Thanks for the replies. I’m about 90% sure I’ll buy it and if I do I’ll post my opinion about it too.
but it really is rubbish.
I think the ‘book’ says as much.
:eek:
yenhoi
I cant belive Im defending Bruces notes! but its not rubbish, As a matter of the fact, there are a lot of good ideas in this book.
its not the HOLY BIBLE (as so many people belive) but it is a pretty good book.
The best comparisons That I can think of is the book of five rings, “this book has been written for both the master and the novice” The more you understand the more you see!
Dont close your mind to the possibilities, beacuse there is more in this world that we dont know, than what we do.
Sincerely C.A.G.
I found the book interesting when I first started learning kung fu, but after a while I came to realise that most of what was in there was not really unique, as it had always existed in kung fu.
My suggestion get the book and read it for yourself.
It will give you an idea as to the thinking process of Bruce.
As noted it is not a written book, but more of a collection of notes and similar.
Some will hit you and some won’t.
Would have been interesting to see how BL would have evaluated his notes if he were still alive and training today.
Cheers.
Art of War
What do people think of the Art of War? Do you think it’s better than the Tao?
I’ve been reading it but seems the introduction is really long. Seems that Ts’ao Ts’ao was alive during Sun Tzu…I think. 
What???
Surely you’re not comparing The Art of War to The Tao of Jeet Kun Do are you??
Sun Tzu was a proven strategist and a warrior, who also understood the Tao, whereas on the other hand The Tao of Jeet Kun Do was written by Bruce Lee.
Re: What???
Originally posted by Repulsive Monkey
Surely you’re not comparing The Art of War to The Tao of Jeet Kun Do are you??
Sun Tzu was a proven strategist and a warrior, who also understood the Tao, whereas on the other hand The Tao of Jeet Kun Do was written by Bruce Lee.
Yea so where does that fit it?
hmmmmmmmmm???
Repulsive was friends with both sun and bruce it seems.
neat.
D@mn… Hey repulsive, what was feudal japan like? :eek:
Or was sun tzu chinese?
Re: What???
Originally posted by Repulsive Monkey
Surely you’re not comparing The Art of War to The Tao of Jeet Kun Do are you??
Sun Tzu was a proven strategist and a warrior, who also understood the Tao, whereas on the other hand The Tao of Jeet Kun Do was written by Bruce Lee.
What if he is? While most scholars (hell, all scholars) would probably say that The Art of War is a better book, the Tao is going to be far more immediately useful to a martial arts student.
Yeah, the concepts in Sun Tzu are applicable to martial arts. But honestly, even you can recognize the difference in utility between “attack where the enemy fortifications are weakest” and “hit him where he’s not guarding.” Both are relevant. One is more accessible. So from a personally practical standpoint (as opposed to a literary or even strategic standpoint), the Tao is a perfectly valid choice over Sun Tzu.
And before you get all intellectual and snooty again, “whereas on the other hand” is redundant. Clever clogs.
Stuart B.
Hay App.
are you back? I havent seen any of your posting in a long time.
I agree the Art of war is a usefull resource,to any M/A.
another GREAT book is the Book of five rings.
I personaly would put these two books on the must read list.
take care. C.A.G.
Re: Re: What???
Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
D@mn… Hey repulsive, what was feudal japan like? :eek:
Or was sun tzu chinese?
NO!
Sun Tzu is a common name for an Elf.
…you **** fool.
…Oy Vey…
Originally posted by apoweyn
[B]
What if he is? While most scholars (hell, all scholars) would probably say that The Art of War is a better book, the Tao is going to be far more immediately useful to a martial arts student.
Yeah, the concepts in Sun Tzu are applicable to martial arts. But honestly, even you can recognize the difference in utility between “attack where the enemy fortifications are weakest” and “hit him where he’s not guarding.” Both are relevant. One is more accessible. So from a personally practical standpoint (as opposed to a literary or even strategic standpoint), the Tao is a perfectly valid choice over Sun Tzu.
And before you get all intellectual and snooty again, “whereas on the other hand” is redundant. Clever clogs.
Stuart B. [/B]
Some scholars arn’t even sure if Sun Tzu was the real author.
Ts’ao Ts’ao (Cao Cao from the game) worte alot of stuff he thought was good…yet took out things he thought was irrelvent.
You just can never be too sure with old texts. But yet even business men read that book and use the tatics during the “battle of work”.
I ignore the philosophy parts but the the “notes” contain some really useful ideas/pointers. My martial bible from my martial messiah.
Originally posted by curtis
[B]Hay App.
are you back? I havent seen any of your posting in a long time.
I agree the Art of war is a usefull resource,to any M/A.
another GREAT book is the Book of five rings.
I personaly would put these two books on the must read list.
take care. C.A.G. [/B]
Hey Curtis,
I hang around the main forum most of the time. This one was very quiet for a long time. So I stopped showing up.
Seems to be picking up though, yeah?
Stuart B.
Tao of Jeet Kune Do: Plagiarism
“Presently (2003?) in its twentieth printing and offered in nine languages, The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, for well over a decade a bestseller, has lined the pockets of a few at the expens of misleading countless martial artists of all ages and levels of proficiency. Hopefully the day will come when the great masters whos writings are contained in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do will be honored, both in print and monetarily, for their work that has for too many years been wrongly and purposely credited to Bruce Lee. Perhaps the worst example of plagiarism occured in 2000 when the estate’s author John Little wrongly attributed to Bruce Lee the writing (“The Passionate State of Mind”) of renowned philosopher (and the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom) Eric Hoffer!”
~Tom Bleecker
Unsettled Matters
The life and death of Bruce Lee
I was going to put this in the “Other Related Arts” section, but I thought it would get better responses here.
Not sure how many of you actually read that entire biography that KF posted, written by Tom Bleecker, but this is near the end, and I feel is quite a valid concern in regards to the works that are in Tao of Jeet Kune Do that are plagiarised and NOT the original works of Bruce Lee.
Not to discredit any thing Bruce Lee had done in life, but as we all know, Tao of Jeet Kune Do, was not something Bruce Lee had done in life. Would BL have gone to the lengths of making much of this information and MA material appear as his original thoughts and concepts? Doubtful. Though its of no doubt that Bruce had developed his own thoughts, processes, concepts, ideals, etc. about martial arts, I for some reason would like to doubt that Bruce Lee would try to take another, past martial artists, credit for himself.
So, what can actually be done about this today. Can anything be done?
What are some of you’re thoughts on this? Or do any of you even care? Possibly not.
Was there anything original in the TofJKD ???
Little Tuttle
That was one of my big issues with Little’s Lee series for Tuttle. He pillaged Lee’s notes but didn’t do the research beyond that. Lee was a philosophy student. Many of the notes published in the series were clearly class notes, never meant to be published. The same problem pervades TofJKD, which despite what was depicted in Dragon, was also published posthumously. It really wasn’t fair to Lee to publish his notes. However, given the legend that followed, it was understandable.
It’s also very amusing to see JKD followers quote the gospel of Lee, not realizing that it’s actually Buddha or Hoffer or whoever.
[QUOTE=GeneChing;774142]That was one of my big issues with Little’s Lee series for Tuttle. He pillaged Lee’s notes but didn’t do the research beyond that. Lee was a philosophy student. Many of the notes published in the series were clearly class notes, never meant to be published. The same problem pervades TofJKD, which despite what was depicted in Dragon, was also published posthumously. It really wasn’t fair to Lee to publish his notes. However, given the legend that followed, it was understandable.
It’s also very amusing to see JKD followers quote the gospel of Lee, not realizing that it’s actually Buddha or Hoffer or whoever.[/QUOTE]
Hence my question of originality.
When I read it and re-read it, I didn’t see anything “new”.
There are two other books from which he copied a lot of passages that found there way into “Tao”; one an old boxing bood, the other an old fencing book.
On another note, as “Tao” and “Do” are the same character (in two different dialects), the title annoys me to no end
Tao of Jeet Kune Do
“way of jeet kune way?”
way of jeet kune way of jeet kune way of jeet kune way…