PDA

View Full Version : Bruce Lee thrown out of WC because...



Pages : [1] 2 3

baby_cart
2/17/2015 1:27pm,
Not sure if this was the right section to post this, but I really want serious responses on this.

According to this, Bruce Lee was thrown out of his parent art for behaving like a nether region:


Flip side of that coin, I have two grandmasters in my lineage that threw Lee out for being an asshole. And a sifu (whose busted up face tells about his street fights experience) who was a childhood friend of Lee's. He told a different story about Lee's 'legend' as a streetfighter in Hong Kong. Yet Lee's fame in the West is so great that he is thought of a the great mystic warrior and these guys --who did a lot more live fire **** (including surviving wars)-- are unknown.

from http://en.allexperts.com/q/Self-Defense-2265/2015/2/martial-arts-west.htm

Can any MA historian shed some light on this? Was Lee's behavior considered rude in the Orient but acceptable in the West, or was he really out of line?

ghost55
2/17/2015 1:39pm,
I don't need to be a historian to see a bullshit "sport vs. street" rant when I see one. Chunners are just salty that Bruce Lee is more popular then they are and has publicly stated that the chun is a waste of time.

JudOWNED
2/17/2015 2:04pm,
I don't need to be a historian to see a bullshit "sport vs. street" rant when I see one. Chunners are just salty that Bruce Lee is more popular then they are and has publicly stated that the chun is a waste of time.

I gotta agree. I mean, does the legend of Bruce Lee overrate the abilities and prowess of the actual man? Probably. But that doesn't really make anything else in that article true. I mean, it's got all the hallmarks of traditional BS.

Secret arts and techniques that weren't shared with common students (aka No True Scotsman fallacy)? Check!

Unverified stories about unnamed "masters"? Check!

Unsupported claims about "real killers" that would destroy "sports" guys in the street? Check!


So, yeah. You can pretty much dismiss everything in that article.

W. Rabbit
2/17/2015 3:23pm,
the least effective way of attacking another human was emphasized -- punching. Yeah, stop and think about it, if punching is all that effective then why do boxing and MMA matches last so long?

A punch by itself ain't ****. The real injuries from a punch are usually because the guy loses his balance and hits his head.

This is the best part.

ghost55
2/17/2015 3:25pm,
This is the best part.

These are the words of a man that has never been hit in the face by a trained dude wearing 4oz glove. Or 16oz gloves. Or any gloves.

Permalost
2/17/2015 5:44pm,
According to a little known wing chun master I know, Bruce Lee was actually kicked out of wing chun because whenever he crossed hands with a real wing chun man, his structure would collapse as he tried to cover his crying eyes with his hands while mincing away at the thought of being hurt. Or so the legend goes.

Mr. Machette
2/17/2015 11:46pm,
I thought Lee 86'd himself form the chun when he created JKD. The backlash from chunners was just sour grapes.

baby_cart
2/18/2015 8:27am,
I don't need to be a historian to see a bullshit "sport vs. street" rant when I see one. Chunners are just salty that Bruce Lee is more popular then they are and has publicly stated that the chun is a waste of time.

I don't give a **** about the argument the article's making. You just started an OP-ED without verification of facts. What if the facts were true? What if they were false? The argument has no bearing if what is asked is about a certain fact.

I am asking about the HISTORY. Go start a thread if you have an issue to the theme of the article.


I thought Lee 86'd himself form the chun when he created JKD. The backlash from chunners was just sour grapes.

That's what I read about too. Then this tidbit came up. If his reason for separation from his WC group was retconned due to JKD, then something's up. MacYoung's sources are on scrutiny here.

JudOWNED
2/18/2015 8:55am,
Are you kidding me dude? You actually want to have a serious discussion about the so-called history presented in this farce of an article? A so called history that is anonymous and completely unsupported and that contradicts Lee's own side of what happened?

Good luck.

ghost55
2/18/2015 2:56pm,
If 99% of something is definitely full of ****, I'm not going to take the 1% that only is most likely **** seriously.

W. Rabbit
2/18/2015 5:06pm,
These are the words of a man that has never been hit in the face by a trained dude wearing 4oz glove. Or 16oz gloves. Or any gloves.

Or even somebody who has watched many boxing or MMA matches.

I read that article one more time...it's even worse than the first. Easily one of the worst articles on Bruce Lee ever written so I'm not sure why we're even discussing it.


Trying to fight in a self-defense situation is likely to get you killed

Drat, so much for martial arts. If you use them, you will probably just die.

Mor Sao
2/18/2015 10:15pm,
Okay,

Let me explain something that the OP has forgotten.

Bruce Lee is dead, buried and rotten.

Who the **** cares about a dead, buried skeleton?

not me.

Push ups bitch.

Many fucking pushups.

BackFistMonkey
2/18/2015 11:00pm,
Are you kidding me dude? You actually want to have a serious discussion about the so-called history presented in this farce of an article? A so called history that is anonymous and completely unsupported and that contradicts Lee's own side of what happened?

Good luck.

It just might boil down to dude not being aware how flawed that "history" and it's sources are.


99% blah wrong 1% **** it blah blah

I don't agree with outright dismissing it ALL. Some of the info required brief consideration before cast into the "well duh" pile of insight and historical knowledge which means it is correct and to the obtuse that would mean you are saying they are incorrect.

--- edit --- now that I think on it, making a list of what is fact would be shorter than listing what it incorrect, hearsay, or conjecture. ---/edit---

JudOWNED
2/19/2015 8:23am,
"It just might boil down to dude not being aware how flawed that "history" and it's sources are."

Could very well be the case. I mean for me, it's been a while, but I have read everything about Lee I could. From Tao to that web-published unauthorized biography (can't remember what it was called atm). Also watched countless interviews with contemporaries. And from what I've gleaned, it doesn't make sense at all that Lee was "thrown out of WC."

First of all, what does that even mean? WC was not a monolithic entity to be thrown out of. And, while there are some stories of Lee training under other instructors when he got to the states, most agree that he immediately started doing his own thing and rather training WITH people rather than under them (as instructors or masters). And the few stories I have heard about him actually taking instruction weren't with WC guys anyway. So the idea that he trained under some WC "masters" who eventually kicked him out (of what? Their individual schools?) seems unlikely at best.

Besides, the article gives us so little information as to be functionally useless. No dates. No names. No details. There is literally no information to prove or disprove. Just one guys wacky and anonymous claims. How can you have a serious historical discussion about that?

BackFistMonkey
2/19/2015 9:51am,
Besides, the article gives us so little information as to be functionally useless. No dates. No names. No details. There is literally no information to prove or disprove. Just one guys wacky and anonymous claims. How can you have a serious historical discussion about that?

I still don't know why this isn't in YMAS now that you mention it ...

edit:

ahhh it is more than likely because I forgot to ask the last time I thought about it. I couldn't find the right button and wondered off... I just found it.

W. Rabbit
2/19/2015 11:12am,
most agree that he immediately started doing his own thing and rather training WITH people rather than under them (as instructors or masters).


Traditional CMA is hierarchical (Confucian), so Bruce seems to have taken very well to the freedom of training openly as opposed to UNDER when he returned to the US. Beyond that, he was able to travel the world as a superstar. He came back to the states as a scholar and became a celebrity, then as Dale eloquently put it...he croaked. Oh well.

I think it's pretty clear JKD was Bruce's "post grad" work on martial arts, starting to see the light of difference between Wing Chun's back alley version of gentrified combat as taught in his hometown, vs the full range of worldwide fighting arts that became available to him once he became a star.

People often claim crazy things about Bruce Lee that are contradictory, like he respected Wing Chun but also hated it or was somehow against "kung fu", but as the 20th century fox memo below shows all these many different interpretations of Bruce lee arise from one specific utterance (in this case his notes and little sketch) where he meant something specific (making a vast majority of the 3rd party interpretations wrong).

Somewhere there is the often missed quote where he simply describes JKD as the "true way of kung fu".

Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.

So while some people take his little picture below as a condemnation of ALL traditional Chinese martial art and concepts, others see it rather as a condemnation of HOW classical kung fu styles were being marketed and trained at the time and place he was first learning (20th century Hong Kong), and kind of strict classification of martial arts training systems and patriarchal learning structures.

Interesting as always to see the twisting and tearing between Confucian logic and Taoist/Buddhist simplicity. Bruce was rebelling against conformity, by creating the style of no style. It's get more "Tao" than that.

I think Dale hit it on the head, if Bruce could speak to us right now he'd say "WHY THE **** AREN'T YOU DOING PUSHUPS WABBIT!".



Besides, the article gives us so little information as to be functionally useless. No dates. No names. No details. There is literally no information to prove or disprove. Just one guys wacky and anonymous claims. How can you have a serious historical discussion about that?

Even calling it an "article" is a stretch. It's more like a long online rant to a short, random question.

Now, if you want real evidence about Bruce Lee, here you go

http://i.imgur.com/2zhWMLa.jpg