Was Bruce Lee the PT Barnum of Martial Arts?

I think he was a great martial artist but he was also narcissistic like most famous people.

Bruce was so good, because he made himself so good, he practiced all the time and then looked for ways to make his practicing even more efficient.

everyday he learned something new because he wanted to and searched for it and if he was still alive I imagine he would be one of the world's most knowledgeable not necessarily the greatest.

No.

PT Barnum was a show business manager and could not perform any of the acts in his troupes. The same (with rare exceptions) for the other celebrities you lump Lee with when you spoke of ego. The difference between the Hollywood pretty faces with big ego and Lee is that Lee actually had a brain and could do all the moves captured on film - no stuntmen or doubles. How many actors or celebrities do you know of has a Degree in Philosophy? And while there are martial art actors in the industry today, Lee was the first superstar - he blazed the trail the others now tread.

Did he have an ego? Yes, but it seems to me that those who trash Lee because of his ego often times give a free pass to others who display similar traits. Why is that? Is it because he's not white and how dare an Asian display egotism in an industry that has been the purview of the white man? What I find interesting is that among Blacks and Asians, Lee's ego does not seem to bother them.

"Narcissistic personality inventory"? Name one man born into the world who is not a narcissist and I will show you a single unattached virgin living at home with his mom.

As for people wondering about him, would their doubts have come into play had Lee been a humble soft-spoken kowtowing yellow-man or had he been an egotistical white-man? This isn't any veiled attempt at insult or segway to racism but any honest question because if ego was removed from the equation would the doubts about his abilities still remain? And corollary to this is the quesiton of why after 40 years since his death and not a single person who trained with or knew him personally ever having made any statements to bring into doubt his abilities do some people still "wonder" if he was the real thing? What is that doubt based upon?

Yes and No.

No I"m not being obtuse. Bruce was not a tournament fighter. He was a movie actor first and a martial artist second. Yes he was good and fought some great exhibition fights. He did much for the popularity of Asian Martial Arts. Were their better fighters out there? probably. Think of it carefully, we only are speaking about Bruce because of his movies. Not to detract from some of the things he accomplished. They were significant. However without the notoriety given him by his fame from the Hollywood connection we would probably not be having this discussion. Clearly some of the people he trained with and trained under were better Martial Artist. There I've said it watch the hate flow at me now. I respect him for what he was and did. It was a great accomplishment. However it is what it is and no more.

I guess it depends on the standard/label by which we wish to judge him-actor-martial artist-philosopher-husband-immigrant-author-athlete etc

For my own part i believe the legend was (necessarily) born after his death-during his life he was highly regarded/famous but as with many famous people who die young the unresolved potential feeds/creates the legend as much as any actual accomplishments.-(James Dean etc)

If he achieved this fame and it was a goal..so he proves his extraordinary talents in some regards...HOWEVER if you doubt the authenticity of his philosophy and regard it as 1-simplistic and 2-something for everyone..I would suggest that you have missed the point of his 'teaching'.

B.Lee exposed the inherent contradiction in many TMAs then and now(briefly..any tma underpinned by the philosophy of taoism cannot be a fixed/style but must be ever changing-'no style as style'-or as Lao Tzu said 'the way that can be told is not the eternal way')

He combined this with the emerging philosophies of humanism of the 1960s see Abraham Maslow but especially Carl Rogers. Here the predominance of subjective experience and the self as authority took root in popular culture and the fusion between the science/study of Psychology then and B,Lee's take what works for YOU and ditch the authority of Tradition was fused-I believe beautifully. Bruce Lee pointed a way which shocked the establishment as many great thinkers of the 60s did its just that he shook the establishment in the East from the U.S.A . He pointed out a simple but devastating realisation- how can we be told how to be by another?-but in the realm of the TMA-we must inevitably develope our own style which implies it as yet is unknown.Basically he was a humanist with faith in the individual to grow/advance the TMA s rather than the other way round.

I dont give a s**t if he couldn't have beaten Butch Overbuster(or whoever) in the UFC showdown-he deserves the title-' legend'

I have to disagree with Sev. Traditional martial arts are very resistant to change. Their katas, techniques, and training methods are handed down generation to generation with few additions or modifications. I suppose they "evolve," but they evolve the same way biological organisms do: very, very slowly over many generations. Bruce Lee was advocating rapid change in the martial arts - a whole new experimental approach. He rejected tradition for tradition's sake. A traditional Asian master would probably beat a student who impudently made the suggestions that Bruce Lee made!

I don't think Lee's philosophy of Jeet Kun Do was motivated by his desire for fame. He did not teach very many students, and teaching was never his focus: acting was. Then as now, only martial arts enthusiasts knew anything about his philosophy - the general public just knew he was an action star who did kung fu. His fame came from his movies, not his philosophy. And while I'm hardly an expert on his life, I've read a bit about him and seen various documentaries, and I've never heard anyone say or imply that he was insincere. I think he was a true believer.

I'm going to be honest with you OC, from what I've read of Bruce, from what I've seen in interviews and whatnot, I've concluded this: The guy was a great athlete but people take his physical ability and mistake it for martial ability. Yes, he was a fast. Yes, he was precise. Yes, he was strong. Yes, he was smart BUT, I feel that he stood on the backs of those who came before him. I say this because he opened up these "new" ideas related to the Martial Arts to the public. These ideas already existed and were known among Martial Artists already. These ideas include taking what is useful and getting rid of what wasn't. That already existed as that's how Martial Art styles evolved. The guy also said that kata was useless. Anyone who thinks kata is useless clearly hasn't studied the Martial Arts enough to understand why it's important.

Yes, without question, I feel that his image was blown out of proportion. This is something that I've debated with my friend over. I feel Bruce was a great guy and a great athlete. As a Martial Artist, I feel he was good....he was GOOD. Speed and strength is one thing, but how refined was his technique compared to someone with far more experience? People seemed to have thought of him as the end all be all and that's bull.

Besides, as impressive as his physical routine was, I've personally seen better.

EDIT: I will admit, however, I admire his dedication to becoming physically stronger, faster, and precise.

EDIT2: @JimR - I think if he had lived longer he probably WOULD have become great. It's unfortunate that the good die young...but pricks live forever.

@Alex - I'm not trying to take anything away from him, I'm just trying to call a spade a spade. You are right, traditional martial arts may evolve albeit slowly but I wouldn't say it's necessarily out of stubbornness. Who can argue that what's been effective for so long needs any changing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, you know?

Granted, Bruce wanted to see what else he could do with himself and the martial arts. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to "experiment" but I feel that as a whole he may he missed the point of certain things. I respect your opinion but I'm gonna have stand by the idea that if it's fine the way it is, leave it. Bruce wanted to "revamp" things. I can see why there was opposition to him and it turns out that quite a few people heavily disagreed with his methods.

Was he a showman? YES! Was he a bit arrogant and full of himself? Possibly. (At least on camera he could come off that way.... But don't most actors?)

Was he the real deal? I think so. Was he invincible? No. No one, no matter how good they are, is that. In interviews he was the first to point out there is a difference between the posing and flash of showy moves and honest expression in the relationship of combat.

Plus, Bruce Lee in his writings and in teaching discussed ideas that most people just don't "get". At least until they've been training a while. And even then, they can't express those principles well.

Who knows? Maybe had he lived to a ripe old age, he might have proven your position. Or he may have proven you wrong. Just no way to know for sure.

Lee was a great showman. He was a good martial artist. Perhaps he would have become a great martial artist had he lived long enough. He had a lot of potential if he had lived to gain the wisdom he lacked at his demise.