https://youtu.be/dfb6gguGgMc?t=2h22m49s
Printable View
Earlier in the show Dillon Danis shared similar sentiments about EBI.
Yeah he's one of the guys in the "you didn't earn the back" camp.
Not earning the back is a legit point in the purest sense but as a competition format EBI Rules > IBJJF on many levels. I don't agree with the sentiment that EBI is not an elite competition. A number of IBJJF champions have competed at EBI including one of the Miyao twins and they have all lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Ryan Hall is not an artist so as expected he is biased against them. All of his arguments are hypocritical to things he has said in the past. How can you rail on about how great gary tonin and Jeff Glover are and then say EBI is not elite level competition?
You dont earn the back, but both guys get a shot at it. How is that not fair?
Two wrongs don't make a right!
He said there are elite competitors in it, he just said that in general the brackets are not as elite as ADCC for example. He's not wrong. That doesn't make it not high level. A Green Beret is not as elite as a Delta Force guy but that doesn't make it not impressive to be a Green Beret. EBI is a newer organization and is blowing up and getting better and better. It will become elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin A.
Also, it's important to know that Ryan Hall for years has been in the "I don't give a shit about entertainment" camp. EBI was made by Eddie Bravo to be entertaining for VIEWERS. For people to watch. Ryan Hall on record since at least 2011 has always talked about how he doesn't care if Jiu-Jitsu is exciting or not, and how he doesn't care if it's fun to watch or not. He does appreciate Eddie Bravo a lot and shouted him out recently.
He also went on to say that it's just his opinion and doesn't count for much. He's not in the grappling world anymore. He made his contributions both as a competitor and with 27 discs of DVDs that have helped a lot of people. He doesn't want us to care that much what he thinks about sub only or EBI. He's just a very blunt person and f he's asked a question he just gives his honest answer at the time. He's never painted himself to be some guru and it's hard to get him to do interviews at all.
As for some of his views being hypocritical. Sure. He changes his mind frequently and it's a common topic of his that he talks about. For example, for mounted triangles we was in favor of rolling to the back to finish them, then changed to saying you should always stay on top, then changed to saying it's fine to roll to your back again. He's open about these things and is always exploring what Jiu-Jitsu means to him. As such, he has a lot of fluid ideas that change frequently.
Seems you dont understand that expression. It refers to moral wrong doing. In this case, since the goal is fairness, in the context of an athletic contest, equal rules for the competitors do make "a right".Quote:
Originally Posted by brianspinaltap
I think he means that it rewards the guy who might otherwise be unable to get the back, or that the process of getting to the back takes primacy over just being there. I think that's a valid point, but it's also worth noting that Ryan's long been against 10th Planet style. I recall on his triangles DVD where he made a long digression to call rubber guard "garbage" because it didn't pin the near shoulder or something like that. But then in one of his TUF fights he was playing Williams Guard, so it's hard to know what he really thinks.
I guess there is only one way to settle it for sure ... he must compete in the next Absolute Division EBI.
Yes, but it rewards both people equally. If that's a big problem for someone, then they need to either improve their defense or offense in bad potions, or both. I cant think of a more perfect rule set for sport bjj, especially for entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine
Not sure I agree that it rewards both people equally. I mean, was it really an equal reward for Eddie to be taken out of attacking a locked mounted triangle/armbar and then restarted defending a locked bicep slicer? I know Eddie also had his chance, but I think Geo benefited quite a bit more considering that he spent most of regulation time surviving. Not saying the rules are bad, just disagree with your characterization of them as "perfect."Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
That's not an issue with the format of OT, thats a problem of having a time limit. No time limit format has serious problems as a spectator sport. I never said they were "perfect". They are the best rules that Im aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine
ryan might be the most insane guard puller in MMA history
I actually agree with this a lot.. I don't think Eddie Cummings had Geo in a Triangle/Armbar though.. I believe he was attacking Geo's legs when regulation time ended... But I definately agree with what your saying though.. Eddie spent the whole match on offense.. then loses a coin toss, and gets put in a defensive position.. and gets Subbed first, so now not only does Eddie have to Sub Geo, he has to rush to do so... Even though both guys get a chance, they DO NOT benefit equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine
So is it coin tosses that you consider unfair?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith D
At times... If there is a situation when they're in a neutral position a coin toss would be necessary, like if reg. time ended in 50/50, or a scramble, or something. Otherwise, I would say that is a fairly accurate statement.. If you have to choose between back and spider web, I have no issue with that, but if regulation time ends and you are in an offensive position, you should get to pick position first..Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
That's an intersting opinion. Why does it matter who goes on offense first? Let's say Eddie went first. He still has to submit Geo as fast as possible, or risk losing. If youre confident in your escapes, it may be a good strategy to defend first.
I don't think it's that black and white on which is an advantage. As the person who goes second, you get to make a strategic decision based off how fast you were tapped. If I was tapped in under 45 seconds, I'm going to go with spiderweb. If however I was tapped in over a minute, I might choose the back depending on how good I am there. The back usually takes time to work and find the sub whereas spider web can be more of an all or nothing position and offer a quicker sub.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith D
There is also levels of strategy for later rounds too. In the second and third rounds I think it might be an advantage to choose going second. You will get to change your strategy based off how well they have controlled you and also based off how well they have defended. For example, first round my opponent chooses my back and gets 3 minutes of control on me. I choose spider web in the hopes for the sub and lose it at 45 seconds. Second round my opponent chooses back again and he controls me for another 2 minutes. Now I know I'm at a 4 minute deficit. If I know I have good back control I could now choose to switch to the back in order to catch up on time or I could decide that I will not end up catching up on time and need to sell out on getting the sub.
You also need to take into account that "being forced into going for a fast sub" is NOT a disadvantage. That is your advantage. You now know for sure exactly how much time you have to work with. If it's only 45 seconds, you know you have to work fast and cannot spare any control time. However if you would of went first, you would not have had this information and might of just decided to go slow and controlled, therefore losing on time without even having the urgency you should of had if you had known you were going to be tapped in x seconds.
The main and really only advantage to going first is if you sub the guy, you get to know how long you need to survive for. So instead of trying to escape and possibly leave yourself open for an attack by doing so. You can just focus solely on surviving.
Now you are claiming that Geo in particular got an advantage by going first. However Geo escaped before the time was out. So he did not use his only advantage from going first (surviving until time ran out). He still attempted the escape and was successful. Also it's pretty key to keep in mind that it took Geo a long time to sub Eddie. Eddie knew he had over 3 minutes to find the sub and he knew he HAD to find the sub within that time. So he both had plenty of time to find a sub in a controlled and slow form as well as had the crucial piece of info which was knowing he must find the sub. If Eddie had gone first, he would not have had either of these bits of info.
So I don't think the choice of first or second is quite as simple as you make it out to be and I don't see the argument for Geo having gained an advantage given how his particular overtime rounds played out.
I would also add that, in regulation, the defender/losing fighter gets a strategic edge because if he can hold out to the bell then he will escape his near defeat and have a 50% chance of winning in OT. In overtime, however, just holding out will make you lose on riding time-- unlike in regulation, the defender must risk opening himself up to submissions in order to escape. From a game theory perspective, only fear of losing will make a close-to-evenly-skilled competitor truly risk safety in order to get a finish (think an MMA fighter down 2-0 going into the third round). I don't think the sub bonuses do much to affect aggressive defensive behavior in regulation compared to the strategic life preserver of holding out to the overtime.
A competitor doesn't have a 50% chance of winning just because they make it to OT. Im not sure why you would would think that. There are no "sub bonuses". Competitors are only paid for submissions, not for winning the overall tournament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine
That old triangle dvd is from 2008/2009 as well and he was not even a black belt back then. For what's with his reasoning at that time was that getting an angle from from the closed guard made for easier triangle or omoplata style attacks instead of staying flat on your back. He asserted that the rubber guard was great for controlling your opponent but had the downside of also pinning your own hips in place. And just like every position it had its pros and cons. Not sure what he thinks now but he's one of the more open minded grapplers I've ever trained with and he tends to think everything works given the context and depending on the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine
He does have massive respect for Eddie Bravo even if a lot of it may have gone unnoticed or hasn't been said in a very public manner.
I think so too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
Look at it from a game theory perspective: Each OT opponent has an equal chance to attack from back/spiderweb and win by sub or riding time, so without knowing anything about the opponents each has a 50% chance of winning. The odds, however, could change in one's favor with more background information about the combatants, such as weight difference, stylistic matchup, and competition history. However, the EBI OT eliminates many of these same factors that would cause a shift in the odds. If I were to face Eddie Cummings, then I would have close to a 0% chance of winning because his skill level is too high for me to be able to pass his guard, cut through his defenses, and somehow prevent myself from being choked or heel hooked in the process. But in OT I would have a much higher chance of winning, since I would only have to worry about two relatively narrow positions, and so many of Eddie's advantages (his unpassable guard, his leglocks, etc.) would be mitigated. So if I have to face Eddie Cummings in EBI, it would be an exponentially smarter strategy for me to work really hard on defending/stalling to the OT, and then taking my chances with winning by riding time or busting out some secret tricky submission I could surprise him with. The incentive that I wouldn't get paid if I don't submit Cummings in regulation (and I have to win the whole tournament to even get that, correct?) would be an afterthought compared to the much stronger incentive of risk-avoidance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
Two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine
One is addressing this for the ruleset in general. As far as that, yes much of what you say is correct. As a competitor strategizing for your upcoming EBI competition, you could choose to focus on taking certain dangerous opponents to OT and putting a lot of time into improving your OT game. That being said, there will be strategies and approaches for ALL rulesets. I don't think anyone would contend that EBI is above the same type of strategizing that goes on in other competitions. What EBI does attempt to be though is the most exciting ruleset to watch. That being said, Eddie and those behind EBI certainly do believe it's at least as good or better of a ruleset than we currently have as far as what types of strategies it forces competitors to play. This opens up a long conversation and argument of course, but to put it plainly EBI prefers competitors showcasing their ability to control and submit an opponent in two primary basic day 1 controlling positions from BJJ for matches where two practitioners are close enough in skill that the bout needs to be decided through other means. All competitions have something to help decide a match when two competitors are closely matched. ADCC has it's OT structure which is heavily favored towards wrestlers and IBJJF has its system which favors judges decisions and advantages to decide between two opponents. EBI and the submission only movement are not fans of the positional rewards based point systems in current rulesets and so this is the best approach we know of currently for both the competitor and the audience for sub only without going no time limit.
Second is specifically to the match between Geo and Eddie as you are talking about that specifically as much as you are talking about the ruleset as a whole. Geo's gameplan going in was 100% to look for the submission within regulation. As far as we have seen, trying to take Eddie to overtime would be a bad gameplan given that Eddie has exceptionally efficient back control and submissions. I am pretty sure that every single match where Eddie has managed to get back control, he has maintained that control and finished the opponent. So I don't think anyone would outright say that the best approach to beating Eddie is to take him to OT. That being said, Eddie hit a nice leg lock entry and Geo went to a previously unseen defense he's been working on. Both were stuck. Eddie did not decide until too late into the match to transition and Geo was forced to focus on maintaining his defense. When you are stuck deep in a high level practitioner's attack, any movements you make will open you up to a sub. You are forced to play a slow reaction game where you work your way out inch by inch. If your opponent wants to maintain that deep control position and not risk it by transitioning to a different sub when they are unsuccessful, you have no choice but to wait it out. As far as I'm concerned, both opponents made their decision that match. Eddie decided to wait it out and see if he could eventually finish in that position and Geo decided to wait until Eddie made a transition to find his window to escape. Eddie had his go to positions for much of the match and was still unable to find a finish. It's not like Geo stalled out and didn't give Eddie any opportunities for Eddie. Eddie had what he wanted, he just couldn't finish with it in the alloted time we can afford to give a competitor during a live event. That's just how it goes. You really can't make any judgments about who would have won if the time were to keep going and this would have been a no time limit match. I would look at this a lot differently if it were a Schaubing type event where one just focused on staying away from engaging.
Then in OT Eddie had everything going in his favor. By going second he knew exactly how much time he had to find a sub (a lot of time, over 3 minutes) and knew he couldn't be complacent and simply win on control. He was given his chance and wasn't able to find the sub while Geo was.
For the sub only movement, this is what we have. And I think it's more balanced then some give it credit. These are basic day 1 control positions everyone knows and practices. One's skill in each position is very telling of how good they are overall at BJJ and ultimately that's all we are trying to show in a competition.
The specific example of Geo and Eddie also shows another important point which is that opponents who are dangerous and hard to deal with in regulation are also often times dangerous and hard to deal with in OT. Like I talked about before, looking at Eddie's ability to submit from the back, it would be a pretty poor gameplan for anyone to shoot for overtime with him. This is the power of using two very common controlling positions everyone has to be good at, a high level practitioner will always be efficient as well in these positions. And honestly, if over time some competitor emerges who has amazing back control or amazing arm bar attacks and starts dominating EBI by taking certain opponents to OT, I don't think we will mind it. I think that's the point. We will get to see what dangerous back control and armbar control looks like (or the opposite, efficient escapes) and we will all learn as these are very important positions in BJJ. This is versus learning who is the best wrestler in a format like ADCC.
To condense my wall of text down a bit, I would say EBI comes from three main assertions.
One is a position only has value if the practitioner can use it to submit their opponent. Just look to how side control, mount, takedowns and other positions are now being turned into offensive opportunities for the "defender" in sub only formats to see how we are coming to the conclusion that maybe these positions aren't as valuable as once thought as far as pure BJJ goes. Or are only as valuable as A: how efficient that specific practitioner is at finishing from that position and B: how efficient that specific "defending" practitioner is at either defending or attacking from that position. IE not trying to take into account the argument "well if it were a fight, competitor A would have won because they had secured one takedown or pass at some point during the match". We only care about who is best at the sport of BJJ and are looking to find out what that looks like and who that will be.
Two is that when deciding a draw we would rather look at abilities to control, submit or escape from two basic day 1 control positions vs a wrestling bout or a judges decision.
And three is that we want the most exciting format for BJJ in order to bring attention to it from a wider audience.
I think both of these assertions have some merit and are why the sub only movement is gaining in popularity.
I'd say that while playing to get to OT and win there is a viable, and likely already demonstrated, strategy, it's also a risky one- do you really want to bypass 10 whole minutes of potential sub time to chance that you can escape quicker than the other guy in OT? Sounds risky.
Every ruleset conceivable has ways to game it, that's unavoidable. This one is one of the riskiest ones to game. Getting 2 up on points and looking busy in guard is far far safer way to win in a points type tournament.
When that OT started, both competitors had about a 50% chance of winning. Eddie is very good from the back, but Geo is just as good from the spiderweb. You can argue whatever else, but if you factor in Eddie's tough weight cut then it's hard to suggest that Geo had anything less than a coin flip's chance, and obviously the round played out with Geo proving this to be so. Now, if you go back to when Eddie locked on that inside sankaku, Geo chose a defense which ensured that his chances of winning in regulation would grow closer to 0% with each passing second. However, each passing second also increased his chances of winning the match overall, since the OT would automatically bring him back to 50%. Eddie, of course, had the opposite problem since he was fighting both Geo and the clock. When he first locked on the inside sankaku, his chances of winning the match peaked, but from there until the start of OT his chances steadily shrunk to 50%, despite constantly being on the brink of victory and having a locked submission at the buzzer. However, it is not just that his chances of winning shrunk to 50%, which doesn't sound that bad; it's that his chances of LOSING skyrocketed from 0% to 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Eddy
So, Geo's decision to choose a stalling defense was a terrifically smart strategy: it raised his chances of winning from 0% to 50%, and raised his opponent's chances of losing from 0% to 50%. Also, on a day when Geo was overmatched positionally (as evidenced by twice being put into terrible positions without ever mounting offense or even escape of his own), the overtime took away two of Eddie's best weapons (the heel hook, and his unpassable guard) while forcing him to engage one of Geo's best weapons (the spiderweb).
My point here is to wonder whether this fits with the spirit of EBI. The sub-only movement was created in large part because we are sick of the rules-gaming that has come to dominate IBJJF. Theoretically, IBJJF is a sub-only contest too, just with points instead of an OT deciding the winner if no sub. But IBJJF matches often suck because competitors have recognized that pull-sweep-stall is a far easier path to victory than going all out for the sub (or going all out for a truly dominant position). I don't blame the IBJJF competitors for this, and I don't blame Geo either, as he chose what was by far the best strategy for him and worst strategy for Eddie Cummings. I just want a ruleset that discourages gaming as much as possible, and doesn't leave a huge strategic window open for the guy who's getting beat to refuse to fight back.
But Geo did not choose a "stalling defense". He defended while trying to improve postion and escaped the inside sankaku. How you could be a purple belt and somehow see the match as Geo gaming or not fighting back is unbelievable.
What rule set do you propose?
For the record, you would have 0% chance against Eddie Cumming in regulation or OT.
I know what you are saying, and get it. But what I'm trying to get across is a concept that is just apart of BJJ. Once you are caught deep in a sub, you have no choices left. You must be reactive. Your opponent has the superior angle and is closing in on the sub. ANY movement you make on your own while your opponent is just controlling is to your detriment. You must instead be reactive on your opponent's movements and find the holes they leave while they are trying to move closer to the submission. If instead you try to create the momentum to escape and get out on your own, against a high level opponent, your movement will be used against you to find the submission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine
So when Geo was caught deep, he had to go in to reactive mode and wait for Eddie to leave a hole while transitioning to the sub. This forces the offensive player to stay offensive. Eddie needed to keep pushing the pace and pushing the transitions to find the submission. Eddie decided, for the most part, to also wait it out and look for Geo to make a mistake (at least until too late in the match when he finally transitioned).
This is the point. You are talking about game theory, and this is the deep underlying game theory that is helping EBI to work.
In an IBJJF format, the default approach for both competitors is to be defensive while looking for any small opportunity to switch to offense and secure points. Once points have been secured, the mode goes right back to defensive, even more so because now as long as their defense is tight, they will win on the points they have already secured. There is no incentive to finish or even to be offensive. The only incentive is to do just enough to win by whatever margin is offered by the opponent.
In an EBI or sub only format, the default approach for both competitors is to be offensive, switching to defense when forced to in order to survive and extend their chances of winning later on, but otherwise looking for the primary way of winning (a submission).
In IBJJF the way you lose is by the opponent securing ANYTHING on you, even almost securing something on you will lose you the match. Even almost, almost securing something can win you the match (refs decision). Since your opponent can win based off even the smallest margin of position they secure on you, the default for IBJJF must be extremely defensive. Only switching to offense when a window has been opened by the competitor.
In EBI however the only way you win is by sub and the only way you lose is by sub or being too slow in escaping. This encourages a default mode of attacking. It encourages competitors to take risks. Worst case scenario, they get their guard passed or some sort of hold secured on them and they have to switch to defensive mode. But defense is not the default mode, it's the last alternative.
Now this only explains a competitors default mode and mindset in each format. It's a win for EBI for entertainment value before a submission position is secured, but lets look however at what competitors are encouraged to do while caught in a deep submission or hold.
In IBJJF, if someone has your back, or has you in the honey hole for this particular example we are talking about, the defending competitor is forced to find a way out. If the defending competitor cannot find a way out, they will lose on either an advantage or points. This can be good for increasing submissions given what we've talked about before however the competitor who has the position secured has 0 incentive to find the submission. Instead their incentive is just to maintain the position. Any attempt they make to go for the submission instead of maintaining the control is going to risk losing the position and therefore be a bigger risk on them losing the match. You also have to take into account that if the position they have secured is a point scoring position (like the back), the defending competitor now has a practically insurmountable amount of points to come back on and will likely just go into defensive mode anyway in order to preserve their remaining dignity rather than offering the opportunity to get submitted. And if at any point this defending competitor does get free, their opponent will go into defensive mode and attempt to win the match based of the points / advantage they just secured.
In EBI, we will again take the honey hole position for example, the motivations are switched. As you have explained, the defending competitor is now encouraged to go into defensive mode and survive while only switching to offense if they see a way out. The attacking competitor however is now encouraged to be as offensive as they can. They need to find the submission in order for this hold they have found to have gained them any value. If they cannot submit their opponent, then it will not have mattered that they were able to secure the position, so all of their incentive is in keeping up the pace and constantly looking to find the sub. You should also take into account that there are factors that might make the defending competitor decide to try to escape even though the format typically calls for them to just defend as a best strategy. These factors would be that they A: believe their opponent is better than them in OT, B: believe they are better than their opponent in regulation, C: they really want the regulation money. etc.
You also have to take into account that EBI's OT format then flips this structure on its head. So if you have a competitor who managed to just stall and ball up in a defensive position during regulation once caught in a deep submission, the OT structure will force this competitor to change their strategy. Now they will again be put in a deep submission position, however they will not be able to use a defensive strategy. They will be forced to look for an escape and try to find it as quick as they can. So although they stopped their opponent from getting the chance to find a submission during regulation, they will not be able to use the same tactic in OT. The attacking competitor will get their chance to look for a sub on an opponent actively looking to escape and they will also get to use their skill at maintaining a submission position to their advantage.
EBI's OT structure completely flips the regulation time game theory and provides a really nice balance to the strategy each competitor might of used / be using.
So to wrap this up, there are three main pieces to a match. Open positions, dominant positions, and OT. Looking at the game theory each format encourages.. EBI is encouraging a better approach for open positions (offensive). For dominant positions we can either consider it a wash or consider EBI with a slight edge. And with OT / deciding a tie, EBI's format is important for both encouraging the type of approach it wants to see during regulation as well as balancing out the small disadvantage its format has towards a defending competitor.
If the person who goes first submits (as we saw), the next person has to submit also. Now its very arguable that this would provide somewhat of an advantage in that the person who goes second, in saying that they would then know how long they have to submit the person, but in that situation, the same goes for both. Lets say (hypothetically) that Geo subbed Eddie in 20 seconds, sure Eddie knows that he now has to sub Geo in under 20 seconds, but Geo also knows how long he has to escape or defend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
Not to mention the possible mindset issues.. With the big bucks on the line, can you imagine the pressure of getting subbed after pretty much dominating regulation time. "Ok, Geo subbed me in 2 minutes (or whatever it was), now I have 2 minutes to sub this guy, or I would lose a match that in most other formats, I would have won".
Pretty much what my opinion is based around is on how it is determined how the pace of the fight is "AWARDED" (if you will) come the over time rounds. Eddie Cummings was in an offensive position most of the fight, and was even in an offensive position come the end of regulation time (if my memory serves me correctly). Yet Geo, is allowed to set the pace of the overtime rounds because a coin said so... My argument isn't necessarily about who is on offense first, but who gets to attempt to dictate the pace of the OT rounds. If Eddie had CHOSEN to defend first, that would be a completely different story. The way I see it though, the pace of the match was taken from Eddie, and AWARDED to Geo, which doesn't really seem right.
Just my opinion.
Ok, so no advantage there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith D
That is an issue with competitive mindset, not the ruleset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith D
Not true. The person on offense first, only gets to determine "the pace" if they submit their opponent. If the person on defense escapes quickly (ala gary) then they have now set the pace (potential mindset effect there as well). Alternatively the person on defense can choose to defend for an extended time which would also set the pace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith D
If the person who was subjectively winning during regulation is always allowed to choose whether they go on offense or defense first, then we are ignoring the potential that they are beginning to get frustrated and mentally defeated as a result of their failed offensive (as well as cardio which affects those who cut weight disproportionately) and making a big assumtion that they would have won in a no time limit situation. A somewhat weak argument, I admit, but it seems in line with the points you've made. I could be missing something.
I respect Ryan Hall but disagree wit his opinion. EBI is feared by many great grapplers you gotta be confident in your defense and in your finishing to compete in EBI not everyone style is made for it that's ok but in my opinion sub only>points. I read and heard about Ryan hating on 10p so when he was in SD doing a seminar at Victory MMA I made sure to stop by and check it out. When I met Ryan he was super humble and cool I felt not negative vibes from him. We ended up rolling for about 20min and we both had fun rolling wit each other he also rolled with Ben Eddie which is the best rubber guard player in 10p in my opinion Ryan definitely felt how useful and dangerous Rubber Gaurd can be if applied right. After his seminar he ask us if we can show him some details on the RG that day I gained more respect for Ryan and I'm pretty sure that he respects us our system as well.
That's cool to hear... and I agree with your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakahzoid
The EBI format was designed for the audience. According to the president of UFC Fight Pass, EBI 10 numbers were "staggering".
There will be no changes to the format anytime soon, thank you for the support :)
That's amazing... congrats. Does that mean Combat JJ is on hold ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo