likely to urgently turn in. When you take the back they're less likely to defend the 2nd hook and open up their neck.

Now there may still be more subs in sub only than points. I'm not sure. But the realistic amount of potential subs that you're likely to see drops.
 
Last edited:
I’ve encountered plenty guys who love to stall and probably don’t even know what ebi is. Is just the person. Gordon Ryan and the whole dds train a Lot for these rule set, as you have seen, didn’t stop Gordon from wrecking guys at adcc.

Ebi ot does settle an stalemate, there must be a winner, and is decided by ot, pretty simple, no different than a guy that hasn’t done enough to clearly Erin a match an magically judges award him the win, there’s a shiiiiiit ton of these calls, even in sports where the scoring criteria is much better, we still get bad calls, with ebi ot rules, at least you win or lose based on your skills to sub or escape certain positions.

I don't consider it a stalemate unless both opponents had a full opportunity to win (especially after a long regulation period) and neither could advance. I personally don't mind draws in these situations, but again I concede that a definite decider can be necessary. However, I cannot think of any sport where one team is winning handily, but then time runs out and they magically flip the score and go to penalty shots. Again, how can you reckon that Rustam Chsiev match where his opponent "wins" despite literally doing nothing but stalling and being brutally neck-cranked?

My solution would be to allow for a "domination decision" before it goes to the OT. In other words, if three judges unanimously see the regulation period as a dominating round (analogous to a 10-8 in MMA) then it's over. But if it was close then the OT to decide it. I think this would both relieve the incentive to stall from bad positions, and would incentivize more methodical attacks.
 
I definitely don't think I would be able do this against 10th Planet's top pro black belts, just making the point that my opponent's strategy seemed the result of specific training, and I have indeed seen both Orchard and Geo behave similarly. IBJJF isn't sub only, of course, but the goal is to submit your opponent, and then the points are there if nobody can. EBI has a weird OT if nobody can submit. I'm not a fan of shootout overtimes in general, but I concede they are a necessary last resort in situations where a tie must be broken. The problem with the EBI OT is that it doesn't always settle a stalemate-- often it takes a guy who was getting dominated and magically awards him dominant position. Thus, it becomes a strong strategy to go for low risk/high reward submissions (quick strike heel hooks), and stall to the OT otherwise. Again, what really stuck out to me in the personal example I mentioned was that my sparring partner had clearly trained significantly in stalling.

I have the same feelings with EBI overtimes.

What if they did something like, if there's no sub in regulation then they do like fight to win and have judges decide it, based on sub attempts first? But instead of having 3 judges like fight to win, they have 4 judges. This way, there can be a tie. So if 2 judges vote athlete A and the other 2 judges vote athlete B, then it goes to overtime.

Obviously that would never ever happen because the EBI overtimes are a huge selling point for the organization and decisions (even good ones) are the last thing they would ever want to move towards.

So it's sort of a moot point.
 
I don't consider it a stalemate unless both opponents had a full opportunity to win (especially after a long regulation period) and neither could advance. I personally don't mind draws in these situations, but again I concede that a definite decider can be necessary. However, I cannot think of any sport where one team is winning handily, but then time runs out and they magically flip the score and go to penalty shots. Again, how can you reckon that Rustam Chsiev match where his opponent "wins" despite literally doing nothing but stalling and being brutally neck-cranked?

My solution would be to allow for a "domination decision" before it goes to the OT. In other words, if three judges unanimously see the regulation period as a dominating round (analogous to a 10-8 in MMA) then it's over. But if it was close then the OT to decide it. I think this would both relieve the incentive to stall from bad positions, and would incentivize more methodical attacks.

No one is winning in a sub grappling match if there isn’t a submission, positional control under sub only matches don’t count...

However what your proposing makes sense, that’s a good idea.
 
No one is winning in a sub grappling match if there isn’t a submission, positional control under sub only matches don’t count...

However what your proposing makes sense, that’s a good idea.

This is the crux of our disagreement-- I think the OT negates EBI being "sub only" since one can plausibly win without ever attempting a sub.
 
Do Kevin gastelum and el cucuy sound familiar to you?

The soccer analogy is perfect. Is the last resort to untie a game, you see for people who live soccer, is not about who is the best team, is who wins the game, it’s a pro sport with fans that treat the game as religion. You are an americanC, I can tell you with 100% certainty there’s no way you know what the soccer religion is like, you guys have absolutely no clue about it.

So, in tournaments like the World Cup, champions copa libertadores, finding who’s the best team means jack shit, finding the winner of the match does, simple as that. You think people go bitching around because how they lost on penalty’s shoot out and how the other team is not the best? No one Cares, it’s accepted that the best team doesn’t always win, and it’s a valid strategy in short type of tournaments.

The boxing analogy is what’s retarded, because it Involves strikes, I don’t think many guys will be glad to participate in a sport where to untie a match you need to stick up your head to be punch clean on the head, nice head trauma.

What sub only events have ElCucuy or Gastelum competed in?
Yes I am American but i've played Soccer at a very high level here in the states.Penalty kicks have been a part of the game for so long that people just accept it. In "Sub Only" grapplers really need to just last the regular round and wait until gifted a position that they were unable to achieve during the match. I've watched Joao Miyao compete since Purple against the best grapplers in the World and never saw someone within 60 lbs of him take his back.IMO the OT rules are much worse than Advantages. Gaining and defending positions is a big part of self defense.It seems many Sub-only grapplers consist of grapplers that were unable to be successful in IBJJF and found a niche. Most of the top sub-only guys haven't even tried to compete in MMA against good competition because IMO their lack of awareness of positioning makes their grappling games less effective for MMA than grapplers who have years everience competing against the best grapplers and gaining-defending points.
 
What sub only events have ElCucuy or Gastelum competed in?
Yes I am American but i've played Soccer at a very high level here in the states.Penalty kicks have been a part of the game for so long that people just accept it. In "Sub Only" grapplers really need to just last the regular round and wait until gifted a position that they were unable to achieve during the match. I've watched Joao Miyao compete since Purple against the best grapplers in the World and never saw someone within 60 lbs of him take his back.IMO the OT rules are much worse than Advantages. Gaining and defending positions is a big part of self defense.It seems many Sub-only grapplers consist of grapplers that were unable to be successful in IBJJF and found a niche. Most of the top sub-only guys haven't even tried to compete in MMA against good competition because IMO their lack of awareness of positioning makes their grappling games less effective for MMA than grapplers who have years everience competing against the best grapplers and gaining-defending points.

It doesn’t matter whether you play soccer at a very high level or not, you will never understand what soccer is unless you have lived outside the us, did you play at the mls?

The rest of your post, yes I agree sub only is not the ideal for sd or. Mma.
 
This is the crux of our disagreement-- I think the OT negates EBI being "sub only" since one can plausibly win without ever attempting a sub.

Well, with judges decision, you can still win even if you attempted less subs, by passing guard and having positional control.
 
I think there is a big flaw in the rules is the overtime. I don't think you should be given positions if not earned.

So imagine if someone like cobrina or mended competed in ebi. No one would be able to pass their guard or even get close to subbing them. However they could lose in theory if you could make it to overtime.
Right but that's the point of the ot rules. There is a clear winner and loser. No advantages and no points. You are stubborn or really good with your guard but win with advantages in IBJJF tournaments, I know guys like that, then this will challenge you. Are you a fully developed grappler or do you just have a good guard. Corbina is on a high level. I would like to see him compete here.
 
Right but that's the point of the ot rules. There is a clear winner and loser. No advantages and no points. You are stubborn or really good with your guard but win with advantages in IBJJF tournaments, I know guys like that, then this will challenge you. Are you a fully developed grappler or do you just have a good guard. Corbina is on a high level. I would like to see him compete here.

You shouldn't be put in a domination position in bjj if you didn't earn it just to get a winner.

I like the point system and advantages because at the highest level, it's hard to score, hence advantages.
 
Right but that's the point of the ot rules. There is a clear winner and loser. No advantages and no points. You are stubborn or really good with your guard but win with advantages in IBJJF tournaments, I know guys like that, then this will challenge you. Are you a fully developed grappler or do you just have a good guard. Corbina is on a high level. I would like to see him compete here.

"Fastest escape" is a clear winner?
 
Back
Top