Was Bruce Lee overrated? Could he have survived in present day MMA?

[Bobzor]

The problem with MMA is that it favors certain things, honestly. It's not a "real fight", no one is ambushing you and you don't have to protect yourself against "cheap tricks" nor avoid the certain death of a neck hold (or whatever its called). It's a sport - not a fight where the loser is put in a body bag or at the mercy of the victor.

People only join it because it's not a "real fight". If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself, tbh. In MMA, you are working within a certain framework, which is very narrow - in a "street fight" or "real fight", there is no bounds besides what is physically possible.

Not everyone needs medals to know they're the best, just saying (not even in relation to whoever is in any youtube-video, but just as a general statement). Not everyone feels pride about whacking someone in a sport. Not everyone is willingly to blindly submit to some artificial and unrealistic rules in a sport, especially not if they think they got a better system themselves. There is not the constant fear of the unknown in a sport as there is in a real situation. You know there is a way out if you get fucked. In a "real fight", you can't rely on second chances because there might not be one.

Not everyone cares about medals, some care more about so-called "real fights" or the teaching and philosophy behind the activity.

Of course, you're better prepared if you know how to fight in any way, such as having learned in a system. In any system, though, there is the weakness of needing certain moves by the opponent for the system to work. That is when it becomes a "real fight" instead of within the limited constraints and artificial situation of MMA.

How would people fight if MMA was a "real fight"? Certainly not very aggressive at all, only the sure fools would risk their health that way. Everyone would be super-defensive.

In MMA, there might not be such a big difference in the result by winning on points and in KO'ing someone by a leg hold or a neck hold, but in a "real fight" these would be 3 completely different things.

The MMA framework isn't very narrow at all. In the early vale tudo days the only rule was literally no eye pokes. Kicks to the groin, headbutts and everything else was allowed. More rules have been added over time to make it internationally marketable. But the MMA fighters of today would completely wreck the ones who were fighting 20 years ago, rules or no rules. Fighting has probably evolved more than any other sport in a very short time.

Who are these people who care about "real fights"? Have they ever been in a "real fight"? Professional fighting is the closest thing you'll come to fighting for your life. You put your career, your honor, health and personal economy at risk. The stakes are huge. And to say that it's not a real fight is ridiculous.

I advice you to watch the fight in the first post and come back and tell me that's "aggressive". They barely touch each other the first minutes. It's all about getting a feel of your opponent and finding the right reach, because you're really fkin scared of losing and one slip and you might get knocked out or taken to the ground.


It's very apparent that a lot of you have no experience of fighting, weather it's sanctioned or on the streets. The saying "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times" Is nice and all but I fear neither as long as they haven't put the kick to use in any real situation.

[laserit]

Professional fighting is the closest thing you'll come to fighting for your life.

Wow the ignorance is just amazing.

Have you ever met a soldier (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq) who has seen real combat?

How old are you?

[Bobzor]

Sorry I forgot.... Your not a real martial arts fighter and you know nothing about fighting unless you've got a couple wins in the UFC.


The first guy: Sijo James W. DeMile is in his eighties now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwLC5gjYYXc#t=73

James W. DeMile began his martial arts career in Seattle, Washington, under the direction of Bruce Lee. He had the pleasure of assisting Bruce in developing many of the principles of the original Jeet Kune Do. It was also DeMile's privilege to appear with Bruce in his book, The Philosophical Art of Self-Defense.

DeMile trained the Special Forces (Green Berets) at Fort Lewis in 1985 and 86. As a law enforcement officer, (DeMile is an active Deputy Sheriff from Ottawa county, Ohio) he teaches specialized defensive tactics seminars to police departments around the world.


Clearly the man knows absolutely nothing about fighting (guess he's not famous enough)

You can read his autobiography (it's quite interesting)

http://www.wingchundo.com/instructor...demile_bio.htm

Most definitely an interesting man but also full of pseudo science and bullshit. What exactly were these 12 techniques that Bruce Lee could win every fight with? Against what opponents did Bruce Lee test these moves? In what scenarios? They're very likely to have existed though because at the time you didn't need more because no one knew how to fight optimally.

The second guy: Grandmaster Richard S Bustillo is in his seventies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enRw_exx4AA

Bustillo has been certified by the U.S. Olympic Training Center as a coach and official for U.S. Amateur Boxing in Southern California. He is a certified Guro (instructor) in the Filipino arts of Kali, Escrima, and Arnis; holding eleven degree black belt (under SGM Cacoy Canete in November 2011) and the title Grand Master by the Doce Pares organization of Cebu City, Philippines. Bustillo is a member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame (Instructor of the Year 1989) and the World Martial Arts Hall of Fame.[9]

Bustillo is a certified law enforcement defensive tactics instructor and a member of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers. Additionally, Bustillo is a member of the Search & Rescue Team of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and is a Reserve Peace Officer.

Clearly he knows nothing about martial arts fighting as well

This guy doesn't seem to be as full of himself and appears to be more accomplished but being a good teacher isn't the same as being a good fighter.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow the ignorance is just amazing.

Have you ever met a soldier (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq) who has seen real combat?

How old are you?

You do not need to go to war to know what it is like to fight for your life. Bad things happened every day right where you live.

This is what a scar from a stabbing looks like. I know more about fighting for your life than most.


I am 22 years old.

[laserit]

Most definitely an interesting man but also full of pseudo science and bullshit. What exactly were these 12 techniques that Bruce Lee could win every fight with? Against what opponents did Bruce Lee test these moves? In what scenarios? They're very likely to have existed though because at the time you didn't need more because no one knew how to fight optimally.

This guy doesn't seem to be as full of himself and appears to be more accomplished but being a good teacher isn't the same as being a good fighter.

- - - Updated - - -



You do not need to go to war to know what it is like to fight for your life. Bad things happened every day right where you live.

This is what a scar from a stabbing looks like. I know more about fighting for your life than most.


I am 22 years old.

I'm 50

You are absolutely correct, you do not have to go to war to know what it's like to fight for your life. People are fighting for their life all around us. Soldiers freely sacrifice their life for what is believed to be the common good. How many have given the ultimate sacrifice for us?

I don't believe you meant what you said in that statement.

I'm glad that you seem to have recovered well from your injury.

Lets not belittle the real life and death sacrifices that many make for us in this fucked up world we live in.

[Deleted]

The MMA framework isn't very narrow at all. In the early vale tudo days the only rule was literally no eye pokes. Kicks to the groin, headbutts and everything else was allowed. More rules have been added over time to make it internationally marketable. But the MMA fighters of today would completely wreck the ones who were fighting 20 years ago, rules or no rules. Fighting has probably evolved more than any other sport in a very short time.

Who are these people who care about "real fights"? Have they ever been in a "real fight"? Professional fighting is the closest thing you'll come to fighting for your life. You put your career, your honor, health and personal economy at risk. The stakes are huge. And to say that it's not a real fight is ridiculous.

I advice you to watch the fight in the first post and come back and tell me that's "aggressive". They barely touch each other the first minutes. It's all about getting a feel of your opponent and finding the right reach, because you're really fkin scared of losing and one slip and you might get knocked out or taken to the ground.


It's very apparent that a lot of you have no experience of fighting, weather it's sanctioned or on the streets. The saying "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times" Is nice and all but I fear neither as long as they haven't put the kick to use in any real situation.

The difference in a sport and in a so-called "real fight" is that the stakes are completely different. In a "real fight", you don't charge straight at your opponent unless you're combatively very superior. If you get down, it might end in disastrous results. The difference between MMA and a serious fight without rules or mercy is that in MMA you know the other guy is going to pull out when things get serious. In a "real fight", you want to keep the upper hand and protect yourself from disaster.

Only the reckless fool would fight in a real fight as he would do in MMA.

In a real fight with two equally matched people, you don't go straight for the throat so to speak. You don't give the opponent any opportunity to get control of the fight. You start by wearing him down, this means breaking bones and disturbing his balance. You don't ever give the opponent a chance to control you, ideally, since it can lead to disastrous results. In MMA, you at worst only lose the fight and move on afterwards.

I agree that fighting skill in general, also as it is trained in MMA, helps one to fight but to consider MMA a realistic scenario is to live under an illusion. In a realistic scenario, people don't forgive your mistakes.

I agree that fighting skill is important in general for any fight, no matter how it's fought, but the difference is that you know that people are going to pull out. You become lazy, inconsequential and make unrealistic behavior in a sport as opposed to a real scenario.

It doesn't matter if it was rules as at the beginning, the fact that people are given second chances changes the game. Any small mistake can lead to a large disaster in a real fight. Therefore, it's unrealistic - you don't treat the fight as a step-by-step process but as an all-or-nothing game of which the consequences are relatively small.

Just look at animals - they retract at any sign of danger because for them it's "real". A fighting sport becomes stupid and bad fighting because it does not have the same fundamental values in it as a real fight. The first law in a real fight is to protect yourself - not the case in a fighting sport. Therefore, it is unrealistic.

To go further, and become a bit personal, I readily concede that I have literally no adult experience of fighting but I know how to fight, and where do you see such stupid and low-quality fighting as in MMA? The problem is that mistakes are not punished hard enough because the scenario is unrealistic, therefore it becomes such a low-quality fighting behavior that's needed.

All one's fundamentally weak points become points of little issue. I'm not talking about motivation but about the fact that certain ineffective moves are preferred over more rational and stronger moves. One does not act in a manner that protects oneself enough in MMA, perhaps mostly because you can't intentionally break the bones/joints/etc. or do "actual damage" as would be a price in a real fight.

In MMA, certain moves are protected by the fundamental rules of it being a sport and this, for those that have eyes and instinct enough, changes the game very much from a real scenario. For too many moves, the negative cost in it that otherewise stops one from doing it in a real fight is removed by the rules. This is why it favors certain things and is quite unrealistic in the end - almost every real negative cost from moves is removed by the fundamental aspect of it being a sport and this makes it a narrow and skewed framework which favors certain types of fighting and certain types of fighters.

When the counter-move for an attack is fundamentally banned by the sport (as in it being a sport and not something where people expect one or both of the contestants to walk away with serious injuries), then it is not serious and becomes favourable to certain types of moves and therefore "biased" and unrealistic.

I don't know, I'm just not impressed by the fighting in UFC f.ex. and consider the arena fundamentally unrealistic because every counter-move, almost, is banned. A necessary ingredient in real fighting is that every attack opens up a possible vulnerability in defence, but when many of these vulnerabilities are banned by it being a sport, as it needs to be for there to be any sport, it stops being realistic for me.

I see too much bad fighting in MMA and anyone who fights in a real fight against equals opponents as he does in MMA, does not have a long "career" in front of him.

The first law in a fight is to protect oneself. No one protects themselves in MMA. Why? Because every real cost for a bad attack is removed by its basic aspect of being a sport where people don't expect to get hurt before they get out of the arena (talking real injury here - it is not the standard belief after-all). This produces bad fighting and unrealistic behavior because one is not allowed to go at one's opponents when he fails an attack - therefore, everyone becomes over-aggressive and certain types of fighting are favoured because they are protected by the sport, which they would not be otherwise in a real fight.

Therefore, on the whole, this complete "skewing" and safe-guarding of certain behaviors makes the whole thing quite unrealistic and produces much "irrational"/bad fighting - but! nothing said here of the fighters themselves, they only try to operate best as can under this unrealistic scenario.

[Bobzor]

No one protects themselves in MMA.

I realize that you think that you know how to fight and that you have an understanding of what fighting is. But you really have no clue. I hope for your sake that you never end up in a fight.

Now it's clear to me that this discussion won't lead anywhere until you enter a gym and start training(In the gym you're actually allowed to practice all of these so called 'counter moves'. It's just that you cannot use them if you were to start competing).

[Fugus]

No, Bruce Lee was not overrated, he was very skilled at what he did and earned it.
Yes, Bruce Lee would PROBABLY survive to some degree in present day MMA, his skill set would lend greatly in that field.

No, Bruce Lee would not become champion in his current state, his skill set is too narrow to achieve that. That is like asking if Randy Couture would be great in boxing.Though he is strong and fast as hell, his skill set is too limited and we have no clue about his overall stamina, ability to take a hit, or improvise against other fighting styles like we have today. If he has decent stamina and can take a hit, after a few more years of training to diversify his skill set, he has the potential to go far. But if we were to take him in his prime and just throw him "as-is" it would end up being another Kimbo Slice. Same as if they tried to throw in Mike Tyson in his prime.

[Tziva]

The first guy: Sijo James W. DeMile is in his eighties now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwLC5gjYYXc#t=73
[...]
The second guy: Grandmaster Richard S Bustillo is in his seventies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enRw_exx4AA
[...]
And last buy not least we have: Taky Kimura who is in his nineties https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQNB7ybMfxo

Or, you know, Dan Inosanto, one of Bruce Lee's best friends, his sparring partner, and one of his top three students...


As I mentioned before, he's pretty down to earth about his assessments (and readily admits Lee's faults), and he qualifies him as a "great fighter" (24 sec mark).

And no, Inosanto never fought UFC if that's the criteria for being a good fighter and capable of assessing other people as greater fighters. But he sure has taught a lot of great fighters!

And again, I'm not saying Lee would win UFC, or that he was supernaturally amazing, or that he was even the best in his own era. I'm just saying that to reduce him to merely an actor or to dismiss what skills he did have as a fighter is just absurd on the opposite end of the spectrum as the guys who think he was some kind of living deity.

[Wildtree]

Comparing Lee (and the likes) with MMA/UFC... That's comparing apples and oranges imo.
I strongly believe, one (MMA/UFC) is child's play, compared to the other. Lee was near perfect in lethal styles.

Was Lee overrated? Fuck no...
One had to actually live through his time, I have.. That guy inspired millions and millions back then. Certainly not because of his acting, which was lousy, but because of his craft. And I am talking about Lee before he passed away. He brought martial arts to generations of people, young and old. It's very hard to say where everything went if there wouldn't have been a Bruce Lee. He surely boosted the whole martial arts popularity further than anyone before, and after him.

And to point out another aspect regarding apples and oranges...
Lee was active in a field where moral values were extremely high regarded. You don't fight for no reason at all. In fact, you avoid it at all costs.
Whereas.... MMA/UFC, that's the opposite in a way. It's an extension of classic boxing, mixed in with some martial arts, an extension of kick-boxing which predates that stuff. Yet it is set up to be brutal. There's not much honor in it. It's a spectacle to please the crowd. Not saying that the fighters aren't athletes, yes they are athletes. But the sport itself, is rather primitive kept. To please the lowest of the low emotions in people. It's - to me - a mirror of how society as a whole is somehow in decline with some values.
That shit was funny in movies, not so much in reality.
No, I much prefer the culture behind ancient martial arts and the codes attached to them.
And Lee helped to promote this.
Maybe he wouldn't even approve of that nonsensical stuff that is MMA today.

[Sorrior]

I am not sure why we are even arguing about genetic defects. There is nothing to suggest that any of Bruce Lee's skill is because he was some kind of mutant.

More than likely it was just the result of the fact that he trained hard and from a very young age. Sure, strong genes wouldn't have hurt, but there's a pretty big divide between "genetically predisposed to athleticism" and "superhuman genetic mutations."

I know...I mainly posted that for the guys who were trying to make all his stuff out to be impossible....Nah I MEANT originally that he was likely predisposed to good athleticism but abnormal dna wouldn't surprise me.

[Deleted]

I realize that you think that you know how to fight and that you have an understanding of what fighting is. But you really have no clue. I hope for your sake that you never end up in a fight.

Now it's clear to me that this discussion won't lead anywhere until you enter a gym and start training(In the gym you're actually allowed to practice all of these so called 'counter moves'. It's just that you cannot use them if you were to start competing).

Well, I'll reply anyways, though I know I can handle myself in a fight.

For he who can see, it is quite clear in MMA (and in every other fighting sport) that for some moves, there does not exist an adequate counter-move which is legal, either due to the bounds of the arena or, more usually, to the protection of the participants enforced by the sphere of it being a sport.

If you're so smart in fighting, you have to agree with this bottom necessity of things, right?: in a neutral arena without external limitations, every move has a positive value and a negative value, there are no ultimate moves but only moves with certain advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation, and for every move there exists a counter-move which nullifies the original move. This is the neutral bottom of things. If you don't understand this, you do not understand fighting as well as I do, simple as that.

The problem is that in every fighting sport, this balance is skewed, therefore they are all as one unrealistic, and MMA is no exception here. In fact, he who understands the underlying dynamics of fighting can readily see how MMA makes for a very awkward and atypical kind of fighting.

MMA is, therefore, not the gold standard to measure things by, no, it is actually this (hypothetical) neutral arena free from unnatural limitations that are enforced on the fighters, but then again, that is also called war, I suppose, and therefore a sport can, of course, not exist under such terms.

If one takes MMA as the gold standard, one is simply misunderstanding the underlying dynamics of a fight. The gold standard is always the "free" fight, that is a fight in a neutral arena without artificial limitations of the participants. MMA does not come close to this. It is still a sport, not war, not serious enough and, above all else, not HARD enough.

The brawling, bumbling idiot has his glory days in MMA, it protects him. It is not hard enough on him, his mistakes go unpunished due to the rules necessary for a sport to be possible in such a manner.

[Sorrior]

Wow the ignorance is just amazing.

Have you ever met a soldier (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq) who has seen real combat?

How old are you?

Not very I suspect...Hell I have bern in a few roomwide brawls back when I was in school...I mean middle school complete with chairs being tossed/used as weapons and EVERYONE fighting each other...Free for all style..THAT is a real fight....Yeah was a messed up school.

[Fugus]

Tenver, we know that even in MMA, it isn't exactly the same as a free fight, the only thing that is like a free fight is a free fight which you can't really have in a sport, MMA is just the closest thing we can get while still caring about the safety of the contestants.

About the only way we could do more would be to put 2 contestants in opposite ends of a huge area with varied terrain and let them go till one either died or gave up or we someday come out with Sword Art Online level VR and then sports it's a whole new level that all can join in on.

[Deleted]

Tenver, we know that even in MMA, it isn't exactly the same as a free fight, the only thing that is like a free fight is a free fight which you can't really have in a sport, MMA is just the closest thing we can get while still caring about the safety of the contestants.

About the only way we could do more would be to put 2 contestants in opposite ends of a huge area with varied terrain and let them go till one either died or gave up or we someday come out with Sword Art Online level VR and then sports it's a whole new level that all can join in on.

Yes, that was my original point. When you judge a fighter on how good he is in MMA, you are judging him on a very limited foundation, therefore for any of those people in the youtube-videos, and for Bruce Lee for that matter, how well they do in a real fight does not necessarily have much to do with whether they would do so well in MMA, because in MMA your mistakes aren't punished hard enough, while in a real fight, your opponent might exploit every weakness and mistake of you to their fullest, while you are protected from this in MMA (and any other fighting sport), so just because you can make a "winning move" in MMA or win on points does not necessarily say much about whether you could get the final upperhand in a real fight, where you can't afford to lose strength along the way because this means further advantage to your opponent.

What do you do in a war? You start by securing your protection, incapacitating the enemy and conquering him at last, in other words you don't go straight for Berlin in WW2-scenario, but in MMA you just rush in because the opponent isn't allowed to partially injure you during the fight which would seriously reduce your chances of coming out on top at the end. Therefore, it is unrealistic and favors this bumpy-hustling guy because the quick and agile striker is not allowed to partially injure his opponent and wear him down in that way. That's just one thing. The fact that there is a small difference between a small mistake and large mistake is very unrealistic.

So just because some people might not have participated in MMA does not really mean that they are necessarily worse fighters in a real scenario because in MMA you are forced into a lot of situations where the correct counter-move is illegal, which it would not be in a real fight, and it becomes this large piece of unrealism. If you just know how to exploit the opponents weaknesses and protect yourself in a real fight, you can go very far, probably, but in MMA you are not allowed to fully utilize your advantage.

Therefore, which was also the original point, if judge these "dojo masters" by how they do in competitive sport, or particularly in MMA, you might end up with a skewed picture of things.

I suspect it's the same for many army people, they may know how to kill you if you make a mistake that lets them get an advantage to do that without however being that good (or even interested) in bustling in some arena. To loosely quote a Danish guy who was a long time army personage, "I know how to kill with my bare hands but I don't know how to fight". Therefore, these arenas are necessarily quite unrealistic and if you judge by it, I suspect you'd end up with quite a skewed picture because there's little partial injuries and this whole skewing of the underlying dynamics of effective moves.

[Tziva]

This is off the topic of Bruce Lee, but still relevant to discussion...

I think a lot of MMA fighting is practically useful, but I think it's dishonest (not just in terms of this argument, but in terms of being overly confident of our skills) to sell it as "the most realistic fighting." MMA has a lot of rules now; those things that are banned are exactly the kind of things someone would use in a real life environment if pressed. Early UFC had very few rules so we did see some of that before it quickly rushed in with them. I saw someone mention Vale Tudo earlier in the thread, which is another great nod. But modern MMA? Lots of limiting rules. I mean, it's a sport.

Another big thing, which is not used in any competitive fighting that I can think of, but is highly utilised in the real world is weapons. Weapons completely change the dynamic of fights because they limit how you can approach things. A lot of people dismiss weapons because they aren't safe in competitive fighting, but I think if your concern is practical application or real world skills, it's silly not to consider them. It's not just the idea of training in weapons, but that people -- great fighters even -- train under the assumption that their opponent is not going to have one, which is a very very dangerous assumption is real life. Even a great fighter would be bested if someone sewingmachines him in a clench. A lot of martial arts have weapons training but many (most?) of these are not super realistic or practical, and these aren't usually the arts incorporated into MMA. As far as I know, Dog Brothers is the only organisation that fights with weapons (real weapons for blunt impact, flexible and stuff like tasers, but with trainers for bladed) with the intent on differentiating between what is actually useful and what is just showy martial arts, but obviously even that has limitations for safety.

The reality is that training in anything is limited because safety concerns can give us a false sense of a lot of things, whether it's the assumption weapons are absent or the inability to use weapons, a false sense of distance (striking arts that stop short of connecting), of power (arts that train to connect, but do it at lessened power), or a shitton of rules (like modern MMA). It's just a necessary evil in any kind of fighting or martial arts -- we'd quickly run out of people to train with if we didn't impose these limitations -- but it's also something that everyone on all ends of the spectrum has to at least be mindful of, and honest with themselves about, so they don't get an overinflated sense of confidence.

Anyway, to bring this back around... I think we need to be careful that when we're trying to distance ourselves from the silly archaic idea of "I know classic martial arts so obviously I'm a deadly fighter" (which is justifiably questioned) we not go too far in the other direction of overinflating how useful MMA is in real world situations. Any kind of training or fighting environment where safety for your opponent is a consideration is going to result in unideal training practices. We can say a lot of professional fighters are great fighters, but that doesn't mean they can't be easily bested by someone who doesn't care to operate under the ruleset they are used to.

I think it's interesting to talk about, in any case.

(for my own bias - yes, I train in weapons-based arts, including Dog Bros stuff, but I like to think I am mindful of realism, limitations, etc)

[Stonecloak]

Bruce lee had a phd in martial arts. I mean the guy was a prodigy. The question is wrong it should be would an mma fighter be able to even touch him before they were dropped.

[Fahrenheit]

He was just a man, so I suppose he'd hold his own against similar sized opponents.

[Spectral]

I have no idea why someone would think he could just dominate a sport that's somewhat different than the sports he actually competed in. I have no doubt that he'd be highly competitive if he were alive today and interested, but modern MMA is simply not the same sport as what he was doing. It seems a bit like asking if Willie Mays would be a great cricket player; well, yeah, I'm pretty sure that he'd be great given the opportunity, but not just straight out of the box.

- - - Updated - - -

Some people are way too caught up in the mythos of Hollywood martial arts. There's no Pai Mei out there killing people with magical death touches, or secret super-human masters who are just so much better than everyone else but we just never see them. Everyone you see and hear about in fighting are just humans.

I suspect that part of it is that people like the idea of a deadly striker that can't be touched.

[phitness]

I suspect that part of it is that people like the idea of a deadly striker that can't be touched.

That's why I love the manga "One Punch Man".

[paypayvey]

I'm two years late, but the narrative and myth making surrounding Bruce Lee's life and his ablities is hilarious to say the least.

I would be impressed if Bruce Lee managed to handle a highschool senior wrestler,let alone a high level pro MMA fighter.

infracted - thread necromacy