I have to say here that the more i improve, the more my movement (or standup at least) looks like Bruce's, and the more his concepts of interception and directness etc. come into play.

I sometimes feel, however, that some techniques we learn in class, are tailored for a fight against the untrained individual (since it is also known as scientific street fighting, you are more likely to meet an untrained individual in the street) and i can't help but think things like "that probably wouldn't work against me, but i can see it's practicality". The problem is though, that when we spar, we generally do so with a person of around the same skill level, and many of the techniques that may work well against the lay person never get practised in a fighting situation.
For example, i can distinctly remember being told to step in with a slower, looser jab than normal to test the opponent and to make him think that this is the way i fight before stunning him with a fast, powerful, tight lead. Against the lay person, i can see how this would work, but in a spar, if i was to step in with a slow loose jab, i'd probably get countered if the opponent was of similar skill.
This also goes for other techniques such as trapping. I have rarely seen trapping executed in a UFC or other professional fight, and i use it very seldom in my own sparring, but when playing around with my mates (non-MAists), it seems to work very well and i can sometimes tie them up in knots.

While i am aware that every fight is different, and that the MAist must adapt to whatever type of opponent he faces, i believe that the principles Bruce taught all have their place, and to leave some of them out (as someone suggested earlier) may be counterproductive.

Agian, i suppose it's all a matter of opinion
_________________________
Sticks n stones'll break my bones, but if I land the first one, you're in trouble!