Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1

    Why don't EBI Overtime rules allow full mount (or side control)?

    It seems like so many EBI overtime matches that start in back mount end up with one guy "escaping" to full mount, and then the round ending. This seems a little ridiculous since one competitor is still in a dominant position, and (as Conor McGregor just found out) it ignores the interchangeability between full and back mount that make both positions so deadly in our art. Indeed, when I watch highest level matches that end in submission there is often a chain of subs that can travel through multiple positions before ending in a point of no return. So I have two questions:

    1. Why not continue the "riding time" from back to full mount (or side control) until one competitor escapes to a neutral position (half, closed, top, open, feet) and is not actively defending any submissions?

    2. Why not have the opening OT round still be sub-only but starting from a dominant position (i.e. start from back, both guys have 2 mins to submit even if one escapes)?

  2. #2
    Jerry Walker's Avatar
    Array

    School
    Victory MMA; 10th Planet Ronin
    Location
    Joplin, MO
    Posts
    232
    Length of OT rounds would get out of control. You have to draw the line somewhere, and somewhere short.
    Don't believe everything you think.

  3. #3
    Tim Bruhn's Avatar
    Array

    School
    Team AMMA
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    406
    As above and it's about escaping a threatening submission, not a dominant position.

    It will continue into mount if a armtriangle is being threatened or something along those lines.

    Think the OT rules are pretty spot on personally.
    www.twitter.com/totalpac

    www.totalpackagepromotions.net
    Don't stop dreaming just cause you wake

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Bruhn View Post
    As above and it's about escaping a threatening submission, not a dominant position.

    It will continue into mount if a armtriangle is being threatened or something along those lines.

    Think the OT rules are pretty spot on personally.
    Yes, but simply turning from back mount to full mount is not escaping anything, which is why you would never normally do that except as a desperation move. And the back with just seatbelt is not really threatening a submission-- it's just a dominant position.

  5. #5
    Tim Gillette's Avatar
    Array

    School
    Morning Star Jiu Jitsu - Denver
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    147
    I've always thought of it in terms of the back being more dominant than the mount. Once you escape the back and end up in mount it is an escape to a less dominant position.

  6. #6
    Tim Bruhn's Avatar
    Array

    School
    Team AMMA
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by Princess Guillotine View Post
    Yes, but simply turning from back mount to full mount is not escaping anything, which is why you would never normally do that except as a desperation move. And the back with just seatbelt is not really threatening a submission-- it's just a dominant position.
    Yeah ok, I'll accept that. Guess the grips for me make it more 'threatening a sub' for me. I know I'd rather be mounted that someone locked on my back, both hooks and seatbelt.

    Could just be me. I get what you're saying though.
    www.twitter.com/totalpac

    www.totalpackagepromotions.net
    Don't stop dreaming just cause you wake

  7. #7
    Eddie Bravo's Avatar
    Array

    School
    10th Planet HQ
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    7,812
    Jerry Walker & Tim Bruhn are correct.

    going from the back to mount or side control is going backwards
    Follow me on Instagram @eddiebravo10p

    Follow me on twitter @eddiebravo

    SUBSCRIBE to my videos youtube.com/twistereddie

    Listen to my music soundcloud.com/eddie-bravo

    Join 10p on facebook.com/10thplanetjj

    Click on EVENTS for upcoming seminars and comedy dates

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo View Post
    Jerry Walker & Tim Bruhn are correct.

    going from the back to mount or side control is going backwards
    I get your point, but tell that to Kron Gracie. Competitors are allowed to go from back to truck, so how is that different from back to full mount?

  9. #9
    sean applegate's Avatar
    Array

    School
    10P Gulf Shores, Atlanta, Atmore
    Location
    gulf shores, AL
    Posts
    1,550
    the overtime positions are "dead zones". meaning, they are positions where the entire focus is on the kill. limb isolation based positioning is different from body control based positioning.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by sean applegate View Post
    the overtime positions are "dead zones". meaning, they are positions where the entire focus is on the kill. limb isolation based positioning is different from body control based positioning.
    I don't know if having the back with only seatbelt is really isolating the neck because the opponent has his arms in to defend. Most EBI competitors choose the back in an effort to lock on a body triangle and win via riding time, not get a RNC. Allowing full mount (and side control?) would force the back-mounted opponent to actually have to escape to a neutral position, thus opening up more submission opportunities in the process. Imagine what this would look like: an opponent in OT turns from back to full mount; he knows the clock is ticking so he frantically bucks and rolls and pushes on the knee; then BAM, mounted triangle and he taps.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •