I love when people start bashing Bruce Lee as nothing more than an actor. What a joke.
The idea that he was simply an actor with a few revolutionary ideas is ridiculous. However, the idea that he was this invincible, mythical presence who could defeat anybody is of course absurd as well.
The answer surely lies somewhere in the middle.
Calling JKD just his "system" when everybody has their own "system" now is preposterous. The man opened the eyes of the martial arts world and--many forget--made MA popular in America. All of his philosophies still stand today. Like The Art of War, solid ideas are timeless.
As for his ability, I'll rely on those famous martial artists of the time who speak of his skill: Inosanto, Norris, Lewis... countless others, rather than the couch quarterbacks here.
As for the assertion that he merely fought staged sparring matches with willing stooges... wrong. Bruce was constantly challenged in the outside world and never lost. That doesn't make him unbeatable, but to imply he's a fraud or a wannabe just contradicts oral and written history.
As for not "competing," who gives a sh*t? I don't know how long some of you have been doing this, but there's a world of difference between developing to fight in the street and scoring in some point match. Guess which one he was more interested in? BTW, the grappling thing is silly. He didn't have what we all now know to be vital grappling skills because that knowledge, too, came about only recently because of some like-minded revolutionaries: the Gracies.
Were he alive today, he'd be all over BJJ. How do I know this? Look at Inosanto.
The fantasy matchups are just that (Hey! Who would win? Bruce or Tito?)--pure speculation. Who knows what level he'd be at were he still alive or had been the same age during these times? Who cares? He brought us a gift, either use it or don't. But trying to bash him just reminds me of people who say Rickson sucks because he hasn't fought somebody "real" in years... hey: do you want to see somebody "win" or do you want to accept the knowledge they have to pass on to you? One's temporary, one's forever.
The idea that he was simply an actor with a few revolutionary ideas is ridiculous. However, the idea that he was this invincible, mythical presence who could defeat anybody is of course absurd as well.
The answer surely lies somewhere in the middle.
Calling JKD just his "system" when everybody has their own "system" now is preposterous. The man opened the eyes of the martial arts world and--many forget--made MA popular in America. All of his philosophies still stand today. Like The Art of War, solid ideas are timeless.
As for his ability, I'll rely on those famous martial artists of the time who speak of his skill: Inosanto, Norris, Lewis... countless others, rather than the couch quarterbacks here.
As for the assertion that he merely fought staged sparring matches with willing stooges... wrong. Bruce was constantly challenged in the outside world and never lost. That doesn't make him unbeatable, but to imply he's a fraud or a wannabe just contradicts oral and written history.
As for not "competing," who gives a sh*t? I don't know how long some of you have been doing this, but there's a world of difference between developing to fight in the street and scoring in some point match. Guess which one he was more interested in? BTW, the grappling thing is silly. He didn't have what we all now know to be vital grappling skills because that knowledge, too, came about only recently because of some like-minded revolutionaries: the Gracies.
Were he alive today, he'd be all over BJJ. How do I know this? Look at Inosanto.
The fantasy matchups are just that (Hey! Who would win? Bruce or Tito?)--pure speculation. Who knows what level he'd be at were he still alive or had been the same age during these times? Who cares? He brought us a gift, either use it or don't. But trying to bash him just reminds me of people who say Rickson sucks because he hasn't fought somebody "real" in years... hey: do you want to see somebody "win" or do you want to accept the knowledge they have to pass on to you? One's temporary, one's forever.
Comment