Rickson Gracie FAQ

[Balto]

Of course, striking is just as much about skill as grappling.

But there is a definite difference in traditional BJJ strategy and striking, which is what Rickson is referring to, I think:

There is always the point where you have step into the pocket, in order to hit your opponent and there you can never fully discount the chance of him hitting you. While I wouldn't call that a lottery, It is certainly unsafer than the strategy of:
Takedown (stay safe), advance to sidemount (stay safe), advance to mount (stay safe) submit or punch.
You just cannot do that with striking. Especially because you cannot control the opponent for a length of time on the feet. Engage - disengage, while in BJJ you can control him and sequencially take him to a worse spot until you submit him.

A good striker will definitely control his opponent on the feet. It's just an indirect and subtle form of control that honestly most grapplers simply do not comprehend due to their own inexperience with it.

A good striker controls the entire match. He controls the range, he controls the pace of the match, etc. He learns how to force openings in his opponent so that he can attack just as safely as you would attack in BJJ.

Obviously there is always some chance of being countered, but it is the same in BJJ. You wrote (stay safe) after every step, and that is the idea, but bad things can happen in BJJ just as with striking. The worst case scenarios are:

Takedown (get reversed)
Advance to sidemount (get caught in a submission during the pass)
Advance to mount (guy gets his guard back)
Submit or punch (guy escapes from the mount)

A good BJJ guy is going to use his skill to minimize the chances of the worst case scenarios. But a good striker does exactly the same thing too. A good striker does not trade blows and just pray for a good result. He uses his skill to unbalance his opponent by messing with his range and timing. When a good striker chooses to press the attack, his opponent is off balance and in no state to counter him effectively.

Rickson talks about invisible BJJ all the time. He means the little moves that only skilled guys can see that make all the difference in the world. However, he is completely ignoring the invisible striking of footwork, timing, balance, etc. Just as Rickson uses his invisible BJJ to stay safe the entire match, a good striker will also use his invisible striking to stay safe the entire match.

 

[Balto]

A test for all grapplers who do not feel that striking offers any control:

Go down to a striking gym. Don't go to just some random Submissions 101 equivalent striking gym. Go to a good one. Go to one where they have professional fighters with decent records. Then ask to spar with one of them.

Somehow you'll find yourself magically controlled right from the beginning. You'll find yourself trapped in the corner, even though you already know that being cornered is bad. You'll find yourself unsure and defensive since every time you try to attack, you get countered so quickly you aren't even sure what happened.

When the sparring session is over, come back on here and tell me honestly if you felt like you were controlled during the match. It is a very real feeling. Even if you aren't experienced enough to understand how it happened, you will still feel it.

 

[ShanghaiBJJ]

A good striker will definitely control his opponent on the feet. It's just an indirect and subtle form of control that honestly most grapplers simply do not comprehend due to their own inexperience with it.

A good striker controls the entire match. He controls the range, he controls the pace of the match, etc. He learns how to force openings in his opponent so that he can attack just as safely as you would attack in BJJ.

Obviously there is always some chance of being countered, but it is the same in BJJ. You wrote (stay safe) after every step, and that is the idea, but bad things can happen in BJJ just as with striking. The worst case scenarios are:

Takedown (get reversed)
Advance to sidemount (get caught in a submission during the pass)
Advance to mount (guy gets his guard back)
Submit or punch (guy escapes from the mount)

A good BJJ guy is going to use his skill to minimize the chances of the worst case scenarios. But a good striker does exactly the same thing too. A good striker does not trade blows and just pray for a good result. He uses his skill to unbalance his opponent by messing with his range and timing. When a good striker chooses to press the attack, his opponent is off balance and in no state to counter him effectively.

Rickson talks about invisible BJJ all the time. He means the little moves that only skilled guys can see that make all the difference in the world. However, he is completely ignoring the invisible striking of footwork, timing, balance, etc. Just as Rickson uses his invisible BJJ to stay safe the entire match, a good striker will also use his invisible striking to stay safe the entire match.

I understand your point and thanks for taking the time to write that up.

I still see a difference though in being countered with strikes and countered with grappling. You always take some form of damage when being counter-struck. If I get countered (swept) it is a reversal of position.

By staying safe I of course meant the optimum scenario. Point is that the optimum scenario in striking leaves my opponent more chances to get back to level ground on a tactical level:
If we stand 5 feet apart, we are both out of danger, be it grappling or striking. When you strike you almost always disengage again (by choice or through the opponents reaction). When you get to an advantageous position in grappling, the opponent has to escape again before he can attack you.

It is a subtle difference, but it is an important one, in my opinion.

Of course, you can completely dominate someone in a striking contest, not take any damage through superior skill and KO the guy. But that would be akin to submitting someone easily and quickly.

The usual scenario is that both fighters take damage and it is easier to survive in a bad spot with grappling than with striking and the same goes for controlling an opponent.

A good example is: what do boxers do when they get rocked and are barely hanging on? They clinch.

 

[ShanghaiBJJ]

A test for all grapplers who do not feel that striking offers any control:

Go down to a striking gym. Don't go to just some random Submissions 101 equivalent striking gym. Go to a good one. Go to one where they have professional fighters with decent records. Then ask to spar with one of them.

Somehow you'll find yourself magically controlled right from the beginning. You'll find yourself trapped in the corner, even though you already know that being cornered is bad. You'll find yourself unsure and defensive since every time you try to attack, you get countered so quickly you aren't even sure what happened.

When the sparring session is over, come back on here and tell me honestly if you felt like you were controlled during the match. It is a very real feeling. Even if you aren't experienced enough to understand how it happened, you will still feel it.

Of course, but this comes with the gap in skill.

Equally skilled fighters it is a different story.

 

[DonkeyKong]

It is no coincidence after all that the notion of a "puncher`s chance" exists.

 

[Magjee]

Good read. TY TS.

 

[Balto]

It is no coincidence after all that the notion of a "puncher`s chance" exists.

This notion is usually misapplied by grapplers who don't have much experience in striking.

The equivalent exists in grappling. They are typically the "exciting" grapplers who constantly attack with subs in all positions. It is not the typical BJJ style, but even when a BJJ guy matches against someone like this, there is still always that "heel hook chance" that submission hunter will scramble his way into some sort of submission.

I mean Eddie Bravo triangled Royler guys. Royler had never even been scored on before that match, and the match immediately after Eddie was absolutely dismantled by Leo Viera. Yet somehow, he still submitted Royler. Everyone agrees that the vast majority of the time, he would not have caught Royler in that triangle. But still he did.

That right there is the "puncher's chance" that exists in grappling as well.

 

[Balto]

Of course, but this comes with the gap in skill.

Equally skilled fighters it is a different story.

It is the same for grappling though.

If you are able to follow your example and take the guy down, pass his guard, mount him, and submit him while being in control the entire time, you have just empirically demonstrated the gap in skill between you and your opponent right there. That result is practically the definition of grappling skill.

 

[ShanghaiBJJ]

It is the same for grappling though.

If you are able to follow your example and take the guy down, pass his guard, mount him, and submit him while being in control the entire time, you have just empirically demonstrated the gap in skill between you and your opponent right there. That result is practically the definition of grappling skill.

I think you are misunderstanding my point... It is much easier to stay safe (getting to one of the positions mentioned, not all) on the ground then on the feet, given equal skill.

 

[Balto]

I think you are misunderstanding my point... It is much easier to stay safe (getting to one of the positions mentioned, not all) on the ground then on the feet, given equal skill.

I think I see what you meant now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Still though I don't see the difference. You are not very safe on the ground against an opponent of equal skill in a neutral position. Their skill means that they are a threat to counter you.

If you have the guy pinned in side control, then yes you are safer. However, the equivalent in striking is if you manage to rock the guy and then pin him in the corner. At that point, he's no longer much of a threat to you since you've already gotten to a superior position. It's the same if you tire the guy out, take out his legs through repeated low kicks round after round, etc. A lot of the strategy in a high level striking match is achieving a type of dominant situation over your opponent.

Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope was a similar concept to the GJJ philosophy of defending until the guy was tired and winning in the later rounds. He just covered up and stayed safe for several rounds while his opponent tired himself out. Then, once he had achieved a dominant situation by having tired his opponent out, he was then safe to start attacking and win the fight in the later rounds. This type of strategy is just as technical as BJJ.

You are saying that if you are in a relatively neutral position in striking (both guys are standing on balance, fresh, and in range), then you are not safe against an opponent of equal skill. I completely agree. But the equivalent in BJJ is being inside the guard of an opponent of equal skill. You are not safe there either, assuming equal skill levels.

 

[Balto]

The issue is that grapplers see striking matches as totally even until somebody manages to land a decisive knockout blow. That does happen sometimes, but that is not the norm.

At the beginning of the first round, most strikers are evenly matched and a threat to each other. They start on even footing to make it fair. Grappling matches are started the same way. Both competitors are standing in a neutral position.

As the match progresses into later rounds, the momentum of the fight starts to shift. In the later rounds, it is not always evenly matched. A big part of striking is making sure that the match progresses in your favor. You gain situational (analogous to positional) advantages.

If you open up a cut on the guy's eye, it favors you. If you wear the guy down with body shots round after round, it favors you. If you are more efficient than the guy and tire him out, it favors you.

There is always the chance that you just get lucky with one shot and drop the guy without any advantage. But there's also the chance in grappling that you just get lucky with a scramble and catch a wild submission. However, most skilled guys in both disciplines opt to not leave it to chance and instead wear their opponents down methodically bit by bit.

Wearing the opponent down methodically without taking major risks yourself is a huge part of striking. It is no different from BJJ in that respect.

 

[ShanghaiBJJ]

Again, very true Balto and good insight.

I still feel it is easier to avoid being subbed than avoid being hit in the face repeatedly, when skill is equal.

And as much as I love the fight, Ali's rop-a-dope goes out the window with smaller gloves, doesn't it?

 

[Balto]

Again, very true Balto and good insight.

I still feel it is easier to avoid being subbed than avoid being hit in the face repeatedly, when skill is equal.

And as much as I love the fight, Ali's rop-a-dope goes out the window with smaller gloves, doesn't it?

It would be more difficult with smaller gloves. I think back to before Boxing had gloves and how many of those bare knuckle matches went for a long time to wear out the opponent, but of course when the hand is completely bare you must be careful not to break your hand so that changes things as well. The type of gloves used definitely affect the fight so I guess I just don't know on that one.

It's fine to at some point think that grappling or striking is a bit more efficient than the other. I think for me, grappling is a bit more efficient. But it's important to keep in mind that our own personal preferences shape this a lot so we need to respect the other arts too.

That's the main objection to Rickson's comments I'm sure. It is just not very respectful to dismiss striking outright as a lottery when Rickson himself has never even trained in striking once. According to Rickson, he has only ever trained in BJJ his entire life. Even though there are photos of him doing Judo and Sambo, he claims that was just experimentation and he fought with his father's BJJ at all times.

Rickson and his supporters will likely say that his BJJ is all that is needed to win a fight. After all, Rickson did win a lot of MMA fights using just that. However, that was then, and this is now. If Rickson or anyone using his philosophy were to match up against a modern MMA fighter proficient in striking and grappling, they would be defeated.

Therefore it is very hollow to criticize modern fighters for being well rounded and achieving a greater level of skill than existed when pure BJJ was dominating MMA. Rickson is certainly entitled to his opinion of what an aesthetically pleasing art is, and he clearly feels that his BJJ is the best in that area. However, when it starts crossing into criticism of others for not living up to that ideal, even when that ideal has proven to be impractical, that is when it starts to venture into a TMA philosophy.

There are plenty of TMA guys who feel that BJJ is ugly and unskilled. They are silly because BJJ is clearly effective and requires a ton of skill. However, Rickson is now taking the opposite view of claiming that striking is ugly and unskilled. This is equally silly as we know that striking is clearly effective in MMA and also requires a ton of skill.

 

[DonkeyKong]

Rickson doesn`t dismiss striking outright. He simply states that jiu jitsu fighters should focus on jiu jitsu and on staying safe instead of venturing themselves into a less controllable territory.

 

[Balto]

Rickson doesn`t dismiss striking outright. He simply states that jiu jitsu fighters should focus on jiu jitsu and on staying safe instead of venturing themselves into a less controllable territory.

His attitude seems pretty dismissive to me. Things can be misinterpreted, but he has been saying this stuff for quite some time now again and again. I think it's pretty clear that he feels his BJJ is the best fighting system period.

Also, it is again hollow to criticize BJJ fighters for becoming well rounded when in fact the BJJ fighters that are well rounded are the most successful ones in MMA.

 

[a dead stick]

Many good points made here. As much as I respect Rickson, it does seem fairly dismissive to speak of striking in that fashion, but it is not terribly surprising. He carries his fathers philosophy about jiu jitsu, it can be hard to let go of something you were raised with, it becomes like a religion.

Chances are Rickson will never bother to explore striking to the point where he truly understands it on the same level he understands grappling.

 

[wOg]

Balto, I think you may be taking greater offense than is intended. I'm not sure why you take Rickson's opinion "personally."

Jiu jitsu - at least the tradition that comes down from Helio - is all about avoiding damage, especially from strikes. Rickson's "lottery" metaphor may be extreme (I don't think so myself, but I'll concede the point), but in the context of what he believes is effective, efficient fighting, it makes good sense.

I've got a copy of an interview in which Rickson elaborates on this a little more. But his problem with striking in large part has to do with range and the idea of having to be vulnerable to strikes in order to attack with strikes. This is a bad trade as far as he is concerned.

From the perspective of someone who is training to maximize their efficiency as a striker, this "range" issue looks very different from someone whose entire gameplan is based on not taking percussive damage (i.e., not getting hit). I think that's the most appropriate context for Rickson's comments.

 

[Wrestler160]

Whats Ricksons relationship like with his cousins? Renzo, Carlos Jr, Ralph,Cesar(if that counts)?

What about Rorion? Do you know if he still keeps in touch with his cousins?

 

[Wrestler160]

Bump.

 

[Mike Wilson Jr.]

Not too many pages back, Rickson's relationships with his brothers and cousin was briefly discussed.


IIRC, he is closet with Royler, and Royce. He had a falling out with Rorian but in the 90's, and they havent been close since.

I forget about the cousins.