Okay...I've been thinking. Yes, you should be worried. Yes, my brain hurts.

This is about the 'Original' JKD people.

Okay, I like to draw. Don't do much of it nowadays, but I'll doodle now and then. I also like playing guitar and bass. I know lots of artists who can draw from a photo, model, or another drawing, and reproduce that image accurately, and sometimes near flawlessly. However, if they ever need to draw something completely original, without some reference to draw from, then they invariably can't perform as well, and the result looks nowhere near as good as one of their works drawn from some reference (model, photo, etc.).

This is true for guitarists. Way back, when I was in a metal band (don't ask...all photos and recordings have been destroyed!), I had a guitarist who could play practically anything from sheet music, no matter how difficult. The most complex, convoluted guitar solo was a piece of cake for him. However, when asked to create an original piece of music, it was like he was all thumbs. He couldn't come up with anything on his own.

Now, do we consider the artist who must have a model to draw from a poor artist? No! I myself cannot draw from a model. I can only draw what's in my twisted little brain. I wish I could draw from a reference, and envy those who can do it so well.

Do we consider the person who can't create original guitar music a bad guitarist? No! I can only dream about playing some of the pieces he'd learned from sheet music. The dexterity and coordination required to play some of that stuff is something that may forever be out of my reach.

So, to drag the point in...

I used to consider 'Original' JKD 'bad' JKD. However, I now think of 'Original' JKD practitioners like I do the above people. Just because they can't or won't create their own JKD doesn't necessarily make what they do bad. The drawing done by the artist who needs a model is still a good drawing. The guitar solo played by the guitarist who can only copy other guitar solos is still an impressive feat of dexterity and coordination. So, the JKD done by the people who've become adept at 'Original' JKD can still be considered good JKD, just limited. Limited because the essential element of creativity and personal expression is lost when one merely copies something else.

Okay. I don't know if I made a point. I made something. Maybe just a big pile of doo-doo.

Cthulhu

You know I sat here and read what ya wrote about ‘ Original JKD or Original JKD people,

Ms J wispers to you” guess what They are the only ones that think their original and are practicing it in the same manor as Bruce did. They have evolved and their path is not the same. If it was then… They would have ended up in the end the same place Bruce did….

Each person evolves regardless of what they may believe, its just sometimes we want to be like someone so badly that we convince ourself that we are the same and working on the same thing the same way they did.

That is first off impossible. Sifu Lee did not teach everything that he did or learned to every one of his students that studied under him and they did not impart all that he taught them to others in return and so forth…

Their all just in denial… hehehe

Just my random thoughts… now I better get back to work instead of having fun here…

Ms. J bows deeply…

Jeet Kune Do is not a
"Method of Concentration or Mediation".
It is "being", it is an "Experience",
a "way" that is "not a way".

BRUCE LEE

Ms J said:
They are the only ones that think their original and are practicing it in the same manor as Bruce did. They have evolved and their path is not the same. If it was then… They would have ended up in the end the same place Bruce did….

This is something I haven't considered, and I happen to agree for the most part. I forget (don't ask me how) that it is fairly impossible to practice JKD as Bruce did, one huge reason being that none of them have the physical and mental attributes Lee was blessed with. Nor do they have his background.

Also, when they say 'original', what time period do they mean? When he was in Oakland? Seattle? Los Angeles? Hong Kong?

In a way, my original idea holds, in that the reproduction may be nice, but it is devoid of the creativity and personal expression of an original work. But, you've reminded me that the very concept of 'original' JKD is flawed.

This was just something that was brewing in my pointy little head. Just thought I'd spew it out on the board for all to see :)

Cthulhu

Iammad.IjusthadthislongresponseandlostitbecauseIdi sconnectedsomehow:mad: :uzi: :samurai: :cuss: :armed:

There isn't anything WRONG with training OJKD. I think it's great that someone is willing to limit their training to OJKD and preserve that part of Bruce. My problem is that many are doing so with certification from Joe Lewis and Jerry Beasley. Joe had a very limited time with Bruce. You can count them on one hand. Jerry. ....no comment needed. They have attacked Dan Inosanto and that is the problem. They have completly ignored what Bruce was teaching in terms of attitude and that is a problem and they have not understood what he was teaching beacuse th3ey have had nobody to explain where Bruce was at at the time and that is a problem.
Taky and Ted have many experiences with Bruce. Taky was certified by him but they are also by their nature not standing up to shut these other frauds up.

OJKD exists in all JKD concepts people. We just have not stopped adding and sculpting and learning. People so often use that sculpting comment of Bruce's and use it to justify not adding anything else. Bruce only meant to chizzle away at the unessentials of technique until it was another part of you responding naturally to a situation. Dan was there, He was and is the only legitimate Instructor who has made impact. Taky is the other but remains quiet. Bruce didn't want to do what is going on now. He stopped it before he died with the exception of allowing Dan to teach. Where Bruce would have gone today nobody knows but Dan knew where he thought he should go and take his students with him and he did. Dan never has said that Bruce wanted to go in this direction. Bruce was ALWAYS learning and had changed his cirruriculum so many times as He progressed. Truth is None of his students with the exception of Dan and to an extent Ted got to train with Bruce along the way to develop the attributes Bruce developed. OJKD didn't produce these attributes. ALL of Bruce's training produced these attributes Even traditional Wing Chun. JKD is the sum of Bruce's parts in martial arts. It is not the process and that is what they are missing

OK. I feel better now:D

Hello all,

Ok, first I must say that it's usually pretty easy to poke holes in most analogies so this one does rank a "good try". :)

The problem I have with the whole "painter" analogy is this. Someone who adds BJJ to his JKD or kali to his JKD really hasn't created anything new. He's perfecting Royce Gracies moves just like an OJKD person is perfecting Bruce Lee's moves. But both are imitating someone else! Now, I know some people are thinking "but isn't that what Bruce did"? Guess what, Bruce is on record as saying "I didn't create anything new!" Still there are some things that Bruce did that I personally haven't seen in other arts such as the short arc lead straight punch, but if someone pointed that out to me in another art I wouldn't be overly surprised.

Now, to the whole "none of them have the physical and mental attributes Lee was blessed with" I would say that is non sequitur. Bruce Lee wasn't "blessed" with special attributes either. Bruce Lee's most important attribute was his work ethic! Before filming rapid fire Brandon Lee went to trainer Darryl Chan and told him "I want to look like my dad." Darryl told him "That, my friend, is going to take a little time, but you do have the genes to look like your dad." Brandon's response "You mean like Levi's 501s?" While Brandon was joking there is a lot of wisdom to what he said. For me JKD is also about developing your speed, timing, stength, power, perception, sensitivity ect. In other words, developing your attributes. I don't see anyone saying "I can't study BJJ because I'm not as built as Royce Gracie." or "No need for me to study Muy Thai because I'm not as fast as Maurice Smith." When people say that JKD is dependent upon Bruce's attributes they ignore Bruce's own writings "We have two arms and two legs." JKD as Bruce taught it can already be adapted to different body types. If you lack flexibility, no problem. You don't have to kick over waste high for your kicks to be effective. If you you are small you can make up for your size through speed and sensitivity. JKD can be adapted to the individual without having to add other arts. If you wish to add other arts, fine have at it. I'm just saying that if your reason for doing so is because you don't have "Bruce Lee attributes" then you're missing the point of JKD IMHO. (And sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you. I've heard this argument too many times.)

Oh, and in regards to your question of "what time period do they mean when they say 'original'" I would say all time periods! Yes, I include Wing Chun. When looking at the "boxing" element of JKD there's nothing wrong with taking the time to find out how boxers do things. Likewise when looking at WC aspects of JKD there is nothing wrong with taking the time to find out how WC people do things. That doesn't mean you HAVE to do something the boxing way or the WC way. But if you do it differently you should know the advantages/disadvantages of your modification. For example, some JKD people do the straight blast totally different from how WC people do it. I'm not sure the what the advantage of doing it differently is, but it's clear from talking to them what the disadvantage is. Some of the followups to the straightblast are lost with the variation. The same is true when looking at any other art to add to your JKD. Does the addition fit the "concepts" of JKD you've already learned? Power side forward? Simple direct and effective? Economy of motion? Some things I've seen passed off as "JKD concepts" fall outside of the "concepts" of JKD as I know them. Of course the most important concept is "anything that scores is efficient."

Regards,

John M. Drake

OK. I have to bite here on a few things....First I am not sure who you are responding to. In any event, )One has to be careful how they interpret "adding to JKD". In my case, I am referring to the addition of skills and areas as an addition on it's own but not including it as "JKD". When I am teaching I am clear on what is concepts, original and other. Regarding Brandon Lees conversation I have read the same magazine that printed that story and it's moot. He tried to look like dad but never had his fathers skill. This from the person responsible for his training at the end.
." When people say that JKD is dependent upon Bruce's attributes they ignore Bruce's own writings "We have two arms and two legs." JKD as Bruce taught it can already be adapted to different body types. If you lack flexibility, no problem. You don't have to kick over waste high for your kicks to be effective. If you you are small you can make up for your size through speed and sensitivity.

Again. One has to be careful as to what they share as Bruce's teaching, I don't believe he said this in its entirity. So after the arms comment it is opinion on interpritation. In truth. although kicking high is not reccomended, being able to enhanses attributes. What he did say in reality is that "if you are talking about real combat, then you better train your whole body" Flexibility is crucial. Just to pick on a few comments.
As far as creating something new, I don't know anyone has claimed to do that. Dan Inosanto never claimed this, Never. However an individuals personal discovery is as important and valid as anything created. If BJJ enhanses your game then it does and if JKD is the matrix that assist this then it is. The JKD matrix is the connective tissue that brings it all together. It is more than ranges it has to connect and flow. The concept of Flow is crucial. In this way one compliments the other.
As far as the traditional WC follow ups to the blast, maybe we have chosen not to use them because Kali provides more efficient follow ups in this range. Food for thought ? Maybe not.
"All time periods" Exactly who is able to teach them. There has not been an accumulation of OJKD Instructors so who holds this info. Dan was the ONLY one certified in all of the three arts Bruce taught.
I do agree that by not training in OJKD because of not having Bruce's attributes is missing the point. Attribute training is a point missed by most. In reality most people don't get this part and that is whay most don't train it. This is also whay most of these people can't really use it. They have great technique and tons of it with little attrubute development.
In some ways this is why OJKD people who refuse to look in other directions TOO have missed Bruce's boat to.

Hello IFAJKD,

First I think it's quite clear who I was responding to. But if you are unsure, I was responding to Cthulhu. More specifically I was responding to two ideas that he put forward.

1) A "painter" analogy for JKDC vs OJKD.
2) Whether or not someone without Bruce Lee's "attributes" can learn JFJKD.

And you are incorrect in your assertion that the Brandon Lee story is "moot". If anything you've further proved my point. Brandon Lee is genetically closer to Bruce Lee than most of the people who study BJJ are to Royce Gracie. It's not genetics, but work ethic that determines attributes. By "looking" like his dad Brandon had already aquired the muscular attributes. As far as his skill? Saying Brandon wasn't as skilled as Bruce does not reflect badly on Brandon. Brandon didn't even live as long as Bruce did! Also he didn't become as driven his father in pursuit of the martial arts until later in life. (Hence he didn't even try to develop the needed muscular attributes until he was filming Rapid Fire.) Who knows how skilled Brandon would have become if he had lived another 5 years?

As to your "point" about quoting Bruce Lee, notice that where I'm quoting Bruce I am using quotation marks! So clearly the rest of what I wrote is my own interpretation. That's common English usage! Also note that I never said that flexibility wasn't a good thing. But you don't have to be able to do the full splits to be able to do JKD. Someone who comes to the table without a great deal of flexibility shouldn't give up and go home and say "I'll never be able to get this because I don't have Bruce Lee's attributes. Maybe I should learn BJJ or boxing." He can work on his flexibility and still learn a functional self defense art while his flexibility is improving. It's the best of both worlds!

Now, you also said "As far as creating something new, I don't know anyone has claimed to do that." To this I have to ask have you been reading the same thread that I have been reading? The very start of this thread was an analogy that OJKD people are like painters who "reproduce images" and JKDC people are like painters who "create something original". That was the argument I was refuting. Also I agree with your assertion that Dan Inosanto never said that. There is a lot that is preached as "gospel" in the JKDC world that Dan Inosanto never said or did.

With regards to straightblast followups, what Kali followups can you do from the modified straightblast that you can't do from the WC straightblast? I would seriously like to know. I got this example from a conversation on another forum from someone who had asked for followups to the straightblast. I suggested a simple straight kick as the other guy was falling. This was the followup that Bruce used in his "11 second" fight with the karateka on the raquetball court. The person who asked the question couldn't "see" how you could follow up a straightblast with a straight kick. When he described his footwork to me I could see his problem. Like I said. When you make a modification to something, it's important to know the advantages and disadvantages of the change. I've been waiting (for years) for someone to tell me the advantage of doing the straightblast differently.

One other thing. I don't have a problem with someone "looking outside" of JFJKD for their own development. I do think that such things should be taught seperate in that case. (And from what I gather this is actually what Dan does, but he calls it "Jun Fan Gung Fu and Jun Fan Kickboxing" in his classes. On his tapes he calls it "Jun Fan Gung Fu and Jeet Kune Do kickboxing. The whole "original versus concepts" wars seem to boil down to nothing but terminology.) The problem that I've seen is where people violate the principles (conceps?) of JKD when adding something else and then call it JKDC. When people write articles about JKDC and say things like "Bruce wasn't exposed to modern arts such as Muy Thai or Savate" it makes me scratch my head and wonder if they even bothered reading the Tao of JKD. When they do photo sequences where they describe incorporating Muy Thai and say "first you chamber and kick then re-chamber and kick" it makes me scratch my head again. (Especially since the Thai folks say that you aren't supposed to chamber Thai kicks anyway.) If you can incorporate a new lock from BJJ or a new hand strike from Silat without totally compromising your JKD structure great. More power to you.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Originally posted by IFAJKD

OK. I have to bite here on a few things....First I am not sure who you are responding to. In any event, )One has to be careful how they interpret "adding to JKD". In my case, I am referring to the addition of skills and areas as an addition on it's own but not including it as "JKD". When I am teaching I am clear on what is concepts, original and other. Regarding Brandon Lees conversation I have read the same magazine that printed that story and it's moot. He tried to look like dad but never had his fathers skill. This from the person responsible for his training at the end.


Again. One has to be careful as to what they share as Bruce's teaching, I don't believe he said this in its entirity. So after the arms comment it is opinion on interpritation. In truth. although kicking high is not reccomended, being able to enhanses attributes. What he did say in reality is that "if you are talking about real combat, then you better train your whole body" Flexibility is crucial. Just to pick on a few comments.
As far as creating something new, I don't know anyone has claimed to do that. Dan Inosanto never claimed this, Never. However an individuals personal discovery is as important and valid as anything created. If BJJ enhanses your game then it does and if JKD is the matrix that assist this then it is. The JKD matrix is the connective tissue that brings it all together. It is more than ranges it has to connect and flow. The concept of Flow is crucial. In this way one compliments the other.
As far as the traditional WC follow ups to the blast, maybe we have chosen not to use them because Kali provides more efficient follow ups in this range. Food for thought ? Maybe not.
"All time periods" Exactly who is able to teach them. There has not been an accumulation of OJKD Instructors so who holds this info. Dan was the ONLY one certified in all of the three arts Bruce taught.
I do agree that by not training in OJKD because of not having Bruce's attributes is missing the point. Attribute training is a point missed by most. In reality most people don't get this part and that is whay most don't train it. This is also whay most of these people can't really use it. They have great technique and tons of it with little attrubute development.
In some ways this is why OJKD people who refuse to look in other directions TOO have missed Bruce's boat to.

Well John it's good to have opinions. The wc version straight blast as you seem to describe it is crap. JKD changed it to basically a 50mph (short) blast down centerline to apply pressure to be able to enter and apply major tools. Kali destructions are in short the most devestating and real techniques avalible at this range and wc has nothing on it. Can you apply them from the wc straight blast....? yeah ya can but the blast itself in this way is the problem. The effectiveness of the blast lies in how, when and why and follows with what's next. As for Chu's posts, actually he has shown more JKD understanding than many supposed JKD Istructors. You come on strong to support your apparent mother are, W.C. Look deeper, you may benefit.
As for Brandon Lee, He began training long before Rapid Fire. I think you read Black Belt too much. He had talent but he did not have his fathers talent and never would. (his as told by his main Instructor.) Work ethics can only in part determine attributes. You have to also have knowledge and a good understanding of what attributes are. Do you ? If Cthu was talking about JKDC people creating something original, then I believe he meant that we put things together in creative ways. These ways are functional ways as well. As far as creating a "new style" No I don't think so. As far as JKDC people preaching things that Dan Inosanto never said, well, the same can be said for OJKD people and WC people re Yip Man as well. Tell me more about this fight of Bruce's in the Raquette Ball Court...Where did this one come from. Joe Lewis? Mr. Weasly? You have some wild stories that you seem to have read somewhere. Again, you better check your source. Where did you read Bruce wasn't exposed to modern arts ? Who wrote that ? You say JKDC, I would like to know where. Bruce loved Savate and drew extensively from it. He loved Muay Thai and got excited about the conditioning. He even wrote about both systems. Common knowledge and any JKDC Instructor would know this. If they didn't well there are many frauds. There and OJKD as well. For example.....Where is your lineage ? Does it go back to Lewis or Beasly ? Ted ?
One more thing...The person who front kicks on a straight blast has missed the point.

Hello IFAJKD,

You say that I come on strong? Give me a break! I was simply sharing my thoughts. But apparently you're not interested in anything outside your own world view. Your loss. I never called the straightblast you do "crap". It's this type of BS talk that prevents JKD people from learning from each other and causes all of the misunderstandings. Oh, and I didn't say Brandon didn't start training before Rapid Fire. Please read more carefully before you respond. But he didn't start the intensive weight training before that film that he did for it. If he had he wouldn't have needed to ask someone else to help him "look like his dad." He already would! And no, I didn't get this from "Black Belt." And I agree that knowlege and understanding are important. You get knowlege and understanding from study. Study requires, you guessed it, work ethic.

One more thing, perhaps someone who follows up a straight blast with a straight kick doesn't get the point. But the karateka that was knocked out in 11 seconds certainly did.

Regards,

John M. Drake


Originally posted by IFAJKD

Well John it's good to have opinions. The wc version straight blast as you seem to describe it is crap. JKD changed it to basically a 50mph (short) blast down centerline to apply pressure to be able to enter and apply major tools. Kali destructions are in short the most devestating and real techniques avalible at this range and wc has nothing on it. Can you apply them from the wc straight blast....? yeah ya can but the blast itself in this way is the problem. The effectiveness of the blast lies in how, when and why and follows with what's next. As for Chu's posts, actually he has shown more JKD understanding than many supposed JKD Istructors. You come on strong to support your apparent mother are, W.C. Look deeper, you may benefit.
As for Brandon Lee, He began training long before Rapid Fire. I think you read Black Belt too much. He had talent but he did not have his fathers talent and never would. (his as told by his main Instructor.) Work ethics can only in part determine attributes. You have to also have knowledge and a good understanding of what attributes are. Do you ? If Cthu was talking about JKDC people creating something original, then I believe he meant that we put things together in creative ways. These ways are functional ways as well. As far as creating a "new style" No I don't think so. As far as JKDC people preaching things that Dan Inosanto never said, well, the same can be said for OJKD people and WC people re Yip Man as well. Tell me more about this fight of Bruce's in the Raquette Ball Court...Where did this one come from. Joe Lewis? Mr. Weasly? You have some wild stories that you seem to have read somewhere. Again, you better check your source. Where did you read Bruce wasn't exposed to modern arts ? Who wrote that ? You say JKDC, I would like to know where. Bruce loved Savate and drew extensively from it. He loved Muay Thai and got excited about the conditioning. He even wrote about both systems. Common knowledge and any JKDC Instructor would know this. If they didn't well there are many frauds. There and OJKD as well. For example.....Where is your lineage ? Does it go back to Lewis or Beasly ? Ted ?
One more thing...The person who front kicks on a straight blast has missed the point.

Every account I've read on the racquetball court fight describes it like this: the karateka launches a front kick at Lee, who parried it and proceeded to straight blast the karateka the length of the court. I've yet to see an account stating that Lee himself threw a kick of any sort. It was simply: parry -> straight blast -> busted karateka face.

Cthulhu

Originally posted by Cthulhu

Every account I've read on the racquetball court fight describes it like this: the karateka launches a front kick at Lee, who parried it and proceeded to straight blast the karateka the length of the court. I've yet to see an account stating that Lee himself threw a kick of any sort. It was simply: parry -> straight blast -> busted karateka face.

Cthulhu

Hello Cthulhu,

Here is the account as told by Jesse Glover.

=============================================
CAN YOU RECALL BRUCE'S FIGHT WITH THE KARATE GUY?

JG: This guy was always showing up at our demonstrations, and in one particular demo Bruce said soft styles were better than hard styles. This guy thought Bruce was attacking Karate when he was talking about gung fu. So then he used to stand in Bruce's way in school, and scowl at him from across the lunch room. One day Bruce caught me coming out of class, and said this guy had ticked him off, and they were going to fight. They wanted to fight at school, but I said that wasn't a good idea, so I set it up at the YMCA. We went down there, and talked about the rules which were two three minute rounds; if a guy got knocked down that would end the round, or if one of them couldn't continue then the other guy won the fight. So they squared off. At first the guy was in a classical karate stance, and then changed to a cat stance. He threw a front kick which brushed Bruce's shirt who then gong saued him, and then straight punched him across the room. The guy hit the wall, and tried to grab Bruce. Bruce spun and hit the guy in the chest and face. The guy flew through the air, and as soon as he hit the ground Bruce kicked him in the nose. The guy fell unconscious, and I yelled stop.
=============================================

And before anyone chimes in, yes in this account it does sound like the straight kick came a bit after the straight blast. In the "shortened" version of the account all I remember reading was about the straightblast and the kick. Sounds like a lot happened in 11 seconds. :)

Regards,

John M. Drake

Originally posted by jmdrake

The guy flew through the air, and as soon as he hit the ground Bruce kicked him in the nose.

This sounds to me like the karateka landed on his back and was stomp kicked rather than front kicked, unless "hit the ground" means he landed on his feet after flying through the air then being front kicked in te face. I'd take it as he fell and was given a stomp or very low front kick.

Please, keep the discussion polite and respectful.

-Arnisador
-MT MOd-

Originally posted by arnisador

Please, keep the discussion polite and respectful.

-Arnisador
-MT MOd-

Hello Arnisador,

That's cool. I'd much rather discuss than argue anyday. It's interesting that one of the most polite "concepts versus original" discussions took place at Dan Inosanto's own forum.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Originally posted by arnisador



This sounds to me like the karateka landed on his back and was stomp kicked rather than front kicked, unless "hit the ground" means he landed on his feet after flying through the air then being front kicked in te face. I'd take it as he fell and was given a stomp or very low front kick.

Good point. That might have been a stomp kick. Although I aways envisioned that he landed with his back against the wall in a sort of "slouch" position. But it could have been either way.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Originally posted by jmdrake

Although I aways envisioned that he landed with his back against the wall in a sort of "slouch" position.

I hadn't considered that but I can see it. Then a front kick might have been not very high but still hit him in the face and would seem to me a logical followup technique (though I've only been studying JKD since January so I am not very schooled in the theory of what should follow what--just that one should try to get into HKE range).

It's another victim of the long day late night post (late for me) I really try to avoid coming off the way I did. John. Apologies. I do have to explain that I do keep things respectful until I see posts that are condesending and then I get my hackles up. John I saw your two posts as opinionated and condesending so I responded. Sorry. Hope no hard feelings. As far as the 11 sec. fight goes....Some of these were preserved on film and when you see Bruce Blast it is quite different than even a WC would expect. As far as the OJKD vs JKDC people go. well I have had many discussions on this that were very respectful. My problem came with those people in the OJKD arena that began to attack Dan Inosanto...Before you go on this one...NO I didn't hear you do this. Also I am a bit of a product of PV who is quite the fighter and opinions run rampant. Again, sorry. I own my mistakes and will work on the attack mode I get into when I read certain things. By the way I am very very open as a martial artist to new ideas and systems. I have trained in many of them and have taken from each one. For me it's only what works in a fight on one of several levels of force.
:argue: :cheers:

Hello IFAJKD,

First off re-reading my posts I see how I might have come off that way, though that wasn't my intention. So, no hard feelings from my side of the fence either. For the record I come from a LD background and when it comes to opinions LD and PV are like "unstoppable force meets immovable object." ;) I agree with you that some of the stuff said about Dan Inosanto has been "counterproductive" to say the least. Also the more I've personally read about him the more I've come to the conclusion that he's been misunderstood and misquoted by many people, some with good intentions and some who even considered themselves "followers" of him. I guess Bruce had the same problem. Like teacher like student? :)

Regards,

John M. Drake

For the record I come from a LD background and when
it comes to opinions LD and PV are like "unstoppable force meets
immovable object."

For whom does LD stand for? Sorry, don't know all of the people.

Bryan

Originally posted by bscastro



For whom does LD stand for? Sorry, don't know all of the people.

Bryan

Hello bscastro,

LD is my Sifu, Lamar Davis.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Thanks.

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?

See:
http://www.martialtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2274
http://www.martialtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649

Arnisador,
Sounds like chain punches to me.

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.

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.

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

Thanks,
I'll toast to that!!

So who won the fight? Surely the Karate guy right? Knocking your opponent out between rounds has got to be against the rules.


We went down there, and talked about the rules which were two three minute rounds; if a guy got knocked down that would end the round
......
The guy flew through the air, and as soon as he hit the ground Bruce kicked him in the nose. The guy fell unconscious, and I yelled stop.


Looks like round one was over. Tut, tut, tut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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.