# Bruce Lee, Jun Fan Gung Fu/Wing Chun



## upstanding_dragon

Hello all,

What do you think of Bruce's creation of Jun Fan Gung Fu? He never studied the full Wing Chun system after all, maybe he should have studied it in full before improving it.

I'm always put off going to a JKD school because of th Jun Fan portion, because I would personally prefer to study classical wing chun, so I could see for myself.

I've been to a couple of Ron Balicki seminars, and I really enjoyed them, quite liked the JKD parts, but I feel like I'd be studying a watered down version of modified wing chun.

Bruce Lee didn't like forms, and he taught Chi Sau,
but I believe that Bruce's chi sau was so good, because of his hours and hours of form practice in the past.
I don't think Bruce understood the true meaning and value of forms and kata.

I'm an open minded martial artist, and I hope I don't appear ignorant, I love cross training, and I love the JKD concept, and the flowing of ranges.
I just feel uncomfortable with the jun fan gung fu.

What are your views?

Thank you, best wishes!

Stefan

http://www.networkofmartialarts.co.uk


----------



## achilles

I can see that if what you want is wing chun then you should probably do wing chun.  I think this is analogous to criticizing American Football for not being rugby.  They are simply different.  Jun Fan and Wing Chun are similar in some respects, but if they are not meant to be the same.  I constantly see the argument that if Bruce Lee had learned the whole wing chun program that we never would have left.  While I can't refute this, indeed nobody can, it doesn't seem likely.  Most of what Bruce Lee did with Jun Fan and later with JKD was add long and middle range skills along with some grappling for close quarters.  In other words, the wing chun was modified, added to and in some instances stripped away.  As far as whether or not siu lim tao is essential to JKD, or chi sao for that matter, I would say no.  Being able to properly do tan sao, fook sao and boang sao with the correct pressure doesn't necessarily entail learning the particular sequence of the siu lim tao form.  In other words, I don't need to learn the alphabet in that particular sequence in order to spell or to learn proper syntax.

You may want to understand why forms were de-emphasized in JKD.  In form/kata training, you are rehearsing a pattern from memory rather than interacting with another body.  JKD is all about the dynamic relationship between bodies; thus, adaptability rather than memorization is key.  I would also like to point out that Jun Fan and JKD are not devoid of forms.  At various times Siu Lim Tao, the mook jang sets, kicking forms as well as the ng moon amoung others were taught as well as a variety of more or less standadized drills.  The techniques are presented to the student and passed down differently than in a more archain art, but are so none the less.


----------



## upstanding_dragon

Hi there, thanks for the reply!

I think my problem with it, is in the forms.

Anyone can learn the wing chun/jun fan hand techniques, tan sau, bong sau, fook sau etc. you could teach someone them in a day, and then drill them, but if you practise, lets say sil lum tao for about a year (which is standard in wing chun schools) then their technique will be fantastic, because the whole idea of sil lim tao "small idea" is about concentrating on the subtle movements, and like a meditation or movement.

Bruce himself at times practised sil lum tao and other forms, 100+ times per day.

The order in the form is irrelevant, but what you have in the form is your 'revision text' the full syllabus so to speak.

Same with Karate, when people say its unrealistic, because its a pre-arranged fighting, against simulated attacker/s. I disagree, the kata is the textbook, it holds all the techniques, and more (bunkai).

I agree though, that the techniques should be drilled with an interactive body, of course, but also with form practise.

I don't want my post to sound like a wing chun vs JKD, wing chun has a great deal of problems, that Bruce addressed, like the lack of effectiveness at other ranges.

But I do feel strongly that what made Bruce so good at his trapping, chi sau, and gung fu, was his history of traditional wing chun, and I believe this is something that is lost in jun fan gung fu.

Maybe one should learn wing chun, to see the roots, as well, as train the other ranges coverd in jun fan gung fu, such as the kick boxing, and grappling etc.

Thanks,

Stefan

http://www.networkofmartialarts.co.uk


----------



## achilles

Your post inspired me to try Siu Lim Tao yesterday  .  It's enjoyable, but I still stand by my original post.  I don't see any reason why you  can't perfect, say, tan sao simply by doing tan sao a whole lot with correct attention to detail.  I think that a technique can be practiced well and learned well outside of the context of the series of a form.  In basketball, sometimes people get into a ritual before making their free-throw (e.g. two dribbles before a shot).  I think that you could cut out the dribbles and simply shoot to improve your free throw.  The extra dribbles may not hurt, unless you are so stuck in that groove that your body can't perform the proper action outside of the context of the ritual, but everything else besides the shot is inessential.  While I am sure that proficiency in Wing Chun might help one's JKD, I don't think it is necessary.


----------



## eyebeams

upstanding_dragon said:
			
		

> Hello all,
> 
> What do you think of Bruce's creation of Jun Fan Gung Fu? He never studied the full Wing Chun system after all, maybe he should have studied it in full before improving it.


 Lee did in fact know the three unarmed forms and the wooden dummy form. We know this because Wong Jack Man and Dan Inosanto confirm that he knew Bil Jee and film and photographic evidence shows he was conversant in the use of the wooden dummy. There's no indication he ever studied the weapons, though.

 This doesn't mean anything regarding Jun Fan's merits, though.


----------



## achilles

It was my understanding that Bruce Lee only learned the first eight wooden dummy forms.  I have no idea if he learned chum kiu and bil gee (the wing chun forms that is-JKD has different meanings for those terms).  I think that it is fair to say that Bruce Lee's formal wing chun training was incomplete.  What he knew he seemed to be very good at, in fact that was the foundation of his future work, but I think their were areas that he didn't know.  While some assert that this was the impetus to his creation of JKD, I think that is to simplistic.  Much of what Lee added is NOT found in wing chun (the Boxing, Fencing, Wrestling and Kickboxing elements for example).  I think that even with more wing chun, the needs that JKD addressed would still be there.


----------



## Dancing Dragon

To me, foundation in forms/kata is extremely important. The forms such as Siu Lim Tao are the building blocks of the art itself. What some people fail to understand about Bruce Lee is that he DID have a foundation in Wing Chun forms and he didn't just poof Jun Fan Gung Fu or JKD out of thin air. The only way to get better at a technique is to practice it and prearranged forms provide that practice. But it is up to the practicioner to dissect the forms and find where each movement and technique is useful; which is what Bruce did.

 I practice Siu Lim Tao daily and during practice I imagine my opponent and where each Fook Sao and Tan Sao would come in handy during a fight. There isn't anything wrong with the forms it's simply application of form that is important. Any art can be good if you make it good.

 When it comes to Wing Chun at long range, who cares? You wait for your opponent to enter your range then trap his hands and straight punch the devil out of him. You must use whatever weapons are available to you. If Wing Chun is all that's available then use it intelligently. It's that simple, even though the art doesn't train in different ranges, common sense tells you these things.


----------



## achilles

By insisting on waiting for the opponent to close so you can trap his hands and straight punch the devil out of him regardless of what is going on in the fight, you are letting the opponent call the shots and set the rhythm of the fight.  That isn't JKD.  I may let my opponent's technique decide my technique, but I DON'T wait form him to throw the first punch and allow him set the tone.


----------



## TaiChiTJ

This seems to be a nice civil discussion about Wing Chun/ Jun Fan/ JKD, i am mostly a tai chi guy, however over the years i have trained a bit in Wing Chun. 

I just wanted to say if anyone has seen Sifu Bennie Meng's tapes or cd's that teach the Yip Man Wing Chun system, a very eye-opening series of still photographs appear towards the beginning of the tape. The tape starts out with showing the the three teachers Sifu Meng studied with since 1982, and then there is a point where these still photographs are shown, one after the other. 

These still photographs show Sifu Meng doing a half a dozen or so fighting applications. What is interesting is that they are almost all of a stand-up grappling nature where the opponents attacking arm has become somehow trapped, or in an arm-bar. Please understand I am not talking about the Wing Chun trapping moves we have all seen in Inside Kung-Fu over the years. These are advanced grappling applications. 

I think what is going on here, is that he is giving us a hint at what is hidden in Siu Nim Tau and the other two forms. 

:ultracool


----------



## Dancing Dragon

achilles said:
			
		

> By insisting on waiting for the opponent to close so you can trap his hands and straight punch the devil out of him regardless of what is going on in the fight, you are letting the opponent call the shots and set the rhythm of the fight. That isn't JKD. I may let my opponent's technique decide my technique, but I DON'T wait form him to throw the first punch and allow him set the tone.


 I agree completely with you Achilles, we both know more than Wing Chun so we aren't limited to those ranges and techniques, I was just putting it in perspective for a guy that knew *only* Wing Chun.


----------



## James Kovacich

Bruce Lee's Jun Fan Gung Fu / Jeet Kune Do did one thing excessively that Wing Chun has done less of. JFGF/JKD has "spawned and endless supply" of ever evolving new fighting systems. And to get an idea of just "how many" we are talking about. Multiply the "endless supply" by "infiniti."

Heres an example of a "stand alone system" downline ffrom Bruce and Jimmy Lee that I am still a student of.
http://www.taoofgungfu.com/


----------



## Jelik

Thanks - this was a very interesting thread!

Every single art has it's issues, as well as it's benefits. I think that even though Bruce's Wing Chun training wasn't complete, he knew very well the overall concept. Wing Chun's main benefit (to me) is chi sao, and the forms are absolutely mandatory in order to have effective chi sao. Since Bruce had done that, he had a great foundation - however I believe that he did not pass on the importance of forward energy etc that the forms demonstrate, which reduces JKD's chi sao ability somewhat.

I've done both modified and traditional wing chun, and certainly know which one I prefer. However, when sparring, I also bring out muay thai-like defenses / kicks - as I personally find them effective...

Opps, gone off subject..


----------



## arnisador

achilles said:
			
		

> It was my understanding that Bruce Lee only learned the first eight wooden dummy forms. I have no idea if he learned chum kiu and bil gee



I thought he learned only the first two empty hand forms, and the only wooden dummy form. How many wooden dummy forms are there?


----------



## achilles

The wing chun dummy form is usually broken up into ten or so parts.  I was told that Bruce Lee knew the first eight (I think) parts and had knowledge to some degree of the remaining two.  I have read that Bruce had knowledge of chum kiu and bil gee, maybe not knowing them formally due to the training protocol of his sifu, but I don't know to what extent.  It also seems that he moved away from those areas of martial art training and favored a simpler, more spontaneous approach.  In JKD, we usually break martial arts down into tools and tactics and then reconstruct them into something useful to us rather than always taking them as they are packaged.


----------



## Dancing Dragon

achilles said:
			
		

> The wing chun dummy form is usually broken up into ten or so parts. I was told that Bruce Lee knew the first eight (I think) parts and had knowledge to some degree of the remaining two. I have read that Bruce had knowledge of chum kiu and bil gee, maybe not knowing them formally due to the training protocol of his sifu, but I don't know to what extent. It also seems that he moved away from those areas of martial art training and favored a simpler, more spontaneous approach. In JKD, we usually break martial arts down into tools and tactics and then reconstruct them into something useful to us rather than always taking them as they are packaged.


 Well this proves that complete mastery of a style of martial arts isn't necessary before one can expand and broaden their horizon with other arts. Seeing as Bruce Lee never completely learned Wing Chun, yet he grapsed the ideas and concepts enough to make what he knew effective makes me question exactly how far one should train in the martial arts before expanding. I mean, is it better to know a portion of a lot of styles than it is to know everything about just one? Over and out.


----------



## achilles

Complete mastery over a system is more about the classroom than the fighting arena.  Really, it is performance that we should base our judgements on rather than hype.  A lot of innovators may aren't the top of the political hierarchy.  However, most people whose enthusiasm overreaches their skill and knowledge are hardly innovators.  Just because Bruce Lee changed the face of martial arts without a lot of formal knowledge doesn't mean that every idiot is the next Bruce Lee.  Years of dedication, hard work and training with many talented martial artists makes a big difference.


----------



## Dancing Dragon

achilles said:
			
		

> Complete mastery over a system is more about the classroom than the fighting arena. Really, it is performance that we should base our judgements on rather than hype. A lot of innovators may aren't the top of the political hierarchy. However, most people whose enthusiasm overreaches their skill and knowledge are hardly innovators. Just because Bruce Lee changed the face of martial arts without a lot of formal knowledge doesn't mean that every idiot is the next Bruce Lee. Years of dedication, hard work and training with many talented martial artists makes a big difference.


Ah, indeed, not everyone can be Bruce Lee, and heaven knows that "innovators" come a dime a dozen. But my question is, should one expand into other martial arts before mastery of a particular style? And if so, what sort of effect do you think it would have on the artist themselves?


----------



## arnisador

It could go either way...it might mean an incomplete background, or it might mean freedom from a constricting traditional view. Who is to say?


----------



## arnisador

Is there a 'standard' Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum?


----------



## Dancing Dragon

I think I remember reading up on a Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum. I'll post it when I find it.


----------



## Dancing Dragon

I think I remember reading up on a Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum. I'm not too certain whether or not it was Bruce Lee's curriculum or another student of his art, but I'll post it when I find it


----------



## arnisador

Dancing Dragon said:
			
		

> I think I remember reading up on a Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum. I'll post it when I find it.



Thanks, I appreciate that! I'm getting to do more and more of it where I am training but it's a mixed WC/Jun Fan/JKD class and I don't always know what is from where!


----------



## James Kovacich

arnisador said:
			
		

> Thanks, I appreciate that! I'm getting to do more and more of it where I am training but it's a mixed WC/Jun Fan/JKD class and I don't always know what is from where!


 
We don't have to look very far. This isn't like you. I would of thought, that if anybody you would of found this. Any way, I remembered it.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3408


----------



## arnisador

You're right, I do usually remember those! I  had forgotten all about it but it's just what I'm looking for, so thanks!


----------



## achilles

There is no agreed upon curriculum for Jun Fan or JKD among the different camps.  Some have more in common than others, but there isn't really a standard.  Most of what I teach comes from Dan Inosanto and Jeff Westfall, but when it comes to the lead punch I tend to emphasize what I learned from a training session with Tim Tacket.  The grappling we do tends to segue into Erik Paulson's material as well.  I also supplement the trapping we do with some ecclectic wing chun.  We emphasize the original material while adding to areas that were less developed in the 60's and 70's.


----------



## James Kovacich

Jun Fan Gung Fu is standardized, just not so much for Inosanto's Jun Fan. Most of the 1st generation students teach a "similar" JFGF but not exact. Dan is on his own page. Nothing wrong with that. Even Tim Tacket will agree with the "standard" JFGF.


----------



## achilles

I don't think that is the case.  I'll give you some examples:

A lot of instructors who stick to the original material still teach things differently.  Bob Bremmer teaches a diagonal fist, as does Inosanto when asked specifically, while Jerry Poteet teaches a vertical fist.  Some instructors make a big deal about the immoveable elbow, but others like Ted Wong teach their students to keep their elbow virtually touching their ribs.  Some teachers include some grappling while others contend that JKD is purely a striking art.  There is also debate on 3rd hand striking tactics and whether the wedging bil gee is part of the art or not.


----------



## arnisador

I've noticed that whether the wedging, seeking, etc. of WC is in JKD or not varies by org. But i didn't know that some used a diagonal fist! I do know that many use the slightly protuding index knuckle.


----------



## James Kovacich

achilles said:
			
		

> I don't think that is the case. I'll give you some examples:
> 
> A lot of instructors who stick to the original material still teach things differently. Bob Bremmer teaches a diagonal fist, as does Inosanto when asked specifically, while Jerry Poteet teaches a vertical fist. Some instructors make a big deal about the immoveable elbow, but others like Ted Wong teach their students to keep their elbow virtually touching their ribs. Some teachers include some grappling while others contend that JKD is purely a striking art. There is also debate on 3rd hand striking tactics and whether the wedging bil gee is part of the art or not.


 
I think we are not on the same page as to the definition of "standardized."

At this time a lot of Instructors are discussing this very topic to help themselves get on the "same page." In the discussion and as I use the word "standardized" it is meant as the "base core" of technique. 

In JFGF and JFJKD, everything is expandable and under interpatation of the individual instructors. But the base core or standardization is the issue at hand and it does exist. It could be thought of as the "minimum" of technique that would be considered JFGF.

I don't beleive that your examples fall under standardization but are legitimate as the differances of JFGF.


----------



## brothershaw

achilles said:
			
		

> I can see that if what you want is wing chun then you should probably do wing chun. I think this is analogous to criticizing American Football for not being rugby. They are simply different. Jun Fan and Wing Chun are similar in some respects, but if they are not meant to be the same. I constantly see the argument that if Bruce Lee had learned the whole wing chun program that we never would have left. While I can't refute this, indeed nobody can, it doesn't seem likely. Most of what Bruce Lee did with Jun Fan and later with JKD was add long and middle range skills along with some grappling for close quarters. In other words, the wing chun was modified, added to and in some instances stripped away. As far as whether or not siu lim tao is essential to JKD, or chi sao for that matter, I would say no. Being able to properly do tan sao, fook sao and boang sao with the correct pressure doesn't necessarily entail learning the particular sequence of the siu lim tao form. In other words, I don't need to learn the alphabet in that particular sequence in order to spell or to learn proper syntax.
> 
> .


 
Here the thing if somebody wants to fight you ( with out a gun or knife) they have to make contact. Regardless of what distance they prefer, once they make contact, with wing chun you should ride in(bridge). I do understand that that apporach of closing the gap and working in close where you will end up eventually whether you want to or not isnt everybodys game. Some find wing chun "range" or close quarters not for them. Basically I guess Lee wanted more options for ranges which is cool. That however doesnt make what he did an improvement of wing chun as some people really love to claim. And there are other styles that cover a variety of ranges that were around b4 jkd.
     Live and active resistance is always a plus in training. Alot of people seem to go the extremes on forms, either discount them altogether or think they are everything when forms are just part of the puzzle.
    As much as people do knock forms and tma they still punch the heavy bag thousands of times , kick pads thousands of times, roll on the mat for years etc. So no matter what you call it or how you sequence it you have still have do repetitive motions for YEARS to develop good skills/ reactions. So far nobody outside of the matrix has found a way around that.


----------



## Cthulhu

I think it's been a while since I posted in here on a topic like this...

Anyhoo...

Sometimes, and this is my personal opinion, I think Bruce Lee didn't have a problem with forms, per se, but with the way many martial artists of his era viewed forms as the 'be all, end all' of martial arts and combat.

As mentioned before, he practiced the Wing Chun forms he knew frequently, and from an account I've read, tried to film Yip Man's wooden dummy form.  He was also good at performing forms from other systems competently in a short amount of time.  

So, in my mind, on some level he saw value in the forms, but not in the way they were being taught.

I'm sure I'll change my mind on this in a week...of just completely forget I even typed this in about 10 minutes.

Cthulhu


----------



## arnisador

He did teach the first WC form in Jun Fan Gung Fu, but dropped ot for JKD, I think...but I have long thought as you do. I think he reacted more to how people viewed forms, in a magical sense, than to the forms themselves, which he seems to have seen some level of value in.


----------



## kroh

Cthulhu said:
			
		

> Sometimes, and this is my personal opinion, I think Bruce Lee didn't have a problem with forms, per se, but with the way many martial artists of his era viewed forms as the 'be all, end all' of martial arts and combat


 
 I think that is a valid way to look at it.  A lot of times in anything ( not just martial arts) many who read things after the fact forget to put what they read into context.  Some one could say something that is derogitory or make no sense in our day and age and it could have been a totally accepted precept from their time.  

Great thread full of non-politcal info.  
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## guitarac311

upstanding dragon, you need to understand why bruce lee didnt want it to be a style. The number 1 weakness you have in fighting is a person knowing what style you are using. JKD is just a set of principles really, roughly they say that knowing how to fight effectivly and knowing how to do it on a reaction, was superior to every other style.


----------

