# Bruce Lee



## TapOut215 (Jun 24, 2007)

Ok so spike tv had a bruce lee daya nd i sat in and watched all the shit and was thinking how he would do in the MMA world of today. I looked up how he used to work out and the man weight a mear 135lbs and did 8 reps of bicept curls with a 80lb yes 80lb dumbell.He sais he would work his forarms out to the limits and if you really look at his forarms he has forarm muscles i never seen on a human before. I could just imangine the punching power this man could of delivered. Remember SPEED IS POWER and no1 was faster than Bruce Lee. I looked into his martal arts system he invented and it has alot of grapling and armlocks,knee bars,leg locks so he might of been a beast on the ground. He was abole to do 2 finger push ups 10 reps of 10 with 2 fukin fingers. 300 sit ups in 3 mins and his cardeo was amazing. Im only 23 years old and bruce lee was way before my time but i belive Bruce lee was by far the best pound for pound fighter ever. Please leave what you guys think but dont flame him because we all know dam well more than half of all MMA fighters got into the sport bc of bruce Lee!! good day


----------



## Negative1 (Feb 4, 2007)

Those promos were pretty kool, some commercials I actually enjoyed for a change. 

The thing that impresses me about him is how his name is revered even to this day, by far the most famous MMA'ist and that shirt they made for that foundation, goddamn that's nice. 

I seen a video of him doing the 1-inche punch, wow. Also theres a highlight video where hes boxing this heavy bag with hooks and the thing is bounching everywhere. Insane power and lightning speed, they say when filming, he had to slow down his punches for the cameras.  Thats insane.


----------



## TKOSPIKE (Jul 7, 2006)

yes bruce lee is indeed the greatest ever. even fedor couldnt have taken him.


----------



## TapOut215 (Jun 24, 2007)

yea if you get his book its at barnes and nobles here in philadelphia, (i didnt buy it bc im a cheap fuk, but i looked it over) theres like these pictures that go through how he side kicks and thers a 250lb guy holding this pillow looking pad. Well u see him goin up and it almost looks like his body becomes a spring and he hits the guy sending him back over 6 feet and 2 feet in the air. it was pretty sick im sure if he landed one of them on ne human he would just shatter the entire rib cage, possable killing them do to internal bleeding. Also that 1 inch punch is crazy and was demonstarted in front of over 2000 people at a Karate convention of some sort.


----------



## GodlyMoose (May 20, 2007)

Negative1 said:


> Those promos were pretty kool, some commercials I actually enjoyed for a change.
> 
> The thing that impresses me about him is how his name is revered even to this day, by far the most famous MMA'ist and that shirt they made for that foundation, goddamn that's nice.
> 
> I seen a video of him doing the 1-inche punch, wow. Also theres a highlight video where hes boxing this heavy bag with hooks and the thing is bounching everywhere. Insane power and lightning speed, they say when filming, he had to slow down his punches for the cameras.  Thats insane.


I believe this is the video you are speaking of.

YouTube - Bruce Lee Back Yard training

And here is the One inch punch, and the two finger push-ups.

YouTube - Bruce Lee training


----------



## TapOut215 (Jun 24, 2007)

no that not it but thanks for that vid man. The 1 im talking he had ide say a 8 steap start and sent this guy flying man, lifted him. but in the vid u see what i mean man bruce lee has that chi shit and can controle // extort all his bodys energy into every blow. Hes but 135lbs hitting like a light heavy weight. IDK if ne of you ever hit a bag with out gloves but for all us "normal" people it tears your knucvkles to shit. he got calcases on his knuckles and seemed that bag didnt stand a chance. great post man was a treat!!


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

*Bruce Lee has been talked to death on this forum. Bruce Lee would not make it in MMA today. I know what your going to say about his own style(Jeet Kun Do) of fighting, his speed, and his strength. His fighting style is flawed, he even said it himself, he might have been fast back then but speed changes over time and people get faster, and I know there are people stronger than him. He would not last in a MMA enviroment. *


----------



## CroCopPride (Jan 13, 2007)

r u dumb?
didnt u see him take on like 7 guys
and then that white guy with the bottle

screw fedor this guy was a machine


----------



## PrideFan123 (Apr 8, 2007)

Bruce Lee would get taken to the ground, then subbed. No one would have the balls to stand with him.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Kameleon said:


> * he might have been fast back then but speed changes over time and people get faster, and I know there are people stronger than him. He would not last in a MMA enviroment. *


Thats just not true. 'Speed changes over time' WTF?

edit: And to those saying he would get subbed.....read one of his books.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Kameleon said:


> *Bruce Lee has been talked to death on this forum. Bruce Lee would not make it in MMA today. I know what your going to say about his own style(Jeet Kun Do) of fighting, his speed, and his strength. His fighting style is flawed, he even said it himself, he might have been fast back then but speed changes over time and people get faster, and I know there are people stronger than him. He would not last in a MMA enviroment. *


 He tapped out Sammo Hung to a crucifix in Enter the Dragon, making him unstoppable. 

I don't think it's fair to say Bruce Lee wouldn't have made it in MMA, especially in a lightweight or superlightweight class.

He may have had to adapt his training, but that was the founding methodology behind Jeet Kune Do.

There's certainly no need to deify him, though, and it's endlessly funny to see this topic renewed month to month on this forum.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

Remember that one time when Bruce Lee did all that cool shit in movies?


----------



## Deadpool (Dec 14, 2006)

Can we play just make any Bruce Lee topic an insta-ban? There's no way of knowing how he would have done because he's dead. 

New topic. Also use the search button, you could probably make a book out of the number of threads that have been made about this. There is no answer. Stop. Please.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Are you guys really serious?
> Get it through your heads, bruce lee was not a Fighter, He was an actor. Sparring guys and having a few street fights doesnt make you the best fighter in the world. I dont give a flying **** if he did 400 1 finger pushups in 1minute. Fighting is Fighting, not a push-up or bicep curl competition. 80lb dumbells my ass, hes lying, just cause its bruce lee, everyone has to believe every ******* thing those retards around him said. He was sparring rich white guys and he was a God next to them and they're still talkin about him like he was something special. Get bruce lee at his prime, whenever that was seeing that theres no prime for making movies, but ye, he wouldnt last against any decent MMA fighter unless if he trained for MMA in todays world. He was an ACTOR, a PHILOSOPHER and made martial arts famous but dont make him something he wasnt.
> 
> P.S. That clip of him hitting the punching bag is terrible, he shows crappy punching technique and little power seeing that the bag weighs 40lbs, from that you can see he is THE MOST OVERRATED PERSON IN THE WORLD.


 My IQ just dropped a point.


----------



## RHYNO2K (Feb 4, 2007)

Damnit, where are time machines when you need them?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> Are you guys really serious?
> Get it through your heads, bruce lee was not a Fighter, He was an actor. Sparring guys and having a few street fights doesnt make you the best fighter in the world. I dont give a flying **** if he did 400 1 finger pushups in 1minute. Fighting is Fighting, not a push-up or bicep curl competition. 80lb dumbells my ass, hes lying, just cause its bruce lee, everyone has to believe every ******* thing those retards around him said. He was sparring rich white guys and he was a God next to them and they're still talkin about him like he was something special. Get bruce lee at his prime, whenever that was seeing that theres no prime for making movies, but ye, he wouldnt last against any decent MMA fighter unless if he trained for MMA in todays world. He was an ACTOR, a PHILOSOPHER and made martial arts famous but dont make him something he wasnt.
> 
> P.S. That clip of him hitting the punching bag is terrible, he shows crappy punching technique and little power seeing that the bag weighs 40lbs, from that you can see he is THE MOST OVERRATED PERSON IN THE WORLD.


Wow..


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Has Bruce Lee ever been a ranked fighter? Has he ever competed in any professional tournaments? Has he ever fought a professional champion in any professional exhibitions? Has he ever held a title? 

The answer to all of the above is a resounding "No". Bruce Lee hasn't fought in any professional MMA _or_ contact sport tournament, much less a champion, nor was he ever ranked as a professional fighter. I think the only thing he did was push-ups at a karate tournament. I've heard of only _one_ fight Lee was in, which was supposedly some street fight (behind closed doors, of course) against a "Great Master". Big deal. 

Simply put, he has not done any of the above. What he has done, however, is a lot _movies_ -- not only as an adult actor, but also as a teenage actor. He's been an actor all of his life. Afteall, he comes from a family of _actors._ His father was Cantonese opera actor, and he enrolled young Bruce into Chinese opera.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Thepoint is that he was in insanely good shape and knew a lot about martial arts.
He would probably be a black belt in BJJ if he was alive today, he learned everything he could.He used practical stances and moves.
I aint saying he was the greatest ever, or he could beat fedor, but you can't argue that he wasn't in amazing shape and willing to learn, which is wwhy he probably would do well.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> So its at the severely retard level now yes?


 Not yet, but keep posting, we'll get me there soon enough. :thumbsup:


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Thepoint is that he was in insanely good shape and knew a lot about martial arts.
> He would probably be a black belt in BJJ if he was alive today, he learned everything he could.He used practical stances and moves.
> I aint saying he was the greatest ever, or he could beat fedor, but you can't argue that he wasn't in amazing shape and willing to learn, which is wwhy he probably would do well.


We're not arguing he wasn't in good shape. Someone said something about him wiping the floor with Fedor and the rest of the MAM fighters. That's what we're arguing about. 

Do me a favor. Go look at post #20 and answer some of those questions.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> We're not arguing he wasn't in good shape. Someone said something about him wiping the floor with Fedor and the rest of the MAM fighters. That's what we're arguing about.


 In that case, you need to work on your sense of humor.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> Has Bruce Lee ever been a ranked fighter? Has he ever competed in any professional tournaments? Has he ever fought a professional champion in any professional exhibitions? Has he ever held a title?


Whats your point? The fact that he hasn't is why people wonder how he would do.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

No1_Brawler said:


> How about you use a few "Lol's" for us who dont have a sense of humour like yourself.


 I didn't post it. I just used what's left of my reasoning abilities to comprehend what I was reading.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Whats your point? The fact that he hasn't is why people wonder how he would do.


My point i s that your point about his conditioning is irrelevant. Many people are in excellent condition. Now if you try to extract that because he he _was_ a good/great fighter _because_ he has good/great conditioning, then not only is that speculative, but it's also probably false given his lack of experience as a real fighter. 

Now, would he have been a good fighter had he actually trained and competed? Who knows. Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue. The issue was _was_ he a good fighter, not, _would he have been_ a great fighter had he trained/competed.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> In that case, you need to work on your sense of humor.


Fair enough, he was being sarcastic. I didn't realize it because I was skimming the post and thus didn't notice the poster's sarcastic tone. 

It's a funny post.


----------



## payableondeath (Jun 13, 2007)

poor bruce....lol all the bashin


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

TapOut215 said:


> Ok so spike tv had a bruce lee daya nd i sat in and watched all the shit and was thinking how he would do in the MMA world of today.


The first sentence of the first post in this thread tecnotut


----------



## TapOut215 (Jun 24, 2007)

i never said bruce lee would beat fedor lol. fedor is like 230lbs bruce lee is 135lbs. Im saying at 135lbs he woould mop heads. The dude is a ledgend, and for the guy saying he would be submited is just dumb. i am almost positave his ground game would of been amazing the dood invented his own system of fighting and in that system he has many submissions. As for his stand up these doods faces would of been so battered by the time they went to take him down he would or just got away like a little mongoose and pounced on there ass. W/e the discussion isnt if bruce lee could take a heavy weight its how he would do at 135lbs. Im also pretty sure if it came down to fedor and bruce lee bruce would just rip his throat out like patrick swazie in roadhouse LOL.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

Haha, bicep curls make you punch harder! So that's the secret!


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> The first sentence of the first post in this thread tecnotut


Sarcasm aside, since he was an actor, he'd get pummeled. But what if he really trained as an MMA fighter? I don't know the answer to that question just as I don't know the answer to the question "what if Steven Seagal really trained"? What if Jean Claude van Dame really trained? What if Jackie Chan really trained? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Sly Stallone? Who knows, who cares.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> Sarcasm aside, since he was an actor, he'd get pummeled.


 Joe Lauzon was a network administrator. He did okay. Rich Franklin was a math teacher. He did pretty well, too. Chuck Liddell has an accounting degree. Your logic suggests Bruce Lee would do just fine.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Joe Lauzon was a network administrator. He did okay. Rich Franklin was a math teacher. He did pretty well, too. Chuck Liddell has an accounting degree. Your logic suggests Bruce Lee would do just fine.


All of the above can answer "yes" to all or some of my questions in post # 20. Bruce Lee would answer "no" to all questions. So my logic indicates he would get pummeled.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> All of the above can answer "yes" to all or some of my questions in post # 20. Bruce Lee would answer "no" to all questions. So my logic indicates he would get pummeled.


 It seems like I shouldn't have to tell you that at some point, the answer to the question was 'no' for all of them.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> It seems like I shouldn't have to tell you that at some point, the answer to the question was 'no' for all of them.


None of them would be considered great fighters or "the greatest fighter of all time" _if_ they answered "no" to all of them. We only considered them great or good fighters _after_ they answered "yes" to at least some of my questions. It seems I shouldn't have to tell you that.

Bruce Lee, for some reason, seems to be an exception. He's still a great fighter despite answering "no" to all of them. Right? 

Now, would he have been a great fighter had he trained and competed in tournaments like Lauzon, Franklin, or Liddell? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. But, again, that's not even the issue. The issue is was he a great fighter, not would he have been a great fighter had he trained and competed.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> None of them would be considered great fighters or "the greatest fighter of all time" _if_ they answered "no" to all of them. We only considered them great or good fighters _after_ they answered "yes" to at least some of my questions. It seems I shouldn't have to tell you that.
> 
> Bruce Lee, for some reason, seems to be an exception. He's still a great fighter despite answering "no" to all of them. Right?
> 
> Now, would he have been a great fighter had he trained and competed in tournaments like Lauzon, Franklin, or Liddell? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. But, again, that's not even the issue. The issue is was he a great fighter, not would he have been a great fighter had he trained and competed.


 Try to stay focused. The fact that he made money acting has nothing to do with whether or not he could have been successful in MMA.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Try to stay focused. The fact that he made money acting has nothing to do with whether or not he could have been successful in MMA.


Depends on what mean by "could have been been succesul in MMA"? Do you mean that he would have been a great MMA fighter even if he never trained, competed or was even ranked? If so, then how do you know? 

There is absolutely nothing in his history that indicates he was a great fighter. The only thing he did was push-ups in a tournament, and apparently had _one_ street fight (behind closed doors, _of course_) against a "Great MAster". What we do know, however, is that he did a lot of movies. He does come from a family of actors. Now, I ask you, why would you think he's a great fighter given those facts? 

Or do you mean he could have been great had he trained in MMA and competed in MMA tournaments? If so, then so what? Would Steven Seagal been a great MMA fighter had he competed and trained in MMA? Maybe, maybe not. Van Damme? Stallone? 
Who knows, who cares.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> Depends on what mean by "could have been been succesul in MMA"? Do you mean that he would have been a great MMA fighter even if he never trained, competed or was even ranked? If so, then how do you know?
> 
> There is absolutely nothing in his history that indicates he was a great fighter. The only thing he did was push-ups in a tournament, and apparently had _one_ street fight (behind closed doors, _of course_) against a "Great MAster". What we do know, however, is that he did a lot of movies. He does come from a family of actors. Now, I ask you, why would you think he's a great fighter given those facts?
> 
> ...


 I'm not sure why you continue to argue against a stance I never took.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> Depends on what mean by "could have been been succesul in MMA"? Do you mean that he would have been a great MMA fighter even if he never trained, competed or was even ranked? If so, then how do you know?
> 
> There is absolutely nothing in his history that indicates he was a great fighter. The only thing he did was push-ups in a tournament, and apparently had _one_ street fight (behind closed doors, _of course_) against a "Great MAster". What we do know, however, is that he did a lot of movies. He does come from a family of actors. Now, I ask you, why would you think he's a great fighter given those facts?
> 
> ...


 I'm not sure why you continue to argue against a stance I never took.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

Regiment said:


> Some of the best fighters from that time who trained with Bruce and sparred with Bruce said he was untouchable - Muhammed Ali was no rich, white bum. You also have people like Dan Innosanto, a black belt in about 7 fighting styles say that he was a truely great fighter, unfortunately he "wasted" some of that time on making movies instead of training, even though he was addicted to training.


All hearsay. Instead of hearing how great of a fighter he is, isn't more important to see the man actually _fight_? The great "untouchable" fighter who has never fought because others _said_ he's a great fighter! Amazing!



jasvll said:


> I'm not sure why you continue to argue against a stance I never took.


It's uncertain exactly what your stance is because you're not answering my questions. Care to answer them?


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> It's uncertain exactly what your stance is because you're not answering my questions. Care to answer them?


 No, I don't. Your questions and my stance are irrelevant to the point I've addressed.


----------



## taiwnezboi (Apr 8, 2007)

If Bruce Lee fought in the WEC 135 lb division I think he'd do ok. Chuck Liddell's friend Antonio does pretty well in that division and he's a scrub.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> No, I don't. Your questions and my stance are irrelevant to the point I've addressed.


Your irrelvant point is that at one point fighters, like Liddell, had never competed in tournaments, were never ranked, nor trained. I reply that this point is irrelevant because we make judgments about fighters _after_ they do those things I'm listed. Bruce Lee, however, has never done anything. 

Now, given Lee has never done those things, do you still think Lee was a greta fighter. You're s smart guy Jasvll, so hopefully this question isn't too hard for you.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> Your irrelvant point is that at one point fighters, like Liddell, had never competed in tournaments, were never ranked, nor trained. I reply that this point is irrelevant because we make judgments about fighters _after_ they do those things I'm listed. Bruce Lee, however, has never done anything.
> 
> Now, given Lee has never done those things, do you still think Lee was a greta fighter. You're s smart guy Jasvll, so hopefully this question isn't too hard for you.


 Your question is being asked in order to avoid the simple truth I already pointed out. Bruce Lee being an actor has no bearing on whether or not he would be/could be or was a great fighter.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Your question is being asked in order to avoid the simple truth I already pointed out. Bruce Lee being an actor has no bearing on whether or not he would be/could be or was a great fighter.


That's not the issue. The issue is not whether he would be/could be a great fighter. The issue is whether he _was_ a great fighter. And if his resume simply consists of him being an actor and nothing else in addition, then yes, the fact that he was nothing but an actor indicates he was not a great fighter. If Lee could time travel and fight MMA fighters, then he would get pummeled for just being an actor.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> That's not the issue. The issue is not whether he would be/could be a great fighter. The issue is whether he _was_ a great fighter. And if his resume simply consists of him being an actor and nothing else in addition, then yes, the fact that he was nothing but an actor indicates he was not a great fighter. If Lee could time travel and fight MMA fighters, then he would get pummeled for just being an actor.


 You're being ridiculous. His career as an actor has no meaning. He could have been a janitor and it wouldn't have changed a thing about his fighting ability or lack thereof. It's not a part of his fighting resume, at all.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> You're being ridiculous. His career as an actor has no meaning. He could have been a janitor and it wouldn't have changed a thing about his fighting ability or lack thereof. It's not a part of his fighting resume, at all.


He has no fighting resume, that's the problem. He was just an actor solely. If he were a jantor solely, then he wou;d get pummeled because he was just a janitor. If he were a translator solely, then he'd get pummeled for just being a translator. If he were an actor, janitor, and translator solely, then he's get pummeled for just being an actor, janitor, and translator. The only thing that matters is whether he was a fighter, and nothing indicats that.\

Now, I'll ask you the question once again: was Bruce Lee a great fighter? Come on Jasvall, inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> Thats just not true. 'Speed changes over time' WTF?
> 
> edit: And to those saying he would get subbed.....read one of his books.


*I should have worded that differently. He might have been fast back in the 70s but people now a days are faster. Just look at speed records for running, sprinting, rowing, and racing. What was fast back then doesn't translate to being fast today.

*


----------



## PrideFan123 (Apr 8, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> He has no fighting resume, that's the problem. He was just an actor solely.


Yeah I agree. Bruce Lee was an actor in fighting movies who got glorified and made up to be a phenomenal fighter, but has no real fights to his name.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> He has no fighting resume, that's the problem. He was just an actor solely. If he were a jantor solely, then he wou;d get pummeled because he was just a janitor. If he were a translator solely, then he'd get pummeled for just being a translator. If he were an actor, janitor, and translator solely, then he's get pummeled for just being an actor, janitor, and translator. The only thing that matters is whether he was a fighter, and nothing indicats that.\


 Nonsense.



> Now, I'll ask you the question once again: was Bruce Lee a great fighter? Come on Jasvall, inquiring minds want to know.


 I have no idea. I do know that there is no shortage of eyewitnesses (from Jhoon Rhee and Chuck Norris to Steve McQueen and Roman Polanski) who attest to his skill. I also know that his published books and personal journals prove that he had a vast knowledge and understanding of the art of fighting, with many of his theories having been proved by modern MMA. I also know that his physical strength was on par with weight classes above his own.
Whether or not any or all of this translated into a great fighter will never be known. What I do know, with certainty, is that starring in the Green Hornet didn't make him a better or worse fighter than not starring in the Green Hornet would have.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Nonsense.


Do you have a reason to back your opinon? If I simply said "sense!" does that mean I'm right?



> I have no idea. I do know that there is no shortage of eyewitnesses (from Jhoon Rhee and Chuck Norris to Steve McQueen and Roman Polanski) who attest to his skill. I also know that his published books and personal journals prove that he had a vast knowledge and understanding of the art of fighting, with many of his theories having been proved by modern MMA. I also know that his physical strength was on par with weight classes above his own.


How can they attest to his fighting skill if they have never seen him fight? So far you've have nothing but hearsay fpr evidence. I didn't know publishibng books about fighting means one knows how to fight. News to me!




> Whether or not any or all of this translated into a great fighter will never be known. What I do know, with certainty, is that starring in the Green Hornet didn't make him a better or worse fighter than not starring in the Green Hornet would have.


What I know with certainty is that he was not a great fighter because all he was was an actor. If yo can provide me evidence (other than hearsay) that he was a great fighter (e.g. results in tournaments, official rankings, title shots, etc.) then I'll reconsider my opinion of him.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

Hollywood actors judging one's badassery is like McDonald's workers judging one's culinary skills.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> Do you have a reason to back your opinon? If I simply said "sense!" does that mean I'm right?


 You would think by the time you got to the bottom, you would have realized the connection between the first part and the last.




> How can they attest to his fighting skill if they have never seen him fight? So far you've have nothing but hearsay fpr evidence. I didn't know publishibng books about fighting means one knows how to fight. News to me!


 Where did I say any of that proved he was a great fighter? 






> What I know with certainty is that he was not a great fighter because all he was was an actor. If yo can provide me evidence (other than hearsay) that he was a great fighter (e.g. results in tournaments, official rankings, title shots, etc.) then I'll consider my opinion of him.


 I never asked you to [re]consider your opinion. I asked you to stop pretending his source of income proved anything about his fighting skill or lack thereof.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> You would think by the time you got to the bottom, you would have realized the connection between the first part and the last.


I've yet to see this "connection."




> Where did I say any of that proved he was a great fighter?


So you're saying there's evidence he may have been a good fighter, right? This is why you've mentioned various eyewitnesses attesting to his fighting skills, right? But my question to you is this: how can these eyewitnesses attest to his fighting skills? The point is quite easy, Jasvll. Either their attestations have no foundation or basis because they've never observed him fight, or they're irrelevant attestations (e.g. they could be attesting z to how skillful he hits a _punching bag_, but not a person).




> I never asked you to [re]consider your opinion. I asked you to stop pretending his source of income proved anything about his fighting skill or lack thereof.


You're putting words in mouth and misrepresenting me. I'm not saying he was not a good fighter because he was an actor. I am saying he was not a good fighter because he was _solely_ an actor. There's a difference. If he actually had some fighting credentials, then it would not matter if he was an actor or not. But if he has none, and the only credentials we have is that he was just an actor, then yes, the fact is that he would get pummeled by any ranked MMA fighter simply because Lee's _nothing but_ an actor (or janitor, or whatever). Do you agree that "nothing but an actor" implies "not a fighter" (I am not saying "not a fighter" implies "nothing but an actor")?


----------



## Onganju (May 26, 2006)

Just like clock work... I swear, I can set my watch by the regularity that a new Bruce Lee topic will appear after each and every UFC event. It's almost like seeing the forum go through PMS because the amount of ridiculous posturing on *both* sides of the argument is always astronomical. I can see it now...

Judge: "You are charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon. How do you plea?"

Forum Poster: "I plea temporary insanity your honor. After he made that Bruce Lee comment, I couldn't help but hit him over the head with my keyboard."


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> I've yet to see this "connection."


 Perhaps you're squinting too hard?





> So you're saying there's evidence he may have been a good fighter, right? This is why you've mentioned various eyewitnesses attesting to his fighting skills, right?


 Yes.



> But my question to you is this: how can these eyewitnesses attest to his fighting skills?


 Keeping in mind that I didn't say their testimony proved anything, by observing the speed, power, and timing of his execution of techniques used in fighting, hearing what he had to say about fighting, and training with him themselves put them in a position to make inferences about his fighting ability, especially if those making the inferences were fighters themselves (Jhoon Rhee, Chuck Norris for two).




> You're putting words in mouth and misrepresenting me.


 No, I'm not.
Here is the post I responded to:


> Sarcasm aside, *since he was an actor, he'd get pummeled*. But what if he really trained as an MMA fighter? I don't know the answer to that question just as I don't know the answer to the question "what if Steven Seagal really trained"? What if Jean Claude van Dame really trained? What if Jackie Chan really trained? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Sly Stallone? Who knows, who cares.


http://www.mmaforum.com/241505-post36.html

You said because A was true, B was inherently true. 





> I'm not saying he was not a good fighter because he was an actor. I am saying he was not a good fighter because he was _solely_ an actor. There's a difference. If he actually had some fighting credentials, then it would not matter if he was an actor or not.
> But if he has none, and the only credentials we have is that he was just an actor, then yes, the fact is that he would get pummeled by any ranked MMA fighter simply because Lee's _nothing but_ an actor (or janitor, or whatever).


 Acting or janitorial services will never serve as credentials for Lee as a fighter. His philosophy degree is meaningless, too. I don't know why you're fighting this so vehemently.



> Do you agree that "nothing but an actor" implies "not a fighter"


 Implications are the issue. Saying 'not a fighter' says what you're trying to say. Saying 'just an actor' and going on to equate him to Schwarzzenager, Stallone, and Van Damme implies that his skill and knowledge about fighting is at or below their level, when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise. Also, putting 'just' in front of 'an actor' implies that all his years spent studying and teaching martial arts were meaningless.

All that needs to be said for you to make your point truthfully is to say, 'Bruce Lee was not a fighter.'


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Keeping in mind that I didn't say their testimony proved anything, by observing the speed, power, and timing of his execution of techniques used in fighting, hearing what he had to say about fighting, and training with him themselves put them in a position to make inferences about his fighting ability, especially if those making the inferences were fighters themselves (Jhoon Rhee, Chuck Norris for two).


All of which is speculation and means absolutely nothing until one of these "eyewitnesses" actually witnesses withtheir own eyes a fight. 



> You said because A was true, B was inherently true.


Yes, because Bruce Lee was nothing but an actor, therefore he was not a fighter. That's correct. 

If A, then B. A is true, therefore B is true. 



> You left no room for his years spent training and teaching martial arts. You left no room for his strength, conditioning, and technique regimens, which he made careful notes of. You said he was just A, and went on to equate him with people who actually were just A. In other words, A was not true.


Most martial artist instructors have probably at least competed in tournaments. If they haven't then they should not be described as fighters or as instructors regardless of how hard they train. Would you call Mahmmad Ali one of the greatest boxers of all time if he never enetered a ring just because he trained and wrote books?



> Implications are the issue. Saying 'not a fighter' says what you're trying to say. Saying 'just an actor' and going on to equate him to Schwarzzenager, Stallone, and Van Damme implies that his skill and knowledge about fighting is at or below their level, when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise. Also, putting 'just' in front of 'an actor' implies that all his years spent studying and teaching martial arts were meaningless.
> 
> All that needs to be said for you to make your point truthfully is to say, 'Bruce Lee was not a fighter.'


I can safely say that van Damme, who is an actor, is probably a better fighter than Bruce Lee because he actually fought in tournaments: Jean-Claude Van Damme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lee, on the other hand, has nothing in his fighting resume to indicate he was a fighter, let alone of the greatest fighters of all time (some dare say he _is_ the greatest). But I'll ask again: do you agree "just an actor" implies "not a fighter"?


----------



## Randy GNP (Nov 24, 2006)

Bruce lee would not be able to hang in modern MMA. He was a great actor, a great martial artist but he wouldn't be able to take any B-level pro's. Every one now a days is way beyond the basics of well roundedness that he invented.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> All of which is speculation and means absolutely nothing until one of these "eyewitnesses" actually witnesses withtheir own eyes a fight.


 Not meaning everything is not the same as meaning nothing.





> Yes, because Bruce Lee was nothing but an actor, therefore he was not a fighter. That's correct.


 That statement obviously isn't true. Bruce Lee was a father. He was a husband. He was an American. He was a dishwasher. The list goes on forever. His being an actor doesn't preclude him from being anythin other than 'not an actor.'



> If A, then B. A is true, therefore B is true.


 As I said multiple times, A clearly isn't true, no matter how often you fail to see it.





> Most martial artist instructors have probably at least competed in tournaments. If they haven't then they should not be described as fighters or as instructors regardless of how hard they train.


 Did I say Lee should be described as a fighter?



> Would you call Mahmmad Ali one of the greatest boxers of all time if he never enetered a ring just because he trained and wrote books?


 Of course not.





> I can safely say that van Damme, who is an actor, is probably a better fighter than Bruce Lee because he actually fought in tournaments: Jean-Claude Van Damme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Fine.



> Lee, on the other hand, has nothing in his fighting resume to indicate he was a fighter, let alone of the greatest fighters of all time (some dare say he _is_ the greatest).


 Fine.



> But I'll ask again: do you agree "just an actor" implies "not a fighter"?


 You can ask again, but I already agreed to that.


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

*Get back on topic. How would Bruce Lee do in today's MMA?*


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Kameleon said:


> *Get back on topic. How would Bruce Lee do in today's MMA?*


 No one knows and anyone who pretends to is basing their conclusion on their own bias and prejudice.


----------



## Kameleon (Apr 20, 2006)

jasvll said:


> No one knows and anyone who pretends to is basing their conclusion on their own bias and prejudice.


*No it's called an opinion.*


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Kameleon said:


> *No it's called an opinion.*


 Knowing something to be true requires that it not be an opinion. 

Claiming you know something to be true that isn't necessarily so is an opinion presented as fact. This is where so many potentially engaging discussions get derailed.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Not meaning everything is not the same as meaning nothing.


I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means, nor can I see any conenction it bears to anything I said earlier. 



> That statement obviously isn't true. Bruce Lee was a father. He was a husband. He was an American. He was a dishwasher. The list goes on forever. His being an actor doesn't preclude him from being anythin other than 'not an actor.'


We're obviously talking about his vocations and whether they bear any relation to him being a fighter. 



> As I said multiple times, A clearly isn't true, no matter how often you fail to see it.


Then show me some evidence that are not just hearsay sources whom never even seen the man fight. Until you can provide evidence that Lee trained for MMA styule fighting, fought in tournaments and became a ranked fighter, then it's ridiculous to say Lee was a good fighter and could reputable MMA fighters -- you might as well say Steven Segal can beat some UFC fighters as well. 



> Did I say Lee should be described as a fighter?


 If you didn't say that, then good -- he's not a fighter, he's an actor.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> I'm sorry, but I have no idea what this means, nor can I see any conenction it bears to anything I said earlier.


 Then you haven't thought about it long enough.




> We're obviously talking about his vocations and whether they bear any relation to him being a fighter.


 Does his being a dishwasher preclude him from being a fighter? Does his being a martial arts instructor preclude him from being a fighter?



> Then show me some evidence that are not just hearsay sources whom never even seen the man fight. Until you can provide evidence that Lee trained for MMA styule fighting, fought in tournaments and became a ranked fighter, then it's ridiculous to say Lee was a good fighter and could reputable MMA fighters -- you might as well say Steven Segal can beat some UFC fighters as well.


 I've yet to say that about Lee or Segal, although Segal's legitimate Aikido reputation is much more honored in Japan than it is in the country that made his movies popular.




> If you didn't say that, then good -- he's not a fighter, he's an actor.


 You'll notice that this time, you didn't call him 'just an actor,' which finally puts you on honest ground. The first half is a matter of opinion, with people arguing on both sides over the definition of 'fighter' to justify whatever it is they want to be true about Bruce Lee. The second is an observable truth, which has no effect on whether Bruce Lee was or wasn't a fighter. It's a distinct and separate characteristic, no different than him being a father.


----------



## tecnotut (Jan 2, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Then you haven't thought about it long enough.


No, it means you cannot communicate clearly because you post vague and ambiguous statements that bear no relation to what I said earlier. 



> Does his being a dishwasher preclude him from being a fighter? Does his being a martial arts instructor preclude him from being a fighter?




We're not just talking about being a fighter. An MMA fighter with a 0 - 15 record is a fighter. We're talking about being a great MMA fighter, and in this instance, arguably equal to the best MMA fighters, which means standing toe to toe with them and beating them. So yes, the fact that Lee _was just_ a dish washer, or just an actor, or just an instructor, means he would get pummeled by the best MMA fighters.



> I've yet to say that about Lee or Segal, although Segal's legitimate Aikido reputation is much more honored in Japan than it is in the country that made his movies popular.


Let me be frank with you. If Lee were to take a time machine and fight say B.J. Penn, then Lee would get pummeled within the first round. Now, if Lee were to train in MMA styles, and gain experience from actual fights and tournaments, then take a time machine, then perhaps he would pummel GSP. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether he would be great MMA fighter without any MMA experience. Samething with Segal. 




> You'll notice that this time, you didn't call him 'just an actor,' which finally puts you on honest ground. The first half is a matter of opinion, with people arguing on both sides over the definition of 'fighter' to justify whatever it is they want to be true about Bruce Lee. The second is an observable truth, which has no effect on whether Bruce Lee was or wasn't a fighter. It's a distinct and separate characteristic, no different than him being a father.


It's not a matter of opinion that he's not a fighter because he's never been in a fight before. If one is going to call oneself a surgeon, and state they are qualified to do surgery, then they better have had sone surgery in the past. And yes, the fact that he was just an actor implies he's not a fighter because that means he acted, not that he fought.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

tecnotut said:


> No, it means you cannot communicate clearly because you post vague and ambiguous statements that bear no relation to what I said earlier.


 If my statements are vague and ambiguous, how do you know that they bear no relation to what you said earlier?



> We're not just talking about being a fighter. An MMA fighter with a 0 - 15 record is a fighter. We're talking about being a great MMA fighter, and in this instance, arguably equal to the best MMA fighters, which means standing toe to toe with them and beating them. So yes, the fact that Lee _was just_ a dish washer, or just an actor, or just an instructor, means he would get pummeled by the best MMA fighters.


 If, after all this time, you can't see how that logic is flawed, then you're beyond my help. 



> Let me be frank with you. If Lee were to take a time machine and fight say B.J. Penn, then Lee would get pummeled within the first round. Now, if Lee were to train in MMA styles, and gain experience from actual fights and tournaments, then take a time machine, then perhaps he would pummel GSP. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether he would be great MMA fighter without any MMA experience. Samething with Segal.


 And none of that has anything to do with whatever profession he happened to earn money in. 




> It's not a matter of opinion that he's not a fighter because he's never been in a fight before.


 I never claimed he was a fighter, but even I have to admit that you said he was in at least one fight.
http://www.mmaforum.com/241594-post42.html



> If one is going to call oneself a surgeon, and state they are qualified to do surgery, then they better have had sone surgery in the past.


 According to you, he has...been in a fight that is (Trying to avoid that pesky ambiguity. I don't want you thinking I said you claimed Lee performed surgery).



> And yes, the fact that he was just an actor implies he's not a fighter because that means he acted, not that he fought.


 What you can't seem to comprehend, though, is that actors can fight, too. Bruce Lee was not 'just an actor,' because he was also a dishwasher. The fact that he acted does nothing to prove that he wasn't also a fighter. It's a very simple concept.


----------



## PrideFan123 (Apr 8, 2007)

jasvll said:


> No one knows and anyone who pretends to is basing their conclusion on their own bias and prejudice.


Tect is basing his conclusion on the fact that Bruce Lee was an actor with no professional fighting experience. That's why he's saying he would not cut it in MMA today. Seems to me like pretty sound logic.

You are somewhat right- No one will ever TRULY know, but there is no evidence to suggest he would be, besides some kick ass movies and people saying he was good.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

PrideFan123 said:


> Tect is basing his conclusion on the fact that Bruce Lee was an actor with no professional fighting experience. That's why he's saying he would not cut it in MMA today. Seems to me like pretty sound logic.


 Do you think it's an honest assessment to call Bruce Lee 'just an actor?' In other words, do you think Bruce Lee would fare better in MMA than say, George Clooney? That's my only point.



> You are somewhat right- No one will ever TRULY know, but there is no evidence to suggest he would be, besides some kick ass movies and people saying he was good.


 Having read the 'Tao of Jeet Kune Do' and 'The Art of Expressing the Human Body,' I feel there is more evidence than what you've offered.


----------



## dutch sauce (Sep 24, 2006)

when fedor dies it will be bruce lee vs fedor in heaven


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

jasvll said:


> Not yet, but keep posting, we'll get me there soon enough. :thumbsup:


if i wanted to read pompous sh!t like that i'd go back to high school & read the walls in the smoking area. You don't get points for being arch and snotty on this forum. Everything we say about Bruce Lee on here with regard to mma is hypothetical. Like it or not he will always be a martial arts icon, whether or not he would be successful in mma.

I started reading this thread b/c i thought i might encounter useful information about JKD. it was very disappointing to have it turn into a nitpicking debate with one poster running for his thesaurus every 5 minutes.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

swpthleg said:


> if i wanted to read pompous sh!t like that i'd go back to high school & read the walls in the smoking area.


 Your high school had a smoking area? 



> You don't get points for being arch and snotty on this forum.


 How do I get these cool points? I so want to be popular. You see, I wasn't cool in high school, so I'm trying to make up for it here. 



> Everything we say about Bruce Lee on here is conjecture.


 Yeah, I already said that. See:
http://www.mmaforum.com/241970-post67.html 



> Like it or not he will always be a martial arts icon, whether or not he would be successful in mma.


 When did I suggest otherwise? 



> I started reading this thread b/c i thought i might encounter useful information about JKD. it was very disappointing to have it turn into a nitpicking debate with one poster running for his thesaurus every 5 minutes.


 Wouldn't that poster probably keep his Thesaurus handy, or maybe he's too tired to chase down his dictionary to look up the word 'efficiency?'

I find it interesting how threatened people are by anything that appears to be above a certain level of intelligence (that level is generally dictated by the intelligence of the one feeling threatened). Shouldn't society be encouraging the collective expansion of the communication of abstract ideas through language, rather than discouraging it? 

If we're not careful, seeking the lowest common denominator could cause us to forsake words altogether, reducing us to communication through letters. Don't U think that wuld B b4d?

By the way, you should check out Idiocracy. It's not the funniest movie ever made, but it's relevant.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

dutch sauce said:


> when fedor dies it will be bruce lee vs fedor in heaven


 Fedor is clearly Bruce Lee reincarnated, whereas Bruce Lee was the reincarnation of an extremely well-behaved cockroach.


----------



## swpthleg (Dec 31, 2006)

you missed my edit g. i tweaked my post for purposes of clarity.

most high schools in the late 80s, in michigan anyway, had a smoking area.

Stating your opinion in a relatively calm fashion, without needlessly spitting venom, is a very useful way to give your points credence. It has nothing to do with being "cool" or "popular" on this forum or anywhere else. It has to do with the rules of intelligent debate. If you're going to go point/counterpoint, there's no need to get excited or take cheap shots.

Nobody cares if anyone else on this forum was/is cool in high school or not. We just hope that the majority of posts will contribute something other than heavy, pointless sarcasm.


----------

