Reasonable crucifix fix

[FCB x Finlay]

Quote: Originally Posted by OPSPunk

My original point was that crucifix is a way worse position than mount. You said it was “ a bit of an exaggeration”. I am saying that crucifixis literally the worst possible position to be in and I will add it is imo the most fight ending position in mma. Mount and back mount to me are quite survivable. The ONLY position that might be worse is back mount flat. It could be a wrestler thing as mount would be considered a bad pinning position and easily escapable. Back mount is a bad ride and easily reversible

No response?

[Ksearyback]

Quote: Originally Posted by OPSPunk

It could be a wrestler thing as mount would be considered a bad pinning position and easily escapable. Back mount is a bad ride and easily reversible

I completely missed this one. You're saying things that even Ben Askren would disagree with.

You're a wrestler, so you prefer those positions. Fair enough.

A BJJ Scout video breaking down the evolution of Askren's ground game, as adapted for MMA, isn't an indictment on one style/position, nor is it absolute proof that some certain position is, and should be accepted as, THE best.

Ben Askren learned that he had trouble with control from mount and back mount. He moved toward a more controlling game where he could compromise his opponents base. Ultimately, Askren breaks the base (far side wrist), and looks to kill the hips. Damage during the entire scenario, but potential for big damage once he really controls the hips.

You know what this proves? Askren is an exceptional grappler who was more effective implementing mma-focused adaptations to a game that would be centered on familiar positions, with familiar controls.

Another thing we learn is that Ben Askren doesn't have great functional jiu jitsu. Are we surprised he's better from the ride than he is from mount?

Side note... do you know how many wrestlers, some from top division 1 programs, took up jiu jitsu and absolutely cannot escape mount or back control without being submitted? This happens all the time, and there are countless examples. Hell, there are several examples in ADCC alone.

Some grapplers are better at certain positions than others. One man's back mount is as dangerous another man's xyz position. I feel pretty confident in that statement.

[OPSPunk]

Quote: Originally Posted by FCB x Finlay

No response?

Sorry bro I don’t care that much. We just disagree. Don’t feel like going in circles. I think I have stated my case clearly. I have long learned to respect the right of people to be wrong.

[OPSPunk]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ksearyback

I completely missed this one. You're saying things that even Ben Askren would disagree with. You're a wrestler, so you prefer those positions. Fair enough. A BJJ Scout video breaking down the evolution of Askren's ground game, as adapted for MMA, isn't an indictment on one style/position, nor is it absolute proof that some certain position is, and should be accepted as, THE best. Ben Askren learned that he had trouble with control from mount and back mount. He moved toward a more controlling game where he could compromise his opponents base. Ultimately, Askren breaks the base (far side wrist), and looks to kill the hips. Damage during the entire scenario, but potential for big damage once he really controls the hips. You know what this proves? Askren is an exceptional grappler who was more effective implementing mma-focused adaptations to a game that would be centered on familiar positions, with familiar controls. Another thing we learn is that Ben Askren doesn't have great functional jiu jitsu. Are we surprised he's better from the ride than he is from mount? Side note... do you know how many wrestlers, some from top division 1 programs, took up jiu jitsu and absolutely cannot escape mount or back control without being submitted? This happens all the time, and there are countless examples. Hell, there are several examples in ADCC alone. Some grapplers are better at certain positions than others. One man's back mount is as dangerous another man's xyz position. I feel pretty confident in that statement.

That’s fair in the sense that some people are better at certain positions. I think askren prefers crucifix because it’s more dominant from his point of view. I am actually stating something that can’t be proven and I admit that. My point of view is that if you had 2 master grapplers who were great in all positions but the only difference is philosophy. The grappler that had the philosophy of crucifix as the “holy grail” would beat the guy who viewed mount as that.

Also the video was to show that there are high level grapplers who share my point of view. Of course it was not ultimate proof

[Ksearyback]

Quote: Originally Posted by OPSPunk

My point of view is that if you had 2 master grapplers who were great in all positions but the only difference is philosophy. The grappler that had the philosophy of crucifix as the “holy grail” would beat the guy who viewed mount as that.

Isn't this exactly what ADCC is?


Now... if you are talking about fighting, then I'm inclined to agree with you. Wrestling is a better foundation for MMA. I totally agree with that, and for so many reasons beyond just these positional debates we're having (because we're clearly all bored).

[FCB x Finlay]

Quote: Originally Posted by OPSPunk

Sorry bro I don’t care that much. We just disagree. Don’t feel like going in circles. I think I have stated my case clearly. I have long learned to respect the right of people to be wrong.

Thats fine, i fairly dismantled your argument so alls good. Crucifix is far better for control, but deadlier no chance.

[OPSPunk]

Quote: Originally Posted by FCB x Finlay

Thats fine, i fairly dismantled your argument so alls good. Crucifix is far better for control, but deadlier no chance.

Not really, but if it makes you feel better. I will leave you with this. Mount has more options, but crucifix options are more definitive. BJJ evolved without the concept of strikes that’s why leg locks and mount are appealing. Add strikes and 50/50 guard is a waste and mount is less appealing. In terms of strikes landing strikes to an unprotected face while the person has very limited options to move out of the position is as good as it gets...that is why askren and khabib prefer crucifix. Seriously, how many mount escapes are there, there are even suns done from bottom mount. Most people are lost in crucifix. Now you can have your last word

[FCB x Finlay]

Quote: Originally Posted by OPSPunk

Not really, but if it makes you feel better. I will leave you with this. Mount has more options, but crucifix options are more definitive. BJJ evolved without the concept of strikes that’s why leg locks and mount are appealing. Add strikes and 50/50 guard is a waste and mount is less appealing. In terms of strikes landing strikes to an unprotected face while the person has very limited options to move out of the position is as good as it gets...that is why askren and khabib prefer crucifix. Now you can have your last word

Basically control doesnt equal deadlier. Deadlier from an mma point of view is seen as whats closer to bringing a fight to the end, this can clearly be seen by the new rules focus on damage.

Crucifix and backside are great for control, but are harder to finish from due to the lack of power, subs and for backside ability for the oppenent to defend.

Using askren as an example shows where the crucifix actually lacks this ability, i went through his last few finishes and none result from crucifix, even in fights he estabilishes the position, finishing opportunities result more from other positions making them "deadlier".

We can do the same breakdown with khabib.
Vs darell horcher, khabib estabilishes crucifix but does not finish, then moves to backmount where hes able to get the tko.
Vs mj gets a sub with a kimura from crucifix and transitioning to north south to finish.

Breaking this down you can see crucifix is better for control but for finishing/more "deadlier other positions are better.

If anything our reason for disagreeing is the concept of deadlier, different ideas which that means and looking it from two seperate povs.