Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 37 of 37

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

  1. #31
    mantis108 Guest

    Shaolinninjamarine

    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

  2. #32
    old jong Guest

    The facts

    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!

  3. #33
    jojitsu27 Guest

    well said...

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

  4. #34
    rogue Guest
    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.

  5. #35
    Taomonkey Guest
    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!

  6. #36
    HuangKaiVun Guest
    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.

  7. #37
    DragonzRage Guest

    GSD is right...yall are missing the point!

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •