The way of the intercepting fist...

[Cruentus]

There was a Bruce Lee Special on at about 1 AM on AMC that made me think of this, so I thought I would post.

Bruce lee was talking about Jeet Kun Do as "the way of the intercepting fist." I had read and studied this concept before (about 12 years ago probably) and applied it to my sparring. It's an awesome concept. In a nutshell, it's basically the idea that for an opponent to attack me, they have to move within my range to execute their technique. My defense, then, doesn't have to be a block...rather I can attack the closest target and beat his timing, or angle my attack in such a way that his attack is unable to connect, while mine is.

This way I am not just "blocking," I am "intercepting his fist (or technique)".

Pretty awesome concept. Any thoughts?

Also, his wife Linda explained very well how people misinterpret one of Lee's quotes. The quote is regarding having "no form". She said that people take this concept of "no form" to mean that "everything I do is correct," which is not what was ment.

I see this a lot at JKD schools. Like any art, you have people who are very good, and others who are clowns. A lot of the clowns seem to use the "no form" concept as a justification for their lack of skill and their unwillingless to learn a more profecient way of executing their techniques.

Any thoughts on this as well?

PAUL

btw...I am not a JKD practitioner, but I do enjoy Bruce lee's works. I like the Tao of JKD. So, please understand that my comments are from someone who doesn't study JKD as a system.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by PAUL
There was a Bruce Lee Special on at about 1 AM on AMC that made me think of this, so I thought I would post.

Bruce lee was talking about Jeet Kun Do as "the way of the intercepting fist." I had read and studied this concept before (about 12 years ago probably) and applied it to my sparring. It's an awesome concept. In a nutshell, it's basically the idea that for an opponent to attack me, they have to move within my range to execute their technique. My defense, then, doesn't have to be a block...rather I can attack the closest target and beat his timing, or angle my attack in such a way that his attack is unable to connect, while mine is.

This way I am not just "blocking," I am "intercepting his fist (or technique)".

Pretty awesome concept. Any thoughts?

Also, his wife Linda explained very well how people misinterpret one of Lee's quotes. The quote is regarding having "no form". She said that people take this concept of "no form" to mean that "everything I do is correct," which is not what was ment.

I see this a lot at JKD schools. Like any art, you have people who are very good, and others who are clowns. A lot of the clowns seem to use the "no form" concept as a justification for their lack of skill and their unwillingless to learn a more profecient way of executing their techniques.

Any thoughts on this as well?

PAUL

btw...I am not a JKD practitioner, but I do enjoy Bruce lee's works. I like the Tao of JKD. So, please understand that my comments are from someone who doesn't study JKD as a system.

I'm not sure when or if you'll ever be in the area but if you are this guy will entertain you.
http://www.geocities.com/Tao_Of_Gung_Fu/The_Nucleus_Of_Gung_Fu.html

:asian:

 

[Touch Of Death]

Hey who you callin' a clown? Just kidding. I always teach to anyone who will listen about offense and defense being an ethicle question, and that motion is just motion. if you are anchoring your elbows when striking, then the first half of your strike is always the block and that return motion is half your art.
Sean

 

[bscastro]

Paul,

The "no form" concept is very interesting and what you mention is I think very insightful.

To form an analogy with one of my other activities, chess, there was a champion named Anatoly Karpov. He was asked what his "style" of play was...he replied, "Style...I have no style." Of course, implying that he played precisely the proper move that was needed. Of course, his "style" or lack of it made him very hard to defeat as a chess player. If a person tried to play aggressively with him (with more risky play) he surgically cut apart at his opponent's weakpoints. If he opponent tried to play more passively, he would use strategy to "force" a weakness in his opponent then go at it like a madman!

I think this holds true for JKD. Reaching the goal as well as the process of doing so seems to be more important than whether it is a "karate" technique or a "boxing" techniue. So although concepts like cross-training is not the definition of JKD, it becomes useful in terms of familiarizing oneself with different "styles" and maybe noting more effective ways of doing things.

Bryan

 

[Cthulhu]

If you practice a Filipino martial art, then you most likely practice 'interception' in some form or another...it's just not called that.

After all, what is a destruction/gunting or the concept of 'defanging the snake'?

Cthulhu

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Cthulhu
If you practice a Filipino martial art, then you most likely practice 'interception' in some form or another...it's just not called that.

After all, what is a destruction/gunting or the concept of 'defanging the snake'?

Cthulhu

I agree. The concept absolutely compares well to FMA, which is why it caught my eye.

 

[Mormegil]

With respect to FMA...

JKD interceptions tend to favor primary target hits a bit more. Guntings or destructions almost exclusively attack the attacking limb - hence defanging the snake.

For example, against the same lead straight, you will find very similar techniques, but with different targets-
JKD: Oy wan pak (outside crossing slap) + loy da or loy biu jee (inside punch or finger jab) -- AKA split entry

FMA: Would be an inside/outside horizontal gunting with the target typically being the bicep or even the forearm.

Another example of JKD interception targetting aiming for primary targets would be any of the simultaenous attack and defense (if you consider these interception, as it's doesn't always precede the landing of the opponent's attack). Such as Tan Da, or Biu Da - where you block with one hand, and typically punch to the face with the other.


I feel that the reliance of secondary targets of FMA stems from the heavy influence of bladed weapons. If your opponent has a blade, then you want to keep your distance more, and it is paramount to "defang" in that case. Also, while you have a blade, the attacks on the secondary targets are at least as damaging as a punch to the face - you can bleed to unconciousness or death.

 

[Cruentus]

I agree that FMA pays attention to secondary targets more-so the other systems. Yet, the concept is still the same.

I can intercept my opponents attack simply by attacking his primary target as well; like he trys to roundhouse kick me, and my defense is a kick to the groin which disipates his attack.

This could be done in JKD, FMA, or any other system. Intercepting the attack isn't isolated to just hitting the attacking limb in any system.

 

[Cthulhu]

Well, the other concept to keep in mind is "fastest/longest weapon to the nearest target". The only difference here is that an FMA practitioner would see the incoming weapon as a viable target, while another stylist may not. And if you train properly, the destruction is not the 'be all, end all' of the fight...merely a 'softening up' technique to move in and dispatch the attacker. Think of Vunak's RAT system...the destruction is merely the entry.

Cthulhu