No points for body triangle back take - one od the dumbest rules?

[Alech33]

It depends on your body composition. I have long legs and a short torso so its way easier for me to get the body triangle than both hooks.
Points reflect difficulty too as well as utility of position.

I can agree with that, that getting the triangle is easier than hooks but what I was saying is actually ending up behind the person is the hardest part of the back take. Getting the triangle vs the hooks is the icing on the cake

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

Yes is it dumb, but the entire premise of awarding points for certain transitions from one to another, and the initiation, and not for the positions themselves is even more dumber.

There isn't a logically consistent thread for the rules outside whatever subjective "art" interpretation people want to believe in.

 

[esteven]

One dumb rule among many

 

[yetanother]

Yes is it dumb, but the entire premise of awarding points for certain transitions from one to another, and the initiation, and not for the positions themselves is even more dumber.

IBJJF rules where invented by stupid people so there are a lot of vague and silly situations where how you sweep someone determines if you get points.
There is some merit in not getting points when you are in bottom side and reverse position because the top guy messed up a sub as that encourages him to attack instead of hold you there for all eternity.

 

[rmongler]

It is too easy to get. The struggle to get and achieve the hooks in makes it worth the 4 points. While the body triangle is harder for the opponent to escape, it is much easier to get than hooks.

A risible line of thought; should we perhaps award people extra points for doing a backflip before passing guard, because it is harder? Perhaps make it so they should let their opponent lock in a triangle in first, and it doesn't count if they don't?

Why would you not want methods that most easily accomplish a desired objective? Do you like effective martial skills or not?

 

[yetanother]

For the sake of arguments if two skills where equally more valuable (like usable in a street fight or entertaining to the audience whatever) and one was harder to perform in a BJJ match it would make sense to give more points for it to encourage a more varied arsenal.

 

[rmongler]

For the sake of arguments if two skills where equally more valuable (like usable in a street fight or entertaining to the audience whatever) and one was harder to perform in a BJJ match it would make sense to give more points for it to encourage a more varied arsenal.

Im not sure it would make sense at all.

A stronger argument i would acknowledge would be in terms of spectacle; extra reward for certain tactics, techniques, or procedures, because they would be more exciting.

 

[yetanother]

Im not sure it would make sense at all.

A stronger argument i would acknowledge would be in terms of spectacle; extra reward for certain tactics, techniques, or procedures, because they would be more exciting.

Difficult exiting tactics would need a higher rewards because they are more difficult to do.
But the rules are for historical reasons rather then carefully constructed.

 

[Ice 9 Cobra]

My understanding is it isnt scored because you are able to get body locks from angles where you aren't fully square on the back, if you have long legs.

 

[Calibur]

Even after all these years, the mental gymnastic popping up to justify these rules amaze me.

 

[yetanother]

It would be super interesting what sort of rules the general population of competitors want.
Based on the internet you would assume people want heel hooks in the gi for white belts, -1 for guard pulling and +5 points for a high amplitude power bomb slam but I doubt it's the case.

 

[thegreenblender]

As a tall guy who'd actually benefit, I sort of agree with the rule, on the grounds of ambiguity. I can be in closed guard, going for a back take and have body triangle *and* seatbelt without actually being belly-to-back on a guy, where I need to be if I'm going to actually be effective...a "side", still sorta beneath the guy body triangle if you will, which I find pretty worthless.

Getting the hooks pretty much requires you have to be squarely on his back, or fully consolidated.

 

[cjd]

As a tall guy who'd actually benefit, I sort of agree with the rule, on the grounds of ambiguity. I can be in closed guard, going for a back take and have body triangle *and* seatbelt without actually being belly-to-back on a guy, where I need to be if I'm going to actually be effective...a "side", still sorta beneath the guy body triangle if you will, which I find pretty worthless.

Getting the hooks pretty much requires you have to be squarely on his back, or fully consolidated.

Given how many weird, hyper-specific rules get added to the rulebook annually, I'm pretty sure we could come up with a straightforward definition of "back control" that includes body triangles, leg across, *and* hooks that also excludes obvious edge cases, WHILE still being relatively straightforward amongst the corpus of the IBJJF rulebook.

 

[yetanother]

Given how many weird, hyper-specific rules get added to the rulebook annually, I'm pretty sure we could come up with a straightforward definition of "back control" that includes body triangles, leg across, *and* hooks that also excludes obvious edge cases, WHILE still being relatively straightforward amongst the corpus of the IBJJF rulebook.

If the change happened the IBJJF would just add the worlds "body triangle" to the rulebook and have the rest explained in a rules seminar.

 

[SidRon]

Points reflect the utility of a position, not its difficulty. The fact that many high-level grapplers put in hooks for points and then immediately give them up for a triangle tells you all you need to know.

This