In theory, yes. In reality, there's a reason why it's far and away the most common submission.
I think it's the most common because it's the kind of submission that even to be in a position to go for someone's neck, even if you don't get the choke right away, it's hard for them to fight out of the position and get away. If you don't get an armbar, it's likely that the fight goes back to closed guard or a scramble happens. The rear naked choke comes from a position of strong control over your opponent and so you have a long time to get the choke. It's rare that there is a struggle for an armbar or a guillotine or a leglock. Usually it's quick and relatively by surprise. I think a lot of guys when they are getting beat on and positionally dominated to the point that a rear naked choke is available, it's an easy way out of the fight when fighting out of a choke and a back mount is a huge task.
Surviving the choke isn't the hard part. I think the hard part and why it is a common finish in MMA is that positionally it's hard to get out of a back mount. The person attacking can try for the same attack for an entire round so the percentage of finishes by rear naked choke is naturally higher than other submissions. No one has ever said that if you have the back mount to not bother trying for the choke because "position over submission". That's because you don't have to risk giving up the position in searching for the finish and most other submissions you try and fail and then lose the position, so it's less desirable to even try for those submissions.
In a sport scenario (like an MMA fight) the same logic applies. "I'm caught, I'm not getting out, I'll tap." He repeatedly performed the defense you're talking about, but eventually was caught by a better grappler.
I honestly don't think the same logic does apply. When it's a fight scenario, your career could be on the line. Certainly potentially doubling your paycheck is on the line. Also, your pride and your brand is on the line as a competitor. In training, it doesn't matter how many times you tap.
I think the scenarios are so vastly different that there is no way the same logic could apply. If you say to yourself "I'm not getting out, I'll tap" to a choke that just puts you to sleep... I think that is way less tough than tapping to strikes. It's pure quitting.
He repeated the defence but it doesn't matter because he quit in the end. He wanted a way out.
Now, for CM Punk, the smart thing to do was to quit because he was only going to take more of a beating and because he doesn't belong in there, but I don't think he deserves credibility for quitting by the most harmless method possible to lose by in an MMA fight as opposed to tapping to strikes...
The way it's been explained to me is that if you're taking a striking beatdown the ref will step in.
If you go unconscious in any way the ref will step in. If you get choked out, the ref will step in. It's not like when it comes to rear naked chokes it is tap or die. The short term and long term damage is way worse with taking a beatdown of strikes rather than going to sleep fighting to free yourself from a choke.
If you tap to strikes you're quitting before you're actually out of the fight.
And if you tap to a choke you are quitting before you are actually out of a fight. That's the whole point of what I'm saying. But the risk of taking 3 or 4 extra punches when you are out cold before the ref steps in is way worse.
I have no problem with fighters tapping whenever they feel they need to tap, my point is that there is this idea in fighting that it's somehow honourable to take the greatest beating possible even if your equilibrium is fucked, if you have a broken skull, or if you simply get hit in and out of consciousness a few times, but there is nothing wrong with giving up on fighting to free yourself from a rear naked choke. As someone who has done years of jiu jitsu and years of striking arts, the way the logic works out for me is that it's way more of a pussy move to give up fighting for a choke. It's the easy way out when the worst that can happen is that you go to sleep.
And I'm not calling any fighters pussies for tapping to chokes, but logically it makes no sense to say that it's okay to give up when the worst case scenario is sleep vs when the worst case scenario is serious brain damage. I am not a hard headed guy and am open to the opinions of others, but I honestly don't see how I can be convinced otherwise about that. I can't see any argument the other way that makes any sense.
If anyone does disagree though, I am happy to hear alternative points of view.
