Passivity question

Colm_OReilly

Hey all,

Passivity is the antithesis of sub wrestling, I think we can all agree on this. However, there is some debate between refs as to who the onus lies.

For me, it's usually the guy on top. If A has B in side control, and is just locking down his partner, A has to move the match forward. If A is truly pinning B, B can't escape (he usually has to wait til A moves to attempt an escape)

However, with guard, it's not as clear cut. Imagine closed guard, who's the onus on to move the match forward.

The guy on top is on top, but the guy on bottom has the options of subbing his opponent, ending the fight. To me, an attempt to bring the fight to an end is the opposite of passivity.

Thoughts and votes please,
Colm

columok

Both. The top person should be looking to pass or submit. The bottom person should be looking to sweep or submit. If nothings happening then stand em up. The onus is on both as some people's bottom game is like some people's top. Top isn't dominant so both must be working working working.

Budo.Judo.Kev

Sounds like anothe north-south weak guard situation.

Dragan

columok wrote:

Both. The top person should be looking to pass or submit. The bottom person should be looking to sweep or submit. If nothings happening then stand em up. The onus is on both as some people's bottom game is like some people's top. Top isn't dominant so both must be working working working.

Deffo agree with this. The simple fact is that if any fighter is in a position that allows for activity then they should be active.

droc

Closed guard is a stalling position

When I ref ADCC matches if someone stays with their guard closed too long I warn then and then penalise them

DROC

FiannaGym.com

DROC beat me to it. Just ban closed guard, everyone knows it, its uses and its limits now we are done with it.

I would prepose; no closed guard (unless finishing a submission)
This would lead to better clinch in Ireland as gettign taken down would have more dangerous reprocusions, less flopping to guard etc, as well as the obvious faster pace of the match.

But in answer to your question the onus is on no-one. If Topguy doesnt want to imprve his advantagous position he shoudl loose it for stalling, if bottomguy just locks down a restart from but scoot could work or a "posture-up" allowance?

Peace

Colm_OReilly

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

For all those that sat on the fence, humour me, if you HAD to pick one, who would it be?

judomick

North south stalling Kev?


Anyways, from a closed guard position i think the onus is on the guy, on bottom, i think the position should be allowed as long as hes active in attacking, with sweeps or submissions, cant believe im saying this but maybe a passivity warning for throwing guard?, Pearce you have to open your guard to go for submissions, and sweeps!;)

columok

Fine: Bottom has more capacity to stall things BRazIlIAn STylee. So punish the guard pulling closed guard holding butt scooting SOB!

Budo.Judo.Kev

The problem is people are stalling in the Submission wrestling competitions. And rather then come up with some rule system that attempts to elieminate this perhaps it would be better to insure people understand the philosophy of the game better and perhaps they'll change their tactics.

A lot of oldskool guys gave me the advice, stop working from your back and just try and wrap the guy up in your guard and wait for him to make a big mistake. I didn't like this because it wasnt compatable with my always active Submission Wrestling outlook but I think it applies well to MMA and perhaps BJJ competitions too.

The problem is getting caught in NS (stalling) well then improve your guard (tell ppl not to be passive and hope they understand why).

Budo.Judo.Kev

In the event of the draw the referee awarding the win to the guy who he deemed to be less passive might off a different solution.

loz

Budo.Judo.Kev wrote:

In the event of the draw the referee awarding the win to the guy who he deemed to be less passive might off a different solution.

And punish us more defensive rollers ??

Dragan

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

For all those that sat on the fence, humour me, if you HAD to pick one, who would it be?

Okay then, seeing as you dragged it out of me i will say TOP position. At the end of the day, in the majority of MMA matches i have seen it is unlikely for someone to pull guard from a standing positon and drag someone down into there guard, rather a take down attempt is made and they pull guard.

As such, it is the person ending up in TOP position who has instigated that particular flow of movement and as such, if they are willing to enter someones guard they should be willing to continue to attack from that position. To do otherwise simply indicates that they are looking to use takedowns purely as points scoring, and as not willing to advance beyond there newfound position.

As good as ANY takedown may be, it should only really be rewarded if the fighter is able to take advantage of the situation it leads to.

Just my opinion.

FiannaGym.com

Judo MIck, I know for submissions from guard you'll open it, I was referring to the very common (at this level at least) Guilotine, and various other neck cranks from closed guard. As long as the dude is playing guard I think its all good!

This is why points are such a great idea. If you get taken down the dude on bottom has to work to score . Maybe take downs only score if you pass too?

I think that if you are stalling on bottom you stay there but the topguy stands so you have a buttscoot. If your stalling on top any points you score for the take down get deducted?

Peace

Roper

I dunno about banning closed guard, but I definitely think the onus is on the bottom guy to be attacking. It might be useful to consider it the same as a pin from the top position, just reversed. So if the guy on bottom is settling for his guard, he's passive. There are plenty of offensive options from closed and if the bottom guy isn't going for them then fvck him. Warn him and then make him stand up and drop his jocks in front of the crowd. Hence the match becomes more of a spectacle... problem solved.

There is no worse spectacle than watching a guy pull guard and do lockdown for 5 minutes. Honestly, O look at that and say "That's what I must look like":(

Loz,
Even the most defensive guys have to sub sometime!

Roper

Dragan wrote:

Okay then, seeing as you dragged it out of me i will say TOP position. At the end of the day, in the majority of MMA matches i have seen it is unlikely for someone to pull guard from a standing positon and drag someone down into there guard, rather a take down attempt is made and they pull guard.

Ah yes but t'aint MMA, tis sub wrasslin. You're not going to get hit in the head so if your takedowns are sh1tty you pull guard and that way you at least get a position you can work from instead of ending up in cross sides bottom or worse. It has been known to happen.

crazy monkey

"Fine: Bottom has more capacity to stall things BRazIlIAn STylee. So punish the guard pulling closed guard holding butt scooting SOB!"

Why can't we all leave eddie bravo alone.........

:cool:

Colm_OReilly

i think the position should be allowed as long as hes active in attacking, with sweeps or submissions

Hey, that's cool. A match can spend the full five minutes in closed guard if both people are working. It's stalling and passivity that aggravates me. Grrrr!

In the event of the draw the referee awarding the win to the guy who he deemed to be less passive might off a different solution.

In the event of a draw 1 point is awarded (and if it's JudoMick, there should be some level of booing ) The rules sate RPS settles debates, that's not what we're discussing here.

Speaking of passivity here's something I'd like to highlight. Pushing is Passivity. If someone tries to clinch with you and you push them away it's Passivity, and should be warned/punished accordingly.

JK was telling me two backward steps in the ADCC will get you a warning. Can someone confirm this? What do you guys think of this as a "hard and fast" rule for NSC/DOST?

Colm

Roper

Colm_OReilly wrote:

JK was telling me two backward steps in the ADCC will get you a warning. Can someone confirm this? What do you guys think of this as a "hard and fast" rule for NSC/DOST?

If you want to encourage clinch development, and I think is clear that everyone does (except the butt scooters) then I think thats an excellent idea, and one worthy of my support.

Budo.Judo.Kev

Colm you should look into the rule system in place for passivity in Judo.

Dragan

Roper wrote:

Ah yes but t'aint MMA, tis sub wrasslin. You're not going to get hit in the head so if your takedowns are sh1tty you pull guard and that way you at least get a position you can work from instead of ending up in cross sides bottom or worse. It has been known to happen.

Aha, that what i get for misreading posts!!!!

loz

Roper wrote:

There is no worse spectacle than watching a guy pull guard and do lockdown for 5 minutes. Honestly, O look at that and say "That's what I must look like":(

Loz,
Even the most defensive guys have to sub sometime!

I know this - I was implyng there is a difference between "locking down" - and rolling defensively.

Clive

From a closed guard, under the rules used here, the onus must be on the guy on bottom. He has submissions to finish, sweeps to improve position etc. The only thing the guy on top can do is work to open the guard - he has no way to finish the fight directly (barring a step-over ankle lock in case anyone mentions it).

In short, IMO, the guy closer to the finish should be pushing for it, I don't have a problem with someone in a closed guard with their posture broken playing it safe.

I don't agree with a hard and fast "pushing" rule either. What if a guy doesn't want to clinch - what if he prefers to push the guy off and shoot in? Of course some people will just push off all day (for some bizarre reason) and the refs should be allowed to punish this, but I think a strict rule would just lead to people being penalised for having their own style.

Colm_OReilly

I don't agree with a hard and fast "pushing" rule either. What if a guy doesn't want to clinch - what if he prefers to push the guy off and shoot in? Of course some people will just push off all day (for some bizarre reason) and the refs should be allowed to punish this, but I think a strict rule would just lead to people being penalised for having their own style.

Interesting point Staunty. What I've found - and I know this is a gross generalisation based on very limited experience - is that pushing if someone reaches for a better grip/hold than you is mainly done by judoka. I'm not saying at the first push the ref should DQ them, but repeated pushing is a cockpunchable offence IMO.

If some pushes away surely the should be circling and trying to set up the tasty double leg?

Colm

Nothingcompares

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Interesting point Staunty. What I've found - and I know this is a gross generalisation based on very limited experience - is that pushing if someone reaches for a better grip/hold than you is mainly done by judoka.

Colm

Hi Colm,

did you have any specific judoka in mind here? is this based on the ufc/pride/adcc type events or like stuff in ireland?

Colm_OReilly

Mainly guys I've trained with. Not all judoka, mind, but some who I've trained with. But, like I said, a gross overgeneralisation and based on very limited experience.

Nothingcompares

Ah ok, I was just thinking of the people that could be described as Judoka that competed in the last 2 submission wrestling competitions and trying to remember examples of this behaviour.

Colm_OReilly

It wasn't by watching anyone in the Sub Champs, it's actually from a few people I've trained with.

Anyway, if you're thinking of stalling, pray you don't get me as a ref

Nothingcompares

Funny you should say that because I was considering stalling as a stradegy the other day. I talked it over with my coach (:D ) and he said why enter a sub wrestling competiton if you're not going to try and sub people. So I'm going to enter and try to sub people but I probably won't be able to, hope it doesn't like I'm stalling!

What will you do colm? Give warnings? Disqualify someone because they want to stay in the clinch range?

Colm_OReilly

You get warnings, then a DQ. Depends on the severity of the offence.

If a match remains standing past the two minute mark the fighters are put on the ground by the ref. The winner of RPS decides whether they start guard top or bottom.

We've never had to implement that rule though.

The refs are pretty experienced so they can tell working and not getting anywhere versus stalling, so don't worry. As long as you're working, it's all good.

Colm

Valmont

Clive wrote:

just lead to people being penalised for having their own style.

I concur. I can't believe people think that pulling guard should be penalised, it makes about as much sense as penalising a boxer for using his jab. Being on the bottom in guard is a position in Jiu Jitsu that many people are more comfortable in for submissions, I think at the last NSC Judomick was pulling guard and whipping off the armbars left right and centre. Even if someone pulls guard and doesn't get the submission, how is that different to getting a take down to mount and not getting a submission?

Colm_OReilly

Valmount,

I think you've taken that quote out of context. Passivity is moving the fight backwards/not moving it forward.

If you want to throw guard because you like the guard (it's beautiful, man!) that's cool. You're attempting to move the fight forward and get a win. I don't think penalising pulling guard was mentioned once in this thread.

Passivity on the ground is pretty easy to recognise by the refs, since we've all a lot more ground than clinch experience. However, there are ways to stall in the clinch (which is what this thread has morphed into) and it's important to highlight them as well.

Anyway, roll on the Dublin Open!