• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

I really like Gene LeBell. He's such a fun guy.

#21
With all due respect Cheesus Toast, aikido is not an martial art meant for real combat. I have studied aikido for twenty one years and love it from the bottom of my heart, but if you are talking about a martial art which is "meant for taking out your opponent(s) in the most shortest (efficient) amount of time as possible", you are not talking about aikido (Way of the harmonious spirit). No-nonsense arts like kali escrima, krav maga or jeet kune do, for instance, fit that description perfectly.
I cannot concur; of course it is for real combat! Are you saying that it for show? The essence or core philosophy behind spiritual harmony with ones environment is not in question here. The actual techniques of Aikido are meant for combat... end of story. I feel that you are semantically evading the core aspect of the combat side of the art. I fully stand by what I have said but maybe I have incorrectly utilized the word "mean't"! Taking down ones opponent as fast as possible may not be in the instruction manual of Aikido but it most certainly is the philosophy of someone who is about to get clobbered if they do not defend them self in the next 2 seconds.

I am no expert on Aikido itself but I am aware of many of it's basic technical aspects because I did study it for a period of time before moving onto something else. I saw at no time any part of it that seemed "for show" or unnecessary. The techniques are formed around disabling your opponent fast, which is precisely what I said in the quoted part at the top of this post.

The kicking and punching techniques of the likes of Karate and Kick boxing may be formed around the acquisition of points in a scoring system. How do you score points in Aikido? Number of broken bones? It is a very blunt art in that respect. It may not be your intention to fatally or critically wound an assailant but it was clearly not developed to be pleasing to an onlooker or to score points in a competition. It is very practical.
 
#22
Cheesus Toast: I am not saying that the art of aikido is developed for show nor am I saying anything about it being a sport. I don't think I mentioned anything about scoring points, did I?

As a former practioner of aikido, you are familiar with the uke/nage-training principles of aikido. These principles are based on pre-arranged, kata-like choreography which makes aikido training almost a performative art; definetily not a point-scoring-sport nor an art for combat. Even in the freestylish randori-excercises the role of uke is quite passive thus not interpolating the training into real life, "street-situations." Many aikido techniques are actually quite complex for a realistic combat scenario, but like I stated before: there are huge amounts of teachers and students of aikido who approach their training in a more rougher and functional manner.
I wish to emphasize that my intention is not to downplay aikido in any way or to present it as some kind of a "sissy" martial art. I just want to say that even if there are techniques of joint manipulation, locks and throws in aikido, that doesn't mean it is developed for serious, possibly life or death-confrontations. O-Sensei derived aikido from more aggressive arts like aiki-jutsu, kenjutsu and jiujitsu in order to create an art where one's purpose is not to mame, hurt or defeat one's opponent but merely to direct attacker's aggressive energy away - to be a wall, so to speak.

The world of martial arts is not black and white in the sense that there'd be only two kinds of arts: ones for combat and ones for sport. Aikido is the perfect example of an beautiful art situated in that vast middle area: it is not sport like karate and judo, it is very much more spiritual than tae kwon do, but far less practical for combat than for example muay thai or brazilian jiu-jitsu. These are the arts that most MMA-fighters train and people in law enforcement, military or bodyguarding prefer something even more simplified - something that cuts through all the BS, like krav maga for example. Aikido training can benefit you in many wonderful ways, but only rarely when it really gets down and dirty.

Then again, in a real life fight situation it's pretty much for what ever works. Most of the times it usually comes down to the practitioner rather than the techniques of one particular art. If you personally can utilize aikido techniques to save your ass then that's all good. Peace!
 

Mason

Well-Known Member
#23
Good point, if there were 30 witnesses you would think more people would have told their side of the story.

The sad thing is in the past Steven Seagal there have been many rumours and strange stories, that sometimes we don't know what is fact and what is fiction.

Personally it makes no difference to myself if he was choked out by another martial artist.
It makes no difference to me either, no matter how good you are eventualy you will meet your match in some style, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people just like to make up excuses to talk down to Seagal, thats the sad thing about it all.
 
#24
It makes no difference to me either, no matter how good you are eventualy you will meet your match in some style, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people just like to make up excuses to talk down to Seagal, thats the sad thing about it all.
Thanks for the comments. those are worth of noting.
 
#27
If you don't like it here, then leave. It's not up to you at all how people choose to respond.
It's a shame that I clicked the reply button in the wrong post and caused an over smart dude mistaking I was replying to him.

Nevertheless, it's intriguing where you got the idea that I'm trying to manipulate others to respond in the way I expect.

I just meant that I agreed with the point that people always take fictions as facts, which was discussed earlier in this thread.
 

Mason

Well-Known Member
#28
It's a shame that I clicked the reply button in the wrong post and caused an over smart dude mistaking I was replying to him.

Nevertheless, it's intriguing where you got the idea that I'm trying to manipulate others to respond in the way I expect.

I just meant that I agreed with the point that people always take fictions as facts, which was discussed earlier in this thread.
Yeah right, bad excuse :rolleyes:
 
#29
Yeah right, bad excuse :rolleyes:

To be honest, I really found whatever Gene Lebell said isn't worth for a shit. Watch this video Gene Lebell said he got hit 300 times during sparring with Sugar Ray Robinson in a single round. If he's not a liar he'd at least be a very sensile person for his exaggerated or even fabricated tales.
 
#30
Gene LeBell is a liar. Seagal wasn´t choked out by LeBell because Ron Balicki said that on his official Facebook account.

Here is what Mr Balicki said:

No story gains traction quite so quickly, in today’s media frenzy environment, than one that tears down a well respected celebrity. In this instance, there is a fairytale rendition of how the great Gene Lebell choked out Steven Seagal, with rather unpleasant effect. The story is patently false, but this bit of martial arts mythology now seems to have really taken root. Trashing the reputation of a martial artist and movie icon may be a sad part of the entertainment process, but when the story is not correct, and the consequences truly damaging, the situation must be set straight. I can speak to this myth personally as I am close to the people in these circles and I know the eyewitnesses to the exchange that day between Gene and Steven. Know that this is not easy for me to do. My family and I know both Gene and Steven well, so to see this malicious urban legend live on through the years divides people we care about deeply.

There were numerous people present on the day when Gene Lebell met Steven Seagal and allegedly fought. In reality, no fight occurred and there was no contact between Gene and Steven on that movie set. Gene’s role was to work as a Utility Stuntman under the stunt coordinator, Conard Palmisano. Steven also had a bodyguard, Joe Crowley present who was an LAPD officer. As his security specialist and professional law enforcement official, He would have been in serious trouble had he let his boss get choked out, and possibly killed, by a marginal stuntman. The stunt coordinator, Conrad Palmisono was there and witnessed any interactions that occurred between Gene and Steven. Conrad Pamisano was one of the most successful Stunt coordinators working in show business at the time. The legal exposure and professional consequences for Conrad would have been severe had he let a stuntman under his supervision aggressively even touch any star on a movie set. Quite simply, Conrad, as a professional with great responsibility, would never have allowed this situation to occur.

Another stuntman by the name of Steve Lambert was also an eyewitness to Gene’s and Steven’s brief interaction. He also stated that Gene never choked out Steven and that no altercation ever occurred. Again, this is not some street fight, or casual dojo situation. If such an altercation happened on a professional movie set the consequences for the producers, directors and the movie studio would be most severe. A stuntman (Lebell) simply cannot choke out and hurt the lead star of a movie in production on the set. The legal liability and damage to their professional reputations would be unthinkable. Quite simply the set would have been closed down. If the star lost consciousness a doctor’s signed release would be legally required for Steven to go back to work. No such record exists. The bonding company who insures the production for the movie would have sued Lebell for the loss of working days. The financial implications would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars given the cost of shutting down production even for a couple of days. Again, keep in mind that we are talking about an alleged fight on a professional movie set. The consequences of such an altercation would be enormous. Casual altercations might happen in the gym, but not on the highly regulated and professionally managed stage of a movie production.

In truth, this story is nothing more than WWE type hype in which Gene Lebell is known to indulge going back to his early wrestling days. He is doing the same thing with Ronda Rousey today. Gene Lebell is now saying that she (Ronda) can beat up Bruce Lee; what could be more absurd? What could get more attention? This entirely fabricated story is simply a way of staying in the public eye and making a living at the expense of the reputation of another. There are radio shows like Joe Rogan and others who validate this ludicrous fiction in order to increase their ratings. Ronda Rousey, and some others, are also telling this story during interviews for their own self-promotion. In a recent interview Ronda stated that she knows the story to be true. That is ridiculous; she was 3 years old when this allegedly happened. It seems that this made up altercation is simply part of the sad story of American media and the cult of celebrity. We build up stars with respect and then enjoy a good story, true or not, that tears them down. Clearly that is the case here. This entirely fabricated story has legs because it creates good hype for side-show acts that need attention and boosts ratings for gossip radio talk shows. The facts are quite clear; Gene never choked out Steven. But as the old proverb says, “never let the truth get in the way of a good story”.
Mehr anzeigen (24 Zeilen)Weniger anzeigen · Übersetzen
 
#31
By the way, Ron Balicki is the husband of Diana Lee Inosanto. Her father is Daniel Inosanto who played "Sticks" in "Out for Justice". Balicki played a bad guy in "A Good Man" and choregraphed the fight scenes in Seagal recent films.