Bruce Lee

[LFJ]

For example Kimbo slice may have had plenty of street fighting experience. He beat a lot of big dudes but when taken into the ring he got his butt handed to him by people who fought skilled opponents on a regular basis. That's what happens. That's why even though he had verifiable proof of having fought those fights they don't matter for anything.

Was Kimbo a martial artist or did he have any real training at all during his street fighting days? I don't think so. We're not just talking about untrained street fighters who don't have sport fighting records, but trained martial artists who don't have such records yet are still fighters. If Bruce Lee had verifiable street fights it wouldn't put him and Kimbo in the same class. You can't say Bruce Lee was untrained.

Besides, the thing is you were saying Bruce Lee was an actor and not a fighter at all, based on the fact that he had no official record. So are you also saying Kimbo wasn't a fighter, even though he has verifiable street fights, just because it wasn't against trained opponents in an official setting? He may not have been a good fighter, because he was untrained, but he fought. Therefore he was a fighter.

Now someone like Bruce Lee was obviously well trained and highly skilled. But he's not a fighter because... he wasn't a sport fighting athlete and there's no footage of his street fights?

[Kellen Bassette]

I know a lot of fighters with records and without; and some of the guys who have no record I'd put up against anyone. They are skilled MAs who have been street fighters, bouncers, fought unsanctioned matches, ect...I know some Kyokushin guys who are serious fighters, but couldn't really point to a record because their bouts are unsanctioned. I have no doubt they'd do fine against ranked kick boxers.

I'm not saying Bruce would have been the best sport fighter ever...but I have no doubt he would have done well in kick boxing or mma.

[Bacon]

Was Kimbo a martial artist or did he have any real training at all during his street fighting days? I don't think so.

Actually the training doesn't matter. It's the verifiability and the class of opponents faced.

We're not just talking about untrained street fighters who don't have sport fighting records, but trained martial artists who don't have such records yet are still fighters. If Bruce Lee had verifiable street fights it wouldn't put him and Kimbo in the same class. You can't say Bruce Lee was untrained.

Trained or not doesn't matter. Kimbo at least had verifiable proof of his fights in and out of the ring. He got his arse handed to him when he had to face any real opponent but he still has more fighting credibility than Bruce because it's verifiable.

Besides, the thing is you were saying Bruce Lee was an actor and not a fighter at all, based on the fact that he had no official record. So are you also saying Kimbo wasn't a fighter, even though he has verifiable street fights, just because it wasn't against trained opponents in an official setting? He may not have been a good fighter, because he was untrained, but he fought. Therefore he was a fighter.

Kimbo was and is a fighter, just not a very good one. Although he now has a 6-0 record in pro boxing so maybe he just doesn't fair so well in a less restricted fighting environment.

Now someone like Bruce Lee was obviously well trained and highly skilled. But he's not a fighter because... he wasn't a sport fighting athlete and there's no footage of his street fights?

It's about verifiability of fights to actually say that they happened and having those fights against high quality opponents to prove your skill level. It doesn't even necessarily mean sport fighting either. Technically the old Vale Tudo wasn't sport fighting. You can argue as to whether the very limited ruleset of the UFC amounted to sport fighting but Kimbo's videos amount to proof of fights.


It works like this.
Training? Irrelevant.

Verifiable fights? -> yes -> fighter

Were those fights against anyone decent? -> YES -> did they whoop you -> yes -> fighter just not a very good one
no -> you're a good fighter
-> NO -> not a very good fighter

[LFJ]

Fight? -> Yes -> Fighter .


Verifiable fights? -> Yes -> Fights verified
Verifiable fights? -> No -> Fights unverified

Unverifiable fights ≠ Fighter status: negative
Unverifiable fights = Fighter status: indeterminate

Official record or video footage ≠ Only valid form of evidence

[Bacon]

Fight? -> Yes -> Fighter .


Verifiable fights? -> Yes -> Fights verified
Verifiable fights? -> No -> Fights unverified

Unverifiable fights ≠ Fighter status: negative
Unverifiable fights = Fighter status: indeterminate

Official record or video footage ≠ Only valid form of evidence

You're flat out wrong. Otherwise you should meet my friend Bob. He's been in a million street fights and won them all. Clearly he is the uber mensch.

The point is it's just like me saying I have a tyrannosaurus in my back yard. Without verification anyone in their right mind will call bull**** on it. It's inadmissable as fact. It is essentially the same as it being made up. And that doesn't even address the quality of opponents issue.


Actually realistically this makes the two seven year olds I saw scrapping in the school yard fighters in the same level as Bruce... Just not as famous.

And official record or video is the only form of evidence. Period. Anything else is hearsay, garbage, equivalent to made up fairy tales.

[LFJ]

The point is it's just like me saying I have a tyrannosaurus in my back yard. Without verification anyone in their right mind will call bull**** on it. It's inadmissable as fact. It is essentially the same as it being made up. And that doesn't even address the quality of opponents issue.

The question to ask is whether or not something is likely to be true. If you say you have a T-Rex in your backyard, it's not likely to be true because no T-Rex has ever been found living.

However, if you say you have a dog in your backyard, I'd generally be inclined to believe you unless there is some reason for you to be lying about it. I could also go investigate and discover things like dog food in your house, dog turds in the grass, etc., which would lead to a reasonable belief that you in fact own a dog, even without having ever seen it.

In the case of whether Bruce Lee ever fought, we have things like witness testimony from a number of folks who have no apparent reason to be making it up, and other bits of evidence mentioned throughout the course of this thread, which can lead to a reasonable belief that he actually fought, even without video footage or official records.

To claim as fact that Bruce Lee never fought, you have to have more than the fact that he didn't have an official fight record. At best you can only say his fighter status is indeterminate, or that he is found "not guilty" of being a fighter, but that doesn't make him "innocent" and his fighter status negative.

Actually realistically this makes the two seven year olds I saw scrapping in the school yard fighters in the same level as Bruce... Just not as famous.

You already dismissed the level of training argument I brought up. If they fight, they're little fighters, but obviously not on the same level as a highly trained adult martial artist.

[Bacon]

The question to ask is whether or not something is likely to be true. If you say you have a T-Rex in your backyard, it's not likely to be true because no T-Rex has ever been found living.

However, if you say you have a dog in your backyard, I'd generally be inclined to believe you unless there is some reason for you to be lying about it. I could also go investigate and discover things like dog food in your house, dog turds in the grass, etc., which would lead to a reasonable belief that you in fact own a dog, even without having ever seen it.

And since there's ZERO evidence is it likely that Bruce Lee ever fought? At best it's 50/50.

In the case of whether Bruce Lee ever fought, we have things like witness testimony from a number of folks who have no apparent reason to be making it up, and other bits of evidence mentioned throughout the course of this thread, which can lead to a reasonable belief that he actually fought, even without video footage or official records.

Well innthe case of folks who trained with him it gives credence to their training. In the case of his family it gives credence to their father's memory and makes them feel more important. And for most other folks it just makes them feel special. If you had literally a large crowd of people who could verify it then you'd be talking credible testimony.

To claim as fact that Bruce Lee never fought, you have to have more than the fact that he didn't have an official fight record. At best you can only say his fighter status is indeterminate, or that he is found "not guilty" of being a fighter, but that doesn't make him "innocent" and his fighter status negative.

It may as well. In this area indeterminate is equivalent to not being a fighter. I'm not claiming he never fought. I'm claiming that there's no credible evidence that he did, which is equivalent in the area of fighting.

You already dismissed the level of training argument I brought up. If they fight, they're little fighters, but obviously not on the same level as a highly trained adult martial artist.

Well guess what? I never saw those kids. They don't exist. So yes I dismissed the level of training argument but I also demonstrated that non-verifiable in this case equates to non-existent.

And what does it matter to you anyway to try proving that a guy who would have been at best a second or third rate fighter IF he did fight... Actually fought?

[Bacon]

And I should also point out that the only way to gauge someone's skill level is in relation to the people they fight. So the best you get out of this is..

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.

[GlennR]

And I should also point out that the only way to gauge someone's skill level is in relation to the people they fight. So the best you get out of this is..

Well it all about opinion. Ill bring up Tyson again. He is derided by many many of the experts for having fought in the, or one of, weakest periods of heavyweight boxing ever.
So by your logic, as he hasnt fought anyone of a high level he was no good??

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.

And exactly the same case can be made for Tyson in the eyes of many.... see how your argument is flawed

Now, if you really want to pursue your anti BL crusade, why dont you reinvigorate this treasure

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...hp/t-4700.html

[LFJ]

And since there's ZERO evidence is it likely that Bruce Lee ever fought? At best it's 50/50.

Official records and video footage is not the only type of valid evidence, although it's the only type you'll accept.

Well innthe case of folks who trained with him it gives credence to their training.

They would lie about seeing Bruce Lee fight to convince themselves that their training is true? I don't find that likely at all. Bruce Lee even encouraged in his students to find what works. Making up a lie to give credence to their training goes against the entire training philosophy.

In this area indeterminate is equivalent to not being a fighter. I'm not claiming he never fought. I'm claiming that there's no credible evidence that he did, which is equivalent in the area of fighting.

So you just contradicted yourself in the same breath. Indeterminate is never equivalent to negative. And there is enough evidence to justify a rational belief that he fought, without claiming it as fact.

I also demonstrated that non-verifiable in this case equates to non-existent.

You didn't really demonstrate anything. Non-verifiable is only enough for a "not guilty" verdict. Declaring innocence takes more.

And what does it matter to you anyway to try proving that a guy who would have been at best a second or third rate fighter IF he did fight... Actually fought?

Already answered you. I don't really care about Bruce Lee. I just find your belief to be irrational, and it relates to other fighters without official records. I could witness with my own eyes and know for a fact that someone is a fighter, but without an official record or video footage you say it's not only unverifiable, but even non-existent. So what the hell would I have seen? Would I have been hallucinating?

You seem to have something to gain from saying Bruce Lee wasn't a fighter, or that he would have been at best a 2nd or 3rd rate fighter. Two claims you have no evidence for, but are just saying to make yourself sound skillful and knowledgable.

[LFJ]

@Bacon

What's your view on Hawkins Cheung's witness testimony?

[Bacon]

Well it all about opinion. Ill bring up Tyson again. He is derided by many many of the experts for having fought in the, or one of, weakest periods of heavyweight boxing ever.
So by your logic, as he hasnt fought anyone of a high level he was no good??

And exactly the same case can be made for Tyson in the eyes of many.... see how your argument is flawed

Tyson was fighting at a pro level. That's not a good comparison with someone for who there is only hearsay testimony about them fighting basically unskilled or very low level opponents.

Now, if you really want to pursue your anti BL crusade, why dont you reinvigorate this treasure

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/foru...hp/t-4700.html

It has nothing to do with being anti-Bruce Lee. If this argument was about another person with the same lack of evidence for their fighting skill I'd be making the same argument.

Official records and video footage is not the only type of valid evidence, although it's the only type you'll accept.

Either that or testimony by a very large group of unbiased witnesses. The point is valid corroboration. If you have a video we can clearly see. If you have a fight record you have a commission whose credibility and integrity can be referred to. If you have a large group of unbiased people you have corroboration of unbiased testimony. What you have otherwise is hearsay.

They would lie about seeing Bruce Lee fight to convince themselves that their training is true? I don't find that likely at all. Bruce Lee even encouraged in his students to find what works. Making up a lie to give credence to their training goes against the entire training philosophy.

It's called cognitive dissonance. Human beings engage in it all the time.

So you just contradicted yourself in the same breath. Indeterminate is never equivalent to negative. And there is enough evidence to justify a rational belief that he fought, without claiming it as fact.

In this case it is. Hearsay evidence that someone fought is equivalent to no evidence. It doesn't mean they didn't but it means that for all intents and purposes they may as well not have.

Already answered you. I don't really care about Bruce Lee. I just find your belief to be irrational, and it relates to other fighters without official records. I could witness with my own eyes and know for a fact that someone is a fighter, but without an official record or video footage you say it's not only unverifiable, but even non-existent. So what the hell would I have seen? Would I have been hallucinating?

No you could witness that someone is fightING. For someone to be a fighter they must have evidence of fighting opponents regularly. And I witnessed a man float off the round the other day. Clearly I know that he is magic

You seem to have something to gain from saying Bruce Lee wasn't a fighter, or that he would have been at best a 2nd or 3rd rate fighter. Two claims you have no evidence for, but are just saying to make yourself sound skillful and knowledgable.

I said at best he would've been a second or third rate fighter because he never fought anyone of any real skill and there were plenty he could've fought against. The point has nothing to do with Bruce. It has to do with the rigors of evidence and the point is there is none for any fights from Bruce so anyone saying that he was a fighter let alone a good one is an idiot.

What's your view on Hawkins Cheung's witness testimony?

One possibly credible witness with a possible bias and no other real supporting evidence to prove that Bruce fought some unskilled or low skilled opponents. Give me a break.

[Kellen Bassette]

No you could witness that someone is fightING. For someone to be a fighter they must have evidence of fighting opponents regularly. And I witnessed a man float off the round the other day. Clearly I know that he is magic

So someone who engages in fighting is not a fighter.
That is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Impressive.

[LFJ]

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 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?

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.

[LFJ]

So someone who engages in fighting is not a fighter.
That is the stupidest thing I've read all day. Impressive.

That's what I'm saying. Even if there is no evidence to convince him, it would still be fact in reality. So saying that person is not a fighter because there is no evidence to show him would be factually incorrect, even if the disbelief is justified. Don't care about this "unverifiable might as well be a negative". It's still factually incorrect. He's just plain wrong.