This is going to anger some people with these statements!

[Corporal Hicks]

Fundamentally all styles claim their methods as being able to cope with 'all' type of attacks. "I guess he who claims his style is really different must assume his stance on his head and when he strikes, he must turn and spin three times before doing so.

"You see, a chosen method, however exacting, fixes its practitioners in an enclosed pattern. I always say that actual combat is never fixed, has no boundaires or limits and is constantly changing from moment to moment. All of a sudden the opponent is 'alive' and no longer a cooperative robot. In other words, once 'conditioned' in the partialized style, its practitioner faces his opponent through a screen of resistance.. In reality he is merely 'performing' his stylized blocks and listening to his own screams"

As Bruce has stated above he also states that "Of all athletes in the world, only in the martial arts do they become so fat and in poor condition, and you know what? They are usually the instructors" and they can get away with it as well.

"That sort of Oriental self-defence is like swimming on land. You can learn all the swimming strokes, but if you're never in the water it's meaningless" Cos your really out of it when the ***** hits the fan.

"To me 99% of the whole business of Oriental self-defence is baloney" "ITS FANCY JAZZ"

A human being doesn't just stand there and wait to be hit. So many karate students are wrapped up in the snorting sounds and the countermoves that they lose sight of what they should be doing to an opponent. The karate teacher says, 'If your opponent does this, then you do this and if he does this then you do this'. And while you are remembering the 'and-thens' the other guy is killing you

Those were extracts from Bruce Lee's book written by his wife Linda Lee
I know that many of you will say "Well, its only from one man and his opinion and just so it happens to come from Bruce Lee" but I just want to say that I am digusted that I have been learning TKD for almost three years and I thought I could handle myself but after my own doubts and the reality of it, I have to agree with this. I'm not saying he is right I'm just saying that I believe what he is saying is mostly true and that people are being mislead into thinking that some traditional Martial Arts can provide you with sufficient self defence such as karate and Tkd.

Regards
Nick

WARNING THESE ARE MY OPINIONS

[loki09789]

Bruce Lee never actually studied Karates directly. Many of his generalized observations were as an outsider and he already had this theoretical stance when he was observing. He never really states it, but he did have some exposure to Kenpo, which was obviously influencial if you look at his writings through that 'lens' and can find the similarities.

Different people learn 'best' with different approaches. Some learn best when you paint the broad stroke 'concepts' out and then let them work out the details over time...but it still takes time. Some will learn best if you focus on each little step/process until they get to the end of the task/skill and then can look back to reflect on how it all fits together...but that takes time as well.

This may upset some people too:

Bruce Lee was a timely and bold figure in AMERICAN martial arts. He was a huge action film influence over the world as well. His influence on Asian Martial arts practice isn't as significant as it is here in the West.

Bruce was also a pretty impatient, brilliant, intelligent, obsessive personallity (stories of predisposition to addiction, getting zinc/iron poisoning because he at too much sushi at one time because he loved it, as well as the 'girlfriends') all would indicate that he didn't like structure/order/authority - not to mention his 'street fight' history.

Was he right? In some cases, but not all. Ultimately, you have to understand for yourself what you want to do/are training for with martial arts and if you are getting it from your current practice. If TKD isn't doing it for you, it isn't "TKD" that is "bad" because you will take the hard work and technical skill with you where ever you go.

It is the disconnect between intent and practice that needs to be fixed.

[MichiganTKD]

I pay about as much attention to Bruce Lee as I do to Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and Chuck Norris. None. I watch their movies, admire their technique (for the most part), then turn the tv off and do something constructive.

[Rob Broad]

It is the art that givs you the tools, and admittedly some arts offer a bigger tools box and more tools than others, but it is that man that has to use the tools and built what he can.

[markulous]

I agree with you Hicks. Most of what is taught today is not effective for combat.
Example: While a horse stance or a long fist stance will make your legs stronger to use them in a fight would not work at all. Most of the blocks that are taught are not as effective as simply moving out of the way a few inches.

Bruce had actual philosophy unlike Jackie Chan or Jet Li. Not to mention he created his OWN system of martial arts! Not to say that what Bruce Lee says is law but he knows his stuff. He has tested what he has done in the street not in a tournament that is basically two grown men playing tag.

[Ceicei]

There is a whole range of things that can be done with hands/feet/elbows/knees not limited to only what is learned within one style. True, a martial art may not have "everything", but if a martial artist in a self defense situation is able to think "outside the box" and reacts instinctively in survival mode (in other words, anything goes), then the chances of succeeding should be better.

- Ceicei

[The Boar Man]

Those were extracts from Bruce Lee's book written by his wife Linda Lee
I know that many of you will say "Well, its only from one man and his opinion and just so it happens to come from Bruce Lee" but I just want to say that I am digusted that I have been learning TKD for almost three years and I thought I could handle myself but after my own doubts and the reality of it, I have to agree with this. I'm not saying he is right I'm just saying that I believe what he is saying is mostly true and that people are being mislead into thinking that some traditional Martial Arts can provide you with sufficient self defence such as karate and Tkd.

Regards
Nick

WARNING THESE ARE MY OPINIONS

Nick
I edited your post to address this last part. 21 years ago I was in a similar situation to you, I'd been involved with American TKD for about 2 1/2 years. when I went to see Dan Inosanto at a seminar on the filipino martial arts. It was eye opening to say the least and really made me question what I was learning in TKD. Because from this exposure I started getting into the whole JKD thing (no offense to JKD meant) only there wasn't any instruction near by so I continued with my TKD training and tried "absorb what was useful" from JKD and other systems.

However it was from karate/TKD that I formed a basis from which to examine what I was learning at the seminars. The more I learned or the more I advanced in TKD the better I became in understanding what I learned at the seminars. What I learned in the seminars on JKD/Thaiboxing/Aikijitsu etc. etc. I incorperated into my self defense training in TKD.

But when it came time to actually learn from an instructor in JKD Kali 10 years later, I was already able to do things pretty well. I could move out of the way of the incoming stick or knife (distancing), I could punch and kick better than the other students etc. etc. I also under stood motion.

All of this to say that you are learning valuable skills where you are at probably. It's just a matter of relooking at things. And as Paul pointed out re-examine your training.

Through the 80's whenever I would attend a JKD type seminar often times the fellow practioners had a pretty low regard for TKD/karate etc. etc. However I read the books and such and to an extant even Inosanto put down the practice of these arts as well. So in Tulsa in 1990 I went to see Guro Inosanto for another seminar and he was going to show a knife defense that had worked for someone. And low and behold the intial block/technique was a variation of a open hand upward block (in any TKD/karate system) that had been drilled into me through the books, tapes and such as being worthless.

That really opened my eyes and I started looking at the commonality between systems and techniques instead of all of the differences or what anyone says is good or bad. Later on I started applying throws, disarms etc. etc. with using the standard blocks I learned in TKD and such. There is plenty there to be effective you just have to dig it out.

If your current instructor can't help you in this area, then I suggest you either seek out other instruction in a system that meets your needs, or with an instructor who can guide you to the goal you are looking for.

No offense meant to anyone here in JKD TKD or karate, nor towards Guro Inosanto or any other instructors for that matter.

Mark

[The Boar Man]

Folks

I believe that any martial art practiced correctly can be beneficial to whomever is studying it.

I look at them kind of like the lines of numbers (intergers? it's been to many years since math class for me :idunno: ) in math, you know where you plot the numbers etc. etc.

Well on one end of the spectrum you have sport on the other end you have self defense. Or on one end you have the tradtional systems and the other end you have the more modern systems. You pick out an system based on several factors (cost, location, type of system, your goal as to what you want form the system) and the school will generally fall somewhere on the lines above. Now the skills you learn can help you shift your training towards one end or the other, but you need to shift it that way (for you) if your school or your instructor is to much in towards the other end of the spectrum than you want to be. WITHOUT MAKING A FUSS OR PROBLEMS IN YOUR SCHOOL.

With respect
Mark

[cfr]

Sounds to me like you should kick rocks and go somewhere that you can train the way you beleive in.

[Han-Mi]

Three years isn't that long. You should be able to grasp the fact that basics are best though. As I read your post, I wonder what your experience was to sour you so. Bruce Lee was very intelligent and contributed a lot, but(IMO) he wasn't trying to say that you should not learn set movements and train them before using them. As I understand it, he is saying that you learn these things to forget them. Learn everything you can, then use what works for you and train with a partner that will resist and can let you know if the techniques are working. It sounds like your training was not to the intensity that you require, or you did not train to the intensity required. I have seen amazing things done by Martial Artists, and I have beaten opponants myself that I questioned my ability against.

My most important note on this is that you didn't waste your time. Find a new instructor or put more work into your training, one of those is your problem(IMO). Don't just be soured forever, and potentially throw off others you meet from learning to defend themselves.

[Corporal Hicks]

Don't just be soured forever, and potentially throw off others you meet from learning to defend themselves.[/QUOTE]
The whole reason that I began to question TKD was through somebody else, before that I was really into it, but I will not talk to others about my opinions apart from on these forums as to not potentially throw off others.

Thanks for the viewpoints guys.

Regards
Nick

[Bod]

Quotes from Markulous


Most of what is taught today is not effective for combat.
Correct. Only what is learned is effective for combat.


Example: While a horse stance or a long fist stance will make your legs stronger to use them in a fight would not work at all.
Incorrect. Some stand up grappling experience and multiple opponents experience will teach you that.


Most of the blocks that are taught are not as effective as simply moving out of the way a few inches.
That really depends on what you are using the block for. If you are fighting multiple opponents moving a few inches is suicidal. If you are using large blocks as counters rather than with an offensive mindset those blocks will be less effective.

Bruce had actual philosophy unlike Jackie Chan or Jet Li.
Bruce spouted lots of philosophy without quoting his sources. Don't count out Jackie Chan or Jet Li or anyone else for that matter, until you know them personally.


Not to say that what Bruce Lee says is law but he knows his stuff. He has tested what he has done in the street not in a tournament that is basically two grown men playing tag.
We're wondering into the realms of myth here. He did test what he knew in a tournament and got beaten. Also most of his system came after fighting in the street.

One of the difficulties of 'absorbing what is useful', to paraphrase Mao Tse Tung, is that you first have to know what is useful. That involves experience and an open mind. Trying something out once in a one on one sparring situation and then throwing it out as non-useful because it didn't seem to work is a mark of impatience, not discernment.

Of course, often you will get an instructor who insists you use something in the wrong place, such as a hard rising block in a one-on-one with someone 3 feet away. You have 2 choices, use the opportunity as a way to practise the move as a highly aggresive multiple opponent technique, and ignore the fact that your sparring partner keeps outpointing you, or find another instructor. Sometimes the latter is the better option, but not always.

[loki09789]

I don't know if 'questioning' or causing questions to arise is a bad thing. On the issues of 'confidence' or 'faith' in our training is the questioning process. For those who say that Martial arts is a self discovery/improvement process I say welcome to the real world.

Learning to work through doubt, ambiguity, unclear purpose, .... is as important a lesson, and a daily application skill I might add, as any punching/kicking techniques.

Think about it in terms of 'committed technique:' Everything just seems to work better when you commit to a technique or combination OR A SYSTEM OF TRAINING even when you don't understand it completely. Now, I am not saying throw your money into an unrewarding experience but I am saying that sticking to it until you figure out what the real issue is: Is it the system, instructor, training (what you are preparing to do with your art), you, .... then make the appropriate choices.

Since you can really only control your actions and choices, start with talking this stuff out with your instructor and friends from class. A class/school can be like a little support network and you will find others who have gone through this stuff and help you out from their experience.

[OC Kid]

People seem to forget that Bruce studied a traditional art for a while before he went on to study other arts. he had the basics down. JKD means "The way of the intercepting fist" isnt that the premise in which Wing Chin is based on? So all he did was take art and build on it as we all do/should.

[captnigh]

Was he right? In some cases, but not all. Ultimately, you have to understand for yourself what you want to do/are training for with martial arts and if you are getting it from your current practice. If TKD isn't doing it for you, it isn't "TKD" that is "bad" because you will take the hard work and technical skill with you where ever you go.

It is the disconnect between intent and practice that needs to be fixed. I agree on this point. TKD (or any other martial art, for that matter) isn't the question, it's the answer - but is it the answer to YOUR question?

[cfr]

I would say that there are no bad styles. (not even TKD) But I would say that not all styles are for all people. I will never take a style with kata. Not because of the typical anti kata mindset that we read here all the time. But because they aren't for me. I don't beleive in them. But lots of others do and I would encourage those people to do them with enthusiasm. There is a difference between not liking small parts of your training and not beleiving in it. If you truely don't believe in what you're doing then I think you should go. I don't think you need to analyze it or look for the deep seeded inner meanings. Just go. In my experience, once your head is posioned about what your doing, it can never go back. Even more, once you've read about the 'alive' concepts, if you are a true beleiver in them, everything else will leave you wondering.

[DeLamar.J]

Fundamentally all styles claim their methods as being able to cope with 'all' type of attacks. "I guess he who claims his style is really different must assume his stance on his head and when he strikes, he must turn and spin three times before doing so.

"You see, a chosen method, however exacting, fixes its practitioners in an enclosed pattern. I always say that actual combat is never fixed, has no boundaires or limits and is constantly changing from moment to moment. All of a sudden the opponent is 'alive' and no longer a cooperative robot. In other words, once 'conditioned' in the partialized style, its practitioner faces his opponent through a screen of resistance.. In reality he is merely 'performing' his stylized blocks and listening to his own screams"

As Bruce has stated above he also states that "Of all athletes in the world, only in the martial arts do they become so fat and in poor condition, and you know what? They are usually the instructors" and they can get away with it as well.

"That sort of Oriental self-defence is like swimming on land. You can learn all the swimming strokes, but if you're never in the water it's meaningless" Cos your really out of it when the ***** hits the fan.

"To me 99% of the whole business of Oriental self-defence is baloney" "ITS FANCY JAZZ"

A human being doesn't just stand there and wait to be hit. So many karate students are wrapped up in the snorting sounds and the countermoves that they lose sight of what they should be doing to an opponent. The karate teacher says, 'If your opponent does this, then you do this and if he does this then you do this'. And while you are remembering the 'and-thens' the other guy is killing you

Those were extracts from Bruce Lee's book written by his wife Linda Lee
I know that many of you will say "Well, its only from one man and his opinion and just so it happens to come from Bruce Lee" but I just want to say that I am digusted that I have been learning TKD for almost three years and I thought I could handle myself but after my own doubts and the reality of it, I have to agree with this. I'm not saying he is right I'm just saying that I believe what he is saying is mostly true and that people are being mislead into thinking that some traditional Martial Arts can provide you with sufficient self defence such as karate and Tkd.

Regards
Nick

WARNING THESE ARE MY OPINIONS
You have to learn to walk before you crawl! People like you talk down on pre arranged movements am I right? you dont seem to care for kata, am I right? First you have to learn to block a punch that is pre arranged before you can block a random one, thats why in karate we do pre arranged attacks. With starting out slow and teaching a student to block one specific technique at a time, the student gets a better understanding on how exactly to block a technique,and when its the students turn to attack, they learn exactly how to throw a punch, in exactly the right spot. Then once you have a basic idea on how to block and throw all the basic kicks and punches you are taught how to link them together properly, thats called kata, grasshopper. Once you get the basic idea of how to perform a kata, then you learn to spar, were everything comes together, there are no pre arranged movements. This slow learning process teaches the student a better idea of the science of martial arts because they just didnt throw on some gloves and beat the crap out of each other. This method of teaching also makes it more comfortable for a student who is afraid of getting hurt, it eases them into the martial arts, builds there confidence in there abillity and technique, so they can apply it in sparring and full contact sparring when they get a little more up there in rank. I hope this gives you a better idea on why we do things the way we do in karate. There is a reason for the way we do things. You talk like you think thats the way karate people fight, the only time there are pre arranged movements or patters is when your learning how to do a new technique properly so you can apply it in a fight. Higher ranking students have already been through this long, hard and sometimes boring learning process, and reap the benifits of training properly, and being able to use these techniques in a real fight. I still practice kata regularly to keep my technique honed and ready because if you dont use it you loose it. People like you see us doing kata and one steps and laugh but you have no idea why we do it, you think that because they are pre arranged movements and attacks that the unpredictabillity of a real fight will cause our methods to fail, when these exercises are only there to hone a students technique and teach them good foot work, we dont fight full contact in pre arranged movements. Have I gotten through to you? Do you understand now?

[Ippon Ken]

Quotes from Markulous


Correct. Only what is learned is effective for combat.


Incorrect. Some stand up grappling experience and multiple opponents experience will teach you that.


That really depends on what you are using the block for. If you are fighting multiple opponents moving a few inches is suicidal. If you are using large blocks as counters rather than with an offensive mindset those blocks will be less effective.

Bruce had actual philosophy unlike Jackie Chan or Jet Li.
Bruce spouted lots of philosophy without quoting his sources. Don't count out Jackie Chan or Jet Li or anyone else for that matter, until you know them personally.


We're wondering into the realms of myth here. He did test what he knew in a tournament and got beaten. Also most of his system came after fighting in the street.

One of the difficulties of 'absorbing what is useful', to paraphrase Mao Tse Tung, is that you first have to know what is useful. That involves experience and an open mind. Trying something out once in a one on one sparring situation and then throwing it out as non-useful because it didn't seem to work is a mark of impatience, not discernment.

Of course, often you will get an instructor who insists you use something in the wrong place, such as a hard rising block in a one-on-one with someone 3 feet away. You have 2 choices, use the opportunity as a way to practise the move as a highly aggresive multiple opponent technique, and ignore the fact that your sparring partner keeps outpointing you, or find another instructor. Sometimes the latter is the better option, but not always.
Outstanding response, Bod! Props!

[cfr]

Have I gotten through to you? Do you understand now?


If he didnt get it before, Im sure your rudeness got through to him.

[DeLamar.J]

You have a point. I should have cooled it on the attitude. Sorry.

[Bod]

Outstanding response, Bod! Props!

Thanks! But what does 'Props' means?

[The Boar Man]

We're wondering into the realms of myth here. He did test what he knew in a tournament and got beaten. Also most of his system came after fighting in the street.



What tournament did Bruce Lee fight in and get beaten? Sources?

Mark

[Bod]

Mr. Boar Man you are right. I was talking rubbish wot I did not know about.

I'd got the info from the film Dragon, which was a 'fictionalised account' of information Linda Lee had supplied.

The tournament was Ed Parker's 1964 Internationals, but it appears that Bruce Lee did not fight in that tournament after all, or, it appears, any tournament.

My bad.

[hedgehogey]

He did a sparring demonstration at that tourney.

He also fought in a hong kong teenage boxing tourney.

[Ippon Ken]

Thanks! But what does 'Props' means?
It is an American urban expression that means "propers" as in the "proper respect" and so on. Kind of like to "dis" means to dismiss or disregard something.

A-Gain, props'!

[Ceicei]

Thanks! But what does 'Props' means?I believe it is colloquial speaking of the word, "apropos". As defined according to www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/), it means:

ap·ro·pos http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fr%3D2%26q%3Dapropos) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifphttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-phttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/omacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif) adj. Being at once opportune and to the point. See Synonyms at relevant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relevant).


When a person says "props", it usually means "I agree with your point" or that whatever you said is relevant/important.

- Ceicei

[MichiganTKD]

I believe "Props" means giving proper respect due a valid idea or someone who deserves it.

[loki09789]

I believe "Props" means giving proper respect due a valid idea or someone who deserves it.
Yup, like in that RESPECT song

"...get my PROPERS when I get home....justa justa justa justa..."

EVERYBODY SING!

Jeez, we just shorten up everything today don't we?

[MichiganTKD]

Sorry, don't know that one. You know any Iron Maiden?

[Flatlander]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MichiganTKD]

This why I don't use music during practice. What am I going to use? Somehow Iron Maiden and Metallica don't seen appropriate for MA training.

But getting back on topic. Much as I admire Bruce Lee's technique, and I really do, he just seemed to me to be an angry young man. I really don't consider him a role model for the proper path to follow. Besides the fact he died at the age of 33, he seemed to have all this destructive anger inside him. He also felt the need to constantly prove himself. What he did worked for him, but it does nothing for me.
And let's be honest. Do you really think Bruce's students measure up to him in terms of understanding, drive, and motivation? My personal belief is that Bruce's art truly died when he did.

[ppko]

My personal belief is that Bruce's art truly died when he did.
I agree I will probably get ridiculed for this but I think that JKD has went down hill since Bruce has died, as it hasn't grown, and their are lots of disputes.

PPKO :EG: :mad: :waah:

[markulous]

I agree I will probably get ridiculed for this but I think that JKD has went down hill since Bruce has died, as it hasn't grown, and their are lots of disputes.

PPKO :EG: :mad: :waah:

It's just most people interpret JKD wrong IMO. JKD is not a style that combines all other styles or anything. It's not even a style at all. JKD was designed for one man only: Bruce Lee. The individual is supposed to create his own JKD. When a guy like me learns boxing then learns kung fu then fusions certain things together, THAT is JKD. So to the poster previous no his art hasn't died with me and my teacher atleast.

[ppko]

It's just most people interpret JKD wrong IMO. JKD is not a style that combines all other styles or anything. It's not even a style at all. JKD was designed for one man only: Bruce Lee. The individual is supposed to create his own JKD. When a guy like me learns boxing then learns kung fu then fusions certain things together, THAT is JKD. So to the poster previous no his art hasn't died with me and my teacher atleast.
That is a great way to look at it, as I have never looked at it that way.

PPKO

[The Boar Man]

And let's be honest. Do you really think Bruce's students measure up to him in terms of understanding, drive, and motivation? My personal belief is that Bruce's art truly died when he did.

Just out of curiosity, how much time have you spent looking into his art, or training with any of his students?

"I agree I will probably get ridiculed for this but I think that JKD has went down hill since Bruce has died, as it hasn't grown, and their are lots of disputes." posted by PPKO

How has this art not grown? It's now practiced world wide almost every big city here in the states has someone teaching JKD (in some format or another), there are multitudes of different books written on the subject, every BB or inside Kung Fu magazine has an article about him or JKD, not to mention all of the adds for videos tapes etc. etc. :rolleyes:

Any organization has disputes just look at TKD, karate, dang read the Modern Anris forum if you want to see some disputes :uhyeah: JKD isn't the only art with disputes but the disputes do indicate that the art is still being practiced and people still care about it.

I don't practice JKD and never really have, but I have friends who did, maybe still do. And I've gone to several seminars with some of his top students/instructors over the years trying to expand my knowledge and technique base over the years. And by taking a Kali class from a JKD instructor for 1 1/2 years or so. So I heard the arguement from quite a few sides; is it alive or dead, was Bruce lee the greatest thing since sliced bread, can JKD beat TKD? yada yada yada

To me the art isn't boring, I can get quite a lot out of it, same with Bruce Lee's teachings, same with his student's instruction. It's all the other BS with trying to argue about what JKD is/isn't, is it alive or dead, what is true JKD and what is conceptual JKD etc. etc. that I have a hard time with.

Sorry if I sound harsh here and I'm not rying to ridicule you PPKO. To me his art has grown and with that growth comes alot of new ways of looking at the art and discussing and debating the art, something that wasn't really done when he was alive.

Mark

[The Boar Man]

It's just most people interpret JKD wrong IMO. JKD is not a style that combines all other styles or anything. It's not even a style at all. JKD was designed for one man only: Bruce Lee. The individual is supposed to create his own JKD. When a guy like me learns boxing then learns kung fu then fusions certain things together, THAT is JKD. So to the poster previous no his art hasn't died with me and my teacher atleast.

markulous

No disrespect intended here, after my last post in which I stated I was tired of these type of discussions on what JKD is/isn't to question your post here almost makes me seem like I'm trying to pick a fight/arguement etc. etc. on the internet and that isn't my intent.

I always here that the individual is supposed to create his own JKD, I understand what that means in theory. However I don't think it comes out that way in application.

1) I took classes from an instructor briefly in the 80's who was high ranked (BBs) in Gojo ryu karate, Jujitsu, who was throwing in some wing chun and some Balintawak escrima that he was learning from a guy who was teaching him in the back yard at the time (he was only learning escrima from the instructor in the backyard). And tying this all together as JKD like what Bruce Lee did. Would this be JKD? Not even close. There was no cohesion no underlying teaching that brought this altogether it was just a mismash of various arts tyring to be something it wasn't. Once I saw what was going on I left the class.

2) Take Wado ryu karate, the founder was a master in a form of Jujitsu who then took classes under the founder of Shotokan. He then blended the systems or principles of the two systems into one calling it Wado ryu. Clearly he took these two arts and made them his own but he taught the underlying principles that were universal to all and put them in a format to teach everyone thus creating Wado (or Peace Way) karate. To say this is JKD I think is wrong for two reasons.
a) JKD is the "Art/way of the intercepting fist" while Wado has intercepting techniques in it it is also about gaining understanding of yourself through the practice of karate so it's not all about fighting.
b) If Wado is JKD then that would make Otshuka sensei the founder of JKD and not Bruce Lee :rolleyes: (I'm kidding here folkes)

So to take boxing and mix it with a form of kung fu I don't think is JKD, you might have a new style of Chinese Boxing :) .

with respect intended
Mark

[Flatlander]

To me his art has grown and with that growth comes alot of new ways of looking at the art and discussing and debating the art, something that wasn't really done when he was alive.

Mark
This is pretty close to my feeling on the subject. I think the primary way JKD has grown is in how it has been integrated conceptually into so many different arts. Philisophically, the principles make so much sense, that any instructor level MAist who learns the fundamentals will naturally integrate those principles into their art, and propagate them through their teaching. You just can't help it. That is how the art has grown. Its found its way into so many different styles.

[Firona]

I think the biggest point to understand about JKD is that if you don't understand it, it isn't going to help you. Many martial artists I know in my area have read my copy of the Tao of Jeet Kune Do and since completing it have neither improved or gotten worse. Their problem is that they cannot incorporate the ideas given by bruce into their fighting style. I have read many of the 'great' martial arts books (Tao of JKD, Five Rings, Art of War etc.) and without a true understanding (which comes after reading them 5 or six times :rolleyes: ) these books are of no use to anyone. So I guess the point I am trying to make is that unless you can apply the knowledge of the art, the moves and the timing are useless.

[The Boar Man]

I think the biggest point to understand about JKD is that if you don't understand it, it isn't going to help you. Many martial artists I know in my area have read my copy of the Tao of Jeet Kune Do and since completing it have neither improved or gotten worse. Their problem is that they cannot incorporate the ideas given by bruce into their fighting style. I have read many of the 'great' martial arts books (Tao of JKD, Five Rings, Art of War etc.) and without a true understanding (which comes after reading them 5 or six times :rolleyes: ) these books are of no use to anyone. So I guess the point I am trying to make is that unless you can apply the knowledge of the art, the moves and the timing are useless.

Firona

Yeah the Tao of JKd is a difficult read in fact it's a mishmash of collected saying and writings of Bruce Lee. Try some of John Little's books on the subject, they should shed some light.

I disagree on the book of five rings though, I got some things out of it, however it's been years since I read it so I can't rmember them right off the top of my head. Haven't read the art of war.

If your interested in a good book on strategy try "The Way and the Power Secrets of Japanes Strategy" by Fredrick J. Lovret. This one I found to be very helpful, even though it deals with japanes terms and such the explanations of the strategies is excellent.

Mark

[markulous]

I should have went into more detail. Just mixing arts or knowing more then one art does not make you a founder of your own JKD. It's more of the mental attitude and realistic application. It's just throwing all the trash away and use what works for the individual.

So I will use me as an example. I am 6'4 and 200 lbs. I am pretty lean and have long legs. When we fight I use what works for me. So I might come in with a wing chun leg trap, snap a jab, then maybe try to do some aikido to get ahold of the persons head. Or I could come in do a muay thai kick to the persons knee, grab his arm and try to use some hapkido to do an arm lock, etc etc. I rarely go low to the ground since I am so tall. I pretty much scrap all the high kicks.

MY "JKD" is always changing always evolving. There is things from just about every art that I have learned.

That is what I got from the Tao of JKD. I don't know if that is the exact message Bruce wanted people to get but that's how I inerpreted it.

[ppko]

Just out of curiosity, how much time have you spent looking into his art, or training with any of his students?

"I agree I will probably get ridiculed for this but I think that JKD has went down hill since Bruce has died, as it hasn't grown, and their are lots of disputes." posted by PPKO

How has this art not grown? It's now practiced world wide almost every big city here in the states has someone teaching JKD (in some format or another), there are multitudes of different books written on the subject, every BB or inside Kung Fu magazine has an article about him or JKD, not to mention all of the adds for videos tapes etc. etc. :rolleyes:

Any organization has disputes just look at TKD, karate, dang read the Modern Anris forum if you want to see some disputes :uhyeah: JKD isn't the only art with disputes but the disputes do indicate that the art is still being practiced and people still care about it.

I don't practice JKD and never really have, but I have friends who did, maybe still do. And I've gone to several seminars with some of his top students/instructors over the years trying to expand my knowledge and technique base over the years. And by taking a Kali class from a JKD instructor for 1 1/2 years or so. So I heard the arguement from quite a few sides; is it alive or dead, was Bruce lee the greatest thing since sliced bread, can JKD beat TKD? yada yada yada

To me the art isn't boring, I can get quite a lot out of it, same with Bruce Lee's teachings, same with his student's instruction. It's all the other BS with trying to argue about what JKD is/isn't, is it alive or dead, what is true JKD and what is conceptual JKD etc. etc. that I have a hard time with.

Sorry if I sound harsh here and I'm not rying to ridicule you PPKO. To me his art has grown and with that growth comes alot of new ways of looking at the art and discussing and debating the art, something that wasn't really done when he was alive.

Mark

Let me respond, yes JKD is popular, but it was Bruces' art. When Bruce died I believe his art died, for the plain and simple fact that he wasn't around long enough to give the art a good base. JKD has struggled since then to find a base and that is why there are so many disputes on how they should teach or what they should teach, yes Modern Arnis has its disputes but they do know there base and will try to stay farelly close to teaching it.

Best Regards
PPKO :EG: :mad: :waah:

[RRouuselot]

never mind..........I made a comment then deleted it since I find any discussion about B. Lee to be pointless.......sorry

[The Boar Man]

Let me respond, yes JKD is popular, but it was Bruces' art. When Bruce died I believe his art died, for the plain and simple fact that he wasn't around long enough to give the art a good base. JKD has struggled since then to find a base and that is why there are so many disputes on how they should teach or what they should teach, yes Modern Arnis has its disputes but they do know there base and will try to stay farelly close to teaching it.

Best Regards
PPKO :EG: :mad: :waah:

PPKO
I understand what you mean about Bruce Lees art dieing with him, but I disagree, rather I would say it died for him. He's no longer around to promote or practice it. But just like in any martial art system when the founder dies the art (if it continues) will change. When it changes there will be people who like this change or that and will follow the path that they like but the esecence of the art still continues it doesn't die (IMHO).

In Modern Arnis you have MARRIPO teaching the way the Professor did back in the earlier days. You have the IMAF teaching what the Professor taught in his later days, you have Bram Frank now teaching the blade or edged weapon characteristics of the system (the bolo and the knife), SM Dan Anderson has taken what he learned from the Professor and created his own system Modern Arnis 80 (still paying tribute to the Professor and his art). And you have Datu Dieter Knuttle in Germany teaching Modern Arnis and yet he was influenced by the Professor's younger brother GM Ernesto Presas. They all have different flavors so to speak of the professor's art (and there are a host of others as well whom I haven't mentioned).

Now take JKD. It's the same thing. You have people teaching Conceptual JKD, you have instructors teaching what was taught in Seattle, Oakland, and the Chinatown JKD, and in Inosanto's own backyard. These guys have refined their arts/methods over the years and turned out some good students who've continued on the instruction. To be honest with you the guys teaching the Seattle, Oakland, chinatown material probably have stayed right with what they were taught. Dan Inosanto has made no excuses for expanding what he was taught. I'd say the art is growing.

There are many examples in the martial arts of this happening in karate as well, take Wado ryu, Shotokan, Akido, Isshin ryu etc. etc. Those arts as well have prospered even though their founders have passed away and they have changed between the surviving instructors.

with respect
Mark

[Hanzo04]

why even make this statement when it's been said a thousand times already before?

[Flatlander]

To which statement do you refer, Hanzo?

[ppko]

PPKO
I understand what you mean about Bruce Lees art dieing with him, but I disagree, rather I would say it died for him. He's no longer around to promote or practice it. But just like in any martial art system when the founder dies the art (if it continues) will change. When it changes there will be people who like this change or that and will follow the path that they like but the esecence of the art still continues it doesn't die (IMHO).

In Modern Arnis you have MARRIPO teaching the way the Professor did back in the earlier days. You have the IMAF teaching what the Professor taught in his later days, you have Bram Frank now teaching the blade or edged weapon characteristics of the system (the bolo and the knife), SM Dan Anderson has taken what he learned from the Professor and created his own system Modern Arnis 80 (still paying tribute to the Professor and his art). And you have Datu Dieter Knuttle in Germany teaching Modern Arnis and yet he was influenced by the Professor's younger brother GM Ernesto Presas. They all have different flavors so to speak of the professor's art (and there are a host of others as well whom I haven't mentioned).

Now take JKD. It's the same thing. You have people teaching Conceptual JKD, you have instructors teaching what was taught in Seattle, Oakland, and the Chinatown JKD, and in Inosanto's own backyard. These guys have refined their arts/methods over the years and turned out some good students who've continued on the instruction. To be honest with you the guys teaching the Seattle, Oakland, chinatown material probably have stayed right with what they were taught. Dan Inosanto has made no excuses for expanding what he was taught. I'd say the art is growing.

There are many examples in the martial arts of this happening in karate as well, take Wado ryu, Shotokan, Akido, Isshin ryu etc. etc. Those arts as well have prospered even though their founders have passed away and they have changed between the surviving instructors.

with respect
Mark
A good post sir I agree.

Best Regards,
PPKO :EG: :mad: :waah:

[Corporal Hicks]

Well, its been a long time since I first posted this thread and I have to say that my view has changed. I've been reading the Tao Of Jeet Kune Do recently whilst at sixth form and I've been taking down notes in a note pad to what it understands to me as.

I'm only 17 but I believe that my interpretation of JKD from Bruce Lee and what he was trying to get at was that you should try everything if you can, whatever it may be i.e Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Jujitsu, Tai Boxing, Kung Fu, etc etc and that you should take what you feel works for you and forget that you have learned these seperate arts and apply your own views and thoughts and that this is your own personalised style (the style that could give you the most potential IMO) and because this "style" (not that Bruce Lee wanted JKD to be style) is your perfect style you have no boundaries of the orginal arts you have learned from, you are a "free soul" if you like and that you may think how you wish about what you have learnt and that you may apply anything if you wish. There is no right and wrong.

Because Bruce Lee knew it would be difficult to get this idea across to people he created JKD, even though he did not even want to call it JKD because it already has a styled name. Ok let me put it this way, imagen somebody somehow learnt every single move there is from every martial art but didnt actually study any of the arts, he has learnt no art but he has this style, "his own personalised style" and nobody else has that style, it is his own. I think this is what Bruce Lee was trying to say, that you shouldnt be held down by the names of styles and names of Martial Arts and the prejudices of them if you truely want to reach your full potential but its your choice, if you want to do so..

Quote from TAO Of JKD to support my view,

"If you want to understand the truth in martial arts, to see any opponent clearly, you must throw away the notion of styles or schools, prejudices, likes and dislikes, and so forth. Then your mind will cease all conflict and come to rest. In this silence, you will see totally and freshly."

(I have other quotes but dont have time to back up my interpretation sorry!)

Since I've read the Tao Of JKD I have questioned TKD but I have also knuckled down and seen what it has done for me, I go with nature and dont fight against it. Where I see the limits of TKD I also see its valuable points i.e how it COULD be one of the most professional kicking arts. I ultilize what I think is useful and I also ultilize my Wing Chung and I create a mixture of my own with my own techniques. Its not a mixture of Martial Arts, its my personalised style, or I like to think that way.

Regards
Nick

[ppko]

Well, its been a long time since I first posted this thread and I have to say that my view has changed. I've been reading the Tao Of Jeet Kune Do recently whilst at sixth form and I've been taking down notes in a note pad to what it understands to me as.

I'm only 17 but I believe that my interpretation of JKD from Bruce Lee and what he was trying to get at was that you should try everything if you can, whatever it may be i.e Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Jujitsu, Tai Boxing, Kung Fu, etc etc and that you should take what you feel works for you and forget that you have learned these seperate arts and apply your own views and thoughts and that this is your own personalised style (the style that could give you the most potential IMO) and because this "style" (not that Bruce Lee wanted JKD to be style) is your perfect style you have no boundaries of the orginal arts you have learned from, you are a "free soul" if you like and that you may think how you wish about what you have learnt and that you may apply anything if you wish. There is no right and wrong.

Because Bruce Lee knew it would be difficult to get this idea across to people he created JKD, even though he did not even want to call it JKD because it already has a styled name. Ok let me put it this way, imagen somebody somehow learnt every single move there is from every martial art but didnt actually study any of the arts, he has learnt no art but he has this style, "his own personalised style" and nobody else has that style, it is his own. I think this is what Bruce Lee was trying to say, that you shouldnt be held down by the names of styles and names of Martial Arts and the prejudices of them if you truely want to reach your full potential but its your choice, if you want to do so..

Quote from TAO Of JKD to support my view,

"If you want to understand the truth in martial arts, to see any opponent clearly, you must throw away the notion of styles or schools, prejudices, likes and dislikes, and so forth. Then your mind will cease all conflict and come to rest. In this silence, you will see totally and freshly."

(I have other quotes but dont have time to back up my interpretation sorry!)

Since I've read the Tao Of JKD I have questioned TKD but I have also knuckled down and seen what it has done for me, I go with nature and dont fight against it. Where I see the limits of TKD I also see its valuable points i.e how it COULD be one of the most professional kicking arts. I ultilize what I think is useful and I also ultilize my Wing Chung and I create a mixture of my own with my own techniques. Its not a mixture of Martial Arts, its my personalised style, or I like to think that way.

Regards
NickVery good, always remember you really need that base art before you can start to understand, some people take what Bruce said and show up to a school for a month or 2 and than leave they will never have a very effective art (at least not in my oppinion) I hope you continue to learn and instead of throwing away what does not work for you adjust it so that it does.

[someguy]

There are plenty of people who are over weight in other sports. As to instructers being over weight. Well I think that you may want to lok at instructers in most other sports also. See how many of them are overweight.

[ppko]

There are plenty of people who are over weight in other sports. As to instructers being over weight. Well I think that you may want to lok at instructers in most other sports also. See how many of them are overweight.Just wandering, to whom are you talking to :idunno:

[AnimEdge]

I woudl think that the whole Strike First thing doesnt work well with the defence laws today, if some guy come up to you and seams like he will attack nd you attack first then technicly then he is attacking in defence and you are the attack, his ideas work well in contests when everyone is there to fight but in real life it still woudl be effective but the law probly wouldnt like it

[RHD]

I agree with you Hicks. Most of what is taught today is not effective for combat.
Example: While a horse stance or a long fist stance will make your legs stronger to use them in a fight would not work at all. Most of the blocks that are taught are not as effective as simply moving out of the way a few inches.


Wrong.

A horse stance, or any other classical stance from Chinese martial arts will work just fine...If you know how to use it correctly.
Stances, are often mistaken as static positions which you asssume in order to fight. This is incorrect. Stances are an integral part of a technique for delivering energy, creating openings, disrupting your opponent's balance, etc... Standing in any static poisition is never an effective way to meet force, direct force, or deliver force. One must move into the stances and then out of them...it's called footwork and it's employed in every martial based activity from knife fighting to MMA to American boxing whether the practitioners of those respective disciplines know it or not.
Blocks on the other hand, next to stances, are some of the most misunderstood and poorly taught foundational skills in martial arts of all origins. Blocking is never a good plan unless there is no better option. It's a last resort for when you've let things go to far and are now left without other options. Most "blocks" are badly misunderstood techniques and concepts that generally have nothing to do with blocking anything, and everything to do with attacking or setting up for an attack.
But hey...this is of course only my opinion and I'm sure that many will vehemenently disagree. %think%

Mike

[ppko]

Wrong.

A horse stance, or any other classical stance from Chinese martial arts will work just fine...If you know how to use it correctly.
Stances, are often mistaken as static positions which you asssume in order to fight. This is incorrect. Stances are an integral part of a technique for delivering energy, creating openings, disrupting your opponent's balance, etc... Standing in any static poisition is never an effective way to meet force, direct force, or deliver force. One must move into the stances and then out of them...it's called footwork and it's employed in every martial based activity from knife fighting to MMA to American boxing whether the practitioners of those respective disciplines know it or not.
Blocks on the other hand, next to stances, are some of the most misunderstood and poorly taught foundational skills in martial arts of all origins. Blocking is never a good plan unless there is no better option. It's a last resort for when you've let things go to far and are now left without other options. Most "blocks" are badly misunderstood techniques and concepts that generally have nothing to do with blocking anything, and everything to do with attacking or setting up for an attack.
But hey...this is of course only my opinion and I'm sure that many will vehemenently disagree. %think%

MikeWhat a great post lots of stuff come from your stances, just remember shorter stances are for mobility, and longer stances are for stability. I truly enjoyed your post sir.:ultracool