Exactly how legit is Rickson Gracie?

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.

Actually, I disagree, there's no evidence so it's easy to make the argument that Rickson was not much more than a myth. He was probably very good at jiu jitsu, but that doesn't prove one way or another that he was, or could have been, one of the greatest MMA fighters of all time. The simplest explanation often tends to be the correct one.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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.
 
Everyone else that you mentioned is roughly 10 years younger than Rickson Gracie.
The closest fighting in age to Rickson that you listed is Mark Coleman.

Mark Coleman is 6 years younger than Rickson and wasn't completing in MMA when Rickson was fighting.

Rickson's prime was btwn 1984 and 1991. Mark didn't compete until 1996.

Rickson beat everyone that he competed against.
Sure the MMA world wasn't as established as competitive as it is today and many fighters today could beat up the 55yr old Rickson Gracie, but that doesn't change the fact that Rickson beat everyone during his time period.

That combined with Royce Gracie's testimony is enough for me to believe that Rickson was better than Royce and would have walked through the first few UFC's.

In 2004, Rani Yahya went to train with Rickson Gracie before winning the 2007 ADCC title for the 155lb weight class.

Rickson is a legend in BJJ and was already famous in Vale Tudo before the UFC was created. Before Dana White was apart of the UFC, before the UFC cable ban.

These are all facts. People have been asking the question, "How good was Rickson Gracie?" since before Sherdog.com was around. And the answer is always the same, he's a BJJ legend, undefeated in MMA. But you can't compare him to fighters outside his weight class or fighters from another era...no one will ever know. That's why these topics belong in the Wasteland.
 
Last edited:
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.

Meh.

Comparing fighters from different eras and different weight classes are all wasteland topics.
 
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)...

Rolls was the greatest of them all. That was my point.
 
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.

Usually retiring at 41 yrs old is a wise thing to do...smh
 
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.

Do you know Rickson's last fight was in 2000, at 41 yrs old? And that success for the fighters you mentioned, with the exception of Saku came in the early 2000's?
 
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.

You're one of a handful I agree 100% with on this thread.
 
Well, exactly how legit was mma when he was fighting? In bjj i think he might be the mystic goat kinda like Ray Robinson is to boxing, but for mma its hard to debate because there was really no platform for all-out competition like there is today and was for others. But i like to believe he was the best of his time, even if there is not 'enough proof', because not looking at his record or claimed record, its hard to believe so many high-level martial artist and bjj black belts would just kissing his ass when saying that he is better than anyone they ever trained with.
And it really cant be argued how good he would have been against competition today because both bjj and mma is so far from what they were back then, if he was 30 now and had been training with the same knowledge that has been avaible for champions of today, maybe then we could see but in this case its stupid to claim he could have or could have not because he fought over 20yrs ago.
 
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.

Rickson is a legend for sure and a pioneer in terms of jiu jitsu application in MMA, but I think it's been shown that high level wrestlers have an easier time picking up jiu jitsu than vice versa. If he were to fight a high level black belt, Cormier can spend a camp working on his jiu jitsu such that he can negate most of his opponent's attack. His opponent can train wrestling for the entirety of his camp and that still won't stop Cormier from ragdolling him. Same with guys like Askren. All I was suggesting is that if you were to take Rickson and Mark Schultz in their respective athletic primes and threw them into today's MMA scene, modified training methods and camps et al., that Schultz would have the higher ceiling.
 
In strait up jiu jitsu...he was the best. Too many top tier guys have claimed that time and time again... Andre Galvao stated in an interview that Rickson shut him down in every direction while meeting him and Kron in Japan. Draculino tells on one of Budo Jakes rolled up series of Rickson ,while still in Brazil, training with a gathering of black belts and just toying with everyone. Cousin Renzo has stated it many times. Pedro Sauer once told us during a seminar that it was even dangerous just to slap hands before rolling with him...That one made us all laugh
 
Well, nobody doubt Ricksons legacy in bjj.
But when you walk around and talk smack about the best MMA's repeatedly and never fought anyone who is on that level where the guys are, you criticise, you're seem to be out of your mind.

"Fedor has this." "Cain has that."

That's ridiculous if the best win in your record is against Funaki.
 
Actually, Rickson beat a lot of legit guys in MMA. Masakatsu Funaki, Nobuhiko Takada, Yoshinori Nishi, Yuki Nakai and Yoshihisa Yamamoto were indeed very legit guys even though they never get the credit they deserve.

He also did that awesome spinning move against Kimura (Rest in Peace btw).
[YT]PCFAogxhhw0[/YT]
 
Takada was famous for his fixed bouts. Nakai was about 70 kg and half blind.

Rickson fought nobody who is even close to Fedor or Cain.
But talks shit about them. Every current world class welterweight would've smashed him.

I'm with Wand:"Rickson is living in a fantasy world."

;-)
 
Last edited:
Hi, just to answer your question:

1) yes, he is/was legit. he fought good competition on his time, the best japanese fighters around on his generation. he did not fight americans because his brother rorion made him sign a contract where if he fought in the USA most of his purse would go to him... so he fought in Japan and to get big purses he had to fight the guys the Japanese wanted him to fight, and they wanted him to fight the best Japanese around. These guys were pro-wrestlers. But pro-wrestling in Japan isn't the same as in the USA...

2) He never fought Sakuraba (who was also a pro-wrestler), that was his weak point. If he had fought and beat sakuraba, then he would have muuuuch more credit. There are 3 reasons this fight might not have happened: a) he didn't think he could win and chickened out b) his son died a violent death after leaving home because they had serious argument and that let him devastated c) he is 11 years older than sakuraba and when this fight was talked about (2000, after sakuraba beat royce) rickson was already 42 and 98% of fighters are already retired on this age. one problem was rickson was ashamed of his age, for some stupid reason, and actually pretended to be younger, if he had kept his age open probably the fight not happening would not be such a big issue back then.

So, he isn't a myth/legend, but was one of the top guys of early MMA (say, up to 1998).
 
Saku vs. Rickson was the greatest battle we never got to see.

It had all the perfect elements of a dramatic rivalry...the long-term Japan-Brazil connection, the fact that the upstart pro-wrestler Saku had defeated a handful of the best Brazilians (including the great UFC champion, Royce) and was poised to nullify the long-term mystique around GJJ.

They were two of the (perhaps THE two) best ground fighters, in prime condition, in MMA at that time. It would have been an epic contest for sure, with Rickson defending the Gracie honor and Saku attempting to beat his biggest and best challenger yet.

Sadly, due to the untimely death of Rickson's son, we will never know what might have been. You can't really blame Rickson in that case.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,869
Messages
55,313,311
Members
174,733
Latest member
Bob Gnuheart
Back
Top