This is going to anger some people with these statements!

ppko

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
34
Location
Rose Barracks Vilseck,Germany
The Boar Man said:
Just out of curiosity, how much time have you spent looking into his art, or training with any of his students?

"I agree I will probably get ridiculed for this but I think that JKD has went down hill since Bruce has died, as it hasn't grown, and their are lots of disputes." posted by PPKO

How has this art not grown? It's now practiced world wide almost every big city here in the states has someone teaching JKD (in some format or another), there are multitudes of different books written on the subject, every BB or inside Kung Fu magazine has an article about him or JKD, not to mention all of the adds for videos tapes etc. etc. :rolleyes:

Any organization has disputes just look at TKD, karate, dang read the Modern Anris forum if you want to see some disputes :uhyeah: JKD isn't the only art with disputes but the disputes do indicate that the art is still being practiced and people still care about it.

I don't practice JKD and never really have, but I have friends who did, maybe still do. And I've gone to several seminars with some of his top students/instructors over the years trying to expand my knowledge and technique base over the years. And by taking a Kali class from a JKD instructor for 1 1/2 years or so. So I heard the arguement from quite a few sides; is it alive or dead, was Bruce lee the greatest thing since sliced bread, can JKD beat TKD? yada yada yada

To me the art isn't boring, I can get quite a lot out of it, same with Bruce Lee's teachings, same with his student's instruction. It's all the other BS with trying to argue about what JKD is/isn't, is it alive or dead, what is true JKD and what is conceptual JKD etc. etc. that I have a hard time with.

Sorry if I sound harsh here and I'm not rying to ridicule you PPKO. To me his art has grown and with that growth comes alot of new ways of looking at the art and discussing and debating the art, something that wasn't really done when he was alive.

Mark

Let me respond, yes JKD is popular, but it was Bruces' art. When Bruce died I believe his art died, for the plain and simple fact that he wasn't around long enough to give the art a good base. JKD has struggled since then to find a base and that is why there are so many disputes on how they should teach or what they should teach, yes Modern Arnis has its disputes but they do know there base and will try to stay farelly close to teaching it.

Best Regards
PPKO :EG: :mad: :waah:
 

RRouuselot

Master of Arts
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
70
Location
Tokyo
never mind..........I made a comment then deleted it since I find any discussion about B. Lee to be pointless.......sorry
 

Mark Lynn

Master Black Belt
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
1,345
Reaction score
183
Location
Roanoke TX USA
ppko said:
Let me respond, yes JKD is popular, but it was Bruces' art. When Bruce died I believe his art died, for the plain and simple fact that he wasn't around long enough to give the art a good base. JKD has struggled since then to find a base and that is why there are so many disputes on how they should teach or what they should teach, yes Modern Arnis has its disputes but they do know there base and will try to stay farelly close to teaching it.

Best Regards
PPKO :EG: :mad: :waah:

PPKO
I understand what you mean about Bruce Lees art dieing with him, but I disagree, rather I would say it died for him. He's no longer around to promote or practice it. But just like in any martial art system when the founder dies the art (if it continues) will change. When it changes there will be people who like this change or that and will follow the path that they like but the esecence of the art still continues it doesn't die (IMHO).

In Modern Arnis you have MARRIPO teaching the way the Professor did back in the earlier days. You have the IMAF teaching what the Professor taught in his later days, you have Bram Frank now teaching the blade or edged weapon characteristics of the system (the bolo and the knife), SM Dan Anderson has taken what he learned from the Professor and created his own system Modern Arnis 80 (still paying tribute to the Professor and his art). And you have Datu Dieter Knuttle in Germany teaching Modern Arnis and yet he was influenced by the Professor's younger brother GM Ernesto Presas. They all have different flavors so to speak of the professor's art (and there are a host of others as well whom I haven't mentioned).

Now take JKD. It's the same thing. You have people teaching Conceptual JKD, you have instructors teaching what was taught in Seattle, Oakland, and the Chinatown JKD, and in Inosanto's own backyard. These guys have refined their arts/methods over the years and turned out some good students who've continued on the instruction. To be honest with you the guys teaching the Seattle, Oakland, chinatown material probably have stayed right with what they were taught. Dan Inosanto has made no excuses for expanding what he was taught. I'd say the art is growing.

There are many examples in the martial arts of this happening in karate as well, take Wado ryu, Shotokan, Akido, Isshin ryu etc. etc. Those arts as well have prospered even though their founders have passed away and they have changed between the surviving instructors.

with respect
Mark
 
H

Hanzo04

Guest
why even make this statement when it's been said a thousand times already before?
 

ppko

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
34
Location
Rose Barracks Vilseck,Germany
The Boar Man said:
PPKO
I understand what you mean about Bruce Lees art dieing with him, but I disagree, rather I would say it died for him. He's no longer around to promote or practice it. But just like in any martial art system when the founder dies the art (if it continues) will change. When it changes there will be people who like this change or that and will follow the path that they like but the esecence of the art still continues it doesn't die (IMHO).

In Modern Arnis you have MARRIPO teaching the way the Professor did back in the earlier days. You have the IMAF teaching what the Professor taught in his later days, you have Bram Frank now teaching the blade or edged weapon characteristics of the system (the bolo and the knife), SM Dan Anderson has taken what he learned from the Professor and created his own system Modern Arnis 80 (still paying tribute to the Professor and his art). And you have Datu Dieter Knuttle in Germany teaching Modern Arnis and yet he was influenced by the Professor's younger brother GM Ernesto Presas. They all have different flavors so to speak of the professor's art (and there are a host of others as well whom I haven't mentioned).

Now take JKD. It's the same thing. You have people teaching Conceptual JKD, you have instructors teaching what was taught in Seattle, Oakland, and the Chinatown JKD, and in Inosanto's own backyard. These guys have refined their arts/methods over the years and turned out some good students who've continued on the instruction. To be honest with you the guys teaching the Seattle, Oakland, chinatown material probably have stayed right with what they were taught. Dan Inosanto has made no excuses for expanding what he was taught. I'd say the art is growing.

There are many examples in the martial arts of this happening in karate as well, take Wado ryu, Shotokan, Akido, Isshin ryu etc. etc. Those arts as well have prospered even though their founders have passed away and they have changed between the surviving instructors.

with respect
Mark
A good post sir I agree.

Best Regards,
PPKO :EG: :mad: :waah:
 
OP
Corporal Hicks

Corporal Hicks

Black Belt
Joined
Apr 27, 2004
Messages
565
Reaction score
6
Location
England
Well, its been a long time since I first posted this thread and I have to say that my view has changed. I've been reading the Tao Of Jeet Kune Do recently whilst at sixth form and I've been taking down notes in a note pad to what it understands to me as.

I'm only 17 but I believe that my interpretation of JKD from Bruce Lee and what he was trying to get at was that you should try everything if you can, whatever it may be i.e Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Jujitsu, Tai Boxing, Kung Fu, etc etc and that you should take what you feel works for you and forget that you have learned these seperate arts and apply your own views and thoughts and that this is your own personalised style (the style that could give you the most potential IMO) and because this "style" (not that Bruce Lee wanted JKD to be style) is your perfect style you have no boundaries of the orginal arts you have learned from, you are a "free soul" if you like and that you may think how you wish about what you have learnt and that you may apply anything if you wish. There is no right and wrong.

Because Bruce Lee knew it would be difficult to get this idea across to people he created JKD, even though he did not even want to call it JKD because it already has a styled name. Ok let me put it this way, imagen somebody somehow learnt every single move there is from every martial art but didnt actually study any of the arts, he has learnt no art but he has this style, "his own personalised style" and nobody else has that style, it is his own. I think this is what Bruce Lee was trying to say, that you shouldnt be held down by the names of styles and names of Martial Arts and the prejudices of them if you truely want to reach your full potential but its your choice, if you want to do so..

Quote from TAO Of JKD to support my view,

"If you want to understand the truth in martial arts, to see any opponent clearly, you must throw away the notion of styles or schools, prejudices, likes and dislikes, and so forth. Then your mind will cease all conflict and come to rest. In this silence, you will see totally and freshly."

(I have other quotes but dont have time to back up my interpretation sorry!)

Since I've read the Tao Of JKD I have questioned TKD but I have also knuckled down and seen what it has done for me, I go with nature and dont fight against it. Where I see the limits of TKD I also see its valuable points i.e how it COULD be one of the most professional kicking arts. I ultilize what I think is useful and I also ultilize my Wing Chung and I create a mixture of my own with my own techniques. Its not a mixture of Martial Arts, its my personalised style, or I like to think that way.

Regards
Nick
 

ppko

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
34
Location
Rose Barracks Vilseck,Germany
Corporal Hicks said:
Well, its been a long time since I first posted this thread and I have to say that my view has changed. I've been reading the Tao Of Jeet Kune Do recently whilst at sixth form and I've been taking down notes in a note pad to what it understands to me as.

I'm only 17 but I believe that my interpretation of JKD from Bruce Lee and what he was trying to get at was that you should try everything if you can, whatever it may be i.e Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Jujitsu, Tai Boxing, Kung Fu, etc etc and that you should take what you feel works for you and forget that you have learned these seperate arts and apply your own views and thoughts and that this is your own personalised style (the style that could give you the most potential IMO) and because this "style" (not that Bruce Lee wanted JKD to be style) is your perfect style you have no boundaries of the orginal arts you have learned from, you are a "free soul" if you like and that you may think how you wish about what you have learnt and that you may apply anything if you wish. There is no right and wrong.

Because Bruce Lee knew it would be difficult to get this idea across to people he created JKD, even though he did not even want to call it JKD because it already has a styled name. Ok let me put it this way, imagen somebody somehow learnt every single move there is from every martial art but didnt actually study any of the arts, he has learnt no art but he has this style, "his own personalised style" and nobody else has that style, it is his own. I think this is what Bruce Lee was trying to say, that you shouldnt be held down by the names of styles and names of Martial Arts and the prejudices of them if you truely want to reach your full potential but its your choice, if you want to do so..

Quote from TAO Of JKD to support my view,

"If you want to understand the truth in martial arts, to see any opponent clearly, you must throw away the notion of styles or schools, prejudices, likes and dislikes, and so forth. Then your mind will cease all conflict and come to rest. In this silence, you will see totally and freshly."

(I have other quotes but dont have time to back up my interpretation sorry!)

Since I've read the Tao Of JKD I have questioned TKD but I have also knuckled down and seen what it has done for me, I go with nature and dont fight against it. Where I see the limits of TKD I also see its valuable points i.e how it COULD be one of the most professional kicking arts. I ultilize what I think is useful and I also ultilize my Wing Chung and I create a mixture of my own with my own techniques. Its not a mixture of Martial Arts, its my personalised style, or I like to think that way.

Regards
Nick
Very good, always remember you really need that base art before you can start to understand, some people take what Bruce said and show up to a school for a month or 2 and than leave they will never have a very effective art (at least not in my oppinion) I hope you continue to learn and instead of throwing away what does not work for you adjust it so that it does.
 

someguy

Master Black Belt
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
1,098
Reaction score
20
Location
Milledgeville Ga
There are plenty of people who are over weight in other sports. As to instructers being over weight. Well I think that you may want to lok at instructers in most other sports also. See how many of them are overweight.
 

ppko

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
34
Location
Rose Barracks Vilseck,Germany
someguy said:
There are plenty of people who are over weight in other sports. As to instructers being over weight. Well I think that you may want to lok at instructers in most other sports also. See how many of them are overweight.
Just wandering, to whom are you talking to :idunno:
 
A

AnimEdge

Guest
I woudl think that the whole Strike First thing doesnt work well with the defence laws today, if some guy come up to you and seams like he will attack nd you attack first then technicly then he is attacking in defence and you are the attack, his ideas work well in contests when everyone is there to fight but in real life it still woudl be effective but the law probly wouldnt like it
 
R

RHD

Guest
markulous said:
I agree with you Hicks. Most of what is taught today is not effective for combat.
Example: While a horse stance or a long fist stance will make your legs stronger to use them in a fight would not work at all. Most of the blocks that are taught are not as effective as simply moving out of the way a few inches.


Wrong.

A horse stance, or any other classical stance from Chinese martial arts will work just fine...If you know how to use it correctly.
Stances, are often mistaken as static positions which you asssume in order to fight. This is incorrect. Stances are an integral part of a technique for delivering energy, creating openings, disrupting your opponent's balance, etc... Standing in any static poisition is never an effective way to meet force, direct force, or deliver force. One must move into the stances and then out of them...it's called footwork and it's employed in every martial based activity from knife fighting to MMA to American boxing whether the practitioners of those respective disciplines know it or not.
Blocks on the other hand, next to stances, are some of the most misunderstood and poorly taught foundational skills in martial arts of all origins. Blocking is never a good plan unless there is no better option. It's a last resort for when you've let things go to far and are now left without other options. Most "blocks" are badly misunderstood techniques and concepts that generally have nothing to do with blocking anything, and everything to do with attacking or setting up for an attack.
But hey...this is of course only my opinion and I'm sure that many will vehemenently disagree. %think%

Mike
 

ppko

Master Black Belt
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
34
Location
Rose Barracks Vilseck,Germany
RHD said:
Wrong.

A horse stance, or any other classical stance from Chinese martial arts will work just fine...If you know how to use it correctly.
Stances, are often mistaken as static positions which you asssume in order to fight. This is incorrect. Stances are an integral part of a technique for delivering energy, creating openings, disrupting your opponent's balance, etc... Standing in any static poisition is never an effective way to meet force, direct force, or deliver force. One must move into the stances and then out of them...it's called footwork and it's employed in every martial based activity from knife fighting to MMA to American boxing whether the practitioners of those respective disciplines know it or not.
Blocks on the other hand, next to stances, are some of the most misunderstood and poorly taught foundational skills in martial arts of all origins. Blocking is never a good plan unless there is no better option. It's a last resort for when you've let things go to far and are now left without other options. Most "blocks" are badly misunderstood techniques and concepts that generally have nothing to do with blocking anything, and everything to do with attacking or setting up for an attack.
But hey...this is of course only my opinion and I'm sure that many will vehemenently disagree. %think%

Mike
What a great post lots of stuff come from your stances, just remember shorter stances are for mobility, and longer stances are for stability. I truly enjoyed your post sir.:ultracool
 
Top