Controversial though the title may be, was Lee wrong? And if so about what.
Philosophically I think Lee was on the money, however his obsession with strong side forward, lead arm, lead leg attacks. The more I play in the bai jong, the more I think it is an error. Lee may have been able to make it work well because he had such spectacular attributes. But the linearity of the stance, precludes ease of use of the rear tools. His focus on the straight thrust and his focus on Nadi, Dempsey and Driscol betrayed his own fundamental misunderstanding of why the focus on the straight lead fell from prominence.
A corollary question is did Lee have it all figured out as some of his disciples believe? I think the obvious answer to this is no.
But what do you think?
Philosophically I think Lee was on the money, however his obsession with strong side forward, lead arm, lead leg attacks. The more I play in the bai jong, the more I think it is an error. Lee may have been able to make it work well because he had such spectacular attributes. But the linearity of the stance, precludes ease of use of the rear tools. His focus on the straight thrust and his focus on Nadi, Dempsey and Driscol betrayed his own fundamental misunderstanding of why the focus on the straight lead fell from prominence.
A corollary question is did Lee have it all figured out as some of his disciples believe? I think the obvious answer to this is no.
But what do you think?
Comment