B
bscastro
Guest
For whom does LD stand for? Sorry, don't know all of the people.
Bryan
Something I've Been Pondering
- Thread starter Cthulhu
- Start date
For whom does LD stand for? Sorry, don't know all of the people.
Bryan
J
jmdrake
Guest
Hello bscastro,
LD is my Sifu, Lamar Davis.
Regards,
John M. Drake
B
bscastro
Guest
Thanks.
O
OldBean
Guest
JMDrake,
I'm a WC guy and have LD's book Scientific StreetFighting - the book is quite good IMHO. LD sounds a very clued up guy! (for a JKD guy!!!
)
Anyway, you referred earlier to straight blast - is this chain punching?
I'm a WC guy and have LD's book Scientific StreetFighting - the book is quite good IMHO. LD sounds a very clued up guy! (for a JKD guy!!!
)Anyway, you referred earlier to straight blast - is this chain punching?
O
OldBean
Guest
Arnisador,
Sounds like chain punches to me.
Sounds like chain punches to me.
S
seekeroftruth
Guest
I think I forgot... Please help me... Who was it that said something like JKD is just a name. Please do not fuss over it? There is a difference between exchanging ideas to further your understanding of JKD and empty rhetoric that has been yakked and yakked until everyone is just throwing darts. Does it really change where we are at today? Does it really help us deepen our understanding of JKD to argue two different ways of development from the same source? The "Concepts" come from the "Original" source which was Sijo Lee. Both have merit. Both are effective. Both are a form of JKD. The bottom line is... Train Hard! Do not limit yourself. Have no way as way. Not meant to be offensive. Just my two cents.
S
seekeroftruth
Guest
Oh yeah,
My main goal by posting that is in the hope that we can all eventually come together as a JKD family and celebrate the gift that JKD (Wherever Yours Comes From) has given us! Also, my dumb self did not finish reading the posts to the end. I was in the middle of reading the heated debate and I had to throw my 2 stupid cents in. Sorry Guys.
My main goal by posting that is in the hope that we can all eventually come together as a JKD family and celebrate the gift that JKD (Wherever Yours Comes From) has given us! Also, my dumb self did not finish reading the posts to the end. I was in the middle of reading the heated debate and I had to throw my 2 stupid cents in. Sorry Guys.
B
bscastro
Guest
Seekeroftruth,
I think you have the right idea and a good attitude. I think that this forum has a lot of good people and that we can learn a lot from each other.
Cheers,
Bryan
I think you have the right idea and a good attitude. I think that this forum has a lot of good people and that we can learn a lot from each other.
Cheers,
Bryan
S
seekeroftruth
Guest
Thanks,
I'll toast to that!!
I'll toast to that!!
A
Aikia
Guest
IFSJKD,
You certainly seem to want to include my name in your posts. You often go out of the way to do so. You would be interested to know that I introduced the term "JKD matrix" in my 1989 article for Inside Kung Fu entitled "The JKD Matrix". It does not appear that you fully understand the use of the term. You certainly are misinformed regarding Joe Lewis and me.
Joe has his own audience. He has no particular interest in JKD. Nor do I. At least we have no interest in JKD as a physical art. I coined the term "original JKD" and "pre-73 JKD" in the late 1980's so that readers of my JKD column for Karate International magazine would note a difference in what I had been promoting as the "Concepts method". No doubt you were a student of my early work. You should read more closely. . Remember
I wrote the first book on JKD concepts ( endorsed by Dan Inosanoto) and published several articles promoting Dan and his advancement of JKD.
Today, instead of only one interpretation of JKD we have many. A problem occurs only when one group or one individual decides that they have the one "True" interpretation and go about making irresponsible remarks...much like you have. You know my name..... What is your name? And what have you done for JKD?
Dr.Jerry Beasley
Black Belt Magazine
Hall of Fame
Instructor of the Year 2000
You certainly seem to want to include my name in your posts. You often go out of the way to do so. You would be interested to know that I introduced the term "JKD matrix" in my 1989 article for Inside Kung Fu entitled "The JKD Matrix". It does not appear that you fully understand the use of the term. You certainly are misinformed regarding Joe Lewis and me.
Joe has his own audience. He has no particular interest in JKD. Nor do I. At least we have no interest in JKD as a physical art. I coined the term "original JKD" and "pre-73 JKD" in the late 1980's so that readers of my JKD column for Karate International magazine would note a difference in what I had been promoting as the "Concepts method". No doubt you were a student of my early work. You should read more closely. . Remember
I wrote the first book on JKD concepts ( endorsed by Dan Inosanoto) and published several articles promoting Dan and his advancement of JKD.
Today, instead of only one interpretation of JKD we have many. A problem occurs only when one group or one individual decides that they have the one "True" interpretation and go about making irresponsible remarks...much like you have. You know my name..... What is your name? And what have you done for JKD?
Dr.Jerry Beasley
Black Belt Magazine
Hall of Fame
Instructor of the Year 2000
But Mr. Beasley,
you write articles about JKD as does Mr. Lewis & I understand that Mr. Lewis is coming out with either a video or book involving his JKD training & you run a "college class/seminar" involving JKD I would hardly call that having "no interest in JKD" as a matter of fact I would call that having ALOT of interest in JKD.
Mr. Lewis especially, who has gone out of his way inthe past to divest himself of any "coattail riding" of Mr. Lee, is now promoting himself as a JKD expert after having stated in many interviews & writings as to the lack of teaching he received from Bruce Lee.
Well which is it guys? You either have an interest in JKD or you do not...
Just so you know, I really dont care what you teach or dont teach, just dont tell me you have no interest in JKD when it is more that well publicized that you have a great deal of interest in JKD.And dont tell me you had little to no training in from Bruce Lee and all your prowess came from yourself and then try to make a buck or two selling what/who you previously denigrated .
anyway, I wish you well
Rob
you write articles about JKD as does Mr. Lewis & I understand that Mr. Lewis is coming out with either a video or book involving his JKD training & you run a "college class/seminar" involving JKD I would hardly call that having "no interest in JKD" as a matter of fact I would call that having ALOT of interest in JKD.
Mr. Lewis especially, who has gone out of his way inthe past to divest himself of any "coattail riding" of Mr. Lee, is now promoting himself as a JKD expert after having stated in many interviews & writings as to the lack of teaching he received from Bruce Lee.
Well which is it guys? You either have an interest in JKD or you do not...
Just so you know, I really dont care what you teach or dont teach, just dont tell me you have no interest in JKD when it is more that well publicized that you have a great deal of interest in JKD.And dont tell me you had little to no training in from Bruce Lee and all your prowess came from yourself and then try to make a buck or two selling what/who you previously denigrated .
anyway, I wish you well
Rob
T
ThuNder_FoOt
Guest
Aikia said:
Dr. Beasley,
Being that you are the author of the said article, I have taken notice to a few key points. Since you have drawn a distinction between Original JKD, and the Concepts Method, (being that you coined the term "Original JKD", and also wrote the first book of JKD Concepts), I would like to know what you feel the differences are. And lastly, with your contributions to JKD as a whole, I would also like to know which art you feel you represent... given the distinction between the two that you have made.
Cornelius Clay
A
Aikia
Guest
Mr. Clay,
Thank you for your question. Here is the simple and direct answer. Bruce defined JKD by saying in this art we use "no way as way" He told no one what he meant by this statement. Hence the meaning of JKD is open to interpretation. Here are two examples:
1. Using no way as way referes to the use of specific skills. I am shure that you can deliver a back fist in many different ways. There is the Japanese way, the Chinese way, the Korean way etc. Each way has an inherent limitation. In JKD my backfist reflects no particular way. Thus using no limitation as limitation, I simply use what works. My backfist may sometimes be fast, slow,originating from this line or that position. Now apply this answer to all the techniques you have mastered. Finally, apply this meaning to all the skills that Bruce Lee had mastered while he was alive. What I termed Original JKD is an expression of the skills performed by Bruce Lee. These skills have no limitations in the way they can be performed. Thus OJKD is the one true interpretation of "using no way as way".........
2. Except for the fact that I may also interpret "uning no way(art) as way(art)" . In this case way refers to art. I call this the macro view of JKD. Hence using no way as way means that I am not bound to one art but may use any art to reflect my JKD. I called (actually Danny called it) this macro JKD ,the JKD concept. The JKD concepts approach reflects the one true interpretation of JKD.......
3. Except for the historical fact that Bruce closed his JKD kwoons in 1971 and disbanned the practice of physical JKD. If you use this interpretation then JKD is not an art or mix of arts. JKD becomes a philosophy. For a number of years I taught a lecture class using the "Tao of Jeet Kune Do" as the principal text. Quite a book. Mostly notes, put together in a hurry by an editor tryin to do the best he could.
To understand philosophical JKD the "Tao" teaches us that we must put in the time in the ring/mat training. Seek the truth( your truth may be different from my truth...therefore the way you defend yourself from an attack may be different than the way I defend myself...)) in combat. Box the boxer, kick the kicker etc. Master the truth at each range. Here' where the concepts approach really shines.
You must then forgrt the carrier of the truth...loose your attatchment to a style (including kali,boxing, karate ..even OJKD!)
JKD is like a boat ,Bruce tells us. It is to be used to get from one point to another then discarded. I have abandoned the boat (I have no attatchment to JKD).
To perform JKD we must "float in totality,says Bruce.
The totality represents the sum total of all the skills I have personally mastered. To the novice some of my skills may resemble karate or kali, or even OJKD. We tend to feel more in control when we can attatch a name to something. When you statrted martial arts you learned all sorts of ways to perform a stance, a lop sao, a kick etc. You were expected to remember the name of the skill, where it came from etc. You have now advanced to JKD. At JKD level "a kick is only a kick, a punch is only a punch" don't fuss over it.
To "float in totality" you must simply answer the attack. You are not bound by the dictates of style idenity( This interpretation becomes a distraction to JKDC practitioners who are taught to flow from kali to Thai to silat etc...they have refused to loose the attatchment to an art....that's O.K. there is room for all ways).
The founder of Shotokan karate, Gichin Funakoshi made reference to a functional way to respond "like a mirror I must reflect what stands before me". Bruce used a reference to the echo. Ever wonder why he said that? An echo offers precision because it does not have to make a conscious choice. (I am quoting from my book "Mastering Karate" p40-48, Human Kinetics publishers).
Remember how Bruce used an example of throwing a wallet at a student, then asking him what technique he had used. No particular technique was used. The student simply responded (ah ha..JKD).To simply respond not burdned by thought we must achieve a state of "mushin" a state of no-mindedness.....Bruce prefered to use the 1960's hip term "thusness". The "thusness" is JKD! The one true interpretation of JKD is as a philosophy, a stategy or plan of action. JKD is beyond technique and beyond the limitations of arts.
There is plenty of room for different views on JKD and they can all be correct. We only have a problem when one group decides that their view is correct to the exclusion of all others. Having written about the study of JKD for over 20 years there have been times when I have used critical remarks to evoke a response. Some have become upset. Others have emptied their cup.
Bruce was fond of this saying "As far as other styles are concerned (this also means other styles of JKD)....take no thought of who is right or wrong, or who is better than. Be not for or against. For in the landscape of spring there is neither better or worse. The flowering branches grow naturally. Some short, some long." Good advice, even today.
I now regret starting the OJKD versus JKDC feud some fifteen years ago. It's time to move on.
Jerry Beasley, Ed.D.
Black Belt Magazine
Hall of Fame Instructor
of the Year 2000
Thank you for your question. Here is the simple and direct answer. Bruce defined JKD by saying in this art we use "no way as way" He told no one what he meant by this statement. Hence the meaning of JKD is open to interpretation. Here are two examples:
1. Using no way as way referes to the use of specific skills. I am shure that you can deliver a back fist in many different ways. There is the Japanese way, the Chinese way, the Korean way etc. Each way has an inherent limitation. In JKD my backfist reflects no particular way. Thus using no limitation as limitation, I simply use what works. My backfist may sometimes be fast, slow,originating from this line or that position. Now apply this answer to all the techniques you have mastered. Finally, apply this meaning to all the skills that Bruce Lee had mastered while he was alive. What I termed Original JKD is an expression of the skills performed by Bruce Lee. These skills have no limitations in the way they can be performed. Thus OJKD is the one true interpretation of "using no way as way".........
2. Except for the fact that I may also interpret "uning no way(art) as way(art)" . In this case way refers to art. I call this the macro view of JKD. Hence using no way as way means that I am not bound to one art but may use any art to reflect my JKD. I called (actually Danny called it) this macro JKD ,the JKD concept. The JKD concepts approach reflects the one true interpretation of JKD.......
3. Except for the historical fact that Bruce closed his JKD kwoons in 1971 and disbanned the practice of physical JKD. If you use this interpretation then JKD is not an art or mix of arts. JKD becomes a philosophy. For a number of years I taught a lecture class using the "Tao of Jeet Kune Do" as the principal text. Quite a book. Mostly notes, put together in a hurry by an editor tryin to do the best he could.
To understand philosophical JKD the "Tao" teaches us that we must put in the time in the ring/mat training. Seek the truth( your truth may be different from my truth...therefore the way you defend yourself from an attack may be different than the way I defend myself...)) in combat. Box the boxer, kick the kicker etc. Master the truth at each range. Here' where the concepts approach really shines.
You must then forgrt the carrier of the truth...loose your attatchment to a style (including kali,boxing, karate ..even OJKD!)
JKD is like a boat ,Bruce tells us. It is to be used to get from one point to another then discarded. I have abandoned the boat (I have no attatchment to JKD).
To perform JKD we must "float in totality,says Bruce.
The totality represents the sum total of all the skills I have personally mastered. To the novice some of my skills may resemble karate or kali, or even OJKD. We tend to feel more in control when we can attatch a name to something. When you statrted martial arts you learned all sorts of ways to perform a stance, a lop sao, a kick etc. You were expected to remember the name of the skill, where it came from etc. You have now advanced to JKD. At JKD level "a kick is only a kick, a punch is only a punch" don't fuss over it.
To "float in totality" you must simply answer the attack. You are not bound by the dictates of style idenity( This interpretation becomes a distraction to JKDC practitioners who are taught to flow from kali to Thai to silat etc...they have refused to loose the attatchment to an art....that's O.K. there is room for all ways).
The founder of Shotokan karate, Gichin Funakoshi made reference to a functional way to respond "like a mirror I must reflect what stands before me". Bruce used a reference to the echo. Ever wonder why he said that? An echo offers precision because it does not have to make a conscious choice. (I am quoting from my book "Mastering Karate" p40-48, Human Kinetics publishers).
Remember how Bruce used an example of throwing a wallet at a student, then asking him what technique he had used. No particular technique was used. The student simply responded (ah ha..JKD).To simply respond not burdned by thought we must achieve a state of "mushin" a state of no-mindedness.....Bruce prefered to use the 1960's hip term "thusness". The "thusness" is JKD! The one true interpretation of JKD is as a philosophy, a stategy or plan of action. JKD is beyond technique and beyond the limitations of arts.
There is plenty of room for different views on JKD and they can all be correct. We only have a problem when one group decides that their view is correct to the exclusion of all others. Having written about the study of JKD for over 20 years there have been times when I have used critical remarks to evoke a response. Some have become upset. Others have emptied their cup.
Bruce was fond of this saying "As far as other styles are concerned (this also means other styles of JKD)....take no thought of who is right or wrong, or who is better than. Be not for or against. For in the landscape of spring there is neither better or worse. The flowering branches grow naturally. Some short, some long." Good advice, even today.
I now regret starting the OJKD versus JKDC feud some fifteen years ago. It's time to move on.
Jerry Beasley, Ed.D.
Black Belt Magazine
Hall of Fame Instructor
of the Year 2000
T
ThuNder_FoOt
Guest
Dr. Beasley,
Thank you for your response. I believe I have a good understanding on the philosophy of JKD Concepts, and also have an understanding of your view on the definiton of OJKD. Bruce has said many things, that directly coincide with the maturity of JKD as a whole, which ultimately lead to the defeat of his original purpose, hence the disbanned practice of physical JKD in 1971 as you have stated. My question lies with the difference between OJKD and JKDC, as you have stated both arts "represent the one true interpretation of using no way as way/JKD"... yet you have also drawn distinction between the two. Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure of training OJKD (aside from one seminar taught by Jesse Glover), to come to my own conclusions, and the next best thing would be to ask he who has made the original division. Being that you wrote the first JKD Concepts book, and coined the term OJKD... I am curious as to what events lead you to make the division of JKD as a whole?
Also, to ask my second question once more in the case it may have been missed... with your contributions to JKD as a whole, which art do you feel you represent?
-Cornelius Clay
Thank you for your response. I believe I have a good understanding on the philosophy of JKD Concepts, and also have an understanding of your view on the definiton of OJKD. Bruce has said many things, that directly coincide with the maturity of JKD as a whole, which ultimately lead to the defeat of his original purpose, hence the disbanned practice of physical JKD in 1971 as you have stated. My question lies with the difference between OJKD and JKDC, as you have stated both arts "represent the one true interpretation of using no way as way/JKD"... yet you have also drawn distinction between the two. Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure of training OJKD (aside from one seminar taught by Jesse Glover), to come to my own conclusions, and the next best thing would be to ask he who has made the original division. Being that you wrote the first JKD Concepts book, and coined the term OJKD... I am curious as to what events lead you to make the division of JKD as a whole?
Also, to ask my second question once more in the case it may have been missed... with your contributions to JKD as a whole, which art do you feel you represent?
-Cornelius Clay
I don't see a need for there being a division. Bruce Lee wrote that Jeet Kune Do is both "this and not this." This paradox has several important implications as far as the nature of JKD. Jeet Kune Do was the name Bruce Lee gave to his approach to martial art. That approach was not confined to a particular "way," but was a changing, evolving art that valued efficiency as a means to success. If one understands "this" in the statement above to mean the martial technology Bruce Lee espoused while he was alive (during that time period), then it follows that Jeet Kune Do is definitively the martial tradition of Bruce Lee, but it is not limited to that. It seems to me that Jeet Kune Do uses the power of a paradox to have a kind of dynamic identity. In otherwords, while maintaining a degree of consistancy, it can adapt to meet the needs of a given situation. One of my favorite Bruce Lee quotes is "sometimes JKD is hitting someone with a chair." Given that there is no specific hitting-someone-with-a-chair technique, we can see that JKD training is geared toward adaptability. Furthermore, we can see that JKD is simple and non-ornamental (hitting someone with a chair is not exactly aesthetic). It is also clear that Bruce Lee did in fact teach a body of martial technology and didn't just lecture. There is a physical side of Jeet Kune Do which deals with particular tools and tactics. Lee's students were taught the finger jab, the side kick, straight blast, etc. The physical art of JKD is a reference point (such a loaded phrase, but yet, so appropriate) from which true observation can occur.
From a more abstract point of view on Lee's water analogy, while water "becomes" the cup when it enters the cup, it can do so because it expresses the properties of water. Simply calling a brick water doesn't make it so, and it certainly won't "become the cup."
From a more abstract point of view on Lee's water analogy, while water "becomes" the cup when it enters the cup, it can do so because it expresses the properties of water. Simply calling a brick water doesn't make it so, and it certainly won't "become the cup."
A
Aikia
Guest
This is only food for thought, mere opinion. Bruce was torn between teaching the art of personal development to a small group and trying to go commercial and make money to support his family. When Bruce found out he could teach his system to the masses via movies he decided to close his personal kwoon. Maybe ego came into play. At this point he may have understood that he would be famous and did not want outsiders to associate the performance of his students with his personal expression of JKD. In the year or more that he trained Joe Lewis, Bruce never invited the hard hitting karate champion to visit his JKD kwoon. You would think if Bruce was proud of his school he would want others to see his students. Instead Bruce kept the school low profile and then disbaned the practice of teaching JKD in 1971 ( this according to official Bruce lee Estate writer John Little). One may deduce that at one point Bruce was experimenting with developing a style (so he could legitimately be called a master...remember he was only in his 20's when he coined JKD) and as soon a circunmstances permitted he gave up that notion and adapted the idea that JKD was never a style but a philosophy.
Dan Inosanto is a martial arts genius on the level mentally of a Bruce Lee. Dan deserves credit for advancing JKD from the original art taguht by Bruce Lee between 1967-1971(73) to the more advanced JKD concepts method. OJKD practitioners seem content to research and study the specific 1967-1971 material and label it JKD. Some OJKD students also research and practice everything that Bruce taught including the pre-67 Chinese gung-fu/wing chun methods. OJKD encompases the pre -1973 methods as taught and practiced by Bruce Lee.
And here's where some draw the line. The JKDC refers to the Inosanoto inspired JKD taught both before 1973 and (perhaps primarily)the new JKD being developed and taught after 1973. Many in the Inosanoto camp suggest that Dan actually taught most of the classes held at the LA/College St kwoon as Bruce Lee's teaching assistant. The JKDC group often refer to the pre 1973 material as Jun Fan or the Jun Fan arts or even Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do.
Both OJKD and JKDC are therefore representations of JKD. You would think that this is a resonable division but some want to argue that only one group is the real JKD. Some use "linage","certificates" as ways to say that
"the other guys are wrong".
I am reminded of a college paper I once wrote using Karl Mannheim as a reference. Says Mannheim "from the point of view of social sciences, every historical,ideological,sociological peice of knowledge is clearly rooted in and carried by the desire for power and recoginition of particular groups who want to make their view of ther world the universal one".
JKD is certainly no exception. People get mad when you don't see things their way!
As for me I am not by choice a JKD instructor (I say that because I may teach those who read my books or study my videos but I have no personal JKD students) . No attatchment here. I got rid of the "boat" some time back. Sometimes I use principles that would indicate a preference for concepts. At other times I fall into the OJKD category. In my mind both ar the same. It is safe to say that I do not see Kali as my prefered art. I prefer the JKD inspired kickboxing method of Joe Lewis. I am most at home in the stand up clinch which I have called "trapboxing". And when I practice I spend most of my time in sparring sessions. But then I have been at it since 1966. If you have a different way of practicing JKD that is O.K.
Jerry Beasley Ed.D.
Dan Inosanto is a martial arts genius on the level mentally of a Bruce Lee. Dan deserves credit for advancing JKD from the original art taguht by Bruce Lee between 1967-1971(73) to the more advanced JKD concepts method. OJKD practitioners seem content to research and study the specific 1967-1971 material and label it JKD. Some OJKD students also research and practice everything that Bruce taught including the pre-67 Chinese gung-fu/wing chun methods. OJKD encompases the pre -1973 methods as taught and practiced by Bruce Lee.
And here's where some draw the line. The JKDC refers to the Inosanoto inspired JKD taught both before 1973 and (perhaps primarily)the new JKD being developed and taught after 1973. Many in the Inosanoto camp suggest that Dan actually taught most of the classes held at the LA/College St kwoon as Bruce Lee's teaching assistant. The JKDC group often refer to the pre 1973 material as Jun Fan or the Jun Fan arts or even Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do.
Both OJKD and JKDC are therefore representations of JKD. You would think that this is a resonable division but some want to argue that only one group is the real JKD. Some use "linage","certificates" as ways to say that
"the other guys are wrong".
I am reminded of a college paper I once wrote using Karl Mannheim as a reference. Says Mannheim "from the point of view of social sciences, every historical,ideological,sociological peice of knowledge is clearly rooted in and carried by the desire for power and recoginition of particular groups who want to make their view of ther world the universal one".
JKD is certainly no exception. People get mad when you don't see things their way!
As for me I am not by choice a JKD instructor (I say that because I may teach those who read my books or study my videos but I have no personal JKD students) . No attatchment here. I got rid of the "boat" some time back. Sometimes I use principles that would indicate a preference for concepts. At other times I fall into the OJKD category. In my mind both ar the same. It is safe to say that I do not see Kali as my prefered art. I prefer the JKD inspired kickboxing method of Joe Lewis. I am most at home in the stand up clinch which I have called "trapboxing". And when I practice I spend most of my time in sparring sessions. But then I have been at it since 1966. If you have a different way of practicing JKD that is O.K.
Jerry Beasley Ed.D.
Similar threads
