BJJ: More than sub hunting

[Allan Shrek]

Inspired by some recent bickerings between Relson, Renzo and now Rener (and by association Ralek and Rorion) and some other threads discussing BJJ as self defence I feel there needs to be a discussion about BJJ competition points and their relevance to "a real fight".

I've kept this seperate from the Rener response thread because there are a lot of other dicussions there about online gradings and the like that need the floor.

Alot of people seem to have the view that people who don't go for submissions are not doing BJJ and wouldn't be able to deal with a fight, be it MMA or self defence.

People don't like rolling for points? Why? Points are awarded for improving position and achieveing a position where not only is submission more available but you put yourself in a position where you can strike more effectively and receive less damage in return. Why is this a bad thing?

The reason BJJ is so effective is that it provides a framework for people to understand the need to advance position. A random collection of submissions tried from anywhere is retarded (or catch wrestling )

So the point of the thread, can anyone give me a good reason why points are regarded as this huge evil?

[piratebrido]

I don't think people are against points (though I have heard grumblings about advantages), but it's more the competition only mindset. People saying that bjj players don't know how to throw or defend a punch. This can even be extended to takedowns, which has been a recent topic here. I haven't really an opinion on throwing punches, but I do think that a bjj school should have some kind of a wrestling class to teach takedowns.

I agree with you that there is more to bjj than submissions - I prefer a nice sweep than a sub myself - and I believe that points best represent the positional dominance in bjj, either in regards to fighting or just rolling. You fight pro MMA, so I am certain you can appreciate the dominiance of some positions in regards to fighting far more than I could.

Love,
piratebrido

[Simon Hayes]

Yes points are awarded for dominant position,that in a real fight would allow you to strike without putting yourself in danger.

But what about this-

Passing the guard to side control to gain 3 points.Deliberately putting yourself back into half guard and letting your opponent close the half guard,then passing it for another 3 points.

So the fighter on top is playing a 'point scoring' game rather than trying to improve upon his positional dominance.

How about being underneath in half guard and making sure that when you sweep rather than passing to side control during the sweep you make sure you stay in half guard momentarily as you reach top position so you can score 2 points for the sweep and 3 points for the guard pass (total 5) rather than just sweeping to side control which gives you immediate greater positional dominance but only 2 points for the sweep.

What about the guy who scores 2 points for the takedown and then 'pretends' to try and pass the guard for the rest of the match,perhaps deliberately passing to half guard and flattening his opponent out for an advantage and then moving backwards into the guard again for a 2 points 1 advantage win to 0 points.

This is the reality of CBJJ Rules sports jiu jitsu and the guys who play a points game.

Don't get me wrong,i love competition Jiu Jitsu but some guys really play the points system in a very negative way to win.

In my opinion the biggest problem is the advantage.Get rid of that and there would be less stalling but more ref's decisions.

[Wiegieboard]

Position is awesome and as the old saying goes:

"Position, then submission."

I've always personally preferred positional control over submissions. I've never been all that interested in subs to tell the truth. The only time I can ever really remember getting excited by a submission was the first time that I landed the twister.

As far as I'm concerned, takedowns, sweeps and positional dominance = the future.

[Allan Shrek]

But is that the reality of points BJJ?

I'm aware it can be but many of the strategies employed are not logical.

Putting yourself back in half guard to pass again is illogical and any smart BJJ player shouldn't do it. You move from a position where you are immune to being scored upon and have an opportunity to attack for 2 or 4 points to put yourself in a position where you can get scored on for 2 points or can score 3 points.

Why would any one do that? People do, but they're not being smart.

The sweep scenario makes sense and there the points need looked at to amend that. That is a failing of points system (which I do not think is beyond reproach) but not a failing of points as a concept (which I do).

Smae with the guard passing one, no-one would logically stay in someones guard when they could pass for the reasons outlined above. If they are afraid of being swept so keep a strong base and don't risk a pass surely that is good strategy as they retain their position of dominance for effective offence.

Sorry I've used so many logics in that but I've been reading some pop science books on economics and it's got me thinking in that way.

[david5]

the putting back in half guard scenario is very smart if yo have a decent half guard pass. i could rack up a million points going back and forth between a crappy half guard and side control, without much trouble. and i would win with the way the rules are. why would i choose to attack and potentially leave an opening to escape when i could do the (negative in my eyes) first option and stall out a win

[The Natural]

this is a topic that i have had to deal with persnally recently in a points based no gi comp..

I was always an advocate of ''look to advnce the position and go for a finish'..thats the way that i have been taught..

But in a recent comp..i had to re evaluate this..sometimes if u have racked up he points and are in a position to ride it out and win..then imho, needs must..

for example..i had to fight who i consider a good competitor recently..scored the take down took positionto pass guard..got to half guard and created pressure to pass and wait on my opponent to dosomething nd i would have passed the guard (theoretically)

Time was running out so i went for broke and attempted the finish which i nearly got but time ran out..

so the scenario was wait it out and get the points or go for the finish and potentially submit my opponent and potentially give up points if the submission went wrong?

Imvho..winning is everything and if u are head on points..play it safe and get the win and if u are behind..go for broke..

[Leiurus]

But is that the reality of points BJJ?

I'm aware it can be but many of the strategies employed are not logical.

Putting yourself back in half guard to pass again is illogical and any smart BJJ player shouldn't do it. You move from a position where you are immune to being scored upon and have an opportunity to attack for 2 or 4 points to put yourself in a position where you can get scored on for 2 points or can score 3 points.

Why would any one do that? People do, but they're not being smart.

The sweep scenario makes sense and there the points need looked at to amend that. That is a failing of points system (which I do not think is beyond reproach) but not a failing of points as a concept (which I do).

Smae with the guard passing one, no-one would logically stay in someones guard when they could pass for the reasons outlined above. If they are afraid of being swept so keep a strong base and don't risk a pass surely that is good strategy as they retain their position of dominance for effective offence.

Sorry I've used so many logics in that but I've been reading some pop science books on economics and it's got me thinking in that way.

I think economics is a good way of looking at it. It shows however, that if properly utilised, BJJ could be enriched and empowered by points, rather than enfeebled, if this is what is considered to be happenning. If the folk who design and re-design the points system take the perspective of homo-economicus into consideration then they will be well informed as to how the points system, as it stands, shapes the game of competitors. They will then be able to adjust the system as they see fit, so that the game of 'Juijitsu-economicus' (aka players) more closely resembles that desired according to the agreed spirit/objective/philosophy of the 'sport'.

[TRIBULUS]

points that represent the ethos of progressing towards ever more dominant positions are a good thing in theory.

However

Points are regarded as evil by some because they encourage strategies that take advantage of the points system (mainly stalling once ahead) rather than progressing to a dominant position and finishing the fight with a submission.

So rather than seeing the full fight we see just a small part until one person is up on points and decides to stall.

[Leiurus]

points that represent the ethos of progressing towards ever more dominant positions are a good thing in theory.

However

Points are regarded as evil by some because they encourage strategies that take advantage of the points system (mainly stalling once ahead) rather than progressing to a dominant position and finishing the fight with a submission.

So rather than seeing the full fight we see just a small part until one person is up on points and decides to stall.

I suppose there are limits to how complex a points system can be, but need it be very complex to address these issues? Couldnt a fairly simple adjustment to the weighting of points or an addition(s) make negative strategies counter productive, or stalling too risky?