Mahammad Ali getting smashed at IBJJF Austin Open

[EGDM]

Idiot BJJ refs don't know standing is my guess.

In addition to the scoring actually being correct per above, it wasn't even an IBJJF event.

 

[JustTheTip]

Its kind of weird, but after winning the Worlds, isn't every other local competition, be it IBJJF or whatever, a huge step down? Hell if I win Worlds at a certain belt id only do Worlds going forward until I get a new belt, then start doing local comps again to get acclimated to the new belt.

Some competitors take this approach and only do the Majors. It reduces the risk of losing and puts less footage out there to game plan against. Another approach is to keep competing and experimenting with new techniques in order to add them for the next Worlds. Muhammad Ali won this last Worlds on superior standup along with his solid BJJ.Next Worlds competitors will gameplan against his strengths. By taking his current approach,he might have a whole new game next year.

 

[jack36767]

Its kind of weird, but after winning the Worlds, isn't every other local competition, be it IBJJF or whatever, a huge step down? Hell if I win Worlds at a certain belt id only do Worlds going forward until I get a new belt, then start doing local comps again to get acclimated to the new belt.

It depends on the tournament and objectives. Glad you already know

 

[yetanother]

Yeah, every time you look at videos of his training, he is working his ass off. Of course he has an offseason where he isn't working as hard.Look at Wrestlers and MMA guys off season. The off season is a time to work on new things and to recover physically. Him and jamil just won Worlds less than a month ago but people are now focusing on an Open.How many World champs are competing at all right now?

I don't blame him. It seems that is a lot harder to maintaining the explosive way he trains than worse some squirmy bastard that berimbolos all day and depends more on constant output and grip endurance.

 

[Balto]

The ref actually made the right call. In bjj, if the person playing guard comes up for a sweep but the person that was passing puts him back down, that is not a takedown. It is an advantage for the guard player for getting close to a sweep. In order for Hill to get points, either alves would've had to get the sweep to become the 'top' player allowing hill to get a sweep of his own, or they would've had to reset to neutral where he could've then gotten a takedown. Since they never disengaged and alves was still attempting to get the sweep when hill put him back down, alves is still considered the guard player so no sweep or takedown points for hill as the guard passer.

Yes, the ref called it right from what I can see. Without a reset to neutral, the standing portion is just considered a continuation of the sweep attack. So one advantage seems correct here. The advantage is not from going to standing but rather because Alves did indeed sweep to top turtle for a brief moment but held less than the three seconds required to fully score.

Most of the times the high level refs get it right from what I have seen. Even when people are crying robbery, the refs usually get it right according to the rules.

The controversy is because most people watching (and competing too) really can't resolve the rules properly in close situations. I've personally been wrong about close calls more times than I can remember. I compete all the time and avoid reffing simply because I don't know the rules well enough to make accurate calls in real time like that. I'd probably have gotten the call wrong in that match.

That's why I didn't agree when Keenan criticized the IBJJF refs for not being accomplished competitors. Most competitors I know would make bad refs simply because they don't have enough experience reffing. And if they put as much time into reffing as the high level refs do, they wouldn't be able to compete. The top refs take it serious and do as many events as they can, along with continuing education and training.

 

[Balto]

Some competitors take this approach and only do the Majors. It reduces the risk of losing and puts less footage out there to game plan against. Another approach is to keep competing and experimenting with new techniques in order to add them for the next Worlds. Muhammad Ali won this last Worlds on superior standup along with his solid BJJ.Next Worlds competitors will gameplan against his strengths. By taking his current approach,he might have a whole new game next year.

I think the strategy of competing a little more regularly pays dividends.

It's a blow to the ego when you lose in public (which is bound to happen sometimes when you do a lot of events). But if you can put that aside, you're getting a lot of valuable experience that can improve your game.

I think the approach here is pretty smart.

 

[rmongler]

Most of the times the high level refs get it right from what I have seen. Even when people are crying robbery, the refs usually get it right according to the rules.

I'd say the main disconnect here was not really that the result was not in line with the rules, but more, that the result was not in line with their instincts as to what the more virtuous grappling display would look like.

(An instinct i happen to share.)

 

[Balto]

My instinct is that the rule is just fine here.

I don't think a bottom opponent getting returned to the bottom in a continuous exchange should score. Mat returns aren't scored in wrestling either. It seems normal to not score that.

 

[rmongler]

My instinct is that the rule is just fine here.

I don't think a bottom opponent getting returned to the bottom in a continuous exchange should score. Mat returns aren't scored in wrestling either. It seems normal to not score that.

True, but then in folkstyle rules you get scored for riding time and they can score by escaping too, so there is value in keeping them down in the first place. Whereas, in ibjjf rules, structures of incentives like elucidated above are such that there is value in seeking to be down, which can lead to situations like this.

 

[Balto]

I saw it as Alves incentivized to end up on the top. That's why I think he came up to standing -- to finish the sweep. If he had landed on top, he would have received two points. So he had plenty of incentive to achieve the top.

He just got stuffed late with the mat return. And it was a pretty slick technique that stuffed him. But at the end of the day, it was just a late defense to a very close sweep. Alves was the one pushing the attack in that exchange.

I guess it's a matter of opinion on the rules. I'm fine with them the way they are here, but opinions may vary. Either way I don't feel something can be called a robbery if the ref is enforcing the rules properly.

 

[BOWHUNTER]

Love me some top pressure

 

[rmongler]

Either way I don't feel something can be called a robbery if the ref is enforcing the rules properly.

Not a robbery no. You play the game you sign up for.
What it is I'd say however is people using the closest word they can think of, to try and articulate what that Wrongness is that is being felt.

If he had landed on top, he would have received two points. So he had plenty of incentive to achieve the top.

Not necessarily; if you complete the sweep you get the points yes, but then he now has the opportunity to sweep you right back too, leaving you both nil-nil. Whereas, if you 'almost' sweep him and go back down, and you get an advantage, you 'keep' it, because you're already down. Now, if you sweep him, and even if he sweeps you right back and you spend the rest of the match see-sawing, you're still ahead either way.

At the limit of gamesmanship perfection, this can sometimes even mean actually 'willingly' conceding your opponent a sweep if he comes especially close with an effort, in order to prevent him from getting an advantage himself, and upsetting the whole dynamic.

This can be an important skill for success at the highest levels of competition, when both you and your opponent are otherwise very closely matched.

 

[Balto]

Not necessarily; if you complete the sweep you get the points yes, but then he now has the opportunity to sweep you right back too, leaving you both nil-nil. Whereas, if you 'almost' sweep him and go back down, and you get an advantage, you 'keep' it, because you're already down. Now, if you sweep him, and even if he sweeps you right back and you spend the rest of the match see-sawing, you're still ahead either way.

At the limit of gamesmanship perfection, this can sometimes even mean actually 'willingly' conceding your opponent a sweep if he comes especially close with an effort, in order to prevent him from getting an advantage himself, and upsetting the whole dynamic.

I'm well aware of the intentional almost sweep strategy. This is actually specifically banned in the new rules (5.7.3). So if a ref sees this, he should no longer award an advantage. I don't think that was what was going on here so it doesn't seem to apply.

The strategy itself is not that powerful either because it can be mirrored. In your example, you are assuming that once you almost sweep, score an advantage, and then sweep again for two points you will be permanently up one advantage since your opponent can do nothing but score a two point sweep back on you. But in reality this is not so because your opponent can use the same almost sweep strategy back against you to tie the advantages again. So it's still even that way.

I think the new rules banned it not because it was too powerful but because it's a time wasting meta game that is better to just do away with.

 

[rmongler]

But in reality this is not so because your opponent can use the same almost sweep strategy back against you to tie the advantages again.

Which in fact was the very next point i noted, in that very post.

I think the new rules banned it not because it was too powerful but because it's a time wasting meta game that is better to just do away with.

If one might borrow a turn of phrase, then as they say, res ipsa loquitor. The fact of people engaging in such behavior commonly enough to both be recognized and cause problems in the first place, in itself would display that it was attractive to putative competitors.

I'm well aware of the intentional almost sweep strategy. This is actually specifically banned in the new rules (5.7.3). So if a ref sees this, he should no longer award an advantage.

Well you know it's one thing to say there should be this or that in a mandate, but implementation is 9/10ths of the law; practically speaking, how easily could you tell? And would not the very necessity itself for rulings that require such specific power of arbitrary judgment not betray it simply being patches over deeper inherent problems in the incentive structure itself?

Is it a better ruleset where, you have officials supervise each step a competitor takes, to ensure they are only using party approved methods to seek victory? Or is it a better ruleset where, you may say the word go, and can trust competitors to voluntarily gravitate towards methods you approve of to seek victory within the bounds of the operating envelope? (Or more, approvable methods you might have not even anticipated?)

I don't think that was what was going on here so it doesn't seem to apply.

Not exactly the same no. It is the nature of any given particular situation, whenever one speaks of them, that they will not be exactly the same as any other, as in many things in life; but not as incidental as you might think either. The point in the quoted post more being to elucidate on my earlier point on the several benefits of being on bottom in ibjjf rules, relating to peoples instinctual feelings that Hill had a superior performance, even though Alves was superior at the game.

Almost all seemingly unvirtuous behavior that might arise in the ibjjf ruleset ultimately circle back around to it's takedown rules. It relates to this match too.

Suppose someone you're riding comes up on a single from halfguard, and he gets you stumbling around with a missing leg defending while he tries to finish. There are two ends to this story. In one end, you turn him over your hip with a nice uchi mata/donkey kick to slam him back down to the ground. In another, you strip his grip, pull your leg out, and change levels to drive through with a counter double.

Same outcome, two different scores. The logical mind wonders, wherefore?

If you are coming up on a near sweep, and your opponent puts you back down, as you know, this does not count against you. In fact, you are rewarded for it, with a bonus advantage.

Yet if you were to commit the sin of breaking contact you get nothing. Less than nothing actually, because if your opponent puts you back down now, he gets two points for it...

...unless of course he doesn't, if you put yourself down first...

The logical mind wonders once again.

In folkstyle wrestling, you are not awarded for returning your opponent to the mat... but he is also not awarded for 'almost' escaping either, which makes for a radical difference. And, you will have your riding time even before this as well, an essential indication of the value of getting on top and staying on top.

In fact, escapes themselves are a radically different factor. Like in ibjjf rules reversing your opponent gives you two points (it's actually better, since any sort of reversal where you start on bottom and end up on top gets you points, whereas under ibjjf rules only special party approved methods of reversal get you points), which would tie with a two point takedown. However, escaping by breaking contact and resetting to neutral, and then taking your opponent down, would give you three points, which would put you ahead.

Under Carlinhos rules, not only are you not incentivized to escape, you are anti incentivized even. It would be better to fail an almost reversal, since then you get your reward, rather than break contact and reset to neutral if you don't get him down, since then you would get nothing (and indeed, give him a chance to score... unless you do exactly what he intended to do and take yourself down first).

In terms of how things like this might influence behavior in the aggregate, you should not look at it so much in terms of like, one will absolutely decide to fail or not fail at certain feats as an adaptation to the rules, but rather, how much motivation they might have to perform certain feats. A competitor might not so much want to fail a sweep, but then, he might not be as especially upset by it either. He will not be as motivated to work as hard as he might possibly to escape from a bottom position, to wrestle through and finish, to break contact and reset if it truly feels like it wont go your way. Indeed, he is conditioned to start seeing bottom itself as a position of safety or refuge, because after all, if you pull guard, if you stay down, you take away his easiest scoring opportunity...

The rules of the ibjjf were, ostensibly, created to reflect or encourage behaviors that would be useful in unarmed mutual combat. For what reason are sweeps rewarded with points you might say? Because you get on top, presumably? Just as presumably, this would be the same logic for what takedowns are scored as well. Because you get on top, and your opponent is on bottom. So of course, the logical extension of this logic for guard pulling, where you get on top, and he is on bottom, would be... no score. Because, reasons?

>Well, because he wanted to be there.

And how should that amount to a hill of beans?

>'You shouldn't score those back points, because i wanted him there.'
>'You shouldn't score that pass, because i wanted him on side control.'
>'You shouldn't mark this as a submission loss, because i wanted him to choke me out.'

A reasonable mind might wonder...

 

[nefti]

One match means nothing

 

[rmongler]

Coming off of his training peak at worlds, he probably wasn't even working that hard in the gym for 'just' a regional tournament.

 

[yetanother]

Most competitors I know would make bad refs simply because they don't have enough experience reffing. And if they put as much time into reffing as the high level refs do, they wouldn't be able to compete. The top refs take it serious and do as many events as they can, along with continuing education and training.

I do feel that one reason the IBJJF rules are so trash because the refs are so invested in the system.
The rule set should be streamlined and simplified and not have tribal knowledge passed on during rules seminars.

 

[Balto]

Suppose someone you're riding comes up on a single from halfguard, and he gets you stumbling around with a missing leg defending while he tries to finish. There are two ends to this story. In one end, you turn him over your hip with a nice uchi mata/donkey kick to slam him back down to the ground. In another, you strip his grip, pull your leg out, and change levels to drive through with a counter double.

Same outcome, two different scores. The logical mind wonders, wherefore?

The logic follows when you consider that only attacks are rewarded with points. Defenses are not, even if the positional result is the same.

Defending a sweep by returning the bottom player to the bottom scores nothing. Even if it's with a nice uchi mata/donkey kick.

Attacking a takedown from neutral scores two points.

I get your point about the two things being close to the line in what you described. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Breaking the grips and returning to true neutral seems like a fair line to me.

Only rewarding attacks is pretty typical in other grappling rulesets as well. Landing flat on your back on the bottom from standing scores against you in Judo only if it was the opponent's attack that did it. If it was your attack that caused it (failed sacrifice throw), there is no score. Once again, same positional result, two different scores. It's perfectly logical though when you realize the logic is based on attack vs defense.

The problem with having a ruleset that rewards only positions achieved whether by attack or defense is that it will cause even more stalling. For example, if the mat return was scored as two points in this situation, you would see even fewer sweep attempts from the bottom than you see now. It would be safer to just keep your back on the mat at all costs.

If you gave points for returning to positions that you were already in, you could rack up mount points over and over just by shutting down escape attempts. So the incentive would be for the bottom guy to just shell up then since it's hard to escape and any failed escape would count four points against him when you reestablished mount again.

I think what you are going towards is finding some way to penalize guard pulling initially. Then the top guy always starts up a bit in these situations. The problem I see with that is that we already have a ruleset where it's like this in certain matches (ADCC), and those are the worst matches ever. That could be fixed by calling stalling much more aggressively, but I think guard pulling penalties + aggressive stalling calls would make BJJ not much different than Judo.

 

[Balto]

I do feel that one reason the IBJJF rules are so trash because the refs are so invested in the system.
The rule set should be streamlined and simplified and not have tribal knowledge passed on during rules seminars.

I had several conversations with the late Dave Jacobs about this. Dave was one of the highest level American refs out there so he had a lot of insight.

His view was that the rules aren't any more complex than they need to be. The reason why it is hard to apply them is because it's hard to apply any rule set like that in practical situations without a lot of practice and training.

Dave was a lawyer, and I think there are a lot of parallels. The law is written down in a "rulebook" for all to see. But just reading that law won't qualify you to be a judge (referee in our case). Even though the law is relatively simple, actually applying it in real situations gets very complicated very quickly.

So I think we are going to need rules seminars and ongoing training for refs no matter what. Refs in other sports have to be trained too. I don't think the average NFL player could ref a game well after just reading the rulebook a few times.

Dave also commented that it seems tribal because it is dominated by Brazilians. But he attributed that mostly to a lack of American interest in reffing rather than a concerted effort to block us.

Personally I don't know many Americans who are willing to ref. It's hard work. You have to train on it in the classes, and you have ref a lot of matches yourself to stay in practice. Refs also take a ton of abuse at events. Everyone hates the ref. If he makes the call, he was just doing his job so he gets no credit. If he makes the wrong call (or more often, the right call by the rules that someone who does not know the rules as well thinks is wrong), then he is going to take a ton of heat.

I'm an American black belt, and I'm not willing to ref. It's just not worth it to me for a couple hundred bucks per day plus maybe travel expenses. I don't know many other Americans willing to do it either.

I agree we need more American refs, but I can't be too critical of the current situation when I myself am not willing to put in the work to be part of the solution.

 

[kenetics]

The ref actually made the right call. In bjj, if the person playing guard comes up for a sweep but the person that was passing puts him back down, that is not a takedown. It is an advantage for the guard player for getting close to a sweep. In order for Hill to get points, either alves would've had to get the sweep to become the 'top' player allowing hill to get a sweep of his own, or they would've had to reset to neutral where he could've then gotten a takedown. Since they never disengaged and alves was still attempting to get the sweep when hill put him back down, alves is still considered the guard player so no sweep or takedown points for hill as the guard passer.

You know they changed that rule after this year world? I renewed my ref credentials and they informed me that if the athlete from bottom comes up with a sweep and is standing up more than 3 seconds but then put down by other athlete, it's 2 points for take down .