What do you guys think about Bruce Lee?

.

 

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but I can't resist getting in on the Steven Seagal action...

http://mit.zenfs.com/212/2011/06/SeagalDOLLsmall.jpg

 

the problem is twofold
1) these street fights and roof top fights were described as one way by lee and those involved (NHBs blood baths), then some footage of the fights came out and they were more like kids slap boxing than anything else,

2) And the above is hearsay from his brother for lords sake, thats as bad as someones students talking about there feared teacher and his unbeaten street fight record, without real proof ie documented evidence of actual fight or fight records nothing is provable ....not to mention one of the reasons the chinese arts are in the mess they are is because of people claiming 100s of street fights as proof that the rubbish they teach works....

 

I have seen the fights too - Icefield is on the money they were bloody awful!

Bruce's reputation as a someone who can fight is based on the accounts of those who knew him. Guro Dan saying he was tough is actually all I need, but Judo Gene said it, Chuck Norris said it, Joe Lewis said it...etc

Perhaps most significant is Larry Hartsell, who is unknown to most outside of JKD, but who was a legitimate hard ass and tough man - he said he couldn't touch Bruce and I find that statement from him very powerful

 

I've thought Bruce Lee was the man since I was 8.
That maybe because he's dead so young like Bob Marley- jimi Hendrix etc.
This thread has bean a good read.
At the end of the day he still the man to me. Like David Tua and Mike Tyson are to me.

 

Gene Lebell said Bruce Lee would have made a good MMA fighter "for his weight" (bantam).

You won't get a better realistic, first hand opinion from somebody who knows than that.

 

Yeah but that's only because he did Wing Chun..

 

If people with great martial arts reputations and credentials who knew and trained with Bruce thought he was really good, who we to doubt it. (Joe Lewis, Chuck Norris, Gene Labell etc.) Like Jackie Chan says there is a difference between the actor and the martial artist. Some moves are done in a completely unorthodox different manner than they would be done normally so they would look good on film.

 

quite right i mean why think for yourself, just trust people who might have made money of their association with Bruce
It has nothing to do with film v real life who on this thread mentioned anything about that?? Its about wanting independent evidence before making your mind up
Wally Jay had good things to say about george dillman and was friends with him for years
Carlson Gracie did a seminar with sam kwok and said good things about him, but both of those guys have very iffy reps to say the least......are we to forget all about them because two people with good reps liked them??

 

They say Jack Johnson (heavyweight boxing champion 1908-1915) was the greatest boxer of all time. There not much in the way of "independent evidence" to prove it, it's just a reputation that has been accepted for the past 100 years because people who knew him and fought against him said it's true. By the same token I don't personally know anyone who ever met Bruce but I don't see the need to doubt his reputation and I don't need any "independent evidence" about their abilities other than what I have seen and read. Why should I doubt Bruce's reputation? His film work alone was to say the least very impressive by the martial arts standards of that time. He worked with miniscule budgets, no CGI, no off camera trampolines, no wires etc. Why should anyone doubt the man’s credentials? What point is there is tearing down Bruce Lee? You could argue that without Bruce Lee, matial arts would still be something only practiced in a few Asian countries.

 

boxing wouldnt be practiced?
wrestling in the USA and eastern european countries?
judo - which was in the olympics before Lee ever showed up...
what about fencing?
Kali learnt from american soldiers stationed in the Philippines?
how about TKD and hapkido?
the influx of thai fighters into Australia and spread around the world?

if bruce lee wasnt around, things might be better, wing chun wouldnt be the most highly publicised CMA. people would go to boxing or judo classes instead.
the Gracies would have had a much tougher time during early UFCs.

 

Wow, now Bruce is not only a mediocre martial artist, he could be blamed for all the problems in MA? I remember seeing “Enter The Dragon” in a theater when it was released (Yes I am that old). I knew nothing about martial arts and neither did any of my friends. That movie caused millions of people to start training and exploring martial arts. The importance of Bruce’s work and his influence is a matter of history (good or bad). I’m not saying he is the best martial artist ever, but in his time it’s possible he was.

 

Hang on Johnson fought in front of people, independentwitnesses such as newspaper writers, paid members of the crowd, refs and judges, there are pics and I believe even some videos of him floating around, So there is independent evidence of him competing, We can judge him on his record as well which is published, such as a list of those he fought, win loss records etc
There is only one written account of a bruce lee fight, against wong jack man, and that is written largely by Lees side, eventually there was a rebuttal from the other side and both sides tell a completely different story of as to how the fight came around and what the outcome was

And who is tearing down his reputation? There is a difference between simply wanting proof and tearing a man down

 

In his time its possible he was? Seriously he wasn’t even the best fighter to come out of wing chun for lords sake,

 

I surrender. We all have our opinions and in the end that's all they can be. It's hard to prove either way when you are talking about someone who has been dead for 40 years. I'll believe the man's reputation and the things said by people who knew him well and trained with him. I have no reason to doubt their word. There are few faces that are more recognized around the world than a picture of Bruce Lee and maybe in the end that says a lot by itself.

 

I wouldnt say Bruce lee was mediocre, but to be honest, from what I have seen and the evidence, I t hink if he went up against someone like Anderson Silva or Bas Rutten or Fedor Emelianenko or alot of other MMA fighters he would get beaten, whether in the street or in the ring.

Why do I say this, I follow Humes law, I have never seen Bruce lee in a fight with a resisting opponent, I have seen the above guys in NOTHING but fights with resisting opponents and they generally come out on top.

Beleive half of what you see and none of what you hear.

 

Well I think it is a matter of how good was he in his time. I don't know that it is fair judging Bruce by today's standards or comptitors. Remember that when Bruce was growing up and began training there was little to no cross training. You picked a style and stuck to it. Bruce's "No style" attitude was unusual for it's time. Today MMA is just that, mixed martial arts and is comprised of any and all styles. Boxers like Joe Lewis, Jack Dempsey and even Ali were the best in their era. I'm not sure any of them could have beaten a young Mike Tyson but that dosen't diminish their place in boxing history or their abilities.

 

But if you follow that logic, why study JKD, if you know that MMA makes better fighters, surely You follow the training method that makes you the strongest and best fighter overall right now. And wouldnt that mean that If you think that these modern guys are better, that means that bruce lee was not as good, therefore not great, therefore mediocre?

Just to say I have nothing against JKD, or anything bad to say about it, just following with through with the line of reasoning.

 

I don't study JKD but on the other hand I am not training to be an MMA fighter either. I study Taekwondo and cross train in Hapkido but not for the purposes of being a street fighter or MMA fighter. I hope I never put myself in a situation where I have to revert to any of things I have trained in over the last 18 years. I choose to train in more traditional martial arts because I want the full scope of the martial arts experience, not just physical but the mental including the meditation, breathing exercises, respect for peers and upper belts and all the old style teachings of a traditional martial art. If fighting MMA style is what you are refereing too you are correct and I can see how you would feel Bruce Lee doesn’t match up to someone like Baz Rutten or any other MMA fighter (few people in the world can). Are modern fighters better at pure fighting I would say yes. That’s what they do. That’s what they train to do. They are much bigger and tougher as fighters. That’s not what Bruce Lee, Benny Urquidez, Mike Stone, Joe Lewis, Bill Wallace and Chuck Norris, were about. These people were (except for Bruce) world champion matrial artists in their day but not MMA fighters. They studied traditional martial artist with all the old world implications.