Bruce Lee

[Bacon]

But the many witnesses are only biased in your opinion– not by any actual evidence that they are biased, but apparently because to agree that they are unbiased, honest people simply reporting what they saw, rather than straight lying, would count as valid corroboration to a point you are biased against.

If they were people without possibility of bias such as a large crowd at an organized fight which happened to not be recorded or taped, then their corroboration can be accepted with little question. When you have a bunch of people where there is possibility, not even necessarily proof of bias then there is doubt.

If you personally witnessed someone fighting regularly, sometimes unsuccessfully but many times not especially as they gained experience, yet they had no official record, not being a sport fighting athlete, could I tell you you were hallucinating or just lying because there is no video footage or official record to convince me?

No but you couldn't verify anything you're saying. What may or may not have happened is not the issue. Evidence is the issue. Without it nothing an individual says means squat.

I may be justified in disbelieving you, but I would have no justification in calling you a liar or saying that person is in fact not a fighter. Your testimony along with that of many others would all lead to a rational acceptance of the claim. Although such belief should always be tentative and not touted as fact, it would be reasonable nonetheless, unless you all clearly had some reason to not just stretch the truth of how good this individual was, but to even lie about having ever witnessed him fight... which just seems like a silly thing for so many people to do.

You would be justified in saying the person is not a fighter for there is no evidence.

There is no doubt as to who is a fighter and who is not based on evidence presented. There is no doubt about who is a good fighter based on the class of opponents they face. Again at best, if we assume, and it is an assumption, that Bruce did engage in unrecorded fights he still didn't fight anyone of worth. At best you can argue that he is a crap fighter.

[LFJ]

When you have a bunch of people where there is possibility, not even necessarily proof of bias then there is doubt.

Doubt is all you can have.

No but you couldn't verify anything you're saying. What may or may not have happened is not the issue. Evidence is the issue. Without it nothing an individual says means squat.

Doesn't change reality, and that is the issue if you're making claims about reality.

You would be justified in saying the person is not a fighter for there is no evidence.

You can conclude a "not guilty" of being a fighter verdict, but will not have proven "innocence".

[Bacon]

Doubt is all you can have.

I repeat:
There is no doubt as to who is a fighter and who is not based on evidence presented. There is no doubt about who is a good fighter based on the class of opponents they face. Again at best, if we assume, and it is an assumption, that Bruce did engage in unrecorded fights he still didn't fight anyone of worth. At best you can argue that he is a crap fighter.

Doesn't change reality, and that is the issue if you're making claims about reality.

Reality is what is proven. The argument you're making is the same as people make about God, or aliens, or the Loch Ness monster. The whole "but I've seen him and you can't disprove that he doesn't exist" is an intellectually poor man's argument. Do they exist? Likely not but unlike in the other cases where things can exist in yes, no, and maybe, in this case maybe is equivalent to 'no.' You're a fighter and can prove it, or for all intents and purposes you're not.

You can conclude a "not guilty" of being a fighter verdict, but will not have proven "innocence".

The second part is a load of garbage. If you cannot prove someone is a fighter then they, for all intents and purposes, are not a fighter.

[JPinAZ]

Seriously, you guys are STILL arguing about whether or not Bruce was a fighter?!?
Fighter, not-a-fighter - what does it matter today? It doesn't. But either way, living in someone else's past does not help anyone's kung fu and this really has little to do with wing chun at this point.
Besides the fact that he passed away almost 40 years ago, the pi55ing match is getting real boring - let it go already.

[anerlich]

I repeat:

Why?

Seriously, you guys are STILL arguing about whether or not Bruce was a fighter?!?
Fighter, not-a-fighter - what does it matter today? It doesn't. But either way, living in someone else's past does not help anyone's kung fu and this really has little to do with wing chun at this point.
Besides the fact that he passed away almost 40 years ago, the pi55ing match is getting real boring - let it go already.

What he said.

[Bacon]

Because he clearly didn't get it the first time

[wtxs]

Because he clearly didn't get it the first time

That is the sorriest excuse of keeping the ****ing contest rolling ...like an bad nightmare of having subject to and never ending chain punching video, and you ran out of popcorn and beer.

[mun hung]

"yes, he was"

"no, he wasn't"

"yes, he was"

"no, he wasn't"

I've been a member of this forum for 13 years and it never changes...ever! There are always big mouth trolls talking, talking, talking, who probably can't fight a lick, but just love debating on the internet. It's just stupid.

Back to training for me.

[LFJ]

Reality is what is proven.

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist. Whether it is proven or even hypothesized has no bearing on the way it actually exists.

If you cannot prove someone is a fighter then they, for all intents and purposes, are not a fighter.

Your intents and purposes don't change the facts of reality. You're justified in not accepting it without what you deem sufficient evidence, but you'd be wrong in concluding something at odds with reality because you have no proof of it.

In the case of Bruce Lee, I find there's enough reasonable evidence to rationally accept that he fought. But that acceptance is tentative and not touted as fact, and it makes no difference ultimately.

I'm an agnostic atheist, by the way.

Oh, and Bacon, I wonder if your WC sifu, MT trainer, or MMA coaches all have official records against high class fighters. What are they? If not, why do you learn to fight from non-fighters or at best crap fighters?

[sihing]

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist. Whether it is proven or even hypothesized has no bearing on the way it actually exists.



Your intents and purposes don't change the facts of reality. You're justified in not accepting it without what you deem sufficient evidence, but you'd be wrong in concluding something at odds with reality because you have no proof of it.

In the case of Bruce Lee, I find there's enough reasonable evidence to rationally accept that he fought. But that acceptance is tentative and not touted as fact, and it makes no difference ultimately.

I'm an agnostic atheist, by the way.

Oh, and Bacon, I wonder if your WC sifu, MT trainer, or MMA coaches all have official records against high class fighters. What are they? If not, why do you learn to fight from non-fighters or at best crap fighters?

Good points. Reality is not based on the evidence, Science does not have all the answers to the reality in all the existence, they still investigate, test, experiment and so forth, if they had the answers to all things they wouldn't be doing that, but still there are questions, and the reality exists, even though science has no answers to those questions.

Bruce yes he could fight, most definetly, it was his choice to do so publicly in comps, he choose not to, that's his decision, one can choose to believe what they want, it still doesn't change the reality. As to him being the top dog, no one is, all can lose at anytime, so mute point, and know one is saying he was.

J

[LaterthanNever]

Well..

I trained with Jesse(Glover)..RIP friend.

Bruce did in fact fight..both on the street as well as in predetermined matches.

And yeah..Jesse was there for at least one of them(we talked about it after training just before we went to eat at the local noodle house around the corner from where we trained in Seattle).

Not all fights that someone is in are televised for the world to see you know?

When I had the pleasure of meeting Linda Lee-Emery(Bruces' widow) and Taky Kimura at Jesses funeral in July of this year. They didn't say "oh..let me tell you about the time Bruce fought so and so". For that matter, neither did Leroy Garcia who was also present.

"Besides the fact that he passed away almost 40 years ago, the pi55ing match is getting real boring - let it go already. "

Well said JPinAZ! Why *IS* this being bantered to death 40 years later? Does someone have to have 100 televised matches to meet someones artificial standard of them being a "fighter"?


"Did Bruce fight? At best it's a maybe
Supposing he did he fight anyone of quality? No
Therefore his skills are still suspect and he is not a fighter or even if he were he could not claim to be a very good one. "

If Bruce were still alive and teaching/training, would you fight him? Noone of *quality*?? Would you fight Northern Shaolin Master Wong Jack Man? He did! And a MAYBE? He had to leave Hong Kong because he could not STOP getting into fights! Oh that's right..he didn't fight Kimbo Slice..so he couldn't be verified or that good?! Unreal man!! >

"He was an actor not a fighter".

So I guess Chuck Norris was an actor not a fighter? I guess so was Segal who also appeared in movies! Same applies to Tony Danza(who I believe was an actual prize fighter). But Adam West who played Batman on the TV series? Man..that dude was a fighter thru and thru. Just a cold blooded killer. LOL


"There is no doubt as to who is a fighter and who is not based on evidence presented. "

This is not DNA or Forensic science. Evidence according to whose standard I might ask? Does it mean that Muhammed Ali was not a fighter since he was a boxer and after all..boxing has rules(no groin kicks, no kidney punches,etc.) and not the same as an all out brawl?(ie: a guy being mugged for his wallet and if he doesn't give it to the thug then he is shot dead). Must also mean that Randy Couture is not a "fighter" since MMA also has rules like boxing and it wasn't as much of a "fight" as the mugging I just listed? Ridiculous.



"There is no doubt about who is a good fighter based on the class of opponents they face. Again at best, if we assume, and it is an assumption, that Bruce did engage in unrecorded fights he still didn't fight anyone of worth. At best you can argue that he is a crap fighter."

I "assume" you are a sh-t talker, trouble maker and other things which I won't mention on here ok? Bacon, I'd suggest you take up flyfishing or some other hobby and stop stooping to the level of trash talking a dead man! (who I'm pretty positive would have wiped the floor with you in an actual fight). And class of of opponents? Interesting. Grandmaster Joon Rhee said in an interview that he would "never fight Bruce" and Chuck Norris said the same thing(or words to that effect). Oh..I forgot..neither Rhee or Norris were "quality" right?

Who did you ever fight professionally Bacon? Inquiring martial artists want to know!

[LaterthanNever]

Oops..

"I trained with Jesse(Glover)..RIP friend"

an important clarification:

I did not study *WITH* Jesse. I meant to say he was my instructor! Important difference.

And if Bruce was not a "fighter" according to Newtons 1st,2nd and 3rd laws of motion which is the irrefutable law of proof which Bacon requests..

It doesn't matter..

Bruce was most definitely..a MARTIAL ARTIST!!

[k gledhill]

By Shannon Lee...the man, the myth, the real person...great shot.

[Kellen Bassette]

Lol...awesome pic...

[k gledhill]

Lol...awesome pic...

.....after reading posts here maybe