Takedowns and finish by Yaroslav Amosov on the UFC card

The strategic value placed on takedowns, as noted by "Mat Historian" and in the community's observation of Yaroslav Amosov's late-game attempt, has indeed been a subject of considerable evolution and divergence across various grappling rulesets, particularly when contrasting early Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu competition with, for instance, the ADCC Submission Fighting World Championship. While the notion of a "just-for-memes takedown" might apply to a scenario where a competitor is already winning decisively and merely seeks to add to their score or stifle a late-round surge, the history of takedown scoring reveals a persistent tension between valuing offensive wrestling and prioritizing submissions.

In the nascent stages of competitive BJJ, particularly under the *Regulamento da Federação de Jiu-Jitsu Brasileiro* (FJJB) in the 1970s and 1980s, takedowns were, by reputation, highly valued. This emphasis arguably stemmed from a desire to showcase the art's practical self-defense applications and its roots in Kodokan Judo, which, of course, assigns paramount importance to throws and takedowns. The transition to the International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation (IBJJF) ruleset, formalized in 1994, brought a standardized points system where a takedown typically awarded two points, placing it on par with a sweep and below a guard pass (three points) or a mount/back control (four points). This structure inherently encourages competitors to engage on the feet, but the relatively low point value compared to positional advancements on the ground sometimes leads to less emphasis on sustained, high-risk takedown attempts, especially as a match progresses and ground-based strategies become more viable.

Conversely, the ADCC ruleset, inaugurated at the first event in Abu Dhabi in 1998, initially awarded two points for a takedown that resulted in a dominant position, with penalties for pulling guard without an immediate sweep or submission attempt. This approach, which has seen minor revisions over the decades, subtly shifts the strategic calculus, often incentivizing a more aggressive pursuit of takedowns, particularly in the early stages of a match, to establish an initial lead. The ADCC's unique "negative points" system for passivity, which can indirectly penalize a lack of takedown attempts, further distinguishes its approach from the IBJJF's more neutral stance on the initial standing engagement. The "just-for-memes" takedown at the end of a match, therefore, might be less about a point differential in some contexts than about a categorical imperative to attempt takedowns ingrained by the ruleset itself.

Given these distinct philosophies, what impact do you believe the evolving emphasis on takedown scoring has had on the technical development of BJJ practitioners who primarily compete under one ruleset versus another?

It's interesting how some still see takedowns, even late in a round, as primarily for points. Rolls Gracie was big on takedowns, not just for points but for setting up finishes immediately. His students, like Romero "Jacaré" Cavalcanti, definitely carried that philosophy into the early days of competitive BJJ in the 80s and 90s. Carlson Gracie's lineage also emphasized a comprehensive approach, where the stand-up was an integral part of the fight, not just a separate phase. I think the idea of a takedown being "just for memes" really misses the historical emphasis on wrestling up into a dominant position. Maeda certainly wouldn't have seen it that way, always emphasizing the full range of combat.

Not sure why we're still talking about takedowns in terms of points like it's 2005 IBJJF. Yaroslav Amosov is in MMA. The whole point is to get the fight to the ground so you can do damage or submit. That late takedown isn't "just for memes" if it lets him improve position or land a couple of shots.

The idea that takedowns are just for points, like Eli mentioned, comes from gi rulesets where a sweep or a guard pass sometimes scores the same as a clean double leg. In EBI or ADCC, you’re trying to finish. Look at someone like Gordon Ryan; his takedowns are all about getting to a leg or into a dominant position, not just getting someone to their butt for a few seconds. If you hit a snapdown and get to the front headlock, that's immediate submission threat, regardless of what's on the clock.

It's true that takedowns in a BJJ context, especially in competition, get judged differently. Eli's right about Rolls, the old-school guys used takedowns to get dominant, not just for points. In the GB fundamentals curriculum, we spend week three on takedowns, but it's mainly wrestling-style double-legs and single-legs, with some basic throws. There's not a lot of specific focus on how to transition immediately into a submission or control from the takedown itself, it's more about getting the opponent down safely. The focus is more on basic control once you hit the mat. A lot of the advanced setups are for after the takedown.

I’ve always focused on my stand-up game more for self-defense than for competition points, especially since starting at 47. My coach, Dave, really helped me adapt. When I started having knee issues around my second year of training, he adjusted my takedown drills. Instead of continuous double-leg entries, we worked on snap-downs and single-leg takedowns from a defensive posture. It allows me to still practice getting someone to the ground without putting too much strain on my meniscus. It’s all about working with the body you have. I avoid positions that put too much pressure on my knees, like deep half guard.