Royce Gracie: “British fighters are 10 years old and still babies in grappling skills

[Andy Rigg]

british history books attribute the loss of the american war of independence to poor leadership on the british side. 'gentleman jim' burgoyne (one of the british generals) had an inability to adapt to his circumstances. he organised his army in the same manner as he would for a european war.
there were huge differences in the nature of the american theatre and the european theatre of war. the main difference was the lack of roads in america. this was to prove decisive to an army that stretched 3 miles while on the march. with roads, this would be no real problem. however, the unspoilt terrain of north america meant that the army could only march 2 miles a day. this effectively meant that the army was on any given spot for three days. which pretty much invites 'you rebel scum' to take advantage. couple this with extended supply lines (i.e. the atlantic ocean) and the threat of continental war and you've got a list of excuses that are up there with 'unmotivated bj' and 'shogun with bad knees'.
so, yeah, we get taught that we lost that war because of guerrila tactics and poor leadership. however (getting into counter factual history) even george washington admitted if we were still using longbows instead of muskets, y'all would've been fuckefd (that's an actual GW quote). so, while we swallow the bitter pill of that loss, we consoled ourselves by going on to conquer 2/3 of the planet after that (yes, we're ashamed now, but mainly because you lot do so now).
but as goes the comments of derrick ikwueme: shame on you sir. i've come to expect at least lip service to open-mindedness on this forum. your post is painfully xenophobic.
by the way, shogun and bj are amongst my five favourite fighters, and that was a star wars joke earlier on.

[James III]

I can agree the rest was ignorant, but about the colonies winning due to ambushing vs line up firing against the British...that's actually what we're taught here in the states. I'd like to hear about the "real" reason we won.....if they even teach that we won. Do they teach that Britain just decided to pull out because the US wasn't worth it? Or do they actually teach that the US won? And what do they teach as the reason for that win? you've got me really curious.

lol I didn't expect this but sure I'ii elaborate abit. I suppose since Derrick said 'colonies' instead of just America specifically I was thinking in a broader worldwide scope of the whole British Empire. Each territory gained it's eventual independence for a variety of different reasons at different times. It's an oversimplification to make the statement below,

the UK wether just doesn't enspire creativity. & that shit goes back to there old military tactics of just taking turns shooting each other & thats why the colonys won using indian gurrilla tactics,

Obviously there are a number of factors and the issue is complex. Andy before explained it one way. There are also other alternative viewpoints as well using the same availible evidence so you can construct many different interpretations. Off the top of my head the Russian revolution had at least 30+ different interpretations as to why it actually occured.

At the 11 - 16 age range I think alot of British schools teach along the lines of what Andy wrote. Obviously past that you go into much more depth and you generally construct your own view based on the availible evidence.

[David Rosado]

british history books attribute the loss of the american war of independence to poor leadership on the british side. 'gentleman jim' burgoyne (one of the british generals) had an inability to adapt to his circumstances. he organised his army in the same manner as he would for a european war.
there were huge differences in the nature of the american theatre and the european theatre of war. the main difference was the lack of roads in america. this was to prove decisive to an army that stretched 3 miles while on the march. with roads, this would be no real problem. however, the unspoilt terrain of north america meant that the army could only march 2 miles a day. this effectively meant that the army was on any given spot for three days. which pretty much invites 'you rebel scum' to take advantage. couple this with extended supply lines (i.e. the atlantic ocean) and the threat of continental war and you've got a list of excuses that are up there with 'unmotivated bj' and 'shogun with bad knees'.
so, yeah, we get taught that we lost that war because of guerrila tactics and poor leadership. however (getting into counter factual history) even george washington admitted if we were still using longbows instead of muskets, y'all would've been fuckefd (that's an actual GW quote). so, while we swallow the bitter pill of that loss, we consoled ourselves by going on to conquer 2/3 of the planet after that (yes, we're ashamed now, but mainly because you lot do so now).
but as goes the comments of derrick ikwueme: shame on you sir. i've come to expect at least lip service to open-mindedness on this forum. your post is painfully xenophobic.
by the way, shogun and bj are amongst my five favourite fighters, and that was a star wars joke earlier on.

Thanks. Another question: Britain went on to conquer 2/3 of the planet at one point? Are you referring to Hong Kong, India, and South Africa? Isn't that more like, IDK 1/8 at best? Pardon my ignorance.

lol I didn't expect this but sure I'ii elaborate abit. I suppose since Derrick said 'colonies' instead of just America specifically I was thinking in a broader worldwide scope of the whole British Empire. Each territory gained it's eventual independence for a variety of different reasons at different times. It's an oversimplification to make the statement below,



Obviously there are a number of factors and the issue is complex. Andy before explained it one way. There are also other alternative viewpoints as well using the same availible evidence so you can construct many different interpretations. Off the top of my head the Russian revolution had at least 30+ different interpretations as to why it actually occured.

At the 11 - 16 age range I think alot of British schools teach along the lines of what Andy wrote. Obviously past that you go into much more depth and you generally construct your own view based on the availible evidence.

Thanks for the input.

[derrick ikwueme]

David Becham who i love, is only good at set pieces & 60 yard accurate passes not technical dribbling, Roony good but not a slashing type forward, British teams do well in europe because there loaded with foreigners, even the FA complains about that, & Becham is the only brits who has been sucessful in europe,Mike Owen failed at madrid. as for EPL money you can make just as much in spain, germany, or italy , they just require a certain level of skills, & your smoking crack if you think british youth teams are the best in europe, more like the worst, whens the last time a british youth team has won the fifa youth world cup at u 17 or 20 level never, not even the euros, those who truly know Futbol in & out know that the Dutch have the best youth system in europe & are often called the brazilians of europe & coined the term total futbol, via johan croyff. & Arsenal is the only team in the EPL that uses total futbol, & it's full of frenchman lol, it's easy for brits to lie too & mislead uneducated american soccer fans & get coaching jobs hear in the U.S & suck it up. & it's British arrogance that gives most brits a false since of footballing superiority. but truly educated fans & players will never be fooled this. George Best was the greatest athlete ever from the UK & he was from Belfast. & english dudes have a hard time accepting that, as for boxing, lennox lewis was great, but the british public never got behind him, maybe because he's black !?, & brits can rack up all the low budget belts they want lol, but the U.S & Mexico run all Boxing, with paquiao being the phillipeano acception. that all being said i like the UK but we must be realistic & not let pride & ego cloud our judgement

[James III]

David Becham who i love, is only good at set pieces & 60 yard accurate passes not technical dribbling, Roony good but not a slashing type forward, British teams do well in europe because there loaded with foreigners, even the FA complains about that, & Becham is the only brits who has been sucessful in europe,Mike Owen failed at madrid. as for EPL money you can make just as much in spain, germany, or italy , they just require a certain level of skills, & your smoking crack if you think british youth teams are the best in europe, more like the worst, whens the last time a british youth team has won the fifa youth world cup at u 17 or 20 level never, not even the euros, those who truly know Futbol in & out know that the Dutch have the best youth system in europe & are often called the brazilians of europe & coined the term total futbol, via johan croyff. & Arsenal is the only team in the EPL that uses total futbol, & it's full of frenchman lol, it's easy for brits to lie too & mislead uneducated american soccer fans & get coaching jobs hear in the U.S & suck it up. & it's British arrogance that gives most brits a false since of footballing superiority. but truly educated fans & players will never be fooled this. George Best was the greatest athlete ever from the UK & he was from Belfast. & english dudes have a hard time accepting that, as for boxing, lennox lewis was great, but the british public never got behind him, maybe because he's black !?, & brits can rack up all the low budget belts they want lol, but the U.S & Mexico run all Boxing, with paquiao being the phillipeano acception. that all being said i like the UK but we must be realistic & not let pride & ego cloud our judgement

No offense but are you under 18? If so your comments would make more sense to me in that respect.

There are too many points to counter so I'ii just mention a few. If you honestly believe Italian, French and German players get paid the same as english players you are living on another planet. It's well documented the average wage of each league and it's a fact not a disputed opinion. Most of the other points you bring up would take too long to objectively outline in a comment and I'm not going to go into that much depth on a Jiu-jitsu site regarding football.

Also please read what I wrote. I never said British youth teams were the best in the Europe. I provided a quote from one of the greatest Football players of all time on the skills of British youngsters. I hope you understand his opinion will naturally carry more weight then yours no matter how 'educated' you believe you are.

So the WBC and WBA belts in Boxing are low budget belts are they? So what are the high budget one's then? The WBO and WBF? Also if the U.S and Mexico run all of Boxing then what nationality are the Klitsckho brothers? They dominate the heavyweight division by the way incase you are confused? You prove my original point that you don't really understand Boxing.

George Best was the greatest althlete ever from the UK??? What the hell??????

lol I appreciate the laughs but honestly you sound like my 14 year old cousin. I hope you learn in the future Logic should be based on factual evidence not personal opinion. If you want a debate about English Football it will have to be on another site I'm afraid.

[derrick ikwueme]

i'm not under 18, & not trying to offend, but english greats such as bobby charlton, bobby robson, kenny daglish, all say the same thing, in regards to british futbol, & lets not mention wembelton. & the klitchkos are old, boxing is hanging on to whoever it can lol

[Fraser Kirk]

[QUOTE=David Rosado;68906]Thanks. Another question: Britain went on to conquer 2/3 of the planet at one point? Are you referring to Hong Kong, India, and South Africa? Isn't that more like, IDK 1/8 at best? Pardon my ignorance.



This map shows areas the British controlled at one time or another, not quite as much as 2/3...

[Andy Rigg]

i'm gonna have to stretch and say the british had control of the seas for a few centuries (yeah, i know, it IS a stretch).

but with regards to the knowledgable american football expert:

"i'm not under 18, & not trying to offend, but english greats such as bobby charlton, bobby robson, kenny daglish, all say the same thing, in regards to british futbol, & lets not mention wembelton. & the klitchkos are old, boxing is hanging on to whoever it can lol"

kenny dalglish is scottish, not english. getting little facts like this wrong blows holes through any claims you are making with respects to being knowledgable. that's without pointing out your many spelling mistakes (futball? really?). and the main reason the british never got behind lennox lewis (until later in his career) was because he is canadian, not because he's black. we got right behind frank bruno and he wasn't the boxer lewis became. and your assumptions about the british ARE offensive, so please stop.

[Andy Lopez]

Super off topic bros.

[Jay Chow]

I agree, your remarks about us are pretty offensive. My team being the most successful club in the world, along with Manchester United, should surely prove you wrong. Barcelona may be the best now, but you obviously forget the reign of Liverpool in the 70s and United from the 90s until present. The 70s when the squad was made up of mostly British and Scottish players.