Discussion in 'Karate' started by mani, Jun 27, 2003.
Bear in mind (I appreciate some of you have already touched on this already) that Lee was more a critic of, well I guess the word would be 'formalism' in martial arts. Creating a rigidly structured syllabus and then not bothering to do anything else is unhealthy as it blinds people to all the other aspects of the dynamics of the fight. On the other hand, a person who trains to get good, and is willing to consistently re-evaluate his methods and strategies to see if there's a better way, adapt to compensate for deficiencies in his strategy, and finally not afraid to learn from others, would certainly not be someone Lee would criticise.
Considering Karate as it was taught by many Japanese intructors - iron discipline, questioning discouraged, and most importantly a formal structure imposed on everything (Kata done in a precise way which is enginneered more for competition than practicality) - it seems Lee's criticisms hit spot on. On the other hand he would undoubtedly acknowledge that many Karateka don't train with blinkers on. The word was probably intended to denote the rigidity that he recognised, quite correctly in my opinion, as being utterly unproductive in creating martial artists. In Japanese terminology he trained as a bujutsuka, not a budoka.
Who is Bruce Lee?
(I crack me up!)
Well who cares what Bruce Lee thought of karate?
Karate has been here for hundreds of year and probably will be around for hundreds more. Its existence proves its effectiveness as a martial art.
Separate names with a comma.