Bruce Lee Quote

[BigDave]

"When the opponent expands I contract and when he contracts I expand and when there is an opportunity I do not hit, it hits all by itself."

I have been pondering this a lot lately. How do you guys think this relates to what we do in practical shooting?

[Jeeper]

I think that the second half is dead on with our sport. It is that whole thing Brian talked about in the book. I will probably butcher what he said but it was something to the effect of; "when the sights are there you dont shoot it automatically fires"

[rhino]

I think it would be really tough to make a direct analogy since in practical shooting, you don't have an opponent per se. You make it or break it solely based on what you do or don't do. What the other competitors do has no direct effect on you or what you do.

When you face an opponent or adversary, everything they do or don't do affects your game. It looks like he's also restating the whole concept of push-pull from jiu jitsu and judo.

[BigDave]

I think the end of that statement speaks for itself.

The begining regarding expansion and contraction I think has a direct relationship. When the opponent expands, I contract.... I read that like when I'm shooting far targets or difficult shots, I have to contract, or draw a more concentrated (read: tighter, more enhanced) focus on my shots, and vice versa for the second half of the intro.

Make sense to anyone else? It does to me now that I have pondered further.

[miyamoto]

bruce lee's comment speaks to reading and adapting to situations as the need arises.

being with the flow and not against.

this applies to everything, so it surely fits something as specialized as shooting.

the second portion says fundamentally the same thing as the first.

being aware and involved with our innermost self and the task.

not having our cogitative aspect engaged as this hampers our long practiced skills in their performance.

the tao is good reading!

have a good one,

will s.

[vluc]

Aren't we our own opponent? When we begin to feel too confident, should we not bring it in a touch? When we are not confident enough, shouldn't we trust our ability more?

[Greg G]

The way I understand it, the opponent is the stage you are shooting, you need to be adaptive. When the situation arrises to hit (make the shot) because you have adapted to the stage and are prepared there is little effort required to take the shot.

Just my 2c

Greg

[rhino]

My opinion is that, in general, Bruce Lee was not that profound when he uttered most of the quotes atttributed to him.

He was an excellent marketer of himself, though.

[benos]

My opinion is that, in general, Bruce Lee was not that profound when he uttered most of the quotes atttributed to him.

He was an excellent marketer of himself, though.

Will,

Very nice. Thank you; I folla.

BigDave,

The trick lies in letting "it" do the work, when needed. Then "it" contracts when needed, and expands when necessary. And although we talk in terms of "contracting" and "expanding," is there really any contracting and expanding at all? Why would I ask such a question?

rhino,

Have you read Tao of Jeet Kune Do?

Your - "attributed to him" makes me curious. Are you implying that he did not actually say or write what is recorded in his book?

be

[AikiDale]

"When the opponent expands I contract and when he contracts I expand and when there is an opportunity I do not hit, it hits all by itself."

I have been pondering this a lot lately.  How do you guys think this relates to what we do in practical shooting?

Setting aside for a moment the concept of the opponent being ourselves,

let opponent in this example be 'Target'. Mushashi Miamoto says in the Go Rin No Sho one should see near things as if they are far away and distant things as if they are near. BE distinguishes the different types of Focus in 'Beyond Fundamentals.'

This quotation relates to shooting in how one relates perceptially, perhaps emotionally, to the target. If there is an array of 4 IPSC targets, say two up and two down, edge to edge and about one meter away one could feel very jammed up coming upon this rounding a vision barrier. The target in this analogy would be 'expanded' and the shooter would 'contract' to put himself in proper perspective for accurate shooting. If the target contracts, to say 40 or 50 yards, the shooter must expand his awareness to fill the space between himself and the target.

The focus one uses on a distant target is different than the focus one uses on a near target and when the entire picture is in balance, the shot breaks.

[Flexmoney]

Ghost Dog said:

And although we talk in terms of "contracting" and "expanding," is there really any contracting and expanding at all? Why would I ask such a question?

Yin and Yang? Give and take? Contracting in one direction is expanding in another? "Matter" is not destroyed...it merely changes shape? ...equal and opposite response?

Balance?

[rhino]

rhino,

Have you read Tao of Jeet Kune Do?

Your - "attributed to him" makes me curious. Are you implying that he did not actually say or write what is recorded in his book?

be

Hi, Mr. Enos!

When I was a kid in the early 70s to mid 80s, I read just about everything Bruce Lee wrote and what was written about him. I was consumed in the whole Asian martial arts thing back then both as a practitioner and competitor (I was a lot more serious about karate tournaments then than I am about shooting matches now!).

When I say "attributed to him," I meant both the things he said (and was quoted) and what he wrote. I do not contend those quote as historical fact! I was not implying that he never said it, but rather stating that what he said isn't that impressive.

My thing is, looking back with more life experience and seeing how so many of the people in that world turned out, I have a different view of much of it. In general, I'm a lot less impressed. When I see a discussion of "what did he mean when he said," I generally see a lot of projection and attribution of wisdom that often really wasn't (isn't) there. For what it's worth, I feel the same way about most deconstruction of western literature as well.

Specifically, Bruce Lee no longer impresses me as an icon of wisdom or philosophical insight. He was an excellent martial arts performer, perhaps a decent instructor, and an excellent promoter of himself in a (then) young market, though. I give credit where credit is due.

[miyamoto]

rhino,

he certainly said nothing new, or unique.

it is easy enough to find those "profound words" in many works of

asian lit. dealing with tao, zen, sun tzu, etc, etc.

but he did bring those concepts to a whole new "market" for the most

part, giving it again to future generations.

just as you said...sort of ;-)

i was aware of many different ideas from various "ism's" before i read his

work with his tao of jkd as a kid in the late 80's/90's.

it refreshes...he was special in a way.

it gives us another viewpoint. that is all.

his work was great.

the treatment of his work, both for and against...is poor for the most part.

just average, or below average people comfortably second guessing

a dead man.

your average person who is seeking the pinnacle will look to bruce lee the same way they look to any other great person in their field.

almost treating them like a god (unfortunately).

you see how most people treat rob leatham like some heroic god.

i have been attending enough competition to see that.

but i see a guy who puts in a ton of effort and has done it consistently for

many...many, many years.

that kind of consistency and hard work over that many years is going

bode well, regardless of our pursuit(s).

as much as i want to defend bruce lee and whatever else i

find relevant from people who enjoy taking the short view.

i guess it is not my job.

and hey!

if it was not for bruce lee penning some thoughts in his own

special way...i imagine the tao of 'practical shooting, beyond fundamentals'

would really be missing something special...don't you think?

have a good one,

will

[rhino]

but he did bring those concepts to a whole new "market" for the most

part, giving it again to future generations.

That's an excellent point I had not considered. Thank you!

your average person who is seeking the pinnacle will look to bruce lee the same way they look to any other great person in their field.

almost treating them like a god (unfortunately).

That's probably part of my "problem" on this one. I had my Bruce Lee poster when I was a kid, and all the books and such, but I outgrew the "idolization" phase pretty quickly. Curiously, I never saw any of his movies until I was in my mid 30s (I'm 38 now) and since then I've only seen bits and pieces of a couple.

and hey!

if it was not for bruce lee penning some thoughts in his own

special way...i imagine the  tao of 'practical shooting, beyond fundamentals'

would really be missing something special...don't you think?

Another good point!

Although . . . I must admit a heresy here . . . I've not yet read Mr. Enos' tome.

I think this is where I get pelted with rocks and garbage by the crowd!

[Flexmoney]

[miyamoto]

get a rope...

[AikiDale]

http://www.brianenos.com/Qstore/c000001.htm

[jessej]

[Bruce]

Only Lee would know what he actually meant, but I read it to mean the same as many now do when they talk about being in the "zone". In the fight game the last portion of the statement seems to be about doing, as opposed to thinking. Train hard enough at anything and at some point it is experienced...something that is not necessarily thought about and then done...rather, it is just done....and not until afterward do we even realize that wow, that happened?

My only contact with Lee has been through his writings and his protege', Dan Inosanto. Lee was a spectacular talent, extremely gifted---and extremely hard working on those gifts. Based on my knowledge of Lee he would probably be quite proud to hear rhino say what he said---Lee was all about taking from something what was useful and discarding the rest. rhino has done that, in his own way.

On a different note, I don't think Lee or many others we now read saw themselves as any type of mystic, or guru. Rather, they were trying to put their emotion and thoughts down on paper...to be used or discarded as the reader wished.

[rimshot]

Yinyang is present in all situations, and in combat, Bruce Lee stressed that it was important not to counter yin with yin, or yang with yang.

Get a copy of the book "zen in the martial arts". There are several chaptors explaining Bruce Lee's art.

Blue Collar Shooter

Also, great post Bruce! You give an excellent representation of Bruce Lee.

Rimshot

[Liota]

After a fashion I have to agree with Rhino. Too many times in college I got asked, "What did the author mean by this?" My first response was, "Let me call him and check." Problem? The author had been dead for some time, probably more than 100 years. No, I wasn't quite that cynical about it until I read the interview with J.R.R. Tolkien in which the author of the article spoke about how LOTR was a comment on modern life. Tolkien said something to the effect of, "It's a story. That's all." Basically, it brought me around to the understanding that what a guy says is what he says. The reader or listener will attach meaning and significance based on his experience. I do not mean to de-value anything people have said in the past, because in some respect it always has value, even if only to tell me which path not to take.

I guess I just take what is of value to me and leave the rest behind, but remain aware of where it is so I can find it if I need it. Somehow this has always gotten me where I needed to be when I needed to be there.

my $.02

L

[jhgtyre]

One of the problems that you face when interpreting literature is that the author may not have been aware of everything that they meant when they were writing. I am sure Tolkien was being honest and forthright when he stated that his work was not based upon the social and political climate in Europe during the early 20th century. I am just as sure that he could not have avoided insinuating those situations into his work. Being a product of that environment how could he avoid it?

You also have to consider the reader in the formula. Knowing what you know about the author, the places in which he lived, the influences on his life you gain a different insight into the work that the author produces. This change in your perception of the author might give you a completely different impression of the work than if you didn't know anything about the author. Does that invalidate either interpretation? I don't really think so. The movie "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield has a great scene where Dangerfield's kid gets an F on a paper that someone else wrote for him because the teacher said that he had no idea what Vonnegut was writing about in the book. The paper was on "Slaughter House Five" I think. Anyway the guy who wrote the paper comes in and it is Kurt Vonnegut. Dangerfield looks at him and screams "Vonnegut, you're fired!" Sure this was a silly scene from a fairly bad movie but it illustrates a very good point which is that the creator of a work of art has the job of creation but they do not get to interpret their own work. That task falls on everyone who encounters the work. They have the liberty to interpret it as they see fit.

-ld

[Liota]

You said it more eloquently than I did. I agree with you. People are always influenced to some degree by their surroundings. It would be silly to think otherwise.

L

[jhgtyre]

You said it more eloquently than I did. I agree with you. People are always influenced to some degree by their surroundings. It would be silly to think otherwise.

L

Thanks. I didn't drop out of grad school for nuthin' ya' know!

-ld

[tightloop]

Sorry, but there are many who know more and have written more eloquently about any number of topics than Mr. Lee. Cool actor, great martial artist, that's it.