SUPERFIGHT: Ryan Hall vs Hermes Franca at Grapplers Quest at UFC Fan Expo Boston 20

***Plasma*** · Posted On: 9/12/2010 6:50pm

Originally Posted by Omega the Merciless

Missing the point. I shouldn't have to engage unless I'm dragged down there. BJJ implemented all these fucked up rules to make sure they stay dominant. Sorry that's bullshit.
1. You can't do leg locks because people were getting hurt.
-trying teaching everybody when to tap.
2. Outlawed bicep slicer because hyperextended and broken arms
-Try educating everybody.
3. BJJ guys were being beaten because wrestlers, sambo players, and judoka were throwing and disengaging.
-learn that aspect of the game and end the controversy.

To be fair Judo implemented the same type of bullshit rules for their competitions.

But I do agree with the fact that Throws should be rewarded over butt flopping regardless of the ruleset.

**judoka_uk** · Posted On: 9/12/2010 7:14pm

All sports try to tailor they're rules to avocate a certain style. As a result there are usually some negative side effects of the rulsets.

The negative side effects for Judo have been a castration of newaza, dilution of the ippon criteria and negative grip fighting.

BJJ has encountered similar negative side effects, although I don't know a lot about BJJ, the type of butt scooting demonstrated in this video is as frustrating and negative as anything you'll seen in IJF rules Judo.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 9/12/2010 7:50pm

Originally Posted by Plasma

To be fair Judo implemented the same type of bullshit rules for their competitions.

But I do agree with the fact that Throws should be rewarded over butt flopping regardless of the ruleset.

And to be fair the subject isn't Judo. If so you should've seen my comments on the World Judo games.

**Das Moose** · Posted On: 9/13/2010 4:30am

Originally Posted by Omega the Merciless

Missing the point. I shouldn't have to engage unless I'm dragged down there.

Yes you should. It's a grappling match, the aim is to see who's the better ground fighter. If you don't want to engage on the ground, go do Judo, Wrestling, Sambo, etc.

BJJ implemented all these fucked up rules to make sure they stay dominant. Sorry that's bullshit.
1. You can't do leg locks because people were getting hurt.
-trying teaching everybody when to tap.
2. Outlawed bicep slicer because hyperextended and broken arms
-Try educating everybody.
3. BJJ guys were being beaten because wrestlers, sambo players, and judoka were throwing and disengaging.
-learn that aspect of the game and end the controversy.

In fairness, all leg locks except heel hooks, and bicep slicer and calf crushes, are now legal from brown belt - although i completley agree they should be allowed much much earlier. We don't have Grappler's Quest over here but I was under the impression pretty much everything is legal in all adult divisions?

In my opinion the aim of events like this is to see who's better on the ground that's why you get 2 points for a takedown, but 3 for passing guard, 4 for mount, etc. As judoka_uk said the rules encourage a certain type of style - in this case groundwork.

Fair enough if you don't care for it and don't believe it's the best grappling style - I actually agree with you there - but I just think all the "this is an embarassment, it's ridiculous, disgraceful" stuff is a little over the top.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 9/13/2010 9:52am

The main part I think is bullshit is the forced engagement. Bring me down there and we'll talk. If you attack me from a ground position and I scramble to disengage then come talk to me. Sitting on the ground and being forced to walk into somebody's guard is bullshit.

**Res Judicata** · Posted On: 9/13/2010 10:30am

Originally Posted by Das Moose

In my opinion the aim of events like this is to see who's better on the ground that's why you get 2 points for a takedown, but 3 for passing guard, 4 for mount, etc. As judoka_uk said the rules encourage a certain type of style - in this case groundwork.

Not really. The points encourage people to advance to positions seen as more dominant in order to simulate mutual combat between two people, not necessarily because they were the most dominant grappling positions. You get four points for mount and back because they were considered (by the Gracies) to be most dominant positions for striking or submitting your opponent. (Also because they had so-so side-control games and sucked standing -- see a pattern?). Even so, the rules are screwy. Riddle me this: back mount with hooks scores 4 points. A rear triangle scores ... nothing akaik. Which is more dominant?. You get no points for, say, kuzure kesa gatame unless you've passed guard to that position (turning the turtle does not count) but 2 points for knee on belly?

**bigskymma** · Posted On: 9/20/2010 1:06pm

Originally Posted by Das Moose

on the ground that's why you get 2 points for a takedown, but 3 for passing guard, 4 for mount, etc.

I think competition is much deeper than "who is better on the ground". Someones strong "ground" game can be negated by a player with strong "standup" game. Take for example, wrestlers who after a take down are in side control. This starting position can negate (or perhaps even out) the strength of the ground specialist.

In my eyes it destroys the true competition of submission grappling when you force a wrestler to engage a butt flopper. Grappling competitions should be about who is best at combining standing grappling and ground grappling. Would your feelings be the same if the butt flopper were forced to engage a wrestler who wants to work from the clinch or shoot?

Futhermore, the point structure for passing guard, mount, etc can be construed to be just as helpful to a strong clinch/shot grappler. As stated before a good wrestler (or judoka) will begin groundwork from side control. From there the rules benefit them just as much for taking mount/back.

**Ryno** · Posted On: 9/20/2010 2:39pm

Yes, I understand that sport grappling is it's own thing. But grappling is a combative sport. I just wished they'd penalize any fucked up combative position. Buttflopping would be penalized. Judo turtlers would be penalized.

It astounds me that wrestlers and judoka would get penalized for tossing someone and then standing back up (refusing to go to groundwork -as there is a certain combative logic to it) while buttscooting is perfectly acceptable. I mean, which makes more sense combatively? I mean, is buttscooting an effective tactic in any scenerio in the world outside of sport bjj?

There should be some kind of balance in the ruleset. A throw going to positional dominance should score well, and encourage people to actually work their standup games. Good groundwork should score well. Hey, wait, this sounds like freestyle SAMBO!

I think I'm just going to enter a BJJ tournament and stand on my head. What the **** are you going to do? Tip me over and get penalized for slamming me? Pick me up and get penalized for spiking me on my head?

Hall is very good at his game. But it's a niche game that would be relegated to a very small and specific grappling scenerio if the rules were tweaked to avoid buttscooting.

**M-Tri** · Posted On: 9/20/2010 10:56pm

Ryan Hall has sick jiu-jitsu.

with that said I'm not joining the argument about butt-flopping. if it makes you angry then get them back by smashing their guard. if you can't then you probably don't deserve to win anyway.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 9/21/2010 10:12am

Originally Posted by M-Tri

Ryan Hall has sick jiu-jitsu.

with that said I'm not joining the argument about butt-flopping. if it makes you angry then get them back by smashing their guard. if you can't then you probably don't deserve to win anyway.

Said like a true douchebag. Faggots like you will try to take away everything that's good about the sport. Not using this match as an example; lower ranks can't use most leg locks, if you pick them up you have to keep them safe.

If those are the rules you like then invent a tournament with no throws or no points given to throws. 'nuf said.