Bruce Lee, Innovator?

 11/29/07 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 Pancration, 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.

11/29/07 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.