Was Bruce Lee Wrong?

[Max22]

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?

[Gongoozler]

I would say that if any definition of JKD is accurate it would be that it is a personal expression of effective/efficient movement.

If Lee's right lead was as powerful as he made it out to be then he was right and it fit in with his thoughts on economy of motion. If not then he was wrong and deprived himself of the right cross that could have been.

But why are we addressing this? What is really the question? Is it whether Lee's stance worked for himself or whether Lee's stance works for you?

Lee is dead and cannot adjust his stance any longer but you still have that ability. So experiment: work from a left lead, broaden your stance, and adjust any other area that you feel necessary.

As to your last question, I would say no. I doubt that Lee ventured very far from the drawing board until the day that he died.

[Tant01]

I have always found (often by trial and error) that SIMPLE is better.

The stance in JKD will vary from person to person and may be adapted to particular weapons but strong side front is nothing NEW... Bruce didn't INVENT the stance. He found it best for his needs. his kung-fu was not bad... or wrong... just different.

[chillaplata]

Originally Posted by Gongoozler

I would say that if any definition of JKD is accurate it would be that it is a personal expression of effective/efficient movement.

If Lee's right lead was as powerful as he made it out to be then he was right and it fit in with his thoughts on economy of motion. If not then he was wrong and deprived himself of the right cross that could have been.

But why are we addressing this? What is really the question? Is it whether Lee's stance worked for himself or whether Lee's stance works for you?

Lee is dead and cannot adjust his stance any longer but you still have that ability. So experiment: work from a left lead, broaden your stance, and adjust any other area that you feel necessary.

As to your last question, I would say no. I doubt that Lee ventured very far from the drawing board until the day that he died.

Quoted for truth.

[fenwick99]

The strong side forward stance (like Oscar De La Hoya's left lead/strong left)
is called "converted" or unorthodox in
regular boxing and is not unknown.
The power of the cross is sacrificed in order to develop a strong jab and an even mightier lead hook. In my view, people
should do what they want to do, even if it's shotokan or tang soo do. If you believe that Bruce had some good insights into the
power lead, as I do, so be it. If not, stick with
standard boxing. fyi many mma guys now
use the right lead because wrestlers
tend to shoot off of the right. The mma right lead is a
holdover from wrestling, so maybe Bruce was correct. However, it all boils down to what works. If tae kwon do is the best art 4 u, go 4 it.

[sikal]

It's my understanding that Bruce's favor of dominant side lead came from his exposure to fencing. Most of Filipino martial arts I've been exposed to also favor a dominant side lead. I think it's because both fencing and the FMA are weapon based. The primary weapon will usually be held in the dominant hand and generally that primary weapon is in the lead.

Historic discourse aside (and I could be mistaken on that part), I agree with Gongoozler. Bruce found that the dominant lead worked well for him. One of the hallmarks of his training philosophy, as I understand it, though, was individual expression. If you find it doesn't work for you then don't use it.

The caveat to that, though, is that you should thoroughly experiment with something before discarding it. It is common to human nature to reflexively reject things which are uncomfortable or run counter to previous training. Sometimes, though, it's just a matter of it being new that makes it uncomfortable. Train it and experiment with it until it is comfortable *then* determine if it will actually work for you or not.

You shouldn't reject a tool until you've tested it and you can't effectively test a tool until it's developed. You can't develop a tool if you reject it out of hand.


I guarantee Bruce didn't "have it all figured out." Based on what I've read and heard about him from people who knew him I would guess he'd be the *first* to say he didn't have it all figured out. He was a perfectionist. He was constantly striving to improve himself and his system. He was always researching other systems and expressions to find ways of improving what he did or how he taught it.


Mike

[joeygil]

Originally Posted by Tant01

Bruce didn't INVENT the stance. He found it best for his needs.

I always assumed he did invent that particular Bai-Jong stance. I figured since it didn't look like any Wing Chun stance I know of, but incorporates the tucked hips and concave chest/shoulders from Wing Chun, I thought it was adapted from Wing Chun.


One thing to remember when sparring with boxing gloves. Gloves really attenuate your strikes. I understood that's one of the main reasons boxers go weak side forward, so you can get enough power in a gloved punch to do serious damage, requiring a rear cross. In JKD, you not only have a faster lead strike, ungloved it'll do a lot more damage than in sparring. And don't forget the very quick finger jabs.

[Ghost]

thats a really good post.

imo most people do better with the orthadox stance, southpaw with a dominant right favours very few but works for some. so as you said, find what works for you.

Originally Posted by sikal

It's my understanding that Bruce's favor of dominant side lead came from his exposure to fencing. Most of Filipino martial arts I've been exposed to also favor a dominant side lead. I think it's because both fencing and the FMA are weapon based. The primary weapon will usually be held in the dominant hand and generally that primary weapon is in the lead.

Historic discourse aside (and I could be mistaken on that part), I agree with Gongoozler. Bruce found that the dominant lead worked well for him. One of the hallmarks of his training philosophy, as I understand it, though, was individual expression. If you find it doesn't work for you then don't use it.

The caveat to that, though, is that you should thoroughly experiment with something before discarding it. It is common to human nature to reflexively reject things which are uncomfortable or run counter to previous training. Sometimes, though, it's just a matter of it being new that makes it uncomfortable. Train it and experiment with it until it is comfortable *then* determine if it will actually work for you or not.

You shouldn't reject a tool until you've tested it and you can't effectively test a tool until it's developed. You can't develop a tool if you reject it out of hand.


I guarantee Bruce didn't "have it all figured out." Based on what I've read and heard about him from people who knew him I would guess he'd be the *first* to say he didn't have it all figured out. He was a perfectionist. He was constantly striving to improve himself and his system. He was always researching other systems and expressions to find ways of improving what he did or how he taught it.


Mike

[Max22]

Thank you for your replies, and comments.

I asked the question for a specific reason, and not to be flailing about with a fascile bit of nonsense. I was very curious about the frequency with which people would concretely declare that Lee's methods were the pinnacle of martial arts knowledge. In many of my discussions of late with JKDers, I've found this almost religious veneration of the man and the techniques, and strategies he was experimenting with prior to his death. I have been hearing a great deal of things like..."If you aren't doing something from the bai jong, you aren't doing JKD....if you aren't throwing a punch with the vertical fist then...."

I just wanted to know how wide spread that particular perspective was. I don't know if I have done much to gauge the frequency of the opinion, but I am heartened to see the open minded and thoughtful discussion of JKD.

[Dan Biciocchi]

Originally Posted by Max22

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?

I think a person who uses tools like the straight right and overhand punches, it defiantly benefits him to put his strong hand in the rear as these moves are better with a little more power. If the fighter uses techniques like the Biu Gee, Won Jern, or Jik Jern then he/she does not need rear hand power but front hand speed, as these techniques do no require a lot of power to be effective.

[Dan Biciocchi]

So I guess the answer is Bruce Lee was right for himself maybe and not necessarily for you or me.

[ShawnJKD]

Originally Posted by sikal

-

The caveat to that, though, is that you should thoroughly experiment with something before discarding it. It is common to human nature to reflexively reject things which are uncomfortable or run counter to previous training. Sometimes, though, it's just a matter of it being new that makes it uncomfortable. Train it and experiment with it until it is comfortable *then* determine if it will actually work for you or not.

You shouldn't reject a tool until you've tested it and you can't effectively test a tool until it's developed. You can't develop a tool if you reject it out of hand.

Mike

Nicely put. Something I try to put across to my students every class...rejecting what is useless involves a lot of experimentation and not the knee jerk reaction on first exposure.

Shawn