View previous topic | View next topic

fight or flight error

Page 1 of 5
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

pianoman
482482.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:04 am Reply with quote

in the fight or flight episode when fry was discussing theoretical fights he said that bruce lee's films exaggerated his ability and were sped up, in actual fact bruce lee had to slow down so the camera's could follow and capture his movements (his punches only took 0.05 seconds to reach the target from rest position). Alan davies was right then in saying agility and speed would go to bruce lee.

this kind of mistake makes me question the validity of some of the other dubious facts mentioned in the show

any thoughts on this historically debated topic (muhammed ali vs bruce lee)?

 
Flash
482563.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:26 am Reply with quote

pianoman wrote:
this kind of mistake makes me question the validity of some of the other dubious facts mentioned in the show

Speaking for the show, we like to have debates like these, but we like them even more when they

a) are based on evidence and

b) aren't conducted in the form of a sneer.

If you have evidence for the point about Lee's films, we'd love to compare it with our own and conduct a grown-up conversation about which side we believe.

Meantime, we'll have sufficient courtesy to ignore your more general sneer until you produce some specifics.

 
Flash
482994.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:30 pm Reply with quote

Anyway, as far as the question itself is concerned:

Ali - 6'3". Fighting weight: 236 lbs
Lee - 5'7". Fighting weight: 135 lbs

If he'd been a boxer Lee would have been in the lightweight division - nine divisions below Ali. So to give Lee a chance you'd have to argue for a huge advantage for martial arts over boxing as an approach. Presumably both sides would be able to kick, and Lee would be better at it, but however fast he was his kicks could not have been as fast as Ali's punches; they require more build-up and start further away from their target. Furthermore, punches come in flurries and combinations, whereas combination kicks are slower, more difficult to execute, and carry a big penalty in terms of loss of stability etc. Ali was used to dodging punches that were much faster than Lee's kicks.

A more interesting question, perhaps, is how either man would have managed against a comparably-sized wrestler; cage-fighting ("mixed martial arts") championships are usually settled on the ground, and go to the better grappler.

Quote:
Bruce Lee had great respect for the skills of wrestlers, but he had different priorities and recognized that their techniques were not as photogenic as the looping kicks and acrobatics that moviegoers wanted to see. He realized that his moves were only for the camera, and that the flurries of hand trapping that he learned from wing chun kung fu woudl be of little use in a real fight. Unlike Ali, Lee never boasted that he could take on the world. Unlike Chuck Norris, he never fought in competitive tournaments either. To then say that Lee was the best martial arts fighter in the world - let alone the best fighter per se - would be like saying that the Harlem Globetrotters, basketball's answer to the WWF, are the world's best basketball team. The more valid question is not whether Bruce Lee could beat Muhammed Ali, but how he would fare against Rocky Balboa ...

Nicholas Hobbes

Incidentally the internet assertion that Lee's action had to be slowed down by using an overcranked camera seems to be based on this quote from Robert Clouse, who directed Enter the Dragon:
Quote:
In the shot where he is in a standoff with Bob Wall, with their wrists crossed and glaring at one another, we had to speed the camera to 32 frames (a second) to slow down the action and be able to see his hand lash out to hit Wall. At normal speed it didn't show in film.

... from which it is clear that he's referring to something that happened in only one shot, a close-up of a single punch. As far as Enter the Dragon is concerned, it's quite clear that there was no generalised reversal of the normal editing techniques of martial arts films for Lee's benefit. Perhaps the evidence will come from other films in due course, though?

 
bleft 01
483048.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:06 pm Reply with quote

I didn't actually hear this on the recording (presumably it was shown on the long version), so i'm only going by what is written here.

I have also heard that Bruce Lee had to slow down when performing- especially in Game of Death (his last film). This info was from the dvd 'Bruce Lee-Jeet Kune Do' (JKD). It was spoken by Dan Inosanto, a leading 'student' of Bruce's and also an actor in that film. Obviously this could have been an exaggeration- i don't know. (Inosanto was one of the two people authorised to carry on JKD after Lee's death, the other being Taky Kimura.) But i'm willing to believe it is true, having studied and fought in many martial arts, including JKD, for many a year.

Regarding the Ali vs Lee fight: (All this is opinion, obviously.) In a street fight, Lee would have beaten Ali with ease. I think most fighters would agree with me on this- if i'm honest, i don't think anyone could have handled a street fight with him. But in a official boxing match, with rules, i think it would have been much closer, and one which is harder to predict. I'm not too sure on this one.

I haven't actually seen many of his films-i've only studied him as a person and his 'martial art', so perhaps some were sped up, but i doubt it.

 
Flash
483099.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:56 pm Reply with quote

I can only say that if you came at this from the perspective of a film editor rather than a martial artist, you'd conclude otherwise.

 
Posital
483114.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:22 pm Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
I can only say that if you came at this from the perspective of a film editor rather than a martial artist, you'd conclude otherwise.


Just as a bit of idle speculation - it seems that people are claiming that Mr Lee was told to slow down his moves - and perhaps after editing, they decided to speed them up again.

So potentially everyone could be right - kinda.

Hmm - 24fps = a two frames every tenth of a second seems very quick. Although I did struggle to see what was happening when the salsa professionals danced on Strictly. Perhaps this was simply down to image persistance of my telly.

 
Flash
483135.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:56 pm Reply with quote

Posital - a masterful bit of diplomacy. If you're not busy, you might consider a trip to Gaza, perhaps?

BTW:
Quote:
Originally moving picture film was shot and projected at various speeds using hand-cranked cameras and projectors; though 1000 frames per minute (16⅔ frame/s) is generally cited as a standard silent speed, research indicates most films were shot between 16 frame/s and 23 frame/s and projected from 18 frame/s on up (often reels included instructions on how fast each scene should be shown). When sound film was introduced in the late 1920s, a constant speed was required for the sound head. 24 frames per second was chosen because it was the slowest (and thus cheapest) speed which allowed for sufficient sound quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film

So we watch silent films at the wrong speed, which gives us the Benny Hill effect.

 
Posital
483196.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:46 pm Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Posital - a masterful bit of diplomacy. If you're not busy, you might consider a trip to Gaza, perhaps?


Sorry - I was busy with Yigal and Moussa when the issue of Mr Lee came to my attention. Gordon does tend to drone on a bit. The skuba diving here is great :P

I wonder how you can speed up film without making a mess of it? Could you only cut every other frame - or are there other arcane ways of doing it so that removing one out of every five doesn't look jerky...??

 
Moosh
483198.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:53 pm Reply with quote

Posital wrote:
I wonder how you can speed up film without making a mess of it? Could you only cut every other frame - or are there other arcane ways of doing it so that removing one out of every five doesn't look jerky...??


Maybe I'm being thick here but surely you'd just show each frame for a shorter length of time?

 
bobwilson
483199.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:56 pm Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
pianoman wrote:
this kind of mistake makes me question the validity of some of the other dubious facts mentioned in the show

Speaking for the show, we like to have debates like these......when they

.....
b) aren't conducted in the form of a sneer.

If you have evidence ...... we'd love to compare it with our own and conduct a grown-up conversation ......

Meantime, we'll have sufficient courtesy to ignore your more general sneer ...........


Touched a nerve there Flash?

 
Posital
483200.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:57 pm Reply with quote

Yes - but the film starts off at 24fps and needs to go into a standard projector at 24fps.

The only option in the 70/80's would be to cut frames - nowadays you can do a bit of digital trickery and interpolate.

PS: bob - your shoelaces are undone...

 
pianoman
483228.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:39 pm Reply with quote

Quote:

Regarding the Ali vs Lee fight: (All this is opinion, obviously.) In a street fight, Lee would have beaten Ali with ease. I think most fighters would agree with me on this- if i'm honest, i don't think anyone could have handled a street fight with him. But in a official boxing match, with rules, i think it would have been much closer, and one which is harder to predict. I'm not too sure on this one.


ive also studied lee (read all his books, seen all his films and biographies) and ive seen loads of ali also. what you've said pretty much sums it up. in a street fight theres no question lee would win. not a lot of people know however that lee's training was more intense than ali's and he lifted weights as heavy as a lot of top body builders. in a boxing match however ali was the greatest and had a huge reach advantage so you would have to favour him since there are rules in a boxing match.

as for UFC fighters and wrestlers they wouldnt fare well against bruce lee because he not only studied and wrote about all styles of martial art comprehensively but had a tensile strength greater than people twice his weight, some of his physical demonstrations are unbelievable.

p.s i was not sneering i was only saying that some of the facts mentioned seem farfetched and many people have spotted mistakes in the previous series. I still think QI is one of the best programmes around alright, calm down man

 
Davini994
483237.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:46 pm Reply with quote

pianoman wrote:
in a street fight theres no question lee would win.

pianoman wrote:
he lifted weights as heavy as a lot of top body builders.

pianoman wrote:
UFC fighters and wrestlers they wouldnt fare well against bruce lee


pianoman wrote:
some of the facts mentioned seem farfetched and many people have spotted mistakes

 
bobwilson
483249.  Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:57 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
PS: bob - your shoelaces are undone...


Actually, I think you'll find my underwear was on display .....

 
djgordy
483384.  Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:09 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Quote:
PS: bob - your shoelaces are undone...


Actually, I think you'll find my underwear was on display .....


Well, that image has ruined my entire day.

 

Page 1 of 5
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group