Points or subs ??

[Mike Nall]

I have to disagree, if I am getting raped and catch them in a footlock and tap him, its not like winning by an advantage, its a ballsy ass attempt to win the fight like it should be won, by submission, doesnt matter how.

let me clarify.

I'm just saying that if you pull some footlock out of your ass after you've been swept, passed, mounted, and had your back taken, you got outgrappled. You got your ass kicked. If they leave their ankles crossed and you get that little footlock on them it's not like you're some superior grappler in that situation. You won, but it it's not some huge victory. It means you threw a hail mary and it landed.

An advantage victory is a silly victory too, and I think advantages are stupid. Points are fine, advantages are stupid. It's dumb to get rewarded for "almost" doing something.

I could have made a better analogy so sorry about that.

[Brett Sbardella]

Prefer Subs

[Mike Nall]

I mean would anyone really be more satisfied with winning by points?Would you rather do a layup or a dunk?

[john botello]

If you lose on points or advantage it's not black and white like a sub. Submissions are our touchdowns in my opinion. Who's to say that if there wasn't another minute you wouldn't have subbed the other guy.If you get swept and mounted and dude takes your back and you get the ankle lock because he crosses his feet I think the guy with the right answers in the moment won, and dude on the back made a mental mistake.. Isn't that where the whole it's not losing it's learning mentality comes from ??

[Ryan Brick]

I like subbing people because when I beat someone in a tournament I don't want them to be able to say "all he did was hold me" "if only I got that sweep 1 second quicker" "I lost the submission when the ref pulled us back into the middle" "i could have won if I...." "next time.." "the ref didn't give me the points when I..."

[Angel.Cruz]

submissions only for a 1000 Alex +)

[john botello]

submissions only for a 1000 Alex +)

+1

[sean applegate]

I like subbing people because when I beat someone in a tournament I don't want them to be able to say "all he did was hold me" "if only I got that sweep 1 second quicker" "I lost the submission when the ref pulled us back into the middle" "i could have won if I...." "next time.." "the ref didn't give me the points when I..."

People will say these things either way. A lion doesn't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.

The guy with the best jiu jitsu doesn't always win. So catching a leg lock after you got dominated by points means just as much as any win. Often times, especially at the lower levels, you see specialists. Guys with one really good position or submission. They often times dominate at tournaments because, for example, they have a purple belt level guard game and are still blue. These guys are often times a lot less skilled over all, but if you walk in there you're done.

To say just because you won a match at a tournament makes you a better player is silly. It just means you had the right answer that day.

This doesn't mean the better player never wins.

[Kurzy]

I play sub only. I don't even know how the points or advantages work, and when people try to explain them to me I plug my ears and say LALALALALALALALALAAAAAA! till they stop.
I don't care about points or advantages.

That being said, I have only fought one tourney so far and I was only 3 months into jitz: Won 1 fight with sub, lost two fights via subs. S'all good. I am ready now to enter more tourneys, but I won't have time until the winter realistically.

[Ryan Brick]

People will say these things either way. A lion doesn't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.

The guy with the best jiu jitsu doesn't always win. So catching a leg lock after you got dominated by points means just as much as any win. Often times, especially at the lower levels, you see specialists. Guys with one really good position or submission. They often times dominate at tournaments because, for example, they have a purple belt level guard game and are still blue. These guys are often times a lot less skilled over all, but if you walk in there you're done.

To say just because you won a match at a tournament makes you a better player is silly. It just means you had the right answer that day.

This doesn't mean the better player never wins.

I understand that the better player doesnt always win, you can get crushed and then come back and get a sub and be proud of that

But I dont think all wins are the same. I want Eddie to win his rematch in minute 1 not minute 19.

If this was golf for example I dont want to be losing and then you hit a sand trap and I win I want to win because I scored 9 holes in one. Is getting 9 holes in one realistic? No. Is my goal of destroying everyone in tournaments realistic? No.

But thats just it, its a goal I set it high because if I achive even 1/9th of my goal it means I got a hole in one.