David Jacobs' BJJGround Winning by points in BJJ vs Wrestling

10 days ago
7/30/03
Posts: 7359

^^^^ You can also create distance, frame, and standup if he is applying pressure too but I generally use that energy to attack.

Edited: 10 days ago
7/30/03
Posts: 7360
BriggsSeekins -

I mean, it's a sporting event with rules and a scoring system. So if you lost on points, you lost on points. I would agree taking somebody straight down and choking them is more dominant than being mostly in neutral positions the entire match and then one guy gets a guard pass late in the match--but the athlete with the most points still won. Because I have some wrestling background and good pressure on top, I have definitely won matches on points against guys who I felt were probably better at jiu jtisu than me--if we had been just rolling with no time limit, there might have been more chance that they would eventually get me. But I was still happy enough to win the match. I was executing what I wanted to do under the rules of the contest--maybe not executing entirely, to get the finish,  but more fully than they did. I do think refs should call stalling if somebody is not trying to improve position and set up a submission.

 

I don't think the "well in a real fight" argument has any relevance--we're talking a sport, not a fight. It's a combat sport, but still a sport. I've had matches I lost where I spent most of the match in very dominant top positions. If it had been a fight, I would have been able to possibly TKO him with strikes. But the guy ended up defending submission attemps and then catching me. I didn't think, well--if it was a fight I would have smashed him while he was underneath me. I thought, fuck, that guy managed to pull out a nice win by doing that one particular thing better than me at that one particular moment.  

I did one particular tournament a few times where they had a system of scoring that only gave out a single point for anything and only gave a point for moving from a neutral position to a more dominant position--you could get a point for a takedown and another point if you got side control, mount or back. But you couldn't get points for going from side control to mount or mount to back. So the most ahead you could get in a match was 2-0 and they also gave a point for reclaiming guard or escaping back to the feet--for reclaiming a neutral position from the inferior position. It seemed pretty much designed to take away the wrestler's advantage of just racking up points early and forced a lot more submission attempts. 

I like that last paragraph for scoring a grappling match. It is excellent imo.

 

As for the sport vs fight thing. Yes they are sports, Combat sports, I guess wether or not wrestling is a combat sport is debatable also since there are no finishes in the popular wresting sports, but when martial arts create sports the rules govern how the fighters fight. Any rules that drastically change the way fighters fight in order to win have the potential to weaken the art imo.

Edited: 10 days ago
7/30/03
Posts: 7361

BriggsSeekins

 

^^^^ just out of curiosity, how was a sprawl to front headlock scored in that tournament?

9 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 8609
BriggsSeekins - 

I mean, it's a sporting event with rules and a scoring system. So if you lost on points, you lost on points. I would agree taking somebody straight down and choking them is more dominant than being mostly in neutral positions the entire match and then one guy gets a guard pass late in the match--but the athlete with the most points still won. Because I have some wrestling background and good pressure on top, I have definitely won matches on points against guys who I felt were probably better at jiu jtisu than me--if we had been just rolling with no time limit, there might have been more chance that they would eventually get me. But I was still happy enough to win the match. I was executing what I wanted to do under the rules of the contest--maybe not executing entirely, to get the finish,  but more fully than they did. I do think refs should call stalling if somebody is not trying to improve position and set up a submission.

 

I don't think the "well in a real fight" argument has any relevance--we're talking a sport, not a fight. It's a combat sport, but still a sport. I've had matches I lost where I spent most of the match in very dominant top positions. If it had been a fight, I would have been able to possibly TKO him with strikes. But the guy ended up defending submission attemps and then catching me. I didn't think, well--if it was a fight I would have smashed him while he was underneath me. I thought, fuck, that guy managed to pull out a nice win by doing that one particular thing better than me at that one particular moment.  

I did one particular tournament a few times where they had a system of scoring that only gave out a single point for anything and only gave a point for moving from a neutral position to a more dominant position--you could get a point for a takedown and another point if you got side control, mount or back. But you couldn't get points for going from side control to mount or mount to back. So the most ahead you could get in a match was 2-0 and they also gave a point for reclaiming guard or escaping back to the feet--for reclaiming a neutral position from the inferior position. It seemed pretty much designed to take away the wrestler's advantage of just racking up points early and forced a lot more submission attempts. 


My point exactly!
7 days ago
12/31/10
Posts: 3958
Calhoon -

BriggsSeekins

 

^^^^ just out of curiosity, how was a sprawl to front headlock scored in that tournament?

I can't remember exactly but think they did not give points for that, viewing it as "not being the one to initiate the action." I like the front headlock a lot and will try to force people into it from a clinch, so I would not have enjoyed that rule--I remember that I was not crazy about this scoring system, but I did understand why the tournament was using it and overall felt it did work well for evening out the "wrestler's advantage" and forcing more emphasis on going for submissions.

4 days ago
4/2/10
Posts: 6717

Winning by pin is a big deal in wrestling.  Its worth more team points in dual meets and tournaments.  If you have a kid who has almost no chance of winning its smart to coach that kid to not give up a pin.  His loss via points costs the team 3 to 5 team points(3 for decision, 4 for major decision,  5 for a technical fall) where as a pin cost 6 team points.  Its often the difference in close dual matches.   You will hear bad wrestles say he won but didnt pin me all the time.  At least in high school.

4 days ago
3/6/07
Posts: 5414
Chadsaw -
Easters -

Thought crossed my mind today how so many in the BJJ community love to scoff at wins by points.  Either about themselves or high level matches.  If you need examples just check out the comments on your favorite BJJ FB Page.

 

Ive never heard a wrestler say “he didn’t pin me.  He beat me on points so I dont really care”

 

Is wrestling now ineffective in MMA or the street because you can win by a points based strategy?

 

Gotta say it feels like loser mentality 

Submission has more finality than a pin , sport or otherwise 

This. 

 

In a sport where you can submit, that is what you should do. 

 

Wrestling has a lot of points, or long battles for the pin. 

 

Apples to oranges. 

 

Cant compare at all.