kennedyedensjunction
New member
Bruce Lee was against forms and katas. He was non-classical. He cared only about what works. He was a radical pragmatist, sort of like Richard Rorty in the realm of academic philosophy. Is not MMA exactly what Bruce wanted? MMA is all of those things- pragmatic, what works, non classical.
Do not get me wrong- I do tai chi and hapkido, and I think Bruce's criticism of the Traditional arts were based on the first six months of tae kwon do. Bruce was correct that robotics is not prep for a fight. But he had no basis for denying the Value of the arts' higher levels, since he himself did not understand them. But hindsight is 20/20, and we have had almost-real combat in the US now in the cage since 1993. We know, roughly, what works, so of what relevance is
Bruce Lee and jeet kune do when you can train at an MMA gym?
Do not get me wrong- I do tai chi and hapkido, and I think Bruce's criticism of the Traditional arts were based on the first six months of tae kwon do. Bruce was correct that robotics is not prep for a fight. But he had no basis for denying the Value of the arts' higher levels, since he himself did not understand them. But hindsight is 20/20, and we have had almost-real combat in the US now in the cage since 1993. We know, roughly, what works, so of what relevance is
Bruce Lee and jeet kune do when you can train at an MMA gym?