Over rated Bruce Lee

If that's the best you have, I feel so sorry for you. :cry:

 

Not unless you can prove you weren't on performance-enhancing drugs.

It's fine, even if you were. If my argument (such as it was) can't stand some challenging, then it wasn't much of an argument to begin with.

Oh! Using "sourgraping" as a verb. That's 10 minutes in the penalty box.

(Actually, I think I'll probably steal it and use it liberally.)

Just saw your previous post. Lemme get to that next...

 

You may be forgetting that Bruce was also a philosopher, and is conveying a point of view that may be lost on most.

 

Let's hope you're not mugged on the way, you'll never get one smack off!

 

what's your record?

 

Um... no. I never said that. Take Chuck Norris, Joe Lewis, and Mike Stone for instance. They had personal experience. They had hard data upon which to build an opinion. So I would take what they have to say seriously.

But it's the droves of people who say "of course he'd win; he's Bruce Lee" I'm referring to. At some point, a person's reputation becomes strong enough that other people stop going through the full thought process and just skip to the conclusions. "Well hell, he's Bruce Lee. He'd win."

Not really clear on this bit. Since I wasn't saying what you seem to think I was saying above, this is probably null and void. Even if it isn't, I'm as entitled to an opinion as anyone else yeah? If Chuck Norris wants a vote, Chuck Norris gets a vote.

It only matters in so far that that's what the original poster asked. It's a discussion forum. We're discussing.

If you're asking whether it matters in any bigger sense, well no obviously not. I'm not nearly self-important enough to think that what I say on an internet forum will amount to anything more than beans.

Inspiration is one thing. And believe me, I spent plenty of years worshipping Bruce Lee as the second coming. But better people make themselves better. I don't think Lee gets all the credit for that.

Probably none. But you've hit on pretty much every point except the one I actually made, which was that I think his skill as a fighter is overrated. And I'm not even arguing that he wasn't that good. What I'm arguing is that people have lost perspective enough to say "okay, here's a person and here's what he could and couldn't do... " He's not a diety after all.

Actually, I put a lot more stock into the more than just than I do anything else. I think he was able to raise a cultural awareness in people that wasn't there before and did, as you suggest, serve as an inspiration to several generations of people. That's no small feat. Further, I think he advocated an approach to martial arts training that, while not original to him, had become overlooked. He advocated the scientific method, critical thinking, experimentation, and so on, so I think a lot of us owe a lot to him and his outlook.

That said, people tend to go precisely against that very idea in talking about Lee, so that critical thinking gets sidelined in favour of awe at his very name and likeness.

I don't see any disrespect in looking at him as a man. A very talented, hard working, dedicated, and open minded man. But a man all the same.


Stuart

 

“It is spiritless to think that you cannot attain to that which you have seen and heard the masters attain. The masters are men. You are also a man. If you think that you will be inferior in doing something, you will be on that road very soon.”
- Tsunetomo, Yamamoto

 

What point of view is he conveying, then, other than the literal interpretation of what he wrote, which is, objectively speaking, utterly false?

 

If anything, Bruce's training philosophy is almost identical to that of the MMA standards.


1. Train hard.
2. Keep it as simple as possible.
3. Test everything with sparring.

 

I'd rather be known as a realist than a Bruce Lee nutrider any day.

He's dead, his acting was mediocre, and his phiosophy was derivative.

There, happy?

 

I was going to comment, but nevermind, saw your photo... good luck with all that. Maybe you can create a potion to cure it. Anyone dealing in D&D that wants to be called realistic

 

All I can say is Bruce Lee was good, one of the best, but even the best get beaten sometimes. Personally I would like to have seen him in either Pride, UFC or K1, he easily would have dominated. Most of the fights I have seen out of Pride and UFC the fighters swing (Haymaker style) most of their punches. If they were good fighters theres no way they would swing punches, unless a huge gap was open. Dont get me wrong, there are definatly some good fighters in there but I think Bruce Lee would have dominated.
Apologies for my rabbling on.

 

You might want to get your flame retardant suit

 

I think it's more appropriate to send 3 Billy Goats instead of a flamethrower.

 

I'll go one better (it's one of Saz's)

WOOWOOWOOWOOWOOWOOWOO

............... _@@@__
......_____//____?__\________
- ---o--------TROLL-POLICE-@)
-----` --(@)======+====(@)--

 

I can prove that! But that will depend on the price of the prize! hehe

No problem, I still can afford 10mins.

See ya around!

 

Interpretation depends on the entire and not on a single sentence.

If one cannot understand why he mentioned that and simply took it literally then perhaps one should ask himself why he is not reading it ENTIRELY, or simply fail to understand the particular point fitting in a bigger picture (entire).

He is the same guy who said all one need is pull a gun out and BANG. Remember?

 

I believe most are truthful when they praise another. I agrees with you. I am sure all those respectable men and women are not over-rating.

I see what you mean. I am sure Bruce Lee did not or will not encourage such behaviour too. For one, he recognised we are all similar. And he had never say he is invincible, who is?

Sorry, I did not make it clear. I was refering to the "ratings" given by recognised and respectable people in many official votes. Examples of "ranking" in various publications.

Well, if it is just a discussion. It is really fine. But it is obviously "he" has a motive. But looking on the bright side, it did spring off a load of discussions.

I know it might not amount to anything more thanbeans. But I still believe in being more responsible (I am sure you are a responsible poster, I'm refering to some others) while posting. It might just be a little bean rolling down a snowy slope. So it is still better to think highly of our words even if it might be of a tiny little possiblity.

Of course, it is still up to the individual. We have a lot of "teachers" in our little lifespan. But so far he is one with such great influence on more people than most other "teachers". No, he is not the only one getting the credit.

He is not and he never claim to be one. I guess he is overrated by the people who you heard "he'll win, he's Bruce Lee". But he is definately not overrated as a fighter since he is recognised by many credible fighters too. And they know he is just human, and when one read into his personal life then, the ideas, the letters. You will see how human he is.

Agree with you, he is still a man and his sudden passing away then proved it. He is just enormously more than most and contributed more (whether that is his motive or not) than most. That's why he is a legend, because few can do the same.

 

Reading what "entirely"? As far as I can tell, that is the end of his commentary on facing a knife.

Are we now saying that Bruce can't possibly have been wrong about anything, it's just my failure to understand the "big picture"?

 

I am not saying Bruce Lee cannot be wrong. But we are thinking human and if we read blindly we will not be able to fathom what he meant, as in this case.

Regard to the comment he made, I see this:

Having a knife can be both an advantage and disadvantage.

It is a weapon and definately inflict more damages more than an unarmed guy. We all know this, so it will be redundant for Bruce Lee to even mention it.....or so he thought.

What he brought forward was, it is an disadvantage because the knife will be a focus point and the user will limit himself to using it. The user will be focusing on the knife, limiting his other possible choices or capabilities. This is a GENERALLY correct.

On the other hand, being unarmed will not be limited by a particular tool, and able to use his body as a whole.

And one should also know the fear of some using a weapon because of legal liability.