Road to Metamoris: Season 1 Episode 1

[Andrew Sarasin]

sucks for 10p, I would like to see the whole match though. The other guy said that he was getting sweeped a bunch but we didnt see any of that. Apart of me thinks that matamoris did this on purpose to make 10p look bad because eddie is his competition another part of me is saying Im just being parnoid. Im probably being the second one..

[Amir Allam]

It seems to me that your implicit criticism is this: that somehow the "better" guy might lose the match. Now, it might be that in your opinion a match and a tournament is to "find out" who's the best. But I don't look at it that way, and the explicit goals of EBI are different.

EBI's stated goals:
- Make jiujitsu matches exciting
- Encourage competitors to attack

We've only seen serious stalling once: Denny vs. Orchard. Nevertheless, I think that match was exciting as hell, as the storyline became, "Can Denny survive the Orchard onslaught?" He hung tough after a few early scares and secured the OT win. Nice. Having multiple viable strategies to win is not a bad thing.

The overemphasis on winning any single match or any single tournament is, in my opinion, an odd way of looking at a martial art that is about technique, humility, and respect. What does it even mean to be "better" someone else? Are you better at attacking a few submissions? Better at securing what you call dominant positions? Better at gameplanning and strategizing for the dramatically different rules of a particular competition, be it IBJJF, ADCC, or EBI? I feel that these are all valid aspects of our art, and as I get older I don't mind any of them coming to the fore.

While we're on the subject, I think we should talk about dominant positions. If we're in a submission-only framework, if a competitor achieves dozens of 'dominant' positions, but is unable to procure a submission, then how dominant were those positions? If all we care about in a given match is the submission (like practice rolls often are), then what does it matter if I'm mounted or not? It would be interesting to look at real statistics, but it seems to me like we rarely see matches finished from mount, even though this is traditionally considered a dominant position. Maybe this is why we talk about deadzones, the dominant positions of sub-only, using different language. Perhaps our entire paradigm needs to adjust.

Looking at all of the events so far, I as a fan consider them a resounding success. As a competitor, I would give years off of my life to be able to compete in such an amazing event in front of an educated audience.

I like EBI and what Eddie is doing, but I'm not a fan of the OT rules, I don't really have a better suggestion yet , but the current OT rules don't do it for me

Its forced, there are guys who never get a dominant position all match than get put it back mount or armbar position with a chance to win? Doesn't make sense IMO

If you know you're a not a better grappler, have little chance to sub in regulation, you can stall for OT, also once the caliber of the tournament gets higher, there will be way more OTs, just not enough time to sub someone

[David Rosado]

Good points, but using the kumite amd points, Keenan has dominated Tonon like 20 something to 2 amd 14-0, also in the Kumite he subbed him,but it took over 20minutes, that wouldn't have happened in EBI and Gary would have a chance to "win" by escaping faster? No thanks

Yeah, Garry would have a chance to win in OT, but at the same time, so does Keenan. Considering how much of a killer Keenan is, I think the sub only format still favors him. I mean, we know what's gonna happen if you put Keenan in a deadzone.

I get you on the flaws of the OT rules, but I don't think they're that bad if the idea is to reward subs over positional dominance. I think that is also a debate worth having. Which matters more? Subs or positions? Lots of people say one or the other. I say it should be synergistic. But that's another topic.

[Liquidrob]

Amir, all good stuff, I like EBI, I like that Eddie tries stuff, I just don't like the OT rules and the 10 minute matches for "sub only"

Also, I dont think it's good to just train for sub only, especially early on for development, to much diving for stuff with no real positional dominance, the points format instills that, of course it also screws it up, lol, but for the most part it follows a positional hierarchy which is a goal for a grappler, it's not always just about the sub

[David Rosado]

Now I'm theorizing here, but I think that if the EBI format takes off, a few things are going to happen. A lot of position guys are going to get tapped in OT and complain about the rules. A lot of submission killers are going to develop styles that just go for submissions recklessly and lose touch of the importance of positioning. Eventually, I believe position guys are going to adapt and start taking over. And then submission guys are going to get back to the importance of submission before position. In other words, I think this format would force guys to balance their BJJ styles to be both positionally dominant and submission aggressive.

Personally, I think that's why guys like Marcelo, Rafa, and Keenan have so many subs under their belt despite participating in mostly points tourneys. They are positional killers with a goal of tapping you. I think that's what good grappling should be all about.

But again, I'm just theorizing and being a wishful thinker. Wherever there are rules, there will be guys who game the rules. That's just how it is. So the idea of EBI is to try and make it entertaining even if you just want to game the rules.

[Liquidrob]

I think people make the mistake that "points players" or "position guys" are not good at subbing people, here is the thing, it's really hard to sub really good guys, throw in time limits, etc...it gets much harder

Everyone can't be Marcelo, people even give Rafa crap about the way is competes, which is insane, lol

I don't really know what my point is anymore, but hopefully this is a good discussion

[David Rosado]

I think people make the mistake that "points players" or "position guys" are not good at subbing people, here is the thing, it's really hard to sub really good guys, throw in time limits, etc...it gets much harder

Everyone can't be Marcelo, people even give Rafa crap about the way is competes, which is insane, lol

I don't really know what my point is anymore, but hopefully this is a good discussion

I'm sure you've been around the block more than I have, but from my observation, I don't think it's a mistake to say that points players are not good at subbing people. I think it's accurate because it's not a priority for a lot of players. You have to have a certain mentality to be a sub guy. Like Tonon says, you don't wait for an opening. You create the opening. There are less taps at the higher levels because guys are good enough to not make those mistakes. Why does Tonon get taps at the higher level? He creates the opening. Lots of points players don't.


From experience, most points players that I've rolled with were very content with just getting position because they couldn't crack my defense. Also, at one school I attended, I can't even rememember learning a sub in the month that I attended. I learned some awesome DLR passes, some good knee cuts, some good arm drag sequences, but never any subs. In a whole month. Back in Rochester, I'd learn a sub, and a back up sub to that sub, and a back up sub to that sub. So while I would get handled positionally, if there was a tap happening, it was usually me getting it.

From observation at tournaments, I don't see guys really hunting for subs. I even remember one guy I was watching....he had the back for like 2 minutes straight and looked completely lost. I asked his team mate, is he a white belt? He's like, nah, he's just a gi guy. LOL. I remember his coach even trying to explain what to do, and the guy just looking at his coach like he was speaking alien and just shaking his head and shrugging. But again, that's just my limited experience and observation.

[mountveggie]

Dare I say it, but I think I like the Round Robin 4 groups thang better than the 16 man EBI set up.

There's something to getting to see your favourite grappler get 2 minimum, maybe 3 matches, before proceeding on or being eliminated.

Does it also encourage more subs cause if you lose 1 and get caught then you are not automatically out?

Would love to hear Eddie's thoughts on the format?

After you get past the Ralek factor I really dug 'The Road' but the insane amount of money it looks like that went into the production doesn't seem to make sense to me as a business, but hey it's not my $$$$ and it's super sexy to watch.

Agree with everything you said.... except, it's pretty tough to get past the Ralek factor. :x

[Dave Milner]

It seems to me that your implicit criticism is this: that somehow the "better" guy might lose the match. Now, it might be that in your opinion a match and a tournament is to "find out" who's the best. But I don't look at it that way, and the explicit goals of EBI are different.

EBI's stated goals:
- Make jiujitsu matches exciting
- Encourage competitors to attack

We've only seen serious stalling once: Denny vs. Orchard. Nevertheless, I think that match was exciting as hell, as the storyline became, "Can Denny survive the Orchard onslaught?" He hung tough after a few early scares and secured the OT win. Nice. Having multiple viable strategies to win is not a bad thing.

The overemphasis on winning any single match or any single tournament is, in my opinion, an odd way of looking at a martial art that is about technique, humility, and respect. What does it even mean to be "better" someone else? Are you better at attacking a few submissions? Better at securing what you call dominant positions? Better at gameplanning and strategizing for the dramatically different rules of a particular competition, be it IBJJF, ADCC, or EBI? I feel that these are all valid aspects of our art, and as I get older I don't mind any of them coming to the fore.

While we're on the subject, I think we should talk about dominant positions. If we're in a submission-only framework, if a competitor achieves dozens of 'dominant' positions, but is unable to procure a submission, then how dominant were those positions? If all we care about in a given match is the submission (like practice rolls often are), then what does it matter if I'm mounted or not? It would be interesting to look at real statistics, but it seems to me like we rarely see matches finished from mount, even though this is traditionally considered a dominant position. Maybe this is why we talk about deadzones, the dominant positions of sub-only, using different language. Perhaps our entire paradigm needs to adjust.

Looking at all of the events so far, I as a fan consider them a resounding success. As a competitor, I would give years off of my life to be able to compete in such an amazing event in front of an educated audience.

Every EBI I've watched has been entertaining. I didn't even think of stalling with the Orchard/Denny match - was too busy scoping out the intracacies of a 10 v 10 game. I think EBI format is a little better than Metamoris format, but I like watching the Metamoris matches too. I like watching both better than IJBJJF matches, but some of those I like too.

Producing a winner with OT rules is not an easy accomplishment. If you don't do something different it likely will be more time of the same, more time where a stall is more likely as they have already stalled, and now are more tired as it's overtime. So positional starts to me make sense. I guess the back and armbar/spiderweb are the best for that. Mount doesn't seem to make better sense. Maybe there's something else for positional starts, not sure.

I agree with your perspective on winning single matches and tournaments. I kind of feel like I've learned BJJ as emphasis is switching over from points to submission tourneys. And absolutely that bit about is it "really" a dominant position if it doesn't make it easier to sub someone? My only holdup about position before submission type stuff is it makes more sense as strikes are added in. Mount can be harder to sub from but it's a lot easier to win from there with strikes. But we're not competing with strikes.

Honestly I'm glad to see the explosion of more grappling competitions becoming mainstream. And sub only ones too. Like 5 years ago there were only a couple local tournaments - and not much nogi. Now we've got a bunch more cropping up, and like every tourney seems to be wanting to add in sub only brackets too. That's a great thing and I think it's directly influenced by what both Eddie and Ralek are doing in a good way. I'm a bit disappointed in Ralek immediately going for splitting the market what with the exclusive contracts, but when you think about it that's probably in his blood. Rorian - UFC? A fighting competition designed as an informercial for a family martial art?

[Eddie Bravo]

I was blown away when I first saw UFC 2, watching the 16 man bracket unfold was like watching an insane documentary. I'm not sure how floored I would've been if UFC 2 was a card of single matches. Unfortunately it's impossible for MMA events to do tournaments like that anymore all in one night, too much could go wrong, too tough, too risky. But you can do it with Jiu jitsu. And if you wanna do it on tv it's gotta be nogi, subonly and you gotta have an OT.


I wanted my Jiu jitsu tournament matches to be decided in OT by Jiu Jitsu not by wrestling. I wanted my champions to be decided by superior submission skills. I wanted a format where the best submission artists would flourish. Marcelo would destroy in EBI. He would own the OT rounds.

Wrestlers regardless of their submission skills have a tremendous advantage in most overtime rounds in traditional Jiu jitsu tournaments, but would crumble in EBI overtime rounds.

Rewatch geo vs glover, Tonon vs Hinger, & Grace vs Wilson and then come back on here and tell me EBI OT isn't exciting :-)