Who can take Bruce Lee for a majority?

Started by StyleTime2 pages

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Seagal or Lee. I don't think he is a fraud and he is still one of the fathers of MMA he is just overhyped and tiny.

Nah. Bruce introduced the idea to mainstream audiences, but MMA was happening long before him. We just called it other names at the time.

Anyway, Chuck wins. He is a legitimate black belt under Rickson Gracie. Unlike some of the other older generations of martial artists, Chuck didn't let his ego get to him when the grappling revolution came. He challenged Rickson, and lost in 30 seconds. Then Chuck became Rickson's student.

He's actually pretty legit and would choke the others out pretty quickly.

Seagal does Aikido, which has proven to be nearly useless in a fight. He is also extremely out of shape. He comes in last.

*all this assumes we control for age. These guys are all 60-80 years old while Bruce would have been 32.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Jean-Claude Van Damme

Steven Frederic Seagal (at his peak, pre-gecko)

Chuck Norris

Bruce Lee

All at their best, locked in the cage.

Who wins?

I hear Van Damme has legitimate skills.

Certainly hae the best ass, no homo.

Yes, Van Damme was a legitimate kickboxer. K1 and Glory weren't around back then, so kickboxers are higher caliber nowadays, but he should be a competent striker.

Again, I'm controlling for age here. He is 60.