What does "your" JKD look like?

[James Kovacich]

Sorry I didnt ask this all at once. What do you think is "enough" trapping? While we do work a lot on interception (stop hit\ kick) we dont do much actual trapping in the typical sense of the word.

I think that best asnswer for the word "enough" in relation to trapping where we as JKD'ers are with our own arts. My JKD is Oakland School evolved to today. Heavy James Lee Gung Fu. So trapping is a "root."

If you intercept the next step (without thinking, just doing) is to a) strike or b) trap. Trapping leads to the other transitional ranges as well as strikes, locks, takedowns etc etc

 

[Flatlander]

"Enough" trapping is hard to define. Perhaps it's sufficient to say: enough drilling of trapping principles until your use of trapping becomes second nature. I don't think about trapping anymore, I just do it.

Which isn't to say this should be the end of it. Trapping drills are fun, and any trapping drill is useful in terms of developing your sensitivity and reflexes. So, I guess there's never actually "enough" trapping - just one more tool in the box, that needs to be worked regularly.

 

[DeLamar.J]

1. Basic boxing
2. Go for the balls, eyes, neck, and bite when ever possible.
3. Go in with full confidence giving everything you have right off the bat, if you gas out, then you should have trained harder. That makes for a fast and furious fight with no bull****.

 

[James Kovacich]

Trapping also works on the ground and someone who is not familar with trapping but practices BJJ could be trapping without even knowing it.

The "intercetion" is the tricky part and is the part most likely leading the naysayers into syaing trapping dosen't work. They usually mistake the interception for being trapping. The interception "can" be a part of the trap but we can intercept and eyejab or punch or lock, that would not be trapping. And we can trap without intercepting like in the case of groundgrappling or even a clich and we immobilze an arm.

Intercepting works and trapping works. Both need practice but interecpting is more difficult especially if one tends to fight outside.

 

[Robert Lee]

While trapping is part of the training. You have to remember its a hitting product. You trap to remove so you can hit. On the ground you could trap to stop and reset the motion. But traps should never be done just for trapping So you grow to use them less as you learn better application. But keep them trained for when you may use them. Its been said many times hit hit trap and hit some more. No different with parrying If you can hit or slip and hit no parry needed. But its there if you have to But waste time useing it you get hit Trapping is fun to train then in live action you adapt it to your use

 

[Aruden]

Hi all, I'm new to this forum. I'm pleased to see there's an actual forum here,though many JKD/MMA forums have closen. Well this should be in the intro forum but i wanted to give my 2 cents about this thread.

As said Robert Lee IMO trapping should be used only when it's here and you shouldn't try to reach for it in a fight. I keep my traps very simple, mostly Pak Da and Lap Da.Once the limbs are trapped there are some very destructive tools that can be used very effectively: head, knee and elbow.

To answer the question my"JKD" or whatever I call it looks like that:

-I train both sides
-Being very tall and thin my grappling skills are low so i should train more in it, but my "style" is basically a striking style.
- "streetfighting" style, mainly influenced by Paul Vunak, i've trained in muay thai and i love the knees and particularly the elbows. This can include biting too.
-I've trained in Savate for a long time (being french and living in Paris a savate school is easy to find) i love leg techniques, though in a serious sparring match, kicks don't go over the waist.
-weapons: kali sticks,knife,staff and for fun the nunchucks :-D

Now for the finishing part i've been thinking of this: are destructions a form of interception...always?

 

[Flatlander]

Welcome to Martial Talk, Aruden!

Now for the finishing part i've been thinking of this: are destructions a form of interception...always?

Interesting question. When would you think that a destruction would not be an interception?

 

[Aruden]

Thanks FlatLander!!

Well, i thought of this: A JKD'er ultimate goal is to intercept etc..., but nowadays Kali becomes a lot involved in the JKD world. I realised why Bruce Lee didn't want to give a name to this concept or whatever you call it. By calling it JKD, one may thinkg that in a fight the JKD praciticioner will try to intercept all his blows as his ultimate goal. However there are many other ways to defeat an opponent: angulating and hitting, parying and hitting etc... and destructions. Destructions may be a form of destruction: the gunting of the biceps when he punches, similar concept as the side stop kick, or the elbow tip to knuckle destruction.However some destruction are just blocks but meant to hurt, like the tip of the knee against a low roundhouse (don't know the acutal name of the technique) or the cover-like destruction but in fact delivering a vertical elbow to chest-destruction. These are not directly interception though they distract the opponent.Is it considered as an attack or as an interception.
I know this may seems silly, it's just words, but for the true meaning of JKD what are destructions?

 

[green meanie]

1. Strong side forward.
2. Lot's of drills on stop hits/ kicks.
3. Lots of pad work/ boxing drills.
4. Some BJJ recently.
5. Very little trapping or take downs.
6. No weapons.

1. We train 'comforable' side forward. Which ever side 'feels' right is right. But that's just to get started. As time goes on we train both sides.
2. No. Little to no time is spent on this.
3. Yes. Lots of pad work / boxing & kenpo drills.
4. We do a lot of groundwork. Both in and out of the gi.
5. Very little trapping, lots of takedowns.
6. We have weapons but it's optional and comes in later in the training.

 

[Marvin]

Western boxing lead with CM structure. Working stand up, clinch, ground, and stick work. Lots of drills, a little sparring most classes.

 

[Calm Intention]

I hope I'm not out of line here, but:

'should J.K.D. look like anything'?

I real think Master Lee would agree with that statement.

 

[cfr]

Well, if you do JKD, what does it look like? Is it full of high flashy kicks? Lots of trapping? Lots of stop kicks/ hits? Do you do cartwheels and try to kick people that way? It looks like something.

 

[Calm Intention]

Well, if you do JKD, what does it look like? Is it full of high flashy kicks? Lots of trapping? Lots of stop kicks/ hits? Do you do cartwheels and try to kick people that way? It looks like something.

:

I respectfully disagree on 'it looks like something'.... I don't think its supposed to look like anything- Bruce did not want to be defined, along with what he was attempting to convey.

 

[kroh]

If you were to do a search and read earlier in the thread... JKD as Lee taught it had a certain structure with open ended cirriculum so that each person could express it in there own way later on. Some basic tennents include:

* Strong Side Forward
* Boxing style attacks based on Wing Chun Structure
* Wing Chun attack theory for a majority of conflict resolution
* Western fencing style footwork
* Simplification of the fighting method so that complicated fighting formulae are not the end result but are the means to the end. You don't trap because that is how it is done, you trap so that you can remove a barrier to hitting some in the skull.
* Keeping an open mind to how other methods of fighting can enhance your own. Jeet Kune Do is not a stew recipe for fighting. It is a simplified method of fighting based on Wing Chun, Western Boxing, and Fencing while understanding that other methods my have something you are missing.

Those that put a hodge podge together and call it JKD are not practicing JKD. You can say it all you want but it isn't true. If you were a duck claiming to be an eagle...the other ducks might buy it but the eagles would tear you apart after laughing hystericaly at you. Let the frauds and want to be's and Bruce Groupies claim what they want, it still doesn't make them into something that their not. Besides JKD I also train in certain forms of asian swordsmanship. I have seen threads on here of dim witted teens grabbing a live blade (because their parents should have their heads examined) and saying that they are teaching themselves swordsmanship. ....Ah huh... If they want to believe that then i will let Darwin invigorate the gene pool by thining the heard.

JKD does has a structure and it is not totally formless...as with a lot of religious extremists, people often take things out of context and make it say anything they want to (often times to suit their own purpose).

Also see here with a great post by AC Pilot and article by Dan Inosanto:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21435

Regards,
Walt

 

[cfr]

:

I respectfully disagree on 'it looks like something'.... I don't think its supposed to look like anything- Bruce did not want to be defined, along with what he was attempting to convey.

And respectful disagreements are a fair thing. But keep in mind, I wasnt asking for it to be defined. I asked what it looked like. I stated what it looks like when I do it. Someone else said when he does it, it has lots of kicks. Someone else said when he does it theres a good amount of trapping. So while it may not look like anything when you do it, for others it looks like a heavy boxing emphasis, lots of kicking, lots of trapping, etc.

 

[Calm Intention]

Well, if you do JKD, what does it look like? Is it full of high flashy kicks? Lots of trapping? Lots of stop kicks/ hits? Do you do cartwheels and try to kick people that way? It looks like something.

I apologize, but I still think you're slapping an M.O. on yourselves when you ask that question, and in my interpretation(and I may be wrong), this is the anti-thesis of Bruce's concern about not to be blocked in by the static nature of a specific arts techniques(being defined)-- or, as 'what does your J.K.D. look like'.
This reminds of quantum physics 'wave vs. particle'. I think we should remain as the Wave(universal and infinite....un-defined),, un-available and intangible for your enemy/opponent to figure out.

Somehow, I feel the thread-starter was testing us with this question.

*If anyone here really knows Master Lee's philosophy, I'd respect their opinion.

 

[cfr]

I apologize, but I still think you're slapping an M.O. on yourselves when you ask that question, and in my interpretation(and I may be wrong), this is the anti-thesis of Bruce's concern about not to be blocked in by the static nature of a specific arts techniques(being defined)-- or, as 'what does your J.K.D. look like'.
This reminds of quantum physics 'wave vs. particle'. I think we should remain as the Wave(universal and infinite....un-defined),, un-available and intangible for your enemy/opponent to figure out.

Somehow, I feel the thread-starter was testing us with this question.

*If anyone here really knows Master Lee's philosophy, I'd respect their opinion.

I have no idea what an M.O. is? Also, Im just not a very deep person. In fact, I've purposely not read a whole lots about Bruce's philosophies because I really dont want to get caught up in "what he really meant" or all the other B.S. that occurs on these forums in regards to Bruce and JKD. After all, "ignorance is bliss". As far as testing goes, Im certainly no authority on the matter, and by no means qualified to test anyone. Just a guy who suddenly realized that JKD can "look" different from one school to another, and curious about what other peoples JKD "looks" like. Some people may look very deeply into the question and think thats a bad way to view JKD, but Ive posted this question both here and on another forum and lots of other folks dont see a problem with it. I guess were all just missing the bigger picture, which is fine with me. After all, my signature pretty much decsribes my attitude about stuff like this.

 

[Flatlander]

This reminds of quantum physics 'wave vs. particle'. I think we should remain as the Wave(universal and infinite....un-defined)

A wave is absolutely definable. Wavelength, frequency, amplitude, direction of propagation.....

Recall the concept of 'take what is useful'? Perhaps not all see the same ways of moving as being useful. Given that, it stands to reason that we've begun to define by elimination, much like a block of stone becomes a statue. Not all statues look the same, and are in fact, quite definable.

Now, I do understand where you're going with this. I think that's why you're not seeing many answers such as "I always do X when Y happens." Of course there ought not be predictability. However, though I may not know what the Chef has on the menu, I can tell you that he tends to use a lot of garlic....

 

[Calm Intention]

I have no idea what an M.O. is? Also, Im just not a very deep person. In fact, I've purposely not read a whole lots about Bruce's philosophies because I really dont want to get caught up in "what he really meant" or all the other B.S. that occurs on these forums in regards to Bruce and JKD. After all, "ignorance is bliss". As far as testing goes, Im certainly no authority on the matter, and by no means qualified to test anyone. Just a guy who suddenly realized that JKD can "look" different from one school to another, and curious about what other peoples JKD "looks" like. Some people may look very deeply into the question and think thats a bad way to view JKD, but Ive posted this question both here and on another forum and lots of other folks dont see a problem with it. I guess were all just missing the bigger picture, which is fine with me. After all, my signature pretty much decsribes my attitude about stuff like this.

By an M.O., I'm speaking 'modus operandi'.
I'll just say that Bruce was about being 'fluid', and not just in his physical movement....but his conceptual discipline- 'no way as way'.

I'm sorry, but the question of the thread starter conflicts with my impressions of what I think JKD is about(but then, I may be totally wrong- I will allow that).
I'd also say that it is commendable on how so many people debate 'what Bruce meant',,, I think it shows our respect for him, his unique philosophy, and our desire to try and defend his legacy.

 

[Calm Intention]

A wave is absolutely definable. Wavelength, frequency, amplitude, direction of propagation.....

Recall the concept of 'take what is useful'? Perhaps not all see the same ways of moving as being useful. Given that, it stands to reason that we've begun to define by elimination, much like a block of stone becomes a statue. Not all statues look the same, and are in fact, quite definable.

Now, I do understand where you're going with this. I think that's why you're not seeing many answers such as "I always do X when Y happens." Of course there ought not be predictability. However, though I may not know what the Chef has on the menu, I can tell you that he tends to use a lot of garlic....

Hi Flatlander,

I only know the very basics of the quantum stuff(S.R. and U.F.T., are side hobbies of interest for me).
Still, 'collapse the wave function' by the Observor, results in something quite specific as opposed to a wave. Possibly I didn't use the best analogy.
I'm pretty new here, and have already engaged two threads regarding JKD's developement, meaning, bastardization, etc.
I'll just say kudo's to Bruce for stimulating alot of good thinking, by having
created a philosophy that functions as a martial art too- I don't think any of the other M.A.'s can meet this level of purity(though Aikido is based in a strong philosophy too).

I understand what your saying with the analogy to the Chef.
With that in mind, would Bruce let you see the menu?