Announcement

**ap Oweyn** · 12-16-2002, 01:28 PM

walker doesn't impress me much either. but the guy is in his 60s at this point.

presumably norris didn't use judo to fight the likes of bill wallace, joe lewis, and skipper mullins though. right?

granted, that's competition. but there's still documentation that norris wasn't a paper tiger. and examples of him using kicking and punching as learned in tangsoodo and from fumio demura (a karate sensei).

but all of that is pretty tangential, i suppose.

stuart b.

**akja** · 12-16-2002, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by yenhoi
In my office on this shit ass monday morning, I am watching the DVD: Bruce Lee: A warriors Journey.

Not quoting:

Bruce Lee:

' ' a karate punch is like a iron bar and it go bang! a gung fu punch is like a chain of steel links with a spiked ball on the end and it go wang!... ' '

pretty much what he said in that interview ap, its on the dvd

Someone said something about 'his book' - I just want to note on this thread that the only book that Bruce Lee published himself was the Tao of Gung Fu: The Philosophical Art of Self Defense. I think it actually started as a term paper in seatle or somesuch. All the other books written by him were only notes when Brucey died, collected, etc etc etc, and published by a guy named John Little, this includes the Tao if JKD, FYI. Some people also claim he wrote the James Lee book on Wing Chun, others insist (so does the book itself) that he was only the 'technical editor.'

Much like Jesus, Bruce Lee left very little written material, that he actually intended millions of people to read. (He probably did at some point, but we can only speculate on that.)

However if you did read all of Bruce's notes (John Little's books number like 8 or 9 now) you would get a good idea of 'why' bruce lee 'rejected' 'pure wing chun' - most of you would probably end up with much the same opinion as ap here.

Another important note is that Bruce Lee was also a philosopher. One major component of JKD is the philosophical aspect. Individuality, uniqueness, free mind, free and truthful expression. Many of his note emphasize this aspect of JKD.

Bruces first book was written with the help of James Yimm Lee. The title was something like The Art Chinese Gung-Fu. It was published by James Lees publishing company. The wing chun book was James Lee. The John Little books came about 30 years after bruces first book. You can find it online if you don't beleive it, Try awma supplies among others. Get your facts right before knocking everybody down! Your facts are like 30 years off!!

**ap Oweyn** · 12-16-2002, 01:39 PM

Re: ...

High Kicks are like sloppy, haymaker punches. They are damaging if you are dumb enough to be in the way of one... Silly and innefficient if you've taught yourself the (rather simple) ways of dealing with them.

right. but here's the thing: many (though not all) of the mechanics involved in making a strong high kick also go into making a strong low or mid-level kick. besides, karate itself has plenty of mid-level and low kicks.

and once again, we're talking about principles he might have garnered from karate. not an emulation of the style.

I train against men throwing hard looping rights.. Why? Because it's what I'm likely to encounter outside the gym, from a hard-nosed rowdy type. Odds are he won't throw swift boxing combos with good form.

odds are also that he won't be throwing karate kicks either. and yet bruce still trained with those people. i'm not sure that the odds make much sense.

So I practice against guys doing this. Because its WHAT I'M LIKELY TO ENCOUNTER in the street.

right. but you said yourself that you don't train throwing haymakers on the bag. and yet JKD students did train to throw kicks using the sorts of mechanics found in korean and japanese karate. once again, not a question of teaching his students karate. only a question of recognizing some mechanic or principle that could strengthen your style.

So, this being the case, I can't see why you think bruce lee was validating karate because he trained against karate people. I just think he saw a training oppurtunity with some guys who were tough fighters, regardless of what art they claimed. But that doesn't mean he was saying "Karate is worthwhile!"

[sigh] i didn't say he thought karate was worthwhile. i said that he recognized something in the principles and mechanics at work that could enhance what he did. therefore, as i said before, he thought that there was something there to work with, without wanting to be 'a karate man.'

i know you don't recognize a distinction between those two statements. but you didn't address my question about the implications of that statement to his study of wing chun.

Likewise, you say "Well why did bruce have people trianing high kicks in JKD, if he doesn't like them.."

Hell if I know. Lilke Dan Inosanto said, "I never saw bruce fight with anything but straight punches. His straight punches were so fast and devestating, he never used anything else."

So why'd he have people training high kicks? Dunno. I never saw it, so I don't know he did.

there are plenty of pictures and videos of bruce lee working on heavy bags and air shields demonstrating the type of mechanics we're describing here.

stuart b.

**ap Oweyn** · 12-16-2002, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by akja

Bruces first book was written with the help of James Yimm Lee. The title was something like The Art Chinese Gung-Fu. It was published by James Lees publishing company. The wing chun book was James Lee. The John Little books came about 30 years after bruces first book. You can find it online if you don't beleive it, Try awma supplies among others. Get your facts right before knocking everybody down! Your facts are like 30 years off!!

akja,

actually, as the story goes, bruce lee wrote the wing chun book but then attributed it to james lee.

and i didn't take yenhoi's post as a knock at me personally. he and i have corresponded quite a bit. he's a good guy.

stuart b.

**ap Oweyn** · 12-16-2002, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by quietanswer
I don't think you're paying attention to my point.

Those fights were BOXING MATCHES..not fights.

Boxing matches are under BOXING rules... They aren't fights.

So, like I said, Under Boxing rules, his way works great. Without boxing rules, he has some pretty big holes in his ship.

Jeet Kune Do wasn't about fighting Under Boxing rules.

It was about fighting within reality, without rules. And figuring out what worked, without limitations.

So it doesn't make sense..

ah never mind.

yeah. i agree. okay?

(see, i'm actually pretty reasonable when you stop insinuating that i must be retarded for seeing things differently to you.)

stuart b.

**akja** · 12-16-2002, 01:44 PM

Re: well..

Originally posted by quietanswer
Bruce Lee's book is limited by all sorts of things.

What Bruce Lee wants to publish, and what the Publisher is willing to TRY to sell, are very different things.

So looking at some techniques in a book that bruce was selling does not really tell you what bruce would have you working on his back yard, were you to show up. It, instead, shows you what the publishing company believed an uneducated american market would buy. VERY DIFFERENT.

A similar effect can be seen in his movies. In his movies, bruce lee looks like a high kicking maniac. However, that is merely because fancy, flashy techniques are what he was able to SELL.

He was a huge fan of grappling, but you never see him grapple much in his films. Because he couldn't sell that, because it is USEFUL not FLASHY. And useful just isn't as cool to most people as FLASHY is...

unfortunately...

and that's why so many american kids, going dilligently to Tae Kwon Do class, get their BrownBelt asses beat by some punk who has only been in a couple fights in his life. But those two fights are far better education than 8 years of three step sparring..

So, for all his training, hard work, and Character, he gets a pounding.

James Lees publishing company published Bruces first book. Don't you know who James was, he was Bruces # 2 man, his student, his confident and best friend.
You got anything else to make up!

**ap Oweyn** · 12-16-2002, 02:01 PM

i can't believe i'm resorting to this:

from an interview with alex ben block, 1972

ABB: "You've also been quoted as saying that there is no difference between a Japanese martial artist and a Chinese martial artist who come to jeet kune do. Could you explain this?

BL: Many people will come to an instructor, but most of them say "What is the truth? Would you hand it over to me?" So, typically, one instructor would say, "I'll give you my Japanese way of doing it." And another would say, "I'll give you my Chinese way of doing it." But to me, that's all baloney. Nationalities don't mean anything. There are different approaches, you know. But each person must not be limited to one approach. We must approach it with our own self, for art is the expression of one's own self, whereas if you go to a Japanese style, then you are expressing the Japanese style; you are not expressing yourself.

so, as my initial point went (before i got wrapped up in debating the relative worth of high kicks), bruce lee held no disposition against karate. it was an approach.

**ap Oweyn** · 12-16-2002, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by quietanswer
I'm reasonable too. Just because I have something to say, does not mean I'm frothing.

i didn't take you to be frothing. slightly hostile, perhaps.

but I'm a person who has made the mistakes, and had to find out the hard way what fighting is, and isn't. And I'm not some tough guy NHB fighter, either.. But I've had my ass beat, and I've won some fights, and I've found out that some things are just ridiculous.. High kicks are ridiculous.

and i'm not debating that. as a guy who went from taekwondo to eskrima to kickboxing, i can fully appreciate your reservations about high kicking. but that wasn't intended to be the point of this thread, as i understood it. we've drifted into your theory and mine. not a purely theoretical debate about what bruce lee thought, said, and did, which was my original focus. (which you pointed out was a fool's errand. and i agreed, claiming that it was designed to pass the time, and not much else.)

Does that mean I can defeat bill wallace? I doubt it..Probably not. But that doesn't make high kicking a high-percentage move..and therefore doesn't make me want to spend time innefficiently training it.

again, the question wasn't what you train in, but what bruce lee trained in. and his rationale, as i understand it, was that while low kicks were a much higher percentage shot, it's nice to have those other options open to you.

And I don't think you are retarded. I'm blunt. I say it how I see it, and if I think an IDEA preposterous, I say "Preposterous"..and I don't feel too bad about it if someones ego gets a little bruised. Because Ideas are not People. And if someone throws out a thought for comment, and I find it silly or stupid, I say "That just sounds Stupid."

well, if we both started telling one another that their ideas were stupid, i'm thinking this debate wouldn't get much beyond calling each other 'ass monkey' or other such honourifics. and i don't see much point in that. so i generally try to be more diplomatic than that. (not always successfully.) but that's just me.

If that hurts a feeling, or damages an ego..I dunno what to say. I figure that guy's ego was going to be damaged by something I said somehow anyway.

it didn't damage my ego. i just saw it as a shady debate style. call the person's character, intellect, or experience into question, and it automatically undermines any and every point they make thereafter.

I don't think you're stupid. I think you speak quite well, and that's about the only criterion I have for the judgement. But I do think some ideas are pretty limited, and you are presenting some of those ideas.

i'm not presenting the ideas you think i am. at least, not intentionally.

I think you just haven't had my experiences. I know that a high school wrestler, age 17, with only 3 seasons of training, can defeat most any high kicker he runs into, regardless of age. That's truly what I believe I've seen. And with that criterion, I say "don't devote your life to high kicks if you want to be a fighter"..

actually, we share more experiences than you seem to think. i'm fully familiar with the limitations of high kicks, having been tossed around by a wrestler or two myself. Six years in taekwondo followed by 12 more in more 'permissive' styles guarantees that sort of thing.

High kicks have some similar mechanics to low kicks, EXCEPT for the fact that they are completely different. A low kick is delivered nearer to the ground, and therefore nearer to the feet. So it takes less time to deliver, and can be done with more power.

right. but that power is also generated by hip rotation, among other things. and it certainly wouldn't be absurd to ask a korean stylist their thoughts on hip rotation and power generation. would it?

Those mechanics are very very different from a high kick, wherein one makes his foot travel 5-6 feet vertically just to reach its target. Altering his balance, altering his stance, taking far, far more time to deliver, and leaving him open to countless counters in both wrestling and boxing.

again, not a thread about high kicking (though, again, i only have myself to blame for making it so).

So, you can say they are the same mechanics, but you lead me to believe in doing so that you don't know much about the word mechanics.

actually, i agree with you that mechanically there are considerable differences. resulting from the angle of the upper body, for example. take the front kick, for example. you mentioned it earlier. a front kick to the knee or gut could have a thrusting force on it that's pretty formidable. a front kick to the face, however, can't really be thrust as much. it has to swing upward. and since it's swinging on a plane that's essentially parallel to the target area, it's easy to get nothing more than a glancing blow off of it.

If you intend to throw low kicks, practice low kicks. The old concept that a man who can do a REAR JUMP SPINNING BACK KICK is getting much better at his simple kicks because he can do complex kicks, is really REALLY backwards. It makes sense to the brain.

again, i agree with you. that's presumably why they spent so much time practicing low kicks. but as i said earlier, he seemed to value the option.

stuart b.

**ap Oweyn** · 12-16-2002, 02:21 PM

All I'm saying is that fighting is now, in your life. It makes little difference what bruce lee said or did. He's dead. You could learn much more just fighting and FORGETTING what bruce lee said or did.

well, yeah. and i freely admitted like seven pages ago that this was nothing more than in-office mental masturbation. but that's part of the point of a discussion forum. entertainment.

in truth, i'm not even a big fan of bruce lee (though try telling my mum that). i agree with you wholeheartedly on what we should be doing. but the original question wasn't about us.

something tells me that you and i would have gotten off to a much better start if we were discussing our actual practices.

stuart b.

Announcement

why did he do it?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment