Bruce Lee's criticism of modern versions of Kung Fu, Karate and other Martial Arts

[FullPotentialMA]

I recently read the book [i]Bruce Lee, The Tao of Gung Fu: Commentaries on the Chinese Martial Arts[i]. In it, Bruce Lee, writing in 1963 & 1964 (i.e., in his Wing Chun days, and before Jeet Kun Do), identifies ailments that affected some of the so-called “traditional” martial arts at that time – be they Kung Fu, Karate, or other arts. (I put "traditional" in quotes, because in reality, these martial arts practice methods were quite new, usually emerging around the early and middle of the 20th Century.)

My summary of the book Bruce Lee, The Tao of Gung Fu: Commentaries on the Chinese Martial Arts is here.

Bruce Lee talks about ailments such as practice of forms for aesthetics only and with no practical application, lack of realism in training, focus on “dead” kumite drills instead of true non-cooperative practice, and more.

What is fascinating is that Bruce Lee's criticism circa 1963 is still, unfortunately, quiet valid for many Kung Fu, Karate, and other Asian martial arts studios.

While there are many studios and instructors who strive to train realistically, there are also many whose practice, sometime in the name of preserving "tradition," has drifted away from practical martial arts useful for self-defense.

BTW, the book also has a lot of neat technical information about Kung Fu and, of course, Wing Chun.

How important, in your opinion, is realism in martial arts training???

[MightyB]

I like Bruce Lee. I think he was cool. That being said - this book was written still early on his path. He pointed out nuggets (labelled as criticisms) on what he believed to be important on his path to self-discovery.

Martial arts ultimately are personal. The efficacy is determined by the practitioner's intentions. Length of time in training also plays a role. In short - it's complicated.

Read the forum archives and you'll see countless arguments about truth, effectiveness, the supposed demise of TCMA, what's wrong with TCMA, and all of these "truths" about how to make it better - blah blah blah, and everybody's a guru with some important discovery that no-one else could possibly know. It's all bull$hit. Really. Everyone eventually figures it out for themselves if they give studying martial arts enough time. Whatever that "it" is, is personal to that practitioner.

Most people eventually come to the realization that what they were studying really is the $hit and had everything they needed all along. They will cross train and enjoy the f*ck out of it, but all of the new revelations they make through cross training come back and influence whatever they were doing in the first place. They genuinely will find reasons to love TCMA and they will teach it in the traditional way because... it works that way and that really is the best way to teach it.

[Jimbo]

These things have all been discussed A LOT over the years.

I also like Bruce Lee. That said, many people tend to worship him as some type of messiah, while others have absolute disdain for him. What both camps don't seem to realize is that, as MightyB said, this was all said early in his MA path (and life, for that matter). And nothing BL said is original. Either he coincidentally reached these conclusions on his own or studied the writings of others who said the exact same things over the centuries. BL was known to be a voracious reader. The writings of Qi Jiguang, Miyamoto Musashi, Takuan Soho, and others all cover the very same issues. In many instances, it appears as if BL simply reworded some of what they wrote to fit modern times. For example, taking quotes discussing practicality in swordsmanship and applying them to empty-hand fighting.

Not to mention that BL died at 32. That is young. People are still maturing and developing in life at that point; I know I was and still am at 53. It's very likely and almost certain that BL's viewpoints would have evolved and possibly even changed a good deal over the years if he were alive today.

[FullPotentialMA]

I agree with all that is said above about Bruce Lee. There is frequently a tendency to elevate past practitioner (masters) to a demigod status. Generally speaking, this is not helpful. The demigod tendency is event stronger with respect to Bruce Lee, because of his movie stardom status and his contribution to elevating the awareness for martial arts and kung fu among the general public.

The reason I think what Bruce Lee wrote in 1963 is interesting is because he had a unique vantage point. Most martial arts practitioners teaching the broad public in the US at that time were Americans who trained in Asia as military service members (usually Japan/Okinawa or Korea). They trained for just a few years, and then brought the art to the US. In the early 1960s, Bruce Lee was among (although not the only one) the very few teachers of kung fu to the general public.

He lays out some specific critical points that are valid today. They are true for martial arts that evolved into the sports realm (e.g., Olympic Taekwondo, Olympic Judo, and sports karate), and also for TCMA that focus solely on forms (e.g., many Tai-Chi schools).

There are many ways to practice martial arts, and there are many benefits from martial arts practice beyond self-defense prowess. The critique laid out in 1963 relates mostly to the self-defense effectiveness of some common training methods.

[MightyB]

There are many ways to practice martial arts, and there are many benefits from martial arts practice beyond self-defense prowess. The critique laid out in 1963 relates mostly to the self-defense effectiveness of some common training methods.

I think if we're really being honest, and I think BL would probably come to the same conclusion, is that if we're serious about self-defense, then we'd focus on learning a weapon (that we could carry on the street) extremely well. And that anything else we do in training is probably intended for something else.

[David Jamieson]

1. self defense training is kind of a sham.

2. Courage is hard to teach without throwing someone into a situation where they have to be courageous or reveal their cowardice. And each time may be different.

3. training is just training. It's better to exercise and enjoy than to not exercise at all.


On 1. self protection is best trained through self awareness training and situational drills. The whole "if he does this, you do that" way of going about it is trademark wrong.

On 2. I've learned that if you do not cultivate courage it will not grow. Gradual and slow is the way to come to form.

On 3. True 5000 years ago, true today.



Criticism often deflects from personal inadequacies. It's nothing new. There's people who think one artist is great and another is terrible. In martial arts, the loser today can be the winner tomorrow and vice versa.

[Jimbo]

A BIG aspect of self-defense should be the legal ramifications of it. I would strongly recommend reading the book 'In The Name of Self-Defense', by Marc MacYoung. Because sometimes when it's over is just the beginning.

And yes, a study of and familiarity with common modern weapons is a must. The idea of a clean fight (in real fighting) was a fairly modern concept, such as 'no dirty fighting', 'no attacks below the belt', 'no pulling any weapons', etc. No attacker in a real situation really wants to 'fight' you; they want to hurt you, take from you and/or kill you. If you're a tough guy streetfighter 'on the streets', you won't be around long, because even if you win all your fights, you're playing Russian roulette. If they don't pull a weapon on you right then, a loser will come back for you, and sooner or later there is a blade or bullets with your name on them. A high percentage of young 'men', especially nowadays, would rather shoot you than fight you, over as little as a $10 debt or a perceived 'hard look'.

The very best self-defense is awareness, and whenever possible, avoidance.

Of course, empty-hand MA training is important, too. MAs being what they are, if it's for 'self-defense' or developing courage, then realistic scenario training and free-sparring are necessary, especially when you're young. But empty-hand fighting ability is only ONE corner of a vast spectrum in terms of 'self-defense'. Which is why it is a con when ANY MA system or method in the world, including TMA, MT, BJJ and MMA, claims to be 'the ultimate (or the most effective) self-defense'. It displays a serious ignorance of the real dangers that exist out there.

It really makes the whole argument of style superiority look as stupid as it is.

[MightyB]

A BIG aspect of self-defense

is Ninjas. Just saying.

[robertdreeben]

"People are still maturing and developing in life at that point; I know I was and still am at 53."

Hey Jimbo, I totally agree and I'm 57 and am always learning something new. But I'm curious, your join date on this forum is 1969. Weren't you like 7 years old then?

Sorry to call you out; but if you were 7 when you joined thats pretty F******g cool!

[Jimbo]

"People are still maturing and developing in life at that point; I know I was and still am at 53."

Hey Jimbo, I totally agree and I'm 57 and am always learning something new. But I'm curious, your join date on this forum is 1969. Weren't you like 7 years old then?

Sorry to call you out; but if you were 7 when you joined thats pretty F******g cool!

Hi, Robert!

I actually joined this forum in either 1998 or '99, back when it was called kungfuonline. I was either 35 or 36 at the time. I guess I'm one of the 'old-timers', LOL. There's a few of us still around here. Though I didn't post very often for the first several years. For some odd reason, if you joined in the '90s it says you joined in 1969. Jeez, did I join this forum almost 18 years ago?!?

If I'm not mistaken, I think that 1969 was the year that the "internet" was first developed (in a crude form by today's standards) for the U.S. military(?).

Yes, we are never too "old" to learn new things. If anything, I'm learning more things now, as my mind has opened up to more interests and possibilities than I was open to in my 20s or even 30s.

[MarathonTmatt]

Hi, Robert!

I actually joined this forum in either 1998 or '99, back when it was called kungfuonline. I was either 35 or 36 at the time. I guess I'm one of the 'old-timers', LOL. There's a few of us still around here. Though I didn't post very often for the first several years. For some odd reason, if you joined in the '90s it says you joined in 1969. Jeez, did I join this forum almost 18 years ago?!?

If I'm not mistaken, I think that 1969 was the year that the "internet" was first developed (in a crude form by today's standards) for the U.S. military(?).

Yes, we are never too "old" to learn new things. If anything, I'm learning more things now, as my mind has opened up to more interests and possibilities than I was open to in my 20s or even 30s.

Maybe was a Y2K thing? Also now that I am 32... I guess I have to look forward to getting older in the blink of an eye! (if you were 36 in '99... doesn't seem too long ago to me already!

[bawang]

bruce lee's criticism of Chinese kung fu is 100% true. but he could not change it for the better.

[wiz cool c]

Traditional kung fu and forms are useless? If they keep you healthy and you enjoy them are they a waste of time? If they make you more bitter and hateful towards the world, maybe it is time for a change.

[GeneChing]

Speaking of Bruce, look who I interviewed last Friday...

[SteveLau]

I have my copy of the book, The Tao of Gung Fu, too. Look, Bruce Lee's criticism of modern versions of Kung Fu, Karate and other Martial Arts, are largely correct but not all to me. Please understand the view was made by a 23 years old man who had about 8 years of martial art training by then. I have incorrect views before on this and that topic before. Sure by the time Mr. Lee was 32 or 50 years old, he would likely have changed some of his previous views. It does not necessary mean one has made mistake in the past. It is also necessary one has lied.



Peace

Steve Lau
Hong Kong