Do you agree with this? I would be interested in seeing stats on what the % of victory is once a fighter gets their opponents back. I am sure the probability of winning the fight must increase drastically for any fighter who is able to do it (even higher than getting mount). If I were a professional fighter, I would definitely concentrate my training on being the best at taking my opponents back, whether it be on the ground or on the feet. Personally, I think getting behind your opponent is easier when you are on your feet, then on the ground.
Take Hughes vs. Penn; Matt kept getting BJ against the cage and then tried securing a single or double leg. What do you think about using a good ole duck-under to get behind the guy? All it takes is for you to turn the corner (with your head and one arm), under the mans armpit, and you got it. Once your head is behind him, you are 99% of the way there. If he is against the cage there is nowhere for him to backup.
And no, I do not think I am better than Matt Hughes.
ferox13 is correct. giving up your back used to be a big deal. now, its the
smart thing to do if you get mounted. you can't get punched in the back
of the head or elbowed and the rear naked choke defense isn't rocket
science. the turtle position used to also be bad news. if you could knee to
the head, you wouldn't see so many people balling up in there. mount
doesn't end the fight like it used to and its largely because you can do so
little from rear mount (comparatively).
" However, in shooto you can punch the back of the head so it is more dangerous to get your back taken in that promotion."
You can punch the back of the head in the UFC, WFA, Strikeforce, and any other promotion using the unified MMA rules in the US. You just can't strike directly downward on the 1 inch centerline of the head.
BJM explained this is great detail after the Hughes vs. Gracie fight (after Hughes won by beating Gracie on the back of the head until BJM stopped the fight).
"Nah, as a few mentioned, it USED to mean the end. But once they took away elbows from that position it made the postition MUCH less dangerous. "
They have not taken away elbows from that position... again see Hughes vs. Gracie for a great example.
There are some fighters that if they get your back it's probably over but there have been many, many exceptions. It's actually pretty hard to choke out a highly trained fighter if they control the hands, especially with MMA gloves.
I agree it's probably smarter in general to pound away rather than go right for the choke.
Some people have said that it is very hard to secure the RNC; however, I see fights ending via RNC all the time in the UFC. I would probably say that this is the most common of all submissions to end a fight, no? If it is so easy to defend, why do so many fights end via choke? Is it just that fighters are not versed in defending it? If so, wtf are they doing in the UFC!?!
"No but they took away the elbow strike that was most commonly (and effectively) used from rear mount - The down ward elbow.."
As long as the downward elbow does not start at EXACTLY 12:00 and land at EXACTLY 6:00 with zero arc on it, it is a legal elbow.
Watch the repeated downward elbows that Hughes hits Gracie with (and they were all legal).
This is a common misconception but in reality as long as the elbow is not 100% straight down and does not land on the 1 inch strip of the back of the head directly inline with the backbone it is perfectly legal.