Without Writing

The art of writing without writing… about fighting.

Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris: The Real Truth

Bruce Lee-vs-Chuck NorrisHere’s a fantastic way to start 2014; definitively answering the decades-old question, who would have won in a real fight between Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris?

Of course, the more astute martial artists among this blog’s readers will already be certain of the correct answer. But let’s go through the reasoning nonetheless.

In order to answer this question accurately, just as with any question, we will first have to frame the issue accurately:


Point 1: When answering any question about “who would win in a real fight between x & y”, one can only answer with a probable outcome. It’s a fact that on any given day, any fighter could in theory be defeated by any opponent, regardless of deficits in skill-level. However, we can say with some confidence that fighter “x”, with a much higher skill level, would defeat fighter “y”, the vast majority of the time. We could express this by opining that fighter “x” might win say… nine times out of ten.

As an example, we could never say that fighter “x” would win ten times out of ten and maintain any intellectual credibility, even if fighter “x” was Georges St-Pierre and fighter “y” was your eighty-year-old mum. We could say that GSP would prevail 99.9995% of the time, though. After all, even GSP could- in theory- be knocked out by a heavy handbag strike to the jawline, one time in every ten-thousand.

Point 2: We must compare like for like. There is no use comparing a young Bruce Lee to an old Chuck Norris, for instance. In the case of Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris, this is easy, as they both hit their “primes” roughly at the same time, in the late nineteen-sixties to early seventies. By this time Norris was at his most successful stage as a Karate competitor, and Lee had amassed most of his Martial Arts experience, just before his untimely death in 1973.


Let’s get down to business and compare the two combatants’ actual records and skill levels.

– From nineteen-sixty-eight to nineteen-seventy-four, Norris was by his own declaration a “world middleweight karate champion”. This is taking Norris entirely at his word, mind you. Others have had difficulty in verifying his story on this point. But what all informed commentators agree on is the fact that Norris was competing in point karate, rather than in full-contact Karate. In other words, Norris was a champion in a style of Karate in which you could be penalised for hitting someone with full force. To my way of thinking, this is no different to being declared a champion of doing Kata; while it may be a rewarding pursuit for other reasons, say… fitness and health reasons, it tells you nothing about whether the champion in question can actually fight.

Judging by footage of Norris’ Karate fights, they appear to be ludicrously unrealistic by most standards.

A person who competes in point karate might be able to fight, or he/she might not… you- and they- will never know until they actually fight for real. I hate to skim close to perpetrating a fallacious appeal to authority, but it’s worth examining why fighters like Joe Lewis agree with me on this point:

“They called point tournaments fighting but how can you fight without contact? I’ve worked on my midsection all my life so I could take a punch or kick. Then I go to a tournament and my opponent might be 150 pounds but if he hits me in the midsection he gets a point for a killing blow. That’s nonsense.”
– Joe Lewis (link)

– To contrast this, Bruce Lee’s only commonly accepted contact with competitive fighting was in his adolescence; he was an amateur boxer. Some assert that he won a local-level Hong Kong boxing championship title at that time… but this is impossible to truly verify to a nicety, as local records for the period are scarce to non-existent. For me, it is sufficient to know that Lee probably competed in a full-contact arena, with some success, more than once. After all, a single full-contact boxing match tells you more about a person’s ability to actually fight than any number of non-contact competitions could, whether they allow kicking or not.

– Bruce Lee started training in submission grappling by 1967, with the legendary “Judo” Gene LeBell, a generally acknowledged master of Judo ne-waza and Catch Wrestling. LeBell had been taught the rapidly dying art of Catch by legendary fighters such as Lou Thesz and Karl Gotch, and had studied Judo with luminaries such as Ishikawa in Japan. LeBell was a Judo champion several times over when he first met Lee on the set of Lee’s TV Series the Green Hornet. It’s hard to imagine a more skilled and illustrious teacher than LeBell. Bruce Lee therefore had developed a knowledge of submission grappling which was quite rare in the esoteric martial arts scene at the turn of the nineteen-seventies. He included many of the moves that LeBell taught him as finishers to his on-screen fight scenes, in Enter the Dragon, Way of the Dragon (vs. Chuck Norris) and the unfinished Game of Death. Lee’s compatriot- and to many, spiritual successor- Dan Inosanto states that Lee was also particularly good at integrating his striking and grappling game, in a way that was rare at the time:

“One of the things that made him [Lee] unique was his ability to move from kicking range to punching range to trapping range to grappling range. At that time, most martial artists really shined in one particular range. If you kicked, you didn’t punch or grapple much. If you punched, you didn’t kick or grapple much. And if you grappled, you didn’t have the same skill level in striking. Sifu Bruce was way ahead of his time in how he was training himself and his students to be adept at bridging the gap between ranges.”- Dan Inosanto (link)

– To contrast, while Chuck Norris did study Judo when he was in the armed forces, though far less intensively than he studied Tae Kwan Do, he apparently only gave serious thought to studying submission grappling in 1982, when he first encountered the Gracie family in Brazil.

– In terms of physical attributes and conditioning, reports indicate that Bruce Lee was 5’7″ and weighed as little as 135lb, whereas Norris was 5’10” and weighed 160lb during his competitive career. Norris would have enjoyed both a weight and reach advantage over his smaller adversary. However, Lee was famous for innovating new training methods and conditioning himself physically to a level associated only with top athletes. From two-finger pushups to a ridiculous degree of static strength, Lee seems to have exemplified a philosophy of training which was well ahead of its time. No similar stories concerning Norris have surfaced.

The Outcome:


Essentially, what we have here is a fight between the following two men:

Lee, a combatant who had trained in striking styles all his life, and  had success in striking at a full-contact competitive level (albeit a small amateur level), who also studied submission grappling with one of the godfathers of the art, who had an affinity for blending his stand-up and grappling styles in a way that was ahead of his time, and had trained his body to a level commensurate with high-level athletic ability. Lee could have weighed anywhere between 135lb and 145lb (61.2kg to 65.8kg) during 1972.

Norris, a man who had- at the point at which Lee and he met- only focussed on Tae Kwon Do/Karate with a small sideline in Judo, but apparently had limited knowledge of submission grappling and had only ever competed in point karate tournaments. As far as one can tell, Norris weighed 160lb/72.5kg.

It’s hard to argue that either man was really a “competitive fighter”. Both were predominantly performers. But Bruce Lee came closer to this than Norris did. Lee was also the better rounded martial artist, and while Norris did catch up by learning submission grappling eventually, this was only in the eighties or nineties, well after his prime.

If MMA competition- especially in the early days of the UFC- taught us anything, it was that the better rounded fighter- preferably with a knowledge of full-contact striking and submission grappling- will defeat a relatively one-dimensional opponent, even when there is a disparity in weight.

On the basis of this information, I suggest that an actual fight between these two men might go very roughly the same way as the fictional fight scene they played out in the movie Way of the Dragon. I suggest that three quarters of the time, Lee would either survive or be dominant in the striking range, due to his superior speed, timing, physical conditioning and full-contact experience, and would eventually finish the fight via submission.

And the only reason I see Norris winning 2.5 times out of ten, is his greater size and reach.

Potential Counter-Arguments

Supporters of Norris have raised counter-arguments to suggestions that Lee was the better fighter in the past. Some of the most common are:

1. “But Norris was a world champ! Lee never won a championship!”

Well leaving aside Lee’s difficult to verify amateur boxing tournament, this has no relevance as Norris was only ever a champion of pretending to hit people.

2. “Norris was a full-contact Karate fighter, he would have crucified Lee with his kickboxing!”

Norris never competed in full-contact Karate, only in point Karate. Norris often refers to himself as having been a “professional fighter”. If what he was competing in wasn’t fighting (and it wasn’t), how can fighting have been a profession for him? He wasn’t a fighter at all, in fact. Merely a stylist, or a performer. Take your pick.

3. “Lee was tiny! Therefore, Chuck!”

Lee was much smaller. But whether Lee would have won depends on whether his skill and strength was in excess of Norris’ to the degree necessary to overcome that weight and reach disparity. My verdict on the available evidence is that Lee’s skill and strength would have been sufficient to that task, the majority of the time.

4. “There’s no real evidence Lee ever had any real fights!, therefore, Chuck!”

There’s no evidence that Chuck had any real fights either. Therefore the two should be assessed on their apparent skills and attributes, as I have assessed them above.

Why Have I Written This?

I admit that the topic at hand may seem somewhat childish, perhaps on the level of “which would win, a scorpion or a spider?”, and by its nature consists of a certain degree of conjecture. But in all honesty, this article was provoked only and entirely by this clip:

A clip in which Norris discusses times that he and Bruce Lee- supposedly a friend of his- worked out together, and is asked by the interviewer:

“[During these workouts you and Bruce Lee were] not fighting each other?”

And Norris responds with:

“No, you know, I was a professional fighter. Haha.”

As if to suggest that Norris was a fighter and Lee was not. Norris’ only concession to Lee’s combative skill comes straight afterwards, when he points out that- while Lee may not have been on Norris’ level as a “fighter”-;

“but he was good.”

Well, gee, thanks for the endorsement Chuck.

Chuck Norris is a pretty obnoxious person in general actually. As well as being something of a right-wing jingoiststupid conspiracy theorist, hater of the gay folk, and hyper-religious nutjob, as we can see from many interviews he constantly bigs himself up to a level that even Steven Seagal would be proud of. Norris is no more a fighter than Seagal, even though he may be more of a martial artist.

“Here’s what I really think about the theory of evolution: It’s not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live.”
– Chuck Norris (link)

The plain fact of the matter though, is that Bruce Lee is an inspiration to millions, and his impact can be felt in the way that martial arts are practiced in a more combative and practical way these days, to the way that action is filmed in movies, to the way that Asian men and women are no longer portrayed only as dishwashers and rickshaw drivers in film. He’s won the moral battle against people like Chuck Norris, who despite the appearance of philanthropy, are actually peddling exceptionalism, nationalism, exclusionism and martial fakery to the masses.

Bruce Lee was more moral than Chuck Norris, more intelligent than Chuck Norris, had a better real fighting record than Chuck Norris (the little there was of it), and frankly could have beat Chuck Norris in a fight. My money would have been on him.

End of story.


106 responses to “Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris: The Real Truth

  1. Mark Devaney 2014, January 7 at 12:56 am

    I agree with you in the fact that Bruce Lee was the better fighter, and there is record of him defeating in a real fight another Chinese kung fu expert called Wolf Jack Man (I think that was the gentleman’s name) it is a long time ago. But Bruce Lee for sure was the superior fighter no question about it. Bruce was actually trained in Wing Chun kung fu by the great and legendary Master Yip Man who was certainly a man of great integrity and moral character. Bruce Lee went to on explore other martial arts and their applications and eventually founded the style known as Jeet Kune Do. I think that it is rather disappointing that you chose to attack Chuck Norris on the grounds of his own personal beliefs, instead of confining your comments to the actual subject which is martial arts. People’s personal beliefs should not really come into this subject at alI.

    • withoutwriting 2014, January 7 at 12:39 pm

      Many thanks for the comment.

      Actually I care less about who would have won a fight between Lee and Norris, and more about the fact that Norris was a dick about it in that interview clip I posted.

      It’s very rich for a man like Norris… who was never a professional fighter, and never competed in full contact (so was arguably never a fighter at all, professionally or unprofessionally), to act as though his point-karate tournament victories put him above a veritable colossus like Bruce Lee in *any* way.

      Chuck Norris’ personal beliefs are open to public criticism the moment he makes those beliefs a public issue. And he has!

      He’s been campaigning for the hideous right-wing Republican party in America for years. He’s been campaigning against sex education in schools; he’s been campaigning against tolerance for gay people in education and therefore public life; and he’s been campaigning for the ridiculous, supernatural, unscientific and dangerous idea of creationism for years. He’s a disgusting man, morally and intellectually speaking. People like Chuck Norris should be villified at *every* opportunity. Whenever people mention Chuck Norris as a martial artist, they should also make special mention of the fact that he is an unmitigated c*ck.

      Regarding your other points,

      – Yes, I think Lee had a good chance of beating Norris.

      – No, I don’t think his time with Yip Man would have had much to do with it; Lee phased out most of his Wing Chun stylings over time, replacing them with concepts from more effective and reality-based martial arts such as boxing, wrestling, savate, fencing, submission grappling… etc. etc. Wing Chun people like to claim Lee as one of their own when it suits them, but he really had moved beyond classical Chinese arts like Wing Chun by the time of his death.

      – No, Jeet Kune Do isn’t a “style”. It’s a philosophy. Any style can be part of the learning process of the adherent of JKD, but the goal is to discard all styles in the end. Important to remember that, if one wishes to honour Bruce Lee’s ideas and ideals.

      • Plato 2015, February 7 at 4:05 am

        You are the biggest piece of s**t that I have ever read in commentary. You are vile, personal, hateful, bias, a complete idiot, ignorant and you were born from the *ss of a swine.

      • withoutwriting 2015, March 1 at 3:40 pm

        Another fence-sitter. I wish someone would actually say what they really think on the internet.

      • Anon 2015, May 7 at 7:12 pm

        I utterly despise internet commenters who call themselves names like “Plato”, like they’re ow so enlightened and then anonymously spout all kinds of profanity against someone they’ve never met and don’t know at all, because the opinion they voiced happens to be one they disagree with.

      • Joseph E Schmitt 2015, June 9 at 2:02 am

        You forget Chuck was a member of the Airforce as a military police officer. I am a vetran of this branch and job as well. We do learn very deadly hand to hand combat techniques.

        Withoutwriting says: No you don’t.

        You know nothing of this or of Chuch who studied Tang soo Do Not Takwan do or dancing as we in the military and martial arts world call it.

        Tang Soo Do IS Tae Kwon Do. You can’t even spell Tae Kwon Do, so I don’t expect you to know its history.

        Chuck would have Killed him with his extra size mass and military tenacity. at least 8 out of ten times.

        Worrying level of military fetishism.

        Trust me I have taught hand to hand combat in the Air force police and in the navy.

        I’m thinking of the Village People when I read this line

        I have studied more styles than you know exist.

        You’re a fantasist and a troll.

        I know a fighter and I know a holliwood poser. LEe had great form. Lee had great philosophy. Lee was a good actor. In a fight Norris 7or 8 out of ten easy. In a death match Norris 1 out of 1 done.

        A “Death Match” eh. You’re trapped in an 80’s JCVD movie, my insane friend.

        Their polotics is beside the point you have no real fighting experience real world or Dojo or military. I have all. Military. Dojo. and real world as a body guard and bouncer. I respect both men for many reasons. but I am a combat proven street fight proven warrior, and soldier.

        You sound more and more like Steven Seagal with every line. Did you also teach Anderson Silva all his moves?

        Both were and are great proponents of martial arts and they got along shared and where friend good men dedicated to doing good for all. this is the spirit distilled of martial practioners soldiers and true warrios the world over.

        Instead of learning all those martial arts you claim to have studied, you should have spent more time working on your basic spelling and grammar. Then you wouldn’t have had to make a living killing all those people with your bare hands.

        As a side note you should know as a soldier in the first Gulf war I had more respect for my enemies waiting to kill me than for all of you non-combatants back home they were after my brother soldiers the finest men I knew because they to had their lives on the line. While many boys sat home and supported us rehtorically, or sent us candy like women.

        A sexist, a Walt and a warmonger. You’re just as pretty as a goddamn little picture, you are.

        Contact me if you like my name is Joe Schmitt I live in xxxxxxxxx. My number is in the book my E-mail is
        Blessings to you and respect.

        I get a feeling that the only person you respect is your drug dealer. Have a nice life.

      • Jonathan R. Henry 2015, July 24 at 6:38 pm

        I agree with your analysis with regard to martial arts.
        But the idea that Lee was more moral seems quite arbitrary to me. Moral by whose standard? Now, Lee’s views might be more socially acceptable today because Western society has been increasingly postmodernist and more philosophy, but that does not make them objectively more moral.

      • withoutwriting 2015, July 26 at 1:05 am

        Of course Lee was more moral than Chuck Norris; most people, and animals… and inanimate objects are more moral than Chuck Norris. The point of the latter half of the article was that Chuck is amoral, not that Lee was an especially moral person.

        As for your implication that morality is in some way “changeable” or “relative”, that’s simply and obviously false. Morality is the system of values through which we try to regulate our behavior to cause the least harm- and do the most good- to other beings. It’s not subjective. At the finer edges of morality, where difficult questions present themselves, we may have cause to legitimately disagree… but no-one has ever presented any cogent reasoning to support Chuck’s ludicrous positions: that homosexuality is objectively “wrong” in some way, for instance. Anyone who believes that homosexuality is inherently “wrong” is not only espousing an immoral view, they are also an incurious, gullible fool. Like Chuckie.

        And of course, it’s worth stressing that supporters of Chuck and people like Chuck should stop deluding themselves that their retrograde, often religiously based beliefs, are in any way valid. Rather, they’re totally invalid.

        Lastly thanks for the comment; I’m glad you agree with my martial-arts related reasoning.

      • Tony 2015, August 18 at 2:15 am

        Yea, Norris was a Ass in that video! Bruce Lee All The Way, Bruce Develop his own fighting style and was very fast and powerful.

      • Violator1 2017, July 30 at 12:44 am

        THANK YOU Mark for your comment toward the issue of Chuck Norris Beliefs!I totally agree with you as to your statement Stick to the Martial Arts and refrain from the Beliefs bashing! Thanks again Mark!
        While the Leftist Liberal fool Withoutwriting shows he is a typical head inserted in his own or others Rectal canal/Ass!!

        Withoutwriting: Nah, I’ll carry on writing about political and religious beliefs too… Mark. 😉

    • Rance 2016, September 23 at 1:42 pm

      i agree with you, ive read online too many times that bruce was an actor that knew abit of martial arts but was a fake as a true fighter and that chuck was the real mccoy as being a world champion,
      i am myself a 3rd degree blackbelt at kickboxing and having trained in ju jitsu and krav maga aswell, ive been a martial artist for 27 years, so i do know a thing or two about unharmed combat,
      bruce lee trained on a very deep level on the science to actually render people out cold or worse still even death, the very least resulting in the opponent recieving broken bones ie leg, arm, nose etc etc, and also to render this damage to the assailant in the quickest possible way to obviously avoid not only fatigue but also unwanted help by way of your apponenants friends or indeed police or other, who end of the day needs an audience,
      bruce thought competitive karate was a waste of physical expense due to lack of contact and being stopped after a point was awarded by often seemingly a tap of a half hearted punch or kick, this didnt fair with bruce at all, and wasnt deemed combat but more of a childs game and saw no real substance to it. to fight how he had trained and conditioned himself would be to get disqaulified instantly if not EVEN arrested if he entered competition, he wasnt to score a point off you, but as you were infront of him he was to HURT you,
      now chuck norris was a competitor at this sport of point scoring and reached a certain level doing so, but once he scored the fight is paused the point awarded and then the bout continues, a real fight doesnt have this luxury, as rightly stated by bruce, he WILL HIT BACK.
      I know this will offend some of you but i will go as far to say chuck was a paper champion,
      a true legend in his own mind aswell, as it being only semi contact karate,
      in those days there was very little competition either not like tournaments of today,
      in combat bruce lee would simply walk through chuck norris like he wasnt even there.
      however bruce lee respected chuck as a martial artist and a human being and befriended him and gave him his golden opportunity to universally get noticed and forge a carreer in movies
      i mean wow what a golden opportunity, we dont all get it handed to us on a plate like that do we.
      yet many years later when bruce isnt around to say or no doubt prove any different chuck norris shows his true colours and lack of respect for a true friend that gave him time of day and also a carreer by stating he was a real professional fighter and champion and that he himself was in a totally different league to bruce and so for bruces safety they didnt spar or fight, i find this so desrespectfull not only as morals of a martial artist but as a human being aswell.
      i will ask you this, whats the difference between god and chuck norris ?
      god doesnt think hes chuck norris,
      i myself have never given point stop karate the time of day neither, ive competed in continuous full contact kickboxing and trained extensively in jujitsu and krav maga two recognised real world martial arts that are used and very effective in real life street self defence also used by special forces around the world.
      in my opinion due to my extensive research and knowledge within martial arts and having know what its like to be hit hard in the ring, on the mats and also in real life or death situations on the street my verdict is that Bruce lee was very much the real mccoy and his science and logic behind combat was ahead of his years, how he fought on film wasnt how he thought in real life that was simply for the camara and hollywood, he never kicked head height level due to leg being grabbed in a real fight and he cerainly never made animal noises while kicking or punching, all for the movies,
      i do think chuck to a degree is a good advocate for martial arts and has done alot for charities and children etc and accordingly been rewarded by going very high up the dan grades even that of master, i respect that, he has come along way no doubt and achieved alot.
      but it must be said he wasnt ever a true proven fighter , i regard joe lewis and bill superfoot wallace to be true fighters these guys are true proven warriors and have been hit hard and fought on when your heart is truely put to the test, these guys have been there, and yet too my knowledge have never slated bruce or ever claimed to have been able to beat him and this is down to respect and insight themselves being true warriors that bruce was the real thing, and despite their own skills and prowess they knew in their hearts that bruce had the abillity and skill to not only hit them but hit them very well, where as chuck is all about ego i expected more humility and respect from such a respected martial artist as chuck norris.

      • doni 2017, June 25 at 10:03 pm

        @Rance: Stupid thinking, lee vs chuck absolutely lee won!! He is real best fighter, readvthe true history about him then you may comment!! Asshole.

      • Expert 2017, December 16 at 9:20 am

        Bruce Lee would have kicked Chucks ass….Period

  2. Pingback: Cross-train: United Tai Chi digest 1/8/14 | United Tai Chi

  3. Avenger 2014, January 19 at 5:03 pm

    This fight between Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee has never occured and will never take place. There are no truths, but only speculations about the outcome of this hypothetical fight.

    Let’s consider your description of the fighting skills of these two men.
    You wrote that Bruce Lee won a local-level Hong Kong boxing championship title when he was a teenager. However, how can you consider this as a fact since you’ve admitted that this info can’t be checked. How is it possible there aren’t any tracks of it.
    Moreover, watch this footage in which we can see Bruce Lee work out on the “heavy bag” :
    Bruce demonstrated poor technique while working out on the bag. He looks a complete beginner. Don’t you find odd that an amateur boxing champion displays such a poor technique?

    Then you consider, despite the lack of proofs, that Bruce Lee probably competed in a full-contact arena.
    Bruce Lee performed a Gung Fu demonstration with Dan Inosanto during the Karate International Championship held in Long beach and organized by Ed Parker. Both Bruce Lee and Dan Inosanto wore protective outfits and helmet:
    The fact that Bruce Lee wore protective outfits just for performing a demo in which his partner “attacked” him like a beginner. Don’t you find odd for a man who “probably” competed in a full contact arena?

    Let’s consider what you’ve stated about Chuck Norris :
    “Norris was a champion in a style of Karate in which you could be penalised for hitting someone with full force. To my way of thinking, this is no different to being declared a champion of doing Kata”.

    Don’t exaggerate. A kata is a sequence of codified movements performed by a karateka who is alone. Point karate in which Chuck norris competed consisted in two karatekas fighting each other.
    Those fights really happened. Watch this footage that shows a fight between Joe Lewis and Skipper Mullins :
    Joe Lewis hit Mullins for real and Mullins fell and experienced pain for real. That makes you think how dangerous was Joe Lewis in karate tournaments.
    Now consider the source you’ve quoted about the accurate record of Chuck Norris :

    Norris and Lewis met four times in competition. Norris won three times and lost once against Lewis! Norris was only 160lbs and Lewis was 200lbs. It takes a lot of guts to step on the mat with Lewis.
    Here’s an extract of their third encounter :

    “Norris, a man who had- at the point at which Lee and he met- only focussed on Tae Kwon Do/Karate with a small sideline in Judo”.

    A small sideline in Judo? According to your source, Chuck Norris beats Leon Wallace, 42 years, with a judo throw, ippon seoi-nage At the beginning of 1967, during the “Tournament of Champions” organized by Henry Cho (Black Belt June 1967). Norris was a brown belt in judo at this time. The fact that Norris has been able to make a judo throw on an experienced karateka who was fighting back and trying to hit him at full speed proves that Norris was very proficient in judo.

    Norris proved his worth in combat against skilled fighters, whereas Bruce Lee showed his martial arts’ abilities in demonstrations and movies.
    You forget to mention that if Bruce Lee performed some takedown and grappling in Way of The Dragon, Chuck Norris performed some excellent judo’s throws too in this movie.

    Norris was a professional fighter, while Bruce Lee was a professional actor. Bruce Lee would have been no match for Chuck Norris in a real fight.
    Your criticism about Norris’ opinions is irrelevant to the topic.

    • withoutwriting 2014, January 19 at 8:22 pm

      Thanks for the comment. I’ll take your comment paragraph by paragraph:

      1. You reiterate what I made clear in the last section of my post: that any opinion on the victor of a hypothetical fight between the martial artist and trainer Bruce Lee and the fake “tag, you’re it!” competitor and right-wing-wingnut Chuck Norris must be based on a large amount of conjecture. I’m not sure why you felt the need to reiterate it considering its obviousness, but hey.

      2. You suggest that because Bruce Lee’s boxing experience in Hong Kong can’t be verified to a nicety it should not be taken into account… I disagree, as I find it perfectly plausible that amateur local teenage boxing records from Hong Kong would be incomplete and difficult to locate. I have no reason to disbelieve the accounts that exist. Chuck Norris’ “six years as world champion” cannot be verified to a nicety either, and that’s a damn sight more surprising, considering the prominence of a “world championship”, even if it’s a world championship in not hitting people while wearing pyjamas.

      3. You criticise Bruce Lee’s boxing skill on the basis of 29 seconds of archive footage in which it looks like he’s only focussing on drive hooks. Well done, that’s not weak and baseless at all.

      4. You once again suggest that Bruce Lee’s boxing experience should not be taken into account, yadda yadda yadda. Addressed in point 2, above.

      5 & 6. You criticise Bruce Lee’s fighting skills on the basis of footage where he and an accomplice were demonstrating sparring in protective equipment, (an approach that Lee was experimenting with at the time) in a slightly compliant fashion. On the other hand, I challenge you to find a martial arts demonstration of this type that is not compliant. Second, it’s obvious that Lee and his partner were demonstrating- in a world where stupid point-karate competitions were the norm- that you can strap on the padding and train at least semi, if not full contact. Seems perfectly valid to me. Once again, I think you fail to make any kind of cogent point.

      7 & 8. You state- without providing any evidence to support such an extraordinary claim- that point karate IS “fighting”. Drivel, sir. Only a point-karate nuthugger immune to logic would make such a claim. Compared to actual fighting, point karate is indeed virtually comparable to the practice of kata. The only difference is that in a kata, one *imagines* one or more persons that one can’t actually make contact with leaping around in front of one. In point karate, one actually *has* a real person that *one can’t make contact with* leaping around in front of one. Point karate does not prepare you for fighting, it is not fighting, it is not even the comatose second-cousin of fighting. Stop being deluded and accept the truth.

      9 & 10. You cite the dangerousness of the legendary Joe Lewis in an attempt to make point-karate seem more effective. A shameful… and slightly foolish tactic, sir, as Joe Lewis himself was famous for slagging off point-karate and pointing out that contact was *essential* for reality in fighting competition. And I mentioned this in my post above. Perhaps you missed it. http://www.taekwondotimes.com/magazine/magazine_bonus_detail.php?bns_seq_i=33

      11 & 12. You suggest because Chuck Norris won three out of four point-karate matches against Joe Lewis, and Joe Lewis is a fighter… this makes Chucky a fighter? This would be comparable to suggesting that because Chuck Norris beat Joe Lewis in a knitting contest three out of four times, and Joe Lewis is a fighter, this makes Chucky a fighter. Foolishness.

      In other words, point karate and fighting have nothing to do with each other, and if it were an actual contact match, Joe Lewis could have stuffed Chuck Norris’ head up Steven Seagal’s rectum if he had wanted to. And I wish he had wanted to.

      13 & 14. Here you claim that a record of a 27 year old Chucky successfully doing a judo throw on a 42 year old karate man in a non-contact tournament… is evidence of Chucky’s great skill in Judo. Oh do grow up mate. If I wanted to Judo throw someone, a karate man is EXACTLY who I would pick as my opponent. And if I wanted to really throw them off guard, I would pick a stupid non-contact karate tournament as my ideal setting. So there.

      15 & 16. Once again, without having provided a shred of evidence that Chucky is a “fighter”, you once again claim that he was and is a “fighter”, and a professional one, at that. I could be wrong, but I surmise the only reason you would feel the need to make such a claim is that you yourself have invested a great deal of time and effort in the idiotic non-sport of point-karate, and are desperate to maintain your self-image as a rootin’-tootin’-fightin’ point karateka!

      Sorry man, but point karate is a ridiculous waste of time and energy, and champions of point karate are merely champions of wasting their time.

      17. Once again, one of Chucky’s supporters implies that I should keep my nose out of his personal beliefs… Well answer one = “no.”, and answer two = “The whole point of this post was to expose Chuck Norris for a fool, a faker and a hyper-religious bigot. The Bruce Lee aspect was merely a catalyst or backdrop to the fact that Norris is a complete tool.” Is that clear enough?

      • Avenger 2014, January 21 at 9:24 pm

        You’re welcome.

        1. “You reiterate what I made clear in the last section of my post: that any opinion on the victor of a hypothetical fight between Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris must be based on a large amount of CONJECTURE”
        If that’s so, why have you written “Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris: The Real Truth”?
        Not only you’ve acknowledged this fight will never happen, but you’ve precised that you’ve based your arguments on conjectures and not facts.
        You’ve only shared your opinion, that can’t be considered as the “real truth”.

        2. Should I remind you that the title of your article is :”Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris : The Real Truth”?
        You’ve provided a link to a blog where the fighting records of Chuck Norris has been reported.
        Then you tell us that Bruce Lee may have won a local-level Hong Kong boxing championship title.
        According to your source, Bruce Lee would have knocked out a boxer called Gary Elms.
        I haven’t found any boxing records of that Gary Elms. I’ve searched him on google. There are neither photos nor any interviews of him.

        3. You agree this footage shows Bruce Lee practicing boxing on a bag. This footage can be considered as a piece of evidence to appreciate Bruce Lee’s boxing skills. So Bruce was focussing on drive hooks? Does that mean this is the only technique he could perform? No combinations? Very poor variety of the techniques for an amateur boxing champion.
        I see you haven’t mentioned if it exists another footage. Do I have to deduce there’s only this footage showing Bruce Lee practicing boxing?
        You’e managed to strenghten that piece of evidence. Nice work.

        4. The footage suggests that Bruce Lee was a beginner in boxing. For the sake of your argument, I really hope you’ve another one piece of evidence that would prove the contrary.

        5 & 6. Half a loaf is better than no bread. I can’t find a video that shows Bruce Lee fighting for real.
        Anyway, Bruce’s performance was well praised by Black Belt November 1967 issue: “Ressembling men from Mars in weird protective outfits, gung-fu sensei Bruce and partner demonstrate this ancient Chinese fighting art”. The protective outfits introduced by Bruce Lee were never used in full contact tournaments.

        7 & 8. “You state- without providing any evidence to support such an extraordinary claim- that point karate IS “fighting”. Read the blog that relates the accurate record of Chuck Norris titled “Chuck Norris : new accurate record” you’ve quoted as one of your sources : you’ll see that the encounters in point karate tournaments were refered as “fights”.
        Besides, I’ve provided you a footage about the fight between Joe Lewis and Skipper Mullins that occured during a point karate tournament.
        Lewis gave a blow to Mullins who fell in pain. This is real because you can see it. There’s nothing extraordinary about it.

        9.10 The footage of the fight between Lewis and Mullins is clear : Lewis definetely made contact otherwise, Mullins wouldn’t have collapsed.
        I don’t know in which context Joe Lewis did make this assertion in the lates 60’s. If Lewis really thought that point karate’s tournaments were nonsensical, why did he continue to compete in those tournaments until 1974?

        11 & 12. “You suggest because Chuck Norris won three out of four point-karate matches against Joe Lewis, and Joe Lewis is a fighter… this makes Chucky a fighter?”
        Once again, check your source : those matches you’re talking about have been considered as FIGHTS.
        Besides, you forgot to mention that Chuck Norris got involved in tough battles. For example, during the Allen Steen In the 1968 US Championships organized by Allen Steen, in Dallas, Norris arrived in the finals and beat Fred Wren, with a broken nose, in a REAL BRAWL. Thereafter, he beat Skiper Mullins, before losing to Joe Lewis.
        Norris had his nose broken but that didn’t prevent him to continue to fight.
        You could have mentionned the fight between Delgado and Norris for the World title :”Norris sends Delgado to the canvas, with a punch, in the first round. In the second, Delgado sends his opponent to the canvas, with a kick in the mouth. The fight resumed so fierce and in the end, Chuck Norris wins by 101 to 93.”
        Here Norris fought seriously against a fighter who was ten years younger than him. Norris punched punched his opponent to the canvas. Delgado kicked Norris in the mouth and sent him to the canvas. Norris stood up, fought back in a fierce battle and emerged victorious for the world title!

        You stated that Norris was only ever a champion of pretending to hit people. Looks like your OWN SOURCE has contradicted your assertion!

        13 & 14 Chuck Norris used efficiently a judo’s throw in a combat situation, whereas Bruce Lee demonstrated his grappling moves in his movies.
        By the way, you forgot to mention that, according to your source ‘New accurate Chuck Norris’ records, that Chuck Norris trained in wrestling, judo and boxing with Gene Lebell (though the name of Gene Lebell has been mispelled Gene Bell in the english version of the blog)

        15 & 16. Ok here’s my secret : I’ve only read the article “Chuck Norris : new accurate record” you’ve quoted as your source.
        Chuck Norris is described as a karate fighter. He competed in classical karate tournaments and professional karate tournaments.
        The fight between Delgado and Norris occured during the World Professional Karate Championship. This professional karate meeting was organized by Aaron Banks on November 23th or 24th 1968.
        Let’s see what pro karate tournaments consisted in : “Chuck Norris has participated in karate tournaments or “professional teams competition”, during which blows were given without gloves, but with less control than traditional Karate. This system was established around 1968 in the USA, in order to make points karate most spectacular and effective.”
        Norris competed in pro karate tournaments, so he was a pro fighter. Simple as that.

        17. Let me remind you the topic of your article : “who would have won in a real fight between Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris?
        Of course, the more astute martial artists among this blog’s readers will already be certain of the correct answer. But let’s go through the reasoning nonetheless.”
        In order to answer this question accurately, just as with any question, we will first have to frame the issue accurately”
        So the opinions, philosophies, morales of Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris are irrelevant to the topic.

      • withoutwriting 2014, January 22 at 12:55 pm

        1. You ask why the post is called “”Bruce Lee vs Chuck Norris: The Real Truth”, when a large part of it consists of my subjective opinion. The answer is that the *facts* stated on the post are indeed the real truth, and the *conjecture* is clearly marked as such. That answer should be simple enough even for the likes of you.

        2. This has been a long-standing issue for people like yourself, but once again, I do not find it terribly suspicious that a late 1950s local inter-school boxing tournament in Hong Kong would produce no records that we would be able to locate at this time. I have no reason to doubt the eyewitness accounts of the period from Bruce Lee’s contemporaries, such as Hawkins Cheung, who, in an interview with Inside Kung Fu magazine in 1991, confirmed that he and Lee had entered and competed in the amateur tournament we’re discussing. He gave no details as to Lee’s success or failure during that tournament, but it is sufficient to know that it probably took place.

        You quibble over whether the fabled Gary “Garung” Elms was knocked out by Lee or not, but as stated in the blog post itself, it really doesn’t matter whether Lee knocked the alleged Mr Elms out or not (there are those who say he did, and those who say the fight went the distance, and those who say Elms’ name was spelled differently, yadda yadda yadda) what matters is that Lee had experience of competing in a full contact competitive environment. Chuckster Norris never competed in a full contact tournament.

        3. You imply that the 29 seconds of archive footage of Lee piling drive hooks into a punchbag means that this was the only punch he knew how to throw. The ridiculousness of this implication should be obvious to anyone reading the comment. You could find footage of the world’s greatest ever boxers practicing one move and one move only, cut out 30 seconds of that footage and show it to Avenger here, and he would promptly claim that clearly, Muhammed Ali (for instance) only knows how to throw a left hook. Moronic.

        4. You say: “The footage suggests that Bruce Lee was a beginner in boxing. For the sake of your argument, I really hope you’ve another one piece of evidence that would prove the contrary.” Here you’re guilty of a rhetorical schoolboy error, a logical fallacy known as the “straw man”. You’ll find that in my blog post I state quite clearly: “it is sufficient to know that Lee probably competed in a full-contact arena, with some success, more than once.” At no point did I rest my argument on the idea that Bruce Lee was a great boxer. By attempting to misrepresent my argument so that you can more easily “knock the straw man down”, you have revealed your desperation. 😉 Secondly, the footage shows nothing of the sort.

        5. & 6. You state that you cannot find any footage of Bruce Lee fighting for real. This is unsurprising, as no footage exists to my knowledge. However, no footage of Chuck Norris fighting for real exists either. This is because Chuckie Norris never fought for real. He was a point-karate nobody, not a fighter. You mention that the protective gear Lee and his partner were wearing in the sparring demonstration has never been used in full contact tournaments. This is irrelevant, but it’s worth pointing out that headgear, body and shin protection are indeed used in various full contact competitions, especially at an amateur level. In addition, head and shin protection are standard when training for full contact fights, even for pro fighters. Lee was a visionary in this respect as in others, apparently.

        7. & 8. You once again misguidedly cite your example of Joe Lewis actually landing a strike in a non-contact tournament as an example of how rough, tough and dangerous point-karate can be. As stated before, Joe Lewis was an actual full-contact fighter, and he was very much with me on this question, not with you. Second, actually hitting someone during a point karate tournament can lead to your disqualification, so it’s not surprising that one’s opponent might either be unusually shocked by the pain of a real strike, or play up the pain for the judges in the hope of gaining an advantage. The fact is that real fighters condition their bodies so that blows like this won’t knock them to the ground writhing in pain.

        In addition, it’s worth pointing out that not only Joe Lewis, but also Skipper Mullins are with me, rather than with you, on the Bruce Lee issue. Skipper Mullins once stated: “I truly liked and admired Bruce. I worked with him some and he helped me in my foot movement and back fist. Bruce probable weighed 135 pounds at most, but he could hit like a mule. I know, because he knocked me under Sharon Tate’s barstool at Columbia Pictures in 1968. Bruce never confronted any big men to my knowledge. There are stories out there, but none I personally know of. I will say this; I would have picked Bruce in any street situation. He had the knowledge and the attitude to carry him through anything.”

        Your point-karate idols (except the disgusting Chuck Norris) seem to agree with me, rather than with you. Strange, that.

        9. & 10. – You ask why Joe Lewis continued to compete in stupid no-contact point karate tournaments after he realised that they were nonsensical. Good question, but the obvious answer is the money, fame and prestige that went along with the burgeoning karate scene in the US at the time. Second, there were virtually no full contact kickboxing events in the US in the period we’re discussing, and literally no major events between 1971 and 1974. In fact, Joe Lewis was a pioneer in this field, competing in some of the first events. Norris never competed in early full-contact fights. If he was such a “fighter”, why not? Answer: He was a point-karate joke only.

        11. & 12. You once again assert that because people- chuck norris included- have occasionally made contact with some of their strikes during a point-karate match, this makes them “fights”. And once again, you, and all those who are like you and agree with you on this point, are incorrect. Not only is point karate a rule set in which you are not allowed to try to hurt your opponent with strikes, but you can actually be penalised for “excessive contact”, (i.e: actually hurting your opponent with a strike). Just because people might occasionally land a strike- either by accident or on purpose- during point karate matches, this does not make them “fights”, regardless of the injury that is caused by the errant blow. Because ONLY a match in which both participants are trying their best to hurt each other is an actual fight. In fact even submission grappling, which is WAY tougher, more practical and more martial than stupid point-karate tournaments, cannot be called “fighting”. So point-karate definitely can’t.

        13. & 14. The tournament Norris apparently performed a judo throw in wasn’t a fighting tournament, therefore not a “combat situation” as you state. You state that Chuck Norris also trained with LeBell. It is true that according to Bob Wall (where the website in question no doubt obtained their information) Norris went along to LeBell’s gym with his friend Bob Wall at least one time in the 1970s, but there is little to no evidence that he did so regularly, especially not during Bruce Lee’s lifetime. Lee and LeBell, on the other hand, were friends and training together regularly from 1967 at the latest, onwards. Gene LeBell, for instance, tells a story (on http://genelebell.com) that indicates that he trained Norris in the late eighties and early nineties. It’s very difficult to say with any certainty. What seems probable is that Lee was integrating submission grappling into his repertoire in the late sixties, and there’s no evidence that Norris did the same until decades later. At the time they could have fought, Lee would have been the better rounded martial artist.

        15. & 16. A large part of your point here is that because other people call point-karate “fighting”, that makes you right when *you* call it fighting. This is yet another logical fallacy, namely an “appeal to popularity”, and is a resounding fail.

        You say “Norris competed in pro karate tournaments, so he was a pro fighter. Simple as that.” Except “pro-karate” wasn’t fighting, therefore pro-karate competitors weren’t fighters. Fighting is when you’re both trying to hurt each other. The point-karate drivel you’re waxing lyrical about is not fighting, whether people accidentally take a punch or not. If you’re playing “Hungry Hungry Hippoes” and punch the player to your left in the face, does that make Hungry Hungry Hippoes a fighting sport? According to your “reasoning”, it does.

        17. Once again, you suggest that I should leave Chuck Norris’ opinions on non-martial issues out of this discussion. Once again, I say “no”. 🙂

        I also say that someone like Chuck Norris, who hates gay people, hates education, hates freedom and loves tyranny and ignorance… and who lies and claims to have been a fighter when he was never a fighter, attempting to place himself on a pedestal above a man like Bruce Lee, who actually DID have a brain and a soul… should be publically humiliated whenever possible. This was the whole cause for my writing the above article, and is a large part of the point of the article too.

      • Chuck 2017, March 7 at 9:29 pm

        Hhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! You read my mind!

    • Chuck-Bruce 2015, March 17 at 10:02 pm

      Blah blah blah blah! !!!!. Cats not dogs. Not even small comments. How many comments. And all the rest of the rest of you, make up u r own mind’s, even if u agree. ñ stop being judgmental. Especially the religious one’s. The man has an opinion. It started with Chuck demeaning bruce, let him state his mind. If u disagree, state it. But this bickering is annoying. I don’t even know why I read through them all or why I’m responding….. but to the point.
      Every one has there personal view with no real evidence to say the contrary.
      My opinion is that bruce brought a whole lot more to this world. And one thing is, not just fighting for the sake of fighting, but fighting for your rights. Among other things. I think u all can learn a lot.
      As for the fight itself. Both were good, ñ neither had a lot of real life (famous) fight experiences but one thing bruce has going for him is not what he knows or who he trained/with/by. But the actual fact is, that he wasn’t allowed to teach outsiders and he had to fight for that right. The martial arts counsel would have sent one of, if not there best fighter to make sure he doesn’t teach no more…. well, he didn’t stop. So that means he had beaten, at least one of the best fighters the counsel could have come up with. Remember!!! This was the counsel. A collection of masters from all respective forms. If this is not testament enough, I don’t know what would be. Besides were getting away from the real question. Who would win? Bruce Lee vs Hercules😊😀😁😂😃😄😅

      • Chuck-Bruce 2015, March 17 at 10:37 pm

        “Withoutwriting” thanx for u r thoughts and opinions. Even if there right or not. Keep up the good work. And don’t take any notice of the judgmental people that don’t c u r point of view. Opinions r only questions. Like Bruce Lee said “take what is useful, discard what is not…..”. I wasn’t sure about Bruce. Actor or …? All I new, he was right! This question answered me. Unless it was an act to get famous. But I doubt the Chinese would have allowed it by choice. Jogged my thoughts.
        With out writing. I get it. That’s how u can write so much

    • Alex 2015, May 17 at 12:02 pm

      Bruce Lee had several fights supported by plenty of evidence. In HK as a teenager he had several fights witnessed by many Wing Chun and other players. One of his fights he beat a Choy Lee Fut assistant instructor. In Seattle he beat a Karate Black Belt within around 10 seconds. He beat Northern Shaolin instructor Wong Jack man and a stunt who challenged him at the set of Enter the Dragon. I can go on with more stories but i don’t have the time or desire. The boxing fight between Bruce Lee with British high school champion has been witnessed by several Wing Chun instructors and there is even a photo. Very few people had the street fighting experience of Bruce. No doubt there are people with more experience. My bet would be on Bruce. Not because of experience but because he was simply better than Chuck

    • doni 2017, June 25 at 10:09 pm

      You are the one who are not irrelevant, stupid & not reality. Bruce lee the best fighter, not only an actor. Before he became an actor he defeated many pro fighter. Kungfu is the mother of all martial art in the world. Read the true history before you comment, fool!!

  4. Albert S. Allen 2014, February 2 at 2:50 am

    Ignore the whether you consider bruce a fighter or not he accomplished alot more than chuck. He was philoshper bring western and eastern ideas combining them to study, famous chinese actor/director breaking the negative stereotypes on screen, weight lifting expert constantly finding new ways to train his body inventing new machines, was one of the first to use protien shakes and other drinks that people use today, and just raw athletic skills from his many various feats for finger push ups, one hand pull ups, unreal speed, and sheer power record is quite a feat. Chuck was a several time sparring champion which is very impressive but was his movie and shows that propelled him to stardom. Bruce lee student fought chuck norriss and went 2-3 against so its not like bruce lee style would have been useless. The movie is a script so holds no merit, and the wiki is stupid i could write article about a martial artists down street and make it just as long, that is wiki for you. In my honest opinion I would give edge to bruce he didn’t compete but he did practice sparring and study many other martial arts that we have seen in todays world of say mma does give an advantage in a fight.

  5. John 2014, May 20 at 2:44 am

    Seriously? You bring religious belief into the discussion, and then offer your fallacious opinion that Bruce Lee was “more moral” and “more intelligent” than Chuck Norris based upon Chuck’s beliefs?

    Your article would have been an interesting speculation if not for your completely unnecessary slur of Chuck Norris.

    I’m a fan of both Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris. Both were tremendous martial artists. I’m not an apologist for either one–they were both very good at their chosen profession.

    It even seems likely that Bruce Lee could have beaten Chuck Norris in a tournament, whether by point or full contact. Maybe not. It’s impossible to know at this point.

    But their religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. Religious beliefs–whether atheism, Christianity, or another–reflect neither fighting prowess nor intelligence. Your inclusion of such an argument in this case is disingenuous and dishonest.

    Frankly, the idea that an atheist can truly be moral is nothing more than a joke. Morality distinguishes between good and evil ideals. Atheists may ascribe to some moral system, but their position is weak, since any such system they adopt is just that–adopted–and has no real meaning. Good or evil for atheism is whatever the atheist chooses it to be. There is no true morality–a morality based upon universal truths–for an atheist.

    At least Christians can be truly moral, whether they are or not.

    They are the intellectually-marginalized who perpetuate the myth that atheism correlates to intelligence and morality. Neither is true, and atheism is, in fact, amoral by nature, so doesn’t correlate to morality at all, unless negatively.

    • withoutwriting 2014, May 24 at 9:46 am

      Thank you for the comment.

      Firstly, let’s make sure that it’s fully understood: The article above notes that Bruce Lee was a more moral human being than Chuck Norris specifically in that Chuck Norris lobbies for immoral things, preaches hatred, fights against the education of the young and self-aggrandizes to a ridiculous degree… while Bruce Lee said that “under the sky, there is but one family”. Pretty obvious comparison, and nothing really to do with Lee’s atheism, except in contrast to Chuckie’s rampant creationist bulls**t.

      Secondly regarding religion it’s important to note that I respect people’s right to believe whatever they wish; whatever gives them comfort and fulfilment in a harsh, unforgiving and often random existence. Whatever works for you.

      However this blog is about finding out what is true in the martial arts and in life. It would be remiss of me therefore if I didn’t point out the glaring flaws in your reasoning on the subject of religion and morality.

      It’s worth pointing out that, yes, the vast majority of what we would call religious beliefs are simply and demonstrably wrong. There is *nothing* in this world to suggest the existence of any supernatural powers, be they deities or spirits. In ancient times we had folk-sciences; working hypotheses about the world that involved storm gods, creator gods… gods of death. We had working hypotheses about “souls”. We may have needed those ideas in the darkness of early mankind, but we have better theories now. Scientific theories. We know that the most likely right answers (by far) to our questions about the world are answers that simply do not involve the influence of supernatural beings or forces. Anyone who has had access to a basic education but still believes in gods and monsters? Well they’re simply deliberately deluding themselves, consciously or otherwise. Why are they doing this? There may be as many reasons as there are people.

      You wheeled out the tired, disproven old cliche that only religious folk (specifically Christians) are capable of being truly moral. A very self-serving, self-aggrandizing and childishly wrong-headed idea. Why do I say that? For many reasons, including the following:

      1. Religious “morality” is at least as “made up” as non-religious morality, if not more so. It merely pretends not to be.
      2. The idea of doing as little harm to other creatures as one can is as objective an idea as possible to base one’s morality on. There is nothing more objective. Certainly not self-contradicting bronze-age religious texts.
      3. Morality is innate to human beings. We have structures in our brain that allow us to empathise with other beings. No religious text is needed to tell a normal person that harming others is wrong. Their own brain will tell them this.
      4. Even religious people themselves cherry-pick moral principles from their religious texts and ignore others. They do this because bronze-age pro-genocide and pro-slavery passages in their texts don’t agree with their own innate human morality, which is the only morality.
      5. Doing the bidding of a petty supernatural being that has butchered whole races of people for no good reason and sent millions to an immortal eternity of pain and suffering solely for the sin of not pledging loyalty to it… well, that’s not morality. It’s just fear of a psycho-god’s retribution. And doing the right thing out of fear isn’t moral behaviour. Doing the right thing because you feel it’s the right thing to do is moral behaviour.

      There’s not much space to expand on those here, but you can visit
      for more.

      As for atheism being a reflection of intelligence… it’s a pretty irrelevant question… but it’s worth noting that studies have shown that the majority of leading scientists are indeed atheists.
      Make of that what you will.

  6. Pierre Truong 2014, June 16 at 7:52 am

    There are some stupid idiots on here who claim that Bruce Lee’s heavy bag backyard video looks like “poor technique” and “amateur boxing.”

    Some of these people aren’t able of critically analyzing the situation at all and realizing that it was just a HOME video of him testing out his home video camera…. because Bruce Lee was getting himself ready for recording his JKD video courses with his students.

    Bruce was just testing the video camera to see how it looks. He had no idea he was gonna DIE and then decades later the video goes public for everyone to see. If Bruce knew he was gonna die, and he knew this video would go public, I’m sure he would’ve displayed some much more impressive talent. Such as him kicking the 300 lb bag that all the loser skeptics on the internet find so hard to believe.

    && also it just looks like Bruce Lee in that boxing video, it looks like he’s just jabs & jab combinations from his Southpaw / Bai Jong stance. What we don’t see is the JKD Hook Punch, the JKD Straight Lead, the JKD Shovel Punch, and etc… we don’t see any of that.

    Bruce was clearly just testing out some waters for the video camera, he had no idea the video would go public when he died, and if he did, we would be seeing much more impressive shit on his records.

  7. phil 2014, August 4 at 6:48 am

    you are saying the tournaments that chuck one does not count cause its not full contact. there was still some contact and it is form that is what kata teaches and I can bet all martial artists practice this as that is how you learn perfect and be the best is your form so chucks tourneys should count for something. they where both skilled fighters chucks size difference all it would take is a well place strike to bruce lee head from the foot fight would be. that could go the other way depends on there jaw but even the body can only take so much. and it is not nessesarily true the more styles you know the better you are if you are a master at one style that is what you know and do. ufc wrestlers with ground and pound defeat well verse strikers and submissionists all the time. plus it seams you have something against chuck and seagall I don’t know why you would do the article if you had your winner picked out before you started . seagall is a budist he is a good person .

    • withoutwriting 2015, March 1 at 3:54 pm

      1. Logic suggests that performing kata won’t do diddly-squat for your ability to fight. Therefore your first assertion that Chuck’s tournament wins should “count for something” is wrong.
      2. While I agree with you that knowing more “styles” isn’t necessarily “better”, it’s undeniably true and supported by available evidence that if you don’t know how to mix all-round striking and grappling against a live, resisting opponent, you will be easy prey for someone who does.
      3. The only style that Chuck was a “master” at was the style of not hitting other people in point-karate fantasy tournaments.
      4. I honestly didn’t “have my winner picked out” before writing the article, as you suggest. I honestly evaluated the evidence as dispassionately as I could. However it is true that if I’d come to the opposite conclusion that Chuckie would have won vs Bruce Lee, I wouldn’t have bothered to post my findings 😉
      5. Chuck is a bigot, a right-wing fundamentalist and a self-aggrandizing douchebag, in my considered opinion. Seagal is a lying, bullying faker and NOT a “good person”, in my considered opinion. That’s what I have against them, respectively. Thanks for the comment though.

  8. Matthew 2014, September 18 at 9:13 pm

    What does this staged movie fight have to do with creationists versus atheists? Your blog is full of hate speech. How can you generalize from 2 people to millions of people? Atheists can’t even answer what was before the supposed big bang. They have to invent silly arguments like the multiverse, panspermia, and can’t even explain how the first cell arose. The author of this blog is just an extremist bigot, and his blog should be taken down!

    • withoutwriting 2015, March 1 at 3:46 pm

      You’re very confused. You won’t pay any attention to what I’m about to tell you, but I’ll tell you anyway: 1. You have no moral or legal right to never read or hear anything that you find offensive. Your desire to silence those you disagree with is positively fascist. 2. The evidence presented by religious people to support their extraordinary claims of the existence of supernatural, sometimes omnipotent and omniscient beings is actually extremely weak, to the point of being laughable. A really rational person would sit down and think long and hard on this point.

  9. CB 2014, November 16 at 11:34 pm

    Went from a pretty decent theoretical review to a Norris bashing…what does his political stance have to do with fighting Bruce Lee

    • withoutwriting 2014, December 27 at 3:03 am

      Thanks for the comment CB, but I think you answered your own question slightly: The post was indeed two halves: the first half was the theoretical analysis of what a matchup between Lee and Norris might have resulted in. The second half was “Chuck Bashing” by any standard, I suppose. The first half was inspired by the sentiments detailed in the second half, but they aren’t intertwined at all.

      Whether Chuck’s a self-aggrandizing muppet or not doesn’t bear on the question of whether Lee would have beaten him to a pulp… personally I think Lee would have stood a good chance of doing just that. 😉

      Chuck’s still a right wing douche though.

      • jekyllisland 2015, February 26 at 5:22 am

        And there you have it – any comment or theory made by you is irrelevant based on the fact that political agenda means more to you than anything else.

        The facts – Bruce Lee never fought while Chuck Norris did. You are comparing Daniel Day Lewis, a very good boxer on film to Ali.

        Sorry, one man ponied up, got in a ring and fought, the other made movies.

        Sort of like a left wing loon talking about working verse a right wing person actually producing

      • withoutwriting 2015, February 26 at 6:23 pm

        1. Nowhere in my article nor my comments will you find anything to support the thesis that “political agenda” means more to me than “anything else”. Chuck’s disgusting political positions are worth mentioning in any conversation in which he pops up, however.
        2. Bruce Lee competed in approximately one more full contact match than Chuck Norris did, if you believe the contemporary accounts of his amateur boxing in Hong Kong.
        3. Chuckie Norris never “ponied up” into any ring, except in order to dance around on tiptoes while not actually striking people except by accident.
        4. Any implication that so-called “left wing” people are “loons” or “unproductive” when compared to the standard, Fox News-watching, society-leeching right-wing morons that trample across the faces of the downtrodden… is disingenuous. 😉

  10. Luca 2014, December 2 at 9:25 am

    The fact that Chuck Norris is considered like a deity is a sort of joke as Bruce Lee was, in my book, much better than Chuck Norris, as its fighting style was a selection and an improvement of various arts and styles while Chuck Norris was a champion, I agree, but only a champion in his style. I know that also Chuck Norris has invented a new martial art but I am sure Bruce Lee has left a better hint on our world, not only because he was a great martial artist but also because he was a great man, while I don’t think Chuck Norris is.

  11. Timmy Wright 2014, December 11 at 1:09 am

    Bruce lee woulda beat dat cat down lika dawg lol

  12. jason 2014, December 14 at 8:50 pm

    Lol, its obvious you are just another bruce lee fan. Dig a little deeper on chuck and you will find he was indeed into full contact karate as well as points. Im not gonna act like a kid and cut you down for choosing lee, but its obvious that you are just another lee fan who wont believe he was capable of losing to anyone. Why? Because he died before his time. His death put him into legendary status.

    • withoutwriting 2014, December 27 at 2:59 am

      All due respect: your comment was a bunch of rubbish, mate. Nowhere in the blog post above was it implied that Lee was some kind of unstoppable cage fighter who “couldn’t lose to anyone”. Quite the reverse, in fact.

      In addition, you make wild claims about Chuck Norris having been “into” full contact karate, whatever that claim is supposed to mean. Well post the evidence then. Because as far as anyone can tell, the historical record is clear: Chuckie never competed in full contact martial arts of any kind. He was more of an aggressive dancer than a competitive fighter.

      Anyhoo, you rather missed the point of the whole post, to be honest. The point of the post wasn’t to big Lee up, so much as to point out that Chuck’s a bit of a fool, and not the “professional fighter” he constantly implies that he was. 😉

  13. james 2015, January 26 at 1:25 am

    he was the winner of the first professional middleweight karate fight,never defended it once,,,,it was point fighting…they called it a world championship….if bruce lee lived..chuck noriis would be where

  14. aldoquevedo 2015, April 7 at 3:19 pm

    Reblogged this on Where's Aldo? and commented:
    The final punch line to all Chuck Norris tales: Bruce Lee could’ve kicked his butt. Great article.

  15. Tyrone Mallory 2015, April 17 at 12:38 pm

    Interesting article that I agree with with a few exceptions. One, Bruce had very long arms. It’s not a given that chuck would have had a reach advantage (nitpicking but it’s true). It’s also been confirmed and documented that Bruce faced challenges on the set of Enter the Dragon. One was caught by a camera in the book the making of Enter the Dragon. I don’t think Chuck had any real fights after he started practicing karate. Yes it’s hearsay about the many fights Bruce had in real life. He rarely if ever mentioned them and I don’t believe he was proud of them. However, I do believe they happened because of the reputation of the speakers and the well known fact that Bruce had a temper and was something of a hot head. Lastly, I want to mention that Bruce ran in a gang when he was young, which is what started him on the path to the martial arts in the first place. This is significant because being in real street fights, you quickly understand what it takes to survive an encounter. Because of this, Bruce chose Wing Chun because he felt it was the most practical for real combat. Real encounters shaped his entire philosophy on fighting. Jeet Kune Do was birthed from another real fight with Wong Jack man. Chuck didn’t take this approach even after being exposed to Judo. I believe that he didn’t because he didn’t understand what real fighting was. I respect Chuck a great deal, but he would have been destroyed in a real fight with Bruce. It’s just that simple.

    • withoutwriting 2015, April 18 at 8:43 pm

      Thanks for the comment. I agree with your points, with one exception; Bruce Lee started training in Wing Chun in his early teens, and so would have been too young and inexperienced to choose an art based on whether it was practical for real combat or not. In fact, later when he had broadened his martial horizons and had been exposed to more martial arts, he deliberately discarded most of the Wing Chun technique from his arsenal because he realized that it was deeply impractical for real combat.

      Other than this I think your analysis was correct. Chuck’s goal has never been martial honesty, rather he has always been devoted to furthering his own brand and his own political leanings.

  16. Mark Oszoli 2015, April 18 at 10:01 pm

    The reason why Bruce Lee would win in my opinion are as follows

    1. He was a more rounded martial artist and if MMA taught as anything the only way to win is to be a well rounded martial artist. (Even if Bruce Lee had little experience in boxing which I fail to see how as his love of boxing and his quick hands are well known, he still had more experience than Chuck Norris)
    2. He was a fitness and conditioning fanatic. (Again MMA taught us that if you are unfit you won’t survive. Based on other point fighters even point fighters of today in general their conditioning level is no where near that of a full contact fighter, so I do not see why Chuck Norris would be any different.)
    3. As a point fighter Chuck Norris would predominately have to deal with punches coming at him straight and mostly in a combination of one or one two. As all semi-contact fights are stopped and started again at the conclusion of every point supposedly scored. (So no hooks upper cuts , over heads, elbows etc and no combination punching) therefore he would have a limited knowledge of defense against these type of strikes for one and little knowledge of defense against leg kicks. This is evident of early American kick-boxers whom had difficulty at first dealing with leg kicks when facing Thai-opponents.
    4. Even though the punching technique demonstrated in that 30 seconds clip of Bruce Lee can be questioned, it is evident that there is power behind them, however as Chuck Norris never actually had to hit people we do not know how hard he could actually hit or take punches for that matter. (Although this can be said of Bruce Lee there are pictures and anecdotal evidence of Bruce Lee partaking in conditional training practiced by boxers to condition their midsection so at least one can assume that Bruce Lee was conditioned to take strikes to that part of the body.)
    5. Finally as Tyson put it once: “Speed Kills.” As demonstrated by modern boxers such as Manny Pacquiao, and Roy Jones Jnr if you are faster than your opponent your chances of winning is tipped to your favor.

    So in conclusion Bruce Lee may not have had the extensive point fighting experience of Chuck Norris based on conditioning, speed and knowledge of martial arts and other fighting arts in my opinion he would have outlasted and beat Chuck Norris on volume punches alone.

    Ps: If you have any doubts of Bruce Lee ever being in a boxing match this should solve it for you


    Or just Google Bruce Lee boxing

  17. Persch lkl 2015, April 26 at 10:45 am

    I don’t think Chuck Norris is some evil person. I’m guessing you don’t get along with many conservatives you come across.

    • withoutwriting 2015, April 26 at 2:09 pm

      Thanks for the comment. Though pure knee-jerk opinion and unsupported by either argument or fact, your words offer me the opportunity to address two issues in a way that may be thought-provoking:

      1. Is Chuck Norris evil? Well is anyone “evil”? What makes a person evil, specifically? Chuck Norris has certainly done and said some things that could be called “evil”, if one were to impose a value-judgement. His use of his (undeserved) fame to pimp his homophobic, backward and ignorant right-wing, self-serving political tripe is amoral enough to be called at the very least “an evil”, I think. How many evil things must a person say before we’re allowed to think of them as “evil”? more than two? more than ten, within a certain time period? And who is supposed to make these judgements?

      Give these questions some thought, and you may come to the conclusion that your statement “I don’t think Chuck Norris is some evil person” is not only essentially meaningless, but intellectually dishonest, as well. Instead, you should be striving to answer the question “Is what Chuck Norris does morally wrong, or not?” And I submit that an intellectually honest person will come to the conclusion that the activities Chuck has engaged in listed above are indeed morally wrong.

      2. You guess that I don’t “get on” with many “conservatives” that I come across. Since much of my writing is dedicated to pointing out the flagrant selfishness and amorality of right-wing ideologies, your guess is indisputably well-founded, though a bit of a no-brainer, to be honest. But it’s worth pointing out once again that what is today called “conservatism” is in fact just extreme right-wing jingoism, ultra-nationalism, economic irresponsibility and plutocratic greed. Its tenets bear little resemblance to what the founders of conservatism would have advocated.

      And should one “get on” with people who believe in maintaining- or increasing- racial, sexual and international inequality and religious and political division? People who fetishize their supposed “right” to use their already existing wealth and power to exploit the less fortunate and make it harder for them to live a decent life? Regardless of how they delude themselves that they’re “just normal hard-working folks”, I submit that one should not get on with such people. I would certainly not get on with Chuckie, if I were forced to spend any time with him. And I think that’s a point in my favor, and does me credit.

      • Persch lkl 2015, April 26 at 11:33 pm

        I think you put conservatives in this little box and you assume all of them think a certain way. That’s pretty close minded. I live in Seattle so I am surrounded by liberals. I have many friends I disagree with but there’s no problem. Most conservatives aren’t racist, homophobic. or sexist.

        We have different philosophies on how the right works. I’m more of a fiscal conservative how does that make me a bad person?

      • withoutwriting 2015, April 27 at 1:01 am

        Since you call yourself a “conservative” then you’re the one labeling yourself… putting yourself in a box, so to speak. As for whether you think in a “certain way” or not, let’s find out: There are many sub-types of so-called “fiscal conservatives”. Which type are you? Do you believe any of the following statements:

        a: that we (in the US and in Europe) have a free market system
        b: that a free market system is a good thing
        c: that generally tax cuts and a reduction in public spending would be beneficial for your nation
        d: that a policy of austerity is an appropriate response to an economic recession
        e: that high rates of inflation are automatically a negative thing for an economy
        f: that running at a deficit is automatically a bad thing for a nation
        g: that privatized public services will run more efficiently than publicly owned services
        h: that free trade between wealthy nations and small developing nations is good for both

        If you believe any of these things, then you’re quite simply deluded, and it would be very easy for you to go and check the historical record to prove yourself wrong. Any good technical economist will dispassionately explain to you that all of the above are not merely convenient fantasies for the already wealthy, but are in many cases the literal opposite of the actual truth. And I’ll be happy to go into detail on any one of those points if you wish. If you believe in none of these things, then do enlighten us as to what you actually do believe.

        Regardless of the above however, it is true- contrary to what you say- that so-called conservatives are more racist, homophobic, sexist and in favor of inequality generally, than other sectors of society. Once can tell this by looking at the kind of political policies that self-identified conservatives are in favor of. Conservatives are also more likely to come from affluent backgrounds, for reasons which should be self-evident.

        So does this mean that you’re a “bad person”? Is there in fact any meaning to the term “bad person”? What does it mean? Does it mean a pantomime villain, twirling his mustaches while tying a young lady to a train track? Or does it mean “someone who holds beliefs that- if held by large numbers of people- harm others”? Why don’t you tell me.

      • Gaz 2016, April 22 at 6:37 pm

        You sir deserve a kebab. Well said!

  18. Jim Krupnik 2015, May 24 at 4:24 am

    Wow… I enjoyed the story until the train derailed, and it became a rather personal attack on Norris. No one is more hateful, vile, and generally intolerant than a “progressive” leftist. Not even Hitler.

    What a shame, as we agree on the possible outcome of the fantasy fight, but I don’t believe that political indoctrination had a worthy role there.

    • withoutwriting 2015, May 27 at 8:57 pm

      Well, I have to say I really love this comment. I’m fascinated by it. It typifies the frankly outlandish attitudes of some right wing people.

      I mean, think about what Jim’s saying here: He’s saying that “progressive” leftists are more hateful, vile and more intolerant than Hitler. Yes, more intolerant than Hitler, a fascist dictator who presided over the greatest single racially motivated massacre the world has ever seen.

      What exactly could lead Jim (and/or people like him) to make such a self-evidently lunatic statement? Well, only enormous quantities of uncontested right-wing propaganda, I should think. Perhaps a steady diet of Fox News, on which racist, fascist propaganda is spewed forth on an hourly basis, all without any semblance of a counter argument.

      But regardless of the reason behind his attitude, you heard it here first: If you dislike Chuck Norris (or people like him) on the basis that Chuck is intolerant of gay people, intolerant of science and reason, intolerant of atheism, intolerant of the truth and intolerant of any politics that’s even a smidgeon more progressive than that of Ann Coulter… That means that YOU are the intolerant one! More intolerant than Hitler, in fact. Stands to reason, don’t it.

      • Dan 2015, June 18 at 6:30 pm

        I’m guessing you have never actually watched Fox News. I have never seen so called “racist, fascist propaganda” on it and have seen counter arguments all the time.

        Withoutwriting says: Well Jesus effing Christ, the question is whether you’ve been watching the wrong channel or not. Go watch this for a short compilation of racist fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZINbdls7EjQ

        You need to get out more and not believing everything you read.

        You need to start believing what you see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZINbdls7EjQ

        You talk about intolerant, well you should try tolerating people who think differently than you,

        You’re saying that I should tolerate intolerance? That’s pretty unoriginal. It’s also bullshit.

        because everyone is not going to have the exact same opinions as you. I’m not sure why you even care if Chuck Norris believes in God or not. He’s a martial artist and an actor. I don’t see how his personal beliefs effect you at all.

        Repeating myself: He’s a public figure, and he uses his public platform to try to influence people and public policy. Thus, it is my business. Deal with it. 😉

  19. Graham Arellano 2015, June 15 at 7:21 pm

    sir is it true that bruce lee fought against jackie chan? i heard rumors but is it true?

    • withoutwriting 2015, June 17 at 8:29 pm

      Nope, Jackie was a stuntman on Bruce Lee’s second Hong Kong feature Fist of Fury, and on Enter the Dragon. The two never fought. Jackie gives the impression of having looked up to Bruce, and the two were friendly.

  20. Thane Young 2015, July 6 at 12:41 am

    Enjoyed the article. As a theist, your closing meme was annoying. Nonetheless, I will follow your blog. All the best.

  21. Bc from at 2015, July 6 at 6:37 pm

    My cousin was a stunt man in a few Chuck Norris movies. He’s a big guy about 6’4″ and 320 lbs. Chuck kicked him in the chest in one scene and left a bruise the size of his foot on my cousin’s chest even though he was wearing padding for protection. So yes he did have a lot of power but I still think Bruce Lee would win. Mr. Lee was simply a master while Chuck is not. I agree that Chuck is not a good person. He is narrow minded and completely intolerable of other people’s beliefs and choices. I enjoyed your article including your jabs at Chuck. Mr. Lee will always be remembered as a great martial arts master and a great man.

  22. MysticNinJaJay 2015, July 11 at 3:34 am

    As a Bruce Lee fan I found this blog entry to be interesting although a bit biased. As a liberal I found the trashing of Chuck Norris’ political views to be hilarious but irrelevant. I think the main point you made is that Chuck’s Karate fights were not full-contact so he was not a full-contact fighter. Bruce Lee did win an amateur Boxing tournament but it was only one tournament. Chuck Norris very well could have developed better reflexes and timing for a real fight through point-Karate but we’ll never know what would have happened in a real fight between them. Chuck was bigger but Bruce was in better shape. It could have gone either way.

  23. Tom Cottone 2015, September 6 at 6:35 am

    So, the real answer is that you based your final opinion solely on your extreme bigotry of his political views.

    Withoutwriting says: You spout the usual nonsense, sir: The fact that Chuck Norris is a hateful, intolerant and ignorant right-wing wing-nut is completely separate from my assessment of his skill vs Bruce Lee’s skill. And the fact that right wing bigots are so quick to accuse their critics of bigotry is and has always been, as laughable as it is predictable.

    Norris had at least 20 lbs on Lee, as well as 5″ of reach. Any real fighter can tell you how tremendous an advantage that is. Unless there is a huge disparity in skill level (not evident in this case), the bigger fighter will win much more often.

    We will have to agree to disagree about the disparity in skill; the article contained quite a bit of reasoned argument on that topic, but I doubt you bothered to read it properly, and frankly I doubt you’d be capable of absorbing it even if you had.

    Also, your closing meme was very revealing. First, Bruce Lee was not an Atheist. Second, Atheism is not something to be proud of as it is amoral at best.

    As far as I’m aware, in a 1972 telephone interview with Alex Ben Block, Bruce lee stated that he had no religion: “None whatsoever”, and that he did not believe in god. “To be perfectly honest, I really do not”. Seems clear cut to me. By stating that Bruce Lee was not an atheist, you reveal your total, and complete, lack of knowledge on the subject. Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to involve yourself in a discussion for which you are neither equipped intellectually nor in terms of your knowledge. I won’t even bother addressing the over-used tripe about atheism “being amoral at best”, as anyone who still gives any weight to such self-serving drivel is beyond redemption… no pun intended. 😉

    • Jigs 2015, September 11 at 6:03 am

      A reach and 20 pounds doesn’t mean much when your opponents stronger, faster and in better shape. Bruce’s body was far more conditioned than Norris’s and had far more martial arts knowledge. This is a tired argument that isn’t valid.

      More over, Bruce fought people all the time. Unless the eyewitnesses that all collaborate the same story is one big conspiracy theory.

  24. Luis Ah-Hoy Jr. 2015, September 19 at 11:40 am

    I fully agree with every single thing wrote in this article.

  25. Kevin Westwood 2015, September 26 at 5:33 am

    Dear Withoutwriting,

    Please don’t think I’m prying but, I’m a little interested in you. Any chance of some background on your martial arts experience? I didn’t get the chance to read all your replies above so, if you’ve covered this somewhere above please forgive me.

  26. Rick Lee 2015, November 21 at 9:12 am

    cant verify this, but it came from someone who knew em both – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH7D8-eXsnM

  27. Bubba 2015, November 24 at 8:30 pm

    Aaaaso! So this is some young, arrogant atheist who beloved that Bruce was a good secular humanist who would, of course, beat that stupid hillbilly Chuck, because, he’s just one of those dumb creationist Bible huggers. One things for sure. Atheist have killed allot of people. Stalin’s a good example. Killed like, 60 million people. One thing is also equally as certain. At the end of time, if you are still an Atheiat, you will be ultimately be defeated in hell. You will receive “shame and everlasting contempt”. You will be the ultimate loser. And Chuck will be in heaven with his arms raised.

    Withoutwriting says: I think I’ve fallen in love again. And there was me thinking I was done with love.

  28. Bruce 2015, November 24 at 8:39 pm

    So basically you’re a shallow leftist Christian hater? What, can’t stand that Mother Teresa out there helping the poor. You are a pathetic d-bag. Run along to your video games and let the adults talk about Martial arts. U obviously know nothing of the respect that martial arts teaches. I hope you don’t go shoot up a church like that kid down south. Maybe we will see you on the news someday in chains. Worthless hater.

    WithoutWriting says: You on the other hand are brimming with respect and Christian charity, aren’t you. No matter, you do not impress me in the slightest, as I remain comfortably sure that I could choke the Jesus right out of you. 😉

  29. James Helton 2015, December 3 at 7:04 pm

    So because Chuck Norris believes in God and Bruce Lee didn’t adds points to Lee in his favor. Bull shit. That’s what you’re implying with those last two pictures.

    WithoutWriting says: Actually, it implies the truth: That Chuck Norris believes in an evil god. A god who hates people for arbitrary reasons, is morally and intellectually impoverished and wishes harm to others apparently at random, like a vicious child. A god created in Chuck’s own image, in fact. Compared to a belief in an evil god, yes, atheism is superior. I can’t speak to the kind of gods that other people than Chuck believe in, of course.

  30. JKD Fighter 2015, December 15 at 1:59 am

    Great post. This is a post that is very underrated and needs to be looked at when comparing to who would win between Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris already admitted later in his life (AFTER that interview on BBC) that he wouldn’t win. Chuck Norris indirectly admitted it, saying something like “Only a fool would show off like that!” basically saying he is foolish for coming out to say he could beat Bruce Lee.

    There’s so much misinformation and some really good, well crafted disinformation going around smearing, slandering, condemning and blasting the legacy of a man who worked his ass legit more than other fighters.

    The fact that Joe Lewis took JKD and starting kicking everybody’s ass in kickboxing is clear proof that Lee was good. Joe Lewis and Lee both respected each other, so they never needed to fight each other, but we all know Lee was a superior fighter than Lewis.

  31. Slade 2015, December 20 at 4:53 am

    I must say, everything about this article is amazing. You’re a really great commentator, and your views were definitely in the right place. I really can’t say much about it, as I’m an amateur martial artist at best (Only two years of training, and no real tournament experience.) but you definitely know your facts. And your religious beliefs just made it all the more better, you seem pretty fucking cool man. Keep rocking on.

  32. Brad “Tertiushand” Taylor 2015, December 27 at 4:50 am

    I took a kick boxing class instructed by a direct apprentice to Chuck Norris. That man nearly broke my arm demonstrating a punch on me through a blocking pad. Anyone who thinks Chuck Norris couldn’t snap any limb he wanted to with a practice punch is kidding themselves.

    • withoutwriting 2015, December 27 at 4:47 pm

      I could just say something rude, but instead let’s use your comment as a teaching point: Your comment bears virtually every hallmark of faulty reasoning that could be crammed into such a small space, and is representative of many of the fallacious beliefs and attitudes that have kept the martial arts stuck in the ninja-tastic 1970s. Let’s break it down.

      Point by point:
      – You allege that you attended a class run by a student of Chuck. Not Chuck, but a student of Chuck.
      – You allege that while you were holding a pad of indeterminate thickness and resilience, this student of Chuck punched the pad, possibly once, possibly more times.
      – You allege that this punch or punches hurt you very very much, even through the pad of indeterminate thickness and resilience. So much, in fact, that it felt like he “nearly broke” your arm.
      – From this impoverished and anecdotal evidence you leap to the conclusion that Chuck could actually break… any… limb he wishes to with a “practice punch”, by which you presumably mean a less than full-force punch.

      I mean, when your points are set out deliberately in this fashion, doubtless even you can perceive not only the rank idiocy of your own conclusion… but also possibly the utter inconsequentiality of the “premises” you erroneously based said conclusion on.

      Some counter-points to consider:
      – What does Chuck’s student’s ability or lack of ability say about Chuckie or Chuck’s ability? Is the student better or worse than the teacher? He could be either. How about better or worse in different areas? Does witnessing the punching power- or lack of punching power- of one of Chuck’s students tell you a damn thing about how hard Chuck would hit the pads, or indeed a real person?
      – When you say that this student “nearly broke my arm”, how nearly are we talking here? Did he actually almost fracture the bone, or did he unintentionally hit just the right nerve on your arm to put you in severe pain? Or do you just have pathetic little-girl arms? You will never… CAN never know for sure given such a paucity of evidence, so how could anyone else know or believe your second-hand anecdotal nonsense?
      – Even if it were factually true that this person “nearly” broke your arms, the question would remain: what is the root of this person’s punching power? Is he naturally a good puncher? Did he study boxing in his youth? Has he simply spent many years punching a heavy bag in his garage? There is no good reason to leap to the conclusion- as you seem to have- that this person is merely a direct conduit for Chuck’s holy-beard-power. There are many other possible explanations which you have chosen to ignore.
      – Finally, you extrapolate from this irrelevant claptrap into a firm conclusion about Chuck himself, specifically that if his student can make your (most probably) little-girl-arms feel like they’ve nearly been broken, then Chuck himself, the source of the holy-beard-power, should be able to not only ACTUALLY break your little-girl-arms… but any limb! On anyone! Anywhere! Without really trying!

      The sad fact of your comment isn’t that YOU believed that your ideas were coherent and that anyone should waste their time reading them… it’s that there will be people out there who agree with you, and who would draw the same faulty conclusion from the same misinterpreted and irrelevant subjective experiences. That’s the truly sad, truly terrifying, cosmically horrific conclusion; there are human beings out there who think the same way that you do.

      With all due respect 😉

      • vlinnstone69 2016, January 19 at 5:23 am


      • Alex 2016, November 16 at 4:33 am

        Haha. I like you.

        Thanks for the article – really interesting. I’d happily agree that polite, non-contact sport alone does not soundly prepare anyone for a real, down-and-dirty street brawl. (I say that partly from sporadic experience, and partly because it’s just bloody obvious). True, neither of the guys were into that, but the well-rounded martial artist will usually win, as you said.

        Didn’t know Norris was such a fundie. Disappointing.

  33. justpassingby 2016, January 5 at 10:08 am

    Long story short, Bruce Lee wins regardless of what others say. Just look at how fast and unpredictable he is, roughly 6 punches per second. That is Jeet Kun Do we are talking about.

  34. Anonymous 2016, January 31 at 9:49 pm

    Are you kidding me Bruce lee would kick chuck Norris’s butt but I have to say I love chuck Norris and Bruce lee he did two finger push ups one inch punch and knocked around a specially made punching bag that was specially made for Him it was double the size and weight of the regular punching bag he would have knocked the punching bag right off the ceiling so what he wasn’t a pro fighter he didn’t want to compete in tournaments he did martial arts for the love of it it was his passion he didn’t do it for the money also chick Norris beat bob wall Bruce lee beats chuck Norris and bob wall Bruce lee just is the best fighter okay some people are just better than others and Bruce lee was the best of the best but they haven’t fought before so I not sure Bruce lee changed martial arts chuck Norris trained by in them you see books on Bruce lees fighting method ( jeet kune do) do you see chuck Norris’s fighting method no Bruce lee is a father in martial arts

  35. Pingback: Voor Batman vs Superman bestond: de vetste fictional fights | Benchwarmers.nl

  36. SunriseBoy 2016, May 1 at 1:32 pm

    In the fight Enter the Dragon, we can see it is choreographed and then some. However, one thing is a glaring point about Norris is his flat-footed style. It shows how he is a “slugger” and not particularly well rounded in his athleticism or his alacrity. He has a very stiff approach, rarely bends his knees. Whereas if you observe Lee he looked like M. Ali the way he was dancing around Norris. I’m not sure if Lee got that from Ali or vice versa. But I think it would be the latter. Ali never did that early in his career.

    As to all the speculation, I’d suggest Lee was so far out in front of Norris, that it is a non-issue. Lee’s alacrity, flexibility, creativity and his blistering speed would have been way to much for Norris. Don’t take my word for it. Go look at Norris’s efforts in his “professional” career.

    As to being a “world champion” (his words not mine) of not hitting someone too hard, is quite frankly, a joke!

    • Will Howard 2016, August 14 at 7:42 am

      bruce lee would kick tht hairy man’s ass.. It’s not even worth arguing bout

    • Chuck 2017, March 9 at 11:20 am

      Also I think everyone is missing the point. You don’t have to have entered fight competitions to be classified as a legit fighter. I always thought that what made Bruce Lee so formidable, from what I’ve read about him, was that he was a serious student in the art of self defence based on his research on body mechanics, conditioning, psychology etc. I thought this was common knowledge amongst the public even to the lay person with just a passing interest in the Martial Arts. What the hell has competition fighting got to do with being a professional fighter? The worlds foremost instructors are competition champions??? I thought the whole idea of the Martial Arts is the ability to be able to harness the knowledge that you’ve learned in the most efficient and quickest manner in a life or death situation, not to demonstrate fancy spinning kicks and the like. But all I read nowadays is about who has what ring experience Blah Blah! As if that qualifies you as an effective Martial Artist. Strange.

  37. Nielsen 2016, August 12 at 5:51 pm

    It’s funny how people theorise about real combat, yet base their argument on controlled combat.

    Bruce was faster, more athletic, he trained Small Circle Jiu-Jitsu & Judo, he was in better shape, Inosanto & Lebell can vouch for him. Blah, blah.

    Yeah,That’s all good….But Chuck was in the God Damn army!! He spent those years training to kill men on a battlefield, at all costs!!

    I’m not talking about mere technique here, but a mindset. Chuck was willing to kill a man, be it barehanded or with weapons to protect his country. All this time bruce was theorising about the “Tao” of self expression & fluidity of the body.

    As a Kung Fu student myself, i have huge respect for bruce’s ideas and physical feats, but the man was an athlete & not someone trained for “The art of war”.

    Let’s be honest in a “Controlled setting”, barehanded with no weapons, one on one in a cage or ring, bruce would likely have him beaten. But sadly, that is NOT real combat.

  38. Stuart 2016, August 12 at 11:36 pm

    You TOTALLY underestimate the phenomenal destructive power and ability of Lee – he would have absolutely destroyed Norris and ALL other world champions of that time…none would have stood the slightest chance of beating this death machine.

    Below is actual statements from world champions of the time and pay particular attention to multiple world champion, Louis Delgado, who beat Chuck Norris and many others…very unusually, he doesn’t have any ego problem at all in describing his ability against Lee and, from this, it’s very easy to imagine the very same would apply to any and all other champions of that era. Dalgado faught them all and was a match for them all – except Lee as you’ll read.

    Go to YouTube and type in Jim Kelly on Bruce Lee’s sparring ability and it’ll bring up a totally honest and frank assessment of Lee by world champion Kelly who reckoned Lee was THE greatest martial artist who ever lived and who he knew would destroy the legendary world champions when sparring in an extremely rough fashion.

    Mike Stone says Lee would have been “much too fast for referees to see and score in compititions”…stuntman Jackie Chan said Lee was “just a blur” when really going for it…”like a fight scene in a cartoon”…he went on to say Tyson, Ali etc., were extremely fast, but you could still follow and see their movements – but not Lee’s.

    “He had a brilliant martial arts mind and, he gave me a lot insight into the martial arts. —Bob Wall.
    (The legendary Bruce Lee by the editors of black belt magazine 1986)

    “For his size and weight, Bruce was one of the strongest people – pound for pound – I have ever met. I think he could have beaten a lot of people much heavier and much stronger than he was. He would have done extremely well in competition; if anything, he would have been much too fast for a lot of the officials.” –Mike Stone.
    (The legendary Bruce Lee by the editors of black belt magazine 1986)

    “I have met Mr Lee and have had the privilege to work out with him several times. Although I have won 42 karate tournaments, I do not consider myself a match for him. His speed surpasses most of the black belts I know.” –Ernest Lieb
    (Martial arts Legends magazine December 1995)

    “I have never met anybody with more ability in fighting and knowledge than Mr Lee himself.” –Fred Wren
    (Martial arts Legends magazine December 1995)

    “I have never seen anyone like Bruce Lee. I have met and sparred with several karate men, but Bruce has been the only one who has baffled me completely. I am completely in awe when I fight with him.”–Louis Delgado
    (Martial arts Legends magazine December 1995)

  39. blessed269 2016, October 15 at 7:26 pm

    Wow. I read your original post and enjoyed it, in fact, agreed with it right up until you began your clear “Chuck-Hate” agenda. Sadly, it’s clear you are well educated. Your debate skills are wonderful. It’s unfortunate that you resort or belittling those with opposing views. I’m sure my comments will be crucified as well. I don’t plan to spend my time posting my rebuttals to points you’ve made in the replies section. They will not be considered with thought, only the hateful bullying comments with which you’ve made your replies thus far.

    I did actually enjoy your opinions about the imaginary contest throughout your thread. When you are actually speaking on topic, your arguments are quite sound. I have some opposing opinions, but I don’t think you would actually consider them intellectually, but rather tear them apart and make fun of them, so I’ll keep them to myself.

  40. Mohsen 2016, November 10 at 9:32 pm

    I’m sure that norris couldn’t stand more than 10 minutes against BRUCE in a real fight.

  41. IAN 2017, January 31 at 3:57 pm

    Chuck Norris at his best (if he had one) is not fit to be mentioned along side Bruce who at his best would have annihilated him.

  42. Zach 2017, March 3 at 7:22 pm

    This is obviously a very very biased opinion. I’m pretty sure i can smell the hate of Chuck Norris coming of your words. I personally don’t prefer chuck or bruce any more then the other. With that being said i still have to say chuck Norris would beat bruce lee 9 times out of 10. Bruce lee had a only a few belts compared to chuck. Chuck not only knew more forms of martial arts but had fought some of the best fighters around the world giving him a lot more experience over bruce. In the end if you really were to do your research correctly you’ll find that chuck Norris had more skill much more experience and a better body for fighting. Too many people let there personal beliefs cloud there judgement just by looking in the comments its very clear. Honestly i couldn’t care less if ones a more stand up guy then the other Christianity is a very hated on religion these days. Many people try to find one clip that could have been easily tampered with and say chuck is a bad guy. From facts and reports chuck actually seems to be a very nice guy not that we can say he is or isn’t for sure. Whoever is the better man isn’t the point you stated basically all of Bruce’s accomplishments leaving out almost all of chucks success making this a very opinionated post. I encourage you all to do your own research from trusted websites if you really want facts. If you’re satisfied with reading a extremely biased blog with very few facts then you’re at the right place.

    • Paul C 2017, September 27 at 6:52 am

      Bruce didnt have any belts. He wasnt even considered advanced in his core art.

      Withoutwriting: Any person who thinks that belts- especially belts in the early nineteen-seventies- mean anything at all, is foolish.

  43. Zach 2017, March 3 at 7:53 pm

    Its hard to take anything you put in this article seriously when at the end you prove how uneducated you really are. For starters bruce was not an atheist. You judge a religion “Christianity” when you obviously know nothing about it. Chuck Norris never forced his beliefs on anyone and if he had that wouldn’t be held to the religion it’d be held against Norris as a person. These words were spoken by a hard core atheist, if you are truly a Christian and you believe that those who dont believe in God will end up in hell then it is your job and duty as a man or woman of God to share your beliefs and attempt to save as many people as possible and if you don’t you’re truly an awful person. Theres proof your article is very opinionated making everything else you stated at the beginning of this moronic rant invalid. You may have a few true facts in there but once one part of the fruit is rotten “in this case tainted by opinion” it all must be thrown out.

  44. Rajnish 2017, March 8 at 8:33 am

    When two champions fight they use their skills and dont lie chuck as a world champ in karate would never have accepted such role getting beaten up by any other fighter he acknowledged lee’s skills and accepted getting beaten up in front of the world audiences in cinema if u look at the fight footage carefully in the second half of fight the two of them got close to a real fight in act and Norris knew well he cannot beat lee’s superior fighting skills in any situation let me put it this way that if u are a karate champion will u accept getting beaten up in front of the world audiences so cheaply

  45. Troy 2017, June 23 at 8:23 pm

    Sounds bias like most liberals.

  46. Anthony Christy 2017, June 24 at 3:52 am

    I feel the same way Bruce Lee would of kicked Chuck Norris ass

  47. Robert Stoll 2017, July 10 at 8:52 am

    Jesus Christ, when are you asswipe offspring of single, white trash mothers, going to put this worn out question to rest? Norris sucked and could never beat Bruce Lee in any kind of combat. Maybe that’s why he went to Lee for personal training and enlightenment! Give it a fucking rest, Norris only competed in paper tiger, non contact Karate matches. Look at them, side by side, it’s obvious to anyone (who knows anything about the arts) that Lee was the better all around athlete. Look at how he stands and executes punches and kicks, all the while blocking his face. Does Norris do this? Come on children! If you want to argue about “real” fighters that might be a good match for Bruce Lee, grow up and learn about some “real” fighters, like Bill Wallace and Benny Urquidez.
    God all mighty, I can’t believe there are still morons debating this one!

  48. Joe kuykendall 2017, July 29 at 7:25 pm

    The article was in my opinion spot on until it got off track on personalities and religions. In these two areas, the writer seemed to have a need to personalize the article towards the writer’s oppinions. I did like the factual portion very much.

    WithoutWriting: Thank you for your kind words; the “factual portion” in fact comprises the entire article, so you loved it all. However the whole point of the article was to discuss Chuck Norris’ (lack of) personality. The martial arts discussion at the beginning was merely a red herring.

  49. Virinda choudry 2017, August 4 at 6:20 pm

    You dont need to think too deeply to realise its not much of a contest and bruce would win easily. He has beaten Norris already which must be worst kept secret in the world. Bruce wrote about defeating norris in a letter to a friend i think it was William Cheung. Jon benn said he spoke to norris and claimed norris said nobody could beat bruce.
    The fact that norris dont want to admit it in fear of upsetting his own fans is understandable and one thing. But to then go on and pretend to think there is any doubt about an outcome is inexqusable!

  50. Reuben F Benavidez 2017, August 6 at 5:31 am

    Bruce Lee was a great fighter, He won and beat many Masters in the Martial Arts World, Chuck Norris never accomplished that” and everyone that has been in the military thinks they are a great fighter” but the facts are only Marines” are great fighters out side the Chinese Martial Arts World ! The rest must bowdown ” and don’t compare” I Know being one of the last great fighters ” Bruce Lee was and is the Best !

  51. Death from Above 2017, August 16 at 11:54 pm

    Good article until the political comments toward the end. Keep the analysis pure and don’t taint it by mentioning irrelevant details. I’m a right-winger who- like all right-wingers- can’t take political criticism.

    Withoutwriting: There, fixed that line for ya. You’re welcome.

    I think Bruce would have won 8 out 10 times.

    If Chuck had dedicated himself to the same level of fitness and training, I think it would be close to even because Bruce Lee wasn’t more creative and very capable of surprise – much like a modern day Musashi.

  52. Matt 2017, October 27 at 12:32 am

    Sounds like someone is whining about Mr. Norris politics and personal beliefs,typical “tolerant” liberal.

    Withoutwriting: Yes, let’s all tolerate intolerance. That’s the way forward! If you criticise Chuck’s disgusting intolerance of gay people, that means YOU are the intolerant one! hahahaaa!!!!11

  53. Lonnie Paul Andrus 2018, January 28 at 2:02 am

    Only thing I see here is a fag that hates Christian’s…

    Withoutwriting: Well now that you’re here, everyone can see a fascist homophobic troll too. Well done for providing variety.

  54. jeff 2018, February 13 at 4:05 am

    It’s quite obvious that you do not care for Chuck Norris. While I have no real opinion on who would win a fight between them I would have tried to answer the question without prejudice. I have to wonder what experience you have to even attempt to answer such a question. Both men were action performers and good at their jobs. I have enjoyed watching both men and both have positive qualities. I watched the tape and saw nothing that warranted such anger and hate that you spewed. The things you stated about Chuck including that he is a religious nut job say alot about you as a person. You are the man I would say that has no moral character. You need to seek God’s face and find peace. It’s obvious you have anger issues that you need to address. I will pray for you.

    Withoutwriting: 1. No, I do not care for Chuck, as stated and for the excellent reasons stated. 2. Poop in one hand and pray into the other and let me know which one fills up first.

  55. Will Rogers 2018, February 22 at 1:16 am

    There’s no denying Bruce Lee was a good teacher & philosopher a lifetime ago, but anyone who has a record that has more losses than wins wouldn’t even get close to a fighter fake patty-cake point-fighter like Chuck Norris. Realistically, it’s painfully obvious you do not like Chuck Norris from the start & you wrote this for some reason that I don’t care the good of all mankind.

    Bruce Lee was good on camera 100 years ago. You know how easy it is to move faster than one of those ancient cameras? He was fast, no denying, but over rated. Was he a fighter? Hell no yes. Was he a teacher and borderline brilliant philosopher? Any day of the week.

    What’s it matter what Chuck Norris’ religious beliefs are or his attitude toward anyone matter? The man fought pretended to fight in a jerky unrealistic way for a living. At any skill level, you’d have a little attitude.

    I’m guessing you haven’t spent much time in the ring with the way you judge a fighter fake patty-cake point-fighter. Size isn’t everything, but it doesn’t hurt in a fight. Ultimately it doesn’t matter anything, but you give Norris no credit at all. Even if he didn’t actually land a punch in competition that means he could definitely land one wherever he wanted. was a fake patty-cake point-fighter. Give that man some credit. You give him shit legitimately criticise his bigotry because he’s a Republican & homophobic?

    You need to write about tennis or chess. Any form of fighting is not for you. Being a Democrat is NOT going to help you in a fight virtually the same as being a Republican, and both are stupid and right-wing.

    Withoutwriting: Fixed that for ya. You’re welcome.

  56. Bryan 2018, February 22 at 5:23 pm

    First of all, Chuck Norris was a 7 time world kick boxing champion. Bruce lee was an actor. He never completed, never faught anyone. He was a personal trainer that invented a fighting style for a good workout. If you used that style in the ufc or any other professional fighting organization, you’d get humiliated. Just as Chuck Norris would humiliated Bruce Lee.

    Withoutwriting: Nice job avoiding any and every point made in the article that each demolish your fact-free contentions. You are clearly a master of “writing without reading”.

  57. Ray Lowry 2018, March 12 at 10:10 am

    More “moral” than Chuck Norris? Didn’t the married Mr. Lee die in bed with his mistress?

    Withoutwriting: 1. That’s merely a rumour. Talk is cheap. 2. Marital infidelity isn’t necessarily immoral… each case is different. It’s interesting that you seem to think it’s a monolithic issue though; almost as if you were a right-wing christian fundamentalist.

  58. Bret 2018, September 11 at 4:45 pm

    Joe Lewis can take both of them!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: