With all stated above you can infer that he was (though not professionally) a pretty good fighter. You stated originally that no one knew how good he was.
With any degree of precision, I do not believe that beyond "pretty good" it can really be known. There simply is not enough information. Which is what I mean by no one knows.
I fully agree that in a general sense, we can know that he was certainly quite good by the standards of his day and perhaps by modern standards as well.
But, assuming high caliber opponents,
how good?
Solid and consistent, with a winning record?
Exceptional and winning most of his fights (as opposed to simply more wins than losses)?
Or in the top 1 percentile?
A solid and conistent fighter with a winning record against high caliber opponents is
really good.
Winning most of your fights against high caliber opponents is
exceptionally good and places you in the top ten percent of fighters.
Being in the top one percent is an Ali level fighter (61 fights with 56 wins; 37 by KO, 5 losses) or a Norris level fighter (estimated 183-12-2, or 65-5 depending on the source). Lee certainly had the physical potential and training foundation to be in the top one percent.
My rebuttal was that, that was not true. Many of the professional fighters of his era knew. They all state in one way or another that if he were to fight in the ring that he would have done well. There are many people in today’s world that never fight in the ring but it is only logical to understand that just because you fight and beat everyone that chooses to fight in the ring, does not mean that you can beat every fighter that choose not to fight in the ring.
Your comment about ring fighters who win all or most of their fights not necesarilly being able to beat all fighters who do not choose the ring, is again, something that I agree with in theory, but in practice, modern (meaning about mid 20th century on) pro fighters are training and preparing
to fight against resisting opponents for eight hours a day while the rest of us are working eight hours a day. That includes a high level of physical conditionsing, actual training, and researching their opponents to know their strengths and weaknesses. It is their job.
Guys who make MA movies, such as Lee, are spending their eight hours a day training and preparing to make physically demanding movies. That includes a high level of physical conditioning (Lee definitely had that), actual training in the MA that is to be used in the movie, researching potential costars or stunt doubles for said costars with whom the fights can choreographed (Lee picked the best in the biz for his movies, which is part of why they were so good), and honing their acting skills.
Lots of crossover, and had Lee not been a non-competitive fighter of a very high caliber, he would not have been able to make those movies.
But I always stop short of placing movie martial artists on the same plane as fighters as I do competitive fighters. Not because I do not think that it is possible for them to be great fighters (it absolutely is) but because to do so ignores a degree of reality in my opinion.
It just like saying that man X is the strongest man in the world. Well that is only because he is the strongest vs. those who choose to challenge for the title. There are billions of people in the world and a fraction that is too small to ever calculate will choose to challenge for any given anything.
Who is the oldest man in the world? No one really knows. Too many undocumented people in the world to really know. Odds are not the person that is listed as such.
But vs. those that Bruce worked with and those at the time that fought professionally, they knew how good Bruce was compared to the fightes of that time, and they all say he was really good.
I consider 'pretty good' coming from men like Joe Lewis to be a high compliment and certainly a well deserved one, but pretty good is a generality, as is 'would have done well', both of which I agree with but neither of which is conclusive.
I find little to disagree with in most of what you say and I have addressed those areas where my opinion differs above. I'm not so sure that we disagree, so much as that we are looking at it a little differently.
Yes, I believe that one could conclude that Lee was very good by the standards of the top fighters of the day and that he "would have done well"
had he chosen to enter the ring, in which case he would have learned all of the various subtleties and gamesmanship tactics that are a part of fighting under more specialized rule sets. And very likely, he would be less famous but well remembered as a superb fighter.
Which is, I think what you are saying as well.
Daniel
