Simularity I've Noticed Between JKD and All Martial Arts

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

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

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

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

 

I think that these expressions both comprise a very thoughtful meta-view over martial arts as disciplines. I would agree with these and thank you for your insight.

I am a great advocate of Bruce Lee's philosophical approach. Nobody quite encapsulated the modern and traditional martial philosophy in the same way. I think though that the apparent truth in your statements perhaps arises from a partisan or perhaps narrow view? I think there are other arts as well as JKD (and often prior to JKD) which, like JKD, also insist upon a core value-based philosophy and express that philosophy physically. I can only speak to my own art which is Aikido.

 

I wouldnt put down discovering that different Arts suit different People to JKD - I figured that out just by perusing a few Systems until I found what Im doing now.

And the sheer number of Kung Fu Systems available now and in the past dictate that one could choose between Northern Styles, favoring Ranged Fighting (Not Always. Im stroking a broad brush), or Souther Styles favoring Close Fighting.
Then the Japanese had JJ, Karate in all its many forms, Aikido, and so forth.

The choice has always been avaliable. Its just that now, We perhaps read into it a little further than in the past. In the past, it was "Im gonna go learn Martial Arts".
Now its, "Im gonna go learn *Insert System*".

You are correct about each System being a different form of Thinking. And someone whos own form of Thinking is compatible will excel.

Just dont let Your Love of a Martial Art thats only been around since Bruce Lee act as a strut for Your Realization of an Intricacy of Martial Arts in general
Hold the Viewpoint of its own merit. And remember that as much as the Physical may be an expression, that You can express those same things without Training. And that in application, You are not communicating to another Person. You are Applying it against Them.

 

I wouldn't consider myself a JKD practioner anymore than I am a wing-chun; I have studied the system, surveyed the techniques, taken what I found to work for me, and plugged in the rest. I admire it for what it espouses in terms of thought, but understand I hail from a style which holds roots in daoist principles which go back to before Christ. I do not think martial arts has changed much from its beginning, save in perhaps the last hundreds, to two-hundred years, and especially so in this new millenium.

I feel, in part, martial arts is a response to an environ; hence why parkour exists today in our modern, huge mega-cities, as opposed to when buildings were limited in height by technology.

For me the exchange of information between individuals, which has to occur to fight, to know where to find an opening, move toward, in doing so, alert the opponent of that opening, even if it's after the fact.

I suppose, to some, fighting may not be communicating. But sparring is; going a round with a trusted teammate or classmate is communication.

And I have to think when I reem someone with a lion swipe-palm, it's because of a certain thought, and I am imposing my will, and stance upon the other. They can take it or leave it, and most choose the latter I believe. It's what tends to be the case.

 

I would expect one to see a Simularity between JKD and All Martial Arts since it was developed by taking from multiple martial arts. As to the philosophy of it that to does not surprise me since Bruce Lee studied Philosophy and used what he knew to develope JKD. However I am not so sure he would approve of it today. I am not saying that it is not good art since I beleive it is a good MA. I am saying that it is now a "style: and it appears to be getting a bit codified which was nto what Bruce Lee wanted from what I can gather from what I read. Basically

 

I agree with your statement completely. A codified set of techniques would have abhorred Bruce Ree.

 

Just My Contribution.

 

Im a history major at the college I attend, so excuse me when I go off tangents, please. That being said, I think it is important that philosophies, which are meta- martial arts, are only now really beginning to develop.

As did Tae Kwon Do in the 90s, and Karate in the 70s, and so on and so forth. And?

I've found this not to be true. I often use back stance, in addition to front stance when striking. Cat stance, among others. You just need to find the stances which work for you. I find myself using horse stance a loooooooot more than I would have expected.

 

Have you been in a lot of fights?

 

I fail to see the relevance. Do you mean sparring, then like you, thousands of times. Do you mean being mugged? Twice. I was fortunate both times to get away relatively unscathed.

D.C. isn't the nicest of places.

 

Fascinating. Tell me, which techniques did you use against your muggers? And FYI, I have not sparred 'thousands' of times. I've only been training for 3 1/2 years, I'm a novice, just a Ni-Kyu (2nd Degree Brown Belt), and I have only one style, Isshin-Ryu. I can only wish that I had so much experience as you.

 

*Karate Systems, I mean. And all the other ones, except the ones that dont.

 

My apologies for my err, the titles on here are missleading at times to me.

Ishin Ryu is a martial art I've enjoyed sparring against, and have learned elements of, though not to the degree of Shotokan and Okinawan. It's well rounded, with a good core doctrine. I suppose that's all I have to say about that fact you put out.

I do not think experience correlates to ability or insight, though I mean that of course in relation to time.

True, but we're seeing less of an importation of martial arts, and more innovation since, honestly, I'd say near the turn of the millennium.

touche, I must admit that in Bagua the majority of the time is spent in a 'walking stance'.

 

No problem. My 'Grandmaster' title applies to how many times I've posted here, not my martial arts ranking. You can see all on my profile. Like everyone, I am honest about my training and the belts I hold and in what styles. It would be dishonorable of me to mislead you.

I'm glad you approve of Isshin-Ryu, that puts my heart at ease. I'm unfamiliar with a style named "Okinawan," though. Can you tell me more about this style and where you learned it?

 

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

 

Zenjael, would English not be your first language by any chance? I ask because of various comments and use of words that I think might be causing a little confusion.

 

Unfortunately it is, and I like to think I am a decent writer. It has been awhile since I've been on forums, and I'm trying to couch what I say as politely as possible, and I think the result is a lot of what I'm typing is coming out stilted. However, difference of opine has already caused some to practically jump down my throat, so I hope you'll excuse me as I get back up to speed with online communication while attempting to avoid confrontation.

 

I write as I speak but I have the advantage of speaking' English' English* ! Martial artists I think are by definition a fiesty lot and I don't think they are jumping down your throat so much as being forceful in their arguments. Argue your points back, don't call people names or insult people and you'll be fine. I'm the least confrontational person here...why are you guys throwing stuff at me?... roflmao...just have a read of how people write up on here, if in doubt there's mentors who'll help just look at the top left bit where people usernames and MT 'rank' are. If you go across to the Meet and Greet section and introduce yourself it would be good, you'll get a proper welcome there.


*Sits back and waits for the arguments to begin LOL! Even President Obama was trying to speak English yesterday!

 

What is it in JKD's philosophy which leads you to believe it can benefit eveyone's ability to fight? And by everyone, we must assume you are including non-practicioners of JKD. So what do you think an Isshin-ryu stylist would benefit from JKD philosophy, without changing the techniques or tactics which make their style of karate unique and distinctive from say Goju-ryu or Shotokan?

 

The concept of reactive, instinctual responses to attacks on the person, to react faster I think, in its own words, would benefit everyone.

JKD espouses no techniques. People claiming to practice, and teach a 'style' of JKD really are doing a variant of Wing-Chun, in my opine. JKD espouses a mindset of self-defense, and reacting to stimuli quickly enough that one can nullify the situation with a pre-emptive strike, which was reactionary. I don't see why internalizing JKD would ever necessitate the alteration of techniques, save perhaps in its espousing of efficiency, in where blocks are simultaneous attacks, and vice-versa.123