Bruce Lee's Vision

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's the first post from a thread on a different martial art forum:

The thread is entitled: We are living Bruce Lee's vision.

From: Ogami Itto
Posted: 2 hours ago Member Since: 11/12/02
Posts: 37367 Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up


Okay, seriously, I know we're sick to death of "Bruce Lee and his legacy in MMA" but I recently spent some time with his writings and biographies and I have to conclude that, in fact, Bruce was an important fore-runner to MMA.

In particular I'm referenced John Little's Jeet Kune Do commentary, which fills out the Tao of JKD notebook a bit more, and in it Lee evaluates various styles and what each can contribute to the fighter - and he sounds prescient, saying in 1970 what a lot of people are saying today about kicks, boxing hand work, clinching, throwing and ground fighting. I think Lee would have been surprised by the innovations judo/BJJ brought to fighting but he certainly anticipated them.

Add to that his feelings about STYLE, that his style was no style, and compare that to the "styles" of MMA fighters - all of whom could be said to not have a specific style at all and I gotta conclude, wow, we are living Bruce Lee's vision. He was more interested in street fighting or pure physical training and philosophy rather than cage fighting or sport, but he called it - his personal evolution is where martial arts has gone in the last fifteen years.


.................................................. ............


***COMMENTS,...wing chun people?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't have issues with what BL said, in general.
However, you will notice that the best MMA fighters are those with a solid core in ONE specific MA or "range" of MA.
Such as Silva with his MT and BB in BBJ.
GSP with his kyokushin and MT and as of late, wrestling.
Mirko in his time with MT.
Machida with Shotokan.
Heck any BJJ player.
Etc, etc.

The core built from being very good in one "range" of MA, like striking for example, and then adding to your game to fill in the gaps, will always be the way to go.
Even when MMA becomes the norm from the start, people will tend to gravitate to one "range" more than another, and this is a good thing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

That'a great point, Paul.

You need to have a "core" art that you've spent some considerable amount of time learning and getting skilled in, otherwise you run the risk of living out the "jack of all trades, master of none" cliche.

And the argument could be made that for Bruce, the core art was wing chun. Certainly in the earlier years of his JKD journey. In fact, I have a book home somewhere that was written by Dan Inosanto (I believe it may have been the very first book ever to appear in print with the words "Jeet Kune Do" in the title)...

in fact, as I'm writing this I'm remembering now the exact title: "JEET KUNE DO, the Art and Philosophy of Bruce Lee".

Anyway, Dan makes the point very early in the book that wing chun was the "nucleus" of what Bruce was trying to do with JKD; ie.- use of a centerline, simultaneous attack-and-defense using both arms, short, quick, and very direct strikes, low kicks, trapping, etc.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yeah, there is no doubt that BL's core was Wing Chun, in fact one can call the striking done in JKD as "westernized WC".
Certainly the principles were all there, at least the ones that apply to fighting.
I tend to favour a "core range" rather than core style, simply because most striking systems tend to be the same or at least have enough in common that the similarities outweight the differences.
Anyone only has to see MT and kyokushin, for example, to see that.
Of course the "power production" in WC is quite different than in Hung ga for example, yet very few will argue that a HG guy going to WC will bring power that, when applied to WC, will add a certain "BAM" to his strikes.

I do think that BL probably would have fallen, eventually, into the category of the fighter that has a striking core system(s) and that trains/fights others so as to know how to beat them ( and pick something up he can use) as opposed to the category of "Mixed MA".

[Wayfaring]

I agree with the 'core' skill assessment and rounding out from there. As an interesting side note, I asked a MT guy who was once ranked #2 in the world about the skill levels of some of the UFC champions and their strict MT levels compared to what he had experienced. He said none of them was world champion class, but that a couple were 85-90% there, and had no weaknesses - 85% of the best on ground, 85% in wrestling.

Reading BL's material from what I remember he incorporated a great deal of fencing and boxing in his approach. Definitely ahead of his time on blending strengths of different arts. For some reason the ground skills weren't exposed in the same communities as striking skills during his time. I've also heard him criticized in the WC community as having only finished the SNT level of his WCK training.

[anerlich]

I remember watching ETD (again) around the same time I was heavily into Matt Thornton's (of "Functional JKD" fame) vids in my early BJJ days.

There are a lot of similarities. BL wins the first fight in ETD on the ground with a submission. He sneers at the flunky who chides him for not wearing the right uniform at Han's tournament. Et cetera.

Matt Thornton is probably the highest profile JKD guy around at the moment, and while he's gone far beyond Bruce Lee worship, I think Bruce might have ended up in a smilar place had he lived.

Actually, he's not the only movie star to go this way - Richard Norton is an excellent martial artist with major achievements in several MA's, as is Chuck Norris - seriously.

[AdrianK]

I've also heard him criticized in the WC community as having only finished the SNT level of his WCK training.

Some people say SNT... some people say chum kiu... Hawkins Cheung was supposedly a good friend of his, and he says bruce learned SNT, Chum Kiu and the first forty movements on the dummy. Not bad because that's the majority of the curriculum.

That being said, his knowledge in WC could easily have been completed with his training in southern mantis and other similar styles.

[Hardwork108]

Here's the first post from a thread on a different martial art forum:

The thread is entitled: We are living Bruce Lee's vision.

From: Ogami Itto
Posted: 2 hours ago Member Since: 11/12/02
Posts: 37367 Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up


Okay, seriously, I know we're sick to death of "Bruce Lee and his legacy in MMA" but I recently spent some time with his writings and biographies and I have to conclude that, in fact, Bruce was an important fore-runner to MMA.

In particular I'm referenced John Little's Jeet Kune Do commentary, which fills out the Tao of JKD notebook a bit more, and in it Lee evaluates various styles and what each can contribute to the fighter - and he sounds prescient, saying in 1970 what a lot of people are saying today about kicks, boxing hand work, clinching, throwing and ground fighting. I think Lee would have been surprised by the innovations judo/BJJ brought to fighting but he certainly anticipated them.

Add to that his feelings about STYLE, that his style was no style, and compare that to the "styles" of MMA fighters - all of whom could be said to not have a specific style at all and I gotta conclude, wow, we are living Bruce Lee's vision. He was more interested in street fighting or pure physical training and philosophy rather than cage fighting or sport, but he called it - his personal evolution is where martial arts has gone in the last fifteen years.


.................................................. ............


***COMMENTS,...wing chun people?

In my humble opinion, Bruce Lee's genuis was not in his kung fu because I don't believe that he studied any kung fu style to a level of expertise. His expertise was in martial innovation and in dedicated training to turn that innovation into a functional concept.

As we know, he didn't complete Wing Chun, nor Mantis or any other kung fu style. He did not delve into internal training including aspects such as internal tendon development. His conditioning was external.

I believe that an interesting question would be, how would Bruce Lee's fighting approach have evolved had he stayed in Hong Kong and continued and completed his Wing Chun under Yip Man rather than one his students?

What if he had gone on to take up or "cross train" in another kung fu style that was more profound than Wing Chun both in concepts and in the internals? How would his martial arts philosophy have developed then?

I do agree that his MMA perspective was ahead of his time. As someone here mentioned before one can see references to groundfighting in Enter the Dragon. One can also see this in The Game of Death in the fashionBruce Lee finishes off Kareem Abdul Jabar. I suppose if one stretches his imagination then one will even see him address the ground scenario when he bites the Russian fighter's leg when he is taken down and arm locked in the pen-ultimate fight scene.

To conclude. IMHO many of those practising modern MMA may fall under the definition of Bruce Lee's vision of "functionality" but this, for the most part, does not make them kung fu fighters.

[AdrianK]

Bruce Lee's genuis was not in his kung fu because I don't believe that he studied any kung fu style to a level of expertise.

Which is a hilarious statement when you consider that everyone who knew him and trained with him, felt otherwise.

But the random kung fu sifu who didn't even know someone who knew him, and only watched videos, knows exactly what his skill level was, huh? :rolleyes:



As we know, he didn't complete Wing Chun, nor Mantis or any other kung fu style.

Completing a system doesn't necessarily mean you are an expert, or that you are not an expert.

Systems are a set of concepts and physical templates. I can take part of the wing chun curriculum, and part of the mantis curriculum, and be more knowledgable than most kung fu sifu's who only know one, or the other.

It doesn't hurt that wing chun and south mantis have plenty in common, either.



He did not delve into internal training including aspects such as internal tendon development. His conditioning was external.

Show me a fighter who has. Not some asshat in the mid-west who doesn't even fight.

No, he used realistic, scientifically proven conditioning methods that made sense.



I believe that an interesting question would be, how would Bruce Lee's fighting approach have evolved had he stayed in Hong Kong and continued and completed his Wing Chun under Yip Man rather than one his students?

Who knows. Based on the type of person he was, it would be about the same. Except he'd know how to do biu gee omfgwtf.



What if he had gone on to take up or "cross train" in another kung fu style that was more profound than Wing Chun both in concepts and in the internals? How would his martial arts philosophy have developed then?

He did train with Lam Sang, in South Mantis. He never finished it, but lam sang was a hell of a teacher and bruce lee was a hell of a student.



To conclude. IMHO many of those practising modern MMA may fall under the definition of Bruce Lee's vision of "functionality" but this, for the most part, does not make them kung fu fighters.

Kung fu isn't a living entity dude. Its a static idea. No matter what you add or change, it is a set of ideas and physical templates. It does not develop on its own - Human beings develop it.

The human body is a living entity that develops. We are not kung fu fighters but fighters who utilize methods in kung fu.

[Hardwork108]

Which is a hilarious statement when you consider that everyone who knew him and trained with him, felt otherwise.
I believe that everyone felt that he was an excellent martial artist, even a genious but that still doesn't make him a kung fu expert in the authentic sense.


But the random kung fu sifu who didn't even know someone who knew him, and only watched videos, knows exactly what his skill level was, huh? :rolleyes:

Thank you but I am not a sifu, far from it. However, there seem to be plenty of "kung fu" :rolleyes: "sifus":rolleyes: here in the forums for you to direct your deragotary posts. Some of these "sifus":rolleyes: even follow the Bruce Lee line of martial arts functionality but perhaps without his genious.;)

Also no one is doubting Bruce Lee's fighting or MA skill level. I am "doubting" the use of the word kung fu in regards to what he did!



Completing a system doesn't necessarily mean you are an expert, or that you are not an expert.

I don't believe that you made the above statement!

Ok, here goes, if you study in a REAL kung fu school then you will be an expert by the time you finish the system. No decent master or sifu is going to let you just go through the motions and "complete" the system.:rolleyes:


Systems are a set of concepts and physical templates. I can take part of the wing chun curriculum, and part of the mantis curriculum, and be more knowledgable than most kung fu sifu's who only know one, or the other.

Or you can be a Jack of All Trades!

That is if you don't first gain expert knowledge in one of those arts before going on to study the next one. Of course, if you had expert knowldedge in both then that might just be an advantage.;)

However, that would take years of dedicated practice under a real sifu(s), not necessarily a "famous" one(s)!


It doesn't hurt that wing chun and south mantis have plenty in common, either.

Not as much as you think, apparently.

How come Bruce Lee never talked about internal training including those that are directly related to internal tendon development (SPM) and the resultant body unity?

I bought some books of his when I was young. Where are the Gow Chois (hammer fists) and Phoenix eye techniques? Or were they there but I missed it? Well I haven't had a look at those books for a long time and I will stand corrected.



Show me a fighter who has. Not some asshat in the mid-west who doesn't even fight.

I have met three sifus who have the internals who can fight. Just because you have not been made aware of the significance of the internals to combat in TCMAs then don't assume that they are not a fundamental part of kung fu training.


No, he used realistic, scientifically proven conditioning methods that made sense.
Using that logic then you would assume that he could beat every traditional kung fu stylist on the face of this planet and we both know (I hope:eek:) that this is not true.



Who knows. Based on the type of person he was, it would be about the same. Except he'd know how to do biu gee omfgwtf.

So you think that the difference between the Chum Kiu level in Wing Chun and the Biu Gee is just the Biu Gee form? I believe that you have misunderstood not just Wing Chun but the whole of TCMAs.



He did train with Lam Sang, in South Mantis. He never finished it, but lam sang was a hell of a teacher and bruce lee was a hell of a student.
And you are a hell of a way out of your depth!



Kung fu isn't a living entity dude. Its a static idea. No matter what you add or change, it is a set of ideas and physical templates. It does not develop on its own - Human beings develop it.

I have news for you "dude". For "human beings" to develop kung fu they should first gain expert knowledge or mastery in it so as to understand it holistically, including all ranges; the higher levels of the internals and other aspects such as perhaps advanced Iron Palm/fist/body.

Once high levels of kung fu expertise and understandings are achieved, then one can go on to develop a given style and that is what past masters did. It was not a case of "I won't bother to train for many years to understand this stuff so I will fill in the gaps by inventing my stuff or crosstraining in the local Bjj gym"!

You can only do the above if you train dedicatedly for many years in authentic school and with an authentic sifu who is willing to teach you the advanced stuff. We all know how Yip Man felt about Bruce Lee.;)


The human body is a living entity that develops. We are not kung fu fighters but fighters who utilize methods in kung fu.

I am sorry, but if you want to be a kung fu fighter then you have to USE kung fu when you fight and not just a few aspects that you think suit you!

If you are just borrowing and mish mashing techniques from kung fu and mixing them with other MAs then what you do is not kung fu. Because if you use a "kung fu" punch and then follow it up with a Muay Thai kick while hoping around a la Bruce Lee (or a boxer/kickboxer), then what you are doing is your own MMA. You can even call it "Jeet Kune Do".:rolleyes:

However it has nothing to do with authentic kung fu. You may want to call this kung fu because of the fact you used a "kung fu" punch but then why not call what you do Muay Thai? Or kickboxing? Or Karate, if you happen to use some karate techniques, as well?

[AdrianK]

I believe that everyone felt that he was an excellent martial artist, even a genious but that still doesn't make him a kung fu expert in the authentic sense.

lol, so please share with me what this authentic sense is.



I don't believe that you made the above statement!

Ok, here goes, if you study in a REAL kung fu school then you will be an expert by the time you finish the system. No decent master or sifu is going to let you just go through the motions and "complete" the system.

Finishing the system does not make you an expert. Memorization and rehearsal of movements does not mean you understand the system, or its application.

In Wing Chun, you can learn biu gee, chum kiu, siu lim tao, the entire wooden dummy, the 8 and a half foot pole, the butterfly swords and how to do all of the movements exactly like your Sifu does them.

But that DOESNT mean you understand the application of the system. All of the concepts it teaches, or can explain any of it in your own words.

There are PLENTY of people who show this clear LACK of expertise, on various wing chun forums, who have "Completed" the system.



Or you can be a Jack of All Trades!

That is if you don't first gain expert knowledge in one of those arts before going on to study the next one. Of course, if you had expert knowldedge in both then that might just be an advantage.

It might be. Its debatable exactly what advantage that would give you, it depends on the curriculum and how much they share in common. If I start in one system but don't finish, but learn most of the concepts, and finish up the concepts I don't know or understand, in another system, even though I don't finish the entirety of that system, then I would be about where I would be if I just stayed with the original system to begin with.

It gets ridiculously complicated if we start talking what if's in that regard.

The fact of the matter is, wing chun concepts and physical templates are not exclusive to wing chun. You can complete your wing chun by studying other systems, if you have a good foundation in wing chun to begin with (which bruce did).



Not as much as you think, apparently.

Having studied both systems, I'd say South Mantis is a more complete system.
But thats just my opinion.



How come Bruce Lee never talked about internal training including those that are directly related to internal tendon development (SPM) and the resultant body unity?

Bruce kept plenty to himself. He didn't even want to teach double pak sao.




I bought some books of his when I was young. Where are the Gow Chois (hammer fists) and Phoenix eye techniques? Or were they there but I missed it? Well I haven't had a look at those books for a long time and I will stand corrected.

Are you questioning whether he learned enough from Lam Sang?
Go contact one of Lam Sang's students who were with him during that time. They'll set you straight in terms of bruce lee's knowledge of phoenix eye techniques.



I have met three sifus who have the internals who can fight. Just because you have not been made aware of the significance of the internals to combat in TCMAs then don't assume that they are not a fundamental part of kung fu training.

Well then go tell those Sifu's to collect James Randi's million dollar prize.
Until then, they're just as full of **** as anyone else.



Using that logic then you would assume that he could beat every traditional kung fu stylist on the face of this planet and we both know (I hope) that this is not true.

Pound for pound his strength would have given him a significant advantage. Theres nothing I've ever seen demonstrated by any Traditional Kung Fu stylist that has been anything incredibly better than what bruce lee has taught. Some things are more advanced, sure. But nothing that would decide a fight.



So you think that the difference between the Chum Kiu level in Wing Chun and the Biu Gee is just the Biu Gee form? I believe that you have misunderstood not just Wing Chun but the whole of TCMAs.

Too much importance is placed on the forms. Biu Gee, just like Chum Kiu, just like Sim Lim Tao and the wooden dummy - Everything that is in these forms, is taught to everyone. Forms are simply reference guides.



I have news for you "dude". For "human beings" to develop kung fu they should first gain expert knowledge or mastery in it so as to understand it holistically, including all ranges; the higher levels of the internals and other aspects such as perhaps advanced Iron Palm/fist/body.

Expert knowledge in something is subjective. Is someone who knows everything but understands very little an "expert", or is someone who knows some and understands everything hes learned, the real expert?

In reality once you understand the concepts and physical templates, you don't need style anymore. You are your own expert and master of your body.

Yes, it takes expertise in style, to shed style, but to say bruce didn't achieve that is ridiculous. His understanding of things was clearly far deeper than most other instructors even today.



Once high levels of kung fu expertise and understandings are achieved, then one can go on to develop a given style and that is what past masters did.

Oh god. So master a style to create a style. Wow thats ****ing deep. :|



It was not a case of "I won't bother to train for many years to understand this stuff so I will fill in the gaps by inventing my stuff or crosstraining in the local Bjj gym"!

1.) You won't find anything in kung fu, that fills in the gaps BJJ does, on the ground.

Bruce trained for many years. He sought knowledge in all places. He was a student of many teachers, and those teachers gave him a more complete grasp of martial arts than most people have, even today.



You can only do the above if you train dedicatedly for many years in authentic school and with an authentic sifu who is willing to teach you the advanced stuff. We all know how Yip Man felt about Bruce Lee.

Really? How did Yip Man feel about bruce lee?

And what is this "Advanced stuff"? Why is it "Advanced" anyway? Because its more complicated from a kung fu perspective? Cause scientifically speaking, your advanced stuff is pretty ****ing simple.

[Ultimatewingchun]

While it is true that Bruce Lee did not finish his wing chun training, I think it should be pretty obvious from watching his movies, reading his magazine articles, and reading his books (and Inosanto's books) that Bruce clearly did have a working knowledge and skill level of all the core concepts of Yip Man's publicly taught C-O-M version of the art (ie.- attacking the opponent's center of mass while always protecting one's own centerline).

So this is really a false issue: "What could he have done if he actually did complete his wing chun training?! :rolleyes: :D

And typical of the kool aid mentality that so often permeates this forum. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, if one studies the arc of Bruce's JKD journey, I think it should also be obvious that, had he lived longer, he would have explored - and probably excelled at- grappling arts, ie.- we do know that he spent some time with Gene Lebell learning some catch werstling and judo, and also with Wally Jay learning some judo...

and indeed, some of these moves do show up in at least two of his movies, ENTER THE DRAGON and also THE GAME OF DEATH.

And furthermore, as another point of speculation, were he alive today and a participant in the current mma movement, I'd anticipate that Bruce would have been a Kazushi Sakuraba type who could also punch and block like a demon...

the only real hole in Sakuraba'a game, as he was just an "okay" puncher/blocker - as can be seen in accounting, imo, for his devastating losses to an excellent striker, Vanderlai Silva.

[Hardwork108]

PART 1


lol, so please share with me what this authentic sense is.
Authentic sense of kung fu training would encompass the roots as well as the internals, among other things. Bruce did not have the internals. I don't recall him talking about them in his four training books. His roots resembled that of a boxer/fencer rather than that of a kung fu/Wing Chun stylist.

His criticism of the "fist by the hip" position seen in many kung fu (and karate) ignored the fact that a lot of the time those positions are for training and not for fighting. When used for fighting there is a valid application for the fist on the side and it does not leave you "open to attack."

Bruce Lee was against forms training. Forms training work on many levels INCLUDING sometimes on the INTERNAL one. Ignorance of the internals will only make your MA only external, that is, no Yin and Yang balance.

So please don't say that Bruce Lee was an authentic kung fu expert as I don't believe that even he would have claimed that!




Finishing the system does not make you an expert. Memorization and rehearsal of movements does not mean you understand the system, or its application.

When I refer to "finishing a system" I am talking about with a genuine kung fu sifu in a genuine kung fu school. If you have ever studied in an authentic combat oriented kung fu school then you will know what I am talking about.

Kung fu schools that only teach forms and make you memorise the techniques so that you can complete a system are Mcdojos/Mckwoons!


In Wing Chun, you can learn biu gee, chum kiu, siu lim tao, the entire wooden dummy, the 8 and a half foot pole, the butterfly swords and how to do all of the movements exactly like your Sifu does them.
That is Wing Chun on one level. There are many levels in wing chun and to learn those you would need to go to a proper school!


But that DOESNT mean you understand the application of the system. All of the concepts it teaches, or can explain any of it in your own words.

You will if you are studying in an authentic kung fu school that teachs Wing Chun holistically and on its many levels!


There are PLENTY of people who show this clear LACK of expertise, on various wing chun forums, who have "Completed" the system.

Tell me about it.:rolleyes:



It might be. Its debatable exactly what advantage that would give you, it depends on the curriculum and how much they share in common. If I start in one system but don't finish, but learn most of the concepts, and finish up the concepts I don't know or understand, in another system, even though I don't finish the entirety of that system, then I would be about where I would be if I just stayed with the original system to begin with.

I am not saying that you can't start with one system and then go on to study another one with a few carry on advantages. After all many kung fu styles have many things in common. However, you cannot complete your Wing Chun by studying Praying Mantis, as you can't complete your Praying Mantis by studying Wing Chun. That does not mean that you don't get stronger and better at kung fu but at the end of the day to be an expert in a give style you need to complete it fully (deep understanding of applications,internals, etc.).


The fact of the matter is, wing chun concepts and physical templates are not exclusive to wing chun.
They are exclusive enough to make Wing Chun look different to Southern Praying Mantis (as well as other Southern styles with whom it shares similarities, eg. White Crane).

Also, you don't get the WC stance shifting in SPM, at least not the lineage I am familiar with.


You can complete your wing chun by studying other systems, if you have a good foundation in wing chun to begin with (which bruce did).

Correction, you can improve your kung fu or even your Wing Chun by studying other valid kung fu systems under genuine sifus, but you can only complete your Wing Chun by completing the Wing Chun syllabus which will enable you to have a deeper understanding of its techniques, various principles, concepts (including the internals) and their higher level applications inside this style's distinct framework. You are not going to get that from studying another style of kung fu which happens to share some of WC's principles.



Having studied both systems, I'd say South Mantis is a more complete system.
But thats just my opinion.
You may be right but again IMHO you can't complete WC by completing Praying Mantis. Again you may improve your personal kung fu or become a better fighter but you cannot claim expertise in Wing Chun.

In Bruce's case he went on to create something that violated some of the WC principles and as far as I know, in later life he did not refer to JKD as kung fu, even if his publicity claimed him to be the "King of Kung Fu".

[Hardwork108]

PART 2


Bruce kept plenty to himself. He didn't even want to teach double pak sao.
I was under the impression of him being very open about what he did, "no secret techniques"and all that. He taught openly. After all he was one of the first to teach Westerners. Maybe we can contribute the Mcdojo phenomenom to him as well.:eek::D

Furthermore a lot his training methodology contradicts the internal SPM (and WC ones that I have been taught).



Are you questioning whether he learned enough from Lam Sang?
Go contact one of Lam Sang's students who were with him during that time. They'll set you straight in terms of bruce lee's knowledge of phoenix eye techniques.
I don't need to talk to them. Bruce Lee always spoke his mind and did share his knowledge. I believe that he took whatever he had learnt in kung fu that worked for him, mixed with a whole lot of other stuff and went on to create his own thing.

My point is that he did not complete Wing Chun nor any other kung fu system. Furthermore, what he created does not fit withing a kung fu framework.



Well then go tell those Sifu's to collect James Randi's million dollar prize.
Until then, they're just as full of **** as anyone else.

You seem to have misunderstood the kung fu internals just like most of the others here in the forum, including some kung fu "sifus" apparently. That is very suprising because Siu Nim Tao itself is in part an internal (chi kung) exercise and as far as my lineage of WC is concerned we are taught supplimentary internal exercises as well. You say that you have studied SPM. A lot of this style is also internal based!


Pound for pound his strength would have given him a significant advantage. Theres nothing I've ever seen demonstrated by any Traditional Kung Fu stylist that has been anything incredibly better than what bruce lee has taught. Some things are more advanced, sure. But nothing that would decide a fight.

IMHO, your lack of understanding regarding the internals has invalidated the above statements. Furthermore, you probably have not seen too many traditional combat oriented kung fu masters or sifus.


Too much importance is placed on the forms. Biu Gee, just like Chum Kiu, just like Sim Lim Tao and the wooden dummy - Everything that is in these forms, is taught to everyone. Forms are simply reference guides.

There can be levels to the study of forms. I would even say that to be true more in the case of SPM than WC. Also during the teachings of a given form at a given level other relevant stuff is covered. So it is not the case of "hey memorise this form and then you can go to the next level", that is pure Mcdojo. Real kung fu schools don't work that way.


Expert knowledge in something is subjective.

It is subjective if the person judging this expertise is not an expert himself.;)


Is someone who knows everything but understands very little an "expert",

Of course not!
An expert is someone who knows everything and understands those things at a very high level. That is what I am talking about. If your kung fu school is only teaching you movements for you to memorise then please go and ask for your money back.


or is someone who knows some and understands everything hes learned, the real expert?
He may be a genius and should go and see James Randi. Talking of genius, lets go back to Bruce Lee. He probably was a genuis and he made what he did work for him as far as combat MA is concerned but he was no kung fu master, in the authentic/traditional sense.


In reality once you understand the concepts and physical templates, you don't need style anymore. You are your own expert and master of your body.

And you can get to that level through expertise in kung fu, karate, kickboxing and so on. Bruce Lee used a MIX. His base was wing chun (which he never completed) and what he ended up with resembled some kind of a kickboxing/MMA mix with a bit of stand up WC stuff thrown in and "adapted".


Yes, it takes expertise in style, to shed style, but to say bruce didn't achieve that is ridiculous.

I will go on to say that he eventually gained expertise in the WC stuff that he actually learnt in Hong Kong, but he did not learn the whole system and hence could not have gained expertise in things that he had not learnt.


His understanding of things was clearly far deeper than most other instructors even today.
Unfortunately, that is not saying much.;)



Oh god. So master a style to create a style. Wow thats ****ing deep. :|

Well that is what I have been trying to tell you man!


1.) You won't find anything in kung fu, that fills in the gaps BJJ does, on the ground.
How would one know if one has not fully completed a single style of kung fu in an AUTHENTIC school???


Bruce trained for many years. He sought knowledge in all places. He was a student of many teachers, and those teachers gave him a more complete grasp of martial arts than most people have, even today.

I believe that you are mixing Bruce Lee`s MMA and combat fighting prowess with his lack of traditional kung fu expertise.



Really? How did Yip Man feel about bruce lee?
According to my readings Yip Man wouldn't even teach him personally as Bruce was of mixed blood.


And what is this "Advanced stuff"? Why is it "Advanced" anyway? Because its more complicated from a kung fu perspective? Cause scientifically speaking, your advanced stuff is pretty ****ing simple.

To make such a statement would imply that you are familiar with the advanced stuff and science required to test it. Unfortunately base on what you have written in this thread I would say that you are not qualified to discuss the validity of the internals and the advanced techniques based on their mastery. Of course, I am not an expert, nor a sifu and I have never claimed to be, however my training approach has been authentic as I have been lucky enough to train with authentic kung fu sifus, hence I know enough to see the difference.

[Hardwork108]

While it is true that Bruce Lee did not finish his wing chun training, I think it should be pretty obvious from watching his movies, reading his magazine articles, and reading his books (and Inosanto's books) that Bruce clearly did have a working knowledge and skill level of all the core concepts of Yip Man's publicly taught C-O-M version of the art (ie.- attacking the opponent's center of mass while always protecting one's own centerline).

Anyone training in an authentic Wing Chun school should have that "working knowledge" at Chum Kiu level.


So this is really a false issue: "What could he have done if he actually did complete his wing chun training?! :rolleyes: :D

He would probably have gainned a better understanding of the internal side of kung fu and that would have made his TCMA knowledge richer. As it turned out he went and crosstrained in may MAs and gained expertise in fighting and MMA, but his Wing Chun was incomplete.


And typical of the kool aid mentality that so often permeates this forum. :rolleyes:

What really permeates in this forum is an "external" knucklehead mentality that ignores the internals of kung fu and practices kung fu as an incomplete art. This may be good discussion point in another thread.


Furthermore, if one studies the arc of Bruce's JKD journey, I think it should also be obvious that, had he lived longer, he would have explored - and probably excelled at- grappling arts, ie.- we do know that he spent some time with Gene Lebell learning some catch werstling and judo, and also with Wally Jay learning some judo...

I have no doubt about that. Bruce was living his own journey but his path was a warrior's path but not a kung fu one.


and indeed, some of these moves do show up in at least two of his movies, ENTER THE DRAGON and also THE GAME OF DEATH.

As mentioned before.;)


And furthermore, as another point of speculation, were he alive today and a participant in the current mma movement, I'd anticipate that Bruce would have been a Kazushi Sakuraba type who could also punch and block like a demon...

the only real whole in Sakuraba'a game, as he was just an "okay" puncher/blocker - as can be seen in accounting, imo, for his devastating losses to an excellent striker, Vanderlai Silva.

I believe that we should see Bruce Lee for what he was. An excellent martial artist; perhaps even a genious; an innovator and finally a hero for the eventual MMA movement and not necessarily for kung fu.

Yes he did develop expertise in whatever Wing Chun that he had learnt but he had not learnt the complete style. He talked about the "classical mess" and so on. I believe that had he reached an expert level of understanding in the "classical" styles then he would have been less critical.

[AdrianK]

Authentic sense of kung fu training would encompass the roots as well as the internals, among other things. Bruce did not have the internals. I don't recall him talking about them in his four training books. His roots resembled that of a boxer/fencer rather than that of a kung fu/Wing Chun stylist.

Thats under the assumption that the internals are scientifically verifiable. Which given the amount of kung fu people who fight, they would be king of the ****ing hill if they actually made any kind of real difference.

But they're not.
And not because they "Don't want to prove anything", its because they're ****ing scared of getting their asses beat.



His criticism of the "fist by the hip" position seen in many kung fu (and karate) ignored the fact that a lot of the time those positions are for training and not for fighting. When used for fighting there is a valid application for the fist on the side and it does not leave you "open to attack."

The 60's and 70's were a very different time for martial arts. Non-martial artists would see this and believe this was what a martial arts punch was.



Bruce Lee was against forms training. Forms training work on many levels INCLUDING sometimes on the INTERNAL one. Ignorance of the internals will only make your MA only external, that is, no Yin and Yang balance.

There is no scientific evidence that forms are any better than strength training, exercise, and proper breathing.

The form is just an expression of proper training methods. You dissect them and what do you get? Individual training methods that most people in the fitness world already do, in better ways.

Besides that, they're references.

They don't build chi power to throw a god**** fireball, or repel bullets with your abs of steel.

They're honestly worthless beyond a point of reference. And I would love to see any kind of scientific evidence that says otherwise. Taiji forms are used for health because its a fun, attractive way to strengthan your body. You don't NEED to adhere to the specific movements, you simply NEED to put your body in positions that challenge your muscles, tendons, etc. Then the concept of relaxation and proper breathing translates into that as well.

But I don't NEED Siu Lim Tao to learn how to breathe properly. I don't need it to know how to do a tan sao properly. I don't need it to know how to do a wu sao properly. All of this is taught by competent instructors, individually.



When I refer to "finishing a system" I am talking about with a genuine kung fu sifu in a genuine kung fu school. If you have ever studied in an authentic combat oriented kung fu school then you will know what I am talking about.

What is a genuine kung fu sifu in a genuine kung fu school? You're speaking in vague terms again. If you mean a combat oriented kung fu school, well bruce's was pretty combat oriented. But I thought you wanted internals? Whats that got to do with combat? Abso****inglutely nothing. If there was something extraordinary about it, as said before, it would have been shown.

But instead, these *******s hide in their schools claiming of incredible feats without ever feeling the need to challenge themselves and show how full of **** they really are.



Kung fu schools that only teach forms and make you memorise the techniques so that you can complete a system are Mcdojos/Mckwoons!

The Kung Fu world in general is mcdojos and mckwoons. honestly. Just take a look at the bull**** printed in inside kung fu on a regular basis.



That is Wing Chun on one level. There are many levels in wing chun and to learn those you would need to go to a proper school!

I've been to some of the best wing chun instructors out here.

There are always "dumb" students in every school, who get promoted regardless because they put in time and effort, and are generally good people and thus there isn't any real problem with that. Or, they've managed to mimic their sifu without ever having a real understanding of it.

These things are extremely hard to gauge. Its easy for someone to say, oh yeah, I agree with you on that sifu, and instinctively mimic their instructor, their explanations, etc, and its extremely hard when someone does this, to differentiate between real knowledge, and memorization. Even universities have wide-spread problems with this, and its result of incompetent graduates.



You will if you are studying in an authentic kung fu school that teachs Wing Chun holistically and on its many levels!

Ya know, show me this amazing kung fu school of yours. Got videos? Got written word of these instructors, even?



However, you cannot complete your Wing Chun by studying Praying Mantis, as you can't complete your Praying Mantis by studying Wing Chun.

That really depends on what you learn, at what points. There is nothing in biu gee or the movements 41 - 108, that south mantis doesn't have. Honestly. It might be one or two little things, but in terms of concepts and methods, its just ridiculous to say that there is a large difference between these systems.



They are exclusive enough to make Wing Chun look different to Southern Praying Mantis (as well as other Southern styles with whom it shares similarities, eg. White Crane).

Everything looks different on the outside. If you studied these systems you'd know just how much they have in common.
Just because their tan is a little bit different in white crane and south mantis, doesn't make a bit of ****ing difference.

Actually conceptually, its far less spoonfed then wing chun is. Many south mantis techniques have multiple applications that wing chun instead, splits into multiple, defined techniques. But in terms of applicability, there really is very little difference.

[AdrianK]

Also, you don't get the WC stance shifting in SPM, at least not the lineage I am familiar with.

And which lineage would that be?



but you can only complete your Wing Chun by completing the Wing Chun syllabus which will enable you to have a deeper understanding of its techniques, various principles, concepts (including the internals) and their higher level applications inside this style's distinct framework.

The funny thing when you talk about internals in wing chun is, when did yip man die again? How old was he?
How 'bout wong shun leung?

Exactly, but I can name more than a few taiji/xingyi/bagua practitioners that have lived to their 90's and 100's.

As for your other point - Technically it will not be wing chun. In terms of applicability - It will have pretty much everything that wing chun has.



In Bruce's case he went on to create something that violated some of the WC principles and as far as I know, in later life he did not refer to JKD as kung fu, even if his publicity claimed him to be the "King of Kung Fu".

Thats probably because he understood the need to shed style.



I was under the impression of him being very open about what he did, "no secret techniques"and all that. He taught openly. After all he was one of the first to teach Westerners. Maybe we can contribute the Mcdojo phenomenom to him as well.

Go and read what his students who are teaching, have to say about that.
More than a few have said they were told to not teach certain things.



I don't need to talk to them. Bruce Lee always spoke his mind and did share his knowledge. I believe that he took whatever he had learnt in kung fu that worked for him, mixed with a whole lot of other stuff and went on to create his own thing.

My point is that he did not complete Wing Chun nor any other kung fu system. Furthermore, what he created does not fit withing a kung fu framework.

Blah blah blah blah blah. :D
Your Kung Fu Framework is so extremely well defined, i'm surprised anything fits within it.



You seem to have misunderstood the kung fu internals just like most of the others here in the forum, including some kung fu "sifus" apparently. That is very suprising because Siu Nim Tao itself is in part an internal (chi kung) exercise and as far as my lineage of WC is concerned we are taught supplimentary internal exercises as well. You say that you have studied SPM. A lot of this style is also internal based!

I misunderstood kung fu internals because I'm skeptical of scientifically unproven concepts!

Hah. Not enough martial artists give the scientific community enough credit for not only how vast it is, but how much money is invested in it, and how many brilliant, incredible people that have far more intelligence then you or me will ever experience.



IMHO, your lack of understanding regarding the internals has invalidated the above statements. Furthermore, you probably have not seen too many traditional combat oriented kung fu masters or sifus.

Seen plenty. Nothing has ever been demonstrated to be any more effective at internal development, then well known processes already within the scientific community.



There can be levels to the study of forms. I would even say that to be true more in the case of SPM than WC.

SPM incorporates quite a bit of dynamic tension training, as does uechi-ryu.
That doesn't mean you need to do the form, or understand the form, to understand the dynamic tension training within it.



Also during the teachings of a given form at a given level other relevant stuff is covered. So it is not the case of "hey memorise this form and then you can go to the next level", that is pure Mcdojo. Real kung fu schools don't work that way.

Please tell me where can I find your real deal kung fu school?



It is subjective if the person judging this expertise is not an expert himself

No its entirely subjective by virtue of how the human brain works. No single person can determine a fact to be 100%. Even the colors you see are variables based on how your brain interprets them. One little thing goes wrong and suddenly green becomes red to you. The way the human brain interprets the experiences you have, what you see, and what you remember, is neither certain nor complete.


An expert is someone who knows everything and understands those things at a very high level. That is what I am talking about. If your kung fu school is only teaching you movements for you to memorise then please go and ask for your money back.

The point isn't that what they teach you isn't great.
The point is that many students aren't great, or even good.

This is a problem in all fields of learning.



He may be a genius and should go and see James Randi. Talking of genius, lets go back to Bruce Lee. He probably was a genuis and he made what he did work for him as far as combat MA is concerned but he was no kung fu master, in the authentic/traditional sense.

So was the very first, original chinese martial artist, a kung fu master?
Can human beings, regardless of what ethnicity or level of training, with education and sense, not come to the same conclusions that some uneducated asshats did, 3000 years ago?



Unfortunately, that is not saying much.

Hah, this is about the only thing we can agree on :)



How would one know if one has not fully completed a single style of kung fu in an AUTHENTIC school???

Who says I haven't? Because I'm very critical of them?
If theres some kind of kung fu BJJ, show me it.



I believe that you are mixing Bruce Lee`s MMA and combat fighting prowess with his lack of traditional kung fu expertise.

TCMA don't have exclusive rights to sensible fighting.



According to my readings Yip Man wouldn't even teach him personally as Bruce was of mixed blood.

And according to hawkins cheung (for one), yip man really liked bruce lee.



To make such a statement would imply that you are familiar with the advanced stuff and science required to test it. Unfortunately base on what you have written in this thread I would say that you are not qualified to discuss the validity of the internals and the advanced techniques based on their mastery. Of course, I am not an expert, nor a sifu and I have never claimed to be, however my training approach has been authentic as I have been lucky enough to train with authentic kung fu sifus, hence I know enough to see the difference.

:rolleyes: Okay then. Again, show me the real kung fu. :confused:

[Edmund]

I believe that we should see Bruce Lee for what he was. An excellent martial artist; perhaps even a genious; an innovator and finally a hero for the eventual MMA movement and not necessarily for kung fu.

Yes he did develop expertise in whatever Wing Chun that he had learnt but he had not learnt the complete style. He talked about the "classical mess" and so on. I believe that had he reached an expert level of understanding in the "classical" styles then he would have been less critical.

When UWC said "We are living Bruce Lee's vision", I think he forgot to add that "We" didn't include you, HW108.

You obviously aren't living Bruce Lee's vision at all.

Your scenario of Bruce learning traditional classical styles completely and rejecting his JKD vision is a hypothetical. As Victor said, "It's Kool aid" mentality to justify disagreeing with Bruce Lee: Hypothetically he would have come around if only he had learnt Biu Jee or something.:rolleyes:

The fact is he formed an opinion based on whatever he had learnt and definitely did criticize classical styles.

Tough luck to the classical people who don't like it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think the fact that guys like Norris, Inosanto, Cheung, Lewis, LeBell and more, said that he knew his stuff, that in itself should mean quite a lot.

[Hardwork108]

I think the fact that guys like Norris, Inosanto, Cheung, Lewis, LeBell and more, said that he knew his stuff, that in itself should mean quite a lot.

No one is doubting Bruce Lee's martial arts abilities. I doubt his kung fu mastery and as far as kung fu is concerned I believe that most of the guys you mentioned - Norris, LeBell, Lewis and Inosanto (?) - are not full out kung fu exponents!

[Hardwork108]

When UWC said "We are living Bruce Lee's vision", I think he forgot to add that "We" didn't include you, HW108.

Insults apart, there is nothing new about the Bruce Lee vision. TCMA'S were always about the accumulation of skills and their mastery at higher levels. Bruce Lee's way was different and perhaps more in par with modern MMA, even if some of his principles may have been different.


You obviously aren't living Bruce Lee's vision at all.

Not in the way that Bruce Lee would (or you) would have it.;)


Your scenario of Bruce learning traditional classical styles completely and rejecting his JKD vision is a hypothetical.

I never mentioned "complete rejection" of the JKD vision!

I believe that if he had completed Wing Chun or any other combat oriented style of kung fu in a genuine kung fu school and under a genuine master, then he may have come to realize that some of "his" JKD vision was thought out centuries before he was born.

Furthermore, he would have been exposed to and would have presumably mastered some of the kung fu internals. That would have been enough to change a lot of his vision, perhaps not completely but enough for him to not have made some of the criticisms that he eventually made regarding the classical styles.

And as Dale Dugas has recently mentioned in another Bruce Lee thread here in the forum, he would have been with us if he had real kung fu (or something to that effect).



As Victor said, "It's Kool aid" mentality to justify disagreeing with Bruce Lee: Hypothetically he would have come around if only he had learnt Biu Jee or something.:rolleyes:

What you and people of the McWing Chun generation don't seem to comprehend is the fact that learning the Chum Kiu or Biu Jee form is not the same as gaining HOLISTIC expertise in Chum Kiu and Biu Jee LEVELS!


The fact is he formed an opinion based on whatever he had learnt and definitely did criticize classical styles.

And this forum is full of "Bruce Lees" who form an opinion based on whatever they have learnt and who definitely do criticize classical styles..Lol,lol,lol,lol.

One would hope that Bruce Lee's opinion would have been based on at least a complete mastery and understanding of the relatively short style of Wing Chun.

Tough luck to the classical people who don't like it.[/QUOTE]

Tough luck to the modern MMA-ists who think that Bruce Lee's criticisms of traditional kung fu is based on actual expertise in a given style of TCMA.

[Edmund]

I believe that if he had completed Wing Chun or any other combat oriented style of kung fu in a genuine kung fu school and under a genuine master, then he may have come to realize that some of "his" JKD vision was thought out centuries before he was born.

Furthermore, he would have been exposed to and would have presumably mastered some of the kung fu internals. That would have been enough to change a lot of his vision, perhaps not completely but enough for him to not have made some of the criticisms that he eventually made regarding the classical styles.

And as Dale Dugas has recently mentioned in another Bruce Lee thread here in the forum, he would have been with us if he had real kung fu (or something to that effect).


These are all hypothetical.

Bruce Lee gave his opinion in writings and interviews.
They do not agree with you. Hypothesizing that he'd change his mind *IF ONLY* this or that is irrelevant.

This is not an insult. Your argument about Bruce Lee's change of opinion is simply not supported by his writings and quotes.

You don't have any evidence to back your claim that he'd "come around".



What you and people of the McWing Chun generation don't seem to comprehend is the fact that learning the Chum Kiu or Biu Jee form is not the same as gaining HOLISTIC expertise in Chum Kiu and Biu Jee LEVELS!

It doesn't matter what the distinction is.
The fact that you claim to have more expertise than Bruce Lee is not the issue.

"If Bruce Lee knew what I knew, he'd agree with me. He was just too inexperienced. Therefore Bruce Lee almost agrees with my opinion."



Tough luck to the modern MMA-ists who think that Bruce Lee's criticisms of traditional kung fu is based on actual expertise in a given style of TCMA.

Who cares what they are based on?
All his visions have essentially become relevant and true for modern MMA-ists regardless of how "expert" you consider him.

His vision is not for YOU. You are in the classical mess that he was definitely advocating against.


Lets quote Bruce Lee's actual opinion:


Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.

To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.

[Hardwork108]

Thats under the assumption that the internals are scientifically verifiable. Which given the amount of kung fu people who fight, they would be king of the ****ing hill if they actually made any kind of real difference.

Unfortunately over 95% (and I believe that I am being generous here) are Mc dojos/kwoons.

That would explain around 98% of (the totally clueless) posts regarding the subject of traditional kung fu and its alleged shortcomings, in this very forum.


But they're not.
And not because they "Don't want to prove anything", its because they're ****ing scared of getting their asses beat.

No doubt that what you say holds true for the McKwoon "sifus" but there are sifus out there who do not enter competitions but will fight if challenged. Furthermore, these types of challenges have been going on for centuries.


The 60's and 70's were a very different time for martial arts. Non-martial artists would see this and believe this was what a martial arts punch was.

Well perhaps Bruce Lee should have explained it better!

Furthermore that punch is still valid but there is also a valid application for the fist on the hip!



There is no scientific evidence that forms are any better than strength training, exercise, and proper breathing.

First, how many "scientists" that you know have mastered the intricacies of kung fu forms? I mean not just going through the motions!


The form is just an expression of proper training methods. You dissect them and what do you get? Individual training methods that most people in the fitness world already do, in better ways.

It is obvious that you have no experience of the internal side of kung fu training.


Besides that, they're references.

They don't build chi power to throw a god**** fireball, or repel bullets with your abs of steel.

More clueless statements.


They're honestly worthless beyond a point of reference. And I would love to see any kind of scientific evidence that says otherwise. Taiji forms are used for health because its a fun, attractive way to strengthan your body. You don't NEED to adhere to the specific movements, you simply NEED to put your body in positions that challenge your muscles, tendons, etc. Then the concept of relaxation and proper breathing translates into that as well.

You are still showing, to put it politely, a misunderstanding of the internal concepts.

I suppose that if you have mastered Tai Chi then perhaps you can break down some of the forms into specific and functional exercises. As far as I know, most of those who have mastered it and hence have profound knowledge, have not done so!

Why do you think that is?


But I don't NEED Siu Lim Tao to learn how to breathe properly. I don't need it to know how to do a tan sao properly. I don't need it to know how to do a wu sao properly. All of this is taught by competent instructors, individually.

I wish that Yip Man, Huen Kay San and Fung Siu Sing had your advanced training knowledge.:rolleyes:

Let us just say that there is a reason for SLT being the way it is and that to change it you would first have to have mastered it in all its aspects, hence being qualified to change it.

If you believe that the internals are about chi balls then you have no way in hell of mastering SNT.;)



genuine kung fu sifu in a genuine kung fu school? You're speaking in vague terms again.
It is vague for you because you have apparently not come across genuine kung fu instruction.


If you mean a combat oriented kung fu school, well bruce's was pretty combat oriented.
Mas. Oyama was combat oriented as well and in earlier life had practiced kung fu. However, that does not make him a combat oriented kung fu fighter!


But I thought you wanted internals? Whats that got to do with combat? Abso****inglutely nothing.
Again you are showing your "misunderstandings" on this subject, and rudely at that!



If there was something extraordinary about it, as said before, it would have been shown.

A lot of genuine masters have gone into a lot of trouble to keep that stuff under their hats. I mean look, even the great Bruce Lee didn't know about them.;)


But instead, these *******s hide in their schools claiming of incredible feats without ever feeling the need to challenge themselves and show how full of **** they really are.

There are those (McKwoons) who are full of what you say and there are the others that are genuine and even if they don't fight in competions, they would accept challenges. Care to go to one such school and try for yourself?



The Kung Fu world in general is mcdojos and mckwoons. honestly. Just take a look at the bull**** printed in inside kung fu on a regular basis.

And some of those compete as well.;)



I've been to some of the best wing chun instructors out here.

"Best wing chun instructors" who did not know about the internals? I smell Mc Kwoon again....lol.


There are always "dumb" students in every school, who get promoted regardless because they put in time and effort, and are generally good people and thus there isn't any real problem with that. Or, they've managed to mimic their sifu without ever having a real understanding of it.
I hate to break it to you but that sounds like McKwoon to me. I have never met a kung fu sifu who promotes his students because they put time and effort or because they are good people, but then you can count those sifus on (less than) one hand.

By the way, those who put the time and effort do get tangible results unless they have other problems.


These things are extremely hard to gauge. Its easy for someone to say, oh yeah, I agree with you on that sifu, and instinctively mimic their instructor, their explanations, etc, and its extremely hard when someone does this, to differentiate between real knowledge, and memorization.

Then I will inform you none of the traditional kung fu schools that I have trained in had exams. Sifu is always there and is hands on does regularly touch hands with students. So there is no fulling him. Of course if you have a Mckwoon with 40 students doing stuff and the "sifu" doesn't even know their names and doesn't care as long as he makes $$$$ on the exam fees, then you have a problem.



Ya know, show me this amazing kung fu school of yours.
Showing you the school is not going to help you.


Got videos?
Nope. Showing videos is not going to help you.


Got written word of these instructors, even?
Yes I do and it is regarding Wing Chun and the part of syllabus relevant to my level of training.

You see, you have been practising WC for I don't know how many years and still you have not grasped the relevance of the internals, the forms and god knows what else. What is a video of a genuine kung fu school going to do for you? I'll tell you, it will either confuse you even further as you will not make heads or tails out of it or at worst it will bring out snide remarks.



That really depends on what you learn, at what points. There is nothing in biu gee or the movements 41 - 108, that south mantis doesn't have. Honestly. It might be one or two little things, but in terms of concepts and methods, its just ridiculous to say that there is a large difference between these systems.
I would say that WC may share common movements/techniques with other kung fu (specially Southern styles) but that does not mean that doing less than half of Wing Chun and then going to one of these styles is going to complete your Wing Chun. It may improve your kung fu in general but it will not complete you WC. Think internals and their different energies as regards body unity.


Everything looks different on the outside. If you studied these systems you'd know just how much they have in common.
Who says I haven't?


Just because their tan is a little bit different in white crane and south mantis, doesn't make a bit of ****ing difference.
It can if you look at it holistically and include the internal aspects. Taking what I said further you can even have the same tam sao performed by two Wing Chun people but one has studied the art internally (and externally) and the other only externally, then the energy and the sensitiviy will be different.

Lets make it simpler. A straight karate punch may look like the equivalent from a Shaolin style. Are day the same? Of course not!


Actually conceptually, its far less spoonfed then wing chun is. Many south mantis techniques have multiple applications that wing chun instead, splits into multiple, defined techniques. But in terms of applicability, there really is very little difference.

There are similarities between these two styles but you cannot complete your WC studies by leaving it halfway and going to a PM school nor can you complete your PM studies by going to a WC school.

[Hardwork108]

And which lineage would that be?
It would be Chow Gar!



The funny thing when you talk about internals in wing chun is, when did yip man die again? How old was he?
How 'bout wong shun leung?

I would say that perhaps those people had some "unhealthy" habits. Furthermore it would seem that many of the Hong Kong lineages do not practice the internals that much or at least not openly.

My point of reference is the Mainland Chinese Lineage that I practise.


Exactly, but I can name more than a few taiji/xingyi/bagua practitioners that have lived to their 90's and 100's.
That is good. Perhaps you should take up taiji and just discard the forms.;)


As for your other point - Technically it will not be wing chun. In terms of applicability - It will have pretty much everything that wing chun has.

Yes and no. I don't believe these two styles to be that similar. Furthermore, Bruce Lee hardly mentioned his experience in Praying Mantis. WHY?

Are you just assuming that he went very far in that system?



Thats probably because he understood the need to shed style.

I got news for you. Once one masters a few styles of kung fu then he can "shed" the styles during combat. He just "becomes" or "is". That does not mean that he will invent something else nor that he will suddenly gain the super ability to hop around like a kickboxer, but it will all come to him naturally.

Of course to get to this level one has to gain kung fu MASTERY or at least EXPERTISE!


Go and read what his students who are teaching, have to say about that.
More than a few have said they were told to not teach certain things.

Which students and what was the context of Bruce Lee's order. I could tell you that don't teach high kicks to new and stiff students....etc.





Blah blah blah blah blah. :D
Your Kung Fu Framework is so extremely well defined, i'm surprised anything fits within it.

And that is another aspet that you misuderstand. It is not my Framework but it is a kung fu framework!

I did not invent the internals. I did not invent the principles of "swallowing", "spitting", "floating",etc.etc.

I did not create the distinct mechanisms using the distinct kung fu roots.

I don't know who you studied kung fu with but I am tempted to advice you to ask for your money back.:D



I misunderstood kung fu internals because I'm skeptical of scientifically unproven concepts!

You mean Western sciense don't you?

Well you can experience it yourself by practicing it with real sifus who will show you what is meant by them.

Right now I think that you equate the internals with chi blasts and magic powers and that is what some of the know nothing knucklehead "sifus":rolleyes: who post in these forums would want you to believe.


Hah. Not enough martial artists give the scientific community enough credit for not only how vast it is, but how much money is invested in it, and how many brilliant, incredible people that have far more intelligence then you or me will ever experience.
I give scientists a lot of credit and not just the ones in the East but also a few in the West.;)



Seen plenty. Nothing has ever been demonstrated to be any more effective at internal development, then well known processes already within the scientific community.

I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone here told me that they have "seen it all".Lol.

Well your comments don't reflect that!

When I said that you "haven't seen too many combat oriented traditional kung fu masters" I meant studied under and not seen on some video clip or demonstration.



SPM incorporates quite a bit of dynamic tension training, as does uechi-ryu.
That doesn't mean you need to do the form, or understand the form, to understand the dynamic tension training within it.

There is a design to the form and there are good reasons for it. One way of looking at them would be to take the Yin and Yang view of the movements and the balance that they creat. It is not just a case of lets stand there and do dynamic tension until we are tired.

Also as far as I am concerned Uechi ryu karate will not have the depth of the SPM "dynamic tension". Or are you saying now that you can complete your SPM training by going on to Uechi ryu, before even completing half of your Mantis? Lol,lol.



Please tell me where can I find your real deal kung fu school?

It is in Rio de Janeiro Brasil. Are up for a visit?:eek:

I am really surprised that you find the fact that real kung fu schools don't just teach you forms and then elevate your grades so unbelievable.

That raises a lot of questions from my side!


No its entirely subjective by virtue of how the human brain works. No single person can determine a fact to be 100%. Even the colors you see are variables based on how your brain interprets them. One little thing goes wrong and suddenly green becomes red to you. The way the human brain interprets the experiences you have, what you see, and what you remember, is neither certain nor complete.

I am merely saying that if one does not have a point of reference regarding authentic kung fu then one cannot make judgements.




The point isn't that what they teach you isn't great.
The point is that many students aren't great, or even good.

This is a problem in all fields of learning.

How can you have great students if you teach crap? They have crappy students because they teach some half assed "kung fu" stuff mixed with some half assed karate or TKD and then call it kung fu.

The authentic schools that I am familiar with will not promote your level without you first having understood that level to the required degree and gained the correct structures, techniques,powers etc.



So was the very first, original chinese martial artist, a kung fu master?

Well as far as I am aware the first MAs in China were of wrestling nature. This would put doubt on the well known "modern" MMA peech that TCMAs don't address groundfighting...based on some half-assed study of kung fu, I suppose? lol,lol. See where I am coming from?


Can human beings, regardless of what ethnicity or level of training, with education and sense, not come to the same conclusions that some uneducated asshats did, 3000 years ago?
That is like assuming that a modern sword fighter would defeat genuine samurai if they ever crossed paths because he is modern and has access to "modern" science.

As far as I am concerned, there are internal elements of kung fu training that modern sciense has not understood. The same can be said about enchant Chinese medicine.



Hah, this is about the only thing we can agree on :)
Well there is always a first time.:)



Who says I haven't? Because I'm very critical of them?
No because you do not seem to have "grasped" the internals.



If theres some kind of kung fu BJJ, show me it.

Well the groundfighting scenario is addressed in some kung fu styles. This is very understandable since the wrestling arts were around in China long before kung fu.
They may not look like BJJ but they still address this scenario.

The Mainland Chinese Lineage of Wing Chun that I study does have groundfighting training based on WC principles, using striking and Chin-na techniques. However, I have not trained this yet as I am not at this level currently.


TCMA don't have exclusive rights to sensible fighting.
I didn't say that they did.


And according to hawkins cheung (for one), yip man really liked bruce lee.
Yet, according to my readings Yip Man did not personally teach Bruce Lee, one of the reasons beign because bruce was mix raced. Anyway, Bruce Lee did not stay in HK long enough either.





Okay then. Again, show me the real kung fu. :confused:

How do I do that in a forum? You have studied WC for what I assume to be a pretty long time yet you make light of the internals, the SLT and so on. How can I show you "real kung fu"?:confused:

I am not a sifu (not even close) but I have been very lucky. Believe me I sometimes think about it and just thank my lucky stars regarding the kung fu sifus that I have crossed paths with in the Uk and Brasil. It is all in the approach and being lucky enough to have a sifu who can teach you that approach in a way that makes sense (without mumbo jumbo and the crazy stuff).

[Hardwork108]

These are all hypothetical.
I am not making some incredible claim!

I am just saying that if he had a clearer base of understanding regarding traditional kungfu methodology then his final vision would have been different. I am not saying that he would have been totally different but I am sure that his final conclusions would have been slightly "enriched".;)


Bruce Lee gave his opinion in writings and interviews.
They do not agree with you. Hypothesizing that he'd change his mind *IF ONLY* this or that is irrelevant.

Again, I never said that he would "change his mind" I said that his final conclusions would have been different. Unlike what people like you think, aspects such as the internals form a great part of the richness and potency of authentic kung fu.


This is not an insult.

It is in your tone.


Your argument about Bruce Lee's change of opinion is simply not supported by his writings and quotes.

I was not talking about a total change!

However, all his writings and quotes reflect that conclusions that he had arrived at while having had practiced kung fu in an incomplete way. That is without having even gained mastery of a single style of kung fu in all its aspects including the internals.


You don't have any evidence to back your claim that he'd "come around".

I don't need evidence to prove claims that I have never made. Perhaps he would have "come around" or perhaps not. I believe that he would have had a richer sphere of referance regarding authentic kung fu when arriving to the conclusions that he did hence his criticisms of "the classical mess" may not have been made in such a way.


It doesn't matter what the distinction is.
The fact that you claim to have more expertise than Bruce Lee is not the issue.

Woa, woa, woa, hold your horses. You have already made a post based on the incorrect assumption that I said that Bruce Lee would have been a traditionalist if he had gained expertise in Wing Chun. [Even if that may be a slight possibility;)].

So don't push that foot of yours any further by assuming that I said that I am more of an expert than Bruce Lee!

THANK YOU!:mad:


"If Bruce Lee knew what I knew, he'd agree with me. He was just too inexperienced. Therefore Bruce Lee almost agrees with my opinion."

I don't know what you are smoking (maybe it is a modern MMA performance enhancer? Lol) but I never implied the above.


Who cares what they are based on?

If you claim to make "expert" comments, then you should have some VALID experience in the subject area that you criticise (unless it seems if you happen to be a knucklehead posting your "informed" comments on traditional kung fu, in this forum, that is).

But, let me try again. If you are going to criticise kung fu style(s) that are by design profound and difficult to understand (just look at the confused "expert" comments every time chi sao is discussed here..lol.), then the least you can do to give yourself credibility is to have gained expert knowledge of at least one system.

However, even then kung fu is not just Wing Chun and there is a lot of stuff out there that would need to be examined to come to the idiotic conclusion that all classical kung fu is a "mess"!



All his visions have essentially become relevant and true for modern MMA-ists regardless of how "expert" you consider him.
IN THE SPORT SCENARIO. Meanwhile all the classically trained gangsters in some part of the far just do fine with their kung fu. So do those who work in police military and the security industry in those countries (and some in the West). I have used my kung fu successfully in self defense and so have thousands of kung fu (karate) practitioners.

If you are going to confuse success in ring fighting and sports tournaments with with TCMA goals then you are going to confuse yourself further!


His vision is not for YOU.

Well you got that right (yes, I am surprised too).


You are in the classical mess that he was definitely advocating against.

Except for the fact that because of his lack of expertise in traditional kung fu, the "Classical Mess" only existed in Bruce Lee's mind.

However, the "Jack of All Trades and Master of None" mess is all over the place today, including in these forums (if you don't believe me then look for the DVD evidence for $15 I believe).

Don't you want to be the first to thank Bruce Lee for this phenomenom?



Lets quote Bruce Lee's actual opinion:

Lets do, by all means.:D

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARDWORK108's CONVERSATION WITH BRUCE LEE :D



Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change.

Until you MASTER that style!

Then you can go on and "change".


But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization.
You are meant to express yourself totally and freely in kung fu as well but, yet again, when you master or gain expertise in its practice, FIRST!



That way, it's a process of continuing growth.

That is what many authentic kung fu sifus say!


To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines.

That is because many major kung fu styles do cover all possible lines!


If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about?

Because there are more ways than one to skin a cat?

Bruce, why do you ask such simple and obvious questions? :confused:


If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks,

Bruce, I have never heard of styles that use only kicks. Not TCMAs at least!

The other stuff that they use reflects the evolution, richness and profoundness of the Chinese martial arts, which you as a Chinese man should be pround of.

By the way, how many of these styles have you gained expert knowledge in Bruce?


and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands?

Bird styles, perhaps?

How many of them have you mastered Bruce?

What is your opinion of the upper body vibrations of the White Crane systems that manifest internal power in their palm strikes?

Whoops, sorry I asked Bruce.:eek:


To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.

Bruce, can you name me a single kung fu style that "clings to one small aspect of combat?

No? I thought not!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmund,

I hope the above conversation has provided you with plenty of food for thought regarding the so called "classical mess" and its validity.

[Edmund]

I am not making some incredible claim!

I am just saying that if he had a clearer base of understanding regarding traditional kungfu methodology then his final vision would have been different. I am not saying that he would have been totally different but I am sure that his final conclusions would have been slightly "enriched".;)
..
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARDWORK108's CONVERSATION WITH BRUCE LEE :D
...
...
...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmund,

I hope the above conversation has provided you with plenty of food for thought regarding the so called "classical mess" and its validity.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ITS VALIDITY.

This is about Bruce Lee's opinion and vision.
Bruce's opinion was plainly stated. My quote was to establish the opinion that he held! Not entertain the concept that he would modify it thanks to advice from you about the power of the internals.

The fact that you don't agree with his opinion is not the topic. Despite that, you continue to try have a "conversation" with him to change his mind!

You are trying to spin his opinion using a hypothetical: *IF* Bruce had completed WC, he would not be critical of TCMA, "his final conclusions would have been different" etc.

His opinions are clearly stated as being critical of traditional arts and the classical mess. His conclusion and vision was to be free of styles.

[t_niehoff]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ITS VALIDITY.

This is about Bruce Lee's opinion and vision.
Bruce's opinion was plainly stated. My quote was to establish the opinion that he held! Not entertain the concept that he would modify it thanks to advice from you about the power of the internals.

The fact that you don't agree with his opinion is not the topic. Despite that, you continue to try have a "conversation" with him to change his mind!

You are trying to spin his opinion using a hypothetical: *IF* Bruce had completed WC, he would not be critical of TCMA, "his final conclusions would have been different" etc.

His opinions are clearly stated as being critical of traditional arts and the classical mess. His conclusion and vision was to be free of styles.

Good points.

But, I would like to comment on the often heard "criticism" that Bruce hadn't "completed wing chun" or "completed the system". For me, such a comment shows a misunderstanding of WCK and martial art. That way of talking about WCK views it not as a skill but as some sort of body of knowledge, like a book (he never got past chapter 9, poor chap!). No one talks about boxing, judo, BJJ, MT in terms of "not completing the system" or not "learning all of boxing". That's not what it is about or how it works.

As I see it, WCK has, like every martial art, a fairly simple, fundamental skillset, and once you learn and develop that skillset (the stuff you learn very earyly on), you can "derive" everything else from it via practice.

No one ever "completes" WCK. It's not a book that you can finish. It is a skill that you learn and that you continue to practice.

[Hardwork108]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ITS VALIDITY.

This is about Bruce Lee's opinion and vision.

And I pointed out some "inconsistencies" in his vision!



Bruce's opinion was plainly stated. My quote was to establish the opinion that he held! Not entertain the concept that he would modify it thanks to advice from you about the power of the internals.

I am not saying that he would have changed the JKD concepts, after all many of them are present in TCMAs. You didn't know that did you?


The fact that you don't agree with his opinion is not the topic. Despite that, you continue to try have a "conversation" with him to change his mind!

No!

My "conversation" with him was to show the sometimes "exagerated" points that he made as well as the OBVIOUS ones that so impressed others who just had at best superficial understanding of TCMAs.


You are trying to spin his opinion using a hypothetical: *IF* Bruce had completed WC, he would not be critical of TCMA, "his final conclusions would have been different" etc.

I am saying that he would not have SO critical of TCMAs, hence "his final conclusions would have been different".

What is so incredible or difficult to understand about what I am trying to say?


His opinions are clearly stated as being critical of traditional arts and the classical mess. His conclusion and vision was to be free of styles.

Bruce Lee's "conclusion" and "vision" were based on an incomplete study of TCMAs, meaning that the "mess" he saw was not an universal truth and may have been partially a figment of his own imagination.

[Hardwork108]

Good points.

But, I would like to comment on the often heard "criticism" that Bruce hadn't "completed wing chun" or "completed the system". For me, such a comment shows a misunderstanding of WCK and martial art. That way of talking about WCK views it not as a skill but as some sort of body of knowledge, like a book (he never got past chapter 9, poor chap!).

But it is on one level. That is the level knuckleheads never see because they are too busy hopping around in a ring and getting and inducing even more brain damage on each other, while thinking they are using or learning "functional" Wing Chun (Hun Gar, CLF, etc.).

The body of the knowledge is in the internals and the finetuning of techniques.




No one talks about boxing, judo, BJJ, MT in terms of "not completing the system" or not "learning all of boxing". That's not what it is about or how it works.

Boxing, BJJ and MT do not have the internals. They are basically external arts.


As I see it, WCK has, like every martial art, a fairly simple, fundamental skillset, and once you learn and develop that skillset (the stuff you learn very earyly on), you can "derive" everything else from it via practice.

Then why study Wing Chun at all?

Just get a friend, wear some boxing gloves and hit each other on the head. Using some WC book as your reference.....lol,lol.


No one ever "completes" WCK. It's not a book that you can finish. It is a skill that you learn and that you continue to practice.

Wing Chun is a kung fu SYSTEM. Any system needs to be completed before one can go and practice and perfect what he has learnt. Furthermore, WC has the internal elelments that you are never going to learn by jumping in ring and hitting someone who is hitting you.

The lack of internal teachings in today's kung fu word seem to be reflected in the clueless kung fu advice one gets in forums such as this one.

Why don't some people just stick to kickboxing and let the kung fu people study the TCMAs in peace!

[anerlich]

Was Bruce a Glorified Kickboxer? Discuss.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Was Bruce a Glorified Kickboxer? Discuss.


***NO. Because what he did with his hands went beyond boxing, and he went beyond the kicking often associated with "kick"-boxing.

He also used a number of wing chun principles and techniques, the same for Filipino escrima moves and concepts, some footwork and the corresponding attack and defense concepts that came from fencing, some savate kicks - and clearly was starting down the wrestling/grappling road by the end as well.

The man was waaaay ahead of his time.

[anerlich]

Why don't some people just stick to internal Wing Chun and let the Glorified Kickboxing people study Glorified Kickboxing in peace!

[Edmund]

My "conversation" with him was to show the sometimes "exagerated" points that he made as well as the OBVIOUS ones that so impressed others who just had at best superficial understanding of TCMAs.


LOL. Yeah keep arguing with him!
I think he's coming around.




I am saying that he would not have SO critical of TCMAs, hence "his final conclusions would have been different".

What is so incredible or difficult to understand about what I am trying to say?


I see what you are trying to say.
You keep trying to foresee a dead guy's opinion, despite all he's said and written that is opposite!

It's a pointless argument with you. Someone's writings don't mean ****. If only he hadn't died and studied with some other guy, he would have written about his change of heart.




Bruce Lee's "conclusion" and "vision" were based on an incomplete study of TCMAs, meaning that the "mess" he saw was not an universal truth and may have been partially a figment of his own imagination.

Whatever his vision was: HE'S NOT ABOUT TO CHANGE IT.

This isn't about *your* vision!

[t_niehoff]

One of the things I find amusing about the "internal" guys is their belief that they "know" something that world class level fighters, i.e., the external guys, don't. I mean, it would be one thing if they could step up and actually hold their own (or even defeat) withe even some decent low level fighters with their "internal aspects". Yet they can't. They claim to have all the "secrets", they have "the system", all the "internal aspects", only they can't fight worth beans.

In reality, there is no internal-external way of doing anything -- there are only proper body mechanics (ways to use our body). There isn't an internal way to throw a ball (if there is an internal way of throwing a punch, why not a ball?) or an intenal way to lift a weight (if there is an internal way to uproot a person, why not a weight?) or an internal way to do anything. There are only appropriate mechanical ways of doing anything, and by actually doing them (the tasks) our body mechanics become more optimal (you become better at throwing a ball by practicing actually throwing a ball, and no other way).

It's easy for guys who aren't getting out and throwing balls to talk about "secrets" and "internal aspects" and their ball-throwing theories. But the proof is in your ability to throw the ball. It's amusing that someone can look at Bruce throw the ball (move) and believe that while they can't throw anywhere nearly as well, that they and their masters really know how to do it better. And that if poor old, ignorant Bruce just had "completed they system" AS THEY HAVE and "learned the internal aspects" AS THEY HAVE that his throwing (movement) would have been so much better. After all, they KNOW how to do it so much better than Bruce or those world-class fighters. Right.

[couch]

Great post, T. I laughed a little from the sarcasm, too. :)

[gabe]

One of the things I find amusing about the "internal" guys is their belief that they "know" something that world class level fighters, i.e., the external guys, don't. I mean, it would be one thing if they could step up and actually hold their own (or even defeat) withe even some decent low level fighters with their "internal aspects". Yet they can't. They claim to have all the "secrets", they have "the system", all the "internal aspects", only they can't fight worth beans.

In reality, there is no internal-external way of doing anything -- there are only proper body mechanics (ways to use our body). There isn't an internal way to throw a ball (if there is an internal way of throwing a punch, why not a ball?) or an intenal way to lift a weight (if there is an internal way to uproot a person, why not a weight?) or an internal way to do anything. There are only appropriate mechanical ways of doing anything, and by actually doing them (the tasks) our body mechanics become more optimal (you become better at throwing a ball by practicing actually throwing a ball, and no other way).

It's easy for guys who aren't getting out and throwing balls to talk about "secrets" and "internal aspects" and their ball-throwing theories. But the proof is in your ability to throw the ball. It's amusing that someone can look at Bruce throw the ball (move) and believe that while they can't throw anywhere nearly as well, that they and their masters really know how to do it better. And that if poor old, ignorant Bruce just had "completed they system" AS THEY HAVE and "learned the internal aspects" AS THEY HAVE that his throwing (movement) would have been so much better. After all, they KNOW how to do it so much better than Bruce or those world-class fighters. Right.

It's equally amusing that you "claim" to understand how to throw a ball, but when asked for video of you throwing the ball, your answer is that you don't have to because you yourself don't personally claim to throw the ball well- meaning you theoretically "understand" how to throw the ball better- but you yourself don't "do" it particularly well. And when you were asked to meet a low level beginner and show how well you understand throwing the ball, "do" what you "claim"- you refused. Sounds a bit like the internalist you mention, or your theoretical nonfighter, don't you think? Worse yet, you are a nutrider at his best, riding the nuts of your brothers overseas, to provide evidence that you yourself can't provide. Don't you hate when TMAists do that? You can "talk" but you cannot "do" so you refuse to "show" because you can't. You and your "internal" strawmen are birds of a feather, except you make more daily claims of superior knowledge. You "know" things "internalists" don't, but you can't "do" any better than them. Yes, I'm amused!

[rochester]

So let me get this straight. A fighter who can't fight might just as well be a theoretical nonfighting nutrider who plays with balls. Never thought of it that way, but it does kinda make sense.

[Hendrik]

Bruce Lee's genuis was not in his kung fu because I don't believe that he studied any kung fu style to a level of expertise. ----------


What is a level of expertise?

In fact, I dont think this is accurate.

and may be you could tell us what is your back ground so we know why you come to this conclusion?






As we know, he didn't complete Wing Chun, nor Mantis or any other kung fu style. He did not delve into internal training including aspects such as internal tendon development. His conditioning was external. -------


Again, external and internal are brought up. So what is Internal what is External? are you a WCner? if yes, then shared with us what are these from you lineage. If you are not a WCner then how could you conclude the above?

see, what we speak there has to be facts.









What if he had gone on to take up or "cross train" in another kung fu style that was more profound than Wing Chun both in concepts and in the internals? -----


Do you mean your style is more profound then Wing Chun? and again, you mention internals again. What is internal?


what good to bring up a term you cant define and a few of others like to discredit it without a clue?







I do agree that his MMA perspective was ahead of his time.--------------

This is not accurate.
In the 1970's Even Mas Oyama has some ground technics in his book ---This Is Karate, if my memory serve.

So, it is not that ahead of his time, Professional Martial artists know what is partial and what is holistic training --- from ground to air.




To conclude. IMHO many of those practising modern MMA may fall under the definition of Bruce Lee's vision of "functionality" but this, for the most part, does not make them kung fu fighters. ---------




The facts are:

TCMA has two parts the "body" or Tie and "functionality" or Young.

Body is about conditioning, Functionality is about applications.

Looking at Bruce, by evidents we know his functional part of the art is very well develop.

the Body or conditioning part he is lacked even though Bruce wrote about Zen and philosophy but he doesnt have it for real from the fact of how he have lived.


This conclusion is based on comparing Bruce with TCMA kung fu master such as Du Xing Wu or Wang Xiang-Zai or Sun Loo Dang or Ma Li-Dang or Wang Pei Shen....etc

[Hendrik]

It's equally amusing that you "claim" to understand how to throw a ball, but when asked for video of you throwing the ball, ............ You and your "internal" strawmen are birds of a feather, except you make more daily claims of superior knowledge. You "know" things "internalists" don't, but you can't "do" any better than them. Yes, I'm amused!



IMHO

Can one blame on Terence totally?

NOpe!

Those who brought up the term Internal but cannot define it and have no cultivation of it have to share the blame.


If those who brought up the term Internal like to defend WCK's internal components then they need to be specific and describe what is what in a clear and detail way. if not, that brought up the term is just create more confusion and down grade one more because one dont know what it is.



Speaking about Terence, I personal think he is just too extreme to comment on something he has no clue, eventhought what he is trying enforce one doesnt go into the fantasy land.

As for Shadow, Hardwork108 and others, my opinion is until you have a clear understanding on the topic, good heart can often pulling the reverse gear.





So, what is Internal? What is external?

External is the cultivation of momentum. That is beyond the tan sau.... chain punch.....etc .

see, WCK is about Momentum, not about this technics counter that technics. The kuen kuit has said that clearly. At the White Crane of Fujian era around mid 1600, TCMA of China has evoloved into Momentum centric instead of technics centric. Read those White Crane kuen kuit one will see different type of Shih or momentum type. As it has been said, rely on power and speed is not as good as rely on Momentum.


Internal is the cultivation/condition of the body mind so that the momentum can be implemeted at will.



That simple.

So what is the Shen and Qi stuffs? Shen is just the power behind the will. Qi is the fuel behind the physical. There is nothing in the fantasy land but very practical. It is a different way of systematically describe the mind, body, emotion, spirit.



It is very sad to see WCK's Momentum and Conditioning got pull a part. Losing the Conditioning part and call it a fantasy before one knows what is it,

and also losing the Momentum part.

Why do I said losing the Momentum part? read the post on ROOTing, that is the indication of one losing the view on flowing of momentum. Same thing when saying WCK is useless --- obviously WCK is useless if one keep trying to use a technic or fast punch to deal with the momentum of bjj or grapper. How can one stop gravitation force with a tripot under dynamic situation? cant and hopeless.

in fact it violate the Kuen kuit --- As it has been said, rely on power and speed is not as good as rely on Momentum.



and there is another part of the art, Moduk ---- in the present day word from the spider man movie ------ with great power. comes great responsibility.



Bruce has no doubt present us an excellent Momuntum part. I salute to that.


Just some thoughts.

[Hardwork108]

LOL. Yeah keep arguing with him!
I think he's coming around.

Well to be honest, Bruce Lee was intelligent and dedicated and that would imply that even in a none living state there would be more chance of him "coming around" than some of the brain dead knuckleheads posting in this forum.;)



I see what you are trying to say.
You keep trying to foresee a dead guy's opinion, despite all he's said and written that is opposite!
I was not really questioning his opinion but the BASIS of his opinion and I was hypophesising. If you don't agree then fine. That is what such forums are made for.


It's a pointless argument with you.

Well you were the one who started the "argument".



Someone's writings don't mean ****. If only he hadn't died and studied with some other guy, he would have written about his change of heart.

I am trying to make you understand that, Bruce Lee's writings are based on his knowledge on the time of his writings and that his knowledge regarding the traditional kung fu that he criticised was INCOMPLETE and that he may have had come to slightly different conclusions if he had deeper knowledge of TCMAs.



Whatever his vision was: HE'S NOT ABOUT TO CHANGE IT.
Of course not as his knowledge of TCMAs was incomplete at the time of his unfortunate death.


This isn't about *your* vision!
I never said that it was!

It was you who started arguing and putting words in my mouth.:rolleyes:

[anerlich]

rochester, I like your thinking. :cool:

[Hardwork108]

One of the things I find amusing about the "internal" guys is their belief that they "know" something that world class level fighters, i.e., the external guys, don't. I mean, it would be one thing if they could step up and actually hold their own (or even defeat) withe even some decent low level fighters with their "internal aspects". Yet they can't. They claim to have all the "secrets", they have "the system", all the "internal aspects", only they can't fight worth beans.
Those are a lot of assumptions by someone else who hasn't taken the holistic approach to his Wing Chun training.


In reality, there is no internal-external way of doing anything -- there are only proper body mechanics (ways to use our body).
There are proper internal mechanics and proper external mechanics!

The external mechanics are simpler and that would in some way explain why the more simple minded gravitate towards the external martial arts.:D



There isn't an internal way to throw a ball (if there is an internal way of throwing a punch, why not a ball?) or an intenal way to lift a weight (if there is an internal way to uproot a person, why not a weight?) or an internal way to do anything. There are only appropriate mechanical ways of doing anything, and by actually doing them (the tasks) our body mechanics become more optimal (you become better at throwing a ball by practicing actually throwing a ball, and no other way).

You are just like Bruce Lee. Making generalized assumptions on arts that you have not really studied.;)


It's amusing that someone can look at Bruce throw the ball (move) and believe that while they can't throw anywhere nearly as well, that they and their masters really know how to do it better.

I believe that you have missed the point of the discussion. We were not discussing any particular Bruce Lee.



And that if poor old, ignorant Bruce just had "completed they system" AS THEY HAVE and "learned the internal aspects" AS THEY HAVE that his throwing (movement) would have been so much better. After all, they KNOW how to do it so much better than Bruce or those world-class fighters. Right.

Actually I have no where near completed the Wing Chun system. When you refer to those world class fighters don't forget to mention that most of them are "world class" in the sporting arena.;)

[Hardwork108]

So let me get this straight. A fighter who can't fight might just as well be a theoretical nonfighting nutrider who plays with balls. Never thought of it that way, but it does kinda make sense.

And Niehoff has lots of "balls". :D

[t_niehoff]

It's equally amusing that you "claim" to understand how to throw a ball, but when asked for video of you throwing the ball, your answer is that you don't have to because you yourself don't personally claim to throw the ball well- meaning you theoretically "understand" how to throw the ball better- but you yourself don't "do" it particularly well.


I am not claiming anything of the sort. I have never made any claims of my abilities at all. I am merely saying -- and try to follow this -- is that we should not follow people who can't do it. That is the blind leading the blind. I'm not saying follow me or my way. I'm saying don't follow anyone who can't do it IN FIGHTING. Whether I can do it or not is immaterial to you unless I am your instructor (your leader). And I'm not.

When we look at who can do it, we see that the functional martial artists, the BJJ, MT, boxers, judoka, samboists, MMAists, etc. can do it, and for all to see. We KNOW that their method of training works. We can see it on display. So listen to what they say about training, not to guys who can't do it. So, if our goal is to develop significant fighting skills, then we should train like those guys train, not like some overweight, out-of-shape, self-appointed grandmaster that has never done any significant fighting in his life tells you.



And when you were asked to meet a low level beginner and show how well you understand throwing the ball, "do" what you "claim"- you refused. Sounds a bit like the internalist you mention, or your theoretical nonfighter, don't you think?


If I wanted to meet low level beginners, I'd start with certain grandmasters. ;)

I don't waste my time meeting with people who aren't serious. I can tell by what that guy writes that he has no clue. What purpose would meeting with him serve?



Worse yet, you are a nutrider at his best, riding the nuts of your brothers overseas, to provide evidence that you yourself can't provide. Don't you hate when TMAists do that? You can "talk" but you cannot "do" so you refuse to "show" because you can't. You and your "internal" strawmen are birds of a feather, except you make more daily claims of superior knowledge. You "know" things "internalists" don't, but you can't "do" any better than them. Yes, I'm amused!

You aren't making any sense. We know what so-called "external" martial artists, the judoka, BJJ, MMAists, MT, etc. fighters can do. What they can do has nothing to do with me personally. The evidence of what they can do is incontrovertable. Follow that so far? Or is that too difficult?

I'll take this slow, just for you. Now contrast that with the "internal" guys. Where is the evidence that they can produce similar results in producing fighting skills? I'm not talking about stories or demos or chi sao or anthing other than fighting. Where? Name the fighters. You can't. And once again, this has nothing to do with me personally. The evidence of skilled internal fighters just doesn't exist. Yet these same "internal" people -- some of whom are the overweight, out-of-shape, unskilled and self-proclaimed grandmasters -- claim they have"secrets" and "systems" and "knowledge" of how to do things better than the world-class fighters!

And if that isn't funny enough, people like you believe them!

[AdrianK]

^
Oh Snap.
(I think that is well deserved)

[Edmund]

It was you who started arguing and putting words in my mouth.:rolleyes:

Your words. I can quote your stupid fantasy alternative Bruce Lee story. Keep on dreaming! Maybe write some fantasy Bruce Lee quotes.


I believe that an interesting question would be, how would Bruce Lee's fighting approach have evolved had he stayed in Hong Kong and continued and completed his Wing Chun under Yip Man rather than one his students?

What if he had gone on to take up or "cross train" in another kung fu style that was more profound than Wing Chun both in concepts and in the internals? How would his martial arts philosophy have developed then?

[gabe]

I am not claiming anything of the sort. I have never made any claims of my abilities at all. I am merely saying -- and try to follow this -- is that we should not follow people who can't do it. That is the blind leading the blind. I'm not saying follow me or my way. I'm saying don't follow anyone who can't do it IN FIGHTING. Whether I can do it or not is immaterial to you unless I am your instructor (your leader). And I'm not.

-- All your posts are claims of having a better method. Try to follow this- Like your buddy knifefighter said, why should we even listen to you since you can't provide a shred of evidence that you can do it. You deserve the same respect as those you ridicule.

When we look at who can do it, we see that the functional martial artists, the BJJ, MT, boxers, judoka, samboists, MMAists, etc. can do it, and for all to see. We KNOW that their method of training works. We can see it on display. So listen to what they say about training, not to guys who can't do it. So, if our goal is to develop significant fighting skills, then we should train like those guys train, not like some overweight, out-of-shape, self-appointed grandmaster that has never done any significant fighting in his life tells you.

-- Gee, ya think? Your posts are painfully obvious.

If I wanted to meet low level beginners, I'd start with certain grandmasters. ;)

I don't waste my time meeting with people who aren't serious. I can tell by what that guy writes that he has no clue. What purpose would meeting with him serve?

--You post on a public forum hammering people with your views. Meeting him would provide some credibility which you don't currently have.

You aren't making any sense. We know what so-called "external" martial artists, the judoka, BJJ, MMAists, MT, etc. fighters can do. What they can do has nothing to do with me personally. The evidence of what they can do is incontrovertable. Follow that so far? Or is that too difficult?

--No, I don't follow that. What is my position on "external" martial artists? What did I state? Oh yeah- I didn't say anything- so you are now making up my position on the subject?

I'll take this slow, just for you. Now contrast that with the "internal" guys. Where is the evidence that they can produce similar results in producing fighting skills? I'm not talking about stories or demos or chi sao or anthing other than fighting. Where? Name the fighters. You can't. And once again, this has nothing to do with me personally. The evidence of skilled internal fighters just doesn't exist. Yet these same "internal" people -- some of whom are the overweight, out-of-shape, unskilled and self-proclaimed grandmasters -- claim they have"secrets" and "systems" and "knowledge" of how to do things better than the world-class fighters!

And if that isn't funny enough, people like you believe them!

--I believe them? Since when? LOL. You make up arguments, amateur ones, that you can win. I can care less what your internal strawmen or internal vs. external argument is. It's so mundane that it is hardly worth arguing. My point, and only , point, try to follow, is that yes, you make claims of having better understanding of how one should train to fight. But you yourself can't provide evidence that you yourself can do it. So why should anyone give you any more credence than those you ridicule. I said nothing about these silly internalists. You don't follow very well, do you.

[Hardwork108]

Your words. I can quote your stupid fantasy alternative Bruce Lee story.

You can and you have quoted me but you have not understood what you have quoted.

The fact is that Bruce Lee came to his conclusions regarding traditional kung fu without having even completed a single system of TCMA, and I don't mean completion of the system by just "learning" the forms!:rolleyes:

The above being correct, then the basis of his conclusions were incomplete, raising questions on the credibility of his final conclusions, which may have been different if he had actually gained a holistic understanding of at least a single style of kung fu.



Keep on dreaming!

As you can see, the dreams are all yours as your logic is failing you the harder you try to justify your position.


Maybe write some fantasy Bruce Lee quotes.

You are the one who quoted Bruce Lee, not me!

The fact is that his knowledge of the TCMAs was too incomplete for him to have made the serious criticisms that he did!

However, I would say that he knew more than you and all of your crosstraining MMA forum buddies put together, but then that is not saying much, is it?

[t_niehoff]

I am not claiming anything of the sort. I have never made any claims of my abilities at all. I am merely saying -- and try to follow this -- is that we should not follow people who can't do it. That is the blind leading the blind. I'm not saying follow me or my way. I'm saying don't follow anyone who can't do it IN FIGHTING. Whether I can do it or not is immaterial to you unless I am your instructor (your leader). And I'm not.

-- All your posts are claims of having a better method. Try to follow this- Like your buddy knifefighter said, why should we even listen to you since you can't provide a shred of evidence that you can do it. You deserve the same respect as those you ridicule.


What I'vebeen saying is that the better method of training is to do what all good, proven fighters -- and all athletes -- do.

To decide that, i.e., what training methods work best, you don't look to specific individuals. And that's because some really talented people may develop with poor training or some untalented people may not develop much with good traiining. You need to look across populations. It's the same with drug/medical research -- anecdotal evidence (individual cases) isn't significant proof.

When we apply that to martial art training, looking across populations, we see what sort of training (that done by the functional martial arts) consistently produces very good results. Similarly, we see what sort of training (that done by TMAs) consistently produces poor results.

What I can do or not do is irrelevant to THAT. The evidence exists outsdie of me.

The only reason my skills would be relevent isif I was teaching someone (since you can't teach what you can't do) or if I was trying to tell someone that they should do what I do BECAUSE I do it that way. And neither is the case.



When we look at who can do it, we see that the functional martial artists, the BJJ, MT, boxers, judoka, samboists, MMAists, etc. can do it, and for all to see. We KNOW that their method of training works. We can see it on display. So listen to what they say about training, not to guys who can't do it. So, if our goal is to develop significant fighting skills, then we should train like those guys train, not like some overweight, out-of-shape, self-appointed grandmaster that has never done any significant fighting in his life tells you.

-- Gee, ya think? Your posts are painfully obvious.


Lots of things are obvious, but that doesn't mean people see them. It's apparent to methat you don't understand what I am saying.



If I wanted to meet low level beginners, I'd start with certain grandmasters. ;)

I don't waste my time meeting with people who aren't serious. I can tell by what that guy writes that he has no clue. What purpose would meeting with him serve?

--You post on a public forum hammering people with your views. Meeting him would provide some credibility which you don't currently have..


Try to understand this -- IT IS NOT ABOUT PERSONAL CREDIBILITY. It never is. But this is what you try to make it about. It should NEVER be about "I believeit because so-and-so said so." It is about evidence. I don't want peopleto believe ANYONE, including me, based on credibility. I want them to reach conclusions based on reason and evidence. And the evidence about training methods is already out there for anyone to see.

If I sparred with this beginnerand beat him to a pulp, what would it show? That I could beat some beginner. BFD.



You aren't making any sense. We know what so-called "external" martial artists, the judoka, BJJ, MMAists, MT, etc. fighters can do. What they can do has nothing to do with me personally. The evidence of what they can do is incontrovertable. Follow that so far? Or is that too difficult?

--No, I don't follow that. What is my position on "external" martial artists? What did I state? Oh yeah- I didn't say anything- so you are now making up my position on the subject?


So, what you are saying is that you weren't disagreeing with my view? That you just wanted to say that my view hadno weight since I personally won't videotape myself?



I'll take this slow, just for you. Now contrast that with the "internal" guys. Where is the evidence that they can produce similar results in producing fighting skills? I'm not talking about stories or demos or chi sao or anthing other than fighting. Where? Name the fighters. You can't. And once again, this has nothing to do with me personally. The evidence of skilled internal fighters just doesn't exist. Yet these same "internal" people -- some of whom are the overweight, out-of-shape, unskilled and self-proclaimed grandmasters -- claim they have"secrets" and "systems" and "knowledge" of how to do things better than the world-class fighters!

And if that isn't funny enough, people like you believe them!

--I believe them? Since when? LOL.


Who is your grandmaster? ;) You do believe him, don't you?



You make up arguments, amateur ones, that you can win. I can care less what your internal strawmen or internal vs. external argument is. It's so mundane that it is hardly worth arguing. My point, and only , point, try to follow, is that yes, you make claims of having better understanding of how one should train to fight. But you yourself can't provide evidence that you yourself can do it. So why should anyone give you any more credence than those you ridicule. I said nothing about these silly internalists. You don't follow very well, do you.

Yes, I do have a better understanding of how to train than most TMAists because I base my conslusions on evidence, and the evidence ALL proves that the traditional way of training produces poor results and that the modermway of training produces good results. It's not about ME. You need to get past that.

[gabe]

"Yes, I do have a better understanding of how to train than most TMAists "



--Prove it.:p

[Edmund]

The fact is that Bruce Lee came to his conclusions regarding traditional kung fu without having even completed a single system of TCMA, and I don't mean completion of the system by just "learning" the forms!:rolleyes:

The above being correct, then the basis of his conclusions were incomplete, raising questions on the credibility of his final conclusions, which may have been different if he had actually gained a holistic understanding of at least a single style of kung fu.


LOL. Who gives a **** about this hypothetical fantasy that you raised?



You are the one who quoted Bruce Lee, not me!

The fact is that his knowledge of the TCMAs was too incomplete for him to have made the serious criticisms that he did!


Yeah I quoted actual quotes. I didn't presume to think of what Bruce might have said *IF* his whole life was different.

It's like any other famous person's quotes.
His opinions are there to be read not rewritten.

He didn't WANT that classical mess. From his perspective it was restricting him. Why would he enslave himself by doing more of it?

[Hardwork108]

LOL. Who gives a **** about this hypothetical fantasy that you raised?

Well some you "scientifically" trained athelets should.:D




Yeah I quoted actual quotes.

You should teach that approach to lkfmdc I think that he will find it useful in his future business ventures.



I didn't presume to think of what Bruce might have said *IF* his whole life was different.

That is because your knowledge and understanding of TCMAs is even less then Bruce Lee's.

Furthermore, this is a discussion forum and there is nothing wrong in hypothesising on what someone might have said, specially when it is an educated guess and does not claim to be anything else!


It's like any other famous person's quotes.
His opinions are there to be read not rewritten.

There is nothing wrong in considering the possibilities of what someone might have said if they had a complete or at least a better base of knowledge to base their conclusions on!


He didn't WANT that classical mess.
The classical mess was all in his mind. It does exist in some traditional schools but the generalizations that BL made were based on an incomplete knowledge base and were mainly WRONG!


From his perspective it was restricting him. Why would he enslave himself by doing more of it?

For the same reason as many REAL kung fu masters and serious practitioners before him who did so and fought with their art.

[Edmund]

The classical mess was all in his mind. It does exist in some traditional schools but the generalizations that BL made were based on an incomplete knowledge base and were mainly WRONG!



For the same reason as many REAL kung fu masters and serious practitioners before him who did so and fought with their art.

IT DIDN'T SUIT HIM.

It doesn't suit everyone. For many people, his vision is the better match to what they want. Hence his vision became theirs. It's not for you.

You can keep saying "it's all in his mind" "He's wrong" blah blah if you like. You're a shining example of the stuff he didn't approve of. Hence you're the *last* person who should be speculating about what he could have thought if his life was different.

[Hardwork108]

IT DIDN'T SUIT HIM.

It doesn't suit everyone. For many people, his vision is the better match to what they want. Hence his vision became theirs. It's not for you.

You can keep saying "it's all in his mind" "He's wrong" blah blah if you like. You're a shining example of the stuff he didn't approve of. Hence you're the *last* person who should be speculating about what he could have thought if his life was different.


I did not say he was wrong about what suited him. That is understandable. He took his incomplete knowledge of kung fu and crosstrained trained it with other arts and created something that "SUITED" him.

I was just saying that if his knowledge of traditional kung fu was more complete then his "final product" and conclusions may have been different!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

[Phil Redmond]

I was under the impression of him being very open about what he did, "no secret techniques"and all that. He taught openly. After all he was one of the first to teach Westerners. . . . .
Bruce wasn't as open as people think. He once wrote: .."Really martial arts is not for the masses. This is what I feel . . " He thought some things should not be shown to the masses.

[anerlich]

I respectifully suggest you stop wasting your time with the Unglorified Mouthboxer, HW8/108. Put him on your ignore list and be happy.

[Hardwork108]

Bruce wasn't as open as people think. He once wrote: .."Really martial arts is not for the masses. This is what I feel . . " He thought some things should not be shown to the masses.

I see what you are saying.

But that statement could be interpreted in different ways. One can interprete the "Really martial arts is not for the masses" statement as, "not every one has the dedication and the will to learn MAs".

And then why show some things to the masses if they will not stay and train them to the required level? Even today a lot of sifus will not show everything until they are sure that the student is serious and is not just a "fly by night" passer by.

Of course it is always possible that he held back things, but what? And how to they compare to the lot of the advanced internal stuff that is and has been kept back throughout history?

The fact still remains that Bruce Lee did not complete a single system of TCMA. So where did he get the knowledge that he may have held back?

I do appreciate that someone as talented, dedicated and fanatical as Bruce Lee would have discovered some facts on his own but again some of the higher stuff has to be taught and then practiced for a long time for one to gain any credible understanding.

At the end of the day I am hypothesising based on my knowledge of Bruce Lee using as reference the traditional kung fu that I practice. It seems that other people have their own opinions. Fair enough.

[Hardwork108]

I respectifully suggest
:eek: I never thought that I would see the day when you anerlich would make a "respectful" suggestion to anyone.

Tell whoever who has been hitting you in the head during your recent "functional" training to continue doing so as it is doing you good.


you stop wasting your time with the Unglorified Mouthboxer, HW8/108.

Thank you, you finaly understood. People like me do not study kung fu to be "glorified" anythings unlike you and your other Glorified Kickboxer friends.

Kung fu should never be seen as a path to glory!

You will understand that phrase eventually. Just keep telling your sparring partner to hit you in the head the same way he has been doing recently and you will get there, "mate".



Put him on your ignore list and be happy.

That is right put me on ignore, I mean why should he discuss kung fu matters in a kung fu forum with one of the few people who actually practices kung fu.:rolleyes:

Then again, I am getting tired discussing Bruce Lee and I don't think that Edmund nor you are capable of enlightening me on the internals and other traditional TCMA practices.

So, yes put me on ignore both of you as there are plenty of knuckleheads and Glorified Kickboxers here that will provide you with food for "thought" regarding the latest MMA trends including the color of Ken Shamrock's shorts and technical questions regarding how to get out of a "nose lock" in under 10 seconds. Of course don't forget to classify what you do under the "improved" or "functional" kung fu section :rolleyes:

I bid you farewell.

[Edmund]

I was just saying that if his knowledge of traditional kung fu was more complete then his "final product" and conclusions may have been different!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

I always understood. That doesn't mean your argument has any merit.

IF "this" and THEN "that" is a HYPOTHETICAL THEORY. You think it has more weight than the actual opinion of the guy expressed in many different quotes.

It doesn't.

The fact that you assign more validity to your THEORY than the guy's REAL writings demonstrates how biased against the guy you are. You can't comment on living Bruce Lee's vision or how he would change it if you are one of those who rejects his ideas!

The only thing you know about Bruce Lee is that you clearly don't like him, so shut your yap.


I respectifully suggest you stop wasting your time with the Unglorified Mouthboxer, HW8/108. Put him on your ignore list and be happy.

Agreed.

It's like not following any ideas of Sigmund Freud and then giving a commentary on how he'd write some different letters to Carl Jung.

[Hardwork108]

I always understood. That doesn't mean your argument has any merit.

Then you should have ignored it!


IF "this" and THEN "that" is a HYPOTHETICAL THEORY. You think it has more weight than the actual opinion of the guy expressed in many different quotes.

It was a hypothetical theory. That is all. Let everone decide on its "weight" for themselves.



The fact that you assign more validity to your THEORY than the guy's REAL writings demonstrates how biased against the guy you are.

Where did I assign more validity to my theory? It was just theorising for discussion purposes and of course I have my own view about what I wrote.

You seem to be lost. All this stupid discussion has been because of your own biased against me and that has to do with your little bit of kung fu knowledge mixed with your too much of MMA one!



You can't comment on living Bruce Lee's vision or how he would change it if you are one of those who rejects his ideas!

I do not reject most of his ideas, after all they are present in the TCMAs...lol

You would have known that if you had actually practiced authentic kung fu.


The only thing you know about Bruce Lee is that you clearly don't like him, so shut your yap.

Actually I do "like" him. He was a dedicated martial artist.


It's like not following any ideas of Sigmund Freud and then giving a commentary on how he'd write some different letters to Carl Jung.

I assume that Sigmund completed his studies in the relevant areas before becoming the "genius" that he was?

[Kansuke]

Is the great Two Year Grandmaster still spewing inanities? :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

I bid you farewell.

LOL, that lasted a long time.

[Hardwork108]

LOL, that lasted a long time.

LOL. You were the ones who were supposed to be ignoring me while still posting to me.:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

...The endless excuses for not crosstraining - even in the face of what is now overwhelming evidence that crosstraining is clearly the way to go - are indeed ENDLESS !!! :eek:


LOL, hardwork...:rolleyes:


:cool::cool::cool:

[Hardwork108]

...The endless excuses for not crosstraining - even in the face of what is now overwhelming evidence that crosstraining is clearly the way to go - are indeed ENDLESS !!! :eek:


LOL, hardwork...:rolleyes:


:cool::cool::cool:

Wing Chun is a result of crosstraining and this is reflected in its ranges, (including the ground) and techniques ONLY IF TRAINED CORRECTLY!:rolleyes:

[Phil Redmond]

I see what you are saying.

But that statement could be interpreted in different ways. One can interprete the "Really martial arts is not for the masses" statement as, "not every one has the dedication and the will to learn MAs". . . .
From what I posted you are correct. It's what I didn't post that makes it clear that he wouldn't show his "real" kung fu to just anyone.

[Hardwork108]

From what I posted you are correct. It's what I didn't post that makes it clear that he wouldn't show his "real" kung fu to just anyone.


Then if that is the case then I stand corrected.:)

Someone as dedicated and hard training as Bruce Lee would probably discover stuff and develop ways, but again may main point was that he had not completed any kung fu style and some of his training would go against internal training principles so I have concluded that his secrets could not be internal.

Again I will stand corrected if more info appears.:)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Bruce Lee's vision included numerous tools used to fight from longer-ranged outside position to close range (ie.- the wing chun preferred fighting range).

Tools that truly brought wing chun more fight credibility precisely because what he added, in effect, through his long range kicking, straight longer range boxing leads, broken rhythm footwork (including also borrowing from fencing footwork)...

was a more up-to-date wing chun delivery system.

Discuss....

[punchdrunk]

I think much of today's mma world fits in well with Bruce's vision and conclusions. I think he would have approved of the modern competitions, and I am suprised there isn't more involvement from the JKD community. However some of Bruce's ideas aren't utilised much if at all... for instance the long straight lead jab or his many high hooking kicks. But he definately wanted JKD to continue to change and adapt so who knows what else he might have experimented with given more time. It was definately his study of combat sports (boxing, fencing, wrestling) that gave JKD more mobility and I think it would be better suited to competition than wing chun. I love wing chun but there is a whole world of ring tactics that it does not teach that are necessary for competition.

[Hardwork108]

I think much of today's mma world fits in well with Bruce's vision and conclusions.
That is definitely a possibility.



I think he would have approved of the modern competitions, and I am suprised there isn't more involvement from the JKD community.
There seems to be mixed opinions regarding Bruce's view of competitions and that may indicate to why JKD people generally shy away from them.




However some of Bruce's ideas aren't utilised much if at all... for instance the long straight lead jab or his many high hooking kicks. But he definately wanted JKD to continue to change and adapt so who knows what else he might have experimented with given more time. It was definately his study of combat sports (boxing, fencing, wrestling) that gave JKD more mobility and I think it would be better suited to competition than wing chun. I love wing chun but there is a whole world of ring tactics that it does not teach that are necessary for competition.
That is because Wing Chun (like all TCMAs) was originally designed for real combat and not as a ring sport. Hence the argument that a sports approach will more likely take one away from the authentic kung fu approach.

However at the end of the day it all depends what one is looking for.:)

[punchdrunk]

I agree there is a huge difference between any form of competition and self defence, didn't mean to make it sound like I'm criticising wing chun, I love it.

[Hardwork108]

I agree there is a huge difference between any form of competition and self defence, didn't mean to make it sound like I'm criticising wing chun, I love it.

That makes two us. I love Wing Chun as well as TCMAs in general.:)

[AdrianK]

Wing Chun is a result of crosstraining and this is reflected in its ranges, (including the ground) and techniques ONLY IF TRAINED CORRECTLY!:rolleyes:

The same can be said of any style being taught today.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The fight efficiency of Wing Chun is not the result of any crosstraining hundreds of years ago that is relevant to today's martial arts and certainly DOES NOT REFLECT any up-to-date efficiency in any range other than close range.

Why do people continue to bother answering this guy's foolery? He clearly has no idea of what he talks about. :rolleyes:

Bruce Lee, in my opinion, although his knowledge of wing chun per se was not as extensive as others, nonetheless had a more profound effect on bringing wing chun into the latter part of the 20th century in terms of fight efficiency than anyone - bar none.

Because he truly came to understand the importance of crosstraining - whereas every other wing chun fighter/master/grandmaster have missed this point big time compared to Bruce.

This is someone who went behind closed doors and sparred with some of the best karate, judo, and wrestling folks of his day (ie.- Mike Stone, Joe Lewis, Chuck Norris, Gene Lebell, Wally Jay, etc.)...

no one else in the wing chun world can say that.

[AdrianK]

Why do people continue to bother answering this guy's foolery? He clearly has no idea of what he talks about.

Because hundreds of years from now when our descendents dig up a hard disk drive from the rubble of humanity, which just so happens to contain the archives of this forum, we don't want them to think hardwork108 was the authority on kung fu. :D

[Hardwork108]

The same can be said of any style being taught today.
I was talking about Wing Chun.:p

[Hardwork108]

The fight efficiency of Wing Chun is not the result of any crosstraining hundreds of years ago that is relevant to today's martial arts and certainly DOES NOT REFLECT any up-to-date efficiency in any range other than close range.
That may be true for the lineage of Wing Chun that you practice. The lineage of Wing Chun that I practice has close range, mid range, long range and the ground range(I am not at this level yet), using chin-na and striking techniques while on the ground Of course, its emphasis is medium to close range!


Why do people continue to bother answering this guy's foolery? He clearly has no idea of what he talks about. :rolleyes:
That is not a nice thing to say, specially to some one who practices a richer form of Wing Chun than you have been exposed to.


Bruce Lee, in my opinion, although his knowledge of wing chun per se was not as extensive as others, nonetheless had a more profound effect on bringing wing chun into the latter part of the 20th century in terms of fight efficiency than anyone - bar none.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. What Bruce Lee did was take Wing Chun away from TCMA principles and closer to kickboxing/Modern MMA ones. It worked for him!;)


Because he truly came to understand the importance of crosstraining - whereas every other wing chun fighter/master/grandmaster have missed this point big time compared to Bruce.
So you are not aware of the chin-na/Kum la stand up and ground applications in mainland Chinese lineages of Wing Chun.

And you don't seem to be aware of the Crane, Snake, Dragon and Tiger (Cross training) influences in Wing Chun either.


This is someone who went behind closed doors and sparred with some of the best karate, judo, and wrestling folks of his day (ie.- Mike Stone, Joe Lewis, Chuck Norris, Gene Lebell, Wally Jay, etc.)...
And?


no one else in the wing chun world can say that.
Because no one else in Wing Chun spars or fights with anyone good, ever? Just you and Bruce Lee?:rolleyes:

[Ultimatewingchun]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........;)

[Hardwork108]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........;)

Hey, someone wake up Ultimatewingchun!!!

Anyone, just post something on BJJ or some predictable Muay Thai knee techniques.

Please hurry before he slips into a coma, having heard me mention actual kung fu aspects of Wing Chun (chin-na/animals) without any reference whatsoever to modern and "functional" boxing, kickboxing or groundfighting techniques.

Sorry Ultimatewingchun, but I only make kung fu posts.:cool:

[anerlich]

Because hundreds of years from now when our descendents dig up a hard disk drive from the rubble of humanity, which just so happens to contain the archives of this forum, we don't want them to think hardwork108 was the authority on kung fu.

Even if the future follows the path laid out in "Idiocracy", no future historian could possibly be that stupid.

[Hardwork108]

Even if the future follows the path laid out in "Idiocracy", no future historian could possibly be that stupid.

Don't sell yourself short as one of your decendents may turn out to be that very historian.;)