# Opinions on JKD



## bcbernam777

Hi all JKD practicioners:

I just finished posting this comment on another forum and I just thought I would throw it out there to get yur feedback, as having studied JKD and now studying WC, these are some of my thoughts on JKD, my intentions not to diss the art, but these are just some things I have on my mind about the art after doing some much introspective thinking about my JKD and WC journey, I make no bones about it, for me WC is the supreme martial art, not everyone agrees (actuall few agree) but there you go, please give me some feedback and let me know where I have missed so we can discuss:


_*As having studied JKD and currently studying Wing Chun with a former class mate of BL's I have to comment that the majority of the concepts and priniples that bruce founded JKD on are actually based in Wing Chun, with some notable differences in aspects such as stance positioning, and its interplay and goals within kicking range. My own personal feeling with JKD is that it is a superimposing of the Wing Chun mind set whilst utilising different tools, the problem I see in this is the cross purposes that the tools from other martial arts where created to be used in such a way that does not fit the pinciples of Wing Chun on which JKD was built. To give an example, one of the three foundational concepts that Wing Chun is built on is economy of motion, for this reason in wing chun the legs never, ever go above the waist, because no matter wich way you cut it it takes longer to launch a high kick than it does a low kick or longer for the leg to operate than the hands, yet JKD sees no problem in incorporating (for example) the high hook kicks of MT, this presents a problem in the interpretation and implementation of the concept of economy of motion. Another key area in the operation of JKD which is vastly different to Wing Chun is the concept of the riposte, the fencing position of lunge and withdrawl. It is said in Wing Chun "if you are going backwards you are not doing wing chun" the riposte is fine if you are fit and healthy and conditioned, and if you have a complete and flawless understanding of timing, distance and different levels and types of openings, whether they be forced by drawing, feinting, etc, or natural opening initiated by the oponant, however, it takes many, many years to build yourself to that point, and the amount of wasted energy by lunging constantly in and out is enough to wear out even the most conditioned of fighters and again is a condridiction of the concept of economy of motion, and efficiency, as it may prolong an engagement unecesaraly. 

Another aspect to consider is that Bruce already had a healthy foundation in a core art, therefore he had a pathway to develop core attributes, something I found lacking in JKD, whereas the thing I find bewildering is that Bruce therefore left a path, but instead of walking the full path, many people try to pick up where bruce left off, this is akin to taking a novice and expect him to act at the level of a senior student off the bat.

JKD was Bruces own personal journey, but not one left untainted with his own human frailty's and to a certain degree his level of maturity and inmaturity. People simply cannot follow that path. My own personal belief is that Bruce was not against the practice of TMA he was against the mindset that it produced in its students, where instead of engaging their brains and relying upon their own ability to look past the techniques, forms, and positions, they would practice and see the concepts and realities of which those particular techniques represented they would simply become mindless parrots simply copying their Sifu without understanding, blindly accepting without any thought. His ideal was instead of becoming a slave to the system, they would become the systems master and use that system as a path to illumination in the martial way, therefore attaining to what Bruce refered to "the art of artlessness" the three stages being 1) ignorance 2) understanding 3) freedom from that understanding so as to find freedom, or as was said by another Sifu, "it not having no way which becomes a way, but having a way which becomes no way", so then our goal is to transcend the form and function. and find liberty within yourself

One more aspect that I will put out there, their are many tools and functions in areas such as arnis, MT, Boxing etc that will be at cross purposes to each other, in a real life situation, you cannot train in partial arts and expect the full results, and if you do get into a fight the question you must ask yourself "have I studied this art sufficiently to the point that I will react quickly and out of instinct, or will I need to think for a split second to decide which attack I am going to emply in this circumstance?" also baring in mind that many arts dont have the supposed gaps, that exsists they just deal with situations in a different way that is in harmany with the systems own principles and guiidelines. A perfect example of this is the current trend for "contemporary """"Masters""""" to supplement their Wing chun curriculum with kickboxing and BJJ because of supposed gaps in the system, without realising that Wing Chun has an answer for both of these situations, its just that the goals it has are not what is generally deemed acceptable, and indeed they are hard to master, but not impossible. No Wing Chun does have an answer, its just that they cannot see the woods for the trees, forever looking at the pointing finger and failing to see the entire "heavenly glory"

These are just my honest opinions on the art of JKD*_


----------



## kroh

Hey bcbernam777, 

Lot going on in that post.  You make some valid points about the art and also your personal journey within it.  Good stuff.  You yourself said in the beginning of the post that Wing Chun was the best martial art for you.  For Bruce this was not the case.  He understood it and he liked it to a degree but felt it too static for his personal taste.  Anyone who has read anything about him understood that this was the case.  That is the whole thing about anything labeled an "art."  It is all open to interpretation and personal taste.  While I study the art, you might not do it the same way as I do.  Same goes for your study of Wing Chun.  If i did WC you could see that it is what I am doing but there would be subtle differences that would make it unique to me.  

Good post, Bud, 
Keep training and have fun, 
Walt


----------



## Laoshi77

Hello everyone.

Bcbernum, i think you said it as much yourself in that training in a 'core' style is important. For instance, some people can not get the true power required from JKD alone, this is why Wing Chun is a foundation; it teaches one internal power. JKD lacks the concept of 'rooting' and so can only complement Wing Chun or further add to one's own perspective. 

Regarding the kicking aspect, it all depends on what you are comfortable with, personally i would not advocate anything higher than the standard Wing Chun kick. But remember, it is said Bruce could kick almost as fast as punch, so it worked for him! 

Also remember, Bruce's particular journey was the result of a difference of opinion with Yipman. In America, he could not finish his Wing Chun training, so he needed to have a new focus or incentive and this resulted in JKD. 

All the best! :asian:


----------



## Kickboxer

Hello:

As one that has also studied J.K.D. remember what Bruce said, "Your J.K.D. is not my J.K.D." . There in lies the beauty of it. You found yourself finding what you feel are the limitations in an art and looking to compensate them.

As my instructor told me once, " J.K.D. isn't' for everyone".

Best wishes,

Peter


----------



## Sin

Bruce Lee realized the power of WC....and most o fhis style is derived from it...But he realized the flaw in WC...and that was the foot work...

Hence the boxing style of JKD...


----------



## AlwaysTraining

Perhaps it's just my opinion shared by few others, but JKD always seemed to me more conceptual than anything else.  Maybe it would be a better concept by which one could train in their style rather than being perceived as a "style" itself.

Bcbernam, I think that's an idea you were conveying.


----------



## Laoshi77

AlwaysTraining said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's just my opinion shared by few others, but JKD always seemed to me more conceptual than anything else.


 
I would agree with this statement, a philosophy or approach to many themes not just fighting. 

But regarding JKD as fighting system, i believe it is not very powerful without a 'foundational' art to support it.

Best wishes.


----------



## AceHBK

Bcbernam,

I totally understand where u are coming from b/c I sat back and said the samething.  Like everyone else has said, you still need a core which JKD doesnt have. Now if a person has a foundation then JKD is great to supplement with it.

I admire the fottwork that JKD employs and have used it to supplement my TKD.  I dont like the footwork of TKD so much cause it seems so linear.

I hope the avg joe doesnt take JKD in hopes of being the next Bruce without understanding Bruce had a foundation in WC


----------



## chof

what you fail to understand is j k d is the shortest distance between two points, if used correctly and mastered, no art  can compete with its logic and strategy!


----------



## jkd friend

chof said:


> what you fail to understand is j k d is the shortest distance between two points, if used correctly and mastered, no art  can compete with its logic and strategy!



very good point


----------



## Em MacIntosh

I'm guessing your personal honest expression matches WC very well and needs no modification to be the way you fight.  It already is your JKD.  Styles and patterns are something you have to fit into, or adapt for _your _use.  Having them suit you will be far more effective than you suiting them.


----------



## gino

So many politics in JKD and in martial arts period.. Such as Wing Chun as the base,or Is JKD is a style or concept...guess thats what makes JKD so mysterious..cause there r so many different forms.. I have recoginzed that some schools I have been too ..they like to sugar coat things,or not teach the "why,when and where".. for example like the tai kick.. I was taught to strike the nerve in the leg which will cause temporary lose of use of the leg if done right...I have yet to see another teacher teach it this way,but this is a part of JFKB method I learned.. and I think is sad to be looked over,or sugar coated..but still call it JKD or whatever...
   the person that taught me JKD,used JKD as one of many terms to use for the style...  
  He liked to call it "the art of adaption"  meaning =..nobodies body is the same and we all move different and have different weaknesses and strengths..
  My all time favorite ,and dont none of you steal it .... "commonsense fighting"...      blunt too the point...yep thats what JKD is!... I plan to start a MMA team using that name so it will be trademarked soon...
   and after u have to use the style a few times,it gets known as...
  "the art of destruction"...            oh boy is it...

 JKD is whatever u make it... To me its fighting with commonsense,trying to destroy my opponent as quickly,effectively and safely as possable...mentally and physically .... 
   but thats just me..


----------



## Kennedy_Shogen_Ryu

I have trained with a gentleman, Mr. Paul Bonner, who is a top ranked student through Guru Dan Inosanto, and I remember a conversation we had one day.  
I asked what his thought on JKD was and he replied with, "I believe there are two main forms of JKD today, the JKD that Bruce Lee taught which people are afraid to add to or change, because it will distort what he taught.  The others who understood what Bruce was about have altered or added techniques to make the style more effective which is what Bruce did.  Even Bruce before he died was not a big fan of teaching JKD because too many of his students had begun looking at him and his art as 'the way' or 'the truth'."

I think he makes a great point.


----------



## Indie12

gino said:


> So many politics in JKD and in martial arts period.. Such as Wing Chun as the base,or Is JKD is a style or concept...guess thats what makes JKD so mysterious..cause there r so many different forms.. I have recoginzed that some schools I have been too ..they like to sugar coat things,or not teach the "why,when and where".. for example like the tai kick.. I was taught to strike the nerve in the leg which will cause temporary lose of use of the leg if done right...I have yet to see another teacher teach it this way,but this is a part of JFKB method I learned.. and I think is sad to be looked over,or sugar coated..but still call it JKD or whatever...
> the person that taught me JKD,used JKD as one of many terms to use for the style...
> He liked to call it "the art of adaption" meaning =..nobodies body is the same and we all move different and have different weaknesses and strengths..
> My all time favorite ,and dont none of you steal it .... "commonsense fighting"... blunt too the point...yep thats what JKD is!... I plan to start a MMA team using that name so it will be trademarked soon...
> and after u have to use the style a few times,it gets known as...
> "the art of destruction"... oh boy is it...
> 
> JKD is whatever u make it... To me its fighting with commonsense,trying to destroy my opponent as quickly,effectively and safely as possable...mentally and physically ....
> but thats just me..



Well Said!


----------



## WCman1976

Man, I love threads like this. Just love talking about the philosophical side of martial arts. People who don't understand how deep MA can be should read this post! At any rate, when I was first starting out at my wing chun school, I mentioned JKD to one of the senior students there. His exact words: "You need a foundation first." This is back in 1995, and now here I am in 2012 reading the exact same opinion on this board! Over the years I have come to agree with this statement. You need to learn the rules of one system before you can break them. Yes, kicks higher than the groin break the rules of wing chun (which I also study), but I don't think the goal is to make you start thinking you should always kick high. The point is to train in that tool so you are good at it, should a situation present itself where you could pull it off. Bruce's idea was to not be limited by any one system. People can think as fanatically about their martial art style as a religious man would feel about his religion. They get bound to one "truth" and cannot admit that any other style is worthy of existence simply because it doesn't do the same thing. That's why Bruce said in the Pierre Berton interview that styles tend to separate man because they have their own doctrines, and the doctrines become the gospel truth that you cannot change. So he didn't create JKD because he wanted to teach students to always go for the head kick; he did it because it was his way of learning how to open up and free his mind.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Bc,
Very interesting ideas presented here. I also continue to study WC and JKD, and agree with a lot of the points mentioned, but there are some things that I believe are taken out of context as well. 
For example a high kick, if one can speedily kick high and maintain the ability to easily follow up or defend, then how is that detrimental to an economy of motion?  Not to forget that the said motion could have been preceded by a feint or set-up as in the case of a progressive indirect attack? Why cant these motion be economic? And to add, Bruce did not endorse the Thai kick as Im sure youve seen many of his kicks were not in that style. That is a misconception that has been furthered by some of his successors.

In terms of riposte, "lunge & withdrawl" is merely one of many ways to execute riposte. The french word literally means "a quick return", and can be applied to infinite situations of fighting, but lets continue with your specific example. Honestly, I would be hard pressed to find a single Wing Chun practitioner who NEVER goes backwards... and to take such an assumption would be to deny the art itself. If we take a quick look at the Ba cham do form, we can see movements going backwards. Aside from that, I personally cant see one logical reason as to why moving backwards would make any WC technique less effective. I am of the belief that there is a time and place for everything, and moving backwards OR back then immediately forward has its place.

I am in total agreeance with Bruces foundation of Wing Chun, and the lack thereof in JKD. I personally believe that one of the challenges that  Bruce faced was attempting to explain the concept behind his numerous modifications to folk who were still trying to correctly pronounce the term "Gung Fu". How is it possible to explain and teach someone how to get rid of the base they dont have? While he did seek out experienced Martial Artists, Chinese MA was not as well known at that time. I also believe that another challenge was the constant modification. Students may have had a hard time keeping up with the constant changes, and may of never had time to digest any one thing. Then of course those students would continue and pass on that way of training.

I am also in agreeance with JKD being Bruce's expression, as well as the ideal of being the system's master vs a slave to the system. This however is a mindset of mastery, and not all students are created equal in that they can embrace such a mindset in the beginning stages. Not understanding the limitations of what you are taught can also be perceived as a form of ignorance, much less not understanding the existence of limitations. So with this said, in order to transcend form and function as you put it, i think one needs to first be able to define form and function. In the path to JKD, this form and function should be the starting point. With an understanding and level of competence in the material Bruce deemed effective, we can then make subjective decisions towards what is useful to absorb, and also useless to discard to the said base of material. 

In your last point in regards to training partial arts, I agree as well to a point. Obviously you cant simply combine any random Martial Arts and expect them to work together. They have to have a subset of commonalities. And this is why i believe that Bruce was subjective in what he decided to add to his arsenal. By understanding the nature of his foundation, he was able to add, subtract, and modify techs towards his purpose. But in order to even attempt this feat, i believe that a person has to be something of a Martial Arts prodigy, which unfortunately for most is NOT the case. In many instances we see several examples of failed integration, with people switching back and forth between a few arts with no real integration; a segregated group Martial Arts mess. This is all the more reason why i believe its important to define the structure of your art, to understand what can work and be selective in what is added and/or subtracted to an already existing base.
Great post BC.


[edit]: I realize this thread is ancient and I may not get a reply, but I wanted to add change to the money jar . $0.02. :asian:


----------



## Boran

From one wise man to another, Try and Find out. IF you want to know if your martial art is better than anyone else's, Try and Find Out.


----------



## simplicity

"I don't care who you train or trained with, how long, even what art you claim. Show me what you can do"... JM


----------

