Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 78

Thread: Bruce Lee's take on Kata

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    590
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Alvelais





    What's this I smell? Oh yes, it's that old dead, beaten horse again. :Laugh:
    IIRC, you and I and the other SFA members agree by and large. I think that the issue between you and I is a minor disagreement about what it means to be "Traditional (TM)" I don't see the notion of changing and evolving technique or open mindedness as being the exclusive province of eclectic MA or MMA. I see it as part of Tradition, too. It's sort of a two tiered thing. At one level is the preservation of the tradition and techniques. At another tier *within Traditional (TM) MA* is the experimentation, evolution and development of new techniques, tactics and strategies, etc. Maybe it's because that's what I see the Traditional instructors, including the founder of my style, Shito Ryu, doing. That to me is part of "Tradition".

    Rob
    Yes strategic evolution and development of new techniques,tactics and strategies within the structured walls of a traditional style,is different in the opinion of bruce because you are still bounded by certain things that you just cannot do because there is definitely a limit as far a breaking away from certain traditions,regardless of wether it's effective or not.In a traditional karate class setting are you really allowed to take your kimono tops off during class and work on certain aspects of fighting on the ground without a gi top?probably not,then that means you are bounded by tradition.Sorry I don't mean that as derragotory statement just trying to make a point on behalf of bruce interpretation when he reffers to being bounded by tradition.

    Same goes for training one day with boxing gloves on during traditional shito-ryu class....."probably not allowed"..... why? because it's not tradition,so yes you are open to evolution as long as it stays within your specific tradition code.Rob This is not a personal attack on you or your style I am just trying to make a point in order to illistrate for the benifit of this disscussion what bruce lee concepts were all about.
    Last edited by hectokan; 24th February 2006 at 17:24.
    Hector Gomez
    "Todo es Bueno"

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    590
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Alvelais

    Imagine a Rob with only 4 years of formal training in traditional karate and no measurable accomplishments other than a few scrapes in the parking lot a Cha cha championship, and some movie work.

    This is what I don't understand four years I agree is too short to master anything but 4 years is more than enough time too realize what's practical and what's not,even if you yourself have not mastered anything yet.In other words if bruce found traditional martial art impractical for him after only 4 years of practice,25 more years would not have made a difference.
    Hector Gomez
    "Todo es Bueno"

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    618
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hectokan
    This is what I don't understand four years and I agree is too short to master anything but 4 years is more than enough time too realize what's practical and what's not even if you yourself has not master anything yet.In other words if bruce found traditional martial art impractical for him after only 4 years,25 more years would not have made a difference.
    I disagree, given several things likely to be operative, especially at that time.

    1) the "culture" of Traditional Chinese teaching methodology. Very slow, things revealed after you put in your time.
    4 years wasn't long enough from
    a) what I've read about Yip Man
    b) anecdotes told about Yip Man by students very familiar with him
    c) my own experience at about that time frame and into the 90's with Traditional Chinese MA instructors.

    2) The first observation of many instructors at the time who had even more time under a sifu or a sensei than Bruce did, who didn't understand the how's and why's of various practices in their curriculum.

    3) Discussion with these instructors about how teaching methodologies have changed from when they were students to how they teach their students now. Things are pretty differnt now. There was far more "Shut up and train, it'll become clear later" going on then, than now. People nowadays ask more questions and, in the US at least, the instructors are more forthcoming with explanations than when either they or I were students..

    So, given the day, I don't think that 4 years was sufficient.


    You said, "for him". That, to me is a different question. Practice of "X" whatever it is, may indeed be impractical "for him". Fine. Who can argue with that?
    Rob

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    618
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hectokan
    Yes strategic evolution and development of new techniques,tactics and strategies within the structured walls of a traditional style,is different in the opinion of bruce because you are still bounded by certain things that you just cannot do because there is definitely a limit as far a breaking away from certain traditions,regardless of wether it's effective or not.In a traditional karate class setting are you really allowed to take your kimono tops off during class and work on certain aspects of fighting on the ground without a gi top?
    Yes.

    probably not,then that means you are bounded by tradition.Sorry I don't mean that as derragotory statement just trying to make a point on behalf of bruce interpretation when he reffers to being bounded by tradition.
    . No offense taken. It seems we're back to the same point that I was making in my previous post. Tradition and being "bound by tradition" means different things to you and I, evidently. I reject the notion that you're implying that it's an either/or thing. One can preserve tradition and still innovate, experiment, explore. We're not talking about religion here.

    Same goes for training one day with boxing gloves on during traditional shito-ryu class....."probably not allowed"..... why?



    Hector, I don't know what you're talking about.

    because it's not tradition,so yes you are open to evolution as long as it stays within your specific tradition code.
    Oh, is that what I do? And, you know this how?

    Rob This is not a personal attack on you or your style I am just trying to make a point in order to illistrate for the benifit of this disscussion what bruce lee concepts were all about.
    I don't get your point then. Perhaps it's because we don't look at Tradition (TM) the same way. Clearly, you don't know what it is that I do or those in the Traditional karate circles that I circulate in.

    Rob
    Last edited by Rob Alvelais; 24th February 2006 at 18:07.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    [QUOTE=hectokan]...What we need to realize here is that there are a lot of practicioners outside the sport venues that don't consider kata to be a effective training tool....

    That's what I'm curious about - other than sparring, what other types of training should I be getting into?

    A little background: I'm much more interested in the realistic, self-defence side of things than sport. I think sparring is essential for training, but fighting in the ring is based on rules, and a fight in the street definitely isn't, so I'm trying to direct my training away from the sport aspect and more to real life application

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    618
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Waugh
    A little background: I'm much more interested in the realistic, self-defence side of things than sport. I think sparring is essential for training, but fighting in the ring is based on rules, and a fight in the street definitely isn't, so I'm trying to direct my training away from the sport aspect and more to real life application

    Adam, *EVERYTHING* in your *training* involves rules. You need to have some agreements with your training partner to avoid injury so that you two can continue to train together. The question really is to find the rule set that suits your goals and sensibilities.

    With regard to what course of study, it depends on your goals. Shop around. One could recommend this or that system, but really, you're limited by your geography. If style X isn't in your area you aren't likely to train in it. You need to look at the schools available to you in your area.

    Rob

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    590
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Alvelais
    I disagree, given several things likely to be operative, especially at that time.

    1) the "culture" of Traditional Chinese teaching methodology. Very slow, things revealed after you put in your time.
    4 years wasn't long enough from
    a) what I've read about Yip Man
    b) anecdotes told about Yip Man by students very familiar with him
    c) my own experience at about that time frame and into the 90's with Traditional Chinese MA instructors.

    2) The first observation of many instructors at the time who had even more time under a sifu or a sensei than Bruce did, who didn't understand the how's and why's of various practices in their curriculum.

    3) Discussion with these instructors about how teaching methodologies have changed from when they were students to how they teach their students now. Things are pretty differnt now. There was far more "Shut up and train, it'll become clear later" going on then, than now. People nowadays ask more questions and, in the US at least, the instructors are more forthcoming with explanations than when either they or I were students..

    So, given the day, I don't think that 4 years was sufficient.


    You said, "for him". That, to me is a different question. Practice of "X" whatever it is, may indeed be impractical "for him". Fine. Who can argue with that?
    Rob
    I agree with almost everything you say about the older traditions of teaching being different from what they are today.The irony here is that if bruce's logic was flawed,then most of yip man students that stayed with him and trained with him for many years before and after bruce left must have become better practicioners. how would you prove that?

    A)Did they become better practicioners of the art of win chun?yes we both probably agree here.Did they become better fighters in general,even when we all know that they were not exposed to the contact sparring type of training that bruce had ingulfed himself with?I don't know that I can say for sure what's the better method but do you feel safe enough in saying so yourself?

    By your rational bruce because of his inabilty to stick with his original system due to his lack of patience or not learning enough material whatever the case might be must have become an inferior practicioner of the fighting arts compared to the guys that stuck by yip man side.maybe I am wrong and what your trying to say is that bruce never mastered win chun in which I would have to agree with you but becoming a good fighter and learning a traditional art can sometimes equal two different things.

    Somehow you and me both know that this cannot be really proven unless they both met in a venue to settle their differences and even then it's just a sport,so all of these theories are just that hypothetical at best.
    Last edited by hectokan; 24th February 2006 at 18:23.
    Hector Gomez
    "Todo es Bueno"

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hectokan
    The methods of training that Bruce was advocating back in the late 60s is similar to the training methods seen today in MMA.Maybe not as detailed in the grappling dept but the concepts of alive training,conditioning,weight training and contact sparring none the less all have the same flavor.He was willing to train outside the pandora box in different training methods ,something that was unheard of in the traditional arts during that time period.
    Maybe here, in the US, I'll grant you. But that was well after Minoru Mochizuki and Hiroo Mochizuki had started developing their unique melange of several Japanese arts in yoseikan budo. That art included all the kinds of things Bruce sketched out in Tao of Jeet Kune Do with the added bonus that they were both actual masters in the multiple arts Bruce "examined". He sketched out things like judo grappling, but his experience there was pretty shallow. But the Mochizukis developed striking and kicking through karate, jujutsu and sword, grappling and throwing through judo, aikido and jujutsu, plus all the chokes of jujutsu...anything else? Sutemi waza, where you throw the opponent by falling down? Sensei had at least fifty of those.

    I think what Bruce Lee did best was articulate his own vision of his own path in life. Jackie Chan said that what impressed him about Bruce was that Bruce thought in terms of millions. At that time, Jackie was trying to impress twenty or thirty people at a time. He said when he met Bruce, it made him realize that he could just as easily think of influencing millions of people as thirty people.

    As someone mentioned earlier he was a movie star that became very famous but anyone that personally knew him and this includes movies stars and elite martial art practicioners of that era will tell you that he was a devoted practicioner bordering on a fanatical mindset when it came to personal training and combat effectiveness.
    Yes, but something killed him at a very young age and I think it is contained in your statement directly above. He trained HIMSELF. He followed no master after his few years training with Yip Man. If he'd followed an older, wiser teacher, he might be alive today.

    But then, Man Jack Wong IS alive today....ironic, isn't it?

    The truth of the matter is that bruce could not have possibly come up with his fighting ideals without really experiencing it firsthand.[/quote]

    Hmm. Maybe he shouldn't have. Dead at 32 should not be a recommendation for anyone. Maybe he should have trained more in forms, as Man Jack Wong did.
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,861
    Likes (received)
    90

    Default

    Ho Kam Ming.........
    Ed Boyd

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    590
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CEB
    Ho Kam Ming.........
    DON'T CONCENTRATE ON THE FINGER OR YOU WILL MISS ALL THAT HEAVENLY GLORY!
    Hector Gomez
    "Todo es Bueno"

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,861
    Likes (received)
    90

    Default

    No ....Ho Kam Ming an old hands student of Yip Man. Lives in Macao. He was Augustine Fong's teacher.
    Ed Boyd

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    618
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hectokan
    I agree with almost everything you say about the older traditions of teaching being different from what they are today.The irony here is that if bruce's logic was flawed,then most of yip man students that stayed with him and trained with him for many years before and after bruce left must have become better practicioners. how would you prove that?
    Why would I have to prove that? I never asserted that they were better or worse. I never addressed that issue at all. What I said was they would have a better understanding of the how's and why's of their practice, given their longer tenure and would therefore have a better informed opionion on a particular practice than someone with only 4 years.

    A)Did they become better practicioners of the art of win chun?yes we both probably agree here.Did they become better fighters in general,even when we all know that they are not exposed to the contact sparring type of training that bruce had ingulfed himself with?I don't know that I can say for sure what's the better method but do you feel safe enough in saying so yourself?
    A better method for what? For whom? For what time horizon?
    By your rational bruce because of his inabilty to stick with his original system due to his lack of patience or not learning enough material whatever the case might be must have become an inferior practicioner of the fighting arts compared to the guys that stuck by yip man side.maybe I am wrong and what your trying to say is that bruce never mastered win chun in which I would have to agree with you but becoming a good fighters and learning a art can sometimes be two different things.
    Yes, you are wrong. I never addressed the question as to whether Bruce was a good/bad, superior/inferior martial artist. I've assiduously avoided a value judgement in that regard. So, to ascribe such conclusions to me would be wrong.


    Rob

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertRousselot
    Well if he thought some CMA and Wushu was crap he is probably right. Much of it being taught is crap. The way Wushu is taught it is useless as a fighting art.
    A good friend of mine was a member of the first Chinese national wushu demonstration team, back in the early 70s, when the actually developed it, right after the Cultural Revolution. It really is more of a gymnastics/exhibition art "based" on ancient Chinese arts and is only vaguely related to fighting.

    Suddenly I remember something strange he told me, though: when they were training to fight, they referred to Bruce Lee movies and photographs for ideas, as a lot of that had been lost in the Cultural Revolution.

    Fortunately, there were still a lot of old timers teaching at levels of higher ed and my friend, Ming Xia, attended the Wuhan Universtity of Physical Education (I think it was), where he got high level instruction in taiji, bagua, pigua, liu he ba fa and baji among other things. When he first came here in about 1988, he was teaching a lot of wushu as a competition thing. He could do very impressive spinning jump kicks where he would do three kicks before landing, but of course, it wasn't the kind of thing you would want to use in a fight. Now he says he wonders how he was able to jump so high back then.

    Mostly what he does now it taiji and bagua, apparently. I haven't trained with him in a long time. I did taiji (24 step and Chen) and baguazhang (style???) with him. He doesn't get a lot of people really interested in these things as martial arts, but he teaches some nuances to people who are interested and have been with him for a long time.

    So, yeah, wushu simply is not a fighting art. It's more like gymnastics, originally intended to be China's contribution to the world of international sports. I think it has run its course for the most part, but fortunately, there are still some good teachers over there (from what I've heard).

    best wishes.
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    824
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hectokan
    the misconecption here is always the same in that one has to train in a traditional art for say twenty years before the gates of heaven opens up and unleashes the secrets reserved for those faithful blind believers.C'mon if you don't get it after 4 or 5 years of training in any art traditional or not,then that art is simply not good at teaching someone within a logical time frame.
    Yeah, that was hard to adjust to when I hit Japan. I had been taught just to keep the old probocis to the carborundum and never worry about ranks...but at the yoseikan they really encouraged people to "go for it". They WANTED you to get it as fast as possible. But that sort of also explain's Bruce Lee's effect on the people who were training in the US in his day. They were black belts, but not really thoroughly and deeply trained. Ed Parker, for instance, was strong and pretty wide, but he was no Choki Motobu, for instance, or Mas Oyama. And Chuck Norris and Joe Lewis were fighting each other with pretty similar techniques within very similar rules. Bruce just came into a place that had not developed so far in terms of "sharing" among arts or cross training in that day. But it doesn't mean he was the first or the last or the best. He was very inspirational, though, in many ways.

    I guess Joe lewis who happens to share more or less the same principals as bruce is a beginner also since he never stayed with his traditional okinawan art long enough to have the secrets revealed to him.......lol yeah right.
    I don't think at the time he knew Bruce that he could have been considered really to have assimilated the depths of his original art. And then he went another way. Doesn't mean he's not a great fighter, but he never seems to have fully developed that original style, and so you wouldn't really call him a master of THAT art.
    David Orange, Jr.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    "That which has no substance can enter where there is no room."
    Lao Tzu

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    590
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Alvelais


    Yes, you are wrong. I never addressed the question as to whether Bruce was a good/bad, superior/inferior martial artist. I've assiduously avoided a value judgement in that regard. So, to ascribe such conclusions to me would be wrong.


    Rob
    I think I don't give a rat's about someone who only had 4 years (do the math) of formal training has to say about kata.

    Rob




    I guess I missunderstood your assestment! lol
    Hector Gomez
    "Todo es Bueno"

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •