- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,518
- Reaction score
- 489
...and you know this for a fact how?
dont take everything you see on the internet seriously
...and you know this for a fact how?
The true answer to this thread is that there is not enough evidence to make a definitive argument either way.
Human beings, due to their natural propensity for survival and evolution will seek greatness in their peers. The greater the perceived proximity, the more we will seek this attribute.
Semantics can be used to strengthen one's position and in the case of Rickson Gracie, there is not enough objective evidence to refute the widely held perception of dominance that his peers hold.
I have this funny, unusual thing I like to do. It's called thinking for myself. I just don't believe what I'm told just because someone else says I should. I like to see proof and make judgements after examining the facts. In case of Rickson, there really is no proof, just a bunch of people, mostly who don't even know Rickson, saying he was that great.
dont take everything you see on the internet seriously
Autonomy is a good thing. I won't ever knock someone for exercising it.
Here's a few facts.
Rickson Gracie is 55 years old today, so he was born in 1959.
Professional Athletes are in their prime from 25-32. It's human biology.
Rickson's prime would have been 1984 to 1991 when MMA was still an "underground" scene.
The UFC was founded in 1993.
Choke was filmed in 1995.
By that time Rickson was an aging fighter on the tail end of his career.
You can't compare people from different eras because athletic ability is a perishable skill set. That's like saying "Carl Lewis isn't legit because Usain bolt beat his record"
You can only compare people from their time period since they are the greatest from that time.
Rickson's verifiable fight record shows that he is undefeated.
Therefore, Rickson is the best from that time period.
Autonomy is a good thing. I won't ever knock someone for exercising it.
Here's a few facts.
Rickson Gracie is 55 years old today, so he was born in 1959.
Professional Athletes are in their prime from 25-32. It's human biology.
Rickson's prime would have been 1984 to 1991 when MMA was still an "underground" scene.
The UFC was founded in 1993.
Choke was filmed in 1995.
By that time Rickson was an aging fighter on the tail end of his career.
You can't compare people from different eras because athletic ability is a perishable skill set. That's like saying "Carl Lewis isn't legit because Usain bolt beat his record"
You can only compare people from their time period since they are the greatest from that time.
Rickson's verifiable fight record shows that he is undefeated.
Everyone else who competed in these events was defeated by Rickson or another opponent who then lost to Rickson.
Therefore, Rickson is the best from that time period.
One more thing, I believe Muhammad Ali was and is the greatest fighter of all time, heavyweight and p4p. Not saying he would beat Klitschkos today if in his prime, but his record backs up that he is the greatest, or at least one of the greatest. I can't look at Rickson's record and say the same thing.
If you were providing an example of a Gracie that lost in the UFC, I believe you meant Rolles (with an "E")
This is Rolls Gracie, his daddy (the guy that is dominating a younger Rickson)...
Completely agree. After watching that video of him and Takada, I almost would get in the ring with Rickson. Not very impressive at all. He was wise to retire before facing anyone in the top tier of the MMA ranks, otherwise he would have his myth status shattered. I don't think he could have hung with today's lightweights if he was still young enough.
I understand the facts and that you can't compare athletes from different periods of time, because it doesn't work. My legitimate question is how can people say Rickson was, or is the greatest fighter from that time period? You can't verify, or believe, his supposed record in jiu jitsu, which really doesn't matter since his MMA record does not reflect that he fought anyone really great.
If Rickson had beaten Sakuraba, Noguera, Coleman, Igor, Chuck..., then maybe yes, he was the goat in MMA, but this did not happen. Fedor was the goat of his time since he beat most of the top in his class, but Rickson did not. He even struggled a little against Takada, who was good but not a top tier fighter.
If you fight mostly cans and remain undefeated, you cannot be the best of your period.
Autonomy is a good thing. I won't ever knock someone for exercising it.
Here's a few facts.
Rickson Gracie is 55 years old today, so he was born in 1959.
Professional Athletes are in their prime from 25-32. It's human biology.
Rickson's prime would have been 1984 to 1991 when MMA was still an "underground" scene.
The UFC was founded in 1993.
Choke was filmed in 1995.
By that time Rickson was an aging fighter on the tail end of his career.
You can't compare people from different eras because athletic ability is a perishable skill set. That's like saying "Carl Lewis isn't legit because Usain bolt beat his record"
You can only compare people from their time period since they are the greatest from that time.
Rickson's verifiable fight record shows that he is undefeated.
Everyone else who competed in these events was defeated by Rickson or another opponent who then lost to Rickson.
Therefore, Rickson is the best from that time period.
But using GNP on an expert grappler opens up holes for the submission fighter also. Rickson's sweeps were legendary and his GNP was lethal also. The big wrestlers needed the rules changes (rounds, time limits) to succeed. I've watched nearly every UFC event since it's inception and the rounds, time limits, and the fact that wrestlers learned BJJ made all the difference.