# The Perceived Weaknesses in Wing Chun: Did Master Lee leave Wing Chun Too Early?



## StormShadow (Jun 25, 2013)

I often think about this as jkd was the first psuedo-"Chinese" art I learned.  Since jkd was a mixture of arts, of what master lee thought what worked best for him it is harder to pin down in definitive terms hence the quotes.  The story goes, the fight in San Fran, chinatown forced master lee to really rethink his fighting knowledge. The weaknesses that master lee saw in wing chun, not enough movement, not adaptive to situations, confined to certain movements and principles; I wonder did he have enough advanced wing chun knowledge to legitimately see wing chun as having these deficiencies?  If Bruce Lee would have continued to train under wing chun, do you believe he would have still had these thoughts about the art? As practitioners of wing chun, do you also see the art as having the deficiencies mentioned or any others?


----------



## geezer (Jun 25, 2013)

I think Bruce Lee truthfully followed his own path. He was an "original" and an innovator. Even if Wing Chun had completely met his self-defense needs, I doubt whether he would have been content to spend his life as a disciple of others. 

But then, although I have practiced WC for a long time (since '79), I don't believe _any_ martial art is complete or perfect for everybody. If I had Bruce's talent, temperament  and intellect, I'd probably be creating my own version of JKD under some other name. The only reason I haven't gone that route is that I don't have that much ability and passion.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 25, 2013)

Bruce Lee didn't leave WC. He left Hong Kong for America due to his getting in trouble on the streets. The fact that he had an American birth certificate probably had a big part. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## yak sao (Jun 25, 2013)

I've wondered this same thing. If Bruce Lee had never became a movie star, would he have gone on to become the next "Yip Man"?

Or is the fact that he was a movie star, that he is given more credit than he deserves; and would have been just another (very good) WC man were it not for his notoriety.

So much of what BL espoused were restatements of WC ideas and concepts. Had he continued in the art and had the opportunity to delve deeper into it, perhaps the WC world would have had a major metamorphosis....but then again, without his notoriety, WC would most likely have stayed a relatively obscure fighting method and no one would have much noticed anyway.


----------



## Argus (Jun 26, 2013)

Sometimes I wonder if Bruce Lee would have come a full circle as he grew older and lost much of his athleticism.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 26, 2013)

This is the guy people consider to be phenomenal.
Think about it for a minute.


----------



## geezer (Jun 27, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> This is the guy people consider to be phenomenal. Think about it for a minute.



_Cyriacus_, pardon if I'm a bit thick, but your point is....?


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 27, 2013)

geezer said:


> _Cyriacus_, pardon if I'm a bit thick, but your point is....?



Just extending off some of the above points that Bruce Lee really wasnt something special, as far as his proficiency went. Also, i kinda dislike his existence for having people associate a certain quote with him which has nothing to do with him


----------



## _JLC_ (Jun 27, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> I wonder did he have enough advanced wing chun knowledge to legitimately see wing chun as having these deficiencies?



I've always been curious how Wing Chung would do against a good kicking style MA, using hit-and-run style tactics. If the kicker kept ambushing with leg kicks then retreating back out of range it could be hard for the W.C to contest with a more fixed stance. But if the WC guy closed the distance it could be all over


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 27, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> I've always been curious how Wing Chung would do against a good kicking style MA, using hit-and-run style tactics. If the kicker kept ambushing with leg kicks then retreating back out of range it could be hard for the W.C to contest with a more fixed stance. But if the WC guy closed the distance it could be all over



WC has lunging though, doesnt it? For situations like that?


----------



## Vajramusti (Jun 27, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> I often think about this as jkd was the first psuedo-"Chinese" art I learned.  Since jkd was a mixture of arts, of what master lee thought what worked best for him it is harder to pin down in definitive terms hence the quotes.  The story goes, the fight in San Fran, chinatown forced master lee to really rethink his fighting knowledge. The weaknesses that master lee saw in wing chun, not enough movement, not adaptive to situations, confined to certain movements and principles; I wonder did he have enough advanced wing chun knowledge to legitimately see wing chun as having these deficiencies?  If Bruce Lee would have continued to train under wing chun, do you believe he would have still had these thoughts about the art? As practitioners of wing chun, do you also see the art as having the deficiencies mentioned or any others?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Lee did not enough wing chun to make those kinds of generalizations... about everyone"s wing chun.
Wing chun knowledge varies.


----------



## StormShadow (Jun 27, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> This is the guy people consider to be phenomenal.
> Think about it for a minute.



In the clip.. he was demonstrating punching power.  Have you ever moved a heavy bag liked that before with hooks and straight punches?  He was quite phenomenal actually.  Super athletic, speed, pound for pound strength and IQ.


----------



## StormShadow (Jun 27, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> I've always been curious how Wing Chung would do against a good kicking style MA, using hit-and-run style tactics. If the kicker kept ambushing with leg kicks then retreating back out of range it could be hard for the W.C to contest with a more fixed stance. But if the WC guy closed the distance it could be all over



At some point the WC guy has to close the gap and end the kickers strength, which is his legs.  When the opportunity presents itself.. remove his ball and socket.  Of course easier said than done but if skilled, should be possible.  I was never in this situation but i'm just thinking about your statements.


----------



## StormShadow (Jun 27, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Just extending off some of the above points that Bruce Lee really wasnt something special, as far as his proficiency went. Also, i kinda dislike his existence for having people associate a certain quote with him which has nothing to do with him



which quote?  Be like water?


----------



## StormShadow (Jun 27, 2013)

yak sao said:


> I've wondered this same thing. If Bruce Lee had never became a movie star, would he have gone on to become the next "Yip Man"?
> 
> Or is the fact that he was a movie star, that he is given more credit than he deserves; and would have been just another (very good) WC man were it not for his notoriety.
> 
> So much of what BL espoused were restatements of WC ideas and concepts. Had he continued in the art and had the opportunity to delve deeper into it, perhaps the WC world would have had a major metamorphosis....but then again, without his notoriety, WC would most likely have stayed a relatively obscure fighting method and no one would have much noticed anyway.



Alot of jkd was lifted out of wing chun.  With arms techniques, instead of deflection he uses trapping.  I personally believe the wing chun approach is better and more efficient in deflecting arm attacks.  I was somewhat puzzled why bruce went with trapping honestly as it requires more work and strength than using deflection.  Jkd also focuses on lower leg kicks as higher kicks are a hazard. Jkd also does use some deflection where you hit and deflect simultaneously.  The difference is jkd also includes a ground game but the name of the game is still get off the ground if you can just as in wing chun. As you know chi soa is also apart of jkd to obtain precision in "feeling" your opponent.  More was also lifted out of wing chun.  Who knows though, with BL's natural ability he likely could've went on to surpass Yip Man in overall skill if he kept with it.  This might be considered a sac-religious statement but i'm j/s.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 27, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> In the clip.. he was demonstrating punching power.  Have you ever moved a heavy bag liked that before with hooks and straight punches?  He was quite phenomenal actually.  Super athletic, speed, pound for pound strength and IQ.



...yes, actually. I have. I also sprained my wrist from hittng a heavy bag when it comes swinging back towards me as a result.
Now go look up some videos of people thwacking heavy bags and try to tell me hes something phenomenal.



StormShadow said:


> which quote?  Be like water?



Read my signature


----------



## yak sao (Jun 27, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> I've always been curious how Wing Chung would do against a good kicking style MA, using hit-and-run style tactics. If the kicker kept ambushing with leg kicks then retreating back out of range it could be hard for the W.C to contest with a more fixed stance. But if the WC guy closed the distance it could be all over



WC has very active footwork, despite what is shown on youtube. What you won't (or at least shouldn't) see a WC man do is dance around wasting a lot of energy. The footwork while very active, is, like the hands of WC, very economical.
Against a kicker, a good WC fighter should not let the kicker go back out of range. Either the WC man will shut down the kicker before the kick has had a chance to generate, or at the very least, will follow the opponent's leg in as it's retracted and stay on top of him preventing another kick from being launched.


----------



## StormShadow (Jun 28, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> ...yes, actually. I have. I also sprained my wrist from hittng a heavy bag when it comes swinging back towards me as a result.
> Now go look up some videos of people thwacking heavy bags and try to tell me hes something phenomenal.
> 
> 
> ...



Bruce Lee was a phenomenal martial artist.  Don't you believe those then watched, talked, disliked him would have said as much on the contrary?  It is not like he was never tested.  He actually had fights where he used his skill. And not only that but went on to train other skillful individuals.


----------



## StormShadow (Jun 28, 2013)

yak sao said:


> WC has very active footwork, despite what is shown on youtube. What you won't (or at least shouldn't) see a WC man do is dance around wasting a lot of energy. The footwork while very active, is, like the hands of WC, very economical.
> Against a kicker, a good WC fighter should not let the kicker go back out of range. Either the WC man will shut down the kicker before the kick has had a chance to generate, or at the very least, will follow the opponent's leg in as it's retracted and stay on top of him preventing another kick from being launched.



lol yea youtube does not promote WC well by any means.  Anyone aspiring to take up WC to see if the art can be effective should not look to youtube as a source. I remember seeing some tournment in NYC that placed different schools and different styles against one another.  It was a very uncharacteristic tournament for what you would hope are quality schools.  A lot of disrespect between schools, not very honorable.  A TKD guy fought a Moy Yat WC guy and basically made the WC look silly.  The WC could not close any gaps, no kick intercepts, little to no deflection, just not a very good depiction of WC for the world to see at all.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jun 29, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> Bruce Lee was a phenomenal martial artist.  Don't you believe those then watched, talked, disliked him would have said as much on the contrary?  It is not like he was never tested.  He actually had fights where he used his skill. And not only that but went on to train other skillful individuals.



The same could be said of anyone with a good track record. But hey, if this is your system of measurement then Mike Tyson > Bruce Lee.
So, make a list of all the things thatre so phenomenal about him. Id seriously like to know.


----------



## yak sao (Jun 29, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> The same could be said of anyone with a good track record. But hey, if this is your system of measurement then Mike Tyson > Bruce Lee.
> So, make a list of all the things thatre so phenomenal about him. Id seriously like to know.




I wrote this reply on an earlier thread.....



yak sao said:


> Probably won't win any popularity contests with this but here goes.....
> 
> I think Bruce Lee in many ways hurt martial arts. I know, I know, he in many ways brought reality back to MA, .something that was sadly lacking, and I find him an inspiration in many ways.
> But he created a bunch of half baked imitators who learned pieces and parts of different systems and "created their own systems".
> ...



I think Bruce Lee was a fine MAist. He was charismatic, had good attributes and to this day, when I see Enter the Dragon, it inspires me to get off my dead **** and train.
But I think too many people see him as THE martial artist, and I really don't think he was.
I think much of this legend status comes from his mysterious ,early death.


----------



## bogdan.sifu (Jul 2, 2013)

In my opinion, Bruce Lee was actually smart enough to adapt to new circumstance. The meaning of Biu Gee, 3rd form, is actually not to be controlled by the style, instead use it as a tool. The beauty of Wing Chun is it's awesome capacity to adapt.


----------



## _JLC_ (Jul 3, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> The same could be said of anyone with a good track record. But hey, if this is your system of measurement then Mike Tyson > Bruce Lee.
> So, make a list of all the things thatre so phenomenal about him. Id seriously like to know.



Maybe not _phenomenal_, what for me its always been the simple things which impressed me personally about Bruce Lee. Sure, there would be people stronger then him now who can punch/kick harder. But I'm sure they will have a lot of weight on him!

I struggle to recall a time where BL was even slightly off balance, placed his foot after a kick not exactly where he wanted it, or didn't look 100% in control. Sure, he might not have been in a actual fight on a lot of his YouTube clips, but not many people look so graceful and relaxed doing MA as he did? The speed and accuracy in his kicks would have to be still right up there with todays Martial Artists?


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 3, 2013)

_JLC_ said:


> Maybe not _phenomenal_, what for me its always been the simple things which impressed me personally about Bruce Lee. Sure, there would be people stronger then him now who can punch/kick harder. But I'm sure they will have a lot of weight on him!
> 
> I struggle to recall a time where BL was even slightly off balance, placed his foot after a kick not exactly where he wanted it, or didn't look 100% in control. Sure, he might not have been in a actual fight on a lot of his YouTube clips, but not many people look so graceful and relaxed doing MA as he did? The speed and accuracy in his kicks would have to be still right up there with todays Martial Artists?



Oh, as a technician he was up there. But that doesnt really say much for him being phenomenal. We CAN however agree on him perhaps being above average, and a swell technician


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 3, 2013)

lol ... Why are people talking as if they could actually match Bruce Lee's skill in his prime?  Bruce had real street fights.  How much more real can you get? No he did not fight in mma because mma didn't exist in its current form.  Is the descention on bruce lee just to go against the grain of mainstream?


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 3, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> lol ... Why are people talking as if they could actually match Bruce Lee's skill in his prime?  Bruce had real street fights.  How much more real can you get? No he did not fight in mma because mma didn't exist in its current form.  Is the descention on bruce lee just to go against the grain of mainstream?



Did i say one thing about MMA bud?

Also, notice how youre placing him on a pedestal? _"lol ... Why are people talking as if they could actually match Bruce Lee's skill in his prime?"_
Go find me one thing to show me that as a head to head fighter - Not as a technician, not as a balanced artsy guy - Hes anything more than MAYBE above average. Seriously, im waiting. Still. Because so far all ive seen is pretty average work for someone with a few years of decent body mechanics going for them.

I feel like adding that i could take Bruce Lee in his prime. Easy. Im not sure why id want to bother with aiming to match him head to head though.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 3, 2013)

I like Bruce Lee, as a martial artist and as an actor

Bruce Lee was a great martial artist and a good fighter&#8230;but not a God.

Could he kick my butt in his prime if I were in my prime? Likely yes. 
Are there martial artists alive today in their prime that could beat Bruce Lee in his Prime? Likely yes

There is a story about him backing down from Carter Wong in Hong Kong back when Carter Wong was the martial arts instructor for the Royal Hong Kong Police Department. There are also stories of him successfully defeating many challengers on the set of "Fist of Fury" too. 

So take anything said about Bruce Lee with a grain of salt because it is rather hard at this point to separate the man from the myth.

And as much as I like a good JKD/JF school based on quotes I have read from Bruce Lee I do not think he would be all too happy about all those out there teaching JKD as a style of martial arts


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 3, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> I like Bruce Lee, as a martial artist and as an actor
> 
> Bruce Lee was a great martial artist and a good fighter&#8230;but not a God.



I should add that through sleep deprivation, i may be coming across a bit more judgementally than normal. Im not putting down Bruce Lee, im putting down the idolized version of him. In an effort to be diplomatic, i shall comment that there are so many interpretations of JKD and so forth out there that attaching it to Bruce Lee would be like attaching LED lights to the dude who invented light bulbs whos name i forget (mostly because i think some guy technically invented it before he did. unless im misremembering)


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 3, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> I should add that through sleep deprivation, i may be coming across a bit more judgementally than normal. Im not putting down Bruce Lee, im putting down the idolized version of him. In an effort to be diplomatic, i shall comment that there are so many interpretations of JKD and so forth out there that attaching it to Bruce Lee would be like attaching LED lights to the dude who invented light bulbs whos name i forget (mostly because i think some guy technically invented it before he did. unless im misremembering)




If someone wants to see him as an idol, perhaps to inspire themselves to great things, how is this anything less than good?  BL inspired people across all spectrum in and out of martial arts.  Not too many people in this world has had that sort of effect on the world.  That alone, IMO is phenomenal.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 3, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> If someone wants to see him as an idol, perhaps to inspire themselves to great things, how is this anything less than good?  BL inspired people across all spectrum in and out of martial arts.  Not too many people in this world has had that sort of effect on the world.  That alone, IMO is phenomenal.



Mate, theres nothing wrong with that. Thats good. Good for all those people. If youre amongst them, then good for you.
Theres a line between putting someone on a pedestal and painting the pedestal gold, then pointing it at people. Movies he was in inspired people. If it werent for them noone would know who he was or care. MMA did that as well, simply by existing. I repeat: Theres nothing wrong with Bruce Lee. But you dont need to sell him high in some sort of commemorative inclination. I asked you to provide me with anything to show that he was as good a fighter as you claim, and that stands. That doesnt make him bad, it means that you dont need him to be the bloody god of fighting to look up to him. You can see him as he was and still look up to him.


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 5, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Mate, theres nothing wrong with that. Thats good. Good for all those people. If youre amongst them, then good for you.
> Theres a line between putting someone on a pedestal and painting the pedestal gold, then pointing it at people. Movies he was in inspired people. If it werent for them noone would know who he was or care. MMA did that as well, simply by existing. I repeat: Theres nothing wrong with Bruce Lee. But you dont need to sell him high in some sort of commemorative inclination. I asked you to provide me with anything to show that he was as good a fighter as you claim, and that stands. That doesnt make him bad, it means that you dont need him to be the bloody god of fighting to look up to him. You can see him as he was and still look up to him.



Yes, He inspired me.  First, to seek out jkd and than as I became older, I thought, if BL was that good than his teacher must've been excellent.  Those thoughts are the reason I am studying wing chun now.  But, I didn't know you asked me specifically for examples.  I do not have any first hand accounts.  All I can provide are examples from the net that can be interpreted as what you're asking for proof of.  If that's ok, I will provide those.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 5, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> Yes, He inspired me.  First, to seek out jkd and than as I became older, I thought, if BL was that good than his teacher must've been excellent.  Those thoughts are the reason I am studying wing chun now.  But, I didn't know you asked me specifically for examples.  I do not have any first hand accounts.  All I can provide are examples from the net that can be interpreted as what you're asking for proof of.  If that's ok, I will provide those.



Thats cool with me. Ive looked up videos of Bruce Lee, and i see a mediocre/slightly above par striker. His philosophy is fine, his bodybuilding is fine, his execution is questionable. But if ive just been missing the good stuff somewhere, please do.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Jul 6, 2013)

Well there's a couple facts I like to bring up whenever discussing Bruce Lee. First off; I've read his/John Little's (guy who arranged and published all of Bruce's notes and made them into books etc.) entire catolague. Bruce says many times over that WT/WC is lacking. Now Personally I've never seen bruce lee do Chum-kiu/Biu-Tze/Dummy/Long Pole/Knives or anything to tell me that he had more than a rudimentery introduciton into WT/WC. A very trusted information source (Sifu Alex Richter; City Wing Tsun) says that bruce lee knew more than that however. I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure Sifu Alex said something about chum-kiu and or the long pole.

But if we get back to the basics, Tao of Gung-Fu (his philosophical literary works) you can see that BL very much believes in the theories and principals of Wing Chun; He however decides that a different method of achieving those results (I.e. using different techniques). BL also says in many books that we can use whatever technique that feels comfortable to US; HOWEVER he repeatedly says over and over not to kick above the waist, yet you see JKD people all over doing this ALL THE TIME. And before you can say "BUT BRUCE LEE DOES IT TOO! No, no he doesn't. He TRAINED those kicks and rediculous punches to give himself more flexability and maintained that it is always better to be prepared, which is kinda contradictory to his proclomation of "Hacking away the un-essential".

Looking through interviews, and his note's we can plainly see that BL had no interest left in the learning the "complete WT/WC system". He didn't want as we would call "Second hand knowledge". 

Bruce Lee wasn't just an Martial Artist; He was (of course a film star), but an AMAZING athlete, philosophical thinker and innovator of more than just martial techniques; But fitness apparatus and workout routines.

He didn't get this knowledge "Second Hand"... He went and TESTED and Proved/Disproved all this on his own! He didn't go learn something from Sifu Yip or James Lee or WSL or William Cheung and take their word for it, he would go against his guys, full battle gear and test it out to see if it was worth its snuff.

So in Reference to the Thread Question; Hell no Bruce Lee wouldn't do WT/WC or be affiliated with it, he would have givin us something as equally amazing but decidely its own.

But just remember, to those people who say "Bruce Lee didn't learn enough to make assumptions/or really know what he was talking about", Yes in fact he did.

Remember back in the day, you didn't learn from just your Instructor, you learned on the street. And Bruce Lee was notorious as a busy body/trouble maker. Being in many street fights, he tested and tested his Wing Chun. He was in a gang "Tigers of Junction Street". And he did study for 4 years before moving to America. And in those Four years he did learn quite the amount. He was the best in his class, easily shutting down anyone in Chi-Sau; So maybe his theoretical knowledge couldn't compare to say Leung Ting, or WSL NOW, but back then; He was the Cream of the Crop. He was the Chan Wah Shun of the 1900's, a very qualified fighter, while the others were more Theory oriented.

Anyways, a brief summary; Bruce Lee would back the theories of WT/WC, but he would not follow the physical techniques as he would have had even MORE time to develop better technques. Don't get me wrong I'm sure he would have emphasized tan/pak/lop more often in JKD, and probably more kicks and dummy techniqes (fat-sau etc), but he would have went his own way.

All the best and thanks for the interesting post!

Jeff


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 6, 2013)

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> Well there's a couple facts I like to bring up whenever discussing Bruce Lee. First off; I've read his/John Little's (guy who arranged and published all of Bruce's notes and made them into books etc.) entire catolague. Bruce says many times over that WT/WC is lacking.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BL can have his own opinion.
> 1. Beyond the slt stage he knew techniques - not in depth wing chun
> ...


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Jul 6, 2013)

Vajramusti said:


> BL can have his own opinion.
> 1. Beyond the slt stage he knew techniques - not in depth wing chun
> 1a. He did not learn more wing chun because he left HK.
> 2. What he did learn helped him
> ...



1. Beyond SLT (SNT) he knew much more than technique. He understood theory and application. That IS WING CHUN. I could care less if he knew the CK,BT,Dummy etc... He knew how to fight..

2. His "Philosophical Aphorisms" we learned at the University of Washington, where he obtained his bachelor's in philosophy lol.

Apparently sir, you haven't read the collected works. 

Bruce Lee was the reason I got into Wing Tsun. But your making it sound like he did nothing himself. "What he learned helped him, His "philosophy" is mostly BORROWED aphorisms, I don't pay much attention to the myths"...

Well less would become myth if you actually read about it. 

He knew more about ACTUAL fighting than many o' folks on here. And for that is why I look up to bruce lee. He was a philosophical and theoretical genius. He was just crunching the numbers to make the perfect system. His caculations were far from complete before his untimely death.

People can say what they will about bruce lee, but he was Legit all the way...

Sorry but that "Borrowed aphorisms" and "He didn't know in depth WC" really gets me. Because thats just ignorant as ****, considering you haven't seen all the facts. 

Before you start posting stuff, at least check your sources.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 6, 2013)

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> He knew more about ACTUAL fighting than many o' folks on here. And for that is why I look up to bruce lee. He was a philosophical and theoretical genius. He was just crunching the numbers to make the perfect system. His caculations were far from complete before his untimely death.
> 
> People can say what they will about bruce lee, but he was Legit all the way...
> 
> ...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have your opinions. That is ok with me. Different universes.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 6, 2013)

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> 1. Beyond SLT (SNT) he knew much more than technique. He understood theory and application. That IS WING CHUN. I could care less if he knew the CK,BT,Dummy etc... He knew how to fight..



So you dont care if he knew WC or not because he knew how to fight? But the question is ABOUT his view of WC, not his ability to fight. Thats a copout answer. If he just didnt like WC, thats fine! But theres a difference between not liking something and claiming that theres something wrong with it.



> 2. His "Philosophical Aphorisms" we learned at the University of Washington, where he obtained his bachelor's in philosophy lol.
> 
> Apparently sir, you haven't read the collected works.



Your point being? Having a degree in philosophy doesnt validate your philosophical views. Look at how contradictory and convoluted philosophers viewpoints are from echelons WAY above Bruce Lees head. Was he philosophical? Yeah. But the value placed on his views is subject to the individual reading them, not some made up universal standard for what makes good philosophy. Did you know that Galileo was an *******?



> Bruce Lee was the reason I got into Wing Tsun. But your making it sound like he did nothing himself. "What he learned helped him, His "philosophy" is mostly BORROWED aphorisms, I don't pay much attention to the myths"...



It is true, though. Alot of his 'quotes' are misquoted as being him. The quote in my signature is one of them. Youre trying too hard to defend him. He doesnt need to be perfect in order to inspire you, he just needs to inspire you. If he already does that, why do you need to disprove anything that could diminish his grandeur?



> Well less would become myth if you actually read about it.



There are people whove engaged in more physical violence than Bruce Lee did in his entire life who have things to say about it. Not much of it coincides. But then, quite some of it does. Think about that for a second.



> He knew more about ACTUAL fighting than many o' folks on here.



So basically what youre saying is that if someone has done more of something than you, that makes them better? You do realize that most of the people who'll break you are just average guys whove made that decision.



> And for that is why I look up to bruce lee. He was a philosophical and theoretical genius. He was just crunching the numbers to make the perfect system. His caculations were far from complete before his untimely death.



And youre free to see him that way. But that doesnt mean everyone else has to toe the line.



> People can say what they will about bruce lee, but he was Legit all the way...



You keep saying that same thing in different ways.



> Sorry but that "Borrowed aphorisms" and "He didn't know in depth WC" really gets me. Because thats just ignorant as ****, considering you haven't seen all the facts.
> 
> Before you start posting stuff, at least check your sources.



I for one have. But im not going to go spend money on a person whos work doesnt interest me just so that i can be less 'ignorant as ****'.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jul 7, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> So you dont care if he knew WC or not because he knew how to fight? But the question is ABOUT his view of WC, not his ability to fight. Thats a copout answer. If he just didnt like WC, thats fine! But theres a difference between not liking something and claiming that theres something wrong with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 7, 2013)

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> Well there's a couple facts I like to bring up whenever discussing Bruce Lee. First off; I've read his/John Little's (guy who arranged and published all of Bruce's notes and made them into books etc.) entire catolague. Bruce says many times over that WT/WC is lacking. Now Personally I've never seen bruce lee do Chum-kiu/Biu-Tze/Dummy/Long Pole/Knives or anything to tell me that he had more than a rudimentery introduciton into WT/WC. A very trusted information source (Sifu Alex Richter; City Wing Tsun) says that bruce lee knew more than that however. I don't remember the details, but I'm pretty sure Sifu Alex said something about chum-kiu and or the long pole.
> 
> But if we get back to the basics, Tao of Gung-Fu (his philosophical literary works) you can see that BL very much believes in the theories and principals of Wing Chun; He however decides that a different method of achieving those results (I.e. using different techniques). BL also says in many books that we can use whatever technique that feels comfortable to US; HOWEVER he repeatedly says over and over not to kick above the waist, yet you see JKD people all over doing this ALL THE TIME. And before you can say "BUT BRUCE LEE DOES IT TOO! No, no he doesn't. He TRAINED those kicks and rediculous punches to give himself more flexability and maintained that it is always better to be prepared, which is kinda contradictory to his proclomation of "Hacking away the un-essential".
> 
> ...





I've recently read something that places BL's outlook on wing chun in a pretty good perspective.  We all know the story of how Bruce studied under Yip Man and mostly his senior students.  We also know the story of the two versions of wing chun Yip Man learned over his lifetime, the one by Master Chan Wah shun and authentic one taught to him by Leung Bik of the Leung family.  Well, the story goes bruce was asked to leave the kwoon since he was beginning to best many of Yip Man's senior students and their was jealousy over he accamin for the arts and natural ability.  Yip Man unwillingly had to ask bruce to leave the kwoon but then asked cheung and another senior student to continue teaching bruce. Long story short it leads into the claim by Cheung of Yip Man teaching him the Leung version of wing chun which included the footwork and the concept of central line among other differences. 

We know the story goes Cheung was told to not reveal this version of wing chun as he was not in position to relay it to anyone while Yip man was the current owner of the system. It's said he really wanted to teach it to bruce while training bruce in the "modified version" of wing chun but could not.  So, instead of speaking it, Cheung would leave clues in training like immediately shutting down BL's attacks, using footwork to step offline and attack his blind side.  The story goes further that this frustrated bruce and lead him to the idea that wing chun was lacking.  Coupled also with the fight he had chinatown in which he had a hard time with Wong Jack Man using the modified version of wing chun.  

So basically, the story says bruce's common sense in the arts told him that something was incomplete about wing chun system as he had learned it. It also says he only had of 60% knowledge of the wing chun system. What is ironic, is the same way in jkd how you're on more of the balls of feet for side stepping, launching quickly is much of the same in "traditional wing chun" and not readily seen in the "modified version" of yip man's wing chun.

While there is obviously much controversy, to me this is plausible. To keep the true handed down version of wing chun in the Leung family while obliging Chan Wah Shun, it is not too far fetched that it was modified for Chan Wah Shun who was naturally pretty skillful in the arts.  It also said, after Yip Man learned from Leung Bik, he retruned to his original school and defeated other students with the new knowledge.

If this is a story, this is one hell of a story.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Jul 7, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> So you dont care if he knew WC or not because he knew how to fight? But the question is ABOUT his view of WC, not his ability to fight. Thats a copout answer. If he just didnt like WC, thats fine! But theres a difference between not liking something and claiming that theres something wrong with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. I don't see a cop-out.
2.That's like saying a Med. PHD isn't valid for practicing medicine (your a moron).
2a. Your reaching. Philosophy is about looking at the "other end of the spectrem", or "outside the box".
2b. Who are you to determine someone elses stage of enlightenment? A: Nobody
3. Yes he inspires me, from all facets of his life. I wasn't going gung-ho on defending him, I just hate idiots and ignoramious'. And thats what I replied to.
4. I don't think; I act.
5.No- again your reaching. Bruce Lee wasn't just a pioneer in the field of MMA, he was pretty much the architect. So he DID have more experience than anyone, because he was numero uno. And he trained harder, more realisticly than anyone else out there.
5a. I'm well aware of whom is dangerous and whom isn't. I'm a country boy, I've seen some crazy **** from all types of people. Little guys who could tear *** wholesale and big guys who were just teddy bears. (Again, your being obscenely pompous).
6. Wow, your such a defender of the idiots.
7. Thats so people like you might finally get the point. It's called "re-itteration"...

Alright, brief summary:

I try to make points: I'm not a colomnist; Just a regular guy with a point of view. If you don't like my format: take a long walk off a short cliff.

The only reason I said something, was because I was correcting someone, no its not my job, its my right. I don't mean to be so crass and abrasive, but thats just how I am. And when you act like a butt-head, I respond in kind. Again, stop opening your mouth when your being a toolbag, or you have no clue of whats going on. Especially if your not even making sense.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Jul 7, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> I've recently read something that places BL's outlook on wing chun in a pretty good perspective.  We all know the story of how Bruce studied under Yip Man and mostly his senior students.  We also know the story of the two versions of wing chun Yip Man learned over his lifetime, the one by Master Chan Wah shun and authentic one taught to him by Leung Bik of the Leung family.  Well, the story goes bruce was asked to leave the kwoon since he was beginning to best many of Yip Man's senior students and their was jealousy over he accamin for the arts and natural ability.  Yip Man unwillingly had to ask bruce to leave the kwoon but then asked cheung and another senior student to continue teaching bruce. Long story short it leads into the claim by Cheung of Yip Man teaching him the Leung version of wing chun which included the footwork and the concept of central line among other differences.
> 
> We know the story goes Cheung was told to not reveal this version of wing chun as he was not in position to relay it to anyone while Yip man was the current owner of the system. It's said he really wanted to teach it to bruce while training bruce in the "modified version" of wing chun but could not.  So, instead of speaking it, Cheung would leave clues in training like immediately shutting down BL's attacks, using footwork to step offline and attack his blind side.  The story goes further that this frustrated bruce and lead him to the idea that wing chun was lacking.  Coupled also with the fight he had chinatown in which he had a hard time with Wong Jack Man using the modified version of wing chun.
> 
> ...



Never heard a thing about it before that... That IS one helluva story man! But that makes hella sense!

On the footwork issue with the "modified WC"; I don't think that would be as plausible. Ya see, BL took his stance the "SPBKS" or "Small Phasic Bent Knee Stance" from boxing and fencing. The ability to be extremely mobile (fencing, moving forward and backward), yet have a grounded base to generate massive amounts of power (boxing). The older he got, the less and less he was in fixed positions and more into dynamic fighting, to where you wouldn't be able to see any semblence to an actual stance. You should really check out "Bruce Lee's Fighting Method" Vol. 1-4. I haven't read them in YEARS, but they set up how and why he does certain things. The first one is just training, but he has how to set up stance, properly punch and kick (with footwork variations included). And I'm pretty sure he goes into how fencing and boxing ties into it in those particular books, but again, I haven't read them in probably 10 years.

All the best man!


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 7, 2013)

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> 1. I don't see a cop-out.



Sure you dont.



> 2.That's like saying a Med. PHD isn't valid for practicing medicine (your a moron).



Medicine and Philosophy are as incomparable as Martial Arts and Philosophy. Also, im afraid this isnt a playground, your jabs at the ego you think i have wont get you anything.



> 2a. Your reaching. Philosophy is about looking at the "other end of the spectrem", or "outside the box".



...and?



> 2b. Who are you to determine someone elses stage of enlightenment? A: Nobody



And who are you, good sir? I suppose youre qualified to idolize him? For your information, no such qualification exists.



> 3. Yes he inspires me, from all facets of his life. I wasn't going gung-ho on defending him, I just hate idiots and ignoramious'. And thats what I replied to.
> 4. I don't think; I act.



How nice for you.



> 5.No- again your reaching. Bruce Lee wasn't just a pioneer in the field of MMA, he was pretty much the architect. So he DID have more experience than anyone, because he was numero uno. And he trained harder, more realisticly than anyone else out there.



Mixing martial arts happened before Lee was even born, mate.



> 5a. I'm well aware of whom is dangerous and whom isn't. I'm a country boy, I've seen some crazy **** from all types of people. Little guys who could tear *** wholesale and big guys who were just teddy bears. (Again, your being obscenely pompous).



Youre the one selling yourself high, bud. At no point have i even MENTIONED myself. 



> 6. Wow, your such a defender of the idiots.



Oh no, my poor ego 



> 7. Thats so people like you might finally get the point. It's called "re-itteration"...



Oh no, my poor ego 



> Alright, brief summary:
> 
> I try to make points: I'm not a colomnist; Just a regular guy with a point of view. If you don't like my format: take a long walk off a short cliff.



And if you dont want to have your views interrogated, stop stating them on public discussion boards.



> The only reason I said something, was because I was correcting someone, no its not my job, its my right. I don't mean to be so crass and abrasive, but thats just how I am. And when you act like a butt-head, I respond in kind. Again, stop opening your mouth when your being a toolbag, or you have no clue of whats going on. Especially if your not even making sense.



Not making sense? Go back and read without your ego trip.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 7, 2013)

Vajramusti said:


> Cyriacus said:
> 
> 
> > So you dont care if he knew WC or not because he knew how to fight? But the question is ABOUT his view of WC, not his ability to fight. Thats a copout answer. If he just didnt like WC, thats fine! But theres a difference between not liking something and claiming that theres something wrong with it.
> ...


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 7, 2013)

Wow, folks...  A whole lotta heat coming out.  Let's try to tone it down a bit, and maybe keep the name calling out of it entirely.  Consider this a friendly reminder...


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Jul 8, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Sure you dont.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I like you. I don't like your opinon one bit; But at least you hold your own.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 8, 2013)

jeff_hasbrouck said:


> I like you. I don't like your opinon one bit; But at least you hold your own.



Im sure we can agree to disagree


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 8, 2013)

The love is in the airrrrr!!! lol

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 8, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> The coffee is in the airrrrr!!! lol
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2



I fixed your reply!


----------



## VT_Vectis (Jul 13, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> I've recently read something that places BL's outlook on wing chun in a pretty good perspective.  We all know the story of how Bruce studied under Yip Man and mostly his senior students.  We also know the story of the two versions of wing chun Yip Man learned over his lifetime, the one by Master Chan Wah shun and authentic one taught to him by Leung Bik of the Leung family.  Well, the story goes bruce was asked to leave the kwoon since he was beginning to best many of Yip Man's senior students and their was jealousy over he accamin for the arts and natural ability.  Yip Man unwillingly had to ask bruce to leave the kwoon but then asked cheung and another senior student to continue teaching bruce. Long story short it leads into the claim by Cheung of Yip Man teaching him the Leung version of wing chun which included the footwork and the concept of central line among other differences.
> 
> We know the story goes Cheung was told to not reveal this version of wing chun as he was not in position to relay it to anyone while Yip man was the current owner of the system. It's said he really wanted to teach it to bruce while training bruce in the "modified version" of wing chun but could not.  So, instead of speaking it, Cheung would leave clues in training like immediately shutting down BL's attacks, using footwork to step offline and attack his blind side.  The story goes further that this frustrated bruce and lead him to the idea that wing chun was lacking.  Coupled also with the fight he had chinatown in which he had a hard time with Wong Jack Man using the modified version of wing chun.
> 
> ...




What a load codswallop, hogwash and baldurdash! There's an authenticated letter in Bruce's own hand addressed to Wong Shun Leung in which BL  acknowledged Yip Man as his SiFu but WSL as his teacher, owing to the fact that he conducted most of his training. 

Considering that they remained great friends up to the day BL died, visited and trained with each other and exchanged ideas/philosophies with each other (ie. Wsl "do not be a slave to the system" "be simple, direct and effective", "use nothing that has no use") .... Owing to these facts how was he secret pupil of cheungs so-called true system?


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 15, 2013)

VT_Vectis said:


> What a load codswallop, hogwash and baldurdash! There's an authenticated letter in Bruce's own hand addressed to Wong Shun Leung in which BL  acknowledged Yip Man as his SiFu but WSL as his teacher, owing to the fact that he conducted most of his training.
> 
> Considering that they remained great friends up to the day BL died, visited and trained with each other and exchanged ideas/philosophies with each other (ie. Wsl "do not be a slave to the system" "be simple, direct and effective", "use nothing that has no use") .... Owing to these facts how was he secret pupil of cheungs so-called true system?



Bruce lee actually spoke of cheung and WSL to his pupils per their recounts.  Also, no where is it suggested BL was a pupil of WC system.  BL was taught what Yip man passed down. WC did not start teaching his system until after grandmaster yip man passed.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Jul 16, 2013)

VT_Vectis said:


> What a load codswallop, hogwash and baldurdash! There's an authenticated letter in Bruce's own hand addressed to Wong Shun Leung in which BL  acknowledged Yip Man as his SiFu but WSL as his teacher, owing to the fact that he conducted most of his training.
> 
> Considering that they remained great friends up to the day BL died, visited and trained with each other and exchanged ideas/philosophies with each other (ie. Wsl "do not be a slave to the system" "be simple, direct and effective", "use nothing that has no use") .... Owing to these facts how was he secret pupil of cheungs so-called true system?



Bruce Lee also trained with William Cheung. Just saying. Another thing he did was trade his wing chun knowledge with people from other systems and learn some of theirs for some of his. He was very crafty at learning new techniques when he was younger.


----------



## Argus (Jul 16, 2013)

Bruce Lee did train primarily with Wong Shun Leung, from what I understand, though he did practice with Cheung also. However, the whole story about William Cheung getting the "real" "authentic" version of WC from Yip Man and passing it on to Bruce is quite rightly "_a load codswallop, hogwash and baldurdash"_. And quite frankly, disrespectful to both Yip Man and Wong Shun Leung, not to mention the whole of the Yip Man family.

I have to wonder if some concepts of Wing Chun were a bit lost on Bruce, simply because he was so gifted, both physically and mentally. Wing Chun strives not to rely on speed, strength, or size. Bruce Lee, being very athletic, seems not to have valued the _strict_ economy of motion and rootedness that Wing Chun calls for. And to be fair, when you're as quick and talented as he was, that's not as important, and you might even view it as holding you back when you're physically capable of more.

So, that's why I say I would have liked to see how Bruce might have changed his method had he lived to be much older.


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 17, 2013)

Argus said:


> Bruce Lee did train primarily with Wong Shun Leung, from what I understand, though he did practice with Cheung also. However, the whole story about William Cheung getting the "real" "authentic" version of WC from Yip Man and passing it on to Bruce is quite rightly "_a load codswallop, hogwash and baldurdash"_. And quite frankly, disrespectful to both Yip Man and Wong Shun Leung, not to mention the whole of the Yip Man family.
> 
> I have to wonder if some concepts of Wing Chun were a bit lost on Bruce, simply because he was so gifted, both physically and mentally. Wing Chun strives not to rely on speed, strength, or size. Bruce Lee, being very athletic, seems not to have valued the _strict_ economy of motion and rootedness that Wing Chun calls for. And to be fair, when you're as quick and talented as he was, that's not as important, and you might even view it as holding you back when you're physically capable of more.
> 
> So, that's why I say I would have liked to see how Bruce might have changed his method had he lived to be much older.



Not to rehash old new but actually, GM William Cheung did not pass on "traditional"/"his version of wing chun" on to bruce lee.  I do not believe he ever said that.  All he said was he helped trained him with WSL which is backed by students of bruce lee.  I recently saw a clip on one of bruce lee's movies and he executed wing chun techniques so fast that full speed it is hard to see it.  I can only make some of it out in slow motion.


----------



## Argus (Jul 17, 2013)

StormShadow said:


> Not to rehash old new but actually, GM William Cheung did not pass on "traditional"/"his version of wing chun" on to bruce lee.  I do not believe he ever said that.  All he said was he helped trained him with WSL which is backed by students of bruce lee.  I recently saw a clip on one of bruce lee's movies and he executed wing chun techniques so fast that full speed it is hard to see it.  I can only make some of it out in slow motion.



Eh, my real hang up (and I think VT_Vectis') was this bit:



> _ Yip Man unwillingly had to ask bruce to leave the kwoon but then asked cheung and another senior student to continue teaching bruce. Long story short it leads into the claim by Cheung of Yip Man teaching him the Leung version of wing chun which included the footwork and the concept of central line among other differences. _



I don't know where this story originated, but it sounds as if William Cheung is trying to take credit from Wong Shun Leung.
Firstly, we know that Yip Man asked Wong Shun Leung to train Bruce. Never have I heard mention of him asking anyone else, and I tend to really doubt that Yip Man would ask Cheung also, as Cheung had only been training a few years by this time, and would have been about 14 years old in 1955. Admittedly, the same age as Bruce, but certainly not a teacher whom Yip Man might approach.
Now, why does the paragraph seemingly insert Cheung's name, omit Wong Shun Leung's, and make it seem as if Cheung was Bruce's main teacher?


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 17, 2013)

Argus said:


> Eh, my real hang up (and I think VT_Vectis') was this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just think you're getting a little defensive.  Wong Shun Leung was a great fighter, martial artist, student ect.  No one is disrespecting him. I would be the last to disrespect anyone in the wing chun family especially those who were directly under yip man.


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 17, 2013)

Argus said:


> Eh, my real hang up (and I think VT_Vectis') was this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Per BL's students recount of conversations with Bruce, this is what they said. I have to take their word since I wasn't there.  WSL and WC were to continue training bruce with of course the main and most senior teacher being WSL.


----------



## jeff_hasbrouck (Jul 17, 2013)

Poor little Bruce... Only a 3/4 chinese so everyone picked on him for being a qui-lo lol.


----------



## Argus (Jul 17, 2013)

> Storm

No problem. I didn't mean to sound defensive, and I realize you didn't mean to disrespect anyone. I was just wondering where you picked up that story from, because it sounds very suspicious to me.

For the record, my intention isn't to bash William Cheung either. I just don't put much faith in the integrity of his claims / stories.


----------



## StormShadow (Jul 18, 2013)

Argus said:


> > Storm
> 
> No problem. I didn't mean to sound defensive, and I realize you didn't mean to disrespect anyone. I was just wondering where you picked up that story from, because it sounds very suspicious to me.
> 
> For the record, my intention isn't to bash William Cheung either. I just don't put much faith in the integrity of his claims / stories.



From conversations with people of wing chun, jkd, and research to verify.  But BL for the most part was his own animal and likely would have transcended everyone in wing chun had he learned the complete system and continued to train and refine his skills in it.  Regarding GM Cheung, you as in many other people feel the say way.  It's all personal preferences and that's cool.  I'm in traditional wing chun yet I feel I can learn from everyone and holds no one's personal flavor of wing chun above another.  I will always believe it's the fighter and not the art.  So you will not hear from me, my style is authentic or my style is the best bc at the end of the day it doesn't matter what is perceived as "the best" or "most correct" if you do not train well enough to absorb the concepts and able implement them in a nano second.


----------

