3 ms·

A saying I have related to this is "Rules make sports." The skills and strategies that matter in a sport develop around the rules. Change the rules and you chan

A saying I have related to this is "Rules make sports." The skills and strategies that matter in a sport develop around the rules. Change the rules and you change the sport. The judo example the author presented is actually one of my go-to examples as well. Not only did disallowing grabbing the legs take out an entire suite of offensive options, it took out defensive options in judo. In judo, the main way to win is to throw your opponent such that they land on their back. Before, a judo player could grab their opponents legs as a way to counter a throw. Now grabbing the legs is a penalty. But allowing yourself to be thrown is going to at least result in your opponent getting a point, and has potential for you to lose the match. So the solution is, in some situations, judo players will just intentionally face-plant onto the mat to avoid the throw. It looks silly, no one would do it in a self-defense situation, but rules make sports. Note that just about all combat and grappling sports have this quirk: because they have rules, and are not just a free-form fight, you're going to encounter situations where the optimal thing to do in the sport would be terrible to do in a real fight.

83457 7y ago
The 2004 Olympics Judo representative for USA at 99kg, Rhadi Ferguson, retired from Judo competition after leg grabs were made illegal because that was such a big part of his game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Jj7r3CLwQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Jj7r3CLwQ
_hardwaregeek 7y ago
Fencing exhibits this phenomenon nicely. Fencing does not come even close to mimicking a real sword fight. One reason for this is right of way, basically the idea that the person who attacks first gets precedence and the onus is on their opponent to defend against the attack before attacking themselves. However what is defined as an "attack" in fencing is very different from what a layperson would assume. Really, it's defined as forward movement without a clear intention to take the blade. Which means that tactics such as advancing with ones arm held back are rewarded. A lot of people, upon hearing this, respond with something along the lines of "fencing is stupid! We should make our own sword fighting system that encourages real fighting!". HEMA is a nice example of this. Putting aside the questionable logic of a martial art based around swords, what inevitably happens is that as the system develops, people want to compete, to see who is the better fighter. Since they clearly can't judge fights by, well, murder, they need to come up with a rules and points system. Once this system develops, someone starts to realize "hmm, if I do x action, I can win fairly easily". Thus a meta develops. Once a meta develops, everybody starts using the meta to win and the fighting becomes less mimicking killing people with a sword and more competing in a sport. Some argue that the way to prevent this is to not have competitions or rules. But...then you have a bunch of people waving around swords with no clue as to whether it's actually effective. Side note, fencing has had a few of these major meta developments in its history too. Johan Harmenberg famously pushed epee's meta to be a lot more athletic and dynamic.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Many martial-like sports have a fundamental problem caused by this. In essence, there's a sequence: 1. are certain techniques that are likely to cause injury even with proper protective gear, that sucks in a sport; 2. so we make rules to prohibit using such techniques; 3. so the meta changes so that realistic tactics (which obviously need to protect against the dangerous technique) become suboptimal, and the new meta is 'unnatural' as it leaves the fighters vulnerable to something that's prohibited but would be used in any real situation.
rlayton2 7y ago
Another great example is the difference between Rugby Union and Rugby League. While there are lots of rule differences, a key one for me: in Rugby League, defenders must go back 10m after a tackle, while in Rugby Union they do not. This leads Union to be a very close affair with play rarely moving without consistent strong effort, while any fast player in League will get at least 5 of those meters back after every tackle. Very different games strategically, while from an outsiders perspective they are just the same.
dntbnmpls 7y ago
> "Rules make sports." The Houston Astros: It's news to me.

83457 7y ago

The 2004 Olympics Judo representative for USA at 99kg, Rhadi Ferguson, retired from Judo competition after leg grabs were made illegal because that was such a big part of his game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Jj7r3CLwQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Jj7r3CLwQ

_hardwaregeek 7y ago

Fencing exhibits this phenomenon nicely. Fencing does not come even close to mimicking a real sword fight. One reason for this is right of way, basically the idea that the person who attacks first gets precedence and the onus is on their opponent to defend against the attack before attacking themselves. However what is defined as an "attack" in fencing is very different from what a layperson would assume. Really, it's defined as forward movement without a clear intention to take the blade. Which means that tactics such as advancing with ones arm held back are rewarded. A lot of people, upon hearing this, respond with something along the lines of "fencing is stupid! We should make our own sword fighting system that encourages real fighting!". HEMA is a nice example of this. Putting aside the questionable logic of a martial art based around swords, what inevitably happens is that as the system develops, people want to compete, to see who is the better fighter. Since they clearly can't judge fights by, well, murder, they need to come up with a rules and points system. Once this system develops, someone starts to realize "hmm, if I do x action, I can win fairly easily". Thus a meta develops. Once a meta develops, everybody starts using the meta to win and the fighting becomes less mimicking killing people with a sword and more competing in a sport. Some argue that the way to prevent this is to not have competitions or rules. But...then you have a bunch of people waving around swords with no clue as to whether it's actually effective. Side note, fencing has had a few of these major meta developments in its history too. Johan Harmenberg famously pushed epee's meta to be a lot more athletic and dynamic.

PeterisP 7y ago
Many martial-like sports have a fundamental problem caused by this. In essence, there's a sequence: 1. are certain techniques that are likely to cause injury even with proper protective gear, that sucks in a sport; 2. so we make rules to prohibit using such techniques; 3. so the meta changes so that realistic tactics (which obviously need to protect against the dangerous technique) become suboptimal, and the new meta is 'unnatural' as it leaves the fighters vulnerable to something that's prohibited but would be used in any real situation.

rlayton2 7y ago

Another great example is the difference between Rugby Union and Rugby League. While there are lots of rule differences, a key one for me: in Rugby League, defenders must go back 10m after a tackle, while in Rugby Union they do not. This leads Union to be a very close affair with play rarely moving without consistent strong effort, while any fast player in League will get at least 5 of those meters back after every tackle. Very different games strategically, while from an outsiders perspective they are just the same.

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> "Rules make sports." The Houston Astros: It's news to me.