Could Bruce Lee have become a great boxer? Mayweather says he's fake.

[Larry the boss]

lee spoarred a lot. Read all the tournament champs who said lee had superior fighting ability. Lee spoarred with them.
Don't ask me to tell you. That would be lazy on your part, and imply you are entering debate with no research.
Therefore trolling

yet floyd beat over 20 champs as a pro..and you question him??? But you have 0 footage of bruce beating ****ing tournament champions yet praise him?

[hugh grant]

Yet you have so much footage of Floyd yet **** on him on a regular..i dont understand posters like you..show me one damn fight of Bruce Lee..JUST ONE

I know Floyd can box but I'm comparing Floyd to other boixers who can box as well .

I don't need to shoiw you one fight of Bruce. Just likje ray Charles don't need too see Lee fight. Yet ray Charles knoiknoiws Lee can fight just like he knows marylyn monroe, and sohiua loren are pretty.
Me and ray Charles knowing Lee can fight extremely well isn't dependant upon having to have seen Lee fight for ourselves. Of course wed love to see Lee. Wouldn't we all. if only for selfish reasons.

[billeau2]

Yea, sorry, I don't buy that.

Wikipaedia has a reputation, and like any business that reputation will persist irregardless of what happens internally. Wiki for many years was basically the BleacherReport of online enciclopedias, amateur hour with no regulation of submissions. Now you are tightening things up and all of the sudden we should take your word at face value and treat Wiki as the peer of peer reviewed articles for example? Don't be naive. Like bleacher report (which also tries to legitimize itself, Wiki will remain largely a laughing stock when measured to actual citable content. You aren't just going to erase memory and anectodal evidence of its inaccuracy since its inception.

I love how you feel the need to mention what you and your girlfriend do as if that adds validity to this statement.

I don't, and I won't. I read wiki all the time, as a quick reference for interesting topics but I wouldn't dream of citing it with any confidence or authority.

The bold part. Same here. To me that has tremendous value. Maybe I am assuming things but I would never look at a general source and quote it, I would use it as a means to gain rudimentary knowledge. its not designed to be a source, and the accuracy is very general. Most intelligent people cannot read something like "____For dummys" because its too basic. Wiki is usually much more informative and helpful in understanding the basics of a concept or idea.

Peer review is way past wiki epistemology. But there is regulation, social regulation. I like that idea. People are pressured socially to be accurate. I would not put that in the same category as peer review. I respect your posts but really disagree about Wiki. We need people in the internet to take some responsability for knowledge content, the standards for Wiki are, in a sense a reflection of the community which uses it.

[Dolor]

Yea, sorry, I don't buy that.

Wikipaedia has a reputation, and like any business that reputation will persist irregardless of what happens internally. Wiki for many years was basically the BleacherReport of online enciclopedias, amateur hour with no regulation of submissions. Now you are tightening things up and all of the sudden we should take your word at face value and treat Wiki as the peer of peer reviewed articles for example? Don't be naive. Like bleacher report (which also tries to legitimize itself, Wiki will remain largely a laughing stock when measured to actual citable content. You aren't just going to erase memory and anectodal evidence of its inaccuracy since its inception.

I love how you feel the need to mention what you and your girlfriend do as if that adds validity to this statement.

I don't, and I won't. I read wiki all the time, as a quick reference for interesting topics but I wouldn't dream of citing it with any confidence or authority.

I have no idea where you got this from - where did I say that wiki competes with e.g. review papers in speciality journals, or will be cited in scientific papers? It doesn't - it is an encyclopedia aimed at the average reader. This is true for all encyclopedias, not just Wiki.

Do you think that in medicine, anyone would cite from e.g. articles in the well respected) Encyclopedia Britannica? Of course not. Does that mean Encyclopedia Britannica is rubbish? Of course not. Does that mean that articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica are inacurrate? Of course not. But, like any encyclopedia, it lacks the level of detail found in scientific journals.

[b00g13man]

All these pages, and all we've got is hearsay? Bunch of clowns in here.

[Larry the boss]

I know Floyd can box but I'm comparing Floyd to other boixers who can box as well .

I don't need to shoiw you one fight of Bruce. Just likje ray Charles don't need too see Lee fight. Yet ray Charles knoiknoiws Lee can fight just like he knows marylyn monroe, and sohiua loren are pretty.
Me and ray Charles knowing Lee can fight extremely well isn't dependant upon having to have seen Lee fight for ourselves. Of course wed love to see Lee. Wouldn't we all. if only for selfish reasons.

So how can anyone on here pick Bruce to beat Floyd yet never seen Bruce fight at all? Its ****ing stupid

[Raonic]

So how can anyone on here pick Bruce to beat Floyd yet never seen Bruce fight at all? Its ****ing stupid

I don't agree with a lot of the people's reasoning as to why Bruce Lee would beat Floyd but no one has seen Jack Johnson fight here and he'd beat Roman Gonzalez quite easily. That's what's great about a fantasy matchup.

[hugh grant]

So how can anyone on here pick Bruce to beat Floyd yet never seen Bruce fight at all? Its ****ing stupid

You want everyone who thinks Lee would beat Floyd to explain themselves? You think everyone dumb is that what your saying?
Yoiu are soun ding quite bitter now. Its one thing being envious of pac, as many think PACs greater than Floyd. But you trying to deny Lee, who isn't even in direct competition to Floyd is quite disturbing. You seem quite ruthless and clinical. There's no need to soiund so bitter. Bruce will inspire the next generation so don't be so harsh on Bruce.

[billeau2]

im no expert but i watch a lot of MMA for a number of years. I dont see people doing the ****ing kung fu crane stance in the octagon. When they stand up they throw proper punches and kicks. Usually boxing style or muay thai. Then they usually wrestle or BJJ on the ground. Traditional martial arts is a load of dog **** for the most part, thought ufc would have proved that beyond doubt but obviously not. Dont see much aikido, taekwondo, karate, kung fu in there. Someone can do all that drunken master stuff as much as they want but if a big guy grabbed them by the scruff of the neck and clouted them then they are in trouble. Seen blackbelt karate guys look lost in a proper fight. As i said if its bjj or something like that its a whole different story...

What people see and what is happening are often distinct. Im not trying to pull rank but its very naive to assume that what we see is everything. Let me ask you a question about techniques, this is not a trick question... You no doubt see these techniques in MMA matches.

1) What art specializes and teaches foot stomping?

2) What art teaches a knee to the chest front kick?

3) What art teaches chain punches to set up a clinch?

In all these examples, there are arts with techniques mentioned above, but most MA fighters are coached to do these things because it makes them succesful in the ring. There are many more of these things, like raising the leg up to knee someone...not a Thai kick, but picking the leg up like a horse and driving it into the opponent. Where does it come from?

Guys develop techniques for the circumstance they are in, the setting. They modify boxing, wrestling and any art that allows them to be succesful in that setting and guess what? The same elbow strike does not work the same way for the prison guard who is standing between the exit and a mean m****er, and Conner!

People lose fights because of the way they train, period. If I train you in no contact boxing, light groundwork with no resistance, and I train your brother in a black fighting club (especially as the only white boy like I was at the time lol) who kick him around the room until he can kick back...guess who will fight better? In my club it was in a really bad area, Riley Hawkins students all had to be able to fight so my teacher was able to provide full resistance...so we could fight.

Some arts are useless as well, but thats a separate issue.

[billeau2]

So how can anyone on here pick Bruce to beat Floyd yet never seen Bruce fight at all? Its ****ing stupid

Have you seen Dempsey fight Larry? There were, up to a few years ago, trainers who had trained guys at the tail end of Jack Johnson, up until Tyson, who swore that Dempsey was the best they have ever seen.

The people that did see Lee fight, especially from Oakland (not so much those fragerts from Seattle and Hong Kong) were fighters...bikers, karateka who fought each other, weapons guys, etc. These guys do not, as a rule, vouch for slim built Chinese guys with funny accents. As a matter of fact, quite a few of the guys vouching for Lee stomped guys into the curb who claimed they could fight. That is the way it was done in those days, ask Dante in chicago when he lost his friend in a dojo war.

Also, and totally unrelated, the Chinese hated Lee and sent legitmate old school fighters to take him out. He beat these guys, it is why they poisoned him actually.

Think back to Lee's days and ask yourself this question...who else in the martial arts was claiming to be a badass? guess what? most of the guys claiming so were fighters of one sort or another, because they were tested. You don't even hear of Jackie Chan and guys like that because in those days if you made a claim you had to back it up.