# Dropping the Trapping in JKD



## LegLockGuy

I've talked to alot of JKD Concepts guys and some of the PFS (Progressive Fighting Systems) guys and alot of them tell me that they dropped the Wing Chun trapping, and that they work on clinch work and dirty boxing.

When I had a JKD Concepts  lesson earlier this wek, they focused alot on closing the gap, and getting into a greco roman wrestling clinch, followed by punches and other strikes.

A PFS guy on ********* told me who they dropped trapping at their school. What do you JKD guys (both Orginial and Concepts guys) think about dropping the trapping in JKD?


----------



## hungfistron

Learning the basics of trapping is one of the main reasons I began to study Wing Chun.  Im curious to learn why the students that you speak of have decided to disgard this part of the system...


----------



## LegLockGuy

Because they feel (and sorta me too) that it's just not effective in a fight wheather it's a street fight or a ring fight. They feel learn the clinch range is much for effective, and JKD is all about simplicity and effectiveness.


----------



## simplicity

There are three "So Called Ranges in JKD"......BL called them Long - Med. - Short, trapping can be in all ranges of JKD.....It can happen in 
engagement or disengagement.....The five ways of attack, can prove what I'm talking about......From my experience, most people think of trapping the wrong way.....JKD trapping isn't the same as WC trapping, first of all......So this is where the mis-understanding starts.....Then most people that say "trapping doesn't work", never spent the time to discovery the fruit of "IT"......Not all but some.....In JKD trapping we don't look to trap, a JKD man or women is always thinking of hitting.....In JKD trapping, it shall happen in the moment of "time and space", there will be a hit before and after......Think of touching something hot....Do you start to smell your flesh burning before you remove it? I think not!....Why is that? Well because it took you one time before to "FEEL" pain from heat, once your 
nerviest system puts it that in, it will become second nature to you.......Just like trapping, once your nerviest system has it there, its there forever.......You will respond like an echo.......The nerviest system will repond before your thought even has a chance......Something to think about people, no?

Have A Great Weekend! 
 


Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney


----------



## arnisador

Where I study PFS there's trapping but also a lot of clinch work (R.A.T.). Studying Wing Chun greatly improved my trapping!


----------



## gino

sounds kinda fishy to me...in any pfs or jkd I have seen..its basic j/f kickboxin till they attack,once they attack,you break down into the trapping,then clinch.. headbutt,knees,takedown,etc..etc..   but I think there are always gonna be people adapting in their own ways because for starters thats JKD, but for others maybe staying in the trappin range isnt easy for them... even tho they train and become instructors in "JKD" trappin isnt their strong point...so what then do they do?...evolve it to fit themselves,...and then train it to their students in the same fashion.....its just an idea...all in all its ok because I believe bruce knew that adapting was key..i just think he didnt want anybody to do but him... I think people need to get back to the basics of what JKD is..which is the ingenius defense,quick effective attacks,making trapping recognized,body movement and understanding ones body to create speed and power instantly,and I think the most important thing of all "commonsense fighting"... People are gonna take these basics and mold it to fit one another..its whats so great about this style, concept or whatever name you give it...


----------



## rogerclf1

trapping in jkd is very important because it takes 1 of the attackers weapons away while you hit.  It is offensive and defensive at the same time.  If you evade to the side and trap you take away all weapons for a second, but plenty of time where you should be able to take care of the problem.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Even though I do not practice JKD. (though I have trained with Danny Inosanto so many times I cannot remember how many)  I use trapping and have used it to arrest people.


----------



## joeygil

I figure, if you don't like trapping, then don't trap.  I personally think it should still be taught, because it may work for somebody else.

Secondly trapping doesn't appear to work to a lot of people in sparring, because it's akward to trap with boxing gloves on.  Clinching on the other hand is easy and effective with gloves on.  

It's like disregarding biu jee because the boxing gloves don't let you get in a good poke to the eyes.


----------



## g-bells

Most people don't trap because it takes time to execute it properly, the it will not work in a fight is BS. if you put in the time it can be effective, but if you choose to not then thats your choice


----------



## James Kovacich

Dropping trapping in Jeet Kune Do -  The Way of the Intercepting Fist ummm... LOL Maybe that is why "one system" broke into "two systems."

If we trap, we trap. If we don't, we don't. Thats the answer. Use what is appropriate but why associate with a "label that lost it's association."

What if I decide to drop the clinch because I don't want to grapple? Then I drop the low line kicks because I'd rather use my hands. Then I drop the five ways of attack because I don't want to fight... LOL


----------



## jeff5

The great thing about JKD is that it gives you freedom.  If trapping doesn't work for you and if you prefer the clinch and plum, do that.  I've seen a wide variety of skills when it comes to trapping, some really good and some horribly bad.  Think on this as well.  The goal isn't to trap its to hit.  Trapping clears the obstacles out of the way, and ties up the opponent at the same time, but if you seek to trap, you've already failed.  You should seek to hit.  Someone else here just said it, but its worthwhile to explore some Wing Chun if you really like trapping and want to make it better.


----------



## kaizasosei

i believe that wc uses a system of four quadrants as targets.  as in higher lower left right.  im thinking that that system is very suited to trapping.  actually, even without physically trapping the person, effective use of this system will trap the person through effective positioning alone.

j


----------



## James Kovacich

jeff5 said:


> The great thing about JKD is that it gives you freedom. If trapping doesn't work for you and if you prefer the clinch and plum, do that. I've seen a wide variety of skills when it comes to trapping, some really good and some horribly bad. Think on this as well. The goal isn't to trap its to hit. Trapping clears the obstacles out of the way, and ties up the opponent at the same time, but if you seek to trap, you've already failed. You should seek to hit. Someone else here just said it, but its worthwhile to explore some Wing Chun if you really like trapping and want to make it better.


You are right! The problem is in the teaching of JKD. My JKD is not your JKD but a JKD instructor is obligated to teach the JKD student the core JKD system and the "student" will liberate themselves. We are "pointers." nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## punisher73

You are betting another main division of JKD out there from the first big split of "original vs. concepts" groups.  Now, you are also getting a big splinter group calling themselves JKD, but in reality they teach MMA and their curriculum reflects that.

The other thing I have noticed is "how" people define trapping.  Many people look at a Chi Sao drill and then say it would never work in a real situation.  Not realizing it is a drill used to impart certain things, and that it is only a small part of what trapping is or can be used for in a fight.

To say that you are going to drop trapping completely from JKD seems odd to me.  Wouldn't it still come into play as a way to bridge the gap and clinch a little bit more safely if you understand body weapons and how they will be used against you when you close in on your opponent?


----------



## James Kovacich

punisher73 said:


> You are betting another main division of JKD out there from the first big split of "original vs. concepts" groups. Now, you are also getting a big splinter group calling themselves JKD, but in reality they teach MMA and their curriculum reflects that.
> 
> The other thing I have noticed is "how" people define trapping. Many people look at a Chi Sao drill and then say it would never work in a real situation. Not realizing it is a drill used to impart certain things, and that it is only a small part of what trapping is or can be used for in a fight.
> 
> To say that you are going to drop trapping completely from JKD seems odd to me. Wouldn't it still come into play as a way to bridge the gap and clinch a little bit more safely if you understand body weapons and how they will be used against you when you close in on your opponent?


 
You touched on something very serious. When they say they don't or can't trap. They probably don't know what trapping is!


----------



## turbo1975

Trapping is not just hand trapping.  If you read at the Tao it is includes Clinch arm pinning, foot pinning.  Trapping is also used in Grappling.  Everytime I pin an arm for a triangle or pass you are using trapping.  JKD today does not limit trapping to pak sao, lop sao.

Trapping has evolved....this is JKD.


----------



## Bodhisattva

LegLockGuy said:


> I've talked to alot of JKD Concepts guys and some of the PFS (Progressive Fighting Systems) guys and alot of them tell me that they dropped the Wing Chun trapping, and that they work on clinch work and dirty boxing.
> 
> When I had a JKD Concepts lesson earlier this wek, they focused alot on closing the gap, and getting into a greco roman wrestling clinch, followed by punches and other strikes.
> 
> A PFS guy on ********* told me who they dropped trapping at their school. What do you JKD guys (both Orginial and Concepts guys) think about dropping the trapping in JKD?


 
Same thing with Straight Blast Gym.  They droped the Wing Chun years ago and added greco roman and muay thai clinch tactics to replace them.

Trapping in wing chun is useless against a qualified greco roman wrestlers.  Really, it's useless against most people.


----------



## joeygil

Bodhisattva said:


> Same thing with Straight Blast Gym. They droped the Wing Chun years ago and added greco roman and muay thai clinch tactics to replace them.
> 
> Trapping in wing chun is useless against a qualified greco roman wrestlers. Really, it's useless against most people.


 
Dunno about that.  From my own experience and my friends' experience traditional WC based trapping works very well on traditional / classical styles, like TKD.

Since most martial artists are still doing traditional styles, I would think trapping would work against them.

Granted, trapping probably won't work against a greco or BJJ guy, especially if you play their game (no biu jees).  But most people aren't them.


----------



## g-bells

^^^
also trapping can be utilized while on the ground and who's to say that ST Blast Gym's way of doing things is the bench mark for how all jkd'ers should train.

I have nothing against them and from what i've seen, they are quite prolific at what they do and it's effective for them.


----------



## turbo1975

Also you should make the distinction between simple traps and compound traps.


----------



## Bodhisattva

joeygil said:


> Dunno about that. From my own experience and my friends' experience traditional WC based trapping works very well on traditional / classical styles, like TKD.
> 
> Since most martial artists are still doing traditional styles, I would think trapping would work against them.
> 
> Granted, trapping probably won't work against a greco or BJJ guy, especially if you play their game (no biu jees). But most people aren't them.


 
True, but most of us pracitce martial arts to make us competent fighters in case someone else who is competent attacks us. It makes little sense to train so that you are good enough to beat up some guy who uses AN ineffective fighting style.

"I practice martial arts.  My art isn't good enough to beat up a boxer or a wrestler or a bjj player, but if a grandma or a little kid or a tae kwon do FIGHTER gets mouthy - oh yeah, it's ON!"  

As far as "most people aren't them" - are you aware of how many high schools have wrestling programs?  Nearly ALL of them.  Know why? It's a cheap sport to provide to the kids.

So think about EACH graduating class has between 6 and 20 wrestlers from that class at EACH highschool graduating EACH year.  "Most people aren't them" ?  That's a lot of people with solid wrestling skills.

On top of that, you have THOUSANDS of good judo schools and BJJ schools popping up, not to mention the TONS of good MMA schools opening in each and every city, not to mention the EVEN MORE groups of people meeting in basements and back yards to train MMA.


Then you add the number of people who have been brought up in tough neighborhoods, fighting after school or before school or during school (my first two-guys-attacking-me-at-once situation was in 8th grade - by the way) .. You have loads of boxing gyms, thai boxing gyms, and even people doing Funcitonal Jeet Kune Do.  

So to assume that everyone out there is doing karate or tae kwon do, and then training just for those people - doesn't make much sense.  Their are craploads of peole doing functional martial arts in this country now.


----------



## Bodhisattva

g-bells said:


> ^^^
> also trapping can be utilized while on the ground and who's to say that ST Blast Gym's way of doing things is the bench mark for how all jkd'ers should train.
> 
> I have nothing against them and from what i've seen, they are quite prolific at what they do and it's effective for them.


 
It's not that SBG people _don't trap_ it's that they don't train trapping in the old Wing Chun "energy drill" fashion.  And they don't typically do backfist drills.

You could watch an SBG guy in stand up or on the ground, and you might say THERE! He just trapped the man's arm with a Pak Sao!

But, no.  He didn't.  Really, he just pushed the man's arm across his body with a quick bump.  In wrestling, it's called a bump, or a push, or "blocking off the arm at the elbow."  

But that doesn't mean the energy drills are useful.  How do they know it? Because they don't do them anymore, and their "trapping" is just fine.

--

But I don't think anyone at SBG thinks they should be the bench mark for other martial artists.  However, I *personally* kind of think that.  I've found nothing like them - I've never met another group that coaches so well.

They remind me a lot of the dog brothers, but without revolving around stickfighting - instead revolving mostly on hand-to-hand sportive combat skills, with slight alterations for non-sportive applications.

And has such a great time.


----------



## Bodhisattva

turbo1975 said:


> Also you should make the distinction between simple traps and compound traps.


 
That's a really good point.


----------



## joeygil

@Bodhisattva

That's a good point, there are a LOT of trained fighters out there.  But my point that most people aren't is based on:



			
				Bodhisattva said:
			
		

> Trapping in wing chun is useless against a qualified greco roman wrestlers. Really, it's useless against most people.


 
To me, most means 51% or greater.  That means 51% of the population.  I still don't believe that 51% of the population are trained fighters.  Even 51% of men aren't trained fighters.  I'm sort of a stickler on accurate statements.

Secondly, I'm looking at it from a different perspective.  I'm not really doing MA for self-defense, like you are.  I'm not a bouncer, or hang out in places where I'm likely to get in an altercation (I stopped going to bars a decade ago).  So in essence, I'm not doing this to be prepared, but because I enjoy it and get a good work-out.  Some people may not consider that a legitimate training goal, but that's all perspective.

From a cost-benefit analysis, I figure the most efficient use of time and money for self defense would probably be pepper-spray.  Works great on boxers.

From that cost-benefit perspective, trapping to me is interesting, and I think it helps me in my sparring and such.  I can see from a cost-benefit analysis that trapping can be a waste of time, since much the same effectiveness can be obtained from clinch / plaum fighting, with less time put in to learn intricacies and sensitivity for WC style trapping.  It all depends on your priorities.  As I get something from it, I'm still for it, for me.


----------



## g-bells

Irregardless of what  people may say, simple traps will work:
1. if the opportunity is there and you are skilled in "seein/feeling' the opening
2. All ma's use traps in some form or another
3. You never go into an ingagement thinking " when he/she does this " i'll do that trap, it just happens

If you feel they are unimportant then don't do them and if you do then practice them, each and everybody has different ways of coming to the same solution "What will be the most effective tool/tools for me"


----------



## joeygil

Oh yeah, I forgot to chime in on compound traps.  May be fun, but I can't imagine they would be practical on anybody besides JKDers or WC folks.

With the exception of the pak sau / punch that's blocked followed by the lap sau and punch.  I don't know if that's considered "compound trapping" or not - but it's basically grabbing the blocking arm and moving it out of the way to hit.  Works pretty well, but harder to pull of with boxing gloves.  Anything more just feels a little silly to me.

There's also the #5 JKD dummy progression, where you throw a biu jee to draw a blocking hand/arm (lead or rear, doens't matter), and you follow with a half-beat biu sau to replace the lead biu jee, and continue your biu jee to the eyes or throat.  But I think that's more ABD.  It's really along the whole, "If you don't block it, I hit you.  If you block it, I still hit you" motto of Sifu Dan.


----------



## Bodhisattva

g-bells said:


> Irregardless of what people may say, simple traps will work:
> 1. if the opportunity is there and you are skilled in "seein/feeling' the opening
> 2. All ma's use traps in some form or another
> 3. You never go into an ingagement thinking " when he/she does this " i'll do that trap, it just happens
> 
> If you feel they are unimportant then don't do them and if you do then practice them, each and everybody has different ways of coming to the same solution "What will be the most effective tool/tools for me"


 
Most people are not against "trapping."

Most people are against classical wing chun energy drills as a method of training them..


----------



## Bodhisattva

joeygil said:


> @Bodhisattva
> To me, most means 51% or greater. That means 51% of the population. I still don't believe that 51% of the population are trained fighters. Even 51% of men aren't trained fighters. I'm sort of a stickler on accurate statements.


 
I'm sure it makes you popular with the ladies. 



joeygil said:


> Secondly, I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I'm not really doing MA for self-defense, like you are.


 
Well.  I do "martial art" for fun.  But the thing is, if it doesn't have much _utility_ then it is hardly _martial._

I really doubt I'll ever have to defend myself ever again.  I'm 34, and I've learned to avoid trouble and recognize when it's time to leave. 

But I find the greatest beauty to be found in utility.

And since it _is martial art_ we're training, utility is the utmost.


----------



## joeygil

Bodhisattva said:


> I'm sure it makes you popular with the ladies.


 
I guess that's one way to retaliate when someone points out you're wrong.  Personal attack.  Gotta love the Internets.  

Actually, the reason I'm a stickler for facts is because I'm a trained scientist.  The reason I go for JKD, is I find it to be the most logical and scientific martial art around.  If accuracy isn't an issue to you, then I see no point in having a discussion.

Still, I see your point that you see no utility in trapping.  That doesn't mean other people won't.  That's your JKD.  Other people have their JKD.


----------



## Bodhisattva

joeygil said:


> I guess that's one way to retaliate when someone points out you're wrong. Personal attack. Gotta love the Internets.


 
Joey - it was a joke!  Make a joke, and people instantly assume it's a personal attack. Gotta love the Internets.



joeygil said:


> Still, I see your point that you see no utility in trapping. That doesn't mean other people won't. That's your JKD. Other people have their JKD.


 
What I say is that the old Wing Chun energy drills are silly and useless for real fight training.  I "trap" all the time in class.  But I do it from a wrestling base.  It is far more utilitarian than Wing Chun.

You can say "that's your JKD" all you like - but fighting happens within the confines of PHYSICS, Mr. Scientist.  And physics is a mean b***h.  

Think *you're* a _stickler???_   Physics is the real stickler, and physics governs us all.

Physics doesn't say "Hey, your chemistry is YOUR chemistry, and the other guy's views of chemistry are his.  Both are good!"

No.  Physics is a mean b***h.  There _are_ better ways.  And the old Wing Chun stuff is not the better way.


Physics has never attended _Cultural Tolerance Class._  Physics really doesn't think all ways are just as good as all other ways - I know it makes people uncomfortable, but physics really doesn't care who feels uncomfortable.


----------



## arnisador

Bodhisattva said:


> What I say is that the old Wing Chun energy drills are silly and useless for real fight training.  I "trap" all the time in class.  But I do it from a wrestling base.  It is far more utilitarian than Wing Chun.



Can you say more about this? I notice myself "trapping" in BJJ on occasion--similar, but different!


----------



## joeygil

Bodhisattva said:


> Joey - it was a joke! Make a joke, and people instantly assume it's a personal attack. Gotta love the Internets.


Gotcha. Sorry about that, it's a bit hard to read emotions in plain text. I guess that's why people came up with those annoying emoticons 



			
				Bodhisattva said:
			
		

> What I say is that the old Wing Chun energy drills are silly and useless for real fight training. I "trap" all the time in class. But I do it from a wrestling base. It is far more utilitarian than Wing Chun.


I agree that there are better / more efficient ways to train for combat effectiveness than WC style trapping. In my posts, I mentioned that other trapping training (clinch / plaum / pummeling) can be more efficient. My point was there can still be something gained from learning sensitivity - it's how you hit into emptiness. When you feel the hole in your opponent's structure, you thread right in. I think you get a better appreciation for that type of attack with sensitivity training. It takes longer to learn, and hence takes longer for you to use it in a fight, unlike clinch fighting.

Sifu Dan Inosanto has mentioned on occassion to the class that Sijo Bruce Lee's trapping would just totally dominate you.  He described the frustration of being tossed around like a rag doll and manipulated, while Bruce would just pound on him at will.  I think that kind of control comes from tactile sensitivity training.  If you think that you can beat his trapping (you know, if he wasn't dead), then more power to you.



> You can say "that's your JKD" all you like - but fighting happens within the confines of PHYSICS, Mr. Scientist. And physics is a mean b***h.


If you think everybody's JKD should look just like your JKD, then we're at an impasse. I just don't agree, and suggest you read some of Sijo Bruce Lee's writing on the subject of JKD. He made it pretty clear that if something doesn't work for you, don't use it, but if something does, use it.



> Think *you're* a _stickler???_ Physics is the real stickler, and physics governs us all.


Physics tells us how the body reacts when force is applied at different points from various vectors. It doesn't predicate how my opponent will attack or what he presents me as a target.

Physics won't make my opponent a trained greco guy or muay thai fighter. Thats up to him, and it's up to me how to react to him and how to force him to react to me.




> Physics doesn't say "Hey, your chemistry is YOUR chemistry, and the other guy's views of chemistry are his. Both are good!"


Not really. Lets look at physics. I can name 3 models of reality that happilly coexist together. Newtonian physics, Enstein's General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics is only valid at the extreme microscopic scale, and doesn't work when you dealing with everyday objects. 

Relativity works at huge scales and is really the only way to do calculations of things moving near the speed of light. The equations don't work at the sub-atomic scale - that's when you go with Quantum Mechanics.

For "everyday physics" - scientists and engineers still use Newton's laws. From everything to determining how much energy comes out of a punch to landing rovers on Mars. Quantum Mechanics doesn't work at these scales, and Relativity is overly complicated and ridiculous when you're not going near 300,000 km/second.

So all 3 are good, just for different situations. Think of it as having the option to use a boxing model, a kickboxing model, or a grappling model. When you're up against a boxer, probably a good idea to use kickboxing or grappling. 

But I digress.



> Physics has never attended _Cultural Tolerance Class._ Physics really doesn't think all ways are just as good as all other ways - I know it makes people uncomfortable, but physics really doesn't care who feels uncomfortable.


 
Agreed, physics / science doesn't say all ways are equally valid - otherwise Astrology would be as valid as Astronomy. But it does allow for different models as long as they can stand up to scientific rigour.

That said, I don't necessarily think all JKD is really valid as "JKD." For example, I'm not a fan of teaching a low Silat stance, where you sit on your own legs, as the "JKD Low Stance." I know some have. I still think JKD needs to have a certain directness and mobility.


----------



## joeygil

One thing I forgot to add to the whole idea different people have different interpretations of JKD.

I think most people will agree that Bruce Lee did JKD.  Guess what his JKD had in it?  WC style trapping.  So, unless you don't think Bruce Lee did JKD, then I would say JKD with WC style trapping is a valid form of JKD.


----------



## Bodhisattva

joeygil said:


> Gotcha. Sorry about that, it's a bit hard to read emotions in plain text. I guess that's why people came up with those annoying emoticons


 
I also tend to be an opinionated smart ***, so people rarely see how much of what I type is humor.  That's ok though, it's my choice to be an opinionated smartass so I have to deal with the fallout.



joeygil said:


> I agree that there are better / more efficient ways to train for combat effectiveness than WC style trapping. In my posts, I mentioned that other trapping training (clinch / plaum / pummeling) can be more efficient. My point was there can still be something gained from learning sensitivity - it's how you hit into emptiness. When you feel the hole in your opponent's structure, you thread right in.


 
Right, and that's what any good Greco or Folk wrestling program will give you.  And it will actually apply to fighting - unlike Wing Chun.  Wing Chun will give you sensitivity when facing another Wing Chun guy - but you'd still be better with greco or folk wrestling in that situation as well.



joeygil said:


> Sifu Dan Inosanto has mentioned on occassion to the class that Sijo Bruce Lee's trapping would just totally dominate you. He described the frustration of being tossed around like a rag doll and manipulated, while Bruce would just pound on him at will. I think that kind of control comes from tactile sensitivity training. If you think that you can beat his trapping (you know, if he wasn't dead), then more power to you.


 
Too bad it died with Bruce.  Otherwise boxers and ufc men would be terrified.  I mean, _even guro Dan _says "I knew this guy, once, Bruce Lee.. Man, he could really apply this stuff.  I mean, he was good."

Do I think *I* could beat Bruce's trapping?  Well, I don't know, I don't have a small wooden idol of Bruce sitting on my shelf.  He was a man.  So people could beat his trapping.  Could *I*?  I don't know, it's a silly thought.  Why don't I wonder if I could beat Musashi in sword play, or Moses at GodTalking?  

I do believe Sugar Ray Leonard would beat Bruce's trapping, and I figure Randy Couture would probably roast him over a pit too, in that range.

He was no deity.  And he started studying Boxing and other more functional arts for a reason.



joeygil said:


> If you think everybody's JKD should look just like your JKD, then we're at an impasse.


 
Nope. I don't think that.  But the fundamentals DO look the same.  The "art" comes in how you apply them differently than I.  But the fundamentals are still the same.

You can't thow a lead hook "anyway you want."  You can't jab "anyway you want."  The fundamentals are the same, if they are functional. 

Now, how you SET UP your lead hook may not be the same method I use to set up my lead hook.  That's about _style._  And after a student learns the fundamentals, his style will emerge.  But even then, the fundamentals remain the same.  And that's because the natural laws of universe don't change much.

For example - if you "set up" your lead hook with a right cross, without throwing a jab first to set up the right cross - You're likely to get knocked out.  If that is your "style" or "your expression of JKD" then good luck!

See, you might have your expression of JKD.  But that doesn't mean it will help you keep from getting beat up.  



joeygil said:


> I'd suggest you read some of Sijo Bruce Lee's writing on the subject of JKD.


 

I have, and plenty.  And what I see is that in his later years he started leaving Wing Chun far behind (except for his movies - WC is flashy) - and taking up Savate, Western Boxing, Judo and Wrestling.  Wow. That's a lot like MMA.


Most of Tao of Jeet Kune Do - the greatest poriton of it - is dedicated to Western Boxing.  When guys at our club say "What book do I get if I want tips on boxing" I always reply "Tao of Jeet Kune Do is easily one of the best boxing manuals out there.."

I mean, granted, he fights with his strong arm as his lead - but accepting that, it's a rockin book on BOXING.  With very, very little wing chun in it (comparaed to how much is devoted to boxing..)



joeygil said:


> Not really. Lets look at physics. I can name 3 models of reality that happilly coexist together. Newtonian physics, Enstein's General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.


 
"Models" are not Physics.  When I say "Physics" I am not talking about a classroom or a book.  I am talking about the actual natural laws of the universe that those classes and models try to explain.

There is a big difference between the CLASS or STUDY of physics, and the actual real deal.  This is what "The word is not the thing" means.

This is a big problem that occurs in science.  Scientists start to believe in their models more than their universe.  When their models hit a problem that they cannot solve, they scratch their heads.  Then a true pioneer comes forward, throws the old models away, finds a new model that will solve the new problem and still answer the old problems.

That's what Bruce did.  Started with Wing Chun and moved on to other, more functional systems.



joeygil said:


> So all 3 are good, just for different situations. Think of it as having the option to use a boxing model, a kickboxing model, or a grappling model. When you're up against a boxer, probably a good idea to use kickboxing or grappling.


 
Except that metaphor really doesn't hold true.



joeygil said:


> Agreed, physics / science doesn't say all ways are equally valid - otherwise Astrology would be as valid as Astronomy. But it does allow for different models as long as they can stand up to scientific rigour.


 

And Wing Chun fighters getting beat up in combat shows that WC doesn't stand up to scientific rigor.


----------



## joeygil

Bodhisattva said:


> Right, and that's what any good Greco or Folk wrestling program will give you. And it will actually apply to fighting - unlike Wing Chun. Wing Chun will give you sensitivity when facing another Wing Chun guy - but you'd still be better with greco or folk wrestling in that situation as well.


 
Agreed.  I'm just saying tactile sensitivity training can still bring something to the table, and isn't utterly useless.  It may be no good for you, but it may be good for somebody else.  If you don't think WC style trapping is useful to anybody, under any circumstances, then we just have to disagree.



> Do I think *I* could beat Bruce's trapping? Well, I don't know, I don't have a small wooden idol of Bruce sitting on my shelf. He was a man. So people could beat his trapping.


That's ridiculous.  I only have the 5 foot tall poster (just kidding).  I actually think Bruce Lee made a number of mistakes in his progression.  I mentioned it in the "simply to simplify" thread.  I think he threw things out that were no longer any use to him, but could still be useful for somebody starting out.  

But my point was, that WC style trapping can be effective.  You seem to be stating that it's completely useless.



> Nope. I don't think that. But the fundamentals DO look the same. The "art" comes in how you apply them differently than I. But the fundamentals are still the same.


Totally agree.  I went into that later in the post.



> "Models" are not Physics. When I say "Physics" I am not talking about a classroom or a book. I am talking about the actual natural laws of the universe that those classes and models try to explain.


Here's the problem with that analogy.  Physics, as you say in the context of natural laws, and not models for all intents and purposes are a constant.  That's how the universe is.

Physics in the context of a model to explain how the universe acts, is a human construct.  We've been through different models, Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, now String Theory.

JKD is closer to the model, than the constant.  If JKD were a constant, then it would never change, and Bruce Lee would never have continued evolving it up to his death.  

JKD is a model, and the model has and will continue to change to adapt to contemporary combat.  It's pretty obvious that JKD, as taught by Bruce Lee was pretty light in the ground grappling, compared to what we see today.  

That's why most JKDers (besids OJKD) prefer to cross train with some ground work.  Sifu Dan likes to mention that the technology of martial arts has changed since JKD's original conception.  Which is why he incorporates ground work into his JKD.

The point is, JKD is flexable.  It's not a constant.



> Except that metaphor really doesn't hold true.


How so?  Are you suggesting it's better to out box or a boxer?  My suggestion is that one should adapt to the situation.




> And Wing Chun fighters getting beat up in combat shows that WC doesn't stand up to scientific rigor.


 
I never advocated Wing Chun as an effective fighting style.  I definately don't suggest going toe to toe with a boxer or wrestler trying to do sticky hands while in a pidgeon toed goat holding stance.  Though, it probably held it's own againt the Shaolin and Taiji based styles of the time centuries ago, but as mentioned earlier, martial art technology has progressed.

I'm suggesting that aspects of Wing Chun trapping can still be valid in the context of JKD, as a fighting art.  Disregarding all of the WC stuff is sort of like suggesting that all the fencing inspired stuff (half-beat, beat blocks, longest weapon to closet target, a lot of the interception), should be tossed out since fencing isn't really a viable form of self defense, since I never carry my sword with me.  But do bear in mind that finger jabs to the eyes are usually against "No Holds Barred" fighting rules (ever tried passing guard with fingers coming at your eyes?).


----------



## Bodhisattva

Ok.


----------



## g-bells

Bodhisattva said:


> Most people are not against "trapping."
> 
> Most people are against classical wing chun energy drills as a method of training them..


 
If it works for them, then so be it. i personally like simple and direct traps performed in different applications, no set form, more or less free flowing


----------



## James Kovacich

arnisador said:


> Can you say more about this? I notice myself "trapping" in BJJ on occasion--similar, but different!


Thats because you're getting "it."


----------



## JohnK

Hope you guys don't mind my weighing in on this....

As a long-time practitioner of martial arts and JKD, I dropped the trapping -- to an extent!  So bear with me here.

I always make empirical evidence a top priority.  What I've found (as have many others is that trapping in a traditional sense doesn't come through in full on fights, when people are throwing HARD.  Trapping at the range that its often done will lead to tooth loss, lol.  That isn't opinion so much as that's what experience has shown.

Through the extent of our experience, Greco-Roman IS "trapping" at its more natural range.  The hand fighting, underhooks and overhooks do what traps are intended to do - trap the limbs and clear obstructions to hitting.

Now....

Recently I've been putting back into play a lot of the Dog Brothers material in regard to their footwork matrix and a Panantukan method.  Through this experience I am _beginning _to see some things come out in ways I've not before because of the angles I am working now.

That said, we aren't talking about the full matrix of FMA or Wing Chun.  What we _are_ seeing are very crude and simplified methods of getting in, jamming and hitting.  Emphasis on the word _hit.  _Boxing is the core for our stand-up.

The point is that, while we have dropped 99% of the trapping that we did, we are picking back up a very small percentage of it.  Only that which we've demonstrated to be functional within an MMA format -- which isn't much.  

Just my opinions and experiences.


----------



## bphodgesus

IMHO the thing to remember about JKD and trapping is that hitting makes trapping work, not the other way around. The wing chun influence is more about centerline and pressure, than the traditional trapping techniques. Some of the Wing Chun techniques and some of the more combative drills (think four corners, chi sao not sil lum tao, bil gee) are very useful in developing the feel of close up fighting. The use of trapping is to remove an obstruction to strike. If there is no obstruction, just hit. If there is an obstruction, go around it like with jao sao, or remove it. The repeated performance of these techniques and training methods develop sensitivity, or feel and trains the neural pathways to hit reflexively at the spinal reflex level allowing for hitting before the brain needs to process the stimuli. As far as if it can be used in a fight, well in my younger days I have seen it work some. As a noob  I will now go back to reading and learning.


----------



## Bodhisattva

bphodgesus said:


> IMHO the thing to remember about JKD and trapping is that hitting makes trapping work, not the other way around. The wing chun influence is more about centerline and pressure, than the traditional trapping techniques. Some of the Wing Chun techniques and some of the more combative drills (think four corners, chi sao not sil lum tao, bil gee) are very useful in developing the feel of close up fighting. The use of trapping is to remove an obstruction to strike. If there is no obstruction, just hit. If there is an obstruction, go around it like with jao sao, or remove it. The repeated performance of these techniques and training methods develop sensitivity, or feel and trains the neural pathways to hit reflexively at the spinal reflex level allowing for hitting before the brain needs to process the stimuli. As far as if it can be used in a fight, well in my younger days I have seen it work some. As a noob  I will now go back to reading and learning.



Greco Roman is much, much, much more efficient at solving those very same problems, in my opinion.

Well, no, in LOTS of people's experience - not just opinion - and not just mine.


----------



## bphodgesus

You may be right, or not. It all depends. There are Wendy's and Taco Bell, etc. Different tastes for all. Good luck in your training and exploration.


----------



## paulH

Bodhisattva said:


> Same thing with Straight Blast Gym. They droped the Wing Chun years ago and added greco roman and muay thai clinch tactics to replace them.
> 
> Trapping in wing chun is useless against a qualified greco roman wrestlers. Really, it's useless against most people.


 
muay thai clinch is pretty useless in a street fight as well...

if the legs are wide enough to balance properly the groin is open...

if the legs are close enough to protect the grion then then there is a good chance of taking them off balance...

we had a wing chun guy come to train with us and it helped reinforce to me that jkd employs modified trapping rather than classical...

i wouldnt say trapping is something i look to use but if an arm is left in there and i can controll it easily i will... likewise if i can clear a path to the trachea easily i will...

its another tool... however complex trapping drills only serve a limited purose imo... as in most real situatins somebody is not going to counter 3 or 4 punches... the chances are the 1st or second will connect as unless your fighting a skilled martial artist they probably wont be capable of blocking...

The other advantage of trapping is that if you grapple or clinch the other person can grab back... which in a street situatin could let somebody come behind you and stab you or just generally mess you up... trapping lets you stay on your feet and therefore more able to react to multiple attacker scenarios...


----------



## JohnMarkPainter

> its another tool... however complex trapping drills only serve a limited purose imo... as in most real situatins somebody is not going to counter 3 or 4 punches...



That's how I see it...and I LOVE trapping.
If multiple traps are happening like that, then you are staying in that Zone for too long.

You should be kicking/kneeing breaking away or clinching and going to a takedown.  The trap is only as useful as the hit or takedown it sets up.

The people that try to "skip" the trapping range are missing out just as much as those who get STUCK in the trapping range.

RE:  Usefullness of trapping in MMA...generally neither fighter is good at it so who knows?  
I'm not crazy enough to Cage-Fight so I won't ever know 

jmp


----------



## JohnMarkPainter

Oh yeah...that was my first post.
Sorry to have an opinion on my first post!

My background is JKD concepts.
My teacher put a big emphasis on Traps but as a VERY TEMPORARY SITUATION and just as a transition to something else.

jmp


----------



## Flatlander

I don't know, guys.  Nobody has the right answer.  My personal answer is based upon the following truths:

1) One cannot choose what is useful to them without first knowing and understanding the available options.  Given that, one would be hard pressed to make an informed decision without sufficient discovery.

2) One who learns not how to trap, knows not how to trap.  Therefore, one is unable to teach the art of the trap to others.  Put another way, once the Aztec culture died, it was very difficult to resurrect the spoken language.

3) Trapping drills are simply drills, meant to impart the essence of a concept.  Nobody fights using drills or kata.  

Perhaps there are other, better ways to learn the skill of immobilizing appendages for the purpose of clearing striking lanes, whilst simultaneously retarding the target's ability to strike.  Perhaps.  What I can say for sure is that I'm most certainly grateful for having this concept shared with me.  Without having learned the concept, I'd be without it.  Of this I am certain.


----------



## geezer

Flatlander said:


> ... One who learns not how to trap, knows not how to trap.  Therefore, one is unable to teach the art of the trap to others.  Put another way, once the Aztec culture died, it was very difficult to resurrect the spoken language.



"One who learns not..." _Yoda_, is that you talking? 

"...It was difficult to resurrect the spoken (Aztec) language..." It never died. Central Mexico has many thousands of Nahua (Aztec) speakers to this day, and tribes speaking closely related Uto-Aztecan tougues are found here in the States too. Now if you could resurrect some of the Aztec _fighting arts_, you might really have something! 

As far as trapping goes, for me "JKD" still means finding a martial path that reflects your individuality. If you can make trapping work for you, use it! Otherwise, why bother?


----------



## Flatlander

geezer said:


> "One who learns not..." _Yoda_, is that you talking?


No.  Yoda is a fictional character.  I, on the other hand, am in fact quite real.



geezer said:


> "...It was difficult to resurrect the spoken (Aztec) language..." It never died. Central Mexico has many thousands of Nahua (Aztec) speakers to this day, and tribes speaking closely related Uto-Aztecan tougues are found here in the States too.


 Sorry, it was late, and I'm no scholar.  Perhaps I meant the Mayan written language.  Again, my apologies for the inaccuracy.  Notwithstanding the imprecision of the metaphor, it seems to me that the point remains valid. 





geezer said:


> As far as trapping goes, for me "JKD" still means finding a martial path that reflects your individuality. If you can make trapping work for you, use it! Otherwise, why bother?


Hard to argue with the gist of this statement, though again I'd like to reiterate that it becomes rather challenging to accept one's decision as well reasoned if one isn't considering all the facts.  Which is to say, _one must first learn and know how_ to trap, and then expose the technique to testing before one can arrive at the decision.  Therefore, it seems to me that the teaching of trapping ought remain an essential part of a JKD curriculum.  However, I'm no teacher, and I'm certainly no master.  I am simply a contemplative fellow with a mind and a keyboard.

As an aside, I'd like to clarify that I'm not suggesting for a second that the classical, rigid, wing chun trap is _the way_.  I am merely proposing that the concept of trapping is valid enough to teach, whatever your methodology.


----------



## geezer

Flatlander said:


> ... I'd like to clarify that I'm not suggesting for a second that the classical, rigid, wing chun trap is _the way_.  I am merely proposing that the concept of trapping is valid enough to teach, whatever your methodology.



Pardon me, I was born a wise-***. In actual fact, I agree completely with your statement. And I'd go you one further to suggest that, if trapping has gotten a bad rap, it's because it's not being properly taught and used. That's not saying that it's for everybody, ...just that it can definitely be a useful tool.


----------



## Dark Gift Concepts

I teach it and teach my students to use it in combat. Alot of people just cant apply but that is no need to drop it.


----------



## g-bells

If you don't believe you need it then don't work it, it's just a tool in ones tool box.I'd rather have it personally but to each their own.

If you have the chance , check out Steve Gordy's tape on trapping, incredible piece of info and very informative and easy to apply


----------



## The Anarchist

I don't know where to begin, but I do know about this stuff.

That traditional trapping you see doesn't work in fighting, because it isn't meant for fighting, not the stuff you see anyway. It's the concept that you're supposed to understand. Why? Because it's very abstract, something that isn't very well defined. It cannot be proven with empirical logic, and yet it is not really hogwash.

You can learn other stuff that is "packaged and ready to go" like MMA, and that'll learn you some good things in a short amount of time. This is your choice.

I'm a left brained, and a right brained person, so I understand abstractions, and I can apply them realistically. If you do not wish to pursue abstract concepts, well like I said, it is your choice.

We all make choices. BTW, I see more people who are either left brained, or right brained. It kinda figures, that's why there's usually two sides to every argument.


----------



## The Anarchist

Yeah Mr Kovacich, "it". _The abstraction _thingy I was talking about.


----------



## Franc0

From what I've gathered, I'm guessing that if Bruce Lee was still alive today, he might have dropped trapping from "his" JKD alltogether. 
Though some would question the sincerity of his personal views, Joe Lewis mentioned something about Lee wanting to drop trapping from his JKD.
http://www.mikemiles.com/lewis.html This interview mentions it.
Personally, I like to keep some basic trapping skills in my toolbox due to my old school mantra "Better to have the tool and never use it, than to need it and never have it". Bruce might have dropped it, but he always had it, just in case 

Franco


----------



## Franc0

Another thought on this. Would their trapping skills _really_ be dropped? Once learned, do the trapping skills disappear because of the doubt of it's ability to apply, or are they just put away in the "tool box" due to expansion, boredom, epiphanies? Sometimes, the building of ones skill is due to the ability to learn, assimilate & dissect what's out there, and what works for the individual. So the question in my mind is, if I went to an instructor with the goal of being as good as the instructor is, is that instructor going to teach me everything it took to get there, or what that instructor feels works best at that time for themself? Whew!

Franco


----------



## Smoke

I am weighing in this because of my background with PFS and other groups.

I also haven't had time to read the sheer volume of posts here, which I will ultimately do.  I'm sure what I have to say has probably already been said in some form or another.

Trapping still exists, if we think of it merely as a concept instead of as a specific set of techniques.  As I've said on other posts (and I realize I'm in a posting frenzy, if you'll forgive me), trapping can exist in a variety of forms outside of the Wing Chun school of thought (Greco-Roman for example).

That said, if we even bother to look at Wing Chun as a concept instead some composite style, we can see it's just a method of teaching mechanics that can be applied in a variety of ways.

One of my goals presently is to make the techniques that I have learned from wing chun, panantukan, silat and others WORKABLE within the context of MMA sparring.  So far, I've discovered that if your timing is right, you can make almost anything work.  But to do this, you have to move outside of ridgid, stylistic thinking. You also have to be willing to drop those that prove to be unworkable.  Ironically, I believe we have heard this somewhere before, not so long ago by someone saying, "use no way as way".

It's there.  YOU have to find it.


----------



## zepedawingchun

Flatlander said:


> . . . 3) Trapping drills are simply drills, meant to impart the essence of a concept. Nobody fights using drills or kata.quote]
> 
> I have used trapping or trapped opponents in several altercations with excellent results. I also use it quite successfully when sparring with students and find it easy to apply. If you're not able to do it or use it, it's because you don't understand it fully or train enough to acquire the skill.
> 
> A lot of people attempt to trap without actually understanding it. You are right in trapping is not a drill but a skill. People copy a trapping drill shown to them step by step (1 then 2 then 3) and don't understand all the principles and concepts that govern trapping. Trapping is not do position 1, you should get this response, so do position 2, then you should get this response, then do position 3, and so on and so on. Trapping is a skill that is obtained through practice and reading the energy, following certain guidelines, and principles. You opponent dictates how they will be trapped, not you. You cannot force a trap, your oppenent actually traps themselves, you just guide them to the point where they are trapped.


----------



## zepedawingchun

Flatlander said:


> . . . .As an aside, I'd like to clarify that I'm not suggesting for a second that the classical, rigid, wing chun trap is _the way_. I am merely proposing that the concept of trapping is valid enough to teach, whatever your methodology.


 
Wing Chun trapping is not rigid! ! !  It is creative, flowing, and explosive.  If someone finds it rigid it is because they have limited it to that in their mind and the way one thinks of it.  Therefore they have limited themselves to the idea that trapping is rigid and not useful and will not fully understand how to utilize trapping.  'You must first empty your cup so I can pour you some tea.'


----------



## rooke

Simple answer. Find a GOOD JKD teacher who also does trapping. Spar with them a few times, so you have a few hours. Film it.

Did he trap you at all? If so, was it an effective and optimal response to the situation in that microsecond? 

If yes, then trapping had validity. If no, then its still unknown (mathematic rule...easier to prove something exists, than to prove it doesn't exist)...but it does yield more ammo for that case.

Have you >EVER< thrown a punch at someone? Did they bob/weave/sway/move back/cover? Then trapping wasn't useful in those scenarios. Did they ever block with their arm? Then there was an opportunity. Trapping isn't just about having both of their arms tied-up. Its about creating a bridge, and using that as a safe entry point to another range. Bridging is used in multiple arts, and very successful. That's part of what Hubud is all about. People can too confined into imagining some convoluted double arm tie-up for trapping, and not concentrating on the sectoring and zoning of just pushing an arm away so you're on the outside, or its other manifestations. Sometimes traps just manifest as really good blocks, that keep the opponent's arm away for awhile as they use their free hand and punch away. Trapping is a very broad and general area of study, with the flashy stuff being a small part of it.

Rooke

PS: I've had bridging used on me, and have used it successfully on folks in friendly MMA sparring. I consider it a worthwhile edition.


----------



## chinaboxer

IMO they drop it because they can't get it to work such as in sparring. this is primarily because they don't understand the "foundation" of Wing Chun and "why" the movements work. I watch the JKD instructors on the internet showing basic Wing Chun movements, but they don't understand the very basic concepts and principles. and without this knowledge, i just sit there and say "it will never work".

for instance, if you do any Wing Chun movement and turn your shoulders, this is completely incorrect. if both shoulders are NOT facing your opponent at all times, you are NOT utilizing the "body structure" of wing chun and it will be extremely difficult to use in a real situation or in sparring. this IMO is why they get rid of the trapping, because they can't get it to work, because they don't understand the wing chun "body structure".

I have a tutorial on Chinese Boxing for those interested at www.thechinaboxer.com

take care and peace!

Jin


----------



## rooke

Disagree. Wing Chun is not JKD and vice versa. Yet they both use trapping. Trapping does not require WC body structure. Does the WC body structure help? Sure. Both hands are facing forward so it makes a more efficient and faster trap. But this can also be done with adequate footwork.

Watch footage of Bruce Lee. He could do it in his fencing lead.

I did my trapping from an MMA stance. So did my opponents. 

Who are some JKD folks who use trapping? Paul Vunak, Steve Grody, Ron Balicki, Dan Inosanto, Richard Bustillo. So do many others. They don't stand in Wing Chun body structures when they fight, but still use it. 

Rooke


----------



## chinaboxer

rooke said:


> Disagree. Wing Chun is not JKD and vice versa. Yet they both use trapping. Trapping does not require WC body structure. Does the WC body structure help? Sure. Both hands are facing forward so it makes a more efficient and faster trap. But this can also be done with adequate footwork.
> 
> Watch footage of Bruce Lee. He could do it in his fencing lead.
> 
> I did my trapping from an MMA stance. So did my opponents.
> 
> Who are some JKD folks who use trapping? Paul Vunak, Steve Grody, Ron Balicki, Dan Inosanto, Richard Bustillo. So do many others. They don't stand in Wing Chun body structures when they fight, but still use it.
> 
> Rooke


look, i've trained with those guys, they are friends. They ALL had to go outside of JKD and train with Wing Chun instructors for many years to understand the basics, why? because they couldn't get the JKD wing chun to work, as it is taught, when it mattered and that's against an unwilling partner and not against other JKD training partners who don't challenge but rather allow them to do their thing.

if you have to rely on speed and strength to get wing chun to work, then it isn't wing chun at all, i think that people forget that wing chun was created by a woman, who was NOT fast and NOT strong, she was forced to find a different way.

Bruce Lee even up to his untimely death could NOT lay a hand on Yip Man and Wong Shun Leung at chi sau. that's why later, he began to shed it from his method, and relied more and more on his speed and athleticism. But if he were alive today, and at the age of 70, how in the world would he be able to still rely on that? believe me, he would HAVE to return to the very thing he shed, the wing chun method.

my advice to you, would be to go and give a wing chun school a try, i'm not saying give up JKD, but rather to see "why" and "how" the wing chun structure works.


----------



## rooke

chinaboxer said:


> look, i've trained with those guys, they are friends. They ALL had to go outside of JKD and train with Wing Chun instructors for many years to understand the basics, why? because they couldn't get the JKD wing chun to work, as it is taught, when it mattered and that's against an unwilling partner and not against other JKD training partners who don't challenge but rather allow them to do their thing.
> 
> if you have to rely on speed and strength to get wing chun to work, then it isn't wing chun at all, i think that people forget that wing chun was created by a woman, who was NOT fast and NOT strong, she was forced to find a different way.
> 
> Bruce Lee even up to his untimely death could NOT lay a hand on Yip Man and Wong Shun Leung at chi sau. that's why later, he began to shed it from his method, and relied more and more on his speed and athleticism. But if he were alive today, and at the age of 70, how in the world would he be able to still rely on that? believe me, he would HAVE to return to the very thing he shed, the wing chun method.
> 
> my advice to you, would be to go and give a wing chun school a try, i'm not saying give up JKD, but rather to see "why" and "how" the wing chun structure works.



Hmmm...I know these guys too. What you say doesn't ring true. And when they use the traps, they don't go into a Wing Chun mode. Ironically, none of them have given up JKD for the superiority of Wing Chun. Many of them have trained Wing Chun to study it, as they do Muay Thai, Savate, etc. Its part and parcel of the JKD mentality. That doesn't mean that they found whole worlds of things they missed. Sometime cross-study in something is to satisfy curiosity, interest, or marketability.

The legend of Ng Mui is in serious dispute amongst many people.  I personally like the theory of it being used as an assassination art rather than the nun story. Rings more true to me, although neither can be proved at this point.

And Bruce Lee not being able to lay a hand on his teacher Yip Man? There's SUCH a thing as student/teacher respect. Romanticizing the invulnerability of an old master is common in many arts. But it doesn't hold true in verifiable accounts...you don't see it in boxing, kickboxing, MMA, etc, unless the person doing it is COMPLETELY incompetent. 

As for "Speed and Strength". I never said that. I should have said footwork. But if we're on the subject many people I know agree that even superior technique can blanche in the face of superior attributes. And at a certain point, the refinement is negligible. 

I've talked to some of these folks quite honestly about trapping. What they say doesn't jive with what you say. Furthermore, Dan and Richard have crosstrained with many Wing Chun people. True. Ron Balicki is certified under Randy Williams, and has studied with Francis Fong. But they've done the same with numerous silat, kali, and Muay Thai folks. Who has Vunak and Grody left the fold to go study trapping under? Or do you mean they studied with people invited to the Kali Academy, while they were there doing seminars? If so, that doesn't jive with what you said. 

I THINK you may be mistaking their CHOICE of trapping expression for a lack of understanding because its not the Wing Chun way. 

Rooke


----------



## chinaboxer

we can probably go around and around in circles discussing this, but IMO it boils down to this...

how can you let something go, when you don't have it in the first place?

Bruce Lee's Jun Fan JKD's very foundation and core is based on Wing Chun concepts and principles and "body structure". Look at Bruce Lee's early version of Jun Fan Gung Fu, it was "forward facing" not shoulder turning, it was planted on both feet, not lifting the heels and doing a "toe heel sway". little by little he changed it to fit his strengths which at that time were his physical attributes.

Hawkins Cheung is the one who told me, that NOBODY, no matter how hard they tried, could touch Yip Man. That Yip Man would go down the line of students giving them all a chance, one by one, and he would completely control each and every student. And you have to understand that Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung, Bruce Lee etc..they were "fighters", always trying to prove that they were better than the other, testing their skills on other gangs, they were not "bow" to sifu Yip Man, "yes sir, no sir". heck no, they were not like that in those days. they would address Yip Man as the "old man", lol.

anyways, this is only my opinion, but the way wing chun is taught in the Jun Fan JKD is not "classical wing chun" where you actually learn every part, but rather it's Bruce Lee's "modified" version. I personally think that instead of learning it from a "modified" perspective first, learn it from the "classical" version so that you fully understand the "method". then you can alter it to suit your own needs, but at this point, you'll alter it to fit YOU and nobody else. exactly what Bruce Lee did.

i understand your point of view, because i used to train exactly like that, the wing chun training i got was only from the Jun Fan JKD classes, and it was the "modified" Bruce Lee's version. But Ron, myself, Joe, Chad, Damon, Justin etc...we all understood it in "theory" but when we sparred in the ring, NOBODY could pull off trapping, and we all resorted back to muay thai clinch, Grappling, Shooto, BJJ, etc...that's when i decided that in order to move "foward" in my martial arts journey, i would have to go "backwards" in my training and start from scratch, which is the classical wing chun.


i guess my point is this, wing chun is a "forward facing" body structure with both feet firmly planted on the ground. boxing, muay thai etc..get there structure by "pivoting" from the "toe heel sway" to the "rotation of the hips" to the "rotation of the shoulders". they are completely different structures, getting power completely different ways. so how do you mix the two when they are completely "opposing" methods? this is the challenge, some would say, impossible to do. which might even be why Bruce Lee and many JKD instructors today are "shedding" the wing chun which includes the trapping from their training. i really can't say for sure, but again this is only my 2cents, for what it's worth.

whew, sorry for such a long post, take care and peace!


----------



## rooke

chinaboxer said:


> we can probably go around and around in circles discussing this, but IMO it boils down to this...


---
I hope you don't mind, but I am interested in discussing this further. If you truly did study with the people you say, and are from that era, and put in the time there, then I need to consider your opinion with more gravitas. But since its the internet and you're anonymous, I'm naturally skeptical. Not a slam against you. I'm just a jaded old guy, so I don't take things at face value. 



chinaboxer said:


> how can you let something go, when you don't have it in the first place?


---
Look at Van Halen... He had minimal guitar lessons, but took off on his own, and led the way. There are many people who pioneer new trails and make significant contributions without ever getting official titles or ranks in their parent field. 



chinaboxer said:


> Bruce Lee's Jun Fan JKD's very foundation and core is based on Wing Chun concepts and principles and "body structure". Look at Bruce Lee's early version of Jun Fan Gung Fu, it was "forward facing" not shoulder turning, it was planted on both feet, not lifting the heels and doing a "toe heel sway". little by little he changed it to fit his strengths which at that time were his physical attributes.


---
Yes. I agree with this. But it was more than his "physical attributes". It was cross training with western boxers, wrestlers, judoka, and a host of other arts that he may not have been fully exposed to (or at least to a similar level) in Hong Kong. His changes have alot to do with environment, not just physicality.



chinaboxer said:


> Hawkins Cheung is the one who told me, that NOBODY, no matter how hard they tried, could touch Yip Man. That Yip Man would go down the line of students giving them all a chance, one by one, and he would completely control each and every student. And you have to understand that Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung, Bruce Lee etc..they were "fighters", always trying to prove that they were better than the other, testing their skills on other gangs, they were not "bow" to sifu Yip Man, "yes sir, no sir". heck no, they were not like that in those days. they would address Yip Man as the "old man", lol.


---
1) People always romanticize how GREAT their teachers were. People from old school arts do that even more.
2) The students also realized that getting lessons from Yip Man was crucial to advance...and being too disrespectful meant you wouldn't get the "real goods". I've been there before with OTHER instructors. Besides, they weren't there to see if they could BEAT Yip Man. They were there to learn Wing Chun. That's a big difference. And the old school masters would withhold whatever they wanted on a whim, from their students. Why else are there so many different interpretations of Wing Chun from a single lineage?



chinaboxer said:


> anyways, this is only my opinion, but the way wing chun is taught in the Jun Fan JKD is not "classical wing chun" where you actually learn every part, but rather it's Bruce Lee's "modified" version.


---
We agree here.



chinaboxer said:


> I personally think that instead of learning it from a "modified" perspective first, learn it from the "classical" version so that you fully understand the "method". then you can alter it to suit your own needs, but at this point, you'll alter it to fit YOU and nobody else. exactly what Bruce Lee did.


---
Disagree. We build upon the evolution of the past. That's how you evolve. Now I'm speaking theoretically here. Maybe Wing Chun is superior. Maybe not. But I don't need to study Latin, to progress further in fictional writing in English. It might help...but so would studying more English. As for altering a modified version...that presupposes that your teacher doesn't know anything about the original version. Maybe they do and can distill it so you don't need to learn the Mook Jong Form, Sil Lim Tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Jee, etc. Maybe you can focus on certain key points and drill them. There are more optimal options in some cases than a Tan Sau.



chinaboxer said:


> i understand your point of view, because i used to train exactly like that, the wing chun training i got was only from the Jun Fan JKD classes, and it was the "modified" Bruce Lee's version. But Ron, myself, Joe, Chad, Damon, Justin etc...we all understood it in "theory" but when we sparred in the ring, NOBODY could pull off trapping, and we all resorted back to muay thai clinch, Grappling, Shooto, BJJ, etc...that's when i decided that in order to move "foward" in my martial arts journey, i would have to go "backwards" in my training and start from scratch, which is the classical wing chun.


---
I don't remember if I mentioned it in this thread or another, but I have used it in sparring in an MMA type structure. I've Pak Sao'ed and Lop'ed. But you see it far less in kickboxing, boxing, and MMA because the structures are different. They don't block. They cover. Ergo you won't have the "handle" appear as often. So the trap won't happen. It has nothing to do with skill. It has to do with what the opponent "gave" you. 



chinaboxer said:


> i guess my point is this, wing chun is a "forward facing" body structure with both feet firmly planted on the ground. boxing, muay thai etc..get there structure by "pivoting" from the "toe heel sway" to the "rotation of the hips" to the "rotation of the shoulders". they are completely different structures, getting power completely different ways. so how do you mix the two when they are completely "opposing" methods?


Its quite easy. When I see the opportunity, I plant and utilize the mechanics in a 1" punch for my jab. Its modified from the goat stance power punch mechanic you get in Chum Kiu. But it is from a modified jab stance. Its my strongest technique, and I've gotten a few shocked looks from the power. And then I switch up. Just like I manage to do a Thai roundhouse and go into a kinjit. Its how you set it up. Its easy enough. And the trapping works quite easily from a simple boxer's parry. I parry and use an inside gunting, step in and pak sao, go to the Plum, and voila. It is actually a very elegant and high percentage sequence.



chinaboxer said:


> this is the challenge, some would say, impossible to do. which might even be why Bruce Lee and many JKD instructors today are "shedding" the wing chun which includes the trapping from their training. i really can't say for sure, but again this is only my 2cents, for what it's worth.


---
Some are shedding because they're sparring MMA/kickboxers/boxers, and those folks cover instead of block. But I've used it plenty, and I'm a relative newbie at trapping. I've watched plenty of Wing Chun folks, and plenty of JKD Concept folks. I prefer the JKD Concept ways. 



chinaboxer said:


> whew, sorry for such a long post, take care and peace!


No problem. So my question is, you trained with these incredible people. Are you saying (and I'm making a leap here) that you discarded all the JKD and other arts you learned for Wing Chun? Because you've mentioned a few times that the body mechanics of other arts are incompatible. So I'm curious.

Rooke


----------



## rooke

I found your youtube clips. There appears to be some interesting things. I started to watch your explanation of Jik Chung Choi, but wasn't able to finish it (gotta get ready for work tomorrow). I agree with alot of what you say, but the criticism of how its normally used leaves out some elements that JKD folks use to do it (at least in what I saw so far). I'll definitely look at the rest.

I may disagree (or I may agree, I don't know yet), but its highly commendable for you to "put it out there". You definitely have significant skill in your areas of study. But you also teach MMA? Are you using Wing Chun as a standup component in that? You don't claim JKD. How long did you study JKD? Just curious. Thanks for the food for thought.

Rooke


----------



## simplicity

I just went earlier this year to Jesse Glover & Ted Wong (First/Last Student of Bruce Lee).... There where WC guys that are studying JKD now.... I have not trained one second in WC.... They asked to do chi-sao with me, because they crossed arms with my students....But during chi-sao they moved out and away from me, one of them told me "Don't BS me you have study WC... I said nope I did not ever...

 For saying that you have to go backward to go forward, I would have say not for everyone.... As being a Natiive American, I would say if the shoe fits wear it....But, not every shoes fits every foot.... Hmmm,  something to think about!


Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney


----------



## chinaboxer

rooke said:


> I found your youtube clips. There appears to be some interesting things. I started to watch your explanation of Jik Chung Choi, but wasn't able to finish it (gotta get ready for work tomorrow). I agree with alot of what you say, but the criticism of how its normally used leaves out some elements that JKD folks use to do it (at least in what I saw so far). I'll definitely look at the rest.
> 
> I may disagree (or I may agree, I don't know yet), but its highly commendable for you to "put it out there". You definitely have significant skill in your areas of study. But you also teach MMA? Are you using Wing Chun as a standup component in that? You don't claim JKD. How long did you study JKD? Just curious. Thanks for the food for thought.
> 
> Rooke


Hey Rooke,

i joined the Marine Corps which got me stationed in Southern California back in 1988, I did search & rescue for a Marine Corps helicopter squadron, that's when i began studying at the Inosanto Academy.

i continued there roughly until 1997 and later with my close friend, Dan Sullivan, who i helped open his Jun Fan JKD school. here is a link to his school. http://www.ockickboxing.com/head_instructor.htm

along my martial arts journey, i've also had the great privilege of working privately with Jerry Poteet. He's such a class act.

i still occasionally go train and visit the Inosanto Academy to visit Guru Dan and Yori Nakamura who i think the world of.

I've been doing Wing Chun since 1997 to today's date along with submission grappling and BJJ.

damm..i just realized how f'n old i am! hahahaha...time flies when you're having fun! =D

anyways, back to the topic...

this is my opinion only, based on my experiences only, i want everyone to know that first and foremost. i am only here to share my view.

the problem i think i will most likely have is "communicating" from my "point of view", in other words, i am doing "both sides of the coin", one side being the Jun Fan JKD and the other is the Wing Chun. so my opinions are coming from both perspectives, but most of you, not all, but most of you are studying only "one side of the coin", the JKD side, and that's where "communication" is not fully understood. I'm not saying that "my way" is better than your way, no, no, no. please don't misunderstand what i'm saying.

have i let go of my Jun Fan JKD training? of course not, but do i see it from a completely different "lens" now that i study "both sides"? yes.

Here's one of my favorite stories about the Dalai Lama, that kind of illustrates what i'm trying to say...
"The Dalai Lama was approached one day by a woman and her young son. She asked, "Dalai Lama, can you please tell my son to stop eating sugar. Its not good for him, and he wont listen to me. He respects you, and I know he will listen to you."
 The Dalai Lama said, "Fine. Come back in a week."
 A week later, the woman and her son came back. The Dalai Lama said, "Im not   quite ready. Please come back in another week."
 Another week went by, and the woman came back with her son. The Dalai Lama was ready, and he said, "Son, you should stop eating sugar. It is not good for you."
 The woman was pleased, but also a bit confused. She said, "Why did it take   you so long to say such a simple thing."
 The Dalai Lama replied, "When you first came to me, I had not stopped eating   sugar myself."​my point is that my whole martial arts journey has been to try not to be a hypocrite while researching what works for me while sharing the process along the way with others. this is why i suggested to you that you should give a reputable wing chun school a try and later on down the road, let's have this discussion again over a nice cup of green tea! =D

take care and peace!


----------



## simplicity

How long have did you train with Jerry Poteet.... I've trained with him quite a bit back before he started his org.....  I have trained with nine of BL students, as well as Dan I.


----------



## chinaboxer

simplicity said:


> I just went earlier this year to Jesse Glover & Ted Wong (First/Last Student of Bruce Lee).... There where WC guys that are studying JKD now.... I have not trained one second in WC.... They asked to do chi-sao with me, because they crossed arms with my students....But during chi-sao they moved out and away from me, one of them told me "Don't BS me you have study WC... I said nope I did not ever...
> 
> For saying that you have to go backward to go forward, I would have say not for everyone.... As being a Natiive American, I would say if the shoe fits wear it....But, not every shoes fits every foot.... Hmmm,  something to think about!
> 
> 
> Keep "IT" Real,
> John McNabney


John, i respect that you are teaching JKD. i also respect that you like purple, it's my favorite color! =D

so please don't get offended by my comment, because it is not meant to be offensive to you in any way, shape or form.

EVERY Jun Fan JKD instructor i know, from Dan Inosanto, Ted Wong, Jerry Poteet etc...have ALL sought out and studied Wing Chun for many years under reputable Wing Chun instructors. this makes sense since Bruce Lee's Jun Fan JKD is founded on wing chun concepts and principles.

So now they see from "both sides of the coin" and get a perspective of "why" Bruce Lee made the choices he did. So now the choices they make in regards to their personal JKD is not random choices but rather very specific to themselves from a very specific "lens".

Now i don't know you personally, and i don't know your martial arts background, but you have to ask yourself, have you done the wing chun "research", not skimming, but intense study from reputable wing chun instructors? 

Dan Inosanto said it best whe he used to tell us, "absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is uniquely your own, BUT do not reject it until you have thoroughly researched it first."

this is why i tell my students, "you cannot let something go, if you don't have it in the first place."

take care and peace!

Jin


----------



## chinaboxer

simplicity said:


> How long have did you train with Jerry Poteet.... I've trained with him quite a bit back before he started his org.....  I have trained with nine of BL students, as well as Dan I.


it was roughly about a year, at his house in the valley. why do i feel like i'm in JKD court? hahaha...i'm j/k


----------



## James Kovacich

simplicity said:


> I just went earlier this year to Jesse Glover & Ted Wong (First/Last Student of Bruce Lee).... There where WC guys that are studying JKD now.... I have not trained one second in WC.... They asked to do chi-sao with me, because they crossed arms with my students....But during chi-sao they moved out and away from me, one of them told me "Don't BS me you have study WC... I said nope I did not ever...
> 
> For saying that you have to go backward to go forward, I would have say not for everyone.... As being a Natiive American, I would say if the shoe fits wear it....But, not every shoes fits every foot.... Hmmm, something to think about!
> 
> 
> Keep "IT" Real,
> John McNabney


 John, how is it really going backward if it's the "starting point?" I'm not stating Wing Chun as a starting point but Bruce lee's modified Wing Chun is to quickly discounted.

I choose (because of Sifu's training) not to drop it without knowing forsure it is useless.

Had I started under a differant instructor I may feel differantly but my initial question is to me, valid.


----------



## rooke

chinaboxer said:


> Hey Rooke,
> 
> i joined the Marine Corps which got me stationed in Southern California back in 1988, I did search & rescue for a Marine Corps helicopter squadron, that's when i began studying at the Inosanto Academy.
> 
> i continued there roughly until 1997 and later with my close friend, Dan Sullivan, who i helped open his Jun Fan JKD school. here is a link to his school. http://www.ockickboxing.com/head_instructor.htm
> 
> along my martial arts journey, i've also had the great privilege of working privately with Jerry Poteet. He's such a class act.
> 
> i still occasionally go train and visit the Inosanto Academy to visit Guru Dan and Yori Nakamura who i think the world of.
> 
> I've been doing Wing Chun since 1997 to today's date along with submission grappling and BJJ.
> 
> damm..i just realized how f'n old i am! hahahaha...time flies when you're having fun! =D
> 
> anyways, back to the topic...
> 
> this is my opinion only, based on my experiences only, i want everyone to know that first and foremost. i am only here to share my view.
> 
> the problem i think i will most likely have is "communicating" from my "point of view", in other words, i am doing "both sides of the coin", one side being the Jun Fan JKD and the other is the Wing Chun. so my opinions are coming from both perspectives, but most of you, not all, but most of you are studying only "one side of the coin", the JKD side, and that's where "communication" is not fully understood. I'm not saying that "my way" is better than your way, no, no, no. please don't misunderstand what i'm saying.
> 
> have i let go of my Jun Fan JKD training? of course not, but do i see it from a completely different "lens" now that i study "both sides"? yes.
> 
> Here's one of my favorite stories about the Dalai Lama, that kind of illustrates what i'm trying to say..."The Dalai Lama was approached one day by a woman and her young son. She asked, "Dalai Lama, can you please tell my son to stop eating sugar. Its not good for him, and he wont listen to me. He respects you, and I know he will listen to you."
> The Dalai Lama said, "Fine. Come back in a week."
> A week later, the woman and her son came back. The Dalai Lama said, "Im not   quite ready. Please come back in another week."
> Another week went by, and the woman came back with her son. The Dalai Lama was ready, and he said, "Son, you should stop eating sugar. It is not good for you."
> The woman was pleased, but also a bit confused. She said, "Why did it take   you so long to say such a simple thing."
> The Dalai Lama replied, "When you first came to me, I had not stopped eating   sugar myself."​my point is that my whole martial arts journey has been to try not to be a hypocrite while researching what works for me while sharing the process along the way with others. this is why i suggested to you that you should give a reputable wing chun school a try and later on down the road, let's have this discussion again over a nice cup of green tea! =D
> 
> take care and peace!



Hey Chinaboxer, I guess this is where we disagree. You're arguing about the ORIGINAL Jun Fan Gung Fu as its presented. I'm arguing the JKD Concept folks who've studied Wing Chun or learned from JKD folks who studied Wing Chun, but maintaiin their kickboxing structure.

I have not studied the original Jun Fan Gung Fu, nor is that my interest. So I cannot judge its effectiveness in trapping versus Wing Chun. I however, believe that the knowledge that Guro Inosanto learned has been distilled and presented to his class. 

As a result, given the kickboxing structure and his experience, his trapping will not follow typical Wing Chun.

I do respect where you're coming from. Its hard to take a hard-line about what IS and what ISN'T. 

So are you using the Wing Chun as your standup in your MMA class then? Instead of a kickboxing base?

Rooke


----------



## chinaboxer

rooke said:


> Hey Chinaboxer, I guess this is where we disagree. You're arguing about the ORIGINAL Jun Fan Gung Fu as its presented. I'm arguing the JKD Concept folks who've studied Wing Chun or learned from JKD folks who studied Wing Chun, but maintaiin their kickboxing structure.
> 
> I have not studied the original Jun Fan Gung Fu, nor is that my interest. So I cannot judge its effectiveness in trapping versus Wing Chun. I however, believe that the knowledge that Guro Inosanto learned has been distilled and presented to his class.
> 
> As a result, given the kickboxing structure and his experience, his trapping will not follow typical Wing Chun.
> 
> I do respect where you're coming from. Its hard to take a hard-line about what IS and what ISN'T.
> 
> So are you using the Wing Chun as your standup in your MMA class then? Instead of a kickboxing base?
> 
> Rooke


Original JKD, Traditional JKD, whatever JKD, that's a whole different can of worms, huh. i really try hard to stay out of the "politics" of it all, this also happens in Wing Chun.

i try my best to focus on the "similarities" rather than the "differences" of both JKD and WC.

it's the "similarities" that bind us together and the "differences" that tear us apart. this also happens in religion and many other subjects as well.

yes, i do use the wing chun as my choice of stand up in MMA, my goal is simple, that no matter what "range" i'm in, i want to rely on "one method".

as it stands today, MMA fighters rely on two separate methods. when they are on their feet, they rely on "speed and power" through the rotation of the body to get power, the bigger faster fighter has all the advantages using this method, but you always hear, on the feet "you always have a punchers chance."

but once they are on the ground and grappling, it suddenly becomes "chess" and its all about who has the best "feel", where "sensitivity" overcomes the stronger, faster fighter. when fighters are grappling, you never hear "you always have a grapplers chance". in other words, on the ground, they coincide with many of the wing chun concepts and principles.

so i've been doing my best to come up with a method that does not change no matter what range you are in. it's always the same, which is "sensitivity" over "strength", "listening skill" over "speed", "facing" vs "turning" etc...

will it ever happen? who the heck knows, but at least i'm trying to find my way.


----------



## simplicity

James Kovacich said:


> John, how is it really going backward if it's the "starting point?" I'm not stating Wing Chun as a starting point but Bruce lee's modified Wing Chun is to quickly discounted.
> 
> I choose (because of Sifu's training) not to drop it without knowing forsure it is useless.
> 
> Had I started under a differant instructor I may feel differantly but my initial question is to me, valid.


 

James,
my friend how you doing? I hope all is well.... I wrote this: 





> For saying that you have to go backward to go forward, *I would have to say not for everyone*.... As being a Natiive American, *I would say if the shoe fits wear it....But, not every shoes fits every foot*.... Hmmm, something to think about!


 
Bro that's all I'm saying...Simple huh? As far as Bruce lee's modified Wing Chun.... Right on and yes guys I do teach the energy training stuff..... James I speaking from experience and JKD modified energy training which in my post I never said I discounted....


What I don't agree about is that everyone has to go that route.... Also, so that everyone knows I have trained in both so called groups of thought JKDC & OJKD.... I'm neither and don't agree with either one's approach to BL art, but I do teach Jeet Kune Do.. The founder did say this would happen....Ya know, please this isn't about this and I don't want to be flamed.... I'm just letting people know where my experience has taking me...


----------



## simplicity

chinaboxer said:


> it was roughly about a year, at his house in the valley. why do i feel like i'm in JKD court? hahaha...i'm j/k


 

Awesome! I have trained with Jerry as well, for six years at his house many times, at my school many times and at his other students school's as well.... Jerry is a great Jeet Kune Do teacher for sure... He has gave me the keys that unlock all door's....Those are his words not mine....


Please don't take what I say wrong....By the way, you know my name what is yours? You seem like you are a nice person... But I still don't agree that one will have to learn WC to understand JKD energy training....Some but not all....It ok to not see things through my eye's, as I can't see through your eye's as well....


Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney


----------



## simplicity

> Now i don't know you personally, and i don't know your martial arts background, but you have to ask yourself, have you done the wing chun "research", not skimming, but intense study from reputable wing chun instructors?


 
Maybe when I'm in Cali we can hang out....I've been training since 1969, my father was my first teacher in Karate Do.... He was in every south pacific battle in WW2, he was one of the few that trained in Old School Karate Do....and brought it back home...


I'm sorry but I don't need to go to any WC instructor....


----------



## James Kovacich

simplicity said:


> James,
> my friend how you doing? I hope all is well.... I wrote this:
> 
> Bro that's all I'm saying...Simple huh? As far as Bruce lee's modified Wing Chun.... Right on and yes guys I do teach the energy training stuff..... James I speaking from experience and JKD modified energy training which in my post I never said I discounted....
> 
> 
> What I don't agree about is that everyone has to go that route.... Also, so that everyone knows I have trained in both so called groups of thought JKDC & OJKD.... I'm neither and don't agree with either one's approach to BL art, but I do teach Jeet Kune Do.. The founder did say this would happen....Ya know, please this isn't about this and I don't want to be flamed.... I'm just letting people know where my experience has taking me...


John you are one of the few that walks "the path" unbiased by the camps, branches and all the BS. I don't beleive that everyone has to follow that route either. Where your 1st instructor starts us is out of our control. But I did start there and my heart in MA reverts back to what I know best (*** kickin of course). 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





But for real I think you know I've had it with some people. Those guys that really piss me off (you know who they are) about the "one true way." They are really getting under my skin.

Take care my friend, James


----------



## James Kovacich

Don't trip guys I'm not talking about people here at MT.


----------



## joe-jitsu

I attended a JKD Street Fighting Seminar in Grand Blanc, MI two days ago presented by Sifu Marcus Charles out of Chicago, IL (certfied under Dan Inosanto, Paul Vunak & the late great Larry Hartsell).  Sifu Charles is also the Midwest Director for both the JKD Grappling Association (the late Sifu Hartsell) and Progressive Fighting Systems JKD (Sifu Vunak).

Sifu Charles taught a lot of basic trapping tactics (ie:  Pak Sao, Lop Sao, Dumog, Hubud) but I also know that he is heavily involved with in-the-clinch fighting as well, though we didn't train with it at this particular seminar.


----------



## xfighter88

I am not a JKD guy. That being said my friend is and has worked some very basic trapping with me. I am a muay thai/TKD guy, but I use trapping a lot when sparring. Trap the lead hand and kick or punch the head in TKD. Trap, quick punch and clinch to knees in Muay Thai. It is such a foreign concept to other forms of martial arts. So it works really well. Trap, back fist, Elbow is a personal favorite of mine.

I think that MMA is getting so popular that perspective students want to see clinch used and taught because that is all they know from TV these days. No one traps in UFC so people tend to misunderstand, underestimate, or disregard it.

Cheers!


----------



## sgtmac_46

hungfistron said:


> Learning the basics of trapping is one of the main reasons I began to study Wing Chun.  Im curious to learn why the students that you speak of have decided to disgard this part of the system...



Probably because they feel that for them personally, it is a better solution to those particular situations in fighting.


----------



## sgtmac_46

xfighter88 said:


> I am not a JKD guy. That being said my friend is and has worked some very basic trapping with me. I am a muay thai/TKD guy, but I use trapping a lot when sparring. Trap the lead hand and kick or punch the head in TKD. Trap, quick punch and clinch to knees in Muay Thai. It is such a foreign concept to other forms of martial arts. So it works really well. Trap, back fist, Elbow is a personal favorite of mine.
> 
> I think that MMA is getting so popular that perspective students want to see clinch used and taught because that is all they know from TV these days. No one traps in UFC so people tend to misunderstand, underestimate, or disregard it.
> 
> Cheers!


 I'd say that's part of it.  MMA sport can't help but influence, and the Wrestling and BJJ training being incorporated in JKD Concepts certainly has a lot to do with it.

But again JKD is an evolving personal art, so one finds the path that works best for them.


----------



## seasoned

Once you learn trapping, it just happens. Hand comes in, trap and strike happens, along with the locks and take downs. The key is, it all has to come naturally, from a lot of practice.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Some great views presented in this thread!
I honestly believe that trapping is a part of the progression of JKD. Some folks don't progress and stick to it, some others progress past it... and some progress while maintaining its elements.

I was first exposed to trapping in Muay Thai. Some of the mae mai techs of the Muay I learned involve trapping. Later JKD and Wing Chun. These days I view trapping as a by-product of not being able to successfully hit. Some people may be skilled enough to hit every time without using traps... I personally feel that the objective should always be to hit, but when you can't directly hit then a trap may be used just as taking another line could be used.

 In my opinion though, it should still be taught, experienced, and evaluated by folk to determine themselves if they want to keep or discard it. Better to question it and find the answer for yourself, than to take another's word for it whom may not have had sufficient skill to make something effective.


----------

