Rickson Gracie: Modern BJJ Black Belts Remind Me of Karate Practitioners Clueless of Jiu-Jitsu

[Paladin]

Cool story Mr. Rickson.

I wonder why you did not show Royce how to outgrapple Matt Hughes.

Farmer strength > old man strength

 

[Bamboozled]

Farmer strength > old man strength

Matt Hughes also knew submission grappling and put your fist through opponents face style.

 

[TrueFightFan]

Are you insane? He has sub wins over some great names....did you ever even watch him? Did you see what he did to Trigg? GSP? What he did to Renzo Gracies Almeida? He had 15 sub wins and had them mixed in all throughout his career. If by Ace you mean BJ, well he has a win vs him as well and had BJ in a terrible spot.

When he first fought Penn, Penn fought a complete game. When they fought the second time, Penn tried a "stand-up" fight only, for some reason. The third one he was brutally murdered by Penn. Are you telling me that prime Penn was better than prime Gracie? Penn owns Hughes. Hughes isn't even close to being on Penn's level.

 

[aichokyu]

I thought it was the other way around? Didnt he beat up multiple bouncers by himself?
Im not sure though

unfortunately no or at least it's not the same event, the one I am referring to is when a bouncer refused him access to a club and renzo came back later with friends/students and teamed up to beat up the bouncer.

 

[MCS]

Man, this thread is sad. UFC is basically wrestleboxing or wrestle or box these days, so what he says is true. There are very few skilled grapplers around, and even some of those like to win via stand-up, like both Nelson's, and then you have "black belts" like Swanson and Lyoto who are blue belts off their back. No control, yet get praised as black belts, which used to mean top level skill.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

Kudos on a well thought out post. I agree with your assessment of what BJJ has become and I think Rickson does as well. BJJ has become watered down because of its incorporation into MMA. How was Gracie able to take Kimo or Severn down and submit them? As for Hughes, with rules, gloves and time limits, he has a better chance to win but lets not pretend that he was fighting a prime Gracie. That was straight brute strength from a younger fighter overtaking an older fighter in an MMA rules fight. I don't, for one second, believe that Hughes is stronger than Severn or Kimo and Gracie managed to handle both in a limited rules bout. One small example in regards to Hughes is his second GSP fight. He gets grazed in the cup and drops like a rock. Do you remember the original UFC's allowed the groin strike? So the game has changed drastically and I think that is what Rickson is referring to. The BJJ that they created was not meant for sport but meant for actual fighting.

Kimo hardly has TDD defense on Hughes level, and Severn was foolish enough to want to go to the ground.

I agree Hughes wasn't fighting prime Royce, but on the other hand, Rickson made a big deal about going to Hayward Nishioka's dojo and beating him - when Nishioka was 55 years old, presenting Nishioka as an example of a world class judoka at the height of his powers. Its even sillier when you realize that an American judo champ of the '60's wouldn't even be in the top 100 in the world at judo - Nishioka in his prime was maybe 200th in the world, Nishioka at 55 wasn't even in the top 100,000, and yet Rickson made a big deal about it. He clearly did it for promotion reasons (ie Rickson is a smart guy, he obviously knew that Nishioka wasn't exactly Inoue), but If you play that exaggeration game yourself, you can hardly be surprised when its played back at you.

And the whole point of BJJ is that it beats straight brute strength - if that's all it took for Hughes to beat him then the Gracies were seriously misrepresenting what BJJ was all about. The point about Hughes beating Royce is actually that Hughes studied BJJ - Royce lost to a guy who mixed BJJ and wrestling, which is hardly a knock against BJJ.

In terms of old BJJ being about actual fighting, I don't think any unarmed style is meant for that. Humans have used weapons for at least 300,000 years for the simple reason that we're pathetic fighters unarmed. We have no claws, our teeth and jaws aren't strong or big enough, we're slow and weak (though we have pretty good endurance) for an animal our size. We'd still be bear and tiger food if it weren't for weapons. When humans fight for real, its all about weapons (and numbers actually). That's why cops, armies, gangs and crooks all use weapons.

Try this experiment - have a fit beginner in your club use a red marker as a 'knife' and 'fight'; the results will surprise you. Now imagine going against someone good with a knife. And then we get into guns ... the whole point of doing some unarmed defense when learning to fight for real is to cover the cases when you haven't got time to get to your weapon immediately - you then fight unarmed to buy enough time to access your weapon. Any style which doesn't spend at least 75% of its time on weapons is not about real fighting.

Most districts keep local crime stats; have a look at yours. In mine about 95% of attacks are with weapons (mainly knives, some firearms, the occasional baseball bat) and numbers. Spending all my time practicing unarmed defense for the 5% of fights which don't have weapons is simply foolish.

Though perhaps Rickson actually does spend most of his time on weapons; in that case his criticism of modern BJJ not being about real fighting would be true.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

most fights are more like two stags fighting for dominance than a lion after a wilder beast. so in that context you are right about the sport thing. what your talking about is stabbing people. your basically saying don't bother with martial arts, just carry a knife or gun and stab the fuck out of the first person that tries to attack you. that would land you a jail really fast. it also tells me you have very limited "real" fighting experience. or are you saying krav maga is the go. because i can a guarantee i could beat the crap out of a lot of those clowns just using bit of basic wresting and boxing.

Actually my real fighting experience is in the military, and under fire, and I'm basically saying that using unarmed against weapons is simply stupid. Anyone who's fought in a war will tell you the same. You know those movies you see where Schwarzenegger or Stalone spends half his time in the army fighting unarmed? They're movie, it's not that way in practice.

I've no illusions about krav maga (anybody who's been in a real war thinks its a joke). The only way any of the techniques I've seen them demonstrate would work against a real armed attacker is if that attacker was blind, drugged, and probably bound with duct tape.

I've also no illusions about the criminal system. If someone throws a punch at you and you respond with a weapon you're going to jail all right. But most districts keep local crime stats; take a look at yours. In mine, 95% of attacks are with weapons (and numbers). If someone attacks you with a weapon, and you respond unarmed you're probably going to be severely injured, if not killed. If someone attacks you with a weapon and you respond with a weapon you know how to use you've a better of chance of surviving, and while you're still likely to be arrested the chances are you'll never be charged after its all sorted out.

I've done judo for decades, and wrestled in college. I love martial arts. But I've seen more than enough real fighting to know that unarmed fighting is sport, unless perhaps you live in an area in which almost all attacks are unarmed. Check your local crime stats, that might be the case for you. In mine, 5% of attacks are unarmed, so unarmed shouldn't be the focus of self defense.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

are the old real fights involve weapons bullshit. your preaching to the choir on that one. it depends on the country and place you live mostly. i have been in a number of street fights and only two ever involved weapons. one was with a pick handle which i look off the guy and elbowed him, the other was when i took on a group of black fellas with knives strapped to my hands with boxing wraps. mma skills do work in multiple person confrontations. i have been there and done that. nearly ended up in jail after i broke one blokes jaw and gave another a concussion with a headbutt. that was me against at least 3-4 people (it's hard to tell how many when your actually fighting). real fights happen all the in australia without weapons. maybe they are just pussies where you come from (just kidding, i get what your saying but it's not really how it works where i live)

Australia sounds nicely civilized - supposedly beautiful country and friendly folk too, someday we'll go there for a holiday. I'm in northern Canada, and the local crime stats are 95% of attacks are with weapons and numbers. I suppose that doesn't include things like bar fights, but those are easy to avoid, they're basically just sporting events. Real fights are during break and entry, or parking lot muggings, store robberies, or gang initiations. And they always seem to use weapons (and typically weapons with numbers).

 

[Toxxus]

He forgets that when he first showed bjj to Karate guys and they first started the UFC to showcase BJJ that nobody had a clue of what it was. No idea how to defend or submit. That's why they were so dominant. Once wrestlers realized stay in guard or side control and use ground and pound ( anybody say Coleman) that BJJ started showing it's limitations early on. Then came guys like Chuck using wrestling in reverse ,not letting guys get the takedown and knocking them out.

MMA is STILL evolving!! BJJ is only one aspect of the sport. Look at Mia who's a TOP level BJJ Black Belt , he's limited when he can't get a takedown. Even in BJJ it doesn't look like the Gracie's are evolving as much as others. Bravo and his rubber guard and twister or Danahar and his system of not only moving up the body but down to wherever there's an opportunity. His team has dominated BJJ the last couple of years subbing Gracie BB's with leg locks simply by changing the game.

All should be thankful for the Gracie's for bringing BJJ to the world. However they have to evolve their own game, develope it more for MMA if he wants to say such things. With respect I say this, but it feels like some of the family is living on the glory days of yesteryear and not paying attention to the future themselves.

I studied under Relson Gracie for a bit back in the 90s and I feel like what Rickson is saying is mostly true. Back when I first practiced it there was an element of magic to it. I could suddenly tap out all of my karate / TKD friends in 30 seconds or less in a striker vs grappler match because none of them had any grappling background. But, even back then, by the time I was midway through blue belt I was already able to get through most sessions without getting tapped or only getting tapped intermittently. Defense certainly comes faster than refinement on the attacks and positioning.

And the belts back then were very hard to get. Purple belts were like black belts from most systems. One guy who taught at the Waimalu branch that opened up had been stuck at purple belt for years. When I asked him how long until he got brown belt he said that Relson told him he'd have to win some tournaments before they'd ever give him a brown belt. It was a mind blower to me, but it certainly kept the value of their brown and black belts elevated as only proven competitors could ever get them.

It's not TKD belt factory yet, but they are more liberal with the belts these days.

 

[TrueFightFan]

Kimo hardly has TDD defense on Hughes level, and Severn was foolish enough to want to go to the ground.

I agree Hughes wasn't fighting prime Royce, but on the other hand, Rickson made a big deal about going to Hayward Nishioka's dojo and beating him - when Nishioka was 55 years old, presenting Nishioka as an example of a world class judoka at the height of his powers. Its even sillier when you realize that an American judo champ of the '60's wouldn't even be in the top 100 in the world at judo - Nishioka in his prime was maybe 200th in the world, Nishioka at 55 wasn't even in the top 100,000, and yet Rickson made a big deal about it. He clearly did it for promotion reasons (ie Rickson is a smart guy, he obviously knew that Nishioka wasn't exactly Inoue), but If you play that exaggeration game yourself, you can hardly be surprised when its played back at you.

And the whole point of BJJ is that it beats straight brute strength - if that's all it took for Hughes to beat him then the Gracies were seriously misrepresenting what BJJ was all about. The point about Hughes beating Royce is actually that Hughes studied BJJ - Royce lost to a guy who mixed BJJ and wrestling, which is hardly a knock against BJJ.

In terms of old BJJ being about actual fighting, I don't think any unarmed style is meant for that. Humans have used weapons for at least 300,000 years for the simple reason that we're pathetic fighters unarmed. We have no claws, our teeth and jaws aren't strong or big enough, we're slow and weak (though we have pretty good endurance) for an animal our size. We'd still be bear and tiger food if it weren't for weapons. When humans fight for real, its all about weapons (and numbers actually). That's why cops, armies, gangs and crooks all use weapons.

Try this experiment - have a fit beginner in your club use a red marker as a 'knife' and 'fight'; the results will surprise you. Now imagine going against someone good with a knife. And then we get into guns ... the whole point of doing some unarmed defense when learning to fight for real is to cover the cases when you haven't got time to get to your weapon immediately - you then fight unarmed to buy enough time to access your weapon. Any style which doesn't spend at least 75% of its time on weapons is not about real fighting.

Most districts keep local crime stats; have a look at yours. In mine about 95% of attacks are with weapons (mainly knives, some firearms, the occasional baseball bat) and numbers. Spending all my time practicing unarmed defense for the 5% of fights which don't have weapons is simply foolish.

Though perhaps Rickson actually does spend most of his time on weapons; in that case his criticism of modern BJJ not being about real fighting would be true.

Another well thought out post but you missed the part about "brute strength". It was brute strength combined with gloves, cups and MMA rules, in regards to the Hughes fight.

As for the "weapons" argument you've brought up, that is an entirely different discussion. By those standards, there is no point in even practicing or training MMA or self defense since we should all just carry a weapon or gun.

Either way, BJJ has been watered down and Rickson is correct, in this aspect.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

Another well thought out post but you missed the part about "brute strength". It was brute strength combined with gloves, cups and MMA rules, in regards to the Hughes fight.

As for the "weapons" argument you've brought up, that is an entirely different discussion. By those standards, there is no point in even practicing or training MMA or self defense since we should all just carry a weapon or gun.

Either way, BJJ has been watered down and Rickson is correct, in this aspect.

That's starting to sound like what TMA people say - ie the only reason karate or TKD or aikido or kung-fu doesn't work in MMA is because MMA is a sport with too many rules. Are we really at the point where we're back to saying that all the best TMA techniques are too deadly for MMA, and that's the reason MMA isn't dominated by TMA folks? That without rules and gloves etc kung-fu or karate or (choose any style with elements too deadly for MMA) would be winning?

And its impossible to ignore weapons if you're talking about real fights - humans evolved to fight with weapons - we've done so for hundreds of thousands of years. We're lousy fighters without them, and its disingenuous to talk about unarmed fighting being a major factor in real fights. And yes, anyone who knows they're going to be in a real fight should be carrying around a weapon. We did it in the army, cops do it on the beat, and criminals do it in their crimes - because its simply foolish not to. Martial arts are great for a lot of reasons, but they're a tiny element of real fighting for humans.

 

[TrueFightFan]

That's starting to sound like what TMA people say - ie the only reason karate or TKD or aikido or kung-fu doesn't work in MMA is because MMA is a sport with too many rules. Are we really at the point where we're back to saying that all the best TMA techniques are too deadly for MMA, and that's the reason MMA isn't dominated by TMA folks? That without rules and gloves etc kung-fu or karate or (choose any style with elements too deadly for MMA) would be winning?

And its impossible to ignore weapons if you're talking about real fights - humans evolved to fight with weapons - we've done so for hundreds of thousands of years. We're lousy fighters without them, and its disingenuous to talk about unarmed fighting being a major factor in real fights. And yes, anyone who knows they're going to be in a real fight should be carrying around a weapon. We did it in the army, cops do it on the beat, and criminals do it in their crimes - because its simply foolish not to. Martial arts are great for a lot of reasons, but they're a tiny element of real fighting for humans.

Now your ego may be getting in the way....

He is stating, as I believe, that MMA is watering down Jiu Jitsu. You learn enough to get by in an MMA match and you get moved up in belts. I suppose they could train Jiu Jitsu with knives and maybe that would make you happy but in a fight to the death, WITH NO WEAPONS, Jiu Jitsu may have advantages over other disciplines if taught for that purpose, as it once was (or may still be in some schools). Pokes to the eyes and groin strikes have UFC fighters flopping around like hurt school girls and there is definitely no "grabbing the gloves" or digit manipulation allowed, so to say fighting in an MMA match is much like fighting in real life is definitely wrong. For example, a guillotine choke can be, and has been, defended by raking the eyes or even grabbing someone's balls, preferably not your own.

So, again, I think Rickson is talking about Jiu Jitsu as a whole and what it has become and you keep gravitating towards weapons but in reality, if you have a gun and I carpet bomb your ass, well, that gun did about as good as your Rickson Gracie Style earned Jiu Jitsu blackbelt would do.

My last point is that a well timed right cross to the chin can pretty much eliminate anyone of any fighting style, except maybe the "crackhead" league (I think jon jones might be the only member) but Jiu Jitsu, to me, has been the "must have" of all the disciplines in MMA and everyone has incorporated a certain version of it into their repertoire. If you learned the unadulterated version of it and implemented it in a fight, not an MMA match, I think your chances of survival are great and it can't hurt your chances of winning, either.

 

[AC1D1K]

BJJ is solved in modern MMA. subs seem to only come from exhaustion or someone looking for the door.


hehe

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

Now your ego may be getting in the way....

He is stating, as I believe, that MMA is watering down Jiu Jitsu. You learn enough to get by in an MMA match and you get moved up in belts. I suppose they could train Jiu Jitsu with knives and maybe that would make you happy but in a fight to the death, WITH NO WEAPONS, Jiu Jitsu may have advantages over other disciplines if taught for that purpose, as it once was (or may still be in some schools). Pokes to the eyes and groin strikes have UFC fighters flopping around like hurt school girls and there is definitely no "grabbing the gloves" or digit manipulation allowed, so to say fighting in an MMA match is much like fighting in real life is definitely wrong. For example, a guillotine choke can be, and has been, defended by raking the eyes or even grabbing someone's balls, preferably not your own.

So, again, I think Rickson is talking about Jiu Jitsu as a whole and what it has become and you keep gravitating towards weapons but in reality, if you have a gun and I carpet bomb your ass, well, that gun did about as good as your Rickson Gracie Style earned Jiu Jitsu blackbelt would do.

My last point is that a well timed right cross to the chin can pretty much eliminate anyone of any fighting style, except maybe the "crackhead" league (I think jon jones might be the only member) but Jiu Jitsu, to me, has been the "must have" of all the disciplines in MMA and everyone has incorporated a certain version of it into their repertoire. If you learned the unadulterated version of it and implemented it in a fight, not an MMA match, I think your chances of survival are great and it can't hurt your chances of winning, either.

Its possible my ego is getting in the way (I admit to having one), though actually I don't see how in this case, since we haven't been discussing me in any way - and I appreciate that its been a very civil discussion.

BJJ may or may not be the most effective discipline for fighting with no weapons (I'd pick MMA personally), but my point is that's a very rare, artificial circumstances. Check your local crime stats, I suspect you'll find far more than half of all attacks involve weapons. And if you're choosing the best method of self-defense, that has to play a huge role in your analysis.

The deadliest attacks are with weapons - which are also the most common attacks. So why would someone primarily concerned with self-defense choose to focus on unarmed fighting? Again, that's the reason the police carry weapons rather than focusing on unarmed; they are seriously concerned about being able to defend themselves (and in theory civilians) and so they go the most effective route: weapons.

You're correct about carpet bombing being extremely effective, and of course you could have gone higher and mentioned nukes. However, the chances of being carpet bombed (or bombed in general) is very rare in most locations. Whereas the chances of being attacked with a weapon is higher than the chance of being attacked by an unarmed assailant (in my location the local crime stats have it at 95% chance that your attacker(s) is armed. So that is what you should be training for.

(As a side note, I'd seriously argue that if you're young and healthy, the best self defense is practicing the 110 meter hurdles. Most criminals can't hit a moving target more than 20 feet away with a hand gun, and won't bother to chase after someone who's faster than them when they've attacked with a knife).

I completely agree that striking is an important element in unarmed fighting. (On a side-note, I'd suggest the people most likely to not be taken out by that well timed right to the chin are guys with strong necks like Mark Hunt or boxers like George Foreman etc - but you're not going to want to trade strikes with guys like that anyway, grappling those folks is clearly the way to go).

However that suggests MMA is a more complete style than BJJ, including old school BJJ, which had fairly poor striking (watch tapes of Rickson's or Royce's fights). Traditional BJJ also had poor takedowns compared to the norm in MMA (and that's actually gotten worse it seems). Even back then BJJ spent most of its time perfecting ground techniques (and theirs was and is much better than anyone elses'). Which is why they were relatively weak in takedowns and in striking compared to MMA. Now if you're saying that modern BJJ is even worse in terms of striking and takedowns, you might well be correct. But that wouldn't apply to MMA BJJ'ers like say Jacare or Maia, who have much better takedowns and striking than anything Rickson showed in his matches.

 

[moogie101]

When just talking about BJJ he's right, too many guys getting Black Belts who clearly don't deserve it & only after putting a few years in. But it became popular after what the Gracies did in early MMA & obviously it became watered down as a result. Just like every traditional martial arts before it.

 

[Seaside]

I think he is just saying that black belts are given too easily and in pure grappling BJJ wins if strength is at least on par or not heavily outmatched. i think some things like sambo (take away striking part) can be good in pure grappling.

but yeah Hughes would destroy him and any of his red belt family too.

 

[Mike Hagger]

Wow the first page told me just how clueless about actual martial arts the average SD poster is.

Notably the Matt Hughes comment, first Hughes is easily a high level BJJ BB if he went through a school, which he did not. His skill is at the upper levels. Secondly, MMA vs submission grappling is much different.

There's more to but there point has been missed I believe.

 

[mkt]

Because Matt Hughes is your average black belt and not a freak of nature.

Royce was never even the best gracie, and not close to it.

If Matt was an average BB (not sure about that), his BJJ skills were coupled with elite wrestling and a high level of strength/athleticism. It showed that there are many variables involved, and "superior jiu jitsu" didn't guarantee a win.

Heck, Kimo almost proved this a decade earlier. He was definitely bigger/stronger that Hughes, but only had high school wrestling and very basic grappling skills.

 

[mkt]

Kimo hardly has TDD defense on Hughes level, and Severn was foolish enough to want to go to the ground.
.

And Royce had a surprisingly hard time taking Kimo down and keeping him there. If Kimo had spent a little time with Gokor/Gene Lebell or other competent grapplers, I think he could've won. The rumor after the fight was that Kimo did a few BJJ sessions with the Machado brothers before the fight. That's why he knew some basics but nothing else.

 

[TrueFightFan]

Its possible my ego is getting in the way (I admit to having one), though actually I don't see how in this case, since we haven't been discussing me in any way - and I appreciate that its been a very civil discussion.

BJJ may or may not be the most effective discipline for fighting with no weapons (I'd pick MMA personally), but my point is that's a very rare, artificial circumstances. Check your local crime stats, I suspect you'll find far more than half of all attacks involve weapons. And if you're choosing the best method of self-defense, that has to play a huge role in your analysis.

The deadliest attacks are with weapons - which are also the most common attacks. So why would someone primarily concerned with self-defense choose to focus on unarmed fighting? Again, that's the reason the police carry weapons rather than focusing on unarmed; they are seriously concerned about being able to defend themselves (and in theory civilians) and so they go the most effective route: weapons.

You're correct about carpet bombing being extremely effective, and of course you could have gone higher and mentioned nukes. However, the chances of being carpet bombed (or bombed in general) is very rare in most locations. Whereas the chances of being attacked with a weapon is higher than the chance of being attacked by an unarmed assailant (in my location the local crime stats have it at 95% chance that your attacker(s) is armed. So that is what you should be training for.

(As a side note, I'd seriously argue that if you're young and healthy, the best self defense is practicing the 110 meter hurdles. Most criminals can't hit a moving target more than 20 feet away with a hand gun, and won't bother to chase after someone who's faster than them when they've attacked with a knife).

I completely agree that striking is an important element in unarmed fighting. (On a side-note, I'd suggest the people most likely to not be taken out by that well timed right to the chin are guys with strong necks like Mark Hunt or boxers like George Foreman etc - but you're not going to want to trade strikes with guys like that anyway, grappling those folks is clearly the way to go).

However that suggests MMA is a more complete style than BJJ, including old school BJJ, which had fairly poor striking (watch tapes of Rickson's or Royce's fights). Traditional BJJ also had poor takedowns compared to the norm in MMA (and that's actually gotten worse it seems). Even back then BJJ spent most of its time perfecting ground techniques (and theirs was and is much better than anyone elses'). Which is why they were relatively weak in takedowns and in striking compared to MMA. Now if you're saying that modern BJJ is even worse in terms of striking and takedowns, you might well be correct. But that wouldn't apply to MMA BJJ'ers like say Jacare or Maia, who have much better takedowns and striking than anything Rickson showed in his matches.

For the sake of focusing on Rickson's comment, let's set aside the guns, knives, carpet bombs and 110 meter hurdles for a moment.

MMA isn't a style, in and of itself, it is an incorporation of all styles, similar to what Bruce Lee tried to do with Jeet Kune Do. As for what he is saying, in regards to Jiu Jitsu, he is correct. Jiu Jitsu has no longer become a "fighting style" (in most cases) but has become a type of sports competition. That is what I believe has watered it down. In the World Championships, strikes are not allowed and in MMA, holding your opponent down and tiring him out, is not allowed either. If you strike someone in a Jiu Jitsu competition, you are quickly disqualified and fighters are stood up all of the time in the UFC and MMA matches for "non-activity". As I mentioned earlier, the Kimo and Severn fights would have gone very differently with today's rules. I almost think that both would have handled Gracie much easier than even Hughes appeared to have. Kimo's hair did him in and the "non-activity"/wait and tire him out method did Severn in. As a matter of fact, towards the end of the Severn fight, Herb Dean would have stopped the fight under current rules as Severn was just punching Gracie in the head with no "apparent" defense.

All in all, I can understand or relate to what Rickson is alluding to but I could be far out in left field. It is his opinion and I guess we can either agree or disagree with it.