Jeet Kune Do, style or not?

[marvin8]

What's the definition of "formless". Does "formless" mean "no plan ahead"? Can you do anything in your life without a plan?

To “Be like water,” be in the moment, control, understand counters and adapt to any action/reaction the attacker may have. Formless doesn’t mean “no plan ahead.”

When a wrestler applies a head lock on a Taiji guy, how does that Taiji guy get out of that head lock if he has never trained how to escape/counter a head lock before?

Per Mr. Miyagi, “No be there.” Then, lead the wrestler into emptiness and counter. Nunes rolls back evading Rousey's (Olympic judoka) head lock then KO's her...

It's logical that any wrestler needs to train how to establish a clinch safely starting from outside striking range. In MMA, wrestlers train striking to integrate with their wrestling.

Ronda Rousey is KOd by Nunes and Holm. Rousey is an accomplished judoka.

MA is like using the right key to open the right lock. There exists no master key that can open all locks.

In this video, he uses same arm double hooks as his entering strategy. His 1st hook pulls down his opponent's guard. His 2nd hook attack. Can this be done "formless"?

- Does he "plan" to use his 1st hook to pull down his opponent's guard?

Those are not hooks. There are various counters to the downward trap -> cross, as evidenced by Jeff’s failed attempt. Jeff’s cross is not a KO blow. He already transferred his weight with the hand trap making the cross an arm punch and overextending. The least likely attacker reaction is to freeze their lead hand and ready (fighting) stance.

A more "formless" and "economy of motion" demo is to cover the lead hand, feint the single leg takedown, get an underhook then hip throw…

https://imgur.com/1U9FUmm

I don't understand your logic. If you have not trained

- head lock,
- hip throw,
- leg block,
- leg twist,
- ...

when opportunity present, you won't be able to apply it.

To be formless, one doesn’t have to throw. One can kick, strike or submit instead.

 

[marvin8]

Starting at 31:48, Steve Golden, a student of Bruce, talks about Bruce’s teaching, what JKD is, Five Ways of Attack and controlling timing, rhythm and distance…

Sean Madigan
Apr 21, 2017

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

To be formless, one doesn’t have to throw. One can kick, strike or submit instead.

Boxing toolbox contains:

- jab
- cross
- hook
- uppercut
- overhand

Chinese wrestling/Judo/wrestling toolbox contain

- single leg
- double legs
- hip throw
- foot sweep
- ...

What does the JKD's toolbox contain?

 

[marvin8]

Boxing toolbox contains:

- jab
- cross
- hook
- uppercut
- overhand

Chinese wrestling/Judo/wrestling toolbox contain

- single leg
- double legs
- hip throw
- foot sweep
- ...

What does the JKD's toolbox contain?JK

I believe JKD is unlimited in adapting techniques that align with their principles and concepts like MMA. Per Dwight Woods, student of Dan Inosanto:

Let Bruce Lee himself answer this question in an excerpt from his “Liberate Yourself From Classical Karate” written by him in the 1960s:

What, then, is Jeet Kune Do? Literally, "jeet" means to intercept or to stop; "kune" is the fist; and "do" is the way, the ultimate reality---the way of the intercepting fist. Do remember, however, that "Jeet Kune Do" is merely a convenient name. I am not interested with the term itself; I am interested in its effect of liberation when JKD is used as a mirror for self-examination.

Unlike a "classical" martial art, there is no series of rules or classification of technique that constitutes a distinct "Jeet Kune Do" method of fighting. JKD is not a form of special conditioning with its own rigid philosophy. It looks at combat not from a single angle, but from all possible angles. While JKD utilizes all the ways and means to serve its end (after all, efficiency is anything that scores), it is bound by none and is therefore free. In other words, JKD possesses everything, but is in itself possessed by nothing.

Therefore, to try and define JKD in terms of a distinct style---be it gung-fu, karate, street fighting, Bruce Lee's martial art, etc.---is to completely miss its meaning. It's teaching simply cannot be confined with a system. Since JKD is at once "this" and "not this", it neither opposes nor adheres to any style. To understand this fully, one must transcend from the duality of "for" and "against" into one organic unity which is without distinctions. Understanding of JKD is direct intuition of this unity.

There are no prearranged sets or "kata" in the teaching of JKD, nor are they necessary. Consider the subtle difference between "having no form" and having "no form"; the first is ignorance, the second is transcendence. Through instinctive body feeling, each of us 'knows' our own most efficient and dynamic manner of achieving effective leverage, balance in motion, economical use of energy, etc. Patterns, techniques or forms touch only the fringe of genuine understanding.

The core of understanding lies in the individual mind, and until that is touched, everything is uncertain and superficial. Truth cannot be perceived until we come to fully understand ourselves and our potentials. After all, 'knowledge in the martial arts ultimately means self-knowledge.'

And here’s some other of his writings on Jeet Kune Do as a style:

I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method.

On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.

There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way.

Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.

Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive.

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.

Hopefully after reading this you will have realised that Jeet Kune Do was never created as a martial art form.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

JKD possesses everything, but is in itself possessed by nothing.

I have problem with this statement.

You go to a university to study. The university tells you that they have all classes, but they have no classes. Does that university have classes (such as "Category Theory")?

Should all MA styles start from jab/cross, front kick? What should be after jab/cross, front kick in JKD (assume throwing art is not in the JKD's toolbox)?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The JKD theory is just like somebody only wants to talk about his PhD decertation. He doesn't want to talk about grade school, high school, or even college. Before one can get his PhD degree, he has to go through a lot of education. JKD seems like to skip that part.

A: I want to learn how to build a bridge.
B: I can teach you how to build a bridge without building a bridge.
A: ???

A: What do you teach in your MA school?
B: My school teach fighting without fighting.
A: Should you teach "fighting" before you teach "without fighting"?
B: ...

 

[punisher73]

The "problem" with the question "Is JKD a style" is that there are some assumptions being made.

JKD, in and of itself, is NOT a style. It is just a bunch of philosophical concepts to apply to a person's personal style that they have already learned.

People often forget that Bruce Lee taught his style of Jun Fan Gung Fu, which DID have preset drills, forms (wooden dummy) and a set curriculum to learn and build.

This is why there are some who teach "Original JKD", which is the Jun Fan style and others who teach "JKD Concepts" which is the concepts of JKD as applied to other arts.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Bruce Lee's thoughts continues to ruffle martial artist's feathers. It was the same in the early 1960s and continues to this very day. A lot of the original martial arts and their founders formed similar thinking eons before Bruce Lee was even born, long before he committed his thoughts to paper. JKD is nothing special, it's just the thought-process of somebody looking beyond the confines of stylistic thinking and investigating fighting from a personal perspective.

 

[Xue Sheng]

My first exposure to training JKD brought me to thinking what I felt the "Classical Mess" was

“In memory of a once fluid man, crammed and distorted by the classical mess” - Bruce Lee

As it applied to the Xingyiquan I was training at that time. I saw a lot of thing in JKD that flowed directly into Xingyiquan. Also came across a video of Novell Bell (The Blacl Taoist) using xingyiquan on a heavy bag. Add to that I had just finished reading Di Gouyong's first book on Xingyiquan.

Xingyiquan, IMO at that time, had fallen prey to the "Classical Mess" What Novell Bell was dong and what Di Gouyong was saying ad little to do with how Xingyiquan was trained at that time.

Learn 5 elements, learn 5 elements linking form, then learn 12 animals, and then 12 anim;as linking form. And this was considered traditional, but it really was not. You needed to train multiple aspects of 5 elements before moving on so you could flow into what was needed, not be stuck in the forms as trained. I had xingyiquan people at that time tell me xingyi only works if you are moving forward, so heavy bag work is not necessary....BALONEY!!!! If that was true then all one needs to do is stop xingyiquan forwasrd momentum to defeat it, and that is most certainly not true. There was also a saying, that I use to misunderstand, Xingyi never backs up, and many go with that in the style. What it really means in Xingyi never stops attacking, forward, backwards, sideways, stationary, it constantly attacks.

They were all locked into this view of training that was not what was originally taught or meant, even per Di Guoyong. They were solidly entrenched in the classical mess

This also made me a big proponent of

"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,"

To me it is just that. And I have seen where it can be applied in a lot of Xingyiquan and even in Taijiquan.

Is it a style, well to me it depends, as it has been written several times in this thread, there are 2 sides of that fence "Original JKD" and "JKD Concepts". It all comes down to how you view it and/or approach it.

But I did once read that even Dan Inosanto, who is big on the Concepts side of thing, has all his students learn the original first. But then that was from one interview I read a few years ago. It was also my understanding that Jerry Poteet was solidly on the Original side of the fence.

So is it a style..... maybe, but it depends.... that is as far as I can get it

 

[marvin8]

I have problem with this statement.

You go to a university to study. The university tells you that they have all classes, but they have no classes. Does that university have classes (such as "Category Theory")?

Per Dwight Woods...

You are correct that Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kune Do has “no form” or “no style” but do not confuse that with having no “form” or no “style”.

Might appear to be semantics but actually it’s much more important than that.

Here’s what is written in The Tao of Jeet Kune Do (taken from his notes) on Page 25:

“Expression is not developed through the practice of form, yet form is a part of expression. The greater (expression) is not found in the lesser (expression) but the lesser is found in the greater. Having “no form” then, does not mean having no “form”. Having “no form” evolves from having form. “No form” is the higher, individual expression.”

Should all MA styles start from jab/cross, front kick? What should be after jab/cross, front kick in JKD (assume throwing art is not in the JKD's toolbox)?

There are JKD people who teach kicking, striking, throwing and locking.

The JKD theory is just like somebody only wants to talk about his PhD decertation. He doesn't want to talk about grade school, high school, or even college. Before one can get his PhD degree, he has to go through a lot of education. JKD seems like to skip that part.

A: I want to learn how to build a bridge.
B: I can teach you how to build a bridge without building a bridge.
A: ???

A: What do you teach in your MA school?
B: My school teach fighting without fighting.
A: Should you teach "fighting" before you teach "without fighting"?
B: ...

Togo Ishii does not demo a sidekick against an opponent that is static and frozen in place.

Togo teaches deception, opponent’s counters/reactions, controlling timing, distance, rhythm and how to land the sidekick against an alive opponent.

 

[ap Oweyn]

The "problem" with the question "Is JKD a style" is that there are some assumptions being made.

JKD, in and of itself, is NOT a style. It is just a bunch of philosophical concepts to apply to a person's personal style that they have already learned.

People often forget that Bruce Lee taught his style of Jun Fan Gung Fu, which DID have preset drills, forms (wooden dummy) and a set curriculum to learn and build.

This is why there are some who teach "Original JKD", which is the Jun Fan style and others who teach "JKD Concepts" which is the concepts of JKD as applied to other arts.

That's an elegant answer, and I like it for that. But I don't think there are assumptions being made. I think it's actually the opposite in a way. The assumed answer is "no it isn't, because Lee and his adherents say so." But practically speaking, I don't think it's developed that way. It's all predicated, though, on how you define "style."

Again, I'm less concerned with what people say, because savvy communicators choose words and phrases based on the effect they want to create in an audience. Saying "yes this is a style" creates a sense of cohesion, historicity, and solidity. "No it's not a style" creates a sense of freedom, excitement, and anti-authoritarianism. Or whatever. Point being that the "no" arguments are mostly coming in the form of quotes. That's not invalid, by any means. But I'm interested in also looking at what actually happens.

So what does it mean to be a style? To say that a fairly consistent set of techniques from other styles will be taught through a JKD philosophy, to me, feels predictable, reproducible, and grounded in precedent. That feels pretty "style-y" to me, no matter what the ad copy says.

To borrow your standard above, kali or muay thai taught through a JKD lens will ALSO have preset drills (e.g., sumbrada) and a set curriculum. So, while I get the semantic difference, I'm not entirely convinced there's a functional difference. All the less so in an age when crosstraining, mixed martial arts, and almost limitless access to content are things.

Again, if I can look at someone performing movements and correctly ascertain that they come from a JKD Concepts background, that feels like a style to me. And calling it a set of styles learned through a JKD philosophy feels like a distinction without a difference.

"Original JKD" feels even more distinctive and readily identified. Certainly not "more formless."

Just my thinking though.

 

[Badhabits]

I thought the progression of all martial arts have the goal of internalizing the material to the point that it's second nature, like breathing or walking- moving beyond the "form" of the system. Once you reach this point, wouldn't this be called having no form? I fail to see what is so special about what Bruce Lee is saying about this. The whole breaking free of form, styles etc thing gets focused on to the point that people misunderstand. It gives a lot of people the wrong idea, that form is a bad thing to be avoided. Not realizing the whole point is to use form as a vehicle to move beyond it. Nothing new or unique. When it comes to Bruce Lee though, it gets presented as some sort of special, unique, enlightened idea. He was also a young man, and I think he had some young man mistakes in his thinking. He may have been a fantastic martial artist but there is a good deal in his writings I don't agree with.
I hope I don't get burned at the stake for blasphemy lol.

 

[windwalker099]

Not realizing the whole point is to use form as a vehicle to move beyond it. Nothing new or unique.

Styles are like fingers pointing at the moon; the realization itself lies beyond the pointing. While a method may take on different forms, these forms are ultimately tools meant to be transcended. Like water, one’s true nature is reflected in the process—fluid, ever-present, shaped only in appearance by the method, yet never confined by it.