View Full Version : Bruce Lee : Wong Jack Man
(i) don't particularly care to know the 'bad' personally. there is no benefit in it for me, not for motivation or training.
You exemplify Plato's concept of willful ignorance as is shown in his work 'The Cave. Ignorance is bliss for many people who quite simply prefer not to look reality straight in the face. I don't see how remaining ignorant of the truth (about Lee) serves to benefit one either.
It may seem a wild extravagance in terms of metaphorical analysis but we're talking about the same kind of thinking that allowed people like Hitler to flourish... only applied and taken to it's ultimate sad conclusion. The " we know the terrible truth but let's not think about it because it's all too hard to deal with" kind of thinking.
How seeing things as they are and choosing to turn a blind eye to them is of benefit baffles me. Afterall why should this have anything to do with your motivation to train or practice martial arts? Bruce Lee was who he was, why should the reality of the fact that he was a flawed human being, like every other human being, change one's disposition to train or excel in any way shape or form?
If anything it could serve as a positive motivational reinforcement to many, not to fall into the same traps and pitfalls and to remember that we are all vulnerable no matter how fit and well honed we are! :) The lesson is about remaining humble.
The only thing I can see here is the mistake of aligning one's emotional will to train, so closely with the ideal and proviso that you can't train or be motivated without having a flawless legend to lean (read for inspire) on. When that Legend seems to crumble, the suggestion is that one's motivation crumbles along with it. Is this what your really saying?
This is not an attack but a philosophical question of interest for me.
Respectfully, Syd
Greg-VT
09-Nov-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Syd
I don't see how remaining ignorant of the truth (about Lee) serves to benefit one either.
We don't know what the truth is, and my guess is we never will.
Stories are stories. They can never be 100% verified. It's a matter of belief and gullibility. Not ignorance.
Cain
09-Nov-2003, 08:32 AM
An axe to grind..............
;)
|Cain|
We don't know what the truth is, and my guess is we never will.
I am not reffering to his death in this case but rather stories about the more human aspects of his nature whilst alive. I concede that his death is beyond the pale of reasonable conclusion.
Stories are stories. They can never be 100% verified. It's a matter of belief and gullibility. Not ignorance.
The information I provided is not "stories" and comes from highly respected people on the inside who knew Bruce, trained with Bruce and on one occassion who took Bruce down. I was reffering to my own information and not anybody elses.
Cain
I understand where that statement may be coming from but rest assured I am actually a great fan of Mr Lee's and infact it was he himself that inspired me as a young man in the 1970's and gave me and uncontrollable desire to learn martial arts. There is a difference between having an axe to grind and being at peace with the humanity of Bruce Lee. ;)
Knowing certain things has not changed my opinion of the man as a martial arts movie actor... he was superb!
Best, Syd
Greg-VT
09-Nov-2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Syd
I am not reffering to his death in this case....
Neither was I.
....but rather stories about the more human aspects of his nature whilst alive......
So was I.
Thats fine, but if you want verification I suggest you seek out Flane Walker online and ask him youself. Or better yet get in touch with Rick Bauer who is a mate of mine and author or a new encyclopedia of Dim Mak along with Flane Walker and ask him about what he knows about Bruce Lee. Verification is only a couple of e-mails away if you really want it.
SSJ1_Katrina
10-Nov-2003, 04:18 AM
lol!
i can't help giggle just a little with Syd's reply.
i cannot say i am overly happy with your Hitler reference mind you, as someone closely associated with the local Jewish community and holocaust survivers, perhaps not the fellow for light comparison.
my point was that i don't see a point to idle gossip or tales, be they real or imagined though either way largely unconfirmed, about a basically good human being, a little respect for the dead perhaps?
it does not do good for a man to dwell on the bad, learn from it- hopefully- and move on.
*smiles at Syd* what a terribly serious fellow you are! i think i quite like you.
-Katrina
Dearest Katrina,
(i) can't help giggle just a little with Syd's reply.
Right back atcha...;)
(i)<--- you need to make your (i's) capital I's when identifying yourself , but I digress:)
...cannot say i am overly happy with your Hitler reference
I was merely, for academic purposes , using the reference, not to Hitler but rather to the thinking of the German public in the 1930's and early 40's, drawing a metaphorical parallel to your own.
When you suggest not wanting to hear or see no evil - (something that is implied in your statement "because there is no benefit") - regarding a particular thing or person, I see this pattern of thinking in 1930's German society also. There was no implication of anyone being *like* Hitler, lets be clear. ;)
mind you, as someone closely associated with the local Jewish community and holocaust survivers, perhaps not the fellow for light comparison.
This statement is devisive... I think you know full well what I was saying. *L*
my point was that i don't see a point to idle gossip or tales, be they real or imagined...
I have a problem with this statement. Are you suggesting that only "real" or "imagined" positive tales about Bruce Lee should be proliferated and nothing which might show a flaw or imperfection in his character should be discussed or canvassed openly because only positive angles are desirable? What about presenting a human being warts and all, as they were or are?
... though either way largely unconfirmed...
Well my sources were not what I'd call unconfirmed. If you want unconfirmed, how about the fact that Bruce Lee never fought any publicly recognized no holds barred competitions? Are we to believe from his films alone that he was a great Martial Artist? It could be argued using the same logic that his prowess as a street fighter is based on tales and stories which are largely unconfirmed. :)
...about a basically good human being, a little respect for the dead perhaps?
We're all basically good human beings but that doesn't mean we aren't flawed or have been privvy to indescretions in our lives. Great figures in history throughout the ages are not spared total analysis of their life and character after the fact, why should Bruce Lee be any different?
Why should we make an exception in *his* case because he has become a sacred cow within the martial arts community?. There are many legendary people in history who were both great and flawed as human beings. I don't see what is to be afraid of in this case if we are to gain a true or deeper understanding of the man, both in life and death. There is no dishonour in making the man 3 dimensional and real rather than rendering him just another cardboard cavalier in video stores! *LOL*
it does not do good for a man to dwell on the bad, learn from it- hopefully- and move on.
The perception of good and bad is always based on a personal perception ,often sadly defined and not limited by, the ability of the individual to face certain unassailable truth's or facts or mythologies. Some people don't like the taste of fact *or* fiction, should we stop all cultural/semiotic analysis because a few people haven't the stomach for it?
I would suggest that fielding or canvassing the many stories regarding Bruce Lee in life and in death is not a thing to either like or dislike. It is in my case a dispassionate affair which adds to the rich tabula rasa of martial arts history and in some cases mythology. These things in both a social and cultural sense are no small thing and cannot be so easily dismissed as though it's everybodies bed time!
Look on him as you would any man because afterall he was still a human being,and to deny him that humanity whether good or bad would be the ultimate disservice.
*smiles at Syd* what a terribly serious fellow you are! i think i quite like you.
If only you knew the half of it...;)
Respectfully and in the spirit of intelligent debate, Syd
Greg-VT
10-Nov-2003, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by Syd
Thats fine, but if you want verification I suggest you seek out Flane Walker online and ask him youself. Or better yet get in touch with Rick Bauer who is a mate of mine and author or a new encyclopedia of Dim Mak along with Flane Walker and ask him about what he knows about Bruce Lee. Verification is only a couple of e-mails away if you really want it.
Yeah... like anyone can take anyone's word for it.
I understand with a name like Ving Tsung that you would be reserved and perhaps very skeptical about anything said because you clearly have a vested interest. I'm not interested in things that aren't true about Bruce Lee either, but I *do* trust implicitly my own sources. I understand why you would have no reason to, but this doesn't mean they are any less true. I would suggest we all keep an open mind if nothing seems proven *either* way!
Respectfully, Syd
Greg-VT
10-Nov-2003, 05:45 AM
Well there are so many of these stories around, the right one is harder to pick then paint.
Someones else could very well be saying the same as you Syd... that is, they know someone who knew Bruce and say these stories are true. Only that the stories a different.
Of course there are a few things that you said that I believe.... but a few others that I don't. Unless I hear the same thing somewhere else then I won't believe it.
It's too easy to burn someone's name these days.... in some cases for the sake of publicity, and personal image.
Tireces
10-Nov-2003, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by hwardo
I have read in a couple of different qigong related publications that Bruce Lee may have died because he "short circuited" his system through incorrect or forceful qi cultivation over time.
I am not sure where I stand on his being a master, but there is no doubt that the guy pushed every possible limit, both in the physical and in the psyche. Perhaps it is one of those cliched adages about the candle burning brightest having the shortest wick, or some such thing.
Just for the record, Bruce gave no real stock to such things. I remember reading things by him that even came down on all that stuff. Perhaps those "qigong publications" shouldnt be trying to popularize themselves by attaching his name to their practices.
Tireces
10-Nov-2003, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Syd
A friend of mine - who is Wu stylist in the U.S and who has just released a book about Dim mak along with his teacher - and I were discussing the living aspects of Bruces life and some interesting things came to light from insider info.
The first of interest is this idea that Bruce was never beaten in combat and was invincible. My mates teacher Flane Walker took Bruce down in the late 60's with a Kempo take down, Bruce asked how he did it and Flane said, Kempo take down, yada.
In the movie about the life of Bruce Lee with Jason Scott Lee we are led to believe that Bruce had his back broken
when he was walking out on a China Town secret match, the winner of which would decide who he could teach in future. The film has us believing that Bruce defeated Wong Jack Man (thats who it's supposed to represent) and when he had his back turned and walked away Wong Jack Man performed a flying side kick to his back when he wasn't looking and his back was broken... hooey!
The truth is that Bruce knew of Wong Jack Man in the China Town region where he was living at that time and knew he had a reputation. Bruce being cocky decided to challenge Wong Jack Man to a contest and they set up the day of the duel. What took place was that Bruce could not defeat Wong Jack Man who was a student of a rare form of Tiger Style Kung Fu and the event resulted in some instances with Bruce being chased around the Kwoon in circles.
In the end Bruce convinced Wong Jack Man to accept a draw and asked that they never speak of it outside that particular Kwoon again. Wong Jack Man agreed like a gentleman and kept to his word. Not more than a few days went by and stories started surfacing in the local China Town news (leaked by Bruce) that Bruce had beaten Wong Jack Man in the showdown. There is an interview with Wong Jack Man that can still be found online if you search which discusses this incident.
Bruce never had his back busted like they make out in the movie but infact he slipped a disc because he was performing an exercise called a goodmorning where you place a barbell across your back with weight on it and you bend forward with the weight across your neck and stand upright and then bend forward again.
It is also shown in the movie that after the fight with Wong Jack Man that Bruce loses it and gets upset with his traditional Wing Chun seeing it as useless and obselete, a blind devotion to forms which lead no-where. Now think about it; if Bruce did such a good job of defeating Wong Jack Man in the contest they had, why would he be so dissapointed in his art and decide to change it so drastically?
In the film they make out that his reason was because it took too long to win the fight and he felt he wasn't in good enough shape. Look beneath the surface and you'll understand that it was because he could not beat Wong Jack Man and infact he found his great art of Wing Chun totally unable to defeat, let alone hold in check the opponent! Apparently someone still has footage of this contest between Bruce and Wong Jack Man... hmmm tasty.
Another story of the reality of Bruce as a real person was that he was training with another master in California who he had to seek a letter of introduction to train with from Yip Man. He trained with this group for about a year and during this time there was a Black American student in the class who Bruce has been ragging on for nearly a year. It is reported that on one occasion Bruce would drive to training with a couple of women in the car with him and brag to the Black guy that he couldn't get any women and that Bruce himself was a "real man". Bruce was a naughty boy and actually had an affair with the Black students wife and one day when he turned up to training he found that the Black student found out. The Black student beat Bruce into a pulp and got him on the floor and repeatedly punched him in the groin whilst holding him in submission. There are county hospital records available which show that Bruce was there and it discusses multiple severe bruising and trauma to the groin area. He would have ofcourse covered this up from Linda and said it occured during some rough training exercise.
It goes to show that a legend is one thing but at the end of the day reality is a whole other ball of wax...
Best, Syd
Wow, another one trying to push a few "this art was too much for bruce" or "bruce couldnt do this" stories. Im not even through the thread yet, I wonder how many more there are....oh good, it stops there. We've already had more than enough of that nonsense in that other thread on Bruce that turned into "Bruce stole this guy's moves! He's the real master!"
SSJ1_Katrina
10-Nov-2003, 06:45 AM
Yes. I have decided I do like you very much Syd.
Other than that, I do find it slightly amusing because I know absolutely none of the stories about Brue Lee's life. I have never seen a movie of his, save for the 'Kung Fu' series with David Carradine which i heard he helped create, never read a book, or magazine article. However, I saw the second half of that movie about his life and half a documentary. My Sifu regards him as a dedicated martial artist, though not the be all and end all of life, the universe and everything. No, i tell a fib, i know that he was assocaiated with a fellow named Yip Man (spelling?). Although this situation i intend to remedy immediately after i have completed this confounded research proposal. Which will be at the end of this week. I am going to rent 'Fists of Fury' (at least i think thats what it is called). Am quite looking forward to it actually, I am even going to bake my favourite biscuits to consume with my favourite tea.
Yes indeed i am very excited about it (both finnishing the proposal and watching the movie)!
I do not approve of total analysis of anyone's character in the manner the press employ, and agree with Ving Tsun that it is far too easy to burn someone's name these days. It is precisely the sort of thing that happens to the British Royal family (regardless if you like them or not), and that is something i personally thoroughly disapprove of.
It reminds me of the tabloids and so forth- and I don't want anything to do with them.
Terribly sorry, I did not mean anything devise about the Hitler comment, only to highlight that it is a very grave state of affairs to mention in comparison to a much lighter topic.
And i'll have you know i happen to like mythology. Well, Arthurian at any rate.
I see Bruce Lee as a dedicated and determined martial artist, and I find those traits quite encouraging.
Anyhow, he could never replace Goku or Vegeta! *laughs* :D
Well, procrastination time must be limited, it is back to the research proposal and hence another Red Bull sustained night of typing. :(
- Katrina
P.s- When are you going to get an avatar Syd?
and Ving Tsun- i like your signature!
G'day Ving
Well there are so many of these stories around, the right one is harder to pick then paint.
As I said mate, allot of people have a vested interest in defending Bruce Lee's name no matter what and then there are those who have a vested interest in tarnishing it also. I want to make it clear that I am interested in neither proposition thats all, but rather to shed a little more light on him as a human being dispassionately.
Someones else could very well be saying the same as you Syd... that is, they know someone who knew Bruce and say these stories are true. Only that the stories a different.
The guy who I mentioned (Flane Walker) is a respected Master in his field of Kenpo and is a friend of my own teacher Erle Montaigue. Flane did indeed spar with Bruce and he himself took Bruce down with a Kenpo move.
My mate Rick Bauer who has co-written a new book on Dim Mak informed me of this, and some of the other stories about Bruce which come from sources who have nothing to gain at all by bagging Bruce out... what could they possibly gain?
Nobody could found a school or making a living in the M.A community based on a foundation of bagging out Bruce Lee! But people who stand to gain from preserving every last perfect feature of the legend might have allot more motivation to hide certain particulars about his private life that insiders were privvy to and not many others.
The fact is these stories were told to me on the quiet and not loudly prounounced in a way which might indicate somebody had something against Bruce and wanted to publicly "burn" him. I shared the information as a matter of interest to those interested in his life and it was not to be taken as a sensationalistic stab at his character.
As I said before, Bruce is the man as far as I am concerned and he was the one who exposed me to the coolest thing I've come across in my life besides music. I have no interest in telling lies about him or perpetuating untruths either, what does that get me? Rather I am fascinated by the man and the mythology, the good, the bad and the ugly... that's me though
Of course there are a few things that you said that I believe.... but a few others that I don't. Unless I hear the same thing somewhere else then I won't believe it.
I wasn't trying to convince anybody, I was only sharing information from respected sources. Ofcourse you must believe what you want and nothing more.
It's too easy to burn someone's name these days.... in some cases for the sake of publicity, and personal image.
On the contrary I think it's impossible to burn Bruce Lee's name. I think this addresses some of my questions regarding the legend and again I would ask that people keep an open mind rather than only believing what seems to come from the officially sactioned Bruce Lee headquarters.
You have to remember that Bruce Lee is worth more money now that he's dead, than he ever was when he was alive. Somebody out there is cashing those cheques and has a very large vested interest in exercising total control over what the public see's and hears. The truth *is* out there but it's not always the way we would like it to be.
In the words of Bruce himself... "be water my friend" ie, keep an open mind!
Best, Syd
__________________
Tireces...
Can you disprove that Wong Jack Man was Bruces equal and actually bettered him? Why would Bruce dump Wing Chun if it worked so well? It was Wing Chun that Bruce used when he fought Wong Jack Man. When you can disprove it then you'll be able to call it nonsense, until then your lack of an open mind and dogmatic belief otherwise is infact completely at odd's with Bruces own philosophy and style of thought. You just aced yourself... ace!
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 08:07 AM
Syd,
one of the members here is actually a long time student of Wong Jack Man.
He'd prefer to remain anonymous I know.
Just make sure all your own information is first hand, otherwise you stand the chance of being caught out making a statement that isn't necessarily 100% true, thus contributing to mythology yourself.
Dearest Katrina,
Yes. I have decided I do like you very much Syd.
Hey... what's not to like? ;)
Other than that, I do find it slightly amusing because I know absolutely none of the stories about Brue Lee's life.
I'm not quite sure why this is amusing? I did not assume that you knew everything about Bruces life and nor did I suggest at any point that your views about 'not wanting to know the bad' had any bearing on your greater or lesser knowledge about his life generally.
Infact now that you have brought this up I find it even more perplexing that with such little knowledge that you would be so ready to limit yourself to hearing or seeing certain things about him/ Why not everything and anything and then make an informed decision when you have all the facts, falses and mythologies before you? Surely without such openess, your understanding of the man can only be a limited at best?
I am going to rent 'Fists of Fury' (at least i think thats what it is called). Am quite looking forward to it actually, I am even going to bake my favourite biscuits to consume with my favourite tea.
Fists of Fury (AKA The Chinese Connection) is my favourite BL movie which I saw for the first time when I was 8 years old. Let me know how you enjoyed it, perhaps we can discuss some of it's points in the afterglow. As to baking and tea, what a relief to find a young lady in the modern age who isn't afraid to cook! :) post modernism is going to kill childrens tatse buds in future unless *someone* keeps the pilot light alive...*L* I too love to cook.
Yes indeed i am very excited about it (both finnishing the proposal and watching the movie)!
Is this your veiled way of telling me your an academic? Do tell in PM if you wish what your proposal is in regard to? :)
I do not approve of total analysis of anyone's character in the manner the press employ,
I agree, but when was the last time you saw Bruce Lee roasted in *any* publication about any aspect of his life? I certainly haven't and I don't think we ever will. What we do see however is only documentaries praising the man in his life and rightly so. I am not the press and would now refer you to my last post to Ving for further discussion on this aspect
When I spoke of analysis I mean't in an academic or cultural discoursive sense, hardly tabloid press like the U.K Sun's "Bruce Lee was abducted by aliens" style.
Sillier still is that I bought a magazine which came from the official U.S JKD headquarters which had a chapter asking if Bruce Lee was the Buddha! *L* They had a photograph of Bruce sitting in a traditional lotus position meditating and tried to suggest that because he sat like that he might have been a reincarnation of the Buddha. Now if we want to get a balanced view of things lets start by assessing whats coming down the official turnpike first!
This brings me back to my original point which is that people only want to suspend disbelief about the Legend of Bruce Lee when it fits into what they want to see or hear about the man. When it comes to information that might require them to challenge their dogma's and fixed vested interests they don't seem to want to hear it and would much rather accept stories about Bruce maybe being Buddha than the possibility that he had affairs or got beaten by an opponent. This is the heart of what I am saying.
Terribly sorry, I did not mean anything devise about the Hitler comment, only to highlight that it is a very grave state of affairs to mention in comparison to a much lighter topic.
No need to be sorry I wasn't offended but merely pointing out that you missunderstood my angle and the point I was making, which clearly explained itself. I wasn't talking about Hitler, yet again, but rather addressing a kind of thinking prevalent in human beings which is akin to sheepishness. This is far more dangerous than Hitler was and in actual fact it's the Hitlers of the world that count on this human trait for their success.
The lesson here then is to see and look at everything and never play ignorant to anything. Then and only then are we truly in a position to make an informed and discerning assessment based on all the evidence at hand. If you don't care , as I am suggesting the German people didn't care back in the 30's, then you get what's coming to you based on that decision.
You see this point that I'm making isn't really about Bruce Lee but rather he has been a catalyst for something far more important and that is the issue of how individuals close themselves off to information due to certain types of apathy which has consequences far greater than we sometimes are willing admit to ourselves. You could say it is a small thing but it's a loaded gun in certain situations.
And i'll have you know i happen to like mythology. Well, Arthurian at any rate.
I take it you are familiar with Joseph Campell and Jung's works on Archetypes? Are you into Grail Lore and
works such as Parcival and Wagners take on the Aryan myth that Hitler derailed and hijacked for his own purposes? Funnily enough Nazi Germnay and Arthurian mythology are so closely entwined you'd barely believe it, but that's a whole other story. :)
I see Bruce Lee as a dedicated and determined martial artist, and I find those traits quite encouraging.
I couldn't disagree with this statement.
Red Bull sustained night of typing.
You should really get rid of that stuff, it'll stuff your adrenals. *g*
Best, Syd
P.s- When are you going to get an avatar Syd?
When I can fit my personality into such a little box you'll be the first to see it!
__________________
Andy.
Wong Jack Man was interviewed and the interview can still be found online where he himself tells the story of the bout with Bruce Lee. I would indeed be happy to talk with this student of Wong Jacks Mans, perhaps he can shed more light on this situation. If I am wrong about anything I am always glad to concede and where necessary apologize, it is no great thing. I am only imparting what I have read from Wong himself and what has come from respected sources.
Best, Syd
Cain
10-Nov-2003, 08:51 AM
LOL! ;)
Would be interesting if you could provide links to your sources, not that it would mean anything.
Also why don't most people know what you are talking about? If it's because of secrecy then why are you posting here? If you want to let out the truth ie got an axe to grind then why not let out the info to the media instead of an internet forum? ;)
BTW what would you expect Wong to say anyway? That he lost big time against Bruce Lee?
Just IMO of course ;)
|Cain|
Greg-VT
10-Nov-2003, 08:53 AM
lol..... I wasnt going to say that Cain !!
hehe :P
Cain
10-Nov-2003, 08:56 AM
Of course you were! I could sense the devil in you! :D
|Cain|
Here you go guys....
This is an article from an old Black Belt Magazine article which gives the balanced account of things.
http://www.kungfu.net/brucelee.html
Enjoy, Syd :)
Would be interesting if you could provide links to your sources, not that it would mean anything.
I just did...:)
Also why don't most people know what you are talking about?
Because most people don't know much to begin with. *L* But seriously because they don't look where the information is to be found but instead only read whats fed to them.
If it's because of secrecy then why are you posting here?
The Wong Jack Man article is not secret at all as it was published in Black Belt. I am posting here because I like discussing martial arts and sometimes informing the un-informed. :)
If you want to let out the truth ie got an axe to grind then why not let out the info to the media instead of an internet forum?
Because I have no axe to grind and can't see the general public outside the Martial Arts community caring that much. Many things are discussed about MA's in internet forums that could be taken to the media by many people. The reason they don't is because it's a stupid idea! *L*
Ohhhh I get it, you've got it fixed in your head that being interested in truth = having an axe to grind. You must understand that the two are mutually exclusive unlike your blind devotion to a Legend that leads no-where...*L*
BTW what would you expect Wong to say anyway? That he lost big time against Bruce Lee?
What would you expect Bruce to say?
Just IMO of course
You don't have to convince me...
Syd
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Syd
Andy.
Wong Jack Man was interviewed and the interview can still be found online where he himself tells the story of the bout with Bruce Lee. I would indeed be happy to talk with this student of Wong Jacks Mans, perhaps he can shed more light on this situation. If I am wrong about anything I am always glad to concede and where necessary apologize, it is no great thing. I am only imparting what I have read from Wong himself and what has come from respected sources.
Best, Syd
Hi Syd,
That's fair enough.
Nothing I've read, or subsequently heard reflects particularly well on BL.
Ultimately, he's not around to speak for himself, while there is so much material out there on things he is supposed to have said and done, I don't know what there is to be acheived by discussion.
Andy
Greg-VT
10-Nov-2003, 09:08 AM
I'm yet to read it Syd.... on my way now. But in the mean time....
You should take not that at this stage within Bruces life, had not yet started to develope JKD, this is the fight that started him to do that.
So he was not as developed in MA has he would have been, say, 4 years later.
All he had done was WC/VT in Hong Kong with Yip Man. (Still had not reach the Wooden Dummy form I might add).
Anyways..... of for the link.
Andy,
Your a moderator of a discussion forum and as such I find the statement...
" I don't know what there is to be acheived by discussion."
....perplexing.
I am a Taijiquan student and practitioner most particularly of the Yang Style. There is allot of historical controversy regarding the life and lineage of Yang Lu Chan and where his art comes from etc.
The point of discussion on any topic whether people are currently alive or deceased (are we seriously suggesting taboo's be placed on the discussion of dead people?) is to inform, enlighten, hone our people skills, grow, achieve balanced views, joust in the spirit of shared interests, need I go on?
I would suggest that those people who wish not to read things to not read them and those who wish to discuss them and read them be left to that freedom. The same argument could be made for documentaries on war, famine, murder or anything. You could say I don't see the point in all this, but there is a point. If you still don't get it then it's very easy to not watch it or just go do something else.
I'm just for looking at all facts or fictions openly and in a climate of discussion and fellowship. If we can't achieve that then I don't think we've achieved what I would suggest is a favourable mandate for *any* forum for free discussion and openess.
Why shouldn't there be two sides to every story instead of one? We get allot of the official Bruce Lee side of things but it seems if someone like Wong Jack Man has *his side of the story it must be seen as lies without first giving that man the benefit of the doubt first. There's something wrong with that thinking in my humble opinion.
Respectfully, Syd
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 09:46 AM
Hi Syd,
well if you run a search on 'Bruce Lee' on this forum alone, you might get an idea of the way these discussions usually turn out.
They're usually polarised by either those who worship Bruce, and those that want to denounce him as a fraud/charlatan/whatever.
The trouble is that those who wish, for whatever reason, merely to get a balanced view, seem to get forced into one faction or the other.
Hold on a mo and I'll find you some links.
Cain
10-Nov-2003, 09:48 AM
What would you expect Bruce to say?
LOL! I don't think Bruce ever said he won anywhere, I thought they were testified people who personally knew him ;)
He did prove himself in the world of MA, everyone could easily see that if they open their eyes wide enough, along with the good comes bad, there are always going to be those who would put him down.
The man oushed himself farther than anyone had the guts to, he proved himself several times in the ed parker tourney, the amateur boxing tourney, earned the respect of a number of talented martial artists who earned quite a name, is more than just a popular figure in the world of MA and I salute him for that,
Respectfully,
|Cain|
:Angel:
Tosh
10-Nov-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Syd
Sorry to shatter any dreams but this information comes from people who knew Bruce personally and sparred with him, thats the reality not the legend; there is a difference.
So?
Does any of thr "truth" actually make ME a better person??
Nope. So then do I care? Nope! It just always surprises me when people are so desperate to go hunting for stories? Are you a reporter or MA'ist?
As I said before i'd rather get on with using the good.
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 09:52 AM
OK, here's the old Bruce Lee (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248) thread.
Tosh,
So?
Does any of th(r) "truth" actually make ME a better person?(?)
I don't recall saying the truth makes you a better person but it certainly will set you free... free you of any indoctrination or preconcieved dogma's. Ofcourse like most people of this mindset I'm sure you're quite happy remaining the way you are.
Nope. So then do I care? Nope!
It takes too much energy to care, I see that.
It just always surprises me when people are so desperate to go hunting for stories?
At what point did you percieve any desperation by anyone to discover or hunt for stories? The things I found out were told to me by friends or I found them browsing quite casually through articles on various subjects online. Who's desperate to make a point based on zero evidence here now?
Are you a reporter or MA'ist?
What if I was both? Would that be too much of a stretch for your unlimited thinking?
As I said before i'd rather get on with using the good.
Off you go then...
__________________
Cain
10-Nov-2003, 10:33 AM
Ok, I had a good look at the article, but 1964??? Even if he did loseit was a bit early for him don't you think? ;)
And according to Chen the fight ended in a draw, nowhere could I read that Bruce begged Wong not to give out the results except maybe in Wong's account of the story.....
So where do we come? Linda said Bruce won, Wong said he lost, Chen said it tied, sheesh! :rolleyes:
Either way who cares, I wish I was as good in MA so people would talk about me as much as everyone is in here :D
Let the man rest in peace,
|Cain|
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 10:45 AM
Hold up here folks.
The threads about how Bruce died.
Syd posted a link to an article written in 1980, where it's hinted that the unbalanced practice of JKD may have contributed to his death.
Here it is again.
http://www.kungfu.net/brucelee.html
"Regarding the question of how much Lee grew as a martial artist after the fight, Wong is convinced that the benefits to Lee from his homemade style were more than offset by the damage it did him. Wong even goes so far as to speculate that Jeet Kune Do may have caused Lee’s death."
Cain,
Ok, I had a good look at the article, but 1964??? Even if he did loseit was a bit early for him don't you think?
Here come the justifications... now I provide a resource it's a matter of "Bruce was not really at his best at this stage". Yes indeed, which is why he dumped Wing Chun.
And according to Chen the fight ended in a draw, nowhere could I read that Bruce begged Wong not to give out the results except maybe in Wong's account of the story.....
The information is alluded to in the article where it states Lee and Wong had an agreement to keep the result secret and Lee broke that agreement. There is another article which is totally an interview with Wong Jack Man (I shall endeavour to find it)where Bruce was the one who asked that the results be kept quiet. I never said Bruce begged Wong Jack Man to keep it secret, they are *your* words not mine, so lets keep it clean! :)
So where do we come? Linda said Bruce won, Wong said he lost, Chen said it tied, sheesh!
No, Linda said Bruce won and also made Wong Jack Man out to be a villain in the movies which is patently untrue. Wong only stated his position about the fight and said that it was not that he did not win but rather he held back because he didn't want to hurt Lee in a more permanent fashion. He had three
ocassions when he could have nailed Lee and each time he let Lee go because he saw Lee was hell bent on actually going too far.
In my opinion this sounds like a man with sound respect for another human being and a man who had the wisdom not to allow himself to be drawn further into a bad situation with an opponent who was unbalanced in his approach to the fight. It is also stated in the article that the fight ended more due to the fact that Lee ran out of puff and was winded, than anything else.
It's clear again that even when balanced reports are supplied it only takes a little selective reading from those who still wish to suspend disbelief to get back to the comfortable position they began with. :)
At the end of the day Wong was saying he could have nailed Lee but didn't want to end up with a prison sentence and instead spent his time playing defensive while Lee raged on recklessly. It is clear from the reports that neither man was put to ground and both were no badly hurt.
After this match Lee dropped Wing Chun while Wong Jack Man continued practising his own art. What does that tell you? I'm not going to bother spelling it out anymore because you want to see things from only one angle. Thats fine but kidding yourself is not something I would imagine is worthy of your aspiration.
Either way who cares, I wish I was as good in MA so people would talk about me as much as everyone is in here
But if I hadn't been able to provide a balanced account and infact was proven wrong in another article you would have cared a great deal. *L*
Let the man rest in peace,
The man rests in peace regardless of our discussion. It's a nice device for dismissing evidence but it is a bit of a cop out when all's said and done.
Respectfully, Syd
G'day Andy!
well if you run a search on 'Bruce Lee' on this forum alone, you might get an idea of the way these discussions usually turn out.
Believe me I've been around a few MA boards over the years and infact the old Klein board was the worst for this kind of thing. I knew when I began questioning Katrina that I would open a certain door which might be difficult for some people to understand.
They're usually polarised by either those who worship Bruce, and those that want to denounce him as a fraud/charlatan/whatever.
I know this my friend and the problem comes when people have tried to place me into the *against* box which shows a clear lack of objective reading on their part. People find it very difficult to understand that a person can be purely objective and open to both the good AND the bad. That is essentially my position on the matter, but some people need to have someone to rage against when their indoctrinated position is challenged. It is like shooting the messenger in my case.
The trouble is that those who wish, for whatever reason, merely to get a balanced view, seem to get forced into one faction or the other.
I have attempted to resist this trend as respectfully and in as good a humour as possible in order to perhaps help people to understand the meaning of an objective position which examines *ALL informations and positions equally and with equity!
Hold on a mo and I'll find you some links.
Thanks mate I'll have a read, though I'm pretty sure I'll know what I'm going to find... the usual. *L*
Best, Syd
SSJ1_Katrina
10-Nov-2003, 11:03 AM
Questioning me? Pardon?
I don't think i like your tone young man!
lol :P
-Katrina
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Syd
1/ Here come the justifications... now I provide a resource it's a matter of "Bruce was not really at his best at this stage". Yes indeed, which is why he dumped Wing Chun.
2/ The information is alluded to in the article where it states Lee and Wong had an agreement to keep the result secret and Lee broke that agreement. There is another article which is totally an interview with Wong Jack Man (I shall endeavour to find it)where Bruce was the one who asked that the results be kept quiet. I never said Bruce begged Wong Jack Man to keep it secret, they are *your* words not mine, so lets keep it clean! :)
3/ No, Linda said Bruce won and also made Wong Jack Man out to be a villain in the movies which is patently untrue. Wong only stated his position about the fight and said that it was not that he did not win but rather he held back because he didn't want to hurt Lee in a more permanent fashion. He had three
ocassions when he could have nailed Lee and each time he let Lee go because he saw Lee was hell bent on actually going too far.
4/ In my opinion this sounds like a man with sound respect for another human being and a man who had the wisdom not to allow himself to be drawn further into a bad situation with an opponent who was unbalanced in his approach to the fight. It is also stated in the article that the fight ended more due to the fact that Lee ran out of puff and was winded, than anything else.
5/ It's clear again that even when balanced reports are supplied it only takes a little selective reading from those who still wish to suspend disbelief to get back to the comfortable position they began with. :)
6/ At the end of the day Wong was saying he could have nailed Lee but didn't want to end up with a prison sentence and instead spent his time playing defensive while Lee raged on recklessly. It is clear from the reports that neither man was put to ground and both were no badly hurt.
7/ After this match Lee dropped Wing Chun while Wong Jack Man continued practising his own art. What does that tell you? I'm not going to bother spelling it out anymore because you want to see things from only one angle. Thats fine but kidding yourself is not something I would imagine is worthy of your aspiration.
8/ The man rests in peace regardless of our discussion. It's a nice device for dismissing evidence but it is a bit of a cop out when all's said and done.
1/ Is this assumption based on the article you posted, or your other sources?
2/ The information is alluded to, not proven. I must say, I don't believe this to be a well balanced article, no matter which magazine it was posted in.
3/ You mean the film 'Dragon'? Now come on, that's a completely factual blow by blow documentary of Bruces life, how can you possibly disagree with it? :p
4/ I'd have more respect for Wong Jack Man (yet I have no disrespect for him) if he'd just kept his trap shut.
5/ Once again, you're saying the article is balanced, yet you're clearly stating that you believe one point of view contained in it, but not another? Same back and double it. :D
6/ It's hard not to see this as a convenient excuse.
7/ An awful lot has been written about Bruce. I've read about Chi Sau being dropped from JKD before, but modern JKD groups only recently to have moved away from the WC Jun Fan base. There seem to be far too many angles of approach on this one subject, that it has little relevance to this thread.
8/ I don't think it's a cop out at all. If some people want to remember Bruce as the hero that inspired them to take up Martial Arts that's fine.
It's like someone coming up and telling you something nasty about your father after he's died.
Why do it?
Bloody hell Andy, a duel! :lol
A man after my own heart. O.k let's have a look at what we have here.
1/ Here come the justifications... now I provide a resource it's a matter of "Bruce was not really at his best at this stage". Yes indeed, which is why he dumped Wing Chun.
1/ Is this assumption based on the article you posted, or your other sources?
V1.1This is based on evidence from the article which Bruce alluded to himself after that fight. It is common knowledge that this fight changed Bruces whole approach to MA's and his attitude towards styles. So yes and yes to the above and then some.
-----------------------
2/ The information is alluded to in the article where it states Lee and Wong had an agreement to keep the result secret and Lee broke that agreement. There is another article which is totally an interview with Wong Jack Man (I shall endeavour to find it)where Bruce was the one who asked that the results be kept quiet. I never said Bruce begged Wong Jack Man to keep it secret, they are *your* words not mine, so lets keep it clean!
2/ The information is alluded to, not proven. I must say, I don't believe this to be a well balanced article, no matter which magazine it was posted in.
V2.1 The information in this article alludes to what is actually a statement made very clear by Wong Jack Man (from my recollection of the interview) in the other interview with WJM. As I said when I dig this up you'll have a copy. Until then keep an open mind, otherwise your welcome to disprove the statement by any means at your disposal. Until then we may be at an impasse on this one but Wong does state that it was Bruce who broke the agreement for silence as to the outcome which may give some clues for those abstract thinkers among us. (not hopeful) *LOL*
---------------------------
3/ No, Linda said Bruce won and also made Wong Jack Man out to be a villain in the movies which is patently untrue. Wong only stated his position about the fight and said that it was not that he did not win but rather he held back because he didn't want to hurt Lee in a more permanent fashion. He had three
ocassions when he could have nailed Lee and each time he let Lee go because he saw Lee was hell bent on actually going too far.
3/ You mean the film 'Dragon'? Now come on, that's a completely factual blow by blow documentary of Bruces life, how can you possibly disagree with it?
V3.1Laugh all you like my friend but I think the bending of truth in that movie would actually come as a huge shock to most young MA's! *L* You understand that Linda's villification of WJM in the movie is a pretty heavy kind of thing to do to a person, particularly as this is only *her* side of the story which apparently can't be verified either way, but for WJM himself. Let's allow him the dignity and benefit of the doubt too eh?
------------------------
4/ In my opinion this sounds like a man with sound respect for another human being and a man who had the wisdom not to allow himself to be drawn further into a bad situation with an opponent who was unbalanced in his approach to the fight. It is also stated in the article that the fight ended more due to the fact that Lee ran out of puff and was winded, than anything else.
4/ I'd have more respect for Wong Jack Man (yet I have no disrespect for him) if he'd just kept his trap shut.
V4.1 I'm not sure why you would make this statement unless it didn't fit with your own belief's about the fight. Could you expand on this thought?
-----------------------
5/ It's clear again that even when balanced reports are supplied it only takes a little selective reading from those who still wish to suspend disbelief to get back to the comfortable position they began with.
5/ Once again, you're saying the article is balanced, yet you're clearly stating that you believe one point of view contained in it, but not another? Same back and double it.
V5.1 No, no, no... it would be easy to think that. What I am doing is playing devils advocate and trying to show that from the Movie and many other accounts written from the Lee legacy position we actually and finally have another persons side of the story and this is very important because he was actually *there*. I am merely saying is it is balanced because WJM actually has his say on what happened. You might be confusing my assertian of this fact with my comitted belief that this is the final word on it all. So I'll see your same back and double it and raise you another back atcha! *L*
---------------------------
6/ At the end of the day Wong was saying he could have nailed Lee but didn't want to end up with a prison sentence and instead spent his time playing defensive while Lee raged on recklessly. It is clear from the reports that neither man was put to ground and both were no badly hurt.
6/ It's hard not to see this as a convenient excuse.
V6.1 It actually rings true for me personally as I have been in this situation before. What do you do when you know you can finish someone off but *if* you do it the consequences may be too dire? The best thing to do is stand your ground and manage the situation until an alternative solution is achieved which suits your position best. This is basic Sun Tzu 101. ;)
------------------------------
7/ After this match Lee dropped Wing Chun while Wong Jack Man continued practising his own art. What does that tell you? I'm not going to bother spelling it out anymore because you want to see things from only one angle. Thats fine but kidding yourself is not something I would imagine is worthy of your aspiration.
7/ An awful lot has been written about Bruce. I've read about Chi Sau being dropped from JKD before, but modern JKD groups only recently to have moved away from the WC Jun Fan base. There seem to be far too many angles of approach on this one subject, that it has little relevance to this thread
V7.1 Angles are there to be discussed and hammered out, I didn't put them there though, they just appear all on their own. It does seem to be a catalyst for Lee dropping Wing Chun, this is open knowledge.
-----------------------
8/ The man rests in peace regardless of our discussion. It's a nice device for dismissing evidence but it is a bit of a cop out when all's said and done.
8/ I don't think it's a cop out at all. If some people want to remember Bruce as the hero that inspired them to take up Martial Arts that's fine. It's like someone coming up and telling you something nasty about your father after he's died. Why do it?
V8.1 Well whether it's a cop out or not may be open to speculation. In that circumstance I was stating my opinion which I am well within my right to do. If you see differently then thats also fine as there may be no absolutes one way or the other. I am certainly open to persuasion on the matter if someone can be bothered. *L* With regards to people seeing a Hero as they wish, I have no issue with that but let's look on things with a little objectivity at the very least, eh? The analogy about saying something bad about someones father after they are dead is a bit wayward, but I take your point. However if things come to light about any person after the fact or before the fact, I don't see the point in not being open to some sort of evaluation of it lest you relegate yourself to a level of fool. :)
Respectfully, Syd
Tosh
10-Nov-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Syd
Of course like most people of this mindset I'm sure you're quite happy remaining the way you are.
:D Now who's assuming things?? What's your evidence for this asumption?? Are you assuming Bruce Lee's my idol?? Or did I say I'd rather use the good things he brought. This is totally seperate from the bad.
If somone found a cure for cancer then murdered someone, I'd still use the cure.
I think you go too far in your own assumptions about what I believe and my opion.
At what point did you percieve any desperation by anyone to discover or hunt for stories? ?
Errr, 20+ years of reading tabloids and watching TV do you?
Don't take things so personally, you have to agree it's human nature to be unusually enquisitive to find "THE TRUTH". If it were not true we would not be having this conversation because you would never have found the need to post an educate us. You see where I'm coming from right? I'm not attacking you.
Who's desperate to make a point based on zero evidence here now?
Please remind me of the point I was making. I thought I was only saying I'd rather concentrate on the good things Bruce Lee brought? Maybe you interpreted another point?? :confused:
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 12:27 PM
OK, to make it easier to read, I'll stick a '*' in, along with my initials onto your existing quote.
Originally posted by Syd
Bloody hell Andy, a duel! :lol
*AM Winner gets a years free subscription to Martial Arts Planet. :D
A man after my own heart. O.k let's have a look at what we have here.
1/ Here come the justifications... now I provide a resource it's a matter of "Bruce was not really at his best at this stage". Yes indeed, which is why he dumped Wing Chun.
1/ Is this assumption based on the article you posted, or your other sources?
V1.1This is based on evidence from the article which Bruce alluded to himself after that fight. It is common knowledge that this fight changed Bruces whole approach to MA's and his attitude towards styles. So yes and yes to the above and then some.
*AM Yet despite the vague attempt to offer a balanced view, mentions of Linda Lee and Chen, seem only to serve to justify the authors comments from WJM's perspective. The latter part of the article is littered with them. There's a pattern here, synonymous with what others have written in the past. the common theme seems to be people making themselves look good by 'cashing in' on Bruce. William Cheung, Ed Parker, Joe Lewis oh and some Hapkido guy who reckons Bruce learned all his kicking there. If you believe everything you read, then Bruce was all hype, without an original thought in his head.
-----------------------
2/ The information is alluded to in the article where it states Lee and Wong had an agreement to keep the result secret and Lee broke that agreement. There is another article which is totally an interview with Wong Jack Man (I shall endeavour to find it)where Bruce was the one who asked that the results be kept quiet. I never said Bruce begged Wong Jack Man to keep it secret, they are *your* words not mine, so lets keep it clean!
2/ The information is alluded to, not proven. I must say, I don't believe this to be a well balanced article, no matter which magazine it was posted in.
V2.1 The information in this article alludes to what is actually a statement made very clear by Wong Jack Man (from my recollection of the interview) in the other interview with WJM. As I said when I dig this up you'll have a copy. Until then keep an open mind, otherwise your welcome to disprove the statement by any means at your disposal. Until then we may be at an impasse on this one but Wong does state that it was Bruce who broke the agreement for silence as to the outcome which may give some clues for those abstract thinkers among us. (not hopeful) *LOL*
*AM It would indeed be foolish of me not to maintain an open mind on all this, as no one has all the facts at their disposal. Objectivity remains of paramount importance to me.
---------------------------
3/ No, Linda said Bruce won and also made Wong Jack Man out to be a villain in the movies which is patently untrue. Wong only stated his position about the fight and said that it was not that he did not win but rather he held back because he didn't want to hurt Lee in a more permanent fashion. He had three
ocassions when he could have nailed Lee and each time he let Lee go because he saw Lee was hell bent on actually going too far.
3/ You mean the film 'Dragon'? Now come on, that's a completely factual blow by blow documentary of Bruces life, how can you possibly disagree with it?
V3.1Laugh all you like my friend but I think the bending of truth in that movie would actually come as a huge shock to most young MA's! *L* You understand that Linda's villification of WJM in the movie is a pretty heavy kind of thing to do to a person, particularly as this is only *her* side of the story which apparently can't be verified either way, but for WJM himself. Let's allow him the dignity and benefit of the doubt too eh?
*AM I don't recall though, was WJM actually named in that film?
------------------------
4/ In my opinion this sounds like a man with sound respect for another human being and a man who had the wisdom not to allow himself to be drawn further into a bad situation with an opponent who was unbalanced in his approach to the fight. It is also stated in the article that the fight ended more due to the fact that Lee ran out of puff and was winded, than anything else.
4/ I'd have more respect for Wong Jack Man (yet I have no disrespect for him) if he'd just kept his trap shut.
V4.1 I'm not sure why you would make this statement unless it didn't fit with your own belief's about the fight. Could you expand on this thought?
*AM I don't have any beliefs about the fight one way or the other. I've read Linda's book. One thing I do believe from that and other sources, is that Bruce hadn't done much to put his affairs in order, and she has to take some of the blame for the myths and hype created in her own efforts for financial survival.
I suppose it stems from the article again. It says 1980, so did WJM make this statement before or after BL's death? If it was after, then like I said, he would have been better to not have said anything.
-----------------------
5/ It's clear again that even when balanced reports are supplied it only takes a little selective reading from those who still wish to suspend disbelief to get back to the comfortable position they began with.
5/ Once again, you're saying the article is balanced, yet you're clearly stating that you believe one point of view contained in it, but not another? Same back and double it.
V5.1 No, no, no... it would be easy to think that. What I am doing is playing devils advocate and trying to show that from the Movie and many other accounts written from the Lee legacy position we actually and finally have another persons side of the story and this is very important because he was actually *there*. I am merely saying is it is balanced because WJM actually has his say on what happened. You might be confusing my assertian of this fact with my comitted belief that this is the final word on it all. So I'll see your same back and double it and raise you another back atcha! *L*
*AM Devils Advocate is my job here LOL ;)
This balanced view that's so important. Isn't it true that by large. much of the misinformation surrounding BL isn't attributable to him, but to media sensationalism, past and present, taking advantage of all who are deemed to have breathed the same air as the guy?
---------------------------
6/ At the end of the day Wong was saying he could have nailed Lee but didn't want to end up with a prison sentence and instead spent his time playing defensive while Lee raged on recklessly. It is clear from the reports that neither man was put to ground and both were no badly hurt.
6/ It's hard not to see this as a convenient excuse.
V6.1 It actually rings true for me personally as I have been in this situation before. What do you do when you know you can finish someone off but *if* you do it the consequences may be too dire? The best thing to do is stand your ground and manage the situation until an alternative solution is achieved which suits your position best. This is basic Sun Tzu 101.
*AM Yet WJM can only blame himself for getting into this situation in the first place?
------------------------------
7/ After this match Lee dropped Wing Chun while Wong Jack Man continued practising his own art. What does that tell you? I'm not going to bother spelling it out anymore because you want to see things from only one angle. Thats fine but kidding yourself is not something I would imagine is worthy of your aspiration.
7/ An awful lot has been written about Bruce. I've read about Chi Sau being dropped from JKD before, but modern JKD groups only recently to have moved away from the WC Jun Fan base. There seem to be far too many angles of approach on this one subject, that it has little relevance to this thread
V7.1 Angles are there to be discussed and hammered out, I didn't put them there though, they just appear all on their own. It does seem to be a catalyst for Lee dropping Wing Chun, this is open knowledge.
*AM I'm hoping one of our long toothed JKD people can show some light on that. YODAAAAAaaaaaa!
-----------------------
8/ The man rests in peace regardless of our discussion. It's a nice device for dismissing evidence but it is a bit of a cop out when all's said and done.
8/ I don't think it's a cop out at all. If some people want to remember Bruce as the hero that inspired them to take up Martial Arts that's fine. It's like someone coming up and telling you something nasty about your father after he's died. Why do it?
V8.1 Well whether it's a cop out or not may be open to speculation. In that circumstance I was stating my opinion which I am well within my right to do. If you see differently then thats also fine as there may be no absolutes one way or the other. I am certainly open to persuasion on the matter if someone can be bothered. *L* With regards to people seeing a Hero as they wish, I have no issue with that but let's look on things with a little objectivity at the very least, eh? The analogy about saying something bad about someones father after they are dead is a bit wayward, but I take your point. However if things come to light about any person after the fact or before the fact, I don't see the point in not being open to some sort of evaluation of it lest you relegate yourself to a level of fool.
*AM I am open to discussing it personally, see above. I merely pointed out the way some members here feel about the subject. That's hardly foolish :D
Respectfully, Syd
*AM Likewise, Andy ;)
Tosh,
Nice to see the humours of your response at last. Let me respond in like kind.
Now who's assuming things?? What's your evidence for this asumption?? Are you assuming Bruce Lee's my idol?? Or did I say I'd rather use the good things he brought. This is totally seperate from the bad.
Your statement did seem to indicate such. What it appeared you were not open to was the possibility of other kinds of information on BL being true or of any worth at all. This was the basis of my statement and I did say by all means go ahead and look only on the good if this is your standard. :)
If somone found a cure for cancer then murdered someone, I'd still use the cure.
I can't disagree with this logic.
I think you go too far in your own assumptions about what I believe and my opion.
Well based on the limited information you provided in your very short responses I was left to draw my own conclusions. I am open to further evidence that it is otherwise. :)
Errr, 20+ years of reading tabloids and watching TV do you?
I'm still not sure what, who or how this relates to our discussion. You seemed to be suggesting that people in this forum, perhaps myself were desperate to hunt for dirt on BL. Are you saying tabloids are responsible for peoples sensationalistic views on BL? I thought the officially sanctioned film DRAGON was worthy of Tabloidal styled journalism personally! *L*
Don't take things so personally,
If I was taking things personally I wouldn't have replied to absolutely everybody who has posted. I have merely been a mirror to those who have posted to me and nothing more.
you have to agree it's human nature to be unusually enquisitive to find "THE TRUTH".
I've never implied otherwise and infact I've been the only one defending the human right to seek it out, rather than just accepting the party line on these topics. You might have overlooked that somewhere.
If it were not true we would not be having this conversation because you would never have found the need to post an educate us. You see where I'm coming from right? I'm not attacking you.
*L* Oh yes... I see where your coming from. I never felt attacked but thanks for the warm and fuzzies anyway. ;)
Please remind me of the point I was making. I thought I was only saying I'd rather concentrate on the good things Bruce Lee brought? Maybe you interpreted another point??
I think we're pretty clear on this now, I'd only be repeating myself.
Best, Syd
I'll do likewise with two ** and my name where responding.
Bloody hell Andy, a duel! :lol
*AM Winner gets a years free subscription to Martial Arts Planet.
**SYD -Invest in loss my friend that's the real key! ;)
A man after my own heart. O.k let's have a look at what we have here.
1/ Here come the justifications... now I provide a resource it's a matter of "Bruce was not really at his best at this stage". Yes indeed, which is why he dumped Wing Chun.
1/ Is this assumption based on the article you posted, or your other sources?
V1.1This is based on evidence from the article which Bruce alluded to himself after that fight. It is common knowledge that this fight changed Bruces whole approach to MA's and his attitude towards styles. So yes and yes to the above and then some.
*AM Yet despite the vague attempt to offer a balanced view, mentions of Linda Lee and Chen, seem only to serve to justify the authors comments from WJM's perspective. The latter part of the article is littered with them. There's a pattern here, synonymous with what others have written in the past. the common theme seems to be people making themselves look good by 'cashing in' on Bruce. William Cheung, Ed Parker, Joe Lewis oh and some Hapkido guy who reckons Bruce learned all his kicking there. If you believe everything you read, then Bruce was all hype, without an original thought in his head.
**SYD - I'll just settle for somebody else having an opinion that balances the unprovable assertian that Bruce kicked WJM's arse and held him to the ground say "do you give up!" as was shown in the movie.
-----------------------
2/ The information is alluded to in the article where it states Lee and Wong had an agreement to keep the result secret and Lee broke that agreement. There is another article which is totally an interview with Wong Jack Man (I shall endeavour to find it)where Bruce was the one who asked that the results be kept quiet. I never said Bruce begged Wong Jack Man to keep it secret, they are *your* words not mine, so lets keep it clean!
2/ The information is alluded to, not proven. I must say, I don't believe this to be a well balanced article, no matter which magazine it was posted in.
V2.1 The information in this article alludes to what is actually a statement made very clear by Wong Jack Man (from my recollection of the interview) in the other interview with WJM. As I said when I dig this up you'll have a copy. Until then keep an open mind, otherwise your welcome to disprove the statement by any means at your disposal. Until then we may be at an impasse on this one but Wong does state that it was Bruce who broke the agreement for silence as to the outcome which may give some clues for those abstract thinkers among us. (not hopeful) *LOL*
*AM It would indeed be foolish of me not to maintain an open mind on all this, as no one has all the facts at their disposal. Objectivity remains of paramount importance to me.
**SYD - We are both in mutual harmony on this point
---------------------------
3/ No, Linda said Bruce won and also made Wong Jack Man out to be a villain in the movies which is patently untrue. Wong only stated his position about the fight and said that it was not that he did not win but rather he held back because he didn't want to hurt Lee in a more permanent fashion. He had three
ocassions when he could have nailed Lee and each time he let Lee go because he saw Lee was hell bent on actually going too far.
3/ You mean the film 'Dragon'? Now come on, that's a completely factual blow by blow documentary of Bruces life, how can you possibly disagree with it?
V3.1Laugh all you like my friend but I think the bending of truth in that movie would actually come as a huge shock to most young MA's! *L* You understand that Linda's villification of WJM in the movie is a pretty heavy kind of thing to do to a person, particularly as this is only *her* side of the story which apparently can't be verified either way, but for WJM himself. Let's allow him the dignity and benefit of the doubt too eh?
*AM I don't recall though, was WJM actually named in that film?
**SYD - No he wasn't but anybody who knows about the story of the fight with WJM knows who he represents. It's like giving a guy a big red fat suit at christmas with a white beard who rides a sleigh with reindeer, the name Bob. *L*
------------------------
4/ In my opinion this sounds like a man with sound respect for another human being and a man who had the wisdom not to allow himself to be drawn further into a bad situation with an opponent who was unbalanced in his approach to the fight. It is also stated in the article that the fight ended more due to the fact that Lee ran out of puff and was winded, than anything else.
4/ I'd have more respect for Wong Jack Man (yet I have no disrespect for him) if he'd just kept his trap shut.
V4.1 I'm not sure why you would make this statement unless it didn't fit with your own belief's about the fight. Could you expand on this thought?
*AM I don't have any beliefs about the fight one way or the other. I've read Linda's book. One thing I do believe from that and other sources, is that Bruce hadn't done much to put his affairs in order, and she has to take some of the blame for the myths and hype created in her own efforts for financial survival. I suppose it stems from the article again. It says 1980, so did WJM make this statement before or after BL's death? If it was after, then like I said, he would have been better to not have said anything.
**SYD - Thats a good question and one that I'll try and find an answer to. I do recall the interview with WJM maybe being in the late 60's (?) though I can't recall. The article from the Black Belt mag is 1980 but the other interview with WJM I think is late 60's.
-----------------------
5/ It's clear again that even when balanced reports are supplied it only takes a little selective reading from those who still wish to suspend disbelief to get back to the comfortable position they began with.
5/ Once again, you're saying the article is balanced, yet you're clearly stating that you believe one point of view contained in it, but not another? Same back and double it.
V5.1 No, no, no... it would be easy to think that. What I am doing is playing devils advocate and trying to show that from the Movie and many other accounts written from the Lee legacy position we actually and finally have another persons side of the story and this is very important because he was actually *there*. I am merely saying is it is balanced because WJM actually has his say on what happened. You might be confusing my assertian of this fact with my comitted belief that this is the final word on it all. So I'll see your same back and double it and raise you another back atcha! *L*
*AM Devils Advocate is my job here LOL This balanced view that's so important. Isn't it true that by large. much of the misinformation surrounding BL isn't attributable to him, but to media sensationalism, past and present, taking advantage of all who are deemed to have breathed the same air as the guy?
**SYD - Well that would be like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house wouldn't it? I mean it would be like saying that the only information we can believe about Bruce is the information that comes *only* from Bruce. We have people who knew Bruce and were around Bruce and in WJM's case we have someone who fought him. Tabloids and news papers need to base their information on some semblance of facts most of the time also, even if they do get bent out of shape.
---------------------------
6/ At the end of the day Wong was saying he could have nailed Lee but didn't want to end up with a prison sentence and instead spent his time playing defensive while Lee raged on recklessly. It is clear from the reports that neither man was put to ground and both were no badly hurt.
6/ It's hard not to see this as a convenient excuse.
V6.1 It actually rings true for me personally as I have been in this situation before. What do you do when you know you can finish someone off but *if* you do it the consequences may be too dire? The best thing to do is stand your ground and manage the situation until an alternative solution is achieved which suits your position best. This is basic Sun Tzu 101.
*AM Yet WJM can only blame himself for getting into this situation in the first place?
**SYD - Indeed but it was said in the article that WJM wanted to begin by discussing some pre-arranged rules for the match that would not allow it to get out of hand and be more like a gentlemans contest. Bruce it is reported wouldn't have a bar of it and went off! This doesn't show a great balance of character and infact he mentioned that WJM was a dead man etc. Clearly WJM had a different kind of contest in mind in which nobody would get killed but BL had other idea's. In any case he didn't get very close to executing them either because both men went away un-harmed. A far cry from Bruce having WJM on the ground in submission and screaming "Do you give up?!"
------------------------------
7/ After this match Lee dropped Wing Chun while Wong Jack Man continued practising his own art. What does that tell you? I'm not going to bother spelling it out anymore because you want to see things from only one angle. Thats fine but kidding yourself is not something I would imagine is worthy of your aspiration.
7/ An awful lot has been written about Bruce. I've read about Chi Sau being dropped from JKD before, but modern JKD groups only recently to have moved away from the WC Jun Fan base. There seem to be far too many angles of approach on this one subject, that it has little relevance to this thread
V7.1 Angles are there to be discussed and hammered out, I didn't put them there though, they just appear all on their own. It does seem to be a catalyst for Lee dropping Wing Chun, this is open knowledge.
*AM I'm hoping one of our long toothed JKD people can show some light on that. YODAAAAAaaaaaa!
**SYD - I would like to hear from others within the art also. KERMIT!!!!!! *L*
-----------------------
8/ The man rests in peace regardless of our discussion. It's a nice device for dismissing evidence but it is a bit of a cop out when all's said and done.
8/ I don't think it's a cop out at all. If some people want to remember Bruce as the hero that inspired them to take up Martial Arts that's fine. It's like someone coming up and telling you something nasty about your father after he's died. Why do it?
V8.1 Well whether it's a cop out or not may be open to speculation. In that circumstance I was stating my opinion which I am well within my right to do. If you see differently then thats also fine as there may be no absolutes one way or the other. I am certainly open to persuasion on the matter if someone can be bothered. *L* With regards to people seeing a Hero as they wish, I have no issue with that but let's look on things with a little objectivity at the very least, eh? The analogy about saying something bad about someones father after they are dead is a bit wayward, but I take your point. However if things come to light about any person after the fact or before the fact, I don't see the point in not being open to some sort of evaluation of it lest you relegate yourself to a level of fool.
*AM I am open to discussing it personally, see above. I merely pointed out the way some members here feel about the subject. That's hardly foolish
**SYD - When I say *you* I am not personalising it but rather you can read *one* or such a person for the use of *you* instead. I wasn't calling you a fool but rather stateing that it is a bit foolish to ignore information in favour of only a fixed view point, that was all :)
Respectfully, Syd
*AM Likewise, Andy
** Back atcha, Syd
Believe it or not I am off to watch Fists Of Fury... my all time favourite! Yeehawww! *L*
Best to all, Syd
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Syd
I'll do likewise with two ** and my name where responding.
Dang, it's gotten too big for the 'quote function :D
Call me **AM.
*AM Yet despite the vague attempt to offer a balanced view, mentions of Linda Lee and Chen, seem only to serve to justify the authors comments from WJM's perspective. The latter part of the article is littered with them. There's a pattern here, synonymous with what others have written in the past. the common theme seems to be people making themselves look good by 'cashing in' on Bruce. William Cheung, Ed Parker, Joe Lewis oh and some Hapkido guy who reckons Bruce learned all his kicking there. If you believe everything you read, then Bruce was all hype, without an original thought in his head.
**SYD - I'll just settle for somebody else having an opinion that balances the unprovable assertian that Bruce kicked WJM's arse and held him to the ground say "do you give up!" as was shown in the movie.
**AM I think that's fair enough.
*AM I don't recall though, was WJM actually named in that film?
**SYD - No he wasn't but anybody who knows about the story of the fight with WJM knows who he represents. It's like giving a guy a big red fat suit at christmas with a white beard who rides a sleigh with reindeer, the name Bob. *L*
**AM LOL, Well if they didn't before, they do now! :D
*AM Devils Advocate is my job here LOL This balanced view that's so important. Isn't it true that by large. much of the misinformation surrounding BL isn't attributable to him, but to media sensationalism, past and present, taking advantage of all who are deemed to have breathed the same air as the guy?
**SYD - Well that would be like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house wouldn't it? I mean it would be like saying that the only information we can believe about Bruce is the information that comes *only* from Bruce. We have people who knew Bruce and were around Bruce and in WJM's case we have someone who fought him. Tabloids and news papers need to base their information on some semblance of facts most of the time also, even if they do get bent out of shape.
**AM That's just it, how van anyone untangle the Gordion knot that's been tied. Alexanders approach seems to be best here.
*AM Yet WJM can only blame himself for getting into this situation in the first place?
**SYD - Indeed but it was said in the article that WJM wanted to begin by discussing some pre-arranged rules for the match that would not allow it to get out of hand and be more like a gentlemans contest. Bruce it is reported wouldn't have a bar of it and went off! This doesn't show a great balance of character and infact he mentioned that WJM was a dead man etc. Clearly WJM had a different kind of contest in mind in which nobody would get killed but BL had other idea's. In any case he didn't get very close to executing them either because both men went away un-harmed. A far cry from Bruce having WJM on the ground in submission and screaming "Do you give up?!"
**AM Who in their right mind is going to expect to be able to lay down rules in a challenge match between two egotistical 24 year olds? It's hard enough moderating them on a forum. :D You really hated 'Dragon' didn't you. :D
*AM I'm hoping one of our long toothed JKD people can show some light on that. YODAAAAAaaaaaa!
**SYD - I would like to hear from others within the art also. KERMIT!!!!!! *L*
LOL, YODA is one of the other Mods here. His input is probably useful in terms of his longevity in JKD. He's got the annoying habit of being able to pull out all the articles on Bruce under the sun. ;)
Regards
Andy
Tosh
10-Nov-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Syd
Well based on the limited information you provided in your very short responses I was left to draw my own conclusions. I am open to further evidence that it is otherwise. :)
Well now you know the style I post in, and I know the style you post in, so confusion can stop raining and we can concentrate on getting dry ;)
P.s Think that's maybe too long a post ;)
hobbes
10-Nov-2003, 02:00 PM
i heard he died from a hernia, from carring all that money to the bank
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 02:05 PM
*sniff sniff*
Did someone just fart in here? :D
G'daisy Andy! :)
You really hated 'Dragon' didn't you
I hate to say it but for pure popcorn factor entertainment it's one of my favourites. The thing is though before watching it I have to go into a deep Qigong meditation in order to transport my self to a paralell universe where everything run's backwards. *L*
Seriously I love the movie, but I treat it as a very sloppy biography, more fictional than anything else.
By the way I knew Yoda was a forum member I was just kidding with the Kermit remark... that'll get back! ;)
Best as ever, Syd
Cain
10-Nov-2003, 02:32 PM
i heard he died from a hernia, from carring all that money to the bank
Yeesh! The romours just don't stop do they? :rolleyes:
lol@syd, you really do try hard to bring out that story don't you? ;)
|Cain|
Just a couple of quotes which may be of interest regarding the fight...
According to Wong, immediately following the match Lee had asked that neither man discuss it. Discussion would lead to more argument over who had won, a matter which could never be resolved as there had been no judges. Wong said he agreed.
But within a couple of weeks, he says, Lee violated the agreement by claiming in an interview that he had defeated an unnamed challenger. Though Lee had not identified Wong as the loser, Wong says it was obvious to all of Chinatown that Lee was speaking of Wong. It had already become common knowledge within the Chinese community that the two had fought. In response to Lee’s interview, Wong wrote a detailed description of the fight which concluded with an open invitation to Lee to meet him for a public bout if Lee was not satisfied with Wong’s account. Wong’s version of the fight, along with the challenge, was run as the top story on the front page of San Francisco’s Chinese language Chinese Pacific Weekly. But Bruce Lee, despite his reputation for responding with fists of fury to the slightest provocation, remained silent.
Note that this ran in the Chinese Pacific Weekly and Lee did not respond. Also regarding the fight this statement shows that Wong did not use his deadliest weapons and held back during the encounter. This is not a statement from Wong himself but it comes from Chen a bystander who was at the fight.
Chen describes the outcome of the battle as "a tie." He adds, however, that whereas an enraged Bruce Lee had charged Wong "like a mad bull," obviously intent upon doing him serious injury. Wong had displayed extraordinary restraint by never employing what were perhaps his most dangerous weapons - his devastating kicks.
and...
A principal difference between northern and southern Chinese fighting styles is that the northern styles give much more emphasis to kicking, and Northern Shaolin had armed Wong with kicks of blinding speeds and crushing power. But before the fight, recalls Chen, "Sifu Wong said he would not use his kicks; he thought they were too dangerous." And despite the dangerous developments that followed that pledge, Chen adds that Wong "kept his word." Though Chen’s recollections exhaust the firsthand accounts, there are further fragments of evidence to indicate how the fight ended.
I just wanted to emphasize these accounts as they come from a 3rd party present at the match and would serve to substatiate Wong's position.
Best, Syd ;)
Here's an intro to the article I found earlier from a student Wong Jack Mans which might shed some more light...
Sifu Jack Man Wong was and still is my teacher and guide in Chinese Martial Arts. For those who know, he is the highest level instructor of Kung Fu and Hsing Yi in this country and is on a par level with William CC Chen of New York in Tai Chi.
I am beyond grateful for his instruction and friendship, and my students reflect this gratitude back at me for the high level instruction I am able to offer them.
Many people interested in Kung Fu will ask me about the contest that Sifu Wong had with Bruce Lee. It is true that Sifu Wong crossed paths with Bruce Lee, the two having a fight/test of skill/debacle that both men apparently regretted having.
The two most widely known versions of the story have been put forth by Sifu Wong and Linda Lee. Both are considered to be subject to a lack of objectivity, Linda for financial reasons, Sifu Wong for reputation.
I know Sifu Wong would rather be remembered for his excellence as both an instructor and a practitioner of Chinese Martial Arts than this fight. I can remember waiting for a table in an Oakland Chinatown restaurant with Sifu Wong when the owner of the restaurant, an older Chinese man, approached me.
"You study Kung Fu with Sifu Wong?"
"Yes."
(Miming a two-handed sword stroke)"Oh, he's so powerful. Very famous..."
"Yes, he's..."
"He's very famous for his kindness to all people."
The restaurant owner was right. Sifu Wong had a multi-racial class that he delighted in. In 14 years of being in his class, I never saw him engage in any sort of behavior other than a willingness to share his art with any honorable, interested student, REGARDLESS OF RACE.
Sifu Wong will rarely discuss the fight, but did so on the odd occassion. I believe his story, as it most accurately reflects what would happen in a real fight.
Linda's story reeks of the sort myth-making one would expect for someone who is interested in profitting from her husband's legacy, the financial incentive being astronomical when one considers how much of a cottage industry has sprung up around Bruce Lee.
On one level, her story lacks credibility, primarily by painting Sifu Wong as a racist who did not want the Chinese Martial Arts to be shared with Caucasions. By mythologizing Bruce Lee as the man who opened up Kung Fu to non-Chinese, she has ensured a steady cash flow from an unsuspecting public who doesn't know any better.
The horror of all of this is that it was done at the expense of a good hearted Kung Fu Master, one who was more than willing to restore his reputation about the fight by inviting the general public to watch a rematch for free (this was issued in the Chinese Pacific Weekly shortly after so-called details of the fight were publicized). For whatever reason, Bruce Lee opted not to meet Sifu Wong after the publishing of the invite for a second public match.
The following article is the only intelligent discussion I have read about the fight. Most of the articles published previously are by Bruce Lee devotees paraphrasing Linda Lee's story without interviewing any of the witnesses.
One person who knew Bruce well enough to see him that day after the fight corresponded with me when we first posted this article, writing:
* At no time was RACISM ever a factor in the fight!
* The fight came about because of Bruce Lee's big mouth - and his constant criticism of the "Gong-fu" being taught in SF's China Town!
* This is the content of the challenge letter - delivered by a "second":
o "Dear Mr Lee; We understand you have a set of hands called Wing Chun Pai! We have a representative who would like to exchange hands with you!" (Wong refused to kick Bruce, which the article details.)
* Bruce Lee's exact words to me - I wrote them down over 32 years ago!
o In all honesty no one won the fight!
o He (Wong) made me look bad!
o He (Wong) had no Class!
o The fight lasted 20-25 minutes!
Myths die hard, if at all. It is my hope that Sifu Wong's legacy will be one based on the truth and not the need to deify Bruce Lee, whether for profit or the reputation of his art.
The plot thickens...
Best, Syd :)
johndoch
10-Nov-2003, 04:03 PM
Whats the point of all this anyways??? I thought the thread was about how BL died.
Now it seems people are chasing their tails trying to work out who won this fight. When its blatently obvious that nobodys going to change their mind on the subject.
Show me the tape of the fight and then we could discuss this seriously.
Tsk Tsk, relax, it's all grist for the mill. Your protestations show a total lack of objectivity. :) I'll keep posting what I wish on the topic for as long as I can provide various pieces of objective or subjective reports which serve to shed more light. If you don't like it I suggest you don't read it.
By the way topics transform and often grow beyond the initial subject, such is the nature of conversation... it's all organic baby... so chill *L*
johndoch
10-Nov-2003, 04:23 PM
No what Iam saying is if you want to discuss a certain subject then start a thread on it then people that are interested can at least find it. Rather than hiding it under a different title.
But that must be my lack of objectivity talking.
And I dont think theres any point discussing a fight when practically nobody saw it.
Come on how many boxing matches have you seen that have had bad decisions made on them
Cain
10-Nov-2003, 04:50 PM
It is my hope that Sifu Wong's legacy will be one based on the truth and not the need to deify Bruce Lee, whether for profit or the reputation of his art.
errr......I think I see now why you are after this particular fight so long and hard ;)
|Cain|
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 05:23 PM
Syd mate,
you need to quote the sources of the material you are using please. Not just the people, but the dates and whether it is verbatim, or assimilated from second hand information.
Otherwise, sadly, what comes over is that you are not being objective, but rather flying Wong Jack Mans flag for him.
John,
No what Iam saying is if you want to discuss a certain subject then start a thread on it then people that are interested can at least find it. Rather than hiding it under a different title.
I'll resist the urge to spit my herbal tea allover the monitor. Are you kidding about hiding the thread under a different title? *LOL* It's just the way this thread evolved, I couldn't be bothered starting a new because the discussion has been right here. Who cares who finds it and who doesn't? Those that will, will and those that won't wont.
But that must be my lack of objectivity talking.
Or perhaps a lack of reason.
And I dont think theres any point discussing a fight when practically nobody saw it.
Linda Lee saw it Wong Jack Man was in it, Willian Chen saw it and has commented on it. There were 13 people there from Linda Lee's end and about 7 from Wong Jack Mans. The reason so few saw it is because it was a secret match... go figure huh?
Come on how many boxing matches have you seen that have had bad decisions made on them
This wasn't a boxing match and the decision was pretty mutual from both parties based on an agreement *not* some official with allot of money in the back pocket.
Syd...
Cain,
errr......I think I see now why you are after this particular fight so long and hard
I don't think you see anything at all actually. I found this information online after the fact, indeed well after my earlier statements. I posted it as an after thought because of the statements within. :)
Andy,
you need to quote the sources of the material you are using please. Not just the people, but the dates and whether it is verbatim, or assimilated from second hand information.
I'm not sure what you are reffering to but with regards the last posted info by a student of Wong Jack Man here is the link to his site where the statements were made. Look in articles if you care. You'll have to ask the author of those last statements who provided the quotes by Lee (unsubstantiated).
The statements are either attributable to Daniel Carr or someone from or connected to his organisation.
Otherwise, sadly, what comes over is that you are not being objective, but rather flying Wong Jack Mans flag for him.
Why not? There are many more who without substantiation are happilly free to fly the flag of Wong Jack Mans ill nature on behalf of Bruce Lee's fraternity, without substatiation. I am merely challenging the status quo, no biggy for those without a vested interest.
But again I am playing devils advocate and you are again mistaking one for the other. I am merely tossing information that has been sorely lacking into the balance. It seems that this upsets quite a few peoples sense of the Bruce Lee status quo... sacred cows will always produce such an effect... sadly.
here, go fetch everybody *L* http://www.lakungfu.com/index.html#info
OBJECTIVITY people....:)
Andy Murray
10-Nov-2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Syd
Why not? There are many more who without substantiation are happilly free to fly the flag of Wong Jack Mans ill nature on behalf of Bruce Lee's fraternity, without substatiation. I am merely challenging the status quo, no biggy for those without a vested interest.
[/B]
Not here there aren't. No ones dissed WJM to my knowledge.
Remember before. We talked about whether statements were made before or after BL's death. You have to take that into account if you want to be objective.
Thanks for the link to the article, I'll look into it and come back to you as soon as I can.
The thread was split off from the original one, because we try to make sure discussions remain loosely based on the thread starters topic, which was originally 'How Bruce died'.
Speak soon,
Andy
Tireces
10-Nov-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Syd
Tireces...
Can you disprove that Wong Jack Man was Bruces equal and actually bettered him? Why would Bruce dump Wing Chun if it worked so well? It was Wing Chun that Bruce used when he fought Wong Jack Man. When you can disprove it then you'll be able to call it nonsense, until then your lack of an open mind and dogmatic belief otherwise is infact completely at odd's with Bruces own philosophy and style of thought. You just aced yourself... ace!
Can you disprove that Bruce was Wong Jack Man's equal and actually bettered him? For all we can be SURE of, the two may have turned into giant bears and decided to go at it sumo-style. It happened a good long while ago, and likely all witness' views are blurry, and somewhat tainted by their biases (IE, Linda's portrayal of the fight as the most brutal squashing there ever was). And Bruce didnt just flat out "drop" Wing Chun. Supposedly, what that fight actually did was teach him the importance of heavy physical conditioning, not prompt him to alter how he fought. Though he likely did find it limitting. As for telling me just what kind of fellow I truly believe Bruce was, thanks for telling me how I think. I'm sure you're quite the expert on the subject, whereas Im in the dark. The fact of the matter is, what you've presented was a case for Bruce Lee being a fake, or some nonsense like that. Even if the true account were actually like Ms. Lee's, except the roles had been REVERSED, would it have made Bruce a "fake"? No. A lot can happen in one year. And a whole lot can happen in nine, especially when you're talking about someone who was such a zealot about how he trained. If every martial artist who'd ever lost a fight or sparring match of any kind was forced to give up, god knows where it'd all be now. Certainly in the pits. The fact of the matter is, youre simply doing the exact reverse of the "Bruce Lee was a god" people. And thats not any better.
Cain
11-Nov-2003, 02:38 AM
Still we come back to square one don't we? ;)
The witnesses' version of the fight is pretty blurry which is obvious by reading the article and also on it biased on chi powers ;)
And there were 13 witnesses but only two came out? Linda Lee and William Chen, no doubt biased towards each of the fighters. If the rest of the witnesses are keeping their mouth shut I'd respect them more for keeping their word rather than wong, linda or chen IMO
Even if wong totally beat him what's the point???? The fact still remains Bruce's one of the most talked about and an awesome martial artist of his time.
Edit - Here's how I see the whole thing -
1/ There's only one article with a detailed version of the fight
2/ Wong says he won, Linda says Bruce won, Chen said they tied
3/ Wong says there were 7 people, Linda says 13, Chen says 15
4/ Supposedly according to the article if they fought later after Bruce reached his peak, Wong's "chi" powers would have rendered him almost invincible.
5/ It's still not clear why they fought
5/ From reading several articles we come to the conclusion Wong's not a racist [I believe this]
6/ When asked to give another article on the fight Wong declined it - http://www.bruceleecentral.com/cutecast/cutecast.pl?forum=6&thread=26
|Cain|
Andy,
Not here there aren't. No ones dissed WJM to my knowledge.
The dissing comes in the knee-jerk assumption by most people that Bruce took Wong down, had him running around a studio and then had him begging on the mat.
Remember before. We talked about whether statements were made before or after BL's death. You have to take that into account if you want to be objective.
I am being totally objective, just trying to present the Wong side of things to balance out nearly 40 years of unsubstatiated stories about it that have *ONLY* come from the Lee side of things. Again Wong offered Lee a chance in the Pacific News, FRONT PAGE, to fight publicly if he didn't like Wong's thoughts on the outcome of the previous match... again Lee was silent.
People who can only cope within a limited paradigm have to have a bad guy and can't understand that I am only playing devils advocate in presenting *other* kinds of information which might shed light on the contest from the *other* parties perspective. That seems fairly innocuous to me but as usual people have to have a bad guy because they don't like having their concept of Bruce challenged or perhaps altered. :)
Thanks for the link to the article, I'll look into it and come back to you as soon as I can.
No worries...
The thread was split off from the original one, because we try to make sure discussions remain loosely based on the thread starters topic, which was originally 'How Bruce died'.
The thread evolved like most discussions and took a different turn but it is still highly informative and relative to those interested in Bruce Lee's life. Infact it discusses a turning point in his MA' career which is pivotal. If I was a brand new forum member and I ran across this discussion I would think it was one hell of a good read.
Speak soon,
Sure... Syd
__________________
Tireces...
It happened a good long while ago, and likely all witness' views are blurry, and somewhat tainted by their biases (IE, Linda's portrayal of the fight as the most brutal squashing there ever was).
Well this is an objective view which is all I have been trying to encourage.
And Bruce didnt just flat out "drop" Wing Chun. Supposedly, what that fight actually did was teach him the importance of heavy physical conditioning, not prompt him to alter how he fought. Though he likely did find it limitting.
That may be another subject open for debate. He made statements in other interviews which go further than that.
As for telling me just what kind of fellow I truly believe Bruce was, thanks for telling me how I think. I'm sure you're quite the expert on the subject, whereas Im in the dark.
Pleasure...
The fact of the matter is, what you've presented was a case for Bruce Lee being a fake,
No, I've merely presented a different side of the story for peoples perusal. I'm only asking that people survey the other bits of information and maintain and open mind. The conclusions you draw are all your own.
or some nonsense like that.
It's easy to say nonsense and wipe everything off the table isn't it? Thats a sign of an open mind for sure! *L*
Even if the true account were actually like Ms. Lee's, except the roles had been REVERSED, would it have made Bruce a "fake"?
Your obsessed with seeing things that aren't there. *LOL* I never called Lee a fake or anybody else, this is your perception and nothing more. It is wrong.
No. A lot can happen in one year. And a whole lot can happen in nine, especially when you're talking about someone who was such a zealot about how he trained. If every martial artist who'd ever lost a fight or sparring match of any kind was forced to give up, god knows where it'd all be now.
Uh huh...
Certainly in the pits. The fact of the matter is, youre simply doing the exact reverse of the "Bruce Lee was a god" people. And thats not any better.
You are clearly limited to the understanding of your paradigm and can't see anyone presenting another side to a story as devils advocate. You need a bad guy and your determined to place me in that box because it's easier for you to deal with this discussion that way. All I can say is if you can get past that limitation and read carefully what I have said you may actually cotton on to the spirit of my candour.
Best, Syd
Cain,
Still we come back to square one don't we?
Well thats up to each individual to decide.
The witnesses' version of the fight is pretty blurry which is obvious by reading the article and also on it biased on chi powers
Hmmm I don't think it is biased on Qi powers at all. It merely presents information about Qi and it's cultivation and the fact that WJM was a practitioner of these arts.
And there were 13 witnesses but only two came out? Linda Lee and William Chen, no doubt biased towards each of the fighters. If the rest of the witnesses are keeping their mouth shut I'd respect them more for keeping their word rather than wong, linda or chen IMO
Why would you repsect the others for keeping their mouths shut? The agreement to silence was between Wong and Lee and Lee broke it. Some have been so happy to say that they would respect Wong more if he had said nothing but notice nobody will say anything of nature about the fact that Bruce actually broke silence on it first! This smacks of blind favouritism in my opinion and this is the kind of contradictory behaviour which I am playing devils advocate to.
Even if wong totally beat him what's the point???? The fact still remains Bruce's one of the most talked about and an awesome martial artist of his time.
Who can deny it, but thats not the point, is it? I never said the point of this discussion is to prove that Bruce isn't the most talked about martial artist ever, and infact it's totally besides the point so I don't understand your statement. *L* My point is not to prove or disprove anything but rather to offer another side to the story and challenge the status quo based on the same rules that have been used to villify Wong Jack Man for nearly 40 years based on assumptions unsubstantiated. For me it's simply a case of fair play and nothing more. I have no vested interest in either martial artist as I am a Yang Styler.
Edit - Here's how I see the whole thing -
1/ There's only one article with a detailed version of the fight
**Syd - Well there are others apparently but this is the most well known one. (Remembers the question "How come nobody else knows what your talking about?!")
2/ Wong says he won, Linda says Bruce won, Chen said they tied
**Syd - Uh huh...
3/ Wong says there were 7 people, Linda says 13, Chen says 15
** Syd - Uh huh...
4/ Supposedly according to the article if they fought later after Bruce reached his peak, Wong's "chi" powers would have rendered him almost invincible.
** Syd - No, it merely pointed out that while Bruce would have been a better fighter that Wong also would have been a better fighter and had developed Qi powers which would be something not present in their last encounter.
5/ It's still not clear why they fought
** Syd - Well my take is that Bruce did infact offer and open challenge at a tournament and Wong newly arrived in the area at the time offered to take him up on this challenge.
5/ From reading several articles we come to the conclusion Wong's not a racist [I believe this]
** Syd - I agree with this assessment.
6/ When asked to give another article on the fight Wong declined it - http://www.bruceleecentral.com/cute...
** Syd - I think he's worthy of respect for remaining silent on it.
Syd, ;)
Cain
11-Nov-2003, 05:07 AM
and Lee broke it.
And wong broke it ;)
** Syd - I think he's worthy of respect for remaining silent on it.
:D
EDIT -
**Syd - Uh huh...
Check the article
** Syd - Uh huh...
See above.
Respectfully,
|Cain ;)|
Tireces
11-Nov-2003, 05:22 AM
Yoda really did name this thread cutoff rather well. Bravo. Anyways, Im going to go worship Bruce Lee in my Bruce Lee shrine now, because thats what people who dont worship Wong Jack Man in Wong Jack Man shrines do, after all.
Cain
11-Nov-2003, 05:26 AM
Hmm.....from the article -
Bruce Lee’s wife Linda recalls a total of 13 persons
Chen recalls about 15 persons being present
Wong, meanwhile, remembers only seven persons being present
Go figure ;)
|Cain|
Cain
11-Nov-2003, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Tireces
Yoda really did name this thread cutoff rather well. Bravo. Anyways, Im going to go worship Bruce Lee in my Bruce Lee shrine now, because thats what people who dont worship Wong Jack Man in Wong Jack Man shrines do, after all.
ROFL! :D
|Cain|
Cain...
Uh huh... means yup! in others words, yes. :)
Tireces,
There, there... it's alright. *L*
This is my last word...
Yoda's renaming of the thread could be seen as a subjective abuse of power in that he has quite un-objectively re-named the thread based on his own views which are entirely subjective. How's that for a merry go round!
Naming me as the thread starter is pretty immature in my opinion, but it's clear I'd be hard pressed for an objective view on that given the dogmatism present. I've essentially said everything on this topic now and spent pretty much all my time explaining myself to the deaf, dumb and blind. Nothing new so cest la guerre.
I will say though that if, Yoda, you want to have a shot at me it would be more becoming of gentlemanly behaviour if it was done openly and not hiding behind moderation powers which allow you to play god with thread names and thread titles which are wholly attributable to YOU and are actually slanderous, without ever having directly addressed me. If that's what makes you feel good Yoda, good on you mate. But it seems like a cheap shot from a shanghai to me! Yeah ... bravo.
Best, Syd ... no really! ;)
SSJ1_Katrina
11-Nov-2003, 09:46 AM
*goes off to worship Bruce Lee with Tireces at his Bruce Lee shrine*
oh dear goodness.
lol
johndoch
11-Nov-2003, 10:28 AM
All I can say about this discussion is
"Must be true bloke down pub said"
Andy Murray
11-Nov-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Syd
This is my last word...
Yoda's renaming of the thread could be seen as a subjective abuse of power in that he has quite un-objectively re-named the thread based on his own views which are entirely subjective. How's that for a merry go round!
Naming me as the thread starter is pretty immature in my opinion, but it's clear I'd be hard pressed for an objective view on that given the dogmatism present. I've essentially said everything on this topic now and spent pretty much all my time explaining myself to the deaf, dumb and blind. Nothing new so cest la guerre.
I will say though that if, Yoda, you want to have a shot at me it would be more becoming of gentlemanly behaviour if it was done openly and not hiding behind moderation powers which allow you to play god with thread names and thread titles which are wholly attributable to YOU and are actually slanderous, without ever having directly addressed me. If that's what makes you feel good Yoda, good on you mate. But it seems like a cheap shot from a shanghai to me! Yeah ... bravo.
Best, Syd ... no really! ;)
Hold on there Syd,
look back at the last thread and see my final comment.
I was literally doing exactly the same split on the thread that Yoda did. He beat me to it by seconds.
There's nothing personal in it. It actually gives us two discussions instead of one. Better right?
Neither you nor anyone else was asked for permission, as to be honest, the latter posts had little to do with the original topic. Surely you can understand a little consideration has to go to those whose threads are hijacked?
You weren't named as the thread starter on the new thread. When you split a thread, the new thread automatically assumes the originator to be the person who's post comes first in the new thread.
If your interested, my title was going to be;
'Wong Jack Man vs Bruce Lee'
I read Yoda's title to mean that it's something of a circular discussion, as it will probably go round indefinitely.
See if I'm wrong. :D
Andy,
I apreciate your explanation of the matter and you've made some points well taken. All I can say in the end is that I would have preffered a more neutral thread title if my name was going to be stuck as the thread starter... :ie your own title would have sufficed. If there was any missunderstanding other than that on my behalf, then I happily retract any rash statements made in the spirit of good humour.... but let's lose "merry go round" on the thread title, sil vous plais.
Respectfully, Syd ;)
YODA
12-Nov-2003, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Syd
Andy,
I apreciate your explanation of the matter and you've made some points well taken. All I can say in the end is that I would have preffered a more neutral thread title if my name was going to be stuck as the thread starter... :ie your own title would have sufficed. If there was any missunderstanding other than that on my behalf, then I happily retract any rash statements made in the spirit of good humour.... but let's lose "merry go round" on the thread title, sil vous plais.
Respectfully, Syd ;)
Happy now?
YODA
12-Nov-2003, 09:25 AM
Thank you so much for you ambivalence.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.