My answer to 'Sub Only vs Points'

[Royce Kim]

Now many of you believe that the 'submission only' format is the better alternative to the 'points' system that a majority of tournaments run. The logic behind it is that someone is going to take risks and actively pursue a submission, due to the risk of not advancing through the brackets. However not all people share this mindset, as a guy who's getting smashed will usually turtle up and settle for the draw. What if a stud goes against some guy that just plays defensive the entire match?

Here is my answer to the submission vs points debate; points with incentives. If there are 6 or more guys in your division, the 'group stage' system will be implemented. Competitors will be split into however many groups with the top seed of each group advancing to the single elimination tournament bracket. If there are less than 6 guys in your division, the 'round robin' system will be implemented. Submission victories are worth 3 points, decision wins will get you 1 point, draws leave both guys with 0 points, while losses subtract a point from your total score.

This way the urgency to get the submission is still there and your hundred dollar registration will guarantee you more than one match.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

In a draw both guys should be eliminated. Takes care of people settling for a draw or only trying to play defense.

[Royce Kim]

That's assuming if both guys are settling for the draw. What if one guy actively pursues the submission but the other guy runs away the entire time? Why punish the guy who's trying to do right?

[Louis Ho]

How ya doin' Royce?

[Royce Kim]

Pretty good I guess; I've been sick for like a week though.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

That's assuming if both guys are settling for the draw. What if one guy actively pursues the submission but the other guy runs away the entire time? Why punish the guy who's trying to do right?

It's not a punishment, it is a result of not being able to submit your opnt. If you were running a race and no one made it to the finish line, would you declare the guy that made it farthest a winner? You have to win in order to win.

[BIBIANO]

Good shit, here is my take:

I've heard of a tournament in LA that uses this format, I think it is called Super 8 submissions series?

I think if we're going to do points, there is still an issue with what techniques/positions deserve points. I think the reasoning behind the point system is it would be too inefficient to let every match go to the finish. Plus, setting a relatively short time for each match helps prevent drastic inequalities in the amount of time each competitor spends on the mat. For example, if every match went to the finish, you could get finals where one guy had hours of match time and his competitor, who had shorter matches gets an unfair advantage. It seems reasonable that if you were gonna predict who would win a match if it went to the finish, the guy who has mount, or his opponents back should win.

However, there has been some serious problems with the points system. For one, submission attempts warrant no points, so holding position becomes more important that submission. In mma, this is a huge problem. When a guy gets known for his ground game, his opportunities on the ground get rarer and rarer. Even if a bjj guy can hold position till the end of the round, when the round restarts on the feet, it is anyones game. That is one big reason why I think submission only tournaments are better than points tournaments. I think the group stage idea is a big improvement, but it is too speculative. In the heat of a match, when you are dead tired, I don't think the chance that other people in your division might finish their matches is enough incentive to change the culture of bjj tournaments.

Also, when points decide a match, position is still prioritized over submissions (albeit to a lesser extent?). I think bjj is best served by making submissions the main focus. I feel like a near arm triangle is a better indicator of the outcome of the fight than side control, but, then you get into tricky situations with referee/judges interpretation.

[sean applegate]

Now many of you believe that the 'submission only' format is the better alternative to the 'points' system that a majority of tournaments run. The logic behind it is that someone is going to take risks and actively pursue a submission, due to the risk of not advancing through the brackets. However not all people share this mindset, as a guy who's getting smashed will usually turtle up and settle for the draw. What if a stud goes against some guy that just plays defensive the entire match?

Here is my answer to the submission vs points debate; points with incentives. If there are 6 or more guys in your division, the 'group stage' system will be implemented. Competitors will be split into however many groups with the top seed of each group advancing to the single elimination tournament bracket. If there are less than 6 guys in your division, the 'round robin' system will be implemented. Submission victories are worth 3 points, decision wins will get you 1 point, draws leave both guys with 0 points, while losses subtract a point from your total score.

This way the urgency to get the submission is still there and your hundred dollar registration will guarantee you more than one match.

Some cool ideas here. Personally, I don't believe in the points game at all, but I like some of this.

[Greg W]

I have similar thoughts lately! Mine has lowest score wins tournament. If you win by sub in regular time you get 0 points. Lose in regular time you get 3 points. Draw in regulation you each get one point and go to overtime points style. Win by sub in OT you get 0 additional points. Win by points in OT you get 1 additional point. Draw in OT you each get 1 additional point. Lose in OT you get 2 additional points. I have ran several Fake tourney in excel and it seems to work out well.

Pete vs Paul- Paul wins via sub in regular time- Pete 3, Paul 0
Ryan vs Ray- Ryan wins via sub in OT- Ryan 1, Ray 3
Eric vs Ed- Draw in OT- Eric 2, Ed 2
Joe vs John- Joe wins via points in OT- Joe 2, John 3

End of first round-
paul is in the lead with 0
Pete, Ray and John are all tied for last with 3 since they all lost
Eric, Ed and Joe are tied for second. Joe is tied even though he won, but he stuck an opponent(John) with an extra point for his trouble. Which may help him in the long run.

[Eddie Bravo]

Gracie Nationals format with yellow cards for stalling. 3 cards and you are Dq'd. :-)