Comments by "iorekby" (@iorekby) on "Joe Rogan | Was Tarantino's Bruce Lee Scene Based on Real Life??" video.

Problem there my friend is that guys like Chuck and Dan were really good friends with Bruce, and basically owe their careers to Bruce. They're both nice guys too (met Dan, never met Chuck but by all accounts a nice man). So, they're not exactly going to come on and go "Yeah, my really good friend Bruce? The guy who gave me these amazing opportunities which changed my life forever? Nah, he couldn't actually fight and he was kind of a jerk a lot of the time". I'd still like to hear their perspectives, but they're just that: perspectives with heavy bias.
54
@johnnyearl2612 First it's "knew", not "knowed". Secondly, I didn't say "everyone". I cited two popular people who gave opinions on the man. Thirdly, it is in no way fallacious to say a source is biased when there is clear bias present. You might not like that a source happens to have a bias (most of us do when it comes to our friends) but that still doesn't mean it's unbiased. The idea that 2 people who had close personal relationships with Bruce Lee, who have never expressed any serious negative or contrary opinions on the man, and both of whom owe their very successful careers to Bruce Lee don't have a bias is absurd. It's not their fault, I'd have that bias too in that situation.
13
Would love to see Chuck but... Bruce was a great friend of Chuck. He basically made Chuck's movie career. They were really good friends by all accounts. Chuck is also a nice guy. Basically what I'm saying is he's unlikely to say anything negative about the guy. While I'm not dismissing Chuck's opinion, he's not exactly an unbiased source. But would love to hear him on JRE.
13
It's worth noting that LeBell was a x2 US Judo heavyweight champion, and back then the heavyweight limit was between 80kg and 93kg. Or 176lbs to 205lbs. Given that Lebell also wrestled with a bear, I'm guessing he was closer to the high end of the heavyweight scale. Look at the size of the dude: He was large and was hard as nails, a former catch wrestler, and Judo expert. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mER2BmNRA https://www.ozy.com/true-story/debunking-quentin-tarantinos-mockery-of-bruce-lee/95956 It would be arrogant to presume the outcome of any fight. But... I'd be more surprised if LeBell lost vs Bruce Lee back in the day.
7
Would love to see JCVD or Seagal on. Not because I like either of them, but just for the sheer awkward of having a guy on Joe has trash talked before.
6
@BBBYpsi That's open to interpretation. I haven't drank the Bruce Lee Kool Aid, I will say that. That said, it's besides the point. The point is about the objectivity of a source of information that a lot of people are putting stock in.
3
@japekki666 I'm sure he'd share his perspective, but look; Dan Insanto was a good friend of Bruce Lee's and basically owes his fame in the martial arts community and essentially his career to Bruce Lee. While I don't doubt his sincerity, he won't be an unbiased source. Like I said before... one of your best friends helps make you famous and gives you a highly rewarding career. Would you have much negative to say about them? Or if you did, would you say it in public? Probably not.
3
@iluvwhtchix I'm guessing you didn't watch the link? It shows Gene winning what is considered to be the first ever MMA fight in the USA. He beats a pro boxer (who had over 90 pro fights at the time the fight took place) and also had a back ground in wrestling. Gene still beat him. My money was on Gene simply because with his Judo and MMA match he proved he could beat other fighters who were resisting him 100%. We can speculate that these fighters may not have been as well rounded as Bruce Lee, but the bottom line is Gene beat a lot of tough customers who were resisting him and fighting back with all their might. We have no real idea of how Bruce would cope in that situation, as all we have are sketchy accounts of fights that may or may not have taken place. Re-phrased another way: In a straight up fight, do you favour the seasoned, proven fighter who has beaten people many times before, even those trying to strike him, or do you favour the guy who seems quick and flashy but has no verifiable fighting experience? My money is on the former. Which would be Gene. I respect that not everyone will share that opinion though.
2
He's an actor though. He never pretended to be a fighter. Like Chael Sonnen says, if you're a true blue fighter you do combat sports like MMA or Boxing. If you're a "wimp", you become an actor. That's sort of why some fight fans are dubious about Bruce Lee. He chose to be an actor and not a professional fighter.
2
Well said and you show a perspective and objectivity all too rare in many Bruce Lee fans. The guy was human. There were probably people who could've beat him up, even in his prime. He probably did have his bad days, like the rest of us. An example of this was the the fact that Joe Lewis was originally supposed to play Colt in Way of the Dragon but Chuck Norris got the part. The reason for this is because Bruce and Joe Lewis fell out. It takes 2 to tango, as they say, so it's likely both were partially responsible for the argument.
2
Thing is though we can only go by what little evidence there is. If you've ever trained before you know that in a fight, you have to move round and being on your feet can reduce your power as you can't plant your feet and load up generally. Which is what Bruce Lee did in his demos. That one brief exhibition sparring we have of Bruce Lee (apparently)... at no point does Bruce hurt or even wobble his sparring partners. Sure, it's an exhibition and little more than tag, but the point is even in sparring, if you hit really hard, you can still rock someone. We didn't see that. Final point is Gene's fight vs Milo Savage. Milo fought as a boxer at 176lbs, was likely bigger than that most of the time and Gene took his shots without flinching. While we can contest if Milo was as hard a hitter as Bruce, the bottom line is Gene's MMA fight against Milo showed he was tough and hard as nails and could take the shots from a bigger, heavier fighter than Bruce Lee was. You can't dismiss anyone in a fight, but I think Bruce would be an underdog against Gene. But we;ll never know.
1
My take on it: It was a counter to the beatified, overly-venerated, over-romanticised myth Bruce Lee fans have created. Even scroll down some comments on this vid. They are absurd: 1)Bruce could beat Royce and Ali 2) Bruce killed armed criminals with his bare hands. 3) Bruce could kick a guy like Gene so hard he'd cripple him with the first kick. Like I said, absurd to any reasonable person. But BL fans created this ridiculous cartoon figure, and I feel this was QT offering a rebuttal: He created a cartoon figure of his own to kill the ridiculous image that fanboys have fantasied about with Bruce Lee. I mean, I get why they do it. Bruce Lee was a slight man who appeared to be able to beat larger men with easy. It's very easy for skinny, short, weak nerds to project themselves on to Bruce Lee. I do get the appeal. But it's fantasy.
1
Bruce Lee should've said: "Compliant underlings I use in my demonstrations who I tell to stand there and do nothing so I can punch them don't fight back" :P :)
1
@himankkr7060 Not really. For starters, Jeet Kune Do isn't a martial art. It's a concept. Secondly, simply inventing a martial art doesn't make you a fighter. People mock Aikido for it's lack of application in a fight. Just because someone invented Aikido doesn't mean they can fight. In fact the founder didn't want Aikido to be a fighting art, yet it's still a "martial art". Websters defines a fighter as: "someone who fights". Bruce Lee may or may not have fought anyone, we just have anecdote. He never fought in public though, hence it's all speculation. Maybe he could fight. Maybe he couldn't.
1
@cooloutac BS. There were Vale Tudo fights in Brazil since at least the 1950's and Vale Tudo literally means "anything goes". So, it can be denied because it's not accurate lol. I get why people romanticise Bruce Lee, but putting a Halo on the guy and claiming he did everything from inventing full contact fighting to beating 7ft Olympic Wrestlers that conveniently no one managed to record to Bruce Lee inventing Buddhist philosophy is nothing but the Halo effect. Whether people believe it or not and how much tangible evidence they require to believe any old thing is up to them.
1
I get your point, and this is not at you but: You (figurative) can't criticise someone who is deceased, but people who want to create what is essentially little more than fan fiction about a guy like Bruce Lee and make all kinds of absurd claims (e.g. he could beat Royce or Ali, he killed armed criminals with his bare hands) gets a pass because it beatifies someone? I get your point, but it should be both ways. I honestly think if Bruce Lee were still alive, he'd be disgusted and embarrassed about the ridiculous claims about his abilities his "fans" claim. It's disrespectful, just in a different way.
1