Bruce Lee Article

Again for the people in the cheap seats:

IS THERE BETTER INFO TO GO ON? If not then don't criticize the use of the best available information instead of anecdotes. Also again, I DON'T KNOW if there is better information or not but you all are missing the point.

Secondly, as I mentioned earlier the upper body info (perhaps all he had to go on) actually CONFIRMED accounts of Lee's strength. Does that then destroy the credibility of confirmatory anecdotal accounts?

game set match.

 

And I believe that Lee specifically repudiated bench presses, which are typically a benchmark of upper body strength.

Someone with some of his books could probably check on that.

 

this is not about whether it affects lee's image in a positive or negative matter. i'm simply pointing out that the author builds a case on ridiculous data.

 

arrgghh. Is there better data on upper body strength? Is Tiger correct that Lee eschewed bench pressing? Squats certainly are indicative of lower body strength yet you aren't addressing that.

 

Yes, I believe Tiger is correct. Squeezing rubber balls, leverage bar work and dumbbells.
...he would shadow box with small weights in his hands. This drill consisted of punching(12 series in a row, 100 punches per series, using a pyramid system of 1-,2-, 3-,5-, 7-, and 10-pound dumbbells). He would then reverse the pyramid and go 10, 7, 5, 3, 2, 1 and zero weight. This exercise burns your delts and arms.



Have any of you read " Bruce Lee: The Incomparable Fighter" authored by M. Uyehara, who was a close friend of his

Just a suggesstion

 

Never had the oppurtunity KickChick. I only have "Bruce Lee's Fighting Method." It's too bad that nowhere in that series, does Bruce Lee or M. Uyehara, elaborate on Lee's weight training program.

Sports science asserts that the best exercises to demonstrate total muscular power are the bench press, the squat, and the snatch,clean and jerk. It is unfortunate, that there are many in the martial arts community who believe that training with weights can make a person slower. Also, the exercises, they say, that appear to slow people down most are the one's above. There are also a lot more people who believe this back then, and this may explain why Lee does not do bench presses.

As to the author basing his conclusions on ridiculous data, this assertion is just wrong. The reason why sport scientists, approve of the above exercises for testing strength is because the main criterion for a man's strength lies on his back! All exercises above involve the back either as the mover or the stabilizer. Furthermore, all pulling moves involve the back, and the bicep curl is a pulling move with the biceps as prime movers

Curling 80 lbs? Even if it's a barbell, the upper body strength of the fellow should be apparent given Bruce Lee's musculature in 1965 (the author even marvels at this).

To Ving Tsun: Logic is insufficient when what is required is proof.
To Totality: The only bicep curl variant you mention is the isolation curl where you can even cheat by moving your back. Free standing bicep curls (either with barbells or dumbells) are not what you would call isolation exercises.

 

No, proof isn't required when one can adequetly use logic. But you lot seem to lack such thinking patterns.

 

If this where true, then forensic examiners would be out of work.

 

Also was'nt Bruce new to weight training in the 60s? He went into it seriously in the 70s from what more than half the world knows which = logic

|Cain|

 

Originally posted by Ving Tsun:
.....when one can adequetly use logic.

Yup. Bruce started weight training somewhere between 1961 and 1965. He continued until his death.

 

Ving Tsun:

1) You haven't discussed the relevance of an argument looking at the effects back injury on squat performance. The only lack of strength the author addresses is in this department.

2) You haven't provided any alternatives, therefore you cannot dismiss the available evidence with anecdotal accounts and your awe of his black and yellow jumpsuit.

3) You keep talking about logic, despite not addressing the logical arguments posed. Inductive reasoning supersedes deductive reasoning when there is information to be drawn on.

 

You go Ki Warrior! He was short and dressed funny too!!!

 

1) I haven't discussed the relevance of "an argument looking at the effects back injury on squat performance" because it isn't relevent.

2) I am not dissmissing the evidence within the article, but the article's conclusion -which the author and yourself perceive as ultimate.

Awe of his yellow jumpsuit??
wtf?? What the hell does his 'yellow jumpsuit' have to do with anything???? My awe?? again -wtf?

3) What logical arguments posed? You have'nt posed any, you're denying them.

 

Let's use logic for a moment Ving Tsun.

If the data used in the article was in 1965, then it would be reasonable to assume that given a steady progression of exercise, he should be much stronger by 1970. But he injured his back during this year, so there should be an effect on his lower body strength. (I'm still using your logic). He may be stronger, but there will still be a disparity between the strength of his upper and lower body. Using deduction therefore, makes the effects of back injury relevant.

You say you do not dismiss the evidence in the article, but you also say that the article is wrong because it is based on data from 1965. The author also concludes that despite what is shown on film, Bruce Lee is not the uber martial artist most people think he is. The author makes no claims on whether Lee can trounce Norris, Stone or Wall in a sanctioned tournament. He just makes the assertion that these three have the advantage of unbiased observers during their fights, and that the public should not accept an assertion that is not proven by any empirical means that are beyond reasonable doubt.

The argument about the back injury is logical. The argument about the presence and lack of data is logical. Actual data having more weight than "logical reasoning" based on speculation is LOGICAL.

Maybe you should follow your own advice on logic. It is also good to have an open mind. But my mind is not so open that it does not restrict the entrance of garbage.

 

aml01_ph

Sounds reasonable.

 

The exact same thing has now been said at least 10 times.

Somehow I don't think it matters.

 

Ok, so far I hav'nt put in my thoughts in here, but I can't resist

First he uses curls for strength benchmarks, I don't care for his reasoning but it's the stupidiest thing to select when your benchmarking strength.

Next he goes on to say Lee used steroids and then mentioned he was of 'average' strength? I thought steroid used did'nt have 'average strength either way

And Lee used bench presses, power cleans, BB burls, squats and good mornings - most of which the article does'nt even mention.

And anyone notice the whole article is plastered with "is reported to have" but never mentions the sources except for beeckler [which is a biased book and the ONLY source in the article], gee! Where's the "proof?

And then he goes on to diss Lee for his manners according to Funakoshi, anyone notice the irony?

Last but not least, it's a rumour that he dies in the bed of another woman, more than half the world knows he did not, he died because of a medication to which he was allergic to. Where the hell did he get that?

Yups Bruce was'nt the best. Yups he was'nt super human. Yups he was one of the more excepttional MAists. Yups he is one of the most talked about MAists even after 30 years after his death.

|Cain|

EDIT - I remember Yoda mentioning Lee was'nt exceptionally strong but he knew how to use his bodyweight the most, maybe even more so than today's athletes...