JKD system or not, That is the question??????

[VSanhodo]

Hi Folks

Ok, I have a feeling this is going to create some interesting posts. I have a friend of mine who teaches JKD and he says JKD is not a system and we have no forms and truly believes JKD is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

My feelings are that Bruce Lee was a good actor and helped bring Martial Arts into the lime light of the public eye. I dont know how good of a fighter or technician he was. I can only say from what Ive seen of JKD, Ive not seen anyhting new. Perhaps a different approach but nothing different. I believe if you have a program where you have a systematic approach or teaching outline then you have a system. If it is teachable, repeatable its a system. I also believe they have forms. Ok, they call them exercies but again if you do the a drill and call it an exercise ok I still call it a pattern of form.
Last but not least I also believe the classical arts unlike today where arts are cookie cutter styles. The arts of old I believe were never meant to be taught to the masses. Arts were designed to be individualized and each person had to be taught differently. The lating root word for educate is EDUCO meaning to draw from within. I think it is the responsibility of the instructor to educate students on how to make movements / techniques, drills, exercises, forms etc work for the studnent. Arts have become to systematic. As I indicated earlier I simply dont feel JKD is anything new merely different. I am not saying JKD is a bad system or anything negative at all, merely expressing how I feel about this subject.
Ok now you know my feelings on this subject, I look forward to hearing from you. All opinions and posts are welcome.
Thanks
San

 

[Adept]

There aint nothing new under the sun. If you think you've come up with something new, you simply haven't done enough research.

JKD Isn't new. It was pretty inovative in the seventies though, especially in an America that didn't have widespread mainstream martial arts.

The entire concept of JKD (do what works for you, and leave what doesn't) contrasts starkly with many traditional philosophies (practice only what I teach, and I will only teach you this). That is all.

 

[Aikia]

JKD was very new and innovative when it was developed in 1968. In 1970 Bruce Lee injured his back and was required to stay in bed for three months. During that time Lee converted to beleif in an Indian guru named Jiddu Krishnamurti. Using the Krishnamurti philosophy Lee elected to reject his self created style of jeet kune do in 1971 and closed his kwoon. Because of Lee's devotion to Krishnamurti JKD became a philosophy or concept in an attempt to express the "Truth" in combat as Lee now understood it from studying Krishnamurti. The Krishnamurtian version of JKD has resulted in much confusion and misinformation. Read Krishnamurti to find out how Lee managed to rewrite the function of his art.

The Krishnamurtian connection has been either ignored, covered up or passed over for years. Had Lee not converted to Krishnamurtianism in 1970 JKD would most likely still be the art of Bruce Lee.

 

[47MartialMan]

Ok, I have a feeling this is going to create some interesting posts. I have a friend of mine who teaches JKD and he says JKD is not a system and we have no forms and truly believes JKD is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

First, that is the misconception of JKD beginners. The moment they wanted to study JKD, made them think/want it as "Bruce Lee's Art". Why else would they study it?. Also, it is a system. If your friend was taught methods and their order, thus teaching the same to others, it is a system. If he is taught a philosophy and teaches others, under the same guidelines, it is a system.

My feelings are that Bruce Lee was a good actor and helped bring Martial Arts into the lime light of the public eye. I dont know how good of a fighter or technician he was.

He wasn't really a good actor, he was a good martial artist and he had many fights. You have it in reverse. He also had a good mind on how to create a martial art film.

I can only say from what Ive seen of JKD, Ive not seen anyhting new. Perhaps a different approach but nothing different.

It may not be "new" to you, with many other arts doing the same nowadays. However, back then it was considered "new"

I believe if you have a program where you have a systematic approach or teaching outline then you have a system. If it is teachable, repeatable its a system. I also believe they have forms. Ok, they call them exercies but again if you do the a drill and call it an exercise ok I still call it a pattern of form.

This has a remote truth, but forms meaning kata. However, kata, is just another way to practice methods and exercise. So, yes, they somewhat practice forms also, just different.

Last but not least I also believe the classical arts unlike today where arts are cookie cutter styles.

Not sure what you mean by this.

The arts of old I believe were never meant to be taught to the masses. Arts were designed to be individualized and each person had to be taught differently. The lating root word for educate is EDUCO meaning to draw from within. I think it is the responsibility of the instructor to educate students on how to make movements / techniques, drills, exercises, forms etc work for the studnent.

Not so, some were, per the military masses.

Arts have become to systematic

Arts were ALWAYS systematic. Every one of them. Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[achilles]

There is a method that has been passed on from instructor to student (although most would agree that nothing is passed on exactly as it was originally taught), but JKD is not limited to that method. There is a set of tools, tactics and strategies that Bruce Lee taught, albeit those evolved over time. That is what we refer to as our martial legacy. But an important part of JKD is personal evolution. Some continue to refine the original techniques (such as Tim Tacket and his group) and others are more into researching other arts (although technically they should have a good grounding in the original material already, but that is definitely NOT always the case). The evolution can occur at different levels. Some JKD men adapt by knowing many different ways and thus fitting in with a particular opponent, while others adapt by knowing how to apply their tools in many different situations. Essentially, the question is versatility of the technique or versatility between methods. I think that a path that embraces both paradigms to some extent is best for me. I train primarily in LA era JKD. I think that it is very adaptable and has the technology to handle a lot of situations. However, there are somethings that it simply does not address. That's why I also train FMA weapons and submission wrestling. I think what keeps my training JKD and not simply ecclectic is that 1) I only take what I need (no change simply for the sake of change or ornamentation that clutters up your mind and slows down your reaction time) and 2) I cross train with the intent to better my JKD. I don't approach Judo with the intent of becoming a Judo player, but a JKD man who can effectively integrate throwing into my arsenal. Furthermore, I don't take on the limitations of the arts I study. When I tie-up with an opponent, I may use things from Thai boxing, Greco Roman wrestling or Judo, but I don't think to myself "okay, now I'm a Thai Boxer so I do X,Y and Z" or "now I'm a Judoka so I do X,Y, and Z" because when you're only a judo player you may not think about the elbows and knees and when you're only a thai boxer you may not think about the hip throws, etc. The JKD man sees the fight not through the filter of what styles dictate should occur, but what is actually happening. This of course is based on the principles of simplicity, directness and adaptablility which is exemplified by the core techiniques.

 

[James Kovacich]

Hi Folks

1) I believe if you have a program where you have a systematic approach or teaching outline then you have a system. If it is teachable, repeatable its a system.

2) As I indicated earlier I simply dont feel JKD is anything new merely different. I am not saying JKD is a bad system or anything negative at all, merely expressing how I feel about this subject.
Ok now you know my feelings on this subject, I look forward to hearing from you. All opinions and posts are welcome.
Thanks
San

On #1 I agree.

On #2 There isn't anything new except "presentation" which makes a system unique. The unique presentation of JKD is the classical "unnecesary" material that was "deleted and or modified."

If one truly understands the concepts, they will understand the need for "deletion and modification."

As far as JKD a system or not. Yes and no. It depends on who is teaching it and who was their instructor before them. That too is part of it's uniqueness.

 

[Hand Sword]

Take the creator's point of view to answer the question. Bruce said that JKD was a Concept, Not a system. It was doing what you found useful, and make it work for you. It's about developing your own attributes for dealing with self defense situations, or expressing yourself, doing your own version of a system and not be bound by it, EPAK people would call it tailoring.

Since Bruce was popular and everyone wanted to be like him, would be students wanted to know how to do it, or how Bruce went about it. His students would teach what they were taught, or the methods-- thus creating a "system".

Reading and watching what Bruce said it's obvious he didn't want to create a new style, and didn't intend to. He just wanted martial artists to be free of constraints.

 

[achilles]

"Tailoring" is indeed part of it, but a complete denial of what what Sigung Bruce did is not Jeet Kune Do. That is what he meant when he said Jeet Kune Do is both this and not this. The synthesis of both being and non-being is becoming. Jeet Kune Do is a method that is meant to be transcended and modified to fit the individual, but many who claim the name of Jeet Kune Do are simply ecclectic martial artists who know very little about the material passed on from Bruce Lee. I've read so many internet posts and read so many articles where Joe Shmoe who has studied a hand full of arts (to what extent no one knows) decides he is the next Bruce Lee and calls what he does Jeet Kune Do. I think this is wrong. Without any connection to the Jeet Kune Do technology, why call what you do Jeet Kune Do at all? If these people are so creative as to found their own system, why not come up with a unique name rather than trying to ride on the coat tails of someone else? That's like saying that I'm inspired by Steven Hawking's work therefore I represent him and Cambridge (at least I think that's the institution Hawking is affiliated with), or enjoying Mozart and trying to pass off your own compositions as Mozart.

 

[James Kovacich]

"Tailoring" is indeed part of it, but a complete denial of what what Sigung Bruce did is not Jeet Kune Do. That is what he meant when he said Jeet Kune Do is both this and not this. The synthesis of both being and non-being is becoming. Jeet Kune Do is a method that is meant to be transcended and modified to fit the individual, but many who claim the name of Jeet Kune Do are simply ecclectic martial artists who know very little about the material passed on from Bruce Lee. I've read so many internet posts and read so many articles where Joe Shmoe who has studied a hand full of arts (to what extent no one knows) decides he is the next Bruce Lee and calls what he does Jeet Kune Do. I think this is wrong. Without any connection to the Jeet Kune Do technology, why call what you do Jeet Kune Do at all? If these people are so creative as to found their own system, why not come up with a unique name rather than trying to ride on the coat tails of someone else? That's like saying that I'm inspired by Steven Hawking's work therefore I represent him and Cambridge (at least I think that's the institution Hawking is affiliated with), or enjoying Mozart and trying to pass off your own compositions as Mozart.

Good post. :asian:

 

[47MartialMan]

"Tailoring" is indeed part of it, but a complete denial of what what Sigung Bruce did is not Jeet Kune Do. That is what he meant when he said Jeet Kune Do is both this and not this. The synthesis of both being and non-being is becoming. Jeet Kune Do is a method that is meant to be transcended and modified to fit the individual, but many who claim the name of Jeet Kune Do are simply ecclectic martial artists who know very little about the material passed on from Bruce Lee. I've read so many internet posts and read so many articles where Joe Shmoe who has studied a hand full of arts (to what extent no one knows) decides he is the next Bruce Lee and calls what he does Jeet Kune Do. I think this is wrong. Without any connection to the Jeet Kune Do technology, why call what you do Jeet Kune Do at all? If these people are so creative as to found their own system, why not come up with a unique name rather than trying to ride on the coat tails of someone else? That's like saying that I'm inspired by Steven Hawking's work therefore I represent him and Cambridge (at least I think that's the institution Hawking is affiliated with), or enjoying Mozart and trying to pass off your own compositions as Mozart.

Yes, reminds me of people dressing as monks and curtailing the name of Shaolin.

But, think about it, for someone to claim to learn it or teach it, are claiming it as a martial art/system.

For that matter, any martial artist that had studied other arts, are also Jeet Kune Do practitioners without studying it per actuality....hmmmm...

 

[James Kovacich]

For that matter, any martial artist that had studied other arts, are also Jeet Kune Do practitioners without studying it per actuality....hmmmm...

Not true. A TKD stylists can be a JKD sylists BUT he can not be by just doing TKD.

 

[47MartialMan]

Not true. A TKD stylists can be a JKD sylists BUT he can not be by just doing TKD.

Hmmn, I did state:

For that matter, any martial artist that had studied other arts, are also Jeet Kune Do practitioners without studying it per actuality....hmmmm...

 

[James Kovacich]

Hmmn, I did state:

For that matter, any martial artist that had studied other arts, are also Jeet Kune Do practitioners without studying it per actuality....hmmmm...

Yes and what you are saying is that one could be aJKD practioner without studying JKD. And I'm saying no.

By some peoples definition you may be right but who's to say they are right. I'd say that the opinion of those who actually are JKD practioners would be the ones to listed to over the non-JKD practioner.

I can tell you for a fact that even if someone only followed the concepts and none of the art of JKD. The end result would not be anything like what we see in todays traditional schools.

It's my opinion that if 1 only studied the concepts and none of the art, they are not truly JKD practioners.

 

[47MartialMan]

Yes and what you are saying is that one could be aJKD practioner without studying JKD. And I'm saying no.

By some peoples definition you may be right but who's to say they are right. I'd say that the opinion of those who actually are JKD practioners would be the ones to listed to over the non-JKD practioner.

I can tell you for a fact that even if someone only followed the concepts and none of the art of JKD. The end result would not be anything like what we see in todays traditional schools.

It's my opinion that if 1 only studied the concepts and none of the art, they are not truly JKD practioners.

But, he, himself did not desire anyone to relish upon a name. Thus if someone follows the concepts, then they too, could be JKD.

So, if one is not, whom does not study it, then it must be a system under a given name, used by those who do for distinction.

 

[James Kovacich]

But, he, himself did not desire anyone to relish upon a name. Thus if someone follows the concepts, then they too, could be JKD.

So, if one is not, whom does not study it, then it must be a system under a given name, used by those who do for distinction.

You are so poetic. :uhyeah: The problem is JKD is a process and "some" will skip the process and go straight to the end where we "dissolve the technique and become formless" and beleive it to be JKD. Maybe by "some" JKD standards it would. But would it be OK to open a school and get paid to teach JKD even if the Instructor skipped the process.

People will say Bruce said use what is useful and reject what is useless. That is true but it still remains that Bruce said thousands of things and take 1 or 2 statements as if defines the whole system would be ignorance and not JKD.

 

[47MartialMan]

You are so poetic. :uhyeah: The problem is JKD is a process and "some" will skip the process and go straight to the end where we "dissolve the technique and become formless" and beleive it to be JKD. Maybe by JKD standards it would. But would it be OK to open a school and get paid to teach JKD even if the Instructor skipped the process.

People will say Bruce said use what is useful and reject what is useless. That is true but it still remains that Bruce said thousands of things and take 1 or 2 statements as if defines the whole system would be ignorance and not JKD.

So, that is what its about...to get paid, to get recognition, to get distinction.....
The process is what________________________(fill in here).

"dissolve the technique and become formless" Be like water-formless?
Of course techniques or methods have to be taught and learned-vola-a system.

Take one or two statements? How about take a art for the name or founder of the art. Then mix a few people whom actually studied with the founder, per one so famous. And presto, a system, lineage, marketing, and politics are born.

 

[James Kovacich]

So, that is what its about...to get paid, to get recognition, to get distinction.....
How about take a art for the name or founder of the art. Then mix a few people whom actually studied with the founder, per one so famous. And presto, a system, lineage, marketing, and politics are born.

You can say that about any and all systems that exist.

 

[47MartialMan]

You can say that about any and all systems that exist.

I am not. I was posting to see another logical response to a decades old debate I have been having with someone else.

But the "blank" still wasn't filled:

The process (JKD) is what________________________(fill in here).

 

[achilles]

"Of course techniques or methods have to be taught and learned-vola-a system."

I think you might have meant "voila."

JKD, like other perspectives, has things in common with other approaches. When most people say "I don't do the system, but I practice the CONCEPTS of JKD" there are several red flags that come up.
1) exactly which concepts? keeping the strong side forward, non-telegraphic initiation, nearest weapon to the closest target? these are all JKD concepts, not just the abstract strategic and philosophical principles, so if someone really practices JKD concepts, it should resemble JKD as was taught by Bruce Lee.
2) how on earth do you practice a concept? do you think really hard about it? concepts without action are useless in martial arts. the particular techniques of JKD exemplify the techniques of JKD.

Bruce Lee did teach particular tools and tactics. He didn't just loan out his name to anything that other people came up with do lend credibility. While I won't say that JKD is limited to what Bruce Lee taught, I can certainly say that what he taught is definitely a component of JKD.

 

[47MartialMan]

"Of course techniques or methods have to be taught and learned-vola-a system."

I think you might have meant "voila."

JKD, like other perspectives, has things in common with other approaches. When most people say "I don't do the system, but I practice the CONCEPTS of JKD" there are several red flags that come up.
1) exactly which concepts? keeping the strong side forward, non-telegraphic initiation, nearest weapon to the closest target? these are all JKD concepts, not just the abstract strategic and philosophical principles, so if someone really practices JKD concepts, it should resemble JKD as was taught by Bruce Lee.
2) how on earth do you practice a concept? do you think really hard about it? concepts without action are useless in martial arts. the particular techniques of JKD exemplify the techniques of JKD.

Bruce Lee did teach particular tools and tactics. He didn't just loan out his name to anything that other people came up with do lend credibility. While I won't say that JKD is limited to what Bruce Lee taught, I can certainly say that what he taught is definitely a component of JKD.

Thanks forvyourv post...And woe, we all make spelling errors