The hatred of boot scooting

[Hanzou]

Definitely a learned competition strategy. Just one that I think the rules should be amended to reduce. To me, sitting down and waiting for your opponent is the epitome of "not engaging", regardless of the position ("guard") used. Pulling guard is one thing. Pulling it and just sitting there waiting (yeah, he scoots toward his opponent, but only when that opponent moves away - he makes no offensive effort at all to engage), is something different.

Why not simply learn to pass the Guard and smash the person sitting down? When you pass Guard you score points and arrive in a dominant position.

The reality is that there are grapplers out there who completely neglect Guard passing and just want to smash their way through someone's Guard.

 

[Steve]

Why not simply learn to pass the Guard and smash the person sitting down? When you pass Guard you score points and arrive in a dominant position.

The reality is that there are grapplers out there who completely neglect Guard passing and just want to smash their way through someone's Guard.

Agreed. That's a much more constructive strategy than stalling and playing to the crowd.

 

[punisher73]

always good for a laugh.

IMHO, the rules allow dropping into guard. You may not like it, but the fact is, that it is a legitimate tactic under the rules.

To give another example that I used to hear all the time (even from many BJJ guys at the time) was that "foot locks are cheating". If you got caught and submitted by a foot lock, than it was a "cheap win" and you didn't REALLY know how to grapple. Why? It comes back to this same idea. They didn't know how to defend against them, so when they lost they didn't like it and made excuses.

 

[Steve]

Additional food for thought, the idea that at the apex of the sport that anyone can neglect takedowns is unrealistic. Folks who are competing in national or international tournaments at a black belt or advanced level are going to be comfortable in both standing and ground grappling.

Also, just to share the rules, you have to have at least one positive point of contact with your opponent before you can pull guard. That means either a collar or sleeve grip or something similar. Butt scooting as in the video above can only occur if you legally sit to guard with some contact, and then the guy stand steps back and away and disengages.

If you sit to guard without having a point of contact, one of two things will happen. If the opponent backs away, you will be required to stand back up and will receive a penalty. If your opponent follows you to the ground with even minimal control, he will receive 2 points for a takedown.

Last thing, I'm sharing IBJJF rules. There are other rulesets that vary slightly. For example, I think the ADCC still awards takedown points to your opponent if you pull guard. So, you can pull guard in an ADCC tournament, but you are giving up 2 points to do so. If you're that confident in your guard, more power to you... and some are.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's a ground fighting competition, so requiring someone who is standing there like a jackwagon for not wanting to grapple on the mat is perfectly consistent with the philosophy behind the competition. If you don't want to grapple, and prefer to disengage, stands up, and backs away, maybe you should practice more before entering your next BJJ or sub. wrestling competition. In MMA, Judo, and most wrestling competitions, the referee rewards the one who doesn't want to stay on the ground. But in a ground fighting competition, if the person on the ground got there within the rules, he doesn't have to stand up.

If anything, I think the dudes who are afraid to grapple in a grappling match are the ones who deserve our scorn and should be mocked for entering a BJJ competition.

I just don't see the huge difference between the guy passively sitting and the guy passively standing. Neither is engaging.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are literally saying that he is moving forward and the other guy is moving away... and yet the guy moving forward is stalling? Huh.

How is sitting there, waiting for your opponent to engage, moving toward him as he moves away stalling, but the guy standing up, moving away from the combat, literally refusing to engage in the grappling match not stalling? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Actually, no, that's not what I said. I said he's moving forward ONLY when the other guy moves back. If the standing guy stays still, so does the guy on the ground. Which, to me, is not engaging - same as the dude standing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

He's very directly moving towards the other guy each time the guy moves away-labelling him as the one trying to engage. It doesn't matter probably that when he gets close he just slows down a lot or ultimately waits for the standing guy to engage, from a rules perspective (that I think would count for most martial competitions), he's the one bringing the fight to engagement distance, so he's not at fault for the lack of contact/engagement.

I agree that's what the rules seem to say. It seems a gap in those rules.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Personally, I agree. But if you look, the guy on the ground continuously moves to a distance where either of them can engage. As a ref of most sports I would rule the guy willing to enter engagement distance as not stalling while the guy who is leaving that distance is. Though from a bystander's standpoint I'd view it as them both stalling/refusing to engage unless the other person engages in the position they want.

I'd look at it this way: either guy moving to that distance is engaging....until they stop at that distance and do nothing for more than a couple of seconds. Just sitting there a step away from the other guy isn't really engaging. So he's engaging when he moves forward or making some other move to, well, engage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If the guy on the mat were also moving away from combat, I would agree with you. That's not what happened in this match.

What happens if they both stay still?

 

[Steve]

I just don't see the huge difference between the guy passively sitting and the guy passively standing. Neither is engaging.

Yeah, I get that. One guy is moving toward his opponent; the other guy is moving away. One guy is stalling according to the rules; the other guy is not stalling according to the rules. I mean, what more do you want?

Regarding engaging, I disagree. There's only so much a person can do, if one's opponent is backing away. Now, if the person on the ground was also backing away, I could see your point.

 

[Steve]

What happens if they both stay still?

They may both be penalized for stalling, depending on the ref. They are both supposed to be pursuing combat.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One guy is stalling according to the rules; the other guy is not stalling according to the rules.

Yep, that's the point I started from, and why I said I see it as a gap in the rules. Standing or sitting, not engaging is still not engaging.

 

[Steve]

I'd look at it this way: either guy moving to that distance is engaging....until they stop at that distance and do nothing for more than a couple of seconds. Just sitting there a step away from the other guy isn't really engaging. So he's engaging when he moves forward or making some other move to, well, engage.

Sharing the rules... the magic number is 20 seconds.

Regarding engaging, there's a fine line between engaging and compromising your position. There is no rule requiring one to recklessly pursue one's opponent. So, if I'm on the mat and my opponent doesn't want to engage (whether standing or sitting), I don't have to throw myself at his legs to be engaging, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

Once again, I think you're focusing on the wrong guy here. All of your comments apply to the guy on his feet, not the guy on the ground.

 

[Steve]

Yep, that's the point I started from, and why I said I see it as a gap in the rules. Standing or sitting, not engaging is still not engaging.

It's not a gap in the rules, though. Stalling is against the rules. You just don't understand what is and isn't stalling. I'm trying to explain it to you, but you seem to think I'm sharing opinions and not facts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sharing the rules... the magic number is 20 seconds.

Regarding engaging, there's a fine line between engaging and compromising your position. There is no rule requiring one to recklessly pursue one's opponent. So, if I'm on the mat and my opponent doesn't want to engage (whether standing or sitting), I don't have to throw myself at his legs to be engaging, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

Once again, I think you're focusing on the wrong guy here. All of your comments apply to the guy on his feet, not the guy on the ground.

All I'm suggesting is that remaining still is not engaging. If you choose to move to the floor preemtively, for the advantage it conveys, shouldn't you also deal with the disadvantage?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's not a gap in the rules, though. Stalling is against the rules. You just don't understand what is and isn't stalling. I'm trying to explain it to you, but you seem to think I'm sharing opinions and not facts.

I'm sharing my opinion, not stating facts.

 

[Steve]

All I'm suggesting is that remaining still is not engaging. If you choose to move to the floor preemtively, for the advantage it conveys, shouldn't you also deal with the disadvantage?

Sure, but what do you think the person on the ground isn't doing? I mean, I've explained in detail how what he's doing isn't stalling. I'm at a loss as to what point you're trying to make. I've explained the rules around stalling and around sitting to guard in detail. I've explained what stalling on his part would look like. I've explained the alternatives. I've shared some "what if" examples, to highlight how they might both be stalling, or how the person on the ground might be stalling. I've pointed out that engaging and recklessly throwing yourself at your opponent are not synonymous.

And yet you continue to argue. I've run out of explanation. At this point, you seem to be simply refusing to engage in the discussion and appear to be stalling.

 

[Steve]

I'm sharing my opinion, not stating facts.

Okay, but your opinion is contrary to the facts. Your entire point seems to be, "I prefer Judo." I think that's okay.

 

[Hanzou]

Yep, that's the point I started from, and why I said I see it as a gap in the rules. Standing or sitting, not engaging is still not engaging.

I don't see it so much as a gap in the rules as Wrestlers not being able to smash a person sitting down on a mat. 9/10 a person standing up has a significant advantage against a person sitting down. You're a very confident grappler if you're sitting down against a standing opponent.

It also speaks volumes that we have so many non-BJJ grapplers backing away from seated Guard and refusing to engage. As a poster here mentioned earlier; I think its more telling that you're backing away from someone putting themselves in a weaker position.

 

[Steve]

I don't see it so much as a gap in the rules as Wrestlers not being able to smash a person sitting down on a mat. 9/10 a person standing up has a significant advantage against a person sitting down. You're a very confident grappler if you're sitting down against a standing opponent.

It also speaks volumes that we have so many non-BJJ grapplers backing away from seated Guard and refusing to engage. As a poster here mentioned earlier; I think its more telling that you're backing away from someone putting themselves in a weaker position.

It's backwards to me. Folks are taking the position that a grappler (possibly someone with a wrestling or judo background) is to be commended for emphasizing his takedown game, but are overlooking that he is obviously not confident in his ground fighting game... in a BJJ match. Conversely, they are criticizing a grappler for emphasizing his ground fighting game, and presuming that because he sat to guard, he has neglected his takedown game... in a BJJ match.

For the record, I also like Judo, and understand completely why a judoka might stall if taken down to his stomach. In Judo, all one need do to return the match to standing is turtle up for just long enough that the action stops. Should we presume he has neglected his newaza? Should we criticize him for not rolling to guard and pursuing a submission?