Comparing bruce lee to other masters and their ideas.?

Question

did lee have similar and in some cases the same ideas as many karate masters long before he came on the scene?

Answer 1

There was alot of hype on Bruce Lee because he was a movie star. But all in all, it was his concept that was important. That is, taking what works "for you", from different martial arts and learning to apply things. he was against creating robots from a system. Fighting ability? I don't know, most people ahve only ever seen him in movies. But what I do know is that his student Dan Inosanto took his concept and made JKD concepts and taught a talented individual by the name of Paul Vunak who went on to train the U.S navy seals in H2H combat. As well as other interesting groups of people. I don't think the seals were intereste in kata and traditional rules. Wonder why?.....

Answer 2

I don't know of anyone I could compare him to.

The amount of time he actually studied was not enough for him to make the claims he made.

When you see Practitioners like:

Oyata Sensei,

Kishaba Sensei,

Seiko Higa Sensei,

Seikichi Uehara Sensei,

all incredible Masters...

Those are the Practitioners I respect.

Bruce was a beginner compared to them.

Their ideas reintegrated the things that were lost during the transition to "karatedo". Sure, they adapted the term "do" but their mindset and teaching is "jutsu".

Bruce's ideas limited what you can do.

It's like Ephedra. They make Ephedrine from it. Ephedrine has harmful side affects. Reason? They extracted it from the plant, which has other natural organic compounds that act synergistically with the active ingredient "ephedrine". They took the Ephedra plant off the market over this. It was this separation from the plant that caused the compound to be unstable. They blamed a plant for causing heart attacks when it was their greed in trying to patent a drug to market - and not the plant.

When you isolate a technique or two from an art, you are losing the application of the technique. The art has the dynamics - the concepts and theories that make that technique work.

Now all you have left is a movement that is used incorrectly and not to its fullest.

They were using their complete art.

He didn't have a complete art to use.

In the case of Choki Motobu. He was a Prince. He had a bad temper and attitude. He was not allowed, by his father, to complete learning the family art - known as Palace Hand.

What did he do? He gathered what was able to learn - which turned out to be Naihanchin kata from Anko Itosu, and practiced that. He mastered the kata. He MASTERED it.

He was REALLY undefeated.

He learned from Matsumura Kosaku of Tomari Te.

He didn't drop his kata, just using bits and pieces of it.

He mastered the ones he learned.

The only person that was able to beat him taught him a lesson, and he was Kentsu Yabu... and he humbled him.

So there is no one I would compare Bruce to.

So in light of all these Practitioners who were great masters, Bruce is insignificant.  

Answer 3

I think in the  fact that he advocated taking what worked and getting rid of the stuff that didn't he was very similiar to the Okinawan masters, however I think the similarities pretty much end there. An Okinawan master would study a kata for a lifetime, and in fact most of their training was made up of kata, both solo and working applications with opponents. Bruce Lee had no use for kata according to his teachings.

I also think that Bruce Lee was different in that he advocated picking and choosing from different styles, and never really learning any style in depth. Most masters will at least train a style for a long time before picking the parts they like out of it. I also think he took much of the phylosiphy out of martial arts, and his main goal was simply to teach to fight, at least from my best understanding of what I know, although I could be wrong on that point.  

Answer 4

Although I've been a lifelong fan of Bruce lee and his methods.

I must agree with Bluto and Sensei Scandal so I'll not go in depth.

Bruce I'd say for his time highlighted the importance of physical conditioning to the extreme IMO but never the less stressed that it was every bit as important as skill.

He was not the best nor what he done was completely original as many people have done similar mix and matching martial arts for themselves and others century's before him.

Best wishes :)***

Answer 5

people are gonna hate me for saying this.

Bruce Lee was no master.

He only learnt a limited amount of wing chun.

He may have mastered what he learnt.

Having said that he was great for the world of chinese martial arts.

He popularised them in a way never seen before.

He then went on to study other arts and develop theories.

This was good and necessary.

The theories were not unique in any way though.

They are the same as those developed by a lot of martial arts "masters" in the past.

real karate goes beyond the patterns. The patterns are merely training blocks developed so that students do not kill each other.

Answer 6

Bruce Lee's philosophy on life and the martial arts, seemed to be this...

Learn from others and practice what you know, until you discover the hidden meanings of all things. When he died his only published book, The Tao of Jeet Kun Do, was incomplete only in the form of being published. The completion of this compilation of what was the sum of his knowlege, was kept with the ones that were closest to him (His students and his family.) Without these people who he taught all that he had learned and experienced from his former masters and their teachings,there would have been no continuing legacy for his wisdom, and in turn would have ended the teachings of all those he had learned from.

Answer 7

yh he did he developed his ideas from people like steven seagal and jackie chan and also jet li and some are his own. sorry interpreted the question wrong but yes he did from his master wing chun and then later jun fan gung fu.

Answer 8

who are you comparing him to and what time period?

if you look throughout history, you will actually find at least as far as 500 years ago written evidence of fight books that depict the same type of philosophy as bruce lee had.

I think that lee might have brought this mentality and thinking to light in modern times, but he hardly invented it.

what you can laud him for is that he promoted that, and proper training methodology at a time when the modern day practice of unarmed martial arts needed it.

I do believe some of his more technical ideas were flawed for a man of his size, namely interrupting a person's attack with one of a longer limb of your own- that might work for one of his inspirations, muhammad ali, but not for a short man who weighed 140lbs.

while that is a legit strategy for someone with a reach advantage, lee didn't have one so it makes me wonder "what was he thinking"?

was he developing that training strategy for someone else?

I think lee would have made one h**l of a coach though and if alive today he would have a number of world-champions under his belt IMO.

Answer 9

throughtout history there have beeen many masters with his i dwea he invented nothing new he just introduced it in a widespread way a graet fighter nad philosopher but nothing new