Opinions on Bruce Lee

[souldrum71]

Originally Posted by Draven

Personally I find it funny, Lee made the idea of erasing form and simplifying things to scientic methods popular. John Keehan was the first to popularize full contact karate and now they are bashed. Its almost entertaining lol

Yes, it is weird how a lot of people these days bash them, but it simply shows ignorance of history and philosophy.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by WC_Lun

Some of the sciences involved are human anatomy, physics, and kinetics. Each class is somewhat like a labratory, where we prove and disprove martial arts "theory."

So if you disprove Wing Chun's basic premises, would you continue to practice Wing Chun? If your experimentation finds a certain "classical" technique to be unreliable, would you still use it? If you omitted certain movements because of this, could you really still call it Wing Chun?

Furthermore, what kind of method to you use to ensure that these concepts are tested fairly? The Scientific Method?

There are many martial artists whom recognise that certain TMA require changes, and whilst some techniques are not wrong, they are not as practical as they could be, so they change it. Those who practice "Combat Karate" or other neo-TMA (to borrow Draven's term); are they still justified in calling it "Karate" given the cultural connotations attached to the term?

All in all; why is there a requirement to attach fighting to a term such as "Wing Chun"? Wing Chun is what it is, but I would argue that fighting as a phenomenon will not recognise any such fallacies as "style".

Originally Posted by WC_Lun

The sciences that Wing Chun are built upon are just as valid for any other art. I know Wing Chun works because I've used it under full contact both in the kwoon and in the street.

Although you yourself have found it to be useful, would you declare your experiences as encompassing of any and all occurances which could happen? Did other factors (such as height and weight) come into play? What I am saying is; is it like a Talisman that, because you were successful, it must have been because of Wing Chun and not your own abilities? This is the problem with ritual and superstition - attachment.

Who is to say that because it worked for you, it would work for others? Would you therefore declare Wing Chun pre-eminent to other styles, or would you see it as one of many solutions to a universal problem?

Perhaps there are too many questions, but what I am attempting to prompt is your own intellectualisation of what you do - why do you feel the need to fight using "Wing Chun", or to adhere to such a concept? Why the attachment to "style"?

Originally Posted by WC_Lun

While it is interesting to talk theories about martial arts, unless you test that knowledge, it is just theory. Theory needs to be tested and proved to mean much more than an intelectual spewing of words.

I note with interest the specific words you have chosen here.

I agree that any intellectualisation of a primal subject such as fighting inevitably distances oneself from the instinctive drive which we seek to study. However, all martial arts exist upon some kind of intellectualisation; none are based simply upon techniques, since the techniques exist for a FUNCTION. Any function must be discovered via reflection, whilst it must be understood via practice.

I actively test martial arts techniques via the use of measurable pragmatism and a scientific method. Since we are on a forum, how do you propose that we may do anything other than an "intellectual spewing of words"?

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Zaraki Kenpachi

On another point...to say TMA martial artists dont express themselves is retarded. I never do what my master instructor would do in a sparring match. And no one ever does long stance, horse riding stance, or walking stance when sparring. Also no ones sparring stance is the exact same either. Hell I've watched every black belt at my TKD school very closely and none of them even do a back kick the same. To say we dont express ourselves is ignorant, plain and simple. We learn how to strike properly. Which doesnt mean form it means striking so as to cause damage without injuring yourself. How it looks is for forms not for actual fighting, and yes when performing a form its pretty hard to express yourself.

If none of you perform the techniques the way the style dictates, how can you justify calling it TKD? Furthermore, if you don't do anything your instructor would do in sparring, what is the point in going to the lessons? Moreover, if you do not perform the stances, why bother to learn the stances?

What I am trying to demonstrate is how weak a "style" is, and therefore why remain attached to such a concept?

When you say strike properly, do you mean according to scientifically verifiable principles, or simply the way the school teaches you is the right way?

Originally Posted by Zaraki Kenpachi

In a match is where TMA express themselves. Your art isnt going to make you an aggressive fighter or reactionaty fighter. Its not going to dictate for you which kicks you like to use in certain positions. Those are personal preferences and most of the time decisions made in a split second.

But surely that "technique catalogue" is the style? those kicks you use are dictated by the style. So what you are really doing is "reciting" the art's techniques in an Ad Hoc fashion. No, the techniques are put togther by you in the "moment", but you only use techniques taught by the school. When you're in a head lock, do you bite the opponent?

Originally Posted by Zaraki Kenpachi

Its not math where you have only one way to do long division. I have many ways I can accomplish my objective.

But there is only one Way - to hit the opponent? Is this not the point of those techniques? How you do it is dictated by the style and the various "ways" they give you to recite.

[WC_Lun]

Magister, I talk about the martial arts from the view point of Wing Chun because it is a convenient reference point. Any martial art that has solid concepts and uses scientific principle is just as fine. If you have read past post from me then you know I am not a proponent of one style above another. Assuming that I hold onto Wing Chun as a talisman or superstition because I have been sucesessful with it in the past is an arrogant and incorrect assumption.

[Draven]

Well in re-reading much of Lee's works I'd say that he would a) be ashamed of most so-called Jeet Kune Do Practicers and would not truly embrace MMA to its fullest extent.

Here so of Lees thoughts from Bruce Lee - Wikiquote

Do not deny the classical approach, simply as a reaction, or you will have created another pattern and trapped yourself there.
p.25 Tao of Jeet Kune Do...


I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.

Jeet Kune Do, It's just a name, don't fuss over it. There's no such thing as a style if you understand the roots of combat.

Knowledge in martial arts actually means self-knowledge. A martial artist has to take responsibility for himself and accept the consequences of his own doing. The understanding of JKD is through personal feeling from movement to movement in the mirror of the relationship and not through a process of isolation. To be is to be related. To isolate is death. To me, ultimately, martial arts means honestly expressing yourself. Now, it is very difficult to do. It has always been very easy for me to put on a show and be cocky, and be flooded with a cocky feeling and feel pretty cool and all that. I can make all kinds of phoney things. Blinded by it. Or I can show some really fancy movement. But to experience oneself honestly, not lying to oneself, and to express myself honestly, now that, my friend, is very hard to do.

Because of styles, people are separated. They are not united together because styles became laws. But the original founder of the style started out hypotheses, and now it has become the grospel truth. People that go into them became their product. It doesn't matter how you are, who you are, how you are structured, how you are built, how you are made. It doesn't matter. You just go in there and be that product. And that, to me is not life.

To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.

When you fight, if it is a real fight, use every tool that you have, use your whole body. Use your fists, your legs, your fingers, your head if you have to, and hit them in every vulnerable spot, the balls, the eyes etc. to win.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Draven

Well in re-reading much of Lee's works I'd say that he would a) be ashamed of most so-called Jeet Kune Do Practicers and would not truly embrace MMA to its fullest extent.

I agree entirely. Jeet Kune Do is now recognised by the Chinese National KuoShu Federation as an official Chinese martial art, thus rendering any separation from the martial arts impotent.

The Law of Institutionalisation strikes again...

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Magister

I agree entirely. Jeet Kune Do is now recognised by the Chinese National KuoShu Federation as an official Chinese martial art, thus rendering any separation from the martial arts impotent.

The Law of Institutionalisation strikes again...

I disagree, politics perhaps but not institutionalism, of course they often the same; the Chinese have the name and lets me learn from the philosophy.

Oh yeah "If people say Jeet Kune Do is different from this or from that, then let the name Jeet kune do be wiped out, that is just a name. Please don't fuss over it. -Last Page of TJKD

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Draven

I disagree, politics perhaps but not institutionalism, of course they often the same; the Chinese have the name and lets me learn from the philosophy.

Politics is the result of institutionalisation.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Magister

What I am saying is; is it like a Talisman that, because you were successful, it must have been because of Wing Chun and not your own abilities? This is the problem with ritual and superstition - attachment.

Originally Posted by WC_Lun

Magister, I talk about the martial arts from the view point of Wing Chun because it is a convenient reference point. Any martial art that has solid concepts and uses scientific principle is just as fine. If you have read past post from me then you know I am not a proponent of one style above another. Assuming that I hold onto Wing Chun as a talisman or superstition because I have been sucesessful with it in the past is an arrogant and incorrect assumption.

Please do not mis-interpret my questions as assumptions. I know very well the incoherence of assumptions, many of which are held my martial arts and therefore by martial artists who attach themselves to those martial arts. What I am asking is, was is not YOU that were successful? Should not YOUR abilities be more important than the "style"?

What I seek is the truth, and if you are aware of my own past posts, you will know that this is my primary objective.

I wish you no offence with my flurry of questions. I apologise if they have come across in this way. I seek to prompt you to consider that "style" does not exist. If are "not a proponent of one style above another" then why stick to any style in particular?

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this comment - "Any martial art that has solid concepts and uses scientific principle is just as fine." If they are all fine, or adequate, then why maintain any "style"? Are they not superficial "boxes" and "labels" which divide people into "this style" or "that style"? Surely, they are all separated into "Karate", or "Wing Chun" yet the principles upon which they are based are universal, and so too is the mode through which those principles are enacted - the expression of the human body.

Do you see how superficial such a thing as "style" is? I'm not asking for you to agree with me. I hold no requirement to "convert" you. Open questioning and not blindly adhering to tradition is what allowed western science to flourish. I seek to raise your consciousness to such an idea, not to dismiss it simply because you adhere to "style". Therefore, there really are no styles - hence why Lee stated that Jeet Kune Do is the "style of no-style".

[Zaraki Kenpachi]

Originally Posted by Magister

If none of you perform the techniques the way the style dictates, how can you justify calling it TKD? Furthermore, if you don't do anything your instructor would do in sparring, what is the point in going to the lessons? Moreover, if you do not perform the stances, why bother to learn the stances?

Thats kind of the whole point it can be done several different ways and still be called the same thing. Also the stances are part of the art, not the martial. The stances from what I can gather add more of a workout to the forms which are pretty much aerobics. Also I dont do what my instructor would do because I am a different person. What I like to do in different situations and what he likes are just two different things. I didnt say I wasnt doing them because they are wrong or faulty.

Its not like people are running around having sword fights but yet lots still learn how to use the katana.

What I am trying to demonstrate is how weak a "style" is, and therefore why remain attached to such a concept?

This is purely opinion though. The only real style is my style. I'm learning several styles so to say I am only one of those would be a lie. But in general everyone should make something there own, it will not benefit them to the utmost if they do not. IMHO

When you say strike properly, do you mean according to scientifically verifiable principles, or simply the way the school teaches you is the right way?

Its verified by the fact when I strike someone I am not damaging myself. How much more proof do I need. Should my own results speak for themselves?



But surely that "technique catalogue" is the style? those kicks you use are dictated by the style. So what you are really doing is "reciting" the art's techniques in an Ad Hoc fashion. No, the techniques are put togther by you in the "moment", but you only use techniques taught by the school. When you're in a head lock, do you bite the opponent?

But by that school I think that you forget that I study many places. My catalogue is a bit more varied than biting someone when I get into a headlock. Just because I learn something doesnt mean I will only use X move when faced with Y situation. My way is to do what I want when I want, and if I cant then my skill was lacking. Nothing more nothing less.


But there is only one Way - to hit the opponent? Is this not the point of those techniques? How you do it is dictated by the style and the various "ways" they give you to recite.

Only one way to hit an opponent? Surely you cant be serious. I have so many weapons on my body that I sometimes argue with myself as to which one I'm going to use.

Magister I love the way you write but I think you are being just tiny bit too philosophical on this one.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Zaraki Kenpachi

Also I dont do what my instructor would do because I am a different person. What I like to do in different situations and what he likes are just two different things. I didnt say I wasnt doing them because they are wrong or faulty...The only real style is my style.... I'm learning several styles so to say I am only one of those would be a lie. But in general everyone should make something there own, it will not benefit them to the utmost if they do not. IMHO
But by that school I think that you forget that I study many places. My catalogue is a bit more varied than biting someone when I get into a headlock. Just because I learn something doesnt mean I will only use X move when faced with Y situation. My way is to do what I want when I want, and if I cant then my skill was lacking. Nothing more nothing less.

Magister I love the way you write but I think you are being just tiny bit too philosophical on this one.

Thanks for your response. Whether you realise it or not, you have actually proved my point.

Read again what you have written (which I have quoted above). Does this not support the fact that there is no such thing as "style". I think you summed up my position perfectly when you stated "The only real style is my style". That is it. No matter how you try to argue it, this is what it comes down to, but your interpretation is not an institutionalised fighting method. It is not a codified artform - it is you!

My point with the "biting" comment was in reference to a quote by Bruce Lee that highlighted that function should come first. Techniques are simply the "kata" (manifestation) for achieving such a function. Hence, there is one Way, but many techniques. There is only one WAY. Think about it.

I regret that you consider philosophy to play no role in this one. I hope that you will...

[Shinobi_Kokujin]

Originally Posted by Magister

Tradition comes from the Latin word "traditio" meaning "to pass on" and therefore it means to pass knowledge from one person to another, not strictly to passing knowledge from one generation to another. To say that traditional martial arts do not imitate is to require a different definition of what a traditional martial art is - and in doing so assume that they are not tradition, and hence defeating your point entirely. If they do not comply with the definition of Traditional martial arts, then they are not traditional, and therefore is outside of this discussion.

I agree, I have spent many years contrasting and comparing opinions of martial arts masters to trace an underlying theme - but to strip Lee's efforts as being equal to those of his predessors would be to render his message impotent - and the possible result of heeding his message non-existent.



Lee was not interested in labels - he was interested in Function. It is therefore no surprise that he used wing chun parries - possibly the most spatially logical defensive techniques known to man - then coupled them with the most logically powerful and fastest offence known to man - the fencer's lunge, then coupled these with adequate techniques which are natural and also increase natural strength with torque by using boxing blows.

All these were coupled with Fencing stepping (with the necessity of entering and flying out) and many other logical innovations to create a FUNCTION.

So whereas you see simply modified Wing Chun - I see scientific function. Where you may like to label "wing chun blocks", "fencing lunges", "boxing punches", I see functional methods of applying the human body in combat. The aim is to use the body in combat to the maximum - which of course is outside any labels of "style".



The innovative philopsher Mary Midgeley stated (in Beast & Man) that any science practiced properly may be called an Art. However, I would ask you; What kind of science does the martial arts use? Has it been verified using a scientific method? How do you know (emphasis on you know) that the martial art you practice works? Stating that because it is "time-tested", "battle-field tested" hundreds of years ago will not suffice. So how do you know the science the martial art is based upon is valid?



It is not an issue of knowing the theory and knowing how to apply the theory. The two may not be separated. A theory is an intellectualisation of practice. In the school of pragmatic science, we must "do" inorder to form a theory, then we may use the theory to inform the "doing". Essentially, it comes down to trusting in the theory, rather than experiencing the theory. Trusting in others rather than trusting the self - trusting what you imitate rather than what you originate.

Animals fight with their instincts (with what they originate), yet humans (who are animals themselves) trust in what they learn from others....It is martial arts propaganda to assume that humans are naturally incapable of fighting without instruction from other human beings.



Are not ALL martial arts an institutionalisation of this idea? This is what I am talking about - The truth is outside of all set patterns. The martial arts ARE set patterns, a frame.

An original master taught himself to fight via experience and pragmatic questioning. That is what made him great and what attracted others to his path. Instead of teaching them his path, his will to experience combat and to learn fighting, he teaches them the actual method. He gives them the fish, but never teaches them how to fish!

You get one founder and many followers rather than lots of equally talented individuals like the founder - of course where would the founder's power reside if his skills were equal with everyone else?

i was thinking of something else concerning the imitating comment. but using imitate vice learning and applying seems odd in this context as if there is something wrong with it.

and contradictory cause wouldnt JKD people be "imitating" Bruce if its used in this context?


wasnt intended to strip Bruce's efforts but trying to say that he wasnt Unique like that old saying nothing new under the sun

something that people from the Universal Cult of Bruce Lee worshippers cant grasp

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Shinobi_Kokujin

i was thinking of something else concerning the imitating comment. but using imitate vice learning and applying seems odd in this context as if there is something wrong with it.

and contradictory cause wouldnt JKD people be "imitating" Bruce if its used in this context?


wasnt intended to strip Bruce's efforts but trying to say that he wasnt Unique like that old saying nothing new under the sun

something that people from the Universal Cult of Bruce Lee worshippers cant grasp

Bruce Lee had no problem with being the first, and in fact believed he was not the "first." Jeet Kune Do is not about constantly adding to but stripping away until only a core truth remains. So basically we all immitate until we know enough to initiate, when we can innitiate we've only began to see the truth.

[Magister]

Originally Posted by Shinobi_Kokujin

and contradictory cause wouldnt JKD people be "imitating" Bruce if its used in this context?

Now you're thinking like a philosopher!

What do you think Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do means...?

[damen]

I think that Bruce Lee was one of the best things to ever happen to Martial Arts. Yes, he was a great movie star, but he WAS a fantastic martial artist. I've had the pleasure of training with some of those he personally taught, and I've seen what they learned. His thinking about JKD has hugely influenced my own style, and I would not be the martial artist I am today without his insights. I am only sad that he died so young, denying me the opportunity of ever meeting him myself.