More advantageous position: Full mount or side mount? - Fight Forum - MMA - UFC - Boxing - K1

LuvMyCRX® · 09-03-2005, 10:44 AM

Throwing hands from full mount or punches and knees from side? Either way, your man is in trouble, but I think the brutal knees to the body (and the head in Pride) along with the punches makes side mount better.

Billdolfski · 09-05-2005, 02:47 AM

I'd say mount is superior, as you've got more control. Strikes from side mount are vicious though.

[Danny] · 09-05-2005, 12:11 PM

The mount by far. You have all your body weight on their chest/stomach and it pins the down. In the side mount, they can squirm and rotate trying to get to a north/south poistion.

Master Jones · 09-05-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billdolfski

I'd say mount is superior, as you've got more control. Strikes from side mount are vicious though.

Yea, the mount is really superior over side control. You've got a lot more moves you can pull of from the mount. Side control you are limited to your monuver ability.

SmashingMachine · 09-06-2005, 11:15 PM

I think it depends on your fighting backround. BJJ mount. Wrestlers probably side.

DrumzCT · 09-07-2005, 11:39 AM

I find myself in side mount more often than mount so I've been forced to work from there alot more and there's some great things you can do in side mount. Especially using your leg to trap the arm closest to your body and your hand opposite thier head/closest to thier chest to occupy the arm on thier open side leaving your hand closest to their head free to hit away and they can't block it.

Mounted makes it hard for them to breathe but it's harder to control thier hands and still land blows because your legs are locked under thiers to keep you on top.

Because you still have use of your arms AND legs, I tend to favor side mount in most situations.

EDIT* now that I think about it, I'm usually trying to take the back. Submission wise, I think the back is a very advantageous position because you are all offense and they are all defense and it gives you probably the safest place to work without fear of counter/submission.

UFCRULEZ13 · 09-07-2005, 12:29 PM

when you have their back is best for SUB, and the mount is best for strikes to the face! pick your poisin

DrumzCT · 09-07-2005, 01:15 PM

Mounted isn't necessarily best for strikes. Mount is best because it is the most secure and hardest for the opponent to get out of. I believe Hughes used the sidemount method I described before to finish Newton in thier rematch. If you've seen it you can definitely see the advantage side mount has with being able to trap arms with your legs.

I'm not saying mount isn't good, it's definitely a very dominant position and you can overwhelm your opponent from there with strikes but he has both hands free to grab your arms, get underhooks to pull you down and hold you there and he can hit back.

SmashingMachine · 09-07-2005, 02:05 PM

I think you can land blows more safely from the side mount.

Crashsti · 09-11-2005, 02:58 PM

the side mount is by far the better position. you just have so many more weapons available, elbows, punches, KNEES along with dozens of possible submissions. you can certainly do damage from the mount, but the only submission you really have of use is a straight armbar. the side mount is also a safer position, you can't be bucked off. fighter experience also has alot to do with this. if you're fighting a kickboxer type with no ground experience the mount would be a good position since th eguy on the bottom will have no idea how to defend. against a seasoned MMA fighter it will be alot harder to keep your position.

DrumzCT · 09-12-2005, 08:26 AM

Very true, it is very easy to overwhelm with strikes from the mount as well but I totally agree with the safety and multiple options of sidemount. Heres Hughes24's avatar. It's Hughes vs Newton II

http://www.fightforum.com/image.php?...ine=1125109213

*ok, trouble with the image tag but you can click it and see

Crashsti · 09-12-2005, 08:35 AM

the mount position used to be considered the place to be. you still hear ringside commentators get all excited when a guy gets the mount only to stall or be bucked off or have the guy sweep him. the side mount or even half guard have proven to be a safer. some guys can even destroy an opponent while in the guard.

DrumzCT · 09-13-2005, 11:05 AM

Look at this weeks fight on TUF

subgenius · 09-13-2005, 02:55 PM

Yeah. Joe Stevenson really mauled Marcus Davis on TUF2 last night... Stevenson won by tap-out from the side-mount with multiple elbows to the head.

Actually, it was sort of funny to see Stevensen and Davis spend a full minute seemingly afraid to engage. Then, once they made the decision to get close, Stevenson did a Hughes-like slam on Davis. That was very nice and fairly exciting to see. In the after match analysis they pointed out that Davis was injured by that slam, which affected his ability to defend.

Stevenson then managed a decent side-mount, but at first he seemed to be unsure whether or not he was allowed to just start pounding away with that vicious elbow. He landed one or two hard elbows to the head, and then seemed to wait to see whether or not the referee was going to allow it. The guys on his team were like "Use the elbow, Joe" and "Pound away, Joe" and so forth.

Once Stevenson started really tuning up on Davis with that elbow, Davis started to really squirm. He tapped out because he clearly could do nothing to defend against, stop, or block the elbows...

Dana White even tried to talk the green team out of this particular match up before the fight. I was somewhat shocked that Coach Franklin did not make a better match up. But, they went with this fight. In the end, it is better for us viewers... And, Davis struck me as ready to get out, but not without a fight.

Sorry, tangent there... I kept wondering about the Liddel-Horn fight recently as I watched TUF2 match last night. I was thinking, what if Horn had been able to manage a mount or a side-mount on Liddell? Since everyone seemed to be so sure that Horn was the superior wrestler, then could he have been able to beat Liddell like Stevenson beat Davis on TUF2?

DrumzCT · 09-13-2005, 06:40 PM

He would have to get Chuck on the ground and on his back first and that wasn't gonna happen.

subgenius · 09-18-2005, 10:30 PM

That is true. Liddell seems to be the current master of avoiding the ground game. I wonder if Liddell trains fairly hard for the eventuality that he will be taken down? And, who could take Liddell down, if anyone can? I doubt Rampage can.

Billdolfski · 09-18-2005, 10:46 PM

Pretty sure Rampage did.

subgenius · 09-18-2005, 10:47 PM

I don't recall Rampage beating Liddell with a powerful mount or side mount.