Keenan Cornelius: "Rickson Gracie...tough purple belt"

[BJJ_Rage]

None of Rogers students are as successful as him using the basics against modern players in competition. Honestly much of Rogers success was just sheer talent, he’s a tall athletic guy with super long limbs, his build was just tailored for his advanced basics game. I don’t think his movements are as fluid and smooth as Buchecha who moves around like a middle weight on the mat.

thats because buchecha is 2x the athlete roger could ever dream to be.

 

[nefti]

Modern BJJ is more than the berimbolo and the lapel. I think that take really sells modern BJJ short. It's the entire DDS leg game too, depending on rule set, and I don't think HH were banned back then.

In my opinion it is more likely to catch rickson in a new kind of gi technique than a no gi technique. Especially if you consider the old style jiu jitsu and and how it was all about passing low with pressure. A modern competitor would have a much more difficult time elevating rickson from butterfly guard to enter leg entanglements than pulling open guard in gi.

 

[SandisLL]

Kyle wrestler, but in his PRIME's apogee period he was such a strong, flexible and fast. A+ level athlete so hard to deal I think.

 

[nefti]

None of Rogers students are as successful as him using the basics against modern players in competition. Honestly much of Rogers success was just sheer talent, he’s a tall athletic guy with super long limbs, his build was just tailored for his advanced basics game. I don’t think his movements are as fluid and smooth as Buchecha who moves around like a middle weight on the mat.

Most famous competitors dont have students who are as successful as they are, unless they poach other peoples students. Roger doesnt do that

 

[yetanother]

I'm guessing that current BJJ technique is based a lot more on what Rickson developed than what Keenan developed. And developing new techniques is the most important element of a black belt.

What did Rickson develop in terms of technical innovation?

 

[JustOnce]

Could be, they were busy developing the techniques that today's techniques are based on. Put it this way, Isaac Newton wouldn't pass most of today's undergraduate physics classes with what he knew two hundred years ago (electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity, statistical physics for example hadn't been discovered in his day) -- and yet he's considered to be along with Einstein the greatest physicist ever by just about every physicist in the world.

Same for calculus -- Newton and Leibniz invented it, but neither would pass most undergrad calculus tests today, we've built on their work. Yet for some reason every math expert thinks Newton and Leibniz were among the greatest mathematicians ever.

I'm guessing that current BJJ technique is based a lot more on what Rickson developed than what Keenan developed. And developing new techniques is the most important element of a black belt.

The moron of a century right here.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

What did Rickson develop in terms of technical innovation?

I've been told that BJJ advanced a long way from the 50's to the 90's, and that Rickson, as one of its key figures in that time period, was one of the key players in its advancement. Is that false?

Most early development in physical activity involve general body movement, positioning, refinement of basics and so on rather than standalone techniques. My understanding is that Rickson was so dominant that almost everyone copied how he did things.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

The moron of a century right here.

Of a century? Your moron calibration is clearly off, I'm easily the moron of the last millennium. Adjust your settings.

 

[JustOnce]

Of a century? Your moron calibration is clearly off, I'm easily the moron of the last millennium. Adjust your settings.

If we go that far, probably.

 

[yetanother]

I've been told that BJJ advanced a long way from the 50's to the 90's, and that Rickson, as one of its key figures in that time period, was one of the key players in its advancement. Is that false?

Most early development in physical activity involve general body movement, positioning, refinement of basics and so on rather than standalone techniques. My understanding is that Rickson was so dominant that almost everyone copied how he did things.

It was still mostly shit in the 90s so I not sure if there was serious advancement.
Things started progressing along a lot faster with real

I've been told that BJJ advanced a long way from the 50's to the 90's, and that Rickson, as one of its key figures in that time period, was one of the key players in its advancement. Is that false?

Most early development in physical activity involve general body movement, positioning, refinement of basics and so on rather than standalone techniques. My understanding is that Rickson was so dominant that almost everyone copied how he did things.

BJJ in the 90s was still mostly garbage, most of the technical progress started happening when guys started training full time to win competitions.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

If we go that far, probably.

Thank you, its always good to have your special qualities recognized.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

It was still mostly shit in the 90s so I not sure if there was serious advancement.
Things started progressing along a lot faster with real

BJJ in the 90s was still mostly garbage, most of the technical progress started happening when guys started training full time to win competitions.

Progress is always slower at the start of a new field. Look at early science, music, art, sports like boxing where we have film or records in sports like track and field -- at the beginning what was done looks like 'garbage' compared to what we have now. But without the efforts (and often genius) of the first guys the field never progresses at all.

There's a tendency to think what is now simple and basic was always obvious and so anyone could have come up with it, to forget that our technology and skills are built upon what others discovered before, and that what seems primitive and unskilled by today's standards was in its day the result of a lot of effort and creativity. Often the hardest part is getting something to work in the first place -- subsequent refinements are typically much more efficient, but they're based on someone coming up with the idea in the first place.

Or to use the analogy that earned me the title of biggest moron of the millennium, F=ma is pretty obvious to any high school student today, and advancements on it since Newton's day (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics for instance) are far more sophisticated and powerful. But Lagrange and Hamilton both stated how much they owed to Newton's original insight, and its because of those original insights that Newton is considered one of the two greatest physicists every, even though the techniques he invented are 'garbage' compared to modern techniques.

 

[yetanother]

Progress is always slower at the start of a new field. Look at early science, music, art, sports like boxing where we have film or records in sports like track and field -- at the beginning what was done looks like 'garbage' compared to what we have now. But without the efforts (and often genius) of the first guys the field never progresses at all.

There's a tendency to think what is now simple and basic was always obvious and so anyone could have come up with it, to forget that our technology and skills are built upon what others discovered before, and that what seems primitive and unskilled by today's standards was in its day the result of a lot of effort and creativity. Often the hardest part is getting something to work in the first place -- subsequent refinements are typically much more efficient, but they're based on someone coming up with the idea in the first place.

Or to use the analogy that earned me the title of biggest moron of the millennium, F=ma is pretty obvious to any high school student today, and advancements on it since Newton's day (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics for instance) are far more sophisticated and powerful. But Lagrange and Hamilton both stated how much they owed to Newton's original insight, and its because of those original insights that Newton is considered one of the two greatest physicists every, even though the techniques he invented are 'garbage' compared to modern techniques.

Rickson wasn't the original creator of jiu jitsu.
Sure his innovations of taking some roids and working out and doing yoga where revolutionary at this time and his ability to bullshit is legendary but I haven't seen any evidence he actually innovated at the technical side of this. He doesn't even show any techniques at his seminar and looking at how he was too stupid to grasp any striking skills (who else would have came with the idea that fighting with all stiff straight up with your chin as exposed as it could be is a good idea) I doubt he approached the sport on an intellectual level rather then the way a Palhares or a wild animal grapples.

 

[eternaldarkness]

keen on men corny arse is a pyjama wrestler.

 

[nefti]

The big innovators in gi jiu jitsu and no gi jiu jitsu in the early days are imho
De la riva
Gordo
Roletta
Barbosa

 

[JustOnce]

Thank you, its always good to have your special qualities recognized.

I try to be extra nice to people in need or special needs.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

The big innovators in gi jiu jitsu and no gi jiu jitsu in the early days are imho
De la riva
Gordo
Roletta
Barbosa

Actually no. The big innovations from the early days are:

The importance of the guard. No other grappling style recognized this. Judo had a number of guard techniques including a few sweeps, the triangle and the kimura from guard (called Ude-Garami in judo), but they never recognized how important and strong a position the guard was.

Position before submission. In both catch and judo submissions were generally pursued on the fly; it wasn't until early BJJ that securing position before going on to submission became important. In judo position was considered very important, but once you had it you held it for a ground hold instead of going on for a submission.

The idea of guard passing in general. In judo the general procedure was just to get back on your feet if you were in someone's guard, in catch wrestling things like the can-opener. The idea to make skillful guard passes are the innovation of early BJJ.

Much of early BJJ was development of these concepts, and how to move and control properly. These things are now so taken for granted in BJJ that people don't realize they were the result of experimentation and creativity. They're obvious now that (after centuries of grappling without them) early BJJ developed them.

My background is judo and wrestling, both of which I started in the 70's. When BJJ started becoming known it was these things that set it apart, not specific techniques which wouldn't have worked in the first place without the development of the concepts I mentioned.

Its the same thing with Kano. His big contribution was the recognition that its better to practice 'non-deadly' techniques under full competition than to drill and kata techniques too harmful to use in competition. The individual techniques he developed are secondary (and have long been surpassed in judo) to that one insight.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

Rickson wasn't the original creator of jiu jitsu.
Sure his innovations of taking some roids and working out and doing yoga where revolutionary at this time and his ability to bullshit is legendary but I haven't seen any evidence he actually innovated at the technical side of this. He doesn't even show any techniques at his seminar and looking at how he was too stupid to grasp any striking skills (who else would have came with the idea that fighting with all stiff straight up with your chin as exposed as it could be is a good idea) I doubt he approached the sport on an intellectual level rather then the way a Palhares or a wild animal grapples.

I've never met the man, let alone seen one of his seminars. I'm just basing my opinion on his contributions to early BJJ on what I've read top level BJJ'ers such as Arona and Maia have said about him. Contributions to technique needn't be intellectual in sport -- often it is as you suggest instinctual. However people watch those instincts in play and start to study and apply them.

I agree he seems to be a BS'er -- even Helio laughed at his 400 'wins', and his claiming he lost in sambo because he didn't understand the rules is either BS or a sign of remarkable stupidity (who enters a sporting event without knowing the rules?). However he seems to have influenced a lot of top level BJJ'ers with his grappling, if you believe what the grapplers themselves say.

 

[rmongler]

Position before submission. In both catch and judo submissions were generally pursued on the fly; it wasn't until early BJJ that securing position before going on to submission became important. In judo position was considered very important, but once you had it you held it for a ground hold instead of going on for a submission.

This is graciegang marketing.

 

[yetanother]

This is graciegang marketing.

Doesn't the short ground limit of judo actually make going for subs in scrambles a much better choice then carefully setting them up?