# JKD: Minimum Curriculum?



## arnisador

Most people will tell you that JKD isn't a style and doesn't so much have techniques as it does an "adopt what is useful" strategy.

Yet, if you go to a JKD school, they're teaching something--and that something is highly likely to include pak sao/lop sao, the straight blast, HKE, finger jab, jab, cross punch, and a few other specific techniques.

Are there specific techniques that, despite the "absorb what is useful" paradigm, you feel simply must be in a school's teaching if they are indeed to be said to be teaching JKD? Please interpret this question both literally and also in a "gut feeling" sense--that is, you may well feel that JKD is about an approach and not a specific set of technqiues, but how would you _really_ feel about a JKD school that had no boxing/savate/Wing Chun/Muay Thai style techniques but instead had "absorbed what is useful" out of Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, and Tang Soo Do? Would that seem out-of-whack to you?


----------



## James Kovacich

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Most people will tell you that JKD isn't a style and doesn't so much have techniques as it does an "adopt what is useful" strategy.
> 
> Yet, if you go to a JKD school, they're teaching something--and that something is highly likely to include pak sao/lop sao, the straight blast, HKE, finger jab, jab, cross punch, and a few other specific techniques.
> 
> Are there specific techniques that, despite the "absorb what is useful" paradigm, you feel simply must be in a school's teaching if they are indeed to be said to be teaching JKD? Please interpret this question both literally and also in a "gut feeling" sense--that is, you may well feel that JKD is about an approach and not a specific set of technqiues, but how would you really feel about a JKD school that had no boxing/savate/Wing Chun/Muay Thai style techniques but instead had "absorbed what is useful" out of Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, and Tang Soo Do? Would that seem out-of-whack to you? *



Very hard to answer correctly. So "correct" may be in the eyes of the beholder. I think the biggest "pushers" of the pure concept without the underlying art are the self taught newbies that justify "their" self taught JKD.

JKD does have an underlying structure which is used to teach the concept/art of JKD. We can borrow from other arts and still follow the concepts but these other arts in their "whole" do not fall within the concept. 

Most first and second generation JKD students learned Jun Fan. I don't think that Dan Inosanto would certify anyone that he did not "expose" to Jun Fan. His student (second generation) Paul Vunak learned Jun Fan. Why was this "art of no art" included in the curriculum? Because it falls within the "concepts" and it is a "proven" method of teaching JKD. 

From what I've seen most of the third and fourth generation students today teach less Jun Fan and some teach none. So is their curriculum JKD? Yes, because they went through the "process" of learning JKD and were given "approval" by their instructor.


I think that Bruce must have known that eventually their would be little of his original art left but I can't imagine how the "art of no art" can be continually taught (when it is only a concept), it is quite often very differant and usually always has the same name. 

:asian:


----------



## arnisador

I'd be curious to hear other opinions!


----------



## Shiatsu

Do a search on Lamar Davis.  He has loads of info.  Just search for him on msn.  

actually here you go www.hardcorejkd.com:asian:


----------



## Cthulhu

Economy of motion.  Interception.  Stop-hit.  H/FIA, SDA, SIA, PIA, ABC.  Basic physical fitness.  Non-telegraphic motion.

Cthulhu


----------



## Ender

When I studied for a short time, they were basically teaching Jun Fan.


----------



## James Kovacich

http://www.chusaulei.com/martial/articles/articles_brucelee1.html

:asian:


----------



## Mormegil

I'm no instructor, but I've read a few books and documentaries.

I think one of the reasons there is controversy about what JKD is, is because I think JKD represented 2 different thinks to Sijo Bruce Lee  at different times.

After his Chinatown fight with Man, he developed a fighting system or style based on intereception - and called it Jeet Kune Do, the Way of the Interecepting Fist.

Later as he progressed, he stated he no longer believed in styles (note: "no longer" so he did at one point).  At this point Jeet Kune Do became a term for his new philisophy or expression of martial arts - using no way as way and such.  The term "Jeet Kune Do" stuck, because it's only a term, and was already synonymous with Sijo Bruce Lee.  


So, just during Mr. Lee's life, JKD already meant two different things (not mutually exclusive, as you can obviously use the JKD style in your personal JKD expression).

So when somebody says it's not JKD, because it doesn't have trapping, they're right and wrong.  It's not the JKD style, but it can be somebody's no way way (or no style style) expression.

Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## IFAJKD

Basic minimum requirements..............Interesting thought. Basically because Bruce Lee died leaving us with only logic and speculation. I Personally taught basic following from a JKD concepts/FMA approach. I would list the following:

Kicking Range:. stop kick, low line kicking, oblique kick, savate style round kick, hook kick, inside and outside crescent kick, side kick, side thrust, front snap, Thai round kick, axe kick, include side knee, side up knee, straight knee flying knee hook knee, 

Boxing range: jab, straight punch, cross, hook, shovel hook , upper cut, back fist spinning backfist, hammer fist, straight blast, morphed blast, eye jab (very very important) knife hand (used on soft tissue ie throat, groin etc) overhead punch

Trapping range: pak sao, lop sao, sut sao, biljee, kwon sao, bong sao, jut sao, gum sao, tan sao, gunting, many many destructions such as sipa, siko, heiata,  elbows knees and headbutts, eye gouges, bites, wrenches, breaks, manipulations, clinching, shivers and (dumog type) pushes and pulls.

Ground fighting: mount side mount, guard, half guard, north south, side headlock, transistions, chokes, submissions, falls, stomps, bites, gouges, breaks

Weapons: single stick, double stick, stick and knife, single knife, double knife, interceptions, deflections, passes, disarms, many drills, 

Sparring: weapons all double vs single, double vs double, knife vs stick, etc it goes on and on. empty hand, envrionmental, bottles, pool cues, helmet training with the blast, etc. It is all trained.

Concepts: five ways of attack, economy of motion, interceptions, closing the gap, attribute development, spatial awareness, line familurization, speed, power, timming, distance, sight, legal, 

This was my cirruculum for openers. This is what would be covered your first year. It's just mine. influenced by people like Vunak, Inosanto, O'Melia and others. I know it's a concept type of approach, I know that Bruce Lee did not teach many thingas here and I know that others do it differently. There are many good people out there and many not so good. I believe that anything can be made to be functional if trained correctly. The essence of JKD is in it's function not it's techniques. Not sure if this adds any clarification or not. good luck in the search and Arnisador......Glad to hear you are still posting these days. Much respect for you.

:asian:


----------



## Cthulhu

HEY!

Long time no see, IFAJKD!  How've you been?

Cthulhu


----------



## IFAJKD

Many changes in my life over the last two years. I will have to drop you an email. Life is however GREAT and at times I am overwhelmed at HOW great it really is ya know. How are you and your family ?. Administrator huh


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by IFAJKD _
> *Many changes in my life over the last two years. I will have to drop you an email. Life is however GREAT and at times I am overwhelmed at HOW great it really is ya know.*



I'm glad to hear that! I hope we hear more from you!


----------



## IFAJKD

Hey Arnisador : How are you my friend ? Please send me an email to jkdifa@lcp2.net as I may have lost both yours and Cthulhu"s Glad to hear you are still hard at it.


----------



## arnisador

Thanks for your thoughts on the curriculum issue. I am still trying to resolve the general theories of Bruce Lee--formlessness, absorbing whatever one finds useful, etc.--with the fact that most JKD people are doing relatively similar techniques.


----------



## IFAJKD

Try NOT to think about JKD or any style or system. Spar and when you spar focus on two techniques. Now do whatever it takes to land those techniques. Film it and then start with the concepts you are familure with and look to see h0ow you applied them. You will do this without thinking more and more and with more and more diversity and competence. Arnisador.....Remember that the Filipino warriors were applying these same concepts in every conflict or teaching experience they had. In the Philipines, developing a functional system was highly reveered. It was also a necessary evil given their culture. Subsequently many systems were developed from the same styles. Most other styles and cultures around them frown on this. Bruce Lee did what the Filipinos did and for the exact samew reasons...He, in a traditonal atmosphere had to as well, apply names and explinations to those things. 
It is really quite simple until we complicate it. I will email tonight.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Mormegil _
> *Later as he progressed, he stated he no longer believed in styles (note: "no longer" so he did at one point).  At this point Jeet Kune Do became a term for his new philisophy or expression of martial arts - using no way as way and such.  The term "Jeet Kune Do" stuck, because it's only a term, and was already synonymous with Sijo Bruce Lee.
> *



I think this is true, however I think that when Bruce said he didn't believe in style he didn't mean what alot of people take it as. Its obvious he believed in some style because when training he used wing chun movements. I think the meaning to what he said, and Linda has said the same thing in some interviews and her book, was a philosophy of not using any certain technique. If you enter into a fight thinking of the technique you will use, you have allready limited yourself to those techniques. Bruce said your mind should be empty of technique. You must let your opponant dictate what you will do.

Bruce was searching for the truth and in the begining he studied wing chun. Then he began a search for the "truth" of the advanced techniques, or the "it" many are searching for. He began scraping away basic stuff to find the true applications. Then later in his life, he began coming back to the basics. Like he made a circle. He returned to learning the "feel" that so many train hard to find. My sigung says he was almost there, if he hadn't died so early he would have found it and understood it completely.

Anyway, enough rambling, I just think we take the "no style" comment to a point where he didn't mean it to go.

7sm


----------



## IFAJKD

I think that is a fair statement...Bruce Lee in fact  encouraged people to train in any style they could find. You HAVE to have a foundation. I do however think Bruce Lee did get it. He WAS there.....I am not sure that any of his students, with the obvious exception of Dan Inosanto, ever made it there. 
Bruce died so young and offered a limited amount of knowledge and material. What is there has been hashed over so much. I think that at times, trying to squeeze that little extra out, individuals take his teachings to an area it was not meant to go. OR worse yet....they "interpret" and go with the "if Bruce Lee were alive today this is what he would be doing" .....................
Bruce Lee also said "saddly we place more confidence on what we imitate rather than what we create"...... 
For the record...I am not being disrespectful by leaving a title off in reference to Bruce Lee. I heard Guru Dan Inosanto state that he found it funny because nobody ever referred to Bruce other than by his name and "Sifu".


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by IFAJKD _
> *Bruce Lee in fact  encouraged people to train in any style they could find. *



Let me ask this question again, then:



> how would you really feel about a JKD school that had no boxing/savate/Wing Chun/Muay Thai style techniques but instead had "absorbed what is useful" out of Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, and Tang Soo Do? Would that seem out-of-whack to you?



It's hard for me to imagine JKD based off of TKD. I don't mean that as a slam against TKD--I just mean it's very hard for me to envision such a mix.


----------



## Cthulhu

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Let me ask this question again, then:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard for me to imagine JKD based off of TKD. I don't mean that as a slam against TKD--I just mean it's very hard for me to envision such a mix. *



I think that's one of the difficulties of teaching JKD.  The art is so personal.  It's hard to teach someone to be an individual.  The thing is, there could be a JKD instructor who has come from a TKD background and can use his own personal expression of the martial arts efficiently.  However, how then do you transmit your discoveries from applying JKD principles to TKD to someone who has never studied TKD...or maybe never studied another martial art at all.

I think IFAJKD can answer this better...you had a TKD background, didn't you?

Cthulhu


----------



## IFAJKD

My answer would be that clearly it is not JKD. Here's why. Although you rae applying concepts of JKD to your personal training, JKD does still have a set core group of techniques that are central to JKD. Bruce Lee still did have his techniques that he taught for specific reasons. Yes, there were no students that could pull it off as he did but they atill remain a staple of JKD. ALSO to legitimately claim "JKD Instruction" they had to come from a certified JKD Instructor. This person had to be trained in "JKD" and as such his student Instructors should be teaching that same cirriculum. Although they will add their own spin to it.
I also think that this is exactly what happens in all arts. Tae Kwon Do today does not look like it did in 1962. We cannot duplicate without effect of our personal interpretation and attributes.
For example....We teach a technique that is not our strong suite so maybe we teach it poorly from there we have students performing this technique poorly. THEN some other Instructor comes along and corrects it and bam the whole technique and its application has changed. 

JKD is more than an amalgam of techniques and concepts. You cannot simply train in other styles and call it JKD. 
I also think..........and this is the hard part...........that Bruce Lee expressed his wishes clearly however what he DID do was create a style. Like it or not. this IS what he did and people embraced it. If you are taking from elements that are not a part of JKD core, AND your core does not include this JKD training....then you are simply creating your own system and should take some ownership of that. 

Example .....You are self trained in several arts and you are sparring.......You hold your hands poorly and try to initiate from a set stance. Needless to say you are gettingg killed. so after one hit in the face, your hands come up. Is this person doing JKD ? 
NO...he's just getting lite up and is trying to adapt......Now he goes back to training and he throws punches from a better hand placement but he is just involved in a "slug fest". He is hitting more and his style so to speak has changed...is he JKD ? NO he is just experimenting. 
Then while sparring he begins to see openings and starts to hit just before the completion arc of an attack.....is he doing JKD ? Spomeone watching might say "oh hey, single direct attack or attack by interception" But he is not doing JKD. He just borrowed a concept avalible to everyone. 
Needless to say, he is getting better because he is sparring more. NOW he meets a JKD Instructor and he is introduced to concepts, methods, techniques, trapping low line attacks and trains for better attributes. He NOW looks nothing like he did when he was sparring before, Is he JKD ? Now he can be if he chooses to be. He had to have this core. Otherwise he is reinventing the wheel (and not very well mind you) and just flailing around the hard way. 
Hapkidio can look like Tae Kwon Do but it isn't. It employs the same type of kicks right down to it's instruction on executing them but yet it is not. JKD people should be able to adapt to anyone's fighting style and fight them in a way that minimizes their opponents use of their best tools. There are also techniques and teaching methods that are in direct conflict with JKD instruction. This point alone would prohibit someoen from training in the way you mentioned and calling it JKD.
Hope this helps some. 
Arnisador, please pass my email onto to Cthu as I do not have his address either.


----------



## arnisador

I'll forward your message to Cthulhu.

I think I have to agree with you--like it or not, he _did_ create a style. He did more than that, but he did do that. That's what I find hard to reconcile--the people claiming it's all concepts and anything can be "your" JKD, together with the near-uniformity of approaches. There's a lot of commonality.


----------



## 7starmantis

I agree, however alot or possibly most of what he did, and what JKD is now, was taken from his kung fu background. So I can also see the point of those who say he didn't actuall *create* anything new, but rather took the strengths of diferent systems. I studied JKD before studying kung fu and I can see many similarities in technique and philosophy of fighting. 
I guess I can see both sides of it, however I think the major thing that hurts JKD is that people get too caught up in trying to answer this argument that they forget what it is all about in the first place.

7sm


----------



## IFAJKD

JKD was developed from I believe 26 different styles. Not equal amounts were taken from each and some simply a concept or technique or two. JKD "The WAY of the Intercepting fist" it is the "Way" not the "Thought"  Not all however was from his kung Fu background. For example, he loved the kicking techniques of Savate and the power of Thai. He used both.  Bruce Lee also had this gift that many get to some degree after training long enough in diverse or eclectic ways, He could watch a style and understand it's methods and it's goal. From there he could adapt and beat you. Often using your techniques. 
Paul Vunak tells a story that Guru Inosanto told him where he intorduced Bruce to a Southrern Praying Mantis Sifu "Master" Guru Inosanto was so excited that Bruce dropped everytyhing to go see him and when he got there (I guess it was a long drive and he had plans with Linda and the kids that he dropped) He was pissed at watching this "Master" doing what amounted to a long set of forms. Bruce insulted this "master" by leaving quickly and was pretty upset with Dan. After awhile in the drive Dan apologized to Bruce and said he was sorry that he thought there would be something he could use. Bruce shot him down and after a silence. Bruce asked Dan to pull over. Dan did. Bruce took off running to a park and began to do the exact same forms he just that day watched.  I guess he did it perfectly and said at the end you're right. I can use that. From it he took the concept of high line to low line and added a high, low, high attack. 

You are right...People do get too caught up in it too much. Focus on the finger and miss the moon right .

Good training


----------



## 7starmantis

Yes, I wasn't trying to imply JKd was all from his kung fu background, I didn't mean to insult anyone or anyones art. I just think alot of it is from his kung fu background, and from many of systems.


----------



## IFAJKD

No Insult taken. Hope it didn't come off that way. Just thought it was an interesting story. You are right on the money about your thoughts I believe.:asian:


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Are there specific techniques that, despite the "absorb what is useful" paradigm, you feel simply must be in a school's teaching if they are indeed to be said to be teaching JKD? *



I think the very basics will be the same in almost any system. The basic alignment for punching and kicking, the basic balance drills and techniques. These will have to be taught before anyone can progress in any system. One of the reasons I think it is helpful to have a "base" before training in JKD.

7sm


----------



## arnisador

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think the very basics will be the same in almost any system. The basic alignment for punching and kicking, the basic balance drills and techniques.


 Well...for me, the "boxing-style" techniques of JKD have been very hard to learn after so many years of a Karate background. So, at the level of you can punch, you can kick, etc., yes; but right after that, it gets complicated! I'm not sure that I'm disagreeing with you, but I do think that JKD has, say, specififc punching techniques that are used in JKD. I don't think you could easily substitute a reverse punch from TKD for the cross.

 That having been said, I too think it's good to bring some prior training into JKD.


----------



## Flatlander

IFAJKD said:
			
		

> Basic minimum requirements..............Interesting thought.


Great Post! Something else to add: footwork. Pretty self explanatory, but must be worked on individually at some point. Shufflestep, side shuffle, back shuffle, (eight directions, etc.), lunging, as well as slipping, ducking, bobbing, weaving, joint locking and control techniques.


----------



## achilles

Just a thought I had when making up my curriculum, have you ever noticed how presumptuous it is deciding what a person should know at a particular time.  I've revised my requirements several times and it still isn't perfect.  Then there are times when you are teaching a technique, and you pull out something from another art or improvise a technique on the spot.  What do you do? add that to your curriculum?  After a while, with the constant refining, adding and subtracting, what is there of style or method?  There is nothing particularly timeless or constant.  That's where I think the way of no way comes in.  No way doesn't mean the absence of knowledge, but the freedom to use what you need when and where you need it.  Be that as it may, I think that there is a body of knowledge that should be preserved.  It serves as a kind of balance to the radical subjectivism to keep the Jeet Kune Do man simple and direct.


----------



## achilles

Another thought, having a base method to build from doesn't imply a limitation.  A style in the conventional sense of the term denotes a limitation.  A base is a beginning, not a self-imposed ending to the process.


----------



## kroh

> IFAJKD:
> JKD is more than an amalgam of techniques and concepts. You cannot simply train in other styles and call it JKD.



Thank you, Thank you... artyon: 



> Achilles:
> Another thought, having a base method to build from doesn't imply a limitation. A style in the conventional sense of the term denotes a limitation. A base is a beginning, not a self-imposed ending to the process



Bravo, Bravo, Molto Biene! :uhyeah: 

I am going to reference this thread to some of the people I train with...very nicely spoken...summed up what i try to tell people in two phrases.  Nicely done.

Regards, 
Walt

P.S. For an excellent book on the basics of JKD/Jun Fan Gung Fu, Sifu Seaman's book is an excellent rescource.







http://ewmaa.com

I have trained with Mr. Seaman on numerous occasions and always walked away humbled.


----------



## moonsquid

There is one saying that Paul Vunak said that always seems to stick with me.  He is refering to learning technique.  "its like a painter, you first have to be taught the proper strokes and how to use them, then you are left to paint your own masterpiece"  or it was something along those lines.  I think that the point is made.  There is a proper way to do this take down or that stop hit, after you are taught it, then it is up to YOU the individual to find out what works for you.  Doing this through training and sparring.  I also believe that just randomly picking techniques from this art and that art that you happen to like is not jkd concepts.  The key is that they must flow well together.  To try and trap a hand with your hand that was chambered at your hip loses economy of motion, one of the most important attributes.  So what im trying to say is that there are techniques persay, just not really in the traditional sense of the word.  Thats how I feel and it makes sense to me!


----------



## arnisador

moonsquid said:
			
		

> I also believe that just randomly picking techniques from this art and that art that you happen to like is not jkd concepts. The key is that they must flow well together.


 
I would agree...yet, the techniques always seem to be picked from Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Western boxing, and Savate, with some Kali thrown in. Where's the example of someone who has done this with TKD, Tang Soo Do, and Hapkido? With Aikido, Aikijutsu, and Judo? With Southern Praying Mantis Kung Fu, Phoenix-Eye Fist Kung Fu, and Bak Mei Kung Fu? With Tai Chi, Hsing-I, and Ba Gua?

The lack of such cases makes me wonder if the JKD Concepts approach is as general as some claim.


----------



## JPR

I am not sure you can always pinpoint where a technique comes from, or how important that fact is.  For example, what art owns a goose neck wrist lock or a double leg take down or a round kick (substitute any technique you like here)?

   The selection is influenced a lot by what your JKD instructor is familiar with and can teach.  There are thousands (hundreds, tens?) of ways to transition from say standing grappling to ground grappling.  Which are best?  Which are most efficient?  Which can you use?  Which can you competently teach someone else?

   The point here is to have tools that cover a given range and can work well with the other tools you have so that you can flow from range to range.  I have been taught throws from judo to transition from standing grappling range to ground grappling range, and it is becoming a part of JKD for me.  However, I also have silat and shoot wrestling sweeps / throws for the same range change.  

   The idea of just collecting techniques cheapens the concept of JKD to me.  I think of it as more the pursuit of competence at every range of combat and the ability to smoothly flow between those ranges.  


   Jerry


----------



## arnisador

JPR said:
			
		

> The idea of just collecting techniques cheapens the concept of JKD to me. I think of it as more the pursuit of competence at every range of combat and the ability to smoothly flow between those ranges.


 
Your points are well taken. Yet, I still want to know: Has anyone truly applied JKD to arts that are very different from the usual Wing Chun, Savate, Thai boxing, Kali, etc., and come up with something that people would agree is JKD? Is there--can there be--a JKD that is based on Hwa Rang Do, Kuk Sool Won, and Hapkido? On the Chinese internal arts? Pick from as many arts as one needs to get a good selection of techniques and approaches that cover all ranges. Don't just grab techniques--make it work. If you do that with Hsing-I, Ba Gua, and Tai Chi, with Shuai Jiao for well-roundedness in grappling and clinching, is it JKD?


----------



## James Kovacich

arnisador said:
			
		

> Your points are well taken. Yet, I still want to know: Has anyone truly applied JKD to arts that are very different from the usual Wing Chun, Savate, Thai boxing, Kali, etc., and come up with something that people would agree is JKD? Is there--can there be--a JKD that is based on Hwa Rang Do, Kuk Sool Won, and Hapkido? On the Chinese internal arts? Pick from as many arts as one needs to get a good selection of techniques and approaches that cover all ranges. Don't just grab techniques--make it work. If you do that with Hsing-I, Ba Gua, and Tai Chi, with Shuai Jiao for well-roundedness in grappling and clinching, is it JKD?


 
I think a "JKD Concept" fighting system could be developed through other systems especially the chinese and FMA systems. But the traditional stances and chambering along with a lot of other stuff what have to be dropped to fall within the "concepts."

And it would be a JKD "conceptual" fighting system and not JFJKD.


----------



## achilles

Since JKD is both this and not-this, I will now discuss the "this."  Since JKD is not an amalgam of "Hwa Rang Do, Kuk Sool Won, and Hapkido" this is a non-issue. The core of JKD is a system comprised of wing chun, boxing, fencing, savate, judo, wrestling, various other kung fu systems and a hint of thai boxing.  Hwa Rang Do, Kuk Sool Won, and Hapkido is not the same as the latter list.  I know of people who mix tae kwon do, hapkido and modern arnis, but that is not JKD.  They may approach the same formless doctrine, but it isn't the same.  JKD was the name Bruce Lee gave his study, and those other arts didn't really make up his study.


----------



## kroh

achilles said:
			
		

> JKD was the name Bruce Lee gave his study, and those other arts didn't really make up his study.


 

I agree wit this statement.  You see a lot of people these days who claim to put together a beef stew of systems and call it JKD concepts.  This could be in part to those people trying to cash in on the JKD name or because they don't uderstand the core _concepts_ of the _Intercepting Fist Method_.  IMHO, this practice is due to the fact it is easier to steal or emulate some one than it is to blaze your own path.  This illustrates why we have so few Bruce Lee's.

Great point Achilles.
Regards,
Walt


----------



## arnisador

Well, this is at the heart of the question of whether JKD is, like Jun Fan Gung Fu, something with a fairly set curriculum, or if it is truly an entirely conceptual approach that one could apply to whatever arts one knew to make one's own style. I do feel that there are some elements--some technqiues--that have to be there for it to be JKD. Yet I meet people who say JKD is just a way of viewing things--a set of guidelines for "absorbing what is useful" from what one studies.

I'm not talking about a hodge-podge of techniques. If Bruce Lee had been trained in TKD and Hapkido rather than Wing Chun and boxing, and applied similar principles and effort, what would've happened?

I feel it's not truly JKD unless it has the Wing Chun style trapping, the boxing style punches, the Muay Thai style clinch-and-elbow/knee, etc. So, I feel there's a curriculum that goes with JKD, not just concepts, though I do agree that the concepts could be used to improve many other arts.


----------



## kroh

> So, I feel there's a curriculum that goes with JKD


 
That being said...shouldn't the people who've had no experience in JKD and mix a bunch of stuff together just call their stuff something else?  Why call it JKD concepts if it has nothing to do with Intercepting Fist Method Concepts?   It's not that these systems don't have something to offer, but, why pass it off as something it's not?

Regards,
Walt


----------



## arnisador

I agree...perhaps they wwant to acknowledge Bruce Lee's influence on their thoughts. (I'm being charitable here.) I feel the result in that case is indeed probably not JKD.


----------



## James Kovacich

Boy this thread is becoming a good reflection of how I feel. But by todays standards we are all right and wrong at the same time. Can't forget Bruces 2 cents:

"If people say Jeet Kune Do is different from "this" or from "that," then let the name of Jeet Kune Do be wiped out, for that is what it is, just a name. Please don't fuss over it."
  I think he had great in-sight to the future problems and may have "started" to fix it in advance but got "called away."


----------



## tiburon

That's a good point.  But they do to him what most religious people do to their holy books.  They forget about it as a whole and take only what they like.  So in essence they are doing what he did but at the same time they reject him too.  They only read the whole _absorb what you can_ statement and then reject the part you just quoted.  But hey, that's just people.

Vic


----------



## Kframe

I have only a passing knowledge of JKD. My question is, it seams so opposed to itself. On one hand you have JKD the style, and then on the other hand JKD the thought process.  How can JKD be the style with no style, if it clearly has a style?  How can one apply what is usefull if they are limited to only a few styles to choose from?   I think modern MMA is falling into the same problem. People only draw on a few styles.   

Honestly, being just a lay person, based on what I have read, I personally interpreted apply what is usefull, to its literal ends.  Case in point, I started in boxing, now do bjj and kickboxing with it. I have since started adapting Karate techniques as well.  Im coming up with my Own system, for me.  

There is a JKD place about 1 hour from my home and they said that Juan Fan was Bruce Lees personal expression of JKD, not the only way of JKD. Here is there website. 
http://www.wetoskey.com/


----------



## simplicity

What is JKD?
I'll keep it simple which is a JKD principle in itself...

"IT" can't be defined, you know when you feel and/or see "IT"... "IT" will never be the same in a real fight, because the moment has passed... if someone asked me, "can you do that again"... My answer would no, because the moment has passed.... Something to thing about, as I always say...


----------



## Thunder Foot

If simplicity is truly at the forefront of this art/concept/style/philosophy/whatever, why does one need 10 different styles in order to try an be simple? Why has researching of a multitude of arts become synonymous with discovering efficiency? I'm not in agreement with this. In today's environment, we have become so far removed from the techniques themselves, that we give power to the labels placed on them. The kung fu way, savate way, Thai way, etc. When there can truly only be one way... the way it is.
I was taught and likewise believe that Bruce looked to move away from these limitations of "techniques", ultimately toward expressing himself outside of these descriptions of this or that way of doing things, meanwhile staying true to his philosophy of simplicity. We can only punch and kick in do many ways as human beings so why not learn to kick and punch etc. completely and totally, devoid of this or that way of doing it? In this frame of thinking, what has Bruce done that is truly outside his Gung Fu training?


----------



## Transk53

IFAJKD said:


> Basic minimum requirements..............Interesting thought. Basically because Bruce Lee died leaving us with only logic and speculation. I Personally taught basic following from a JKD concepts/FMA approach. I would list the following:
> 
> Kicking Range:. stop kick, low line kicking, oblique kick, savate style round kick, hook kick, inside and outside crescent kick, side kick, side thrust, front snap, Thai round kick, axe kick, include side knee, side up knee, straight knee flying knee hook knee,
> 
> Boxing range: jab, straight punch, cross, hook, shovel hook , upper cut, back fist spinning backfist, hammer fist, straight blast, morphed blast, eye jab (very very important) knife hand (used on soft tissue ie throat, groin etc) overhead punch
> 
> Trapping range: pak sao, lop sao, sut sao, biljee, kwon sao, bong sao, jut sao, gum sao, tan sao, gunting, many many destructions such as sipa, siko, heiata,  elbows knees and headbutts, eye gouges, bites, wrenches, breaks, manipulations, clinching, shivers and (dumog type) pushes and pulls.
> 
> Ground fighting: mount side mount, guard, half guard, north south, side headlock, transistions, chokes, submissions, falls, stomps, bites, gouges, breaks
> 
> Weapons: single stick, double stick, stick and knife, single knife, double knife, interceptions, deflections, passes, disarms, many drills,
> 
> Sparring: weapons all double vs single, double vs double, knife vs stick, etc it goes on and on. empty hand, envrionmental, bottles, pool cues, helmet training with the blast, etc. It is all trained.
> 
> Concepts: five ways of attack, economy of motion, interceptions, closing the gap, attribute development, spatial awareness, line familurization, speed, power, timming, distance, sight, legal,
> 
> This was my cirruculum for openers. This is what would be covered your first year. It's just mine. influenced by people like Vunak, Inosanto, O'Melia and others. I know it's a concept type of approach, I know that Bruce Lee did not teach many thingas here and I know that others do it differently. There are many good people out there and many not so good. I believe that anything can be made to be functional if trained correctly. The essence of JKD is in it's function not it's techniques. Not sure if this adds any clarification or not. good luck in the search and Arnisador......Glad to hear you are still posting these days. Much respect for you.
> 
> :asian:



Thanks for posting this and for Thunder Foot for starting. Very informative


----------



## Blindside

Thunder Foot said:


> We can only punch and kick in do many ways as human beings so why not learn to kick and punch etc. completely and totally, devoid of this or that way of doing it?



A TKD guy kicks differently than a Muay Thai guy and differently than a Savate guy.  How do you kick?  Yeah, I get it, a "kick is just a kick" but you still need to define the technique so that you can teach it.  You can't go to a beginner and say "do a kick and make it come in from the side, just do whatever, a kick is just a kick."  There has to be structure to the training to teach the technique to maximize its effect.  Naming the methodology of where it comes from doesn't take away from the "simplicity" of the kick.


----------



## Thunder Foot

I agree in terms of beginners learning the tools/nucleus etc. making a starting point. But when we are talking about applying a principle to this or that method, we are talking about something beyond that... a level of understanding that comes from the liberation of a one way of doing it. I just don't think separate but equal is truly liberation and that's what you have when you continue to maintain the idea of doing this or that way. This is not simplicity.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Transk53 said:


> Thanks for posting this and for Thunder Foot for starting. Very informative


Actually Arnisador started this one 
I merely added two cents to the previous discussion.


----------



## Transk53

Thunder Foot said:


> Actually Arnisador started this one
> I merely added two cents to the previous discussion.



Oh appologies to Arnisador


----------



## wingchun100

James Kovacich said:


> Very hard to answer correctly. So "correct" may be in the eyes of the beholder. I think the biggest "pushers" of the pure concept without the underlying art are the self taught newbies that justify "their" self taught JKD.
> 
> JKD does have an underlying structure which is used to teach the concept/art of JKD. We can borrow from other arts and still follow the concepts but these other arts in their "whole" do not fall within the concept.
> 
> Most first and second generation JKD students learned Jun Fan. I don't think that Dan Inosanto would certify anyone that he did not "expose" to Jun Fan. His student (second generation) Paul Vunak learned Jun Fan. Why was this "art of no art" included in the curriculum? Because it falls within the "concepts" and it is a "proven" method of teaching JKD.
> 
> From what I've seen most of the third and fourth generation students today teach less Jun Fan and some teach none. So is their curriculum JKD? Yes, because they went through the "process" of learning JKD and were given "approval" by their instructor.
> 
> 
> I think that Bruce must have known that eventually their would be little of his original art left but I can't imagine how the "art of no art" can be continually taught (when it is only a concept), it is quite often very differant and usually always has the same name.
> 
> :asian:



It certainly would have been interesting to see how his art developed with his age, as his abilities changed. Would he still be able to punch as fast today as he could when he died? Probably not, so how would he have compensated?


----------



## arnisador

Age, yes. But not just changes to his abilities--many JKDers have added groundfighting in a serious way. Would he have done so as that came on the scene in a big way via BJJ? Things do keep happening!


----------



## wingchun100

arnisador said:


> Age, yes. But not just changes to his abilities--many JKDers have added groundfighting in a serious way. Would he have done so as that came on the scene in a big way via BJJ? Things do keep happening!



Ah yes, he DID die before the Gracies became a household name. Interesting point!


----------



## Makalakumu

In my experience, JKD has a similar philosophy to MMA but it's not contained to the rule set for competition. This means you can sort of tailor what you know to who you are and what you like to do. At the club that we practiced, we worked A LOT of weapons because that's what the coach liked to do. For empty hand, we practiced Thai boxing, Silat, Wing Chun, catch wrestling, and jujutsu. None of it was as high level if you trained those things exclusively, but all together it was a very interesting package.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Just for the record, Bruce never actually named anything he taught as "Jun Fan", this was the name of his school coined after his Chinese name "Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute" where he taught Wing Chun. Tim Tackett, has an excellent audio interview where he gives his personal account of training there and what was taught and clears up the fallacy of "Jun Fan Gung Fu" as it's own inherent fighting system.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Separate but equal... is this liberation? flowing from one art to the other... is this totality? Simplicity?


----------



## James Kovacich

It is if it's the simplest, most direct movements. Also, if your just using a technique or sequence from another source, your not really flowing from one art to another. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Transk53

For some reason where I am, the Sifu likes to use spinning back kicks. I feel a right pillock sometimes as I know I simply will not be able to master them. Could not do it years ago and nothing will change now. He holds two Black belts in TKD, one a 4th Dan and the other a 1st Dan. I can understand that mindset, use what you have got, but I am struggling with the notion that it should in JKD. I am not the only one who thinks that way, but I am still there to learn and if I don't like it etc.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Flowing from one art to another is still..... moving from one art to another art isn't it?
I don't recall Bruce having to flow from one to another.... he could perform one strike which embodied the essence of his research. Are these one in the same? Or merely the same in one's view?


----------



## Transk53

Thunder Foot said:


> Flowing from one art to another is still..... moving from one art to another art isn't it?
> I don't recall Bruce having to flow from one to another.... he could perform one strike which embodied the essence of his research. Are these one in the same? Or merely the same in one's view?



I am reading this right, then yes I agree with you. However, to me it feels like an extension of personality, rather than actually fitting. I would argue that Bruce would it as unnecessary. Just my own personal viewpoint, not meant to disrespect.


----------



## Thunder Foot

None taken.
In American history we called "separate but equal" segregation, a form of discrimination in relation to people. How is this ideology not segregation in the form of Martial Art? How can this be seen as "integration"?


----------



## knight2000

Thunder Foot said:


> Just for the record, Bruce never actually named anything he taught as "Jun Fan", this was the name of his school coined after his Chinese name "Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute" where he taught Wing Chun. Tim Tackett, has an excellent audio interview where he gives his personal account of training there and what was taught and clears up the fallacy of "Jun Fan Gung Fu" as it's own inherent fighting system.



Actually you are very wrong. By the time Mr Tackett trained in LA Chinatown it was JKD being taught in the Jun Fan Gung fu institute. However, in Seattle and early on in Oakland it was Jun Fan Gung Fu being taught. I quote several letters to Taky Kimura that refers to the Jun Fan system picking up where Wing Chun left off.


----------



## Thunder Foot

knight2000 said:


> Actually you are very wrong. By the time Mr Tackett trained in LA Chinatown it was JKD being taught in the Jun Fan Gung fu institute. However, in Seattle and early on in Oakland it was Jun Fan Gung Fu being taught. I quote several letters to Taky Kimura that refers to the Jun Fan system picking up where Wing Chun left off.


Interesting, do you have sources for these quotes? Because everytime I've seen JFGF, its always been followed by "Institute". For example in addition to Tackett's audio interview, here's an excerpt from Dan Inosanto's book "Jeet Kune Do -The Art & Philosophy of Bruce Lee":


			
				 "Jeet Kune Do - The Art & Philosophy of Bruce Lee" said:
			
		

> So as he began to see that Wing Chun placed too much emphasis on close range or in-fighting (hand techniques) at the expense of long-range (kicking techniques) fighting, Bruce incorporated some of the more refined kicks of the Northern Chinese styles. And it is this hybrid form of Wing Chun that today we refer to as Jun Fan. Originally though, the term (Jun Fan) was used to designate the school &#8211; not art &#8211; of Bruce Lee. You see, the Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute was the name Bruce gave to the non-commercial establishments in Seattle, Oakland, and Los Angeles; and later the meaning again shifted somewhat to mean &#8220;the place where Jeet Kune Do trains.&#8221;



Likewise, here is a copy of the cetificate Taky received from Bruce for the Seattle school, which notes that he is an Instructor at the institute where the Wing Chun was taught...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Bruce Lee's Original Plans For The Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute 

From Shannon Lee



> I went into the archives to pull original notes and documents that my father typed and used as his blueprint to start his school, Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute.


----------



## Thunder Foot

nice post Xue. We can clearly see in Bruce's notes "Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute" everytime it's mentioned, as well as "Chinese Gung Fu" anytime Gung Fu is mentioned.


----------



## Xue Sheng

You may also want to take a look at "Chinese Gung Fu: The Philosophical Art of Self-Defense by Bruce Lee". I would look myself and quote what s needed but reading is rather difficult at the moment.... as is typing


----------



## Thunder Foot

Yes, I have that one. In all honesty I was hoping to get some sources to read showing otherwise before giving it another read through.


----------



## Towel Snapper

JKD does have set techniques for most people, JKD is bound by science, it has rigidity, it has form, and that form alters slightly for each individual, but nearly everyone is going to be using a lead hand finger jab to the eyes, because its such a useful devastating and scientific weapon. Its just too good to leave out. Its always going to be in there. Its fast, its untelegraphic, it can potentially end them in one blow, its close to the target, it travels a straight line etc etc etc

Unless you a slow, short armed, fingerless dwarf its gonna be in your style. As are other high % tried and tested techniques.


----------



## Thunder Foot

People always mention that "Jun Fan Gung Fu" is the core of JKD, but we are challenging our JKD community to take another look at this framework. Because according to his notes and those that trained with him, Bruce never created a Jun Fan system. He did however teach Wing Chun to students who didn't know what it was. Now if one is confused on what the core of their martial art is, then their foundation becomes weak and no structure can be built upon it.

After training both sides of the JKD coin and then training in Wing Chun, I can honestly say that a majority of our community simply does not understand the core of jkd nor it's principles. One simply can not evolve/progress past that which is outside of their experience.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Going back to the OP, I believe the minimum requirement is really Wing Chun. If I think about it, that's where all of Bruce's principles of Martial Art were learned; principles that he continued up to the end.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thunder Foot said:


> Going back to the OP, I believe the minimum requirement is really Wing Chun. If I think about it, that's where all of Bruce's principles of Martial Art were learned; principles that he continued up to the end.



That is pretty much what the guy I briefly trained with said


----------



## arnisador

That seems to match what's done in practice--I just wonder how far you could take absorb what is useful/reject what isn't and not have Bruce Lee say "Dude, that's not what I meant".


----------



## Xue Sheng

arnisador said:


> That seems to match what's done in practice--I just wonder how far you could take absorb what is useful/reject what isn't and not *have Bruce Lee say "Dude, that's not what I meant*".



Sadly I think you run into that as soon as you walk into a school that calls itself a JKD school with a set curriculum


----------



## Thunder Foot

I cant think of another way to get the message across. There would have to be a starting point, wouldn't there?
If such a thing as minimum curriculum did exist, I would think that it would lie in the principles and however one can express them in their purest capable form.


----------

