Ground Fighting: Two Sides, Two Perspectives [Part II]

On my last article, I discussed the issue of "Lay and Pray." Specifically, the fighters who are on top. They hold down their opponent for majority of the fight and get the decision. Their mindset is to have a secure victory and not to take a risk, much to the dismay of many fans.

Lay and Pray fighters generally have a strong wrestling background, where the basic idea for wrestling is to control the opponent and get the pin. 

However, what about the man on the bottom? Should it count if he makes the escape, reverses, or attempts a submission? 

In most cases the lay and pray fighters generally have such a strong control over the man on bottom that it's hard for him to muster any offense, much less escape. This is where the idea of "styles clashing" comes into play. The man on top will generally be a wrestler, while the man on bottom is a jiu-jitsu practitioner. 

Wrestlers are taught to never fight off their backs and that he should escape as soon as possible to avoid being pin. However, with jiu-jitsu, it's okay to be on the bottom. Some people would actually prefer to be on the bottom as a form of offense.

"Your best defense can be your best offense," would be the case for jiu-jitsu grapplers who like to fight off their backs. 

A fight that immediately comes to my mind is "Mizugaki vs. Curran" in the WEC for this example. Mizugaki had Curran on his back for the later part of the fight (second/third rounds). However, there was little offense being done from the man on top. In fact, it was the man on bottom, Curran, who was being the most active. He went for submissions, sweeps, and even attempted to kick and punch from his back. The only thing that Mizugaki could do was control Curran for a brief moment and try to ground and pound him for brief seconds.

Despite all of Curran's efforts, however, Mizugaki was given the unanimous decision as he was seen being the one who was in control (being on top means that you're controlling the pace, according to general grappling rules).

Another example that most fans will probably recognize is the recent "Chael Sonnen vs. Anderson Silva." Sonnen had Silva on his back for almost the entire fight, but any form of offense was often neutralized by Silva's ability to hold Sonnen down and get him back into his guard. Eventually, he came up with the triangle choke. However, had that fight gone the distance, we would of seen a new middleweight champion. 

It's a gamble to be fighting from your back. No matter how much offense a fighter is giving from their back or defending, they are considered to be losing the fight. After all, most people see the man standing as the man winning. Judges will often see it the same way, unless they have some experience in jiu-jitsu themselves or develop a bias towards that style.

In both jiu-jitsu and wrestling, you are given points when you reverse the opponent on the top or escape. Unfortunately, reversals or even submission attempts aren't considered as "large" as a takedown/attempt. In fact, attempts at reversal or submissions are hardly accounted for in the current MMA judging. It is seen as "failing to submit/reverse" and no points are given to the man on bottom (that's how I see it anyway). And jiu-jitsu is a ground style where more than half of the techniques focus on the bottom.

A fighter essentially risks losing the fight in decision for a chance to counter or submit the opponent during the ground aspect of the game. And unless the fighter on top has no ground skill, which is hard to come by in the modern MMA fighter, jiu-jitsu will forever be a "risk" style (as opposed to the safe Lay and Pray) during an MMA fight.

That's why MMA fans cheer when a reversal or a close submission happens.