PDA

View Full Version : Black Belt Roberto Atalla talks about BJJ Rules



Simon Hayes
29-04-2009, 07:27 PM
I have asked Roberto's permission before posting this article from his blog.
I think he makes some excellent observations and i agree with him on all these points.


BJJ rules - part 1
January 29, 2009
As a fast developing martial art and sport, BJJ has endured many small changes in its rules. Whis is it important? As a matter of fact, rules and regulations heavily influence sports, the overall strategy and even the game can radically change the way sports are played. You can see this clearly in MMA. During the first UFCs, anythign could go in the cage, in fact gloves and mouth protection were not used and even strikes to the groin area were allowed, there was no time limit or rounds, etc. The result of many matches would be radically different if fought under nowadays rules.

In grappling sports the change can be a lot subtler, but they still make a difference. Judo was a total different game 50 years ago, with a lot of more possible grips and many matches ending in the ground. To keep the fight more standing up and please the non educated audience, rules were changed and nowadays you can see even in the top level that many competitors have no clue in the ground whatsoever, prefering to hold to their lapels in a turtle position until the ref call MATTE, which stops the fight and restarts it from a neutral, standing up position.

Not all changes are bad, many actually improve the sport, whereas others are detrimental to the sport as it farther those combats from the true spirit of the martial arts. You might be asking, so what is the true spirit of the martial arts? According to the famous japanese swordsman and artist Miyamoto Musashi, the true way of the martial arts is to fight your opponent and win. He despised the showy techniques and “hidden meanings” taught by most styles of his time as useless decorative stances and parted ways with the ones that tought of dying in combat as honourable, his way was one of victory, not of death in battle.

One thing that strikes me is the huge number of people training martial arts without having a clue on what to pursue. This reminds me of a traditional jiu jitsu master in London praising Aikido as such a peaceful martial art. Ouch! I looked at this guy and saw that even though he trained for probably a decade or so, he had no clue of what he was doing. Martial comes from Mars, the roman name for the Greek god of war Aris. Can’t he see a contradiction in a peaceful martial art?

So which rules are good and which are not? This is a difficult question and sometimes I ask this to myself. Different rules are what make the application of techniques and tactics so different from Judo to BJJ to Sambo to Wrestling and so on. All those sports are beautiful and all of them are someway limited in scope by the rules. Anyone interested in being complete therefore should study different grappling styles and find which techniques to be more adequate to his own style, and this obviously holds true to striking arts too.

Having said that, lets get to the point. Rules have changed enormously in BJJ over the years since its implementation in the 70’s. I started practicing BJJ 20 years later, and I remember when the knee on the belly was awarded 3 points and guard passes 2. Since passing the guard is more difficult and more important, the federation decided to invert the scores. This is a very good example of a change that was beneficial to the sport. What about the bad ones? In my opinion the 2 biggest errors were to change the way that people weigh in before the competition, and the introduction of the advantages.

First lets adress the weight issue. All different grappling arts have different federations and hence different guidelines and rules. I will try to elaborate this better. Weight is a very important parameter in a fight, one that influences a lot the outcome of the matches and since the transformation of martial arts into sports, weight divisions were introduced in order to allow people to compete in a fairer ground. Of course height, skills, speed, strenght, flexibility and other aspects also influence the results, but weight is easy to measure and was brought to the olympic sports of Judo, Wrestling, Boxing and other combat arts. This allowed a greater number of participants to fight each other without disproportionate advantage to the heavier person.

It is hard to compare different rules if you have not fought under them, but a simple look at the weight divisions in BJJ, Wrestling and Sambo shows that there is no logic whatsoever to why are they divided in those ways (Not to mention Grappling which has as many different rules according to each tournament organiser). For instance, in BJJ athletes are placed in 9 divisions separated by 6 kilos each, Wrestling has an upper limit of 120 kg (which means that if you weight more than that, either diet or do not compete at all) and so on.

Now lets think of two fighters. One weighs 120kg, the second weighs 125kg. Do you think those five kilos will make such a difference in such heavy guys? I guess not. Now imagine that one athlete weighs 55kg and the other 60kg. The picture changes, right? So, understanding that a linear increase is not satisfactory, because in heavier weight divisions one kilogram matters less, the people responsible for the rules in Judo, have constantly adapted the divisions and, although no system will ever be perfect, they designed a fairer system than others.

For those not familiar with this, in Judo they have -60, -66, -73, -81, -90, -100 and over 100 kilos. So the difference increases one kilogram at each step, for they saw that 5 kilos matter a lot more in the lightest divisions. You do not find this logic in any other grappling sport. Why don’t the other arts copy this? It is not copyrighted or protected, but it seems that logic is beyond the grasp of the federation officers responsible for BJJ and Wrestling, they will stick to their outdated linear or non logic systems unless there is enough pressure from the fighters.

Now to a more specific absurd of BJJ. Although the weight of the Gi has no influence whatsoever in the outcome of a fight, a few years ago the BJJ federation had the brilliant idea of weighing the athletes just before their first match with the Gi on. Why did they do that? They had a problem, tournaments in the past used to weigh in the fighters on the previous day, which gave an advantage to athletes able to lose many kilos in order to fight lighter opponents. A logic solution, once again, was to copy what is done in Judo. Judoists weigh in 2 hours before their matches, so they can lose some weight but not much or else they will be too weak.
But why copy others? The masters responsible for BJJ envisioned a new way, to weigh in the athletes just before their matches. The idea of weighing people with the Gi is just outrageous to me, as someone can plainly cheat by having a lighter Gi so he can have one or two kilos more of muscle (Gi manufacturers saw in this a great opportunity, making lighter Gis for competitors), and this was a detrimental change for the sport. Not only our weight divisions have no logic to start with, now they brought a change to make it even more illogical. The Gi is dead weight as compared to our muscles. So instead of losing weight and risking being weaker if the body does not recover, we simply use lighter Gis to have an advantage over others. Then soon all competitors got lighter Gis, levelling the playfield, but the irrationale of this measure implemented by the federation was to allow people to weigh in and fight right away, not because this is a good thing for the sport or for the athletes, but because it is easier for them to do that than to have more officials checking the weight in semi naked athletes in another room in the competition day. Checking the athletes in underwear in the main hall is supposed to be offensive, so they introduced this measure a few years ago. Now we not only have a defective linear system of categories in BJJ, also we have to watch out for how heavy is our Gi (Hold on, let me buy a lighter belt, better to spend a few bucks than to lose 200 grams by running on the ompetition day).

I would be delighted to hear arguments in favour of weighing in the athletes with the Gi, not for the sake of the organisers but for the good of the fighters, and so far no one could present me a good one.

I will write a sequence to this post soon only to adress one rule that proved to be one thousand times more detrimental to our sport than the weight divisions, the absurdity that are advantages. Introduced in the sport a few years ago, they were supposed to make the fight more active and less stalled. This of course did not happen, or else I would be defending them.
To be continued…

Simon Hayes
29-04-2009, 07:28 PM
Advantages - BJJ Rules part II
April 21, 2009
Not long time ago I wrote an article criticising some aspects of the rules used in BJJ. Scroll down the page, read it on and then come back here. Done? Now is time to analyse advantages. What is an advantage? The concept was created not long ago, to adress the problem of many matches ending without a clear winner. Back then it was common for the referee to decide which fighter has won when the scoreboard was equal. Given the partiality of the refs, complains were the rule. The fair solution should be an overtime, but this is asking too much from the not so clever people that manage our sport. They came up with the advantages.

Now lets think a bit, and we will see why this is so wrong. What is an advantage? Is a point scored for the fighter who almost passed the guard, or nearly swept the other, and so on. Now try to imagine this same rule in football, to see how absurd it is. A player kicks the ball to make a goal, and nearly scores it, but the goalkeeper defends it. Now think of a rule that would give the attacker team half point, and if nobody scores a goal, his team will win. Ridiculous, isn’t it? In real life, advantages could be scored too, when you almost make up with the girl of your dreams but end up alone after one hour talking to her. Should you earn points for a failure? Thats the concept behind advantages, you are awarded for things you haven’t done, you get an advantage when you almost submit your opponent, you get another when you control him in the half guard, and so on, never mind that you actually did not finish him or passed his guard, what matters is that you tried.

Does it sound fair to you? Now what about the argument that matches were too stalled and they needed more movement to make BJJ more interesting to the general public? Many fighters used to slow down the pace when they were 2 or 3 points ahead. Now, all it takes is one or two advantages and the stalling starts. People used to stall after passing the guard, now they stall inside the half guard.

Keep it real, our sport has grown a lot over the last 15 years all over the World. Thanks to Royce Gracie, the UFC and the whole MMA scene, nowadays everyone knows what is a ground fight, gyms are busy in both sides of the Atlantic and everyone is enjoying the ride, but if BJJ does not evolve, it can fade away just like Karate not long ago.

dave coles
29-04-2009, 08:01 PM
Good post.

We use the old Judo weight categories for our competitions, these have even smaller increments -60 -65 -71 -78 -86 -95 +95

From an organisational perspective, using the BJJ system of weighing-in ties up one or two members of staff all day and does not allow fighters who dont make weight to move to another category.

I would suggest having two (maybe three) dedicated weigh-in times e.g. 9.00 - 10.00 and 1.00 - 2.00 which avoids competitors having to hang around for too long.

Not sure if this has changed, but at Judo weigh-ins they used to allow 500g for gi trousers.

BJJ has much to learn from Judo (British Judo Association) with regards to organising and running competitions.

dave coles
29-04-2009, 08:09 PM
Another rule change proposal :-)

Example:

fighter A is being held down in side control and reverses the position i.e. he is now holding fighter B in side control.

So fighter A has escaped from a 'bad position' and has securred a 'good postition' I think this is worth 2 points..... discuss!

Sir Tapsalot
29-04-2009, 08:38 PM
Another rule change proposal :-)

Example:

fighter A is being held down in side control and reverses the position i.e. he is now holding fighter B in side control.

So fighter A has escaped from a 'bad position' and has securred a 'good postition' I think this is worth 2 points..... discuss!

Disagree - the reward for escaping a bad position is the escape itself. Yes they've done well to end up in a good spot, but they were fucked before - they had to get out or risk being defeated


BTW - thanks Simon for posting the blog, very good read.

Rob T
29-04-2009, 10:37 PM
Thanks for posting Simon.

I pretty much agree with all the points made.

dave coles
30-04-2009, 12:22 AM
Disagree - the reward for escaping a bad position is the escape itself. Yes they've done well to end up in a good spot, but they were fucked before - they had to get out or risk being defeated


BTW - thanks Simon for posting the blog, very good read.


But 2 points are awarded for a half guard sweep - where it could be considered that the fighter underneath has 'escaped a bad position' ;)

Sir Tapsalot
30-04-2009, 07:43 AM
But 2 points are awarded for a half guard sweep - where it could be considered that the fighter underneath has 'escaped a bad position' ;)

Lol, not a bad position if you're Oli Geddes! But at least in half guard you are still in guard (of sorts) - that's the crucial point. Guard allows you to have some control of the opponent, being pinned means you're being controlled (even if you have some super escapes).

Leigh
30-04-2009, 12:46 PM
I think you should get points for the position but not the escape. Here is an example, I use to demonstrate my point of view.

Fighter A is fighting Fighter B. A manages to get mount and hold it. B then bridges him off and ends up in A's guard. Who is winning? My opinion is that mount is better than top guard, so Fighter A should be ahead on points. However, rewarding escapes means they could be equal

In the scenario where Fighter A has a top position and Fighter B escapes to the same top position, who should be ahead? In my opinion they should be equal but rewarding the escape would actually put Fighter B in front

Hope that makes sense

BTW Dave, when's your next comp?

Allan Shrek
30-04-2009, 01:10 PM
The problem there is it doesn't encourage people to be active from top, if a reversal is scored like in ADCC people will take side control and pin them down not working for the sub, whereas if you know you wont lose points if you get bridged off you'll be more likely to attack or look to improve position.

But I actually agree, the scores should be made for position and not for passing the guard. If you throw straight to side control you should get the same points as if you'd thrown to guard then passed.

Same way a sweep straight to side control is worth less than a sweep that lands in a loose half guard which is then passed.

GBUK-Sheffield
30-04-2009, 01:17 PM
how about no points, sub only, no time limit

Rob T
30-04-2009, 01:34 PM
The problem there is it doesn't encourage people to be active from top, if a reversal is scored like in ADCC people will take side control and pin them down not working for the sub, whereas if you know you wont lose points if you get bridged off you'll be more likely to attack or look to improve position.

Leigh's idea should actually encourage activity.

If you get reversed from top to bottom side mount, you'd give up points. However, if you advanced to mount and then got reversed, you wouldn't give up any points. Makes sense to me.

Rob T
30-04-2009, 01:35 PM
how about no points, sub only, no time limit

Defo the best rules but how many competition organisers would be willing to do it?

Soldmysoulforabeer
30-04-2009, 01:44 PM
This might seem a silly question but what does your Gi weigh in roughly about? My Blitz Lutador one weighs in at 3 KG. I never thought of Gi's weight making to much of a differance.

Rob T
30-04-2009, 01:45 PM
Anything from 1.4 to 3kg I think.

dave coles
30-04-2009, 01:57 PM
BTW Dave, when's your next comp?

Hi Leigh

next one is No Gi July 5, details here

http://www.thecombatacademy.com/Comp-Flyer-NoGi-2009.html

dave

Leigh
30-04-2009, 04:08 PM
Cool, will deffo be down :)

PointyShinyBurning
30-04-2009, 04:58 PM
Defo the best rules but how many competition organisers would be willing to do it?These guys (http://www.usgrappling.us/) run them in the states. Apparently in the last one they had a three hour long match.

Rob T
30-04-2009, 05:03 PM
These guys (http://www.usgrappling.us/) run them in the states. Apparently in the last one they had a three hour long match.

Yeah, I've read about that. Sounds like a pretty brutal match to be involved in... I bet the next round was tough, haha!

PointyShinyBurning
30-04-2009, 05:12 PM
Yeah, I've read about that. Sounds like a pretty brutal match to be involved in... I bet the next round was tough, haha!
That's nothing, the semi-final of the Middleweight (75kg) Greco-Roman at the 1912 Olympics went on for eleven hours and forty minutes.

TRIBULUS
30-04-2009, 08:55 PM
The problem is that without advantages the arguments would go on for hours. With any points based system there will always be an incentive to stall once ahead on points, indeed it is a very effective strategy even at the highest level.

I agree with many of the points raised but whatever you do people will always take of advantage of the rules which leads to stalling.

The best way is submission only, it keeps the sport real, the less rules the better.

Submission only, 10 minute fights, if no submission then it goes to coin toss.

That would give a strong incentive to win a fight.

TRIBULUS
30-04-2009, 08:57 PM
by submission

Rob T
30-04-2009, 11:36 PM
For specifically discouraging stalling, there should be passivity rule like in wrestling.

If the ref calls you for it you are going to start losing points quickly unless you immediately attack aggressively.

Simon Hayes
01-05-2009, 09:30 AM
But the problem with all these rules-like advantages or
passivity is that they are open to the ref's interpretation.
That means the Ref can make a biased decision.
It is much harder for him to make a biased decision where clear cut points
are concerned (although we have all witnessed Ref's who give their own team 3 points for passing the guard after 2 seconds in side control,but it takes 8 seconds for students of other teams to be awarded the points-especially if the guy who's guard is passed is on the Ref's team.)The ref is clearly hoping his teammate/student can regain half guard before the points for passing are scored.

What annoys me about the Advantage rule is the cheating that goes on with it.For instance,fighter A passes to half guard and gets an advantage.So he is one advantage up.Fighter B manages eventually to replace guard and puts his first hand in Fighter A's collar with a grip that wouldn't choke anyone.He then grabs another loose grip on the other collar.Fighter A is not in any sort of trouble.His posture isn't broken and he removes the grips.Fighter B was awarded an advantage by the biased Ref for a collar choke 'attempt' to even the scores.

As i have said before,Nick Brooks,J Sho and Andy Roberts are excellent Ref's and are completely unbiased,but all the situations above have happened in last 12 months,at U.K. comps by biased Refs.

If there was no advantage rule it would diminish a Ref's ability to have a biased effect on a match.

Jogs D
01-05-2009, 09:37 AM
I agree with Trib...... with one exception...

After 10 mins, if there isn't a submission, instead of a coin toss, the guys take their gi's off and fight Vale Tudo instead until there is a winner...
And no - I'm not joking - I'm completely serious. This would take BJJ to a new level and force BJJ practitioners to learn MMA/Vale Tudo along with the sport BJJ training....

Rob T
01-05-2009, 09:39 AM
Biased refs will always be a problem with any rules not just advantages. I've seen some refs totally ignore some points which should have been scored.

The other problem with the reffing imo, is the fact that there is pretty much no training for them at all. So they are all applying their own interpretation of the rules.

Sir Tapsalot
01-05-2009, 10:30 AM
If we have to have a points system, would things work better if there were 3 refs (from different teams) at matside and only if 2 out of 3 refs signal for a score does it count? And the only job of the centre ref is to keep the fighters on the mat, look for illegal grips and maintain fighters safety?

dwarfofdoom
01-05-2009, 10:48 AM
What about getting rid of advantages and awarding points for clear submission attempts awarded not by the ref alone but at least two of the three officials ( usually you have the ref, time keeper and score keeper). I do think close submission or sweep attempts should be rewarded.

If draw at end of the contest then overtime with a golden score rule. If still a draw at the end of overtime then simply have it go to official decisions like the corner judges in judo.

My greco coach hated the idea of a coin toss deciding matches in wrestling, and I agree with him. Even in fights where no clean points have been scored it is blantantly infair to decide the winner by chance. IMO it is the worse of all the bad options to decide who wins a closely fought match.

Another idea I have seen on the net is a passivity timer, like a shot clock n basketball. If the ref thinks a fighter is being passive he can start the timer, say 1 min, and if the ref. doesn't think he has taken enough action he will take points off at the end of that period.

But better training for all refs and more importantly penalties for corrupt biased refs has to be put in place. Maybe a register of qualifed officials with only those on the register being allowed to ref comps.

Sir Tapsalot
01-05-2009, 11:14 AM
Points for clear submission attempts is just another name for advantages, it's no different. Ideally we should only be rewarding things that have actually happened, like a sweep, not ones that almost did, as it's then much more open to the ref's interpretation

Simon Hayes
01-05-2009, 11:22 AM
Agree with Sir Tapsalot.

TRIBULUS
01-05-2009, 11:41 AM
If we have to have a points system, would things work better if there were 3 refs (from different teams) at matside and only if 2 out of 3 refs signal for a score does it count? And the only job of the centre ref is to keep the fighters on the mat, look for illegal grips and maintain fighters safety?


They had a situation like this in the finals at the europeans and it worked OK but there was a lot of attempting to influence the 3 referees.

I don't see how a coin toss can be described as unfair, in my opinion it is exactly the opposite. It's a 50-50 decision, ie fair.

If you are unable to sub your opponent in 10 minutes then you have to accept that the progression will be decided by chance.

In my opinion this would encourage people to go for the finish in the last couple of minutes rather than stalling for the last couple of minutes.

Sir Tapsalot
01-05-2009, 11:49 AM
They had a situation like this in the finals at the europeans and it worked OK but there was a lot of attempting to influence the 3 referees.

In that situation a scoring system like in the one in use in Olympic Boxing might work. 2 out of 3 refs have to press their button within 1 sec of each other to register the score and it could be done anonymously to avoid too much heckling.

Simon Hayes
01-05-2009, 12:57 PM
^
That is EXACTLY the same system as Olympic Taekwondo,and it's very fair.

(I'm a qualified Taekwondo Ref! ha ha ha)

Rob T
01-05-2009, 01:06 PM
I think it would be a little more difficult with BJJ though, 1 sec might not be a long enough window.

For TKD or boxing, 1 sec within a punch (or kick) landing is ample, but scores could be missed when you are having to judge when a sweep is complete or 2 seconds past the guard etc?

Sir Tapsalot
01-05-2009, 01:23 PM
I think it would be a little more difficult with BJJ though, 1 sec might not be a long enough window.

For TKD or boxing, 1 sec within a punch (or kick) landing is ample, but scores could be missed when you are having to judge when a sweep is complete or 2 seconds past the guard etc?

1 sec was just a rough suggestion, but that window could be widened slightly. But if all refs are properly trained and are using the same criteria to judge when a sweep or pass is completed, then it shouldn't be impossible for a system like that to be used. It all really comes down to how serious are the IBJJF about improving the sport

Rob T
01-05-2009, 01:40 PM
Yeah, I definitely think it would work.

Sir Tapsalot
01-05-2009, 01:56 PM
Cool, well that's 2 of us on board - we can now set up our own rival BJJ organisation and implement our judging system! Look out Carlinhos, we're coming for you!!!