Archives
Martial Arts Related Articles
The Deconstruction of Bruce Lee - Is this heated debate a prime example of what's wrong in the martial arts world today? By Sifu Michael Hall
The August 1998 issue of KARATE/KUNG FU ILLUSTRATED has an article in it that examines the condition Bruce Lee was in while still alive and asks the question, "Was he overrated?" Internet chat rooms are full of people arguing the validity of Lee's opinions and theories, some even accusing the man of outright plagiarism and empty posing. Bruce Lee has gone from being the most consistently-respected figure in 20th century martial arts history to being one of it's most-hotly debated topics of scrutiny...and if I'm not mistaken, I think that says something about a lot of us, and I intend to explore that here.
Let us first address the questions many are expressing about Lee. Was his physical conditioning overrated? According to scientific data published in K/KFI (8-98), it would appear so. However, a couple of items need to be taken into consideration here before the passing of judgement...1. Lee's training was taking place in the late 60's and early 70's. Sports science has made huge advancements since then. It's possible that Bruce was in the best shape he could be in at the time, not knowing then what we know now. Is it fair to judge him by today's scientific standards? 2. For the sake of argument, let's say that Bruce could've stood some improvement. So what? What is it about Americans that we cannot accept the possibility of a few failings in our heroes? Bruce and Linda were split up when Bruce died; did you know that? He was human, just like the rest of us. He had flaws, feelings, and he made mistakes. The bottom line is this: Bruce Lee was in excellent shape overall for what he wanted to accomplish, and that's really what needs to be considered...not the folklore or the hero-worship, but the actual results he achieved.
Another hot topic in the Bruce Lee debate is the Wing Chun that Bruce studied before JKD started to evolve into its own entity. Arguments abound as to whether or not Bruce still practiced Wing Chun, even after alleged statements in which he dismissed the value of traditional forms. In fact, the forms themselves are the real hot topic...did Bruce actually dismiss them entirely, and where is the right or wrong in this action?
In looking for the answer to this question, the first thing I realized was this: thus far, nearly everyone I have seen, heard, or met that has posed an answer to this question has slanted it to suit themselves in some way. Traditional forms teachers will often say that he still practiced forms despite what he wrote. JKD concepts instructors say that forms are the anathema of JKD, but at the same time, Bruce's original vision of JKD is vigilantly protected by Dan Inosanto...the division in the camp of JKD practicioners can get so complicated and irksome, that it's no suprise this issue has become so muddled. (An official answer from Inosanto would be nice, though...maybe things would settle down a bit.) Teachers in Japanese-descended schools just shrug when asked about Bruce Lee; having not descended from the same martial tree, it just isn't their area. So on and on it goes. One person claims to have a radio interview in which Bruce says forms are an utter waste, another claims to have a printed transcript of an interview in which he talks about his daily forms routine! AAAGGHHH!
The truth? I don't know...I never had the pleasure of knowing Bruce Lee. But I do know what I've read, and I do know what I have learned in researching this article. Again, we have a problem with American perception (no big suprise here...the arts originated in a very different culture, and, psychologically speaking, the Americans are still infants in the arts...so far, the big American contribution has been marketing!) Everyone spins their take on the forms debate to suit themselves and their own agenda...we forget that the main accomplishment of Bruce's career was to bring the arts to the masses, which gave us all the credibility to grow into the community/industry we are today. Shouldn't that be enough? No, it isn't...not for us, anyway. We are apparently unable to decipher anything from context anymore. That's right, context. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Bruce was saying as far as the veracity of forms training goes:
Forms are fine as training tools, but are NOT adequate preparation for COMBAT! That's it! How difficult is that to glean from the combined works of one man? What is our problem?
Part of our problem lies in marketing. A lot of us stand to make an extra buck here and there if we can somehow attach the Lee name to the style we teach...don't deny it. So, for that extra dollar, we spin the facts. It's not a new practice, by any means, and not unique to the American schools. But it's getting worse.
Magazines need articles that will sell. What sells better than a controversial dissection of Lee's teachings? After all, the man's dead! And as we all know, a dead artist is always ripe for dissection. Schools need clout. Clout can best be generated by lineage. A connection to Lee is a huge financial boon, but if you can't have that, the next best thing is to cast aspersions on the Lee legacy by accusing Dan Inosanto and Linda Lee of commercial opportunism. Mudslinging, in other words...another concept that's hardly new.
But what does all of this say about the martial arts world in general? A number of things, really.
1. We have begun the deconstruction of our heroes, which happens naturally at least once per generation, but now we're doing it for reasons other than self-examination via extension; now we do it for profit.
2. We are questioning our arts. In the wake of the advent of NHB events, this is understandable, as many styles that have not fared well on this frontier have back-pedalled towards more traditional forms studies, which they are better suited to (TKD is a good example here...it has had virtually no real success in NHB).
3. We are NOT functioning as a community. We are as yet unable to agree on simple, contextual issues, whether that inability is due to blatant denial, marketing agendas, or simple promotion.
Bruce Lee inspired many of us to teach. He inspired even more of us to study. The value of that contribution is immeasurable. Regardless of his actual physical conditioning, his relationships with others, and his position on issues of training...shouldn't this contribution be enough to bind us together in at least one way?
It's important that we do not lionize our heroes to a degree that they become liabilities. But the final line is this: a great many of us owe a LOT to Bruce Lee, both the man and the legend. Does this argument better us as martial artists? If it does, fine. But if it doesn't, it is useless. And as such, it should be cut away.
Which was Bruce's message in the first place.