- Joined
- Apr 29, 2016
- Messages
- 5,667
- Reaction score
- 951
1.) I agree with a lot of what you wrote but a street fight is a street fight. They don't last long if guys know what they are doing. If you have never been in one, then you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. There is no "point fighting" and it isn't like the movies... no gloves and guys can't take a lot of clean shots. Just doesn't happen.OK here are my responses to your points:
1) Steven Seagal is not a professional fighter and I don't believe for a second that he could beat UFC fighters. He's old. He's out of shape. He has no professional record that lends him credibility to compete on that level. Anderson Silva and Lyoto Machida seemed to be humoring him for publicity and I think that's all it is. They wanted to be attached to the name of a movie star and Seagal wants more respect in the Martial Arts community by claiming he is training professional fighters. Maybe they are fans of his. Maybe he did teach them something practical but I do not believe for a moment that he could beat them or any UFC fighters. Also some UFC fighters were annoyed by Steven Segeal. Cung Le stated that it was disrespectful for Seagal to take credit for teaching UFC fighters how to fight. Randy Couture actually challenged Seagal to a fight to teach him a lesson and Seagal welcomed the challenged....only insisted that it be behind closed doors in the privacy of his own home. If he's really serious about his credibility as a fighter he could do a full-contact sparring match or actual fight with someone on video camera and prove it.
2) I don't think it really matters whether we are talking about an MMA fight or a street fight. I believe the outcome would be the same. An MMA fighter in a street fight can do anything that a Martial Artist in a street fight can do so Bruce Lee trying to use all of the "foul tactics" that are illegal in MMA to win wouldn't necessarily give him an advantage. I have the book Tao of Jeet Kune Do. There's some good stuff in there but a lot of it is based on theories. Bruce Lee didn't mention anything in his notes about the importance of defending against takedowns. Not only do you have to know how you need to drill it in training until you get a real feel for what it is like to stuff a takedown. What do you think would really happen if a skilled grappler took Bruce Lee to the ground, mounted him and pounded him in the face? Is he going to poke them in the eyes, bite them or scratch them to escape? No, he would need to know how to defend himself off of his back and I know that he trained with Gene Lebell and knew some grappling moves but I don't think he was on the level of college wrestlers, BJJ Black Belts and submission grappling world champions who are all present in the UFC who also no how to strike and can do the same dirty moves on the street that he can.
3) Camera phones didn't exist until the 1990s so no Bruce Lee and his friends wouldn't be walking around with cell phones recording fights prior to his death in 1973. But video cameras did exist. If Bruce Lee walked in to a bar or some public place and someone challenged him on the spot then no I don't expect to see that on camera and obviously most people don't walk around recording themselves fighting even today. There is a higher probability of being caught on camera thanks to camera phones that didn't exist when Bruce Lee was alive. But if he wanted to defend his reputation as a skilled Martial Artist he could have entered Martial Arts competitions. If he didn't like the rules he could have recorded a fight in his backyard or some private location. We have no video of these sparring matches Jim Kelly was talking about. There's also a lot of talk about Bruce Lee in challenge matches with other Martial Artists (ex. Wong Jack Man, Yoichi Nakachi and extras on the set of his movies). Why is there no video? I'm not saying that none of these fights or sparring sessions happened but if they had recorded any of these fights we would be able to assess his fighting skills. The lack of video indicates to me that Bruce Lee didn't want to document his fighting exploits. Many Martial Artists back then feared exposure. If they tested themselves they did it privately because they didn't want to be embarrassed by a loss. Bruce Lee seemed like he didn't feel he had anything to prove but he has been described by friends as being down for any challenge. If extras really were challenging him on the set of his films, with all of those cameras around he could have easily asked the crew to film the fight and kept it in his archive. But that didn't happen. There's literally no footage of Bruce Lee in a real fight despite the opportunity to film some. He couldn't have predicted that people would be debating this years after his untimely death but if he wanted to prove he was the real deal and not just an actor he could have filmed something.
4) Calling Cain Velasquez a shorter, chubby Mexican as if he isn't a world class athlete and seasoned professional fighter is rather disrespectful. I don't know what his ethnicity has to do with anything but we all know that MMA is not a bodybuilding contest and we know that shorter fighters can beat taller fighters. You can check my post history for my thoughts on Brock Lesnar. Clearly he is an exceptional athlete but as far as being "The Baddest Man on the Planet" well he was UFC Heavyweight champion but he got exposed pretty quickly and embarrassingly didn't he? I don't personally like him however I think he could easily get Bruce Lee to the ground and pound the hell out of him. We're talking about a Heavyweight vs. a guy the size of a natural Bantamweight here. Bruce Lee as a serious Martial Artist is more appealing than a brute like Lesnar but we should know all too well from MMA that the more intelligent and graceful fighter doesn't always win. Sometimes size, strength and overall athleticism matter more than technique and Lesnar's wrestling and superior size is going to matter more than Bruce Lee's striking and street fighting mentality in my opinion.
2.) Seagal in an Octagon doesn't last a round but in a street fight that lasts about 30 seconds, I give him a "puncher's chance" just to not ruffle your feathers.
3.) Bruce Lee nor any other "true Martial Artist" gives a crap what you or I think and they don't need a video to "look at me... look at me!"
4.) Velasquez is shorter and chubbier than Brock Lesnar and he is Mexican... notice the "brown pride" tattoo? He isn't a "world class" striker and he isn't a "world class" fighter. What HE IS... is a tough son of a bitch who can wrestle and take a punch. The Mexican attitude definitely helps in a fight because there is no lack of confidence in that culture. So if that guy could be a world champion in the sport of MMA then why the hell could Bruce Lee or Steven Seagal not beat a world champion in a street fight?
5.)You say scratching and biting doesn't matter but then you have probably never had your eyes gouged, your balls kicked or have been bitten or scratched by a strong guy. It hurts and it does effect the outcome of the fight. If you can't acknowledge this then it is because you are mesmerized by the chiseled bodies and the speedos. I have seen small guys beat big guys and big guys pound the crap out of bigger guys. Sometimes it's chance or luck of a shot and sometimes it's skill but a streetfight is definitely a world apart from an MMA match and those who don't know the difference have never been in either.