Talk:Gene LeBell

Untitled

"One can easily see why Gene LeBell would grow up to become the world class athlele, competitor and teacher he is."

I congratulate the writer(s) on the large amounts of effort they have gone to in their research regarding Mr. LeBell, however this article needs evalutation for NPOV. I think it reads more like an overture dedicated to Mr. LeBell rather than an encyclopedia article focused on him. 202.74.202.30 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is taken directly from http://www.genelebell.com/bio.html - the bio on his official site.

Which is why it is probably not written in an NPOV...This is an extremely poor article obviously written by a fanboy.--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 03:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was obviously copied, the article should be deleted or stubbed. Zuiram 05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I have added the copyvio tag to the article, as this is indeed a verbatim copy of the URL mentioned. Would've added the nothanks tag to the user's homepage, except the text was added anonymously. The same IP address (203.94.152.2) that introduced the copyrighted material has also vandalised several pages (such as Ohm's Law), generally by deleting material and/or replacing it with various statements involving the word "gay". Zuiram 05:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

is this guy 9th dan Kodokan Judo ? The Usjf has o authority to promote him as a kodokan judo player can they ? Only the Kodokan in Japan can do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.121.5 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Gene LeBell is officially listed in the Kodokan Judo Association in Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.83.226 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seagal?

Did the story about him making 'The Great One' involuntarily empty his bowels get deleted again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.136.115.45 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the story about Steven Seagal gettting chocked out by Gene LeBell is always getting deleted. Steven Seagal sued Gene over the embarrassment, and they settled out of court with Gene promising to never talk about it. However, Steven forgot to include the over 30 witnesses.

It is getting deleted because it has never been proved to be true. Even Gene LeBell himself is scared to say that the story had really happened when he was interviewed. There is also no source indicating that Seagal had brought this to court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicased (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks a semi-skilled judoka couldn't choke Seagall is simply unfamiliar with the martial arts. Sure, Seagall got some sort of a gag order with his money, but Steven is merely an aikido practitioner who has never competed in any organized way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.69.229 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"30 witnesses" name them. All of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.114.118 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected page

This article has been semi-protected for six hours as it is repeatedly being edited by an IP with a direct connection to the subject. Please resolve the matter here and note that Wikipedia articles are not personal pages, and thus are not subject to the preferences of the subject. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Bruce Lee content

A number of apparent single purpose accounts have edited this article, attempting to remove any connections to Bruce Lee, among other things.

--Jtalledo (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Gene LeBell's relationship with Bruce Lee is unsubstantiated

For some strange reasons, user Jtalledo is so keen in adding the name 'Bruce Lee' into the student list under Gene LeBell in this article, despite failing to prove there was a formal teacher/student relationship between them after multiple interrogations.

Every source user Jtalledo refers to only give 3rd party statements. They are not proof.

Here are the factors which need to be considered:

(1) Bruce Lee never acknowledged, in any way, that he had a teacher and student relationship with Gene LeBell. In fact, Bruce Lee never mentioned about Gene LeBell once.

   No one is more qualified than Bruce Lee himself 
   to say whether Bruce Lee was a student of Gene LeBell. 
   If Bruce Lee never acknowledged it, nobody can say he was.

(2) Bruce Lee's students only mentioned that they trained with each other for some time.

   Though they might have shown something to each other, 
but that does not necessarily lead to a teacher and student to one another, 
and there's no evidence of Bruce Lee ever calling Gene LeBell teacher.

(3) Gene LeBell has made many unsubstantiated statements saying that he taught Bruce Lee grappling and Bruce Lee taught him other techniques in return. But no record of Gene LeBell can be found in bruce Lee's thousands pages of training diary.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GregTillman (talk • contribs) 05:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No official 10 Degree!

Both his ranks are not officially recognised by the Kodokan! Furthermore are the organizations quoted in the atricle non of the three officiall usa judo organizations: United States Judo, Incorporated (USJI), United States Judo Federation (USJF) and the United States Judo Association(USJA). They seem to be more or less, small independent organizations which are able to promote members as they wish. To me it does not seem logical to rank him as a 10th or 9th degree judo practitioner based on the sources in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.6.172 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally understaood!! It is also very questionable as to whether Gene Lebell's fight with the boxer, Milo Savage, should be regarded as MMA. I checked all the 1960s articles about that Judo vs Boxing match but nothing indicated that it was a mixed martial arts match. No matter it were the boxers who organised that match, the referees, the judges, the journalists and Gene Lebell himself, that fight was never regarded by anyone as MMA. Basically, people back then did not have an idea of what MMA is. This can be clearly seen by the fact that no member of the martial art community ever regarded Gene Lebell as a mixed martial artist as Gene Lebell did not introduce the concept of MMA to people. It was apparently promoted by Gene Lebell himself some 40 years later through the media that it was the first televised MMA match in North America. I'll do a bit more research on that and should come back to it sometime later.

Have you bothered to consider that the term "mixed martial arts" may not have been coined until much later than 1963, yet fights closely resembling modern MMA were already occurring for years by that point, albeit mostly in Brazil? I found the fight listed on Sherdog, as is mentioned in the article, so someone out there evidently believes it to be an MMA match. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 03:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove cited contents

Wiki member "Ghostexorcist" has recently removed a large load of text in the article with the reason of no reference, when in fact all references are cited at proper places through out the paragraghs and are still valid.

"Ghostexorcist" is actually more or less trying to remove the contents that he doesn't want others to see. Watch out for people abusing the use of wiki like this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicased (talk • contribs) 08:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the "sources" I saw cited were YouTube videos. These would fall within the realm of user-generated content with no editorial oversight, and therefore cannot be considered reliable sources. The video content itself MIGHT be considered a reliable source. If that's the case, it should be properly cited using {{Cite AV media}}, {{Cite episode}} or other appropriate citation template. Keep in mind that if a YouTube link is provided, the link needs to be copyright compliant, otherwise it will be deleted.

Now that the formalities are out of the way: this recent flurry of editing activity is essentially making this article into a POV fork, open to potentially lame edit wars amongst MMA fanboys. If you want something to criticize Lebell over, consider that professional wrestling in Southern California was absolutely huge from about the late 1940s to the early 1970s. When Gene and his brother took over the wrestling promotion from their mother and stepfather, they slowly ran it into the ground, to the point where it was mostly painful to watch from about 1978 onward. Vince McMahon's national expansion wouldn't have happened as quickly as it did if he didn't have such free entry into a key market like Los Angeles, which the Lebells gave him by going out of business. Speaking of reliable sources, it's mostly been Dave Meltzer who has written about what I speak of above, so I dunno if you would need to do some real research to find something less open to scrutiny. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 22:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know who Gene LeBell was until I watched I am Bruce Lee and then looked him up here on wiki. So, why would I bother to slander a guy whom I don't even know? I don't think anyboby would be interested to do so either.

I don't know what you're trying to deny about as those videos have proven Gene LeBell making those claims in his own words, youtube or not, when referring to what Gene LeBell said or did, nobody's account or statement is a more appropriate source than Gene Lebell himself.

e.g.

Did Gene LeBell call himself the grandfather of MMA? Yes, he did. Source: I am Bruce Lee

Did Gene LeBell claim he taught Bruce an armbar, but which is not actually an armbar? Yes, he did. Source: Inside MMA (episode 431)

Did Gene LeBell claim he received an offer from Bruce to play a role in Enter the Dragon while there are people saying otherwise? Yes, he did. Source: Again, Inside MMA (episode 431)

Did Gene LeBell make those stories about Bruce that he has never proved? Yes, he did. Source: Let me which one you would like a source for since there are plenty.

If any of the videos is not copyright compliant, youtube would have deleted it before you. So, you can spare your effort in trying to confuse wiki's moderators.

Your second statement admiring Gene LeBell's achievement is totally irrelevant to this talk page and only shows that you're tremendously supportive of him. I found it interesting how you can take someone's personal opinion on him as a true way of determining how good he is.

By the way, are you the user "Ghostexorcist"? Because you're apparently replying using multiple accounts.

On 04:44, 3 May 2013, ‎user "Ghostexorcist" returned and removed again the contents that he had previously tried to remove when no other wiki users seem to have any problem with those contents of what Gene LeBell actually said since they have been there, and which are all known to be true facts.

The sad thing about this member is that he refuses to talk but keeps removing stuff that he doesn't like to be there quietly from time to time. Watch out for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicased (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What I didn't mention in my previous comments, because it should be evident if you read the banners at the top of this talk page, is that this article is a biography of a living person. I contend that bare URLs pointing to YouTube clips constitutes insufficient sourcing for a BLP. I'm quite certain that "wiki's moderators" would agree with me. If you really wish to find out for yourself, I'll happily alert them via the BLP noticeboard. The obvious sockpuppetry in this thread would actually be more of interest to some of them than would the discussion.

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm a fan of Gene LeBell. The Los Angeles wrestling promotion went from drawing 26,000+ to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in 1971, to only being in business a decade later because they brought in Chris Adams from the UK and he became a breakout star. Even then, it was too little too late, as they were out of business within a matter of months following Adams's departure from the promotion. Their television exposure during these years went from KTLA and the legendary Dick Lane, to some Spanish-language UHF station with Judo Gene himself doing the announcing for the English-language segments, by all accounts losing fans in droves due to his "magnetic personality". These events happened largely due to Mike and Gene LeBell and their "acumen" (*cough, cough*). As I mention above, I know of this because Dave Meltzer has written about it for many years. Because Meltzer is a controversial source, this should be mentioned here and discussed first before making it's way into the article.

Unfortunately, the Bruce Lee fans who have chosen to hijack this article because it mentions their hero aren't necessarily taking into consideration that this article is a BLP, whereas Lee's article obviously isn't, and that different rules apply. Nor are we extending the same type of courtesy which I refer to above in the case of Meltzer, this current "discussion" notwithstanding. It's somewhat bothersome to me that Ghostexorcist isn't participating in this discussion. It could very well be that he or she views this as a trollfest and is smart enough to avoid being baited. You can always post a talk page message extending an invitation to participate in the discussion. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're still using the excuse that youtube is an insufficient source for reference and trying to make yourself look more justified by posting a large load of stuff that is irrelevant to the matter in discussion.

There have been youtube sources used as references in this article for years e.g. and nobody seems to have any problem with it. The only problem you have here is that there are a few things Gene LeBell said in recent years about Bruce Lee, which became part of his biograhy but are proven to be inconsistent with others' statements, so you 'selectively' removed the bits that matter you/him to make the overall content look different as a way to protect his image. Although you claim you are not an idolater of him but your purpose of formating the text is obvious.

Please make a note of this person who apparently has been formating the content of this article with the following identities:

"Ghostexorcist" "RadioKAOS" "71.56.128.137"

, as he is likely to sneak back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicased (talk • contribs) 07:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have this article on my watchlist, hence the reason that I have yet to reply. I stand by the edits that I originally made. I'll comment on this later. In the meantime, I'm not too happy that I've been accused of being a sock puppet. That is why I would like to bring the community's attention to the fact that Calicased has been blocked for being one of seven socketpuppets of Shxtlebell. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence the three previously mentioned users are the same person, some of the references cited DID NOT contain the information it was claimed they did, and a rear crucifix is a control position from which can be performed arm bars, a neck crank or a collar choke. In Enter the Dragon, Bruce Lee puts Sammo Hung in a rear crucifix and applies an armbar. Gene Lebell has claimed to have taught Bruce Lee an armbar used in that movie, but it was not specified if the crucifix armbar was what was meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.5.249 (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I only meant that those three accounts apparently have been used by the same person, not saying they must be the same person. There is no need to be so nervous about it if you're not one of them. You are a very quick replier this time though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calicased (talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as removing cited content is concerned, review of the four volumes of "Bruce Lee's Fighting Method" shows that he does NOT refer to a crucifix submission at all. "The Tao of Jeet Kun Do" contains a line drawing of a mounted crucifix armbar, but not the technique in question. If anyone has evidence to the contrary they are welcome to provide the book and page, this would be extremely useful. To Cali: go ahead and provide any proof you have that these different posters are the same person. That is a bizarre accusation to make but if it's dear to your heart then do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.5.249 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with those points listed in the section about Bruce Lee. I went through all sources provided by previous editors, they are all genuinely given as what Gene Lebell has said and are known facts. As for your comment about the technique shown in "The Tao of Jeet Kun Do", a crucifix can be applied from various positions, the point of it is to submit your opponent by applying spinal pressure on his neck that forces the submission. It is not an armbar. So, please get your fact straight first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23welsh (talk • contribs) 09:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A crucifix is a control position from which can be applied neck cranks, arm bars or collar chokes. Any neck crank variation is not written about anywhere in Bruce Lee's work. Therefore those works that were provided as reference for such were provided erroneously.

Calicased's footnote

What happened to the Seagal Section?

The story between Gene and Seagal had been sitting on the article for years without getting challenged by anyone. But it has recently gone since some update information was added. Can anyone find out why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymandRoys (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

YouTube sources

Citing stuff that happened on a show as meaningful is problematic in and of itself. While a link to a youtube video will show that it happened, it does not show that it is a notable event (you'll need independent reliable sources for that) meand any interpretation of the event is not acceptable (a video of the show is a primary source for anything that happens on the show).
As for the links themselves, we cannot use video uploaded by some random person. The shows are copyrighted (unless there is a specific release somewhere). Wikipedia does not link to likely copyright violations. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Online World of Wrestling

To editor The Great Pancracio: "Online World of Wrestling" is not a reliable source. Neither Reliable Sources Noticeboard nor WikiProject Pro Wrestling support using it. I understand that it may be one of the few websites that cover pro-wrestling and I can see it's used as a source elsewhere but that doesn't excuse using it here. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see, but exactly, why is it wrong to use it here? OWOW covers pro wrestling issues, and my edition was about Leell's pro wrestling moves. The Great Pancracio (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you still asking why? Because OWOW isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia doesn't use un-reliable sources. It doesn't matter if OWOW provides exactly the information you're looking for, we don't use it. It shouldn't be used anywhere in Wikipedia but I'm not watching those articles, just this one. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue with Seagal, again.

@Truefact01: I see you're another one of these drive-by editors trying to protect Steven Seagal's image. You're not the first. At this point we're reverting each other and per WP:EW, that needs to stop. Let's discuss the issue and come to consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: New reference has been provided. The reference provided by previous editor cannot verify that Gene Lebell has confirmed he choked out Steven Seagal.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gene LeBell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713040915/http://www.insidekung-fu.com/content/view/124/36/ to http://www.insidekung-fu.com/content/view/124/36/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117014039/http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1321297139 to http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1321297139

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gene LeBell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423020547/http://www.usatkj.org/bio/lebell/index.html to http://www.usatkj.org/bio/lebell/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Any information added must be supported with reliable reference(s).

Any information added must be supported with reliable reference(s). Be it just an addition of a person's name into the context of someone else' story.

Third person's opinion or hearsay cannot be regarded as a reliable reference. Unless it has been specified that it's a third person's opinion and a valid reference to which is provided thereby.