mount vs half guard for mma

[Ariel Nunez]

So I'm listening to JRE fight companion show with joe,eddie, Ian McCall & Brendan Schaub, and eddie and Brendan get into a small debate about full mount vs top half. They really didn't go into full detail as to why one over the other so uhh any info please....por favor?

[TaylorWolf]

I think Brendan is just very confident in HIS top-half game. He was saying personally he is happy to just stay there, work ground-n-pound, elbows, and eventually a submission.

Eddie was basically saying if you put equal time into mount and top half position, you would have more advantages in mount. More control and more submission options. (Mount IS the superior position if you invest the time)

However Brenden has not been spending equal time learning both. He puts all his chips in top half, so from his point of view, why mount if he rarely trains it. Brenden wants to win in any way he can, while Eddie wants to showcase the very best and most exciting jiu-jitsu techniques.

My take on it at least.

[Ross Davidson]

Both are good for mma imo. Mount seems like it's better for ground and pound, whereas top half usually has more submission opportunities in my brief experience (D'arce, jnt, leg locks, gulliotines, etc). If I'm on top in a fight, I'm feeling pretty good, just so long as I can get out of full guard

[Mike Nall]

Both are good for mma imo. Mount seems like it's better for ground and pound, whereas top half usually has more submission opportunities in my brief experience (D'arce, jnt, leg locks, gulliotines, etc). If I'm on top in a fight, I'm feeling pretty good, just so long as I can get out of full guard

solid ass posting right chea

[David Rosado]

Both are good for mma imo. Mount seems like it's better for ground and pound, whereas top half usually has more submission opportunities in my brief experience (D'arce, jnt, leg locks, gulliotines, etc). If I'm on top in a fight, I'm feeling pretty good, just so long as I can get out of full guard

I think I would prefer mount for GnP. Harder for them to sweep. Harder for them to escape back to the feet. To recover guard, they're most likely going to have to get back to half guard first. So I have less risk of being swept, and even if they improve their position, I'm still in top half and I have all those options you mentioned. But mount does have a lot of good subs. Especially in MMA. Monoplata series which can put your right in the mono mount which has all of the rubber guard options. Katagatame, S mount, armbar, mounted triangle, barataplata. I would favor the mount in MMA. But everyone's styles and preferences are different.

[tazy]

I'm still in top half and I have all those options you mentioned. But mount does have a lot of good subs. Especially in MMA. Monoplata series which can put your right in the mono mount which has all of the rubber guard options. Katagatame, S mount, armbar, mounted triangle, barataplata.....!!!!!









----------------------------------
Tazy

[Ross Davidson]

Oh for sure, definitely don't wanna disrespect the position of mount at all. I go their a lot to sky dive and force the soul out of their body through diaphragm suffocation. Also get arm bars from their from s mount from time to time and from opportune swim moves when they get on their side. But the latter situation is kind of the underlying reason why I prefer to get subs from side control and top half. Top half limits their movements, and the general defense to sweeps is either strong sprawls with your free leg, or submission attempts. And side control allows for hip control, mobility, and a constant pressure control, using your upper body as a pivot point. However, I will admit that that's just my take for grappling matches. Never having been in an mma match I cannot say which I'll prefer for submissions, as punches will make subs much easier from mount. But if I am going to play as I practice, then I'll most likely get subs from side and top half much more often.

[Mike Nall]

I think it's personal preference. Top half is probably easier for control, and you can;t throw as much power into punches, but you have a lot of solid submission options. You can work a front headlock series (guillotines, darces, anacondas, JNTs), as well as kimuras and figure four armlocks, or keylocks. You can work arm triangles. Most of these don't involve you risking the top position. You can also go for leg locks like kneebars and heel hooks.

The mount gives you a great opportunity to rain down powerful shots, which will likely finish the fight or expose the back. There are less finishing options that don't involve risking the loss of position. It's generally easier to lose the position, but if you have someone mounted you can make a great argument that they're completely fucked. Whereas in top half that's not such a guarantee.

I'd say that mount = higher risk but higher reward and top half = lower risk and mid-level reward.

[David Rosado]

Top half limits their movements, and the general defense to sweeps is either strong sprawls with your free leg, or submission attempts.

???? I don't know man. I come from a school that is full of guys with great half guards. Just for myself I can think of a ton of things I'm doing from half guard to protect me from damage and sweep while negating subs. As soon as I whip up to perfect double unders, you lost mostly everything. Reach up to your shoulder and that JNT/Darce series disappears. Sprawling is a typical defense and yet, the 10th Planet system has options for that too so you're still not safe. The 10th planet half guard has so many threats. Bottom mount doesn't have as many options.


If I'm in bottom mount, what do I have? Wrap around your waist? Great, now I'm open to monoplatas. Shrimp? Great, now I'm back in half guard. But I have to fight to get the half guard. It's harder to shrimp to half guard than it is to whip up to perfect double unders. Also, shrimping opens your head up to get punched.

I think MMA guys may prefer staying in top half because hardly anyone really has a killer half guard in MMA. I can think of three guys. Werdum, Big Nog, Marcin Held. But most guys use half to survive, not to sweep or sub. So when you're not worried about sweeps, then yeah it's easier to just stay there and throw arm punches.

Bottom mount is just a worse position with less options. So I would rather be in mount. I get to punch with much less risk of chained together sweeps or sub attempts while I get to punch and set up my own subs. So I would prefer to be in mount because I am making the opponent work much harder to survive and I have much less to worry about and I can simply focus on producing damage and danger.

I'm still in top half and I have all those options you mentioned.

----------------------------------
Tazy

Please explain how in the world you are hitting monoplatas from top half. Are your legs insanely long? Are you made of rubber?

[David Rosado]

I think it's personal preference.

I'd say that mount = higher risk but higher reward and top half = lower risk and mid-level reward.

I agree. In the end it is a matter of personal preference. I guess I'm old school because I still believe in the old philosophy of pass, mount, finish. Sure you can finish before you get to mount, but I still see the mount as being the best position for punch damage, control, and finishing opportunities.

So help me understand your philosophy. How is mount riskier than top half? In top half I have to worry about old schools, electric chairs, deep half sweeps, knee bar attempts, toe hold attempts, dog fight and everything that comes with it, back takes, and I'm sure there's more that I'm not mentioning. With mount you have to worry about upa, bucking, shrimping, the occasional flexible guys who can enter heel hooks from there. What else?