Discussion in 'JKD / Jeet Kune Do' started by Flatlander, Sep 19, 2004.
Are you a "concepts" or a"Jun Fan" JKD'er?
Whats the difference between the 2? I dont study jkd so I dont know.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Most of my training has come from the Inosanto school of thought, and as such I have had healthy doses of both Bruce Lee's material and the more contemporary cross-training perspective. I guess by association I'm a "concepts" man, but I fight right lead, use interception, use longest weapon to closest target, use chung chuies and juk teks, and express many other so-called "OJKD" features. According to my Sifu, JKDC and OJKD are two sides of the same coin. Bruce Lee's original teachings are my main area of concentration, but I think there are a lot of other usefull lessons to be learned. About 85% of my repetoire is JKD, but there are tactics and tools from submission wrestling have helped my understanding of grappling, refining certain JKD elements and covering areas that JKD originally did not. In the field of weapons, Kali is my main influence (fencing to some degree as well), but I approach it in a very JKD format (quality over quantity, interception in long range, broken rhythm, etc.). Personally, I think that anyone who claims to express JKD should be educated in the art of JKD.
You might find this interesting. When I was a Korean karate student in the 1960's I remember that we thought that Bruce Lee taught (g)kung fu. No karate man wanted to learn "kung fu", at least not at the time. Bruce asked some of his students like Joe Lewis to list as their art JKD (Bruce's system of non-classical gung fu) when they registered for a tournament. They wouldn't do it because ,like I said no self respecting karate man would change to Kung Fu. Times have changed haven't they?
Years later a magazine editor asked me to travel to Charlotte NC to write an article on Larry Hartsell's JKD club. Once thare I was introduced to Dan Inosanto. Over the next five years I wrote dozens of articles about what Dan had termed the JKD "Concept. My 1988 book "The JKD Experience" highlighted the concepts method. All the time it was becomming evident that this concepts JKD was not exactly like the JKD that Bruce demonstrated and taught. As JKD columnists for Karate International from 1989-1995 I received far too many requests for information on what was then being called Bruce Lee's JKD. So here we had an interest in what physical skills Bruce taught versus the "New" JKD that I had promoted as the "Concepts method". In the concepts the "Chinese" influence had been replaced by the "Filipino" influence. Both worked.
Both were JKD, just different.
I remembered that in the early 1990's the Coca Cola Company had a similar experience. The "Coke" product had been around for years. To compete with the sweeter tasting Pepsi Cola, Coke decided to change their formula. Thus was conceived the concept of "New Coke". Perhaps you remember it. Everyone benefited. More people were drinking Coke. Some liked New Coke. Others liked "ORIGINAL" Coke. I thought why not promote the idea of "Original JKD"!!!!!
I began to write about "Original JKD" in my columns. In 1990 I helped conceive an article for IKF magazine calling for a return to the Roots of the Original Art.
In 1993 I partnered with former Bruce Lee students Ted Wong and Howard Williams to promote the first "Original JKD" camp in Radford VA. Many others had by then entered the Original JKD school. And it stuck. You had the Inosanto influenced JKD Concept which was Bruce Lee's JKD at a highly evolved level. Keep in mind that Dan Inosanto is a martial arts genius certainly able to continue and advance the art once designed by his mentor. Guys like the very talented Paul Vunak were promoting the concepts. And you had increasing numbers now interested in bypassing the kail/Thai etc arts and going straight for the physical skills once practiced and taught by Bruce Lee. Both were the same yet different. It's the diference in defining JKD as "no art as art" and "no way as way". Maybe someone will ask me about that.
Because of the return to Original JKD almost all students formerly trained by Bruce Lee were now being contracted to teach that which Bruce Lee had taught them. Every one benefited. There was more JKD and more of an audience interested in what Bruce Lee taught. Until one group decided that they should be the only true expression of JKD.
I equally support both original (OJKD) and the JKD Concepts (JKDC).
Since I have no JKD school nor have I ever wanted to teach physical skills and identify them as JKD I have no reason to oppose either side. In fact it could be argued that since Bruce closed his JKD kwoons in 1971 and disbanded the practice, JKD more accurately reflects (is )a philosophy...a way to find liberation from the limitations imposed by fixed styles.
I have looked over this site and found much misinformation regarding me and my connection to JKD. I'll bet there will be some questions. Please no name calling.......even if you think I deserve it.
Black Belt Magazine
Hall of Fame
Instructor of the Year 2000
Good post. I don't feel that there is any good reason to prefer OJKD over concepts or vice versa either. The fact is there are not enough people doing it, so, the more, the merrier!
I consider myself more of a concepts person. I did that and some kali for awhile, but now I'm working on my standing grappling by training in Combat Hapkido. I just like the philosophy behind JKD, and never really got into the whole "it must be this way or that way".
The so-called "concepts" approach really is just an extention of the original. At its heart, the concepts approach is research and development. This can be applied to both the original material as well as the assimilation of new material, both within reason. I've trained with some people whose idea of research and development was to refine their fundamental techniques, and others who have looked to make their art more complete. Some seek depth and others seek breadth. Ideally we could simultaneously do both, but most of us will have to seek balance between the two and cope. On one hand, if your fundamental tools are weak, you will lack the ability to perform at the required level in combat. On the other, if you you get to attached to one skill set it is likely that you will be weak in another; a weakness that may be easily exploited. These are the potential problems as I see it in being on either pole of the OJKD vs. JKDC debate. Either extreme, as far as all out combat goes, seems to fall short. Each practitioner must find a balance.
I practice Concepts as it contains OJKD within it.
I just finished a rather long post for the thread "something I've been pondering". Much of what I said applies to this post as well. It may help members better understand the OJKD/JKDC definitions.
You all fail!
The answer too "which way?" is "no way"!
Now Go copy out the Tao of JKD 50 times from front to back....
Although it is not listed in my "arts" bit, I do JKD as well. It is not listed there because.... I don't consider it an art. Rather it is an approach of my own, to Martial Arts, which Bruce Lee shared and popularized before I was born. This makes me a "concepts" guy, I guess and I have voted as such, for what it is worth. However, I would tend to also say what has already been said "Concepts includes Jun Fan JKD". After all, we supposedly research all arts and take the "best of breed" from everything we meet, right? And Bruce has plenty to teach in that regard. I personally find his personal training régime to be well worth studying and adapting - he was very innovative and many of his ideas are similar to Choi's on "Theory of Power", for example and the general approach is alive and well today in the 'combatives'.
Just my thoughts...
You have the right idea. The USA has always been known as a melting pot society. We take the best from other cultures and develope an uniquely "American" way of life. In the 1960's Americans like Chuck Norris and Joe Lewis began to mix the various styles in tournaments. Ed Parker had already began a new kempo system based on "using what works". By 1967 Bruce Lee had entered the picture with his JKD approach. The theme of 1960's American Karate was "Use what works" regardless of the source. Today most independent thinking martial artists have adapted this same philosophy. JKD, whether original or concepts is about achieveing freedom from fixed styles. It's an American ideal. No wonder it's so popular among martial artists of all styles.
Well a) I am not American, as you might work out from my location... although since most of your names are taken from the UK anyway...
b) That approach is centuries old.. but every so often things become dogmatic again until someone / some group revisits the old idea of "Use what works, drop what don't, look at others for inspiration"
 Added below
P.S. I am not saying 'American' (US) is bad, or denying anything you said. Re-read it and realized it might come over that way ;¬)
Having No Way as a Way?????
There really is no "O" or "C" they are "@" halves of the "whole" both incomplete without each other. Bruce said:
"If people say Jeet Kune Do is different from "this" or from "that," then let the name of Jeet Kune Do be wiped out, for that is what it is, just a name. Please don't fuss over it."
We are one JKD family, some good, some bad, some strong, some weak, always DIFFERANT but one JKD family!
I agree with you on that akja, JKD is just well, JKD. The core is still intact, the only thing different is the interpretations that one might have and because of that, will take it in different directions. Now don't confuse this with freely interpreting JKD but I'm more advocating of the deep investigation of this core that is JKD; understanding why the things, and how the things make up JKD what it is.
I guess I do both, for I began training by referencing his books, and by training with a Jun Fan kickboxing instructor In Arizona. But I am now getting certification in Original as well, but I use concepts, and original together, so its one universal training of the entire JKD system. I thyink its good to cross train them both so you get the whole picture of the material Bruce Himself taught, and what his art has progressed into with the times.
I was taught abit of JKD by my boyfriend and I found it extremely difficult. All the hand manipulations and such were hard to manuever. Maybe it's cause I started out in TKD or something, I dunno. I picked up TKD alot easier but I know JKD is more practical. I'm sticking with TKD for now but might get back into JKD later as Bruce Lee is my hero! Peace!
JKD is actually very simple at its core. All the complexities come from different arrangements of the basics. One of my biggest revelations about trapping is that there are really only five basic traps (along with a couple of variations). A good JKD program will hand things in a progressive manner, but the basics, like in pretty much any art, are the most important. For my own training it's side kicks and straight leads, practicing speed, power and form.
The real sophistication is in learning to control the timing and distance.
Hello, Each of you are right if it is that's the way you learn it. We all follow our tearchers' way. because that is the way he remember it. Many of the JKD instructors learn things from Bruce Lee at different times. Bruce was always changing and learning at the same time. What do you think? ...my thoughts only....aloha123
Separate names with a comma.