View Full Version : Documented proof of Bruce Lee fighting in tournaments ?


Bonafide
07-30-2006, 08:39 PM
Has there been any documented proof of Bruce Lee fighting in real tournaments ? Does anyone know ?

I came across a guy the other day who called Bruce Lee an "average" fighter and I disagreed.

BrooklynBomber
07-30-2006, 08:49 PM
Has there been any documented proof of Bruce Lee fighting in real tournaments ? Does anyone know ?

I came across a guy the other day who called Bruce Lee an "average" fighter and I disagreed.
Bruce Lee is an actor not a fighter, he was just training in martial arts.

Bonafide
07-30-2006, 08:52 PM
Bruce Lee is an actor not a fighter, he was just training in martial arts.


I know. Thats why I asked the question if there is proof that he actually fought in tournaments. I guess not. There is no evidence that he fought using "Jeet Kun Doe". It's all theory.

TheHoff!
07-30-2006, 09:23 PM
Lee claimed that, after arriving in San Francisco, his theories about martial arts and his teaching of "secret" Chinese martial arts to non-Asian students gave him enemies in the martial arts community. A contest was scheduled between him and Wong Jack Man, a practitioner of Northern Shaolin Kung fu.

Bruce Lee's description of the fight was that Wong Jack Man challenged him to a duel over his decision to teach non-Chinese students. Bruce Lee accepted the challenge. Many who witnessed the fight believed Lee had won the duel, however Wong disputes this. Lee later took the view that the fight took "too long" because traditional martial arts techniques were too rigid and formalistic to be practical in scenarios of chaotic street fighting. Perhaps as a result of this fight, he decided to develop a system with an emphasis on "practicality, flexibilty, speed, and efficiency".

from wikipedia.

BrooklynBomber
07-30-2006, 10:24 PM
BTW, Kung Fu does not really mean martial art, its more like skill(any skill, lets say, chefs also got their Kung Fu).

Southpaw Stinger
07-30-2006, 10:33 PM
Theres no unquestionable proof that he actually ever fought. He did simple demonstrations in set performances and he also trained and acted. He worked more towards theory of fighting rather than practicality of fighting.

Bonafide
07-30-2006, 11:31 PM
Lee claimed that, after arriving in San Francisco, his theories about martial arts and his teaching of "secret" Chinese martial arts to non-Asian students gave him enemies in the martial arts community. A contest was scheduled between him and Wong Jack Man, a practitioner of Northern Shaolin Kung fu.

Bruce Lee's description of the fight was that Wong Jack Man challenged him to a duel over his decision to teach non-Chinese students. Bruce Lee accepted the challenge. Many who witnessed the fight believed Lee had won the duel, however Wong disputes this. Lee later took the view that the fight took "too long" because traditional martial arts techniques were too rigid and formalistic to be practical in scenarios of chaotic street fighting. Perhaps as a result of this fight, he decided to develop a system with an emphasis on "practicality, flexibilty, speed, and efficiency".

from wikipedia.


I dont think this fight ever really happened. Again...only claims by Lee himself. No proof at all. I realize you didnt write this Grimey ...I'm not sure if you were trying to tell me this was real or not. :confused:

THE REAL NINJA
08-03-2006, 08:58 AM
Tournament fighting is against Wing chun rules so his master would have not trained him if he had .only thing i know of is this ....Bruce Lee's first formal, organized bout came as a teenager at his high school in Hong Kong. He was to fight a young British boxer, a reigning two-time boxing champion. Bruce knocked his opponent out with repeated strikes, using the Wing Chun technique jik chung chuy.

The Noose
08-03-2006, 05:07 PM
Tournament fighting is against Wing chun rules so his master would have not trained him if he had .only thing i know of is this ....Bruce Lee's first formal, organized bout came as a teenager at his high school in Hong Kong. He was to fight a young British boxer, a reigning two-time boxing champion. Bruce knocked his opponent out with repeated strikes, using the Wing Chun technique jik chung chuy.

Where did that story come from?

Ive seen footage of him doing demonstrations.

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 09:21 AM
Where did that story come from?

Ive seen footage of him doing demonstrations.
that last part about the boxer was just a copy from Wiki but I had heard it before in books and shows about him..the stuff about wing chun I just know because I'm a ninja :cool:

The Noose
08-04-2006, 11:40 AM
that last part about the boxer was just a copy from Wiki but I had heard it before in books and shows about him..the stuff about wing chun I just know because I'm a ninja :cool:

if u were a real ninja u would know wat my next post is going to be.......

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 11:56 AM
if u were a real ninja u would know wat my next post is going to be.......
That I am wrong and or that Lee was only an actor right :confused:

The Noose
08-04-2006, 12:42 PM
That I am wrong and or that Lee was only an actor right :confused:

Nah............

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 12:44 PM
Nah............
lol okay so what were you going to say then :confused:

The Noose
08-04-2006, 12:57 PM
lol okay so what were you going to say then :confused:

Nah...............

hemichromis
08-04-2006, 12:57 PM
he was a street fighting theorist and a adamn good one too!
he read everything he could about fighting and idolised dempsey among others.

his fights are not well documented and its impossible to seperate fact and fiction

all i can say is that he specialised in aiming for the groin knees and eyes and he was far to quick to block so even if he cant hit hard (he was only about 130lbs) hes gonna hurt you!

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 01:02 PM
he was a street fighting theorist and a adamn good one too!
he read everything he could about fighting and idolised dempsey among others.

his fights are not well documented and its impossible to seperate fact and fiction

all i can say is that he specialised in aiming for the groin knees and eyes and he was far to quick to block so even if he cant hit hard (he was only about 130lbs) hes gonna hurt you!
It is said that he hit 170 before his death and was around 5'10

The Noose
08-04-2006, 01:03 PM
But seriously, Bruce Lee was a pioneer of martial arts more than anything else.

Id love to believe he was an amazing fighter, but there are so many stories, and Bruce Lee worshippers, that i dont think there are any reliable sources as to Bruce Lee's competitive skills.

I think he devoted his life to training rather than competing. He filmed himself training, but not even sparring.
I guess the lack of evidence adds to his mystique.

Southpaw Stinger
08-04-2006, 01:16 PM
It is said that he hit 170 before his death and was around 5'10

Actually he only weighed 120lbs at his death and he was dangerously underweight.
And he was 5'7".

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 01:18 PM
But seriously, Bruce Lee was a pioneer of martial arts more than anything else.

Id love to believe he was an amazing fighter, but there are so many stories, and Bruce Lee worshippers, that i dont think there are any reliable sources as to Bruce Lee's competitive skills.

I think he devoted his life to training rather than competing. He filmed himself training, but not even sparring.
I guess the lack of evidence adds to his mystique.
His name is a motivational tool if nothing else. This man gave all of himself for one simple goal of being the greatest martial artist known to man and I do feel he was that. This does not mean that he was the best "fighter" to ever live but that he had reached a level of understanding of his craft that no had before.

leff
08-04-2006, 02:07 PM
ive have never talked to anyone who has any evidence on his fighting abilitys execpt for quotes which doesnt mean much.

lee was a martial arts philosopher but it dont seem like he was anything more.

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 02:24 PM
ive have never talked to anyone who has any evidence on his fighting abilitys execpt for quotes which doesnt mean much.

lee was a martial arts philosopher but it dont seem like he was anything more.
See my thing is i'm not going to try to tell you that he would beat someone from the UFC without breaking a sweat like legend tell us. But knowledge is power you follow boxing, if someone comes up to you that does not and wants to box there is a better chance that you would win then them . It is a known fact that Bruce hard sparred very often.There for he would have had the reflex of a fighter. He may not beat Ken Shamrock but I would put money on him in a random street fight with someone of the same skill as the average man. Lee also in his mind felt that he could beat any man and with such confidence would will himself over lesser odds, you see this happen all the time in boxing and MMA. To say that he was what legend has made him is to much but to say that he was only an actor and an average fighter at best is an insult.

Pork Chop
08-04-2006, 02:32 PM
I have a clip of him sparring a student at a tournament back in the 60s with early safety gear on. It was circulating all over the net about 5 years ago or so.
Not sure where I'll upload it yet: here or youtube or google.

Velour
08-04-2006, 02:35 PM
I have a clip of him sparring a student at a tournament back in the 60s with early safety gear on. It was circulating all over the net about 5 years ago or so.
Not sure where I'll upload it yet: here or youtube or google.

please upload it, dude.

The Noose
08-04-2006, 03:20 PM
See my thing is i'm not going to try to tell you that he would beat someone from the UFC without breaking a sweat like legend tell us. But knowledge is power you follow boxing, if someone comes up to you that does not and wants to box there is a better chance that you would win then them . It is a known fact that Bruce hard sparred very often.There for he would have had the reflex of a fighter. He may not beat Ken Shamrock but I would put money on him in a random street fight with someone of the same skill as the average man. Lee also in his mind felt that he could beat any man and with such confidence would will himself over lesser odds, you see this happen all the time in boxing and MMA. To say that he was what legend has made him is to much but to say that he was only an actor and an average fighter at best is an insult.

I dont think anyone here disagrees with u.
But i believe u cannot access anyones skill until they have fought many people, and its documented.
Of course Lee would beat the crap out of the average guy in the street, most dont know how to throw a punch.

To say was an average fighter is as niave as saying he was the greatest fighter. Unless tested, no one knows.
But to say he is the greatest martial artist, thats somthing different. It depends how u define a martial artist, and how do u measure how good they are?
Good or great is one thing. But the best, needs accurate measurement.
Was Ali or Robinson the best ever boxers? Many would disagree, and both of their careers are very well documented.

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 03:31 PM
I dont think anyone here disagrees with u.
But i believe u cannot access anyones skill until they have fought many people, and its documented.
Of course Lee would beat the crap out of the average guy in the street, most dont know how to throw a punch.

To say was an average fighter is as niave as saying he was the greatest fighter. Unless tested, no one knows.
But to say he is the greatest martial artist, thats somthing different. It depends how u define a martial artist, and how do u measure how good they are?
Good or great is one thing. But the best, needs accurate measurement.
Was Ali or Robinson the best ever boxers? Many would disagree, and both of their careers are very well documented.
I think we are on the same page I just word it different. My saying that he was a great martial artist is the base of.. 1.he made his own art that works and is still used today, 2. He was far more advanced then his time, 3. He was the first to use a style that has become what MMA is today. 4. He did everything in his power to make his body as powerful with in a fighting system that he could....See formal martial arts has less to do with fighting then it does with self discipline there for you can still be the best martial artist yet not thee best martial arts fighter.IMO

The Noose
08-04-2006, 03:59 PM
I think we are on the same page I just word it different. My saying that he was a great martial artist is the base of.. 1.he made his own art that works and is still used today, 2. He was far more advanced then his time, 3. He was the first to use a style that has become what MMA is today. 4. He did everything in his power to make his body as powerful with in a fighting system that he could....See formal martial arts has less to do with fighting then it does with self discipline there for you can still be the best martial artist yet not thee best martial arts fighter.IMO
U said before he was the greatest martial artist known to man.
Do u mean the greastest martial art fighter?

He was smart enough to develop a system based on all types of other fighting styles, and inspired millions. But the whole "greatest" thing is impossible to say.

I could argue...
1. He just borrowed from other styles. Basically, do watever works for u and never limit yourself.
2. He was a popular film star. Maybe there were many others who were just as eclectic and knowledgable. Just not famous.
3. Same as above.
4. He trained his ass off, but his power and skill are only based on stories and his films.

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 04:08 PM
U said before he was the greatest martial artist known to man.
Do u mean the greastest martial art fighter?

He was smart enough to develop a system based on all types of other fighting styles, and inspired millions. But the whole "greatest" thing is impossible to say.

I could argue...
1. He just borrowed from other styles. Basically, do watever works for u and never limit yourself.
2. He was a popular film star. Maybe there were many others who were just as eclectic and knowledgable. Just not famous.
3. Same as above.
4. He trained his ass off, but his power and skill are only based on stories and his films.
No not fighter.. martial artist more as in had the most effect .Well you know that all comes down to your own thoughts of what and who to believe. I have seen clips of him working the heavy bag and that can show his power [am I wrong we do it all the time with Foreman ] but with some of the names of people that have said they saw him do it all first hand I have to think that a lot of it is true. There is no way I can prove you wrong because most of it like you have said is just 2nd hand news. It's just to bad he didnt leave us with more .

The Noose
08-04-2006, 04:40 PM
No not fighter.. martial artist more as in had the most effect .Well you know that all comes down to your own thoughts of what and who to believe. I have seen clips of him working the heavy bag and that can show his power [am I wrong we do it all the time with Foreman ] but with some of the names of people that have said they saw him do it all first hand I have to think that a lot of it is true. There is no way I can prove you wrong because most of it like you have said is just 2nd hand news. It's just to bad he didnt leave us with more .

Yea, ive seen him on the bag. Looks like he could do some real damage.
But Foreman is judged on his fights.

He definatly had the biggest impact on the whole of martial arts. But most people know him as the legendary star, as oppose to wat he really achieved as a martial arts theorist and pracitioner.

THE REAL NINJA
08-04-2006, 05:00 PM
Yea, ive seen him on the bag. Looks like he could do some real damage.
But Foreman is judged on his fights.

He definatly had the biggest impact on the whole of martial arts. But most people know him as the legendary star, as oppose to wat he really achieved as a martial arts theorist and pracitioner.
True okay in a lot of ways, i'll just say that he is the greatest martial arts legend then .Either way if or not he was a good fighter and so on I still will look up to him as the legend tells of him . It's funny that a man from only 40 or so years ago reached has a level of almost biblical proportions as far as wheather he is true or myth.Did you know there was a statue of him in more then one country for people to pray apon, Bosnia is one of them.

leff
08-11-2006, 12:24 PM
See my thing is i'm not going to try to tell you that he would beat someone from the UFC without breaking a sweat like legend tell us. But knowledge is power you follow boxing, if someone comes up to you that does not and wants to box there is a better chance that you would win then them . It is a known fact that Bruce hard sparred very often.There for he would have had the reflex of a fighter. He may not beat Ken Shamrock but I would put money on him in a random street fight with someone of the same skill as the average man. Lee also in his mind felt that he could beat any man and with such confidence would will himself over lesser odds, you see this happen all the time in boxing and MMA. To say that he was what legend has made him is to much but to say that he was only an actor and an average fighter at best is an insult.

well, i think that was a good post.

but i have a big problem off rating him as more than an average fighter without evidence.

hugh grant
09-22-2006, 08:03 PM
No you shouldnt really give him an average rating. Youve never seen him so u cant say that really.
Youve seen what Ali can do, so in your OPINION you think he could beat Bruce Lee and is a better fighter. People who have seen Bruce Lee have said he is the greatest fighter they have ever seen. That is their opinion. That is how they rate his fighting abilities. The evidence was seeing him for themselves.
Every1 seems to want their opinion on Bruce Lee respected. I try to. I have read a lot of things i disagee with but have kept quiet about things.
Ali acknowledges Bruce Lee was a great fighter. MMA arts fighters acknowledge Bruce Lee as a great fighter. They have no problem with that. So if i was to come along and essiently take the mickey with i will give him an average rating, i would expect that comment to piss people off. What these great fighters would have a problem with is people thinking he was the greatest fighter in the history of the world like some people try and make out. Great fighters acknowledge Lees greatness but they would have liked to have fought Lee for themselves before they could assess him for themselves to see if he was as good as had been claimed.
Let me say this, and i will only have to say it once. They dont for one second doubt that he was a great fighter. With footage or no footage. They trust that the people who have witnessed Lee know what they are talking about. Ali and co are not arroagant enough to not listen to people. If people talk good about ALi, Ali hopes people respect what they say about himself. Just like if people who have witnessed Bruce speak highly of Bruce Lee as a fighter having seen him, Ali will respect their opinions as well and not be skeptical.

leff
09-23-2006, 05:33 AM
No not fighter.. martial artist more as in had the most effect .Well you know that all comes down to your own thoughts of what and who to believe. I have seen clips of him working the heavy bag and that can show his power [am I wrong we do it all the time with Foreman ] but with some of the names of people that have said they saw him do it all first hand I have to think that a lot of it is true. There is no way I can prove you wrong because most of it like you have said is just 2nd hand news. It's just to bad he didnt leave us with more .

ive seen him on the bag to and he punches like a female ammature boxer

The Noose
09-23-2006, 07:38 AM
ive seen him on the bag to and he punches like a female ammature boxer
I disagree.
I thought he looked impressive. But didnt use the bag as a boxer would.

hugh grant
09-23-2006, 07:51 AM
I disagree as well. How does a female amatuer boxer punch?. Female amatuer boxers i am sure would disagree as well. Even if Bruce looked great on that heavy bag, which i'm not saying he didnt. He did look great on the bag. Powerful and quick which is all we can tell from it. Dont compare him to how a boxer looks like on it, because he didnt want to look like a boxer on the bag. Why should he? In when we were kings Foreman doesnt exactly look even good on the bag, yet he doesnt get criticized. I think certain people would still talk negatively about the heavy bag footage, because they just want to.

Someone said he hasnt talked to anyone who has evidence of Bruces fighting abilities, only opinions and quotes of how great Bruce Lee was. And that this doesnt mean much. And then goes on to say in his opinion he will then give Bruce an average rating as a fighter, expecting his opinion to mean a lot then.
If you somehow manage to think people who have encountered Bruce Lee opinions dont mean much (only because they admit how great he was) what do you think people are going to make of your opinion. I think you understand what i am getting at.

We only try dismissing the opinions of these people and say opinions dont mean much (when they obviously do) because they say how great Bruce was. If people who had met Bruce said he was ****, then i am sure the opinions would mean a hell of a lot to people. They'd be quoting these opinions of people saying Bruce was ****e and not all that, until they were blue in the face.
Again, i think you know what i am getting at.

THE REAL NINJA
09-24-2006, 06:42 AM
I disagee as well. How does a female amatuer boxer punch. Female amatuer boxers i am sure would disagree as well. Even if Bruce looked great on that heavy bag, which i'm not saying he didnt. He did look great on the bag. Powerful and quick which is all we can tell from it. Dont compare him to how a boxer looks like on it, because he didnt want to look like a boxer on the bag. Why should he? I think certain people would still talk negatively, because they just want to.

Someone said he hasnt talked to anyone who has evidence of Bruces fighting abilities, only opinions and quotes of how good Bruce Lee was. And that this doesnt mean much. And then goes on to say in his opinion he will then give Bruce an average rating as a fighter, expecting his opinion to mean a lot then.
If you think peoples who have encountered Bruce Lee opinions dont mean much (only because they admit how good he was) what do you think people are going to make of your opinion. I think you understand what i am getting at.

We only try dismissing the opinions of these people and say opinions dont mean much (when they obviously do) because they say how good Bruce was. If people who had met Bruce say he was ****, then i am sure the opinions would mean a hell of a lot to people. They'd be quoting these opinions of people saying Bruce was not all that until they were blue in the face.
Again, i think you know what i am getting at.

LOL you know the funny part of all this is the fact that if you take an old time boxer lets say Sam Langford or Harry Greb 2 fighters who have very little film left [in Greb's case maybe none**don't remember not sure**]. But you can ask the same people what they think about all the great boxers that they never even seen and they tell you how great they are **from what they have read on them***. Now ok you can say that you know Greb was great because he fought so and so BUT we fall into the same problem as before. There is very little tape of sed fighters let alone their opponents in which we judge them based upon. So with all of this do you now turn around and discredit everything that they did ? The simple answer is no the documented proof still holds water even without visual evidence . The reason, because it takes someone special to have so many people write about them for so long . People do not carry on the legacy of an average fighter for 30+ years let alone 80 in Greb's case. Unfortunately we just will never know how good Lee was,would or could have been . But all evidence directs us to the conclusion that he would go to any lengths necessary to reach top human potential in the combat arts. And with the short time he had and the era he was in I do believe that he had reached martial arts supremacy if only for a short time. ......The case of him being the best ever is a different topic with No true answer . The problem we have here is that most GREAT martial artist are people that you have never heard of and never will. See martial arts is something you live and in true form is not about sport . But lets take a great martial artist and put him in a movie **wink** now he becomes more actor and less artist in the eyes of many **wink** . But in truth does it make him any less of a fighter or a martial artist ? Obviously not .

hugh grant
09-24-2006, 07:18 AM
I agree to a point.
You cannot go around saying people who knew Bruce Lees opinions dont mean much, and then come out and say he was an average fighter without being laughed at.
I think the OPINIONS of people who have encountered Bruce Lee obvioulsy mean a hell of a lot.
And the OPINIONs of people who havent encountered Bruce who have the audacity to say he was average fighter are the OPINIONS that dont mean much.

jason100x
09-24-2006, 02:38 PM
LOL you know the funny part of all this is the fact that if you take an old time boxer lets say Sam Langford or Harry Greb 2 fighters who have very little film left [in Greb's case maybe none**don't remember not sure**]. But you can ask the same people what they think about all the great boxers that they never even seen and they tell you how great they are **from what they have read on them***. Now ok you can say that you know Greb was great because he fought so and so BUT we fall into the same problem as before. There is very little tape of sed fighters let alone their opponents in which we judge them based upon. So with all of this do you now turn around and discredit everything that they did ? The simple answer is no the documented proof still holds water even without visual evidence . The reason, because it takes someone special to have so many people write about them for so long . People do not carry on the legacy of an average fighter for 30+ years let alone 80 in Greb's case. Unfortunately we just will never know how good Lee was,would or could have been . But all evidence directs us to the conclusion that he would go to any lengths necessary to reach top human potential in the combat arts. And with the short time he had and the era he was in I do believe that he had reached martial arts supremacy if only for a short time. ......The case of him being the best ever is a different topic with No true answer . The problem we have here is that most GREAT martial artist are people that you have never heard of and never will. See martial arts is something you live and in true form is not about sport . But lets take a great martial artist and put him in a movie **wink** now he becomes more actor and less artist in the eyes of many **wink** . But in truth does it make him any less of a fighter or a martial artist ? Obviously not .
Good post. Can't give karma right now but I think that about sums it up.

leff
09-29-2006, 07:22 AM
LOL you know the funny part of all this is the fact that if you take an old time boxer lets say Sam Langford or Harry Greb 2 fighters who have very little film left [in Greb's case maybe none**don't remember not sure**]. But you can ask the same people what they think about all the great boxers that they never even seen and they tell you how great they are **from what they have read on them***. Now ok you can say that you know Greb was great because he fought so and so BUT we fall into the same problem as before. There is very little tape of sed fighters let alone their opponents in which we judge them based upon. So with all of this do you now turn around and discredit everything that they did ? The simple answer is no the documented proof still holds water even without visual evidence . The reason, because it takes someone special to have so many people write about them for so long . People do not carry on the legacy of an average fighter for 30+ years let alone 80 in Greb's case. Unfortunately we just will never know how good Lee was,would or could have been . But all evidence directs us to the conclusion that he would go to any lengths necessary to reach top human potential in the combat arts. And with the short time he had and the era he was in I do believe that he had reached martial arts supremacy if only for a short time. ......The case of him being the best ever is a different topic with No true answer . The problem we have here is that most GREAT martial artist are people that you have never heard of and never will. See martial arts is something you live and in true form is not about sport . But lets take a great martial artist and put him in a movie **wink** now he becomes more actor and less artist in the eyes of many **wink** . But in truth does it make him any less of a fighter or a martial artist ? Obviously not .

well the differene is that grebs fights were watched by thousand, while lees socalled fights had very few witnesses.

leff
09-29-2006, 07:27 AM
I disagree.
I thought he looked impressive. But didnt use the bag as a boxer would.

so ma`s dont focuse on speed, power and technic whan they train?

The Noose
09-29-2006, 11:26 AM
so ma`s dont focuse on speed, power and technic whan they train?

:confused: U lost me.

I dont believe i said anything generalizing how MA's train.
U said Bruce Lee punches the bag like a amateur female boxer.
I disagreed.

From the clips that ive seen, Lee didnt use the bag in a way that ive seen a boxer using it.
Ive never seen any boxer throw punches in that way. Im not saying its amazing or terrible, just very different to a boxer.

IMO he looks lke he can punch. But at the same time, from this clip it also looks like he is just playing around on the bag.

1.50 into the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZkKlIwmSXY

hugh grant
09-29-2006, 02:16 PM
We've established Bruced look powerful and quick on the bag. MA's do indeed focus on technique when they train. But the technique is different to that of a boxer. Bruce Lee was an incredible techniciian and i very doubt any boxer had the same kind of technique Bruce had when Bruce trained.

Again nothing wrong with Bruce Lee on the heavy bag. Its all imaginary. Look at George Foreman on the heavy bag on the doc when we were kings. Why is George Foremans technique better? He is a boxer and there is nothing better about Foreman! Why dont people bully George Foremans technique on that footage? Foreman didnt look great on the bag but i am not going to whinge like an old woman about him.

leff
10-01-2006, 12:02 PM
We've established Bruced look powerful and quick on the bag. MA's do indeed focus on technique when they train. But the technique is different to that of a boxer. Bruce Lee was an incredible techniciian and i very doubt any boxer had the same kind of technique Bruce had when Bruce trained.

Again nothing wrong with Bruce Lee on the heavy bag. Its all imaginary. Look at George Foreman on the heavy bag on the doc when we were kings. Why is George Foremans technique better? He is a boxer and there is nothing better about Foreman! Why dont people bully George Foremans technique on that footage? Foreman didnt look great on the bag but i am not going to whinge like an old woman about him.

compare the power off the foreman clip and the lee pic

Southpaw Stinger
10-01-2006, 02:24 PM
compare the power off the foreman clip and the lee pic

lol thats not very fair. Foreman hits like a truck, lee hits like a golf caddy

Lee looks very poor on the bag.

The Noose
10-01-2006, 04:26 PM
lol thats not very fair. Foreman hits like a truck, lee hits like a golf caddy

Lee looks very poor on the bag.

Id say Foreman looks far worse on the bag Id say.
If u asks me thats wat id say i tells ya.

75th
10-01-2006, 05:09 PM
Has there been any documented proof of Bruce Lee fighting in real tournaments ? Does anyone know ?

I came across a guy the other day who called Bruce Lee an "average" fighter and I disagreed.

No there is no proof of him actually fighting.

Nothing more then worthless quotes and set up footage.

leff
10-01-2006, 05:19 PM
lol thats not very fair. Foreman hits like a truck, lee hits like a golf caddy

Lee looks very poor on the bag.

my point exactly

Southpaw Stinger
10-01-2006, 06:11 PM
Id say Foreman looks far worse on the bag Id say.
If u asks me thats wat id say i tells ya.

Why, because he didn't throw pretty 1-2 combinations?

His punches got the job done and weren't just there to impress like Lee's.

hugh grant
10-01-2006, 06:42 PM
so now your changing your tune and saying Lee looked impressive, and George Foreman looked rubbiish but got the job done. Make your mind up guys.
I didnt say Foreman had no power or that he didnt hit harder than Lee. I said his technique was pants and he resembled a robot on the heavy bag. I wouldnt like to take a body punch from Foreman but wathcing Foreman on the heavy bag didnt make me go 'WOW' just like you saying Lee didnt make you go 'wow'

Watching Lee on the heavy bag got me closer to saying 'wow' to myself than wathching Foreman on the bag.

hugh grant
10-01-2006, 06:45 PM
Id say Foreman looks far worse on the bag Id say.
If u asks me thats wat id say i tells ya.

You really talk sense Bobby Peru. You are a fair gentleman. But even though it is obvious how bad Foreman looks i wont go on about it. Foreman has fans and i dont want to upset his fans.

leff
10-01-2006, 07:41 PM
so now your changing your tune and saying Lee looked impressive, and George Foreman looked rubbiish but got the job done. Make your mind up guys.
I didnt say Foreman had no power or that he didnt hit harder than Lee. I said his technique was pants and he resembled a robot on the heavy bag. I wouldnt like to take a body punch from Foreman but wathcing Foreman on the heavy bag didnt make me go 'WOW' just like you saying Lee didnt make you go 'wow'

Watching Lee on the heavy bag got me closer to saying 'wow' to myself than wathching Foreman on the bag.

hes point was that lee punched to look impressive, not that he was.

understand?

leff
10-01-2006, 07:46 PM
You really talk sense Bobby Peru. You are a fair gentleman. But even though it is obvious how bad Foreman looks i wont go on about it. Foreman has fans and i dont want to upset his fans.

no one has claimed that foreman was technical good, but his power is nasty cant say the same with bruce.

The Noose
10-02-2006, 07:12 AM
Why, because he didn't throw pretty 1-2 combinations?

His punches got the job done and weren't just there to impress like Lee's.


My point was if people are accessing how good Lee was by judging him on the punch bag, just look at Foreman on the bag.

It doesnt tell u anything about how well they could actually fight.

But lets not drift away from the original point to this agonizing thread.
There IMO aint no proof that Lee was a great fighter.

The Noose
10-02-2006, 07:13 AM
You really talk sense Bobby Peru. You are a fair gentleman.

Preach on brother.

Southpaw Stinger
10-02-2006, 08:34 AM
It doesnt tell u anything about how well they could actually fight.

Foreman fought the same way as he punched the bag. People don't punch and train on the bag in one way and fight completely differently.

so now your changing your tune and saying Lee looked impressive

Didn't mean it like that buddy. Lee's moves look like they are to be used more for movies than actual combat. His fast hands might "look" impressive to the casual observer, but if you look at it from a technical point of view it has a lot of flaws.
Just as Leff said I would wager a female amateur boxer of the same weight would look just as impressive on the bag but probably would be more technically solid since they actually train to fight!

zamora25
10-02-2006, 12:08 PM
i know that were talking bout bruce but i heard that jet li was a very accomplished fighter

THE REAL NINJA
10-02-2006, 12:20 PM
i know that were talking bout bruce but i heard that jet li was a very accomplished fighter

He is well known for his speed more then he is for his fighting ability .

The Noose
10-02-2006, 01:49 PM
Foreman fought the same way as he punched the bag. People don't punch and train on the bag in one way and fight completely differently.


I dont believe Foreman fought the same way as he threw punches at the bag.
From the footage ive seen Foreman threw the same big body punches, first with his right, then with his left, repeatedly in the same place.
Whereas wen he fought he would move in throwing his jab, with his gloves up to stiffle his opponents punches, and throw uppercuts, right hands and hooks.
Like i said, u dont think its possible to tell how good a fighter is based how the train on a punch bag.

A live opponent and a inanimate bag and 2 different things.

People dont even spar the same exact way they fight. They hold back alot and only use it to sharpen up.

Southpaw Stinger
10-02-2006, 02:36 PM
I dont believe Foreman fought the same way as he threw punches at the bag.
From the footage ive seen Foreman threw the same big body punches, first with his right, then with his left, repeatedly in the same place.
Whereas wen he fought he would move in throwing his jab, with his gloves up to stiffle his opponents punches, and throw uppercuts, right hands and hooks.
Like i said, u dont think its possible to tell how good a fighter is based how the train on a punch bag.

A live opponent and a inanimate bag and 2 different things.

People dont even spar the same exact way they fight. They hold back alot and only use it to sharpen up.

You've missed the point. You fight the way you train.

If you watch someone on the heavybag you see how they throw a punch. Technically speaking, neither Foreman or Lee look impressive in that sense but Foreman had his immense strength which is what he based his style on.

Lee on the other hand looked poor technically on the bag, the only reason one might consider that impressive is due to his handspeed. But as I've said a female amateur boxer could have faster hands than that but with more technical know how.

The Noose
10-02-2006, 04:52 PM
You've missed the point. You fight the way you train.

If you watch someone on the heavybag you see how they throw a punch. Technically speaking, neither Foreman or Lee look impressive in that sense but Foreman had his immense strength which is what he based his style on.

Lee on the other hand looked poor technically on the bag, the only reason one might consider that impressive is due to his handspeed. But as I've said a female amateur boxer could have faster hands than that but with more technical know how.

I still dont know why u compare Lee to a female amatuer boxer. Just how many female amatuer boxers have u seen train on the punch bag?
As ive said before, IMO he isnt throwing punches like any boxer would.
His technique is totally different.
If he were a boxer, id agree and say his technique is poor. But in no way does it illustrate how well he could fight.
Many fighters have had poor or unusual technique, but were very effective in the ring.

I just believe u cant tell how good a fighter is judging him on the heavy bag.

phallus
10-02-2006, 08:18 PM
I still dont know why u compare Lee to a female amatuer boxer. Just how many female amatuer boxers have u seen train on the punch bag?
As ive said before, IMO he isnt throwing punches like any boxer would.
His technique is totally different.
If he were a boxer, id agree and say his technique is poor. But in no way does it illustrate how well he could fight.
Many fighters have had poor or unusual technique, but were very effective in the ring.

I just believe u cant tell how good a fighter is judging him on the heavy bag.

sometimes, unuusal technique is better, it distracts the opponent - think of emmanuel augustus, he probably looks like **** when sparring or training, but when he gets in the ring, and has a confused live opponent in front of him - he looks fantastic

hugh grant
10-03-2006, 07:21 AM
no one has claimed that foreman was technical good, but his power is nasty cant say the same with bruce.

Foremans power was nasty but he didnt really look powerful on the bag. As i say his power didnt make me go 'wow' just like his technique didnt as well.

hugh grant
10-03-2006, 07:30 AM
I still dont know why u compare Lee to a female amatuer boxer. Just how many female amatuer boxers have u seen train on the punch bag?
As ive said before, IMO he isnt throwing punches like any boxer would.
His technique is totally different.
If he were a boxer, id agree and say his technique is poor. But in no way does it illustrate how well he could fight.
Many fighters have had poor or unusual technique, but were very effective in the ring.

I just believe u cant tell how good a fighter is judging him on the heavy bag.

Exactly. I am picking on Foreman a bit but to be fair to Foreman i have seen a lot of footage of champs on the heavy bag and they dont look all that good. Champs from the olden days black and white footage till the present day. If i was to judge them on how good they were by watching their footage on the heavy bag it would be silly and unfair.
Bruces footage is only about 20 seconds. He looks powerful and quick. He is punching barefisted and that is a hard thing to do. The camcorder isnt great and the microphone on the camera is hardly audibe, which could lessen the impact of Lees punches. But Bruces power barefisted on the bag is impressive. His speed was good. There can be no complaints. And if you insist on complaining, complain about other boxers as well to be fair. But that is not likely because people here are only complaining about Bruces footage because people say how great he was. Bottom line is the footage doesnt proove that Lee wasnt as great as people say he was. You can only do so much on a heavy bag, and Lee wasnt out to impress anyway. If someone was watching him ready to criticize you might have seen something different.

K-DOGG
10-03-2006, 11:54 AM
I confess to not be that knowledgeable of martial arts or even the specifics of Bruce Lee's life; but I feel all of the recent naysaying concerning his greatness as a martial artist is akin to the recent naysaying of Ali's greatness by younger fans who want to believe that their heroes are better than those who took our breath away when we were young. Call it "modern revisionism".

Least that's what I think.

Incidentally, after reading all the points on this thread, from what I do know about Lee.....REAL NINJA, IMO, has it closest to being spot on.

leff
10-03-2006, 04:31 PM
I still dont know why u compare Lee to a female amatuer boxer. Just how many female amatuer boxers have u seen train on the punch bag?
As ive said before, IMO he isnt throwing punches like any boxer would.
His technique is totally different.
If he were a boxer, id agree and say his technique is poor. But in no way does it illustrate how well he could fight.
Many fighters have had poor or unusual technique, but were very effective in the ring.

I just believe u cant tell how good a fighter is judging him on the heavy bag.

yes ive seen loads off female ammatures on the bag.

the technic from his art my be different from boxing, doesnt change that he shows lack off power.

leff
10-03-2006, 04:32 PM
Foremans power was nasty but he didnt really look powerful on the bag. As i say his power didnt make me go 'wow' just like his technique didnt as well.

you dont think he looks powerful on the bag?:thinking:

Southpaw Stinger
10-03-2006, 05:43 PM
You don't think Foreman looks powerful on the bag? What you been smoking man? :ugh:

Southpaw Stinger
10-03-2006, 05:46 PM
Foremans power was nasty but he didnt really look powerful on the bag. As i say his power didnt make me go 'wow' just like his technique didnt as well.

I don't beleive you've ever seen Foreman on the bag mate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvirljx6ob4&eurl=