Confused about JKD

[jkdman]

I understand it is your journey and I never had a problem with that. However, my problem came when you said that your path was the only path. You said basically that if you dont study the style of Jun fan (which I hope to study and have done seminars to learn about it because I respect it greatly) then you are not doing JKD. To prove your point you bragged about a guy (who by the way has good outlook. I saw the site.) who is a "master" and so you had to be right. My only point is: There are many paths that can lead one to the concepts of interception that is called JKD, but no matter how you get there it is still the same place when you arrive. Yes I said alot of Bruce said, but it is Bruce Lee who organized the ideas and coined the phrase so when talking about something we should look at the creator or founder or whatever Bruce should be called. If we can look for answers to what JKD is from the guy who decided hey let's call it JKD then who are we supposed to look to get those answers. You seem like a decent guy with a real passion and I respect that. Just do not limit what is limitless. The conjis around Bruce's logo say having no way as way, so can jun fan be the way to learn JKD when there is no way of JKD. It is called the way of no way. There again By Bruce.

Hey hope we can be friends. I like your insight on several points.

 

[twinkletoes]

I stand by my *earlier* example of the Straight Blast Gym guys as people who are considered JKDC but do not use Jun Fan.

On top of that, they don't consider themselves to really be JKD-anything except for JKD-FUNCTIONAL.

Their schools teach from a boxing/savate & greco & BJJ base, with tremendous advances made in clinch and weapons training. Their materials are AWESOME. (And there is no reference to Jun Fan ANYWHERE).

~Chris

 

[jkdman]

Thanks TT. I appreciate what you said and you brought a great example Matt and all the SBG affilates are just great fighters and true to there roots. I really like those guys. They don't even use the word JKD anymore to many politics involved. Matt has an interview that you can find a link to on defend.net forum that backs this point well.

 

[sweeper]

everyone teaches JKD in a diffrent way.. none to long ago (if it has even changed) dan inosanto would require students to learn jun fan before going into JKD.. Most older instructors learned jun fan than JKD.. In alot of ways Jun fan is a very good starting point to move twards JKD, but Jun Fan is not perfect. Bruce lee died in a period where his fighting system was undergoing a great deal of change, than no one wanted to change anything out of respect for him so it kinda froze. It is undoubtable that it would have changed, no one nessisaraly knows how, but everyone knows that if it would have than it wasn't complete wich is why I think it's perfectly acceptable to take a diffrent path.. But I would also point out that people mean diffrent things when they say "Jeet Kune Do". In fact I think Lee meant diffrent things depending on when you would have asked him.. In the begining it sounded like a style or system of fighting, by the end it sounded like a mindset you are in when fighting. I would also point out that bruce lee didn't write the "tao of jeet kune do" or "the tao of gung fu".

People are starting to change the name though, you have the JFJKD people the JF/JKDGA the PFS people, etc.. It's starting to diversify wich I think is a very good thing.

(edit) P.S. Almost forgot to point out, at the time of bruce lee's death he hadn't realy studied all that much, there was alot that he had wanted to research about fighting but he neve had the chance. TwinkleToes reminded me of this when bringing up sevate.

 

[jkdman]

Thanks for your reply. I agree with everything but these two things The tao of gung fu was paper he wrote in college that john little released as a book so Bruce did write the tao of Gung Fu. It is explained in the preface of the book. Secondly, The words of Tao of Jeet Kune Do were notes that Bruce wrote and Dan Insosanto and several of his students put in order so those are Bruce's words. Other than that you are bang on with everything I appreciate what you said.

 

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by jkdman
I understand it is your journey and I never had a problem with that. However, my problem came when you said that your path was the only path. You said basically that if you dont study the style of Jun fan (which I hope to study and have done seminars to learn about it because I respect it greatly) then you are not doing JKD. ....

Some JKD people have said just that. But I don't believe AKJA is one of them.

JKD takes a systematic method to training, which has been long adopted by most MA. But JKD has no fixed fighting system/style that it must adhere to. Most other arts have their methods of fighting. JKD frees you from such constrain but guide you with a set of principles in your exploration for methods to win a fight. This is like today's military. No military, the successfull ones, would be illogical enough to insist on adhering to the founder's style of war fighting. Rather, they learn from all other successful military, past and present. And learn to fight war according to the constrains of the battlefields, logistics and political objectives.

 

[jkdman]

That is a great example and extremely well thought out. I like this forum much better than all the others i have been to. People here seem highly intelligent. I really appreciated the post on this topic. Thank you.

 

[sweeper]

*sigh* now I have to go hunt down my tao of gung fu book
(edit) ok found it (tao of kung fu)

While Lee scrapped the idea of publishing this book, he didnot scrap his research notes or sample chapters. Lee left behind substantial chapter writings, notes, photographs, and research materials for books on both gung fu and his then newly created martial art of jeet kune do.

So the book was never completed, John Little completed it from notes. He basicly had an outline and tried to color within the lines using inks from Lee's library. In my opinion that is not the same thing as being writen by bruce lee.


Tao of JKD was a compilation of notes and quotes though, by their very nature they are all out of context and then it was attempted to put them back into context, however considering Bruce Lee's death was somewhat unexpected I realy don't think that was entirly posable.. Some conclusions people draw from the tao of JKD directly contradict papers bruce lee wrote previous to his death.

 

[jkdman]

You are correct some conclusions contradict as with anything that elvoves. However, the one's I used at the end of the book are th one's Bruce and even Dan have said for years are at heart of the concepts.

 

[sweeper]

yes but a broad ranging or open ended maxim or axiom can be used to justify virtualy anything. There are other rules, posably soft rules but still there are rules that govern what is/isn't JKD.

The one thing I would whole heartedly agree with is the concept of interception.. I recal a quote of Bruce lee saying that JKD was his expresion of the Pak Sao. I think that says it all right there.

 

[jkdman]

I brought that up in a previous post. It seems you and I just might be on the same page just saying things differently. What do you think?

 

[sweeper]

I don't know, I tihnk we would have to be a little more objective.. It seems that you think the books have value as a training resorce(maybe I am mistaken?), I personaly diagree. I think their primary use is in understanding bruce lee.

As to JKD.. It's just to hard to discuss the conceptual side of JKD through the internet in this medium. Heck it's hard to talk about it face to face. My personal opinion on the matter is everyone should drop the name JKD that doesn't teach it for historical preservation and adopt apersonal name for what they do. I think alot of instructors feal they are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place because they want to give credit where credit is due and they want to give respect to their teachers, yet they know sometimes that there is something that should be changed for a more omptimal practice. Odds are we would agree on the JKD thing if we were talking face to face

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by sweeper
I don't know, I tihnk we would have to be a little more objective.. It seems that you think the books have value as a training resorce(maybe I am mistaken?), I personaly diagree. I think their primary use is in understanding bruce lee.

As to JKD.. It's just to hard to discuss the conceptual side of JKD through the internet in this medium. Heck it's hard to talk about it face to face. My personal opinion on the matter is everyone should drop the name JKD that doesn't teach it for historical preservation and adopt apersonal name for what they do. I think alot of instructors feal they are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place because they want to give credit where credit is due and they want to give respect to their teachers, yet they know sometimes that there is something that should be changed for a more omptimal practice. Odds are we would agree on the JKD thing if we were talking face to face

Thats why I teach my Kempo Ju Jitsu which "as far as technique goes" my students learn the technical side of JKD plus my expanded version. As far as the "philisophical side goes" if a student "reaches" an understanding of JKD they will get certified in JKD, if they don't, they won't. :asian: