Bruce Lee, Innovator?
Intro
A point-counterpoint discussion
Point
Bruce Lee was a great martial artist, a great martial arts movie star, and a great martial arts innovator and philosopher.
Counterpoint
Bruce Lee was a great martial artist and a popular martial arts movie star, but he WAS NOT a great martial arts innovator and philosopher. For Bruce Lee fans, this statement is sacrilegious, but it’s my opinion and my counterpoint discussion explains my view on the subject.
I was a fan of his movies at one time, but I have never viewed him as a great innovator. He was just an accomplished martial artist and a personable actor. His “insights” of traditional martial arts were no different than those of others before, during, and after his life. He just had his ardent followers, much like those who followed the lives of the Kardashian family during the early 2000s.
Bruce Lee’s ideas, theories, and writings have been quoted since his death in 1973 as being examples of his great martial art innovation, insight, and philosophy. However, little, if any, of Bruce Lee’s martial arts thinking was original.
Lee was born in 1940 and died in 1973 at age 33. He was a local martial artist who gained national fame after teaching Jeet Kune Do to movie stars who helped promote him and his ideas. Television and movies made him famous, not his expertise in the ring, not his being a great teacher or trainer, and not his being a great author, and certainly not his innovations in the martial arts.
Lee was an avid reader who collected information on the martial arts from many sources and used this information regularly in interviews and his writings. After his death, his supporters have quoted his statements and notes as being great original insights from Lee himself. One source of many of these quotes is the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, a collection of Lee’s notes that was published as a book in 1975, after his death. Lee intended to make the notes into a book, but he died before the book was written. After his death, Linda Lee, his wife, published the notes as though they were the original thoughts of a great martial arts master and philosopher.
I have a 1975 first edition of the Tao of Jeet Kune Do which lists no sources, references, or acknowledgments. Over the years, people have found that many of Lee's notes in the book were not his original ideas, so later additions of the book list an acknowledgment (a single paragraph in a tiny font in the middle of the title page) as to the source of some of the notes. Acknowledgments were not in the original book because there were no sources listed in the notes as to their origin. If Lee was planning to write a book from these notes, how would he know the sources of all the notes? In all his interviews where he put forth his philosophy of fighting, he stated his thoughts as if they were his original thoughts. It appears that Lee was claiming all the notes to be his original ideas.
Just because you are charming, witty, a good athlete, and an actor does not mean you are necessarily very bright or insightful. Lee's supporters seem to believe the end justifies the means; that Lee's shortcomings should be overlooked because of all he did to promote the martial arts.
Not only was there little original thinking in Lee’s thoughts on the martial arts, but there were also probably little original thoughts in the sources from which Lee gained his insights. After all, all we are talking about here is hand-to-hand combat between two human beings. Humans have been fighting since Cain fought and killed Abel. Does anyone believe that, nowadays, anyone can come up with any thoughts on fighting that have not been thought of in the last few thousand years of human conflict?
Lee chronicled ideas he had read or observed that he thought were important. This does not make him a great innovator or philosopher; it just makes him an avid collector of ideas. I am much like Lee in this respect.
There have been hundreds of “founders” of new martial arts in the years since Lee’s death. Just as Lee did, they have merely repackaged “old” ideas to make something “new.”
Kip Brockett, in his article Bruce Lee Said What? documented some of the misconceptions about Bruce Lee’s martial arts insight. The following are some of the misconceptions revealed by Brockett.
Discussion
· TKDTutor's points and counterpoints are shown in rust color text.
1962 edition of Sports Illustrated: Book of Fencing
The book states:
It is a constant rapid shifting of ground, seeking the slight closing of distance, which will greatly increase the chances of hitting the opponent.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
…It is a constant, rapid shifting of ground, seeking the slightest closing which will greatly increase the chances of hitting the opponent.
TKDTutor: Since Lee was about 22 years of age in 1962 and unpublished, it is doubtful the Book of Fencing used any of his writings.
Yagyu Tajima no kami Munenori (1571-1646)
Over 300 years ago, Munenori, a Japanese swordsman, wrote:
…When this is realized, with all the training thrown to the winds, with a mind perfectly unaware of its own workings, with the self vanished nowhere anybody knows, the art of swordsmanship attains its perfection and one who has it is called a meijin.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
With all the training thrown to the wind, with a mind perfectly unaware of its own working, with the self vanishing nowhere, anybody knows where, the art of Jeet Kune Do attains its perfection.
TKDTutor: This part of Lee's philosophy must have come from Munenori.
D.T. Suzuki wrote his book Zen and Japanese Culture in 1959
Suzuki's quote from Tsunetomo:
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:Give up thinking as though not giving it up. Observe the technique as though not observing.
Give up thinking as though not giving it up. Observe techniques as though not observing.
Suzuki's quote from Tsunetomo:
I am moving all day and not moving at all. I am like the moon underneath the waves that ever go on rolling and rocking.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
I'm moving and not moving at all. I'm like the moon underneath the waves that ever go on rolling and rocking.
Suzuki's quote from Tsunetomo:
Let yourself go with the disease, be with it, keep company with it: this is the way to get rid of it.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
Let yourself go with the disease, be with it, keep company with it—this is the way to be rid of it.
Suzuki's quote from Tsunetomo:
Turn yourself into a doll made of wood: it has no ego, it thinks nothing; and let the body and limbs work themselves out in accordance with the discipline they have undergone. This is the way to win.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
Turn into a doll made of wood: it has no ego, it thinks nothing, it is not grasping or sticky. Let the body and limbs work themselves out in accordance with the discipline they have undergone.
Suzuki's quote from Tsunetomo:
Araki Matayemon [a great swordsman of the Tokugawa era] gave this instruction to his nephew, Watanabe Kazuma, when they were about to engage in the deadly fight with their enemy: 'Let the enemy touch your skin and you cut into his flesh; let him cut into your flesh and you pierce into his bones; let him pierce into your bones and you take his life!'
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
Approach Jeet Kune Do with the idea of mastering the will. Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life! Do not be concerned with your escaping safely- lay your life before him!
Suzuki also wrote about Zen as it applies to swordsmanship:
To state it in terms of swordsmanship, the genuine beginner knows nothing about the way of holding and managing the sword...when the opponent tries to strike him, he instinctively parries it. But as soon as the training starts, he is taught how to handle the sword,...and many other technical tricks- which makes the mind 'stop' at various junctures. For this reason whenever he tries to strike the opponent he feels unusually hampered; [he has lost altogether the original sense of innocence and freedom].But as days and years go by, as his training acquires fuller maturity, his bodily attitude and his way of managing the sword advance toward 'no-mind-ness,' which resemble the state of mind he had at the very beginning of training when he knew nothing, when he was altogether ignorant of the art. The beginning and the end thus turn into next-door neighbors.
John Little in his 1996 book, The Warrior Within, wrote that Lee "...drafted a fascinating philosophical treatise, which he called The Three Stages of Cultivation." Little wrote that Lee had said:
The first stage is the primitive stage. It is a stage of original ignorance in which a person knows nothing about the art of combat...he simply blocks and strikes instinctively...The second stage- the stage of sophistication or mechanical stage- begins when a person starts his training. He is taught the different ways of blocking, striking,...Unquestionably, he has gained the scientific knowledge of combat, but unfortunately his original self and sense of freedom are lost, and his action no longer flows by itself...his mind tends to freeze at different movements...The third stage- the stage of artlessness or spontaneous stage- occurs when, after years of serious and hard practice, the student realizes that after all, gung fu is nothing special...
TKDTutor: Since Lee was about 19 years of age in 1959 and unpublished when Suzuki's book was published, it is doubtful that Suzuki used any of Lee's writings. It appears that Lee’s “original” treatise was not so original after all.
In 1940, Edwin L. Haislet published his book Boxing
Haislet wrote:
The primary purpose of boxing is hitting. Therefore, the use of the fundamental position is to obtain the most favorable position for hitting…
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
The primary purpose of JKD is kicking, hitting and applying bodily force. Therefore, the use of the on-guard position is to obtain the most favorable position for the above-mentioned.
Haislet wrote:
…To hit effectively it is necessary to shift the weight constantly from one leg to the other. This means perfect control of body balance. Balance is the most important consideration of the fundamental position.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
To hit or to kick effectively, it is necessary to shift weight constantly from one leg to the other. This means perfect control of body balance. Balance is the most important consideration in the on-guard position.
Haislet wrote:
In boxing, the head is treated as if it were a part of the trunk with no independent action of its own. It should be carried forward, with the chin pinned down to the breastbone…
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
In Western boxing, the head is treated as if it were a part of the trunk, generally, with no independent action of its own. In close-in fighting, it should be carried vertically, with the point of the chin pinned to the collarbone and the side of the chin held against the inside of the lead shoulder…
Haislet wrote:
The chin is not 'tucked' behind the left shoulder except in an extreme defensive position. 'Tucking' the chin into the left shoulder turns the neck into an unnatural position, takes away the support of the muscles, and prevents straight bone alignment. It also tenses the left shoulder and arm, preventing free action and causing fatigue.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
The point of the chin is not tucked into the lead shoulder except when angling the head back in an extreme defensive position. Tucking the point of the chin into the lead shoulder turns the neck into an unnatural position, takes away the support of the muscles and prevents straight bone alignment. It also tenses the lead shoulder and arm, preventing free action and causing fatigue.
Haislet wrote:
With the chin dropped directly forward and pinned tight to the breast-bone the muscles and bone structure are in the best possible alignment, and only the top of the head is presented to the opponent making it impossible to hit a man on the point of the chin.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
With the chin dropped and pinned tight to the collarbone, the muscles and bone structure are in the best possible alignment and only the top of the head is presented to the opponent, making it impossible to be hit on the point of the chin.
Haislet wrote:
The fundamental boxing position is that position most favorable to the mechanical execution of the techniques and skills which make up boxing. It allows complete relaxation yet at the same time gives a muscle tonus most favorable to quick reaction time.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
The on-guard position is that position most favorable to the mechanical execution of all the total techniques and skills. It allows complete relaxation yet, at the same time, gives a muscle tonus most favorable to quick reaction time.
Haislet wrote:
Ducking is dropping the body forward under hooks and swings to the head. It is used as a means of escaping blows allowing the boxer to remain in range for a counterattack…It is just as necessary to learn to duck swings as it is to slip straight punches. Both are used for the same purpose, and both are important in counterattack.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
Ducking is dropping the body forward under swings and hooks (hands or feet) directed at the head…Ducking is used as a means of escaping blows and allowing the fighter to remain in range for a counterattack. It is just as necessary to learn to duck swings and hooks as it is to slip straight punches. Both are important in counterattacks.
Haislet wrote:
Rolling means nullifying the force of a blow by moving the body with the blow. Against a straight blow, the movement is backward; against hooks, to either side; and against uppercuts, it is backward and away.
In his 1975 book The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, Lee wrote:
Rolling nullifies the force of a blow by moving the body with it. Against a straight blow, the movement is backward. Against hooks, the movement is to either side. Against uppercuts, it is backward and away.
TKDTutor: Haislet published his book the year Lee was born, so Haislet certainly did not get his ideas from Lee.
More TKDTutor comments
Bruce Lee was not an original thinker. Lee published a booklet on Gong Fu in 1963 and an article in Back Belt magazine in 1971, everything published about Bruce Lee’s martial arts philosophy was written by others after his death. While he was alive, Lee made himself into a great martial artist and a great movie actor. After his death, others created Bruce Lee the great martial arts innovator and philosopher.
Sources
- Brockett, K. Bruce Lee Said What? (I can no longer find the article on the Internet)
- Lee, B. Chinese Gung Fu: the philosophical art of self-defense. Online at: https://archive.org/details/Bruce_Lee_Chinese_Gung_Fu/page/n99/mode/2up
Reader comments
Daniel wrote:
Read your two pages on Lee's Haislet, et al, quotes. Just wanted to say it's been known for quite a number of years now that "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do" as published after Lee's death, was not meant for publication. His widow even declares as much in her introduction, in that "book," in 1975. The "book" is based on his own personal research of the authors he quoted. He was not ripping any one off, anymore than others, who did not come up with the phrase, "at the end of the day," merely use the phrase as a means of describing their perception. Not sure what your agenda is. The man has stepped into the halls of history as a pioneer in martial arts, "and that, my friend," is innovation. Whoops, didn't mean to plagiarize that phrase! Thank you for your time.
TKDTutor Reply:
In the introduction to the 1975 edition of Tao of Jeet Kune Do, by Bruce Lee, Linda Lee says that over the last 19 years of Bruce’s life (starting at age 13, which means the first 7 years were the writings of a teenager) that Bruce wrote his ideas and thoughts in a series of volumes. She says Bruce intended to publish the book in 1971, but his film work kept him from completing it. He had not published the book by the time he died in 1973 because he was “making movies.” Linda says Bruce intended the book as a “record of one man’s way of thinking.”
When you quote the ideas and thoughts of others and claim them to be your own ideas and thoughts—that is plagiarism. Bruce neither made notes that indicated which of the written ideas and thoughts were from others nor did he list the sources from which they came. Therefore, Linda Lee and Bruce Johnson, the collaborator who wrote the book, assumed the ideas and thoughts were all from Bruce. Over the years after the book was published, readers found that many of the ideas and thoughts were from others. The plagiarized items mentioned in TKDTutor.com were only a few those found over the years. It was only in later editions of the book that a disclaimer was added.
TKDTutor. com is also a collection of ideas and thoughts; does that make me an innovator and philosopher? As I said in the topic, “Just because you are charming, witty, a good athlete, and an actor does not mean you are necessarily very bright or insightful. Lee's supporters seem to believe the end justifies the means; that Lee's shortcomings should be overlooked because of all he did to promote the martial arts.”
My agenda? To inform martial art students, by presenting factual information, and by exposing misinformation. The topic stated its thesis in the first sentence, “Bruce Lee, a great martial artist? Yes! Bruce Lee, a great martial arts movie star? Yes! Bruce Lee, a great martial arts innovator and philosopher? No!” and then it presents facts to support that thesis. The topic closed with the statement “Bruce Lee was not an original thinker. Everything published about Bruce Lee’s martial arts philosophy was written by others after his death. While he was alive, Lee made himself a great martial artist and a great movie actor. After his death, others created Bruce Lee the great martial arts innovator and philosopher.”
If you think Bruce Lee was a great innovator and philosopher—show me! Other than his disputed notes and his hyped movies, the only evidence we have of his innovation and philosophy are the anecdotal memories of his friends and students.
Daniel wrote:
Thanks for responding. I have no problem with your assertions, other than then "Bruce Lee, a great martial arts innovator and philosopher? No!" Specifically, the "great martial arts innovator...no!" aspect. Name 3 people in his era who were doing what he was doing back then - publicly questioning realistic martial training, tying it back to its non-traditional roots. Back to laws of physics, etc. Who, other than a few in fencing and Western boxing, years earlier, were doing this in martial arts? "Everything [?] published about Bruce Lee’s martial arts philosophy was written by others after his death." I mean, you were there 24/7? Then, again, so what? So what, if that borrowed truth serves to liberate? No, his "plagiarizing" is not excusable. But we have no proof he intended to publish those "notes" in that form. No malice intended, by the way.
TKDTutor Reply:
I know of no book published by Bruce Lee before he died. All the books about him and his philosophy were written by others after his death.
Nobody seems to know whether or not Lee intended to publish his notes in the form they were published (meaning them being his ideas and thoughts on the martial arts) but the fact is, they were published in that form and many people still believe the writings to be the revelations of a great innovator, not the thoughts of others that were “borrowed” by a movie star.
Although criticized by martial art “experts” of the time, and since, Bruce Tegner’s many, many published books in the 1960s and 70s put all types of martial art techniques and philosophies in the public eye. Seeing the martial art advertisements and books piqued the interest of many people who had never thought about the subject before, including me.
I have always been inquisitive and questioning; seeking to learn all I can about everything. Once I got interested in martial arts in the 1960s through these advertisements, I read everything I could find on the subject. I learned a lot from a few instructors through the decades, but I learned even more from the hundreds of books I read. In one’s lifetime, you can only train with a few instructors; however, through reading, you can learn the thoughts and concepts of thousands of instructors.
I once had a martial art library of over 300 books that I accumulated during my world travels with the Navy. After hauling them around the world during moves for decades, I have since thinned the collection to about 100 key books. It wasn’t too difficult to donate excess books since most of them did not have any new information or original thought. As Lee did, I made notes from all the books I read and used them to teach others. I still have the notes, so I hope no one publishes them after I die as all being my thoughts.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of books were published before Lee’s time. The authors all made notes and outlines as they wrote the books. We see their final products but not their notes. Just because we have Lee’s notes, it does not make the notes anything special.
There were many martial artists in the 1970s, and since, who have taught the same concepts espoused by Lee. Unlike Lee, they just did not have a Hollywood student who gave them bit parts in the Green Hornet and thus put them into the public eye. Lee was a great martial artist performer. Had it not been for this entertainment success, few people would know of or remember him. There have been hundreds of greater athletes, greater fighters, and greater philosophers than Lee, both before and after his lifetime, that are still relatively unknown because they were not movie stars.
Speaking of philosophy, you state that “So what, if that borrowed truth serves to liberate.” Is it your contention that the ends justify the means? Is it okay for me to take your things if I need them more than you do or that I use them to help others? This is a philosophy espoused by criminals and politicians. I once had a musician friend who spouted this same philosophy all the time; then someone stole his guitar and music he had written. He was angry and grumbling about the theft. I said, “I thought your philosophy was that it was okay to steal something if you needed it more than the owner did. Maybe the thief needs your things more than you do.” His reply was, “That may be true for the guitar, but he did not need my music.” The words of a philosophy are easy to say, they are much harder to practice.
Daniel wrote:
"Chinese Gung-Fu," first published in 1963. Free download: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101782/chinese-gung-fu-bruce-lee There is also a thesis he wrote while a student at Edison High School and another while at Washington University - in both he consistently credits his sources. I was looking at one of them last night, but I must've forgotten to bookmark it and I always clear my history, right after I email someone, as not doing so, and then visiting other sites can sometimes result in unceasing email spams. Tuttle Books did this to me, for example, as did Meng's Martial Arts. In a sense, you're right on about Tegner - he, like Bartitsu's founder, Barton-Wright, before him (no connection to Tegner), was everywhere and even went beyond Tegner's separate "arts" books; compiling them (various arts) into one art (though still traditional). http://ejmas.com/jmanly/articles/2006/jmanlyart_wolf_0506.html
Still, they were not out attacking established "dry-land swimming" as Lee rightfully did. Can you think of anyone else? By the way, Jeet Kune Do is not a combination of techniques from various arts. Rather, it is a combination of techniques based on laws of force, leverage, etc. More on this at some other time. Also, Lee was "public" with his views way, way before the Green Hornet. In fact, it was his public demos that lead to his Green Hornet audition, and not the other way around. Again, what is your true agenda, that you overlook these things? And no, the end does not justify the means. My comment had to do with something I remembered. Years ago, Jim Arvanitis, founder of Modern Pankration, published a book in which he plagiarized "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do," but his book had way more illustrations and a lot of other material. Upon receiving that book, I recall thinking, "Yeah, he's ripped Lee off, but it's a nice collection of sources, etc., I think I'll keep it." For me, in that context, my end, justified his means. I see "The Tao of JKD" in that way. Fools rushed to publish it without checking the sources, nevertheless, for me, it was the next best thing to having been allowed access to his amazing library. Yes, in its present state, it is plagiarized material. Still Lee's own published works do not reflect that as being his way of doing things. Anyway, thanks for continuing on this. I promise I'll track down those sites.
Daniel Wrote:
Here's one of the links wherein Lee gives credit where credit is due. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ray.d8/essay1.html I am much into Lee. Not posters and a lock of his hair or whatever, but his viewpoint on martial arts.
TKDTutor Reply:
Thanks for the info and the links. I've never been fascinated with Lee or his legacy so I'm not a Lee historian. I pick a subject, research it, form an opinion, and then write on the subject in TKDTutor. I will consider the points you have brought up and the new information you presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment