Lack of Foundation?

[K' Evans]

I was having an interesting discussion with a fellow martial arts (who is skilled in Karate, Chinese Martial arts and Muay Thai) about JKD. We were talking about our martial arts, and when I brought up I was learning JKD, he had a negative opinion about JKD's structure. In his opinion, (and I am doing my best to construct it properly from his words), he thinks JKD just doesn't have the strong foundation that other martial arts have. Namely, his reasons point to: 1) the unexpected death of Bruce Lee which meant that JKD is sort of "un-developed" and still evolving, 2) JKD's lack of thousands of years of refinement and development of stances and techniques and 3) while Bruce Lee clearly was a formidable and very strong martial artists, learning his art doesn't mean that we will be able to carry out the same art with the same attributes of strength, speed and etc.

Now I don't totally agree with him, since I think with enough years of practice, JKD's stance can be properly utilized and can be as effective as other stances from other martial arts. Further, the stance and techniques were not constructed from thin air, but were carefully researched and constructed by Bruce Lee's analysis. But I think he is making a somewhat valid point that JKD is still a very young martial art style, and hence lacks the years of cultivation and growth that other martial arts may have. However, how much this weakness affects the actual utilization of JKD can be strongly debated.

Nevertheless, what do you guys think?

(Take note that he was raising a comment that may be more specific to the OJKD school, but it will be good to hear what the Concepts school thinks as well).

 

[Steel Tiger]

I was having an interesting discussion with a fellow martial arts (who is skilled in Karate, Chinese Martial arts and Muay Thai) about JKD. We were talking about our martial arts, and when I brought up I was learning JKD, he had a negative opinion about JKD's structure. In his opinion, (and I am doing my best to construct it properly from his words), he thinks JKD just doesn't have the strong foundation that other martial arts have. Namely, his reasons point to: 1) the unexpected death of Bruce Lee which meant that JKD is sort of "un-developed" and still evolving, 2) JKD's lack of thousands of years of refinement and development of stances and techniques and 3) while Bruce Lee clearly was a formidable and very strong martial artists, learning his art doesn't mean that we will be able to carry out the same art with the same attributes of strength, speed and etc.

Now I don't totally agree with him, since I think with enough years of practice, JKD's stance can be properly utilized and can be as effective as other stances from other martial arts. Further, the stance and techniques were not constructed from thin air, but were carefully researched and constructed by Bruce Lee's analysis. But I think he is making a somewhat valid point that JKD is still a very young martial art style, and hence lacks the years of cultivation and growth that other martial arts may have. However, how much this weakness affects the actual utilization of JKD can be strongly debated.

Nevertheless, what do you guys think?

(Take note that he was raising a comment that may be more specific to the OJKD school, but it will be good to hear what the Concepts school thinks as well).

Personally I don't think of JKD as a Martial Art style so much as a theory about Martial Arts. One thing that seems conveniently forgotten when discussing Bruce Lee is that he was schooled in traditional arts and therefore had the background and knowledge to say, "I don't need this, I can use that, this bit might work for someone else".

Does JKD lack foundation? I don't think so. The foundation is to be found in other arts, the philosophy is found in JKD.

 

[simplicity]

The foundation is to be found in other arts.


I don't agree with this statement.....Jeet Kune Do has its own foundation (structure), it just isn't a bunch of styles put together.....




John McNabney

 

[K' Evans]

I feel that the two different camps of thought in the JKD world should have interesting views on this. As someone from the OJKD camp, our perspective is that there is a definite structure and foundation in JKD, but simply one that's hard to master. Namely, the JFJKD structure is a mix of boxing and fencing, with elements of Wing Chun, depending on whether the practitioner wishes to incorporate more trapping. Some JFJKD practitioners may not view trapping in a positive light.

On the other hand, I believe the JKD Concepts school may argue differently. As you put it, JKD is perceived more as a philosophy or a theory, where the foundation comes from other schools. By mixing these martial arts into a unique composite style of your own, I suppose it can be argued that you have put together a foundation of your own.

In any case, it really begs the question of what having a "foundation" really means in the martial arts. What factors or properties really constitute having a "solid foundation"? That's the key question, I guess.

 

[simplicity]

As I first started out 1980 with JKDC and then in the late 80's in OJKD.....Since the late 90's I'm neither, I'm just Jeet Kune Do, which is just my boat to my own enlightment, not some group thing.....Yes, JKD as designed has a simple structure or base that is to give one the simplest means to delivers a punch, kick, punch/trap/punch or kick/punch/trap/punch or anti-grappling.....

K' Evans.....As far as your last question in my opinion, structure or foundation is where you have the most efficient balance and coordination in offensive/defensive movement, where you are in total control of your centerline and they are not. But you are in control of their's...When you are striking you have a strong base to deliver the most effcient means of that delivery......This is in any sport or martial arts if they are trained correctly in their chosen field or have natural talent. Most of these great sports people that are better than others in their same field, have a great foundation and move more effciently than the other ones......This takes time and patient to get there, less wasted motion will always be better then wasted motion. .....Well thats my take on this...


Take "IT" Easy,
John McNabney

 

[joeygil]

I think a main point Sigung Bruce Lee had was that a lot of the "classical" martial arts comes with a lot of classical bagage.

That has a lot of it's own negatives.

I'm currently focusing on Jun Fan JKD at the Inosanto Academy - so of course we get a lot of "concepts" stuff. I think that's fine - but I'm worried about adding without subtracting. I don't want to end up with a whole new set of classical bagage myself.


Besides, I'm pretty sure that Modern Muay Thai is relatively new. People probably weren't fighting in a riing with gloves 2000 years ago. I understand a lot of Muay Thai is based on Krabi Krabong. So you could argue that is the foundation of Muay Thai.

Similarly you can argue that Boxing, Fencing, and Wing Chun are the foundations of Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do (as a style - not a philosophy).

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I put JKD in the same pile as aikido and kosho ryu kenpo here. All three (for different reasons) are arts I'd recommend studying after you've aquired rank in another martial art.

In the case of JKD, practitioners can come quite a way along while maintaining some pretty bad habits. The 'formless form' stresses spontaneity and flexibility so much that the basics sometimes don't get the attention they deserve.

Kind of like with kids. As adults we get to make our own decisions about a huge number of little things we'd never let our children make. Gotta learn the rules before you decide to break them.

 

[Robert Lee]

JKD is say a modern approach to non classical Gung Fu. Any art the person must find there own use ,There freedom or they are just a robot to what they have tried to learn. Structure sure JKD has a set base to its learning and understanding. But agin if the person does not take there own personal apects from it It will never work. Any time you learn anything you represent your self from there. We have found out that NO art has the answers just a path to help you find your answers. The person does best what they have trained to a level where they perform. Structure in learning freedom in doing JKD and All arts have both. Just have to train and let go. No name when you do what you do Its yours

 

[brothershaw]

1.-I think in these posts people are using structure and foundation interchangeably, when they are 2 seperate things.
2.- IMHO I beleive many people aredrawn to jkd because they think its a faster route or shortcut ( classical mess) however there is no way to avoid endless repetition - whether it be forms, kicks , punches etc boxing has a few strikes but a pro boxer has practiced those same strikes thousands of times endlessly.
3- IF you follow a "traditional" art you should find a unifying theory and unified way of movement and doing things, this "MAY" not be there in a styles that uses from different styles. In a given style things are done a cetain way to make everything fit like a puzzle, as opposed to training styles that may use the body differently, torque, root etc and trying to learn all those ways at once if you even try.
4- At this point in time I believe alot of traditional systems are more geared towards preserving the style than creating good fighters efficiently, JKD appears to be concerned with figuring out what to preserve, Bruce Lee in my humble opinion was concerned with making fighters efficiently.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Not knowing a whole lot about the state of JKD today I cannot comment on some of your post. However Bruce Lee as a martial artist was very skilled.

The following 2 I can comment on however

2) JKD's lack of thousands of years of refinement and development of stances and techniques

This is a load of bunk. Sanda is not a thousand years old and it is incredibly effective and good at what it was designed for.

I would also venture to say that Systema and Krav Magna are not 1000 years old either, nor is Aikido, Judo, or Yiquan to name a few.

But they all are linked to much older styles as is JKD

3) while Bruce Lee clearly was a formidable and very strong martial artists, learning his art doesn't mean that we will be able to carry out the same art with the same attributes of strength, speed and etc.

And this could be said for any style.

 

[Robert Lee]

1.-I think in these posts people are using structure and foundation interchangeably, when they are 2 seperate things.
2.- IMHO I beleive many people aredrawn to jkd because they think its a faster route or shortcut ( classical mess) however there is no way to avoid endless repetition - whether it be forms, kicks , punches etc boxing has a few strikes but a pro boxer has practiced those same strikes thousands of times endlessly.
3- IF you follow a "traditional" art you should find a unifying theory and unified way of movement and doing things, this "MAY" not be there in a styles that uses from different styles. In a given style things are done a cetain way to make everything fit like a puzzle, as opposed to training styles that may use the body differently, torque, root etc and trying to learn all those ways at once if you even try.
4- At this point in time I believe alot of traditional systems are more geared towards preserving the style than creating good fighters efficiently, JKD appears to be concerned with figuring out what to preserve, Bruce Lee in my humble opinion was concerned with making fighters efficiently.

About every style you speak of , at one time was a mix. No person can train just by style as you may. A person must see into the style or training and take from it what they find to be there need. All ways, ARTS, offer alot of different aspects no bvody needs or can use all these aspects. JKD does much repeted training on the tool training. how else does one get better. BUT JKD wants the person to asorb what they find to be there own. All other arts were meant the same. What you may be able to do well another person might do something else better AND you both might train the same style. In the end NO style just people its yours

 

[brothershaw]

About every style you speak of , at one time was a mix. No person can train just by style as you may. A person must see into the style or training and take from it what they find to be there need. All ways, ARTS, offer alot of different aspects no bvody needs or can use all these aspects. JKD does much repeted training on the tool training. how else does one get better. BUT JKD wants the person to asorb what they find to be there own. All other arts were meant the same. What you may be able to do well another person might do something else better AND you both might train the same style. In the end NO style just people its yours

1-I believe you miss my point,
2-I do understand that alot of people go to jkd because they may not be interested in learning all the intricasies of a given style of silat, or wing chun, or escrima etc.
3- As i said earlier I believe Bruce was more interested in producing competent fighters as quickly as possible which meant bypassing alot of material he felt was extraneous. To a person who has spent 10 plus years on silat, or wing chun, or whatever they will look at the AVERAGE person who does JKD and say the guy has techniques but he doesnt know the whole picture and wont understand the advanced stuff. I have had this conversation with people who have spent 10-20+ years studying and teaching martial arts.
4- Yes after and while learning a martial you will find your own way of expressing it within the framework of the art
5- This is not a knock on jkd just an explanation of a certain line of thought.

 

[thtackett]

There is a real foundation to Bruce's art, but sometimes it's not stressed enough. While JKD is not a style, there is a way to do things like punch.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Don't we all start out with a lack of foundation?