@
by
Roberto Pedreira
*
@
*
@
@*
*
*
@
*
*
@
@
@
@
|
@ The ADCC Blind-Spot and how to fix it Robert Drysdale June 18, 2022 @ "Different Rules, Different Game." @
Previously,
I discussed some problems with current IBJJF rules and suggested some
improvements. Next,
we will turn to one of the many offshoots from the IBJJF rule-set and
competition circuit.
ADCC made its debut in 1998 on the coattails of the Royce Gracie and UFC
revolution of 1993 as well as the initial growth and interest in BJJ lead
by Royce and that same revolution that shortly after took shape in the
hands of CBJJ/IBJJF. The story of how H. H. Sheikh Tahnoon came to be
introduced to BJJ is a real-life reenactment of Eddie Murphyfs gComing
to
But how and why did it become so prestigious? Several
reasons. First, much like the Olympics and
the Soccer World Cup it was held in intervals (unlike the Olympics and the
World Cup, it is held every 2 years), which grants it the automatic status
of being "boutique" and creates certain expectations within the jiu-jitsu
community. An expectation that is further augmented by its few invited
competitors and
even fewer champions. Secondly, it was organized by royalty, hosted by
royalty, in the land of royalty and gave royal treatment (and pay) at a
time where the very best in jiu-jitsu were used to taking public transport
to arrive at the now nostalgic Tijuca Tenis Clube, to compete in the sub
par infrastructure of that arena. All for glory and love of the game
(i.e., no money). The
tournament would eventually reach mythical proportions as jiu-jitsu grew
and spread all across the globe. Interestingly, even when other
professional events came to pay better than ADCC, its prestige
didnft wane, but to the contrary, it grew. Why? Pay
and exclusivity added to the aura of fighting in front of Sheikhs and
their families and friends as well as the years in between events granted
ADCC a sort of automatic credibility, even an aura that inspired every
generation of jiu-jitsu practitioner afterwards to dream of being an ADCC
champion. A credibility that the ADCC had won from the top down, free of
any structure or organic growth. Unlike the IBJJF and the UFC who had to
win their credibility organically from the ground up. Which didnft
matter initially as the tournaments had infinite funds and were only held
every two years and with a very small and select group of competitors.
Throughout all this, their credibility for a long time remained intact and
the money was too good to change that. Whatever
the reasons for all this, the ADCC remains one of the most prestigious
tournaments in the entire world of grappling. Originally intended to (much
like the UFC had done) pitch style vs. style, the ADCC would eventually
become practically an exclusivity of the jiu-jitsu world, an in-house
tournament for jiu-jitsu athletes, completely or almost completely pulling
its talent and champions from the competitive circuit that the IBJJF was
shaping over the years. Few
fighters from other styles saw any value in the ADCC and fewer competed in
it. Presumably, one would think that Olympic gold medalists in judo and
wrestling would jump at the opportunity to win a cash prize, but that
wasnft the case. Although initially the ADCC had received a considerable
influx of practitioners from other grappling styles, over the years it
became virtually restricted to the jiu-jitsu world and, accordingly,
piggy-back-riding off the efforts and successes of the IBJJF mothership
(as well as the Royce Gracie led revolution) that had helped give it
birth. Because
if truth be told, in terms of rules, the ADCC borrows heavily from the
IBJJF rule-set, (which is to say, it was following suit with the
progression-paradigm created by the Guanabara Federation), as we will
discuss below. Conversely, the ADCC borrows little to nothing from judo,
sambo or wrestling. Furthermore, the IBJJF network sustains the ADCC with
highly skilled competitors from which it draws almost its entire talent
pool from, both in terms of its total number of competitors and in terms
of its champions (with very few exceptions in fact as can be easily
verified looking at results over the past 13 editions of the ADCC). These
were competitors that were battle-hardened on the IBJJF mats as well as in
other smaller organizations that followed IBJJFfs lead and rules over
countless events. Yet none of this ever did anything to diminish ADCCfs
aura. Still, over the years something had changed. Recently,
while in friendly conversation with ADCC champion Jean Jacques Machado,
and discussing all these changes, he remarked that gthe ADCC made a
mistake when they left Abu-Dhabi. it lost exactly what made it special
in the days of Sheikh Tahnoon.h I remember agreeing with Machado, the
most glorious days of ADCC were behind them, in the days it was still
hosted by Sheikh Tahnoon, its founder and patron. Interestingly,
the increase in ticket sales in recent ADCCfs, seems to corroborate that
the ADCC is actually growing in popularity. Which is true to an extent.
But this isnft because of the
ADCC itself, but rather due to the overall growth of jiu-jitsu worldwide
in the past 24 years. The reality of this discussion, that the ADCC is
bringing new eyes to the sport, as is often reported, fails entirely to
see, that the geyesh are all there regardless of the ADCC existing or
not. They are the students in the thousands of schools around the
world and the millions of people training, not to mention the celebrities
who also train jiu-jitsu and are constantly advertising its benefits. Not
to mention many other tournaments such as North American Grappling
Association (Naga); Jiu-Jitsu World League (JJWL); American Grappling
Federation (AGF) who are all crucial aspects of this same effort in
spreading jiu-jitsu and giving it credibility. And this is only in the US. The list is much larger if we include all the jiu-jitsu
leagues all over the world. It is to these schools and organizations that the gnew
eyesh ought to be credited because these are, for all practical
purposes, the people who are actually organizing jiu-jitsu structurally.
It is to their structures and the order they grant that jiu-jitsu owes its
growth. In other words, ADCC hosts too few events and only with select
athletes mostly out of the IBJJF circuit to be able to claim any credit
for the growth of jiu-jitsu. But,
by keeping its credibility intact, the ADCC claim for itself the notoriety
that was in fact a byproduct of this growth and all the work that went
behind it by various other individuals and organizations. In other words,
the ADCC and its growth in popularity are in fact, symptoms
of the overall growth of jiu-jitsu that are for all practical and
logistical purposes, led by others. While its lingering credibility can be
explained by the reasons outlined above, but also by the enormous momentum
that previous generations of competitors had granted it. But
this momentum we speak of does not live in the inertia of space, it must
follow the gravitational rules to which all other organizations are held
to: ewhat;f a ehow;f and a ewhy;f leadership; an orderly
structure (logistically and in terms of rules and refereeing) as well as a
market to justify its efforts and sustain it organically. All this,
typically leads to credibility. But the ADCC had that already, it just
didnft have everything else that normally preceded this prestige. It
had, in a sense, grown backwards
and from the top down. Perhaps
the biggest issue the ADCC encounters today, is precisely due to this
reversed growth. Which has the side effect of opening a much bigger can of
worms than anything the IBJJF system has to deal with today. And the only
reason all this hasnft been more noticeably exposed, is because the ADCC
has only had 13 events in total with a very limited number of matches in
them (which helps explain the credibility question above, the rarity of
the matches, makes winning them especialf). Giving them virtually no
time and space to have evolved more efficient criteria, better trained
referees, logistical structure and evolve its rule-set in parallel to the
evolution of the art as the IBJJF has done. Considering
that the ADCC has only had a total of 13 events in its 24 years of
existence compared to the IBJJF who puts on 13 events in a couple of
months and all around the world, the difference in terms of reach,
logistical size, experience and influence cannot be underestimated, they
arenft close. These assets matter, and no amount of credibility can
alter the reality of this disparity in terms of structure and know-how. A
building, a tall building, must be built from the ground up, not from
ceilings towards the base. Add to that the rotating leadership the ADCC
has suffered from in the past 24 years of its existence and we can begin
to understand all its problems. It
is not the point of this article to digress further into the history and
standing of the ADCC. The brief summary above suffices to give background
to the issue at hand, namely the problems with their rule-set and how
fundamental they are to give a foundation to something that (possibly due
to the sparsity of their events) has not had the time and/or experience to
develop organically. Curiously, the same thing that made ADCC unique was also its
weakness, itfs exclusivity was predicated on the fact that it was rare,
but that also had the side effect of preventing them from having any
practical experience or of evolving the rule-set according to the
increasing sophistication of the competitors, or at least from building on
the experience of other more tried organizations. Still,
considering their recent attempts at making themselves into a league that
sustains itself organically and without the sponsorship of Sheikh Tahnoon,
they will need to do so quickly if it intends to enter the competitive
market of jiu-jitsu tournaments without losing the credibility that has
been, speaking frankly, the only rope to which it holds onto. Long story
short, sensible rules are fundamental for this foundation to withhold its
potential growth. We can now turn to the rules and their problems. Discussion
regarding the problems with the ADCC rule-set has also been tackled
elsewhere (for example here) but I will
offer my own view on what
the main problems are regarding the their rule-set. Typically
speaking, people prefer simple over complex for obvious reasons. The
problem is that the second competitors get involved, they have proven to
be ingenious in crafting intricate ways of bypassing the rules and/or
manipulating them to the very limits of what they can get away with. Non-surprisingly
the organization or ruling body fires back with more complex rules, which
are in their turn, countered by evermore clever machinations, ad
infinitum. The red-queen arms-race of sorts truly has no ending as
long as it remains competitive and the ruling body remains competent in
its role of adaptation. A problem the IBJJF knows all too well. Unsurprisingly,
time and observation tell the tale of this arms-race and the longer this
dynamic is around, the more complex the rules tend to be, as if giving
testimony to their evolutionary history. To put it in other terms, think a
rookie lawyer (or better, someone with no experience at all) and have them
draft a contract, any contract. Now request the same from a
multi-million-dollar law-firm filled with highly trained and highly
experienced professionals. At the end, compare the two contracts in terms
of their density and competence. It doesnft even take much of an effort
to figure out what the result would be. Accordingly,
the IBJJF has a rule manual that is 50 pages long that evolved from the
1967 Guanabara Federation manual that started out with only two
and half pages of
rules. The ADCC rule-set on the other hand, has a total of 5 pages. In
evolutionary terms, it would be like contrasting the complexity of the
human brain with that of any other animal. Which is not an attack, this is
a sober analysis of the reality of this discussion, factually speaking. Particularly
when the ADCC rule-set is largely based on the IBJJF rule-set in terms of
the progression-paradigm, but without the nuances of over two-decades of
experience dealing with skilled competitors accustomed to the
sophistication and complexity of the IBJJF rule-set. To these competitors,
the ADCC rule-set has eno defenses.f Which
makes me think of how Europeans due to lack of hygiene and their close
proximity to livestock would create the super germs that would decimate
Native American who lacked any immunity to the complexity of that European
arms-race of germs and immune-system. In this sense, the simplicity, and
even naivete, of the ADCC rule-set is like a body with little to no
immune-system being thrown into the fires of very competent competitors
and the many situations they are all accustomed to, but that the rule-set has not been exposed to for lack of experience and essentially staying in
a bubble for all these years while jiu-jitsu was evolving at a remarkably
fast pace. My
point here is that complexity in any rule-set is a direct byproduct, for
better or for worse, of this evolutionary dynamic of an arms-race which
has the (apparently), inevitable consequence of furthering the complexity
of the rule-set. If the complexity of a rule-set grants testimony to its
long history in dealing with the arms-race, conversely, the ADCC rule-set does the same. Which is to say, it has little to
no history dealing with the "arms-race.h ADCC has been allegedly hostile to
constructive criticism or anything that isnft absolute acceptance of
what it clearly perceives to be a flawless rule-set. Competitors and
coaches alike, seem to think otherwise. You can decide for yourself (for a
full description of these rule-sets see here
and here). Below,
some examples of the problems in the rule-set. Hybrid-point-system
- Being a hybrid system, with the first half of the match being a sub-only
system and the second half being a point based one, the ADCC rule-set seems
to be a middle ground between the two by absorbing the best of both. It
gseemsh because at closer inspection the hybridization only exposes
the problems of the sub-only format while creating some new ones with
their own point system. All while on a practical level, having solved
neither. Sub-only-half -
The sub-only portion, was created with the intention of allowing
submissions attempts free of any risks (by say falling back for a
foot-lock without risking being swept). While in reality, as any
experienced competitor would have predicted, it had the opposite reaction.
Instead of going for submissions relentlessly as one would hope (an
example of
idealism exempt from the trials of reality and experience), athletes,
knowing all too well of the physical impossibility of going full-throttle
for the entire match and for multiple times in a day (a reality that most
if not all promoters seem to be oblivious to), unsurprisingly, choose
instead to pace themselves. Tactically,
it makes sense to wait out the clock and spend your energy in smaller and
less risk prone efforts of scoring points over going for the repeated
sacrifice-submissions sub-only calls for. Idealism, is great. But reality is
what it is, and while we can hope and wish that this were otherwise,
the reality on the ground (in all ADCC events in fact) is that the
sub-only half has failed to achieve a high submission rate. To
my knowledge there are no statistics showing the submission rate during
the sub-only portion of ADCC matches but it is clear from observation that
it is not very high, in fact, I would be willing to bet money that it is
well below the point portion of ADCC as well as the IBJJF submission
average (38% for IBJJF gi Pans and Worlds (years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
for Worlds, 2016 and 2017 for Pans and 2017 for Womenfs Pans, all black
belt divisions and according to stats from BJJHeroes.com ). In other
words, despite its good intentions the sub-only portion of ADCC is not
yielding more submissions as it intended to. Point-system-half -
What about the point half, the second half where points are made
available? A fun fact that illustrates my points above, is how competitors
begin to engage and immediately change pace as soon as the buzzer goes off
signaling the beginning of the second portion where points are now on the
table. If
we pay close attention, the ADCC rule-set copies the progression-paradigm
of the IBJJF system with minor modifications, some positive, some
negative. Which is to say, that ADCC essentially uses the IBJJF system and
made the changes it saw fit to accommodate other styles of grappling. To
be fair, not drifting too far off from the IBJJF progression-paradigm and
perhaps explaining why other stylists choose not to compete in the ADCC in
what they possibly perceive as nothing but another jiu-jitsu event. Hard
to say but not an unreasonable possibility. Nonetheless,
the complexity of the IBJJF system is left completely out, which creates
many gray areas that are basically left up to the judges to decide the
merits of the situation (in the ADCC the referee has no authority and
decision-making is in the hands of the judging table). Problem is, the
criteria isnft always clear to competitors or coaches and the gray area
situations (which led to the complexity visible in the IBJJF system in the
first place) are largely inconsistent throughout the tournament, making
the decision making of both competitor and coach a guessing game of how
that particular judging table will be reacting to a particular technical
exchange (which has the side-effect of placing extra-political power in
the hands of the judging table). This was made clear for all to see in the
ADCC 2019 event where even some of my novice students noticed the
inconsistencies. In
order to better understand all these differences and similarities, we will
take a look into what was absorbed from the IBJJF system and their
positive and negative features, followed by what was not-absorbed along
with both their positive and negative consequences. The absorption
of
the progression-paradigm borrowed from the IBJJF still has its print in
the ADCC rule-set. The advantages of having absorbed the progression
paradigm were the obvious ones described in the IBJJF article, namely that
the match emade sensef in that it progressed upwards and towards the
goal of submission (in theory at least) and that it resembled the
progression of a real-fight (in theory at least). On the other hand, not
having absorbed the evolutionary experience of the IBJJF system built into
its complexity, had both positive and negative consequences. By not-absorbing
other aspects of the rule-set, it also rid itself of what in my view, were
other problems built into the system, such as not having any excessive
kimono entanglements and penalizing guard-pulling (at least during the
second-half of the fight and for the full fight in case of finals and
super-fight) for example. Which we should notice in passing, donft
affect the progression-paradigm and in the case of guard-pulling at least,
could easily be fixed by IBJJF if they chose to have a more
standing/takedown oriented rule-set. The
differences between the IBJJF rule-set and its offspring however are
interesting and in fact, enlightening as to the problems the ADCC deals
with today. Some of these differences are of low impact such as rewarding
mount with 2 instead of 4 points or back-take with 3 instead of 4 points;
or such as the case where a competitor passes from his opponentfs guard
straight into mount or knee-on-belly, awarding only the 3 points for the
pass (where IBJJF would award 3+4 and 3+2 respectively). Other differences
are more relevant however and are discussed below. The non-absorption
of the whole of the IBJJF system with its evolutionary and intricate
details to very specific situations, had mixed results. If on one hand, it
managed to bypass any complexity, on the other however not absorbing it
led towards subjectivity and excessive use of ereferee
interpretation.f Furthermore,
it is worthwhile to question how much more the ADCC could have borrowed
from the criteria developed by the IBJJF over time, considering that it
did not lend the ADCC all elements of the progression-paradigm, only some.
As an example, the ADCC wisely changed the number of points from
takedowns and sweeps from 2 to 4, in case the initiator landed in a dominant
position such as mount or side-control. Which makes sense, since they
carry with them greater merit and progression than finishing a takedown or
sweep in guard or half-guard do. In other words, the execution of these
moves in terms of how much they accomplish, are not
equal in combat utility.
The IBJJF ignores this obvious fact, while ADCC acknowledges it. Another
arguably positive change is awarding points for reversals
(from side-control or mount), 2 in the case of mount (because you finish
the movement inside your opponentfs guard) and 4 in case of side-control
(in case you finish the movement holding your opponent in side-control).
Although awarding more points for this reversal while awarding only 3 for
taking the back sounds problematic in terms of progression. Moving
forward, the non-absorption of advantages has in itself positive and
negatives effects. Advantages have as one of its characteristics to turn
the fight into a highly tactical one in which ealmostf doing something
makes perfect tactical sense (idealism notwithstanding here). On the other
hand, not having advantages led to overtimes as a solution to ties (to be
addressed below). While the IBJJF also has a referee (or referees in
case of semifinal and finals of black-belt matches), I suspect it has a
smaller rate of fights that are decided by officials precisely
because it has the advantage system. Although data would be needed to
confirm or deny this belief. And
in case this observation of mine happens to be accurate, the higher number
of "judges' decisions" places a higher burden (and political-power) on
the judging table, which has the side-effect of increasing ADCCfs
reputation for subjectivity and inconsistencies. The jury is out and this
isnft an easy one to tackle. My personal thoughts on how to solve the
issue of ties will be articulated elsewhere. The overtime for its part, has a reputation for being slow-paced due to the exhaustion of competitors who have gone as far as grappling for a total of 40 minutes in past editions. An eternity in terms of grappling and that damages the bracket system that is meant to be somewhat balanced as competitors advance. It is hardly balanced when one competitor wins a match in 15 seconds while the other takes 40 minutes to accomplish the same result in the previous match. Keeping in mind that this is all contingent on the competitorfs placement in the bracket (done manually by ADCC officials, with the more reasonable and unbiased way to do this, would be to do it via software as the IBJJF does), and how this placement impacts their performances in terms of the skill level and style of the competitor whom he must face next. As every competitor well knows, not all brackets are created equal. Also
worthy of notice here, is that the ADCC modified a fundamental aspect of
the progression-paradigm that created other problems that seem
unreasonable to many (if not all) competitors and coaches: not awarding 2
points from a sweep or takedown when the sequence is completed in the
turtle position (which makes scoring a sweep or takedown the equivalent of
a pinf in wrestling), making scoring points for takedowns and sweeps
extremely difficult. A problem that can perhaps help explain the high
volume of ties and overtimes in the ADCC. Moreover,
the ADCC has a major blind-spot in its rule-set that not only conflicts
with the progression-paradigm but also make little sense: Allowing
points to be racked up endlessly while in the same position, as when the
back is taken and the competitor keeps placing and removing his hook over
and over again, building up a potential infinite amount of points, all
without actually improving on the current position (the same
rationale can be applied in case of the knee-on-belly position in case one
manages to transition from side-to-side). While I am not particularly
opposed to questioning aspects of the progression-paradigm, the changes
ought to sensible and this one doesn't meet that mark.
Finally,
this article would be very incomplete without addressing what is possibly
the most shocking of all of ADCCfs characteristics: the unspoken rule of
grappling on concrete. To regard
this as an easy-fix is an understatement. Essentially every sport in the
world, including sports well outside of the realm of combat (and I cannot
even think of an exception to this), have physical boundaries in which the
game, match or fight must take place. Except the ADCC. After
witnessing full sequences of almost 1 minute in duration of professional
athletes grappling on concrete in one of their events, I suggested to an
ADCC high-ranking official that they should do something about that,
thinking of both the safety of the athletes as well as ADCCfs reputation
in all this. A reputation that by the way, was receiving less than kind
reviews by competitors, coaches and even staff members in the backstage of
the event. To my surprise, the
response was something dismissive and akin to git has always been this
way.h Lastly, the criteria used by the
IBJJF in the case of competitors going out of bounds, seem simple and
reasonable to me and should have been absorbed alongside the
progression-paradigm. Despite
being almost entirely based on the IBJJF system and drawing almost all of
its competitors and champions from the IBJJFfs ranks, the ADCC, due to
its short life of only 13 total events, lacks any real experience of
jiu-jitsu and the complexities that necessarily stem from it. Both in
terms of logistics and rules. As a result, the ADCC point portion did not
evolve its own intricate rule-set as the IBJJF did overtime. Accordingly,
it automatically deprived itself of some of the problems as well as some
of advantages this complexity brought forth. Which
on the surface may seem contradictory, but only if we assume that either rule-set
is ideal. In truth, none will ever be and no one said that
jiu-jitsu rules could ever be easy or simple or please everyone. That is
simply impossible. To be fair, the attempt at a hybridization model was
made with the best of intentions and does offer considerable potential if
reframed, just not under its current model where it essentially
assimilates the problems of both worlds without solving either of them. It
remains a mystery whether the ADCC can quickly solve all of
the issues outlined above as it intends to make its 2022 issue (they
skipped 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic) its biggest one yet. Something
that, at least in technical terms, it has always managed to achieve since
its beginnings with the first ADCC in 1998. But
credit must be given where it is due, and the increasing technical
sophistication of the competitors that attend the ADCC events is to the
credit of its competitors, their coaches and the high-level events that
has forged almost all of them in the fires of the IBJJF competition
circuit as well as the many other organizations around the world that
follow its progression-paradigm. It is from these same ranks, that the
ADCC promises to draw not only its talent but most, if not all its
spectators in its highly anticipated 2022 edition. It is my view that the ADCC wonft be able to solve the issues with their rules and, in case I am right, they will continue to lose credibility due to all of this. A pattern that, to be fair, initiated a long time ago where the inconsistencies in judging became increasingly obvious but that became more obvious than ever in their last 2019 edition. Due to this, I predict that the ADCC will cave into the pressure and fully implement a sub-only system instead. If not in this next 2022 edition, then in the future. It is to the problems of this rule-set that we turn to in our next article. @ Note. The "Progression Paradigm" will be discussed in a forthcoming article. (c) 2022, Robert Drysdale. All rights reserved. @ More by Robert Drysdale: @ @ How to Win at Jiu-Jitsu while Keeping BJJ Real Creonte: Loyalty versus Self-Perfection The Rectification of BJJ's Rules: To Gi or Not to Gi Americanization of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Reflections on the Evolution of BJJ Rev. of book by João Alberto Barreto Maeda Promotes Five Brazilians Is Oswaldo Fada Jiu-Jitsu a Non-Gracie Lineage? @ @ @ |
