Roger Gracie on Lex Fridman's podcast

[Flower2dPeople]

Breaking down the Buchecha match and random stuff.

 

[Chokez]

The best grappling conversations to listen to at the moment are Lex Fridman with Danaher, Pedro and Stevens. Amazing to have these long discussions. I can't wait to listen to this one. With Lex having a Soviet background and Russian language skills I'd like to hear him go deep on Sambo too.

 

[Flower2dPeople]

I love how Lex would try to sway Roger a couple of times during their conversation that the back take is more dominant than the mount.

 

[Solidus Snake]

Man, the breakdown of Buchecha's match is pretty epic. How he highlights the precise moments Buchecha lost confidence and why and all the "small" technical mistakes that lead him to eventually win. Amazing.

 

[mattemate]

I love how Lex would try to sway Roger a couple of times during their conversation that the back take is more dominant than the mount.

Just trying to get Roger to steel man that argument...

 

[mattemate]

Man, the breakdown of Buchecha's match is pretty epic. How he highlights the precise moments Buchecha lost confidence and why and all the "small" technical mistakes that lead him to eventually win. Amazing.

I feel like he did a better breakdown a couple years back on the Grappling Central Podcast. Ryan Ford is a great interviewer.

 

[Patrick Jane]

I find Lex Friedman's refusal to agree that the mount is the most dominant position very entertaining. Discussions about such things remind me of the types of back and forth you see on internet forums, and i love those too.

 

[ChickenBrother]

I love how Lex would try to sway Roger a couple of times during their conversation that the back take is more dominant than the mount.

I find Lex Friedman's refusal to agree that the mount is the most dominant position very entertaining. Discussions about such things remind me of the types of back and forth you see on internet forums, and i love those too.

Great podcast and the mount vs. back mount debate was fascinating. Fridman makes a compelling case for back mount. At 1:41:20, he shows Roger's own sub statistics with 18 chokes from the back, 12 cross chokes (presumably from mount), and 5 RNCs. When Fridman points this out, Roger says that's "because people panic when I mount. They turn their back and I choke them out." Then Fridman dismissively with "That's one explanation." LMAO.

Roger has a dominant mount and an old school game influenced by old school Judo. I believe he even wore a Judo gi at BJJ worlds. But if his mount were more unassailable and it's the position he prefers, guys shouldn't be able to turn out of it to give up their backs and then being finished in back mount without being able to escape. His own statistics seem to point to back mount being more dominant.

 

[Patrick Jane]

Roger has a dominant mount and an old school game influenced by old school Judo. I believe he even wore a Judo gi at BJJ worlds. But if his mount were more unassailable and it's the position he prefers, guys shouldn't be able to turn out of it to give up their backs and then being finished in back mount without being able to escape. His own statistics seem to point to back mount being more dominant.

Not sure about that. For one, i don't know in how many of the matches where he finished with a choke from the back he even established mount position at all. And there certainly is also a difference between someone being able to just turn around when he mounts as opposed to turn around when he alread established a dominant mount. Maybe i'm just hearing what i want to hear though because i already completely agreed with Gracie's assessment beforehand.

But then again there is also the question about what constitutes dominance. I would love to see a statistical breakdown of how many people escaped from his fully established back control and how many people escaped from his fully established mount.

On another note, i find it fascinating how their personalities manifested both in their opinion about grappling positions and in their arguing style. What i mean by that is that Lex Friedman prefers knee mount over mount position because of the openings created from there (technically that means that when the position gets escaped, you tend to not be in trouble but rather have opportunities with lesser risk of ending in bottom guard or top half guard as with a mount). When he made that statement, he immediately backpedaled in a humorous self-deprecating way by basically claiming he is not good, but he used that claim to advance the conversation. He basically doesn't like to fully commit but rather reserve the opportunity to be dynamic. Compare that to Roger Gracie, who gave an absolute, 100 % clear answer in favor of mount position and challenged Lex to convince him otherwise, committing fully to the position in both conversation and grappling.

 

[ChickenBrother]

Not sure about that. For one, i don't know in how many of the matches where he finished with a choke from the back he even established mount position at all. And there certainly is also a difference between someone being able to just turn around when he mounts as opposed to turn around when he alread established a dominant mount. Maybe i'm just hearing what i want to hear though because i already completely agreed with Gracie's assessment beforehand.

But then again there is also the question about what constitutes dominance. I would love to see a statistical breakdown of how many people escaped from his fully established back control and how many people escaped from his fully established mount.

On another note, i find it fascinating how their personalities manifested both in their opinion about grappling positions and in their arguing style. What i mean by that is that Lex Friedman prefers knee mount over mount position because of the openings created from there (technically that means that when the position gets escaped, you tend to not be in trouble but rather have opportunities with lesser risk of ending in bottom guard or top half guard as with a mount). When he made that statement, he immediately backpedaled in a humorous self-deprecating way by basically claiming he is not good, but he used that claim to advance the conversation. He basically doesn't like to fully commit but rather reserve the opportunity to be dynamic. Compare that to Roger Gracie, who gave an absolute, 100 % clear answer in favor of mount position and challenged Lex to convince him otherwise, committing fully to the position in both conversation and grappling.

Yeah Fridman is a good conversationalist and I like how he kept nudging Roger to keep the debate going, but in a self-deprecating way. Agree it's hard to interpret the data without knowing which positions led to what, if the mount was established high mount, etc. But come on, 18 back chokes + 5 RNCs = 23 back subs, almost twice his 12 cross chokes and that presumes all 12 were from mount. At worst, the data implies back mount is pretty damn dominant for Roger.

And of course grappling games are individual specific. Notably Roger waffles when probed what other top competitors would say - he's like "I don't care what they would say, I like mount." He also distinguishes between established high mount, which he says is a slow progression from low mount.

It's tough to argue that a tight high mount with your sweaty nuts in they face isn't super dominant. I think it's generally more dominant than back mount facing up, which Roger makes the case for. But more dominant than any back mount? What about back mount with your opponent flattened out? I'd rather be in bottom high mount than that. Basically like regular mount but facing away and unable to even see or address what your opponent is doing. You're literally face down ass up with your opponent driving his hips in, cooking you while waiting to attempt a sub whenever he feels like it.

 

[Patrick Jane]

Yeah Fridman is a good conversationalist and I like how he kept nudging Roger to keep the debate going, but in a self-deprecating manner. Agree it's hard to interpret the data without knowing which positions led to what, if the mount was established high mount, etc. But come on, 18 back chokes + 5 RNCs = 23 back subs, almost twice his 12 cross chokes and that presumes all 12 were from mount. At worst, the data implies back mount is pretty damn dominant for Roger.

The data could imply basically everything you want it to imply. For example, it could paradoxically mean that people drastically overestimate the dominance of the back control position to the point where they don't even focus on direct attacks but instead on getting out of there, which is the point Gracie makes in the breakdown of the Buchecha match ("and now, i'm attacking his neck and he is worried about the hooks. That's a fatal mistake. Defense always comes first"). This is just a thought experiment and not a real argument on my part btw. I believe the dominance of a position has much more to do with control rather than a finishing rate. But even when you think there is valuable information in the Lex Friedman statistic, we have to actually look at it from the whole. If you look at the source (it's from BJJ Heroes), there is not really much reliable information regarding the actual finishing positions. He also has plenty of victories via Armbar / Straight Armlock (i assume they mean the same and are just inconsistent), Ezekiel Choke, "Mounted X Choke" (i assume they just mean cross choke) and unspecified "Submission", "Verbal Tap" and "Choke", which may or may not have been applied from mount position. Moreover, if you look up some of the "chokes from the back", they are not even necessarily done from really established back control but from the side.

Another fun fact is that 8 out of the 18 back chokes were from the 2010 World Championships, where every one of his finishes was a back choke. As this was after years of him submitting everybody from the mount it kind of circles back to the point he made in the video about his opponents panicking about his mount and immediately turn their back, which would at least mean to me that they are more scared of the mount as a position.

But of course grappling games are individual specific. Notably Roger waffles when probed what other top competitors would say - he's like "I don't care what they would say, I like mount." He also distinguishes between established high mount, which he says is a slow progression from low mount.

It's tough to argue that a tight high mount with your sweaty nuts in they face isn't super dominant. I think it's generally more dominant than back mount facing up, which Roger makes the case for. But more dominant than any back mount? What about back mount with your opponent flattened out? I'd rather be in bottom high mount than that. Basically like regular mount but facing away and unable to even see or address what your opponent is doing. You're literally face down ass up with your opponent driving his hips in, cooking you while waiting for him to attempt a sub whenever he feels like it.

I absolutely agree with Gracie on this issue. I guess this circles back to the same claim Lex made about your opponent not being able to see you and not being able to attack with his arms. This is true, but your opponent using his arms to attack you is much less of a threat than your opponent using his arms to build posture or generate force for moving out of the position. For one, it's infinitely easier to generate power to stand up or (if the opponent is one of those wrestlers with brutal leg rides where you cannot even manage to turtle) roll over (at which point you still have back control but are on the bottom with the opponent trying to remove your legs). The other point is that a high mount can be held without much help from your arms, while with a back mount, you better have some sort of wrist control, seatbelt or whatever if you don't want to risk losing the position quickly. That's why i consider it more dominant. I just think it's better control with lower risk and more options.

I'm rather biased regarding this entire issue though, as i was never ever a fan of any form of controlling or pinning hold in a prone position, which is something that comes up in a lot of martial arts. I accept you need it if you want to handcuff someone, but it is, in my opinion, always inferior controlwise, regardless of what type of leg ride, knee mount, hammerlock or whatever you use to hold someone there.

 

[ChickenBrother]

The data could imply basically everything you want it to imply. For example, it could paradoxically mean that people drastically overestimate the dominance of the back control position to the point where they don't even focus on direct attacks but instead on getting out of there, which is the point Gracie makes in the breakdown of the Buchecha match ("and now, i'm attacking his neck and he is worried about the hooks. That's a fatal mistake. Defense always comes first"). This is just a thought experiment and not a real argument on my part btw. I believe the dominance of a position has much more to do with control rather than a finishing rate. But even when you think there is valuable information in the Lex Friedman statistic, we have to actually look at it from the whole. If you look at the source (it's from BJJ Heroes), there is not really much reliable information regarding the actual finishing positions. He also has plenty of victories via Armbar / Straight Armlock (i assume they mean the same and are just inconsistent), Ezekiel Choke, "Mounted X Choke" (i assume they just mean cross choke) and unspecified "Submission", "Verbal Tap" and "Choke", which may or may not have been applied from mount position. Moreover, if you look up some of the "chokes from the back", they are not even necessarily done from really established back control but from the side.

Another fun fact is that 8 out of the 18 back chokes were from the 2010 World Championships, where every one of his finishes was a back choke. As this was after years of him submitting everybody from the mount it kind of circles back to the point he made in the video about his opponents panicking about his mount and immediately turn their back, which would at least mean to me that they are more scared of the mount as a position.

Can't argue with this - the data is ambiguous without more detail + context.

I absolutely agree with Gracie on this issue. I guess this circles back to the same claim Lex made about your opponent not being able to see you and not being able to attack with his arms. This is true, but your opponent using his arms to attack you is much less of a threat than your opponent using his arms to build posture or generate force for moving out of the position. For one, it's infinitely easier to generate power to stand up or (if the opponent is one of those wrestlers with brutal leg rides where you cannot even manage to turtle) roll over (at which point you still have back control but are on the bottom with the opponent trying to remove your legs). The other point is that a high mount can be held without much help from your arms, while with a back mount, you better have some sort of wrist control, seatbelt or whatever if you don't want to risk losing the position quickly. That's why i consider it more dominant. I just think it's better control with lower risk and more options.

I'm rather biased regarding this entire issue though, as i was never ever a fan of any form of controlling or pinning hold in a prone position, which is something that comes up in a lot of martial arts. I accept you need it if you want to handcuff someone, but it is, in my opinion, always inferior controlwise, regardless of what type of leg ride, knee mount, hammerlock or whatever you use to hold someone there.

I still think this is highly game-specific. And of course levels to this shit applies. Roger is talking about what works for him and his game against the best in the world. I'd argue all those guys are outliers with physicality and expertise that is unattainable for most grapplers. Roger makes the good point about what is most dominant position for an untrained 8 year old vs. another untrained 8 year old, and Fridman acknowledges it is probably mount. Can't argue with that. But what about a trained 8 yo vs. a much bigger, stronger 12 yo?

Vs. a much bigger stronger less skilled (but trained) guy, mount is tough to maintain for me and a lot of folks. High chance of getting rolled. If I want to lock down a control position, I'll take side control with a deep half nelson pin + arm control any day. But I came from a wrestling and Judo background so pins are second nature to me. And I have a harder time escaping bottom side control than mount and that's pretty common at my gym.

Re. prone position being less secure, I agree in general. But flattened out in back mount sucks ass. If it's a good leg rider on top, you're not rolling out of it and you can't even post effectively without giving up your neck or an arm.

 

[RemyR]

The more I think about it can get behind what Roger is saying about a high mount, especially if we take strikes into account. Probably a tad harder to escape then rear and flattened out.

 

[ChickenBrother]

The more I think about it can get behind what Roger is saying about a high mount, especially if we take strikes into account. Probably a tad harder to escape then rear and flattened out.

With strikes in play, high mount is a bad position for bottom man but flattened out back mount looks like this:

And this is unified rules with no strikes to the back of the head. If those were allowed, the finish would be even quicker and more dominant.

Against the BBs and better browns at my club, I'll take bottom high mount over flattened back mount any day of the week. I have probably a 50% survival rate from the former, but the best possible transition from the latter (if I didn't get subbed) is facing up with them still having back mount. That's generally my worst outcome (if I didn't get subbed) from high mount.

Probably the only advantage of flattened back mount for bottom man is it's harder to turn you for a pin which is why you'd see guys do it in Judo. I used to love when they'd do that because top man is 2 seconds away from a fist throat compression sub, with four fingers of each hand inside their lapel. In nogi, you can easily slip your forearm over their chin when they try to post up, and then end up with an RNC when they try to roll.

 

[Patrick Jane]

With strikes in play, high mount is a bad position for bottom man but flattened out back mount looks like this:

Just from the subjective look, i guess i'd rather get the CTE from Hughes than ... well ...

But then again i think adding strikes is generally not a good way to determine how dominant a position is, because distracting someone with strikes kind of distorts how much control the actual position gives you. For example, i would rather control both the head and arm in Kesa gatame, even though that would not allow me to Remco Pardoel someone's brains in anymore.

What adding strikes does tell you though is whether a position is dominant at all or not (that is, if the position allows you to fully commit to offensive striking). I guess we all agree here though that none of the mentioned positions are non-dominant.

 

[TheMaster]

Great podcast and the mount vs. back mount debate was fascinating. Fridman makes a compelling case for back mount. At 1:41:20, he shows Roger's own sub statistics with 18 chokes from the back, 12 cross chokes (presumably from mount), and 5 RNCs. When Fridman points this out, Roger says that's "because people panic when I mount. They turn their back and I choke them out." Then Fridman dismissively with "That's one explanation." LMAO.

Roger has a dominant mount and an old school game influenced by old school Judo. I believe he even wore a Judo gi at BJJ worlds. But if his mount were more unassailable and it's the position he prefers, guys shouldn't be able to turn out of it to give up their backs and then being finished in back mount without being able to escape. His own statistics seem to point to back mount being more dominant.

LMAO

I don't care if its Roger fucking Gracie, backmount is the most dominant position not mount lol.

People have gotten KO'd from on top in mount, that doesn't happen when you have their back.

It's not even a discussion

 

[Supereem]

LMAO

I don't care if its Roger fucking Gracie, backmount is the most dominant position not mount lol.

People have gotten KO'd from on top in mount, that doesn't happen when you have their back.

It's not even a discussion

People have been KOd from back mount...

 

[mattemate]

People have been KOd from back mount...

No, he meant THIS type of situation.
FWIW, I agree with Roger, but I also agree with @TheMaster
How do I agree with both? It depends on your level of mastery. Roger has achieved a level of mastery that most will never sniff. So for himself, he's correct, and mount is more dominant. For others, not so much. They lack the ability to hold mount and finish, and probably have more options from back.
Personally, if I have a good high mount, and transfer to a nice tight S mount, there is very little chance you're going to escape. Your shoulders are pinned and you're pretty well zipped the fuck up. From the back, you can bring your legs up underneath, get on all fours, any number of things. There are more chances to escape.
It's a trade. You have more ways to finish when you have the back, but it's easier to hold a good high mount than to hold the back.

Here's the clip. Ralek Gracie armbarred this guy. It's too bad he focused on Metamoris and his super cringey rap career, because he could have been a decent fighter.

 

[mattemate]

LMAO

I don't care if its Roger fucking Gracie, backmount is the most dominant position not mount lol.

People have gotten KO'd from on top in mount, that doesn't happen when you have their back.

It's not even a discussion

People have been KOd from back mount...

Also note in the clip that I posted above that Sato had not secured a good high mount. He just sat up and started raining down punches. If you have a good high mount on someone, they ain't hitting you with jack shit.

 

[RemyR]

No, he meant THIS type of situation.
FWIW, I agree with Roger, but I also agree with @TheMaster
How do I agree with both? It depends on your level of mastery. Roger has achieved a level of mastery that most will never sniff. So for himself, he's correct, and mount is more dominant. For others, not so much. They lack the ability to hold mount and finish, and probably have more options from back.
Personally, if I have a good high mount, and transfer to a nice tight S mount, there is very little chance you're going to escape. Your shoulders are pinned and you're pretty well zipped the fuck up. From the back, you can bring your legs up underneath, get on all fours, any number of things. There are more chances to escape.
It's a trade. You have more ways to finish when you have the back, but it's easier to hold a good high mount than to hold the back.

Here's the clip. Ralek Gracie armbarred this guy. It's too bad he focused on Metamoris and his super cringey rap career, because he could have been a decent fighter.

That's a good point in that it kind of depends on your mastery. I think Roger even said "for me, mount is the best". Implying he felt that it might change depending on the individual. I can get behind his train of thought though. With the gi I feel I have a pretty strong chance to choke a training partner from mount vs my opponent defending from the back.