Gracie propaganda

Discussion in 'Brazilian Jiu Jitsu' started by cowzerp, Mar 11, 2007.

  1. beknar

    beknar Valued Member

    Giant loser alert. It's Art JimmerSON not Art JimmerMAN who was the boxer with one glove.

    Good grief. And it's only Wednesday.
  2. fanatical

    fanatical Cool crow

    Besides "BJJ can beat X and Y and Z". The Gracies are, through rather crude methods, singularily responsible for "introducing" and popularizing grappling as an effective fighting method for the entire world.

    In the Gracies in Action tapes, Rorion does only once I believe mention that "zhoo zhitsu still reigns". Most comments made on the losses are how standup styles fall quick prey to grappling arts because if the inherent physical limitations of the human body. In other words, we can't just will ourself standing if someone wants to wrestle and gets past your punches (and that often happens, which Rorion was attempting to prove).

    While I don't exactly condone the Brazilian history of challenge matches and macho bravado, it's clear that it has had a tremendous effect on the development of jiu-jitsu in Brazil. The Gracies, establishing an amazing reputation as the family who could beat just about anyone, I feel, is entitled to being a bit arrogant and defending their honor as much as they can. Few people can claim to have accomplished as much as they have(both in regards of success and innovation) in a little over a generation.

    So while not enjoying brazilian male bravado is perfectly understandable, calling out and degrading the entire Gracie Family based on how you don't agree with the culture or the history of all this is not particularily good.

    I just felt I needed to get a word in edgewise on the topic.
  3. KempoFist

    KempoFist Attention Whore

    I stand corrected. I was thinking of UFC 3
  4. BigBoss

    BigBoss This is me, seriously.

    Funny the very reason you don't respect the Gracies anymore is the same reason that I have so much respect for them. Yeah the had big mouths they made big claims, but the backed them up every time, fighting over and over, who ever came through their door. How many people are there now on this board alone claiming about wing Chuen anti-grappling and the like, do you see any of them challenging a grappler to an anything goes fight, of course not, cos they are all mouth and no trousers. The Gracies were all mouth and they had the trousers to!

    And what's this about the Gracies getting beat all the time in MMA!? Royce in his last 2 fights and Royler before that, were are they getting beat "all the time"?

    And as stated earlier the reason you don't see BJJ dominating MMA so much now, is cos now everyone in MMA trains in BJJ so they are all on an equal footing. Don't you think that says something about the Graices that pretty much every MMA fighter cross trains in their art?
  5. Kenpo_Dave

    Kenpo_Dave Valued Member

    Firstly NOT everyone who trains in MMA does BJJ. Alot of people do Judo, Sambo and other submission styles. Ok there might be some techniques in what they do taken from BJJ, but it BJJ it aint. Whats more the Gracies DO NOT accept every challenge that comes their way. Jon Bluming has been asking them for years to come and fight in his dojo. First it was against Chris Dolman and now Semmy Schilt. Im sure there were others too. However, the only reply the Gracies gave was to fight in a ring/cage so that they could make money out of it, and under their SISSY rule set. Most of the time they didnt reply at all. Bluming also recalls seeing a Gracie losing "miserably" to a Kickboxer, not too sure what the rules where though.
    The only reason why BJJ dominated MMA in the early years was because most other fighters didnt who how to handle grapplers. Now that they do, grappling has taken its rightful place as a secondary, backup range to striking, be it standup or on the ground.
  6. BigBoss

    BigBoss This is me, seriously.

    My instructor challenged the Gracies too they refused to fight him! oh and I remember seeing one of them lose to a Tia Chi master!!! What, you don't believe me? But I just wrote it on this internet forum, it must be the truth!!! Get my point.

    Look I'm not some Gracie nut rider, I don't think they are some hardcore supermen or anything. But fact is fact they are the only group of martial artists who have actually gone around fighting and beat numerous people to prove their style is effective. Everyone else is happy to talk a big game and never do anything about it. And for that they have my utmost respect.

    As for sissy rules, it didn't seem to bother Royce that the first UFC's had no rules, unless of course you think he would have lost his fights had deadly eye gouges and bite been allowed.

    And as for grappling being secondary to striking I don't even know what you are talking about. The vast majority of MMA fights end on the ground. And the only way you can strike effectively on the ground is by having grappling skills better than your opponent to allow you to obtain and hold a good position to throw strikes from. Don't believe me, try going to the floor and striking someone with far superior grappling skill to you.
  7. Kenpo_Dave

    Kenpo_Dave Valued Member

    I fully accept that BJJ gives vital skills for all round fighting, particularly for when you are on your back. But most of the people the Gracies have "proved" themselves against were not all round fighters and didnt know what they were doing on the ground. The results would be the same if you got the majority of Gracies and put them into stand up fights (a range they generally dont train in, except for MMA). They would get their asses handed to them by any good Boxer, Muay Thai, Kyokushin fighter etc. Beating people in a range they are not trained in is not an impressive feat.
    Even if fights do end up on the ground, striking is still dominant, and grappling is only for as you said - "to obtain and hold a good position to throw strikes from". I do MMA, so I get plenty of ground training.
    Are you saying that Matt Hughes has better grappling skills than Royce? The only reason Matt won was because he is a better striker than Royce and had enough grappling skills to gain and hold a dominant striking position. How much grappling do Chuck, GSP, CroCop, Wandy, Fedor etc actually do in their UFC/Pride fights? Those fighters, to me, are the living proof that striking (either stand up or on the ground) is once again the dominant range in MMA. And it amazes me how people still train 80 - 90% grappling in their MMA training. People who do, IMO, really dont understand what the term "FULL CONTACT" actually means.
    As for your first comment. Jon Bluming is first and foremost a fighter. He has competed in both Kyokushin and Judo. He has also trained European, World and Olympic Judo champions. He has absolutely no reason to make fabrications or lie to make himself appear better. I will say this though. He does highly rate who he calls "the first Gracie". I assume hes taking about Helio or perhaps Carlson. This is the interview from where I got the info about the invitations/challenges made to the Gracies. Search for the word 'Gracie' to find the relevant paragraphs.
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2007
  8. BigBoss

    BigBoss This is me, seriously.

    Of course if you got the gracies to fight at only stand up range they would lose, just like if I challenged a Judo black belt to fight only stiking and not allow any grabs or throw I won win. But thats the point isn't it!? They didn't challenge them to grappling matches, they challenged them to real fights, with no rules, starting from standing up. The people they challenged weren't just saying that there style is great for stand up fighting, they were saying that there style was great for real fighting, with no rules. The Gracies never hid the fact that they were planning on taking the fight to the ground, it was the exact opposite in fact. The people they challenged know they were planning to take the fight to the ground but they believed they could easily stop them with there striking skills.


    This video is of a Karate team vs a Gracie Ju Jitsu team back in the 70's in Rio. Note how the commentator says "The Karate team preferred to fight on tiles as they were sure they would not end up on the ground."

    How many people do you still see today claiming that there style is effective in a real fight, hundreds. But how many of them go and actually challenge other martial artists in anything goes fights to prove it.

    We live in a different MA world today, the fact is that because of what the Gracies did people now know that to be effective in a real fight you need to train in all 3 ranges.

    As for the Matt v Royce fight, what won it for Matt? You say it was his supiror striking skills, do you really think those punches to the back of his head were so fast and strong that they won the fight!? I don't, I think the fact that he had Royce face down on the Matt unable to escape won the fight.
  9. hanakuso

    hanakuso Banned Banned

    LOL! Its funny how hard folks will work to twist reality to suit their own preferences/bias! :D :rolleyes:
  10. Kenpo_Dave

    Kenpo_Dave Valued Member

    Cool video, thanks :)
    All the Gracies did was emphasize the importance of grappling in a truely effect fighting system. They did not introduce the concept at all. Bluming was mixing Karate and Judo back in the 60's and others were mixing ranges long before him, totally independent of what the Gracies were doing. They just seemed to have been content with letting others keep on thinking that striking or grappling was enough.
    My point about the Matt vs Royce fight was simply in response to your comment "the only way you can strike effectively on the ground is by having grappling skills better than your opponent to allow you to obtain and hold a good position to throw strikes from". Matts grappling isnt better than Royces yet he still managed to hold the top position. Though I think you were right about Royces face being down being the real reason why Matt won. Not that it would have stopped Royce in a real fight but because of UFC rules i.e. he didnt defend enough. I still stand by my belief that striking is the dominant range, even though in truth striking is nothing without good grappling skills and vice versa. Lets just agree that in the end MMA training in general is best :)
  11. EternalRage

    EternalRage Valued Member

    So what if they're cocky? In MMA and sport BJJ they are as much athletes as they are martial artists and fighters. Athletes are bred to win, trained with that winning attitude that they are the best and no man can take them down, which is borderline arrogance. But that's what any good coach, from football to tennis to soccer, will keep beating into his students' heads because you don't go into a competition thinking, "hrmm well there are people that might be better than me and I might lose this match, but that's ok."

    Is it really that surprising that they show a little arrogance at times? Not to mention that they're doing one of the most testosterone driven competitions on the planet, so it's only natural.
  12. Oversoul

    Oversoul Valued Member

    Sissy ruleset? I think the thing with them having special rules is kind of funny, but they've been burned a couple of times, like Royler against Sakuraba and Royce against Yoshida.

    I don't see how grappling is "secondary" in MMA. It's much too important to be secondary.
  13. Stevebjj

    Stevebjj Grappling Dummy

    There is a big difference between a fight that allows strikers to strike and grapplers to grapple and a fight allowing only the former, which is what you're suggesting. It's like saying, "Hey, no fair. You grabbed me," in a playground fight. Saying that the Gracies would get their asses kicked in a pure standup fight is implying that the Gracies prohibited striking at some point.
  14. RandomTriangle

    RandomTriangle Valued Member

    "Are you saying that Matt Hughes has better grappling skills than Royce? "
    Yes. Matt Hughes is a better grappler than Royce. He took Royce down, and controlled him on the ground. Went for an armlock (i forget which), then took Royce's back.

    Yes, a Matt Hughes in his prime is a better grappler than a 40 year old Royce.

    "the only way you can strike effectively on the ground is by having grappling skills better than your opponent to allow you to obtain and hold a good position to throw strikes from".

    THAT is true. YOU CAN NOT KEEP OR EVEN GET a dominant position on someone (on the ground) unless you are a better grappler than them.

    "How much grappling do Chuck, GSP, CroCop, Wandy, Fedor etc actually do in their UFC/Pride fights? Those fighters, to me, are the living proof that striking (either stand up or on the ground) is once again the dominant range in MMA. "

    Do you watch MMA?... Fedor has 25 wins... 12 of them are by submission... only 6 by knock out.

    St. Pierre has 13 wins... 4 by submission... 6 by knock out..

    Now Chuck and Wanderlei have more knock outs than submissions... but so what?

    MMA has evolved into a Person vs. Person event... NOT a style vs. style event.

    I'm sure you know about chuck and wanderlei's incredible grappling skills.

    i mean... how can you say that grappling is not AS important as striking WHEN grappling is how Chuck says on his feet TO strike?
  15. Kenpo_Dave

    Kenpo_Dave Valued Member

    I guess the foundation of my argument comes from my frustration with grapplers who think they can add a bit of striking to their training and claim its effective MMA. The starting point for most Irish MMA competitors is a league which forbids head strikes of an kind and in which pure grapplers can win fights without throwing a single strike (search Irish MMA on Youtube for some clips). Now, there are some great Irish events such as Ring of Truth and UFR, and equally some really good strikers, but the grapplers mentality is still prevalent, mainly due to the politics and influence of the dominant MMA gyms. This mentality is the total opposite to mine, which comes from the self defense point of view of doing as much damage as possible in the least amount of time, and IMO striking is the most efficient way of doing that.
    When I say that grappling is secondary to striking in MMA I dont mean to say that it is not as important as striking. As I said previouly, striking in all round fighting is nothing without grappling. Nowever, I still see grappling as a defensive range for when I am taken to ground or when Im against a larger, stronger opponent.

    I still think the Gracies arent as great as most people make them out to be. All they did was take Judo Ne Waza, expand it and market it as something new. Alot of other people who have done this with other styles have been accused of being frauds.

    Anyway, Im going to humbly bow out of this thread.

    Last edited: Apr 8, 2007
  16. Oversoul

    Oversoul Valued Member

    I suspect that most people don't actually know who the Gracies are.

    And they don't usually seem to market JJ as something new.
  17. EternalRage

    EternalRage Valued Member

    Then if you are stating that both are equally important, then it's just a matter of personal preference as to which you may identify yourself with more. Not a big deal, some people like grappling more than striking, others vice versa. I tended to sway more to striking, and even though I've grown to love my BJJ training (started out just doing it because I needed the skillset), I still slightly feel more natural on my feet (although in 5 years, who knows?).
  18. fanatical

    fanatical Cool crow

    I hope you come back to this thread, because are wrong on many points. I have only trained BJJ in one MMA gym, but there was no attitude that just adding a bit of striking was what was needed to become a good MMA fighter. In fact, where I trained, you needed to complete AT LEAST a half year or more of basics in both BJJ and Muay Thai to even be able to start as a beginner in MMA. I'm love watching MMA, but I'm no MMA fighter, I stuck with the jiu-jitsu :)

    Wether you view grappling as secondary or not is simply a matter of mindset. You can easily attack someone by closing the distance, taking them down and submitting them. Also grappling is a brilliant supplement to being able to get strikes off. And striking is a brilliant supplement to being able to improve position and eventually get the submission.

    Textbook oldschool BJJ is to punch and kick to off balance or keep yourself safe or set up the takedown. That's striking and grappling in unison right there. Then go down, improve your position to the mount if possible, striking your way there if necessary. Get mount, punch them in the face and maintain position until they either give you their hands by pushing you off or trying to defend themselves or they give you their back, in which case they only make it worse for them to defend themselves and at the same time may be the victim of an easier, more powerfull choke as well.

    Although BJJ does not teach or polish striking technique in the same way and indeed not in the same quality that striking styles do (most BJJ schools don't bother to actually teach HOW to strike, they can often simply explain where you can, and where you should look out for it to defend yourself).

    When being the larger stronger opponent it should be EASY to grapple a smaller weaker guy to submission than to punch out that fast wily guy who just might get the jump on you with something. It's not easier to grapple bigger guys, nor is it automatically the best choice. But it is OFTEN the best choice because weight and strength will be dealt with very differently on the ground. But to say that grappling is limited to defense is like saying striking is limited to breaking boards. People like Nogueira for instance can lie in the "defensive" guard position all day and rain submissions at people and all they can do is to desperately try to stand up or keep themselves safe. Who is defending and who is attacking? The guy on the bottom is attacking you say? How can that be?

    "all the gracies did" was take Judo and fight with it in actual fights. Amassing vast experience of what worked and what didn't work. That's a lot more than anyone had ever done before them. The early BJJ challenges and Vale Tudo fights and street fights and everything. It all came down to figuring out what worked, and every fight was potentially devastating. Think about it. Yuki Nakai vs. Gerard Gordeau. Nakai was not a BJJ guy, but the point stands as fighting a serious fight like that, even though it was illegal, Nakai got eye gouged and blinded for life. You're putting a lot on the line with stuff like that.

    I honestly believe your dislike for grappling is coloring your arguments. There's no real "truth" to what you're saying it's just how you view things because you don't like to grapple as much. I can understand that. But I do, and I don't mock striking the same way. In fact you're not so different from the grapplers who claim they only have to learn a little striking to be a MMA fighter. You say you use grappling only for defense.

    So in conclusion. I really don't agree with what you're saying.
  19. Oversoul

    Oversoul Valued Member

    Or you can come in looking for the knockout, not worried about being taken down because your sweeps are good enough to protect you. Or you can sit back and counterpunch, stuffing takedown attempts. Or you can put your opponent on the ground and then attack with stomps. There are many things that you can do, but none of them make grappling strictly secondary to striking or striking strictly secondary to grappling.
  20. fanatical

    fanatical Cool crow

    That is teh correct.

Share This Page