# What does Martial Arts simplicity mean to you?



## Thunder Foot (Jun 4, 2014)

As practitioners of JKD, we hear the terms allot but never really take time to discuss it, "to simply be simple." Simple, direct, economical, non telegraphic, non classical... What does simplicity mean to you and how has that had an impact on your development as a Martial Artist?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 4, 2014)

*What does Martial Arts simplicity mean to you? *

To let your opponent's head to meet your fist/ground. You need to develop some good knock/take down skills, some "door guarding" moves in your life time.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 5, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> As practitioners of JKD, we hear the terms allot but never really take time to discuss it, "to simply be simple." Simple, direct, economical, non telegraphic, non classical... What does simplicity mean to you and how has that had an impact on your development as a Martial Artist?



I agree with most of that, just not the non-classical bit. Xingyiquan is simple, direct, economical, non telegraphic and has a lot more in common with JKD than any side of that discussion is willing to admit


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 5, 2014)

Yes I have to agree as well but like Xue disagree with the non-classical bit.


----------



## ks - learning to fly (Jun 5, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> As practitioners of JKD, we hear the terms allot but never really take time to discuss it, "to simply be simple." Simple, direct, economical, non telegraphic, non classical... What does simplicity mean to you and how has that had an impact on your development as a Martial Artist?



Only my opinion - but, to me 'simplicity' means don't over think it...I find the more I over think a technique the more likely I am to telegraph..but the more I focus on action and reaction and responding to my Instructor's commands - my techniques are smoother and more powerful..


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 6, 2014)

For me, "to simply be simple" means not to engage in learning a lot of "flowery" techniques that wouldn't work for on the street. As for what those techniques are, opinions vary. I mean, in my  case I am a small guy...I like to stay rooted to the ground...therefore to me kicking any higher than the shin is too high for me (because I fear being easily tossed around or knocked off balance).  Notice I did NOT say that high kicks are useless completely...just that I don't favor them. As we learn martial arts, we all discover that we have a way of fighting that works best for us. So learning anything other than that would not keep with the "simply be simple" mentality.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2014)

Simple is a really tricky concept. If it was simple then a really good fighter would not be able to do a simple move better. Yet a person can study for twenty years to have a simple move performed right. Which does not really fit the definition of simple any more.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Jun 6, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> I agree with most of that, just not the non-classical bit. Xingyiquan is simple, direct, economical, non telegraphic and has a lot more in common with JKD than any side of that discussion is willing to admit


Non-classical is a direct quote from Bruce Lee, that's not an interpretation by me.
And while I understand your disagreement, my interpretation of the Non-classical description is to be adaptive and possess the qualities of formless form, which Lee also spoke about. While whatyou say may be true to an extent in Xingyi, just as Wing Chun shares the same traits... there is still further cutting away that can be done to make them more so as it's evident in Bruce's progression of Wing Chun.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 6, 2014)

What I have never understood about Bruce's "classical" quote is that he shows his wing chun way of punching (vertical fist) versus the way some others styles train (punching from the hip with the palm up, then flipping the hand over when you get to full extension). However, in the wing chun tradition, that IS the "classical" way of punching.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Jun 6, 2014)

That's true, but that's only one way present in the forms. At the end of SLT, there is also punching without the rotation. Also when people start from mon sau, it's characteristic to simply straight punch.
Ip Man also doesn't have hands at his hips in his forms. I mean we are talking about small slight differences, but they make a world of difference.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 6, 2014)

I never said Ip Man DID have hands on hips. In fact I have seen no wing chun lineage that does that. Hands starting at hips is present in lots of other styles, but not wing chun. We have a very high chamber, up near the arm pits. And in fact, in wing chun forms you don't punch straight from chamber either: you slide your fist into the center line first and THEN punch.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Jun 6, 2014)

Oh maybe I mis understood your post. I thought you were saying the rotation is the tradition way to WC punch.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 6, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> Oh maybe I mis understood your post. I thought you were saying the rotation is the tradition way to WC punch.



No problem. It happens.


----------



## MartialMellow (Jun 6, 2014)

I Googled Bruce Lee's quote.  It appears that the non classical quote involves adapting to the situation.  Being a beginner, who has self defense as one of my goals, performing martial arts on account of what it is as another goal, I will be studying the classical forms for a long time.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 6, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> Non-classical is a direct quote from Bruce Lee, that's not an interpretation by me.
> And while I understand your disagreement, my interpretation of the Non-classical description is to be adaptive and possess the qualities of formless form, which Lee also spoke about. While what you say may be true to an extent in Xingyi, just as Wing Chun shares the same traits... there is still further cutting away that can be done to make them more so as it's evident in Bruce's progression of Wing Chun.



Simply to simplify....

Xingyi is fairly direct and compared to  other CMA styles it is much easier to understand and apply...but I am not going to argue this point.. I still maintain that I agree with you except for the classical bits.

I have a slightly different take on some of the things Lee said because I am more on the classical side of this but then I do not think my view would align with many on the classical side of this either...particularly his classical mess quote....which I came to when I was training a bit of JKD and Xingyi.



Thunder Foot said:


> there is still further cutting away that can be done to make them more so as it's evident in Bruce's progression of Wing Chun.



There are those who would not call it a progression.... I simply call it a change much like Jujutsu to Judo or Aikido


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> Simply to simplify....
> 
> Xingyi is fairly direct and compared to  other CMA styles it is much easier to understand and apply...but I am not going to argue this point.. I still maintain that I agree with you except for the classical bits.
> 
> ...




Efficiency not simplicity. Taking steps out. Taking straight paths to targets. Using body mechanics to your advantage. Taking advantage of position. It is not simple because the other guy is trying to deny those things and the game becomes complicated.

Like checkers I guess.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 7, 2014)

simplicity equals not thinking ahead but reacting at the moment.
The quickest, least complicated, most direct response.
at least that what it means to me


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 7, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Efficiency not simplicity. Taking steps out. Taking straight paths to targets. Using body mechanics to your advantage. Taking advantage of position. It is not simple because the other guy is trying to deny those things and the game becomes complicated.
> 
> Like checkers I guess.



Efficiency vs simplicity...we cold be getting into symantics.....to simplify does not necessarily mean simple..... could mean the removal of the extraneous in order to become more efficient


----------



## drop bear (Jun 7, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> Efficiency vs simplicity...we cold be getting into symantics.....to simplify does not necessarily mean simple..... could mean the removal of the extraneous in order to become more efficient



Yeah but important semantics as I think simplicity gives the wrong idea. And actually puts your training in the wrong direction a bit.

Like whichever post it was about not thinking ahead. Where you can be efficient but still lay traps for the guy.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Jun 7, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> .... could mean the removal of the extraneous in order to become more efficient


indirectly paraphrasing Lee here lol, that's exactly what he said it means... "stripping away the inessentials". And in that same phrase he infers to the progression away from classical or stylized form. Now where I personally elaborate on this is in terms of application and passing on the legacy. In my practice of CMA, I've come to learn that not all Chinese culture is as definitive as Western culture is accustomed to from language to martial art. As a result, classical form is passed down with each generation sharing their own interpretations toward application... meanwhile the formalized structure remains as intact as possible. This is what I interpret as Bruce's term "formless form", one stylized "optimal" form that can assume all forms in application, thus becoming formless.

[Edit]: in regards to the "classical mess", I believe Bruce was speaking of those who refuse to progress past the limitations of a stylized-crystalline form. In example, a person who only possesses one way of doing a tech, our may be limited to only the few learned from classical style.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 8, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but important semantics as I think simplicity gives the wrong idea. And actually puts your training in the wrong direction a bit.
> 
> Like whichever post it was about not thinking ahead. Where you can be efficient but still lay traps for the guy.




1/2 is the simplification of 4/8.... and does not give the wrong idea.  
We don't agree with the terminology and I willing to simply leave it at that


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 8, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> indirectly paraphrasing Lee here lol, that's exactly what he said it means... "stripping away the inessentials". And in that same phrase he infers to the progression away from classical or stylized form. Now where I personally elaborate on this is in terms of application and passing on the legacy. In my practice of CMA, I've come to learn that not all Chinese culture is as definitive as Western culture is accustomed to from language to martial art. As a result, classical form is passed down with each generation sharing their own interpretations toward application... meanwhile the formalized structure remains as intact as possible. This is what I interpret as Bruce's term "formless form", one stylized "optimal" form that can assume all forms in application, thus becoming formless.



But JKD also changes from generation to generation as well based on an individuals interpretation, the JKD of Dan Inosanto is not the same as that which came from Jerry Poteet and neither are exactly the same as the JKD that came from Jesse Glover. Now take that another generation and it changes more, getting further from what Bruce Lee started. But then based on another Bruce Lee quote. 



> Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.



I'm not sure how happy he would be about the "JKD" schools that are around turning it into a specific style




Thunder Foot said:


> [Edit]: in regards to the "classical mess", I believe Bruce was speaking of those who refuse to progress past the limitations of a stylized-crystalline form. In example, a person who only possesses one way of doing a tech, our may be limited to only the few learned from classical style.



I use to think that, but now I'm not so sure, at least as some have come to interpret that. I do think it has something to do with blindly following forms as they have come to be based on myth and legend. Take the myth and legend out and things get less...well messy.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 8, 2014)

Part of his definition of classical mess was all the endless forms/kata. He thought that had no practical application to real fighting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 8, 2014)

If you can make 1,2 into 1, and 1,2,3 into 1,2, you have simplified MA. You can either hide that extra move, or combine that move with the proviso move or with the next move.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Jun 8, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> But JKD also changes from generation to generation as well based on an individuals interpretation, the JKD of Dan Inosanto is not the same as that which came from Jerry Poteet and neither are exactly the same as the JKD that came from Jesse Glover. Now take that another generation and it changes more, getting further from what Bruce Lee started. But then based on another Bruce Lee quote.


Firstly, Jesse Glover didn't practice JKD. Secondly, such is the outcome of all Martial Arts to an extent. Classical styles are not exempt. But as long as people understand the principles of the Martial Art, it will continue to live on in the spirit of the founder.





> I'm not sure how happy he would be about the "JKD" schools that are around turning it into a specific style


Likewise, I think he would be just as upset at the watered down mess a bulk of it has become. In both cases those schools have lost touch with reality.




> I use to think that, but now I'm not so sure, at least as some have come to interpret that. I do think it has something to do with blindly following forms as they have come to be based on myth and legend. Take the myth and legend out and things get less...well messy.


I believe it to be so because Bruce continued to learn traditional Martial Arts amidst his progression. If it wasn't true, I would believe a logical man would stop training traditionally, and solely rely on self-discovery. Hence why "the boat" it's too be discarded once you reach the other side.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> 1/2 is the simplification of 4/8.... and does not give the wrong idea.
> We don't agree with the terminology and I willing to simply leave it at that




But we are storming a castle not doing a maths equation. The simplest method is the front door. But maybe not the most efficient.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 8, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> Firstly, Jesse Glover didn't practice JKD.



What did he teach...was it Jun Fan Gong Fu?



Thunder Foot said:


> Secondly, such is the outcome of all Martial Arts to an extent. Classical styles are not exempt. But as long as people understand the principles of the Martial Art, it will continue to live on in the spirit of the founder.



Agreed and to be honest I feel many classical styles are a victim of it do to the length of time they have been around and the legends that build up around them.



Thunder Foot said:


> Likewise, I think he would be just as upset at the watered down mess a bulk of it has become. In both cases those schools have lost touch with reality.



Well at least it is good to know its not only me 



Thunder Foot said:


> I believe it to be so because Bruce continued to learn traditional Martial Arts amidst his progression. If it wasn't true, I would believe a logical man would stop training traditionally, and solely rely on self-discovery. Hence why "the boat" it's too be discarded once you reach the other side.



I Shall have to tell you about the JKD effect that showed me the classical mess of Xingyi sometime.

Ironically I was given a note this evening that is on my desk that I just noticed has a picture of a row boat on it


----------



## drop bear (Jun 8, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> Firstly, Jesse Glover didn't practice JKD. Secondly, such is the outcome of all Martial Arts to an extent. Classical styles are not exempt. But as long as people understand the principles of the Martial Art, it will continue to live on in the spirit of the founder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My technique changes under resistance. What I drilled did not reflect what I fought. I now drill the technique the same way I would do it under resistance. 

A few weeks ago I had a spazzy new guy who was a crap partner that would lock down and resist everything during drills. I used to have to take the time to change his behaviour so my technique would work. Now my technique works regardless because I have changed that.

Classical mess vs fighting technique.

Eg judo.

How it is supposed to look.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwW7YRwvRk

How it ends up looking.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wssCJZXbuDQ

Now the change in my method is that the second video shows the correct version of the throws.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Jun 9, 2014)

That's good drop bear,
But I believe that only practicing one way of doing things will limit your adaptability in anything... even if that's the practical way that you discovered. This is why I stay mindful of Bruce's ideal of formless form and keep it as simple and direct as possible. In this way when the moment arises, I'm free to adapt as needed. To me, that it's simplicity.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Jun 9, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> What did he teach...was it Jun Fan Gong Fu?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Definitely. I'd love to hear about it. To me, honest expression is paramount. As long as that it's at the forefront, I believe we will all find our truth as Bruce taught.
In regards to Jesse, he practiced what he called "Non-classical Gung Fu", and was very much a proponent of Bruce's earlier years. During this time Bruce taught many WC principles...which is why Jesse was a strong advocate of sticky hands.
JKD as a whole on the other hand... is what it is. Lee warned us when he said that only 5% of the population can do JKD. That's 95% that is unfit according to Lee. It's no wonder there are so many interpretations which contradict not only each other, but Lee's own words. Everyone wants to replicate Lee's process and progress without putting in Lee-like hours. And that's just the physical.. let us not forget the mental, spiritual, and philosophical level that he was operating at. People often don't understand that you would have to be nothing short of a prodigy to create your own definitive fighting system; that is stumble upon your own absolute truth as not guided by your Sifu or other teachers. But in today's age, everyone is a prodigy hehe. Now at the same time, it's honest expression when we recognize the level of our own ability, our hardwork, dedication, and perseverance. Prodigy or no prodigy. To me, being honest with yourself it's the truest form of simplicity. Instead of fabricating reasons for this and that, why this works and why that doesn't...  to simply say "I'm not there yet, but working towards it". Simply to be simple.


----------

