JKD: Minimum Curriculum?

OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,564
Reaction score
438
Location
Terre Haute, IN
I'll forward your message to Cthulhu.

I think I have to agree with you--like it or not, he did create a style. He did more than that, but he did do that. That's what I find hard to reconcile--the people claiming it's all concepts and anything can be "your" JKD, together with the near-uniformity of approaches. There's a lot of commonality.
 

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
I agree, however alot or possibly most of what he did, and what JKD is now, was taken from his kung fu background. So I can also see the point of those who say he didn't actuall create anything new, but rather took the strengths of diferent systems. I studied JKD before studying kung fu and I can see many similarities in technique and philosophy of fighting.
I guess I can see both sides of it, however I think the major thing that hurts JKD is that people get too caught up in trying to answer this argument that they forget what it is all about in the first place.

7sm
 
I

IFAJKD

Guest
JKD was developed from I believe 26 different styles. Not equal amounts were taken from each and some simply a concept or technique or two. JKD "The WAY of the Intercepting fist" it is the "Way" not the "Thought" Not all however was from his kung Fu background. For example, he loved the kicking techniques of Savate and the power of Thai. He used both. Bruce Lee also had this gift that many get to some degree after training long enough in diverse or eclectic ways, He could watch a style and understand it's methods and it's goal. From there he could adapt and beat you. Often using your techniques.
Paul Vunak tells a story that Guru Inosanto told him where he intorduced Bruce to a Southrern Praying Mantis Sifu "Master" Guru Inosanto was so excited that Bruce dropped everytyhing to go see him and when he got there (I guess it was a long drive and he had plans with Linda and the kids that he dropped) He was pissed at watching this "Master" doing what amounted to a long set of forms. Bruce insulted this "master" by leaving quickly and was pretty upset with Dan. After awhile in the drive Dan apologized to Bruce and said he was sorry that he thought there would be something he could use. Bruce shot him down and after a silence. Bruce asked Dan to pull over. Dan did. Bruce took off running to a park and began to do the exact same forms he just that day watched. I guess he did it perfectly and said at the end you're right. I can use that. From it he took the concept of high line to low line and added a high, low, high attack.

You are right...People do get too caught up in it too much. Focus on the finger and miss the moon right .

Good training
 

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Yes, I wasn't trying to imply JKd was all from his kung fu background, I didn't mean to insult anyone or anyones art. I just think alot of it is from his kung fu background, and from many of systems.
 
I

IFAJKD

Guest
No Insult taken. Hope it didn't come off that way. Just thought it was an interesting story. You are right on the money about your thoughts I believe.:asian:
 

7starmantis

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 13, 2002
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
50
Location
East Texas
Originally posted by arnisador
Are there specific techniques that, despite the "absorb what is useful" paradigm, you feel simply must be in a school's teaching if they are indeed to be said to be teaching JKD?

I think the very basics will be the same in almost any system. The basic alignment for punching and kicking, the basic balance drills and techniques. These will have to be taught before anyone can progress in any system. One of the reasons I think it is helpful to have a "base" before training in JKD.

7sm
 
OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,564
Reaction score
438
Location
Terre Haute, IN
7starmantis said:
I think the very basics will be the same in almost any system. The basic alignment for punching and kicking, the basic balance drills and techniques.
Well...for me, the "boxing-style" techniques of JKD have been very hard to learn after so many years of a Karate background. So, at the level of you can punch, you can kick, etc., yes; but right after that, it gets complicated! I'm not sure that I'm disagreeing with you, but I do think that JKD has, say, specififc punching techniques that are used in JKD. I don't think you could easily substitute a reverse punch from TKD for the cross.

That having been said, I too think it's good to bring some prior training into JKD.
 

Flatlander

Grandmaster
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,785
Reaction score
65
Location
The Canuckistan Plains
IFAJKD said:
Basic minimum requirements..............Interesting thought.
Great Post! Something else to add: footwork. Pretty self explanatory, but must be worked on individually at some point. Shufflestep, side shuffle, back shuffle, (eight directions, etc.), lunging, as well as slipping, ducking, bobbing, weaving, joint locking and control techniques.
 

achilles

Green Belt
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
111
Reaction score
3
Just a thought I had when making up my curriculum, have you ever noticed how presumptuous it is deciding what a person should know at a particular time. I've revised my requirements several times and it still isn't perfect. Then there are times when you are teaching a technique, and you pull out something from another art or improvise a technique on the spot. What do you do? add that to your curriculum? After a while, with the constant refining, adding and subtracting, what is there of style or method? There is nothing particularly timeless or constant. That's where I think the way of no way comes in. No way doesn't mean the absence of knowledge, but the freedom to use what you need when and where you need it. Be that as it may, I think that there is a body of knowledge that should be preserved. It serves as a kind of balance to the radical subjectivism to keep the Jeet Kune Do man simple and direct.
 

achilles

Green Belt
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
111
Reaction score
3
Another thought, having a base method to build from doesn't imply a limitation. A style in the conventional sense of the term denotes a limitation. A base is a beginning, not a self-imposed ending to the process.
 

kroh

Brown Belt
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
403
Reaction score
8
Location
Rhode Island, USA
IFAJKD:
JKD is more than an amalgam of techniques and concepts. You cannot simply train in other styles and call it JKD.

Thank you, Thank you... :partyon:

Achilles:
Another thought, having a base method to build from doesn't imply a limitation. A style in the conventional sense of the term denotes a limitation. A base is a beginning, not a self-imposed ending to the process

Bravo, Bravo, Molto Biene! :uhyeah:

I am going to reference this thread to some of the people I train with...very nicely spoken...summed up what i try to tell people in two phrases. Nicely done.

Regards,
Walt

P.S. For an excellent book on the basics of JKD/Jun Fan Gung Fu, Sifu Seaman's book is an excellent rescource.

bookcover.txt


http://ewmaa.com

I have trained with Mr. Seaman on numerous occasions and always walked away humbled.
 
M

moonsquid

Guest
There is one saying that Paul Vunak said that always seems to stick with me. He is refering to learning technique. "its like a painter, you first have to be taught the proper strokes and how to use them, then you are left to paint your own masterpiece" or it was something along those lines. I think that the point is made. There is a proper way to do this take down or that stop hit, after you are taught it, then it is up to YOU the individual to find out what works for you. Doing this through training and sparring. I also believe that just randomly picking techniques from this art and that art that you happen to like is not jkd concepts. The key is that they must flow well together. To try and trap a hand with your hand that was chambered at your hip loses economy of motion, one of the most important attributes. So what im trying to say is that there are techniques persay, just not really in the traditional sense of the word. Thats how I feel and it makes sense to me! :)
 
OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,564
Reaction score
438
Location
Terre Haute, IN
moonsquid said:
I also believe that just randomly picking techniques from this art and that art that you happen to like is not jkd concepts. The key is that they must flow well together.

I would agree...yet, the techniques always seem to be picked from Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Western boxing, and Savate, with some Kali thrown in. Where's the example of someone who has done this with TKD, Tang Soo Do, and Hapkido? With Aikido, Aikijutsu, and Judo? With Southern Praying Mantis Kung Fu, Phoenix-Eye Fist Kung Fu, and Bak Mei Kung Fu? With Tai Chi, Hsing-I, and Ba Gua?

The lack of such cases makes me wonder if the JKD Concepts approach is as general as some claim.
 

JPR

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 17, 2004
Messages
123
Reaction score
7
I am not sure you can always pinpoint where a technique comes from, or how important that fact is. For example, what art owns a goose neck wrist lock or a double leg take down or a round kick (substitute any technique you like here)?

The selection is influenced a lot by what your JKD instructor is familiar with and can teach. There are thousands (hundreds, tens?) of ways to transition from say standing grappling to ground grappling. Which are best? Which are most efficient? Which can you use? Which can you competently teach someone else?

The point here is to have tools that cover a given range and can work well with the other tools you have so that you can flow from range to range. I have been taught throws from judo to transition from standing grappling range to ground grappling range, and it is becoming a part of JKD for me. However, I also have silat and shoot wrestling sweeps / throws for the same range change.

The idea of just collecting techniques cheapens the concept of JKD to me. I think of it as more the pursuit of competence at every range of combat and the ability to smoothly flow between those ranges.


Jerry
 
OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,564
Reaction score
438
Location
Terre Haute, IN
JPR said:
The idea of just collecting techniques cheapens the concept of JKD to me. I think of it as more the pursuit of competence at every range of combat and the ability to smoothly flow between those ranges.

Your points are well taken. Yet, I still want to know: Has anyone truly applied JKD to arts that are very different from the usual Wing Chun, Savate, Thai boxing, Kali, etc., and come up with something that people would agree is JKD? Is there--can there be--a JKD that is based on Hwa Rang Do, Kuk Sool Won, and Hapkido? On the Chinese internal arts? Pick from as many arts as one needs to get a good selection of techniques and approaches that cover all ranges. Don't just grab techniques--make it work. If you do that with Hsing-I, Ba Gua, and Tai Chi, with Shuai Jiao for well-roundedness in grappling and clinching, is it JKD?
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
50
Location
San Jose, Ca.
arnisador said:
Your points are well taken. Yet, I still want to know: Has anyone truly applied JKD to arts that are very different from the usual Wing Chun, Savate, Thai boxing, Kali, etc., and come up with something that people would agree is JKD? Is there--can there be--a JKD that is based on Hwa Rang Do, Kuk Sool Won, and Hapkido? On the Chinese internal arts? Pick from as many arts as one needs to get a good selection of techniques and approaches that cover all ranges. Don't just grab techniques--make it work. If you do that with Hsing-I, Ba Gua, and Tai Chi, with Shuai Jiao for well-roundedness in grappling and clinching, is it JKD?

I think a "JKD Concept" fighting system could be developed through other systems especially the chinese and FMA systems. But the traditional stances and chambering along with a lot of other stuff what have to be dropped to fall within the "concepts."

And it would be a JKD "conceptual" fighting system and not JFJKD.
 

achilles

Green Belt
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
111
Reaction score
3
Since JKD is both this and not-this, I will now discuss the "this." Since JKD is not an amalgam of "Hwa Rang Do, Kuk Sool Won, and Hapkido" this is a non-issue. The core of JKD is a system comprised of wing chun, boxing, fencing, savate, judo, wrestling, various other kung fu systems and a hint of thai boxing. Hwa Rang Do, Kuk Sool Won, and Hapkido is not the same as the latter list. I know of people who mix tae kwon do, hapkido and modern arnis, but that is not JKD. They may approach the same formless doctrine, but it isn't the same. JKD was the name Bruce Lee gave his study, and those other arts didn't really make up his study.
 

kroh

Brown Belt
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
403
Reaction score
8
Location
Rhode Island, USA
achilles said:
JKD was the name Bruce Lee gave his study, and those other arts didn't really make up his study.


I agree wit this statement. You see a lot of people these days who claim to put together a beef stew of systems and call it JKD concepts. This could be in part to those people trying to cash in on the JKD name or because they don't uderstand the core concepts of the Intercepting Fist Method. IMHO, this practice is due to the fact it is easier to steal or emulate some one than it is to blaze your own path. This illustrates why we have so few Bruce Lee's.

Great point Achilles.
Regards,
Walt
 
OP
A

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,564
Reaction score
438
Location
Terre Haute, IN
Well, this is at the heart of the question of whether JKD is, like Jun Fan Gung Fu, something with a fairly set curriculum, or if it is truly an entirely conceptual approach that one could apply to whatever arts one knew to make one's own style. I do feel that there are some elements--some technqiues--that have to be there for it to be JKD. Yet I meet people who say JKD is just a way of viewing things--a set of guidelines for "absorbing what is useful" from what one studies.

I'm not talking about a hodge-podge of techniques. If Bruce Lee had been trained in TKD and Hapkido rather than Wing Chun and boxing, and applied similar principles and effort, what would've happened?

I feel it's not truly JKD unless it has the Wing Chun style trapping, the boxing style punches, the Muay Thai style clinch-and-elbow/knee, etc. So, I feel there's a curriculum that goes with JKD, not just concepts, though I do agree that the concepts could be used to improve many other arts.
 

kroh

Brown Belt
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
403
Reaction score
8
Location
Rhode Island, USA
So, I feel there's a curriculum that goes with JKD

That being said...shouldn't the people who've had no experience in JKD and mix a bunch of stuff together just call their stuff something else? Why call it JKD concepts if it has nothing to do with Intercepting Fist Method Concepts? It's not that these systems don't have something to offer, but, why pass it off as something it's not?

Regards,
Walt :rolleyes:
 
Top