Mount top represents the pinnacle of positional dominance in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, offering maximum control combined with extensive submission opportunities. From this elevated position, the top practitioner controls the opponent’s torso while maintaining multiple pathways to finishing submissions or advancing to superior positions like technical mount or back control. The position awards 4 points in IBJJF competition, reflecting its strategic significance in positional hierarchy.
Effective mount maintenance requires sophisticated understanding of weight distribution across multiple contact points. The practitioner must balance chest pressure that pins the opponent while maintaining base width through knee and foot positioning that resists bridge attempts. Modern mount control emphasizes dynamic weight shifting that maintains pressure while advancing toward submission positions. Static mount holding, while secure, fails to capitalize on the position’s offensive potential and allows skilled opponents to implement escape sequences.
The submission arsenal from mount includes both upper body and lower body attacks, creating multi-directional threats that overwhelm defensive efforts. Armbar transitions through technical mount and S-mount positions provide high-percentage finishes, while collar chokes including cross collar chokes and ezekiel variations create immediate tapping threats. The Americana and kimura attacks target the shoulder joint, often forcing defensive reactions that open alternative submission pathways. Understanding submission chains from mount - where defense against one attack creates vulnerability to another - separates advanced practitioners from intermediate competitors.
Positional advancement from mount follows systematic progression through variations including low mount, high mount, technical mount, and S-mount. Each position offers specific submission access while requiring different base structures and weight distributions. The mount specialist understands these variations not as separate positions but as fluid continuum where transitions between them create submission opportunities through accumulated pressure and defensive reaction patterns. Competition success from mount depends on this systematic approach rather than explosive commitment to single submission attempts.
Position Definition
- Top practitioner’s knees maintain floor contact on either side of bottom’s torso with hips driving forward to maintain chest-to-chest pressure, while bottom practitioner’s shoulder blades remain pinned to mat surface
- Top practitioner’s weight distributes across chest connection and hip drive into bottom’s torso, while maintaining base width through knee positioning that resists bridge and roll attempts
- Top practitioner’s hands remain free for submission grips or base posting, while bottom practitioner’s defensive frames create minimal space between bodies without achieving full extension
Prerequisites
- Successful guard pass establishing chest-to-chest connection with opponent’s back on mat
- Both knees established on floor surface on either side of opponent’s torso
- Opponent’s shoulders pinned to mat with top practitioner’s weight preventing immediate standup
Key Offensive Principles
- Weight distribution across chest and hips creates pressure while maintaining mobility for submission transitions
- Base width through knee positioning provides stability against bridge attempts without sacrificing advancement capability
- High mount positioning trades base stability for increased submission accessibility
- Grapevine hooks eliminate hip escape attempts but limit mobility for technical mount transitions
- Cross-face and head control prevent defensive framing while creating submission entries
- Submission chains exploit defensive reactions where armbar defense opens choke opportunities
- Incremental position advancement through mount variations accumulates pressure leading to submissions
Available Attacks
Armbar from Mount → Armbar Control
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 45%
- Intermediate: 60%
- Advanced: 75%
Mount to Armbar → Technical Mount
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 50%
- Intermediate: 65%
- Advanced: 80%
Americana from Mount → Won by Submission
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 40%
- Intermediate: 55%
- Advanced: 70%
Cross Collar Choke → Won by Submission
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 35%
- Intermediate: 50%
- Advanced: 65%
Ezekiel from Mount → Won by Submission
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 30%
- Intermediate: 45%
- Advanced: 60%
Triangle from Mount → Mounted Triangle
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 25%
- Intermediate: 40%
- Advanced: 55%
Kimura from Mount → Kimura Control
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 35%
- Intermediate: 50%
- Advanced: 65%
Back Take Generic → Back Control
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 40%
- Intermediate: 55%
- Advanced: 70%
Arm Triangle → Won by Submission
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 30%
- Intermediate: 45%
- Advanced: 60%
Transition to Mount → High Mount
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 55%
- Intermediate: 70%
- Advanced: 85%
Loop Choke from Mount → Won by Submission
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 25%
- Intermediate: 40%
- Advanced: 55%
Monoplata from Mount → Won by Submission
Success Rates:
- Beginner: 20%
- Intermediate: 35%
- Advanced: 50%
Decision Making from This Position
If opponent maintains defensive frames with elbows tight to ribs and no escape movement:
- Execute Transition to Mount → High Mount (Probability: 70%)
- Execute Americana from Mount → Won by Submission (Probability: 55%)
If opponent begins elbow escape sequence with hip movement creating space on one side:
- Execute Transition to Mount → High Mount (Probability: 65%)
- Execute Mount to Armbar → Technical Mount (Probability: 60%)
If opponent extends arms to push chest attempting to create space:
- Execute Armbar from Mount → Armbar Control (Probability: 75%)
- Execute Mount to Armbar → Technical Mount (Probability: 70%)
If opponent bridges explosively attempting upa escape with arm and leg trap:
- Execute Back Take Generic → Back Control (Probability: 60%)
- Execute Arm Triangle → Won by Submission (Probability: 50%)
If opponent turns to side exposing back during escape attempt:
- Execute Back Take Generic → Back Control (Probability: 80%)
- Execute Transition to Mount → Technical Mount (Probability: 65%)
Optimal Submission Paths
High Mount to Armbar Sequence
Mount Control Top → High Mount → Technical Mount → Armbar from Mount → Won by Submission
Americana to Armbar Chain
Mount Control Top → Americana from Mount (defended) → Mount to Armbar → Technical Mount → Armbar from Mount → Won by Submission
Collar Choke Series
Mount Control Top → High Mount → Cross Collar Choke → Won by Submission
Back Take from Mount Defense
Mount Control Top → High Mount → Back Take Generic → Back Control → Rear Naked Choke → Won by Submission
Triangle from Mount Setup
Mount Control Top → High Mount → Triangle from Mount → Mounted Triangle → Won by Submission
Success Rates and Statistics
| Skill Level | Retention Rate | Advancement Probability | Submission Probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beginner | 60% | 50% | 40% |
| Intermediate | 75% | 65% | 60% |
| Advanced | 90% | 80% | 80% |
Average Time in Position: 45-90 seconds for skilled practitioners before submission or position change
Expert Analysis
John Danaher
Mount control represents the culmination of positional dominance where gravity itself becomes weapon through proper weight distribution mechanics. The fundamental error I observe in students is treating mount as static position rather than dynamic platform for systematic pressure application and position advancement. Effective mount control requires understanding of three-dimensional weight distribution across multiple contact points: chest pressure that pins opponent’s torso, hip drive that prevents space creation, and base width that resists angular momentum from bridge attempts. The submission arsenal from mount should be understood as interconnected system where each attack creates defensive reactions that enable subsequent attacks. When opponent defends armbar by pulling elbow tight to ribs, this defensive motion creates vulnerability to Americana attack on same arm. When opponent defends Americana by keeping arm extended, this creates armbar vulnerability. The systematic approach treats these not as separate techniques but as nodes in decision tree where opponent’s choices determine which pathway leads to submission. Position advancement from mount follows similar systematic progression through variations that accumulate pressure: low mount establishes initial control, high mount increases submission accessibility, technical mount provides armbar platform, and S-mount creates finishing mechanics.
Gordon Ryan
Mount is where I finish most of my matches because it combines complete control with multiple submission pathways that don’t require explosive athleticism. The key understanding that took my mount game to elite level is recognizing that mount maintenance and submission setup are the same activity - you’re not maintaining position and then attacking, you’re attacking in ways that make escape impossible. When I advance to high mount, I’m simultaneously creating submission threat and eliminating hip escape angles. My weight distribution shifts dynamically based on opponent’s escape attempts, but the fundamental principle is keeping hips heavy and driving forward while chest stays light enough to allow submission transitions. Against world-class opponents, you can’t muscle mount position - they’re too skilled at timing escapes with your commitment to attacks. Instead, I use what I call ‘submission feints’ where I threaten armbar to make opponent defend, which prevents their escape timing and opens the actual submission I’m setting up. The cross collar choke from mount is criminally underutilized in no-gi contexts because people don’t realize you can set it up using your own lapel or opponent’s collar in ways that work without traditional gi grips. My competition strategy from mount is advancing to high mount within 10 seconds, threatening first submission within 15 seconds, and finishing or taking back within 30 seconds.
Eddie Bravo
Mount control in 10th Planet system differs from traditional approaches because we emphasize dynamic movement and unorthodox angles rather than static pressure. When I have mount, especially in no-gi contexts, I’m constantly shifting between variations - low mount to high mount to technical mount - creating movement that makes opponent react defensively, which opens submission windows. The traditional mount holding approach where you just sit there with grapevines and wait for opportunities is boring and ineffective against skilled opponents who know systematic escape sequences. Instead, I teach what we call ‘submission storm’ where you’re flowing between armbar setups, triangle attempts, and even inverted attacks that opponent doesn’t anticipate. The mounted gogoplata is perfect example of 10th Planet innovation - nobody expects shin-to-throat choke from mount, so defensive preparation is minimal. Mount position also serves as platform for our twister setups when opponent turns to avoid submissions, we follow to truck position which creates twister pathway. The key philosophical difference is treating mount not as endpoint but as midpoint in offensive sequence that continues through back control or submission. If you maintain mount for 30 seconds without submission or advancement, you’re doing it wrong because skilled opponent is using that time to implement their escape protocols.