Submission elitism...

[TJ-Jitsu]

I like the topic, TJ, and you've made some good points in your statements. I do think that being able to pull guard and defend from there is very important, but in the end, being on the top position is the better place to be (especially coming from the law enforcement perspective).

There was a very precise reason that the person on bottom loses when it goes to refs decision- positional dominance. There is nothing wrong with pulling guard- it's like losing the battle to try to win the war. Problem is it's simple and straightforward- you either sweep (and the game continues) or you submit and win the war. Tournaments that started awarding points for submission attempts hindered progress I feel- a sub attempt is an all or nothing thing. It doesn't matter if you "almost" got 20 subs from bottom, at the end of the fight your opponent would be sweaty but you'd be bloody.

My very simple suggestion is to keep Ibjjf rules the same, but merely add 2 points for top position, regardless of how it is attained. People will still pull guard but immediately will be losing by two points. No amount of advantages will overcome that. Maybe then things will clean up a bit

[Tempest]

There was a very precise reason that the person on bottom loses when it goes to refs decision- positional dominance. There is nothing wrong with pulling guard- it's like losing the battle to try to win the war. Problem is it's simple and straightforward- you either sweep (and the game continues) or you submit and win the war. Tournaments that started awarding points for submission attempts hindered progress I feel- a sub attempt is an all or nothing thing. It doesn't matter if you "almost" got 20 subs from bottom, at the end of the fight your opponent would be sweaty but you'd be bloody.

Ok, I am going to have to provide a counterpoint to this in the form of Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn. See, one of the problems we have with this type of fighting is time limits and assumptions. We ASSUME things that didn't happen based on these ideas we have about fighting, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage to be on the bottom during a fight if your opponent does not know how to pass guard. Defending punches from within the guard, while not as easy as some people make it seem, is very doable and can be done in such a way as to make it more energy efficient to do than throwing punches from the top. The whole beauty of skilled grappling is to be able to win from a position that doesn't necessarily look like you are winning. An ezekiel choke from bottom mount, to me, is AWESOME, but typically impractical, but using the guard to control and contain someone is VERY practical and just as awesome.

Submission attempts that don't expose you to being passed but legitimately threaten your opponent are, and should be, the bread and butter of every jiujitsu practitioner.

Why WOULDN'T they contribute to a score? That would be like saying that because a guy's jab isn't hard enough to knock his opponent out, those punches don't count for points.

[singularity6]

Always restomp the groin!

[TJ-Jitsu]

Ok, I am going to have to provide a counterpoint to this in the form of Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn. See, one of the problems we have with this type of fighting is time limits and assumptions..

Ahhhh..... A debate. I love debates

We ASSUME things that didn't happen based on these ideas we have about fighting, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage to be on the bottom during a fight if your opponent does not know how to pass guard. Defending punches from within the guard, while not as easy as some people make it seem, is very doable and can be done in such a way as to make it more energy efficient to do than throwing punches from the top. The whole beauty of skilled grappling is to be able to win from a position that doesn't necessarily look like you are winning.

Meh, yes and no and I'll explain why. First off, being on bottom isn't always a disadvantage, this is true. Whether its good or bad is relative to your skillset and your opponents. For example, if you're a novice on your back and your opponent is a skilled grappler obviously its not. If youre a skilled guard player and your opponent is not (and hes on top) then its not so bad. Usually this scenario is seen with your classic "I don't know takedowns" BJJer (who also doesn't know striking) and pulls guard in an attempt to get the fight to the ground. In this sense, fighting from guard against Mike Tyson is good if the alternative is to fight him on the feet. Simply put, it is ALWAYS better to be on top than on bottom. The only reason this isn't true is the ignorance of the person on bottom. For example, if your guard game is better than your top game, that's more that your top game needs more work.... and I'll explain further

An ezekiel choke from bottom mount, to me, is AWESOME, but typically impractical, but using the guard to control and contain someone is VERY practical and just as awesome.

That's just it though- the guard is not a position of control or leverage- its actually the opposite. The guard is best described as a complete lack of leverage from both parties. This is why there are no "perfect" techniques to be done from the guard (compare to say RNC). No matter how good anyones guard ever gets its just not an advantage to be on bottom against a fighter who knows what hes doing on top. That last statement becomes an important one, because against people less than skilled in grappling it is possible to have the advantage even though you're on bottom. I think this is simplified when we merely say "Fighter X wants nothing to do with him on the ground."

Now if you want an easy way to figure out your problems, just take it to the extreme to figure out the most reasonable path. The guard as I said is best defined as the complete lack of leverage. Its almost neutral. We of course are assuming two evenly skilled fighters. What tips the scales for the person on top is gravity (takes the form of "free strength") Take two fighters, one 150lbs and another 300lbs. Put them in guard. If the big guy is on top, no one can say the small guy has it easy from bottom. This doesn't mean he cant win, but he definitely doesn't hold any advantage assuming skill levels are similar. Now reverse it. The only way someone could say the 150lb guy is better off on bottom isn't because of his skill on his back but rather his lack of skill on top.

Submission attempts that don't expose you to being passed but legitimately threaten your opponent are, and should be, the bread and butter of every jiujitsu practitioner.

Why WOULDN'T they contribute to a score? That would be like saying that because a guy's jab isn't hard enough to knock his opponent out, those punches don't count for points.

This is where the gray area begins to intrude. What I'd need to see is some legitimate "OMG hes got it hes going to tap!!" submission attempts- not some "Oh he threw his legs up lets give him a point" sub attempt.

See, a jab actually hits your opponent and actually causes damage. A sub attempt only merits scoring when your opponent is very close to getting finished. Of course the guy on bottom is going to "attempt" to submit because he doesn't have a large plethora of options to choose from. The observation that hes attempting it is irrelevant- I had better see an opponent holding on for dear life- the type that's looking for the buzzer to save him, otherwise just throwing your legs up does nothing to impress me. Just as every time the guy on bottom throws his legs up, so to does the person on top attempt to pass every time he brings his knee up or pushes his opponents knee down.

A failed submission attempt is better compared to a boxer that takes a big swing and completely whiffs and misses his opponent... but wants credit for "attempting to end it."

Finally, there aren't any ways to legitimately attack someone from inside their guard in a grappling match that don't include leg locks. What happens now is the person on top has to pass the guard just to even be allowed to attempt to submit. Once we start adding strikes many of our questions are answered. Being on top is better than being on bottom. This does not mean that being on bottom is bad. A select few can be on bottom and claim to be in an advantageous position relative to their opponents (lack of) skill. Assuming equal skill, the winner is often overwhelmingly (without absolutely) the person on top.

Bear in mind I was a guard player. Now I'm just a jiu jitsu fighter...

[Tempest]

Ok, I am going to have to provide a counterpoint to this in the form of Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn. See, one of the problems we have with this type of fighting is time limits and assumptions..

Ahhhh..... A debate. I love debates

We ASSUME things that didn't happen based on these ideas we have about fighting, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage to be on the bottom during a fight if your opponent does not know how to pass guard. Defending punches from within the guard, while not as easy as some people make it seem, is very doable and can be done in such a way as to make it more energy efficient to do than throwing punches from the top. The whole beauty of skilled grappling is to be able to win from a position that doesn't necessarily look like you are winning.

Meh, yes and no and I'll explain why. First off, being on bottom isn't always a disadvantage, this is true. Whether its good or bad is relative to your skillset and your opponents. For example, if you're a novice on your back and your opponent is a skilled grappler obviously its not. If youre a skilled guard player and your opponent is not (and hes on top) then its not so bad. Usually this scenario is seen with your classic "I don't know takedowns" BJJer (who also doesn't know striking) and pulls guard in an attempt to get the fight to the ground. In this sense, fighting from guard against Mike Tyson is good if the alternative is to fight him on the feet. Simply put, it is ALWAYS better to be on top than on bottom. The only reason this isn't true is the ignorance of the person on bottom. For example, if your guard game is better than your top game, that's more that your top game needs more work.... and I'll explain further

An ezekiel choke from bottom mount, to me, is AWESOME, but typically impractical, but using the guard to control and contain someone is VERY practical and just as awesome.

That's just it though- the guard is not a position of control or leverage- its actually the opposite. The guard is best described as a complete lack of leverage from both parties. This is why there are no "perfect" techniques to be done from the guard (compare to say RNC). No matter how good anyones guard ever gets its just not an advantage to be on bottom against a fighter who knows what hes doing on top. That last statement becomes an important one, because against people less than skilled in grappling it is possible to have the advantage even though you're on bottom. I think this is simplified when we merely say "Fighter X wants nothing to do with him on the ground."

Now if you want an easy way to figure out your problems, just take it to the extreme to figure out the most reasonable path. The guard as I said is best defined as the complete lack of leverage. Its almost neutral. We of course are assuming two evenly skilled fighters. What tips the scales for the person on top is gravity (takes the form of "free strength") Take two fighters, one 150lbs and another 300lbs. Put them in guard. If the big guy is on top, no one can say the small guy has it easy from bottom. This doesn't mean he cant win, but he definitely doesn't hold any advantage assuming skill levels are similar. Now reverse it. The only way someone could say the 150lb guy is better off on bottom isn't because of his skill on his back but rather his lack of skill on top.

Submission attempts that don't expose you to being passed but legitimately threaten your opponent are, and should be, the bread and butter of every jiujitsu practitioner.

Why WOULDN'T they contribute to a score? That would be like saying that because a guy's jab isn't hard enough to knock his opponent out, those punches don't count for points.

This is where the gray area begins to intrude. What I'd need to see is some legitimate "OMG hes got it hes going to tap!!" submission attempts- not some "Oh he threw his legs up lets give him a point" sub attempt.

See, a jab actually hits your opponent and actually causes damage. A sub attempt only merits scoring when your opponent is very close to getting finished. Of course the guy on bottom is going to "attempt" to submit because he doesn't have a large plethora of options to choose from. The observation that hes attempting it is irrelevant- I had better see an opponent holding on for dear life- the type that's looking for the buzzer to save him, otherwise just throwing your legs up does nothing to impress me. Just as every time the guy on bottom throws his legs up, so to does the person on top attempt to pass every time he brings his knee up or pushes his opponents knee down.

A failed submission attempt is better compared to a boxer that takes a big swing and completely whiffs and misses his opponent... but wants credit for "attempting to end it."

Finally, there aren't any ways to legitimately attack someone from inside their guard in a grappling match that don't include leg locks. What happens now is the person on top has to pass the guard just to even be allowed to attempt to submit. Once we start adding strikes many of our questions are answered. Being on top is better than being on bottom. This does not mean that being on bottom is bad. A select few can be on bottom and claim to be in an advantageous position relative to their opponents (lack of) skill. Assuming equal skill, the winner is often overwhelmingly (without absolutely) the person on top.

Bear in mind I was a guard player. Now I'm just a jiu jitsu fighter...

So, a leglock is the counter to someone with a near-impossible to pass guard game?

Sounds like a natural evolution of the sport to me. I disagree with you about the submission needing to be a near tap situation. Submissions can be part of combinations and even sweeps and against a skilled competitor you don't know what part of the combination is going to work.

Sounds to me like your real problem is with conservative, boring people gaming the system to win. Welcome to the highest level of professional sports.

I think people who can only do one throw shouldn't be Olympic champions, but it doesn't stop them from winning. I would make the observation that every rule change that seeks to limit what the competitors do, or encourage them to go another direction, at least in Judo, has been bad for the sport over all. As an ideal example I will point to the leg grab rule and scream and cuss loudly.

[TJ-Jitsu]

So, a leglock is the counter to someone with a near-impossible to pass guard game?

Its A counter without being the only one. No one has an impassable guard.

Sounds like a natural evolution of the sport to me. I disagree with you about the submission needing to be a near tap situation. Submissions can be part of combinations and even sweeps and against a skilled competitor you don't know what part of the combination is going to work.

Yes of course, but submissions are kinda all or nothing. If you "almost" choke someone 10x but never actually do, you've never actually accomplished anything. I'm not saying that attempting subs is a bad thing- far from it. What I'm saying is that the reason the top player is supposed to get the decision is because this is a style that's supposed to teach you how to fight- and the person on top would have actually accumulated damage whereas a generic attempted sub that doesn't threaten the guy doesn't do anything whatsoever.

Sounds to me like your real problem is with conservative, boring people gaming the system to win. Welcome to the highest level of professional sports.

Been doing it for a little over a decade. At the highest level its a game of fractions of an inch. My problem isn't with "boring" people, its how we're attempting to teach people a style that's supposed to be fighting.

This becomes my perspective and that said- jiu jitsu can be whatever each individual chooses it to be. For me its about fighting at its roots. A world class competitor that cant sub a blue belt level fighter from his back is severely lacking... once again IMO

I think people who can only do one throw shouldn't be Olympic champions, but it doesn't stop them from winning. I would make the observation that every rule change that seeks to limit what the competitors do, or encourage them to go another direction, at least in Judo, has been bad for the sport over all. As an ideal example I will point to the leg grab rule and scream and cuss loudly.

In some respects I feel the rules added to judo helps to accelerate the sport, in BJJ to an extent as well. What the rules have dictated for BJJ is that its very undesirable to be in someones guard. I've trained with black belts who spend so much time trying to avoid the guard that they never learned how to fight from there in the first place- it was like my first move works whenever I want. I think that's unbecoming of a jiu jitsu fighter.

Ultimately again what I'd like to see is more emphasis on position. The recent rule changes (sub only) I feel hasn't helped the game for practical applications. Something adding more emphasis to position would help to improve jiu jitsu fighters as it pertains to actual fights.

[Tempest]

So, a leglock is the counter to someone with a near-impossible to pass guard game?

Its A counter without being the only one. No one has an impassable guard.

Some people are close enough as it makes no difference.

Sounds like a natural evolution of the sport to me. I disagree with you about the submission needing to be a near tap situation. Submissions can be part of combinations and even sweeps and against a skilled competitor you don't know what part of the combination is going to work.

Yes of course, but submissions are kinda all or nothing. If you "almost" choke someone 10x but never actually do, you've never actually accomplished anything. I'm not saying that attempting subs is a bad thing- far from it. What I'm saying is that the reason the top player is supposed to get the decision is because this is a style that's supposed to teach you how to fight- and the person on top would have actually accumulated damage whereas a generic attempted sub that doesn't threaten the guy doesn't do anything whatsoever.

My response to this is two-fold, first of all if the so-called "attempt" doesn't do anything to the opponens, I.E. at least force him to defend, then I don't think it should count as an attempt. I go back to my Judo experience here as a referee. If an attack does not break the opponents balance at least, it does not count.

Second, and more importantly, is that this is where you are making an assumption, the part about the guy on top having "accumulated damage" is not necessarily true. The fact is, some people are GREAT at defending strikes from the top. Especially in a Gi, I would NOT assume that the guy on top would have accumulated anything but sweat. The modern UFC is a bad place to draw from on this as it represents MMA practitioners at mostly the highest level so they can make use of the top striking game that is specifically designed to deal with the guard. For a more generic example, see the early UFC's. Look at what they were able to do when in someones guard.

Sounds to me like your real problem is with conservative, boring people gaming the system to win. Welcome to the highest level of professional sports.

Been doing it for a little over a decade. At the highest level its a game of fractions of an inch. My problem isn't with "boring" people, its how we're attempting to teach people a style that's supposed to be fighting.

This becomes my perspective and that said- jiu jitsu can be whatever each individual chooses it to be. For me its about fighting at its roots. A world class competitor that cant sub a blue belt level fighter from his back is severely lacking... once again IMO

Hmm, well I think this is one issue with the perspective you have. Something very important to remember is that, with the exception of MMA which is as close to a fight as you can get without charges being filed most of the time, Combat Sports are NOT fighting. They are a game, meant to HELP with SOME fighting skills. Sub only lets people do certain things in their game, but MMA lets people with blue-purple belt level Jiu-Jitsu and world class boxing win titles in 2 divisions at the same time.

I think people who can only do one throw shouldn't be Olympic champions, but it doesn't stop them from winning. I would make the observation that every rule change that seeks to limit what the competitors do, or encourage them to go another direction, at least in Judo, has been bad for the sport over all. As an ideal example I will point to the leg grab rule and scream and cuss loudly.

In some respects I feel the rules added to judo helps to accelerate the sport, in BJJ to an extent as well. What the rules have dictated for BJJ is that its very undesirable to be in someones guard. I've trained with black belts who spend so much time trying to avoid the guard that they never learned how to fight from there in the first place- it was like my first move works whenever I want. I think that's unbecoming of a jiu jitsu fighter.

Ultimately again what I'd like to see is more emphasis on position. The recent rule changes (sub only) I feel hasn't helped the game for practical applications. Something adding more emphasis to position would help to improve jiu jitsu fighters as it pertains to actual fights.

And ultimately, what the sub-only people are doing is simply exploring a whole new set of positions, realizing that they can win a fight from there. All of us have holes in our game where we don't work on things. You would probably find my leg-lock game unacceptably atrocious, but they are not allowed most of the places I compete, so I only know one or two of them at all. Position is important only so far as it helps you complete the objective of winning the contest you are in at that moment.

As an example, I would offer for a LEO that trains, the entire open guard game is useless as breasts on a garbage can, but that doesn't make it a useless position for the most part.

[TJ-Jitsu]

Some people are close enough as it makes no difference.

That can certainly be the case some of the time, relative to each others skills, but that kinda proves my point. People have to pass the guard before they can be allowed to attack. This is not a requirement in an actual fight. What happens is people race to pull guard and want credit because they tried to finish the fight more than the guy on top, while ignoring the fact that in grappling the guy on top needs to pass before he can even begin to attack.

My response to this is two-fold, first of all if the so-called "attempt" doesn't do anything to the opponens, I.E. at least force him to defend, then I don't think it should count as an attempt. I go back to my Judo experience here as a referee. If an attack does not break the opponents balance at least, it does not count.

Yes- but see the above post about guys who attempt things but never actually threaten their opponent. The "refs" we have nowadays aren't particularly versed in the intricacies of the game, despite the ranks they may or may not wear on their belt. IBJJF refs are quite stubborn when it comes to advantages for sub attempts- other tournies not so much

Second, and more importantly, is that this is where you are making an assumption, the part about the guy on top having "accumulated damage" is not necessarily true. The fact is, some people are GREAT at defending strikes from the top. Especially in a Gi, I would NOT assume that the guy on top would have accumulated anything but sweat. The modern UFC is a bad place to draw from on this as it represents MMA practitioners at mostly the highest level so they can make use of the top striking game that is specifically designed to deal with the guard. For a more generic example, see the early UFC's. Look at what they were able to do when in someones guard.

Indeed I agree on the assumption that the person on top will do damage. There is the real possibility of a lay and pray. If the person on top can get and maintain posture though, then yes he'll have gotten powerful shots in. Whether they are clean shots becomes another debate but it'd still do more than nothing.

I understand that I'm being a little harsh on bottom players, but I feel that given the direction the sport is taken its required. Too many people lay on their back and cant take the fight to their opponent.

To specify, the ability to fight from your back is a great skill. Good guard players are rarities. Exceptional guard players even more so, however having ONLY the ability to fight from your guard is a serious issue.

Now does this mean that a BJJ black belt doesn't know how to fight from top? Of course he does, but the lighter black belts IMO tend to have the passing game of a purple belt while relying on their guards to carry the day.

Hmm, well I think this is one issue with the perspective you have. Something very important to remember is that, with the exception of MMA which is as close to a fight as you can get without charges being filed most of the time, Combat Sports are NOT fighting. They are a game, meant to HELP with SOME fighting skills. Sub only lets people do certain things in their game, but MMA lets people with blue-purple belt level Jiu-Jitsu and world class boxing win titles in 2 divisions at the same time

Theres nothing that's more of a fight than a cage fight...

I get what you're saying though, that the ref is going to stand you up and get in your way if you're a grappler, and I agree. However rulesets can be overcome and adapting to these rulesets will only make your game better for it. Finding excuses as to why your style cant adapt means you stop improving.

And ultimately, what the sub-only people are doing is simply exploring a whole new set of positions, realizing that they can win a fight from there. All of us have holes in our game where we don't work on things. You would probably find my leg-lock game unacceptably atrocious, but they are not allowed most of the places I compete, so I only know one or two of them at all. Position is important only so far as it helps you complete the objective of winning the contest you are in at that moment.

As an example, I would offer for a LEO that trains, the entire open guard game is useless as breasts on a garbage can, but that doesn't make it a useless position for the most part.

We're talking about relativity, sure. Going towards either extreme limits you. Sub only grappling ignores position, and many have paid that price dearly when strikes are involved. Position only (wrestling) ignores sub, and many paid for ignoring that. We need to entertain both.

[Tempest]

Some people are close enough as it makes no difference.

That can certainly be the case some of the time, relative to each others skills, but that kinda proves my point. People have to pass the guard before they can be allowed to attack. This is not a requirement in an actual fight. What happens is people race to pull guard and want credit because they tried to finish the fight more than the guy on top, while ignoring the fact that in grappling the guy on top needs to pass before he can even begin to attack.

My response to this is two-fold, first of all if the so-called "attempt" doesn't do anything to the opponens, I.E. at least force him to defend, then I don't think it should count as an attempt. I go back to my Judo experience here as a referee. If an attack does not break the opponents balance at least, it does not count.

Yes- but see the above post about guys who attempt things but never actually threaten their opponent. The "refs" we have nowadays aren't particularly versed in the intricacies of the game, despite the ranks they may or may not wear on their belt. IBJJF refs are quite stubborn when it comes to advantages for sub attempts- other tournies not so much

Second, and more importantly, is that this is where you are making an assumption, the part about the guy on top having "accumulated damage" is not necessarily true. The fact is, some people are GREAT at defending strikes from the top. Especially in a Gi, I would NOT assume that the guy on top would have accumulated anything but sweat. The modern UFC is a bad place to draw from on this as it represents MMA practitioners at mostly the highest level so they can make use of the top striking game that is specifically designed to deal with the guard. For a more generic example, see the early UFC's. Look at what they were able to do when in someones guard.

Indeed I agree on the assumption that the person on top will do damage. There is the real possibility of a lay and pray. If the person on top can get and maintain posture though, then yes he'll have gotten powerful shots in. Whether they are clean shots becomes another debate but it'd still do more than nothing.

I understand that I'm being a little harsh on bottom players, but I feel that given the direction the sport is taken its required. Too many people lay on their back and cant take the fight to their opponent.

To specify, the ability to fight from your back is a great skill. Good guard players are rarities. Exceptional guard players even more so, however having ONLY the ability to fight from your guard is a serious issue.

Now does this mean that a BJJ black belt doesn't know how to fight from top? Of course he does, but the lighter black belts IMO tend to have the passing game of a purple belt while relying on their guards to carry the day.

Hmm, well I think this is one issue with the perspective you have. Something very important to remember is that, with the exception of MMA which is as close to a fight as you can get without charges being filed most of the time, Combat Sports are NOT fighting. They are a game, meant to HELP with SOME fighting skills. Sub only lets people do certain things in their game, but MMA lets people with blue-purple belt level Jiu-Jitsu and world class boxing win titles in 2 divisions at the same time

Theres nothing that's more of a fight than a cage fight...

I get what you're saying though, that the ref is going to stand you up and get in your way if you're a grappler, and I agree. However rulesets can be overcome and adapting to these rulesets will only make your game better for it. Finding excuses as to why your style cant adapt means you stop improving.

And ultimately, what the sub-only people are doing is simply exploring a whole new set of positions, realizing that they can win a fight from there. All of us have holes in our game where we don't work on things. You would probably find my leg-lock game unacceptably atrocious, but they are not allowed most of the places I compete, so I only know one or two of them at all. Position is important only so far as it helps you complete the objective of winning the contest you are in at that moment.

As an example, I would offer for a LEO that trains, the entire open guard game is useless as breasts on a garbage can, but that doesn't make it a useless position for the most part.

We're talking about relativity, sure. Going towards either extreme limits you. Sub only grappling ignores position, and many have paid that price dearly when strikes are involved. Position only (wrestling) ignores sub, and many paid for ignoring that. We need to entertain both.

Maybe. Ironically, I agree with you on a personal level. I have seen far more success out of people with wrestling backgrounds than I have out of people that just did a little JiuJitsu, both in Judo and in MMA, but where, for me the issue lies, is in not teaching the correct attitude about fighting. At the end of the day, there is no penalty for negative play in most competitive grappling outside Wrestling and Judo. BJJ really doesn't penalize it. EBI and Polaris certainly don't. And Metamoris seems set up almost to encourage such things. In theory, I agree with Rener Gracie in his statements regarding becoming so comfortable in every position that it doesn't matter, but in practice I think you produce better fighters, quicker, if they learn to striver for dominance and never give anything to their opponent.

That being said, I watched this:

And thought that the sub only looked pretty good there.

[TJ-Jitsu]

Maybe. Ironically, I agree with you on a personal level. I have seen far more success out of people with wrestling backgrounds than I have out of people that just did a little JiuJitsu, both in Judo and in MMA, but where, for me the issue lies, is in not teaching the correct attitude about fighting. At the end of the day, there is no penalty for negative play in most competitive grappling outside Wrestling and Judo. BJJ really doesn't penalize it. EBI and Polaris certainly don't. And Metamoris seems set up almost to encourage such things.

Absolutely! That's where I'm getting at. The "problem" with these grappling competitions is that they ignore step one: making your opponent fight. This is a serious issue in MMA where BJJ guys cant get the fight to the ground, or stay there once they do. Even worse is guys who do, but cant pass a guard on the ground because they've never had to against someone who would stand up given the space. They're so used to standing up, backing away, and trying to run all over.

In theory, I agree with Rener Gracie in his statements regarding becoming so comfortable in every position that it doesn't matter, but in practice I think you produce better fighters, quicker, if they learn to striver for dominance and never give anything to their opponent.

Not familiar with what he said, but theres a difference between being comfortable at every position and being good at every position. When you truly know what positional dominance means, it absolutely does matter which position you end up in. You may say "I'll take whatever gets me to the ground" and I'll agree with that, because that's what I do. Once I get there though I start to attack like a SOB to advance position. In a weird way though, submissions are positional advancements. Hopefully you start to understand when I say "positional dominance" it doesn't mean "top, pass, mount, back." It means getting to a position better than the previous one...

That being said, I watched this:

And thought that the sub only looked pretty good there.

Indeed. Fighters make for good fights, not rulesets. Consider Mickey Ward boxing matches- hes always been entertaining as has Manny Pacquio, despite "all the rules" boxing has. Then you have early MMA with no rules, and yet many fights were snooze fests....

That's the inherent problem- you cant force someone to fight in an entertaining matter.