New Page 1

THIS IS THE SECOND CHAPTER REGARDING
SKIP ELLSWORTH AND BRUCE LEE:

Please read "CHAPTER ONE" first, so you will understand what these two "BRUCE LEE" Chapters are all about (e.g. primarily the disconnected verbal ramblings of a feeble-minded old man).
:-)

A TAPED INTERVIEW REGARDING BRUCE LEE

AN EXCERPT FROM A TWO HOUR RECORDED INTERVIEW WITH SKIP ELLSWORTH[Skip was surrounded by is own students at the time -- hence the occasional laughter in the background.]

THIS EXCERPT IS FROM THE END OF THE "SECOND HOUR" OF THE INTERVIEW:

QUESTION: What is the most important thing you ever learned from Bruce Lee ?

SKIP: Frankly, I learned so many important things from Bruce that it would be hard for me to pick the one most important thing.

QUESTION: Well... please try to do it for us.

SKIP: I guess one of the most important things I learned from Bruce was how to explode.

[A long pause… as though this was a complete answer with no need for further explanation.]

QUESTION: Can you elaborate on that ?

SKIP: Yeah -- but it’s hard to explain.

Basically, Bruce taught me how to explode with bursts of speed, power, and energy that I didn’t know I had in me – and that I didn’t know I was capable of.

Bruce called the explosion “Ging.” Later on, I think he sometimes called it “ch’i” – or “chi”. However, I guess it doesn’t matter what it is called. The important thing is that Bruce could summon this amazing speed, power, and energy at will, and it was always an integral part of his Gung Fu.

QUESTION: Can you explain that in greater detail ?

SKIP: In greater detail ?

Man, I’m not sure I can explain it at all.

I’m afraid I would need to think about it a lot before I could come up with a good explanation.

I can give you an example of how it works though.

QUESTION: Please do.

SKIP: Well, the first time I used Ging was shortly after Bruce tried to teach me the principle just by talking to me about it. However, I hadn’t really learned how to do it – and I was still pretty confused about the concept.

[Pause…]

QUESTION: So… ?

SKIP: It happened when I was fighting a guy in a pool hall in the Central Area of Seattle.

The fight went to the ground, and as we were grappling, the guy tried to dig out one of my eyes.

One of his fingers actually started to go inside the corner of my left eye, and I could feel my own eye-ball being forced to one side -- and "out."

I suddenly thought to myself, “This might be a good time to use some of that ‘Ging’ stuff that Bruce has been trying to teach me.”

[Laughter…]

At that time, when the guy’s finger was actually starting to dig out my left eye, I completely exploded.

In other words, I had an instantaneous burst of speed, power, energy, and focus that I had never experienced before.

It was like I went from a speed of 2 miles per hour to a speed of 1,000 miles per hour in a fraction of a second.

It was like I had been asleep, and then suddenly I was completely awake – totally focused – more aware -- more dynamic – stronger – faster – like I was in a different dimension – almost like I became a different person.

It was like I was dreaming.

I will never forget the tremendous focus that I experienced at that moment.

I remember feeling that I had much more strength and speed than I had ever experienced before.

Also, it seemed like “time” had actually slowed down for me.

My opponent seemed to be moving in slow motion, and I seemed to be moving in “fast forward.”

I was amazed by what had happened to me – and the effect that it had.

The fight was over almost immediately, and the other guy was unconscious.

As soon as the fight was over, my two friends and I got out of the pool hall as fast as we could because we didn’t know how bad the guy was hurt.

When I got back to my girl-friend’s place I spent the rest of the night reflecting upon what had happened to me – the explosion that I had just experienced.

As I reflected upon that stuff, I tried to remember exactly what I had done to “make” the changes occur – the physical and mental state that I was in at the exact moment that the explosion “happened.”

In other words, I was hoping that I could remember exactly how I got into that mental state – so I would know how to make it happen again.

I even wrote a few notes to myself to help me remember how it happened – how I felt when it happened – my state of mind when it happened – my motivation – what the strength felt like – what the speed felt like – what the focus was like – and so on.

Eventually, as I continued to practice Gung Fu with Bruce, I always tried to learn “more” about how to control the “ging” process.

In fact, even at my present age of 29 [much laughter…] I can probably still summon “Ging” if I was called upon to do so.

Unfortunately, I have never gotten to the point where I can explain the “Ging” process very well – or teach it very well.

On the other hand, I think it is important to note that some of my students told me they more or less learned the process just by talking with me about it.

Maybe all they needed was some idea regarding what they were supposed to look for (and find) in their own consciousness – and then they were able to put the rest of it together on their own.

Incidentally, I have never gotten to the point where a prolonged or extended use of Ging didn’t take a lot out of me and leave me completely “worn out."

However, it seemed to me that Bruce could summon that type of energy instantaneously – at any time – and keep it going indefinitely without ever seeming to get tired.

He seemed to revel in it – to be addicted to it.

I’m afraid my explanation doesn’t make much sense, so I should probably just stop taking about this now.

[A long pause…]

Hey, why don’t you change the subject by asking me another question ?

In fact, why don’t you ask me a few “yes or no” questions, so I don’t have to think anymore ?

[Laughter…]

QUESTION: Here is another question for you. Is there anything you are afraid of now ?

SKIP: Yes.

[A very long pause, as though a “yes or no” question had just been answered.]

[Eventual Laughter…]

QUESTION: Ok then, will you please explain what makes you afraid ?

SKIP: Yes.

[Another long pause – eventually with more laughter.]

OK -- as I get older (and some people have implied that this is actually happening to me) I’m afraid that I will lose my memory.

Essentially, my fear of losing my memory, like my mom did to a large extent, is probably the primary reason why I have started to write journals regarding my memories, my thoughts, etc.

In other words, at this time I want to write down a few of the things I can still remember – while I can still remember them

Hey… in a few more years I’ll probably be asking questions like, “What’s my name ??? Where do I live ??? What am I doing here ???” "Why am I drooling all over myself ???"

[Laughter.]

QUESTION: We appear to be running out of tape, so I’m going to stop the recorder for a moment or two.

SKIP: OK, man. I will try to use this as an opportunity to escape.

END OF TAPE TWO.

"BRUCE LEE'S GENEROSITY -- EXCHANGING GIFTS -- MY FAVORITE CHRISTMAS GIFT FROM BRUCE LEE..."

Bruce was always a hard guy to give a present to, because no matter what you gave him he would always try to give you something in return that was nicer and/or more expensive.

In other words, he never wanted to feel that he came out “ahead” in an exchange of gifts. This means that if you gave him something that was worth 20 dollars, he would feel obliged to give you something back that was worth 40 dollars. It was frustrating at times.

Anyway, my favorite gift that I ever got from Bruce is a wooden, hand-carved Chinese statue, as follows:

For Christmas of 1961, Bruce gave me a statue of a grotesquely awesome anthropomorphic creature that is carved from a piece of bamboo. The statue is approximately 10” in diameter (at the widest point) – and 18” tall. The bamboo is of such a large diameter that you would never think it was bamboo until you picked it up and turned it over – at which time it immediately becomes obvious. The creature has a man-like face, and he is draped in carved flowing robes. The little man (perhaps the word “gremlin” would be a better English word to use ???) is looking straight ahead, and his face has a very stern countenance and demeanor. Anyway… it is an awesome statue. Unfortunately, I do not have any close-up photos of it. However, within the week I will try to have my son in America take some photos of it and add them to this chapter.

For now, I will do the best I can to share the statue with you via some relatively “long distance” photos of it – showing where the statue is displayed in my home – showing the general ambiance of the location – showing what the little man is currently looking “out” at – and showing the things that he is surrounded by. Of course, I put the little guy in that location “on purpose” because it means he is centrally located – he is where the action is – he is where people often congregate around the electric “player” piano to play, sing, and have fun -- etc. Here are a few photos which will explain much better:

We like to think that the little man approves of the above location, because he has been standing there for more than 25 years. Directly in front of him are some antique sailing ships. The ships are approximately 125 years old, and even their sails are hand-carved from ivory -- with braided linen "ropes" for rigging. The three metal-alloy statues are from England, China, and Africa. The wooden box is a "Murphy-Bed-Salesman's-Sample," which means it is a miniature working model of the "Murphy-beds" that the traveling salesman was selling (via the above model which was carried in his covered wagon "store") in approximately 1860.

The little man (?) is standing on top of the electric "player" piano, which is an area where people often hang out and enjoy themselves. He looks out at a large portion of the home's second living room (the "informal" living room) -- and he is very near the dining room where people almost always congretate. In other words, he is where the "action" is, and he gets a lot of attention.

THE FOLLOWING ARE DEFINITELY "COLLECTOR'S" MAGAZINES, AND THEY ARE
TO BE COLLECTED, AND PROTECTED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS WHENEVER POSSIBLE:

Literally any copy of "THE OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF JUN FAN JEET KUNE DO" should be regarded as a very important part of "MARTIAL ARTS HISTORY." In my opinion, the people who really "care" about Bruce and/or martial arts should collect and protect each copy for future generations. Here are the cover pages for the first two editions. They were sent to Skip as a gift from Linda, Bruce's widow.

THE NEWSPAPER (DIRECTLY BELOW) SERVICES THE CHINATOWN COMMUNITY IN VANCOUVER, CANADA. BRUCE LEE'S PICTURE IS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER -- AS WELL AS A LIST OF HIS FRIENDS/STUDENTS, INCLUDING SKIP ELLSWORTH:

The article is about a Gung Fu Exhibition that Bruce Lee and his students put on in Vancouver's Chinatown. Immediately below Bruce's photo is a list of the other articipants (Bruce's friends/students) -- including the following: Taky Kimura -- Jesse Glover -- Doug Palmer -- Skip Ellsworth -- Jim DeMile -- and LeRoy Garcia. [Click to enlarge photo.]

THE FOLLOWING POSTERS
THOUSANDS OF THESE WERE PRINTED BY BRUCE AND HIS GANG (including Skip) -- FOR DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF SEATTLE:

The participants are listed near the bottom of the poster, and they include the following guys: Charles Woo [R.I.P.] -- Tak Miyabe -- Pat Hooks -- Jesse Glover -- LeRoy Garcia -- Skip Ellsworth -- Jim DeMile -- Taky Kimura -- John Jackson [R.I.P.] -- and George MacNamara [R.I.P.].

Obviously, the Gung Fu Exhibition was held on February 14, 1961. However, most of the posters were mistakenly printed with the year 1960. Therefore, we had to "hand-correct" hundreds of these posters by changing the "0" to a "1" (e.g. 1960 to 1961). I still have at least 100 of these "left-over" mimeographed posters.

Anyway... the Exhibition Hall was packed, and our Kung Fu Exhibition was well received. As I recall, Jesse Glover's mother -- a delightful and dignified lady -- attended this Exhibition.

NEWSPAPER ARCHIVES:
HERE AT SKIP'S BEACH RESORT, I JUST FOUND TWO NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ABOUT MY GOOD FRIEND JIM DeMILE. I AM INCLUDING THEM HERE BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN READING THEM:

AN ARTICLE BY JIM HALPIN:
HERE ARE EXCERPTS FROM AN ARTICLE BY JIM HALPIN. HE ALSO WROTE AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE ABOUT BRUCE FOR THE "SEATTLE WEEKLY." WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND ANY ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY JIM.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION ABOUT BRUCE LEE -- ETC.

The following paragraphs are from written notes and mental notes that I started taking in 1959.

They will also include some direct quotes from Bruce Lee.

Of course, the following ramblings will include a lot of my own random thoughts and recollections about Bruce, and what I perceive to be some of his various philosophies regarding Gung Fu. Please understand that each of these thoughts and recollections are preceded by the invisible words, “In my opinion…”;

I realize that some of Bruce’s other “friends/students” will probably have some opinions and recollections that are different than mine.

My intent here is not to set myself up as an “expert,” or to insinuate that my viewpoint is the “correct” one.

My intent is to simply consolidate a few of my notes and thoughts – and present my own viewpoint as I lived it -- experienced it -- and perceived it.

I want to make it "VERY" clear that I do “NOT” profess to be an expert concerning Gung Fu -- Bruce’s life -- Bruce’s philosophies -- Bruce’s thoughts – Bruce’s fighting techniques -- or anything else.

In other words, if you disagree with anything that I say on this page, then I hereby admit that you are absolutely “right” and I am absolutely “wrong.”

PLEASE HELP ME EDIT THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ABOUT BRUCE LEE:

The following article about Bruce involved some cutting and pasting on my part. Unfortunately (?) the article became quite lengthy, and therefore it might involve some "duplicate pasting" that has not yet been detected.

Please let me know if you find any duplications -- or typos -- or anything else that needs to be corrected. Thanks, pardners !!!

Perhaps the most complete and accurate history regarding Bruce will be determined in the same way that Mulligan Stew was traditionally made during the Great Depression (with each hobo bringing whatever ingredients he had – throwing the ingredients into a “common” pot -- and hoping for the best). The ingredients contained on the following pages are simply my own contribution to the Mulligan Stew of history regarding that part of Bruce’s life that he personally shared with me.

After Bruce Lee became a famous martial artist, almost everyone in the world loved, respected, and admired him. Everybody wanted to be his friend. Bruce was completely aware of the shallowness and insincerity of this -- and it bothered him greatly.

However, I believe it is important that Bruce was also aware that his original friends in America loved and respected him when he was “only” a completely unknown 18 year old dishwasher at a Chinese restaurant in Seattle, Washington – with no apparent “future” at anything.

For example, when I first became friends with Bruce in 1959 he was a “nobody” in the American martial arts community. No one in America had heard of him. In fact, even in the Hong Kong martial arts community he was still relatively unknown.

In 1959, no one ever dreamed that Bruce Lee would someday be the most famous martial artist who ever lived – or that he would someday be a famous movie actor.

If anyone had tried to tell us that Bruce would someday become a famous man we all (including Bruce) would have laughed at the idea.

The possibility that any of us (including Bruce) would ever become famous (or even "socio-economically successful") was the furthest thing from any of our minds.

When I first met Bruce, during the period of time which historians now call “his Seattle days”, he could be described partially as follows:

1. Bruce was an unassuming, average looking, skinny, 18 year old Chinese boy who didn’t speak English very well. He had a heavy Chinese accent that made him difficult to understand. He talked too fast, which made it even more difficult to understand him. He stuttered considerably when he was nervous or excited.

2. When he was wearing normal street-clothes (jeans and a shirt with long sleeves), he was the last person anyone would notice in a crowd. Ironically, if anyone did notice him they might have worried about him blowing away if there was a strong wind.

3. Bruce was not readily “employable” here in America. As far as the "real-world" (and Bruce Lee himself) was concerned, he had no skills that were commercially viable.

4. Bruce was working as a dishwasher at a Chinese Restaurant called Ruby Chow’s. The restaurant was on the ground floor of an old, dilapidated mansion on Capital Hill.

[Unfortunately, in the historical sense, the building has since been torn down.]

5. Bruce told me that when he first came to America he was under the impression that Ruby Chow was a friend of his family in Hong Kong – and that his family had arranged for him to live with Ruby Chow's family as a guest as he attended school in Seattle. He did not expect that he would be required to work at the restaurant as part of the deal. Because he was forced to work at the restaurant, he felt that he was being treated as an “indentured servant.” He was eager to free himself from this position, but he felt that he was “trapped” because he had no readily available alternative. Therefore, he was simply trying to make the best of his situation – at least for the time being. Bruce felt that it was demeaning for him to work in the kitchen as a dishwasher, and these feelings were definitely a negative but highly motivating factor for Bruce during that period of his life.

6. When Bruce worked for Ruby Chow he lived upstairs at the Restaurant in a very small room (a converted “walk-in-closet” – approximately 4’ X 10’). A description of the room can be found elsewhere on this website (Chapter One of the Two Chapters regarding Bruce Lee).

7. When I first met Bruce he wasn’t “hip” at all as far as his personal appearance is concerned. For example:

He wore thick horn-rimmed glasses that made him look like a geek.

He had peach-fuzz all over his face, and he appeared to be oblivious to it because he made no effort to shave.

He seemed to be completely “unconscious” of his own personal self-image.

He didn’t have a clue regarding what clothes to wear (which is generally important to people who are that age).

To a casual observer, Bruce Lee appeared to be skinny and vulnerable – an easy mark.

8. In our American culture, Bruce didn’t know how to handle himself socially in a way that would lead to his social acceptance in “polite” society. For example, we could be in downtown Seattle, standing on a corner, waiting for a light to change, and Bruce would suddenly start to repeatedly kick a lamp-pole – with the kicks landing six feet up the pole. He would do this 15 times in a row, and everyone else that was standing at the corner waiting for the light to change, would slowly back away from Bruce as though he was “nuts.”

9. He didn’t know anything at all about the American culture in general, so he didn’t know how to “fit in.”

10. He didn’t know what he was going to do with his life -- educationally, professionally, or economically.

11. He was tentatively hoping that he could eventually get a college education and perhaps teach Psychology, or Sociology, or Philosophy at the high-school level. He sometimes discussed the possibility of teaching at the college level, but he felt that this would probably never happen because it would take too much time and money to obtain a Ph.D., or even a Master’s Degree.

12. When I first met Bruce, perhaps the most ironic things about him were the following:

A) Bruce did not realize that Gung Fu could potentially become important to him in America.

B) He did not realize that Gung Fu could potentially open many doors for him socially in America.

C) He did not realize that Gung Fu could be used to make money in America.

D) In other words, he did not realize that anyone in America would ever give a damn about Gung Fu.

E) Bruce knew that Gung Fu would always be a very serious part of his life (perhaps as a hobby) – but he did not realize that he would someday be able to use it “commercially” -- to become “rich and famous.”

It was at that time in Bruce’s life that he became good friends with people like Jesse Glover, Ed Hart, Skip Ellsworth, LeRoy Garcia, Taky Kimura, Tak Miyabe, Charlie Woo, John Jackson, Doug Palmer, etc.

In my opinion, that period of Bruce’s life (which historians now call “The Seattle years”), is probably the last time in Bruce’s life that Gung Fu did not at least partially “get in the way” of his establishing true friendships with people.

In other words, later on, when Bruce became a well-known martial artist, he was bothered by the fact that it was difficult (almost impossible) for him to differentiate between people who liked the “real” him -- and those who only liked his “persona” (the fact that he was a famous guy).

“A rich and famous man seldom knows who his true friends are.”

“A rich and famous man seldom makes new friends.”

Like most rich and/or famous people, Bruce sometimes became frustrated and isolated by his own fame and notoriety. He sometimes pondered questions such as the following;

“Would all of these strangers love me if they really knew me ???”

“Would these people love me if I was still only a dishwasher at a Chinese restaurant ???”

Whenever Bruce would verbally reflect upon these types of questions I would just laugh and say something like, “Your friends in Seattle still love you in spite of the fact that you are famous -- so it is quite possible that other people would also love you, even if they really knew you.”

When Bruce was only a dishwasher at Ruby Chow’s Restaurant, any of us would have gladly risked our lives for him. This was because we really loved the guy. Our love for Bruce (and our attitude towards him) did not change when he became a famous martial artist. He was still just “our friend, Bruce.”

We loved him and respected Bruce Lee because of “the way he was” as a human being – and as a friend.

We loved him because he was a good friend – meaning that he was honest, loyal, ethical, intelligent, perceptive, hard-working, brave, generous, and dependable.

The fame that he later obtained through Gung Fu could not get in the way of his friendships with his Seattle friends because none of these friends placed him on a pedestal. No one “hero-worshipped him.” No one kissed his ass (which is an American expression that might be confusing to people from other countries).

In the early Seattle years, Bruce Lee was just a good friend who could fight better than the rest of us -- and who knew more about fighting (which involves a different concept than “just being better at it”) than all the rest of us put together.

Initially, at least some of Bruce’s Seattle friends were not “overly excited” by the fact that he could fight better than the rest of us. In some ways, it was almost like, “So what ?” In those days, most of us (soon to include Bruce) carried guns -- so we all knew that it didn’t really matter who could fight the best.

Obviously, I can not speak for the rest of the group (how’s that for a way out ?) but in those days at least SOME of us were just “punk” kids, who generally came from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Through various circumstances, we all became good friends – and our love for each other (including our love for Bruce) was not based upon anyone’s ability to fight well.

Initially, it seemed almost “incidental” to me that Bruce was teaching us Gung Fu. It seemed so natural that he should be doing this that I didn’t even give it much thought. Another way to say it is… “I just took it for granted.”

When Bruce Lee was teaching us Gung Fu, he was not our Sifu (the word never came up except when he was talking about Yip Man, etc.) -- he was just our good friend.

Bruce did not teach us in exchange for money. Also, he did not teach us in exchange for friendship – because the friendship was already there, with or without Gung Fu.

In other words, Bruce gave us two very precious gifts. The first (and most important) gift was his friendship. The second gift was his Gung Fu.

Both of Bruce’s gifts were deeply and profoundly appreciated.

When I first met Bruce in 1959 his approach to martial arts (and life itself) was already very non-traditional. He was always challenging traditional concepts. He was always putting authority and tradition to the test. He was always working hard at being innovative, creative, and adaptable.

Later on, this resulted in Bruce creating his own approach to Gung Fu – which in later years he tried to explain to me.

Bruce lead me to believe that he did not consider his own approach to Gung Fu to be a fighting style. Rather, he considered it to be a “pathway” through which people can get the most out of their potential as martial artists. He lead me to believe that he only meant for his own style to represent the pathway to creativity – and becoming free of preconceptions.

I recently thought of an analogy regarding what Bruce meant when he was trying to explain his own approach to Gung fu. This happened as I was struggling to learn how to deal with “computers.” When I first got my computer, I didn’t even know how to plug it in and turn it on. It would have taken me forever (or at least a very long time) to figure out everything on my own. At that stage of my learning, I definitely needed “formal” instruction. I needed to go “by the book” (almost ANY book) in order to have a foundation upon which to build whatever knowledge would later come my way. I needed to be told exactly what to do (and how to do it) at all times. However, as I became more and more familiar with various computer programs, and more familiar with how computers work, I became adept at figuring things out on my own. Eventually, by studying many different programs, and solving many different problems on my own, I could approach new (and totally unfamiliar) problems with confidence and success. I could encounter a new computer system and figure out “a” solution to almost any problem that would present itself. In many instances, my solution was NOT the only one that would work. However, it was the one that seemed most natural for my background and my personality, and my degree of experience. In other words, my “computer moves” became almost “instinctive.” I developed a “feeling” for how I could get the job done regarding those computers.

Bruce later gave me the impression that he was sorry he gave his own approach to Gung Fu specific name – because a specific name implies that it is a specific style – instead of only an "approach" to solving the problems that are normally associated with fighting.”

In solving my unfamiliar “computer” problems I would use all of the accumulated knowledge that I had been taught – as well as the accumulated knowledge that I had obtained on my own. This involved a continuous “process.” It also involved a “state-of-the-union” as far as my own knowledge was concerned.

In other words, should the above approach to operating a computer be considered a “process” ??? The answer is “yes.”

Will it also reflect the “current state” of my own knowledge – including knowledge of myself, of various techniques that I can draw from, of my ability to be as effective as possible when synthesizing and innovating, etc. ??? The answer is “yes.”

Can this approach be considered an amalgamation ??? The answer is “yes.”

Can we look upon this as being an approach to “problem solving” in general ??? The answer is “yes.”

Does everyone have “the-same-and-equal-ability” (based upon talent, personality type, life experiences, etc. ?) for learning the above approach to dealing with computers (or martial arts) ??? The answer is “no,” because some people have much MORE ability and some have much LESS.

Some people need a lot of “structure” when they are trying to learn something new. They need constant guidance. They are not comfortable if they are forced (or even encouraged) to become innovative. They are not comfortable when forced (or encouraged) to figure things out on their own.

Some people are not imaginative. They are not adaptable. They are overly afraid of making a mistake. They are overly afraid of getting injured (in the largest sense of the term). These types of people would probably not be good at learning how to be innovative when dealing with computers – and they would probably not be good at incorporating Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu into their lives.

However, these people might be exceptionally good at learning something that requires a different set of attributes.

Regarding “innovation” and “perception” -- when some people hear the first few notes of a tune they can continue to play the entire rest of the tune for you – in any key – and they can even include counter-point, tympanis, and the entire brass band.

In my opinion, this was how Bruce Lee related to Gung Fu.

In other words, one’s personality and natural ability obviously play an important part in the learning process.

Bruce Lee’s situation reminded me of an excellent movie I once saw. It was called “Short Circuit.” It was a science-fiction comedy about a robot that got struck by lightning, and therefore developed a mind of its own. After this happened the robot was only interested in one thing – obtaining “input.” His life became a never-ending quest for new information. He would rush into as many libraries as possible, and voraciously read every book he could get his hands on. He was obsessed with obtaining knowledge.

In a similar way, Bruce was also TOTALLY ADDICTED to obtaining “input” and knowledge.

Bruce Lee did not intentionally set out to develop an approach (a process) for learning Gung Fu He was only seeking to become the best Martial Artist that he could possibly be – using anything and everything at his disposal.

He thought that “getting rid of pre-conceptions” was one of his most important tasks.

His own approach to Gung Fu was only a by-product of his personal never-ending quest for knowledge -- perfection -- and freedom.

Bruce Lee was not a follower – he was a leader. Therefore, it is ironic that so many martial artists think they can become “like” Bruce by following him. It is a contradiction-in-terms for martial artists to think this way – because a person can not become a leader by following someone else through life.

In my opinion, this gives new meaning to the old saying “Get a life of your own.”

In other words, if martial artists want to emulate Bruce, they should not follow him -- they should only follow his example.

If Bruce Lee were alive today, I think he would tell his students not to copy his fighting style because he does not have a fighting style per se. He would say that “copying” is not related to his approach to Gung Fu.

He would say that he developed his own fighting concepts (that were specifically suitable to himself) based upon many things -- including (but not necessarily limited to) the following inherited and acquired things: size, weight, strength, strength-to-weight ratio, height, speed, reflexes, natural ability, natural athletic skill, ability to take a “hit” without becoming unconscious (which is important when assessing possible courses of action), ability to withstand pain (also important when assessing possible courses of action), etc.

As a result of his remarkable "awareness" he even considered such things as the weight of his hands, the weight of his feet, the length of his arms, the length of his legs, the length of his torso, the width of his hips, the width of his shoulders, etc. I believe that if Bruce Lee was still alive today he would say that martial artists should consider all of the above factors when creating, accumulating, and synthesizing an “approach” to fighting that is specifically suitable to themselves.

Even if Bruce wanted people to copy his fighting style (which he didn’t), what “specifics” would he teach them to copy ??? To exaggerate the principle for the purpose of illustration, please consider this example: If Bruce had a student that weighed 400 pounds, and was only five feet tall, he would certainly not try to teach that student to rely speed and agility. Likewise, if he had a student that was confined to a wheel-chair, he would certainly not try to teach that student to rely primarily on “kicks.”

Each one of us is different – with our own set of good points and bad points. Each one of us has things “missing” (e.g. perhaps speed, agility, balance, power, guts, toughness (some guys think they are “hurt” if they get a few teeth knocked out and their nose broken), an intuition, a perception, an ability to see clearly, etc., etc.

Bruce was a man of many dimensions and facets. Therefore, almost every person who knew him could “experience” a different Bruce Lee. This reminds me of the folk-tale about 20 blind men who were each told to feel a different part of an elephant and then describe the entire animal. One of the blind men felt the elephant’s legs and said an elephant is similar to a tree-trunk. Another felt the tip of its tail and said an elephant is like a broom. Another felt the elephant’s trunk and said an elephant is like a snake. Another felt the elephant’s tusks and said an elephant is like two pieces of wood. To a large extent, anyone who tries to describe Bruce Lee is faced with a similar problem.

Bruce Lee was extremely adept at consciously presenting different facets of himself -- to different people -- at different times – for different reasons – to accomplish specific purposes. He would often do this either to accomplish something for himself -- or (in fairness to Bruce) to accomplish something for a person he was trying to help.

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu obviously means different things to different people. Everyone seems to have a different definition and/or interpretation of it. This is especially true if they can make a “profit” by promoting their own viewpoint. A potential profit could materialize in many different ways, including (but not limited to) the following: by promoting their own martial arts school -- by enhancing their own reputations as martial artists -- by getting more students -- by selling books they have written – or whatever…

Bruce once told me, “Martial artists should never accept any fighting style in it’s entirety. Instead, they should constantly search for an approach to fighting that personally works best for them, and is best suited for their own bodies, abilities, and personalities.

Bruce often discussed with me one of the “secrets” as to why he was so fast with his hands. He told me that his hands were so fast because they were extremely small (and light in weight) relative to the strength in his arms, shoulders, back, legs, and waist.

In other words, his hands were extremely small, and therefore they were relatively light and easy to maneuver. This meant that he didn’t need to overcome much inertia when he threw a punch, or when he re-positioned his fists, or when he pulled back an extended arm or punch, or when he made his hands change directions.

To exaggerate the above principle (for the purpose of illustration) Bruce would not have been nearly as fast if each one of his hands had weighed ten pounds – or twenty pounds – or even if he had been holding a roll of nickels in each hand.

Jesse Glover recently told me that one of his best students could “straight-punch” almost as fast and hard as Bruce Lee. I remember thinking to myself, “Jesse’s student probably has very small hands, broad shoulders, small hips, and does not weigh very much.”

The size of Bruce’s hands is just one of the examples of why Bruce’s techniques would not be suitable for everyone. For example, any martial artists who have large hands (that weigh 20 pounds each) and who also have weak shoulders, weak arms, a weak back, a weak waist, and weak legs, would be greatly disappointed if they tried to imitate Bruce’s fighting techniques.

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu involved a “personal adaptation to problem solving – using any suitable raw material that is available.” This means that there can be a different answer for almost everybody. In other words (to exaggerate for the purpose of illustration), a man who weighs 100 pounds will never be able to fight effectively using the same techniques as a man who weighs 400 pounds – and vice versa.

The above analogy amuses me, because Bruce Lee often exaggerated for the purpose of illustration.

To be most effective, adaptations regarding the “approaches” to fighting should be specifically chosen and suitable for each specific practitioner. Therefore, in the most technical sense, these adaptations and approaches could (perhaps “should” would be a better word) be different for almost each person. As martial artists, we should only adapt those methods that are specifically suited to our own physical, psychological, and emotional make-up. If we see a martial artist who has a technique that would work well for us, we should incorporate it into our own system – and then immediately continue in our search for another technique that is suitable for us.

Bruce Lee’s approach to Gung Fu reminds me of building a house – in the sense that a house must be built to satisfy the specific limiting and/or enabling needs (physical, emotional, psychological, etc.) of its owner. For example: if the owner of a house is only 3’ tall, then he would not want to have a kitchen counter that is 5’ high. Conversely, if the owner of a house is 8’ tall, then he obviously would not want to build a house with doorways that are only 6'8" high.

In other words, we do not want to design our own house to fit the physical and/or psychological needs of someone else. We do not want to blindly (without thinking) design and build our own house based upon what we see someone else do.

In terms of tailoring:

Martial arts (and especially Bruce Lee’s approach to Gung Fu) should not be looked upon as an “off-the-rack-one-size-fits-all” suit of clothes that any person can purchase at the store (without any tailoring) and wear successfully.

Fighting (especially regarding Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu) is a suit of clothes that should be tailor made for each particular practitioner – by the practitioner himself – hopefully with some initial help from a trusted, knowledgeable, and perceptive teacher.

Bruce once said, “Gung Fu is not a “destination” – it is a “never ending journey.”

Forty years later, we have probably all seen the placard that says, “Martial arts is not a destination – it is a journey.” In my opinion, this is especially true regarding Bruce Lee’s approach to Gung Fu.

Bruce once told me, “It is “ok” if my ‘moves’ while fighting are instinctive – however, it is much better if my ‘approach’ while fighting is instinctive – because then the appropriate moves will follow and they will always be there for me.”

Regarding Bruce’s “approach” to learning Gung Fu, he told me that people should go through life as a “detective” – constantly searching for ways to develop their own best approach to Gung Fu.

Bruce Lee lead me to believe that YOUR approach to learning Gung Fu should be a search for your own truth – based upon “who” you are, “what” you are, and “how” you are. In other words, your own study of Gung Fu should not be a quest for Bruce Lee’s personal “truth” (whatever worked best for him) -- instead it should be a quest for your own personal “truth” (whatever works best for you).

Bruce once told me by phone (with apparent amusement); “The term Jeet Kune Do is more like a verb than a noun.”

[Think about it…]

The “verb-noun” concept might at first seem to be only a joke – or a play on words. However, as I reflect upon it, I feel that there might be a large element of truth associated with it. If I was forced to make comments about this, my comments would be as follows:

Is JKD a noun ??? The answer is “yes.”

Is JKD a verb ??? The answer is “yes.”

However, in the final analysis, I believe that Bruce really felt that JKD is more of a verb than a noun.

In my opinion, Bruce Lee’s approach to Gung Fu is not a specific physical method of fighting that can be choreographed and memorized – but rather it is a mental, intellectual, philosophical, and physical approach to fighting that is tailor made to fit a specific individual.

Bruce Lee’s approach to Gung Fu does not involve a specific rigid fighting method. Instead, it is a “way” of searching, innovating, creating, adding, discarding, analyzing, improving, synthesizing, etc. – based upon one’s own abilities and limitations.

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu is not a specific “fighting method” per se. Instead, it is a way of “approaching” the task of problem-solving as it relates to fighting... and even as it relates many facets of life.

To be technically correct, Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu is not a specific “method” of fighting (ie, “If someone tries to hit you like this, then you should put this foot here and this fist there.”). Instead, it is an “approach” to developing the ability to do whatever it takes to win – in any situation – using any and/or all of the fighting techniques that you have at your disposal (in accordance with your own inherited and acquired abilities).

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu has much more in common with “learning-how-to-react-in-the-most-efficient-and-effective-manner-in-terms-of-fighting” than it does with “learning-a-specific-style-of-fighting.”

Jeet Kune Do involves learning how to “think for yourself” in terms of fighting – in a way that relates specifically to who you are (physically, emotionally, psychologically, and personally).

Bruce would be disappointed if he thought that a present-day martial artist was trying to copy his approach to Gung Fu. In my opinion, he would admonish the “copy-cat” martial artist by saying, “I developed an “approach” and/or a “process” regarding Gung Fu, and I took it this far. You should take it further – by being innovative and creative – and by being all that you can be as a fighter.

He would recommend that you not put yourself in a box – that you not develop “tunnel vision” – and that you not copy anyone, NOT EVEN HIM.

As indicated elsewhere above, creating you own personal approach to Gung Fu is like cooking a stew. It needs a little bit of this… and a little bit of that… etc. It generally cannot be made with only one ingredient. As a limiting factor, it must be made with whatever natural ingredients are available. If you do not have any carrots, then you must make your stew “work” effectively without carrots. In other words, if you are short, fat, and have poor reflexes, then you must create your own personal Gung Fu (your own personal “way” of developing your own personal fighting system) by using whatever ingredients you DO have at your disposal.

Your own personal approach to Gung Fu must be pursued (made, done, followed, created, etc.) in accordance with your own personal attributes, abilities, needs, tastes, and the amount of time you are willing to spend.

In spite of the great American myth, we are not all created equal. Some people are taller – smarter – faster – braver -- etc. Some martial artists are even physically disabled. For example, if a martial artist only has one arm then he should use an approach to Gung Fu that will help him to create the best fighting system for himself.

In my opinion, using Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu would be the best way for a one-armed man to create his own efficient and effective fighting system. To some extent, most of us are all faced with this problem – because (as indicated elsewhere above) most of us have a few things “missing.”

One word that is often used in conjunction with Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu it is the word “eclectic.” However, the question remains… “Eclectic comprised of what ???” One answer that works for me is as follows… “Bruce’s style is the process of learning how to use any resource at your disposal – to accomplish your goals (when fighting) in the most efficient, and most effective way. “

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu includes an “as-is-where-is” factor concerning the potential of your physical and mental abilities. It involves your heredity and environment -- including height, weight, strength, age, physical condition, ability to withstand pain, ability to keep yourself from “falling apart” when you are hit, intellect, motivation, instincts, etc.

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu often involved the ability to “synthesize” two or more concepts (that are sometimes unrelated) into a totally new concept. Coincidentally, Bruce once told me he felt that the ability to “synthesize” a new idea from two old ideas is probably one of the main factors that determine IQ.

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu was not a “specific” fighting style. Instead, it is a process whereby each person tries to learn how to find the most efficient and effective techniques for dealing successfully with any situation that one might encounter when fighting.”

In a way, Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu was about “learning how to learn.”

Sometimes people say that Bruce’s philosophies appear to contain contradictions. Of course they do. This is especially true when they are viewed in a superficial way. People should realize that Bruce would often use contradictions intentionally when he was teaching. In fact, he would sometimes capitalize on contradictions – play jokes with them, have fun with them. For example, he would often instruct student “A” in a way that was completely contradictory to the way he would instruct student “B.” For example, if student “A” was making the mistake of leaning too far forward, then Bruce might tell the student to lean much too far backward for the next 1,000 repetitions. On the other hand, if another student (student “B”) was leaning too far backward, then he might tell that student to lean much too far forward for the next 1,000 repetitions. Bruce’s contradictions were often used as a tool to achieve a desired finished product.

Regarding the above paragraph, I think it is important to realize that similar contradictions would occur when Bruce was explaining a philosophy, or an ideal, an “approach,” or whatever… This meant that a superficial observer could become confused by some of the things Bruce said. When Bruce was teaching, he would use any technique (including “contradictions”) that enabled him to get the job done as quickly, simply, and effectively as possible – which is another example of Bruce’s Gung Fu philosophy.

Bruce was not a patient teacher. He would show a student something once or twice, but if the student didn’t learn it almost immediately, Bruce would lose interest, and his mind (and body) would soon be elsewhere.

Bruce was always trying to achieve a balance within his students, always fine-tuning them in accordance with their own needs and abilities, always pushing them to achieve their own highest possible degree of perfection.

I once heard someone say that Bruce was rude and conceited. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Bruce was obviously a self-absorbed man, but this was only because he took his own personal goals very seriously. In order to achieve his goals, it was necessary for him to focus completely on himself (his own mind -- his own body). Bruce was involved in an intense effort to become all that he could be. Therefore, when he was practicing Gung Fu, he didn’t have much time for anything except an intense focus on himself. When Bruce was concentrating on his fighting techniques, which was most of the time, he did not want to be interrupted by anyone. If people interrupted Bruce when he was practicing (which often happened), his response might cause them to think that he was rude, or conceited – but in reality this was not the case. In reality, the only rudeness that was exhibited would be on the part of the people who interrupted Bruce while he was working.

Interrupting Bruce when he was practicing Gung Fu would be like interrupting a brain-surgeon while he was in the middle of an operation. Under those circumstances, no one would expect the "interrupted" brain-surgeon to be warm and friendly.

ONE OF BRUCE’S MAIN APPROACHES TO BECOMING A BETTER FIGHTER IS AS FOLLOWS:

                            Bruce Lee once told me; “Always practice the following two things consistently:
                                    #1) Always practice what you are best at.
                                    #2) Always practice what you are worst at.”
                      When we discussed this, he explained that as you practice what you are worst at, you slowly
                      become better at it -- and it will eventually no longer be what you are worst at.

In other words, as you continue to practice your worst thing, and become better at it, then it will eventually no longer still be your worst thing – and you will therefore replace it with something else… etc.” In the meantime, as you continue to practice what you are already best at, then you will constantly get even better at it. This gives you some solid roots, that are constantly expanding.

Bruce once told me; “If you always practice what you are worst at, and what you are best at, and then everything else will take care of itself.

Regarding the above thoughts… for many years after Bruce’s death I did not publicly discuss my association with him or my friendship with him. To me it was too personal a thing to discuss because it involved a deep friendship that changed my life forever. After Bruce’s death my feelings were as follows:

1. I did not want to teach people what I knew about Gung Fu – even though people would often ask me to show them some things that I had learned from Bruce.

2. I thought Bruce should be allowed to rest in peace.

However, through my discussions with the rest of Bruce’s original students, I have accepted the fact that it is our responsibility to keep Bruce’s memory alive – and that we can best accomplish this if we tell the world about him in a truthful and accurate way.

I have now accepted the fact that Bruce would want us to talk about him. He would want us to tell people what we know about him and his approach to Gung Fu. Therefore, at this time I am writing a few things about Bruce and my friendship with him.

Also, I decided to write a few things about Bruce at this time because I recently heard some lies being told about him – and I wanted to put a stop to the lies. Specifically, some of the lies were as follows:

Lie #1. “Bruce Lee was not a fighter – he was only a movie actor.”

In reality, I believe that the exact opposite might be more in keeping with the truth

In fact, I would guess that the average movie critic would be amused by the above lie.

Personally, I don’t know anything at all about acting – but I do know about fighting. I have seen some of the best fighters in the world – and I have seen Bruce fight for “real.” Please believe me when I tell you that if Bruce Lee was alive today there is no man on earth who could beat him. Each one of Bruce’s original students (Jesse Glover, Taky Kimura, Ed Hart [now deceased], LeRoy Garcia, Jim DeMile, etc.) would gladly verify this. In fact, anyone who knew Bruce (or who ever saw him fight) would readily confirm that he was the best fighter in the world.

Lie #2. “Bruce was an ego-maniac.”

In reality, the exact opposite is true. Obviously, Bruce was very self-absorbed – but this was only because he wanted to be the best that he could be. He drove himself ruthlessly. He constantly reflected upon his progress, his research, his art, his physical conditioning, and how he could improve his fighting skills. In other words, Bruce was a busy man – and he felt that he was on an important mission. Whenever he was working on his techniques (which was most of the time), he had no interest in “small talk.” Trying to make “conversation” with him at that time would be analogous to trying to exchange jokes with the pilot of a 747 as he is landing in a mountain pass -- in a blinding snow storm -- with 250 passengers aboard. Under those circumstances, a person might walk away saying, “The pilot of the 747 was obviously an ego-maniac, because he didn’t want to exchange jokes with me. The pilot is obviously conceited. The pilot is stuck up. The pilot was not polite to me. Etc.” However, it is obvious that these would not be fair criticisms.

In reality, Bruce Lee was always “focused” on what he perceived to be an important mission. He was always “focused” on what he was trying to accomplish with his life.

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu reminds me of my own experiences in teaching people how to build log homes (which I have been doing professionally for the past 40 years). My students generally started out by asking me a lot of questions about log homes – regarding different techniques, different styles, different methods, etc. Initially, it was important that I taught them about all of those things so they get a well rounded background in the basic principles of log home construction. However, my real goal was to eventually teach my students how to THINK INDEPENDANTLY in terms of construction. Once my students can THINK in terms of construction then they soon get to a point where they do not need to ask specific questions about specific problems. They learn how to devise the most effective and efficient solutions to their construction problems contingent upon whatever tools and materials they have on hand at any given time.

In other words, my job as a teacher of log home construction is not limited to teaching “construction.” It also includes teaching students how to “THINK FOR THEMSELVES” in terms of construction. To succeed as a teacher, I must teach them how to “THINK THINGS THROUGH ON THEIR OWN,” no matter how unusual or bizarre the problem.

My point is this: Although the above principle might seem to be simplistic, I was not aware of it at all until I met Bruce Lee. I constantly try to pattern my teaching style after the things I learned from Bruce about teaching. In my opinion, Bruce was one of the best teachers in the world.

When I was teaching people how to build log homes, it was my hope that each of my students would eventually be able to rely upon their own resources to find a solution to any construction problem -- in the easiest, most efficient way.

Another way of looking at it would be as follows: Learning how to build log homes should not ONLY be a matter of learning a bunch of specific answers to a bunch of specific questions. Instead, it should be a matter of learning how to “think” in terms of construction – and developing an ability to “invent” ways to take solve ANY construction problem in the most effective and most efficient way.

My favorite way of teaching the phenomenon described above is to use a teaching technique that I learned from Bruce. I have been using this teaching technique successfully for the past 40 years. There is more than one way to describe this technique – so I will try to describe it in at least a couple of different ways.

The first way is as follows:

I try to let my students experience the “thrill of discovery” whenever possible.

I try to never deprive my students of the “thrill of discovery” regarding the things they are learning.

When I am trying to teach a principle, I lead people right up to it – but then I stop short of explaining it or showing it to them. If possible, I let them “discover” the principle for themselves.

I let my students “discover” whenever possible – because then the “learning” experience would be “personal” – and it would mean more to them.

Every time someone experiences “discovery” it enhances their ability to “learn” how to discover.

One of my most important jobs as a teacher is to teach people how to learn to discover.

When I was teaching, I did everything possible to enable my students to experience the thrill of discovery as many times as possible. In this way, they get better and better at “discovering” and they become more innovative, inventive, etc.

In other words, they learn to rely less and less upon me – or anyone else.

It sets them free from their teacher – and the teacher’s “way” of doing things.

As they say… “The goal of a teacher is to make his job redundant.”

For a student who is just beginning to study the martial arts, a teacher’s “way” of fighting is generally better than no “way” of fighting at all. On the other hand, both the student and the teacher should be working to set the student free from the teacher’s way – so the student can devise a “personal” way that works best for him.

I often prefaced a teaching session by saying something like this;

“Today you should be able to personally discover an important principle of log house construction (or Gung Fu, or whatever…). I will try to “teach” all around the issue without teaching it specifically. Please interrupt this process as soon as you think you realize what I am trying to show you. Please keep in mind that this is not a test -- and there may be more than one answer to the problem. We are simply going to have some fun here, by trying to teach you something in a way that will not deprive you of the thrill of discovery.

The more things that a student can discover on his own, the better he will become at doing so. In time, this process of discovery can become second-nature, and a person can become exceptionally good at it.

This “learning how to discover” process can happen without consternation, worry, dependence, stress, or whatever… As a teacher, I am always hoping that my students can become as comfortable as possible with this “discovery” process, until it becomes an integral and intrinsic part of their lives. In this way, I encourage my students to become independent thinkers – who are capable of synthesizing a new idea from two or more old ideas. I encourage them to have the confidence that it takes to take care of any construction problem that they might encounter.

As a teacher, my main job was to work myself out of a job – by making it so my students did not need me any more. In other words, it could be said (only partly in jest) that as a martial arts instructor, I have not done my job completely until my students can kick my ass. And as a log house instructor, it could be said (again, partly in jest) that I have not done my job until my students know more than I do.

When I was teaching people how to build log homes, I would sometimes even begin a session by telling my students that I was going to intentionally mislead them regarding at least one thing during the session. As a game, I intentionally put myself in an "adversarial" relationship with the class, and I challenge them to catch me making a mistake concerning what I was teaching them about the ridge pole log. I would intentionally lead my students into a trap by enabling them to easily discover a relatively ineffective (as in NOT effective) solution to the “ridge pole problem” – and I would totally LOVE it when one of them immediately (and confidently) showed me a better, faster solution.

When my students passed the above test consistently, it was “graduation time.”

Another way that I consistently tried to teach “innovation” is to say the following:

“I am going to present a problem, and I would like for you to give me as many solutions to the problem as possible. This is related to a procedure called “brain-storming” that is commonly used in business. Brain-storming is where people make a list of every possible solution to a problem (no matter how far-fetched the solution might sound) for the purpose of examining the list at a later time. In this process, each person is encouraged to stretch the limits of their imagination and put forth every idea they can think of, no matter how weird it might seem at the time. There can be no criticism or censure regarding anything the students say or suggest when brainstorming. No one is allowed to laugh at anyone else’s idea or approach. Everything must be done in the proper spirit of trying to find new solutions to old problems. This is about “innovation” – and learning how to “discover.”

As a teacher, it was my job to know more about the problems (and the possible solutions) than any of my students. I was constantly saying things like, “The problem we are dealing with still has at least five possible solutions that you haven’t thought of yet. Can you determine what those solutions are ???”

When I was trying to lead my students in a specific direction, I often provide “hints.” I might find myself saying such things as:

“One possible solution I am thinking of involves a twelve letter word that begins with a “B.”

“Another possible solution involves doing something that might be the exact opposite of what you might expect under these circumstances.”

The best of my students generally enjoyed this process of expanding their own consciousness regarding finding their own personal solutions to problems.

My students would often get quite excited about this, and say, “Don’t tell me the solution, man !!! Let me think this through on my own. Give me a few seconds, and I’ll come up with something that will work. WOW, I’m really learning how to THINK, man !!!”

Essentially, I learned the above-described method of teaching from Bruce Lee in 1959 – and he didn’t know anything at all about log home building.
J

Another example of how I used Bruce’s methods in teaching LOG HOME CONSTRUCTION is as follows; At one point in the construction process, by students would always come to me and say, “Hey Skip, now that the concrete in these huge pier blocks is hard, how do we pull the wooden concrete forms off of them ??? What can we do to make it easy ??? In response to their questions, I would always get them a 20’ chain and a Buda Jack, and say, “These are the tools that I use to solve that particular problem.” They would then look at the chain and jack and say, “What are we supposed to do with this stuff ???” I would simply laugh and say, “You are supposed to learn how to think,” and I would walk away. We all laughed a lot as they struggled to “think through” this new problem, and find an efficient solution to it. It would usually take them about twenty minutes to figure it out, and it was a far better learning experience for them than if I had simply showed them how to do it “my way.” Also, once they got it figured out, Of course, after they figured it out, I stepped in and showed them every other way I could think of to do the same job – so they had more options to reflect upon. [I learned this from Bruce.]

As a teacher, I did not want to try to make “clones” of myself. Instead, I wanted to teach my students how to think for themselves, and how to arrive at their own solutions to their own problems, and how to NOT become dependent upon me.

I always began to teach my students this process by using the very simplest of problems – and then I gradually worked with problems that were more and more complex.

Under some circumstances, I loved it when students did something the “wrong” way a few times -- before finally discovering the right way. In other words, I loved to see my students make mistakes – so they could learn from them. We often spent as much time talking about a solution that might be wrong for us (and learning why it would be wrong) as we did learning how to do it RIGHT. This was especially true when teaching people how to deal with bad habits that were already established.

Some people might argue that under Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu there is sometimes no “right” way or “wrong” way – because these might be different for everyone (depending upon size, strength, weight, experience, etc.). However, I would simply say, “If you lost, then you did it the wrong way. If you won, then you at least did it “right enough” under the circumstances.

In other words, if you accomplish your objective in the most efficient and effective way (considering the circumstances involved) then you did it the right way.”

Bruce was a man of many facets. This is why so many people know a “different” Bruce Lee.

In my opinion, Bruce Lee compartmentalized his life in many ways. He often preferred to socialize with his friends and colleagues one at a time – so he could become a different person for each student, friend, etc. In that sense, he was like a chameleon – fitting in – being compatible with whatever colors (moves) that were coming at him. Bruce wanted to be all things to all people – and therefore it was easier for him if he could keep people separated in his life. In a sense, there were many different Bruce Lees – almost a separate one for each occasion – or almost a different one for each person he would be communicating with. He would quickly devise a “way” that would enable him to deal effectively with each situation or person – and he would often establish relationships on that basis. Because of his generosity, he would always try to provide what each of his friends was looking for. This was easiest to do on a one-on-one basis, which is why he almost always preferred to become involved with people in this way.

Bruce was constantly in the process of “taking” things from people. He constantly took their concepts, their thoughts, their techniques, their methods, etc., etc. While he was doing this, he kept the best things and incorporated them into his own approach to Gung Fu.

He would take “INPUT” regarding Gung Fu from more sources that you would ever believe.

Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu involved learning how to think freely – in an unrestricted manner. It involved learning how to become liberated from pre-conceptions. It involved becoming adept at “thinking” in terms of a specific genre (whether it was Bruce’s approach to Gung Fu – or whether it was the art of log home building – or whatever…).

It is common knowledge that Bruce Lee accomplished more for the martial arts than any other man who ever lived. However, we should not forget that he accomplished even more for the Chinese people in general. The reasons why this is true should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

Bruce used analogy a lot in his teaching, and he was a master at doing so. From Bruce I learned that the use of analogy is one of the most effective ways to teach – and I used it constantly when I am teaching people how to build log cabins.

Obviously, things have changed a lot in the Martial Arts “business” since Bruce’s death. On those rare occasions when I pick up a martial arts magazine, I am amazed, and sometimes amused, by the fact that new “systems” and new “names for systems” are seemingly being invented at the rate of 20 (?) per second. Sometimes people tell me that they are practicing a martial art form that I never even heard of before – perhaps because it was only invented a few minutes ago. I never say so out loud, but my initial thought whenever I hear about such things is, “It doesn’t matter what you call it, man – or what it is – because the only thing that matters is what you can personally do with it.”

In martial arts, as in science, the important questions to a practitioner is, “Can the ability to do it be replicated, if one is given the proper set of circumstances ??? In other words, can the ability to do it be taught ??? If not, then any technique in question will only be important to you if it is your own technique -- or if it is a technique that is being used by a person you are fighting.

Regarding the above paragraph, a simplistic example (exaggerated for the purpose of illustration) would be as follows:

There is a fighter who is as large as a gorilla. His skull is two inches thick, and he can withstand massive amounts of pain without becoming unconscious. When he is fighting, he generally lets people punch him and kick him until they become too tired to move. Then he squashes them like a bug.

As a student of martial arts, I would have to ask myself, “Can the gorilla teach me how to do this in the same way that he does it ? Would I want to use that technique, even if he tried to teach it to me ???

Is all of this stuff absurdly simplistic ??? Perhaps so…

However, I will none-the-less continue to write -- in the unlikely possibility that these notes might contain a small element of truth about Bruce Lee, and his approach to Gung Fu, that no one has previously considered.

Sometimes people ask me what Bruce Lee’s philosophy was. This is an impossible question to answer, because Bruce Lee had a great many philosophies (as does any “thinking” person). I generally reply by asking, “His philosophy about what ???” To this they generally say, “Well… what was his philosophy about Gung Fu ???” As a question, that one isn’t much better than the first. I usually reply by saying something like, “In what sense ???” At that point, the questioner usually realizes that he is in the process of flunking an IQ test – and he tries to “tighten up” the questions in such a way that they could have a meaningful answers. To some extent, this even necessitates defining the term “philosophy” as it pertains to martial arts.

In fact, Bruce and I used to argue (perhaps “debate” would be a better word) about the philosophy of Gung Fu. I would often (only somewhat jokingly) ask questions such as these: “If I want to learn philosophy, then why don’t I just by a book and study philosophy ??? Does learning how to dig out an opponent’s eyes make me a better philosopher ??? How ??? Why ??? What does fighting (and thereby possibly killing) have to do with philosophy ???

What fears do we have that are driving us to be so obsessed with learning how to defend ourselves ??? Why are we so insecure that we need this stuff ??? Is it our “fear” and “insecurity” that drives us to practice martial arts ??? All of us have read the ads that say, “Learn martial arts, and fear no man. Gain confidence. Become the man you always wanted to be. Etc., ad nauseam.” What kind of person would be interested in learning how to injure, maim, and kill other people ??? Does this kind of behavior really involve a meaningful philosophy ??? Who is kidding who ???

When a person is practicing martial arts is not about physical competition, or physical conditioning. If that’s what it is about, then we could simply see who could throw a ball the furthest – or run the fastest – or lift the most weight – or whatever…Martial arts is primarily about fighting people and hurting them. This means that the martial arts are also about killing people (because accidents can happen – and because fighting can sometimes escalate to the point where it becomes necessary to kill – especially if an opponent is so tough that this is the only alternative).

Bruce often discussed with me one of the reasons why he was so fast in combat situations. He said that he was so fast because he practiced “slowing time down” in his own mind -- regarding the moves that his opponent would make. He also said that he practiced “speeding time up” regarding his own moves. In this way, he said that he was able to see his opponent’s moves in “slow motion.” In one of my last conversations with him, he said that he was frustrated by the fact that he was able to use this technique more effectively against some “styles” of Gung Fu that he was against other styles. I can’t remember which styles were easiest for him to deal with using this technique, but I do remember that he said he was getting better and better at “controlling” his perception of time. We discussed this phenomenon many times, and he told me that he felt it was a form of self hypnosis. On one occasion he also told me that he could probably do it simply because he was convinced that he could do it.

One of Bruce’s favorite philosophies was this; “Things are often the exact opposite of what they at first appear to be.” Of all of Bruce’s philosophies, this is one of the five or six that have helped me the most – in business – in personal relationships – in determining the presence of danger – etc.

When I am teaching my students how to build log homes it is ironic that I rarely teach them anything that they don’t already know. I simply take a bunch of things they already know, and rearrange these things so they apply to the “new” field of endeavor. For example, everyone knows that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Everybody knows the importance of distance, speed, range, and power. Everybody knows about the effects of gravity. Everybody knows that something light is easier to move than something heavy. Everybody knows about the effects of inertia. Everybody knows that repetitive movement facilitates learning. Everybody knows that a leg is generally stronger than an arm. Everybody knows about the effects of leverage. Everybody knows that it takes more power to shear a nail if it is driven between two boards at an angle. Everybody knows that if you can dig out your opponents eyes before he can dig out your eyes then you will almost certainly win the fight. In other words, when I am teaching people how to build log cabins I simply take a bunch of these concepts (that my students already know) and rearrange them in such a way that they pertain to solving new problems in these new fields. Again… this is some of the stuff that I began learning this from Bruce in 1959.

Bruce had no fear when it came to fighting, and he once told me why he had no fear. Bruce told me that after he had been practicing Gung Fu for two years, he actually learned to be “afraid to be afraid.” At first, I didn’t understand what he meant by this – so he explained, as follows;

At first, when he was a young student of Gung Fu, he was sometimes afraid of getting hit. This was especially true when he was fighting someone who was larger and stronger. However, he soon learned that the number of times he got hit always increased in direct proportion to the amount of fear he was experiencing at the time. In other words, he got hit much more often when he was afraid than he did when he was not afraid. At that time, he learned to be afraid to be afraid.

Bruce’s fear of being afraid became the thing he needed to deal with – not his fear of the enemy.

In a way, this relates to Winston Churchill said during WW II, “The only thing you have to fear, is fear itself.”

If someone said to you, “You should acquire a knowledge of Gung Fu by only learning the things that work best for you,” you wouldn’t know where to begin – because you wouldn’t have the necessary frame of reference. You wouldn’t even know what ingredients were available to you. In other words, before you can bake a cake, you must know what “flour” is – and sugar, and salt, and eggs, and heat, and etc., etc., etc. Until you know what those things are, and know the basics of cooking, it would not be realistic for someone to tell you, “Just bake your cakes using innovation.”

Sometimes I hear people say that Bruce's approach to Gung Fu can not be “taught.” I do not agree. I believe that it is possible to teach it. In analogy, this is how I see it:

A good friend of mine is an exceptionally good cook. I am always amazed at some of the things that he can “invent” in the kitchen, with no recipe at all. On many occasions when he has visited us, he cooked some amazing things for us by simply using left-over ingredients that he happened to find in the refrigerator. He did this without a recipe, and without a clue as to what he would find when he opened the refrigerator door. As we were eating, we would ask him, “How in the hell can you make up a recipe like this right off the top of your head ??? He said, “Because it isn’t a recipe at all – it is just a “way” or a “method” or a “process” of doing it. He said if I wanted to learn how to cook, then I should use recipes for the first year or two – and then forget about them. From then on, I should just learn what types of things go well together (and conversely, what type of things do not go well together.). To some extent, the final product will obviously be a matter of personal taste, cultural conditioning, etc. However, there are certain standards regarding the “tastes” of food that most people seem to agree with. He suggested that I could probably learn a lot about cooking if I just made a large pot of stew (with the most commonly used ingredients) and added to it each day. He said that when I first made the stew, I should follow a recipe – so I would have some working knowledge – or a “frame of reference.” He said that after making the original stew, I should use my own imagination when adding to it each day – and I should not worry about a recipe. He suggested that I start out by adding relatively “normal” ingredients, such as tomato sauce, potatoes, carrots, olives, beans, chili sauce, barbecue sauce, and various spices. After becoming comfortable with this, I should expand my efforts to include anything I think will work, such as cottage cheese, parmesan cheese, sour cream, rice, asparagus, a can of corn, a can of soup, bread-crumbs, powdered mashed potatoes (for thickening), etc., etc. He suggested that if I continued to add to the stew in this way, I would soon learn the combinations that went well together, and that this would be one of the best ways for me to learn about cooking – in general. I tried this me