Is JKD a philosophy that can be applied independently?

skribs

skribs127 148

Grandmaster
I'll admit, out of all of the martial arts I've researched online, JKD is probably the one I have the least knowledge about. I've gone down the rabbit holes on some of the more obscure arts (like Bagua Zhang), but less so on JKD. My understanding is fairly simple:
  1. There is the philosophy of JKD, which is essentially take your martial arts and apply continuous learning, monitoring, and improvement of the techniques and strategies.
  2. There is the art of JKD, which is basically copying the results of Bruce Lee's personal journey on the JKD philosophy (i.e. his techniques that he approved of from Wing Chun and his additions from other arts) as the basics of the art, and then asks advanced students to take part in the philosophy of JKD and make it their own.
Regarding the philosophy of JKD, is that something that would seem to require guidance from a JKD teacher or mentor? Or is that something that could be applied independently.

In my situation, I have extensive experience in TKD and HKD, am becoming advanced in BJJ, and also am dabbling a bit in wrestling, kickboxing, Muay Thai, and MMA. My overall style favors TKD and BJJ, with less coming from HKD (because there's less opportunities to spar or play with the techniques, in the way I've trained it) and less coming from the arts I'm dabbling in.

I've played around with how to mix things together. I wouldn't necessarily call it MMA, because that has a specific sport connotation to it. MMA, while technically defined as mixing multiple martial arts together, functionally serves as a vessel for sanctioned, unarmed, 1-on-1 fights. I believe JKD is not specialized towards this specific situation, which makes it something that can apply more generally.

Would my journey be considered JKD? Or is it not JKD because I'm not necessarily following the specific teachings of Bruce Lee and/or have a mentor in JKD who's gone through this journey and is applying the philosophy that's been passed down through generations of teaching?
 
giphy.gif
 
skribs said:
I'll admit, out of all of the martial arts I've researched online, JKD is probably the one I have the least knowledge about. I've gone down the rabbit holes on some of the more obscure arts (like Bagua Zhang), but less so on JKD. My understanding is fairly simple:
  1. There is the philosophy of JKD, which is essentially take your martial arts and apply continuous learning, monitoring, and improvement of the techniques and strategies.
  2. There is the art of JKD, which is basically copying the results of Bruce Lee's personal journey on the JKD philosophy (i.e. his techniques that he approved of from Wing Chun and his additions from other arts) as the basics of the art, and then asks advanced students to take part in the philosophy of JKD and make it their own.
Regarding the philosophy of JKD, is that something that would seem to require guidance from a JKD teacher or mentor? Or is that something that could be applied independently.

In my situation, I have extensive experience in TKD and HKD, am becoming advanced in BJJ, and also am dabbling a bit in wrestling, kickboxing, Muay Thai, and MMA. My overall style favors TKD and BJJ, with less coming from HKD (because there's less opportunities to spar or play with the techniques, in the way I've trained it) and less coming from the arts I'm dabbling in.

I've played around with how to mix things together. I wouldn't necessarily call it MMA, because that has a specific sport connotation to it. MMA, while technically defined as mixing multiple martial arts together, functionally serves as a vessel for sanctioned, unarmed, 1-on-1 fights. I believe JKD is not specialized towards this specific situation, which makes it something that can apply more generally.

Would my journey be considered JKD? Or is it not JKD because I'm not necessarily following the specific teachings of Bruce Lee and/or have a mentor in JKD who's gone through this journey and is applying the philosophy that's been passed down through generations of teaching?
Click to expand...
GIGCX7C.gif
 
In true philosophy fashion, here's a question to your question. :)

What's the name JKD worth to you? Because, as far as I can see, it's really only worth something to the larger public. In other words, if you're just using the idea of JKD to guide your thinking, use the name or don't. It doesn't really matter. (Even Lee himself said it's just a name.) But if you're planning on turning around and "teaching JKD," that quickly becomes another matter.

Even those people who can directly trace their lineage back to Bruce Lee get into arguments about what constitutes real JKD and the "right" to teach it. I've seen, since the 80s, a handful of people with more tenuous claims to the name go ahead and use it. With mixed results, I'd say. But I'd also say that the name holds less cache now than it did in the 80s when I started.

This is just me personally (having spent a little time in JKD circles) but I'm more interested in who someone trained with, which makes the name less relevant. I've trained in Guro Dan Inosanto's lineage but found myself less interested in the name JKD than in synthesising some of the influences. I'm still primarily an FMA guy in my own head, but I definitely draw from the kickboxing, etc. that I was exposed to in that time.

What do I call that? Don't know really. Also don't care that much, because I'm not currently trying to sell it to anyone else (either conceptually or literally). When I was teaching, I said it was FMA (which already draws from a lot of influences) and left it at that.

I agree with you about MMA having specific connotations. And I believe it should. The wave of people claiming to teach MMA because their style was a blend of two or more other styles seemed disingenuous to me. MMA has taken on a very specific and widely recognised meaning. As names should, or what's the point of a name?

Really it sounds like your concern is around how you represent yourself to the viewing public. And I don't have a very elegant answer to that. Creating your own style and naming it doesn't, to my mind, carry much cache either, without the reputation to back it up. I was never going to tell GM Cacoy Canete that "eskrido" wasn't a thing because the man was a legend. But lesser known martial artists face a different challenge there.

If taekwondo and BJJ are your base, then that's simple enough to say. I wonder if you wouldn't be better served by an "elevator pitch" than attaching yourself to a name that makes you uneasy. "I teach taekwondo, informed by my background in BJJ, muay thai, etc." Simple enough, right?

If I heard someone using the name JKD, I'd be expecting some connection to either branch of JKD. I wouldn't mind which one, but I'd be leery if I learned that the instructor wasn't clearly connected to either one.

Does that make sense?
 
Itā€™s simply what we do in life anyway, we absorb what is useful and discard what is not and add uniquely what is your own.
 
ap Oweyn said:
What's the name JKD worth to you? Because, as far as I can see, it's really only worth something to the larger public. In other words, if you're just using the idea of JKD to guide your thinking, use the name or don't. It doesn't really matter. (Even Lee himself said it's just a name.) But if you're planning on turning around and "teaching JKD," that quickly becomes another matter.
Click to expand...
Really it sounds like your concern is around how you represent yourself to the viewing public. And I don't have a very elegant answer to that. Creating your own style and naming it doesn't, to my mind, carry much cache either, without the reputation to back it up. I was never going to tell GM Cacoy Canete that "eskrido" wasn't a thing because the man was a legend. But lesser known martial artists face a different challenge there.
Click to expand...
Piecing these two quotes together because they seem a continuation of the same thought.

My purpose is threefold:
  1. Understand a bit more about JKD, because I am admittedly ignorant on the subject.
  2. See if there's any marketability in the idea. I think a lot of folks in online discussions tend to undervalue marketability in running an effective school. Having more students means more training partners, more future leaders, and with better financial stability it allows the owner and instructors to focus more energy into the school.
  3. How it pertains to online discussions. Often folks will have a gatekeeping attitude towards martial artists who are outside of their circle of influence. I remember until I trained BJJ and Muay Thai, a lot of those folks (and MMA folks in general) just dismissed everything I said because I'm not a part of their culture. In fact, even the other day, I was talking to one of the black belts at my BJJ gym, told him that I hit a HKD takedown in a roll the other day. His attitude was, "Yeah, but who'd you hit it on?" When I name-dropped another black belt, he didn't really have an answer to that.
ap Oweyn said:
If taekwondo and BJJ are your base, then that's simple enough to say. I wonder if you wouldn't be better served by an "elevator pitch" than attaching yourself to a name that makes you uneasy. "I teach taekwondo, informed by my background in BJJ, muay thai, etc." Simple enough, right?
Click to expand...
I was thinking "Brazilian Taekwondo" but that would imply that I'm Brazilian. So that's wrong for a Brazilian reasons...
ap Oweyn said:
If I heard someone using the name JKD, I'd be expecting some connection to either branch of JKD. I wouldn't mind which one, but I'd be leery if I learned that the instructor wasn't clearly connected to either one.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.
 
skribs said:
I think this forum is a lot less pedantic than it used to be. I think the pedants have either grown out of it or lost interest.
Click to expand...
How very dare you! Pedantry is the basis of English culture and I will fight for the right of anyone to be pedantic. šŸ˜‘
 
skribs said:
Piecing these two quotes together because they seem a continuation of the same thought.

My purpose is threefold:
  1. Understand a bit more about JKD, because I am admittedly ignorant on the subject.
  2. See if there's any marketability in the idea. I think a lot of folks in online discussions tend to undervalue marketability in running an effective school. Having more students means more training partners, more future leaders, and with better financial stability it allows the owner and instructors to focus more energy into the school.
  3. How it pertains to online discussions. Often folks will have a gatekeeping attitude towards martial artists who are outside of their circle of influence. I remember until I trained BJJ and Muay Thai, a lot of those folks (and MMA folks in general) just dismissed everything I said because I'm not a part of their culture. In fact, even the other day, I was talking to one of the black belts at my BJJ gym, told him that I hit a HKD takedown in a roll the other day. His attitude was, "Yeah, but who'd you hit it on?" When I name-dropped another black belt, he didn't really have an answer to that.

I was thinking "Brazilian Taekwondo" but that would imply that I'm Brazilian. So that's wrong for a Brazilian reasons...

Makes sense.
Click to expand...
Thanks for elucidating all this, skribs. I appreciate it.

To reiterate, I'm in no position whatsoever to say what is and isn't JKD. I've trained in the Inosanto lineage, but I'm not graded or certified or whatever to teach JKD. I've only met Guro Dan three or four times in my life. And it was his work in kali that led me to study FMA in my corner of the world (about 3,000 miles to the right of his corner of the world). So I'm no authority.

My understanding of JKD is largely based on reading. I read many of the usual suspects, from Lee's works (compiled mostly after his death) to Guro Dan's books to Paul Vunak and Tim Tackett, etc. And I read all the magazine articles in the 80s and 90s, when JKD was really popular. (I worked in a magazine shop, in fact, so I got to see basically everything coming in on the topic.)

All of that is to say that you can absolutely get more understanding of JKD on some level. And you can (and are) benefit from applying that understanding to your own practice. And that's likely sufficient if you're not planning on teaching JKD but you are looking for ways to articulate what you're doing to others and even to yourself. It's a useful conceptual framework.

That brings us to bullet 2. I've never run a commercial school. I've been more of a local park, back room of the community college, etc. sort. Meaning that the stakes were lower. But I guess I'm wondering this:

1) In 2026, with the prevalance of MMA, does JKD hold the same power over the public consciousness at large as it once did? Is it likely to catch people's attention and draw them in? Joe Everyone, maybe not. But people with a background in martial arts of a certain age, maybe.

2) In that case, if you're appealing to people who know what JKD is, will what you're offering make them feel like they're getting what you implied they were getting? If they've read about JKD, will you be giving them that wing chun-flavoured jun fan trapping? If they've followed Guro Dan, will they see influences from kali and silat and savate and whatever else? Will you be offering what a JKD-aware audience expected?

3) Does that matter? I've done no research on this, but my sense is that what's captured audiences' attention and excited them is the hybridisation of martial arts. The perceived sense (without getting into whether it's actually true) that something has adapted and evolved to address their needs. It's part of what appealed to the JKD crowd in the 80s and 90s. And it's the itch that MMA scratched after that.

Now THAT you have. You've got a foundational system under your belt. (Pun unintentional but happily accepted.) You've addressed some of the gaps in that system with another that covers a different domain. And you're still exploring. So I feel like your way forward may be more about finding a way to articulate that rather than aligning yourself with something that articulated that some time ago.

I agree with you that Brazilian taekwondo doesn't really capture what you're doing. And I'm not entirely sure what will. On the one hand, taekwondo is ubiquitous and recognisable. (It was the first style I spent any real time in myself.) And recognisability is a boon in marketing. On the other, you're trying to capture a slightly different audience as well.

I don't know that one name is going to be sufficient to convey that. Arguments about the name JKD have been endless since its coining. And, taken literally, it doesn't really reflect what most people think of when they think about JKD anyway. "Intercepting fist" is fine, but most people are thinking of that eclectic, adaptive, personalised aspect of JKD, none of which is readily conveyed by the name "jeet kune do" (in English or the original Cantonese, to my mind).

If it were me (he says as someone who neither runs a commercial school nor has a background in marketing), I'd be thinking about naming the school, not the amalgamated style. Then, again, a phrase or sentence that quickly conveys what you're doing. What components are there. What the purpose of your training is, etc.

That's just me though. Just thinking through it, with no real claim one way or another.
 
My layman's thoughts (in some logical order I hope) on JKD, for what they're worth:

JKD is more of a concept than a style.
Not codified with hard parameters as that would be contrary to Lee's vision.
The result of the above is that it has no real solid identity.
So, it would be difficult to market it as an actual system with any degree of consistency from teacher to teacher.
IMO, what was marketed was more Bruce Lee's name than JKD as far as the public was concerned.
The draw was Lee's amazing personal MA skills rather than JKD itself.
Lee had few long-time students, having his hands in many different pots during his short life.
All the above contributed to there being few JKD schools today.

IMO, real JKD starts and ends with Bruce Lee.
 
isshinryuronin said:
IMO, real JKD starts and ends with Bruce Lee.
Click to expand...
ALL MA systems start from hard and end with soft. When a rock falls from the mountain top and reach to the bottom, all its sharp edges have been smoothed. Bruce Lee died too young. His JKD hasn't reached to the "soft" stage yet.

Softness can all been seen in these 3 famous power generation systems.

Baji:


Chen Taiji:


Xingyi Liu He:

 
Kung Fu Wang said:
ALL MA systems start from hard and end with soft. When a rock falls from the mountain top and reach to the bottom, all its sharp edges have been smoothed. Bruce Lee died too young. His JKD hasn't reached to the "soft" stage yet.

Softness can all been seen in these 3 famous power generation systems.

Baji:


Chen Taiji:


Xingyi Liu He:

Click to expand...
Looks like he's taking convulsions in the second video
 
skribs said:
I'll admit, out of all of the martial arts I've researched online, JKD is probably the one I have the least knowledge about. I've gone down the rabbit holes on some of the more obscure arts (like Bagua Zhang), but less so on JKD. My understanding is fairly simple:
  1. There is the philosophy of JKD, which is essentially take your martial arts and apply continuous learning, monitoring, and improvement of the techniques and strategies.
  2. There is the art of JKD, which is basically copying the results of Bruce Lee's personal journey on the JKD philosophy (i.e. his techniques that he approved of from Wing Chun and his additions from other arts) as the basics of the art, and then asks advanced students to take part in the philosophy of JKD and make it their own.
Regarding the philosophy of JKD, is that something that would seem to require guidance from a JKD teacher or mentor? Or is that something that could be applied independently.

In my situation, I have extensive experience in TKD and HKD, am becoming advanced in BJJ, and also am dabbling a bit in wrestling, kickboxing, Muay Thai, and MMA. My overall style favors TKD and BJJ, with less coming from HKD (because there's less opportunities to spar or play with the techniques, in the way I've trained it) and less coming from the arts I'm dabbling in.

I've played around with how to mix things together. I wouldn't necessarily call it MMA, because that has a specific sport connotation to it. MMA, while technically defined as mixing multiple martial arts together, functionally serves as a vessel for sanctioned, unarmed, 1-on-1 fights. I believe JKD is not specialized towards this specific situation, which makes it something that can apply more generally.

Would my journey be considered JKD? Or is it not JKD because I'm not necessarily following the specific teachings of Bruce Lee and/or have a mentor in JKD who's gone through this journey and is applying the philosophy that's been passed down through generations of teaching?
Click to expand...
Jeet Kune Do philosophy emphasizes efficiency, directness, and, most importantly, "using no way as way" by remaining formless and adaptable
  • "Be Water": A guiding metaphor for adaptability, fluidity, and non-resistance, allowing a practitioner to flow with, rather than against, an opponent.
  • Economy of Motion: Prioritizing the simplest, most direct, and fastest movements to achieve maximum results with minimum effort.
  • No Limitation as Limitation: Avoiding rigid, traditional, or dogmatic techniques to maintain freedom of expression and personal growth.
  • Interception: The core technique of stopping an opponent's attack before it happens, or intercepting their intent rather than just reacting to their movement.
  • Self-Cultivation: Using martial arts as a path to honest self-expression and understanding oneself, which translates to personal development in daily life.

And IMO, just because you take multiple Martial arts, mix them together and work with them, does not make it JKD. Iā€™ve trained multiple MA styles, they mix naturally when using, does not make it JKD. I took JKD briefly, liked it a lot, and I saw similarities to other styles I had trained, mostly Xingyiquan and obviously Wing Chun. But IMO, as previously stated, it starts and ends with Bruce Lee
 
Xue Sheng said:
And IMO, just because you take multiple Martial arts, mix them together and work with them, does not make it JKD. Iā€™ve trained multiple MA styles, they mix naturally when using, does not make it JKD. I took JKD briefly, liked it a lot, and I saw similarities to other styles I had trained, mostly Xingyiquan and obviously Wing Chun. But IMO, as previously stated, it starts and ends with Bruce Lee
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on why these are not JKD?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Martial Talk Forum Favs ā­ View All

Similar threads

K
JKD vs Bruceā€™s movie action
Replies
1
Views
895
Holmejr
H
skribs
Does a 2-year TKD black belt know TKD better than a 10-year BJJ black belt knows BJJ?
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
skribs
skribs
skribs
Review of "The Knee Cut Roadmap" by Josh McKinney
Replies
0
Views
441
skribs
skribs
J MacDonald
Do people use ā€œkarateā€ as a generic term for traditional martial arts?
Replies
12
Views
1K
isshinryuronin
I
Emp.Ice
Weight Cutting, "Discipline" vs Intention
Replies
1
Views
265
Kung Fu Wang
Kung Fu Wang

Latest Discussions

Back
Top