# Was this style really suppose to be a style?



## MMAfighter (Feb 23, 2005)

I was reading the book, Bruce Lee's fighting method and it stated in there that Bruce Lee was afraid to give this a name, because he was afraid everyone was going to take it was a new style, which many people have, but was it really meant to be a style? Did he really just want it to turn out to be some kind of modification to fancy styles?


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Feb 24, 2005)

Jeet Kune Do is techinically all styles and no styles. It is the ultimate system of fighting for yourself! Put it this way as this is the way I see it.
Imagin a building and in this building there are different rooms.
In every different room there is a different style that you can learn. 
Imagin you had the time (and money) to learn all of these styles. Then from each style you take what would suit you the most and discard what is useless to you.
Then put everything that is useful to you altogether and you have your own personal Jeet Kune Do.
Is that right guys? 

This is not a style because it is not hindered by the restrictions that styles have, since what restricts you, you can discard. It could be a style because its your own personal style, that suits you the best, nobody else, just you.

What Bruce Lee meant by not wanting it to be called a style is that to get the point across he would have to give it a name, and  if he gave it the name, JEET KUNE DO, then people would automaticly label it as a style.
I think, get a JKD guy to check the thread
IMO I think JKD is more powerful than any BBJ or MMA


----------



## jkn75 (Feb 24, 2005)

First off, I have never studied JKD. However my experience comes from observation and talking with a JKD instructor. This actually is a debate common in JKD. According to the instructor I know, there is definitely a style instead of just being a collection of concepts.

He showed some standardized techniques but each student could take those techniques and modify them to themselves. If they liked the technique they would put in their toolbox or if they didin't, toss it out. If they saw something in another martial art, they would take it and use it if it worked.

They did have some standardized drills to improve speed, closing gaps, and improve kicking and punching. They progressed in the class if they demonstrated skill in the material for their level. I wasn't too familiar with the levels that they used and the material required for each. 

JKD practitioners I've dealt with are probably the most open martial artists because they find value in a lot of styles and ideas. However, some can find them a bit tough to deal with because they are brutally honest in what they think works and what doesn't.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 24, 2005)

Hi all! Check out this thread for some other perspectives. :asian:

This thread is also somewhat related to the topic. :asian:


----------



## Drifter (Feb 28, 2005)

jkn75 said:
			
		

> First off, I have never studied JKD.


 To be somewhat abstract with the concept, we've all studied Jeet Kune Do. I don't think Bruce Lee's intent was to create JKD as a formalized style, and there's someone on the boards with a signature that's a quote of his, saying something to the effect of "If JKD is to be compared to another style, let it's name be wiped out, because it's only a name". 

 We all have our personal style. There are many different ways people fight in Kenpo alone. Where I go, some people are very aggressive, others prefer that you attack first. Some like to grab you and move you around. Some circle you, instead. No one will ever fight exactly like another person because we all have different attributes that need to be catered to the best we can. Therefore we all have our own Jeet Kune Do.

 That's just my interpretation of Bruce Lee's intent, and if there's something I misunderstood, I'll be happy to listen.


----------



## PragmaticMartialArtist (Feb 28, 2005)

JKD, Judo, Aikido, Jujitsu, Kung Fu.  A definition of style is "To make or design in accord with a prevailing mode".  Miriam Webster Dictionary. 

There are many good fighters.  The analogy is that not all athletes are good teachers and not all good teachers are athletes.  What the prevailing martial arts have that is useful for students is structure.  Structure to bring out attributes that a certain art wishes to emphasize.  

The answer is yes.  JKD is a style.   What use would JKD be for those wishing to emphasize the attributes Bruce Lee highly sought without structure. 

A better question may be is whether a person who embodies any style of martial art will move on or evolve.  The reality is that a 60 year old given all things equal will not recover as fast as a 20 year old.  A lot of talk is given by JKD teachers to allow JKD practitioners to evolve and put forth the practioners best attributes, but in reality most do not do this but merely try to mold and force the student to fit within the teacher's understanding of JKD.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Mar 1, 2005)

PragmaticMartialArtist said:
			
		

> The answer is yes. JKD is a style. What use would JKD be for those wishing to emphasize the attributes Bruce Lee highly sought without structure.
> 
> .


Maybe, but I dont quite agree. Its not a style. There is no structure because nobody can teach you your own style. I personally think that JKD is personal development of other arts or techniques into something that would define as being JKD.

Its not a style. BL did not want people to call it that.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 1, 2005)

In one of his last interviews, Lee seemed to be more concerned about expressing one's self honestly, totally. Thus his prescribed "no-style as a style" thought. Someone here has/had a signature that quoted Lee about his concern of the name of his *philosophy* (remember, his major in college was philosophy). Jeet Kune Do "the way of the intercepting fist" I believe (and it's just IMHO) was a concept. "The way", the path, something to follow as you guide yourself to your own expression of who you are. He obviously wanted people to be able to have a means of expressing themselves and say "this is who I am, this is how I fight/defend myself". He talked about being able to do some fancy moves and being able to have this cool stance and technique down and how he felt that it was not a real representation of who/what that person is/was. 
I think it would be important for those interested to watch "Bruce Lee: Warrior's Journey" as it contains the entire interview where he speaks about this.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 1, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Maybe, but I dont quite agree. Its not a style. There is no structure because nobody can teach you your own style. I personally think that JKD is personal development of other arts or techniques into something that would define as being JKD.
> 
> Its not a style. BL did not want people to call it that.


JKD has structure. It's not the structure that is common in most schools but it is structured. It's roots are Gung-Fu. It was taught under the label of Wing Chun and evolved into Jun Fan Gung Fu and then Jeet Kune Do.


----------



## Sifu Barry Cuda (Mar 2, 2005)

Hey guys, Ive been teaching JKD/kali for a long time now and I can tell you as someone who put some time in with peaple like Dan Inosanto and Paul Vunak that JKD is not "technically a style" but a method of progression.What JKD is, is thoroughly training the 4 ranges of combat so you can find what works for you and sharpening ones attributes.Did you know training speed can be broken down to many types of speed: reaction speed, performance speed to name 2? When you study 4 ranges you can discover your own personal JKD.I do not have 2 students that move think or respond the same. yet they are all expressing JKD.Bruce Lee himself could stop a jab with a spin kick and yes thats JKD albeit Bruces personal JKD. Bruce did not like to do Kali limb destructions, they were to slow for him, but they work fine for 'normal people'. JKD must be felt,and experienced.No way to even try to understand it from a book, Barry combatartsusa.com


----------



## bcbernam777 (Mar 2, 2005)

I did study the "formalised JKD" for a while, what I think essentially Bruce was trying to get to as has already been pointed out is that MA is a human experiance that transcends "boxes" and labels, and that human experiance expresses itself through a persons own individual expression. It is the ultimate goal of any Martial Artist to achieve that state of the art of artlessness, where no matter the styling no matter the kata etc etc, we absorb the art into ourselves after training in our techniques, forms etc and the principles that they behold are transformed within us to become our own "way" free from the confines of technique.


My attempt at explaining what is a very philosophical, and undefinable subject


----------



## achilles (Mar 2, 2005)

To get the answer to this question you must understand what Bruce Lee meant when he wrote about transcending "for" and "against" and looking at things without attachment.  Jeet Kune Do is not for or against style because either would be a form of attachment that would distract from the way.  Jeet Kune Do uses style to achieve its goals just as it uses non-style.  JKD is adaptability which is far more fluid than for or against.

In more concrete terms, Bruce Lee definitely taught particular tools and tactics.  There was a finger jab, a lead punch, a side kick, pak da, etc.  These were the tools he used and taught to put his philosophy in to action.  However, JKD doesn't necessarily end there.  A JKD man should continue to develop himself.  For some this means cross training and for others this means getting a deeper understanding of the original tools and tactics.  I think it means both to some degree because going to far in either direction takes away from the efficacy of fighting ability (contrast the seminar student who has dabbled in every art under the sun with the compulsive Bruce Lee freak who can't stop keep from being choked out on the ground and you see my point-granted that these are both extreme examples).


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 2, 2005)

JKD is marketing.

 Thats all.

 In order to teach you need a name, this was the one Bruce Lee used.

 Since then other people have been using it, usually those that desend from his "lineage" (another thing that shouldn't be important) problem has been that each group does somtehing different and wants the name to be associated with what they do.


----------



## Adept (Mar 2, 2005)

The way I look at it, JKD is a philosophy, not a style.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Mar 4, 2005)

I agree!


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 4, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> The way I look at it, JKD is a philosophy, not a style.


*That depends 100% on who trained you.*


----------



## Hip-Hopkidoka (May 28, 2005)

Hello everyone, I'm one of the new guys here so please bear with me.

Though I've had training in JKD, the style that I use is not JKD but my own interpretation of it called Hip-Hopkido. I've taken Lee's advice and added, subtracted, and changed what I needed to make the techniques and concepts of JKD work for me; yet my base and foundation will always be in JKD. Just as Bruce's base will always be in wing chun.

I believe that the "way of the intercepting fist" is Bruce Lee's particular path and way of expressing the human body. It belongs to him and no one else will ever be able to claim something that was created and belongs to someone else. You can sure try and emulate him and take what he teaches, but essentially I believe he wanted every martial artist not to follow his _philosophy and techniques_, but to follow his _example. _I also believe that was Bruce said about there being only ONE way to fight (unless you had more than 2 hands and 2 feet), but there are multiple interpretations of this one way.

Hip-hopkido, just as Jeet Kune Do, is just a name or label used to separate my way from others. Simply so people have something to call it and nothing more.

Seeing that I had problems with Wing Chun trapping techniques I just used the linear attack theories. For defense, I studied Aikido and took the concepts and theories of spherical defense and incorporated that. I love Capoeira so I took the training techniques like practicing inside a confined circle, and my own personal Ginga (staying in motion), and most important the concept of Malicia (deceiving the opponent). And my favorite hobby outside of martial arts is breakdancing, so I take the rhythm and beat of dancing and incorporate that as well.

So basically it's Jeet Kune Do + Aikido Defense + Capoiera Concepts + Breakdancing = Hip-hopkido or "way of the deceiving fist". So instead of interception, I focus on deception. It works for me, so that's what I use.

So all in all, I just think that what Bruce Lee created can only be fully understood and used by him. And that's why I would never seek mastery in JKD unless I was learning from Bruce himself. So, to me JKD is a concept/theory rather than a system/style.


----------



## arnisador (May 28, 2005)

In principle, JKD is an approach.

In practice, people have codified it into a style(s).

Is this good or bad? I'd say...yes. It's inevitable and necessary, but something is surely lost.


----------



## achilles (May 29, 2005)

Jeet Kune Do is the name Bruce Lee gave to his study of martial arts.  As we all know style is merely an illusion, but there is also a personal history and a body of work developed and researched.  In this way, there is no end to what Jeet Kune Do is, but there is a beginning.  There is a body of knowledge that Bruce Lee taught, but there is more to the story.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 29, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Jeet Kune Do is techinically all styles and no styles. It is the ultimate system of fighting for yourself! Put it this way as this is the way I see it.
> Imagin a building and in this building there are different rooms.
> In every different room there is a different style that you can learn.
> Imagin you had the time (and money) to learn all of these styles. Then from each style you take what would suit you the most and discard what is useless to you.
> ...




Gee for a guy confused by the "Tao of JKD" you seem to have nailed it on the head... huh??  :idunno: 

I call JKD a philosophy and not a style. Remember that Lee was a major in Philosophy while in college... it stands to reason. 

Either way it is a powerful art but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's more powerful than any other. But that's just I*M*HO


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jun 11, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Gee for a guy confused by the "Tao of JKD" you seem to have nailed it on the head... huh?? :idunno:
> 
> I call JKD a philosophy and not a style. Remember that Lee was a major in Philosophy while in college... it stands to reason.
> 
> Either way it is a powerful art but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's more powerful than any other. But that's just I*M*HO


Lol, but is it an art?! IMO JKD does not exist but to the self, there is no JKD, only your own idea of JKD, so I guess I would say everybody's maximum potential is reached from the philosphy and pratice of an idea that could be called 'Jeet Kune Do'. I only say that it is most powerful because nothing can defeat it,  when there is nothing to defeat, which really doesnt make sense does it! Its just an idea, something you can grasp and learn from but not something you can pin-down.
Maybe you could see it as being the maximum potential a person 'could' reach through the arts. Ok, so maybe you could say to me 'I disagree, since my own personal art i.e. TKD or BJJ is the best I am good at and I have reached my maximum potential'. But is that really your maximum potential? could you not 'add' a little bit to it, make some defences stronger through some gaps by adapting other arts, or even having knowledge of other arts and applying their ideas. I dont know, I said I was confused since some of the other ideas I could not get my head around, after all Tao Of JKD is simply one man's idea, I'm not in his mind, I'm not his mind, somethings I cannot interpret perhaps as I should!  
kind Regards


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 11, 2005)

I dont practice JKD, but my friends that do, refer to it as a philosophy.  I however, still view it as a system.  However, the reason that they state it as a philosophy is because of its openess, take what is most effective for you and use it, but in reality wouldnt that be the same in all styles?  I mean no matter what you learn, you will always favor one over the other, either you will favor striking, or grappling, ect and given the circumstances you will do your best to get your opponnent in the most favorable scenario for you.


----------



## jkdhit (Jun 14, 2005)

according to bruce lee, it's not really a style. he said he named it just for the purpose of having a name so people can recognize it as something. i remember hearing in a recorded interview and reading that he doesn't believe in styles or one way of fighting


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 14, 2005)

There is Sigung Bruce's philosophy, and there is also what he did, how he approached fighting, what techniques he thought worked best.

I'd say it's both, and that it is not a bad idea to approach learning the techniques, and then (if you have a very good instructor) learning about the philosophy behind what Sigung did.

I honestly don't have a huge amount of patience for the hand-waving "there is no style of JKD!" thing, just my personal reaction.  I understand what Sigung was trying to say (I think), but it seems wasteful to me to then dismiss or discard the techniques and training he had, which are based on principles he emphasized.


----------



## Marvin (Jun 15, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I honestly don't have a huge amount of patience for the hand-waving "there is no style of JKD!" thing, just my personal reaction.  I understand what Sigung was trying to say (I think), but it seems wasteful to me to then dismiss or discard the techniques and training he had, which are based on principles he emphasized.



Feisty, don't think of it as a discarding or dismissal. Think more of an evolution, I remember Dan Inosanto making an analogy of a '67 Corvette vs. a new Corvette; the '67 was great, it was fast, sleek and got the job done, but the modern Vette modern is even better w. power steering, better handling etc.
As well as what Bruce Lee said (Im paraphrasing here because I cant remember the quote exactly) dont become attached to the technique, which is like a boat used to cross a river; once it is crossed dont carry the boat on your back.
That is the beautiful thing about JKD you don't have to be bound buy the techniques of its founder, like so many styles of martial art!
Marvin


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 15, 2005)

Marvin said:
			
		

> dont become attached to the technique, which is like a boat used to cross a river; once it is crossed dont carry the boat on your back.
> That is the beautiful thing about JKD you don't have to be bound buy the techniques of its founder, like so many styles of martial art!
> Marvin



Umm, has anyone asked Dan why he hasn't discarded his Jun Fan?
I think the discarding of the technique becomes slightly confused by the wording. Becoming one with our technique and bound by no limitations does not equal a "free for all" which by "many peoples defition," thats what they beleive JKD means.


----------



## Marvin (Jun 15, 2005)

Akja, I think you misread my post. I said "you don't have to be bound by the techniques of its founder" which is not the same as YOU MUST NOT be bound. As to Jun Fan, you answed your own question. Jun Fan is Jun Fan, not JKD.
Marvin


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 15, 2005)

Jun Fan is the root and is taught in the process. Jun Fan may noe be JKD CONCEPTS but is very much a part of JKD.


----------



## Marvin (Jun 15, 2005)

akja said:
			
		

> Jun Fan is the root and is taught in the process. Jun Fan may noe be JKD CONCEPTS but is very much a part of JKD.


Fair enough, what is JKD Concepts and what is JKD?
Marvin


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jun 15, 2005)

1.Absorb whats useful
2.discard the useless
3.add what is your own.

That is the core philosophy of JKD. Its not a style, its a philosophy of how to train in the arts. Yes bruce had techniques he taught that worked for him, but if you dont like them, than your not supposed to use them.
JKD is a philosophy that is desighned to break herd conformity. Its keeps you neutral, so you can learn from any source, that way your not for, or against any style.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 16, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> 1.Absorb whats useful
> 2.discard the useless
> 3.add what is your own.
> 
> ...



Thats fine if you want to beleive that. Bruce and Dan both constantly contradicted everything they said. Why beleive only one side of the coin? The art and the concept are two halves of the whole. Neither are complete without the other. 

If what you say is true then ANYONE could teach JKD and there would be NO NEED for people like Dan Inosanto.

If you don't mind. Can you tell me where your theory comes from? I ask this because to many people "read it" or hear it second hand and then preach it like the bible. 

The concept works in conjunction with the underlying art. Once the the art is no longer present, "the JKD label" should be "dropped." Give your art the "true" name it deserves and quit confusing the public on "what is" and "what isn't" JKD.

The bulk of knowledge comes from my Sifu who was present during the early years.
http://www.taoofgungfu.com/


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jun 17, 2005)

akja said:
			
		

> Thats fine if you want to beleive that. Bruce and Dan both constantly contradicted everything they said. Why beleive only one side of the coin? The art and the concept are two halves of the whole. Neither are complete without the other.
> 
> If what you say is true then ANYONE could teach JKD and there would be NO NEED for people like Dan Inosanto.
> 
> ...



I read this information right from Bruce Lees books.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 17, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> I read this information right from Bruce Lees books.



You've proved my point.
*I ask this because to many people "read it" or hear it second hand and then preach it like the bible. * 

You're taking the words from a book and accepting it over the words of MANY instructors who were PRESENT and say differant.


Even though I don't know you, I'd be willing to bet that the book(s) you read were written after Bruces death and by someone else, based on Bruces notes.
The Tao and most all other books were NOT written by Bruce.

There are a small hand full of books that Bruce did write while he was still young and primarily a Wing Chun player and he NEVER wrote about his martial art being a concept or a philosiphy.

If you read any of the later books you'll find that Bruce contradicted himself (over time). This COULD lead someone to beleive that his Gung Fu, the art, is separate from Jeet Kune Do, the concept. 

But like everything in JKD it's open to interpetation and the answers are within ourselves BUT our guidance COMES from those that have the TIES to JKD, not from reading the books, as an outsider, an TRYING to make the correct interpetation. That helps confuse the public even more than Bruce did himself.

My Sifu's system is solid and is well respected in the JKD community. It's almost disrespecting to him, his father and everyone else who were there *and say differant,* to say they just have a concept. :asian:


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jun 17, 2005)

akja said:
			
		

> You've proved my point.
> *I ask this because to many people "read it" or hear it second hand and then preach it like the bible. *
> 
> You're taking the words from a book and accepting it over the words of MANY instructors who were PRESENT and say differant.
> ...



Interesting. Im not sure what to say. I dont know anyone who teaches JKD, so all I have is the book store, if thats really not a valid source of info then that really sucks. His name should not be on the books then. Also why doesnt his family come forward with a lawsuit if his books are false?


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jun 17, 2005)

Also, my favorite book of Bruce Lees is the warrior within, and your right, it was written after his death. But the man who wrote it sounds credible, and im sure someone would be suing if he wasnt. 
That book changed my philosophy of martial arts, it was more helpful to me than any martial arts book I have ever read.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 18, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Interesting. Im not sure what to say. I dont know anyone who teaches JKD, so all I have is the book store, if thats really not a valid source of info then that really sucks. His name should not be on the books then. Also why doesnt his family come forward with a lawsuit if his books are false?


Why must it be a black-or-white issue?  This sounds very Fundamentalist, which is ironic - with the book-thumping and whatnot.

The books are important.  So are the things that Sigung Bruce said, how he trained, what he did and talked about with his students.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 20, 2005)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> Interesting. Im not sure what to say. I dont know anyone who teaches JKD, so all I have is the book store, if thats really not a valid source of info then that really sucks. His name should not be on the books then. Also why doesnt his family come forward with a lawsuit if his books are false?



It's not so much wrong. It is just like his art. *It is and it isn't.* Thats what he left us. Bruce contradicted himself alot.

In those same books by Jon Little from Bruces original notes. In the "Personal Letters that Bruce Lee wrote. You'll find that he wrote a letter to Hawkens Cheung and he was excited about his "new" Gung Fu system. He created a martial art. 

*IF* he later said it was not an art and just a concept, that is what his students disagree on. So one can learn JKD the concept and should learn it with the correct foundation which isn't just anything that one chooses but from an instructor *whose been there and can take you there.*


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 20, 2005)

I have most of those books too and I was buying the Jon Little books as they were coming out. I was buying 2 copies of each and giving one to my Sifu. It was funny because they contradited at times what I was being taught. Then as I read more, it was obvious that the books (Bruces writings) contradicted each other.

The students have there own interpetations of what they were taught and that will be even more differant too. So there isn't a right or wrong. Like Feisty commented, it can't be black or white. It is what it is.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 20, 2005)

Is he contradicting himself, or is his thinking evolving as time goes on and he gains experience?


----------



## James Kovacich (Jun 21, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Is he contradicting himself, or is his thinking evolving as time goes on and he gains experience?


Could be OR maybe he just changed his mind about creating a system. HE did create a system. What happened to it is the evolution.


----------



## beauty_in_the_sai (Jun 22, 2005)

I don't think JKD was really supposed to be a style as Brucce said himself that he didn't believe in styles. I think naming it was Bruce's big flaw. He could've called it "my way or art,"  as he wanted everyone else to find their own way and not go with a style either. He said that to go with a style makes you mechanical, only doing what the founder thinks is right. He pry didn't realize he made it into a style till it was too late, hence the reason he closed all of his schools. Bruce did contradict himself alot, but we all do from time to time. He is my hero and role model, but if I thought just like him, I'd be "mechanical."


----------



## bcbernam777 (Jun 23, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> Maybe, but I dont quite agree. Its not a style. There is no structure because nobody can teach you your own style. I personally think that JKD is personal development of other arts or techniques into something that would define as being JKD.
> 
> Its not a style. BL did not want people to call it that.


Your right it is not a style, it is a colection of concepts used by Bruce himeself and propegated to others, but the problem is that no one has the same basis of Bruce Lee no one can be Bruce lee and by very definition no onw can study Jeet Kune Do because Jeet Kune Do is personal, njo one can replicate Bruce's own personal journey. This is why bruce shut down his operations before he died, he realised that what he owned was not so much concerened with technique as it was with attitude, and understanding, he even acknowledged to Wong Shuen Lueng before he die  that he did not understand the complexities ie depths of Wing chun, it was only after several meetings before his death that Bruce met With his former private instructor to research his methos an the methos of WC and found tht he lacked the depth in Wing chun (that info is available in theis months Kung Fu magazine with the interview retrospectivly covering Wong Shueng Leung). You must understand that Bruce was all attitude, and that is the essence of not only Wing chun or Jeet Kune Do but of all fighting, Attitude.


----------



## jkdhit (Jun 26, 2005)

if you notice, some of his books arent in complete order. he contradicts old sayings with new sayings. however in one book, the tao of jeet kune do, i had noticed that there was a lot of old information from old books and the information wasn't organized properly 

 he simply changes some of his ways of thinking

 i think the best example was when he said.. when he first started, a kick was a kick and a punch was a punch, once he had completed his training a kick was no longer a kick, and a punch was no longer a punch, then when he understood martial arts, he realized a kick is just a kick and a punch is just a punch

 hope i didnt confuse you lol


----------



## Hip-Hopkidoka (Jun 26, 2005)

jkdhit said:
			
		

> if you notice, some of his books arent in complete order. he contradicts old sayings with new sayings. however in one book, the tao of jeet kune do, i had noticed that there was a lot of old information from old books and the information wasn't organized properly
> 
> he simply changes some of his ways of thinking
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right in your example. Before his training he *under-analyzed* and thought a punch was just a punch, after his training he *over-analyzed* and thought a punch was no longer a punch, then after understanding it he simplified it and just *analyzed.* Bruce learned that a punch was just a punch, but at least he understood why it was just a punch, before then he didn't know that.

I think what Master Lee wanted us to gather from his unorganized quotes and insights, was that these were *his* thoughts and ideas, so they didn't really have to make sense to anyone else but himself. If one can't understand what he's saying, that's not a bad thing, it just means that they and Bruce Lee don't share the same ideology, there is nothing wrong with that. Bruce encouraged people to think differently and be their own person, that's the whole reason he created JKD, so he could set himself outside of the "classical" style of martial arts. While everyone was trying to fit into a set mold, Bruce Lee said "screw it" and made his own mold, that fit him perfectly. Now tell me that you wouldn't do the same thing?

Imagine that there was only ONE size of pants on the planet and you couldn't fit them. Now would you *force *yourself into the pants or would you take the time to make your own jeans that fit you perfectly? I took the same philosophies into consideration when I came up with Hip-Hopkido.

Think about it....


----------



## jkdhit (Jun 27, 2005)

another good example

 by the way, didnt he say that no one should call him master?  

 he said that he too is a student of martial arts and is continuously learning so he prefers not to be called one


----------



## arnisador (Jun 27, 2005)

Hip-Hopkidoka said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right in your example. Before his training he *under-analyzed* and thought a punch was just a punch, after his training he *over-analyzed* and thought a punch was no longer a punch, then after understanding it he simplified it and just *analyzed.* Bruce learned that a punch was just a punch, but at least he understood why it was just a punch, before then he didn't know that.


 I think this is a good way of looking at it. That's what I always read into the quote, which is one I really like.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 27, 2005)

In my experience, 90% of these threads are side discussions that don't address whether or not the Jun Fan Gung fu base (with Bai Joing, nonchambered kicks, etc.) is any good.

 So, is the base any good, or not?


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jun 27, 2005)

Hip-Hopkidoka said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right in your example. Before his training he *under-analyzed* and thought a punch was just a punch, after his training he *over-analyzed* and thought a punch was no longer a punch, then after understanding it he simplified it and just *analyzed.* Bruce learned that a punch was just a punch, but at least he understood why it was just a punch, before then he didn't know that.
> 
> I think what Master Lee wanted us to gather from his unorganized quotes and insights, was that these were *his* thoughts and ideas, so they didn't really have to make sense to anyone else but himself. If one can't understand what he's saying, that's not a bad thing, it just means that they and Bruce Lee don't share the same ideology, there is nothing wrong with that. Bruce encouraged people to think differently and be their own person, that's the whole reason he created JKD, so he could set himself outside of the "classical" style of martial arts. While everyone was trying to fit into a set mold, Bruce Lee said "screw it" and made his own mold, that fit him perfectly. Now tell me that you wouldn't do the same thing?
> 
> ...


I believe the quote about a punch being just a punch orginates from the Tao Of Gung Fu and yes is also in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do. However I interpretated that particular phrase differently. 
Not saying your wrong but I saw him as refering to the muscular process involved in learning technical skill. 
Before you do Martial Arts, a punch is just a punch, whilst learning Martial Arts you focus on the aspect of your punch, you try and learn how to throw it, its movements the ideas behind it, then once you have understood the Martial Art the skill is so innate in your muscle memory that its as he says, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.
Not saying your wrong, can be applied well to your view to as well, thats just the way I saw it.
Kind Regards


----------



## arnisador (Jun 27, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> In my experience, 90% of these threads are side discussions that don't address whether or not the Jun Fan Gung fu base (with Bai Joing, nonchambered kicks, etc.) is any good.
> 
> So, is the base any good, or not?


 That's also an interesting question, but it's definitely a different question! It might be best to start a new thread for it.


----------



## Hip-Hopkidoka (Jul 2, 2005)

Corporal Hicks said:
			
		

> I believe the quote about a punch being just a punch orginates from the Tao Of Gung Fu and yes is also in the Tao of Jeet Kune Do. However I interpretated that particular phrase differently.
> Not saying your wrong but I saw him as refering to the muscular process involved in learning technical skill.
> Before you do Martial Arts, a punch is just a punch, whilst learning Martial Arts you focus on the aspect of your punch, you try and learn how to throw it, its movements the ideas behind it, then once you have understood the Martial Art the skill is so innate in your muscle memory that its as he says, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.
> Not saying your wrong, can be applied well to your view to as well, thats just the way I saw it.
> Kind Regards


That's an excellent way of looking at it too! I believe this is what Bruce Lee wanted when he wrote his books. He realized that every person thinks differently and each has their own path. And I think that it's great that we have two different views on the topic but they are both right! JKD was created out of Bruce's desire to express himself totally and completely. He too had different views on the martial arts, but that doesn't mean that he or anyone else was wrong, he found his own path and I think that is what he was stressing the most, individuality.


----------



## grappling_mandala (Sep 12, 2005)

JKD died with Bruce. All we have are memories.


----------



## James Kovacich (Sep 19, 2005)

If it wasn't supposed to be a style, it is now (depending on who you talk to). :uhyeah:


----------



## arnisador (Sep 19, 2005)

I have to agree...for better or for worse, it is now.

I think that's good. It preserves his ideads better than it dying would have, in my opinion.


----------



## CrankyDragon (Sep 20, 2005)

His is the style without a style.  JDK is still a style, but it has no boundries, if I am understanding correctly.


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

that's what i wonder too..
Lee learned a lot about martial arts, he perfected some of them like WC so he developed his own style, and that was his idea..
people after him used his name, and his idea to teach it AS A STYLE!
i feel JKD is just a combo of weak filipino martial arts, muay thai, and BJJ (im not saying those are weak systems, im saying JKD students do not get the chance to become strong in any of these systems)
it worked well for Lee, but according to his philosophy it shouldnt work with anyone else unless they study several systems and be perfect at them..


----------

