Simularity I've Noticed Between JKD and All Martial Arts

[Cyriacus]

It's not about liking it. If a specific move you have been taught, for you, routinely gets you kicked in the face, or anywhere undesirable, or plain doesn't work... why, according to JKD, should you keep it?

I have never, ever been taught such a move. Ever. Id call it common sense to remove the ineffective. That isnt the glorious pinnacle of JKD, thats being sensible.

Loooooot of moves I like. Heck, most in MA. But that doesn't mean I use them all for sparring, or even survival.

The only thing Ive ever learnt in MA which I wouldnt use, is Hammerfists. Because I prefer Downward Punches. Thats Me having a preference. Not adhering to the teachings of Bruce Lee and JKD. Maybe for You it is, but for Me, its like saying that because You learnt a Front Kick in Kung Fu, that Youve learnt a Front Kick in Kyokushin.

You don't have to, but if they work, than either way you are following a concept of JKD in keeping what works, for you.

If I keep everything, Im adhering to JKD. If I keep nothing, Im adhering to JKD. If I keep some things and not others, Im adhering to JKD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

Its kinda like saying that if You avoid a fight, Youre a Confucianist Buddhist Pacifist. Tisnt the case. You made the choice. You. Not the belief system.

 

[Chris Parker]

Different degrees of complexity of thought (technique) and speed.

What? Nope, that's not any clearer, Alex. Your original comment was "In such, each style is like a different form of thinking, expressed through physical means. I do not think there is any better style of thought, just different speeds and degrees."

Dude, this just doesn't make any sense. It's a collection of words that don't say anything.

Tell you what, try to simplify your language. Say what you mean in the plainest language you can. Let's see if we can make any sense of this, yeah?

JKD can be utilized as a philosophy and mindset by any style. Choose that which best works for you, and modify your perspective of it using JKD tenets.

You know, I'm going to pull the "how would you know?" card out here... you've verified that you don't actually have any experience in JKD at all, you've never trained in it, at best you've read some Bruce Lee books from the looks of things. Do you think it's possible that you've completely misunderstood the central tenets of JKD yourself? Honestly, that's what I'd say from your comments.

I'll explain.

While JKD does endorse cross-training and exploration of multiple sources to discover what you can personally adapt to your own application, it doesn't then follow that no matter what art you're doing you can make it JKD. JKD is it's own training approach, separate to any and all other systems, so your comment is, frankly, completely wrong.

A tenet is any held belief which guides one to act, and think within a specific mindframe and context, to me.

Did you read what you were answering, Alex? There wasn't a question of what tenets were (tenants, maybe...), there was a question of why you would think that JKD's tenets would be "practical and possible" as opposed to any other arts...

It's not about liking it. If a specific move you have been taught, for you, routinely gets you kicked in the face, or anywhere undesirable, or plain doesn't work... why, according to JKD, should you keep it?

First off, the most recent thing that I can see where there is a technique where someone would get repeatedly kicked in the face was demonstrated by you... but really, I'd be hard pressed to think of much in any legit martial art that would have remained in a system that fits your description. When you deal with some of the arts that I do, it's pretty simple... the arts teachings are only around now because of the bloodshed that they grew from. If there were techniques that saw the practitioners getting "kicked in the face", the art would have died long ago. I mean, realistically each and every martial art is designed specifically to generate success in a particular environment, so the likelihood is more that a particular technique is being applied in the wrong situation.

What this really means, though, is that there is no "according to JKD" as anything special here... pretty much all martial arts only have techniques that work (in their context), and will not keep something that doesn't. If you can't make it work, it might not be a fault of the technique. It might be that you don't understand it, you are applying it in the wrong context, or that you don't possess the talents or personal attributes to use it. That's fine... but deciding you do, or don't want to include a particular technique from your system into your regular repertoire doesn't mean that you are following JKD. The only way you are following JKD is if you are training in JKD, which is very different to everything you have discussed so far.

Loooooot of moves I like. Heck, most in MA. But that doesn't mean I use them all for sparring, or even survival.

Here's the thing, Alex. You think of martial arts as "moves". And really, "most in MA"? How many is that?

You don't have to, but if they work, than either way you are following a concept of JKD in keeping what works, for you.

No, Alex, you are only following a concept of JKD if you are training in JKD. You may have a similar approach or concept in your own training, but that doesn't make it JKD. At all.

Not to appear to be jumping on those who adhere to the teachings of Bruce Lee, but how is someone to practice JKD in any sense without already being extremely knowledgeable in MA? What I mean is, the whole discard what is useless and absorb what is useful; how is any beginner to know what is of any use to him as in many systems important lessons are hid in teaching forms that don't resemble actual combat or may be counter intuitive to what one thinks they should do during a fight?

Can JKD as a concept be practiced only by those who have trained extensively in one or more arts?

I get what you mean, but there might need to be some clearing up. While JKD is taught as a conceptual training methodology in many cases, in practical terms, the senior instructors of it have fairly solid bases in one or another form of martial art, which is what they then base their exploration of JKD on. And that comes from the way the system developed, really. As a result, JKD (as taught today) doesn't require the new student to be training in multiple arts, as the seniors have already done that for them. And really, it's not advisable either. The original seniors didn't train twenty things at once, they trained in one, and once they had a solid base in that, they could then expand their training to include other things.

 

[MJS]

JKD seems to me to be more than any style, but a philosophy and point of view to martial arts which can be beneficial with any martial art. It espouses a clear philosophy, with tenants which are practical and possible.

But it also seems to me that a martial art, any, has no actual stylistic differences. There are superficial differences, and are as different I've noticed between two practitioners of identical styles. In the end, I've found martial arts to merely, and ultimately, be the expression of perspective through physical means, from one to another, or others.

In this, all martial arts, style by style, are like language in representing thought. In such, each style is like a different form of thinking, expressed through physical means. I do not think there is any better style of thought, just different speeds and degrees. I think logic when considering this matter, and in as such, I am forced to come to the ultimate conclusion that JKD was the beginning insight that martial arts are all philosophies beyond the topical and surface nature of its core tenets and techniques. In the individual, the type of wood will determine the kind of fire, and likewise, certain styles are better suited for certain individuals.

But I like JKD, because it seems to me a philosophy which can, and does, benefit everyone's ability in how they fight.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that various arts have no differences? If that is what you're saying, I'm going to disagree. As its been noted in other threads, many arts have many of the same tools, tools being defined as kicks, punches, blocks. However, the differences lie in the application. A Kenpo guy isn't going to kick like a TKD guy would. Yet there are side kicks, front kicks, etc.

I'd also say that some styles are more fluid whereas others may be more rigid. Look at some of the Kung Fu systems out there...you'll probably see alot of fluid movements, whereas Shotokan will be more firm in a stance.

Even a language, which you also mentioned, will have some slight differences. For example: One job that I had, there were alot of Hispanics working there. There was one guy who was from Columbia. Sure, they all spoke Spanish, however, the way some of the words were pronounced, were different. One could be defined as more of a 'proper' Spanish vs. hints of slang.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding how you worded your thread.

 

[simplicity]

OMG!
(o_0)

 

[Aiki Lee]

I get what you mean, but there might need to be some clearing up. While JKD is taught as a conceptual training methodology in many cases, in practical terms, the senior instructors of it have fairly solid bases in one or another form of martial art, which is what they then base their exploration of JKD on. And that comes from the way the system developed, really. As a result, JKD (as taught today) doesn't require the new student to be training in multiple arts, as the seniors have already done that for them. And really, it's not advisable either. The original seniors didn't train twenty things at once, they trained in one, and once they had a solid base in that, they could then expand their training to include other things.

I thought that this might be the proper way to go about it. I bring it up because it seems to me every dojo has 1 or 2 guys who believe they pretty much are Bruce Lee and tend to just make stuff up based on what they think will work for them without having any real knowledge to discern for themselves. I know of a guy from our dojo who got a green belt in our system, and a few other low kyu ranks in various other systems and he believes he is doing what Bruce Lee did by going his own way and making up his own curriculum made from poorly instilled basics of other arts.

 

[shesulsa]

I learned it through Master Frasier in NOVA who learned it from Master Murphy. It is Karate which hails from Okinawa, though is not necessarily it's own centralized system as Shotokan and Isshin-Ryu or Chung Do Kwan are.

Are you referring to Okinawate?

 

[frank raud]

It's not about liking it. If a specific move you have been taught, for you, routinely gets you kicked in the face, or anywhere undesirable, or plain doesn't work... why, according to JKD, should you keep it?.

So,JKD is like Bruce Lee's version of common sense?

 

[Xue Sheng]

You don't have to, but if they work, than either way you are following a concept of JKD in keeping what works, for you.

aaaaah no

JKD = Jeet Kune Do = Way of the Intercepting Fist

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. - Bruce Lee

You may have an incredibly complicated move the works for you..... that does not make it JKD... it makes it a complicated move that works for you.

You may want to read the following, without a predetermined understanding and/or belief and really try and understand what Bruce Lee was saying here

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. - Bruce Lee