Bruce Lee, Jun Fan Gung Fu/Wing Chun

Dancing Dragon

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Location
Grandview, Missouri
I think I remember reading up on a Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum. I'm not too certain whether or not it was Bruce Lee's curriculum or another student of his art, but I'll post it when I find it
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
436
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Dancing Dragon said:
I think I remember reading up on a Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum. I'll post it when I find it.

Thanks, I appreciate that! I'm getting to do more and more of it where I am training but it's a mixed WC/Jun Fan/JKD class and I don't always know what is from where!
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
50
Location
San Jose, Ca.
arnisador said:
Thanks, I appreciate that! I'm getting to do more and more of it where I am training but it's a mixed WC/Jun Fan/JKD class and I don't always know what is from where!

We don't have to look very far. This isn't like you. I would of thought, that if anybody you would of found this. Any way, I remembered it.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3408
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
436
Location
Terre Haute, IN
You're right, I do usually remember those! I had forgotten all about it but it's just what I'm looking for, so thanks!
 

achilles

Green Belt
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
111
Reaction score
3
There is no agreed upon curriculum for Jun Fan or JKD among the different camps. Some have more in common than others, but there isn't really a standard. Most of what I teach comes from Dan Inosanto and Jeff Westfall, but when it comes to the lead punch I tend to emphasize what I learned from a training session with Tim Tacket. The grappling we do tends to segue into Erik Paulson's material as well. I also supplement the trapping we do with some ecclectic wing chun. We emphasize the original material while adding to areas that were less developed in the 60's and 70's.
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
50
Location
San Jose, Ca.
Jun Fan Gung Fu is standardized, just not so much for Inosanto's Jun Fan. Most of the 1st generation students teach a "similar" JFGF but not exact. Dan is on his own page. Nothing wrong with that. Even Tim Tacket will agree with the "standard" JFGF.
 

achilles

Green Belt
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
111
Reaction score
3
I don't think that is the case. I'll give you some examples:

A lot of instructors who stick to the original material still teach things differently. Bob Bremmer teaches a diagonal fist, as does Inosanto when asked specifically, while Jerry Poteet teaches a vertical fist. Some instructors make a big deal about the immoveable elbow, but others like Ted Wong teach their students to keep their elbow virtually touching their ribs. Some teachers include some grappling while others contend that JKD is purely a striking art. There is also debate on 3rd hand striking tactics and whether the wedging bil gee is part of the art or not.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
436
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I've noticed that whether the wedging, seeking, etc. of WC is in JKD or not varies by org. But i didn't know that some used a diagonal fist! I do know that many use the slightly protuding index knuckle.
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
50
Location
San Jose, Ca.
achilles said:
I don't think that is the case. I'll give you some examples:

A lot of instructors who stick to the original material still teach things differently. Bob Bremmer teaches a diagonal fist, as does Inosanto when asked specifically, while Jerry Poteet teaches a vertical fist. Some instructors make a big deal about the immoveable elbow, but others like Ted Wong teach their students to keep their elbow virtually touching their ribs. Some teachers include some grappling while others contend that JKD is purely a striking art. There is also debate on 3rd hand striking tactics and whether the wedging bil gee is part of the art or not.

I think we are not on the same page as to the definition of "standardized."

At this time a lot of Instructors are discussing this very topic to help themselves get on the "same page." In the discussion and as I use the word "standardized" it is meant as the "base core" of technique.

In JFGF and JFJKD, everything is expandable and under interpatation of the individual instructors. But the base core or standardization is the issue at hand and it does exist. It could be thought of as the "minimum" of technique that would be considered JFGF.

I don't beleive that your examples fall under standardization but are legitimate as the differances of JFGF.
 

brothershaw

Purple Belt
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
332
Reaction score
6
Location
New York
achilles said:
I can see that if what you want is wing chun then you should probably do wing chun. I think this is analogous to criticizing American Football for not being rugby. They are simply different. Jun Fan and Wing Chun are similar in some respects, but if they are not meant to be the same. I constantly see the argument that if Bruce Lee had learned the whole wing chun program that we never would have left. While I can't refute this, indeed nobody can, it doesn't seem likely. Most of what Bruce Lee did with Jun Fan and later with JKD was add long and middle range skills along with some grappling for close quarters. In other words, the wing chun was modified, added to and in some instances stripped away. As far as whether or not siu lim tao is essential to JKD, or chi sao for that matter, I would say no. Being able to properly do tan sao, fook sao and boang sao with the correct pressure doesn't necessarily entail learning the particular sequence of the siu lim tao form. In other words, I don't need to learn the alphabet in that particular sequence in order to spell or to learn proper syntax.

.

Here the thing if somebody wants to fight you ( with out a gun or knife) they have to make contact. Regardless of what distance they prefer, once they make contact, with wing chun you should ride in(bridge). I do understand that that apporach of closing the gap and working in close where you will end up eventually whether you want to or not isnt everybodys game. Some find wing chun "range" or close quarters not for them. Basically I guess Lee wanted more options for ranges which is cool. That however doesnt make what he did an improvement of wing chun as some people really love to claim. And there are other styles that cover a variety of ranges that were around b4 jkd.
Live and active resistance is always a plus in training. Alot of people seem to go the extremes on forms, either discount them altogether or think they are everything when forms are just part of the puzzle.
As much as people do knock forms and tma they still punch the heavy bag thousands of times , kick pads thousands of times, roll on the mat for years etc. So no matter what you call it or how you sequence it you have still have do repetitive motions for YEARS to develop good skills/ reactions. So far nobody outside of the matrix has found a way around that.
 

Cthulhu

Senior Master
Founding Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 1, 2001
Messages
4,526
Reaction score
27
Location
Florida
I think it's been a while since I posted in here on a topic like this...

Anyhoo...

Sometimes, and this is my personal opinion, I think Bruce Lee didn't have a problem with forms, per se, but with the way many martial artists of his era viewed forms as the 'be all, end all' of martial arts and combat.

As mentioned before, he practiced the Wing Chun forms he knew frequently, and from an account I've read, tried to film Yip Man's wooden dummy form. He was also good at performing forms from other systems competently in a short amount of time.

So, in my mind, on some level he saw value in the forms, but not in the way they were being taught.

I'm sure I'll change my mind on this in a week...of just completely forget I even typed this in about 10 minutes.

Cthulhu
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,560
Reaction score
436
Location
Terre Haute, IN
He did teach the first WC form in Jun Fan Gung Fu, but dropped ot for JKD, I think...but I have long thought as you do. I think he reacted more to how people viewed forms, in a magical sense, than to the forms themselves, which he seems to have seen some level of value in.
 

kroh

Brown Belt
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
403
Reaction score
8
Location
Rhode Island, USA
Cthulhu said:
Sometimes, and this is my personal opinion, I think Bruce Lee didn't have a problem with forms, per se, but with the way many martial artists of his era viewed forms as the 'be all, end all' of martial arts and combat

I think that is a valid way to look at it. A lot of times in anything ( not just martial arts) many who read things after the fact forget to put what they read into context. Some one could say something that is derogitory or make no sense in our day and age and it could have been a totally accepted precept from their time.

Great thread full of non-politcal info.
Regards,
Walt
 
OP
G

guitarac311

Guest
upstanding dragon, you need to understand why bruce lee didnt want it to be a style. The number 1 weakness you have in fighting is a person knowing what style you are using. JKD is just a set of principles really, roughly they say that knowing how to fight effectivly and knowing how to do it on a reaction, was superior to every other style.
 
Top