Is JKD the Father of MMA???

Posted by: Neko456

Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/25/07 03:47 PM

Is JKD the Father of MMA??? I ask because of its founder philosophy of using what works and throw out what does not work for you. The range fighting concept that gives a realsitic idead where your strengths are and how to defend against your weakness and exploit you strengths.

Though Gracie's BJJ seem to have brought it to the fore front, BJJ real strength is in its ground work, yes it does standup, throws and most the things that JJ does. But like JJ or at least BJJ rarely is standup their strength, they seem to score more knock out kicking from the floor up, it seems, then standup. They do finish well after you hurt. And submission is their game. I'm really talking aboiut the Gracies not all of BJJ.


Anyway whats your thoughts is JKD the FATHER of MMA in concept or JKD sport level?

I know JKD is serious street application armed and unarmed.
I hope this doesn't offend.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/25/07 03:57 PM

No, Brazilian Vale Tudo is the father of MMA.
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/25/07 04:28 PM

Was Brazilian Vale Tudo practiced back in 1964-70s this is approximately when Lee brought up the concept of JKD. I understand that and you are right Brazilian Vale Tudo predates the UFC but was it there before the JKD idea?
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/25/07 05:44 PM

Brazilian jiu-jitsu was the forerunner to modern vale tudo. JKD was the forerunner to modern MMA.

What's the difference? Brazilian jiu-jitsu was/is a more one dimensional art. MMA means "mixed" martial arts. That is by definition, multi-dimensional.

What was the JKD concept about? Totality. To "float in totality" instead of "partiality".

Totality = MMA. Partiality = Brazilian jiu-jitsu.

I think that about sums it up.


-John
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/25/07 05:44 PM

A true renaissance man, Bruce Lee was a talented artist, poet, philosopher, writer and actor, apart from being a formidable fighter. Bruce Lee can be considered a prophet in some ways. He combined boxing punches, grappling, low and high kicks in a unique style that was criticised vastly by most traditional martial artists at the time. Today all mixed martial artists are training in a similar way. The difference is that he was brilliant enough to do so more than 35 years ago. If you don’t believe me, watch the opening scene of “Enter the Dragon”. That was a true free fight event.
Back in Lee’s era, no training equipment was available. He had to invent it. His focus gloves and his fighting gloves are very similar to the ones that are used in MMA training today. If you see some techniques in his books (and his films), you will find out that his style can still be used in a ring effectively. The techniques used in his movies are a bit flashier but full of martial arts wisdom. Guess what? He finished most of his opponents with grappling. In "Way of the Dragon " he finishes Chuck Norris with a neck break. In "Game of Death" he beat Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with a headlock. In “The Big Boss” the final fight ends with a mount.
Bruce always seemed so far ahead of his era. The techniques that are used today in JKD schools are (in my opinion, and I don't mean it as an insult) too influenced by Wing Tsun, Kali and Fillipino martial arts. I mean, I haven't seen a JKD guy that can really kick. Come on guys, Bruce was a great kicker.
Bruce proved to everyone that it is not how much you train, but how smart you train. Many people have said a lot of bad things about Bruce. Some claim that his physique was too skinny to withstand a powerful blow. Others say that although he embodied the use of free weights in his training, he could not lift as much as today’s champions do. Others say that he was not really ring proven. I have seen all his movies and studied them very carefully and I must say that I learned more by watching his movies alone than I ever learned in any seminar or by watching any training tape. The techniques used in his books are the most inspiring I have ever seen. There are many books out there but every book has a technique or two that are useless. His books have none.

Not my words I just happened to be reading up on Bruce Lee a few days ago.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/25/07 05:53 PM

Depends on how far back you referring to. Vale Tudo is probably the closest relative to the MMA we know today. But you could make a theoretical case for JKD, Bartitsu, or even Pankration.
Posted by: medulanet

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/25/07 07:27 PM

Quote:

Brazilian jiu-jitsu was the forerunner to modern vale tudo. JKD was the forerunner to modern MMA.

What's the difference? Brazilian jiu-jitsu was/is a more one dimensional art. MMA means "mixed" martial arts. That is by definition, multi-dimensional.

What was the JKD concept about? Totality. To "float in totality" instead of "partiality".

Totality = MMA. Partiality = Brazilian jiu-jitsu.

I think that about sums it up.


-John




What about guys like Marco Ruas who were not just BJJ guys, but strikers/wrestlers as well. In addition vale tudo means anything goes, not anything goes as long as its BJJ.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/25/07 08:04 PM

Quote:

What about guys like Marco Ruas who were not just BJJ guys, but strikers/wrestlers as well.





That’s a valid point! Theres no denying that about Ruas. Ironically, the immediate impression I had when I first saw Ruas in the UFC was that he was the quintessential jkd man. I remember thinking that to this day.

And how old would Ruas have been back in ‘67? Maybe 5 or 6?

My point is that BJJ pretty much owned vale tudo for years since it’s modern incarnation beginning in 1925 in Brazil. Sure there were a few individuals who were remarkable in some ways. No denying that.


Quote:


In addition vale tudo means anything goes, not anything goes as long as its BJJ.





Maybe not, but that’s how anything WENT, if you follow me. I think that it wasn’t until more multi-dimensional fighters began making the scene that the sport truly became “MMA” however. That was something that wasn’t a part of the vale tudo movement early on that it is TODAY. That was my point.



-John
Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/26/07 03:25 AM

I would say John's first post just about sums it up
Then again what about Pankration? (Matt beat me to it)
Ancient combat competition that pretty much let 2 naked dudes go at it in the dirt. And it probably had like 2 rules, 3 at most? And how about old Chinese Lei Tai fights? Though generally Chinese MA revolves a lot around striking and stand up, but there would be nothing to stop a man if he decides to take someone down and mount them.

Lee's thoughts about flow and formlessness is not original, though his thoughts on totality are. Formlessness is just as old as MA itself, especially seeing that San Sao/Shou is the level that most Chinese MA hope to attain. "

So MMA could've been born from Lee's JKD, but then again Lee's JKD or modern MMA could have came from other stuff. Who knows?
Posted by: jkdwarrior

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/26/07 03:53 AM

Well when MMA began, it was full of specialists in one range. People who could punch against those who could wrestle. Over the years however, it has been found that those who are most well rounded usually fare better. This has been the general idea of jkd since it was founded, it's just that through these types of competitions that this philosophy has been found correct. Jkd however is more geared towards the street where there aren't any rules and the nastier more destructive techniques fare well also
(the groin is a primary target). You could say that all these MMA practitioners are doing jkd, i.e. adapting their fighting to their situation and training for every octagon eventuality.
Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/26/07 12:47 PM

well now are we talking about MMA competition or MMA methodology here??

MMA competition is just someone asking himself what a fight would be like if someone took a Boxer and a Wrestler and tossed them into a ring to fight (thus the term Mixed Martial Arts). Competition hasn't changed at all, because you can still pit a BJJ guy against a Karate guy and call it MMA competition, because thats what it is. So how is this different than Pankration?? I'm pretty sure back then people were specialized in something, whether it be wrestling or boxing. Especially with the Chinese Lei Tais, considering all the different Chinese MAs out there.

What the competitions gave rise to was MMA methodology of training, esentially making MMA itself a separate way to practice MA. To me, MMA methodology is pretty much the same as the JKD methods. Both deal with adaptation, fighting in all ranges, and using the methods and techniques that work best for you.

I'm pretty sure JKD didnt spring out of Lee's mind without something to inspire him and to influence him to properly formalize this ideas and thoughts into a philosophy. Like I said, San Shou is an aspect of JKD that Lee gets at when talking about having no form.
Posted by: Demonologist437

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/29/07 02:24 AM

There's a paragrapsh in "Jeet Kune Do: Commentaries..."
where the title od it said "It is not simply mixing martial arts".

In a video on youtube talking with Dan Inosanto, Guro Dan mentions who Bruce stressed to him not to simply take a little form here, a little from her,e but to extract the essence. Why take from this, why that? I mean, you COULD call it MMA, but that approach is more dissolving the styles oyu pulled things from, in my mind, and just taking that essential component that helps you along in your path.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/29/07 10:31 AM

Demonologist -

MMA isn't just "mixing martial arts" either. Odd that the name IMPLIES that, but in truth, MMA isn't a disjointed collection of multiple arts. MMA is a mixing of RANGES more than it is arts.

As I have said before, arts don't really exist. Sure there are different methods of training. But when you think about it, there are really only different methods of training THE SAME THINGS.

There ARE only so many ways to hit, kick, grapple and hit joint locks. The mechanics of the human body are limited to a degree.

In the end, there is only ONE true "style" if you follow me (the human style). There are is an incredible amount of (allegedly) different ways of training it. MMA is simply a way of combining or mixing ranges. Nothing more, nothing less. Last time I looked, that was the same goal of many JKD practitioners.


-John
Posted by: JAMJTX

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/29/07 01:43 PM

the Samurai in general trained in MMA. They learned to use all sorts of weapons as well as the empty-handed technqiues.
As far as mixing various empty-hand arts, it has pretty much always been done. Some noteables:
Jigaro Kano, Judo founder, often sent students to study Aikido.
Shotokan founder Funakoshi trained in Judo.
Mochizuki of Yoseikan Aikibudo - Karate, Judo, Aikido
Shogo Kuniba, Kuniba Ryu: Karate, Judo, Aikido
Sato Kinbei who never established his own style but carried on several Chinese and Japanese traditions
Henry Okazaki, founder of Danzan Ryu combined Judo, Jujutsu, Karate and the Hawaii'n Lua.
Posted by: badeofblade

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/29/07 03:02 PM

I refer to myself as a JKD man for lack of a better term, and I find that one must be prepared for every range... In response to the comment about JKD guys not being great kickers as per usual, I'm the sort that finds my combat boots better weapons that my knives.
What I'm trying to say is, different people of different "arts" treat things the way they wish to (whether their art dictates it or not), whether it's benefecial or not, efficient or flashy.
Some try to mix efficiency and flashiness, to strive for grace, but most fail. Others like Lee have made their moves so streamlined, so effective, that they without any flashiness, are beautiful and graceful.
"mixing arts" is done in a way to be efficient, but it's lost on being a sport art.JKD is made for effectiveness, but MMA is for flashiness and ratings. Same concept, different interpretation.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/29/07 06:55 PM

Quote:

JKD is made for effectiveness, but MMA is for flashiness and ratings. Same concept, different interpretation.




Heh. This has got to be the first time I have seen MMA referred to as "flashy".

MMA is not just a sport. It is a training methodology. And "mixing arts" is far less efficient than training MMA style from the beginning - and I am a "style mixer".
Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 07/30/07 12:59 PM

haha yea I would say this is a rare post. Like Matt said, MMA is a training methodology. MMA competition is for ratings (I dont know about flashiness) but its the complete essense of MMA itself.

A lot of people seem to get a misunderstanding of what MMA is, just from the name it has. Just like Bruce Lee and JKD we can all agree that JKD isn't an art and it definitely doesnt look like anything, especially Bruce Lee. JKD is a philosophy and can be applied to your training and can look like whatever you want it to be because its going to be the way you fight.

MMA got its name from the sport, but from the sport came the training methodology. Its not just mixing martial arts (it is in the ring but not training). Like mentioned above, its a mixing of ranges being able to fight from every range possible (kick, punch, clinch, ground).
Posted by: badeofblade

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 08/02/07 07:34 PM

I was referring to MMA as a sport... And I find brutality to be flashy. One using MMA as a training methodology *is* training with jeet kune do in a sense, their jeet kune do. But when you get into Pride or UFC, it's flashy the way that Gladiators were flashy.
Posted by: IExcalibui2

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 08/02/07 10:07 PM

well MMA competition is made that way because they need to make money. But the exciting fights also result from good training and fighting skills. Otherwise you'll have 2 guys dance around the ring all night.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 08/03/07 01:00 PM

bade -

Quote:

And I find brutality to be flashy.




Brutality? What do you mean? You DO realize that a lot of technique is involved in those matches, yes?

No idea what you mean by "flashy" gladiators, either.
Posted by: Chen Zen

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 08/10/07 01:25 PM

Asking if JKD is the father of MMA is like asking if James Brown is the father of soul. He wasnt the first to do it, but he was effective at what he did, he was true to his own personal beliefs and did it his way, and he inspired others to follow in his footsteps, to create and improve on their own. Just like Bruce Did with JKD. So Id say yes JKD is the father of MMA whether it was here first or not isnt relevant. Whats relevant is what it contributed to the MA world, particularly in the west at a time when little was known about any martial arts.
Posted by: trevek

Re: Is JKD the Father of MMA??? - 08/13/07 04:05 PM

I'd agree with Chen in that Bruce Lee was such a owerful symbol to many people and brought many people into MA that his philosophies have helped shape modern training methods and Western attitudes to multi-style training etc.

One question, tho'. Have there been any major MMA competitors who claimed to be from a (solely) JKD background?

Funny, I always thought the term MMA refered to the mix of styles within the ring rather than the mix of styles a competitor has trained in.