Does anyone feel that JKD has become.... more then it was intended

Or less, depending on your point of view. It sems to me that all JKD gyms at present are nothing more then MMA gyms, they just happen to be carrying a different name.

From what I understand of JKD as it was originally intended, it was more a concept, and not a fighting style, form, art, or whatever you want to call it. But now there are so many people claiming "I do JKD," and nine times out of ten its the standardized Muay Tai, BJJ, and western boxing training you find at most gyms that train for NHB.

I mean, all things considered, how can there even be JKD SCHOOLS? I thought the concept was to explore, find what suits the individual, and continue to develop through more personal means (that doesn't mean not seeking instruction).

Has JKD become something that will just evolve and change with growing MA fads?

Nothing more than MMA gyms?

To me, the MMA philosophy is JKD.

I think this is exactly what Bruce intended. No styles, no BS, just exploration.

I completely agree with MattJ! Excellent post, right on the money.

-John

I was referring to most typical MMA places; the ones that bost the common mix of Brazilian JJ, western boxing, and Muay Tai. That still seems pretty standardized, despite the name

Hmmmm.....

Those are all respected arts representing three different ranges of unarmed combat.

If you are learning how to handle different ranges of combat, does it matter if the arts are popular? I mean, they still work, right?

Do you think less well known arts are neccessary?

I am afraid I do not understand your point.

I agree with you that all are respectable and effective (I train in two of the three actually) but don't you think it still offers a limited range? I mean all three are very freeform and alive, but at the same time, my question is, is that all there is to learn I suppose.

For instance, BJJ is good, but alot of schools don't teach leglocks. Say you had a MMA fighter who squared off against someone with some Sambo under his/her belt, don't you think it would be a tad of a disadvantadge?

Sure, they would be at a disadvantage. But I think it's the student's responsability to address any percieved weaknesses in his/her learning. That is JKD. Personal exploration, bro.

Could be as simple as asking the instructor, "Hey, can we do some more leg locks?" or it may mean finding another instructor that CAN help.

I think it's asking a lot of any single instructor or system to be able to defend against everything. They should be covering all the ranges as best they can, but that's really all you can ask.

You don't go to the family doctor for heart surgery, you see a specialist. Sometimes that is what it takes.

thats my point though. JKD as a concept is personal exploration of combat training, I don't think it was ever meant to be standardized in any way. The development of actual schools seems contradictory to the philosophy's nature

I agree with you. However, any responsible instructor will only act as a guide, to get you started on the path. If they are claiming to know it all, or encompass everything, I would be very suspicious.

This is the exact problem that Bruce had with the name JKD. But don't get hung up on the names or terms. JKD is where you find it.

I would not let the name of the style/school/instructor stop me whatsoever, IF I find what I need there.

[This message has been edited by MattJ (edited 03-05-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shug:
I agree with you that all are respectable and effective (I train in two of the three actually) but don't you think it still offers a limited range? I mean all three are very freeform and alive, but at the same time, my question is, is that all there is to learn I suppose. [/QUOTE]

The three ranges are merely “areas of the fight”. Why would they be limited? They would become limited only to the extent of one’s imagination during training. Every fight takes place in one or all of the three ranges. There are no limits, only limited thinking.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shug:

For instance, BJJ is good, but alot of schools don't teach leglocks. Say you had a MMA fighter who squared off against someone with some Sambo under his/her belt, don't you think it would be a tad of a disadvantadge?[/QUOTE]

Theoretically yes. Of course that just depends on the skill level of each of the fighters involved. If one fighter was more skilled than the other, it won’t matter if he knows leg locks or not.

I will say that in a fight between two equally skilled individuals, the fighter who knows leg locks will have a slight advantage to the one who doesn’t. A leg lock can end a fight really quickly – or it can get the guy attempting one into trouble really quickly! You have to really know what you’re doing before attempting a leg lock in a MMA event. You screw up and you will likely be punished.

As for BJJ guys not training leg locks, I think this is a valid point. But that’s with a lot of “old school” BJJ clubs. I’ve seen leg locks being trained a lot more in recent times. The thing is, many people prefer to work on the underlying delivery system instead of simply working on “attacks”. That’s a more conservative approach to training. That’s also why you don’t see the leg locks happening that much.

Of course every school and club is different. We definitely work leg attacks!


[QUOTE]Originally posted by MattJ:
Sure, they would be at a disadvantage. But I think it's the student's responsability to address any percieved weaknesses in his/her learning. That is JKD. Personal exploration, bro.
[/QUOTE]

AND, personal responsibility for his/her own growth – not that of the instructor, etc. JKD doesn’t exist within the school (although it certainly can), it really exists within the individual. Thus “it” will “go wherever he/she goes” and, to whatever school or gym that the person chooses.

JKD is not a product, but a process. That process is the individual’s responsibility. If someone isn’t getting adequate instruction, it is up to that person to go and FIND that instruction – even if that means training at another gym on occassion to receive supplemental training. Besides, it’a ALWAYS good to step out of one’s comfort zone from time to time….

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shug:
thats my point though. JKD as a concept is personal exploration of combat training, I don't think it was ever meant to be standardized in any way. The development of actual schools seems contradictory to the philosophy's nature[/QUOTE]

That would be true if the “schools” had some sort of unchanging, un-evolving curriculum. I mean, if you go into a school and the instructors are saying things like: “This is a JKD technique”, or, “This is JKD grappling” etc…then you know to run in the other direction. Fast.

However, if the schools are actually training instead of “learning” (there’s a subtle difference between training and learning just as there is between teaching and coaching) and are actively working against resistance in all ranges, then JKD is alive and well.

And no, “resistance” doesn’t necessarily mean “fighting”.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by MattJ:
I agree with you. However, any responsible instructor will only act as a guide, to get you started on the path. If they are claiming to know it all, or encompass everything, I would be very suspicious.

This is the exact problem that Bruce had with the name JKD. But don't get hung up on the names or terms. JKD is where you find it.

I would not let the name of the style/school/instructor stop me whatsoever, IF I find what I need there.

[/QUOTE]

Wonderful post Matt!

-John

[This message has been edited by JKogas (edited 03-05-2005).]

Well, JKD is a personalized system. Bruce knew that each person was different. This is why he took the time that a teacher should to get to know his students and work with their strengths. He also knew that self exploration is also key and allowed his students the freedom of finding what works for them, thus JKD was born.

I completely agree with Shug. Jeet Kune Do seems to have become a style rather than philosophy. I think it's very difficult to keep philosophy conceptual for too long, which is just why Bruce gave up teaching schools, and started his personal training sessions. To me, it's gotten to the point where I see someone execute a technique, and it doesn't have that Jeet Kune Do "scent" to it, it reeks of generalized technique.

These are just my opinions, so don't take any offense.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chang Wufei:
I completely agree with Shug. Jeet Kune Do seems to have become a style rather than philosophy.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see it that way at ALL. Sure you're going to find that in some places - particularly the "Original JKD" groups (Bruce Lee groupies) but I think that now, people are just smarter in terms of martial arts training theses days than before. The "concept" (philosophy) JKD guys are larger in number than ever and, are becoming more functional as they stay closer to what those concepts WERE originally about in the first place.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chang Wufei:

I think it's very difficult to keep philosophy conceptual for too long, which is just why Bruce gave up teaching schools, and started his personal training sessions. [/QUOTE]

1. Why is it difficult to keep to the conceptual approach? You stated your opinion but never stated WHY you felt that way? Honestly, I really can’t think of any reasons why it’s hard to maintain the conceptual approach. I’ve been on that particular road now for a long time. I’ve only seen my game get better over that time.

2. The reason Lee closed his schools could be easily summarized: His followers were taking the “stylisic” approach as opposed to the conceptual approach. Basically they were merely “going through the motions” and making the curriculum in inflexible and “set in stone”. In short, they were turning JKD into just another style – the very classical mess that Lee was trying to rid himself and his followers of in the first place. You STILL see guys doing that very thing some 30-plus years later (OJKD guys).

Cheers!


-John

JKD teachers should be teaching their students oldschool style with a huge emphasis on philosphy and spirituality in order to figure out who you are and what is going to work best for your mind and body. I'd like to see them do away with close range striking and blocking. Effective countering requires you to be able to read your opponent well, as in his mannerisms and such, so this needs to be taught more instead of just countering techniques. The footwork, punching and kicking power are great stuff though. Train everything, but train the hardest in what works best for you. Chuck Liddell's a nice example of this. He's proficient in karate, kempo, wrestling, greco-roman, jiu jitsu, and kickboxing, but pretty much fights as a kickboxer and is 11-3 against ground fighters with only 1 submission put on him.

Funnily enough,train in a traditional style for long enough, and concepts, (Paticularly in kata) as opposed to stylistic methods as well as cross training /the applicabiltiy at all ranges or situations becomes more important.

IMO, most styles, dojos, gyms and even top mixed martial artists take weapons seriously enough.

Isn't that a risky paradigm most of us are tending towards?

JKogas-

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chang Wufei:
I completely agree with Shug. Jeet Kune Do seems to have become a style rather than philosophy.
[/QUOTE]

The context I said this is was rather misleading. I know that Jeet Kune Do will never become a style rather than philosophy, I was referring to the majority of the schools I have visited. I forgot to mention that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chang Wufei:

I think it's very difficult to keep philosophy conceptual for too long, which is just why Bruce gave up teaching schools, and started his personal training sessions. [/QUOTE]

I said this in that everyone's Jeet Kune Do is like their own DNA, and they play around with it and find what works just like they should, it's Jeet Kune Do. But in some cases I have seen someone's else's personal Jeet Kune Do seen as superior to another's Jeet Kune Do beliefs, so they adapt, or conform thereselves to THAT image, making their "philosophical" Jeet Kune Do, that is their own, someone else's, then it becomes a style to them.

As an example, I have fought one or two Jeet Kune Do guys who HEAVILY imitate Bruce Lee, even down to his kiai, and I think to myself that something is wrong.

I know jkd is suppose to "evolve" but taking muy thai, and kenpo for example, does not make the art JKD! I have had a lot of experience in differant arts, and agree that people just take the name without having a solid foundation in the arts Bruce taught physically, and spiritually. I've met JKD practitioners that don't even know the five methods of attack. I think a real JKD artist with have a foundation and knowledge of wing chun, silat, and escrima, and other of the arts Bruce add together. I know we all use what is usefull and reject the rest, but it is a little out of hand. I also have a problem that nobody can work together in the jkd community. That is they all think that they are right, and everyonre else is incorrect. There seems to be no one or two jkd systems, everyone has "evolved" and became better.... right

I think that JKD's non existence of a set curriculum is its greatest strength but also its greatest downfall.

The original curriculum wasnt bad, but Bruce was largely biased to Wing Chun due to his personal experience and a lot of it didnt work on a high percentage. For instance the trapping.

On the other hand, you got guys going out and studying two or three arts for two years at a time and calling it JKD. It makes the "real" JKD schools look bad because you have a lot of substandard instructors out there teaching substandard JKD, covering the ranges decently enough, but non of its streamlined and the philosophy isnt there, or it isnt understood.

To me it is a style, overall though. Its MY style. I went through the original curriculum, and as the philosophy goes, I trimmed it up, and added a few things that worked better. Now that it is truely a style of my own, is it still JKD? Probably not by commercial standards, but it surely is by that of JKD philosophy standards. But non of that is important, when compared to the main issue at hand, which is, does it work effectively for me? Absolutely.

JKD as Bruce taught it was a philosophy. Maybe it has been modernized into an art, but JKD itself was Bruce's own method. If you can't intercept fists, you're no JKD master. The whole point is to find out what works for you. The only people that call themselves JKD artists are those that take JKD classes.

JKogas, it's unfair to clump the whole of OJKD guys into the section of Bruce Lee groupies. I don't know which OJKD schools you've gone to but nothing could be further from the truth. I've been through some OJKD people, that yes reflect this groupie nature, but I for one am not a groupie; that can also be said with some of the guys I train with on a regular basis.

There are some OJKD guys out there that actually are concerned with obtaining skill in the movements of JKD just like you and your group are concerned with obtaining skill in the movements that are boxing, MT, and BJJ. Again, I don't know what OJKD guys you've met or trained with, or seen them training, but not all OJKD guys are crap at what they do, but certainly like you, i've seen my fair share of guys that can't do the stuff to save their lives.

Also to keep in perspective that there are some OJKD guys that don't place much, if any emphasis on Chi Sao. In my one and a half years, along with my buddy's four years, we have yet to really do chi sao, as our respective groups don't see chi sao fitting the direction of how we do JKD.

For those that think that OJKD is predominantly wing chun, I'd invite others to come and check out OJKD as done by Ted Wong's group, or Tim Tackett's group. Towards the last year of his life, it's been said and unfortunately debated, that JKD was moving into the direction of a purely hitting art based on mobility; some accusing it of being kick boxing, with little emphasis or lack of a gross emphasis on trapping, although we train the trapping differently than most.

Again, my motive isn't to undermine the other OJKD guys but I know what you're talking about John regarding Bruce Lee groupies, but I know that I and those that I 've trained with are far from what you would call groupies.

Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of being clumped into a group that is assumed to be "stuck" in the past, and bruce worshippers.



[This message has been edited by Fluid_Motion (edited 03-23-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chang Wufei:
I have fought one or two Jeet Kune Do guys who HEAVILY imitate Bruce Lee, even down to his kiai, and I think to myself that something is wrong.[/QUOTE]

then they're possibly not JKD guys as not a lot of things in his movies reflect what Bruce did in real life. Take for instance his bouncing up and down when it came to footwork. Clearly that kind of stuff was for the movies, but as I'm taught, we do footwork with the idea in mind that there's a board of nails over our head, and if we bob up, whap. Also when we move, we move only when there's a purpose to.

I'm getting so sick of concepts JKD people who do nothing but train in BJJ and Muay Thai, and somehow forget pages and pages of the Tao. I might be a "bruce groupie" but the concepts community is just a bunch of oppourtunists, who attempt to gain recognition and financial success by using Bruce's name, with little to none of his actually teaching.

Yes, JKD is a philosophy, and the key to that philosophy is simplification, and all the concepts schools do is add on and add on. It gives them more to teach, and more money to rake in. A lot of concepts instructors say that it just happens to be the most popular martial arts that get added in, but this seems way too coincidental.

Bottom line: Bruce founded a core block of techniques as a starting point, which each Martial artist should fit to himself, and decide how to use. That is JKD. You can learn BJJ, Muy Thai, or Drunken Chicken Tai Chi, but its not JKD, and no amount of talking will change that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:
JKogas, it's unfair to clump the whole of OJKD guys into the section of Bruce Lee groupies. I don't know which OJKD schools you've gone to but nothing could be further from the truth. I've been through some OJKD people, that yes reflect this groupie nature, but I for one am not a groupie; that can also be said with some of the guys I train with on a regular basis.

There are some OJKD guys out there that actually are concerned with obtaining skill in the movements of JKD just like you and your group are concerned with obtaining skill in the movements that are boxing, MT, and BJJ. Again, I don't know what OJKD guys you've met or trained with, or seen them training, but not all OJKD guys are crap at what they do, but certainly like you, i've seen my fair share of guys that can't do the stuff to save their lives.

[/QUOTE]

That’s great. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. It’s good you’re among the few that don’t have blinders on.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

Also to keep in perspective that there are some OJKD guys that don't place much, if any emphasis on Chi Sao. In my one and a half years, along with my buddy's four years, we have yet to really do chi sao, as our respective groups don't see chi sao fitting the direction of how we do JKD. [/QUOTE]

Then I wouldn’t go so far as to label you as “OJKD” guys. I mean, at some point you would have to “act” (train) like OJKD guys to be OJKD guys. If you’re not, you’re not. Are you practicing dead trapping patterns from a high outside reference point?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

For those that think that OJKD is predominantly wing chun, I'd invite others to come and check out OJKD as done by Ted Wong's group, or Tim Tackett's group. Towards the last year of his life, it's been said and unfortunately debated, that JKD was moving into the direction of a purely hitting art based on mobility; some accusing it of being kick boxing, with little emphasis or lack of a gross emphasis on trapping, although we train the trapping differently than most. [/QUOTE]

That sounds a lot like our group. You have to understand that there are many different flavors of JKD. That’s as it should be. For some however, JKD is more fixed, with a huge wing chun core. Those folks do exist. I am a LONG time JKD guy. But what I do no longer resembles anything that Bruce Lee did in most cases.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

Again, my motive isn't to undermine the other OJKD guys but I know what you're talking about John regarding Bruce Lee groupies, but I know that I and those that I 've trained with are far from what you would call groupies. [/QUOTE]

Did I make the assertion that you specifically were a BL groupie? If so, that really wasn’t the intention. Perhaps what I was saying wasn’t as clear as I would have liked it to be. I don’t even know you. There’s no way that I could begin to make claims about you being this or being that.

That said, I stand firmly behind my opinions regarding a large percentage of OJKD guys (being Bruce Lee groupies). Most of them probably have the yellow track suit and matching nunchakus.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of being clumped into a group that is assumed to be "stuck" in the past, and bruce worshippers. [/QUOTE]

Don’t know that anyone singled you out here. Correct me if I’m wrong.

What specifically makes one an OJKD guy anyway if, not for the dead patterns, wing chun, etc? It would seem logical that if you’re not doing the things that many (most) OJKD guys do, that it might just be possible that you’re NOT an OJKD guy….right? See my point? At what point does it not MATTER anymore?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bryagh:
I'm getting so sick of concepts JKD people who do nothing but train in BJJ and Muay Thai, and somehow forget pages and pages of the Tao. I might be a "bruce groupie" but the concepts community is just a bunch of oppourtunists, who attempt to gain recognition and financial success by using Bruce's name, with little to none of his actually teaching. [/QUOTE]

It’s not a good thing to assume that any one person knows exactly what is and isn’t JKD, especially for everyone else. That’s for the individual to determine isn’t it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bryagh:

Yes, JKD is a philosophy, and the key to that philosophy is simplification, and all the concepts schools do is add on and add on. It gives them more to teach, and more money to rake in. [/QUOTE]

Well, that’s true in many instances. I will agree with that in large part. Many of the concepts guys (though not all) have lost the essence of what JKD is/was supposed to be about. But don’t think that money is what delineates OJKD from JKD concepts! There are just as many OJKD people out there raking in cash just as there are concepts guys that hold firm to the principles of what JKD is really all about. I consider myself to be one such person. I LOSE money each month, so I’m certainly not making any. I pay for many of my expenses out of pocket! I do that because I don’t advertise. But neither am I standing in some pigeon-toed stance doing chi-sao or trapping off of high outside reference points.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bryagh:

A lot of concepts instructors say that it just happens to be the most popular martial arts that get added in, but this seems way too coincidental. [/QUOTE]

Depends completely on the person and the school/gym in question.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bryagh:

Bottom line: Bruce founded a core block of techniques as a starting point, which each Martial artist should fit to himself, and decide how to use. That is JKD. You can learn BJJ, Muy Thai, or Drunken Chicken Tai Chi, but its not JKD, and no amount of talking will change that.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Plenty of talking can, will and does change that. This is the forum. Here is our stage.

Bottom line, Bruce Lee was CONTINUALLY evolving and ridding himself of many of these ‘techniques’ that you say he founded as a core block.

Bottom line: JKD IS NOT a style. That comes from the man himself. He also stated that JKD was not about “petty technique” (there goes your ‘core block’ argument) and, that efficiency was “anything that scored”.

ANYTHING that scored. Anything that scored. Anything…..hmmm. Maybe that means ANYTHING.


-John



[This message has been edited by JKogas (edited 03-23-2005).]

John, I am considered OJKD by the standard that the tools I practice are the TOOLS set forth by bruce during the last year of his life. That's the core I work with, but like anything, it goes to how you train that core right? The group I'm with right now hasn't done much trapping since it doesn't focus much on ref point trapping, although the ref stuff is good for BEGINNERS; as the other group I train with uses it but not to the degree you're probably accustomed to seeing in "typical" OJKD groups; it believes that the ref stuff goes out as soon as the mechanics are down. As it trains the trapping in an alive manner, as JKD should be trained that way for a good amount of the time anyone remains in the art.

But I was exposed to ref point trapping in a huge amount when I started out in JKD. but that was with a different group. With all due respect to the group, the compound traps I found to be nice in theory, but would seem indirect, which is contrast to what a lot of good OJKD guys strive for.

By tools, I mean

* use of the onguard position - strong side forward emphasis

* footwork used: unfortunately in varying ojkd circles i found that some of the footwork was omitted.

* punching: we still use the straight lead with a vertical or angled fist (45). use of the fingerjab, backfist (both the standard, and alternative method), jao sao palm

* kicking - lead hook kick, lead side kick, lead inverted hook, etc

* trapping - the wc type (but heavily modified, and I do mean heavily, because some of the traps found in wc, don't fit the jkd on guard position)

I guess the only difference is in how these particular things are trained.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:
John, I am considered OJKD by the standard that the tools I practice are the TOOLS set forth by bruce during the last year of his life. [/QUOTE]

So in your opinion, JKD is what Lee was doing and, can ONLY be what Lee was doing – especially during the LAST YEAR of his life. Is that correct?

So basically, you’re trying to fight “just like Bruce Lee”?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

That's the core I work with, but like anything, it goes to how you train that core right? The group I'm with right now hasn't done much trapping since it doesn't focus much on ref point trapping, although the ref stuff is good for BEGINNERS [/QUOTE]

That’s an interesting point you made about ref. point trapping being good for beginners and, it really kind of makes many of my points about how so many people train. I don’t agree with that notion for a VARIETY of reasons.

The main question that I like people to ask themselves is; WHY is it assumed that a beginner has to learn differently than everyone else? Why do they have to learn to do something ONE way, only to have to be told to “throw it out” later? That’s not only ridiculous, it’s counter-productive as well. Talk about your time wasters? That’s exactly like KATA in my book – designed to occupy one’s time and not a lot more.

Why waste time with dead patterns when there really is no NEED to?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

…as the other group I train with uses it but not to the degree you're probably accustomed to seeing in "typical" OJKD groups; it believes that the ref stuff goes out as soon as the mechanics are down. As it trains the trapping in an alive manner, as JKD should be trained that way for a good amount of the time anyone remains in the art. [/QUOTE]

Agreed. It’s important to remember (for all reading) that just because you’re training a technique in an alive manner, doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re KILLING each other. You use a sliding scale of “energy” as you train alive, notching that upward as you and your partners level of skill increases. That essentially means, you can train ANY technique alive, from day ONE without having to use some contrived method of drilling that you’re eventually going to say is not realistic, and throw out ANYWAY.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

But I was exposed to ref point trapping in a huge amount when I started out in JKD. but that was with a different group. With all due respect to the group, the compound traps I found to be nice in theory, but would seem indirect, which is contrast to what a lot of good OJKD guys strive for. [/QUOTE]

I’ve found that compound trapping is what a LARGE percentage of OJKD guys spend their time on. That’s not MY opinion and I’m not the one calling them OJKD. That’s what they refer to themselves as. You’ll have to take what’s “good OJKD and bad OJKD” up with THEM. My personal opinions is that the vast majority of classical hand trapping isn’t very effective ANYWAY.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

By tools, I mean

* use of the onguard position - strong side forward emphasis

* footwork used: unfortunately in varying ojkd circles i found that some of the footwork was omitted.

* punching: we still use the straight lead with a vertical or angled fist (45). use of the fingerjab, backfist (both the standard, and alternative method), jao sao palm

* kicking - lead hook kick, lead side kick, lead inverted hook, etc

* trapping - the wc type (but heavily modified, and I do mean heavily, because some of the traps found in wc, don't fit the jkd on guard position)

I guess the only difference is in how these particular things are trained.
[/QUOTE]

What about the five ways of attack? That is the crux of the material and training found within JKD.

-John

John, no I don't try to imitate bruce lee. To me, what bruce meant was to be styleless in how you attacked. like you wouldn't fight like helio gracie, royce gracie, or you wouldn't fight like ali, tyson roy jones etc, or you woudln't fight EXACTLY like saekson janira, or Alex gong, you'd fight like yourself no? So in that same vein, we don't fight like bruce lee EXACTLY, although the tools we carry and hone are the same, much in the same token that you would hone the BJJ , mt, and boxing found in SBG gyms. Bruce in commentaries on the martial way (prepares lead flamesuit), mentions the use of a styleless style. Or more aptly put, one has all angles and lines to him. So in the sense of using JKD tools, we use them in our own way. What bruce wanted to get his practitioners away from was the imitation of dead pattern (e.g. katas, forms) where the TIMING, is the same, the LINE taken is the same, the rhythm is the same, basically bruce wanted to rid his practitioners of predictability.

Take the lead punch for example. I won't apply the lead punch in the same manner as someone taller than me, bigger than me, in the same type of timing as me. I'm probably one of the shortest JKD students for a guy my age, so I would attack most of my guys one way, but a guy who's taller or faster than me, would attack differently. This is like the application of a thai kick, the kick is the same, and its mechanics too; however, the application will depend on the practitioner.

As for reference trapping or reference points, there are some groups that have brains and use the reference points in a different manner than typical "OJKD" schools, where one instructor mentioned the use of hitting points as opposed to trapping points.

As for the ways of attack, I just forgot to mention them. we use all five by the way, in one way shape or form

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluid_Motion:

As for the ways of attack, I just forgot to mention them. we use all five by the way, in one way shape or form [/QUOTE]

Same here. Sounds fairly identical to what we’re doing, save for the fact that I have moved away from the strong side forward structure.


Cheers,


-John



[This message has been edited by JKogas (edited 03-25-2005).]

I never understood the arguments that OJKD and concepts guys have. Its simple. I mean come on, the whole idea is there on paper, forever preserved. Why is there such a huge gap in understanding between the two groups? I practice some OJKD still, because I made it work for me, but Ive shed some of it and use some concepts ideas as well staying in the original pilosophies of simplify and evolve.

The funny thing is that the JKD philosophy is nothing new, and similar concepts have been taught in Chinese Gong Fu/Taijiquan for a LONG time. It was only Bruce's approach, and his appeal to westerners that made it famous. I LOVE JKD as a philosophy, it can be applied to any MA (notice I did not say MMA), as well as Taijiquan principles can. I am not a fan of JKD as an art, as I think it kind of contradicts the fact that people "Restrict" themselves to their own arts. For example, I am a practicioner of Taijiquan, Bagua,Xingyi, and Shaolin, if I got in a confrontation I would never use the techniques out of memory, but out of natural intent. If a kicking opportunity arises, I will take it, and same with any other opportunity. THey provide you with superior structures, and power building methods, as well as techniques to take down your opponent, but never should they own you.

Chen Zen is correct and so long as everyone trains 'alive', all will be revealed for what it is. Aliveness IS the barometer of the truth. Truth is what JKD is about. JKD is the process of uncovering the truth and nothing more.

The truth can be sort of compared to religion and church. The "truth" is spirit. Spirit cannot be confined to one particular sect as it is outside of all "fixed patterns" (churches and their particular dogma).

Therefore, our quest should ONLY be concerned with the pursuit of this truth, as opposed to the pushing of our own specific dogma. But, that's usually what happens.


-John

Right on!

But you forget to mention that the truth is different for everyone else.

You have to make all that you've obtained your own.

Even on this forum I see people who call JKD, Si Gung Lee's style... There aren't many of them but still some peeps still miss the purpose and meaning of JKD.

I don't practice JKD in such. I use the guidelines of the art to evolve my own JKD.

Because JKD isn't a style you can't practice it in such. I trained a lot of styles and now combine them in one fluid motion. Using only what is useful for me and my body.

So I state that everyone who knows what he is talking about. Knows that he is evolving his own JKD and not training it as a style or something. Since I like to think I do ;-)

Any thoughts?

Grtz Randy

I agree and disagree with what has been said of JKD. It is more a style than a strict form. The main priciples is to use and master a limited number of effective punches, kicks, and throws. For example Lee would teach his students five effective punches, 5 kicks, and 5 throws. Then they could work on and develope those movements working on the variations thus making it more personalized to them. It does use methods such as foot work to develope speed and power, but that is still part of developeing and mastering the punches, kicks, and throws. It is a modern style and was created so that it would be adaptable. So the various takes on JKD we are seeing is just part of its natural developement. Also since this is a style and not a form the priciples can be applied to almost any current fighting form. You can take the basic movements of any martial art and apply the priciple of developing and mastering the most effective movements while working on developing the power, speed, and timeing. This in part is what makes JKD such a great fighting style.

I think you have confused the words "concept", "style" and "form". JKD is a concept, not a style, but it's consequence is individualised style. Therefore, you create your own personal style by your understanding, application and expression of the JKD/Wing Chun concept