# bruce lee : WC - JKD - WC ( 360 degrees )



## suicide (Sep 24, 2009)

since bruce lee only had 5 years of wc training , do you think if he would of never died he would of came back to wc after almost completing jkd to make his jkd that much more effective ? 

:mst:


----------



## simplicity (Sep 24, 2009)

JKD is a process thats never ends.... I personally don 't think Bruce Lee would have went back to WC... Most people would say that WC is part of Jeet Kune Do... This ideal is not totally correct in my understanding of Jeet Kune Do... BL modified the WC elements, which my friends is not the same art...


Keep "IT" Real,
JFM


----------



## ap Oweyn (Sep 24, 2009)

As I understand it, he was deemphasizing the role of trapping by the end of his life.  Now, whether he'd have come back around and started reemphasizing trapping given the time, it's impossible to say.  But, as Simplicity says, he wouldn't have come back around to wing chun as a distinct art surely.  It would still have been filtered through Lee's experiences.  I doubt Lee would suddenly have decided that he was wrong about the limitations of wing chun all along.  (And you can fill in whatever style you want there.  Not targetting wing chun specifically.)


----------



## James Kovacich (Sep 24, 2009)

When I say WC-JKd I don't mean WC as the WC world knows it. The JKD stance alone changes the footwork which in turn modifies it to JKD. 

Depending on who is teaching, WC-JKd is in JKD or it isn't. I think that the smartest instructors at least don't discredit it.


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 6, 2009)

I also believe that BL wouldn't of come full circle back to Wing Chun, the art. But Wing Chun concepts remain as interpeted by BL. 

What I do find interesting is how BL kept a respectful relationship with Yip Man up until Yip died. Also interesting, in a years time, Yip man, James Lee and Bruce Lee all died.


----------



## chinaboxer (Oct 6, 2009)

we'll never really know, but it is kinda fun speculating on the question. my opinion comes from my observations of Hawkins Cheung, who was very close to Bruce Lee from an early age. He's in his early 70's now, you have to think about that for a second...70's.

I do think that Bruce Lee would resort back to the wing chun structure, notice i said "structure". What is wing chun structure? this is an important question in understanding my reasoning.

wing chun IMO is for "defense", it's using your "structure" to be able to "survive" a vicious attack. but alot of people think that wing chun is for "offense", and this isn't true.

when you attack, you don't need the wing chun structure. and i think Bruce Lee when he was young and at his prime, realized this.

but when you're in your 70's, you can't rely on speed and muscle any more, your timing is going to be slow, your reactions slow, your eyes slow etc...this means you are forced to rely on the wing chun "structure" to be able to handle someones aggressive "pressure".

Hawkins Cheung has realized this and i've seen his teaching reflect that over the years..it's changed as he's changed, which is what art is supposed to do, right?

I think that Bruce Lee would have done the same thing, i'm not saying he would go back to studying traditional wing chun, but i am saying that he would be forced to rely on the wing chun "structure" more and more and on his athleticism less and less as he aged. he would have gone from "offense is the best defense" to "defense is the best offense".

Jin


----------



## rooke (Oct 6, 2009)

I disagree. Hawkins Cheung is a fantastic Wing Chun exponent. However, aside from Wu Style Tai Chi, he did not pursue other styles as aggressively as Bruce.

A closer example would be Dan Inosanto. So I would think that grappling may have been where Bruce had gone as he aged. After all, Helio was still rolling right up until his last days. 

For standup? Harder to tell. Possibly the Southeast Asian arts as Dan did. Bruce definitely was starting to investigate them. But if you pick up the latest edition of Master's Magazine with Guro Dan on the cover, you get to see how Guro Inosanto moves now for standup, and that provides (I think) a closer clue.

Rooke


----------



## chinaboxer (Oct 6, 2009)

rooke said:


> I disagree. Hawkins Cheung is a fantastic Wing Chun exponent. However, aside from Wu Style Tai Chi, he did not pursue other styles as aggressively as Bruce.
> 
> A closer example would be Dan Inosanto. So I would think that grappling may have been where Bruce had gone as he aged. After all, Helio was still rolling right up until his last days.
> 
> ...


hey Rooke, it's really just a guess, and impossible to know, but like is said earlier, it is fun to speculate...

but i think you misunderstand what i'm saying, i'm not talking about what "style" he would have gravitated towards, i'm saying he would go back to the "structure" of what makes wing chun work.

Bruce Lee never left the "concepts and principles" of wing chun, his JKD was founded on these concepts, such as "taking the shortest route", "intercepting" your opponent etc...i don't think he would leave these concepts, but rather, adapt them in another way.

for instance, if you are merging onto a freeway, and there's already a car in the lane, you have two choices...

you can step on the "accelerator" and get in front of the car, but when you're in front, you have to keep moving ahead because you can't see the car's "intent" behind you.

or you can "slow down" and wait for the car to pass, then get behind it, which allows you to "watch" the car's "intent".

both are valid and both are examples of "intercepting", but achieved in a completely different way.

i think that when Bruce Lee was in his prime, he "accelerated" and kept that speed up to keep his timing ahead of his opponents.

but at near 70, he would have to "slow down" let you pass and get "behind you" and watch your "intent", but this takes "structure" to manage.

when i touch hands with Hawkins Cheung who is in his 70's, 110 lbs (wet), and barely 5 feet tall, i cannot lay a hand on him, it has nothing to do with teacher worship, it has to do with his structure is so damm good, i can't get past it, and when i try to "answer" it with my athleticism, it makes it worse for me and easier for him, because he "intercepts" my physical skills. i know this will be hard to imagine, but it's true, and the only way to convince several of you of the power of wing chun "structure" is to go to Hawkins Cheung's school in LA and touch hands with him.


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 6, 2009)

chinaboxer said:


> we'll never really know, but it is kinda fun speculating on the question. my opinion comes from my observations of Hawkins Cheung, who was very close to Bruce Lee from an early age. He's in his early 70's now, you have to think about that for a second...70's.
> 
> I do think that Bruce Lee would resort back to the wing chun structure, notice i said "structure". What is wing chun structure? this is an important question in understanding my reasoning.
> 
> ...


 
Your concept of evolving, in my book is corrrect. I've said it many many times. Pro-fighters retire, get fat and quit training. Martial artists train for life.


----------



## joeygil (Oct 6, 2009)

Interesting discussion.  One thing I'd like to point out is, Sijo Bruce Lee didn't just rely on speed (though he was very fast), he also relied on timing, technique and sensitivity.  Those attributes don't go out as much as speed as you age.

I would imagine he would have stayed offensive in his structure, and relied on good timing to gain apparent speed.


If he lived longer, I wouldn't be surprised if he studied more WC, as Sifu Dan Inosanto has, but who knows how much of it would have changed his personal fighting style.


----------



## geezer (Oct 6, 2009)

James Kovacich said:


> Your concept of evolving, in my book is corrrect. I've said it many many times. Pro-fighters retire, get fat and quit training. Martial artists train for life.


 
This is something that fascinates me... especially as I have gotten older myself. Grandmaster Yip's teachings evolved greatly as he aged, even withing the confines of his style. What he taught in the fifties and seen in the Wing Chun of say Wong Shum Leung is notably different than what he taught in his final years. It would be very interesting to see how Bruce would have expressed his JKD as an older martial artist. I'm inclined to agree with Chinaboxer in guessing that he might have returned to some of the approaches seen in the Wing Chun of some of the older masters of that syle.


----------



## chinaboxer (Oct 6, 2009)

joeygil said:


> Interesting discussion.  One thing I'd like to point out is, Sijo Bruce Lee didn't just rely on speed (though he was very fast), he also relied on timing, technique and sensitivity.  Those attributes don't go out as much as speed as you age.
> 
> I would imagine he would have stayed offensive in his structure, and relied on good timing to gain apparent speed.
> 
> ...


hmm...i don't know if i agree with you, and please don't take offense to what i say, heck..i'm sure Bruce Lee is looking down at us right now and having a good chuckle over our debate over him.

anywhoo...

timing is a very important part of overall "speed", add that to his "natural speed" and his "visual speed" and you have one fast MOFO! so yes, he did rely heavily on ALL aspects of speed.

Bruce Lee was one of the worst advocates for proper "technique", he was all about letting go of technique and more about, doing whatever it took to get the job done.

and as far as sensitivity goes, he was letting that part of the training go for himself. why? because he was ridiculously fast, so he didn't want to give you the "touch", he instead just "beat you to the punch". if you tried to touch him in any way shape or form, he would nail you first.

that's my 2cents. but like i said, i wasn't around back then and Bruce Lee isn't here to answer, so it's all speculation on our parts, but it is fun, huh? =D


----------



## rooke (Oct 6, 2009)

chinaboxer said:


> hey Rooke, it's really just a guess, and impossible to know, but like is said earlier, it is fun to speculate...


Absolutely. Which is why my speculation tends towards someone who trained WITH Bruce and probably has more in common with Bruce's methods during his final evolutionary stages, than someone who trained at the beginning of Bruce's martial journey. Pure speculation. 



chinaboxer said:


> but i think you misunderstand what i'm saying, i'm not talking about what "style" he would have gravitated towards, i'm saying he would go back to the "structure" of what makes wing chun work.


POSSIBLY. But again, did your training with Guro Dan indicate that he did so? I would think he would be the benchmark here. Not if he just went to study it (as he's done with many arts), but what elements he integrated into his standup. I didn't see that in the latest Master's Magazine showing his movements. It doesn't mean I'm right, or that he was showing something specific that isn't necessarily what he'd do under real fight conditions. But its my speculation.



chinaboxer said:


> when i touch hands with Hawkins Cheung who is in his 70's, 110 lbs (wet), and barely 5 feet tall, i cannot lay a hand on him, it has nothing to do with teacher worship, it has to do with his structure is so damm good, i can't get past it, and when i try to "answer" it with my athleticism, it makes it worse for me and easier for him, because he "intercepts" my physical skills. i know this will be hard to imagine, but it's true, and the only way to convince several of you of the power of wing chun "structure" is to go to Hawkins Cheung's school in LA and touch hands with him.


With utmost respect for you and Sifu Cheung, I suspect you're talking about working in chi-sao or trapping range specifically. We're talking about fighting in general. Are you saying that you couldn't stay outside of range, do a couple high fakes, and take him down with a single-leg takedown, over to an armbar? We're comparing apples and oranges. Sifu Cheung may truly be a master at reading intentions, but the original assertion was Bruce Lee's fighting METHOD and chosen path...not his ability to read. Which, as you said, appears to be something he abandoned for a more aggressive approach. His "next step"may have found OTHER WAYS to counteract slower reflexes from aging, other than reading through WC. Such as BJJ. Or perhaps like Guro Dan has done. 

People frequently say there's no "right answer". I disagree. There is a more "optimal answer", but its dependant upon what your perception of a fight is. We're all preparing for a different fight in our head. Is the majority of our training against a weaponed assailant? Single or multiple opponents? Trained or untrained? Bigger or smaller? Stronger or weaker? Faster or slower? Grappler or striker? How has our adrenelin dump affected us? Are we alone, or do we need to worry about people around us?  
Until we can agree on what we're specifically training FOR and what tools we have available, we can't identify the necessary components needed to make it optimal. Everyone will say "All of it!", but these people unintentionally avoid the training necessary for "all of it", either via being blindfolded and attacked by multiple people to simulate getting jumped in the dark, or getting jumped from behind with someone with a marker. This doesn't even get to the question of ballistics. So once we realize "All of it" is too vast, then we need to narrow it down to 2-3 REAL scenarios we envision. And we may differ on that. Which makes this whole thing hard to judge. So its all speculation. FUN speculation, but speculation.

Rooke


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 6, 2009)

Rooke, Good post. But I too say all of it. But saying all of it means narrowing it down, just maybe not down to 2 or 3 areas. Maybe several primary areas and several sub-primary areas.


----------



## simplicity (Oct 6, 2009)

chinaboxer said:


> on his athleticism less and less as he aged. he would have gone from "offense is the best defense" to "defense is the best offense".
> 
> Jin


 
Jin, you seem like a nice guy and you seem to be trying to help with your understanding...

But, I would have to say I have trained for many moons as student/teacher...I don't agree with this statement above of yours....As you get more experiences, you'll understand what I mean....This is not to knock you as you seem to have heart in what you do....At a older age one when need to get "IT" over before it starts...At an older age one would not want to get into any type of defensive mind-set once its on....For the very reason you state "atheticism" is lessing over the years and at a advance age one can neither afford the time & strenght that is involved fighting someone with youth on their side...You would just have to "take them out"......This is another major difference from WC's way of thinking....



Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney


----------



## rooke (Oct 6, 2009)

James Kovacich said:


> Rooke, Good post. But I too say all of it. But saying all of it means narrowing it down, just maybe not down to 2 or 3 areas. Maybe several primary areas and several sub-primary areas.



Hi James. You may have stated it better. A handful of primaries with some sub-primary areas. Once you "master" a primary, then maintenance takes alot less time, so sub-primaries can be examined in more detail. But "all of it" is still AWFULLY broad. 
Let's keep the idea of a "martial" situation within reason (ie: we'll forgo the easy  extreme like "Oh, I bet you can't fly an apache").

1) Kicking
2) Punching
3) Trapping
4) Clinch Fighting
5) Throwing
6) Grappling
7) Ground and Pound
8) Bodyguard type scenario (protection of others such as family)
9) Darkness/Blindness scenario training
10) Blade
11) Stick (and what that represents)
12) Long blade (overlaps with stick, but slightly different)
13) Staff
14) Double blade
15) Different length weapons
16) 2 long weapons
17) Staff and stick (like Kabaroan Escrima)
18) Flexible weapons
19) Handgun
20) Shotgun
21) Flashlight
22) Long range rifle
23) Strategy
24) Distance control
25) Home security
26) Foul Tactics
27) Evasive car driving (I actually consider this reasonable and not extreme)
28) Standing grappling
29) Verbal de-escalation techniques
30) Adrenal control through stress scenario testing

And probably a BUNCH more I can't think of off the top of my head. At a certain point, YES there's overlap. But we need to consider what our lifestyles are versus what's necessary. We need to pick and choose. But even then, my categories are pretty broad. For instance, just the category "blade" might encompass several subcategories:
Forward grip, blade out
Forward grip, blade in
Reverse grip, blade out
Reverse grip, blade in
Abnormal knives (karambit)
Defense AGAINST a knife when weaponless

Your scenario of some small # of primaries with sub-primaries sounds great, but I PERSONALLY believe sub-primaries needs to be limited. But that's based on my lifestyle and what >>>I<<< envision. 

Rooke


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 6, 2009)

rooke said:


> Hi James. You may have stated it better. A handful of primaries with some sub-primary areas. Once you "master" a primary, then maintenance takes alot less time, so sub-primaries can be examined in more detail. But "all of it" is still AWFULLY broad.
> Let's keep the idea of a "martial" situation within reason (ie: we'll forgo the easy extreme like "Oh, I bet you can't fly an apache").
> 
> 1) Kicking
> ...


Thats enought to round out anyone. Within those categories your specialty may be diferrant than your training partner. So your specialty would be his sub-primary.

Thats what I was thinking. I think you were thinking CIA!


----------



## rooke (Oct 6, 2009)

Hahahaha... I threw in the more "out there" ones that I still considered within the range of normal citizen skills (lotsa gun ranges out there). But even within those 10, I don't think "all of it" can be mastered, simply as a matter of time available. Because these are still relatively general categories. Clinch fighting easily breaks into street, wrestling, and plum. Grappling could be wrestling, BJJ, Sambo. Punching can easily be normal boxing (which indicates changes to stance) to dirty boxing to MMA style punching which has a more open stance. And then within punching you have distancing, combinations, fakes, setups, possibly even range progressions. Even punching purposes (ie: nerve strikes, leverage points, hitting fast versus hitting hard [different mechancis]).

Each just has so much. But then again, perhaps we mean primary as "my primary material of study". But hey, its all good as long as we each get better. 

Rooke


----------



## geezer (Oct 7, 2009)

simplicity said:


> For the very reason you state "atheticism" is lessing over the years and *at a advance age one can neither afford the time & strenght that is involved fighting someone with youth on their side...You would just have to "take them out"......*This is another major difference from WC's way of thinking....
> 
> John McNabney


 
I have to agree with the bolded part above. As each year passes, I find that I place more emphasis on _avoidence _of conflict_. _Should that fail and the unavoidable conflict present itself, I would go totally offensive and try to end it quickly. I can't match a man thirty years my junior for strength, speed, endurance, or physical toughness and resilience. So why wait for him to get an advantage? 

BTW John, I'm a 'chunner. _What's so "un-WC" about going offensive?_ I thought that was how it worked in the real world.


----------

