# Confused about JKD



## Hurdoc (May 7, 2003)

First my background, I have no experience in martial arts however I have been researching extensively over the last month in my pursuit for one.  
That said, JKD sounds interesting but I'm a little concerned about its "vagueness". In other words, its claim that its "formless" and takes a little from "whatever works". So if it specializes in nothing and encompasses all, what differentiates it from any mixed martial art and/or combat style like Systema, Krav Maga, Shoot Fighting, etc? I worry about a "jack of all trades, master of none" effect. Perhaps I have a traditional understanding of martial arts but it sounds frighteningly vague for a newbie like myself to start.  
My second concern is that does it work? In other words, other martial arts have been "time-tested" in that they have lasted hundreds if not thousands of years. Plus they have been used in combat situations. I know that many of the techniques are no longer practially needed (unseating a mounted samurai  ), but you understand what I mean.
I'm not criticizing to no end, this is a means to relieve my own doubts so I can choose the right MA for me! Thanks!

Just wanted to add, a lot of the principles in JKD seem similar to the "scientific" approach of American Kenpo, with a breakdown of the structure of moves and fluidity of motion. In fact, aren't they quite similar? Particularly since many American Kenpo teachers also instruct in Filipino stick/trapping arts? Again, the reason I ask is that I have American Kenpo available in my town as well


----------



## Matt Stone (May 7, 2003)

All are One.

The Form of No Form and Technique of No Technique thing is highly misunderstood.  It is simply a philosophical metaphor describing destruction of self-imposed limitations.

There is no such thing as punching without technique.  Every time you hear Vunak say "I'll use this Muay Thai kick, and this Filipino trap" he is using technique.  His No Technique is the fact that he draws on multiple sources rather than confining himself and his methods to one style alone...

If it were me, with the huge variance between JKD teachers, I'd go with the Kenpo...

But then, I'm a TMA a-hole, so what do I know? 

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Hurdoc (May 7, 2003)

Aye, that is my concern. That given the lack of a fixed curriculum (at least that is how it appears to my inexperienced mind), how do I discern "good" JKD? Although the school in my area http://www.jkdfamily.com/instructors.html appeasr to be a good one...


----------



## Samurai (May 8, 2003)

As with any martial art......it is the TEACHER and not the style that makes all the difference in the world.

Go to the JKD school.  Ask for a Free intro class.
Then go to the American Kenpo school and do the same.

THEN and ONLY THEN........make your choice.
Thanks
Jeremy Bays


----------



## sweeper (May 8, 2003)

jkd is an od art just because it is relativly small yet it can be so political basicly because of a lack of leadership..  most teachers are diffrent..  the teachers that tend to have the most in common are the ones that have practiced togeather (obviously) apart from that they all seem to do everything diffrent.

As far as the vagueness goes, alot of it is because of the writings on JKD. Bruce lee never wrote out a book on JKD, all the books that have his name on the are compilations of his notes that were published after his death. And of course however faithfull the people editing the books have been, they are using a very limited medium (basicly making a literary collage).

And then there is also a diffrence between the conceptual understanding of jeet kune do and the body of techniques that you learn. Jeet Kune Do as a concept or idea is not a martial art, it sort of a way of looking at a martial art, but jeet kune do as a martial art is something else, something a little more direct, alot of people prefer to call that body of information (the physical stuff) Jun Fan Kickboxing/Kung Fu. Because that was what bruce lee called it before he called it jeet kune do/ The martial art is usualy what people start out doing, and usualy the conceptual stuff is added in latter on.

But of course the above description won't hold everywhere and even to my own understanding it isn't 100% correct (it's hard to put it all into words). So the best solution is just to visit the place and ask the instructor directly how he teaches and why they do things in the way they do.


----------



## James Kovacich (May 9, 2003)

Hurdoc,

The answer given by sweeper was good. He need to experience first hand. There are good and bad instructors all around us. 

Check them both out, but go to the JKD school first. The reasoning is the actual techniques that you will learn. 

JKD varies from school to school and teacher to teacher. But there are many positive things that are in ALL JKD schools that you will not find in a Kenpo school.

Like no chambered punches. All strikes come from a natural position. Punching with your fist starting at the hip is not natural. There are reasons why the arts were taught that way. But JKD eliminates the unnecesary and only practices what is useful.

Please don't misunderstand "use what is useful and reject what is useless."

The many quotes that you hear "outsiders" quoting are for the most part misinterpeted. There is no way that they can fully understand them without themselves have "completed" through the process of JKD.

Take a look at this thread and my post, hope that helps.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=7648
 :asian:


----------



## Matt Stone (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Like no chambered punches. All strikes come from a natural position. Punching with your fist starting at the hip is not natural. There are reasons why the arts were taught that way. But JKD eliminates the unnecesary and only practices what is useful.*



Kind of like "real" martial arts...  I don't know of anyone that practices traditional martial arts that fights with their hands/fists on their hips, nor any that chamber/rechamber their punches all the way back to the hips everytime.  

Strikes and kicks are stronger the farther they travel.  The longer the distance, the more "oomph" they have on impact.  That is why a good, strong lunging punch will be more potent than a jab.  However, in the "heat of battle," strikes come from wherever the hand may be at that moment.

The belief that strikes must be fired from the hip everytime is characteristic of a) poor instruction (on the part of the teacher teaching this untruth) and b) lack of exposure to real traditional arts (for those who believe that traditional martial arts = horse riding stances and punching from the hip 100% of the time).

JKD has some interesting points, but before deciding on one art over another, be sure to check the hype in _both_ camps before making the final decision...  BMW dealers get paid to sell BMWs, not Hondas.  So if you are shopping around and want to know the truth, ask someone that has no interest in either BMWs *or* Hondas.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (May 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Kind of like "real" martial arts...  I don't know of anyone that practices traditional martial arts that fights with their hands/fists on their hips, nor any that chamber/rechamber their punches all the way back to the hips everytime.
> 
> Strikes and kicks are stronger the farther they travel.  The longer the distance, the more "oomph" they have on impact.  That is why a good, strong lunging punch will be more potent than a jab.  However, in the "heat of battle," strikes come from wherever the hand may be at that moment.
> ...



I agree and I am training in some traditional systems although I am not teaching them.

But the biggest factor when I mentioned the chambered punch as an example is that is the way the punches "will be practiced" in most schools. And we know that what we practice is what comes natural to us in a real situation.

I know like you that when I was young and fought, I did not punch from the hip. But I have seen the results firsthand of several people who never trained traditional, just pure Jun Fan and they are great fighters.

I agree with quite a bit of what you say but not the BMW analogy because in this particular situation its impossible to get the "correct" information about JKD from non-JKDer's. it then is opinion but does not carry enough weight to be acuate.:asian:


----------



## twinkletoes (May 26, 2003)

JKD and American Kenpo *SHOULD* lead to similar results.  In reality they don't.  I'm a 15-year Kenpo man who is slowly migrating towards JKD instead.  

It shouldn't be a surprise:  Ed Parker and Bruce Lee were friends.  They saw eye to eye on many ideas.  However, both of their arts saw absurd fragmentation and misinterpretation after they died.  

If you read Parker's works, it sounds like Bruce's material:  be formless, whatever works works, there is no truth except for experience, etc. etc.  However, Kenpo is not trained (anywhere I've seen) in a way that creates this effect.  Furthermore, in some place, JKD is not trained this way either.  

For a good idea on how JKD training is supposed to lead to formless results, while being a set curriculum, check out the article by Roy Harris called "What is JKD?"  It's excellent.  He clearly explains his approach to JKD.  His site is www.royharris.com. 

Best,

~Chris


----------



## jkdman (Jun 1, 2003)

JKD and Kenpo have the same basic concepts. As was pointed out Master parker and Bruce were friends and borrowed greatly from one another. They are two sides of the same coin. Point of fact lots of JKDmen and women take kenpo as well. My instructor Thomas C. Cruse once told me as I headed to kenpo class that JKD is the merely the hand that fits in the glove of other martial arts." I hope this cryptic answer is not truly as cryptic as it appears at first. :asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jkdman _
> *JKD and Kenpo have the same basic concepts. As was pointed out Master parker and Bruce were friends and borrowed greatly from one another. They are two sides of the same coin. Point of fact lots of JKDmen and women take kenpo as well. My instructor Thomas C. Cruse once told me as I headed to kenpo class that JKD is the merely the hand that fits in the glove of other martial arts." I hope this cryptic answer is not truly as cryptic as it appears at first. :asian: *



This can only be true in theory as they relate to philosiphical aspects of the arts.

JKD has a base art which is totally differant than Kenpo, just because ALL JKD is so differant and MOST Kenpo is not that differant.

And because JKD's base system of Jun Fan is differant to start with and as the process of JKD evolves it becomes "its own" and I don't beleive that Kenpo ever reaches that point.
:asian:


----------



## twinkletoes (Jun 3, 2003)

akja-

I will agree with what you've said but make a tiny correction: 

OJKD starts with Jun Fan.  Not all JKD-C practitioners start with Jun Fan (many do, to be sure).  But there are other JKD-C guys who don't start with a "base art" at all.  (I'm thinking of, say, the Straight Blast Gym guys, for example).  

I definitely agree that this makes for a broader range of starting points in the JKD community than the Kenpoka, who start with fairly similar beginnings.  

And I COMPLETELY agree that "as the process of JKD evolves it becomes "its own" and I don't believe that Kenpo ever reaches that point."  

But it certainly should.....

~TT


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *akja-
> 
> I will agree with what you've said but make a tiny correction:
> ...



See, you touched something else too.

I beleive that JKD should start with Jun Fan or else it's  only relation to JKD is purely conceptual and thats why there are so many people that beleive there is "no art," just "concepts." I think at that point a name change may be appropriate.

There is so much to JKD that I don't do or for that matter beleive in, but thats what makes them all so differant.
:asian:


----------



## sweeper (Jun 3, 2003)

well I think it depends on what someone wants to learn, if it's jun fan, JF/JKD or JKD.

Jun Fan being the base art, JF/JKD being a combination and JKD being the conceptual end..  If I recal bruce lee put an article in blackbelt about Jeet Kune Do, it's kinda hard to find it around (partly because blackbeltmag's archives are missing that issue) but it basicly said Jeet Kune Do is not a martial art at all..  In that article I saw nothing that would have made the study of jun fan nessisary to move into jeet kune do. Of course every students interpretation and understanding of what jeet kune do is, is diffrent. wich makes learning it rather hard.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sweeper _
> *well I think it depends on what someone wants to learn, if it's jun fan, JF/JKD or JKD.
> 
> Jun Fan being the base art, JF/JKD being a combination and JKD being the conceptual end..  If I recal bruce lee put an article in blackbelt about Jeet Kune Do, it's kinda hard to find it around (partly because blackbeltmag's archives are missing that issue) but it basicly said Jeet Kune Do is not a martial art at all..  In that article I saw nothing that would have made the study of jun fan nessisary to move into jeet kune do. Of course every students interpretation and understanding of what jeet kune do is, is diffrent. wich makes learning it rather hard. *



To achieve Jeet Kune Do there are differant roads leading to one destination. But even in the concept camp, like Dan Inosantos school, I'm sure the students will learn Jun Fan. 

When it goes from instructor to instructor and goes through its "own evolution" of becoming what it will become with each instructor, it becomes differant. 

Then why even call it just Jeet Kune Do anymore? It deserves a new name.

JF/JKD is a new name made up in the '90's and it was all political.

Jun Fan Gung-Fu and Jeet Kune Do are 2 phases of the "whole," one without the other is not complete. 

If its all "conceptual" then the name should be slightly changed to something like Tom Smiths Jeet Kune Do. Many already do this but some don't and they should, I'm sure Bruce would of even "encouraged" them to. 

Because he taught them that "his" Jeet Kune Do was not "their Jeet Kune Do."
:asian:


----------



## jkdman (Jun 3, 2003)

> If its all "conceptual" then the name should be slightly changed to something like Tom Smiths Jeet Kune Do. Many already do this but some don't and they should, I'm sure Bruce would of even "encouraged" them to.



You seem so caught up in keeping JKD a certain way. Bruce himself says that is stupid JKD is supposed to free people from such bickering. It is just a buch of concepts. Bruce had a pure JKD school and shut it down because people got caught up in the name JKD. Bruce addresses this in the very last page of Tao of Jeet Kune Do. "Jeet Kune Do is not to hurt, but is one of the avenues through which life opens its secrets to us. We can see others only when we can see through ourseleves and Jeet Kune Do is a step toward knowing oneself. Self-Knowledge is the basis of Jeet Kune Do because it is effective, not only for the individual's martial art but also for his life as a human being. Learning Jeet Kune Do is not a matter of stylized pattern, but is discovering the cause of ignorance.  *If people says Jeet Kune Do is different from "this" or "that," then let the name of Jeet Kune Do  be wiped out, for that is what it is, just a name. Please do not fuss over it.*  I am saying Jun Fan can not be studied, but what I find strange is this: If Jun Fan a style a martial art is taught as bruce made it and is so important. Than why does Bruce say JKD is not martial. He says it is not to hurt people, ergo not martial in intent. He aslo says that JKD is not stylized, so why must one study a particular style in order to do Jeet Kune Do? These are the questions that puzzle and perplex me. I would like to point out that the basis for what I said was direct from Bruce the organizer of the concepts called Jeet Kune Do. He said in an interview that if you intercepts a punch than it  was JKD. However, If one intercepts a kick than it was Jeet Tek Do. The emphasis was on interception. Even Bruce was loose with the name. Why cannot the people who believe and apply these same concepts be the same.  JKD is unique to each person. We each understand the base concepts differntly so all we can do as teachers is as Bruce said in Tao of Gung Fu: a good teachers merely points a person down his own path and guides the journey. A teacher doesn't make clones or say you must dio that or this. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the book in front of me. Still the point is the same. My Friend and teacher Thomas Cruse says on his tapes and when you train with him in person: "I am not going to show anything you may not have already seen somewhere else. I am not going to show a brand new drill or way of hitting. What I am going to do is show you my slant on it." 

Just some thoughts, 

Jkdman


----------



## XtremeJ_AKKI (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by twinkletoes _
> *And I COMPLETELY agree that "as the process of JKD evolves it becomes "its own" and I don't believe that Kenpo ever reaches that point." *



 The goal of both American Kenpo and JKD is to simply *" float in totality. "* Sure, we can water down Kenpo to make it simpler, however we'd be cutting off that which makes our advanced students the well-rounded fighters that they are. I would think that someone with 15 years in the art would recognize this. 

 The American Kenpo student, given the knowledge and capacity to evolve in his/her methods of application, will eventually and inevitably reach a point of self-expression. Don't assume that because people do the same technique ( or variations there of ), they have no self-expression in their art.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jkdman _
> *You seem so caught up in keeping JKD a certain way. Bruce himself says that is stupid JKD is supposed to free people from such bickering. It is just a buch of concepts. Bruce had a pure JKD school and shut it down because people got caught up in the name JKD. Bruce addresses this in the very last page of Tao of Jeet Kune Do. "Jeet Kune Do is not to hurt, but is one of the avenues through which life opens its secrets to us. We can see others only when we can see through ourseleves and Jeet Kune Do is a step toward knowing oneself. Self-Knowledge is the basis of Jeet Kune Do because it is effective, not only for the individual's martial art but also for his life as a human being. Learning Jeet Kune Do is not a matter of stylized pattern, but is discovering the cause of ignorance.  If people says Jeet Kune Do is different from "this" or "that," then let the name of Jeet Kune Do  be wiped out, for that is what it is, just a name. Please do not fuss over it.  I am saying Jun Fan can not be studied, but what I find strange is this: If Jun Fan a style a martial art is taught as bruce made it and is so important. Than why does Bruce say JKD is not martial. He says it is not to hurt people, ergo not martial in intent. He aslo says that JKD is not stylized, so why must one study a particular style in order to do Jeet Kune Do? These are the questions that puzzle and perplex me. I would like to point out that the basis for what I said was direct from Bruce the organizer of the concepts called Jeet Kune Do. He said in an interview that if you intercepts a punch than it  was JKD. However, If one intercepts a kick than it was Jeet Tek Do. The emphasis was on interception. Even Bruce was loose with the name. Why cannot the people who believe and apply these same concepts be the same.  JKD is unique to each person. We each understand the base concepts differntly so all we can do as teachers is as Bruce said in Tao of Gung Fu: a good teachers merely points a person down his own path and guides the journey. A teacher doesn't make clones or say you must dio that or this. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the book in front of me. Still the point is the same. My Friend and teacher Thomas Cruse says on his tapes and when you train with him in person: "I am not going to show anything you may not have already seen somewhere else. I am not going to show a brand new drill or way of hitting. What I am going to do is show you my slant on it."
> 
> Just some thoughts,
> ...



I'll start off by saying that I am a product of the way I was trained, by a man of men, a true master to the word who refuses to use the words Jeet Kune Do.
http://www.geocities.com/Tao_Of_Gung_Fu/The_Nucleus_Of_Gung_Fu.html

I'm not caught up at all on keeping JKD anyway. I refer to the way I beleive the process of JKD "should begin" and where it ends and everything in between is up to the individual JKD instructors and fighters.

I've had long talks with a lot of people and after talking about the way I was trained, I've been told that I am one of the fortunate few. They don't see to many people teach the way the maciases do. JKD is about the individual fighter but when Sigung comes over and tells you Bruce would show you this way, I kneww I was getting something that others weren't.

My personal JKD is hardly like my Sifus. Nothing wrong with that. With my students, they learn JKD but they don't. I teach them Kempo Jujitsu which is my own flavor. They will learn all the technique plus my additions and subtractions. They may achieve JKD and they may not. If they do, they will promote in JKD. But no one pays for a JKD class. If they "achieve it", they graduate and then again they could be 4th Dan and not achieve JKD.

:asian:


----------



## jkdman (Jun 3, 2003)

You miss my point and proved my point all at the same time. Bruce said that JKD is a concept. Not a name. I understand that you have a great sifu and that is wonderful. I have quite a few high ranking and well established martial artist. I do not throw their names around because that is bragging. Answer me this, how can one be a master of an idea. You say that you say he is a master of the art,  Bruce said JKD was not a style but a way of looking at yourself. Bruce hated when people called it an art. If people fuss over the name can be replaced with if people brag over the name. If you cannot master looking at yourself for who you are then that is sad indeed and if you can you would never call yourself a master or allow people to brag on you because you would see how futile that would be. I was not meaning to upset you. Just to merely say that JKD does not start with anything other than a few base concepts and an open mind/heart. It needs not a base style because it has no style. If it needed a style why not Kenpo it is very similiar to the concepts we learn already. You could use any art to jump into JKD or no art the choice is yours because it is a way of looking at things. My point was solely that the concepts we learn are just that concepts, that may be learned by anyone with any level of martial arts experience. Even if that level is 0 and those people still deserve the same certificate or right to teach that anyone else has.  You do not need a specific class prior to learning an idea or a concept. 

Sorry I upset you


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jkdman _
> *You miss my point and proved my point all at the same time. Bruce said that JKD is a concept. Not a name. I understand that you have a great sifu and that is wonderful. I have quite a few high ranking and well established martial artist. I do not throw their names around because that is bragging. Answer me this, how can one be a master of an art when Bruce said JKD was not a style but a way of looking at yourself. If you cannot master looking at yourself for who you are then that is sad indeed and if you can you would never call yourself a master or allow people to brag on you because you would see how futile that would be. I was not meaning to upset you. Just to merely say that JKD does not start with anything other than a few base concepts and an open mind/heart. It needs not a base style because it has no style. If it needed a style why not Kenpo it is very similiar to the concepts we learn already. You could use any art to jump into JKD or no art the choice is yours because it is a way of looking at things.
> 
> Sorry I upset you *



I was just expressing how I've changed since learning from my Sifu and "my beliefs" that "I've" developed. I teach Jun Fan first and work on a lot of ground work. Thats my way. I understand the "destination" and I "choose " to use what I deem useful.

You know the sensitivity goes well with ground grappling too. We use Thai and western boxing but my core is where my heart is in Jun Fan and Jujitsu.

You it is funny because in a way you proved your own point by saying what JKD is. "We" both know Bruce said a lot of things in his life and much of it will contradict itself. So it is natural to assume that what he said and what he emphasized just before his death "is going be be right."

I'm a product of the way ""I was trained, so my way will be mine in the respect of original or concept. JKD is what you make it but the "differances" come from how we get there.

I know many JKD people and JKD is always going to be differant. Good or bad? Dosen't matter. My journey is mine.:asian:


----------



## jkdman (Jun 3, 2003)

I understand it is your journey and I never had a problem with that. However, my problem came when you said that your path was the only path. You said basically that if you dont study the style of Jun fan (which I hope to study and have done seminars to learn about it because I respect it greatly) then you are not doing JKD. To prove your point you bragged about a guy (who by the way has good outlook. I saw the site.) who is a "master" and so you had to be right. My only point is: There are many paths that can lead one to the concepts of interception that is called JKD, but no matter how you get there it is still the same place when you arrive. Yes I said alot of Bruce said, but it is Bruce Lee who organized the ideas and coined the phrase so when talking about something we should look at the creator or founder or whatever Bruce should be called. If we can look for answers to what JKD is from the guy who decided hey let's call it JKD then who are we supposed to look to get those answers. You seem like a decent guy with a real passion and I respect that. Just do not limit what is limitless. The conjis around Bruce's logo say having no way as way, so can jun fan be the way to learn JKD when there is no way of JKD. It is called the way of no way. There again By Bruce.

Hey hope we can be friends. I like your insight on several points.


----------



## twinkletoes (Jun 3, 2003)

I stand by my *earlier* example of the Straight Blast Gym guys as people who are considered JKDC but do not use Jun Fan.   

On top of that, they don't consider themselves to really be JKD-anything except for JKD-FUNCTIONAL.  

Their schools teach from a boxing/savate & greco & BJJ base, with tremendous advances made in clinch and weapons training.  Their materials are AWESOME.  (And there is no reference to Jun Fan ANYWHERE).  

~Chris


----------



## jkdman (Jun 3, 2003)

Thanks TT. I appreciate what you said and you brought a great example Matt and all the SBG affilates are just great fighters and true to there roots. I really like those guys. They don't even use the word JKD anymore to many politics involved. Matt has an interview that you can find a link to on defend.net forum that backs this point well.


----------



## sweeper (Jun 4, 2003)

everyone teaches JKD in a diffrent way..  none to long ago (if it has even changed) dan inosanto would require students to learn jun fan before going into JKD..  Most older instructors learned jun fan than JKD..  In alot of ways Jun fan is a very good starting point to move twards JKD, but Jun Fan is not perfect. Bruce lee died in a period where his fighting system was undergoing a great deal of change, than no one wanted to change anything out of respect for him so it kinda froze. It is undoubtable that it would have changed, no one nessisaraly knows how, but everyone knows that if it would have than it wasn't complete wich is why I think it's perfectly acceptable to take a diffrent path..  But I would also point out that people mean diffrent things when they say "Jeet Kune Do". In fact I think Lee meant diffrent things depending on when you would have asked him..  In the begining it sounded like a style or system of fighting, by the end it sounded like a mindset you are in when fighting. I would also point out that bruce lee didn't write the "tao of jeet kune do" or "the tao of gung fu".

People are starting to change the name though, you have the JFJKD people the JF/JKDGA the PFS people, etc..  It's starting to diversify wich I think is a very good thing.

(edit) P.S. Almost forgot to point out, at the time of bruce lee's death he hadn't realy studied all that much, there was alot that he had wanted to research about fighting but he neve had the chance. TwinkleToes reminded me of this when bringing up sevate.


----------



## jkdman (Jun 4, 2003)

Thanks for your reply. I agree with everything but these two things The tao of gung fu was paper he wrote in college that john little released as a book so Bruce did write the tao of Gung Fu. It is explained in the preface of the book. Secondly, The words of Tao of Jeet Kune Do were notes that Bruce wrote and Dan Insosanto and several of his students put in order so those are Bruce's words. Other than that you are bang on with everything I appreciate what you said.


----------



## KennethKu (Jun 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jkdman _
> I understand it is your journey and I never had a problem with that. However, my problem came when you said that your path was the only path. You said basically that if you dont study the style of Jun fan (which I hope to study and have done seminars to learn about it because I respect it greatly) then you are not doing JKD. ....



Some JKD people have said just that.  But I don't believe AKJA is one of them.

JKD takes a systematic method to training, which has been long adopted by most MA.  But JKD has no fixed fighting system/style that it must adhere to.  Most other arts have their methods of fighting.  JKD frees you from such constrain but guide you with a set of principles in your exploration for methods to win a fight.  This is like today's military. No military, the successfull ones, would be illogical enough to insist on adhering to the founder's style of war fighting. Rather, they learn from all other successful military, past and present. And learn to fight war according to the constrains of the battlefields, logistics and political objectives.


----------



## jkdman (Jun 4, 2003)

That is a great example and extremely well thought out. I like this forum much better than all the others i have been to. People here seem highly intelligent. I really appreciated the post on this topic. Thank you.


----------



## sweeper (Jun 4, 2003)

*sigh* now I have to go hunt down my tao of gung fu book 
(edit) ok found it (tao of kung fu)


> While Lee scrapped the idea of publishing this book, he didnot scrap his research notes or sample chapters. Lee left behind substantial chapter writings, notes, photographs, and research materials for books on both gung fu and his then newly created martial art of jeet kune do.


So the book was never completed, John Little completed it from notes. He basicly had an outline and tried to color within the lines using inks from Lee's library. In my opinion that is not the same thing as being writen by bruce lee.


Tao of JKD was a compilation of notes and quotes though, by their very nature they are all out of context and then it was attempted to put them back into context, however considering Bruce Lee's death was somewhat unexpected I realy don't think that was entirly posable..  Some conclusions people draw from the tao of JKD directly contradict papers bruce lee wrote previous to his death.


----------



## jkdman (Jun 4, 2003)

You are correct some conclusions contradict as with anything that elvoves. However, the one's I used at the end of the book are th one's Bruce and even Dan have said for years are at heart of the concepts.


----------



## sweeper (Jun 4, 2003)

yes but a broad ranging or open ended maxim or axiom can be used to justify virtualy anything. There are other rules, posably soft rules but still there are rules that govern what is/isn't JKD.

The one thing I would whole heartedly agree with is the concept of interception..  I recal a quote of Bruce lee saying that JKD was his expresion of the Pak Sao. I think that says it all right there.


----------



## jkdman (Jun 4, 2003)

I brought that up in a previous post. It seems you and I just might be on the same page just saying things differently. What do you think?


----------



## sweeper (Jun 13, 2003)

I don't know, I tihnk we would have to be a little more objective..  It seems that you think the books have value as a training resorce(maybe I am mistaken?), I personaly diagree. I think their primary use is in understanding bruce lee.

As to JKD..  It's just to hard to discuss the conceptual side of JKD through the internet in this medium. Heck it's hard to talk about it face to face. My personal opinion on the matter is everyone should drop the name JKD that doesn't teach it for historical preservation and adopt apersonal name for what they do. I think alot of instructors feal they are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place because they want to give credit where credit is due and they want to give respect to their teachers, yet they know sometimes that there is something that should be changed for a more omptimal practice. Odds are we would agree on the JKD thing if we were talking face to face


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sweeper _
> *I don't know, I tihnk we would have to be a little more objective..  It seems that you think the books have value as a training resorce(maybe I am mistaken?), I personaly diagree. I think their primary use is in understanding bruce lee.
> 
> As to JKD..  It's just to hard to discuss the conceptual side of JKD through the internet in this medium. Heck it's hard to talk about it face to face. My personal opinion on the matter is everyone should drop the name JKD that doesn't teach it for historical preservation and adopt apersonal name for what they do. I think alot of instructors feal they are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place because they want to give credit where credit is due and they want to give respect to their teachers, yet they know sometimes that there is something that should be changed for a more omptimal practice. Odds are we would agree on the JKD thing if we were talking face to face  *



Thats why I teach my Kempo Ju Jitsu which "as far as technique goes" my students learn the technical side of JKD plus my expanded version. As far as the "philisophical side goes" if a student "reaches" an understanding of JKD they will get certified in JKD, if they don't, they won't. :asian:


----------

