Ground Control Defense (side control)

[Phobia]

I was thinking about this earlier. Every position from your back can be defended from strong strikes except one.

Full Guard = Can hold back head to prevent strong strikes
Half Guard = Can hold back head to prevent strong strikes
Side Control = You CAN NOT prevent strong strikes, only block
Full Mount = Can hold back head to prevent strong strikes

Excluded from this list
North South - obvious reasons why you can't defend it

Now I am very good at preventing to much damage from side control. Blocking is key and minor transition right after blocked strikes. But my concern is this. Should side control be able to inflict the amount of damage it can in a short period of time compared to full mount???

I love the game and even the ground game I feel is very balanced. I am just thinking if side control is really handled in a realistic fashion. In my opinion side control is dangerous from short elbows but you don't see the amount of fight ending shots coming from this position in real life as you do in the game.

I also don't believe striking should be more dangerous as you go up each level. Another words striking from full guard should not be weaker than half guard, then side control should not be stronger than half guard on up to full mount having strongest striking.

Instead I think passing transitions should be harder the higher you go up the list. Passing out of full mount should be much harder than getting from half guard to full guard.

Also the kicking off animation is one of the least believable animations on the ground. Walking up the cage or reversals to top control THEN choosing to get off the ground is way more common.

Just some thoughts on the ground game.

[geisterhome]

Re: Ground Control Defense (side control)

couldnt agree more!

[ManiacMatt1782]

Re: Ground Control Defense (side control)

I disagree slightly. I think full mount striking should be more dangerous and powerful than from the guard. From in guard even when you posture, to have to reach over their hips and there is resistance back keeping you from getting 100% into your punches in ground and pound. Now I am not saying you can't get power, but you will generate more power and flush shots from mount. Even half guard is a better position to gnp from. Now with side control. What I think would work better with punches and forearm shots is stunning blows. They won't rock you, but the leave you vulnerable to submissions, and passing to mount. I think power knees should still leave you hurt.

[geisterhome]

Re: Ground Control Defense (side control)

I disagree slightly. I think full mount striking should be more dangerous and powerful than from the guard. From in guard even when you posture, to have to reach over their hips and there is resistance back keeping you from getting 100% into your punches in ground and pound. Now I am not saying you can't get power, but you will generate more power and flush shots from mount. Even half guard is a better position to gnp from. Now with side control. What I think would work better with punches and forearm shots is stunning blows. They won't rock you, but the leave you vulnerable to submissions, and passing to mount. I think power knees should still leave you hurt.

youve got a point there Matt!

[Phobia]

Re: Ground Control Defense (side control)

Yea I get what you are saying but this is what I am thinking. First, how often do you see guys get full mount and then deliver brutal power. Most of the time it is simple strikes, reason being the moment someone posts up and goes to bring massive power the guy on bottom can use the momentum in his favor and easily buck off the guy on top. Where in full guard some guys like Dan Henderson can do massive damage because it takes way more effort to remove him from this position. He can commit himself more to strictly power striking because him losing position in this spot is less likely. Where in full mount the hips of the bottom guy can create leverage from how top heavy your center of gravity becomes once you post up.

Clay Guida is another example of power striking in guard. They can lay and pray but can also deliver big punches. So while I agree with you that mount "technically" can bring more power due to the position. How often it is utilized in MMA is not as much. More controlled striking is brought from this location due to not wanting to lose position such as buck over the top or them rolling letting you take the back.

So I think ground striking should be simply that. The power you strike from the ground no matter the position. Guys like Dan Henderson have finished guys with 2 to 4 quick strikes in almost every position on the ground.

Just like on the feet your striking power is one number, light strikes do less damage and heavy strikes do more damage. I feel the ground in any position should be the same way. So a Kenny Florian elbow from full guard should be devastating. Also I know knockouts from the bottom are not common but I don't think I will ever see one in UFC 3. Anderson Silva has done it and several others. This is another area I think could use slight tweaks, taking a elbow whether it is from the ground or top control is still taking a elbow.

I would like to see more emphasis on stickily strikes landed doing "this much damage" rather than "this position does more damage than this position."

I think 90% of the ground game how it is designed is very balanced and works great. I just think several areas could use some slight tweaks.

[st67]

Re: Ground Control Defense (side control)

Ground game is a mess - but it's fun enough for the most part.

Side control is insanely powerful and needs to be toned down. I think, though, that since they feel the need to make rounds only last half the length of a real round, they feel the need to boost the damage.

To be honest, though, the ground game is completely unrealistic in about every way possible.

[geisterhome]

Re: Ground Control Defense (side control)

i get a lot of hints by just reading your conversations guys

keep it up!