Ken, I've heard that before, but "any method that works' really isn't JKD, its just somebody making something up and calling it JKD. You believe the "concept", that is fine, but the concept can't be correct without any original training ot technique. Dan Inosanto will tell you that and the way I was taught is the way I was taught. My Sifu, although his father came from the Oakland JKD school, dosen't use the "JKD" name, nor his father. They consider it a political mess. Whether you call it JKD or not, it is what it is. If you use the name JKD, anyone anytime can walk up and say JKD is this or that and yours is wrong and by todays definition, they would be right and wrong! There are people that say Jerry Poteet shouldn't teach because didn't get certified. Who the hell are they to say that about one of the "Original Students"? The truth is I'd choose to train under an uncertified original student over "any" of the top second generation instructors. Technically some of the originals did get certified by Dan Inosanto. But my point is, just by opinion though, I think that Bruce taught differant on purpose. It goes beyond the evolution. Of course the evolution is true, but even amongst his final students there are differences. Bruce taught to the student, not what the curriculum says for today. Thats the way Felix Macias Jr. taught me and thats the way I teach. I believe that Bruce did have second thoughts about Chi Sao but I think he felt it was hard for the "average person" to make work. He was about efficiency. I also believe that he practiced on his mook jong until he died. What I do isn't chi sao, at least not officially, any Wing Chun guy will tell you so. What I do is work from 3 major ranges and 2 sub ranges. 1- trapping range, 2- clinch range, 3- groudgrappling range. The 2 sub-ranges are trap to clinch range and clinch to ground range. This is my way and I spend a lot of time in the clinch range working in one of the two directions. This is simply put my way.
Thanx for listening.