# Have you changed your approach to JKD?



## Smoke (Aug 25, 2009)

I know the "dropping the trapping" thread has already been done...BUT...I'm wanting to take a look it things from perhaps a slightly different angle.

The reason?  Because for me, "trapping" is a concept, not a specific set of techniques.  In that light, I haven't dropped trapping at all.  I have changed the way I go about it however.

Which begs the question, has there been anything that you have changed in your JKD practice?  Or, have you kept it completely the same as Bruce Lee did it way back in the day?

Have you kept chi sao?  I haven't.  I haven't done chi sao in 15 years.  All I do is pummeling anymore.  

What about strong side forward?  I changed that as well. 

Straight Blast?  Nope!  It's now the "Boxing Blast".  

See where I'm going with this?  Should be a good discussion.  Lets here what YOU have to say.


----------



## Smoke (Aug 27, 2009)

I suppose a follow up question would be:  "do most people even TRAIN JKD or just post about it in forums because they're Bruce Lee groupies"?

Not accusing anyone _here _of being that, but there certainly seems to be quite a lot of it about.

Others are:



Does JKD even matter or is it even relevant/obsolete?


Is JKD merely MMA?


----------



## joeygil (Aug 27, 2009)

JKD isn't MMA, in the sports / UFC sense, because MMA has rules for the ring.  

Biu jee to the eyes aren't allowed in the UFC.

Neither is o'ou tek to the groin.


You can definitely use JKD techniques and concepts in your MMA training, but you need to stay in the rules.


----------



## Smoke (Sep 15, 2009)

joeygil said:


> JKD isn't MMA, in the sports / UFC sense, because MMA has rules for the ring.
> 
> Biu jee to the eyes aren't allowed in the UFC.
> 
> Neither is o'ou tek to the groin.




You're right IF we're talking about the UFC.  But that is a specific "event".  I'm referring to MMA as a way of training.




joeygil said:


> You can definitely use JKD techniques and concepts in your MMA training, but you need to stay in the rules.




Again, no mention of rules here, just training using MMA as a vehicle for the street, etc.


----------



## K831 (Sep 16, 2009)

Smoke said:


> What about strong side forward? I changed that as well.


 
Why? Everything else you have changed made sense, curious as to your reasoning here.


----------



## Smoke (Sep 16, 2009)

K831 said:


> Why? Everything else you have changed made sense, curious as to your reasoning here.




Well, basically because it just works better for me.  I made the switch back in the late mid to late 90's and I've kept it that way ever since.

I've found that it works better for beginners as well.  This is for a variety of reasons and again, it's just what I have discovered.  To each his own.

Two of the primary reasons are:

1.  The jab is relatively easy to learn.  We've found that we can get people to jab/lead very powerfully and effectively using the left side, as much we can using the right side.  It only takes a few weeks to begin to throw the jab effectively.  The rest is timing and experience.

2.  The cross.  Throwing the cross obviously isn't as easy as throwing the jab.  There are simply more factors involved with the mechanics of the cross.  Putting those more complex mechanics (footwork, rotation of the hips, shoulders, extension of the strike, etc) on the more coordinated side just makes sense.  Then what you'll have is a very effective jab, complimented by a now even MORE powerful cross, driven by the more coordinated side.

In the end, we've found that ultimately it doesn't matter what side your lead is on, provided you can FIGHT, which for us requires sparring.  However by making things as simple as possible (in the spirit of daily decrease, aborbing what is useful/rejecting the useless), we find that we can get people up to speed more quickly.

Again, to each his own.  What matters is not what one "knows", but what one "does".  If people are better with the strong side forward, that's great.  If they are more suited to the complimentary (weak) side, good as well.  

The only thing I tend to tell people is, I don't care what lead you take, just take ONE and stick with it for a couple of years.  But that's just my own opinion.

Thanks!


----------



## K831 (Sep 16, 2009)

Smoke said:


> 1. The jab is relatively easy to learn. We've found that we can get people to jab/lead very powerfully and effectively using the left side, as much we can using the right side. It only takes a few weeks to begin to throw the jab effectively. The rest is timing and experience.


 
That makes sense, and I agree. 




Smoke said:


> 2. The cross. Throwing the cross obviously isn't as easy as throwing the jab. There are simply more factors involved with the mechanics of the cross. Putting those more complex mechanics (footwork, rotation of the hips, shoulders, extension of the strike, etc) on the more coordinated side just makes sense. Then what you'll have is a very effective jab, complimented by a now even MORE powerful cross, driven by the more coordinated side.


 
What about a lead hook? Wouldn't that fall into the same category of complex mechanics as a cross? 




Smoke said:


> we find that we can get people up to speed more quickly.


 
Interesting. What percentage of students fit this description? 





Smoke said:


> The only thing I tend to tell people is, I don't care what lead you take, just take ONE and stick with it for a couple of years. But that's just my own opinion.


 
I go back and forth here. Been doing Kenpo for a long time now, and obviously it is a strong side forward approach. 

I have also been boxing for a while now, and my boxing trainer had me start strong side back (as he is a conventional boxing coach) I thought it would be a good exercise and never said anything about it. So at Kenpo class, strong side forward, at the boxing gym, its and orthodox stance. It isn't really causing me any problems. 

Some thoughts. Leaving the more coordinated side to learn more complex punches and power oriented punches like a cross makes sense in boxing, but JKD has the lead hand doing complex things like trapping. How do students do learning to parry/trap with their weak hand forward? Also, I have noticed in my short time with JKD that most of the kicks are fired of the lead leg (as opposed to MT etc) and for that reason, it makes sense to have the more coordinated leg forward. Thoughts?


----------



## joeygil (Sep 16, 2009)

Smoke said:


> You're right IF we're talking about the UFC.  But that is a specific "event".  I'm referring to MMA as a way of training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I doubt anyone who isn't OJKD would have a problem using MMA training as part of their JKD. My only worry is getting bad ring habits.  For example, the guard is great in the ring, but leaves your groin exposed on the street.  I guess guard is better than getting mounted though.


----------



## rooke (Sep 16, 2009)

Absolutely there, K831. Now this is just my opinion (no biggie), and everyone has a right to theirs.

But the goals of JKD (a street fighting art) versus a sportive function (such as anything with gloves) are different. A stronger side forward would yield better ability to (as you mentioned K831) trap...as well as the more coordinated hand being able to eyejab and access the small joints for manipulation. 

Sportive arts tend to restrict to punching, so it makes more sense for the rear hand to be in the back.

Bruce Lee talked about non-telegraphic movement, and said closest tool to nearest target. With this scenario, the strongest tool being nearest to the closest target can yield more bang for the buck.

I'm comfortable with either side forward. But its always my RIGHT side that I need to do the coordination and power. The purpose of my left is to assist or make the way. What I do with a left lead is worlds different from what I do with a right lead. 

But this doesn't mean that MMA doesn't have excellent training methods that need to be incorporated.

But this is just my opinion. 

Rooke


----------



## jkd friend (Sep 16, 2009)

Smoke said:


> I know the "dropping the trapping" thread has already been done...BUT...I'm wanting to take a look it things from perhaps a slightly different angle.
> 
> The reason?  Because for me, "trapping" is a concept, not a specific set of techniques.  In that light, I haven't dropped trapping at all.  I have changed the way I go about it however.
> 
> ...





I think if anything you should stay true to it. It has not been around as long as other styles and concepts that people don't dare go against. Why should something that is so redefined be treated as an add on to other practitioners wants. If you look at other art forms like bjj and ask a bjjer have they drop some concept in bjj they will look at you like you are crazy. It's an art form like all others, they call jkd hybrid or striped from other forms but name one style that isn't a piece of another? It's all to the core punching kicking so on.


----------



## jkd friend (Sep 16, 2009)

rooke said:


> Absolutely there, K831. Now this is just my opinion (no biggie), and everyone has a right to theirs.
> 
> But the goals of JKD (a street fighting art) versus a sportive function (such as anything with gloves) are different. A stronger side forward would yield better ability to (as you mentioned K831) trap...as well as the more coordinated hand being able to eyejab and access the small joints for manipulation.
> 
> ...





I see what you are saying but street fight or sport they function the same nowadays because most have alittle fighting knowledge? It was hard to get use to jkd strong side forward do to boxing and thart power concept. I guess it comes do to concept once again the main reason for strong side or weak lead.


----------



## James Kovacich (Sep 26, 2009)

Of course I've changed my approach, like I'm supposed to but not to the point it would appear to be MMA and not JKD. 

Strongside forward, I'm right handed so the right lead is better for intercepting. That was the original point of strongside forward. The better hand being the first point of contact. I use both leads but my Gung Fu is better with strongide forward. My boxing is better with the left lead. 

I don't intentially change my leads and I don't dictate my lead or any technique, I flow according whichever lead my fighting dictates. It would be limiting to say I dropped one of the leads.


----------



## K831 (Sep 27, 2009)

James Kovacich said:


> Of course I've changed my approach, like I'm supposed to but not to the point it would appear to be MMA and not JKD.
> 
> Strongside forward, I'm right handed so the right lead is better for intercepting. That was the original point of strongside forward. The better hand being the first point of contact. I use both leads but my Gung Fu is better with strongide forward. My boxing is better with the left lead.
> 
> I don't intentially change my leads and I don't dictate my lead or any technique, I flow according whichever lead my fighting dictates. It would be limiting to say I dropped one of the leads.


 

This approach makes sense to me, and is where I am at / what I strive for.


----------



## James Kovacich (Sep 28, 2009)

K831 said:


> This approach makes sense to me, and is where I am at / what I strive for.


It's a natural approach if you are right handed. Real fighting involves involuntary foot placement. Training both sides equally does not truly make them equal like some say. If it did then it would mean that we didn't train hard enough with our good side. Follow what you feel and run with it.


----------

