Is Rickson Gracie even relevant any more?

[Uchi Mata]

What scares me about this thread is that some people really sound like they don't consider Rickson relevant. I was hoping this was just a troll post.

You can't say 'relevant' without a direct object. Relevant to what? Rickson is definitely relevant to the history of BJJ, to the history of early MMA, and to the development of the Gracie family style of BJJ. He is not relevant in any large way to modern BJJ competition, or MMA IMO. To me he's like the Cy Young of BJJ. He has the amazing records that no one will ever come close to matching, but the game was very different (less developed, less professional) and his level relative to his rivals was much higher than the top guys are today relative to their closest rivals. He was essentially a professional fighting amateurs, now all the best guys are professionals. Again, I respect his BJJ and I have no doubt that his mastery of the basics is at a level very few if any people will reach, but that's different than being relevant to the modern BJJ scene.

 

[Drew Foster]

Rickson getting dissed on f12?

What part of the game is that?

 

[jgn2112]

You can't say 'relevant' without a direct object. Relevant to what? Rickson is definitely relevant to the history of BJJ, to the history of early MMA, and to the development of the Gracie family style of BJJ. He is not relevant in any large way to modern BJJ competition, or MMA IMO. To me he's like the Cy Young of BJJ. He has the amazing records that no one will ever come close to matching, but the game was very different (less developed, less professional) and his level relative to his rivals was much higher than the top guys are today relative to their closest rivals. He was essentially a professional fighting amateurs, now all the best guys are professionals. Again, I respect his BJJ and I have no doubt that his mastery of the basics is at a level very few if any people will reach, but that's different than being relevant to the modern BJJ scene.

Again, Uchi Mata pegs how I feel. And I have the utmost respect for Rickson.

 

[Knuckles69]

Rickson is part of my lineage.

Helio > Rickson > Caique > Mauricio Zingano > me.

He's relevant to me because many of the lessons that both Caique and Mauricio learned from Rickson we still learn from every day.

 

[georgejjr]

Agree.

By that logic guys like Mifune and Karelin aren't relevant to their arts either.

And that Kimura guy, what has he done lately....

If any of the legends, living or dead, wished to offer advise to my sorry game (yes at 10 years of total grappling I am an untalented noob compared to those greats!) I would shut up, listen and thank them, not ask what have they done lately or if their technique is "relevant" in modern Judo/BJJ/Wrestling

And how about that Einstein guy? What has he done for us lately? Worse, Newton has come up with zilch in a couple of centuries. Completely irrelevant, can't have done anything worth remembering :icon_chee

 

[georgejjr]

You can't say 'relevant' without a direct object. Relevant to what? Rickson is definitely relevant to the history of BJJ, to the history of early MMA, and to the development of the Gracie family style of BJJ. He is not relevant in any large way to modern BJJ competition, or MMA IMO. To me he's like the Cy Young of BJJ. He has the amazing records that no one will ever come close to matching, but the game was very different (less developed, less professional) and his level relative to his rivals was much higher than the top guys are today relative to their closest rivals. He was essentially a professional fighting amateurs, now all the best guys are professionals. Again, I respect his BJJ and I have no doubt that his mastery of the basics is at a level very few if any people will reach, but that's different than being relevant to the modern BJJ scene.

Except he developed a lot of the basis. Its like Kano in judo, or Newton in physics. Advanced techniques are based on the basics discovered by earlier people - of which Rickson, by all accounts, is one of the prime ones for BJJ. As Newton himself, said, "If I have seen a little further than others, it is because I stood upon the shoulders of giants."

Can you do modern physics just on what Newton discovered? No. But without Newton's discoveries, there is no modern physics.

 

[TriangleMan]

Except he developed a lot of the basis. Its like Kano in judo, or Newton in physics. Advanced techniques are based on the basics discovered by earlier people - of which Rickson, by all accounts, is one of the prime ones for BJJ. As Newton himself, said, "If I have seen a little further than others, it is because I stood upon the shoulders of giants."

Can you do modern physics just on what Newton discovered? No. But without Newton's discoveries, there is no modern physics.

Jesus. then Kano, Helio, and Carlos Gracie Sr are still relevant too -___- And don't forget the early developers of grappling back in India!!

 

[amhlilhaus]

if you want to be a Black Belt Mundial champ odds are you need more than that, you need to be part of the right system.

.

sport jiu jitsu is the same as any other fight sport. if you have the physical tools combined with the right work ethic and good coaching you can make it to the top.

in a lot of cases, while the trainer/coach helps the competitor, more often it's the competitor who makes the trainer/coach.

 

[amhlilhaus]

I agree. The only real "development" of BJJ I see today is people coming up with a lot of funky moves and guard variations, that work great in BJJ competition, but would likely get your head beaten in or smashed against the pavement in a street assault.

pulling any guard on the street is likely to get your head smashed.

 

[georgejjr]

Jesus. then Kano, Helio, and Carlos Gracie Sr are still relevant too -___- And don't forget the early developers of grappling back in India!!

Actually I'd say they are, and for the same reason Newton is still relevant, though he hasn't published a paper in physics in two centuries. What they did became an integral part (the basis) of their disciplines.

For most of us, if we'd been born on a desert island with no one to teach us, there's no way we'd have come up with F=ma, or the basics of judo or BJJ. There are thousands of years of development in what we take for granted as "obvious" - more often then not, things are obvious when we're shown them, not so obvious if we have to discover them for ourselves.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Except he developed a lot of the basis. Its like Kano in judo, or Newton in physics. Advanced techniques are based on the basics discovered by earlier people - of which Rickson, by all accounts, is one of the prime ones for BJJ. As Newton himself, said, "If I have seen a little further than others, it is because I stood upon the shoulders of giants."

Can you do modern physics just on what Newton discovered? No. But without Newton's discoveries, there is no modern physics.

I don't think he actually developed much of anything, he was just the best at it. And I don't think we really disagree...I don't think Newton is relevant to modern physics in the same way Edward Witten is, while acknowledging that all of modern physics was built on a Newtonian basis.

 

[SUPERGRAPPLER]

Jesus. then Kano, Helio, and Carlos Gracie Sr are still relevant too -___- And don't forget the early developers of grappling back in India!!

Indians didn't solely develop grappling either. Other nations simultaneously contructed their own grappling styles. The same can be said for many martial arts, from savate, muay thai, karate, etc.

 

[lechien]

Except he developed a lot of the basis. Its like Kano

Please elaborate on which basics he developed.

 

[ijustwannasurf]

If you're wondering about the relevance of his lineage, check out the transformation of Ben Rothwell.

 

[TriangleMan]

I'm pretty sure something was taken out of context here...

 

[alaykala04]

This is what I pictured when I read the first post

 

[georgejjr]

I don't think he actually developed much of anything, he was just the best at it. And I don't think we really disagree...I don't think Newton is relevant to modern physics in the same way Edward Witten is, while acknowledging that all of modern physics was built on a Newtonian basis.

I agree we're not really disagreeing, except on what "relevant" means.

Its probably a pointless argument, like arguing whether the 100th floor of the world's tallest building is more or less relevant to its height than the first floor. I suspect Witten would be the first to point out he couldn't do his work without using Newton's (and a host of others who came before but are now long dead), what that means in terms of relevance is semantics. For my part, I think relevant means something that is still vital to the discipline, which means Newton is still very relevant to modern physics. But I can understand why others might use a different definition.

Please elaborate on which basics he developed.

Kano or Rickson? I'm guessing you mean Rickson (if not, I'm way too lazy to go into everything Kano developed, there are books written on it), and since I'm a wrestler/judoka whose knowledge of BJJ comes mainly from teaching takedowns at a BJJ club (ie indirect), all I can say about Rickson is that I'm told he was a major player in its development by people who seem to know about these things. I'm arguing about the principle of the relevance of early developers, not about Rickson in particular.