# which is better Bruce Lee punch or kick?



## SolidTiger (Jul 8, 2002)

The move Bruce Lee does the fastest and strongest to me
is the back fist. So I think his punches is better then his kicks.


Thank you

SolidTiger


----------



## sweeper (Jul 11, 2002)

do you mean on the screen or in a fight?


----------



## KennethKu (Aug 5, 2002)

Without a doubt, JKD side kick (coupled with the forward blast footwork) is the MOST powerful strike that can kick thru most defence.


----------



## ace (Sep 26, 2002)

I dont Know it seems to me Bruce was concerned
on what put the other guy on his but
But  to choose 1 would be his Punces

  His kickes were fast to
He was complete
& Never Saticefied


----------



## JDenz (Oct 12, 2002)

I have to say his punches he was so fast =-)


----------



## bob919 (Oct 21, 2002)

bruce lee said the the fighter with the best punches would win  a fight


----------



## JDenz (Oct 21, 2002)

:wink1:


----------



## yin_yang75 (Nov 15, 2002)

The one inch punch was his trade mark. Fast, powerful and launched from his toes thru his hips-- it was devastating. 

The guy was so fast I don't know that it would matter if you was on the recieving end, but I vote for the punch.


----------



## JDenz (Nov 15, 2002)

Definitly much of the Tao was about punching as well


----------



## A Kenpo Student (Nov 28, 2002)

I think alot of whether Bruce punched or kicked depended on what his opponent did, what kind of opening he had. I thought it was a fact that a kick had more force than a punch, but a kick is not always the right hit. It's a hard one to call.


----------



## cali_tkdbruin (Dec 19, 2002)

I recently saw a documentary on Bruce Lee and from what was presented, IMO it was his kicks, but, it's very close between the two. He was just so quick and fluid when he unloaded with his kicks. And his flexability and range was mind boggling.:erg: 

However, they also showed a clip of Bruce demonstrating his punching ability at some kind of MA seminar or tourney. It was the one were his opponent was standing just a few inches in front of Bruce. Bruce proceeded to unleash a punch to the guy's chest, and just completely flattened him. The guy ended up falling over a chair, It was awesome!  

Irrespective of which strike you feel was his best, he was so well versed in both his punching and kicking ability. It's still impressive watching his overall total skills almost 30 years after his death...


----------



## KennethKu (Dec 20, 2002)

Sir, the punch you described would be Bruce Lee's famous 1 inch punch.  

A lot of people have learned to deliver that. But most of them are just "pushing" instead of "punching" .  Punch has destruction, push has none.

Bruce Lee's side kick delivered with forward blast (footwork) is by far the most power strike. Such kick can almost kick through all kind of defence.  It is not invincible as you can evade it.


----------



## cali_tkdbruin (Dec 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by KennethKu _
> *Sir, the punch you described would be Bruce Lee's famous 1 inch punch.
> 
> A lot of people have learned to deliver that. But most of them are just "pushing" instead of "punching" .  Punch has destruction, push has none.
> ...



The manner in which it was shown, that punch was impressive...

In any event, Mr.  KennethKu, from your post it apears to me that would you agree that Bruce Lee's best asset was his kicking skills, regardless of the his opponent having the ability to evade such kicks, no? :asian:


----------



## KennethKu (Dec 20, 2002)

No Sir, I was only stating that his kicks were more powerful, in reference to the point of this thread.  In reality it doesn't really matter which is better. The weapon that manages to deliver the effective strike is what counts in that particular combat situation.  Whether your hands are stronger than your legs or the other way around, is meaningless. You could have won by headbutting, for example.  

This thread is just for discussion purpose.


----------



## cali_tkdbruin (Dec 21, 2002)

I will agree with Mr. KennethKu on this point, as I assume any logical person would, that in an illogical situation such as a brawl, it doesn't really matter which is better foot, fist or head strike. Whichever of these strikes delivers the most effective destruction and terminates the conflict in your favor is what counts in the end. But, these posts digress from the original question posed in this thread regarding Bruce Lee's best attribute so I'll leave it at that... :asian:


----------



## bob919 (Jan 6, 2003)

kicks are powerful but you lose balance with them, try high kicks on a good wrestler or jiujutsu practitioner and you will know what i mean but short leg kicks are fast snappy and do not compromise balance much plus they slow the opponent down
bruce lee would almost never use high kicks in real fights because he thought punches were better for the upper body and he was probably right


----------



## Mormegil (May 11, 2003)

Sifu Dan Inosanto stated that it should be about 4-5 punches for every kick thrown.  I'm pretty sure he ascribed this to Sijo Lee.  I could be wrong.

Kind of like, you enter with a kick, and finish with punches.


----------



## jefroman (May 11, 2003)

I certainly believe that his side kick was much more powerful than his punches(obviously), but he could also kick much faster than the average person could punch.  On several occasions he side-kicked 300 pound punching bags and made them hit the ceiling! 
His punching speed and power wasn't too shabby either, or course.

Jeff


----------



## JDenz (May 12, 2003)

I think that we are getting a little bit off topic here.  I think some of us get into debating about which is beter punching or kicking.  There is no right answer.  It depends on the situation like all things.  from eveything that I have sen of Bruce I think that his hand tecs are the best.  they were just to fast and accurate.  From all that I read about him he had always believed in his punching but his views over kicking kept changing, so I would have to say his punches were his best asset.


----------



## James Kovacich (May 13, 2003)

Without a doubt, Bruces hands were faster than his feet. Of course his feet were more powerful than his hands.

The question was which is better, his hands or feet?

His "original" primary training made great use of the hands and I personall think that his hands were more realisically effective and that would make them better!:asian:


----------



## KennethKu (May 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _...His "original" primary training made great use of the hands and I personall think that his hands were more realisically effective and that would make them better!:asian: [/B]



Bruce Lee's fighting methods and fighting skills changed rapidly in his relatively short life.  I don't understand the basis of hanging onto his "original" methods while he himself had discarded and moved on.


----------



## sweeper (May 25, 2003)

I think Akja was saying his hands were better because he had more training with them.


----------



## bob919 (May 30, 2003)

if your going against a much larger stroger opponent thats slower than you then kicks are invaluable especcially aimed at their knees but if you going against someone smaller and faster than kicks are a bad idea.


----------



## James Kovacich (May 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KennethKu _
> *Bruce Lee's fighting methods and fighting skills changed rapidly in his relatively short life.  I don't understand the basis of hanging onto his "original" methods while he himself had discarded and moved on. *



I don't really think that Bruce "discarded his original methods and moved on," as you stated.

I beleive that Bruce did not let himself be "bound" by any technique. 

To "use what is useful and reject what is useless" is misinterpeted in the sense that people think that we have to continually whittle down our technique in order to not be bound by our technique. And way to many people take Bruces words as the Bible of martial arts, (like) "if he said it then his must of done it."

I do know (from the mouth of my Sigung who was there) that Bruce did teach his original teachings all the way up to his death! Was that all he taught? No. But to achieve Jeet Kune Do we have to follow a process that begins with Jun Fan as a base. If we as individuals find that Jun Fan is "usefull," then there is no need to "discard" it.

Thats what its about. My Jeet Kune Do is not your Jeet Kune Do, it never will be, nor can it ever be close. Because it is in the mind just as much as it is in the body. But if anyone thinks that it is "all" in the mind and that there is no art, then they are wrong.

But to think that because Bruce evolved as an individual martial artist and that "he moved" and no longer practiced or taught his Jun Fan is rediculous.


----------



## KennethKu (May 31, 2003)

With all due respect, what is ridiculous is the notion that Bruce Lee came up with JKD on day 1, that everything Lee ever touched was JKD.  Just like everybody else who has invented or created or discovered something meaningful, Bruce Lee learned, experimented, *discarded*, and *refined* in an evolving process. If you asked Ted Wong, Bruce Lee's last private student as well as one of his closest friends, he would tell you that what Bruce Lee taught when he was in Seattle (all the Jun Fan stuffs) was vastly different from what he later taught when in LA.  In the early days when in Seattle (supposedly what your instructor was involved in), Lee was more leaning to Wing Chun and other Chinese Kung Fu stuffs.  His horizon boraden widely in time.  JKD is the refined product, an improved version of Jun Fan.  However, Bruce didn't leave a lot of materials, in terms of techniques, regarding JKD to be passed on. (His JKD Bible, "The Tao of JKD" is at least 30-40% nothing more than Lee's half-baked attempt at philosophy.) He wasn't thinking of preserving JKD as he wasn't thinking of dying so soon.  JKD was a work-in-progress. So later on, people who want to make a living teaching JKD, find that JKD is very *simple* and there isn't much to teach, hence you can't really charge a lot of sessions.  (JKD is simple, and you can ask Ted Wong to verify this.) So, they dig up Jun Fan and BINGO!  You can make a lot of money teaching ChiSao and other Wing Chun stuffs that take forever to play around before the students wise up.    The reality is, at the end, Lee deemphasized ChiSao. This comes straight from his confidents and private students, Takimura and Ted Wong's mouths.  These two are his diehard loyalists and would never distort Lee's legacy.


----------



## bob919 (Jun 1, 2003)

john littles 'jeet kune do' is far better organised than tao of jeetkune do and just genrally better it basically has the same info but better organised and added to 

BTW john little was just the editor but he did a great job


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by KennethKu _
> *With all due respect, what is ridiculous is the notion that Bruce Lee came up with JKD on day 1, that everything Lee ever touched was JKD.  Just like everybody else who has invented or created or discovered something meaningful, Bruce Lee learned, experimented, discarded, and refined in an evolving process. If you asked Ted Wong, Bruce Lee's last private student as well as one of his closest friends, he would tell you that what Bruce Lee taught when he was in Seattle (all the Jun Fan stuffs) was vastly different from what he later taught when in LA.  In the early days when in Seattle (supposedly what your instructor was involved in), Lee was more leaning to Wing Chun and other Chinese Kung Fu stuffs.  His horizon boraden widely in time.  JKD is the refined product, an improved version of Jun Fan.  However, Bruce didn't leave a lot of materials, in terms of techniques, regarding JKD to be passed on. (His JKD Bible, "The Tao of JKD" is at least 30-40% nothing more than Lee's half-baked attempt at philosophy.) He wasn't thinking of preserving JKD as he wasn't thinking of dying so soon.  JKD was a work-in-progress. So later on, people who want to make a living teaching JKD, find that JKD is very simple and there isn't much to teach, hence you can't really charge a lot of sessions.  (JKD is simple, and you can ask Ted Wong to verify this.) So, they dig up Jun Fan and BINGO!  You can make a lot of money teaching ChiSao and other Wing Chun stuffs that take forever to play around before the students wise up.    The reality is, at the end, Lee deemphasized ChiSao. This comes straight from his confidents and private students, Takimura and Ted Wong's mouths.  These two are his diehard loyalists and would never distort Lee's legacy. *



First, my instructor was not "supposedly" in the Seattle school. My Sigung was James Lees student before Bruce came to Oakland from Seattle and he was James student until James died in 1972. Heres his sons (my Sifu) site:
http://www.geocities.com/Tao_Of_Gung_Fu/The_Nucleus_Of_Gung_Fu.html

Like I stated, if the Jun Fan is still useful, there is NO need to reject it.

If you like, there was an article that was published of my Sifu and Sigung in Jeet Kune Do magazine on my site. Click the .pdf file, its good reading.
http://www.scientific-streetfighting.com/SIFUSTORY.html

I know about Ted Wong, a few of the original JKD guys are associated with him and I am a serious "follower" of Dan Inosantos teachings, thats what sets me apart from my Sifu besides the fact that he could knock me silly!!
:asian:


----------



## Withered Soul (Jun 2, 2003)

His punches were fast as hell. But so were his kicks. I'd have to say his kicks because he could kick head height with devastating power. And you don't want to be at the receiving end of one of those.


----------



## Zepp (Jun 2, 2003)

I remember a documentary I saw on Bruce Lee over a year ago or so on A&E, where they stated that to the person holding the kicking bag, Bruce Lee's sidekick felt like being hit by a truck.  I don't know who they were supposedly quoting, but if that's an accurate quote from one of Lee's training partners or students, I think it says something about the degree of training he put into his kicks.


----------



## Deathtrap101 (Jun 3, 2003)

punch or kicks, either way i sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to fight him.


----------



## bob919 (Jun 3, 2003)

nome neither. strangething: i'm twice bruce lees weight but it sounds as if he has so much more power than me its really amazing that he was so powerful at 130lbs that shows how much training he did


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 22, 2003)

I saw a MA documentary (pardon that I forget the name) but it had a short interview with Sammo Hung. He was speaking of the first time he met Bruce Lee. I'll not quote verbatum here but in effect he said that he was introduced by a fellow actor on the set of Enter the Dragon. 
Names were exchanged and Lee looked Sammo up and down and asked "what do you want?" Taken aback Sammo said "Spar?" 
So they got into position. Sammo then remarked that by the time he lifted his leg to do a kick, Lee had effectively slapped him in the face with his foot and was back in his original stance. 

But the question was which was better the punch or the kick? Not which was faster. All are very familiar with his famous "one-inch-punch", and most of us would agree that given a choice Lee probably would've preferred to punch from six or eight inches because the power of the strike would've been more effective. 

Still, one of the best things I learned from ETD was his "art of fighting without fighting". This shows that his MIND was better than his punches or kicks. 

IMHO :asian:


----------



## Eldritch Knight (Nov 21, 2003)

His original style, Wing Chun, was mainly concentrated on punches, so I'd say that his punch was definetely better.


----------



## Black Bear (Jan 23, 2004)

On one level the question is absurd, on the level of a person asking "which is a better piece of furniture--a table, or a chair"? 

However, if I understand the question properly, I guess punches. Bruce Lee's boxing-jab-like lead and straight blast have much more currency today than, say, his trademark side-kick.


----------

