Mount vs. side control

[The Colonel]

So yesterday I went up to our BJJ club and I was teaching that day (I'm the assistant instructor there and teach classes whenever our main instructor can't make it) and along the way I decided to go over some mount escapes with the guys. Lately we've spent so much time on half-guard (mostly Kesting's stuff) as well as working guard passes that it seems like everything has been revolving around the guard.

We've been doing no gi lately now that its getting warmer here, but since I was going over mount escapes I wanted the guys to wear their gi's so they would have to worry about collar chokes as well.

It was just me and three other guys: a guy who is a brand new blue belt, another guy who is pretty brand new to grappling, and a third guy that has wrestled for like 20 something years and coaches wrestling, he actually gives me a lot of problems because of his mat experience and athleticism.

I went over the upa, elbow escape, escaping to butterfly guard, as well as escaping to a heel hook/half boston crab and they loved the stuff. But what was crazy was how poor all of them were at escaping as well as riding the mount.

The big wrestler guy honestly is incredible at side mount and I have a hell of a hard time escaping, but when he had me mounted I'd be out in literally seconds. None of them could get me off of them unless I really took it easy on them and sort of coached them along the way or showed them the escapes/openings I was presenting.

But it makes me wonder, especially after the wrestler said that he doesn't really feel comfortable mounted, is side control better than the mount? I mean, it really feels like these guys either A) haven't been exposed to mounted attacks enough, or B) they just prefer side control.

Honestly for no gi I prefer side control over mount a little bit, but I was just shocked how strong they were in some areas and weak in this one area that to me is one of the most dominant positions in BJJ. I want the guys to be well rounded grapplers and not just stick to what gives them the submission. I come from a pretty traditional BJJ background (Rickson Gracie/Pedro Sauer affiliates) and achieving the mount was just stressed over and over again. Thoughts?

 

[Graunie]

Option A

If you have trouble getting and holding mount that means that you won't spend a good deal of time there so you end up spending too much time in other areas by default. Kind of a catch 22 I guess.

This is why I like positional drilling so much. People say that new guys should just roll from the beginning, but then they don't get a chance to develop positions like the mount.

 

[Ybot]

I definately would disagree that side control is a better position. Certainly there are more options from side control, and I think that is why more people spend time working on side control than mount. But I am a firm believer in quality over quantity and think that a good mount has been under stressed in recent times.

 

[ahcshon]

imo someone with a strong mount is way harder to deal with than someone with a strong side control. Side control players who don't do much = LnP

 

[UrbanSavage**]

IMO, side control is an easier position to maintain/submit from the less experienced you are. A lot of guys shy away from mount because they aren't able to defend the upa or hip escape, that's what I always used to do. I'm not saying I'm advanced, but just that the logical order of advancing your position (pass guard, side mount, mount) isn't true for everyone.

Mount escapes, mount control and submissions from the mount deserve the same amount of training time as any other position. A lot of guys think that once they get mount that the fight is over, which isn't always true. Guys are probably just naturally better at side control because unless you pass straight to mount, you're almost always going to side control first. So, guys end up becoming more comfortable and more experienced there.

Anyway, IMO, most guys just prefer side control because they're there more often than mount. In side mount, you can take mount and take the back and in mount, you can take the back and take side control, so they're even in that aspect. I think as you become advanced, though, the mount holds an edge over side control. Obviously someone thought mount was better than side control, because you get 4 points for securing it in point BJJ.

This reply ended up all over the place but I guess I really just wanted to say that technically, mount is better than side control, but for many BJJ practitioners it isn't.

 

[EndoG]

I don't know; when I started BJJ though I thought mount was 10x easier to escape than side control. I often gave people mount so I could escape. Honesty, I still find it easier to escape, if more dangerous due to subs.

One of the things I had a lot of trouble with (still do really) is focusing weight on my opponent when I was in mount. It was awhile before someone mentioned I was putting all my weight on my knees and not on my op (good to avoid certain escapes, transition to back, but not uniformly so).

You've been doing this a lot longer than I, but I'm just giving you a newer guy's thoughts in case that helps with your teaching.


[Oh, the other big difference for me between side control and mount was that controlling my opponent and their arms (scooping the arms) required a lot of novel hip movment for me. Side control involved a lot more upper body coordination (chest, arms, and some knees), which I think is more natural for most...]

 

[georgejjr]

Are you talking about MMA or BJJ? Gi or no-gi?

For MMA I definitely prefer side control (though that's probably because I have fairly short legs for my weight division (HW), and often I ride too high in mount against barrel chested guys. As well, a good defender will break your posture pretty quick if you lean forward at all (either to strike or to position for a submission) - you really don't see that many finishes (either GnP or submission) from mount in MMA, though its often successfully used to wear the guy down. Personally I find GnP easier sitting in the person's guard than in mount (short legs again :icon_cry2). For no-gi BJJ I also prefer side control, most likely for the same reason - and coming from wrestling I find I can get side control from takedown against most guys, so it's my most common position anyway.

In gi based BJJ I like the mount, as the gi makes it possible to ride well, though I still prefer side control (again, generally end up there after the throw so just used to it). Moreover, in BJJ you don't have to worry about the ref standing you up quickly if your opponent breaks your posture when you have mount.

My feeling is that if you're tall for your weight division (meaning long legs), or against someone who's fairly thin in the torso, mount is a pretty good position. If you're short in the legs compared to your opponent's torso thickness it becomes considerably harder. Hunt was able to hold Fedor down for a while in side control, I doubt he'd have lasted long on top of Fedor if he'd been in mount (unless he'd gotten there via atomic butt drop :icon_twis)

 

[Saith]

I've only been doing this for three months, but without striking it seems to me that mount is inferior to side control. It seems everyone else disagrees with me though.

 

[BlastBeats]

Wow, Im suprised people are choosing side control over mount. I've always felt more comfortable in the mount. Its a more dominant position with more control.

 

[Bucketbot]

I think that is really a matter of personal perference!

I like to attack from both, but if i had to choose...side mount all the way. It is by far my favorite position to attack from.

I would not say one is better than the other, again it really depends on the person, and the person you are grappling.

Again i prefer the side mount and can pin most of the people at my club quite well. The dudes that i have trouble with, i switch up to mount (or a modified mount, or even half guard on top) and that works well.

So long story long...it depends! haha

 

[BrokenCouch]

Wow, Im suprised people are choosing side control over mount. I've always felt more comfortable in the mount. Its a more dominant position with more control.

i agree - and you have more options too like s mount. but some people really feel comfortable in side control, and there are more options to switch to in side control to maintain it too

 

[Saith]

I guess in a competition mount would be better since you get more points for it than side mount, so you can go for more subs without worrying about getting reversed.

 

[killer_kicks88]

check it out, some exercises on the stability ball that i believe helps with mount and such... Judo, BJJ, Kyokushin, Oh my!

 

[fightingrabbit]

im pretty light, So whenever i wrassled and got into mount, my friends could buck me off.

In side mount though. I could hold a fucker there all day.

 

[The Colonel]

I use them both pretty interchangeably honest, I also play a lot of knee on belly, very often I'll set up a choke from mount and then as the opponent starts to escape finish it from knee on belly or side control, and I'll do this vice versa as well.

I've always been a big believer in getting away from what works best for you and branching out into other areas. For instance, if you're great at side control but suck at mount, isn't that a hole in your game when you get down to it?

 

[codemonkey76]

i think the guys who suck at mount, just choose to stay there with all their might and not get bucked off, the guys who are good at mount, transition back and forth between side mount, knee on belly to mount and backmount. They are the ones that are tough to dislodge

 

[350 lbs fist]

^^^+1

To be good at mount requires more technique than sidemount IMO so many forego the learning process the mount requires for proficiency to take the easier route in sidecontrol.

But a devastating mount is hella hard to escape.

 

[YeahBee]

my coach always said that a pin is just good if you at any given moment can stand up from it

 

[georgejjr]

i agree - and you have more options too like s mount. but some people really feel comfortable in side control, and there are more options to switch to in side control to maintain it too

Well, you have options like north-south from side control, or the various scarf holds. Again, s-mount is nice if you've long enough legs that you can keep a solid base while controlling his arms, but is harder with shorter legs. I'd be curious how tall (relative to weight division) the guys who prefer one or the other are. I notice that Fedor (being short for a HW) tends to use side more than top as well, whereas Anderson Silva seems to prefer top mount (again, tall for his weight division) ... though I suspect there are counter examples. Does Monson use side or top most of the time?

 

[The Colonel]

I notice that Fedor (being short for a HW) tends to use side more than top as well, whereas Anderson Silva seems to prefer top mount (again, tall for his weight division) ... though I suspect there are counter examples. Does Monson use side or top most of the time?

That's MMA though and even then you gotta look at it as being 4 point attacks vs. Unified Rules. If four point attacks are allowed side control is far better since you can knee anywhere (you can't really knee from mount, not effectively at least) plus with side control you can pop up to your feet fast and soccer kick them like all the Chute Boxe guys did. As far as unified rules go, mount may very well be better since you can use elbows.