# Thats JKD or is that JKD



## Xue Sheng (Mar 31, 2010)

I watched a JKD class recently and it has left me with a big question and I mean no disrespect but I was just left a bit confused. 

First I have no doubt people training at this JKD school could become good fighters training at this school but I saw nothing I expected based on what I had read about JKD and what I have read by Bruce Lee on JKD.

It left me with the question and I did not ask it there since there was no time but what I saw was basically kick boxing with groin and knee strikes. 

I wanted to ask why would I want to train at this school and pay the prices when just down the road is a Boxing/Kick Boxing Gym that trains fighters for fights and charges considerably less. All I saw was a series of punching drills and a bit of foot work to maintain closeness to the other guy and keep your self squared up with the opponent. It reminded me of a pro boxing match

What is JKD suppose to look like?


----------



## pmosiun1 (Mar 31, 2010)

Yeah, jkd does look like kickboxing.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 31, 2010)

IME Xue, it depends.  If the school (and many do) follows the later training patterns of BL, then it's going to be a lot of kicking and punching and often looks similar to kickboxing.  But if it is following Bruce's later teaching then it will have some subtle but definite differences i.e. strong side forward, entering and trapping methods, straight line strikes for efficiency borrowed from fencing theory.  There _will_ usually be a lot of lead leg low line kick attacks to the shin and knee.  

I'm not particularly experienced with JKD, but these are some of the basics I've seen and read about that stand out as specific differences with JKD.  Some people that teach (or claim to teach) JKD have also incorporated a lot of additional stuff from other styles into what they do, so you may see that reflected in this school if the teacher has incorporated Muay Thai or some other kickboxing type stystem.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 31, 2010)

blindsage said:


> IME Xue, it depends. If the school (and many do) follows the later training patterns of BL, then it's going to be a lot of kicking and punching and often looks similar to kickboxing. But if it is following Bruce's later teaching then it will have some subtle but definite differences i.e. strong side forward, entering and trapping methods, straight line strikes for efficiency borrowed from fencing theory. There _will_ usually be a lot of lead leg low line kick attacks to the shin and knee.
> 
> I'm not particularly experienced with JKD, but these are some of the basics I've seen and read about that stand out as specific differences with JKD. Some people that teach (or claim to teach) JKD have also incorporated a lot of additional stuff from other styles into what they do, so you may see that reflected in this school if the teacher has incorporated Muay Thai or some other kickboxing type stystem.


 
Thanks

What you are describing 


blindsage said:


> But if it is following Bruce's later teaching then it will have some subtle but definite differences i.e. strong side forward, entering and trapping methods, straight line strikes for efficiency borrowed from fencing theory. There _will_ usually be a lot of lead leg low line kick attacks to the shin and knee.
> 
> is more of what I expected to see and I saw none of that. All I saw was kick boxing. The teacher is 3rd generation... I think


----------



## corwin137 (Mar 31, 2010)

Would argue that it is a common misconception that JKD (whatever it is), is supposed to _look_ like something.  This points directly at a much maligned and labored debate about what "JKD" is/ain't.  Discussing this has already been done by much better men and women than I, so won't flog that horse.

From my "perspective", it's a filter, or philosophy first, or as Dan Inosanto consistently admonishes, "JKD is a concept."  As it's largely about "fighting" (which requires some defining itself), it might be seen as a way of deciding what is/isn't combatively relevant.

For me, JKD is a laundry list of principles that help me determine what I think is combatively relevant, in a non-sport context.  As such, there's often many ideas or "moves" that look similar to specific systems of fighting.  As a rule, most systems have their hands up, use hands and feet and such for tools etc- so they have similar observable qualities.  These ideas make sense combatively speaking, so they get used by those systems, and most people that would label themselves "JKD" folk.

Where I'm going with this is that I think it less relevant to ask what JKD is, than it is to figure out what one is really looking for.  The longer description of what I'm looking for is combatively relevant ideas, in a non-sport context, with non-cooperative "opponents" in all ranges of combat, in uncontrolled environments, with and without tools.  That's the best description, the least limiting description I've come across.

I have trained in both "schools" of JKD for quite some time, and am pretty close to the soul of the lineage of both schools.  I've kept some of that stuff, deleted some, and adopted other skills (though meager...) from other places.  Just noting that to emphasize the point about knowing what one considers important in this regard.

Our little training group would arguably have: a MT/western boxing/Crazy Monkey Defense looking base.  There's some judo, heavy focus on generalship, there's some BJJ (and related) stuff for clinch and ground.  We also have a lot of Kali looking stuff, both with and without tools.  Some stealing from military and LEO stuff.  All of these considered both with equal, and unequal armament and initiative.  Hope that gives some sense of what "JKD" looks like to us.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 1, 2010)

So basically I am back to the original question.... 

I still do not doubt if one trained at this school they would learn how to fight but if you are basing any decision to train here on what you are looking for then why train here when just down the road a few miles is a gym that trains Boxers and kick boxers for actual matches for half the price. the only difference I see is that the JKD school had groin strikes and the fast wing chun straight rapid fire punch and gave one the ablilty to say I train Jeet Kune Do. 

I recently located another JKD school in my area (much to my surprise) that is from a different line and I may go check that out someday to see what it looks like but this is more out of curiosity than looking for a place to train so I will get there eventually.

And I likely did have some preconceived notions about JKD when I walked through the door


----------



## corwin137 (Apr 1, 2010)

I guess part of what I was getting at is that no one "JKD" school is representative of "JKD", because as a concept, different people will see it differently.  

Seems like your question though, is less about JKD than it is about these schools.  If the other school is teaching the context you're looking for, then go there of course.  That said though, I would also say a sport-based school shouldn't be confused with a school focused on "self preservation" or defense, or whatever one prefers.

For me, though they have great benefits, sport based schools often miss a lot of things.  Tools (a huge body of material), "fouling", unequal armament and initiative, pre-fight considerations and the like.  Sounds like the schools you're comparing have something of the same skillset, but the other is cheaper.  No question then.  Just encouraging focus on context, and comparing the two based on that.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 1, 2010)

corwin137 said:


> I guess part of what I was getting at is that no one "JKD" school is representative of "JKD", because as a concept, different people will see it differently.
> 
> Seems like your question though, is less about JKD than it is about these schools. If the other school is teaching the context you're looking for, then go there of course. That said though, I would also say a sport-based school shouldn't be confused with a school focused on "self preservation" or defense, or whatever one prefers.
> 
> For me, though they have great benefits, sport based schools often miss a lot of things. Tools (a huge body of material), "fouling", unequal armament and initiative, pre-fight considerations and the like. Sounds like the schools you're comparing have something of the same skillset, but the other is cheaper. No question then. Just encouraging focus on context, and comparing the two based on that.


 
Thank You

Actually I am going to neither of them, nor do I plan too. Admittedly when I walked into the JKD school I was considering the possibility but I am pretty much a TCMA guy, although if given the chance I would go back to Police/Military Sanda in a heart beat. I was just wondering why this flavor of JKD and Kick boxing looked so very similar. I have also recently been told it could be due to who certified it, who knows.

But from what I have been reading here, in PMs and other places it does sound as if not all JKD schools are created equal which would make it rather hard to judge JKD by one or even 2 schools and it could be equally as hard to nail down exactly what JKD is suppose to be too due ti this. If it is suppose to be anything. I keep thinking about the Bruce Lee quote I posted a little while back



> Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.
> 
>  Bruce Lee




It was that quote that got me to walk into check out the school in the first place.


----------



## corwin137 (Apr 1, 2010)

As for why they look the same, would say that in that context, the structure of most things look the same (overstating).  When it's more of a "duel", no one has the jump on another, no one has tools, and two people "square off", one foot usually leads, hands go up, etc.  Some variation on that theme is essentially everywhere, even in systems that use fewer tools (western boxing vs. MT for instance).  Not saying this because you don't know this of course, but to make sense out of why these look the same- would argue it's the context.

What we do has a decidedly "kickboxing" base, mostly because we want to use all the tools available, and because the structure lends itself well to attack and defense, flexibility if something goes wrong, etc.  In many Filipino styles, though seen as largely stick and knife styles, the empty hand stuff has a kickboxing base as well.  So for us, arguably "JKD" guys, it all looks similar.  I think it's why the quote you posted makes so much sense.


----------



## turbo1975 (Apr 24, 2010)

JKD is about self defense for the street...NOT A RING OR CAGE. And training for sport does not give you all the tools you need to defend your self. Hard to train with rules ...like dont knee a downed opponent...and then do it when the pressure is on.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 28, 2010)

Per the suggestion of a member of MT (Thank You) I took a look at a few vids of Jerry Poteet and Dan Insanto and looking at those I have to say that is what I expected JKD to look like, not what I saw which looked much more like kick boxing


----------



## dungeonworks (May 16, 2010)

turbo1975 said:


> JKD is about self defense for the street...NOT A RING OR CAGE. And training for sport does not give you all the tools you need to defend your self. Hard to train with rules ...like dont knee a downed opponent...and then do it when the pressure is on.




On a side note, I have never had trouble using knees to the head on the ground, fingers in the eyes, or biting just because I could not do it in ametuer kickboxing matches or sparring in any art that I have trained in.  When your butt is on the line, things just happen and you either have it in you to do it or you do not.  JKD is no different and NO DOJO, KWOON, DOJANG, GYM is going to spar full on with eye gouges, biting, or maiming and body breaking force to vulnerable areas on the body...unless they are friggin PSYCHOS! lol


----------



## dungeonworks (May 16, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Per the suggestion of a member of MT (Thank You) I took a look at a few vids of Jerry Poteet and Dan Insanto and looking at those I have to say that is what I expected JKD to look like, not what I saw which looked much more like kick boxing



I train JKD Concepts and depending on what we are working on will have an effect as to what it is going to look like since the instructor focuses on different ranges in each class.  Grappling, Jun Fan Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Kali/Silat....they are quite different.  Even the sparring is going to look different depending on who you see sparring at our school with the different attributes and athleticism of each student.  Some guys kick faster and higher and are speedy and others come from wrestling backgrounds and are gonna use it.  Me?  Yeah, you would see kickboxing because that is what I come from although due to age and size these days, even that is different now than what I was doing even 5 yrs ago.


----------



## repz (May 16, 2010)

I been looking alot into JKD and CMA since I'm shopping for a new art. 

Jerry Poteet teaches Original JKD, which I am assuming means Bruce Lee's version of JKD. Same with Ted Wong and his org. which I think are called Jung Fan JKD. This was Lees personal JKD expression, so you see a lot of traps, leg stomps, and other stuff you see in Lees old books.

Concepts is just that... concepts. This is what Lee wanted in his words,  concepts of fighting that allows you to express your own JKD, since JKD isnt a style in his words. Note, I have read Ted Wong said that he uses Lees personal JKD to create a base where the student can expand and build to create his own JKD, but still having the base of Lees JKD.

I been looking into Jerry Poteets JKD in NYC.


----------



## James Kovacich (May 31, 2010)

JKD from the get-go wasn't meant to "remain the same" or "look alike." Bruce offered up the base: techniques and concepts. The base techniques make up the core of any resemblance one is going to find from school to school while the techniques w/the concepts is where the individual evolves into "ones own." 

Like the yin and yang, both the technique and concept, is incomplete without the other.


----------



## trexeden@yahoo.com (Sep 20, 2010)

Sorry you had that experience at the JKD school.  Before I throw in my two cents, just know that viewing one class may not give you the whole picture of an art.

  Kinda like the story of three bind guys feeling three different parts of an elephant.  One the trunk, one the leg, and the other the tail.  Their idea of what the elephant looks like would be three completely different animals.  

  Depending on what kind of JKD school you&#8217;re looking at (Original based, compared to Concepts), JKD should be simple and to the point.  Minimal amount of moves which are very efficient and very effective.  The main difference in the two schools of thought is how many ranges they cover.

  Not sure if this would help or not, but here is many JKD instructor&#8217;s view on a similar topic, you can check it out for no charge:  http://www.JKDnewsletter.com


----------

