# Bruce Lee.. Overrated?



## Josh (Feb 14, 2007)

yes, no?

thoughts, ideas?


My personal take on Bruce Lee is that he was a Martial Artist first, then an actor. I don't think he is "the best ever" and I don't think any of his ideas were as revolutionary as some are made to believe. Good martial artist, yes. without a doubt. As good as his hype, probably not.

i'd say he is overrated.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 14, 2007)

Joshua said:


> yes, no?
> 
> thoughts, ideas?
> 
> ...


And you base this on what...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 14, 2007)

Yes, he is over rated. You should hear some of his fans in this town. Its really society's "end all be all" mentality that is the problem. People just can't get away from terms like "best" when they speak of an individual. I blame sports in general.
Sean


----------



## Robert Lee (Feb 14, 2007)

No Bruce was not the best, but no one will ever be the best in M/A or anything. Yes his idea was revolutionary. At the time people trained and believed Very much in what they trained was workable. I think Bruce helped to open a door that a person needs training that helps that person. We have the MMA now that is not really different then what Bruce was saying and working towards. No art has the whole answer What you need to better is not what the person next to you needs. Train the same each take from that train what best fits there needs. Bruce did help in this aspect. Over rated or not he helped.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 14, 2007)

Yes and no.

Legends always get made out to be bigger then they where.  

In today's world I don't think he would be anything special, but others have had the opportunity to stand on his shoulders.  If someone like him, came before him maybe he would have gone farther.

It's like asking who the better physicist was, Aristotle, Newton or Einstien.  No real answer there, Einstien was obviously closer to the truth, but he had the work of the many more before him to go off of.


----------



## Infinite (Feb 14, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Legends always get made out to be bigger then they where.
> 
> ...



Closer to OUR truth. 100 years from now even Einstine's theories will seem quant and probably much like Newton fail at the unified level.

However on the topic of Bruce Lee,

He introduced two concepts one of which was fit the MA to the person. The second was the formless fighting style.

Prior to all this the prevaling MA culture was do as it was done before. You do your kata's and you learn the techniques.

He put into words (others probably had the concepts) how to use an MA with the overiding concept of economy of motion. It cought on thus the legend.

He was obviously intellegent and a quite extra ordinary person/martial artist but he was not a god.

--Infy


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 14, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes, he is over rated. You should hear some of his fans in this town. Its really society's "end all be all" mentality that is the problem. People just can't get away from terms like "best" when they speak of an individual. I blame sports in general.
> Sean


Look at the "state" of martial arts when Bruce was alive and look at how martial arts were executed "on average" back then.

Your keyword was  "fans and fans are wannabes and "not in the know." Why are you listening to them?


----------



## exile (Feb 14, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Legends always get made out to be bigger then they where.
> 
> ...



Andrew's take on this is I think the real crux of the matteryou can't judge the past against the present. It's meaningless, because what comes after incorporates and modifies what went before. People in chess argue sometimes about whether how Morphy, Alexhine, Fisher and Kasparov stack up against each other, but in each case the later player built on and internalized the insights and discoveries of the earlier one. Remember what Newton said? `If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants'. Well, not only that, of course... but if you look at the highest level of brilliance at any given time, that brilliance stands on the shoulders of earlier genius. It's the same in every domain of human activity. 

In certain important ways, we think of the arts differently because of the way Lee demystified them and the practical approach he demanded of them. He reframed the kinds of questions all martial artists ask about their art. Of how many practitioners in any given generation is that true? The answer to that is the measure of Lee's true stature (as opposed to the superhuman hype that everyone iscorrectlyso skeptical of)...


----------



## IWishToLearn (Feb 14, 2007)

It's been quoted several places that Bruce's forte was in taking something someone else did - doing it just as well the first time he tried it, and better the second go around. He was a phenomenal natural talent - but he ultimately left behind no "system" of teaching - much the same as when Ed Parker died. There were so many different evolutions of Bruce and Ed's work that finding one specific way to do things was no longer viable as a training methodology. Witness the various JKD "seniors" and the various Kenpo "seniors". They all move and teach differently. All of their students move and teach differently. (Generalities for the sake of argument - there are specific lineages that all move the same way. Stay on topic people. )

Bruce was a major force in the martial arts - his greatest legacy was the upheaval of "traditional" ways of thinking - and taking a piece from here, and a piece from there to use for your own. The downside to that methodology is that Bruce was one in a million physically who could do that. I've not yet seen another who was able to put things together across a varied spectrum of styles.

Was Bruce the "greatest" ever - I disagree with that assessment.  Bruce left no "system" - but a philosophy. Was he a pioneer - yes. None of Bruce's students move like Bruce did. And the vast majority of people cannot benefit from studying and choosing pieces of style x, y, and z because the vast majority do not conceptualize the How, Why, and Purpose behind the various concepts of style x, y, and z in such a short period of time.

Was he overrated - Who cares?


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 14, 2007)

Do I feel Bruce was over rated NO, at the time of his training and concept of training he was in the forefront and that can never be taken away. Was he the best ever in MA, most likely NO again there are so many people that put people like Bruce above everything else, did TV and the movies make him larrger than life of course so, that is what we a s a society does to people on the big screen make them invencible.


----------



## Tames D (Feb 14, 2007)

Probably over rated. But I wouldnt have it any other way...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 14, 2007)

exile said:


> you can't judge the past against the present


 
nough said

But I will add Bruce Lee was a very good martial artist.


----------



## g-bells (Feb 14, 2007)

he believed that each individual should express themselves via their art therefore, there will never be another bruce but who cares. he was an excepitional MA with ideas far ahead of his time, if you consider him overrated then you are falling into the commercialised view of him.
do i consider him overrated? i just don't think of him in those terms.

gary


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 14, 2007)

IWishToLearn said:


> It's been quoted several places that Bruce's forte was in taking something someone else did - doing it just as well the first time he tried it, and better the second go around. He was a phenomenal natural talent - but he ultimately left behind no "system" of teaching - much the same as when Ed Parker died. There were so many different evolutions of Bruce and Ed's work that finding one specific way to do things was no longer viable as a training methodology. Witness the various JKD "seniors" and the various Kenpo "seniors". They all move and teach differently. All of their students move and teach differently. (Generalities for the sake of argument - there are specific lineages that all move the same way. Stay on topic people. )
> 
> Bruce was a major force in the martial arts - his greatest legacy was the upheaval of "traditional" ways of thinking - and taking a piece from here, and a piece from there to use for your own. The downside to that methodology is that Bruce was one in a million physically who could do that. I've not yet seen another who was able to put things together across a varied spectrum of styles. Was Bruce the "greatest" ever - I disagree with that assessment.
> 
> ...


Not a bad post BUT

1) That would mean that Bruce never taught a system. There are many "known and unknown" practioners that practice it.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3408

2) To move like Bruce is not what JKD is about but if you want to see someone who moves like Bruce, google Tommy Caruthers.

3) JKD isn't a mix and match system, not even close. Thats where the confusion sets in. Everyone wants to "think" that Bruces "final" stages of development is the stage to "start" out at. 

How can one expect to achieve the results of "self expression" that Bruce expected while skipping the important training methodologies (without the natural abilities that Bruce posessed). Bruce dropped this and that BUT he still possessed all that he dropped and if needed it would still use it.


----------



## charyuop (Feb 14, 2007)

Was he the best Martial Artist in the world? No (I don't think there is really one). Was he the greatest? Yes, in my head he surely was!

Over rated? Well considering that people still talks alot about him (there are forums like this every other month lol), his style still taught, his movies always on the top of Martial Art movies...well, if he was over rated he was for sure over rated by the most of us.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 14, 2007)

For the time, no. For today? Who knows. It's an interesting question that probably needs to go beyond Bruce Lee. I was watching Drunken Master a couple of weeks ago and was thoroughly impressed with the skills shown. What was interesting was how poor the choreography was in the fight scenes as compared to today. I don't know that today's MA scions are any better than Jackie Chan was in that movie, nor do I know that they are any better than Bruce Lee was. But the scenes are done much better and more time is put into preparation for them. Jet Li in fearless blew me away but some of his earlier work, as with the others mentioned, looks a little stilted also.

MA in general in this country's entertainment media was also rare in those day, which made Bruce Lee stand out even more.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 14, 2007)

Bruce was special in that he had that *charisma* that very few people have.  He also was a philosopher and an intellectual from the martial arts standpoint.  Physically he was pretty gifted with decent attributes except for size.  He also brought the chinese martial arts to life with his films.  Was he the best martial artist ever. (not even close and how could you really ever judge that anyways)  However he was very *special* for all of the above reasons.  Heck watching his films certainly inspired me to start training and for that I am forever grateful!


----------



## Kenpodoc (Feb 14, 2007)

Joshua said:


> yes, no?
> 
> thoughts, ideas?
> 
> ...


The very fact that this post was created more than 30 years after his death demonstrates his power over the martial arts community.  This site might not exist without his charismatic effect on Martial arts in the united states.

Jeff


----------



## still learning (Feb 14, 2007)

Hello, Mr Bruce Lee was a great martial artist. He train harder than most people.  He had great speed and power.  He was very flexable.  He was always looking to improving his martial art knowledge.  He had great skills!

He was also a pretty good actor!  OK..better than (still learning)?

Martial arts has been around for hundreds of years....today nothing is NEW!  ....even the things that BRUCE LEE found...has been around for along time...(It was new to him).  The things he said and did was already found by someone else.  Yet today lots of followers thought it was orginal.

Today the fads on BJJ or MMA....Do you think people did not do those things before?  Man has been looking and fighting each other for hundreds, and hundreds of years.  

Just one more comment:  Watch all the different systems,arts....foot work,stance,.....one thing is common....everyone ends up fighting the same way?  Why?  Man was not design to fight in a wide stance, narrow stance,long or short, or deep.....?

Mr Bruce Lee will always be known as a GREAT Martial artist....he will not be last one too. (still learning is not great? nor fast? but,still learning is trying to run FASTER!  ...............Aloha)


----------



## searcher (Feb 14, 2007)

Kenpodoc said:


> The very fact that this post was created more than 30 years after his death demonstrates his power over the martial arts community. This site might not exist without his charismatic effect on Martial arts in the united states.
> 
> Jeff


 
Very well put.  

 He made an impact that very few have ever made on the MAs.   I can't go one way or the other, but I am not sure we can be comparing apples to apples no matter how hard we try.   I wonder how many of us would be on this board talking today if it were not for his contribution to the popularity of what we have come to love.   He was a celeb. and for that there will always be the debate.   To each, his own.


----------



## Doc (Feb 14, 2007)

Joshua said:


> yes, no?
> 
> thoughts, ideas?
> 
> ...


Well like anything else it would depend upon whom you ask, and where the opinion came from. Bruce was a good martial artist, and an extremely gifted athlete. (Yes I knew him) Yet with all of his physical gifts and skill, he was a young kid at the time of his famous demo at the IKC with only a few years of training under a formal teacher, and the bulk on his own after he moved to Seattle and began college. According to several people I respect, Sea Oh Choi, Wally Jay and Ed Parker Sr. yes he was gifted but not very knowledgeable in the depths of the arts. 

This would seem to be correct based on his training background and years in the art(s). Clearly Bruce was on a personal quest to learn everything he could from as many sources as he could find. (The efficacy of this approach is best left for another discussion).

In the general American Culture of Martial Arts Infancy Bruce was awesome in 1964. American martial Arts at the time was in a very primitive state, (and still is; more information but less knowledge), being primarily Japanese/Okinawan competition based however, among the real Chinese Masters he was, in many cases, expounding on what would be considered basic knowledge in the Chinese Arts. (Which to this day are still not a part of mainstream American Martial Arts).

Clearly Bruce acquired more knowledge as time went on, picking the Brain of Ed Parker, learning to grapple from Gene LeBell, and kicks from Sea Oh Choi, but no matter how much he tried, he was still behind the curve because of his short life experience in any art. Given time, he woud have gotten there, no doubt. And although his charisma and the ability to market and showcase himself in film and TV was an assest to all, the truth is he was just a really talented, gifted, and intelligent kid.

I tell you what i would have liked to have seen. I would have loved to see Bruce enter the boxing ranks, and compete professionally at his weight. I think he would have been pretty good. But fortunately for all of us, Bruce was too smart for that.


----------



## K' Evans (Feb 14, 2007)

Just my own opinion. I don't claim to be a fan of Bruce Lee, which I am frequently asked when other people find out that I am undertaking JKD. The reason being that I don't personally idolise him in a brainless manner, on the other hand, I do respect him a great deal and do think of him as a great martial artist (not necessarily the best as that's impossible to judge). I disagree that he thinks of himself (or should be thought of) as an actor first, cos he has always stated everything he knows about life and philosophy and himself stems from martial arts. 

I usually conduct this test on lay ppl who are puzzled abt Bruce Lee's fame. I ask if they are familiar with Tiger Woods and if they know what is so great about him. Usually, they don't since they don't play golf. So I explain that unless you are familiar with the world of martial arts, you can't understand what's so significant about Bruce. And I think this really shows because Bruce was/is a tremendously talented and studious martial artist, professional actor or not. if you read about his incredible feats of strength, and the amount of training he puts in, you would have no doubt that not everyone, even if given the same time, effort and flexibility, can come up with the same achievements. 

The other characteristic trait I respect in Bruce is that he was fiercely independent (i.e. anti-establishment) and not just for the sake of being a rebel. Even if he doesn't understand every single historical detail of the world of martial arts, he was clearly a researcher and a critical thinker/scholar/philosopher about the martial arts. I think that puts him up a level higher than most martial artists, who may practice their respective styles very well, but never gave it the same degree of thought and critical analysis as Bruce did. You don't have to agree with everything that Bruce said (and I personally think he didn't live up to everything he wrote) but there's no doubt that he was not just concerned about achieving physical greatness but also exercising his mental faculties.

There's a famous quote about Bruce which I think sorta sums up my thoughts. It was spoken by Doug Palmer (according to Wikiquote): "It's not that other martial artists were not good. It's just that this guy was great."


----------



## chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618; (Feb 15, 2007)

strange, i was thingking about this last night whilst reading a bruce lee biography.

 i think he is over rated because of general society......this may not be the case over in ameirca but here in england about 99.9% of people have heard of bruce lee and know at least that he "did fung fu".  he was a good martial artist but i think that it was the making of jeet kune do that set it all off......people saw his films.......knew he made a martial art.......they assume hes the best bacause of those 2 reasons and because of his popularity. most of these people have no education in martial arts and base thier opinions on stupid reasons like his movies, when in actual fact they have never seen him fight in real life and dont really know how good a fighter he is

this is why i believe he is overated.........people that dont know what they are talking about going along with the majority (the majority also dont know what thay are talkin about)


this has probably already been said lol


i have the same opinion of the shaolin monks...not as poular here but the people that do know of them also know how popular they are around the rest of the world. people see thier dvd (wheel of life, see it if you have the oportunity!) and see that they can do some amazing stunts and have good skill but they have never seen them fight. they assume that they could beat anyone up just becasue of some rehersed stunts that probably wouldnt work in a real fight.

i would like to see a shaolin monk or bruce lee in the octogan ;D


just my opinion


----------



## Josh (Feb 15, 2007)

akja said:


> And you base this on what...



my own opinions. there is no right or wrong answer to the question


----------



## Adept (Feb 15, 2007)

Having watched a lot of his movies, and read a lot of his books I think there can be no doubt that Bruce was a very talented athlete, with a work ethic that puts most people (in all walks of life) to shame. Watching him move on film is like magic.

To me, basically, when you get right down to it he said: "Don't mindlessly listen to your instructors. Find out what works for you, and then do that."

Now, he might not have been the first to say it (and certainly wasn't the last) but I think he said it at the right time (during the formative years of MA in the west) to the right people, and in the right way.

He certainly had more impact on my decision to start the martial arts than anyone else.


----------



## Josh (Feb 15, 2007)

chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618;;726068 said:
			
		

> i would like to see a shaolin monk or bruce lee in the octogan ;D
> 
> 
> just my opinion




and a valid one at that. I don't have a problem with Bruce lee, I have a problem with people that give him God status.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 15, 2007)

Joshua said:


> my own opinions. there is no right or wrong answer to the question


opinions from where?


----------



## chris_&#3617;&#3623;&#3618;&#3652;&#3607;&#3618; (Feb 15, 2007)

Joshua said:


> and a valid one at that. I don't have a problem with Bruce lee, I have a problem with people that give him God status.


 

just the point i was tryin to make, thanks!


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 15, 2007)

Doc said:


> Well like anything else it would depend upon whom you ask, and where the opinion came from. Bruce was a good martial artist, and an extremely gifted athlete. (Yes I knew him) Yet with all of his physical gifts and skill, he was a young kid at the time of his famous demo at the IKC with only a few years of training under a formal teacher, and the bulk on his own after he moved to Seattle and began college. According to several people I respect, Sea Oh Choi, Wally Jay and Ed Parker Sr. yes he was gifted but not very knowledgeable in the depths of the arts.
> 
> This would seem to be correct based on his training background and years in the art(s). Clearly Bruce was on a personal quest to learn everything he could from as many sources as he could find. (The efficacy of this approach is best left for another discussion).
> 
> ...


 
Well if you want to do the math, Ed Parker only had a few years TIG before going out on his own. When Bruce and Ed met, the bulk of Ed's training came from sources other than Chow. That is what Bruce did too except Bruce had no choice, he was in a new country.

At the time Bruce started Wing Chun in 1954 I don't think that Mr. Parker had his black yet. Before Bruce went out on his own (because he came to America) he had "approximately" 5 years in, about 1/2 of the time for instructorship in those days.

I'm guessing that Mr. Parker had no more than 5 years or less "training time," than Bruce and that was "on their own" training. If Bruce "was still behind the curve" then why did some of Mr. Parkers black belts quit to train under Bruce? I recall Jerry Poteet, Larry Hartsell, Dan Inosanto and Steve Golden. All who are still true to Bruce Lees Jeet Kune Do. Do you recall who the others were that Quit Mr. Parker to go train with Bruce?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 15, 2007)

Joshua said:


> and a valid one at that. I don't have a problem with Bruce lee, I have a problem with people that give him God status.


 

God status.... who is giving him God status?

Meaning who in the martial arts world

Bruce Lee was an amazing and dedicated martial artist that in my opinion deserves the same respect any other martial artist of that caliber deserves and there are several in that category.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Feb 15, 2007)

akja said:


> Look at the "state" of martial arts when Bruce was alive and look at how martial arts were executed "on average" back then.
> 
> Your keyword was  "fans and fans are wannabes and "not in the know." Why are you listening to them?



I agree with Akja. How can someone be overrated when they have single handedly revolutionized the Martial Arts world to the degree Bruce did? Its amazing how people judge Bruce then, based on events now... after Bruce's death. Bruce was exceptional for his time. And until I see someone revolutionize the arts away from the current _paradigm_ that is Martial Arts, only THEN will I consider them to be considerable to Lee. This goes not to say that Lee was the absolute, but based on speed alone... even today, I haven't seen many that matched his caliber.

I can never understand the need for people to take credit away from someone so great.


----------



## curious (Feb 15, 2007)

Thanks to my stepfather I ended up emersed in the life of Bruce Lee. As I was growing up I had to watch each and every movie Bruce Lee ever made. My house was the never ending Bruce Lee marathon. I had to walk around in a house full of Bruce Lee stuff. I had to listen to every topic there was about Bruce Lee. I also had to wait in the car while my stepfather went to JKD classes (no kids allowed back then). During my teenage years, believe me when I say I seriously thought Bruce Lee was and always will be overrated. I felt like if I had to listen to anything Bruce Lee I was going to puke. Look up the word FANATIC and OBSESSIVE in the dictionary and you will see a picture of my stepfather kissing a picture of Bruce Lee. To get back on topic with the thread I have to say I agree with the following:



Kenpodoc said:


> The very fact that this post was created more than 30 years after his death demonstrates his power over the martial arts community. This site might not exist without his charismatic effect on Martial arts in the united states.


 

and...



Thunder Foot said:


> How can someone be overrated when they have single handedly revolutionized the Martial Arts world to the degree Bruce did? Its amazing how people judge Bruce then, based on events now... after Bruce's death. Bruce was exceptional for his time.


----------



## Josh (Feb 16, 2007)

akja said:


> opinions from where?



Based on my thoughts, It's strictly a feeling I get. Nothing more to it.


----------



## Josh (Feb 16, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> God status.... who is giving him God status?
> 
> Meaning who in the martial arts world
> 
> Bruce Lee was an amazing and dedicated martial artist that in my opinion deserves the same respect any other martial artist of that caliber deserves and there are several in that category.



I'm not saying he was not amazing. But I know of people personally that believe him to be the end all of martial arts. That's what I meant by "God status" there are literally Martial Artists that equate Bruce Lee with perfection in the Martial Arts. Now, I don't blame that on Lee. I'm not taking away from his greatness. I'm just trying to be reasonable. He isn't the end all to Martial Arts.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 16, 2007)

Joshua said:


> He isn't the end all to Martial Arts.


 
WHAT!!!! :cuss:  


:uhyeah: Just kidding.

Seriously, I don't think he is either and if you read anything he wrote or what some of the more reputable sources have written about him I don't think he though he was either. He thought he was good, and he was right, but I doubt he thought he was the epitome of martial arts.

*EDIT:*

But I do agree there are those out there that deify Bruce Lee and many of those don&#8217;t really train real martial arts much or are new to the game. 

But with that said I feel I should also say Bruce Lee was a damn good martial artist


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 16, 2007)

Joshua said:


> Based on my thoughts, It's strictly a feeling I get. Nothing more to it.


What styles and who's in your lineage so we can check if their were any "charismatic" charactors in it?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 16, 2007)

Thunder Foot said:


> I agree with Akja. How can someone be overrated when they have single handedly revolutionized the Martial Arts world to the degree Bruce did? Its amazing how people judge Bruce then, based on events now... after Bruce's death. Bruce was exceptional for his time. And until I see someone revolutionize the arts away from the current _paradigm_ that is Martial Arts, only THEN will I consider them to be considerable to Lee. This goes not to say that Lee was the absolute, but based on speed alone... even today, I haven't seen many that matched his caliber.
> 
> I can never understand the need for people to take credit away from someone so great.


Single handedly?


----------



## Thunder Foot (Feb 16, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Single handedly?


Yes Sir! Maybe dual handedly, since he was proficient with both hands, hehe 

Joking aside, I really don't understand the meaning of your quote.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 16, 2007)

Thunder Foot said:


> Yes Sir! Maybe dual handedly, since he was proficient with both hands, hehe
> 
> Joking aside, I really don't understand the meaning of your quote.


He was cult of personality formula, at the right place, at the right time. Just like Jean Claude.
Sean


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 16, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> He was cult of personality formula, at the right place, at the right time. Just like Jean Claude.
> Sean


So you would compare him to Jean Claude?


----------



## Thunder Foot (Feb 16, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> He was cult of personality formula, at the right place, at the right time. Just like Jean Claude.
> Sean


How so? I fail to see anything that Lee accomplished as _not_ being a result of his personal work. 

Can you give definitive examples?


----------



## Josh (Feb 16, 2007)

akja said:


> What styles and who's in your lineage so we can check if their were any "charismatic" charactors in it?



all in my profile, my friend. I don't want this to become a thread war. I didnt say Bruce Lee wasent charismatic, and I wasent implying that if he was that it was a bad thing. Don't read too deeply into my question. Was Bruce Lee over rated? Well apprently some people on this fourm think so. Who knows? Who really cares? It was just something to talk about... and thats what a forum is, a place to talk. 


Josh


----------



## Carol (Feb 16, 2007)

Joshua said:


> all in my profile, my friend. I don't want this to become a thread war. I didnt say Bruce Lee wasent charismatic, and I wasent implying that if he was that it was a bad thing. Don't read too deeply into my question. Was Bruce Lee over rated? Well apprently some people on this fourm think so. Who knows? Who really cares? It was just something to talk about... and thats what a forum is, a place to talk.
> 
> 
> Josh



Agreed.  We talk.  We may agree, we may disagree.  There's no rule stating we need to reach a consensus.


----------



## Infinite (Feb 16, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Agreed.  We talk.  We may agree, we may disagree.  There's no rule stating we need to reach a consensus.




there isn't ??? well NOW you tell me ... I mean sheesh I could have been so much more dissenting.

--Infy


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 16, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Agreed. We talk. We may agree, we may disagree. There's no rule stating we need to reach a consensus.


 
Then why the heck am I trying to be a kinder gentler Xue!?!?!?!? :uhyeah:



Infinite said:


> there isn't ??? well NOW you tell me ... I mean sheesh I could have been so much more dissenting.
> 
> --Infy


 
YEAH... What he said


----------



## Carol (Feb 16, 2007)

I only say these things because I'm in the mood for a good Xue Sheng RANT!!

Rant, Xue, Rant!  

Rant, Xue, Rant!


----------



## Thunder Foot (Feb 17, 2007)

Well now there's _talking_, then there's *discussing* hehe. I suppose this is Martial*Talk* however.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2007)

*
FROM A KENPO BLACK BELT

With all the "opinions" from those who did not know Bruce and from one who did know Bruce, I thought it would be nice to post some "quotes" from a Kenpo Black Belt that quit Kenpo for Jeet Kune Do and who did not only "know" Bruce but was Bruces student.*

DW Forum - Bruce was a practical joker, were you ever the victim of such jokes or did you ever witness any of them? 

Steve Golden - No. Unless you think getting hit with his one inch punch without any protection a practical joke. I saw my friend who was not expecting it go flying into a couch in a hotel lobby. The really great part of that is that I wasn't the person getting hit. </SPAN>

DW Forum - How did you first meet Bruce and what were first impressions of him? 

Steve Golden - I met him at Ed Parker's school in Pasadena, California. I'm not sure what our first impression was but I know that we wouldn't let Bruce out of the school without asking him all kinds of questions. So I know that we were very impressed. Bruce and Ed Parker were very good friends. Bruce used to come in every once in a while to talk to Ed and we sure loved to see him.

DW Forum - Were you ever the victim of any of any of Bruce Lee sidekicks, if so what was it like? 

Steve Golden - Ouch! Why did you remind me of that? This was in the Chinatown school. Class was over and Bruce was explaining something to some friend of his. I was the only one left in the building. He walked over and asked me to put on two chest protectors. Then he said that he was going to kick me and that I should get back as fast as I can. I remember him starting and me starting to run back. Then I remember flying through the air and hitting the cinder block wall. I thought he broke all my ribs while I was running away from his kick. Years later, Jerry Poteet told me that he was standing in the doorway and saw it happen He said that he thought Bruce had killed me. I didn't even know anyone else saw it. 

</SPAN>

DW Forum - What is the best memory that you have of Bruce are there any special memories? 

Steve Golden - My favorite time was when we worked out together in the bar of a closed Chinese restaurant. It's a long story but basically we were doing Chi Sao and I couldn't hit him. I told him that you can't beat a man at his own game. He looked at me and said, "That's not my game." I asked him what was. He said, "Try to stop me." We squared off as though we were going to fight. I was already a black belt in Kenpo and I lasted almost two seconds. He had both of my arms trapped against my body while I was bent over backwards on a piano and he had his fingers in my eyes. Then he looked at me, smiled and said, "That's my game." That was what convinced me that I had to learn his system. 

</SPAN>

DW Forum - What was the most touching thing that Bruce ever did for you? 

Steve Golden - I think it was when he told me that he liked me and the other Kenpo guys because we knew how to move and that we had open minds. I thought that was quite a compliment. 

</SPAN>

DW Forum - Do you feel that Bruce was the greatest martial artist of the 20th century and also what level of martial arts skill would he have been at today? 

Steve Golden - To be fair to everyone, I have not seen all the martial artists of the 20th century. It is an awfully big world. But from what I have seen, no one in these days has all the attributes that Bruce had. If they did, they would be just as visible and famous. Bruce was not only a fabulous martial artist, he was also a genius. He could not only "do it", he also understood why things worked. Can you imagine a person who can do this: Every time Bruce attacked, it was successful. I mean every time! And, every time someone else attacked, he hit them. Think about that. 
As for where he would be today, no one knows. I think it's safe to assume that he would continue on the path he chose. He said that when his strength and speed diminished with age, awareness would more than make up for it. 


</SPAN>


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 21, 2007)

Joshua said:


> *Bruce Lee.. Overrated?*


 
Yes. (then and now).




CM D.J. Eisenhart
___________________
Last Fearner


----------



## thetruth (Feb 21, 2007)

I'm not a fan of Bruce's movies.  He certainly was a physical speciman with guys like Dorian Yates in awe of his physique so in that respect he wasn't overrated.  I think his idea of tailoring an art to a person and taking what is useful etc was a lot different to what was being said at the time and probably opened a few peoples eyes. He could allegedly fight and had many altercations so I'm sure his ability in that area was well above average.  However he was an icon as is well known worldwide as Elvis. Personally I don't particularly like either one but they both certainly left their mark on this world.  Overrated, I don't know about that, as rating someone is very objective.  I don't rate Bruce that highly but if a JKD practitioner does well power to them.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## The Elemental (Feb 21, 2007)

Yes and no, indeed many legends tend to have an unbelieveble larger than life status and Lee was no exception however Bruce Lee was revolutionary, he may not have been the first to introduce cross-training however he was the first to make the idea mainstream with his JKD system and he was the one who revived after many people had too much pride in their own styles to care about other styles.

Note: You want to talk about overrated? Chuck Norris, he's good but not to the point of making people think he was better than Bruce. Norris himself admitted that. And to me Hollywood's true internet icon would always be Mr.T cause he was the first.


----------



## Odin (Feb 21, 2007)

To be honest I think the gracies revolutionized Martial arts a hell of a lot more then bruce.IMO
Bruce was mainstream everyone knew of him through films and such i think people get the impression that bruce could do everything he did in the films in real life...I think his hype far over took his abilites...especially when actually fighting was concerned.

His philosophy is what Bruce should be remembered for.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2007)

More from someone who "knew" him.
http://jkdus.com/user/JKD%20NEW%20CLIPS/lesson%20of%20the%20week/george%20lee%20interview.wmv

I'm not one to say something false about Bruce or anyone else but the biggest lie out there is when someones martial art abilities is being judged by their movies. Most opinions seem to be based on "edited footage", thats a mistake by all accounts. There are many who knew Bruce and also knew the other "top" martial artists of that time who seem to say differant than those sitting behind a keyboard without "firsthand" knowledge and not much more than an "opinion" based on movies.


Yes the public is uneducated and "fans" get out of hand but Bruces lineage exists and is disgraced by uneducated opinions that should be directed at the wannabe fans opinions and not Bruce and his lineage which is attacked by the opinions whether or not it is intentional.


----------



## TraditionalTKD (Feb 21, 2007)

Was Bruce a talented physical specimen? Sure.
Is he overrated? To me he is. Everyone thinks Bruce came up with all this revolutionary philosophy on his own based on his own ideas. He did not. What he did do was collect ideas that already existed and disseminate them in a way many people could understand. You think Bruce Lee was the first person to describe the water principle? The first person to describe how to fight within different fighting ranges? He was not. He was an avid reader of various philosophies and fighting strategies, befitting his curious mind. It has been documented that many, if not most of the ideas attributed to him were, in fact, postulated by earlier authors. I suspect that due to Lee's amazing physical skils, people wanted to believe he developed the ideas of which he spoke himself. Not quite plagiarism, but I also don't think he gave enough credit to those whose ideas he spoke of and taught.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 21, 2007)

ALL legends are overrated.  Elvis?  Columbus? Alexander the Great? Julius Ceasar? Achillies? (I'll pass on religious figures  )

But it's in our nature to put the great people up higher then they really where, to ignore there faults and almost deify them. People need heroes, and ones based on real people are the most believable.  The whole history of martial arts is built around people doing superhuman things.

Bruce Lee is a modern hero, and there are two pieces too that.  The reality of him, and the fictional character based on him that inspires people and gives them something to look up to, something to strive for.

The man was not all that some people make him out to be, but without hero's I think our society would have a major identity crisis.  We need idealized goals and images to strive for, and its all the better if they where real people.

Bruce Lee did a lot, he changed martial arts.  He brought the martial arts film industry into the mainstream, he re-taught everyone the benefit and importance of cross-training, and he broke the model, went his own way and succeeded.  We could use more people like that, and not just in the martial arts world.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2007)

TraditionalTKD said:


> Was Bruce a talented physical specimen? Sure.
> Is he overrated? To me he is. Everyone thinks Bruce came up with all this revolutionary philosophy on his own based on his own ideas. He did not. What he did do was collect ideas that already existed and disseminate them in a way many people could understand. You think Bruce Lee was the first person to describe the water principle? The first person to describe how to fight within different fighting ranges? He was not. He was an avid reader of various philosophies and fighting strategies, befitting his curious mind. It has been documented that many, if not most of the ideas attributed to him were, in fact, postulated by earlier authors. I suspect that due to Lee's amazing physical skils, people wanted to believe he developed the ideas of which he spoke himself. Not quite plagiarism, but I also don't think he gave enough credit to those whose ideas he spoke of and taught.


You will not find anywhere that he claimed to make up anything that he taught. His research is well known and was nat at all common with the average instructor of his time. He was a man and he natural abilities that allowed him to excel in sports.


----------



## joeygil (Feb 21, 2007)

I'll have to go on the yes / no thing here and break it down.

Here's a relavent quote:
"There were good basketball players, and then there was Michael Jordan.  And there were good martial artists, and then there was Bruce Lee."
- Sifu Dan Inosanto (yesterday, and probably a few times before)

I think it's a good analogy.  Was Jordan or Lee invincible and unstoppable?  Of course not, but they were probably the best in their time (at least in this country).



That said, I'd also like to add a couple of other points.  

Sijo Bruce Lee was definately gifted, but he also trained pretty damn hard.  Sifu Dan mentioned that he would do focus glove training with him 2 hours a day.  I understand he trained something like 6 hours a day.  He wasn't just good out of luck, he worked at it, much harder than most.

Now breaking things down a bit.  I think he was an amazing fighter, with superior speed, reflexes, strength, training and technique.  I think he did an amazing job developing Jeet Kune Do (fighting structure and philosophy) - and I wouldn't call it plagarism, as he was synthesizing various ideas.  That's called research, otherwise nobody would get their Ph. Ds.

Most people don't mention this, but I don't think he could have been a better teacher.  What he did opened people's eyes, which was great.  Unfortunately, I think as he would progress, he'd forget the importance of certain aspects of his earlier training.  For example, when he threw out Chi Sao - he didn't find it important / relavent anymore, probably because he already had that sensitivity as second nature.  But a begining student, especially one without any martial arts expereince before, would then have a difficult time learning trapping energy without learning that base. 

I feel he got frustrated by large classes.  That's probably why he closed down the Jun Fan Institute, opting for one on one instruction.  That's fine if you can afford one on one classes, but I can't.

His acting, I feel was adequate for the time - I think he just charismad his way through some of those films.  I don't think his directing was particularly good, at least compared to Hollywood standards - I haven't seen a lot of Hong Kong movies of the time, so I can't really compare apples to apples.  The fight scenes in Return of the Dragon were great, it's just the rest of the directing could have been better.


----------



## g-bells (Feb 21, 2007)

Odin said:


> To be honest I think the gracies revolutionized Martial arts a hell of a lot more then bruce.IMO
> Bruce was mainstream everyone knew of him through films and such i think people get the impression that bruce could do everything he did in the films in real life...I think his hype far over took his abilites...especially when actually fighting was concerned.
> 
> His philosophy is what Bruce should be remembered for.


 
you are joking right?
read up on the man and find some articles with those who had trained with him to hear of how he could watch someone do a technique,then he'd do it break it down, and improve on it. gracies more than him?????/ please


----------



## thetruth (Feb 22, 2007)

The Gracies perhaps made the general public aware that grappling was necessary but the did not invent something totally new that revolutionised the arts.  Also remember that the early UFC's were designed to make the Gracies look good.  Put American martial artists in a competition that they are totally unfamiliar with yet similar to what the Gracies have been doing for years in Vale Tudo.  They were great marketers above all else. I do think they are over rated. That is not to say they are very good grapplers but I know some Judo guys here who would be equally competent on the ground. Each to their own though.


Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Odin (Feb 22, 2007)

g-bells said:


> you are joking right?
> read up on the man and find some articles with those who had trained with him to hear of how he could watch someone do a technique,then he'd do it break it down, and improve on it. gracies more than him?????/ please


 
Well thats nice that Bruce could do that but ermmm what exactly has that done for martial arts????

The Gracie's (along with some others ) have turned the martial arts world on its head!!!!
It has taken martial arts from being a hobby in dojo's across the world and catapulting it to the main stage, you can now watch Gracies dream on your T.V, they have started debates that have struck the entire martial arts community ( just look at this forum) how many times is MMA brought in to debates!, they have exposed weakness within arts martial arts and changed the way the modern martial artist trains.
And more importantly they have brought martial artist together to share in knowledge and techniquesthe modern martial artist is a lot more open minded through cross training.


..and thats off the top of my headBruce bless him wrote some books and did a couple of films.

Bruce lee inspired a lot of people, but I dont think he changed martial arts the way Gracie has.

IMO.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 22, 2007)

Most of what Bruce Lee did was not particularly spectacular by todays standards. It was just unusual at the time. And its not even that particularly unusual, it was just unusual in a VERY public way.
Hence it got attention.

First off cross-training. Cross-training isn't new. During any period where different styles have alot of contact and communication with each other, there will be a certain amount of give and take going on.
Likewise there will also be periods where styles become very self-focused, and contact with other styles is limited(often deliberately), where they are insular and change is frowned upon.
It tends to be cyclical, although the emergence of communication tools such as the internet are causing the sharing of ideas on a much larger scale, and insular schools are becoming a more isolated pheneomon.

Back to Brucey. What he did was during a period of styles being insular, go the opposite direction. There were probably a number of people who did this, however Bruce did it in a public way. This consequently popularised the idea a great deal.
Was this idea revolutionary? No its a re-occuring one anyway, but its one he made alot more people familiar with.

Point two, he made some entertaining movies. This once again was very public so attracted attention, so popularised martial arts.

Point three, he wrote some books that weren't great. I know the Tao of Jeet Kune Do is very popular and all, but its not nearly the most useful book for martial arts training. First off, its too technique orientated.
Second, tries too hard to be philisophical. Im not sure if it was merely because English wasn't his first language, if it was a marketing gimmick, of if like others he missed the point, but that book is full of pieces of butchered Taoism nailed to the cross of martial arts.
A far more useful book for martial artists, and one not even focused on the subject of martial arts, is a book called Deep Survival by Laurenz Gonzales. It covers how the body deals with survival situations, and how the body learns its responses to them.

So basic the gist of is this - Bruce Lee didn't write the message he just delivered it at a good time.


Note- This is not disrespecting is abilities, merely an assessment of the situation.


----------



## joeygil (Feb 22, 2007)

thetruth said:
			
		

> The Gracies perhaps made the general public aware that grappling was necessary...


 
I have to disagree with that statement.  I don't think ground grappling was necessary until the ground grapplers (Gracies) brought it to the game.  At least not in America.  Before that, you could do fine without it.  Now you can't.

@Shotgun Buddha

Cross-training may not have been new, but it was definately not in use during the late 60's and 70's in the US.  So in that sense Bruce Lee was being innovative.  I also doubt anybody had been as systematic as he in cross-training and synthesizing different arts into a more or less coherent form.

As to how many people were not being insular in their study of martial arts, I doubt it was anywhere near common anywhere besides maybe Asia (China in particular).


And as to his books that "weren't great."  Yeah, perhaps not by today's standards.  I dont' think there was much out there like "Bruce Lee's Fighting Method" books.  As to The Tao of JKD, that wasn't a "book" he wrote.  It was a congomeration of his notes in a very disorganized manner cobbled together after his death.  It has notes from many different points of his martial arts development, and contradicts itself a lot (as he changed his mind a lot).


Don't forget he also advocated full contact sparring.  Back then "sparring" was point sparring at best, and at worst didn't involve any contact!  Judges would decide wether or not that *would have been a hit*

He incorporated boxing equipment - focus mitts, punching bag, and boxing gloves into training.  Others weren't doing that then.


As far as his movies...I think his flicks really really popularized martial arts and martial art movies in the 70's.  Before he hit the mainstream, most of the movies coming over from Hong Kong were full of magic and flying monks.  His flicks added a certain amount (no 100%) realism to martial art movies - which I think inspired a LOT of people to look into martial arts seriously.


In summary, I think he was a huge influence and an innovator, at least in America.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 22, 2007)

g-bells said:


> you are joking right?
> read up on the man and find some articles with those who had trained with him to hear of how he could watch someone do a technique,then he'd do it break it down, and improve on it. gracies more than him?????/ please


Name a master that doesn't do this and I will show you someone whom is not a master.
Sean


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 22, 2007)

joeygil said:


> I have to disagree with that statement.  I don't think ground grappling was necessary until the ground grapplers (Gracies) brought it to the game.  At least not in America.  Before that, you could do fine without it.  Now you can't.



No, nothing is neccessary as most people don't fight at all 

But ignoring that.  

North America has a lot of people that wrestled in school / college.  It also has a lot of Judo people.  Fights end up on the ground even when neither person intended it to go there.  

The Gracies brought some new things to the table, such as the effectiveness of using the guard to fight off your back, and using submissions to take out a much larger opponent. 

But the "threat" of ground fighting has always been there, it just went ignored.  Now that the UFC is popular I suppose it is more of one, as without training people tend to immitate what they see working for others.  Before this was mainly boxers, now MMA fighters are in there too.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 22, 2007)

joeygil said:


> I have to disagree with that statement. I don't think ground grappling was necessary until the ground grapplers (Gracies) brought it to the game. At least not in America. Before that, you could do fine without it. Now you can't.
> 
> quote]I don't know, every football player I've ever met has a handle on tackling, and if memory serves, kids were playing football before the Gracies introduced grappling to North America.
> Sean


----------



## joeygil (Feb 22, 2007)

Good points on the grappling.  I wasjust thinking in the context of "classical martial arts."  I stand (or maybe not) corrected.


----------



## zDom (Feb 22, 2007)

FWIW, the first UFC was November 12, 1993, right?

I started hapkido around March 1991 specifically because I identifed grappling as a weakness for me.

Of course, at that time I referred to this fighting range as "wrestling." I wanted to have skills to deal with those who "got ahold of me."

UFC / Gracies *UNDERSCORED* the importance of grappling, but there were some (I'm sure I'm not the _ONLY_ one) who understood the importance of this fighting range before the Gracies appeared on the scene.


----------



## Kwan Jang (Feb 22, 2007)

Anyone remember "judo" Gene?


----------



## Kwan Jang (Feb 22, 2007)

P.S.-Most of the top name martial artists of the 60's and 70's were also judo or JJJ black belts, including Wall, Lewis, Norris, Wallace, ect.


----------



## zDom (Feb 22, 2007)

Kwan Jang said:


> Anyone remember "judo" Gene?



Yep. Mr. LeBell and his (in)famous pink gi 

And I've heard the story about Mr. LeBell and Bruce Lee, too


----------



## matt.m (Feb 22, 2007)

Kwan Jang said:


> P.S.-Most of the top name martial artists of the 60's and 70's were also judo or JJJ black belts, including Wall, Lewis, Norris, Wallace, ect.


 

Wallace was huge into judo, that was before his leg injury.  Is Norris's background Tang Soo Do?  I would think that has quite a bit of grappling and ground work.  Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Tang Soo Do somewhat of a mixture of Hapkido, Yudo, with poomsea and one steps identical to tae kwon do?


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Name a master that doesn't do this and I will show you someone whom is not a master.
> Sean


You misunderstood. It is said (I wasn't there) that he could "on the spot" watch a technique (not be taught it) and do it better that his own way that the guy that did it in the first place.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> joeygil said:
> 
> 
> > I have to disagree with that statement. I don't think ground grappling was necessary until the ground grapplers (Gracies) brought it to the game. At least not in America. Before that, you could do fine without it. Now you can't.
> ...


----------



## g-bells (Feb 23, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> Name a master that doesn't do this and I will show you someone whom is not a master.
> Sean


 
are the masters your talking about, able to watch it once, then do it, then break it down to show the weakness and fix it?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 23, 2007)

akja said:


> You misunderstood. It is said (I wasn't there) that he could "on the spot" watch a technique (not be taught it) and do it better that his own way that the guy that did it in the first place.


I can do that too, but I'm no master.
Sean


----------



## Robert Lee (Feb 23, 2007)

The debate over Bruce can go on for ever. It has for many years. In real time. His Art call it Jun fan or JKD does work can help even improve others in a different art by relistict training. Its better to look into Jun fan or JKd train it at least for a while then make up your mind. Bruce by his self has been over rated by some and not enough by others The Art speaks for its self as long as you make it your own.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 23, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> I can do that too, but I'm no master.
> Sean


If you understand the statement. You are saying that "you" can watch anyone and can repeat "any" technique and do it better. That would include doing it better than your instructor without him ever teaching the technique to you.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 23, 2007)

g-bells said:


> are the masters your talking about, able to watch it once, then do it, then break it down to show the weakness and fix it?


 
Whats your evidence Bruce could do that?


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 23, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Whats your evidence Bruce could do that?


Whats your evidence that he couldn't? There are many who knew Bruce and yes they say he did just that. They were there and thats what they say. That qualifies for evidence.

There are many who like to discredit others based on movies or heresay. Some say I knew him but they didn't train with him and if they did they have great things to say. 

Theres always going to "creme of the crop" martial artists and theres always going to be haters that wish they were "creme of the crop."


----------



## g-bells (Feb 23, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Whats your evidence Bruce could do that?


 
many of his original students have disclosed these facts in various articles.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 23, 2007)

g-bells said:


> many of his original students have disclosed these facts in various articles.


 
Thats not a fact, its an opinion. Im not saying that he couldn't, I'd merely like some examples that prove this?


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 23, 2007)

akja said:


> Whats your evidence that he couldn't? There are many who knew Bruce and yes they say he did just that. They were there and thats what they say. That qualifies for evidence.
> 
> There are many who like to discredit others based on movies or heresay. Some say I knew him but they didn't train with him and if they did they have great things to say.
> 
> Theres always going to "creme of the crop" martial artists and theres always going to be haters that wish they were "creme of the crop."


 
Burden of proof lies on the person making a claim. If someone is claiming this as fact, then I would like some examples to back it up.
So did you train with him? Then if not, what are using as your basis for this opinion?

And the fact that someone doesn't deify Bruce Lee, doesn't make them a hater. I have an awful lot of respect for Bruce. However I also have an awful lot more respect for logic. So before I go simply accepting any claims regarding, I'd like some facts that back it up, and then decide for myself.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 23, 2007)

If you can't accept the "word" of his students who are alive and available. Then you should not accept the "word" in your lineage passed to you by someone who was not there. Wheres the proof? I guess all martial arts are fairy tales.

Heres "word" form the "horses mouth" talking about Ed Parker (at 43 seconds) and your Grandmaster Mas (Kyokushin Founder) Oyama (at 1 minute).

Even bigger bullsht than anything on this thread was Mas being able to kill live bulls. Don't suppose you were there??






Don't it feel good when bullsht gets brought up about your lineage?


----------



## Thunder Foot (Feb 23, 2007)

joeygil said:


> I'll have to go on the yes / no thing here and break it down.
> 
> Here's a relavent quote:
> "There were good basketball players, and then there was Michael Jordan.  And there were good martial artists, and then there was Bruce Lee."
> ...



This is a brilliant analogy! I'm going to have to make mental note of this. :asian:


----------



## Thunder Foot (Feb 23, 2007)

Odin said:


> To be honest I think the gracies revolutionized Martial arts a hell of a lot more then bruce.IMO
> Bruce was mainstream everyone knew of him through films and such i think people get the impression that bruce could do everything he did in the films in real life...I think his hype far over took his abilites...especially when actually fighting was concerned.
> 
> His philosophy is what Bruce should be remembered for.


I won't argue that the Gracies did popularize Martial *Sports* to a big degree, but the Martial Arts... beyond sports, is what Lee _revolutionized_.
:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 23, 2007)

akja said:


> If you understand the statement. You are saying that "you" can watch anyone and can repeat "any" technique and do it better. That would include doing it better than your instructor without him ever teaching the technique to you.


For one Bruce was not better than all the Masters he was taught by; so, its a moot point.
Sean


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 23, 2007)

Touch Of Death said:


> For one Bruce was not better than all the Masters he was taught by; so, its a moot point.
> Sean


You're SGM wasn't so great. Ask you're seniors if this is true (at 43 seconds) about you're "SGM." They "know" it is. The editors tried to bleep it out but your seniors know what he was talking about. I guess it's another moot point.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 23, 2007)

akja said:


> If you can't accept the "word" of his students who are alive and available. Then you should not accept the "word" in your lineage passed to you by someone who was not there. Wheres the proof? I guess all martial arts are fairy tales.


 
You have not pointed to any of those students, nor refererred to them. Instead you got upset because someone asked about evidence. Now read this very carefully - I have not ONCE dismissed Bruce Lee's abilities. I just asked for evidence regarding them. If the claim is made that someone can learn a technique just by seeing it once, then surely from pure curiosity alone, it would be interesting to see evidence of this. 
If that offends you, it merely shows your own insecurities.



> Heres "word" form the "horses mouth" talking about Ed Parker (at 43 seconds) and your Grandmaster Mas (Kyokushin Founder) Oyama (at 1 minute).


 
At 43 seconds, there is just a beep noise. So beep means Ed Parker then?I shall have to remember that for conversations in future.
Second, I have little interest in Mas Oyama. John Bluming would be the furthest back interest in the organisation goes.
Third, thats not evidence. Thats one minute forty of rambling anectdotes, at no point in which is the phrase "Bruce Lee could learn any technique just by looking at it" used.
So, since that was the topic of my inquiry, why not try to answer it rather than getting all offended?



> Even bigger bullsht than anything on this thread was Mas being able to kill live bulls. Don't suppose you were there??


 
Nope, wasn't there, but never cared about it anyway. Thanks for playing though. 



> Don't it feel good when bullsht gets brought up about your lineage?


 
Normally my interest in lineage begins and ends with the current generation. The abilites of the current instructor, abilites of the current student. I've no particular interest in Mas Oyama, and quite frankly find much about him to be suspect.
What I do care about is that the peopletrain with now are good and solid, and train in a tough progressive manner.
So yes, its feels absolutely great when ******** is brought up about lineage, because it simply shows how poor your own priorities are.
Thank you for that


----------



## evenflow1121 (Feb 23, 2007)

Yes I am sure he was over rated but like many other martial artist that fell upon fame and the media no matter what medium or source, most were or are over rated too, that however does not mean they are bad martial artists.  Think back to the Wuxia novels in China and the kind of stuff they would portray wu shu masters could do.  However, many people practiced and practice today the martial arts based on Bruce Lee, his name has become a house hold name.  I remember (though I have never practiced JKD) reading the Tao and the techniques in the book and thinking to myself how many people began to train in a certain martial art, or cross train martial arts because of Bruce Lee.  Thus, his contributions to the martial arts world have been great.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 23, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Thats not a fact, its an opinion. Im not saying that he couldn't, I'd merely like some examples that prove this?


 
By this I mean, can you point me in the direction of some good articles or sources?


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 23, 2007)

I think some of the comments on this thread are getting a bit too personal, and insulting of other members organizations and instructors. Perhaps the Moderators would like to take a look at this thread. I don't believe it should be locked, but I believe some need to tone down their comments.

I have been in the Martial Art a long time, and I have heard plenty of "stories" about senior masters, and famous Grandmasters which I am confident were embellished, if not complete fabrications. Every well-known instructor has had false stories spread about them - - some good, and some bad.

In any case, this thread is not about other instructors. It is about the public's perception of Bruce Lee. Some knew him better than others, and some did not know him at all. Many have superficial experiences by watching a few movies, while others have done in-depth research. None of the above have cornered the market on the truth. Many of whom witnessed Bruce Lee in action were not experts or Masters themselves, so it is easy to be impressed. Many who are experts and Masters, did not see much of what Bruce Lee could or could not do - - first-hand, in person.

Was Bruce Lee overrated?? This is a fair question, and the only one that really needs to be addressed here. Was his reputation, and the assessment of his perceived skills inflated above his actual skills, and if so, by how much, in what specific areas of talent, and by whom?

This debate could go on for a long time, but lets keep it polite and respectful of each other's opinions - please.  

CM D.J. Eisenhart
"Mentor," not "Moderator!" :ultracool


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 24, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> I think some of the comments on this thread are getting a bit too personal, and insulting of other members organizations and instructors. Perhaps the Moderators would like to take a look at this thread. I don't believe it should be locked, but I believe some need to tone down their comments.
> 
> I have been in the Martial Art a long time, and I have heard plenty of "stories" about senior masters, and famous Grandmasters which I am confident were embellished, if not complete fabrications. Every well-known instructor has had false stories spread about them - - some good, and some bad.
> 
> ...


 
Agreed. I apolgise to anyone who found my comments offensive or personal, but I dislike it when I make a civil request and it results in an attack.
However, again, apologies to any who find that request offensive.


----------



## joeygil (Feb 24, 2007)

I agree with a previous poster.

He was overrated by some and underrated by others.

'nuff said.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 26, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> You have not pointed to any of those students, nor refererred to them. Instead you got upset because someone asked about evidence. Now read this very carefully - I have not ONCE dismissed Bruce Lee's abilities. I just asked for evidence regarding them. If the claim is made that someone can learn a technique just by seeing it once, then surely from pure curiosity alone, it would be interesting to see evidence of this.
> If that offends you, it merely shows your own insecurities.
> 
> 
> ...


post #43 and post #53


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 26, 2007)

CORRECTION, Post 48 and 53. The Seniors know and thats why I told the kenpoist to talk to their Seniors because they know about that tape.

This is out of hand but if my uplne is going to be talked trash, irt should be expected that the dirt from other lineages be exposed and they all have dirt. 

I take offense when I know some who knew and trauined under Bruce and then this nonsense gets tossed around based solely on the "movies" they've watched. Movies are movies and they most definately are not real, "completey" staged. Get the facts from those who knew him and were there or expect the same to be tossed back.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 26, 2007)

akja said:


> CORRECTION, Post 48 and 53. The Seniors know and thats why I told the kenpoist to talk to their Seniors because they know about that tape.
> 
> This is out of hand but if my uplne is going to be talked trash, irt should be expected that the dirt from other lineages be exposed and they all have dirt.
> 
> I take offense when I know some who knew and trauined under Bruce and then this nonsense gets tossed around based solely on the "movies" they've watched. Movies are movies and they most definately are not real, "completey" staged. Get the facts from those who knew him and were there or expect the same to be tossed back.


 
At what point is he "talked trash about"?  A claim was made regarding his ability to learn a technique off just by seeing it once, I ask about that claim. The result is you throw insults at a lineage I've no real interest in anyway. Would you mind explaining how a question, which asks for sources or further details, counts as "talking trash"?


----------

