Back Mount?

Joshuaace

Joshuaace

27X World Geezer Belt Champion
@red
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
9,345
Reaction score
9,178
What's your definition? I've always used the word "mount" to specify "top". So a back mount would be controlling someone's back WHILE having the TOP position. I've always referred to taking the back without taking the top as "back control".

I see a lot of people saying Islam had "back mount" on Volk in the 4th. Did I miss a position? Is my definition wrong? Are people using the term incorrectly? The difference between "back control" and "back mount" is more than just semantics imo.

I scored the 4th for Volk. Give me grief for that if you want, but what I am really after is the Sherbro definition for "back mount".
 
This is a dumb, uneducated answer, but thinking back to fights I've seen and what the commentators or others call things, I seem to think it boils down to the body triangle.

If someone gets the back, maybe even has hooks in, but has no body triangle, it seems to be back control.

But...

If someone gets the back, and gets the body triangle locked in, it seems to be called back mount.

My only theory is that the body triangle makes it more difficult for those to reverse or escape, thus linking it in viewers minds to the dominance of the mount (which was much more dominant back in the day).
 
I would agree with your statement.
Mount should be only applicable when one fighter is literally mounting the other.
So a back mount would be for example when you take the back from turtle without rolling over.
I would argue that this definiton goes in one direction only. Back mount is a form of back control. Meaning it would be included in back control if not specified further.

I think that can get confusing sometimes. With a body triangle for example, fighters will sometimes roll to a side, where they actually end up with quite a bit of the opponents weight on them, so in individual cases, there might be an argument to call that back mount as well.
I don't think that really was the situation in Islam vs Volk though.
 
Joshuaace said:
What's your definition? I've always used the word "mount" to specify "top". So a back mount would be controlling someone's back WHILE having the TOP position. I've always referred to taking the back without taking the top as "back control".

I see a lot of people saying Islam had "back mount" on Volk in the 4th. Did I miss a position? Is my definition wrong? Are people using the term incorrectly? The difference between "back control" and "back mount" is more than just semantics imo.

I scored the 4th for Volk. Give me grief for that if you want, but what I am really after is the Sherbro definition for "back mount".
Click to expand...
The thing with back "mount" it's not always in top position. For example Volk and Islam were stalemated and both on their sides. That's 50/50 right there. No one is more dominant in that position if nothing is going on. That's usually when grapplers stall that position when they are stuck on their side or stuck against the cage and can't work any of their submissions or ground and pound and just hold on to stall the action. Also if they are the ones on their back and the top fighter is punching at them from behind their head. The damage is actually being done by the fighter in back mount and the one in back mount is the one that's actually in defense.

This is why people need to start viewing these positions differently. It's not grappling competitions, there are strikes involved and those positions aren't really dominant in mma like people want to think they are when it's just used to try and stall the action instead.
 
Joshuaace said:
What's your definition? I've always used the word "mount" to specify "top". So a back mount would be controlling someone's back WHILE having the TOP position. I've always referred to taking the back without taking the top as "back control".

I see a lot of people saying Islam had "back mount" on Volk in the 4th. Did I miss a position? Is my definition wrong? Are people using the term incorrectly? The difference between "back control" and "back mount" is more than just semantics imo.

I scored the 4th for Volk. Give me grief for that if you want, but what I am really after is the Sherbro definition for "back mount".
Click to expand...
What about "backpack"?

upload_2023-2-15_15-27-32.jpeg
 
I always thought back mount was simply having taken the back securely. Whether you're on top or bottom, you're in the position of control where you can effectively strike and they cannot, you can attack submissions and they cannot. It is a position of dominance. If you google "back mount BJJ" It defines it and even gives you pictures under images, it isn't required for you to be on top of your opponent while having the back, no.
 
Last edited:
"Mount" is two knees on the canvas, posturing like riding a horse,

not a body lock.

You can lock a body lock, and posture up to a mount position,

but this did not happen, nor does it happen with all body locks.

Mounted body locks are rarer than most positions.
You can blow your knee easily, unless you're BJ Penn.
 
HuskySamoan said:
I always thought back mount was simply having taken the back securely. Whether you're on top or bottom, you're in the position of control where you can effectively strike and they cannot, you can attack submissions and they cannot. It is a position of dominance. If you google "back mount BJJ" It defines it and even gives you pictures under images, it isn't required for you to be on top of your opponent while having the back, no.
Click to expand...

So to you the terms "back mount" and "back control" are interchangeable. To me they are not, and never have been. I'm not saying you are wrong. I just want to know whether others have a similar definition.
 
FIghtxIQ said:
The thing with back "mount" it's not always in top position. For example Volk and Islam were stalemated and both on their sides. That's 50/50 right there. No one is more dominant in that position if nothing is going on. That's usually when grapplers stall that position when they are stuck on their side or stuck against the cage and can't work any of their submissions or ground and pound and just hold on to stall the action. Also if they are the ones on their back and the top fighter is punching at them from behind their head. The damage is actually being done by the fighter in back mount and the one in back mount is the one that's actually in defense.

This is why people need to start viewing these positions differently. It's not grappling competitions, there are strikes involved and those positions aren't really dominant in mma like people want to think they are when it's just used to try and stall the action instead.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. The shitty backwards arm punches don't do anything. The body triangle is uncomfortable (it has finished fights before all by itself) and there's a constant threat of RNC.
 
back mount is simply straddling someone's back
without hooks in and without a body lock.

The moment you secure legs, or triangle the body, it's a body lock.

The term "back mount" seems to have become commonly used,
but not necessarily accurate.

Not something that makes sense.

"standing backpack" is new as well.

As "backpack" wasn't "back mount"... it was securing "back position" via a specific "body lock".

This stuff might not matter to everyone,
but when you roll the words matter.

Feeling old.
 
It's more semantics than a significant scoring criteria. A judge isn't going to say "oh, it's ok. Fighter A has fighter B's back, but he's not on top so actually fighter B is winning". Please, tell us, how many opportunities does a fighter have to win when their back is taken in any fashion? Attacking the legs? Turn it into a neutral position by spinning into full guard? That's about it. Meanwhile, the controlling fighter can take full mount, attempt an RNC, armbar, twister, land much more impactful strikes. It's a pretty lopsided position regardless of how people are trying to justify it. The only way a dominant position, including full mount, can be equaled or superseded is if the controlling fighter does absolutely nothing with it. No strikes, submission, or anything.
 
TheMMAnalyst said:
.why’d you mention giving the 4th to Volk in your post?

<BC1>
Click to expand...

Because I was actively discussing that round in another thread. Which was my motivation for seeking clarification on other Sherbro's opinion on the position. Do you think I'm up to something more nefarious than that?
 
Joshuaace said:
What's your definition? I've always used the word "mount" to specify "top". So a back mount would be controlling someone's back WHILE having the TOP position. I've always referred to taking the back without taking the top as "back control".

I see a lot of people saying Islam had "back mount" on Volk in the 4th. Did I miss a position? Is my definition wrong? Are people using the term incorrectly? The difference between "back control" and "back mount" is more than just semantics imo.

I scored the 4th for Volk. Give me grief for that if you want, but what I am really after is the Sherbro definition for "back mount".
Click to expand...
I'd look at it this way: A rear naked choke would still be a rear naked choke whether you were in top or bottom position. I would think that once you've "mounted" someone's back, if you keep that position with body triangle wrapped around waist, whether the defender is facing the sky or facing the canvas, the back control hasn't been reversed, only the direction the defender is facing.
 
Last edited:
Joshuaace said:
Because I was actively discussing that round in another thread. Which was my motivation for seeking clarification on other Sherbro's opinion on the position. Do you think I'm up to something more nefarious than that?
Click to expand...

It just seemed completely irrelevant to the topic you posted.

So I don’t know if you are just throwing chum to the sharks or positing that because it was just back-control instead of back-mount it wasn’t that dominant a position and that’s why Islam lost the round.

Slightly confusing transition to end your post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,266,651
Messages
57,415,836
Members
175,697
Latest member
kerwin

Share this page

Back
Top