Talk:Royce Gracie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Image:UffiziFlorenceWrestlers small.jpg This article is part of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, an attempt to better organise and unify articles relating to mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Slight change

Removed: "He got beat down by matt hughes at ufc 62 and lost by knockout."

The grammatical phrasing doesn't co-incide with the general phrasing about Royce Gracie. I have removed it, if there is evidence of Gracie losing then it needs to be supplied and correct english maintained. --Darktrial 23:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidehiko Inconsistency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidehiko_Yoshida has hidehiko beating royce once and drawing royce once

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royce_Gracie has drawing, but not the loss

I am not sure which one is the correct record, but I wanted to bring this to your attention anyway.

--!phil

Both can be considered the correct record. Due to the fact that Yoshida x Gracie I was not under the normal Pride rules, some do not consider it an MMA match. However, there have been a number of non-standard matches in Pride in the past, such as Silva x Filipovic, Sakaraba x Royce Gracie and others, and all are included in their records. The controversy is mentioned in the article. KingMob 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems

This and other articles on Gracies and Gracie Jiu Jitsu are extremely POV and full of loaded language. I am placing an NPOV tag on this and other articles until edits can be made. --Malathion 01:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Until you have proof of POV and loaded language, I am removing the tag. --Aika 21:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't notice this before Malathion, and I agree, this has very bad instances of POV, returning the tag. --KingMob 18:40, Aug 14, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any POV problems here. I don't know if these fellows are familliar with the history of the UFC or not, but the Gracies really are the main source of the grappling we've come to expect from the sport today. I definetly wouldn't call this article biased, if you've watched the first few UFC tournaments you can see how no one really expected the style which Royce came at them with. Most of the fighters were purely stand up martial artists, at least until Royce cleaned up the competition and came away with the first two true mixed martial arts titles, placing his style at the pinnacle of the sport. The Gracie style of fighting revolutionized the sport, and definetly deserves regonition for its great contributions.

i just re-read the article and i also don't see the alleged POV problems. IMO the NPOV tag should be removed but i don't want to get into an edit war over it. i suggest those who are for keeping the NPOV tag quote specific instances. this way they can be addressed and the POV tag removed. (i suspect the NPOV tag was for a previous version of the article and that most if not all of the POV statements have been addressed) uri budnik 01:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it does have some issues with regard to 'tone', and to sourcing. (The two may also be linked to some degree.) We're told things like, the Gracies revolutioned martial arts, changed public perceptions, etc, but these aren't backed up by objective evidence this is indeed the case on the one hand, or on the other, put in the context of someone notable who asserts this is the case. Rather, we're told it's so in essayist style, in the manner of the "informed opinion" of the editor. (Which gives it a POV reading, even if it's in fact entirely true.) I'd also source and/or tone down the "explaining away" of his losses. Alai 03:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
If you don't see the POV problems, I don't know what to say other than what Alai has already said. The Explaining away of losses is just the most glaring of points. The mere fact that parts of this article read like Rorion's ads in Blackbelt during the early to mid 90's should be more than obvious. Maybe everyone needs to read the NPOV entry again, or maybe just this entry. The first paragraph is amazingly loaded and myopic, completely ignoring the fact that MMA was happening in Japan before the UFC. KingMob 16:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, when I saw the POV tag on top of this article I was expecting a lot o GRACIE HYPE all around it. But it did not show any signs of this on it´s current "incarnation". As a martial artist I really think (and also the majority or martial artists all around) that the Gracie´s changed the Martial Arts for good. Before those stunning victories on the UFC by Royce, there weren´t many fighters capable of defending properly against a grappler with good submission skills. After realizing this weakness in trainning, almost all martial artists started a cross-trainning of some sort. Quoting the article: "Royce Gracie (born December 12, 1966) is a professional Mixed Martial Arts fighter who revolutionized the martial arts world in the early 1990s with a string of quick victories over larger opponents in the UFC ... His results changed attitudes towards traditional martial arts and fueled a movement of fighters towards the grappling arts." - I don´t think its is POV. Unless you really want to deny the facts that happening a little after the first 3 UFCs... Loudenvier 12:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Also KingMob stated that the article completely ignores that MMA was happening in Japan before the UFC. I can argue that it also complely ignores that MMA was happening in Brazil for almost a centrury before going to the USA. It also ignores that MMA had happend in USA in the early 1900´s when Judo champion Yoshitsugu Yamashita went to USA to promote Judo. Citing the site Judo Info: ...President Theodore Roosevelt also invited him to teach at the Naval Academy. In an arranged fight there, Yamashita beat George Grant (6'3 230lb), an American wrestler. Grant was thrown with Tai-otoshi and Yoko-otoshi before being pinned. Because of this impressive victory Yamashita was awarded a 2 year contract to continue teaching at the Naval Academy. None of this affects the claim that it was the Gracies that brought back grappling and MMA to prominance, despite the fact that it was happening in Japan a few months before the UFC started. I think it would be POV to actually deny this. The Gracies are not everything they claim. They are much like a franchise, but they kept MMA alive for almost a century in Brazil and they were a key factor in the current MMA scene. Could anyone deny that it was the UFC that gave the momentum necessary for MMA current status and grappling return to vogue? (if there were no further comments I will remove the POV notice soon) Loudenvier 12:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The article looks good. The only thing I would consider changing is the opening paragraph. Obviously the Gracie family had an big impact in the shift towards the grappling arts in MMA. The dispute seems to be that they were the major or only reason the shift happened. I made some minor changes to the wording in the opening paragraph to hopefully alleviate the belief that this article is POV.Stones12 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Man, you did a very subtle but great job! I was going to make some edits to the article later to try to alleviate the POV impressions the article may provoke among Gracie "haters" (when I had the time), but the opening paragraph now seems perfect to me! Thanks for your wikicooperation. Regards Loudenvier 19:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I´ve removed the POV tag as I´ve previously stated I would do a few days ago. Me and a few other wikipedians take the time to search for POV content (read: Gracie HYPE) on the article and removed it when applicable. Hope the article is better than ever now. Loudenvier 02:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] should non-notable opponents have links to yet-to-be-written articles?

a recent edit to this article added links for many of royce's opponets who do not have articles on them. question: is it reasonable to expect that some of these more obscure fighters will ever have an article written about them? even a stub? for example, i remember watching UFC I on pay-per-view when the event first started more than 10 years ago; i had never heard of art jimmerson then or since. and the only references to him you can find online are to his one fight with royce. so, what i am presenting here is a wikipedia style/philosophy question. i know that sometimes links like these are added to encourage someone to write an article, to fill in the holes, but in cases where it is highly unlikely, does it make sense to leave the article like that? i think some of those links should be removed but i am looking for opinions from others. uri budnik 17:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I am planning on writing about the fighters that I can find enough information on, and the rest of somewhat notable stature will be left in 'red' to be written about.. but guys like Art Jimmerson, yeah, might as well remove that one. --Aika 19:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

i think you should include as much info as possible. Art Jimmerson would probably agree.

Who cares what Art Jimmerson would think? He's completely non-notable, he's a footnote. I can't imagine any article about him would survive a VFD. Tufflaw 04:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The guy tapped out on a MOUNT, wore ONE boxing glove into the ring, looked like a hermit crab on crack, and was never heard from since. ;) --Aika 14:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

No, remove the links to non-notable opponents. Unless, of course there is some sort of comedic reason, such as a man wearing only one boxing glove and tapping out on a mount.

[edit] Where's the POV?

After reading this article, I'm wondering, where is the perceived POV?

I think it would have been more helpful to cite some examples of the POV, rather than simply saying "there's POV" and putting up a tag. Maybe someone who claims POV can give some examples?

Or, better yet, modify the article itself?

Personally, I'm inclined to remove the tag at some point. Leaving it up indefinitely, without changing the article, is kind of sloppy (in my humble opinion). Ex0pos 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I´ve removed the POV tag as I´ve previously stated I would do in the talk page a few days ago. Me and a few other wikipedians take the time to search for POV content (read: Gracie HYPE) on the article and removed it when applicable. Hope the article is better than ever now. By the way, I think this article really need a revamp, with stats from Royce´s fights and more biographical. I will be adding this in time. Regards to you all. Loudenvier 02:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let me start: 'originator of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu' is a controversial statement to say the least, when everyone but Helio's side of the family all agree that Carlos was the one who founded BJJ. That's just the start. Any sort of flatly loaded statements about being an underdog or such subjective statements need to be tempered with qualifiers. The article's quality has improved since the tag was first put up, but it needs a lot more improvement until it's fit to not be disputed. Therefore I'm putting the tag back up. KingMob 16:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

KingMob I guess you aren´t from Brazil, right? There isn´t much dispute around the subject of who is the originator of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu here in Brazil. Following your reasoning, we could say that it was Mitsuyo Maeda the actual originator of Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu (I will use the term Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu and Gracie Jiu-jitsu as synonyms, although I´d prefer the first, because I really hate all the Gracie marketing machine). Maeda went to Brazil and, out of Gratitude, taught Carlos Gracie, son of Jorge Gracie the japanese martial art of JUDO. Maeda was a Kodokan judoka, so what he taught the Gracie was Judo. Early Judo was then much like BJJ now. This kind of Judo, with great emphasis in newaza is still going on in the Kosen Judo (university Judo) competitions. The fact that Maeda called it Jiu-Jitsu (jujutsu) is simply because Jiu-jitsu is not a martial art per se, but a generic japanese term depicting all japanese unarmed martial arts or martial arts that used small weapons. He could have taught the Gracies any school (ryu) of jiu-jitsu he mastered the techniques, but since he was a Kodokan Judoka, e.g., a practioner of the Kano´s Jujutsu Ryu, I´m guessing (with lot´s of historical evidence to support, and also the agreement of experts in BJJ history here in Brazil) that he must have taught Judo because he was a master of this art. So, by following again your reasoning, we could all say that the originator of BJJ was in fact Jigoro Kano, because he taught Maeda... But wait: Kano himself learned from others. So what makes him the founder of Judo (and of BJJ)? It was because he inovated. He brought things together, droped out others, etc. He changed the way japanese martial arts (jujutsu) were taught, and created a system, and and called it Judo. It was also recognized by other masters of the time, giving him authority. Maeda didn´t done that when he taught the Gracies. He simply passed on his knowledge (and probably a lot less than he actually knew). So I did not see him as the originator of BJJ. Carlos Gracie did not done that either. It was Helio that changed things. He was the one that devised a new "way of teaching" BJJ. He was the one that spread the term Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. He is recognized as the founder of GJJ, and since it is now more properly called BJJ, he is the originator of BJJ. I don´t think it´s POV to state that. I will also add to my arguing that before removing the NPOV I´ve consulted others by posting in this Talk page. I´ve received only positive feedback on removing the tag. After waiting for enough input I decided to remove the TAG in what I think was a common and democratic act. You´ve pointed a POV example that I deny as POV, and put back the NPOV tag before people could manifest. I´m posting this again, before remove the TAG (I don´t want to start a TAG war) because I think that if you could point more POV examples, that I agree as POV, perhaps I could get rid of them and remove the TAG more safely. By the way, the NPOV is meant to be used on articles that are blatantly POV, not articles that happens to have one or other hint of POV. And you guys, what do you think of this (again)? Regards. Loudenvier 01:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The very statement 'You're not from Brazil, right?' speaks to what I am talking about. Helio was not the originator of Brazilian Jujitsu. According to many different sources, Carlos Gracie was the originator. He then taught it to Helio, among others. According to many not of the Rorion side of the family, the innovation that distinguishes BJJ from Pre-WWII Judo was made by Carlos, IE: Not using the GI and the additions of a spare few Wrestling techniques. Even the Emphasis on 'NHB' isn't far from Pre-WWII judo, since there were many challenge matches as the Creation of Judo was based around the Idea of challenge matches. So what Helio really added that distinguished it from the Art Maeda taught Carlos and the Art Carlos taught him was very minor since Maeda was a 'guard player' especially when fighting much larger wrestlers in Demostration and Challenge matches. The point is, Carlos Gracie had just as much (if not more) of a hand in the creation of BJJ as Helio.
Now, as far as the NPOV tag, there are still problems in this article, but they are now few and far between (as compared to when Marathlon put up the tag originally), other than the major dispute of who 'created' BJJ. So, lets sort out that and we can remove it. To claim that the origin is not in dispute and not include the fact that Carlos was the first to learn from Maeda would be negligent.KingMob 19:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I´ve changed the phrasing to say that Helio along with Carlos where the originators of BJJ. But I´ve got no evidence that Carlos was more important in developing the new "ryu" of jiu-jitsu called BJJ (GJJ sucks!). On the other hand I´ve got plenty of evidence that Helio was the main person behind BJJ success and development. The Gracie family members do not maitain a good relationship with each other. For example, it is known in Brazil that Carlson Gracie was the best Gracie fighter ever (even better than Rickson or Helio). He used to step onto the mat when Helio lost. I don´t know why he did not fought Kimura. He submited Waldemar Santana, who had previously beat Helio. Now Helio and Carlson are not in good terms. And Carlson acomplishments are dismissed by one side of the family. Why? Old newspapers, and many books about BJJ history point Helio as the head behing BJJ. I think the "other side of the family" (not Rorion´s side) could be just denying history and trying to come up with their own version of who is who in BJJ. But it could be as easly the other way around. So, as I agree with you now, NOT INCLUDING THE NAME OF CARLOS GRACIE AS A PIONEER AND ORIGINATOR OF BJJ IS REALLY A POV STATEMENT! Loudenvier 05:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC) (i´ve shout only to make clear I agree with you now :-)


KingMob, the only time I see the word underdog in the entire article is when describing the fight between Royce and Ken Shamrock. I remember watching this fight and everyone thought, including the announcers and analysts, that Royce was the underdog, so why is it POV 12 years later? I see no problem that statement, and it is even tempered with "looked to be the underdog".Stones12 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
If you want I can get the exact words the announcers said, but, by mind I recall it was something like this: "Here come the Gracies, very confident! Many years of experience on NHB fights... But seeing Shamrock entering the octagon I don´t think anyone doubts the outcome of this fight. The Gracie is good but, man! just take a look at Ken Shamrock..."... Without going POV the article could state that EVERYONE EXPECTED A MASSACRE! Only BJJ experts at that time would think otherwise. I think it´s POV to try to attenuate the sensation that was to see Royce Gracie on those earlier UFC. Tell me someone who believed that the fights would end just like that? (not couting on BJJ experts at the time) Loudenvier 03:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Such value judgements and subjective reasoning is always suspect. Remember what the Original UFC was all about: Selling GJJ, from the bracket creation to the 'lifetime achievement' award at the end of the event. Now, if you change the statement to say that the announcers made it out to be that Royce was the underdog, then that is acceptable. But if the underdog status is assigned by the writer of the article, that is nearing a NPOV violation. KingMob 19:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
KingMob, I can somewhat see your view on the underdog statement and certainly value judgements need to be scrutinized. However, the actual statement in the article is that Royce "appeared to be the underdog". It does not say he was the underdog, it states he appeared that way. This was certainly the case to the vast majority of the audience. What's more, it could have been a strategy used by the Gracie's to somewhat pysch out their opponents. Now that is certainly my POV, but to appear meek to a visibly bigger and arguably stronger opponent is a good tactic to use to cause the opponent to take you lightly, especially if that opponent has an effective ground game. Now, did the Gracie's employ such a technique? Your guess is as good as mine. I can try to come up with some better wording for that sentence, but I think it stands fine on its own. It lets the reader know that Gracie appeared to be the underdog at the start of the fight, and the reader can then infer that this was not the case by the rest of the passage.
KingMob two people have addressed you directly in this talk page so far. Please man do not take it personal. You were/are completely right to argue and to try to make what you think was the best for the article. That´s the meaning of the wikipedia. I don´t think this article was tagged with the NPOV for nothing. It surely must have deserved it. Only by adding this tag it was possible to correct it. I think it´s fine now. It´s because of people like you that this kind of things came to be corrected in the long run. And you also made me exercise my very poor english by trying to argue with you and sound at least a litle understandable. So thank you. Loudenvier 03:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BJJ and Judo, where´s the real difference?

My opinion is that both arts are only taken apart because of the trainning regime. Judo 80% stand-up (tachi-waza) 20% ground work (ne-waza), BJJ 99% ne-waza, 1% tachi-waza (I´m not kidding about this). I´ve got some books of Judo that show so many sweeps from the guard, half-guard and open-guard that I can´t really think/accept that BJJ is anything different from Judo. By going practically newaza-only, it is a natural course that BJJers came up with lot´s of trick unknown in Judo to help them pass guards, subtim people, etc. But the main body of techniques are all the same. Don´t you agree? Loudenvier 05:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well there seems to be a big difference in that Judo competitions will award victory for pinning an opponent on their back, where as in BJJ that is not considered. I would think this would greatly influance Judo techniques and style. I have rolled (newaza-ed?) with a Judo guy, and he frequently would "turtle" or give up his back, where as this is a big no-no to a BJJer.
Actually there isn´t that much difference. You´ve rolled with poorly trainned newaza judoka. Try rolling with Flavio Canto from Brazil. He can submit many, many top BJJers black belts (i´ve witnessed this more than once). My opinion is that the actual difference is only trainning regime. Loudenvier 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou, I see what you are mean, but as you said, there is a huge difference in focus (ground vs. stand-up), and a resulting difference in developing 'tricks' specific to that focus. The end result being, there is a difference. --CasualFighter 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royler vs. Sakuraba, can the truth be unveiled?

The article reads this: Others countered that Royler suffered a broken arm and several torn muscles stemming from the submission, validating the Sakuraba victory. People that tell this do not saw the fight and do not know Royler. If Royler arm was broken he could not move/use it as he did just after Sakuraba released the lock. And also it must be acknowledge that Royler is the most flexible of the Gracies. He is really very very flexible. It seems almost impossible to submit him with Kimura (Ude garami) as Sakuraba did. He is able to grab his left ear with his right hand passing it BEHIND his back (in a way like the Kimura lock). In other words it is almost impossible to bring his arm on his back (as in Ude Garami) far enough to stemm his muscles or broke his arm, and even more difficult if it is done by the angle that Sakuraba was doing it. I think we should at least say that there were no evidence for these people claims that Royler had his arm broken on the article text. Loudenvier 16:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've only heard rumors of that situation that it was broken, but no real evidence. However, just because you broke your arm, doesn't mean you can't use it. Forest Griffin had his arm broken in a fight in Brazil and continued fighting without much trouble. However, real evidence that Royler can bend his arm that far back without trouble is similarly as anecdotal. I think bringing up this fight in detail as such in Royce's Wiki posting is pretty much unnecessary. In many ways, that 'controversy' was solved when Sakuraba mercilessly broke Renzo's arm with the same hold. KingMob 17:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Renzo is not even near as flexible as Royler... But I really think this discussion should be done in Royler´s wiki article (if there is one...) :-) I (re)read the article, I think it´s fine as it stands. It do not support any side of the story, my first impression was wrong. But I have footage of many Royler´s BJJ fights: he used to let people go for the Ude Garami (Kimura) or Juji Gatame (cross arm-lock) when he was in a disadvantageous situation just to let his opponent relax thinking he would submit him so he could revert the situation. In the case of Juji Gatame he would escape rotating over the trapped shoulder, and in the case of the Kimura, he would simply let the opponet try and try again to submit him and them he would revert the situation when the opponent loose his balance in frustration Loudenvier 20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I did not see the fight, nor do I know much about it, save for what was printed in this article. I wondered if this entire passage was applicable here, just like you,Loudenvier. What I concluded was that it enhanced the flow of the article and informed the reader of some of the possible reasons for Royce entering other tournaments. I tried to take out as much of the POV as possible and still keep the article in tact. There was the belief by some that the fight was stopped prematurely, which is stated in the article. Someone took the time to add the belief that the victory was valid. I thought it was balanced to include both arguments. However, my bet is that there is no documentation of Royler's arm being broken, so that statement could certainly be changed to say that there is no medical proof to back up the broken claim. Since my knowledge is limited on this subject, I will yield to the consensus on this one and will help with the phrasing and grammarStones12 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the fight on DVD and at the end when the kimura is being put on Royler he looks to be in definite agony. He looks like hes either screaming or yelling as Saka continues to twist his arm. He doesn't try anything to escape from it and just lies there in pain as his arm is being twisted further until the ref stops the fight. I highly doubt he was flexible enough to withstand the submission considering the pain he appeared to be in. In addition, after he got up, his arm is in a kinda of in an awkward position and as he protests, he continues to favor the arm. From the looks of it, I would say his arm was injured, not sure if he tore muscles or broke it or both, but he definitely seemed injured.

[edit] INCOMPLETE MMA RECORDS DATA

I´ve seen a fight in K-1 between Royce Gracie and Genki Sudo that the article dont even mention. Actually , it was a loss for Gracie by TKO . He was beaten in the ground by punches. More missing data is also possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.150.135.149 (talk • contribs).

You sure you didn't see Genki Sudo vs. Royler?? Those two did indeed fight in K1. SubSeven 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Win/Loss Record

Okay, I figure it's time to start the discussion about Royce x Yoshida I. There is simply a lot of misinformation about the nature of this match. According to many who saw the fight after the fact, this match was simply a grappling match. Simply watching the fight reveals that it was an MMA match, It was not a grappling match. Grappling matches by their very definition do not include striking, and that match allowed striking during standup, with no punches to the head allowed and no striking on the ground. These rules are not too far from the rules which Pancrase held legit MMA matches for years, or the rules Rings KOK or ZST operated under. Despite the controversy of the match, it was a MMA match in which Royce lost by TKO/Ref stoppage. The excuse of mma sites not including it in their records, or Pride and UFC not including it in their records are far from completely unbiased sources, for the UFC has Royce's record at 13-2-2, when Royce has 3 draws (Shamrock, Yoshida, Tokoro). Pride has him at 12-2-2, which is similarly inaccurate. Also fight lists such as Sherdog have a lot of matches they don't cover, and since they list Pancrase matches (Original rules) there is no reason not to list that one. KingMob 00:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There´s one reason: all you can use on wikipedia must be reliably externally sourced. You can´t put what you think is right just because you discovered it (if we were in the 1910's Einsten himself wouldn't be allowed to post his special relativity theory). Even if it is true, it has no place in wikipedia, because it would be original research. On the other hand, if you provide a link to a reliable source then you should updade the article. In the case of the MMA stats, if it is controversial, then the most accepted one should be used, and the article should have a section covering the controversy. Regards (oh, I almost forget, I think you're right on this issue...) Loudenvier 01:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I personally believe you have to go with what the ruling of what the judges was as far as a fight's results. Sure, in a fight Like Olivera x Gholar, Olivera winning was a complete robbery, but once you open a fight's judging up to flat reinterpretation, you lose objectivity. So just mentioning the controversy is enough. With that being said, I will get the supporting information to the rules of the first fight. If striking was allowed at all, we should consider this an MMA fight, correct? KingMob 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Proof the match being a MMA match: http://www.bjj.org/tournaments/nhb-past.html under: Pride 21.5: Shockwave. It reads limited strikes, hence not a grappling match. If no one else can produce direct evidence against this, I will be changing the record to read correctly with the TKO lost to Yoshida. KingMob 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Additional Proof (For those who can read Japanese) http://www.boutreview.com/data/news/1030640107.html KingMob 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
So in other words, you have no source which recognizes the match to be on Royce's MMA record. SubSeven 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, as I've said above, there are no sources that are reliable in the MMA community. Pride mistates his record, the UFC mistates his record and Sherdog is both incomplete and far from objective. All one can base his record on is official recorded MMA matches and if Pancrase, Rings King Of Kings and ZST are MMA, then that match was an MMA match. I've provided externally sourced material about the nature of the match. It was not a grappling match and it was not any sort of striking match. It combined elements of both grappling and striking, which is the definition of MMA competitions. KingMob 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It would be simpler to provide both points of view. That's the way to be NPOV: to provide all POVs that have some weight. The article must let to the reader the decision of whether this was a MMA fight or not. There can be multiple record tables as per sources. Try not to tell the "truth" to ther reader, let the reader find his truths by reading the article and it's cited sources. Loudenvier 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
While I somewhat disagree since this match is a MMA match, by the very definition of MMA on this Wiki. However, for the sake of acknowledging the controversy, we should provide both points of view. It's a good compromise. KingMob 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
When did PRIDE misstate his record? And you just saying Sherdog is "incomplete and far from objective" doesn't make it so. They are used as a source all the time on WIkipedia. SubSeven 19:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, read the above post. 'Pride has him at 12-2-2, which is similarly inaccurate.' Pride's site is omitting matches as well, so in that respect, it is not accurate. Reverting the entry. KingMob 05:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
PRIDE does not have him at 12-2-2. SubSeven 07:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.pridefc.com/pride2005/index.php?mainpage=fighters&fID=74 12-2-2. KingMob 12:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. At least now I know where you are getting that 12-2-2. That is the English arm of their web site, and I don't think that page has been updated for awhile. (Note the lack of Royce's 2003 rematch with Yoshida). That's the reason for the 12-2-2 record. Compare with Royce's profile from the Japanese side of their site. [1]. This one DOES have the match with Yoshida from Shockwave 2003 (the one that was a draw), meaning the page WAS updated post-2003, but the jacket match with Yoshida from Shockwave 2002 is still not there. You can see the same thing in Yoshida's profile [2], who has had many matches in that time frame but the Shockwave 2002 match is also not on his record. SubSeven 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, that japanese site does not have Royce's entire record, where is his entire record on their site? The UFC is similarly missing matches from the record. What is the reason for such? I think it's pretty easy to understand. Additionally, you are not compromising on this point, while I was presenting both view points. KingMob 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not meant to be his comprehensive record. It is his record in PRIDE, obviously. All his PRIDE fights are there. I don't really know what you mean by presenting both viewpoints. Either the 2002 fight belongs in his MMA record or it doesn't. I don't see how a "compromise" would be to include it in his record! I don't see any problem with the article in its current state. The 2002 fight gets a detailed write-up in the article, but is not included in his record which is consistent with PRIDE (who sanctioned the fight!!) as well as every major MMA resource. SubSeven 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If you can't understand the view point that the match was not a solely a grappling match, not solely a striking match and not an amatuer MMA match, then what was it? It was a profession Mixed Martial Arts match that did have strange rules, but not much stranger than the first Cro-Cop x Silva match, or the Rings KOK events, or ZST matches. Additionally, I've listed my sources which detail the rules of this MMA match. Your refusal to include said match is showing your lack of NPOV. KingMob 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I like how a guy who does virtually nothing on Wikipedia but troll the Royce Gracie page is saying I have the NPOV problem. Cute. Anyway, you guys are kind of missing the point here. Just the fact that there happened to be a fight that occurred, and there was some limited striking allowed, doesn't mean it should necessarily be included in a fighter's official record. Royce has probably had countless fights in Brazilian dojos that would technically qualify as MMA matches. Would you put those on his record, no, of course not. Why, because they were not sanctioned by any kind of legitimate MMA organization. In this case, while the match with Yoshida did indeed take place on a PRIDE card (more accurately, a PRIDE and K1 tandem event), clearly PRIDE does not recognize this match as a canon PRIDE MMA match as they do not put it on either Royce's or Yoshida's record, meaning they consider it to be an exhibition match or something along those lines. Considering that PRIDE omits the fight, and it was a PRIDE event, I don't know how you could make an argument for inclusion. SubSeven 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Your hostility and tone speaks enough. I post quite a bit on the wiki, and not just this one. But hey, you can believe what you will. This conversation is over. KingMob 01:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


im glad youve added the 'royce vs hidehiko' fight, or else id take it personal, this matches rules were a little different from PRIDE's normal matches, but if you dont count this fight than we rather NOT count ANY of his UFC fights other than "hughes vs gracie", because-
  • matches took place in a cage (and still do)
  • there were NO time limits
  • there were no judges
  • the referees were stupid
  • they did not wear gloves or paddings
  • the fights were not governed by the government state athletic commisions
  • the fight were non governed and unauthorized and should not really be counted as professional MMA matches.
  • there were less rules than what exists now in the U.S.
  • gi's and pants are illigel in MMA matches in the U.S.
  • grappling is gay
  • etc, etc, etc.......
Agreed. KingMob 01:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


i think there is some sorta Propaganda going on or some sorta evil Scheme by the crazy UFC and Gracie fans here in wikipedia, who are trying to make royce look too good, and are trying to slightly remove some of his negatives!!! --Too Cool 03:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, agreed. The match was controversial, but was a MMA match sponsored by Pride. KingMob 04:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy the Judd

In the Gracie Challenge section, there's a direct quote from Gracie that the kickboxer in question was "Bully the Judd". I just realized he meant Benny "The Jet" Urquidez and it seems the interviewer mistook it because of Gracie's accent. According to Clyde Gentry, it was the proposed challenge match with Urquidez that the 100,000 Gracie Challenge myth got started. I'll put up a cite next time I get a hold of the book. hateless 18:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/y/Talk%7ERoyce_Gracie_f64f.html"