...his skills as a MAist, actor, son of one of, if not the greatest MAist ever.
I'm sorry but why would anyone consider him the best ever? Is that to say he was better than the great Kuo Yu Chang (who supposedly could kick 5 consecutive times in mid-air; a feat Bruce could not perform) or any of the other greats from the early part of the 20th century? Is it because he made a few influential films? (which suck by todays MA action film standards)
Let me further ask you this: besides his exhibition in Long Beach, which top competitive fighters did Bruce ever fight in real life? Shouldn't we go by those standards? Van Dam even has more of a claim to fame in that department since he actually won some tournaments and major public bouts in Europe. If Bruce was "the best," why didn't he compete in any national or world championships?
I just think the notion of him being the greatest MAist ever is a bunch of balony. I know at least a few MAists who are capable of beating a Bruce Lee in his prime.
The three components of combat are 1) Speed, 2) Guts and 3) Techniques. All three components must go hand in hand. One component cannot survive without the others." (WJM - June 14, 1974)