(Ir)Relevance of JKD

Posted by: JKogas

(Ir)Relevance of JKD - 03/04/06 09:00 AM

Is JKD as relevant today as it was 40 years ago? I believe it is (for my own reasons), but I'm curious to know what the forums thinks and why.



-John
Posted by: MattJ

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 03/04/06 09:15 AM

Good question, John.

JKD as a style? I hate to say it, but probably irrelevant. MMA has pretty much picked up what JKD was, and gone on to be more relevant to the public.

If you accept JKD as a training paradigm, and not a style, then MMA is really an extension of JKD. Pretty relevant when you look at the number of people that are incorporating that type of training into their study.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 03/04/06 01:34 PM

I have and always will view JKD as a concept, not a style. It's like my Sifu has said in the past "JKD was MMA before MMA was MMA". I think every time you use your own mind to expand on a system or style you are familiar with, or incorporate something that works better for you from another system, THAT is JKD.
Posted by: RoninKurosawa

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 04/25/06 03:11 AM

I'm not going to go into a long philosophical debate or anything but i also view jkd as more of a concept. I also really don't believe that lee ever meant for it to become a style.

It seems to me a concept to better improve your self and your own methods and art. Also i won't lie i think bruce also wanted to make his mark on the world and so he did.

But to me the concepts of jkd will always be relevent.

As for is jkd as a style which some people teach that way relevent, well i guess i think its relevent even that way still if nothing less even if the person does not understand the concepts of it they will at least have a simplified fighting style which can improve their chances in a fight if nothing else.

But like i said to me it was never a style, thats just what people did to it with time.

At any rate this was a cool topic to speak on.
Posted by: Supremor

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 04/25/06 11:50 AM

I agree with Matt, in that the concept of JKD as a training paradigm is just as valid as it was then. I would also point out that I feel this concept has almost become part of MA culture. It is very common for people to cross-train in two or even three styles of MA, something that really was not very common 40 years ago.

The style- well I feel the JKD style is very much based around the attributes of Bruce Lee- quite light, very fast etc. Dan Inosanto however teaches a style far more suited to his own physique. This makes a lot of sense to me. The style of JKD in my experience is so diversified among different instructors, that it is just as relevant as it was 40 years ago.

I think JKD will have a long life ahead of it, if it continues to evolve and refuses to turn itself into a certain type of fighting style. When I can tell from looking at a JKD guy that he trains JKD(as I'm sure most of us could looking at a WTF TKD guy or a MT guy), then JKD has a problem IMO.
Posted by: Kentao5

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 04/25/06 03:48 PM

To those who have replied so far....your hearts are truly JKD grasshoppers:). : I agree, the essence of JKD is in the current training and I am sure Bruce would approve greatly. I think he would also be impressed with the fact that the "way" of training is just the "way" of training. As he said, Don't get caught up in the name JKD.
Ken
Posted by: GuitarNinja

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 04/25/06 04:57 PM

Indeed, I dont even like to use the term JKD when referring to lee's concepts, it was just his way of thinking and to get wrapped up into his way of thinking HIS concepts and findings and whatnot, your defeating the purpose. Having no way as way, yet your still using HIS way of thinking as YOUR way of thinking.

JKD seems to be a total contradiction. Lee never finished his work, imagine what would of happened if he would of ended his studies with saying TMA study yields better results.

I havent seen anyone come out publically with advancements in the JKD communitiy, so I would have to say its less relevant today than it was before. More eyes were opened when gracie arrived then bruce, and most MMA guys consider bruce nothing but a halfway actor with considerable MA skill.

If bruce never existed, todays MMA world would be the same, NHB fights are held all over the world, surely these people have come to the same conclusions but without the movie star status.

Its wierd, I change my mind on JKD every other day, making a formless art, when I think if he were to continue to learn under yip man he would of realized all arts are formless once youve reached THAT level of thinking.

I can kick, you can kick, but we both kick different, one way is better than the other, but unless we continue to pass on which way is better ( through forms ) how can we expect to continue evolving ?

I have nothing against JKD or lee, its basically the exact way I feel about the MA. Thing is, without form you dont know what good form is, so how can you expect to be formless if you dont even know what form is ? How do you teach someone to be formless unless they are figuring it out for themselves, that is true formlessness(even a word ? lol )

Im just rambling, I hope I didnt offend anyone, and I hope you can read what I wrote, lol!
Posted by: JKogas

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 04/25/06 06:10 PM

I really don’t think that Lee would have ended his studies saying that TMA would yield better results. At the core of what JKD is and has been about is, aliveness. Often you will find the UTMOST “deadness” within TMA. Kind of the direct opposite of where he was headed I think.

And JKD WAS the MMA before there was MMA, I agree with that statement. Only now, we’re better because we’ve dropped classical/compound hand trapping and have added more sophistication to the ground game because of Brazilian jiu-jitsu.

Conceptually, nothing has really changed.


-John
Posted by: Ayub

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 04/26/06 05:16 AM

So all this said, what do you think of those who train engrossedly upon a crystallisation of Bruce's style at the point of his death? And furthermore, rally to try and keep it as 'pure' and non deviant as possible?
Posted by: RoninKurosawa

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 04/26/06 09:21 PM

I think people should do whatever makes them happy as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process.
Posted by: GuitarNinja

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 04/26/06 09:25 PM

Quote:

I think people should do whatever makes them happy as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process.




I second that, life is life, and whats yours is yours.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 05/02/06 05:39 PM

Quote:

So all this said, what do you think of those who train engrossedly upon a crystallisation of Bruce's style at the point of his death? And furthermore, rally to try and keep it as 'pure' and non deviant as possible?




I personally don’t care what people do. I only care that others would try and dictate their own opinions of what JKD “is” or is not.

It is the SPIRIT of Lee’s that we should try and emulate, not his fighting style or method of training because THAT was constantly changing and evolving.

Lee’s expression of JKD was different in Seattle, different in Oakland and different in LA. If he’d lived, he would have no doubt continued to refine and evolve.

Not many of his FOLLOWERS however! Many of them are stuck in a time warp because they’re busy trying to imitate Lee - which was the LAST thing he would have wanted (and is one of the reasons he allegedly shut his schools down).



-John
Posted by: Supremor

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 05/03/06 11:31 AM

Quote:

So all this said, what do you think of those who train engrossedly upon a crystallisation of Bruce's style at the point of his death? And furthermore, rally to try and keep it as 'pure' and non deviant as possible?




I very much agree with John's post here. Refinement is at the heart of the JKD paradigm; to be foolish enough to believe that Bruce Lee was the end result of JKD is to deny the very principle of JKD.

I would hope that MAists do not try to learn how to fight as Lee would. We are all different and should develop ourselves recognising those differences. This is especially important for me as someone who is not a formal student of JKD- I do TKD and boxing. Obviously I cannot do many of the wing chun based techniques found in JKD- but that does not make my reading of JKD inferior. Instead, I have a different set of striking tools at my disposal- and yes I need to learn some grappling! but let's leave that aside for now- I will train and fight in a way that benefits my skill set.

Indeed, many of the students and colleagues of Lee, for instance Joe Lewis or Dan Insoanto, were already accomplished martial artists, and not trained in classical wing chun. I do not think they had an inferior style because Lewis used mainly kickboxing techniques- it was a style which he was most comfortable with.

People must be allowed to come to JKD via their own path. In my opinion JKD makes far more sense to an already accomplished MAist. It demands taking a closer look at your own abilities and begins the search for refining your own style of fighting. Being told what is effective according to JKD law makes no sense to me. A wise man(I forget his name) was asked once- what is the best system of government? He replied, "at what time, and where?" This appies to JKD: style is a subjective thing, and to turn style into a set of rules is wrong.

Personally, I feel this is exactly the point Lee was trying to make. And I hope you guys agree
Posted by: Dodd

Re: (Ir)Relevance of JKD - 05/03/06 11:45 AM

Hi there.
I've done some JKD over the past 8 years, and I've learned that what makes it a "thing" is focussing on what you're trying to achieve; learning to fight. I took a very unorthodox concept based Kenpo class for 8 years prior, and it's very much the same in it's methodology, just taking it's components from slightly different places.

The difference between 'Mixed' martial arts and 'jkd' seems to be mixing things up makes diversity without a necessary common element, and concept based 'systems' often have an underlying foundation in similarity. That similarity helps to relate one thing to another and concequently things are theoretically learned both faster and deeper, using limitation as a way of freeing oneself from limitation. Using a crutch only until you can walk.

I think all 'arts' or orthodoxies in lifestarted off with this flavour of original freedom. Don't get bound by 'style' since that's just someone else's interpretation of what they learned and how they teach the lessons they've cultivated over the years. Too many generations of that and you end up with a lot of rules and rituals, but no understanding whatsoever.

That attitude of honest research, practice, and the transformation of knowledge into wisdom through the development of skill (practice and experimentation, constant improvement) should be in place in every person, like it is with most children, regardless of the name you've chosen for your person understanding of the way things are.

I think, whatever Bruce is credited for having said is made famous and marketed outside of it's relevance, and like him, I think each individual must walk the path to understanding themselves, for and by themselves.

Thank you