Yo mama's! Har!

I'm not even sure why people would question this. In the mid 90's UFC came along and showed the entire world just how incomplete all the Martial arts were. The one guy that knew this, and had been saying it over 20 years prior was Bruce Lee. It seems pretty obvious that the guy that trains to actually fight would be able to beat the best point fighters of that era. Those guys were competing within a strict set of boundries, while Bruce was trying to break the mold a bit more.
I think people really take offense to him being this untouchable godlike fighter, and he really wasn't, he was way ahead of his time.

I think anyone would have serious doubts about champs besting Lee in sparring or we'd sure know about it. Lee took sparring seriously and didn't mess about. I heard he was really rough and tough in sparring and onlookers would sometimes tell him to take it easier on opponents.
These sparring sessions were basically opportunities to find out you wasn't at lees level. Lee would hurt these champs in sparring, Lee didn't mess about. So the champs would have tried hurt Bruce in return. From my understanding they couldn't do much too bruce. I'm sure when Lee hit them they were thinking I'm a champion this shouldn't be happening. They would have really tried take Lee out, and Lee wouldn't have had it any other way as he was into realism and what Lee was doing was a real wake up call to them
Lee not being a champion in a sport would have something to prove to these champs he encountered. It woiukd be important to Bruce that they knew he was better. That he had much to offer even if he didn't have trophies.
If they bested Lee in sparring then I wouldn't know what all the fuss about Bruce would be? But nobody bested Lee in sparring. He was awesome by all accounts. Because he was awesome people are intrigued as to how he'd do in competion, thinking he would do extremely well of course

Here are my thoughts. I think there are a lot of friends of Bruce Lee who trained with him who are inclined to keep his legend alive. I think they have a ton of respect for him and thought he was a terrific martial artist and they are inclined to mostly talk of his prowess and say positive things.
To act like he has never been "bested" himself in all of these friendly sparring and training sessions is silly. Not to mention, being great in sparring sessions doesn't necessarily equal being a great fighter.
Being a true martial artist like Bruce Lee was, he not only trained with all these fighters and martial artists as a teacher but he was also training with them to learn. That's what being a complete martial artist is all about, learning as much as you can.
Chuck Norris said himself when he first met Bruce Lee he didn't believe in kicks above the waste. But Norris's philosophy was if the kick is there then you should go for it. Not long after they trained together Bruce Lee started incorporating more head kicks into his art.
And you have to know when Lee trained with Gene Lebell and they worked on grappling, Lee must have gotten tossed around and chocked out tons of times. There is no shame in this. That's how you learn. You have to go through these steps to get better. Bruce Lee was only 32 when he died, trust me, he still had plenty left to learn as a martial artist.
So the mentioning of him "besting champions" is most likely them speaking to moments in training/sparring where he got the upper hand. I'm sure his partners had plenty of moments where they "bested" Lee as well. That's just logic.
RIP Bob Probert

Beating someone in an "official" fight doesn't make one better than another. Matt Serra was not better than GSP. Buster Douglas was not better than Tyson. Joe Frazier was not better than Ali.
It doesn't matter whether you don't personally think Bruce Lee's unofficial credits and legacy are legit. It doesn't matter that you personally need video and photograhic evidence to legitimize the claims of all the people who knew and interacted with Bruce Lee in his lifetime. It doesn't matter that you don't count his list of pupils as proof towards his skill and talent. It basically doesn't matter what you do or don't think of Bruce Lee, because the fact will always remain that he was one of the greatest martial artists of all time with or without enough video footage to obtain your blessing.

It's called humbleness<<
Is their even any evidence he thought this? All ive heard is that someone has implied Lee thought this. I can give you testimonies of people saying bruce lee thought he could beat anyone as well.

He even said Muhammad Ali would kill him because he has small Chinese hands!
It's called humbleness.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE EATING SAUSAGES!!

This message has been deleted.

As I said many times here, I was lucky enough to be able to discuss Bruce Lee with world Karate champion John Worley (taught by close personal friend of Lee's, Jhoon Rhee) about six months after seeing ETD when it was released here. I knew I wanted to learn more about Bruce Lee after seeing the f1354ilm, but then you can't always believe what you seen on the screen. What sealed the deal for me was talking with Worley. When I had asked him if he thought Bruce could have been a world champion fighter, he told me "It's a good thing Bruce Lee didn't compete. It would have been futile for his opponents regardless of their size." I was extremely impressed by this statement, knowing that Worley was a world champion himself, and was so impressed with Bruce Lee!
I knew I had to not only learn more about him as a human being, but also study his training methods.
As far as stories of Lee besting other world champions?
Aside from Jim Kelly stating in the interview that started this thread, that he knew who Bruce Lee sparred with, and that they wont tell how good Lee was, there must have been some MIGHTY bruised egos!
Here is an excerpt from the book Bruce Lee: The Incomparable Fighter.
Blackbelt Magazine publisher Mito Uyehara is the one narrating the story
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z4qHatHRJlsC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=bruce+lee+champions&source=bl&ots=VZlnO9LcjQ&sig=PTlr9lf9fvywTARNEsI3_7WSKCg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FddXVeGAMcPutQXs2IGgBg&ved=0CGQQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=bruce lee champions&f=false
His anecdotes are completely in line with Kelly and all of the other fighters who's ego's didn't stop them from relating just how good Bruce Lee really was. There truly is a code of silence among some of these fighters.
I'm getting a definite sense that Chuck Norris is one of the guys Kelly was talking about. That book excerpt falls in line with what that reporter witnessed at a "training session" with Lee, Norris, and Lewis. The reporter chuckled at how Lee was treating the champs like children.
And like that book said, they've all got egos too. Lee always struck me a bit like Mozart. Very self confident and aware of his greatness.but perhaps not always tactful in expressing that self confidence. That is going to rub some people the wrong way.
As for the idea that private training sessions cannot result in anyone "besting" anyone.well that's an odd thing to say. Any kind of training between any two athletes results in that being established. Play a "friendly" game of basketball practice with your friends and you still are going to know who is superior. Sparring is inherently about testing your skill against another person. Of course both would know who "bested" who. There is no mystery there.

A landed kick or punch can cause great psychological damage to the person getting hit. Especially if this happens time and time again.
This seems likely contrary to what we know/say about Bruce (and any of these other guys, for that matter)that they chose to and liked to spar a lot.
I'm projecting what I know of the folks I've seen for decades who sparred and liked to spar, with no particular psychological damage evident (to me). So, I assume these guys were also not particularly psychologically damaged nor damaging by sparring. Why do you say otherwise? (open mind, here. Trying to be fair and transparent about why I can't wrap my brain around this) Perhaps I'm ignorant to how damaged/damaging sparring has always been, likely due to being brain and psychologically damaged from it
When Delgado said he was completely baffled and awestruck by Lee when they fought, obviously he couldn't deal with the challenges that sparring with Bruce Lee had presented. Therefore Delgado's skill was inferior. The same can be said regarding Lieb, Burleson, Kelly and Wall among others. SOMETHING in their sparring matches convinced them they were no match for Bruce Lee.
Perhaps, but in my experience its
never
so binary and sweeping.
I've2000 been baffled and impressed by many opponents regarding many skills many times. And had zero ego or psychological concerns about saying so. Yet, still I was able to "best" them in a variety of ways, including in full blown competition, at times. So, its just not an either/or situation, realistically. It seems to logically equate to a fallacy, something like "if you struggle against someone or praise them, that means you were inferior, and also defeated privately by them" and that seems nonsensical. I'm sure, of course, it happens. But I'm also sure that other times such words are not proof of a competition, let alone proof that either side knows what would occur in a hypothetical competition that never occurs.
you have to remember that Lee was there in the capacity of instructor for the most part, so it is to be expected if it was one sided.
I'm not even sure about the "for the most part" thing. Yes, he was an instructor to many, for the most part. It's not clear to me that he was instructor to all of these guys. And I am willing to assert he was never an instructor (of note) in any form of grappling, which he did studywhich means in at least that area of martial arts, he was learning grappling by being a student or perhaps "seeking out training while avoiding the term 'student'", for the most part. Or, if we use the mindset/definitions of your premiseshe was likely being "bested" when grappling, at least. Or else he never learned how to grapple, since I believe that NOBODY in the history of grappling has become an effective grappler until after being grappled thousands of times and ways.
In other wordsI cannot imagine that Bruce developed submission skill unless he tapped too many times to count along the way. Or boxing skill unless he "lost" too many rounds to count, along the way.
This is because there's no such thing in my experience as a grappler or boxer who has ever developed high level skill without such occurrences. And it pops my brain to presume that Bruce Lee was the first and onlybecause we both know that approaches the "magic Bruce Lee" nonsense that I think we both have an aversion towards.
However, we are talking about an elite group of fighters who are used to winning, and have tremendous egos. It's in their nature to be highly competitive.
Hmmm. Maybe.
It may not sound like itbut I'm honestly asserting/proposing a view of Bruce Lee that is better than one that is so ego-driven competitive that he did not allow himself to do things in training that would expose his areas in need of improvement.
RatherI hope that he did the opposite. To me, at least, training against those who have skills that you need to work on means Bruce conquered his ego in the name of well-rounded training and a stronger resultant skillset.
Butit implies that to be accurate, at best we must predict that IF Bruce "bested" his training partners, sure, okay. And, he was "bested" by training partners too. And nobody worried about talking about it for the same reason that every boxer wrestler I've known never worries about these practice "bestings." They are just part of training, in my experience.
I just don't think its as worrisome to the psyche as I think you do.
What you have described here is more in line with drills, than free sparring.
No, I don't mean drilling, sorry for not being clear.
Resistance full-speed, etc but focused on expanding one's technique set by choosing the technique one wants to develop. NOT "free" at all since you don't choose the stuff you have that you know you can use to dominate the other guy. Rather you choose the stuff you want to develop.
But its totally
not
drilling whatsoever (in my parlance, at leastdrilling is broken down, not dynamic, not fully resisted, to literally lear

That's the most compelling argument that Bruce Lee won in competition vs. Bob Wall and Joe Lewis that has ever been formulated!
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Im sure Jim Kelly with his enquiring mind, wanted to know what happened when Bob Wall sparred with Bruce lee if Jim wasn't witness to it on the ETD, although there are photos of him looking on, whilst Bob and Bruce are either choreographing fight scenes or sparring.
Im sure Bob Wall would have told Jim Kelly that Lee was untouchable. Im sure if Bob Wall had of touched Lee he might be telling us how tough Lees chin was. Im certain Jim Kelly would also like to have known if Bob Wall sparred with Lee not on the set of ETD also, as Bob and Lee had known each other for years and years. But Jim wont name names. Im sure Peter Archer would have discussed with Jim as well seeing Bruce lee make Bob look rather sluggish and slow.
Either way, Jim Kelly was there and is being as honest and truthful as he can be with the feedback he has got.

Yes Kelly was there. He heard about the tails and anecdotes
Contradict, much?
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Yes Kelly was there. He heard about the tails and anecdotes from many tournament players. But Jim Kelly is a gentleman. He wont name names and when champs told Kelly Lee was untouchable. It stays with Jim Kelly, he wont reveal names. Now that is a gentleman and man of honour.
It wouldn't surprise me if Mullins, Delgado and Norris told Jim that they couldn't touch Lee. But again Jim is a gent. Shame Jon Benn isn't a gentleman when revealing Norris told him nobody could beat Bruce lee, let alone himself.
It didn't occur to Benn, that Norris might not want the whole world to know he said that. Norris knows his fans don't want to hear that.

Bruce lee bested many champions and that is obviously a sensitive issue for his critics.
All
these guys bested many champions.
Oops, you don't want that acknowledged.
Bruce lee critics don't mind saying Lee bested people, so long as we assume they bested Lee as well?
If they never competed, then its sound to say that nobody bested anybody. But you avoid that.
If they sparred and one is inclined to tally up sparring sessions as "bestings" (which is weird to me, but I can deal with it for the sake of argument) then it is sound to say that multiple guys "bested" each other incessantly, because all these guys knew how to train realistically. But you avoid that.
But imagining that all training sessions with Bruce Lee were exclusively one-sided beat downs by Bruce, no matter what he was learning or whom he was training withthat's
not
what you avoid. That's what you promote, and it makes Bruce appreciation appear to be delusional.
but he cant punch and hes too stiff. These karate champs certainly didn't that's for sure.
No, even if Chuck could not punch well (which is dubious) that has no impact on the punches of
all
these other karate champs. Nobody has ever furthered a reasonable argument that these guys couldn't punch, including Bruce Lee himself.
Or IF Bruce really did decide HE could punch but Chuck and all these karate guys could not, then Bruce was delusional. So I oppose that picture you paint of Bruce Lee, too.
So, why do you? You want to demean the reputations of others thinking it enhance5b4s Bruce Lee's. But it does not accomplish what you think it does.
He was there,
No he wasn't. I've never heard
anyone
say Kelly was there when Lee sparred with Mullins (which you imagined; Mullins himself disputes you) or trained with Joe Lewis or learned judo from Gene LeBell or
anything like that.
Nonsense.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Bruce lee bested many champions and that is obviously a sensitive issue for his critics. The guys Lee bested outside of competion shouldn't make critics insecure but they obviously are very insecure. They cant take comfort about boasting about their idols trophies in their cabinet alone, that is not enough for them.
Bruce lee critics don't mind saying Lee bested people, so long as we assume they bested Lee as well? Well, im sorry I cant do that on the basis someone claims they landed a spinning hook kick once. Bruce lee said Norris had nice fancy kicks, but he cant punch and hes too stiff. These karate champs certainly didn't that's for sure. Jon Benn said Norris told him that nobody could beat Bruce lee and that he would be no match for Lee. Ive heard through the grapevine that Norris denied saying that. Norris might have some credibility to me and others if he said I never said that to Jon Benn. But he would have to mention that name Jon Benn. That way Jon Benn could reply back in actual fact you did say it. Which Norris did. But Jon might feel guilty in fact for revealing private conversations. Of course Norris would have loved Jon to have kept that private. Norris knows he has many fans and they don't want to hear Norris admit anything. I give credit to Norris for that though, he is responsible and obviously cares very much for his fans.
Jim Kelly has no problem acknowledging that he felt Lee was a level above anyone he had encountered. Jim Kelly should know, he fought Benny Urquidez to a draw afterall. So im not going to feel guilty reiterating what he implies. He was there, he knows more than me, people can learn lot from him and his feedback he got from people who were also there.

Not honest to count only the time Lee bested others?
It wouldn't be honest, if that's not what occurred.
o Jim Kelly is a dishonest man as he is commenting on the times he knows Lee bested champions?
No.
You're
a dishonest man to conclude that Lee bested others that nobody says he did, or to say that only it was only one-sided, when nobody says that either.
You're the one who literally concealed stuff like Mullins' statement that he's not aware of Lee fighting let alone besting any of these folks. In order to argue that Mullins thinks Lee bested these folks, including himself.
This implies that you are saying that Mullins would know from sparring who defeated whom. Yet in the very same article you're told stuff like Mullins knows that Chuck was the smartest fighter. To be intellectually honest, not only would you not be using the concealment/cherry picking tacticsbut you'd likely be inclined towards deducing that Mullins has confirmed that Chuck is a smarter fighter than Bruce. Yet you don't bother with complete academics.
It might not be the truthbut there's still an intellectually honest way to read the materialand you're eschewing even that.
yet we have an individual on this thread and board trying to lay a guilt trip on people who give Lee credit and choose not to say negative things about him?
You
should
feel guilty for saying that Bruce Lee defeated folks like Skipper Mullins, when all signs point to no.
You're the rubbish that tarnishes Bruce Lee's fandom as beep Don't be that.
There are many ways to appreciate Bruce Lee without manufacturing defeats of specific others, baselessly. You're not even aware that your "fandom" is contingent upon irrational demeaningness to others.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Not honest to count only the time Lee bested others?
So Jim Kelly is a dishonest man as he is commenting on the times he knows Lee bested champions? Jim kelly needs his wrist slapped for not talking about things he and most likely nobody on earth knows about ie besting Lee? SMH
Theres enough people who intentionlly and knowingly talk utter rubbish about Lee online, almost make a living out of it - yet we have an individual on this thread and board trying to lay a guilt trip on people who give Lee credit and choose not to say negative things about him? The audacity literally astounds me and leaves me speechless.
Someone is obviously trying to play the moral high ground game, but doing a poor job of it. As i say, some things dont change around here.

I cant understand why some people wont accept that Bruce lee bested people when evidence suggests he did
I accept that he bested likely all these people in myriad ways.
I just reject that that's
all
that occurred. That's all. If you reread you'll notice that this has nothing to do with whether Bruce was skilled or fast or impressive. He was. Justbig deal. I'm skilled and fast and impressive compared to 98% of the people I train; that doesn't imply that I "best" them. And it certainly doesn't that I am never "bested." It's just a conclusion that seems like it doesn't follow.
And I MUST reject a conclusion that the
only
thing that occurred is Lee "besting" othersrather than it being mutual and standard "too many to count bestings on both sides because that's how training goes" based on NOBODY talking about it clearly. That's the worst possible basis to use imaginable. It basically means we should conclude it was one sided defeats based on NOBODY discussing or mentioning one sided defeats. That's the opposite of reasoning and usage of evidence.
Its clear Bruce lee bested many people in his lifetime.
And its clear that he was bested by many people in his lifetime
lest he never trained realistically nor learned anything significant.
That's my point.
So if there are too many bestings to count on all sidesthen its not honest to count only the times Lee bested others.
Im sure while Lee was learning Wing CHun he has been bested by William Cheung or Wong shuen Luen at some point in his development though.
Sure, and because Lee loved to try and learn OTHER stuffyou should be equally sure that's how it goes. There's nothing special about WC that would "best" Lee. It's called training. It applies to all arts.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Again, im sure Jim Kelly has had many talks with people in his own field. With tournament fighters on the circuit. Im sure they talk about their experiences with Bruce lee. Im 100% certain Jim has spoken at length with people who have sparred or encountered Lee on some level. Im sure they've told Jim they couldn't touch him. Id put a lot of money on that. Jim Kelly is not saying Lee has never been touched, he only met Lee in 1970s. But Jim Kelly has stood in front of Lee, so if he either thought Lee was untouchable because he himself didn't think he could touch Lee, hes entitled to that opinion. If the tournament fighters Jim spoke to, and the tails he heard led him to believe nobody was able to touch him, hes entitled to say he was untouchable.
I cant understand why some people wont accept that Bruce lee bested people when evidence suggests he did, id put my life on it? Actually I do know why some wont accept it, but I will bite my tongue and not throw the insults, im tired of that now.
Its clear Bruce lee bested many people in his lifetime. Countless people have co5b4me forward admitting that. From Lees students, to his peers like Delgado. Many have admitted inferirotiy to Bruce lee, so no historian would have a problem with believing Lee had bested many tournament fighters. Or no historian would find it hard to believe Lee could have done or did, without having to think Lee has been bested as well. Either way, does it really matter?
So im not comfortable with certain individuals behaviour here with this desire for wanting people to believe Lee had been bested? Its like grasped out of thin air on a wing and a prayer. Wishful thinking almost. Who said they bested Lee or were better? That would be interesting to hear.It could be that I come to the conclusion that they are taking a posthumous cheapshot or even lying, but I would take each case on its own merit. I wouldn't totally dismiss the idea immediately even if I instinctively believe it to be BS.
Im sure while Lee was learning Wing CHun he has been bested by William Cheung or Wong shuen Luen at some point in his development though. But that's irrelevant to what Jim Kelly is implying during that snapshot of time.

Jim Kelly is not saying Lee has never been touched,
Actually, Jim Kelly seems to be saying he thinks Lee has never been touched.
Unless we're now agreeing that "untouchable" is hyperbole, even from Lee's most positive praisers. In which case, we do agree; its a fine phrase but its not to be taken literally. Therefore any subsequent declarations based on it should amount roughly to "Lee had sound, effective defense" which is a very different proposition that doesn't seem dubious.
There were no witnesses to that other than Norris word,
The point is there are no witnesses to any of these claims, except of course the claimants. And it is intellectually dishonest therefore to cherry pick from some claimants over others, baselessly. It's no more likely Chuck Norris lies than Jim Kelly lies.
However, its vastly more likely that hyperbole gets used in storytelling, so of course Lee could be touched like everyone else, and of course Norris' kicks could be blocked like everyone else. Either read people fairly and if not literally, at least with a consistent level of nuance. Otherwise its merely an exercise in being demeaning to anyone who doesn't confirm one's bias. And that's intellectually dishonest and in my book, even unethical if knowingly intentional.
Ascribing that these men lie about doing poorly but not about doing well is dubious. IF you use that toolor even judge it likelythen it instantly becomes likely that Lee did not tell others about his struggles and when he was bested because men lie about doing poorly. And so it gets us nowhere, except exposes who we are propagandizing for if we use "the negative about Bruce people are liars, the positive about Bruce people are honest!"
To be fair, Victor, I don't think you think about thinking, so its not unethical. And Neb on the other branch only process Lee and info fairly. But if you want to know why I argue, and why I argue against both of you differentlythat's still why.
Skipper Mullins is referring to the people he fought in competion, because I assume that is what the interviwer is asking.
Since its a known truism to both at the time of the interview that Bruce never competedits clearly about outside-of-competition experience, to me.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Jim Kelly said he had heard stories about who Bruce lee sparred with, and the conclusions hes coming to are that Bruce lee was untouchable in sparring sessions from what hes seen and heard. Jim Kelly is not saying Lee has never been touched, so bringing up stories about Chuck being able to land a spinning kick is petty and reaching and neither here or there. There were no witnesses to that other than Norris word, but he goes on to say he was never able to land that kick again anyway.
Whenver Lee has been on show, its always stories of how overwhelming bruce lee was. Peter Archer said he saw Bruce spar with Bob wall and said Bob was having much difficulty with Bruce lee. Bruces sheer speed and athletism made Wall look real slow. Although Archer had seen many great martial artists who physically great at what they did. He had never seen anyone with the poetry in motion Bruce had. It was like a sixth sense Lee had and that was made Lee so great.
Jim Kelly is saying from what he has heard and the peoples experiences they had with Bruce lee is that Lee was untouchable. Again, Jim Kelly is not saying Bruce lee has never been touched. So some people need to stop being overly sensitive about things, it just reflects badly one oneself. Im not sure if Chuck has sparred with Jim Kelly, but JIm has I remember once mentioned Chuck and Bruce lee and said Chuck wasn't in Lees class and wasn't comparable to Lee in any way. And I remember correctly, Jim has intimated that he sparred with Chuck, whether Chuck shared any stories with Jim I don't know though.
Skipper Mullins is referring to the people he fought in competion, because I assume that is what the interviwer is asking. But bottom line, is hed pick Lee in any street situation.
Skipper obviously thinks Bruce lee was the toughest in terms of tough to beat.

Martial artists Bruce lee encountered said Lee had superior fighting ability compared to them. That's a smoking gun literally.
Some, sure.
I'm showing you why that is nonsensical "logic."
It means that those who said he did notalso hold a smoking gun, "literally."
So if you use it for the former, you use it for the latter and it means that Bruce Lee couldn't block Chuck Norris' kicks and so on. Martial artist Bruce Lee encountered have said lots of things. That's our basis.
Yet you choose not to, which would be a form of double standarding on what comprises a smoking gun.
You literally put merit on a person (Lee) because he was either stingy with praise or his praise of others went unrecorded. Yet that presence/absence of praise proves
nothing.
We don't need to hear anyone say Lee beat the bejesus out of them, fighters have got some dignity you know
Actually you prove the opposite. I'm the one here that doesn't need to hear or say it as I think that if it occurred it only occurred in inconsequential mutual "practice" ways which would be two folks beating up each other nothing interesting about that;
you're
the one who literally wants to say that Lee beat the bejesus out of others AND that it wasn't mere mutual contact. More-or-less, baselessly.
Except the ones that trained with him and didn't think that.
That they didn't consider themselves1c84 a match for Bruce lee.
Except the ones that didn't say that.
That theyd pick Lee in any street situation.
In the very same conversation, that personwhich YOU assert fought Bruceis crystal clear that Joe Lewis was tougher, Allan Steen was meaner, and Chuck Norris was smarter. Yet, you refuse to be intellectually honest enough to conclude that based on YOUR logicthat means Chuck as a smarter martial artist than Bruce. And so on and on and on
I don't need to hear peoples fantasys about people besting Lee in grappling matches when they gave Lee instruction in BJJ or judo or whatever it is you do on the floor.
If you don't know, then there's NO way you should be concluding that Bruce bested ANYONE or was untouchable by grapplers, yet you have done so.
If you do know, then you're dishonest.
Either wayYOU make the respect of Bruce Lee appear to be irrational confirmation bias, rather than sensible. So I still and always will dispute you because Bruce Lee deserves FAR better than that.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Some things never change around here, I get embarrassed reading some of the things I have to read and literally have to bite my tongue.
Martial artists Bruce lee encountered said Lee had superior fighting ability compared to them. That's a smoking gun literally. End of discussion. We are grown ups here. We don't need to hear anyone say Lee beat the bejesus out of them, fighters have got some dignity you know. Nobody needs anyone to be that blunt. Why cant some people just give Bruce lee credit, and stop trying to turn something that's so obviously positive into something negative and try put a downer on things? Only someone with severe issues would even attempt to.
I don't need to hear anymore than that. That they thought Lee had superior fighting ability. That they didn't consider themselves a match for Bruce lee. That theyd pick Lee in any street situation. I don't need to hear peoples fantasys about people besting Lee in grappling matches when they gave Lee instruction in BJJ or judo or whatever it is you do on the floor.