I suppose master means different things to different people. If you think character is important, then you might have found him insufficiently mature; if you think age matters, he did die young; but I think there's definitely something to think about in Danjo's comments. Mike Tyson boxes well, but have his views on boxing and his teachings and his students have a big impact on the field? Look at Dan Inosanto and others still following in Bruce Lee's footsteps. I have no opinion on whether or not he was a master--the term has no special meaning to me (especialy after all the pathertic 'masters' I've met). But, his art, his theories, and his legacy have had a big influence.Danjo said:
Corporal Hicks
Black Belt
You seem to be getting your facts wrong. No offence meant but who said that he beat the hell out of some poor guy just because he beat him at Chi Sao? It just seems like your one of these people who take up the rumors that are heard and use it here without evidence. He didnt want to be a movie star either, he simply wanted to show the beauty of his Chinese culture and he knew the best way to do this was through movies. I've read loads of books on him, seen all his films, seen both sides of the story. I'm not suprised there are so many rumors of him being a thug because the martial art community and the so called masters resented his views. Therefore there are going to be stories about him beating students, to make him sound worse.D.Cobb said:
As for a man who broke down the prejudice in movie making thats hardly the action of a thug.
He was a big head and I think if I posses the power and skill that he did I would probably be too.
I dont think that he would have wanted you to call him a master anyway, that would not be the way of Jeet Kune Do, as he spoke himself he is always the student as he is always learning. He is only the master of the techniques in which he has learned, he is not a master of other people.
He considered himself a Martial Artist first not an actor you know, your facts consist of various rumours i.e. he was a womaniser, he was a thug (? justify that?), he beat up students (what a load of crap).
That for example that he beat somebody who beat him at Chi Sao? If It was true, do you know the whole story? Did he hit him for the hell of it, it was he provoked or attacked first? Or maybe your refering to the black belt who challenged him in his school in which he did beat the crap out of then chased him around the building. Believe me I would do that to if somebody comes in to one of my WC classes preaching that it crap. I wouldnt wait for my instructor I would go for it. Challenge sure, but to try show somebody up in their own school isnt on. Anyway thats what made BL change his idea of WC.
No proof of him being a good fighter?
What the hell are you talking about? There are video clips of him fighting in black and white movies, him sparring versus black belts. I wouldnt take the films as an example because they are simply films and are biased..
Your facts consists of stupid rumours put about by the 'so-called masters' of Martial Arts who didnt like his ideas because they were new, they were simple and they worked.
Sure he's not as great as alot of people say. His death made him into a legend which is exaggerated with most people who die during their prime. But he's not the man you are making him out to be.
I'm sorry but I'm fed up of people throwing their weight about a subject they are no or limited and biased knowledge of..
Regards
searcher
Senior Master
I do not want to take anything away from the things he did do for the martial arts, but the real question is was he as good as most seem to think? He was revolutionary in his thinking and his philosophy in mind-numbing, but was he that good?
He was good, no doubts there, the best? By whose standards? Compared to the Martial artists of today IMHO he would be mediocre. We have progressed so much in our technique and athleticism that there can be no true comparison. It is like apples and oranges. Both are good to eat, depanding on who you ask.
The subject of how good he was will most likely be fought over for years to come. We as martial artists have to learn what we can from the past and move on to the future. I may sound like I am rambling so please forgive me. I also mean no disrespect to anyone, in stating my opinion.
He was good, no doubts there, the best? By whose standards? Compared to the Martial artists of today IMHO he would be mediocre. We have progressed so much in our technique and athleticism that there can be no true comparison. It is like apples and oranges. Both are good to eat, depanding on who you ask.
The subject of how good he was will most likely be fought over for years to come. We as martial artists have to learn what we can from the past and move on to the future. I may sound like I am rambling so please forgive me. I also mean no disrespect to anyone, in stating my opinion.
The best? The best at what?searcher said:
I'm sorry, but I would have to totally disagree that Bruce Lee would be considered "mediocre". I'm not interested in arguments about "fantasy matches" between famous martial artists (and Sigung Bruce is pulled into those a lot
), but I would scarcely call him "mediocre".
terryl965 said:
Thanks, terry. I happen to have a pretty high opinion of what Sigung Bruce did - or was trying to do - but I have had a great experience with JKD. I realize it may not be for everyone.
The Kai
Master of Arts
While Bruce Lee was a good student, Master Not!! He did'nt learn any one system up to a mastery level. Not a codex of techniques to pass it along. What he was telling us is the same message Count Dante had-the difference one was oriental. Just as mitose was picked apart on a technique level in his book, look at some of the stuff Bruce throws in his movies.
JKD, to be honest probably would have passed by the way side if not for Dan Innosanto
Bruce Lee's book, mostly taken from other sources. IMHO probably one of the most mis cited refernce out there. Plus, how many people read the book and now claim to teach karate and JKD?? (Pet Peeve)
JKD, to be honest probably would have passed by the way side if not for Dan Innosanto
Bruce Lee's book, mostly taken from other sources. IMHO probably one of the most mis cited refernce out there. Plus, how many people read the book and now claim to teach karate and JKD?? (Pet Peeve)
So creating JKD doesn't count?The Kai said:
searcher
Senior Master
Feisty Mouse, I meant no offense with the things I stated that is why they are my opinion. I did state that his ideas were revolutionary.
If it were not for his acting, do you feel he would be regarded as highly as he is?
In my statement about his being "mediocre" I was intending to get people thinking about how he compares with today's martial artists. For example, Dick Butkis was one of the most feared linebackers in his day. He was big, strong, fast, and viscious. But if you compare him to the football players of today he would not stand a chance. I don't believe in the whole fantasy fight thing and this seems to be a common thing with regards to Bruce Lee. I am not trying to start an arguement over him, but we must all keep fan fanaticism from clouding our minds. Thank you for your time.
If it were not for his acting, do you feel he would be regarded as highly as he is?
In my statement about his being "mediocre" I was intending to get people thinking about how he compares with today's martial artists. For example, Dick Butkis was one of the most feared linebackers in his day. He was big, strong, fast, and viscious. But if you compare him to the football players of today he would not stand a chance. I don't believe in the whole fantasy fight thing and this seems to be a common thing with regards to Bruce Lee. I am not trying to start an arguement over him, but we must all keep fan fanaticism from clouding our minds. Thank you for your time.
Danjo
Master Black Belt
Count Dante had a fifth degree from Robert Trias, and self promoted to tenth in the "Dan-Te" system. He was the aclaimed "Grandmaster of the Black Dragon Fighting Society." But Bruce Lee was the founder of "Jun Fan Gung Fu" and JKD. He had as much right to the title "Master" as many others out there who got to black belt and started their own system. Given that there were no black belts in Wing Chun, and given that the existing "Masters" made room at the table for him, so to speak, I'd say he qualified for the title. I doubt he would have cared about the title, but he qualified in my book.The Kai said:
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Okay...can anyone here come up with a standard classification of "master" that everyone agrees upon?
I'll posit what I think might be a few qualifications:
1. Technical skill.
2. Innovation of method.
3. Adaptation of method to challenges offered by the current environment.
4. Respect of recognized masters in the martial arts community.
Some that do not necessarily qualify:
1. Fighting record, either in sport competition or combat. If this were necessary, Ueshiba and Funakoshi would not qualify.
2. The number of black belts/instructors produced. NAPMA and ATA might disagree with me on this point.
3. Adherence to a "moral code" set by a board or institution. Definitions of morals often differ from one geographical area to the next and fluctuate across time. The martial arts encompass a vast number of disparate cultures. A recognized master in China in the 19th century might be an opium smoker. Contemporary martial artists might find that deplorable, yet recognize his mastery. Sokaku Takeda, to take an example, was reported to be a bully and a drunk. His mastery of Daito Ryu has never been questioned. I can think of a number of Korean masters whose mastery I would not question. However; their love affair with alcohol and tobacco (and their treatment of women) set a poor example for the communities they service. Their culture finds such behavior acceptable. Ours generally does not.
4. Recognition of title of "mastery" by a conferring authority. Some organizations award titles of mastery to instructors without ever reviewing their qualifications or even seeing the instructor in question. His skills, leadership traits, and moral standing in his community might be abysmal--yet he might have that very thing another (and more qualified) instructor lacks: Cash.
Regards,
Steve
I'll posit what I think might be a few qualifications:
1. Technical skill.
2. Innovation of method.
3. Adaptation of method to challenges offered by the current environment.
4. Respect of recognized masters in the martial arts community.
Some that do not necessarily qualify:
1. Fighting record, either in sport competition or combat. If this were necessary, Ueshiba and Funakoshi would not qualify.
2. The number of black belts/instructors produced. NAPMA and ATA might disagree with me on this point.
3. Adherence to a "moral code" set by a board or institution. Definitions of morals often differ from one geographical area to the next and fluctuate across time. The martial arts encompass a vast number of disparate cultures. A recognized master in China in the 19th century might be an opium smoker. Contemporary martial artists might find that deplorable, yet recognize his mastery. Sokaku Takeda, to take an example, was reported to be a bully and a drunk. His mastery of Daito Ryu has never been questioned. I can think of a number of Korean masters whose mastery I would not question. However; their love affair with alcohol and tobacco (and their treatment of women) set a poor example for the communities they service. Their culture finds such behavior acceptable. Ours generally does not.
4. Recognition of title of "mastery" by a conferring authority. Some organizations award titles of mastery to instructors without ever reviewing their qualifications or even seeing the instructor in question. His skills, leadership traits, and moral standing in his community might be abysmal--yet he might have that very thing another (and more qualified) instructor lacks: Cash.
Regards,
Steve
Danjo
Master Black Belt
Well, Chuck Norris, Joe Lewis, Jhoon Rhee, Ed Parker, Bob Wall, Joe Hyams,Dan Inosanto Etc. Etc. all trained with him, learned from him, and helped perpetuate what he taught. Joe Lewis just came out with a book about Bruce Lee's fighting system in fact. So if these aren't the Master's making room for him, then who do you consider the Masters? Do you consider these Masters?The Kai said:
Flatlander
Grandmaster
You're basing your refutation upon speculation. Can you verify that any of these respected martial artists are in fact using or have used Bruce Lee's name only for the purpose of increasing their income? If not, your argument holds no merit.The Kai said:
After reading some of these posts, I wonder how many of you have any knowledge of Bruce Lee outside of the movies ??, Those who saw Bruce Lee did respect him, And those who learned from him were able to see why he became a legend in the martial arts, for those who's knowledge of Martial arts is just a few years deep, I truly feel sorry for you, Bruce Lee was one of the very best at conceptualizing, teaching how to actually get better, And his expertize was in fighting, Any instructor can show you how to throw a punch, or do a technique, Bruce could make it better, Any instructor can say punch harder, or punch faster, Bruce could show you how, and make you better, Plus for those of us who were in martial arts during this period, we remember that before Bruce Lee, The secret was to do kata's all night, Bruce in his era changed the way martial art's were done, Just as the Gracie's did when they started the ground fighting revolution with the UFC.
Corporal Hicks
Black Belt
I wonder if he actually cared for the title of 'master'. He liked tradition but wasnt a slave to it!
Mind you surely somebody with their own system of thinking would count as a master if he created it himself and had the impact that he did. He's not just some random guy who proclaimed himself a black belt (not that there are such things in WC or JKD) but still he had the skill.
Mind you surely somebody with their own system of thinking would count as a master if he created it himself and had the impact that he did. He's not just some random guy who proclaimed himself a black belt (not that there are such things in WC or JKD) but still he had the skill.
S
Sifu Barry Cuda
Guest
Hey guys,I know more about Bruce Lee as my instructors insructor{Dan Inosanto} than as a movie star,and I know that most of the stuff people quote from Bruces writings are taken out of context because most of it was published from notes and scraps found in the garage after his death.Bruce nevercalled himself a master, he said no one has that right until they close the box and bury you.Instead of the endless debate why doesnt everybody just respect the fact that if it wasnt for Bruce Lee NONE of you would be mixing arts,infact if it wasnt for Bruce Lee there would be no such thing as mixed martial arts.Even if you dont study JKD you have to admit the whole idea of going outside of your system was Bruce Lees legacy.I trained with many of the people that had their lives enriched by training with Bruce and regardless of if he never won a tournament or BLA BLA BLA what he did in the 60s was unheard of.If it wasnt for Dan Inosanto making Thai Boxing and Kali so popular in the 70s and 80s everybody would still be doing the same thing.Bruce and then Inosanto raised the publics consiousness about a lot of arts and crosstraining in general,Barry www.combatartsusa.com
arnisador said:
Man, you guys are gonna think I'm some kind of troll....
But if you keep leaving statements like the above on the internet, then I've got to have a say!
At least in Bruce Lees case, he looked the goods, and when you look at what Inosanto claims to have learnt from the man he had the goods, but Tyson a good boxer..... WHAT A CROCK!!
Bar room brawler, yep.
Slugger, yep.
Boxer, HA!!
All he ever had going for him was the ability to throw a hard punch, and do it as a counter punch. But since his time on the inside, he can't fight for peanuts. In fact every time he's tried, he just looks scared.
Q Do you know why Tyson cries after sex?
A Mace will do that to you!!
--Dave
