Bruce Lee closed-door duel

I just learned that the closed-door fight scene in "Dragon- The Bruce Lee Story" has some relevancy to the "true" story, according to Wikipedia at least. The entry says nothing about him injuring his back and going into rehab from the fight, though.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Jack_Man

Wong Jack Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is a Chinese name; the family name is Wong (黃).

Wong Jack Man (Chinese:黃澤民, pinyin: Huáng Zémín, born c.1940^[1] in Hong Kong^[2]) is a Chinese martial artist and martial arts teacher, best known for a martial arts duel with Bruce Lee in Oakland in 1964.

Wong taught classes in Tai Chi Chuan, Xingyiquan and Northern Shaolin at the Fort Mason Center in San Francisco. He retired in 2005 after teaching for 45 years. His classes continued under his student Rick Wing.^[3] Wong Jack Man was a student of Grand Master Ma Kin Fung.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] The fight with Bruce Lee

Wong's fight with Lee is controversial^[4], as it was unrecorded and held in private.

According to Linda Lee Cadwell, Bruce Lee's wife, Lee's teaching of Chinese martial arts to Caucasians made him unpopular with Chinese martial artists in San Francisco. Wong contested the notion that Lee was fighting for the right to teach Caucasians^[5] as not all of his students were Chinese.^[6] Wong stated that he requested a public fight with Lee after Lee had issued an open challenge during a demonstration at a Chinatown theater where Lee claimed to be able to defeat any martial artist in San Francisco.^[7] Wong stated it was after a mutual acquaintance delivered a note from Lee inviting him to fight that he showed up at Lee's school to challenge him.^[8] Martial artist David Chin reportedly wrote the original challenge, while Wong asked Chin to let him sign it.^[9][10]

According to author Norman Borine, Wong tried to delay the match and asked for restrictions on techniques such as hitting the face, kicking the groin, and eye jabs, and that the two fought no holds barred after Lee turned down the request.^[11]

The details of the fight vary depending on the account. Individuals known to have witnessed the match included Cadwell, James Lee (an associate of Bruce Lee, no relation) and William Chen, a teacher of Tai Chi Chuan. According to Bruce, Linda, and James Lee, the fight lasted 3 minutes with a decisive victory for Bruce.

Lee gave a description, without naming Wong explicitly, in an interview with Black Belt.

"I'd gotten into a fight in San Francisco with a Kung-Fu cat, and after a brief encounter the son-of-a-bitch started to run. I chased him and, like a fool, kept punching him behind his head and back. Soon my fists began to swell from hitting his hard head. Right then I realized Wing Chun was not too practical and began to alter my way of fighting." ^[2]

Cadwell recounted the scene in her book Bruce Lee: The Man Only I Knew.

"The two came out, bowed formally and then began to fight. Wong adopted a classic stance whereas Bruce, who at the time was still using his Wing Chun style, produced a series of straight punches. "Within a minute, Wong's men were trying to stop the fight as Bruce began to warm to his task. James Lee warned them to let the fight continue. A minute later, with Bruce continuing the attack in earnest, Wong began to backpedal as fast as he could. For an instant, indeed, the scrap threatened to degenerate into a farce as Wong actually turned and ran. But Bruce pounced on him like a springing leopard and brought him to the floor where he began pounding him into a state of demoralization. "Is that enough?" shouted Bruce, "That's enough!" pleaded his adversary. Bruce demanded a second reply to his question to make sure that he understood this was the end of the fight."^[12]

This is in contrast to Wong and William Chen's account of the fight as they state the fight lasted an unusually long 20–25 minutes. Allegedly, Wong was unsatisfied with Lee's account of the match and published his own version in the Chinese Pacific Weekly, a Chinese language newspaper in San Francisco.^[13] The article, which was featured on the front page, included a detailed description of the fight from Wong's perspective and concluded with an invitation to Bruce Lee for a public match if Lee found his version to be unacceptable. Lee never made a public response to the article. Wong later expressed regret over fighting Lee, attributing it to arrogance, both on the part of Lee and himself.^[14]

Mint.com how to make $170 Mil

Mint CEO Aaron Patzer on Startups from Techcrunch on Vimeo.

where i'm from

feat 2pac



nice

wu tang financial

Chappelle's Show
Wu-Tang Financial
www.comedycentral.com
Buy Chappelle's Show DVDs Black Comedy True Hollywood Story

maybe so

maybe no0

diplo santigold

mayweather interview b4 marquez

Slap Chop and the franchise player

funny stuff

The High Life

- Wealth is the result of a particular state of mind
- You can never have more than what you are satisfied with

Billion Dollar Man

Actually he's more like a 6-10 billion dollar man. John Paulson knew what most smart people without herd mentality knew: [real estate valuation growth rates are not going to last, it is highly irrationanl, there will be an imminent decline, and when that happens who will be affected first? ding- the buyers who will have the most trouble paying. who? ding- subprime borrowers. Who else? ding- everything else guilty by association]

This was obvious, but neither I nor anyone else I knew had a good idea how to take full advantage of it. Sure, I bundled up some puts on big lenders and got some short financial etfs. But equity markets are public and emotional to start, and these bets don't work so well when laissez faire is hijacked by big strong government bailout hype (for now).

John Paulson found a much more clever avenue. I punch myself for still not knowing more about fixed income trading . Even if I did, I wonder if I would've found a similar strategy because if I had, I would be in an unthinkably different place by now. His plan netted him an estimated $3.5 Billion in 2007 according to Trader monthly, the highest earners issue. Hindsight on good opportunities are 20/15, but the hardest question is always, "but how much would you have risked?" The answer in this case, for this particular strategy, is salivating-ly easy (continued below). What interests me about John Paulson is his seeming humbleness which i think is cool, but maybe it's because he never doubted his outcome. His lowly beginning includes graduating first in his class at NYU and HBS.

I also like his daring (or calculated) decision to switch gears from a good career in M&A to money management. It's a very big shift that takes a lot of personal risk (large $), and he wouldn't be where he is today if he hadn't taken the turn. Not only does he have strong instincts, but he also executes actively and timely.

Cheers to John Paulson. I hope he remains his own maker of future decisions.

His Strategy in a nutshell: 1% risk for 100% return:

Are you tired of talking about subprime mortgages yet? (July 2007)
No, I’m still excited about it. I think we’ve got a winner with this. It’s been a very profitable investment for us, but we think we have only realized 25% of the (potential) that we expect to make in this area. The investment is very much consistent with our overall philosophy that if you watch the downside, the upside will take care of itself. What attracted us to this particular position is that overall, we feel that we are in a credit bubble. We feel that there is too much risk going long (in) credit instruments since spreads are so tight. So we concluded that the best opportunities were on the short side. The beauty of shorting a bond is that the maximum you can lose is the spread over the benchmark; yet if the bond defaults, you can potentially make more. So it’s an asymmetrical risk-return tradeoff. In the case of subprime securities, we targeted the triple-B bonds, which are the lowest tranches in the subprime securitization. In a typical securitization, you have 18 to 20 different tranches with the lowest … taking the first loss. The triple-B bond has about 5% subordination, meaning that if the loss is greater than 5%, the bond will be impaired. And if it’s more than 6%, the bond will be extinguished. The yield was only 1% over LIBOR (the London interbank offered rate) so by shorting this particular bond, if I was wrong, I could lose 1%, but if I was right, I could make 100%. The downside was very limited but it had very substantial upside, and we like those types of investments.

Full Interview with John Paulson July 9, 2007, before he made most of his killing

MGMT- Electric Feel

Oo girl

Nassim Taleb

This video only works in internet explorer

The Science of Patience

Walter Mischel, NYU and Harvard psychologist, explains some details of his devotion to the study of patience and attention, and how they both correlate with intelligence and success.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

Conan O'Brien Robot

in the year 2006:

Barry O'Bomber

President Barack Obama in high school


Obama, #23, was referred to as Barry O'bomber. Although he didn't play a lot of minutes, here he is contributing to his team's state championship win:

Gold vs.USD

really? inflation anyone?

Roger Federer Wins French Open

With his first French Open title, Roger Federer strengthened the argument he’s the best tennis player ever.

He completed a career Grand Slam, something only five other men have done. He won his 14th major title to tie Pete Sampras’ record. He played in his 19th Grand Slam final to match Ivan Lendl’s record.

The stylish Swiss caught a break in Paris and made the most of it, winning the title by beating the man who beat Federer’s nemesis, Rafael Nadal. Federer swept surprise finalist Robin Soderling 6-1, 7-6 (1), 6-4 on Sunday.

“I don’t know if we’ll ever know who was the greatest of all time, but I’m definitely happy to be right up there,” said the 27-year-old Federer, who plans to play into his 30s. “I think it should be judged at the very end, you know. How well did I do? Good? Great? Very good? Or medium? I don’t know. It’s for other people to decide.”

“I’m obviously happy for Roger,” Sampras told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Los Angeles, where he lives. “Now that he has won in Paris, I think it just more solidifies his place in history as the greatest player that played the game, in my opinion.”

Andre Agassi, the most recent man to complete the career Grand Slam when he won at Roland Garros 10 years ago, presented Federer with the trophy. The other men to win all four major titles were Roy Emerson, Rod Laver, Don Budge and Fred Perry.

The championship came after Federer lost to Nadal at the French Open and Wimbledon last year, and at the Australian Open in February. Federer also lost the No. 1 ranking to Nadal last August.

“Sounds like an Achilles’ heel, but at the same time, what (Federer) has done is unmatched,” Agassi said. “We’re watching two guys in the prime of their years compete against each other—and Nadal has an answer for him. But what criteria do you use to judge best ever? Roger’s numbers—it’s hard to disagree with. His domination on different surfaces—hard to disagree with.”

Federer was in top form Sunday, gliding across the court and whacking winners from all angles as he raced to a quick lead. Soderling’s strokes steadied, but Federer played a brilliant tiebreaker, hitting aces on all four serves.

“One of greatest tiebreakers in my career,” Federer said.

He broke again to start the third set and kept that lead the rest of the way, although it wasn’t as easy as he made it look.
Switzerland's Roger Federer poses with his trophy in the players dressing room after defeating Sweden's Robin Soderling in their men's singles final match and winning the French Open tennis tournament at the Roland Garros stadium in Paris, Sunday June 7, 2009.
Switzerland's Roger Federe…
AP - Jun 7, 1:22 pm EDT

“It was very hard mentally for me to stay within the match during the match, because my mind was always wondering, `What if?”’ Federer said. “`What if I win this tournament? What does that mean? What will I possibly say?’

“I was very nervous at the beginning of the third set because I realized how close I was. The last game, obviously you can imagine how difficult that game was. It was almost unplayable for me.”

Still, Federer managed to hold in the final game. When he hit a service winner on championship point, he fell to his knees and was teary by the time he met Soderling at the net.

Debates about the greatest player ever usually include Laver, who swept the Grand Slams in 1962 and 1969. Sampras is another contender, even though he never reached the French Open final.

Soderling’s vote: Federer.

“I never played anyone playing that fast,” said Soderling, who is 0-10 against Federer. “He doesn’t have any weaknesses at all. He really deserves to be called the best player of all time.”

Source: Associated Press

Obama Cairo Speech

President of Earth Barack Obama speaking his mind in Cairo, Egypt:

Oil price history 101

Full story from last year with active links: BBC NEWS | Business | Oil hits $100 barrel

Is Howard The Next Great Endorser?

Now that Lebron has left the stage? Naturally. Waiting to see some new Dwight Howard commercials.

According to polls representing today's general population:

• 10% know who Dwight Howard is
• 36% know who Lebron James is
• 63% know who Michael Jordan is
• 84% know who Kobe Bryant is
  

Is Howard The Next Great Endorser? - Sports Biz with Darren Rovell - CNBC.com