JeanClaude Van Damme wrote:If you all remember how lame many of the fighters in the first few UFC tournaments were, there's no doubt Bruce Lee would have dominated if the UFC existed 40+ years ago. It would have been against primitive competition, so Bruce would have excelled, and as a result I don't think the public perception of Bruce would have been different. I can only imagine how awful MMA would have been in the 70's, going by how ill-prepared much of the competition was in the 90's.
If the UFC remained as it was under Art Davie... one style vs one style... with minimal rules... then I would argue Lee's chances of success are higher... but look at what happened to Royce Gracie when he came back... sure he was older and all, but he only knew one style (ju-jitsu) and was destroyed by Hughes, a man with multiple disciplines under his belt. It also hurt Gracie that he wasnt able to use the gi in that fight like he did in early UFC, and there were many additional rules.
Nobody is gonna have success with just one style. And the chief argument for Lee supporters is that he had multiple disciplines under his belt--- but here's the thing--- there is no "open weight tournaments" in the UFC anymore, and there is so many rules and regulations these days, that these would only limit Lee's overall potential. Also, because of the confines of a cage, I would also argue that this would limit Lee's overall abilities too--- because Lee always talked about "true" combat, which was no rules and no confines.
You throw a 130 pound man inside a 30 foot cage, with a 265+ pound athlete who also has multiple disciplines under his belt--- and Lee can only do what the rules allow--- then he's truly in big trouble. I'd even argue that someone of his own weight, or near weight, would also give him trouble because of these conditions.
Say no more 
[/quote]
