Tired of the Bruce Lee myth: lets look at the facts.....

Ok,
I'm tired of all the retardation going on on this forum about Bruce Lee.
Lets look at the facts and find out what makes him so great.
You people say he could punch through phonebooks and do a one-inch punch and knock someone back 20 feet. Fact: there is videotape footage of him demonstrating his 1-inch punch at a karate tournament. He has a guy standing flat-footed with a chair about 5 feet behind him. He hits the guy and the guy falls back into the chair. Big deal. I could head-butt, knee, elbow, punch, or kick someone that far and I have before.
Many of you disallusioned kung fu friends claim that Bruce Lee was a great fighter, if not one of the greatest ever and that he could easily beat todays top fighters.....the men of No Holds Barred competition like Royce Gracie, Ken Shamrock, or Sakuraba.
fact: There is no documented footage of Bruce Lee ever being in a fight. There are a few eyewitnesses who saw him fight another chinese guy at his Kwoon and the results were unanimous... neither of the fighters was able to finish the other one off.
His Wing Chun brothers claim he got in brawls in Hong Kong, but it was with other punk kids in the back alleys of Hong Kong when Lee was skipping school or was out causing trouble.
When asked if he would fight any of the top full-contact Karate guys of his time, Lee always mumbled something about not being ready, or that he was working on some new technique.
fact: We have all been in brawls in high school, does that make us the worlds best fighters?
Also, Judo Gene Lebell easily put lee in a submission hold and treated him like a rag doll. People witnessed this event. At the time Gene Lebell was around 15 years or so older than Bruce Lee. Imagine what a guy like Sakuraba or Ken Shamrock could do to Lee if both were in their primes.

And lastly you guys say he was a great actor and Kung Fu movie star.
Fact: His acting sucked. He never won an academy award or any type of recognition for his acting for that matter. But I give you this, he was one hell of a Kung Fu star and his movies rock! He was also a great martial artist and innovator, and his JKD will probably live on forever.

-jojitsu27

Here's an interesting take:

<A HREF="http://www.myodynamics.com/articles/bruce.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.myodynamics.com/articles/bruce.html</A>

"Without tradition, art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd; without innovation it is a corpse." --Sir Winston Churchill

Hey dude,

I'm far from a Bruce Lee fan, but I do admire his films and work ethic. I defiantely don't think that he'd be successful in MMA as he was trained, but he had the attributes, workethic, and mind set to be successful if he ever trained for it. However, there are a few things in your post that were a bit off the mark, so I figured I'd help clearify them.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Fact: there is videotape footage of him demonstrating his 1-inch punch at a karate tournament. He has a guy standing flat-footed with a chair about 5 feet behind him. He hits the guy and the guy falls back into the chair. Big deal. I could head-butt, knee, elbow, punch, or kick someone that far and I have before.
[/quote]

Bruce never claimed to do anything amazing with the one-inch punch. It's the hoards of trekkie-like fans that do. When answering replies in Black Belt magazine to his article "Liberate Yourself from Classical Karate", he points out that it is just something that he liked to do at demo's.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
fact: There is no documented footage of Bruce Lee ever being in a fight. There are a few eyewitnesses who saw him fight another chinese guy at his Kwoon and the results were unanimous... neither of the fighters was able to finish the other one off. [/quote]

True, he never fought in any tournaments, but he sparred and cross-trained with many people from many styles. That was his whole deal. "Jump in the water" Ya know? He was all about fighting and practical applications.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
When asked if he would fight any of the top full-contact Karate guys of his time, Lee always mumbled something about not being ready, or that he was working on some new technique.
[/quote]

I'd like to know the source of this. I doubt it ever happenned.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, Judo Gene Lebell easily put lee in a submission hold and treated him like a rag doll. People witnessed this event. At the time Gene Lebell was around 15 years or so older than Bruce Lee. [/quote]

Gene didn't submit Lee, but he did treat him like a rag doll. Let's not forget that at his not-so-tender age, Gene would treat most of us like rag dolls. (especially if he outweighs you by 75+ lbs like he did with Lee) Gene has written about it, and I believe the article is still on his website... Oh, he also wrote an article called "Bruce Lee: The Greatest Martial Artist of His Time" for Inside Kung Fu. Obviously he respected Bruce, and he knew him a lot better than any of us. Maybe he's on to something, no?

That article of hess is ridiculous, He takes bits of Mr. Lees workouts and acts as if these were fitness test's he then asks if he was using submaximal weights then why? People lift for different goals. Does this mean it was all he was cxapable of? of course not! Absurd to say the least. This goes the same for his argument about Mr. lees aerobic capacity.Does having an affair make you less as a martial artist? when Did Mr. Lee ever profess to be a paragon of virtue? He also casually disreguards Mr. Lees constant battle against racism. Id heard about the steroid rumour before and even if it was true ,one must remember in that time period they were legal.I do agree that after Mr. Lees death he became more myth then man but isnt that common in the martial arts? If you enjoy his acting then he was a good actor this is a subjective thing The Oscars are about politics etc.. Mr. Lee has inpired martial artists all over the world to think for themselves and to use a practical approach to training. I personally dont care if he would beat so and so. We can play the what if game forever. Its just amazing how nobody's all over the world take shots at a dead man when 99% of the people who knew this man in life defend him.

Are you sure you are not simply letting your bitterness over Bruce moving away from Wing Chun cloud your view of the facts. Why don't you read "Liberate Yourself from Classical Karate" and the letters and responses Lee wrote and see if you don't agree with what he was saying. I don't think he could of beaten any of the class "A" fighters of our time, he is just too small to compete against guys that weight in over 175lbs. I am sure though for his small size, he was amazing and if anything we owe him for much of the success of the crosstraining mindset. Its a old idea that he took out of the basement and wiped the dust off of and brought it back to the light of day with a modern twist. Paul is right you can still find Gene's stuff on Bruce at his website, although the flash and music is a bit off the wall.-ED

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

hey dude, where can I find the "liberate yourself from classical karate" piece? Is it online?
thanks,
jojitsu27

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Its just amazing how nobody's all over the world take shots at a dead man when 99% of the people who knew this man in life defend him. [/quote]

It's the "nobody's" that idolize his media image and it's THESE who are the 99 percentile.

Seems to me that the people that knew him who say he was an arrogant, hotheaded 120# little pr*ck are far greater number than his nonclassical mess churchies believe...

Anyone spoken with someone who knew him???

Jojitsu27, just because somebody doesn't win an Academy award doesn't mean that they can't act.

And if he's "one hell of a kung fu star" and "his movies rock", maybe his acting has just A LITTLE to do with it?

Or perhaps we can take a REAL actor and put him in Lee's place - would you like that more?

I don't remember you or I being around Bruce Lee when all those events you spoke of supposedly happened. But you seem to believe that they're the absolute truth.

Unfortunately, what you WANT to believe and what REALLY happened are often two different things. Neither you or I can clame veracity of that which we haven't seen.

As far as Lee's fighting abilities, I would bet on him against any man in a streetfight without rules. I wouldn't bet on him against any man in a ring match with rules, though.

Then again, I haven't seen Lee fight - those are just my opinions. I didn't know the guy, but he was obviously the real deal from the little I've seen of him.

Here is the article, the link is: <A HREF="http://junfanjkd.com/liberate.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://junfanjkd.com/liberate.htm</A>

I have included the letters and Lee's responses too. The website is Big Sean's and he has alot of Lee's writtings as well as links to other informational sites on JKD and Bruce Lee.-ED


LIBERATE YOURSELF FROM CLASSICAL KARATE
by Bruce Lee


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

HE TEACHES AND EXPLAINS WHAT IS JEET KUNE DO

I am the first to admit that any attempt to crystalize Jeet Kune Do into a written article is no easy task. Perhaps to avoid making a 'thing' out of a 'process'. I have not until now personally written an article on JKD. Indeed, it is difficult to explain what Jeet Kune Do is, although it may be easier to explain what it is not.

Let me begin with a Zen story. The story might be familiar to some, but I repeat it for it's appropriateness. Look upon this story as a means of limbering up one's senses, one's attitude and one's mind to make them pliable and receptive. You need that to understand this article, otherwise you might as well forget reading any further.

A learned man once went to a Zen teacher to inquire about Zen. As the Zen teacher explained, the learned man would frequently interrupt him with remarks like, "Oh, yes, we have that too...." and so on.

Finally the Zen teacher stopped talking and began to serve tea to the learned man. He poured the cup full, and then kept pouring until the cup overflowed.

"Enough!" the learned man once more interrupted. "No more can go into the cup!"

"Indeed, I see," answered the Zen teacher. "If you do not first empty the cup, how can you taste my cup of tea?"

I hope my comrades in the martial arts will read the following paragraphs with open-mindedness leaving all the burdens of preconceived opinions and conclusions behind. This act, by the way, has in itself liberating power. After all, the usefulness of the cup is in it's emptiness.

Make this article relate to yourself, because though it is on JKD, it is primarily concerned with the blossoming of a martial artist---not a "Chinese" martial artist, a "Japanese" martial artist, etc. A martial artist is a human being first. Just as nationalities have nothing to do with one's humanity, so they have nothing to do with martial arts. Leave your protective shell of isolation and relate 'directly' to what is being said. Return to your senses by ceasing all the intervening intellectual mumbo jumbo. Remember that life is a constant process of relating. Remember too, that I seek neither your approval nor to influence you towards my way of thinking. I will be more than satisfied if, as a result of this article, you begin to investigate everything for yourself and cease to uncritically accept prescribed formulas that dictate "this is this" and "that is that".

ON CHOICELESS OBSERVATION

Suppose several persons who are trained in different styles of combative arts witness an all out street fight. I am sure that we would hear different versions from each of these stylists. This is quite understandable for one cannot see a fight (or anything else) "as is" as long as he is blinded by his chosen point of view, i.e. style, and he will view the fight through the lens of his particular conditioning. Fighting, "as is," is simple and total. It is not limited to your perspective conditioning as a Chinese martial artist. True observation begins when one sheds set patterns and true freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.

Before we examine Jeet Kune Do, let's consider exactly what a "classical" martial art style really is. To begin with, we must recognize the incontrovertible fact that regardless of their many colorful origins (by a wise, mysterious monk, by a special messenger in a dream, in a holy revelation, etc.) styles are created by men. A style should never be considered gospel truth, the laws and principles of which can never be violated. Man, the living, creating individual, is always more important than any established style.

It is conceivable that a long time ago a certain martial artist discovered some partial truth. During his lifetime, the man resisted the temptation to organize this partial truth, although this is a common tendency in a man's search for security and certainty in life. After his death, his students took "his" hypotheses, "his" postulates, "his" method and turned them into law. Impressive creeds were then invented, solemn reinforcing ceremonies prescribed, rigid philosophy and patterns formulated, and son on, until finally an institution was erected. So, what originated as one man's intuition of some sort of personal fluidity has been transformed into solidified, fixed knowledge, complete with organized classified responses presented in a logical order. In so doing, the well-meaning, loyal followers have not only made this knowledge a holy shrine, but also a tomb in which they have buried the founder's wisdom.

But distortion does not necessarily end here. In reaction to "the other truth," another martial artist, or possible a dissatisfied disciple, organizes an opposite approach--such as the "soft" style versus the "hard" style, the "internal" school versus the "external" school, and all these separate nonsenses. Soon this opposite faction also becomes a large organization, with its own laws and patterns. A rivalry begins, with each style claiming to possess the "truth" to the exclusions of all others.

At best, styles are merely parts dissected from a unitary whole. All styles require adjustment, partiality, denials, condemnation and a lot of self- justification. The solutions they purport to provide are the very cause of the problem, because they limit and interfere with our natural growth and obstruct the way to genuine understanding. Divisive by nature, styles keep men 'apart' from each other rather than 'unite' them.

TRUTH CANNOT BE STRUCTURED OR DEFINED

One cannot express himself fully when imprisoned by a confining style. Combat "as is" is total, and it includes all the "is" as well as "is not," without favorite lines or angles. Lacking boundaries, combat is always fresh, alive and constantly changing. Your particular style, your personal inclinations and your physical makeup are all 'parts' of combat, but they do not constitute the 'whole' of combat. Should your responses become dependent upon any single part, you will react in terms of what "should be" rather than to the reality of the ever-changing "what is." Remember that while the whole is evidenced in all its parts, an isolated part, efficient or not, does not constitute the whole.

Prolonged repetitious drillings will certainly yield mechanical precision and security of that kind comes from any routine. However, it is exactly this kind of "selective" security or "crutch" which limits or blocks the total growth of a martial artist. In fact, quite a few practitioners develop such a liking for and dependence on their "crutch" that they can no longer walk without it. Thus, anyone special technique, however cleverly designed is actually a hinderance.

Let it be understood once and for all that I have NOT invented a new style, composite, or modification. I have in no way set Jeet Kune Do within a distinct form governed by laws that distinguish it from "this" style or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my comrades from bondage to styles, patterns and doctrines.

What, then, is Jeet Kune Do? Literally, "jeet" means to intercept or to stop; "kune" is the fist; and "do" is the way, the ultimate reality---the way of the intercepting fist. Do remember, however, that "Jeet Kune Do" is merely a convenient name. I am not interested with the term itself; I am interested in its effect of liberation when JKD is used as a mirror for self-examination.

Unlike a "classical" martial art, there is no series of rules or classification of technique that constitutes a distinct "Jeet Kune Do" method of fighting. JKD is not a form of special conditioning with its own rigid philosophy. It looks at combat not from a single angle, but from all possible angles. While JKD utilizes all the ways and means to serve its end (after all, efficiency is anything that scores), it is bound by none and is therefore free. In other words, JKD possesses everything, but is in itself possessed by nothing.

Therefore, to try and define JKD in terms of a distinct style---be it gung-fu, karate, street fighting, Bruce Lee's martial art, etc.---is to completely miss its meaning. It's teaching simply cannot be confined with a system. Since JKD is at once "this" and "not this", it neither opposes nor adheres to any style. To understand this fully, one must transcend from the duality of "for" and "against" into one organic unity which is without distinctions. Understanding of JKD is direct intuition of this unity.

There are no prearranged sets or "kata" in the teaching of JKD, nor are they necessary. Consider the subtle difference between "having no form" and having "no form"; the first is ignorance, the second is transcendence. Through instinctive body feeling, each of us 'knows' our own most efficient and dynamic manner of achieving effective leverage, balance in motion, economical use of energy, etc. Patterns, techniques or forms touch only the fringe of genuine understanding. The core of understanding lies in the individual mind, and until that is touched, everything is uncertain and superficial. Truth cannot be perceived until we come to fully understand ourselves and our potentials. After all, 'knowledge in the martial arts ultimately means self-knowledge.'

At this point you may ask, "How do I gain this knowledge?" That you will have to find out all by yourself. You must accept the fact that there is in help but self-help. For the same reason I cannot tell you how to "gain" freedom, since freedom exists within you. I cannot tell you what 'not' to do, I cannot tell you what you 'should' do, since that would be confining you to a particular approach. Formulas can only inhibit freedom, externally dictated prescriptions only squelch creativity and assure mediocrity. Bear in mind that the freedom that accrues from self-knowledge cannot be acquired through strict adherence to a formula; we do not suddenly "become" free, we simply "are" free.

Learning is definitely not mere imitation, nor is it the ability to accumulate and regurgitate fixed knowledge. Learning is a constant process of discovery, a process without end. In JKD we begin not by accumulation but by discovering the cause of our ignorance, a discovery that involves a shedding process.

Unfortunately, most students in the martial arts are conformists. Instead of learning to depend on themselves for expression, they blindly follow their instructors, no longer feeling alone, and finding security in mass imitation. The product of this imitation is a dependent mind. Independent inquiry, which is essential to genuine understanding, is sacrificed. Look around the martial arts and witness the assortment of routine performers, trick artists, desensitized robots, glorifiers of the past and so on---- all followers or exponents of organized despair.

How often are we told by different "sensei" of "masters" that the martial arts are life itself? But how many of them truly understand what they are saying? Life is a constant movement---rhythmic as well as random; life is a constant change and not stagnation. Instead of choicelessly flowing with this process of change, many of these "masters", past and present, have built an illusion of fixed forms, rigidly subscribing to traditional concepts and techniques of the art, solidifying the ever-flowing, dissecting the totality.

The most pitiful sight is to see sincere students earnestly repeating those imitative drills, listening to their own screams and spiritual yells. In most cases, the means these "sensei" offer their students are so elaborate that the student must give tremendous attention to them, until gradually he loses sight of the end. The students end up performing their methodical routines as a mere conditioned response, rather than 'responding to' "what is." They no longer "listen" to circumstances; they "recite" their circumstances. These pour souls have unwittingly become trapped in the miasma of classical martial arts training.

A teacher, a really good sensei, is never a 'giver' of "truth"; he is a guide, a 'pointer' to the truth that the student must discover for himself. A good teacher, therefore, studies each student individually and encourages the student to explore himself, both internally and externally, until, ultimately, the student is integrated with his being. For example, a skillful teacher might spur his student's growth by confronting him with certain frustrations. A good teacher is a catalyst. Besides possessing a deep understanding, he must also have a responsive mind with great flexibility and sensitivity.

A FINGER POINTING TO THE MOON

There is no standard in total combat, and expression must be free. this liberating truth is a reality only in so far as it is 'experienced and lived' by the individual himself; it is a truth that transcends styles or disciplines. Remember, too, that Jeet Kune Do is merely a term, a label to be used as a boat to get one across; once across, it is to be discarded and not carried on one's back.

These few paragraphs are, at best, a "finger pointing to the moon." Please do not take the finger to be the moon or fix your gaze so intently on the finger as to miss all the beautiful sights of heaven. After all, the usefulness of the finger is in pointing away from itself to the light which illumines finger and all. ---


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



Bruce Lee's responses to letters about his article
FORGET ORGANIZED DESPAIR

It has been over two years since I began taking classical Kung Fu. After reading your two articles in Black Belt, especially the second part, I started to really think.

Our practice at the school consists of standing on the horse stance, practicing classical forms and doing the two men set---or what your jeet kune do would call prearranged rhythmic sparring. The stress is on good posture, good energy utilization and good (classical) form. Having read your realistic articles, I begin to ask myself, "good for what?"

I can see now that all the cramming postures, swinging punches and pretty kicks are too classically involved. There is a world of difference between applying these movements with an obedient partner who coperates and an actual opponent who is bent on destroying you. Without consistant practice in sparring, I find it practically impossible to adjust proper distance or exact timing with a live, non-classical opponent. I know this because I took some boxing a long time ago.

The reason I still continue to practice kung fu is because I figured our instructor was testing our patience. Though none of us ever saw him spar or engage in any fast exchange, I know my instructor must be good. After all, he is a professional and I appreciate the saying, "He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know." What do you think?

T.Y. Whang, of San Francisco, Calif.

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

Lao-Tzu is supposed to have said, "He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know." However, he himself wrote five thousand words to explain his doctrine.

Does the word "sailor" mean that a person can swim? And speaking of swimming, can you learn it by grinding your horse stance and performing idealistic land exercises?

What do I think? Forget about this "organized despair" you have accumulated and go back to your boxing. Hang a heavy bag in your basement and use your legs as you would your hands. Of course, practice as much sparring as you can. You have to get wet in order to learn to swim.

Bruce Lee


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

DOES NOT UNDERSTAND KATA

I'm sure I'm not alone in having "likes" and "dislikes" regarding some of your articles. Usually I simply grunt to myself at the articles I particularly dislike or don't agree with. This time, however, I just couldn't let an issue go by without comment. I'm speaking of "Kato's Gung Fu."

First the comment Bruce Lee made: "...to me a lot of this fancy stuff is not functional." ...is a line I've heard by 'phonies' who "studied" karate 5 or 6 months then, because they didn't have the patience or the intelligence, quit, opened their own dojo, put on a black belt and attempted to teach "karate."

Bruce Lee obviously does not understand kata. ...There are a hundred comments I'd like to make but these 6 will do for a start.

1. The dime and penny trick is just that! A trick that anyone after a little practice, can do. They don't have to have fast or slow reflexes, just practice.

2. The "powerfull punch" demonstration, where he punches his volunteer into a chair is a farce! Take the chair away and he'll only 'be pushed' a few feet (with or without the protection of the 2 inch glove). I've done this in demonstration...not to prove the power of it but to prove that a man standing in a "non-classical" stance is easily "punched" off balance. Had the man in the photos been standing in a classical karate stance, Mr. Lee wouldn't have been able to budge him! And...yes! I'll volunteer anytime!!

3. Bruce Lee goes on ... "When someone grabs you, punch him!..." Apparently Mr. Lee thinks a karateist would perform a kata in response. I know what I'd do. But I'm wondering about Bruce Lee...would he leave a penny in the grabber's hand?

4. As for practicing with "robots" the article states that Bruce Lee "works" on stuffed dummies...I wonder how fast and how varied their counter attacks are, and if they move around him quickly???

5. Karate's ultimate goal for techniques of self defense has always been simultaneous strikes or kicks with blocks. It is nothing new to karate. Anyone who has studied karate for awhile is well aware of this common fact.

6. As I see it, Bruce Lee is saying (and proving) that he doesn't like, believe in or understand...karate!!

Paul Arel, of the Glastonbury Karate club

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

I am commenting on classical Chinese Gung Gu and not Karate. If your particular style is not of the "fancy stuff" or crammed with "deadly" (in the sense of a corpse) techniques, you need not grunt and be upset.

I am not even a phony who studied karate for five or six months. In fact, I never did take karate. However, my assistants and I do have quite a few students from your circle taking with us.

Whatever you like is your privilege, but I do not teach classical forms because of my understanding of them. As I have pointed out, Jeet Kune Do is interested in feeling what IS and not "doing what was or what might be"...in other words, the here and now, the direct experience with one's opponent, the two halves of the whole.

Forms create situations which do not yet exist, while what IS is a constantly moving, constantly undergoing a transformation...never fixed and always alive.

Take, for example, learning to slip a punch. Is there a classical form for that? Isn't slipping a punch a matter of relationship? It's a different relationship every time as some opponents are fast, some slow, some deceptive, and some awkward.

It's too bad that out of 100 comments you could make, you come up with only six.

1. That is exactly what is supposed to be, a stunt-of speed.

2. I have demonstrated my punch, with or without a chair, and many reputable gentlemen among your circle will tell you it is not a push. If one stands in a classical stance, he will not be thrown back as far...but it will definitely hurt more.

3. I don't know what you will do, but whatever you do, do it quick.

4. There is a difference between BEING a robot and pounding on a robot. If you read carefully, you know Jeet Kune Do values sparring with a live opponent. However, when one does not have a live partner, he can use these dummies to acquaint himself with the correct distance and exact timing of his punches and kicks. This is realistic synchronization of the self.

5. So it is a common fact that there are no passive blocks in your particular art too. That's good. I, too, am like you. I do not like to block passively with one hand, with the other on the hip, and then...and then...and then...

Bruce Lee


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

BASIC TECHNIQUES

I am training with a Chinese instructor who drills us again and again on basics---like side kicks, straight punching, etc. When we spar, we are to use only the chosen basic techniques, though sometimes we can use combinations and everything. Do you not think we need variety?

R.T. Smith of Oakland, California

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

The best techniques are the simple ones done correctly, and in Martial Arts, it is not how much you have learned, but how much you have absorbed in what you have learned.

As long as the basics are on meaningful means that will lead to the ultimate end of actual application in broken rhythm, they are never wasted. Efficient basics are like the strong foundation of a house. Of course, one must avoid basics that have the "aliveness" taken out of them and are "performed" in "rhythmic routines."

Have patience, my friend, I am sure your teacher knows what he is doing.

Bruce Lee


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

BEAT BRUCE LEE?

The reason for this letter is that there are rumors that a man in Connecticut by the name of Bruce Fleetwood is spreading around. He claims to have defeated Bruce Lee twice in public and many times in private sparring. I have never seen this person before, but I feel it wold not be that easy to beat Bruce Lee. Also, I don't recall ever hearing of Bruce Lee competing in public.

Please give me your opinion about this this so I can set things straight with the karate people in Connecticut.

William J. Chung New York City

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

Who's he????

Bruce Lee


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

JEET KUNE DO AND WING CHUN

I enjoyed reading your articles on Bruce Lee. It is interesting to find out the achievements of one of my Wing Chun "brothers."

Today, Mr. Lee is the founder of a new style. Just a few years ago, he was only one of us. I am interested in finding out just how much Wing Chun he still remembers and how much of it is included in his style. From your second article on Mr. Lee I recognized the "sticking hands" exercise and the "tucked in elbow." Some of Mr. Lee's moves also remind me of a northern style I practiced when I was small. If BLACK BELT is willing to find out some answers to my curiosity, I am sure that many other readers will come up with more interesting questions and comments. This is one way of finding out the nature of Gung Fu.

I wish to make a comment on Mr. Lee's philosophy. Zen is very old and many an aggressive style has faded away in it. (If, having learned the art, a punch is no longer a punch, I would prefer to stay as a student.)

Jack Ling

Bloomington, Ind.

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

I do not recall you as being one of us just a few years ago, for I left Hong Kong in the early part of 1959...nearly nine years ago. At any rate, "Brother Ling," since you are interested in my Jeet Kune Do, I shall venture to tell you about it.

First, however, I should like to comment on the last paragraph of your letter. I do not really care what your preference is, but I would like you to re-read the second article. It reads, "Now that I've understood the art, a punch is just like a punch..." You don't have to understand it, but read it carefully and, "Brother Ling," do empty your tea cup first so you can taste my tea. After all, the usefulness of a cup is in it's emptiness.

The foundation of Jeet Kune Do is very much like Wing Chun in that it advocates elbows in position, the center line and straight punching. Now there are three stages in the cultivation of Jeet Kune Do, each of them interrelated. The first stage is "sticking to the nucleus"; the second stage, "liberation from the nucleus"; the third stage, "returning to the original freedom."

Clasically speaking, sticking to the nucleus is merely based on the interior/exterior straight line and rejects the curved line on the idea that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. True, the straight line is very efficient (depending on the circumstances, that is), but rejection of the curve will lead to separation from the whole and the totality will not be achieved when men stubbornly cling to one partial view of things. After all, a good martial artist should be able to strike and kick from all angles and, with either hands or legs, take advantage of the moment.

Therefore, straight punching in Wing Chun becomes a means to an end, but not the end itself, and it should be reinforced and supported by other compact angle punches and kicks as well, thus, as a whole, making one's style more flexible without confinement or limitation. Like western boxing, Jeet Kune Do is most fluid and the fluidity of movements lies in their interchangeability.

By combining the first and second stages we have the natural returning to original freedom, and that is, the absence of a standardized style, the notion of attaching to a method, or the idea of rejecting the straight or the curve. Any action that is based on a set, conditioned course is the action of choice and such action is not liberating and will create confilct and resistance. After all, you can straight-punch a swinger and curve a straight puncher; sometimes the straight is useful, sometimes the curve, depending on the circumstances.

In the eyes of combat, there is no set course, but the totality of action, and in this totality there is nothing to choose and nothing better or worse. One can say that pivot of Jeet Kune Do passes through the center where the curve and straight converge and, in the ultimate Jeet Kune Do is a circle without a circumference.

"In the landscape of spring, there is neither better nor worsel

The flowering branches grow naturally; some long, some short."

- A Zen saying.

Bruce Lee


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

STUNTS ARE NOT SKILL

Mr. Lee, Kung Fu is really something! Recently I witnessed with my own eyes a Chinese master break a chopstick by jamming it on his own throat. Furthermore, he picked up a hammer and hit himself all over. Later he told the audience this is Ch'i (Ki in Japanese). How long does it take to learn it?

Roland Lee San Francisco

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

What is this? Superman giving a demonstration? If so, why did he break the chopstick with his chin (excuse me, I mean his throat) himself? Why didn't he invite someone else to jam the chopstick on his throat? Again, why did this "performer" not invite someone to come out and smash him with the hammer---if the object is to show he can withstand pain(?)

If Gung Fu consists of the above, the end of this art is arriving. All the stunts and gimmicks the performer did in no way suggested his actual skill in this combatative art. If I were you, I would concentrate on efficient techniques and their application in sparring.

Bruce Lee

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

Actually I've talked to two individuals that knew and trained with Bruce Lee in life. The first was Dan Inosanto and the second was my Sifu at the IMB Academy in Torrance, Richard Bustillo.-ED

First, i would like to apologize if i have offended anyone, especially Jo.

I won't waste your time with pointless blabber and arguably useless facts, but Bruce is an idol for most people, and i don't care about his acting.

Now, Jo, please understand that i hold you in the highest respect, but please, i urge and beg you to change. if Lee did anything-- and i know he did-- to offend a style or Way, then too bad, it is Lee's own opinion, like you have yours. and it makes me excrutiatingly sick to know that honorable people like you hate him.

So please, try to change...

Fullness is achieved only when one has truly earned it

Don't get me wrong, this article supports what I said. Bruce Lee is a great innovator and martial artist.
My point is that he was not a great fighter like everyone assumes.
Oh, and for someone who studied Wing Chun for four years he sure didn't know much about the style. Remember this from his answer to the Wing Chun guy>>>Therefore, straight punching in Wing Chun becomes a means to an end, but not the end itself, and it should be reinforced and supported by other compact angle punches and kicks as well, thus, as a whole, making one's style more flexible without confinement or limitation.

He was basically trying to say that Wing Chun isn't flexible because of it's lack of a variety of punches and kicks. Well, any good Wing Chun man knows that Wing Chun has a variety of strikes, including circular hooking and uppercut strikes, and strikes from all angles. It also has a variety of different kicks.
Too bad Bruce Lee didn't continue his Wing Chun training.

-jojitsu27

;)
... and I think I meant BESIDES his "followers"...
of course anyone who's livelihood depends on BL's legacy is going to give a shining review...

JOJITSU...Bruce tried to continue his wing chun training with YIP MAN when he went to HK...Hawkin Cheung and Bruce talked a couple of times...but by that time...Bruce game had evolve to the point he only working on different things...YOU GUYS HAVE TO UNDERSTAND...that all fighters have very very general moves...
Frank Shamrock=submission...primarily finishing with heel hooks, kneebars, armbars, and knees.
Rickson Gracie=submission...chokes, triangle, armbars and dominate punching positions.
V. Silva=striker elbows, knees, and round house kicks.
B. Lee=straight blast, chain punches, and finger jab.
He certainly wasn't GOD...but if you study and read about him more...he was criticizing NOT WING CHUN...but the loyalty or my style being more better than your style crap...along with too much forms...along with NO EMPHASIS in full contact...not asking questions enuf etc...these are stuff that was going on in the 60's!

A

HOW can you even put the man in a list with
1)Shamrock
2)Gracie
3)Silva

???????????????????????????????????????

Bruce Lee was not a professional fighter like these guys, he was an actor and a martial artist.
He would get creamed by fighters of the caliber you mentioned!!!

-jojitsu27

As far as Lee sparring with many people I do that too. My master and others say I have good technique and knowlege but they still kick my butt.

I just finished reading the article and I don't think Lee really understands or gets what traditional MA, katas and the whole "classical mess" are about. He makes some good points but he's being critical of things that he's seen only the surface of or heard about. Notice how Lewis and Norris didn't dump their arts to follow Lee.

I'm just learning things about my kata that I never knew and it's given me a lot more appreciation for the traditional arts.

All in all Lee comes across trying to sound deep but it just doesn't hold up. Good thing for Lee that Inosanto was the one to carry the JKD name forward or else it'd be a total joke today.

Just wanted to point out that both Lewis and Norris crosstrain and research other arts, so maybe they did get the message after all. In fact Norris is a BJJ purple belt no small thing for a guy over fifty. What I got from the message was style isn't what is important, training and free thinking are what are important.-ED

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

I am not a fan of Bruce Lee. I don't see him as an idol. Having said that, it doesn't take away his place in the martial art world.

There are lots we can learn form that man as a martial artist. He single handedly urshed in a new era. Bruce Lee paradigm is the genusis of the Mixed Martial Arts and the Cross Training era. Although Bodhidharma (Shaolin) paradigm is still going strong, Traditional Martial Arts are not without serious reflections and reinventing, i.e. the birth of San Shuo. It is not the first time that people attempted to "Kill the Buddha to become Buddha". Frankly, I am not impressed with Mr. Hess's article. Using sports' perspective, which is partial and mostly physical, to judge a martial artist's ultimate strength, which is more indepth and complete, is hardly an adequate measurement. Personally, I wonder since when moral behavior becomes an important part of sports? If that's the case, we would not have the wild spread substance abuse (performance enchancing or not) problem in the sport community. The Snowboarding kid (Canadian? A disgrace to me eventhough he talked his way out of being stripped of his gold medal) was a farce to testify that there is no such a thing as moral correctness in sports. All I am saying is don't let your likes or dislikes cloud your judgement. Scholarly talk and fancy words are, after all, another personal opinion.

I hear your frustration, Jo, and I hold high value of your opinions. I agree Bruce Lee is but a man, not the demi God. Yet, discarding him as a martial artist and his methodolgy as a valid martial art alternative might narrow your path too much. I have no intention to change anyone's view. Just hoping that we all keep an open mind and learn from either good or bad example.

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

Hahahaha, forgive but i guess you didn't listen to my post, Jo. Can you give me one GOOD reason why you're hating on Bruce?! What, pray tell, the hell are you hating on a human being in the first place? I think you disrespect the concept of live, dogg.

You live, you have fun, you die. It's natural, but you just pushed hating on Lee. Now, again i hold you in high respect, though on the contrary it may seem.

If you hate Bruce so much, why share with other people if you KNOW it's gonna start some major junk, bro. If you were a true Martial Artist, then you would hold respect instead of hate, dogg. that's how life is; without respect, you are going nowhere, my friend. Seeya and please change, man.

Build from the past, live in the present, and ignore the future. What you do now determines what happens later

I don't think jojitsu hates bruce at all.I think what he is trying to say is that bruce lee is not invincible.No one is.He was a man like all of us.
Not only that but he was saying that people take the image of bruce lee and exagerated to an unbelievable extent.

I had uncles tell me that bruce was the real deal,that he could break through walls and jump ten feet high plus all that other stuff.The truth is that he was a matial artist exploring new ways for himself trying to perfect his fighting ability just like anyone else.I myself can never say he was really good,but I cannot deny that he wasn't.Like someone else said I'm not a fan of bruce lee.I do give him some credit though for he was a martial artist.I heard that he was a slacker and I heard how he was so good,a very tough fighter.It's hard to say.


Was Bruce Lee a martial artist?yes

Was Bruce Lee an actor?yes

Did he try to perfect himself?yes

WAs he invincible?no,because no one is.

I can't say anything more since I do not know more than the average person about him.

"Always be ready"

You're right GSD, but they didn't switch over to do what Lee was doing. Also Norris hasn't rejected TSD the way Lee rejected his base art, but has added to it. Lee also didn't invent crosstraining. Bruce Lees greatest contribution was kicking over the MA can, disrupting things a bit, in much the same way the Gracies did in the 90's.

The problem with taking Lees quotes or what he was doing and basing your MA beliefs on it is that it was like he said, a process. He wasn't finished. Wasn't he was closing down his school and shutting the door on JKD when he died? No one knows where he might have ended up, he might have revisited his roots and found things there that he might have missed the first time through.

Did Bruce really reject Wing Chun, was that his message? If it was then why did he still have so much Wing Chun in his style of fighting and why did he still train it and practice it with other Wing Chun stylist up to his death? I think you are missing the point and I think Norris and Lewis got the point. Do your own thing, question what you do and how you do it and then do it better. I think the only thing Bruce Lee rejected was blind faith. I didn't see anything in that article that stated he rejected Wing Chun, nor did I see anything that stated you had to do it his way. If you ask me Lewis and Norris got the message and are doing there own thing call it whatever you want but now you can't really name the style they do anymore and that's the point, is Norris a TSD stylist, or maybe a Ed Parker Kenpo stylist, or maybe a BJJ stylist, or could he be a Thai Boxer, etc. :D -ED

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

I remain unconvinced that Bruce Lee truly hated forms.

Otherwise, he wouldn't have been friends with so many kung fu men.

I think what he really meant to say was that doing forms without fighting would not help a person get better at fighting.

Otherwise he would never had allowed his first book to have stayed in circulation.


Jojitsu27, I'd still take Lee over any of those guys in a streetfight, where eyejabs, biting, and all sorts of evil tricks that you can see in Lee's eyes but not in his print are permissible.

You do WC. You can SEE that Lee has the eyes of a KILLER.

Actually, the Shaolin temple was a FORUM for cross-training. Famous fighters came from all over China to teach and be taught by the monks--which is why we have so many styles with the name "Shaolin" in them.

I believe that Bruce was a capable fighter, but I don't believe that he was all that some would crack him up to be. According to Joe Svinth, when Lee returned to Hong Kong after his Hollywood dreams petered out, he went back to Yip's studio and got his ASS handed to him by the senior students.

Taking what is useful is all well and good, but you have to stay with a style long enough to FIND OUT what is useful--a year or three don't cut it (well, maybe for tae kwon do). There are hundreds of years of research in a good martial art, which are not usually handed out freely.

And mixing martial arts was hardly a Lee innovation. Americans just hadn't had martial arts long enough to try it yet. How many martial arts MASTERS can you name who only study one style?

Jason C. Diederich

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/shaolinninjamarine/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/shaolinninjamarine/</A>

"Taking what is useful is all well and good, but you have to stay with a style long enough to FIND OUT what is useful--a year or three don't cut it (well, maybe for tae kwon do). There are hundreds of years of research in a good martial art, which are not usually handed out freely."

That's my take as well. As far as the Chuck Norris example--I admit I don't know much about the ranking system of BJJ--but I assume that Chuck didn't just train BJJ for a short while and then claimed to have taken the best from BJJ. I'm guessing that he humbled himself, started at the bottom, and worked hard over a long period of time learning the basic, intermediate and advanced techniques and strategies, until knowledgeable BJJ people granted him a high official rank--exactly the same way he learned Tang Soo Do. That's the way to crosstrain, in my opinion.

The problem is(as I see it) that we are looking at what Bruce Lee did through historical hindsight. Nowadays everyone advocates cross training and street applicability.

Back then you took one style and many times you would have been kicked out for going to another school to learn at the same time. Also, many schools today realize that different body types will perform the moves differently, back then everyone did it the same way ("Do" vs. "jutsu").

From what I have read (I claim no expertise) JKD wasn't so much for a new beginner as it was for an experienced martial artist to further expand what he knew by filling in the gaps of his base art. Again, back then everyone's art was "THE ART" to study and was invincible. Bruce realized that all arts had strong points and weak points and to find ways to fill in the weak points.

Having said that I agree with his concepts of that. I feel that today too many people don't have a base system that they have a GOOD foundation in to realize where the weaknesses might be. I know for me the more I study the more I realize that it has answers to areas I thought were lacking just because I wasn't there yet in my training. In this months blackbelt there is an article where the guy states to only study a style for 6 months before moving on because you will learn the most applicable techs in that time. WHAT???

To me this is the Bruce Lee mess that was left by what he started and never finished because he died.

"There are many who talk of the Way, but few who walk the Way."

I think everyone here who thinks I hate Bruce Lee or am just trying to bash him in some way are missing my point.
I don't hate Bruce Lee, I don't hate anyone! Hate is not a part of my belief system.
I just don't think Lee was the great God of fighting that many here make him out to be.
If you want to idolize fighters, idolize the real ones like Sakuraba.
Lee was a great Movie Star, Martial Artist, and thinker. Let's leave it at that!
-jojitsu27

With the Concepts of JKD in mind, there really is no base art or style if you really think about it. There is only what works and what doesn't, where you get it doesn't matter as long as it works. Those that study JKD under a JKD instructor are basically using those instructor's experiences as a guild post. Most JKD instructors often study other arts on there own, in fact most hold ranking in a number of other arts, one of the instructors I trained with, an original Bruce Lee student, not only was certified by Dan Inosanto, but was also certified with the Olympic Training Center as a coach and official with USA Boxing, and a Kru in Muay Thai, recognized by the Council o Grandmasters of the Philippines as Ninth degree Black Belt (Grandmaster) in Doce Pares Eskrima, not to mention a blue belt in BJJ. Many spend years researching other systems from Savate, to Muay Thai, to Judo, to whatever interests them. Hell, Burton Richardson went all the way to Africa to research tribal fighting systems. I stopped officially studying under a certified JKD instructor just over a year or so ago and have been researching things on my own, but whatever it is, BJJ, Muay Thai, Shooto...I still consider it my own personal favor of JKD. What you guys are failing to see is that you need to stop seeing things as this style or that style and maybe just look at it as what works for you and what doesn't. One of the problems with JKD that messes it all up, is that Bruce and then his followers had to call it something.-ED

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

JOJITSU...you missed the whole point I posted...I've seen your post in UG and several other post...and you do RAG on BRUCE...as much as trolls be ragging on RICKSON! Just let it be...

A

Cool handle, dude

I understand where you are coming from. Regarding the terms, there might have been a confussion on my part.

Cross Training seems to have 2 layers of meaning for many people. Perhaps, it would be clearer to said that Bruce Lee bring the atheleticism in, or back in, the martial arts into the lime light (pun intended). May be I have misused the term. I am aware of the "forum" function of Shaolin temple and I have always believed that masters were and are very open minded on exchange info to better themselves and in turn better their arts.

The comparsion drawn here was that while most Shaolin masters exchanged ideas and made adjustments to their own style, the respect for the style and effort to maintain integrity of a style were genuine. I see it as honoring the arts as both intellectual and empirial a body of knowledge accumulated through out the ages. In Bruce case, however, it's more a "I challenge; therefore, I exsist." attutide. It is my way or the highway. It would seem in his actions (slighting of styles - a publice facade perhaps?) , he was more interested in his cosmos truth than what he insisted on attaining universal truth. I think that articulate the linear mindset of Mixed Martial Arts. Nothing wrong with that although it is limiting to me. I am sure many would argue it's just the opposite. May be in his private moments, he might have felt that Shaolin traditions are valid. Who can really tell about him? Remeber the ultimate trick of the devil is that he convinces everybody that he never exsisted.

Mantis108

Contraria Sunt Complementa

I have nothing against Bruce Lee.I liked his movies and his style(or lack of it!)greatly intrigued me.He had lots of charisma and influenced me in some ways.I became interrested in wing chun when I learned that was his style!Of course,I was puzzled when I realised(when I knew a little about w.c.) how far away he really was from wing chun in his movie work.IMO,he went trough some stages in his life and carrer.First he was a "classical"student in Hong Kong,learning a significant part of his system but still with a long way to go toward mastership.Then,we find him teaching in America,mostly to fellow college students.His teaching seems to be some w.c. along with his own concepts,"to fill the holes".Then,there is the stage when he reject the "classical"mess as he said.He is a star now and can charge lots of$$$ for an hour of instruction.There is also some rejection by his old master who refuse to consider him more than his other students by giving him special favors.He knew then that he would never be the no:1 in wing chun and turn away from it for good.So he becames the "rebel" of the m.a. He became the grand-master of his own style while at the same time telling everybody that it was really no style at all.Being mysterious somehow as always being a good seller and he made many followers.IMO,without putting him down in any ways, I wonder if any of this would have taken place if he had the opportunity to complete his study of wing chun in the first place? Maybe it's better the way it is? he is maybe a myth and a legend but in a way he was good for the martial arts

C'est la vie!

well said old jong! I think you hit
the nail on the head.
-jojitsu27

That's also the way I see it old jong.

No matter what though, the guy has inspired untold numbers of people to take up the MA, and not to mention being an agent of change in the MA field long after his death. So props to Bruce Lee for that.

He was also a great self-promoter and must have a big old grin on his face right now.

I owe Bruce gratitude, if it wasn't for his movies, I may have never studied MA as a kid. But, I also blaim him for the American MA mess. Bruce started this discard what doesn't work crap, IMHO most who discard technique havent explored it enough or practiced it enough to find value in it. I have never been showed a technique that I felt was worthless, it all has some value, even if its value is what not to do. Bruce was the first to start his own style by borrowing from others. Bruces ideas of non static arts and evolution he took from Ed Parker. The man became quite nuts, dishing out the most basic lessons of Buddhism and taoism to the American camera as if he was a wise and great master. For those of you who pattern your life after him, I say wake up, Bruce's path led to his death in his earlie 30's and if you desire an early death, please follow his lead. Truth is, Bruce insulted his master and the great masters of his time, not because he taught outsiders, but because his ego was out of controll. All I see Bruce did for Martial Arts is to increase its presence and establish it as an American film genra', however i think he may have hurt it just as much. Bruce should have read more about the middle path and moderation, mabey then he would have grown into a wise man instead of a dead fool!

Don't blame Bruce for the current state of martial arts. He died in 1972 and had no influence over things that occurred AFTER his death.

As far as Bruce's dishing out "Buddhism and Taoism like he was a great master" goes, remember that he was a Chinese guy who grew up in a Confucian household and culture.

Non-Chinese people (and many Chinese people today) don't realize how different Hong Kong was in those days. Back then, traditional Chinese influences featuring Buddhist/Taoist tenets were very strong - unlike today. Bruce Lee, as a typical traditional Chinese young boy, was exposed to this stuff every waking moment of his life.

In my trained Buddhist opinion, Bruce Lee had every right to dish out those concepts that he had so thoroughly mastered. No harm was done by doing it, either.

I wasn't there, so I can't say if Ed Parker truly taught Bruce Lee about nonstatic arts and evolution. Something inside me tells me that it was actually the other way around, especially since the concepts of nonstatics arts and evolution are classical Buddhist and Taoist concepts that were once taught in every Chinese elementary school.

Bruce Lee was hardly the first to start his own style by borrowing from others. Since the beginning of time, styles have been created on the foundations of others. Jigoro Kano did it, the Gracies did it, Morihei Ueshiba did it, EVERYONE did it.

As far as those that pattern themselves after Bruce Lee, I don't know anybody that does. I know people that revere his teaching and regard him as a special martial artist, but I don't know anybody who imitates him outright. Lee would've laughed at them!

We can speculate on why Bruce Lee died, but we don't really know WHY he was allergic to that medication that killed him. Nor do we know if his lifestyle caused his death - at least the doctors don't.

It's silly to call Lee a "fool" for dying at 30 when the finest medical minds of the day couldn't figure out why he died.

JKD is not about rejecting any particular style or worshipping the ground Bruce Lee walked on. It is simply about finding your own path through your own experience and being open minded to any approach. To the day of his death bruce had great respect for ANYONE regardless of style who had an open minded, realistic no nonsense approach to fighting and the martial arts. If he was as adamantly against anything having to do with classical styles (as most of you seem to think) then why would he continue to work with and associate with his old wing chun brothers such as Hawkins Cheung? Because Cheung, much like Bruce, is not concerned about the showy facade and ritualistic BS and politics that surrounds the martial arts community. All he is concerned about is what works. And why did Bruce have a long association with Ed Parker? Because unlike many other blind sheep classical martial artists, Parker was extremely open minded and wanted to do whatever he could to further the knowledge level and development of effective martial arts. Ed Parker did a lot to increase knowledge about different martial arts in his day, much like Dan inosanto has done recently. So you see, its not the style that matters....it's the APPROACH. Many people were offended by the way Bruce openly pointed out weaknesses in various styles. They thought to themselves, "who the hell is HE to tell me what's wrong with the techniques I've been practicing for my entire life?? He's an idiot!" THAT, my friends, is the problem right there! Styles are created by men so ultimately, none of them are perfect and are bound to have shortcomings. By criticizing certain techniques or practices, Bruce was not trying to be arrogant or disrespectful (although he may have come off that way) but was merely exercising the attitude of objectiveness and constant improvement that he felt was essential to martial arts training. The problem with many traditionalists is that they have such absolute faith and contentment in one style that they fight progress and continued development beyond their acquired comfort zone. Bruce saw that with many of them (especially in the Chinese martial arts community) if their style is faced with a limitation, it becomes THEIR limitation. Some people simply refuse to accept the fact that the one pure, traditional, unchanged for a thousand years style of MA that they've dedicated 30 years of their life to simply doesn't have ALL the answers and that ultimately, the truth is found through unlimited personal research and open mindedness. That is what JKD is supposed to be about.

I personally do not deitize Bruce. I never said that he was a fighting god or that he'd mop up the floor with Frank Shamrock and Vanderlei Silva. And I do not think that he was infallible. in fact i'm quite certain he made many mistakes and i don't necessarily agree with everything he said or did. I simply respect his vision of training and admire him for his work ethic and contribution. As for being dedicated to one style all your life...who the hell cares? Bruce was dedicated to training like a fanatic. Just because he did it his own way and used many influences instead of being strictly a wing chun man doesn't mean that he wasn't any good.

"Shoot Wrestling's effectiveness stems from the way it gears its grappling toward taking a kickboxer down and its kickboxing toward keeping a grappler off. Combined, they are a pretty good mixture."
-Erik Paulson