# JKD without Wing  Chun?



## Thunder Foot

Can a person learn/practice Jeet Kune Do without practicing/learning Wing Chun?


----------



## geezer

Thunder Foot said:


> Can a person learn/practice Jeet Kune Do without practicing/learning Wing Chun?



As a "chunner", I see so many  Wing Chun concepts in JKD that I'd bet that even if you stuck to "pure JKD" (whatever that is) you'd be still be learning some of the essence of WC whether you realized it or not. By the same token, I find that as I free up my WC, especially when I'm working with my Escrima partners,  sometimes I get more JKD-like ...especially when at medio-largo (longer range). If that makes the uber-traditionalists wince, I'm sorry, but I favor concept oriented MA over a technique oriented approach.


----------



## WC_lun

Keep in mind also that Mr Lee was not an advanced player of Wing Chun.  So even though JKD has a heavy base of Wing Chun, there is a divurgence, about the time of Chum Kui.  This isn't necesarily good or bad, its just how it is.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thunder Foot said:


> Can a person learn/practice Jeet Kune Do without practicing/learning Wing Chun?



according to the guy I trained with, way to briefly, you need either Wnig Chun or Jun Fan as a base for JKD otherwise he felt your JKD was missing something rather important. And form what I experienced I tend to agree


----------



## arnisador

In principle, yes--many schools emphasize JKD concepts that re applicable to many systems.

In practice, it would be hard to find someone who has eliminated the Wing Chun influence and is still doing recognizable JKD, I'd say.


----------



## Thunder Foot

I agree that Wing Chun is a requirement. While many different people practice the concepts, the practice of JKD draws on the fundamental principles of Wing Chun. Learning JKD without an understanding of it results in a watery mess of disfunction.


----------



## James Kovacich

arnisador said:


> In principle, yes--many schools emphasize JKD concepts that re applicable to many systems.
> 
> In practice, it would be hard to find someone who has eliminated the Wing Chun influence and is still doing recognizable JKD, I'd say.



The whole Ted Wong lineage including Ted himself (rip) claim WC was eliminated and argue the recognizable concepts came from fencing. 

To me logic says Bruce trained WC long before he explored in other arts. But that's what they say.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## arnisador

James Kovacich said:


> To me logic says Bruce trained WC long before he explored in other arts.



Can you believe that you and I were involved in this same discussion 9 years ago? We've been here a long time!
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/9949-JKD-Minimum-Curriculum


----------



## James Kovacich

arnisador said:


> Can you believe that you and I were involved in this same discussion 9 years ago? We've been here a long time!
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/9949-JKD-Minimum-Curriculum



You got that right my friend!

JKD has proven to be a mixed bag of fruit. I've seen, heard and felt a lot. My opinion, Dan Inosanto had it right all along. He deserves a lot more credit than his peers and others give him. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng

The thing about JKD is you will find different schools of thought in the 1st generation guys (Bruce Lee students) . The man I trained all to briefly with was a studnet of Jerry Poteet who gave him permision to teach and he later trainewith Lamar M. Davis and he is of the beleif that JKD without Jun Fan is not as effective. HE basically put Jun Fan as the undergrad degree and JKD as the masters degree. He truly felt that JKD basics where Jun Fan. He did not think that Wing Chun required to train Jun Fan or JKD but he did think it helped. He did however feel that you really needed Jun Fan, the original Bruce Lee art preJKD to truly understand and use JKD


----------



## Thunder Foot

James Kovacich said:


> The whole Ted Wong lineage including Ted himself (rip) claim WC was eliminated and argue the recognizable concepts came from fencing.
> 
> To me logic says Bruce trained WC long before he explored in other arts. But that's what they say.



Ted Wong was a great teacher, but I personally don't believe that Wing Chun was completely eliminated either. Other people around Bruce have said that he continued to chi sau, used WC training methods and techs during his evaluation of fencing. I do understand the nature that statement though. If we take a quick look at fencing principles, we can see some of the structure is aligned with that of WC placing heavy emphasis on the centerline as well as the 4 gates/quadrants. The nature of fencing appears to be a bit more offensive imho, and JKD appears to follow the same school of thought to me. For example in my practice of WC, I was taught trapping can be used as a great tool to control, which appears to me as a defensive strategy. On the opposite end when used offensively, I've learned that trapping can also act as a by-product when your strikes have been defended/countered, which can be considered WC depending on the lineage. Typical trap n hit vs hit n trap analogy. When we look at this 2nd "possible" application, we can see how the trapping element may not always come out if a person is fast enough to score without it. To me, that doesnt mean that its not there, but more towards the idea that the situation didnt call for it.

As a result, some of the TW guys may not practice it and may miss the element entirely, being left with yet another form of mere kickboxing. I've been told it takes time to develop that sensitivity... time which a lot of folk arent willing to invest.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> The thing about JKD is you will find different schools of thought in the 1st generation guys (Bruce Lee students) . The man I trained all to briefly with was a studnet of Jerry Poteet who gave him permision to teach and he later trainewith Lamar M. Davis and he is of the beleif that JKD without Jun Fan is not as effective. HE basically put Jun Fan as the undergrad degree and JKD as the masters degree. He truly felt that JKD basics where Jun Fan. He did not think that Wing Chun required to train Jun Fan or JKD but he did think it helped. He did however feel that you really needed Jun Fan, the original Bruce Lee art preJKD to truly understand and use JKD


I agree with this as well, and this is probably one of the major dividing lines between those that see JKD as merely a concept and those that see it as more. For those of us that believe in the importance of Jun Fan Gung Fu though, how well do we understand what we practice? Can we answer simple questions like, what exactly is modified Wing Chun? What did Bruce modify and why? These are questions I've asked myself, and I believe that understanding of a modification can only come by understanding its origin. Of course to learn the movements and go through the motions, WC is not required... but to gain an understanding of what youre doing and why, i think most logical people will investigate the source at some point. Rather than simply going off what someone tells you, I think its important to gain a personal account of it as well. 

Now thats just understanding Jun Fan/mod Wing Chun... going to JKD involves further modification and skill sets. My $0.02.


----------



## arnisador

My impression is that those focus on concepts think not that they're 'merely' looking at concepts but that, to the contrary, it is they who have gotten past the Jun Fan/Wing Chun to truly see the big picture. I'd still like to see what JKD looks like when applied to a base of Korean arts only, say.


----------



## Thunder Foot

arnisador said:


> My impression is that those focus on concepts think not that they're 'merely' looking at concepts but that, to the contrary, it is they who have gotten past the Jun Fan/Wing Chun to truly see the big picture. I'd still like to see what JKD looks like when applied to a base of Korean arts only, say.


I understand that source of thought but my question to those people would be, "how can you have gotten past what you haven't learned or experienced"? Perception can be deceiving. I dont think anyone can decipher the advanced mathematical calculations of quantum physics, without an understanding of basic algebra. In my most humble opinion, anyone who has gotten past this or that, should be able to reproduce it to a functional degree through their understanding of what they've progressed from. Ask a physicist to solve an algebraic equation, and he can _still _use basic algebra to solve it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I was only shown a little JKD and only slightly more Jun Fan but from the little I did get to do Jun Fan seemed to be more direct with less movement and JKD seemed to be only slightly less direct because of its movement. And take this for what it is worth because I did not train It long enough to be considered any real good source when it comes to answering questions about JKD or Jun Fan but Jun Fan seemed to be more concerned with the linear while JKD also had the circular with the linear&#8230; if that makes any sense at all


----------



## James Kovacich

JKD without WC, yes but JFGF is the base. That's today, as it continues to evolve who knows. Bruce never intended for the confined static art that JKD has become. That's what we let it become but it dosent have to be that way. 

Instead of us conforming to the art, it should be about the art conforming to us.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng

James Kovacich said:


> JKD without WC, yes but JFGF is the base. That's today, as it continues to evolve who knows. Bruce never intended for the confined static art that JKD has become. That's what we let it become but it dosent have to be that way.



I have often wondered about this when looking at a school teaching jkd because of this quote from Bruce Lee



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





James Kovacich said:


> Instead of us conforming to the art, it should be about the art conforming to us.



What I got almost immediately from my short time in JFKF was that this can work in any art. I looked at it through Xingyiquan and realized there were things in Xingyi that where in JFKF. The simultaneous punch block for instance and the method of training JFKF can be used in any art as well. This is what really impressed me about JFKF


----------



## arnisador

Despite that quote, I have a black belt in "Jeet Kune Do-Kali Concepts." Make of that what you will. Great instructor, great training, good material: Heavy Wing Chun and Western boxing base with a lot of Kali and a fair amount of Muay Thai, then token amounts of other stuff.


----------



## Thunder Foot

James Kovacich said:


> JKD without WC, yes but JFGF is the base. That's today, as it continues to evolve who knows. Bruce never intended for the confined static art that JKD has become. That's what we let it become but it dosent have to be that way.
> 
> Instead of us conforming to the art, it should be about the art conforming to us.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


And herein lies the doorway to a series of questions in our attempt to understand Jun Fan Gung Fu... what is Jun Fan Gung Fu? Many have referred to it as Modified Wing Chun. So where does Wing Chun stop and Jun Fan start? What exactly was modified and why? Which tools does JFGF possess that are common with WC? Which tools does it possess that aren't?
What I'm getting at is that many of us site JFGF as the base for which to express our own JKD, but how many of us have actually taken time to understand and define what JFGF is? How can we hope to ultimately express our own JKD, if we can't express or understand it's base?

Learning and understanding the confinements of your Art does not define a person to "confined" or "static" art. On the contrary, understanding these limitations should empower us with the knowledge to observe and liberate ourselves from them. Again, my humble opinion and POV.


----------



## Thunder Foot

arnisador said:


> Despite that quote, I have a black belt in "Jeet Kune Do-Kali Concepts." Make of that what you will. Great instructor, great training, good material: Heavy Wing Chun and Western boxing base with a lot of Kali and a fair amount of Muay Thai, then token amounts of other stuff.


Great to hear! I've also trained JKD Concepts for a comparable amount of time, however my instructors never really handed out belts.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thunder Foot said:


> And herein lies the doorway to a series of questions in our attempt to understand Jun Fan Gung Fu... what is Jun Fan Gung Fu? Many have referred to it as Modified Wing Chun. So where does Wing Chun stop and Jun Fan start? What exactly was modified and why? Which tools does JFGF possess that are common with WC? Which tools does it possess that aren't?



Actually I was learning Jun Fan and not JKD because my teacher had his school set up that way. ANd I was actually trying to understand what JFKF is and if I was able to stay at the school long enough I may have gotten a bit further in that understanding

Also I have some little background in Wing Chun and I did see modified Pak Sau and Wu Sau used as blocks and I say a rather extensive use of a modified Huen Sau for both high and low blocks in combination with a punch and the punches were all centerline like Wing Chun. At this point I basically see JFGF as Wing Chun on Steroids 



Thunder Foot said:


> What I'm getting at is that many of us site JFGF as the base for which to express our own JKD, but how many of us have actually taken time to understand and define what JFGF is? How can we hope to ultimately express our own JKD, if we can't express or understand it's base?



I was looking forward to see exactly what JFKF meant to JKD but I was not able to train there long enough.



Thunder Foot said:


> Learning and understanding the confinements of your Art does not define a person to "confined" or "static" art. On the contrary, understanding these limitations should empower us with the knowledge to observe and liberate ourselves from them. Again, my humble opinion and POV.



Let me think about that for a bit, but I think I agree


----------



## arnisador

Thunder Foot said:


> Great to hear! I've also trained JKD Concepts for a comparable amount of time, however my instructors never really handed out belts.



Mine came to the decision to do so reluctantly, but wanted to more clearly indicate grades in part to keep him straight in class--so-and-so is an orange belt so probably needs to work on this, etc. He didn't have grades of black belt at the time I got mine (then left due to an injury that inhibited my training) but was considering added them.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Xue Sheng said:


> ...Also I have some little background in Wing Chun and I did see modified Pak Sau and Wu Sau used as blocks and I say a rather extensive use of a modified Huen Sau for both high and low blocks in combination with a punch and the punches were all centerline like Wing Chun. At this point I basically see JFGF as Wing Chun on Steroid...


And here is where we ask ourselves again, what exactly is a modified pak sau, wu sau? or huen sau? Who is it that determines that any of these motions can only be done in one specific way?
Food for thought...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thunder Foot said:


> And here is where we ask ourselves again, what exactly is a modified pak sau, wu sau? or huen sau? Who is it that determines that any of these motions can only be done in one specific way?
> Food for thought...



True and agreed, but understand I know just a little more about Wing Chun than Jun Fan and that is not saying much. I only know Siu Lum tao of Wing Chun and I only trained Jun Fan for a month so when I say modified it may mean little it may actually be Pak Sau and Wu Sau and they can be called the same thing when used in different ways. For answers to that we would need someone with much more Wing Chun that I have.

Either way I still look at Jun Fan as Wing Chun on steroids


----------



## James Kovacich

Thunder Foot said:


> And herein lies the doorway to a series of questions in our attempt to understand Jun Fan Gung Fu... what is Jun Fan Gung Fu? Many have referred to it as Modified Wing Chun. So where does Wing Chun stop and Jun Fan start? What exactly was modified and why? Which tools does JFGF possess that are common with WC? Which tools does it possess that aren't?
> What I'm getting at is that many of us site JFGF as the base for which to express our own JKD, but how many of us have actually taken time to understand and define what JFGF is? How can we hope to ultimately express our own JKD, if we can't express or understand it's base?
> 
> Learning and understanding the confinements of your Art does not define a person to "confined" or "static" art. On the contrary, understanding these limitations should empower us with the knowledge to observe and liberate ourselves from them. Again, my humble opinion and POV.


Difining "your art" (be it WC, JFGF, JKD or whatever) is what I'm talking about. Not saying you shouldn't but thats not what Bruce professed. 
Did he want us to follow him "word for word" or  "be our own?" True, understanding the base is crucial. But as each generation evolves. Will the base remain the same? Again. Did Bruce want us to follow him "word for word" or  "be our own?"


----------



## Xue Sheng

James Kovacich said:


> Difining "your art" (be it WC, JFGF, JKD or whatever) is what I'm talking about. Not saying you shouldn't but thats not what Bruce professed.
> Did he want us to follow him "word for word" or  "be our own?" True, understanding the base is crucial. But as each generation evolves. Will the base remain the same? Again. Did Bruce want us to follow him "word for word" or  "be our own?"



From all I have read from Bruce Lee I would tend to vote no.. he would not want anyone to follow him and this has always been a little confusing to me. DOn't get me wrong I liked what I trained and I was rather impressed but I can't help but think that Bruce Lee would not be all that happy about the existance of multiple JKD schools, particularly those that stress sticking to his curiculum


----------



## punisher73

If we look at Bruce Lees writings that JKD was "just a name" to talk about his concepts than I think that "yes", you can teach JKD without the WC.  Matt Thorton is one example of someone who states that they teach JKD and it is almost all western boxing and BJJ.

I don't think you can learn Bruce's style of Jun Fan, without learning some WC though.  The two are too intertwined.


----------



## Thunder Foot

James Kovacich said:


> Difining "your art" (be it WC, JFGF, JKD or whatever) is what I'm talking about. Not saying you shouldn't but thats not what Bruce professed.
> Did he want us to follow him "word for word" or  "be our own?" True, understanding the base is crucial. But as each generation evolves. Will the base remain the same? Again. Did Bruce want us to follow him "word for word" or  "be our own?"


Thanks for discussing in a respectful manner. These types can easily become distasteful my friend. And I agree, the goal is to be ourselves however I believe there has to be a starting point as does anyone who's ever formally trained JKD; less they were as diligent as Bruce and discovered it on their own. Bruce taught a base "material" he deemed important to the progression of his students. So why is it that we are willing to accept the various current expressions of today's JKD generation, yet are unwilling to accept Bruce's; the founder of the art? Does the current GEN have it right and Bruce has had it wrong all this time? Mind you, there are a limited few how can execute a fraction of what Bruce was able to. And if this is not the case and we are seeing a progression, then I ask a progression from what?

Does a proficiency in the base material of Jun Fan prevent a person from continued growth and evolution? Not by my standards, on the contrary I believe that it fulfills the role that we've given it as a "base material" to continue further evolution, providing adequate parameters upon which we can subjectively absorb useful and discard useless tools... adding whats uniquely ours. But unfortunately for our community, that is where our biggest controversy lies... in what our base material is. Also the reason why there are so many watered down "styles" of JKD. I understand Bruce said be like water, but I'll be damned if he meant to the point of "watered down".


----------



## Thunder Foot




----------



## Boran

yes, you can learn JKD. it's not the style that makes you a fighter, it's your instinct. you have to have the killer instinct.


----------



## simplicity

I have train in both perscribed method's JKDC and OJKD.... Now 33 yrs later, perscribe to either, but Jeet Kune Do... The writing is on the "wall" folks, as to what BL & BLS have been saying all along.... Most see the JKD logo on top with seeing first, the three bottom logo's... Something to think about!


----------



## Instructor

arnisador said:


> My impression is that those focus on concepts think not that they're 'merely' looking at concepts but that, to the contrary, it is they who have gotten past the Jun Fan/Wing Chun to truly see the big picture. I'd still like to see what JKD looks like when applied to a base of Korean arts only, say.



It would look like Hapkido..


----------



## Thunder Foot

Thunder Foot said:


>


This was written when a certain someone asked Bruce if he could blend his Martial Art with JKD and teach it. 

If JKD is a concept to apply to any art, then why'd Bruce write this?


----------



## simplicity

"Jeet Kune Do its not a concept, but sound principles at a higher level of understanding simplicity thru moment, which transends everywhere in real fighting" ... JM


----------



## knight2000

Thank you thunder foot. The answer is no. JKD is comprised of 60 percent or more wing chun. Without the wing chun then it's not JKD. I'm not saying that's bad just don't call it JKD as Bruce said in the XY letter


----------



## simplicity

knight2000 said:


> Thank you thunder foot. The answer is no. JKD is comprised of 60 percent or more wing chun. Without the wing chun then it's not JKD. I'm not saying that's bad just don't call it JKD as Bruce said in the XY letter




 60 %... Say What? Where did you come up with this?


----------



## wingchunguy

Didn't Master Wong answer this question on his TV show? JKD uses 5 of the ten concepts of wing chun (economy of motion, immoveable elbow, simultaneous attack and defense, trapping hand and centerline theory ONLY WHEN USING THE WING CHUN PORTION OF JKD). So yes, you should learn wing chun. You should do it for several years before going into JKD (It would just be better to go into TRADITIONAL WING CHUN which is complete), this way you know basic technique structure, basic stance, basic footwork and the relationship of your body to the centerline. This will give you a good foundation to continue in JKD. But be forewarned, since JKD only uses 5 of ten concepts, it will not be as effective or efficient as the traditional, which uses these same ten concepts to dictate the proper application of wing chun in a fight or self defense scenario. This allows traditional to be flexible and allows you to tailor your wing chun to your own personality, abilities or disabilities, and that of your opponent.


----------



## wingchunguy

Gotten past it? No, they DESTROYED IT! By using only 5 concepts, you make your JKD/modified wc LESS EFFECTIVE AND LESS EFFICIENT!


----------



## wingchunguy

This shows me you don't what you are talking about. TRADITIONAL WING CHUN is the only FULLY CONCEPTUAL MARTIAL ART, NOT JKD, NOT MODIFIED. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are wrong! I don't know who you learned that from, but you are wrong. If you want a TRUE fully conceptual martial art, then you would have to take traditional. You need to use ALL TEN CONCEPTS AT THE SAME TIME to be a fully conceptual ma and for your wing chun to work properly. The ten concepts dictate proper application of your wing chun in a fight or self defense scenario. If you use 5 or 6, it isn't 10 and is NOT fully conceptual, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU MIX IT WITH TECHNIQUE-BASED MARTIAL ARTS! Maybe you should do some research on the subject so you can find out for yourself.


----------



## blindsage

There is no "TRADITIONAL WING CHUN", wing chun has been modified in pretty much every generation.  Wing Chun is far from "the only FULLY CONCEPTUAL MARTIAL ART".  Maybe you should do some research on the subject so you can find out for yourself.


----------



## simplicity

Master Wong isn't a Jeet Kune Do Instructor, plain & simple folks...!


----------



## geezer

wingchunguy said:


> ...It would just be better to go into TRADITIONAL WING CHUN which is complete... since JKD only uses 5 of ten concepts, it will not be as effective or efficient as the traditional...



_"Wingchunguy" _Have you actually studied legit JKD, or are you just spouting off? I've met a lot of folks who have studied WC/VT/WT and related arts like JKD who could refute your assertions _and back it up_. Arrogant, biased and unsubstantiated talk like this just hurts the reputation of our martial arts. And incites unfortunate incidents. I mean the first thing that went through my mind when I read your post is "Which of the 10 TWC concepts was _Emin Boztepe_ missing when he confronted William Cheung some 25 years ago?" 

The fact is that there is no perfect system, and no perfect fighter. There are however a lot of great systems and fighters out there, so how about showing a little mutual respect?


----------



## Xue Sheng

wingchunguy said:


> Maybe you should do some research on the subject so you can find out for yourself.



Yes, yes you should


----------



## knight2000

Well Beuce himself said JKD is primarily wing chun, fencing, and boxing. Dan Inosanto is the one that said JKD is made of of 60 percent wing chun.


----------



## Thunder Foot

you know reading through this thread again, I'm going to correct myself by saying that I don't believe in the existence of Jun Fan Gung Fu as it's own material. It was just the name of his school (Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute), and the Wing Chun that he taught seeming got labeled with the same name by people that had no concept of what Wing Chun was.

I'm really just echoing the words of some of Lee's students, but with that said I thinkvit would be near impossible without Wing Chun.


----------



## Kframe

You guys should check out the China town JKD folks, and their take on it. They have a forum here. http://jkdtalk.com/ Some Good JKD instructors chat there from time to time.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Kframe said:


> You guys should check out the China town JKD folks, and their take on it. They have a forum here. http://jkdtalk.com/ Some Good JKD instructors chat there from time to time.


Thank you for the suggestion, I've seen some great discussion there as well while also enjoying the folks here at MartialTalk. It was actually commentary from Tim Tackett during one of his phone interviews of his first hand experience where he debunked the myth of Jun Fan Gung Fu as it's own inherent style; which lead me to look further into Bruce and his Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute. It clarified some of my conclusions that I had derived over my years of practice.


----------



## wingchun100

Bruce Lee didn't train long in wing chun, but he was unbelievably quick at grasping the concepts. He was a very smart man in that respect.


----------



## blindsage

If you haven't researched his training and teaching in Seattle, you don't have the whole picture.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Blindsage,
have you found anything that Bruce taught in Seattle that is outside of Wing Chun principles? Or Taky & co. for that matter?


----------



## blindsage

There's a lot that went on here in Seattle in term's of Bruce's evolving understanding and foundation.  I haven't studied under any of his students, and I'm not a student of JKD, Jun Fan, NCKF but I am friendly with a number of Jesse Glover's students and some other knowledgeable folks that know a lot about what was going on in Seattle at the time.  People focus significantly on his development once he left Seattle and only really talk to Taky about his development and history.  There was a lot more going on, and lot more people to talk to.


----------



## Thunder Foot

It would be interesting to see. People often make the mistake of assuming Wing Chun is only this and only that. It has remained dynamic during the time of western introduction. Its principles have been warped and distorted under different names in attempts to explain that which is unfamiliar. Wing Chun principles are more than what our current JKD Community perceives, and it would be to our benefit to understand this.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thunder Foot said:


> It would be interesting to see. People often make the mistake of assuming Wing Chun is only this and only that. It has remained dynamic during the time of western introduction. Its principles have been warped and distorted under different names in attempts to explain that which is unfamiliar. Wing Chun principles are more than what our current JKD Community perceives, and it would be to our benefit to understand this.



I recently read in one of the books from Ip Chun where it was mentioned that Bruce Lee was looking to bring in some of the softer side of Wing Chun to JKD and was talking with Hong Kong Wing Chun group and Ip Man about it but Ip died before he was ready to work on that and the Bruce died a few months later. But this is only from one source as far as I know so it may or may not be true.


----------



## blindsage

This book is a good starting point, if you can find it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

blindsage said:


> This book is a good starting point, if you can find it.



Wouldn't mind reading it, and I found it...for $280 and that is a little to much for me....I shall keep looking


----------



## Thunder Foot

Great book, I have a copy as well as a few others from him. I love how he expands on the Wing Chun principles. I personally believe that in order for us to grow as a Community we need to respect the parent art Wing Chun, and understand that Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute was the name of his school where his Wing Chun was taught. How can we evolve past or have a base in that which we do not know? The deeper the root, the stronger it's branches.
Here's one of a many interviews where Tim Tackett explains that there was no Jun Fan Gung Fu... as well as Escrima not being part of the curriculum. No offense to anyone, but Tim was there: http://youtu.be/xBoFr5AtE9YKD. Our art is in need of a paradigm shift.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thunder Foot said:


> Great book, I have a copy as well as a few others from him. I love how he expands on the Wing Chun principles. I personally believe that in order for us to grow as a Community we need to respect the parent art Wing Chun, and understand that Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute was the name of his school where his Wing Chun was taught. How can we evolve past or have a base in that which we do not know? The deeper the root, the stronger it's branches.
> Here's one of a many interviews where Tim Tackett explains that there was no Jun Fan Gung Fu... as well as Escrima not being part of the curriculum. No offense to anyone, but Tim was there: http://youtu.be/xBoFr5AtE9YKD. Our art is in need of a paradigm shift.



Interesting Interview

I don't dispute that since I have so little background in JKD and Jun Fan Gong Fu and it sounds plausible. The man I trained with briefly always taught what he called Jun Fan Gong Fu before going to JKD. He also believed that to really understand JKD you needed a base of Wing Chun or Jun fan. But I did feel there was a difference based on applications demo of the teacher and the basic stance, but it could be that I was not there long enough to really understand what was going on. But it could simply be a &#8220;structure&#8221; difference like Tim Tackett mentioned between LA and Seattle. However when training with the group I saw absolutely no difference in the basic training of things. 

I had a little background in Wing Chun, which may have colored my view of things, but I viewed Jun Fan as Wing Chun on Steroids. I did not know how much influence that little bit of Wing Chun had until I was training with the teacher on a heavy bag and he asked me how much Wing Chun I had trained because I was hitting the bag like a Wing Chun guy, and I had purposely not told him anything about my background.


----------



## blindsage

Thunder Foot said:


> Great book, I have a copy as well as a few others from him. I love how he expands on the Wing Chun principles. I personally believe that in order for us to grow as a Community we need to respect the parent art Wing Chun, and understand that Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute was the name of his school where his Wing Chun was taught. How can we evolve past or have a base in that which we do not know? The deeper the root, the stronger it's branches.
> Here's one of a many interviews where Tim Tackett explains that there was no Jun Fan Gung Fu... as well as Escrima not being part of the curriculum. No offense to anyone, but Tim was there: http://youtu.be/xBoFr5AtE9YKD. Our art is in need of a paradigm shift.


No offense to Tim Tackett, but weren't a few people there?  I honestly am not worried about the art.  All arts end up as personal interpretations, and I really think that's part of what Bruce was getting at.  But with all the discussion and debate and ego surrounding Bruce, my only real point is that people think they know a lot, but mostly based on easily available info, and interviews with the same few people over and over again.  If someone really wants to know, then they should in engage in a detached study as a historian, anthropologist or a biographer would do.  Throw out their pre-conceived notions, especially those ingrained by their teacher's biases, and go try to find out the information that no one has really delved into, and be willing to learn thing's are different than one has always believed.  Otherwise, it's still limited conjecture, mostly from biased sources.  Not that that can't be enough for us as individuals, but we should accept it as such, and how easily wrong it could be.  I've studied Bruce a little, but never been especially obsessed and I don't have any personal ego or stake in it, but I have learned some things from knowledgeable sources that are very different from what most people believe and say about him, and I think it interesting that as big as Bruce is and how obsessed people are with him that more people haven't made an effort to come to Seattle and learn and make known more of what Bruce did here.


----------



## wingchun100

Xue Sheng said:


> Wouldn't mind reading it, and I found it...for $280 and that is a little to much for me....I shall keep looking



Ha! I found it for the same price. That much for a book that looks like an 8th grader assembled it? No thanks. Maybe it can be found online as a PDF.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Blind, I find it interesting that Tackett takes his stance in this way. Yes there were others, but he's one of the only ones speaking out. The demand of the seminars coining the lesson plans in such a way as to eventually become that distinct teaching method. He said they also studied escrima, but that it was completely separate, also interesting.
JKD is more than merely an Art, and thereby requires more than an open interpretation to be efficient. I think that one thing the JKD Community does keep in common though, is the delving into new frames of thinking... whether JKDC, OJKD, or the JKD-INSPIRED. They all challenge each others thought processes to such degree that they remain seperated. Mainly due to a lack of common principles, without them Bruce's Legacy is subject to extinction. And it may not be important to everyone, but to those that train it is.


----------



## simplicity

Jeet Kune Do is very much alive & well in Detroit, Michigan - USA


----------



## Xue Sheng

Thunder Foot said:


> Blind, I find it interesting that Tackett takes his stance in this way. Yes there were others, but he's one of the only ones speaking out. The demand of the seminars coining the lesson plans in such a way as to eventually become that distinct teaching method. He said they also studied escrima, but that it was completely separate, also interesting.
> JKD is more than merely an Art, and thereby requires more than an open interpretation to be efficient. I think that one thing the JKD Community does keep in common though, is the delving into new frames of thinking... whether JKDC, OJKD, or the JKD-INSPIRED. They all challenge each others thought processes to such degree that they remain seperated. Mainly due to a lack of common principles, without them Bruce's Legacy is subject to extinction. And it may not be important to everyone, but to those that train it is.



The Kali JKD combo I find as an interesting point of discussion and it may be the stuff of anther thread but I was wondering how you feel about it. 

I like JKD and I like Kali and there were 2 JKD schools in my area and one combined JKD and Kali and he was a student of a student of Dan Inosanto, (In CMA terms Inosanto is his Shigong)

The other had no mention of Kali at all they were just JKD and he was a student of Jerry Poteet

There is another school south of me I know you went to a seminar at and as far as I can tell there is no Kali and he was a student of Ted Wong. But I have never been there so I could be wrong.

Now I like Kali and I like JKD and I have nothing against the first school that teaches it combined but it was that combination that made me choose the other school since I wanted to check out JKD. But I should also say I think the school that is combining JKD and Kali is also throwing in a lot of other stuff from other styles as well. 

How do you feel about that combination?


----------



## Thunder Foot

Xue Sheng,
Well no offense to anyone but I believe that it goes against Bruce's progression of what he was doing (his Martial Art) as well as his philosophy. This is my observation after learning it for several years and becoming confronted with a different frame of thinking. JKD and Kali are separate arts that may have some commonalities (as with all Arts), but Bruce spent more time training Wing Chun, Boxing, and Fencing than any other art. We should understand the integral structure that Bruce discovered among these and continue his selective progression of simplification. If we are adding more things to teach, then we are moving away from that. People misunderstand Bruce giving an art a "look" to find strengths and weakness against training an art extensively to develop some attribute he may have been seeking.


----------



## wingchun100

Thunder Foot said:


> Xue Sheng,
> Well no offense to anyone but I believe that it goes against Bruce's progression of what he was doing (his Martial Art) as well as his philosophy. This is my observation after learning it for several years and becoming confronted with a different frame of thinking. JKD and Kali are separate arts that may have some commonalities (as with all Arts), but Bruce spent more time training Wing Chun, Boxing, and Fencing than any other art. We should understand the integral structure that Bruce discovered among these and continue his selective progression of simplification. If we are adding more things to teach, then we are moving away from that. People misunderstand Bruce giving an art a "look" to find strengths and weakness against training an art extensively to develop some attribute he may have been seeking.



In my opinion the most brilliant thing Bruce did was combine the boxing stance with the fencing stance: strong side forward. As far as I'm concerned, that was genius.


----------



## simplicity

I study with many of BLS... But that is just the start of things and in mobility everthings "changes", but start again from the structure... MU, one of the best things Bruce Lee did was "modified" Fencing - Boxing - WC... They are not the same as the arts by themself... If people tell you in order to understand Jeet Kune Do, you need to train Fencing - Boxing - WC they don't understand the modification of Jeet Kune Do plain & simple... 

p.s. wingchun100- that was done way before Bruce Lee started it... There was a book written in 1906 here in America, that I'm sure Bruce Lee read... Which clearly states strong side foreward and even talks about longest weapon to the nearest target, low line kicking... Bruce Lee just brought it to the fore front again in modern times...


----------



## Thunder Foot

I agree you may not need to train them extensively, but you do need to be experienced in them to a comprehensible extent in order to understand how their influence was placed on what you do. We can't have a modified anything without possessing the attributes and skill sets that were built training the originals.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wingchun100 said:


> In my opinion the most brilliant thing Bruce did was combine the boxing stance with the fencing stance: strong side forward. As far as I'm concerned, that was genius.


The "strong side forward" is the general wrestling principle. In wrestling, you have 

- attacking leg (front) and rooting leg (back).
- major hand (front) and minor hand (back).

You can twist your body in such a way that you have attacking leg (front) and rooting leg (back), and major hand (back) and minor hand (front). That will be called "cross stance".


----------



## Thunder Foot

Is it possible for someone to evolve past something they do not know our understand?


----------



## simplicity

Yes... "Simplicity is such that, smiple....You do not have to understand everything just universal principle.. Efficient is anything that hits it target, effortlessly with fast, extreme power. Which belong to the individual, not any one art&#8230; Which is becoming & being a Jeet Kune Do man or women, this founding principle will be understood if you are"... John McNabney


----------



## Thunder Foot

Hmmm... to me, if you understand an Art's universal principle AND ARE efficient with it... then you have Mastered that art. And I'm not one to believe that everyone can "simply" be masters without immersing themselves in a chosen art, let alone multiple arts. After all, isn't that how we come to understand their principles? Through devoted training?

I don't know, I just can't agree with the "everyone is their own master" trend these days. If it were true, there would be no need to seek out Sifu and everyone would be as good or better than the prodigal Bruce.. To me honest expression means not lying to oneself in that simply because Lee acquired a certain level of mastery with JKD and Wing Chun, does not mean that we are products of that in training JKD.

95% of our community can't even execute the Wing Chun tenets half as good as your average WC guy, and we claim to have evolved past it? Hmmm...


----------



## Gung Fu Man

In Enter the Dragon there is a scene that was not in the original release, but was later restored on DVD. It is the scene after Bruce Lee's sparring match with Sammo Hung. The monk is questioning him about the fight and Bruce Lee refers to his fist " hitting all by itself ", and   " there is no opponent ", etc. In Bruce Lee's book , The Tao of Gung Fu, he uses some of these same phrases in the chapter on Chi Sao . In the Way of the Intercepting Fist episode of the Longstreet T.V. series Lee tells James Franciscus to " be water my friend ". Again , this same language is used in the Tao of Gung Fu to describe Chi Sao. One scene in Longstreet has Bruce lee doing Chi Sao with Franciscus. I have seen photos of Bruce Lee doing Chi Sao with John Saxon on the set of Enter the Dragon. After Lee moved to Hong Kong to pursue his movie career, ChiSao was still taught in both Taky Kimura's and Dan Inosanto's schools and they taught what Bruce Lee told them to teach.

I heard one Wing Chun instructor say that Chi Sao is the " heart and soul of Wing Chun " It is my opinion that much of the philosophy of Jeet Kune Do comes from Chi Sao. The late Jerry Poteet said that when Lee taught Chi Sao, he would get very serious and it was then that he became very philosophical. I think it was Dan Inosanto who said that Lee was able to apply Chi Sao to long range fighting. If Chi Sao is the " heart and soul of Wing Chun" then it is my opinion that Bruce Lee didn't abandon Wing Chun. He expanded it and expressed it in a way which was all his own and that had never been done before.


----------



## Thunder Foot

I have to agreewith you there! I also believe that its one of the reasons why many have found it so cohesive to train Kali. Because Wing Chun's butterfly swords aren't present, yet in still the fighting method embodies the essence of them while also infused with fencing.


----------



## Transk53

Well from what I have experienced from JKD, it fit with me. Nothing against concept's at all. The time around I felt I was being exposed to higher techniques, ones that had been stripped of all before. The second time around was boxing based. I realized I don't need or want that. Back to beginning as it were for me.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Very interesting. My experience has been similar, in being simple in the beginning... then complicated with higher techniques like you mentioned, and now back to simple again. It took me awhile to understand and I'm still getting it, but as many great minds have echoed including Bruce when he said, "Simplicity is the key to brilliance."


----------



## Transk53

Thunder Foot said:


> Very interesting. My experience has been similar, in being simple in the beginning... then complicated with higher techniques like you mentioned, and now back to simple again. It took me awhile to understand and I'm still getting it, but as many great minds have echoed including Bruce when he said, "Simplicity is the key to brilliance."



Yes it was very strange to me. The first experience involved TKD concepts. To this day I have no clue what that means. TKD magic kicks I cannot do. The FMA knife concept was good, but that was all it was. The second time around was better, but quite there.


----------



## KPM

Very Interesting thread here!   Figured I give you my thoughts after just reading through the whole thing.  ;-)

First, I recall the oft repeated JKD saying..."Absorb what is useful, Reject what is useless, Add what is specifically your own." Now how in the hell is someone supposed to do that without significant training and experience?  How are you going to know that something is "useless" unless you have trained it enough to determine that?  How are you going to know that something is "useful" until you have learned it well enough to make it work?  I agree with Thunderfoot that if you are going to "evolve past" or "transcend" something you obviously need to start with that "something"!  So I agree that JKD, as conceptual as you want to make it, has to start with a base of something!  If you want to be true to what Bruce Lee did, then that base is Wing Chun.  But I also think that if you have a strong base in something already...then you don't need Wing Chun to learn the concepts of JKD.  But what you come up with in the end will be somewhat different from what Bruce Lee was doing, and I think he would be OK with that.  ;-)

You want to see JKD with a kickboxing base?  Look at Joe Lewis' student Jerry Beasley.  You want to see JKD with a FMA base?  Look at Dan Inosanto's student Paul Vunak. 

Absolutely "Jun Fan Gung Fu" was just Bruce Lee's version of Wing Chun.  Call it "Jun Fan Wing Chun" if you like!

The ironic thing here is that even though Bruce Lee was thinking very conceptually and didn't want people to just copy him, wanted them to "freely express themselves", etc.....if his followers hadn't established some kind of curriculum and standard for teaching, JKD would have died and faded away long ago.  Things need structure to survive.  Since no one was established as Bruce's one and only heir, different followers have come up with their own version of what that preserving structure should be.  Hence all the controversies. 

So if you want to be able to do what Bruce Lee did, you better start with Wing Chun?  If you a solid background in something and want to be able to be the best as what you already know, then go with the "concepts" guys.   But what gets me is a curriculum that tries to include a dozen different martial arts with a "little of this and a little of that" and then call it JKD. It seems like that would be very confusing!


----------



## Thunder Foot

I'm with you on that KPM!
It's definitely interesting to see all the existing points of view on the subject. The present disassociation of Wing Chun by many within our community is quite disappointing. I just can't understand how some of our brothers and sisters can't digest that it was the attributes that Bruce acquired and improved from Wing Chun that allowed him the avenue to do what he did. But from a different vantage point, not everyone is ready to accept the existence of the anomaly that was Bruce Lee. Even today, many of the stories told by Bruce's friend's and family are being written off as folklore or legend.  I suppose i wouldn't be surprised if Bruce's achievements are reduced to mere myth within a generation or two.


----------



## CatNap

I had studied JKD for seven years before I left and returned to Wing Chun.  There's a lot of Wing Chun at the heart of JKD.  I think it's a beautiful philosophy, but I don't think of it a true martial art style, less than that with Bruce Lee gone. Now it's more people's ego trip and cashing in; to me, if Bruce were alive to see how his art has evolved without him, he wouldn't recognize it anymore.


----------



## crazydiamond

CatNap said:


> if Bruce were alive to see how his art has evolved without him, he wouldn't recognize it anymore.



I suspect if Bruce had lived -  what he would be teaching today would be unrecognizable to his 1967 students. He never stayed still was always studying, growing and adapting (Mixing) martial arts.

Much is said about Wing Chun in JKD. But I find it interesting how little western boxing is mentioned as well as fencing in his studies and growth of JKD.


----------



## Juany118

James Kovacich said:


> The whole Ted Wong lineage including Ted himself (rip) claim WC was eliminated and argue the recognizable concepts came from fencing.
> 
> To me logic says Bruce trained WC long before he explored in other arts. But that's what they say.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk



And then you have this guy saying something quite different...





Not saying who is right or wrong.  As a matter of fact I think to say either is right or wrong is to go against the core concept of JKD.  If you read the Tao of Jeet Kun Do you see it agrees with what Guro Dan says here "sure I can teach it but I can't standardize it."  Politics sadly have taken their toll on JKD.  

On the one hand you have Sigung Ted whose JKD, while I am sure being what Sijo Lee certified him in, is (just my experience) taught in a standardized fashion.  Yes you take from it what works when you master it, no doubt so on the student end the JKD philosophy remains.  On the other hand I think Guro Dan looks at the philosophy being on the teacher end as well.  In order to do that though, have a constantly evolving art, you need a foundation to prevent it from going off the rails (at least imo) so we have Guro Dan seeing Wing Chun as that foundation, as that was the foundation of the JKD Sijo Lee taught him.  

Remember for Sijo Lee to personally certify a student you needed to be a closed door student.  With the Philosophy of JKD I would actually be surprised if Sigung Lee actually taught both of his students the same art.  What Wong learned later likely had some differences. /Shrug.


----------



## pinklady6000

Just think how good Bruce Lee would be if he did five years of kickboxing, (like I did) from the age of 13, instead of that classical martial art wing chun. His advancement into JKD would of being much faster. Not only did he realize whing chun held him back but the pride of being chinese. Once he got over them hurdles he could explore the superior westen boxing, fencing and free style wrestling.


----------



## Juany118

pinklady6000 said:


> Just think how good Bruce Lee would be if he did five years of kickboxing, (like I did) from the age of 13, instead of that classical martial art wing chun. His advancement into JKD would of being much faster. Not only did he realize whing chun held him back but the pride of being chinese. Once he got over them hurdles he could explore the superior westen boxing, fencing and free style wrestling.



Odd really since Wing Chun is the foundation of Jeet Kun Do we can never really know what would have happened.  As someone who is actually a Master of JKD once said "with out IP Man there wouldn't have been a Bruce Lee.  Without Bruce Lee there never would have been a Jeet Kun Do."

He never "got over" WC.  He saw its limits (which all martial arts have) and then studied others to fill in the gaps.


----------



## wingchun100

No one will ever know what would have happened if Bruce had stayed in China and learned ALL of wing chun. I have heard that when he went back over there while making movies, he asked if he could learn more. His knowledge of the system was incomplete.


----------



## Mou Meng Gung Fu

Thunder Foot said:


> Can a person learn/practice Jeet Kune Do without practicing/learning Wing Chun?



Yes, someone can indeed learn JKD without learning WCK, because they are different arts. If you practice JKD, however, you will find some theories/notions and trapping/sensitivity drills that originated from WCK and without those theories/notions and trapping/sensitivity drills, I don't think you can really call it Bruce Lee's JKD.


----------



## Thunder Foot

wingchun100 said:


> No one will ever know what would have happened if Bruce had stayed in China and learned ALL of wing chun. I have heard that when he went back over there while making movies, he asked if he could learn more. His knowledge of the system was incomplete.


Actually Wingchun100, there are several sources who state that Bruce completed his WC training in Seattle, under the tutelage Fook Yeung in Hei Ban Wing Chun.


----------



## Juany118

P


Thunder Foot said:


> Actually Wingchun100, there are several sources who state that Bruce completed his WC training in Seattle, under the tutelage Fook Yeung in Hei Ban Wing Chun.


Please document said sources because the actual ones that have been verified, to my knowledge, say he had started learning CK, moved to the US and that was it.

Claims<verifiable information.


----------



## Mou Meng Gung Fu

Bai Jong or Bi-jong is what Bruce Lee refered to as the "small phasic bent-knee stance" or JKD "on-guard position," from what I understand. It combines elements from Wing Chun, Western Boxing and Western Fencing if you want to get technical. The strong-side forward comes from fencing. JKD's lead jab comes from fencing. The spring-leg forward posture and raised rear heel comes from boxing. The elbows in and centerline focus comes from wingchun. It is actually obvious just by looking at Bai Jong from both a front and side view. The very concept of "intercepting" (Jeet) comes from fencing elements in Jeet Kune Do, and all stances are transitional in Bruce Lee's eyes. Sometimes he did stand in more of a sideways fencing stance, but that was transitional as well, and even then we see Bruce Lee's guard. He never strays from the centerline, and he always sinks his body in like a wingchun master. And I heard on a documentary once (I think it was Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey) that Bruce Lee was the youngest Wing Chun master to emerge from Grandmaster Yip Man's school. This documentary had Linda Lee Cadwell, Dan Inosanto, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and many other credible JKD experts giving interviews. It seemed quite legit to me, seeing as Bruce Lee started teaching Wing Chun to students in Seattle in 1959, as soon as he came to the states. This would've been too early for him to have mastered Wing Chun under Fook Yeung, but that doesn't mean he wasn't Fook Yeung's student (in Hung Suen Wing Chun) in 1959, the same time he was Shiu Han Sang's student (in Jeet Kune). His fencing and boxing experience came not just from books and videos either. He learned Epee Fencing from his brother Peter Lee in Hong Kong, which is where he also learned Western Boxing from a guy named Brother Edward between 1957-1958, so all of these different experiences molded Bruce Lee in his invention and development of Jeet Kune Do and it's unique Bai Jong fighting man stance. Hope this helps. Take it with a grain of salt. I'm not an expert on JKD.


----------



## Juany118

Mou Meng Gung Fu said:


> Bai Jong or Bi-jong is what Bruce Lee refered to as the "small phasic bent-knee stance" or JKD "on-guard position," from what I understand. It combines elements from Wing Chun, Western Boxing and Western Fencing if you want to get technical. The strong-side forward comes from fencing. JKD's lead jab comes from fencing. The spring-leg forward posture and raised rear heel comes from boxing. The elbows in and centerline focus comes from wingchun. It is actually obvious just by looking at Bai Jong from both a front and side view. The very concept of "intercepting" (Jeet) comes from fencing elements in Jeet Kune Do, and all stances are transitional in Bruce Lee's eyes. Sometimes he did stand in more of a sideways fencing stance, but that was transitional as well, and even then we see Bruce Lee's guard. He never strays from the centerline, and he always sinks his body in like a wingchun master. And I heard on a documentary once (I think it was Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey) that Bruce Lee was the youngest Wing Chun master to emerge from Grandmaster Yip Man's school. This documentary had Linda Lee Cadwell, Dan Inosanto, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and many other credible JKD experts giving interviews. It seemed quite legit to me, seeing as Bruce Lee started teaching Wing Chun to students in Seattle in 1959, as soon as he came to the states. This would've been too early for him to have mastered Wing Chun under Fook Yeung, but that doesn't mean he wasn't Fook Yeung's student (in Hung Suen Wing Chun) in 1959, the same time he was Shiu Han Sang's student (in Jeet Kune). His fencing and boxing experience came not just from books and videos either. He learned Epee Fencing from his brother Peter Lee in Hong Kong, which is where he also learned Western Boxing from a guy named Brother Edward between 1957-1958, so all of these different experiences molded Bruce Lee in his invention and development of Jeet Kune Do and it's unique Bai Jong fighting man stance. Hope this helps. Take it with a grain of salt. I'm not an expert on JKD.




Could one not also argue that the "intercepting" bit also comes from Wing Chun?  At least how I have been taught one of the reasons for how we strike is because the strike can, almost incidentally, become a defense because the centerline concept will inevitably result, at times, with your attacks naturally intercepting the attacks of the opponent.  I can't tell you how many times in sparing how I simply opened my hand while punching and it becomes a _pak sau _or when my strike "just" becomes a_ tan.
_
My first martial art was foil fencing and I was always impressed with the similarities, it first clicked for me when I did a _huen _after covering.  I thought "riposte!!!!!"


----------



## Mou Meng Gung Fu

Juany118 said:


> Could one not also argue that the "intercepting" bit also comes from Wing Chun?  At least how I have been taught one of the reasons for how we strike is because the strike can, almost incidentally, become a defense because the centerline concept will inevitably result, at times, with your attacks naturally intercepting the attacks of the opponent.  I can't tell you how many times in sparing how I simply opened my hand while punching and it becomes a _pak sau _or when my strike "just" becomes a_ tan.
> _
> My first martial art was foil fencing and I was always impressed with the similarities, it first clicked for me when I did a _huen _after covering.  I thought "riposte!!!!!"



Indeed actually, I think someone could argue that the concept of interception is not limited only to a single art.


----------



## Thunder Foot

Juany118 said:


> P
> 
> Please document said sources because the actual ones that have been verified, to my knowledge, say he had started learning CK, moved to the US and that was it.
> 
> Claims<verifiable information.


The name of who he trained under in the US; Fook Yeung. You can verify his relationship with the Lee's, that he was a Hei Ban sifu, and that he taught Bruce.


----------



## Juany118

Thunder Foot said:


> The name of who he trained under in the US; Fook Yeung. You can verify his relationship with the Lee's, that he was a Hei Ban sifu, and that he taught Bruce.


Two things.  1. Bruce never attributed that training (some who insist he did refer to this as a "dick move on his part). 2. No one can really be sure what he learned there because Fook not only taught Red Boat but other styles as well so it is more than possible Bruce studied under him to learn other things, after all WSL himself said that all the fighting stuff is in SLT and CK.  Bruce being the practical guy he was may have said "no need to formally study more, time to add." 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Mou Meng Gung Fu

Okay... 

While digging through my shed, I found one of my old training journals. As I opened the cover, I skimmed through my old notebook and found a yellow dusty header page with my own cursive handwriting on it which says "B. Lee's training" at the top, followed by a short timeline I must've written back in 2005? (there's no date on it). Anyways, apparently I took an interest in this topic at one point in time. Here is what I wrote.

B. Lee's training:
1947-1952 Lee Hoi Cheun (wu taichi)
1953-1958 Yip Gei Man (wingchun)
1957-1958 Brother Edward (boxing)
????-???? Peter Lee (epee fencing)
1959 Wong Shun Leung (wingchun)
1959 Fook Yeung (redboat wingchun)
1959 Gin Foon Mark (tonglong, fujow, yingjow, dimmak, paihochuan)
1959 Shiu Han Sang (jeetkuen, bungbo, gunglik, hung ga)
1961 Fook Yeung (sil lum kuen)
1962 James Yimm Lee (sil lum kuen)
1962 Allen Joe (sil lum kuen)
1962 Wally Jay (jujutsu)

Then at the bottom of the page is a footnote which says that in 1960, a maturing Bruce Lee "read books and studied Hsing-i, Pakua, Chin-na, Choy Lee Fut and Yang style Taichi," with little sidenotes off to the edge of the page which says that Bruce Lee also learned "Filipino style nunchaku from Danny Inosanto" and "Bruce learned a couple of Tang Soo Do kicks from Chuck Norris" and "Wrestling and Judo with Gene LeBell" and "Taekwondo kicks from Jhoon Rhee" is what I have written. Sijo Bruce Lee told Guru Dan Inosanto that he didn't care for FMA too much.

Sifu Lamar Davis Jr. told me back in the early-2000's era that Jun Fan Gung Fu (JFGF) was 85% wing chun and 15% other. He told me that Jeet Kune Do (JKD) was 60% wingchun, 15% boxing, 15% fencing and 10% other. JKD's kicking comes from northern Shaolin, taekwondo, Shotokan karate, and French savatte. Guru Dan Inosanto marked down that JKD was madeup of about 50% wingchun, 30% fencing and 20% boxing. My journal then goes on to talk about Bruce Lee's Los Angeles school, students and system. This is "ALL" the training Bruce Lee ever received, the styles, his teachers and the years given according to my journal. Hope this info helps.


----------



## Bino TWT

Actually Mou Meng, Bai Jong is just ready/guard position. If you look at the book that Bruce actually wrote (Tao of Gung Fu, not the Tao of JKD), you will see his Bai Jong was Maan Sao Wu Sao. He later changed it in his later unfinished writings to better suit his style. But the term Bai Jong is not specific to JKD, nor is it a direct reference to the current popular JKD guard position; it's just a generic term.  

Also, Jeet Kuen (intercepting fist) is a beginner Wing Tsun concept, one that is taught almost immediately upon beginning training. 

As good as he was, Bruce was no "master" (or the youngest) when he left Yip Man's school to come to America; he was only a Chum Kiu level student and knew the first few moves of the dummy form. He hadn't even gotten to the really good high level stuff yet (Biu Tze).


----------



## FighterTwister

Thunder Foot said:


> Can a person learn/practice Jeet Kune Do without practicing/learning Wing Chun?



Well you can, but to have understood the root of JKD, Wing Chun would be necessary to know the fundamentals of inside trapping terms and techniques and have mastered the base of JKD.

However a good recognized JKD Institute will provide what is needed also in learning the base of Wing Chun.

So what am I saying that it all depends on what you want to achieve in the time you want to achieve it and the costs of the journey.

An example you want to learn how to make a Chocolate Cake should I take up a Culinary course and study for 4 years or should I find the recipe on how to make one.

Wing Chun will take 5 years lets say to learn how most teach it and in JKD you should grasp the idea within a few months.

Watch...................

*JKD*








*WING CHUN*






Both are good to learn but there is always a cost - "TIME"

That is in my opinion and my experience only, sure others will have their own and reasons that differ to mine.


----------



## Bino TWT

FighterTwister, I've trained with the guys in the top video. Great group of guys, very humble and dedicated, but the application of most of their drills is lost in translation. Sifu Singh (in the top video) actually has real Wing Chun experience (along with Tai Chi, BJJ, and some other things), and is a student of Paul Vunak, so while he is able to execute his JKD with with the proper Wing Chun engine, I have found from experience that this skill is not picked up very well by his students, and even less so by his grand students. I'm not saying they are no good, don't get me wrong... but what I am saying is the Wing Chun just isn't there... and when they say/think they are using Wing Chun in their application, they generally are not, or are doing it terribly wrong, and I find it very easy to exploit the holes left open.   

With that said, it might be worth the time to gain a proper foundation. Without the basics, you're just building castles in the sand.


----------



## FighterTwister

Hi m8,

Yes I understand, although you are not saying anything different than what I said though in above statement.

Although as a practitioner myself of both and mastered in one JKD, where one is classical in form and the other is freestyle and aggressive in a practical sense where not every move is so refined like in Wing Chun its not efficient enough in my opinion.

Imagine Wing Chun against a Boxer or someone just crazy swinging like mad, its not going to work so a free style approach knowing angles based on Wing Chun form with modern application works best in real fights.

Because in a real street fight you are looking for angles and entry points usually down the center line first and to a side and you need fast burst of foot work and springy action in and out etc. Its why JKD is a beast in this way as you take the path even down to the ground.

Sure there are similarities but where one varies over another is the approach and body mechanics to efficiently apply or a progressive art form expressed.

Thats the keyword you are only good enough in the way you express it or understand it, how people interpret movement or even read a fight.

On a Mook Jong they may look the same but in a real fight one is freestyle the other classical that's fact and undeniable.

This conversation only gets more complex and difficult without experiencing it first in a class session and in a real street fight defensively.

Then you begin to see how it all fits and what works and what doesn't.

Both have great art form qualities but one is more useful in my experience.

Or both have great points that can be used in reality but with Wing Chun it just lacks the suitable requirements.

To use a metaphor - Its like you wouldn't Breakdance with a Tango master, it doesn't fit.

Have you read  and studied the Tao of Jeet Kune Do?


----------



## Bino TWT

Well, I do understand where you're coming from, but we have to totally different approaches to Wing Chun, or in my case Wing Tsun. If you can't make it work against a boxer, drunk meth head biker, or whatever... what's the point of doing it in the first place? 

It's not that Wing Tsun lacks anything, it's that it either isn't being transmitted properly to the students, the training isn't realistic, the student doesn't have an understanding of the material, or all of the above. 

I say this from personal experience, an instructor of both Leung Ting Wing Tsun and Jerry Poteet JKD. I've also used Wing Tsun to defend my life and the lives of others against multiple attackers and armed attackers. So if it doesn't work, the fault isn't with the art, there is just a disconnect somewhere upstream. 

Oddly enough, if you look at very skilled higher level WT and JKD practitioners, you'd have trouble telling them apart.


----------



## FighterTwister

Bino TWT said:


> Well, I do understand where you're coming from, but we have to totally different approaches to Wing Chun, or in my case Wing Tsun. If you can't make it work against a boxer, drunk meth head biker, or whatever... what's the point of doing it in the first place?
> 
> It's not that Wing Tsun lacks anything, it's that it either isn't being transmitted properly to the students, the training isn't realistic, the student doesn't have an understanding of the material, or all of the above.
> 
> I say this from personal experience, an instructor of both Leung Ting Wing Tsun and Jerry Poteet JKD. I've also used Wing Tsun to defend my life and the lives of others against multiple attackers and armed attackers. So if it doesn't work, the fault isn't with the art, there is just a disconnect somewhere upstream.
> 
> *Oddly enough, if you look at very skilled higher level WT and JKD practitioners, you'd have trouble telling them apart.*



That is what I am saying to some extent or in other words but in favor of JKD for its practical mechanics in a real fight

E.g. - Footwork

Its all experiential and subject to interpretation as one must learn to express it functionally not routinely.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

It will make sense to have a JKD and WC tournament. Get together 20 JKD guys and 20 WC guys and see the final score of the tournament.

Here is a Judo vs. Chinese wrestling. That's the correct MA spirit.


----------



## FighterTwister

Guys check out Master Wong's YouTube channel the guy is awesome he explains it all better than I can.

Here is his channel:- Wing Chun Tai Chi JKD - Master Wong

But he is raw and pulls no punches in his approach to educate people to if you agree with his style to converse all things martial arts you will like him also.

I like him allot I hope you enjoy listening and watching him.


----------



## FighterTwister

I also wanted to say you always respect the root to any style and also other style types.

However you can take from any and learn and build your skill sets and employ them when needed.

JKD is this very essence it is a concept for street fighting / self defense against all styles and yet respecting all.

It is not a challenge as to what is the best style.

"As styles separate men but a self awareness of how to improve in the fight and apply various tools in the trade of a fight and express self!"

“Using no way as a way, having no limitation as limitation.” - From the book - Tao of Jeet Kune Do Author - Bruce Lee 

I posted here more on this............ *** UFC - THE ART OF THE FIGHT ***


----------



## Bino TWT

FighterTwister said:


> From the book - Tao of Jeet Kune Do Author - Bruce Lee



And this is a whole other discussion lol


----------



## FighterTwister

Bino TWT said:


> And this is a whole other discussion lol



LoL yes and no  because thread title is -  JKD without Wing Chun? 

"You can't have a tree without its roots"!


----------



## Bino TWT

FighterTwister said:


> LoL yes and no  because thread title is -  JKD without Wing Chun?
> 
> "You can't have a tree without its roots"!



Actually I was referring to the authorship of that book. It's quite an interesting story, and nowhere even close to how it happened in "Dragon: the Bruce Lee story".


----------



## FighterTwister

Ah well yeah "Hollywood" LoL 

Movies are always different from the book because to follow line by line from a book would cost allot of money and some actors also poorly perform or mimic the true character.

Just different people I guess.

Also I see you are a Texan - Wing Tsun Kung Fu how long what rank?

Do you compete or just passion/ hobbie?

Do you maintain good fitness and workout body at gyms?

Do you use the Mook Jong or have one personally and which one if so?


----------



## Bino TWT

As far as the movie, it was more of how the book was created in the biopic movie, as opposed to a movie following a book. Bruce didn't actually write that book, per say.

I've been doing Wing Tsun and JKD since the 90's. I'm certified to teach both Leung Ting Wing Tsun and Jerry Poteet JKD. There's a pretty in depth write up on the Lineage and Instructors page of my website www.TexasWingTsun.com 

I LIVE Kung Fu. This is what I do. Competition is in my blood. I train with a couple UFC fighters, and was supposed to actually fight for one of them before my injury. 

My Kwoon is actually inside a gym lol. And I have an official UFC octagon in my Kwoon. I used to box, was a champion wrestler, and a power lifter, and did 9.5 months in boot camp (long story) so I tend to keep up with my fitness.

We actually build wooden dummies. Our dummies are spec'd by GM Leung Ting.


----------



## FighterTwister

Nice background Bino TWT respect


----------



## Old Judoka

James Kovacich said:


> You got that right my friend!
> 
> JKD has proven to be a mixed bag of fruit. I've seen, heard and felt a lot. My opinion, Dan Inosanto had it right all along. He deserves a lot more credit than his peers and others give him.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk



I'm glad both of you fellows are in the same conversation at the moment because I have a question may you both can help with. My daughter is going off to college next year. For nearly a year, I have been working with her on Judo and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. I  taught her a few standing takedowns if she needs them, but the bulk of what we work on mainly centers on closed guard and guard retention and attacks from bottom guard, assuming that she's gong to need BJJ the most because some creep has her on the ground and trying to sexually assault her and he will probably be in her guard any way. Also I have her concentrating on getting to Rubber Guard which will keep her high on the assailants head and shoulders. From there she'll be able to do omaplata, guillotine and kimura attacks. Anyway, I want her to be in a standup art so maybe she can control distance and possibly stay off the ground. It so happens that there are two places that teach Inosanto  Jeet Kune Do (I'm thinking using Jeet Tek as distance control) and there is a Wing Chun club at the University she I going to attend, which will be reasonably priced. I'm leaning towards Jeet Kune Do. Anyway, finally getting to my question, is the learning curve for Jeet Kune Do faster than Wing Chun?


----------



## NYFIGHTSOURCE

I would say that for your perspective that the learning Curve is generally faster in Jeet Kune Do than Wing Chun.     I mean that simply from the perspective that your daughter "May" learn what is needed to be safe faster with Jeet Kune Do vs. Wing Chun.   As far as I have seen.... Both take their own time to learn as an art.   But generally I have seen JKD schools tend to accelerate the self defense aspect faster.   With the loss of forms in JKD you have mainly drilling to train.  
Also... if she can train the grappling with people that are larger than herself after she learned the movements/techniques... it will also help her in making the small adjustments that she may need to pull these things off on a larger person.     I am a smaller person myself.   And for instance... I can omaplata someone my size.   But I have tried against big body builder types that are strong.    It's harder.    And I need to make adjustments.   It will also give her a realization on what works... for her... and what she might have to abandon.    Btw.   I am in the same boat.   16 daughter.    And in 2 years will be off to college also.    So I teach her JKD.... and how to apply JKD on the ground with the needed skills to move hips and grapple on the ground.    But first bite, tear, rip, gauge at  every opportunity.

Best wishes


----------



## TMA17

Sifu Harinder Singh says:

“ Internal Martial Arts and Traditional Training in Wing Chun is important to develop root, sensitivity, structure, and internal energy.  To truly understand JKD we need to understand the Root, and philosphy behind Wing Chun and Tai Chi.”


----------



## NYFIGHTSOURCE

I think the key to this fathers question was relating to training his daughter.   The question of learning curve from Wing Chun vs. JKD and which will bring his daughter up to speed fast.   Between Wing Chun and JKD.... I answer his question that "usually" JKD training leads to a quicker ability for someone to defend themselves.   I say usually cause I am not going to speak for every teacher or school.    If the girl has 6 months to train.... what would be more applicable????  
Of course I agree.... exploring and learning roots of an art.   Learning other arts in general helps build attributes, skills etc.   It's also takes someone using a "********" detector to figure out what will work for them and what will not.   What is just adding garbage to their training and what is actually enhancing their skill set.   Take a look at something... refine it....  use it or abandon it...


----------



## Xue Sheng

TMA17 said:


> Sifu Harinder Singh says:
> 
> “ Internal Martial Arts and Traditional Training in Wing Chun is important to develop root, sensitivity, structure, and internal energy.  To truly understand JKD we need to understand the Root, and philosphy behind Wing Chun and Tai Chi.”



Speaking as a long time Taijiquan guy who trained Xingyiquan, a bit of Baguazhang, some Wing Chun and a little JKD.... I don't agree with that. JKD's view of root is different than most Taijiquan styles, with the possible exception of Sun style. There is a lot of similarity between Wing Chun and JKD and that is to be expected, but they are not the same. And as far as the 'so called' internal styles (Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua) go, there is a lot more similarity between Xingyi and JKD than there is between Taiji and JKD, and even less between Bagua and JKD IMO


----------



## TMA17




----------



## TMA17

I had messaged Singh about whether WC should be learned before JKD bc the Philly self defense instructors teach JKD and studied under Singh.  He said no just go to Philly Self Defense.  He essentially said the same thing as NYFIGHTSOURCE said above. FWIW


----------

