Should JKD Have A Curriculum

Krood1

White Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
With all the success of MMA, Krav Maga etc.....it seems JKD was the beginning of all this.....only using what works.....MMA for the ring and diciplines like Krav Maga have gained popularity for self defense.

Should JKD have a curriculum or should JKD be the instructors version of teaching what he feels is best, then the student eventually discarding what he doesnt need?

In other words, can ( or is) JKD now a combination on WC, Muay Thai, grappling or should it have its own curriculum?
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,374
Reaction score
5,687
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
Well it all depends on whether or not you want to listen to the founder of JKD and/or what one thinks he meant by this

Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.
---Bruce Lee
 
OP
K

Krood1

White Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Thats an excellent way to put it. In your opinion, if we wish to listen to the founder, then are we to take MT, BJJ, WC etc as the means to an end to achieve JKD? Or are we to take JKD as its own curriculum (more like Original JKD).

In other words, if you are going to a school that teaches MT, WC, etc and calls it JKD because we takes whats useful from each, is that JKD?

I guess this is an old argument but Im curious.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,374
Reaction score
5,687
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.

There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.

Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive.

Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.

--Bruce Lee

More of what Bruce Lee Said JKD

To be honest I have often wondered how there could be a specific "style" with a predefined training curriculum called JKD at all based on what Bruce Lee said.
 
OP
K

Krood1

White Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
So if we believe this way then studying multiple arts IS Jeet Kune Do.....MMA would be the sport version of JKD since you have no choice but to use only that which works. So as an MA fighter will work MT, BJJ and wrestling a JKD practitioner may work MT, Wing Chun, Krav Maga, Judo ... whatever.

I am now understanding more and now see how the various schools differ.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,374
Reaction score
5,687
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
Actually I do not see MMA as a sports version of JKD since MMA is following rules which apparently is something Bruce Lee was not trying to do.

JKD is JKD and MMA is MMA and IMO they are not realated anymore than Shaolinquan is realted to MMA. They are both martial arts and have some similarities but they are not the same. IMO the most similar thing to JKD is Wing Chun but then, as far as I know, Wing Chun is the root of JKD.
 

Tensei85

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
29
Location
Michigan
I would have to agree in those regards.

I feel each system or style has under lying concepts & principles that relate to there training methods. And when you lose those principles than it no longer exists in that particular plane, JKD is no different. Its a method but the method does have principles just like BJJ, MT, Karate or anything else. I would say what's most important is not to concentrate on the style appearance or perspective of the given method but to treat each as what Bruce said just a method. A means to reach a goal or destination, so I feel Bruce tried to illiminate the concept of style. As you can see its rather confusing when we think of every thing as a style or system but when it becomes a method to me its a lot clearer.

Just my .02瞽
 

Smoke

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I think this is a fascinating discussion because of the apparent contradictions that are often created.

You have to think about why MMA uses certain arts and not others. MMA uses those things that work to essentially hurt another human being, save for foul tactics (which I feel should be trained as realistically as one can train them). However, foul tactics CAN be trained just as realistically in that regard, within delivery systems such as Muay Thai, BJJ and wrestling, just as they can be trained in any other art.

What is the objective in an MMA fight? It's to knock out or submit the opponent as quickly as is possible, is it not? To me, the only difference is one of strategy; in a street fight, my primary objective would be to escape, not "win" necessarily.

Here though, we have some indication that those arts (bjj, wrestling, MT), while good for the ring, are either not good for the street, or, that the others mentioned (MT, Wing Chun, KM, Judo, etc) are superior for some reason.

Lets remember that regardless of the art(s) involved, it all comes down to how one trains. I think that's more important than anything.

Arts like BJJ, Muay Thai, wrestling, etc, are all trained functionally, against complete resistance. That's why people who train in those arts are functional within the MMA arena (where people completely resist). Well, function is function, and it really doesn't matter where that arena happens to be (ring/cage, barroom, alley way, street, etc). Again, the difference is strategy, imo.

You simply have to train against complete resistance, which people within the above mentioned "street" arts often do not (general blanket statement there based upon my experience and the experiences of many others).

So it strikes me as a bit odd that people would think that arts which typically do not work well in MMA, would suddenly, mysteriously and perhaps "magically" work in a street environment. Yet I understand that such thinking exists. And I understand the rationale behind it as well (namely, the notion of foul tactics). However, please take note of my concept of the use of foul tactics in the "sport" arts before saying as much.

With regard to a specific curriculum...I personally, do not think JKD is about multiple arts or style, because I honestly don't believe in "styles", so to speak. Neither did Lee, as he mentioned his belief in only ONE style (the "human" style, if you will all remember).

I believe that the four ranges provides the "curriculum", so to speak. The fundamentals important for each of those ranges would to me, comprise just such a curriculum.

And just out of curiosity, isn't the four ranges another example of "mixed martial arts"? Just trying to establish some dialog here. And I'm not referring to "rules", but to the underlying delivery systems. I think if you consider what MMA is (kicking, punching, trapping/clinch, grappling)....isn't that four ranges?

I'm just saying this to provide food for thought. JKD is what you discover it to be by researching your own experience. But exactly HOW is that research done? In my opinion, it's not a chalkboard subject left to theory. That truth is born only out of fighting; not hearsay, not someone's instructor passing it down to you or way other than FIGHTING, pure and simple.

If you can make your "stuff" work, throughout all ranges, in a fight (hard sparring with knock-out power) with another equally conditioned and similarly skilled opponent, you'll discover that truth, which to me IS jkd.

And you know what such a fight would look like to bystanders? It would look exactly like MMA. It might look like bad mma, but it would at least resemble it. Doesn't that say anything to you all? It says a lot to me.

Just my opinion folks! Good training to you.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,374
Reaction score
5,687
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
IAnd just out of curiosity, isn't the four ranges another example of "mixed martial arts"? Just trying to establish some dialog here. And I'm not referring to "rules", but to the underlying delivery systems. I think if you consider what MMA is (kicking, punching, trapping/clinch, grappling)....isn't that four ranges?


But the four ranges as you call them are not only found in JKD or MMA they have their root in CMA (as far as JKD is concerned), which was Bruce Lee's root except they are calling it kicking, punching, qinna, and Shuaijiao. So again JKD is, IMO, not more similar to MMA than it is to Xingyiquan, Tongbei or Shaolinquan.

And to clarify, I have absolutely nothing against MMA, quite the contrary; I am rather impressed by it and by its training. However the differences I see between styles like MMA, Muay Thai and Sports Sanda as compared to traditional Martial arts is that MMA, Muay Thai and Sports Sanda train to fight and win that fight and understand that they may see that opponent again later where Traditional Martial Arts train (or at least use to) to basically avoid a fight and if a fight occurs they plan on never seeing that opponent again. But this most certainly does not mean, IMO, that MMA, Muay Thai and Sports Sanda are ineffective outside of the ring in a street fight. I would never want to face the likes of Cung Le in or out of the ring.

But, IMO, I see no reason to associate JKD with MMA because they are both quite able to stand on their own as effective Martial Arts.
 
OP
K

Krood1

White Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Is it best to cross train and would that be JKD?

Training in MT, Silat, WC...whatever...maybe never mastering any but getting useful information from all...is that JKD?

MMA fighters train based on their weaknesses and opponent. They are rarely "masters" in all disciplines. They might hold a black belt in BJJ and work enough MT to compete standing up.

Is that where JKD is at or should be? Let's keep the sport/street debate aside.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,374
Reaction score
5,687
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
I would think that in order for something to be JKD it would have to follow the philosophy set by Bruce Lee. It could not be, IMO, simply training a whole bunch of stuff and call it JKD. Also since his root was CMA (Wing Chun) I would not be surprised to find that one would also need a lineage to Bruce Lee through one of his students now teacher or one of their students now teacher. I do not think you can call something JKD because you went and trained Silat, WC, Muay Thai, etc. Those teachers would be viable in their system but not JKD.

Jeet Kune Do
 

Smoke

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
But the four ranges as you call them are not only found in JKD or MMA they have their root in CMA (as far as JKD is concerned), which was Bruce Lee's root except they are calling it kicking, punching, qinna, and Shuaijiao. So again JKD is, IMO, not more similar to MMA than it is to Xingyiquan, Tongbei or Shaolinquan.


I understand. But my point when I wrote that was, that MMA is really nothing more than the four ranges. However we define those four ranges, is still essentially, mixed martial arts. Perhaps Mixed martial arts isn't even an accurate term. Perhaps it should be called mixed martial ranges, or perhaps even, "freestyle" (or, the "human style")?

JKD practitioners strive to develop skill across those same four ranges.

Many view MMA only as a sport or even, a 'style'. It's neither really imo. It's just that many of the people who are fluent across those four ranges have decided to compete in a sport which also happens to transcend those ranges, if you all see my point.


And to clarify, I have absolutely nothing against MMA, quite the contrary; I am rather impressed by it and by its training. However the differences I see between styles like MMA, Muay Thai and Sports Sanda as compared to traditional Martial arts is that MMA, Muay Thai and Sports Sanda train to fight and win that fight and understand that they may see that opponent again later where Traditional Martial Arts train (or at least use to) to basically avoid a fight and if a fight occurs they plan on never seeing that opponent again.


You know something? I understand and agree with your premise here. I know where you're coming from.

Allow me to clarify my point here: I do not view MMA as a 'style'. I simply see it as a vehicle, so to speak. It's a tool like anything else we have. It can be trained without regard to stylistic tendecies or rules structures. Again, that's merely the way that I see it.

I also understand the differences between an MMA approach for sport and self-defense being, that of avoidance vs. direct engagement. Again, I think it's a matter of how one uses that "vehicle" and, how one prepares. Same tool, different objectives.



But this most certainly does not mean, IMO, that MMA, Muay Thai and Sports Sanda are ineffective outside of the ring in a street fight. I would never want to face the likes of Cung Le in or out of the ring. But, IMO, I see no reason to associate JKD with MMA because they are both quite able to stand on their own as effective Martial Arts.


I believe that when JKD practitioners spar with each other, across all ranges, they are essentially performing MMA, whether they see it as such or not. It simply is, what it is and cannot HELP but be associated with each other, when viewed in the larger sense. MMA is not a "thing". It is what "happens", in other words.




Is it best to cross train and would that be JKD?


I don't see cross training as JKD. I see cross training as having a 4pm Savate class, a 5pm wrestling class, a 6pm Brazilian jiu-jitsu class a 7pm Wing Chun class, etc. To me, that is "cross-training". Training in that manner does not promote integration. To me, "integration" training should be the expression we're looking for, not "cross" training. I realize that may be semantics, but I personally define cross-training in a specific manner. Integration is merely "free style" or, "no style" (no "way").

In my opinion, integration would be a more appropriate method in the pursuit of the truth in combat as opposed to mere cross-training.



Training in MT, Silat, WC...whatever...maybe never mastering any but getting useful information from all...is that JKD?

I don't think it matters if you "master" a style. All that matters that *YOU* become functional and are able to apply what it is that you know. Less is more, simpler is better. I'd rather know fewer techniques and actually be able to apply them against a resisting opponent than to be some "master" of a style who can't fight his way out of a paper bag. Depth of knowledge in a few things is better than breadth of knowledge in many.


MMA fighters train based on their weaknesses and opponent. They are rarely "masters" in all disciplines. They might hold a black belt in BJJ and work enough MT to compete standing up.

Is that where JKD is at or should be? Let's keep the sport/street debate aside.


Modern SPORT MMA fighters simply have to know who their next opponent is and what his strengths and weaknesses are. For the average guy or gal, I think it's more important to be well-rounded. However, there is something to be said for having a "preferred" game, or range -- something that you are working to either master or, have spent more time in. For example, you can prefer to be a striker and choose that as your primary discipline or approach. However, you should at least know the basics of ground fighting so that you can escape from inferior positions. Likewise, you can be a skilled grappler and know enough striking to understand the striker's mentality and stay safe long enough to get in and get it down.

JKD is simply about being well-rounded enough to play across those various ranges. Again, you can prefer to merely intercept, straight blast and trap or whatever. However, any JKD fighter worth his salt will have "no limitations" and be able to adapt to the ever changing dynamics of a real fight. That's really all it comes down to.

By the way, there are some good JKD guys who are blackbelts in BJJ. Just thought I'd point that out. Certainly that doesn't make them any less a JKD man. In fact, it only makes them MORE of one, in my opinion.


I would think that in order for something to be JKD it would have to follow the philosophy set by Bruce Lee. It could not be, IMO, simply training a whole bunch of stuff and call it JKD.



I agree and I think that is an excellent point.


Also since his root was [/color]CMA (Wing Chun) I would not be surprised to find that one would also need a lineage to Bruce Lee through one of his students now teacher or one of their students now teacher. I do not think you can call something JKD because you went and trained Silat, WC, Muay Thai, etc. Those teachers would be viable in their system but not JKD.



I often find myself thinking about this because it's interesting to me. I can trace my lineage back to Bruce Lee through Paul Vunak and Larry Hartsell. I chose to go that route because I felt it was important. But perhaps that only matters if you are calling yourself a JKD "instructor" (I think it does matter). But to merely perform JKD, I don't know that it matters. I think there are a lot of people that I've watched who exemplified JKD even though there were not JKD "instructors".

Great discussion folks! Thanks for engaging me. All view points are encouraged and accepted!
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
31,374
Reaction score
5,687
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
Smoke

Since I am sitting in a recliner at the moment with a laptop on the arm of the chair trying to type, and my foot on a bag of ice I will not use quotes but I do believe we agree.

As to MMA being a style all its own I am not sure myself that it is, but it could be I suppose. But to my thinking it is a method of training multiple marital arts and it takes what is needs to succeed in the ring you and from that you could then say it was not a style in and of itself. However there are MMA schools that train what they call MMA so maybe it is but to be honest it is to early to tell in my opinion

Nice conversation, thanks
 

Tensei85

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
29
Location
Michigan
Smoke,

My idea on this based on your premise of JKD based on the 4 ranges being potentially MMA.
If that being so than virtually all TMA's that have (which is an integral part of tma) the 4 ranges would be MMA based on your opinion. I can't say that is 100% correct as the tek fa, da fa, shuai fa, na fa. Have always been apart of TMA before the dawn of the MMA concept was born. Let me tell you if you tell a traditional CMA practitioner that due to them using the 4 ranges that there potentially MMA, then most likely they're will be hell to pay.

Given its already an integral part of TMA, if anything MMA has taken that umbrella and used it to a fuller capacity in some regards, but it has always been there.

I like your thoughts however.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tensei85

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
29
Location
Michigan
Btw if I missed any of your points I apologize 1st hand, I'm on a mobile device so the screen is a bit small.
 

Tensei85

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
29
Location
Michigan
Just so the wrong idea from my post is not conceived, let me reiterate that my post in no way is mean't to be derogatory to MMA. In fact its just the opposite, that's why in the past I joined an MMA school for quite a few years. And thoroughly enjoyed the training, just thought I would mention that so Tez doesn't come over & wipe the floor with me. :)
 
OP
K

Krood1

White Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Great contributions everyone.

I think the most Im getting fro this is that you cant just train different styles (MT, WC, Silat etc) in a mish mosh fashion and call it JKD. There at least should be some lineage to Bruce either via JKD or WC. That what makes the Concepts amp JKD (Guru Dan).
 

Smoke

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Smoke

As to MMA being a style all its own I am not sure myself that it is, but it could be I suppose.


Well, let me clarify my opinion (because that's merely what it is): I don't really think that MMA IS a style, per se', so I apologize in advance for any confusion. I do believe that if it's trained, all in one (integrated) it could appear to exist as a style, particularly if it's left to the generic arts of muay Thai, BJJ and wrestling.

However, I believe that MMA is just a combination of ranges. In that sense, it is "beyond" style. Put another way, ANY style trained functionally, could fit within the concept of MMA. As we are seeing now with fighters such as Lyoto Machida, MMA is essentially "free-style" or again, as I alluded to earlier "no-style". Machida's shotokan background (I believe it's shotokan) has demonstrated that any fighter from any background may fit into it's (mma) structure if - and that's a BIG if - he is functional and capable of doing so.

Now, I don't know if that made any sense...but I just got back from training and I believe my blood-sugar level has dropped. Maybe tomorrow I may realize that I've just said something entirely stupid (which wouldn't be a first).


But to my thinking it is a method of training multiple marital arts and it takes what is needs to succeed in the ring you and from that you could then say it was not a style in and of itself. However there are MMA schools that train what they call MMA so maybe it is but to be honest it is to early to tell in my opinion

Nice conversation, thanks


To reiterate, I agree that MMA is merely a method of training; a method that is like a shell, open to ALL arts and approaches.


And Thank YOU for the conversation. Again, I'm merely weighing in with my opinion. I really appreciate all of the opinions here. It's good to see everyone's side of the topic. I look forward to many more!



Smoke,

My idea on this based on your premise of JKD based on the 4 ranges being potentially MMA.
If that being so than virtually all TMA's that have (which is an integral part of tma) the 4 ranges would be MMA based on your opinion.


I would have to agree with that statement. Sure, there are many people out there who say that MMA is just a sport. Or, they say that MMA is "just" muay Thai, Brazilian jiu-jitsu and wrestling. I see MMA as merely a method of training. As such, it is merely a template of sorts that combines the 4 ranges into on whole, trained free style. Any art can be made to fit within that template. As I alluded to earlier, Lyoto Machida is "representing", ;) Seriously, he's showing the rest of the brain-dead, that MMA isn't limited to just the three arts, known collectively as "Generic Cage Fighting" (lets call it, GFC, consisting of, muay Thai, Wrestling and Brazilian jiu-jitsu).

So to make sure that I am clear with you, virtually ALL TMA's that have the four ranges (and train as much in an "alive" manner) are potentially, MMA. In my opinion, how one trains is almost more important than what one trains. Function precedes and determines form, or should, IMO. Functional, alive training is the engine that makes it all go. If one has those elements in place, I don't care what you do, it's MMA in my opinion.




I can't say that is 100% correct as the tek fa, da fa, shuai fa, na fa. Have always been apart of TMA before the dawn of the MMA concept was born. Let me tell you if you tell a traditional CMA practitioner that due to them using the 4 ranges that there potentially MMA, then most likely they're will be he** to pay.


I understand that. Modern MMA has really only been around since 1993. Some would argue that it goes back to 1925 in Brazil. Others would say that MMA has been around since we first climbed down from trees. I'm with that latter group. I simply don't see MMA as a "sport". It's merely free style fighting, without artificial range limitations. But remember, that's just how *I* see it. Well...I'm not exactly alone with that, but that is my point of view.



Given its already an integral part of TMA, if anything MMA has taken that umbrella and used it to a fuller capacity in some regards, but it has always been there.

I like your thoughts however.


I would probably agree. And thanks. Just weighing in.


Just so the wrong idea from my post is not conceived, let me reiterate that my post in no way is mean't to be derogatory to MMA. In fact its just the opposite, that's why in the past I joined an MMA school for quite a few years. And thoroughly enjoyed the training, just thought I would mention that so Tez doesn't come over & wipe the floor with me. :)


No no, it's all good. I'm not here to argue but to understand. I live by the old saying, "seek first to understand, then be understood". That's fairly important to me.

Thanks!



Great contributions everyone.

I think the most Im getting fro this is that you cant just train different styles (MT, WC, Silat etc) in a mish mosh fashion and call it JKD. There at least should be some lineage to Bruce either via JKD or WC. That what makes the Concepts amp JKD (Guru Dan).


That may be. But as I love to play Devil's Advocate, I would ask you to consider a few things (nothing like getting more confused, eh?!)


What if you were drawing from Wing Chun, Boxing and Fencing. Then you emphasized the stop hit and stop kick. Now lets say you're training under one of Lee's instructors (Inosanto, Kimura, or one of their's or James Lee's instructors). You'd be doing Jun Fan gung fu. Now lets suppose that you do the exact same thing, in the exact same way, but you're NOT training under one of those people. Are you or are you not doing Jun Fan gung fu?

You would essentially training the same movements, but you would be without direct lineage to Bruce Lee. Is that or is it not Jun Fan? If not, why not? I'm not arguing either way, merely presenting a point.

The bottom line is, the "word, is not the thing". It ultimately doesn't matter what you "call" what you do. But, I'm going off on a tangent at the moment so I'll stop while I still have a head.


Thanks all! Really good conversations with you all.
 

Tensei85

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
29
Location
Michigan
Well, let me clarify my opinion (because that's merely what it is): I don't really think that MMA IS a style, per se', so I apologize in advance for any confusion. I do believe that if it's trained, all in one (integrated) it could appear to exist as a style, particularly if it's left to the generic arts of muay Thai, BJJ and wrestling.

However, I believe that MMA is just a combination of ranges. In that sense, it is "beyond" style. Put another way, ANY style trained functionally, could fit within the concept of MMA. As we are seeing now with fighters such as Lyoto Machida, MMA is essentially "free-style" or again, as I alluded to earlier "no-style". Machida's shotokan background (I believe it's shotokan) has demonstrated that any fighter from any background may fit into it's (mma) structure if - and that's a BIG if - he is functional and capable of doing so.

Now, I don't know if that made any sense...but I just got back from training and I believe my blood-sugar level has dropped. Maybe tomorrow I may realize that I've just said something entirely stupid (which wouldn't be a first).





To reiterate, I agree that MMA is merely a method of training; a method that is like a shell, open to ALL arts and approaches.


And Thank YOU for the conversation. Again, I'm merely weighing in with my opinion. I really appreciate all of the opinions here. It's good to see everyone's side of the topic. I look forward to many more!






I would have to agree with that statement. Sure, there are many people out there who say that MMA is just a sport. Or, they say that MMA is "just" muay Thai, Brazilian jiu-jitsu and wrestling. I see MMA as merely a method of training. As such, it is merely a template of sorts that combines the 4 ranges into on whole, trained free style. Any art can be made to fit within that template. As I alluded to earlier, Lyoto Machida is "representing", ;) Seriously, he's showing the rest of the brain-dead, that MMA isn't limited to just the three arts, known collectively as "Generic Cage Fighting" (lets call it, GFC, consisting of, muay Thai, Wrestling and Brazilian jiu-jitsu).

So to make sure that I am clear with you, virtually ALL TMA's that have the four ranges (and train as much in an "alive" manner) are potentially, MMA. In my opinion, how one trains is almost more important than what one trains. Function precedes and determines form, or should, IMO. Functional, alive training is the engine that makes it all go. If one has those elements in place, I don't care what you do, it's MMA in my opinion.







I understand that. Modern MMA has really only been around since 1993. Some would argue that it goes back to 1925 in Brazil. Others would say that MMA has been around since we first climbed down from trees. I'm with that latter group. I simply don't see MMA as a "sport". It's merely free style fighting, without artificial range limitations. But remember, that's just how *I* see it. Well...I'm not exactly alone with that, but that is my point of view.






I would probably agree. And thanks. Just weighing in.





No no, it's all good. I'm not here to argue but to understand. I live by the old saying, "seek first to understand, then be understood". That's fairly important to me.

Thanks!






That may be. But as I love to play Devil's Advocate, I would ask you to consider a few things (nothing like getting more confused, eh?!)


What if you were drawing from Wing Chun, Boxing and Fencing. Then you emphasized the stop hit and stop kick. Now lets say you're training under one of Lee's instructors (Inosanto, Kimura, or one of their's or James Lee's instructors). You'd be doing Jun Fan gung fu. Now lets suppose that you do the exact same thing, in the exact same way, but you're NOT training under one of those people. Are you or are you not doing Jun Fan gung fu?

You would essentially training the same movements, but you would be without direct lineage to Bruce Lee. Is that or is it not Jun Fan? If not, why not? I'm not arguing either way, merely presenting a point.

The bottom line is, the "word, is not the thing". It ultimately doesn't matter what you "call" what you do. But, I'm going off on a tangent at the moment so I'll stop while I still have a head.


Thanks all! Really good conversations with you all.

As I said before I appreciate your ideas, this makes for a constructive debate. And we all win in the end!

So much appreciated, Ill weigh in more at a later time.
 

Smoke

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
As I said before I appreciate your ideas, this makes for a constructive debate. And we all win in the end!

So much appreciated, Ill weigh in more at a later time.


Excellent. No worries...take your time.
 
Top