Jiggy9 Posted November 6, 2001 Posted November 6, 2001 "There are no such thing as superior styles. " I guess you are right. But I still think Bruce Lee would win Have you ever been in a situation where you're in a fight, or just randomly - you do youre techniques without really thinking about them. Like when youre looking at one of youre friends, and one on youre right throws a play punch at you, and you block it without even thinking about it or looking at where it came from? It happens to me all the time... but what im saying here is that i do my techniques without thinking about them or focussing on a particular instance. So let's say one is in a fight, and someone throws a kick at him from the side...by instinct he blocks it. I stress by instinct because in a fight one is depending on his instinct and reflexes. He doesnt have time to think about if the situation is right for him to use a particular technique..he just does what is engrained in his instinct. Take for example someone who knows no martial arts of any kind, if someone tries to punch him he will instinctively move out of the way...but someone who has trained for an x period will block it with what he has trained in. Right? So, someone who has been training to block a punch in a certain way will do that way instinctivly, but someone who has been training to defend that same punch in a much more effective method will react to that same punch in fight situation in a more effective way...wont he? So i think any technique can work in the right situation, but some will work better then others -depending on the person. Really this is the basis of why i think that someone who trains or has a style of more effective techniques is 'more likely' to be succesfull in a fight. And what you said about one kick and youre on the floor...well it must have been a pretty 'effective' kick for you not to see it coming rite? But what you said about no style being better - i think is totally true, because each 'style' has its strenghts and its weaknesses. But you cant really compare styles....not even in a fight simply because of what you said...The controlling factor being the individual. Because i dont know each fighter personally i cant really comment on their character...so I guess my comments are confined to what i can comment bout i suppose.... You also said that just because a technique doesnt 'look' effective doesnt mean that it isnt. But if a techniqe doesnt 'look' effective doesnt mean that it is either. One must try it out in several fights to know if it is usefull for them or not- i guess. Lol, and i wasnt alive in the 50's or 60's but im sure that all the peeps who said that the art was soft boned and so on hadnt actually taken the time to learn and try out the art. but yea... i do think that you have a good point. Thanks Slim, yea thats what i thought/think too! Shotokan Karate Black Belt ==Defend the path of Truth==
ChangWuJi Posted November 8, 2001 Posted November 8, 2001 Yes I agree with some of your points but also disagree in alot of regards. With the intimate involvement of Kung Fu in Chinese culture, one fact becomes extreme important. Kung Fu, like Chinese culture, is over three thousand years old. During those three thousand years every possible aspect of martial theory and technique has veen exposed, developed, and practised. This long history of practical development has made Kung Fu the most complete system of martial arts in existence. The long history of Kung Fu is a great asset since those thousands of years have seen a continual growth in theory and techniue. To reject three thousand years of experience is to reject everything of proven value. "There are no limits. There are plateaus, but you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. If it kills you, it kills you. A man must constantly exceed his level."
Jiggy9 Posted November 8, 2001 Posted November 8, 2001 During those three thousand years every possible aspect of martial theory and technique has veen exposed, developed, and practised. Exactly, it's been practised and developed over the thousands of years to be more and more practical to the changing times...Im not saying rejecting those thousands of years of theory and technique, im saying : Continue to develop the art. It's been developed over the last three thousand years, so why stop developing it? And in a sense, that's exactly what Bruce Lee was doing... [ This Message was edited by: Jiggy9 on 2001-11-08 10:11 ] Shotokan Karate Black Belt ==Defend the path of Truth==
Joecooke007 Posted November 26, 2001 Posted November 26, 2001 You're definately right. Bruce Lee was so small and agile that he could take Jackie Chan anyday. But in Tekken there are objects that you can use and Jackie Chan is an extremely resourceful fighter. Boards don't hit back. -Bruce Lee
vaneulinh Posted December 10, 2001 Posted December 10, 2001 you don't know, you know should understand that the legend is alwayz unbeatable. It was said that his the King of Kung-fu, kung-fu is the hardest and bestest style, the powerful one-inch punch could wreck jackies rib cage sending him feet off the ground. Any of use doesn't know how to underestimate the legend of Kung-fu. Believe me he has studied most of the fighting styles than anyone else and has developed Jeet kune Do: means the way of intercepting your fist a fighting style for street fighting. His wrist muscle is alot bigger than Mike Tyson's, the bigger the faster and more powerful your arms will be and of caase faster than jet Li, his nowhere up to bruce you gotta take on jackie before reaching up to the king, but thats not it, Tong Lung is a master of JKD, jackie chan while the king of hopping is a stuntmaster, Tong Lung that lucky ******* was teached by bruce lee. Believe me no one, and i mean no one can take bruce lee down. Jet Li and Jackie Chan was the one who wanted to be like Bruce Lee, and if he didn't exist Jet Li and Jackie chan wouldn't of been a popular martial-artist star and being poor. To tell you the truth between those 2 guys Jackie 19 yr of age had won against Jet li in a championship match. Nowadays they both hate eachother. Believe me? if yes, read on. If the world was surprised that the legend had showed up, they would of all scream out, and those of use who'ed played tekken 4 he would looked similar Marshall Law. his right now 20-30 yr older than jackie chan. Mike Tyson would die against him, all he had to do is just do one massive punch a straight leading punch in the head will twist his neck and dropped on the ground in less than 7 secs blood will be dripping out and he'll die, yeh man he can cause ripping a boxing bag is no big deal for him [ This Message was edited by: vaneulinh on 2001-12-10 05:24 ]
mastertae Posted December 16, 2001 Posted December 16, 2001 Jacki chan has said that bruce lee is a better fighter...infact they were friends and bruce lee gave jackie chan tips....bruce lee's movie style, which isthe one they use in video games and demos! is a slowed down and isnt even how bruce lee fights version...infact Jackie Chan was kicked about 12-15 feet back when Bruce lee accidently kicked him and since bruce lee wasnt even kicking his fastest or hardest that can give you all a clue of how good he is....also Bruce Punched so fast that you literally couldnt see all his punches...Jackie Chan is no were and was no were near Bruce Lee's skill level...Jackie chan says he still has along way to go until he reaches even close to Bruce Lee's skill Is it not easier to strike a mountain than it is to strike a fly!
mastertae Posted December 17, 2001 Posted December 17, 2001 I also wanted to add thatbruce lee actually larned tai chi when he was younger than in his afew years before he was a true teen when he became more serious he did wing chun....also Bruce Lee didn't block as mch in his fights he would actually hit you in between your hits...also Bruce Lee was a strong believer in using you surroundings in a few of his books he talked about using chais a fence a way...a belt...a shirt...ect...as use as weapons...he did not believe that one style is better than another style...and most of his fights lasted less than ten seconds when he tried Is it not easier to strike a mountain than it is to strike a fly!
ramcalgary Posted December 17, 2001 Posted December 17, 2001 Bruce Lee was a martial artist first Jackie Chan always has been a performer first nuff said. If you are going to talk about fights lets be realistic how about .... Roy Jones Jr. vs. Frank Shamrock Ali vs. .......... Honor is the most important thing a man has once you lose it it is gone forever
CTpizzaboy Posted December 17, 2001 Posted December 17, 2001 Bruce Lee would bet up Jackie Chan, if Bruce was still alive. However if Bruce was still alive, he would be in his fifties. They both did study Wing Cung, which is the basis of Jeetkundo so the fight would be a close one. The legend of Bruce will live on in all martial artist. Canh T.I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversations.
mastertae Posted December 17, 2001 Posted December 17, 2001 I just wanted to ask what you think of the new bruce lee video game and movie being made? also I heard that Jackie chan and Jet Li were going to do a movie together [ This Message was edited by: mastertae on 2001-12-17 17:51 ] Is it not easier to strike a mountain than it is to strike a fly!
Recommended Posts