Simularity I've Noticed Between JKD and All Martial Arts

[frank raud]

The concept of reactive, instinctual responses to attacks on the person, to react faster I think, in its own words, would benefit everyone.



JKD espouses no techniques. People claiming to practice, and teach a 'style' of JKD really are doing a variant of Wing-Chun, in my opine. JKD espouses a mindset of self-defense, and reacting to stimuli quickly enough that one can nullify the situation with a pre-emptive strike, which was reactionary. I don't see why internalizing JKD would ever necessitate the alteration of techniques, save perhaps in its espousing of efficiency, in where blocks are simultaneous attacks, and vice-versa.

Eh. Most of the JKD guys I have trained with come from the Inosanto concepts lineage. Little to no wing chun in what most of them do. Fma? Check. Muay Thai? Check. Some of them were certified back in the 80's. That would include an original Dog Brother.

Blocks are simultaneous attacks? That would be a revelation to most karate folks I'm sure. Might want to dig a little deeper than just the Tao of Jeet Kune Do.

How does a philosophy teach people to react faster? And how is unique from the core philosophy of any defensive art?

 

[Cyriacus]

Unfortunately it is, and I like to think I am a decent writer. It has been awhile since I've been on forums, and I'm trying to couch what I say as politely as possible, and I think the result is a lot of what I'm typing is coming out stilted. However, difference of opine has already caused some to practically jump down my throat, so I hope you'll excuse me as I get back up to speed with online communication while attempting to avoid confrontation.

Step 1 of 1: Something can sound pleasant or hostile depending on how You read it, and that applies to everything. But more importantly, how one replies will set the tone for future replies, which can cause some unpleasant exchanges, where only pleasantries were intended.

Thats all You need to know, really.

 

[Zenjael]

The epistemology of JKD stresses reaction, with speed to reach the aggressor, before they finish their technique. The only emphasis there is speed, and perhaps control reinforced by ability to do so, which suggests training, and doing so properly. That's how it was conveyed to me, at least.

 

[Buka]

Unfortunately it is, and I like to think I am a decent writer. It has been awhile since I've been on forums, and I'm trying to couch what I say as politely as possible, and I think the result is a lot of what I'm typing is coming out stilted. However, difference of opine has already caused some to practically jump down my throat, so I hope you'll excuse me as I get back up to speed with online communication while attempting to avoid confrontation.

You have fine writing skills, my friend, I think you're just trying too hard. I love you passion and enthusiasm for the arts, I really do, it's a fine thing. I think you'll find it a common thread among those on this forum for we all love the arts. You might want to keep in mind that there are people here who have battle wounds older than you are, people from different countries that have walked down streets that contain dangers you haven't even thought about yet.

Starting as young as you did has it's advantages. But starting as an adult has advantages, too. When you start as a little kid you have little kid thoughts, and more important, little kid enemies. When you start older, your playing field is different. Way different. There are people here who have served and fought in the military. It's a different kind of fighting. There are policemen here, people who have taken down violent, nasty men. It, too, is a different kind of fighting.

So, take no offense from what any have to say. They're a very good resource for young men on the rise.

 

[Chris Parker]

JKD seems to me to be more than any style, but a philosophy and point of view to martial arts which can be beneficial with any martial art. It espouses a clear philosophy, with tenants which are practical and possible.

But it also seems to me that a martial art, any, has no actual stylistic differences. There are superficial differences, and are as different I've noticed between two practitioners of identical styles. In the end, I've found martial arts to merely, and ultimately, be the expression of perspective through physical means, from one to another, or others.

In this, all martial arts, style by style, are like language in representing thought. In such, each style is like a different form of thinking, expressed through physical means. I do not think there is any better style of thought, just different speeds and degrees. I think logic when considering this matter, and in as such, I am forced to come to the ultimate conclusion that JKD was the beginning insight that martial arts are all philosophies beyond the topical and surface nature of its core tenets and techniques. In the individual, the type of wood will determine the kind of fire, and likewise, certain styles are better suited for certain individuals.

But I like JKD, because it seems to me a philosophy which can, and does, benefit everyone's ability in how they fight.

No. Just... no. There is so much wrong here that I hardly know where to start. But.... no.

 

[Gnarlie]

No. Just... no. There is so much wrong here that I hardly know where to start. But.... no.

This is like one of those nature shows where you watch a group of lions creeping up on a herd of unsuspecting wildebeest. I love this site.

 

[Chris Parker]

I haven't started yet....

 

[Cyriacus]

This is like one of those nature shows where you watch a group of lions creeping up on a herd of unsuspecting wildebeest. I love this site.

Except it isnt a Lion, and theres only one of it

 

[Zenjael]

Then begin, but I do not see err in what I wrote about JKD. Enlighten me, please.

 

[Big Don]

I find myself using horse stance a loooooooot more than I would have expected.

So, you just leave your entire center wide open? After 19 years of training, you fight in a horse stance? Seriously?

 

[Chris Parker]

Then begin, but I do not see err in what I wrote about JKD. Enlighten me, please.

Well, I can see an "err" (sic) in that short comment, so you know... but, since you asked:

JKD seems to me to be more than any style, but a philosophy and point of view to martial arts which can be beneficial with any martial art. It espouses a clear philosophy, with tenants which are practical and possible.

Jeet Kune Do is an approach, which is an expression of a philosophy (in this case, a training philosophy and combative philosophy), to martial art training, espousing cross-training and having a congruent combative ideal. Every martial art is made of a philosophy in this way, which is just as clear. The idea of JKD having "tenants" (uh, "tenets"... "tenants" are people that rent your house) which are practical and possible... what do you think other martial arts have? Tenets (ethical beliefs) that aren't possible? A tenet is an ethical belief or ideal... hmm.

But it also seems to me that a martial art, any, has no actual stylistic differences. There are superficial differences, and are as different I've noticed between two practitioners of identical styles. In the end, I've found martial arts to merely, and ultimately, be the expression of perspective through physical means, from one to another, or others.

Every martial art has stylistic differences to other martial arts, and it is far from superficial. The differences between, say, Judo and Jodo are gigantic in pretty much every way you can think of. The second half of your statement here is so vague as to have no meaning.

In this, all martial arts, style by style, are like language in representing thought.

Hmm. No.

In such, each style is like a different form of thinking, expressed through physical means.

Closer... Martial arts are philosophies, expressed through combative techniques.

I do not think there is any better style of thought, just different speeds and degrees.

I have no idea what you mean by "speeds and degrees", as it doesn't seem to have any context whatsoever.

I think logic when considering this matter, and in as such, I am forced to come to the ultimate conclusion that JKD was the beginning insight that martial arts are all philosophies beyond the topical and surface nature of its core tenets and techniques.

Er, what? Grammar, dude, grammar. This thing makes no sense.

In the individual, the type of wood will determine the kind of fire, and likewise, certain styles are better suited for certain individuals.

Right... but this has any relevance to the rest of this post why?

But I like JKD, because it seems to me a philosophy which can, and does, benefit everyone's ability in how they fight.

Even though your experience and understanding of JKD is basically zero?

Or, to sum up...

No. Just... no. There is so much wrong here I hardly know where to start. But... no.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Is there a clear distinction between JKD as a style and JKD as a concept for an apporach to training?

 

[Chris Parker]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find many JKD practitioners who would even refer to it as a style in the first place, so I guess the major distinction is that JKD doesn't exist as a style, only as a concept.

 

[Xue Sheng]

My understanding, and it is limited as it applies to JKD, is that there are two schools of thought; One says JKD is a kinda sorta is a styleand the other says it kinda sorta isn't.

The Original (or Jun Fan) JKD branch, whose proponents include Taky Kimura, Yap Mat, James Lee, Jerry Poteet, and Ted Wong; these groups claim to teach what was believed to be only what was taught by Bruce Lee, and encourage the student to further develop his or her self and abilities through those teachings. The inherent training principles of this branch are shaped by the concepts of what was "originally taught", by Bruce Lee, which does include such concepts as absorbing what is useful and discarding what is not. These theories are merely viewed in different contexts by the two branches.

The JKD Concepts branch, whose proponents include Dan Inosanto, Richard Bustillo, Larry Hartsell; these groups strive to continue the philosophy of individual self-expression through re-interpretation of combat systems through the lens of Jeet Kune Do, under the concept that it was never meant to be a static art but rather an ongoing evolution, and have incorporated elements from many other martial arts into the main fold of its teachings (most notably, grappling and Kali / Escrima material) based on the individual's personal preferences and physical attributes. The entire JKD "system" can be described through a simple diagram, and the concepts can then be applied to a variety of contexts in a "universal" way.

There are essentially two "types" or viewpoints of Jeet Kune Do:

1.JKD framework This type of JKD provides the guiding principles. Bruce Lee experimented with many styles and techniques to reach these conclusions. To Lee these principles were truisms. The JKD framework is not bound or confined by any styles or systems. This type of JKD is a process.

2.JKD Personal Systems This type of JKD utilizes the JKD framework along with any techniques from any other style or system to construct a "personal system". This approach utilizes a "building blocks" manner in which to construct a personalized system that is especially tailored to an individual. Lee believed that only an individual could determine for themselves what the usefulness of any technique should be. This type of JKD is thus a product.

 

[Big Don]

My understanding, and it is limited as it applies to JKD, is that there are two schools of thought; One says JKD is a kinda sorta is a styleand the other says it kinda sorta isn't.

So, your answer is "Yes/No"

 

[Zenjael]

I have no idea what you mean by "speeds and degrees", as it doesn't seem to have any context whatsoever.

Different degrees of complexity of thought (technique) and speed.

Right... but this has any relevance to the rest of this post why?

JKD can be utilized as a philosophy and mindset by any style. Choose that which best works for you, and modify your perspective of it using JKD tenets.

eet Kune Do is an approach, which is an expression of a philosophy (in this case, a training philosophy and combative philosophy), to martial art training, espousing cross-training and having a congruent combative ideal. Every martial art is made of a philosophy in this way, which is just as clear. The idea of JKD having "tenants" (uh, "tenets"... "tenants" are people that rent your house) which are practical and possible... what do you think other martial arts have? Tenets (ethical beliefs) that aren't possible? A tenet is an ethical belief or ideal... hmm.

A tenet is any held belief which guides one to act, and think within a specific mindframe and context, to me.

 

[Cyriacus]

JKD can be utilized as a philosophy and mindset by any style. Choose that which best works for you, and modify your perspective of it using JKD tenets.

See now, thats like saying, pick something You believe in, and modify Your belief in it based on *Insert Idealogy Here*, because...
Um...
I like it.

Think about it.

What if I dont want to change a series of beliefs, and how I look at what I do, just because JKD has some Tenets that some People like?
Thats practically doing it for the sake of doing it.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Not to appear to be jumping on those who adhere to the teachings of Bruce Lee, but how is someone to practice JKD in any sense without already being extremely knowledgeable in MA? What I mean is, the whole discard what is useless and absorb what is useful; how is any beginner to know what is of any use to him as in many systems important lessons are hid in teaching forms that don't resemble actual combat or may be counter intuitive to what one thinks they should do during a fight?

Can JKD as a concept be practiced only by those who have trained extensively in one or more arts?

 

[Xue Sheng]

So, your answer is "Yes/No"

Heavens no...it is Yes/No... may or may not be wrong

 

[Zenjael]

See now, thats like saying, pick something You believe in, and modify Your belief in it based on *Insert Idealogy Here*, because...
Um...
I like it.

Think about it.

What if I dont want to change a series of beliefs, and how I look at what I do, just because JKD has some Tenets that some People like?
Thats practically doing it for the sake of doing it.

It's not about liking it. If a specific move you have been taught, for you, routinely gets you kicked in the face, or anywhere undesirable, or plain doesn't work... why, according to JKD, should you keep it?

Loooooot of moves I like. Heck, most in MA. But that doesn't mean I use them all for sparring, or even survival.

What if I dont want to change a series of beliefs, and how I look at what I do, just because JKD has some Tenets that some People like?
Thats practically doing it for the sake of doing it.

You don't have to, but if they work, than either way you are following a concept of JKD in keeping what works, for you.