Should JKD Have A Curriculum

Xue Sheng

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

I do agree that at this point MMA is likely not a style of its own (and may never be) since many that train MMA have trained (for example) BJJ and Muay Thai, or any other combination of things, and use those to fight under the MMA label. But I am not so sure that somewhere down the road, based on the existence of MMA schools that, as silly as this sounds, Mixed Martial Arts could end up a style of its own. But the few MMA schools I have seen (2) also have BJJ and Muay Thai as well so again it is as you said more of a vehicle.


And to get back to the post itself, MMA is not, IMO, the sports version of JKD and JKD, IMO, can not have an actually curriculum (meaning required standardized forms) and remain JKD as Bruce Lee's philosophy appears to define JKD.
 

simplicity

Green Belt
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
168
Reaction score
7
Location
Hale, MI
People that have the correct info, will know that there is a progression to understanding the principle's... Most will teach "IT" as a progression of understanding (when the friend/student is ready)... One could say that the three stages of cultivation is a road map to understanding oneself...


now back to the orig. question... Once you write "IT" down, "IT" is no longer "alive"...


Something to think about... (o_0)


Keep "IT" Real,
John McNabney
 
OP
K

Krood1

White Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
If an instructor is Inosanto certfified that means he is certified to instruct JKD (concepts at least) and I presume there is some sort of "curriculum" no? Or is the Inosanto certification a "method" ?
 

Smoke

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I can't speak for Dan or anyone else, but I do know that many teach the Jun Fan system as a base for JKD.

Personally speaking, I no longer use the Jun Fan curriculum. I broke from that back around 1999-2000. I really started moving away from that as far back as 1996-97.

What matters to me is simply training functionally and alive. Do we train to fight in all ranges, in various environments, against individual or multiple attackers? Do we train to fight with and against weapons? If you can answer yes to those questions, you are adhering to the fundamental concepts of JKD in my opinion.

Perhaps the best way I have ever heard it put was, JKD is a process, not a product. If that is in any way understandable, I think it answers a lot of questions.

Sure, you have to start somewhere and some manner of curriculum is required. For me, it's simple:

  • There are three core ranges (standing, clinch, ground).
  • The curriculum consists of fundamentals necessary to have functional ability in each of those three games.
  • The standing game fundamentals come from (but aren't limited to) Western boxing. Personally, I use elements of panantukan, savate, muay Thai, silat, etc., along with boxing.
  • The fundamentals of the clinch game consist mainly of Greco-Roman wrestling, judo, muay Thai, silat.
  • The fundamentals of the ground game come primarily from Brazilian jiu-jitsu and wrestling.
Our weapons program is, more or less, Dog Brothers martial arts. One of my students was a Blackwater guy, so we do some firearms work on occassion (although I'm not completely into gun stuff). But it is all fun, I gotta say that. Hell it's ALL fun! That's why I do this crazy stuff, lol

I also never limit myself to anything. Those fundamentals are fairly set, but I really branch out and research all the time. That's how you grow. Growth in terms of depth, not necessarily breadth. I think that's key as well.
 

Robert Lee

Brown Belt
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
425
Reaction score
6
Jeet kune do Has its methods towards Learnig. BUT each person also has there own JKD. Meaning as you develop what becomes your own Your JKD is what you developed in doing. Then if going further into other aspects of different Approachments You borrow what you need. BUT then should drop what you found less useful. Bruce did his JKD each person who trained under hime DID theres. BUT many trained the same tools. And through live training found the tools that they could use as there own. MMA in a way came from what people found as a need to survive the sport. BUT those same methods will work great on any streets. IS it really MMA to train the needed tools for a rounded fighter. JKD was trained for street fighting nOT the ring. BUT it to could be trained for the ring. Just as MMA can be used outside the ring. ANY good fighter develops there needs Tests there application Improves there methods And explores othere methods. JKD has a root to its structure But becomes the persons own after that. To add , remove . alter. As there own. Is it still JKD yes But only theres Let others follow there own path Give The ground structure and freedom of discovery To each person. BUT JKD is not this with a little of that without Its key structure coming first. In away All MA methods is but a tool to grow by. each person develops there own Methods if given the freedom Or they become robots In a closed room. remember boxing is what all boxer call what they do NO style names BUT thousands train boxing Each there own as in the fight Only that person Has the control over there performance. JKD, MMA, Gung FU, karate, ect. All just names in the end. Methods, results, performance. AND yes Hard training Makes a fight. Life is the other half We all live A life beyond MA. Some kind of structure is in any method. And life is ever changing each day is different. NO MA has the truth. But many can share the idea.
 

Smoke

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I agree that JKD is meant for the street, whereas MMA is meant for the ring. However, I think you can train MMA for the street. I think the JKD fighter can make good use of just such a tool.

Because in my opinion, that's what MMA is; a tool or "vehicle" to get us to a place where we are functional.

I think there certainly is a difference between sport and street, but I believe the differences are subtle and the lines are blurry at times.

I also feel that the JKD fighter should be able to fight in ANY enviromment that he (or she) finds himself in. Whether that be a barroom, alley way, a kitchen (don't laugh, it happens), or even, (God forbid), a CAGE or ring. He should have NO limitations.

Obviously, training for the ring or cage will require specific training within a rules structure that mimics the structure of a specific event. (Pride's rules were different than the UFC, for example. If you trained for Pride rules and came into the UFC, you may likely be penalized for infractions, etc.)

"Structure" (form?) is a another good topic. I feel that Function determines and precedes form (as with architecture) and not the other way around. Pressure testing often finds cracks within our structures. Absorbing what is useful and rejecting the useless eventually encourages evolution, if we are able to let go of tradition for tradition's sake. I think that's important too.

What does that mean to me? For one, it meant giving up Jun Fan as practiced in linear fashion and dropping a lot of stuff that I just found to be non-functional under pressure.

I have learned to question everything and to hold nothing "sacred", if it doesn't prove itself out. And, I think that's a completely healthy thing to do. Nothing should be beyond questioning and/or testing.

Eventually I came to realize that if it doesn't work, why continue to teach it? Why teach something that you will eventually have to discard anyway? Or as I have later discovered, it could be taught another way...but more on that later.

Something else that is similarly related...I used to practice silat as it was traditionally taught to me in a linear fashion. I couldn't make it work for the life of me under pressure. Now I am finding ways to incorporate it into my training and guess what? Some of it is becoming functional. I just threw that in there at random because of the last sentence in my preceding paragraph. Again, more on that later.
 
OP
K

Krood1

White Belt
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
After reading some of Guru Dan's stuff, you guys are really hitting the nail on the head with all this. At least from my perspective. I think this type of thread is useful in that it can direct a person better as to what is and is not JKD.

I now an looking at it differently. I am looking at it more like "what is MY JKD" and how do I get better than "am I learning real JKD"
 

Robert Lee

Brown Belt
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
425
Reaction score
6
I agree that JKD is meant for the street, whereas MMA is meant for the ring. However, I think you can train MMA for the street. I think the JKD fighter can make good use of just such a tool.

Because in my opinion, that's what MMA is; a tool or "vehicle" to get us to a place where we are functional.

I think there certainly is a difference between sport and street, but I believe the differences are subtle and the lines are blurry at times.

I also feel that the JKD fighter should be able to fight in ANY enviromment that he (or she) finds himself in. Whether that be a barroom, alley way, a kitchen (don't laugh, it happens), or even, (God forbid), a CAGE or ring. He should have NO limitations.

Obviously, training for the ring or cage will require specific training within a rules structure that mimics the structure of a specific event. (Pride's rules were different than the UFC, for example. If you trained for Pride rules and came into the UFC, you may likely be penalized for infractions, etc.)

"Structure" (form?) is a another good topic. I feel that Function determines and precedes form (as with architecture) and not the other way around. Pressure testing often finds cracks within our structures. Absorbing what is useful and rejecting the useless eventually encourages evolution, if we are able to let go of tradition for tradition's sake. I think that's important too.

What does that mean to me? For one, it meant giving up Jun Fan as practiced in linear fashion and dropping a lot of stuff that I just found to be non-functional under pressure.

I have learned to question everything and to hold nothing "sacred", if it doesn't prove itself out. And, I think that's a completely healthy thing to do. Nothing should be beyond questioning and/or testing.

Eventually I came to realize that if it doesn't work, why continue to teach it? Why teach something that you will eventually have to discard anyway? Or as I have later discovered, it could be taught another way...but more on that later.

Something else that is similarly related...I used to practice silat as it was traditionally taught to me in a linear fashion. I couldn't make it work for the life of me under pressure. Now I am finding ways to incorporate it into my training and guess what? Some of it is becoming functional. I just threw that in there at random because of the last sentence in my preceding paragraph. Again, more on that later.
Many thoughts can be agreed on. But As you said you dropped waht you found not useful for you. NOW what is useful for you may not be as useful when taught to others. JKD has its structure Then letting go for each persons development Has no way. Just as you looked back on silat and found a way of use making parts functional in your training today. Giving the chance for SAY STUDENTS to train as you trained showing the method also that you adapted Gives them the same chance to be free to express there JKD or personal MA way. After all in the end that day that time the results are the action taken for the momemt. No closed doors open minds see more BUT yes your right on your own track in what you say and do Good input which is agreeable
 
Top