# What is Jeet Kune Do...



## James Kovacich (Oct 7, 2009)

To you?


----------



## K831 (Oct 7, 2009)

As near as I can tell;


1.) Fighting methods that follow Bruce Lee's basic guidelines
      - Interception
      - Longest weapon nearest target
      - Simplicity
      - Economy of motion 
      - Non-classical

2.) Utilizes his mechanics regarding punching and kicking


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 7, 2009)

K831 said:


> As near as I can tell;
> 
> 
> 1.) Fighting methods that follow Bruce Lee's basic guidelines
> ...


 
You were taught "longest weapon to closest target?"

Wasn't it closest weapon to closest target?


----------



## K831 (Oct 7, 2009)

James Kovacich said:


> You were taught "longest weapon to closest target?"
> 
> Wasn't it closest weapon to closest target?




"Longest weapon to the nearest target" is the exact wording I was taught. There is always a chance I am miss-remembering. I'll ask next class.


----------



## Hudson69 (Oct 8, 2009)

To me it is a self defense system that has its roots in in Wing Chun but demands growth and modification by the practitioner into whatever works best to end a fight as quickly as possible.  This is reading only, I have never had the honor of studying from a JKD Instructor.


----------



## chinaboxer (Oct 8, 2009)

constant research and development to find what works for me, while adhering to the core concepts and principles and not contradicting myself in the process.


----------



## simplicity (Oct 8, 2009)

By trying to define it, you have already lost something....One could say, it may be what is neither for nor against in a moment of relating time...This, but not that nor that, but not this, changing with what is....Returning back to human nature of the individual...Hmmm, but these are some of my thoughts and thats fine if you see something different from your eye's...IT was ment to be, what it is....Nothing special for us, with someone else maybe so!  



Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney


----------



## corwin137 (Oct 8, 2009)

A filter.


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 8, 2009)

simplicity said:


> By trying to define it, you have already lost something....One could say, it may be what is neither for nor against in a moment of relating time...This, but not that nor that, but not this, changing with what is....Returning back to human nature of the individual...Hmmm, but these are some of my thoughts and thats fine if you see something different from your eye's...IT was ment to be, what it is....Nothing special for us, with someone else maybe so!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 My friend John,

When you recognize "thought as thought." Have you lost already something?


----------



## simplicity (Oct 8, 2009)

James, that's ok if you don't get what I said....That's fine


Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 8, 2009)

Isn't once it becomes thought it is "being" defined?


----------



## simplicity (Oct 8, 2009)

read my post again, there lies it what your asking for....There is more than it seems, James.... I wrote it that way for ?


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 8, 2009)

The thought itself isn't "for or against," so it is undefined, it just is.


----------



## pmosiun1 (Oct 18, 2009)

If it does not look like what Bruce Lee is doing when he is alive, then it is not Jeet Kune Do.


----------



## chinaboxer (Oct 18, 2009)

JKD or Jeet Kune Do is Bruce Lee's "philosophy", so to answer your question, it's about how to apply his theories to everyday life, to constantly improve myself mentally, physically, spiritually on a daily basis.

but...

Jun Fan JKD *is* a whole other can of worms. Jun Fan JKD is the "nuts & bolts" of Bruce's method of martial arts. now here is where it gets confusing...

to understand Bruce's "method", you have to understand the core concepts of wing chun. there is NO way around this, because his "method" was founded on these concepts.

but today, everyone is trying to "copy/paste" Bruce Lee and it's not correct at all. it also gets more confusing because JKD practitioners today don't even know or study or practice the foundation of the method, which is the wing chun structure. or they only gloss over the already modified wing chun, which lacks the thorough understanding of what makes wing chun so special and unique, which leads to a half *** method that has glaring holes, so they end up trying their best to fill those gaps with other martial arts methods, so you end up with many folks mixing different styles together, but this isn't correct.

let's take for example how Bruce incorporated Boxing into his personal JKD. Bruce's boxing did not look or feel like a traditional boxer. he did not use a horizontal fist, he did not raise his elbow to throw a hook, he turned the front foot inwards, he in fact changed every facet of traditional boxing and "modified" it to fit within the confines of the wing chun concepts. 

he did this with everything. he didn't just add for the sake of adding what is popular. he in fact had a massive book of questions that every single movement had to pass or else he didn't use the movement, regardless of what style or system it came from. and the questions were formulated by Bruce Lee through the lens of the wing chun concepts. Dan Inosanto has that book btw.

People today think that MMA is JKD and it's not. MMA is just taking what is most popular and mixing them together, but with actually no particular rhyme or reason. the concepts for their stand up is completely opposite of their concepts for ground work. it makes no sense IMO

JKD practitioners need to understand that Bruce Lee could let go of structure because he had it in the first place. in other words, JKD students today try to "copy" Bruce Lee's "end result" but don't realize the huge "body of ice" that Bruce Lee knew that supported that "little idea". that's why i am always saying "you cannot let go of something that you don't have in the first place." I know i will get lots of "flames" for my opinion and thoughts.

anyways, that's my 2cents on the subject.

Jin


----------



## Robert Lee (Oct 20, 2009)

Perhaps one of the most recalled person, relating to wing chun is BRUCE. But yes Bruce indeed changed forever his wing chun. To fit in he added modified boxing, from Ali. He explored kicking and made his changes. he explored fencing and made his change. IS WAS wing chun the root. Sure But as any person grows Things change. Is modern wing chun looking into what BRUCE did. seems for some yes. A sell to promote wing chun further Maybe. ALL arts is for the person NO name when in combat. all arts relat one way or the other. Close the door to progress And you become fixed. 1950s Bruce trained Wing chun. Did he complete the training NO. Did he open a door for the world YES. he was basicly the first to teach non chinese A gung fu art. Did he modify the structure to fit What he saw a weakness to deal with the different size he found in american people Yes. Is todays understanding of The M A in general better In exposing a world of knowledge Yes in a way. Would Bruce have left his method to go soley back to wing chun. Surely not ever. Have people made staments to say he was just doing his wing chun to better wing chuns beliewfs YES. Who cares if a person follows any main type of M A. All things is and should be about the one person YOUR SELF. combat is fast and every changing each fight will be different WE can learn from BOXING every place calls BOXING boxing. Not some hundreds of different names of boxing Like The M A has for each so called method Of slightly different Ideas founded on a notion that it works. Just a small set of the given tools  stand up , clinch and ground Rounded into a way it improves you that person IS all any one needs. Yes M A has a life learning base also Helps improve the whole person THAT part is great . But combat. NO army would spend countless years teaching there troops to fight unarmed. They want fast results that require short term training  for the end product. Which is safely efectively remove the threat. Sure wing chun Can show the begining to What BRUCE started  How he developed a core.  And could improve somes JKD structure. BUT everyone does not need to go backwards to go forwards. Remember  YOU are the only thing that counts What ever path a person takes That should be what matters NOT my art is better then yours. Your art never fights you do. There that day that time YOU may be the person walking away Unhurt. We can say many words about many arts. Or so called arts. Perhaps agin boxing can teach That M A trained towrds applied combat skill Is just M A training. NOT gung fu this karate that. The list goes on.


----------



## pmosiun1 (Oct 20, 2009)

While i don't believe Bruce Lee abandon the energy drill of Wing Chun, it does not mean that studying Wing Chun will improve your jeet kune do because of differences in structure.

You do not need to learn Wing Chun to understand Jeet Kune Do. Yes, Wing Chun form 1/3 of Jeet Kune Do, but remember, Brazilian jiu-jitsu came from Judo too, but it has evolve from it in terms of ground fighting. It is silly to say you should learn judo to understand Brazilian jiu-jitsu the same way that it sound silly that you should learn Wing Chun to understand Jeet Kune Do.

Regarding the vertical fist, lots of old school boxer use the vertical fist as a power jab. Heck, the first truly scientific boxer is a fencer. Plus, many people who have did fencing and boxing remark that both are very similar in terms of timing. There are historical reason why in the boxing world they called fighters like Muhammad Ali a "boxer" being that he is an out fighter, likes to control distance and use timing.


----------



## Shifu Steve (Mar 22, 2010)

I am reading and responding to this way after the fact but I like what Chinaboxer has to say.  I periodically go back to the Tao of JKD and apply the lessons of Bruce's philosophy to my own understanding of my art.  I always understood JKD to be more a philosophy rather than an actual style.  Regardless, I have read this book several times and learn some valuable lesson on each occasion.  The point that really resonates with me is that JKD seems most applicable to a preexisting body of knowledge.


----------



## Kyosanim (Mar 27, 2010)

James Kovacich said:


> You were taught "longest weapon to closest target?"
> 
> Wasn't it closest weapon to closest target?




Longest weapon to closest target means longest reaching or most forward weapon to the target it is closest to. Fighting in this manner means that you weapon is already half way to the strike zone, but I can see where the wording would be confusing.


----------



## Gruenewald (Jul 14, 2010)

Shifu Steve said:


> I am reading and responding to this way after the fact but I like what Chinaboxer has to say.  I periodically go back to the Tao of JKD and apply the lessons of Bruce's philosophy to my own understanding of my art.  *I always understood JKD to be more a philosophy rather than an actual style.*  Regardless, I have read this book several times and learn some valuable lesson on each occasion.  The point that really resonates with me is that JKD seems most applicable to a preexisting body of knowledge.


I may only be a beginner in the ways of JKD, but this reflects my own opinion quite accurately. JKD was an approach to martial arts, a way of thinking that enables its practitioners to improve themselves and free them from the bonds of any restrictions present in singular martial arts.

Currently my aim is to pursue expertise in several martial arts in order to achieve that... which is why the idea of a JKD school/class never made sense to me... It seems as though a JKD school would go against what JKD attempts to accomplish, which is a freedom from conventional systems. But doesn't any school limit its students to what they're being taught? I don't mean to sound accusatory but wouldn't an approach like mine be more "true" to the principles of JKD? I understand that that's just an opinion and everybody has their own personal interpretations of what JKD is supposed to be, but can somebody please explain to me how a JKD school makes sense? Thanks.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 14, 2010)

Kyosanim said:


> Longest weapon to closest target means longest reaching or most forward weapon to the target it is closest to. Fighting in this manner means that you weapon is already half way to the strike zone, but I can see where the wording would be confusing.


 In Oakland JKD which I trained, it was ¨closest weapon to closest target¨ but I´ve recently seen a LA BLS teaching ¨longest weapon to closest target¨ which I see as being applied possibly the same but also can be very dfferant.


----------



## Robert Lee (Jul 27, 2010)

Gruenewald said:


> I may only be a beginner in the ways of JKD, but this reflects my own opinion quite accurately. JKD was an approach to martial arts, a way of thinking that enables its practitioners to improve themselves and free them from the bonds of any restrictions present in singular martial arts.
> 
> Currently my aim is to pursue expertise in several martial arts in order to achieve that... which is why the idea of a JKD school/class never made sense to me... It seems as though a JKD school would go against what JKD attempts to accomplish, which is a freedom from conventional systems. But doesn't any school limit its students to what they're being taught? I don't mean to sound accusatory but wouldn't an approach like mine be more "true" to the principles of JKD? I understand that that's just an opinion and everybody has their own personal interpretations of what JKD is supposed to be, but can somebody please explain to me how a JKD school makes sense? Thanks.


JKD the core of its trainings Lets call that JUN FAN// That being the place to start. putting this with that and calling it JKD is not the way. You must first train the core discard or add to make it your own. And when adding one should discard. But with NO training in what was developed by Bruce it can never be called anything near JKD it can though be called your needs. Just as no one can take this and that and call it wing chun The roots must first be developed before you can grow


----------

