who actually thinks you can punch someone on top of you.

[Xue Sheng]

There seems to be a couple discussions going on here.

One has to do with usefulness of striking when someone is on top of you and the other seems to be the usefulness striking when someone is on top of you in a proper BJJ Mount. And those are not the same thing. There are reasons, rather good ones, for striking when some one is on top of you and there are reasons rather bad ones as well,

And for the record. Trying to strike someone in the head, when they are in a mount, is likely not a good idea

 

[ballen0351]

I've been posting here for 10 years. I invite you to find a single comment from me during all that time indicating that grappling is inherently better than striking or that BJJ is better than other arts. I train in striking, grappling, and weapons arts and I'm an advocate for the view that any serious martial artist should do the same.

Awful defensive of it didn't apply to you then why are you so worried about it. Your not only grappler here. You are however at least in this thread very dismissive of striking almost calling it magical so.....

The original question was ambiguous and has different answers depending on how you interpret it. Way back on the first page of this thread I asked drop bear for clarification and provided different answers depending on his meaning. If we want to communicate with each other rather than just scoring points, it behooves us to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Striking from the bottom is pretty clear.

Okay, let me go into more depth:
I've seen hundreds of fights end up in the mount. A large percentage of them have been ended by strikes from the fighter on top. Until Chrisoro posted those two videos, I had never seen the fighter on the bottom of mount have any luck at all with striking from that position. Usually the fighter who tries striking from bottom of mount gets pounded out. I have seen lots of fighters escape the mount (not through striking - usually through bridging, elbow escape, or back door escape) and go on to end up winning the fight. Sometimes they even end up winning via strikes - once they're no longer on bottom of mount.

So you have seen hundreds of fights and????? Look you have your opinion I have mine. Mine says striking is possible from the bottom. Proof has been given. It is what it is. You don't think it's effective great don't use it don't try it don't worry about it.

 

[ballen0351]

How do you set it up though?

How do you prevent the guy on top striking you?

I train in lots of different positions. I set it up in many different ways. I train like I'm at work. I'll bend down and simulate handcuffing and have someone run up behind me and attack me. I train as if I was knocked on my back and someone gets on top, I train talking to one person then getting attacked by a second person then the original person also attacks me.

How do I prevent the guy on top from hitting me? I can't always. Sometimes I'm OK taking a few hits to set up a counter strike. I'm not afraid of getting hit. I've been hit plenty. I also don't need to knock you out from the bottom I just need to unsettle you so I can get up. You seem to think all I want to do is lay on my back and fight from there. I don't and I don't think anyone does. But I can use strikes to free myself to get up. Or use strikes to free myself to draw a weapon or anything else I can think of to win.

 

[ballen0351]

I'd be very curious to know how exactly are you training from that position. Are you learning escapes, or are you just trying to punch and kick your way out of that position?

Yes

 

[Hanzou]

There seems to be a couple discussions going on here.

One has to do with usefulness of striking when someone is on top of you and the other seems to be the usefulness striking when someone is on top of you in a proper BJJ Mount. And those are not the same thing. There are reasons, rather good ones, for striking when some one is on top of you and there are reasons rather bad ones as well,

And for the record. Trying to strike someone in the head, when they are in a mount, is likely not a good idea

There is no "Bjj mount". There's simply the mount position, and it's the exact same position across the board. You see people with no training whatsoever achieving the mount position on someone, because it's probably the most dominant position in fighting.

Bjj only teaches you how to maintain it if you're on top, and how to escape from it if you're on bottom. If you're arguing that a "proper Bjj mount" is a grappler mount, well that's not exclusive to Bjj. Plenty of grappling styles teach mount stability these days.

What strikes do you feel would be effective from the bottom of a mount?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Awful defensive of it didn't apply to you then why are you so worried about it. Your not only grappler here.

Since your comment was in reply to a comment of mine, I thought you might have intended it to apply to me. If you didn't, then maybe you can clarify that. If you did, then please provide even an iota of evidence for your assertion.

You are however at least in this thread very dismissive of striking almost calling it magical so.....

Not at all. I stated that from one very specific position, striking is not generally a good idea. Along the same lines, I could say "if your opponent is standing 3 feet behind you, then trying to initiate a choke is not likely to be effective." Does that mean I'm dismissive of grappling now? I just believe there is a time and place for everything.

Striking from the bottom is pretty clear.

Well, you thought drop bear's meaning was clear. I interpreted it differently. As it turns out, my understanding of his question seems to be closer to what he meant. You can choose to play "gotcha" over the fact that he didn't spell out the exact parameters of his original question or you can choose to try understanding what he meant and work on having a clear discussion.

 

[Xue Sheng]

There is no "Bjj mount". There's simply the mount position, and it's the exact same position across the board. You see people with no training whatsoever achieving the mount position on someone, because it's probably the most dominant position in fighting.

Bjj only teaches you how to maintain it if you're on top, and how to escape from it if you're on bottom. If you're arguing that a "proper Bjj mount" is a grappler mount, well that's not exclusive to Bjj. Plenty of grappling styles teach mount stability these days.

What strikes do you feel would be effective from the bottom of a mount?

I am not a BJJ person so I am not in anyway familiar with the nomenclature, but I got my point across and that is good enough for me. I also have no idea what bottom mount is. But I am 100% certain that there are more than 2 positions that someone can be on top of you. And part of the OP was

If you are on your back most of the ability to generate force is gone. Where the guy on top can use his body and use gravity..

Which is not true if you know anything about power generation, there are more ways that turning the waist to generate a good strike

 

[Hanzou]

I am not a BJJ person so I am not in anyway familiar with the nomenclature, but I got my point across and that is good enough for me. I also have no idea what bottom mount is. But I am 100% certain that there are more than 2 positions that someone can be on top of you. And part of the OP was

I said bottom of the mount, which means you're on the bottom of someone's mount with your back to the floor. It's a very inferior position to be in, and in the vast majority of situations the person who achieves mount is going to dominate the person on the bottom.

There are other positions where someone is on top of you. Nearly all are bad to strike from. The only exception to that is Guard. AFAIK it's the only dominant position you can achieve while on your back.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I am not a BJJ person so I am not in anyway familiar with the nomenclature, but I got my point across and that is good enough for me. I also have no idea what bottom mount is. But I am 100% certain that there are more than 2 positions that someone can be on top of you.

Fair enough. There are certainly many more than 2 positions where someone can be on top of you. It really helps to have a common vocabulary so we can discuss the differences meaningfully.

Here are some of the more common ground positions:

Mount: one fighter is sitting on his opponents chest or midsection, facing the head. This can come in several flavors, each with their own strengths and weaknesses:

High mount

Low mount

Technical mount

Side mount: one fighter is laying chest to chest perpendicular to the bottom fighter:

Knee mount/knee ride: On fighter is on top with his shin across the belly of the fighter on bottom:

Scarf hold: the top fighter is laying across the bottom fighter facing his head and controlling the head and an arm:

Guard: any time the fighter on bottom has his legs either around the top fighter (closed guard)or between himself and the top fighter (open guard), that is considered the guard position. There are a ton of variations, but the examples below should give an idea.

Closed guard:

Open guard

As Hanzou mentioned, these positions are not unique to BJJ. I'm using the most common English names, rather than going into Japanese or names specific to certain arts.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I said bottom of the mount, which means you're on the bottom of someone's mount with your back to the floor. It's a very inferior position to be in, and in the vast majority of situations the person who achieves mount is going to dominate the person on the bottom.

There are other positions where someone is on top of you. Nearly all are bad to strike from. The only exception to that is Guard. AFAIK it's the only dominant position you can achieve while on your back.

Getting totally CMA IMA on you, it depends on the actual position that I am in at the time as to what my response will be. And I am wondering how you define "striking" because I am guessing we do not define it the same way

 

[Xue Sheng]

Fair enough. There are certainly many more than 2 positions where someone can be on top of you. It really helps to have a common vocabulary so we can discuss the differences meaningfully.

Here are some of the more common ground positions:

Mount: one fighter is sitting on his opponents chest or midsection, facing the head. This can come in several flavors, each with their own strengths and weaknesses:

High mount

Low mount

Technical mount

Side mount: one fighter is laying chest to chest perpendicular to the bottom fighter:

Knee mount/knee ride: On fighter is on top with his shin across the belly of the fighter on bottom:

Scarf hold: the top fighter is laying across the bottom fighter facing his head and controlling the head and an arm:

Guard: any time the fighter on bottom has his legs either around the top fighter (closed guard)or between himself and the top fighter (open guard), that is considered the guard position. There are a ton of variations, but the examples below should give an idea.

Closed guard:

Open guard

I think we are running into the same thing.... what the definition of a strike is and I am beginning to believe the consensus here, form the grappling side of the house, is that it must be a closed fist punch.... that is not the way CMA views a strike.

As Hanzou mentioned, these positions are not unique to BJJ. I'm using the most common English names, rather than going into Japanese or names specific to certain arts.

Yes they are, but as I said I am not a BJJ person. I am also not a grappler nor a JMA person. I am a CMA person (have been for over 20 years) and we have our own terminology and it is mostly Chinese or when translated idioms, Add to that that English is the native language of the minority (me) in my house, so forgive my ignorance on terminology here.

 

[ballen0351]

Since your comment was in reply to a comment of mine, I thought you might have intended it to apply to me. If you didn't, then maybe you can clarify that. If you did, then please provide even an iota of evidence for your assertion.

If you don't believe the comment applies to you then stop worrying about it. It seems like a nerve was struck so........

Not at all. I stated that from one very specific position, striking is not generally a good idea. Along the same lines, I could say "if your opponent is standing 3 feet behind you, then trying to initiate a choke is not likely to be effective." Does that mean I'm dismissive of grappling now? I just believe there is a time and place for everything.

So now your resorting to absurd comparisons. There is a big difference between trying to choke someone 3 feet behind you and striking someone directly in front of you within striking distance. Who's trying to play gotcha here?

Well, you thought drop bear's meaning was clear. I interpreted it differently. As it turns out, my understanding of his question seems to be closer to what he meant. You can choose to play "gotcha" over the fact that he didn't spell out the exact parameters of his original question or you can choose to try understanding what he meant and work on having a clear discussion.

Like I said the question was asked and answered. If you don't believe it's effective then great don't use it, don't train in it, and stop worrying about it. Me I'll keep on training how I want and you keep doing the same.

 

[Hanzou]

Getting totally CMA IMA on you, it depends on the actual position that I am in at the time as to what my response will be. And I am wondering how you define "striking" because I am guessing we do not define it the same way

Well that's why I asked what type of strikes you're talking about. You have a very limited strike range, and the person on top has nearly all the advantage if you decide to start trading blows.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

If you don't believe the comment applies to you then stop worrying about it. It seems like a nerve was struck so........

Well yes, I do tend to get mildly annoyed if I think I'm being accused of saying things that I haven't said and don't believe. Probably a character flaw on my part, I guess.

If you aren't willing to say whether you intended your comment (which was in reply to one of mine) to apply to me, then I guess that says a lot about whether you are conversing in good faith.

As for me, if I want to accuse somebody of something I'll state it clearly and back it up if requested. If I don't intend to accuse somebody of something, but through some miscommunication they think that I am making such an accusation, I will immediately do my best to clear up the confusion. Perhaps you have a different philosophy, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason for why you would want to.

So now your resorting to absurd comparisons. There is a big difference between trying to choke someone 3 feet behind you and striking someone directly in front of you within striking distance.

If you don't like that example, I can supply others. I chose that one specifically because it would be possible to land an effective strike from that position. The point is, there are some situations where striking is a good idea, some where grappling is a good idea, some where both can work, and some where neither will work. You might disagree with me about one particular position where I don't think striking is a good option, but to portray that as me denigrating striking or me saying that grappling is better than striking in general is fundamentally dishonest. (Either that or it displays some real problems with reading comprehension, your choice.)

 

[ballen0351]

Well yes, I do tend to get mildly annoyed if I think I'm being accused of saying things that I haven't said and don't believe. Probably a character flaw on my part, I guess.

If you aren't willing to say whether you intended your comment (which was in reply to one of mine) to apply to me, then I guess that says a lot about whether you are conversing in good faith.

As for me, if I want to accuse somebody of something I'll state it clearly and back it up if requested. If I don't intend to accuse somebody of something, but through some miscommunication they think that I am making such an accusation, I will immediately do my best to clear up the confusion. Perhaps you have a different philosophy, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason for why you would want to.

It was not directed at you personally it was more a general statement towards the BJJ mafia that runs from thread to thread style to style running off at the mouth. If that's not YOU then again as I said stop worry about it. I have no problem telling you directly what I think trust me. I've spent plenty of time in MT time out for that.

If you don't like that example, I can supply others. I chose that one specifically because it would be possible to land an effective strike from that position. The point is, there are some situations where striking is a good idea, some where grappling is a good idea, some where both can work, and some where neither will work. You might disagree with me about one particular position where I don't think striking is a good option, but to portray that as me denigrating striking or me saying that grappling is better than striking in general is fundamentally dishonest. (Either that or it displays some real problems with reading comprehension, your choice.)

You chose an impossible and down right silly example to down play the point. I don't think anyone said striking was the #1 choice in this situation. However it's not as far fetched as your trying to make it out to be. It is a viable technique that used by itself or to set up another technique can work. You don't think so great don't use it. I'm not trying to talk you out if it. Quite frankly I don't care what you do it has no effect in me.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well that's why I asked what type of strikes you're talking about. You have a very limited strike range, and the person on top has nearly all the advantage if you decide to start trading blows.

Are you defining strike as using only your hands?

As for answering your question, that depends on the position and the forces involved.

 

[Hanzou]

Are you defining strike as using only your hands?

As for answering your question, that depends on the position and the forces involved.

Interesting. How about you describe the strikes that would apply to the positions Tony posted earlier. You don't need to do the Guard.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Interesting. How about you describe the strikes that would apply to the positions Tony posted earlier. You don't need to do the Guard.

Interesting. How about you answer my question

 

[Hanzou]

Interesting. How about you answer my question

I'm defining strikes as strikes. That includes kicks if applicable.

 

[Xue Sheng]

You really can't define a word with the same word, you know this don't you?

We have that you consider kicks as strikes, ok, what about the hands, is that only closed fist or are there other options, is it only hands and feet or are there other things that can be used that you would consider a strike..... but then this is starting to feel like pulling teeth to get a detailed answer out of you as to how you define a strike so lets end on this note.

In CMA the body is considered a fist so a strike can be made with just about anything as for how to respond to each picture supplied, that is rather difficult to say since there are variables to each posture and the power (or force) being used is not going to be exactly the same in all situations defined as, say, a Technical mount. So there is no "if you do A I do B" from a CMA perspective. However I am also not saying that a strike is the way to go in all pictures supplied, Qinna would be much better in a couple and there are a couple that rather befuddles me as to how to respond. But I highly doubt I would run into any of those outside of a BJJ or grappling school so I don't much care about them.