Bruce Lee Article

Yeah, look on the previous page. The official cause was a brain edema -that is, he's brain had swollen.

 

Ving Tsun, you seem to have an advantage over the author. You claim that you sources documenting Lee's program later than 1965. What is your source?

Also you are wrong about the building remark. A building is rubbish if the engineers do not consider the land they build it upon. If geologists say tha land is not fit for the type of stucture to be constructed, then proceeeding with construction will only be a waste.

 

People who want to put him on a pedestal will, and those who feel he was a good martial artist will continue to believe that. He was a guy who had a bunch of extramarital affairs, that tells me a lot about his character. Tho we all have warts and such. *yaaaawwwn*

 

i agree with wing tsun. bruce was always on the cutting edge of physical improvement programs. if he learned about sets and reps and used the wieder method or something it would have been incorporated into his system.

as to not competing.. what is it about being the best and competing? is there a direct corelation. if you beat the best does that make you the best? this is faulty logic.

the details of his training was not yet fine tuned but it paved the way for other martial artists to combine strength training in their MA routines.

yes bruce used drugs (think it was mostly MJ though) that was do to the pressures of his shooting sked. he needed the uppers to resume the shoots. i mean come on it happens to the best of us. Sifu Lee was still human.

he is not a simple ideal to look up to or a romanticized idol like Wong Fei Hung but he was a bench mark in martial arts history. he was the best of his time, and yes he can be surpassed but without him there would be no standard to surpass.

he brought about the demystification of the arts. Pride, UFC, K-1 etc. wouldn't be around if bruce didn't break ground.

the article definitely has an agenda to dishonor the dragon but we know better.

 

"he brought about the demystification of the arts. Pride, UFC, K-1 etc. wouldn't be around if bruce didn't break ground."

totally untrue. Lee gets credit for what a lot of other people were already doing. The UFC has its roots with the gracies (who were doing what Bruce was talking about a long time ago) and pride has its roots with the legitimization of japanese pro-wrestling.

...the "dragon", I think you saw that movie one too many times.

The article looks to demystify Lee not dishonor him, sounds like he did a good enough job of that himself (cheated on wife etc).

As for the "best of his time". How do we know that, that is the point. Just because some higher level fighters trained with him doesn't strictly mean he was at their level. Watch the special on Roy Jones Jr. training for the Ruiz fight. Does that trainer seem anywhere on the same level?

Like mentioned on another thread being a coach is not strictly indicative of being on an equal level.

He may have been. The point is we don't know.

 

Cutting edge? If he was using cutting edge techniques in his strength program would he have injured his back?
The logic of competition is sound. How else would one test one's own skill? If you beat the best, you are the best. Duh! The beautiful thing about this is that the guy you beat, can beat you in the future. Anyone beat anybody, given the right circumstances.

Again, does anybody know of any sources documenting Lee's strength program after 1965?

 

Did you read the article? It said that the bicep curl (presumably all he had access to) put him far above the norm (i.e. very strong). The point to the article is that his legs were in comparison and overall very weak. In fact he gives a very good reason for why he used info for the time indicated = squats are not something you do if you've injured your back. Why would he workout at levels that aren't difficult for him? Answer: he wouldn't.

As for disregarding the points made, why would Bruce not do more if he were capable. That would make him pretty dumb wouldn't it?

Image isn't reality folks.

 

LOGIC.
Do some research and think about it.

I could give two answers to this.
1. You're missing the point.
2. Exactly. Everyone has to start somewhere.

 

LOGIC: Where?

this guy at least built a logical case on known evidence, but no one has dismissed the logical framework he created. Oh no he must just be jealous.

He gave clear and as an individual who has had back surgery I'll say logical explanation as to why he used certain information.

Oh wait it is disrespectful to try and clear up rumors.

 

Look up logic. Then do some research on the subject, and you tell me. Thats all it takes.


Clear up rumours? What rumors?

 

The article provided the logic and rationale for the tests selected. There has been no use of logic in refuting those points. Think outside the movie set, that is all it takes.

Rumours:
He destroyed everybody he fought (there are few records of him actually fighting)

He died for teaching non-asians or whyever (he died in another woman's bed)

He was a superbly conditioned athelete (he had a suberbly aesthetic physique, his actual athleticism is debatable)

He revolutionized martial arts (many people had long been doing what he preached).

 

I'll eat my boots if that's not a rumour

Where'd you get that? He died in in Rayond Chow's house [or was it someone else's?] because of a medicine which Bruce was allergic to, sheesh!

Again just clarifying a point, let's not drag it waaay offtopic

|Cain|

 

There are a lot of different reasons given for why he died. From poisoning to drug use while being unfaithful. Point is they are all rumors.

Or as some here probably believe he died battling the demon that was hunting his family.

 

What the do those rumours have to do with this?

As for the logic... No logic?? Use your head, then you'll find the logic.

Open your mind a little.

 

I am afraid I am with VT, if you look at the posts questioning the credibility of the article I am pretty sure you would understand what the other side is trying to say

|Cain|

 

I understand you all, here is the point you all are missing:

Performance on excercises like squats are dramatically affected by back surgery, therefore it is REASONABLE to assume that his pre-injury performance was near his best. I have repeated that a couple times now and no one seems interested in addressing the valid basis for this decision.

Also the numbers he cites are those provided by Bruce's wife! Do you not think she would provide the most accurate information, as well as reporting his highest strength feats? Additionally they may be all he has to go on, in which case the rebuttals here are invalid.

Unless you all have numbers from a latter period in his life you cannot discount the results reported: Facts not in evidence.


Edit: Additionally the author mentions that for the same time period Bruce Lee's upper body strength, using the available information, far exceeded average numbers. This indicates that he knew how to gain strength and did so for aesthetic pruposes rather than athletic purposes. The ignoring of these points is why I say the logic is lacking in the counter arguments.

 

Lee injured his back in 1970. Thats five years after these numbers are taken. That leaves atleast 5 years of training not taken into account in this article.

The exercise he injured his back on was a Goodmorning in 1970. At that time he was lifting 135pounds for that exercise. The goodmorning mainly exercises the (lower) Back.

Five years earlier, Lee was performing the Squat with 95pounds. The Squat mainly focuses on the Legs and Back.

Note, the 95pound lift for the squat was taken from the same source as the article.

Can you see what I'm saying?

The numbers were taken from one of Bruce's training cards in 1965. The training card was his from the Hak Keung Gym in Hong Kong.

Also note, that Bruce had only began weight training some time after the early 1960s.

 

135 pound good mornings, fine I don't doubt he made some progression in strength. The point I'm trying to make is that PERHAPS these were the best figures he had (I'm not going to read Linda Lee's book) and that severe back injuries are going to make increases in squat performance far more difficult to acheive.

Do you have his other stats for 1970? If so provide them the calculations are easy enough.

Or do you have them for after the back injury?

The point being is that it is easy to fault the logic when you aren't providing anything else.

 

I posted a topic close to this a while back and was attacked for it. I'm glad to see other people have the same see it to belive it attitude as me.