Since they are choosing the best of techniques and combinging them?
Not really. JKD is often misunderstood as a collaboration of “whatever works” and one’s “individual way”, but it really isn’t.
JKD is based around Wing Chun, Boxing, and Savate, mostly. There is a curriculum, set movements, set punches and kicks, and a certification process for instructors.
MMA is generally a mish mash of stand up and grappling. The popular secret sauce these days is Muay Thai and BJJ, but really, it can be anything. I believe San Da is becoming more popular now and more people are turning to that.
addendum: basically every style claims to contain only “the best” techniques. IMO, that’s a load of sh!t.
Sports fighting and self-defence are what, in philosophy, would be called different “problematics” - that is, different puzzles that one is trying to solve. These two problematics are related in many ways, and different in others. Consequently there are a lot of people who have/had interests in both.
JKD, in its simplest sense, is the search for what works, for you, primarily in terms of self defence. This means that lots of techniques which can’t be used in MMA due to rules restrictions might actually be very important in JKD. It also means many people who possibly couldn’t or don’t want to do MMA, like people who are disabled, out of condition or just not interested, can learn self-defence techniques which - hopefully - work for them within a JKD curriculum. They could within MMA, I guess, but on a specialist course that looks more like JKD…
So in short, no. JKD - in theory - focuses on self defence and straightforwardly effective techniques in a no or limited rules scenario as its core curriculum. (In reality, a lot of the added fillipino stuff looks very fussy and not simple to me). MMA focuses on what is effective within a specific set of rules. And yet, there are cross-overs between the two, and one would expect that many MMA guys have a good knowledge of self-defence techniques beyond their competitive rule set.
El Contrarian Strikes Again!!!
I’d say JKD isn’t supposed to be anything after reading BL’s books, but he did have a core curriculum he described that’s described in this thread. I don’t think he had the time to build on it because he died too young… but everything I read lead me to believe that JKD was supposed to be a philosophy you adopt AFTER you spent time learning a core traditional art - the whole canoe across the river but don’t carry the canoe once you’re on the other shore. Then you were supposed to strip it away to it’s fighting essence and cross train and borrow to fill any gaps you perceived.
So yes, in a way MMA is the same as JKD.
[QUOTE=KungFubar;1232745]Since they are choosing the best of techniques and combinging them?[/QUOTE]
Mma is a contest and jkd a method of training so they are two different things.
[QUOTE=Miqi;1232977]Sports fighting and self-defence are…[/QUOTE]
I have issue with the term “self-defence”. In “self-defence”, do you land your fist on your opponent’s face exactly the same way as you do in “sport fighting”?
[QUOTE=MightyB;1232986]I’d say JKD isn’t supposed to be anything after reading BL’s books, but he did have a core curriculum he described that’s described in this thread. I don’t think he had the time to build on it because he died too young… but everything I read lead me to believe that JKD was supposed to be a philosophy you adopt AFTER you spent time learning a core traditional art - the whole canoe across the river but don’t carry the canoe once you’re on the other shore. Then you were supposed to strip it away to it’s fighting essence and cross train and borrow to fill any gaps you perceived.
So yes, in a way MMA is the same as JKD.[/QUOTE]
JKD isn’t a cut and dry issue, unfortunately. Due to this, there’s many different answers as to what JKD is. I barely read any of BL’s book, but I trained in JKD. All I can really say based on what I know is that:
[LIST=1]
Then there’s the issue of Jun Fan/JKD/JKD concepts. I’m not an authority on JKD as a whole, only what I learned in class, but still… it’s my understanding that each means something different.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1234061]I have issue with the term “self-defence”. In “self-defence”, do you land your fist on your opponent’s face exactly the same way as you do in “sport fighting”?[/QUOTE]
Excellent way of putting it.
From Tao of Jeet Kune Do:
"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.
MMA is what JKD is suppose to have been.
Isnt JKD certification and cirriculum go against the whole concept of JKD and what Bruce Lee said?
Also, what Im getting out of this thread is this:
True JKD actually is Mixed Martial Arts but it is not to be confused with MMA because MMA while the letters stand for the same thing is the name of a specific sport with rules.
So there is the literal Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) and then there is the sport called Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) that seems to be where the confusion comes in.
Also JKD while it is supposed to be a mixture of martial arts defined only by the practitioner has become the opposite of what BL intended it to be, namely a style with cirriculum and certifications.
Am i getting close here?
[QUOTE=KungFubar;1234133]
Am i getting close here?[/QUOTE]
You must first understand this:
To understand all!
[QUOTE=MightyB;1234137]You must first understand this:
To understand all![/QUOTE]
That’s deep, bro
I did some reading, and it seems to be like this..
There are two main branches:
JKD and JKD Concepts
One teaches only what Bruce Lee taught, the other teaches what Bruce Lee taught and adds in their own flavors as well.
Jeet Kune Do - it seems - is designed to be a foundation for one to then reach out from and adapt with.
So in a way, yes, JKD and MMA are kinda the same, but they’re kinda not. They strive for something similar but in a different way.
Personally, I think it’d be great if more schools taught 2 or more arts. But this goes to the core of my fighting philosophy of change and adaptation and learning how to defend against different kinds of opponents and ensuring that you have the proper techniques for these kinds of opponents.
[QUOTE=KungFubar;1234133]Am i getting close here?[/QUOTE]
- If you look at the moon, you will miss the finger.
- Don’t just do something, stand there.
Hello:
bows deeply
As this is a Kung Fu forum, this may not be lost on members
I feel to claim JKD (despite BL saying forget the name and set curriculum) there has to be a lineage traceable back to BL.
Many of the JKD instructors can trace their lineage back to BL via Dan Inosanto or his students e.g. Paul Vunak, Cass Magda, Chris Kent, Jerry Poteet, Larry Hartsell, etc.
Otherwise, why even call it JKD?
Can you use the JKD Philosophy? I think so. MMA is IMO JKD Philosophy in action.
~sg
[QUOTE=Stickgrappler;1234310]Hello:
bows deeply
As this is a Kung Fu forum, this may not be lost on members
I feel to claim JKD (despite BL saying forget the name and set curriculum) there has to be a lineage traceable back to BL.
Many of the JKD instructors can trace their lineage back to BL via Dan Inosanto or his students e.g. Paul Vunak, Cass Magda, Chris Kent, Jerry Poteet, Larry Hartsell, etc.
Otherwise, why even call it JKD?
Can you use the JKD Philosophy? I think so. MMA is IMO JKD Philosophy in action.
~sg[/QUOTE]
JKD is a concept, NOT a style.
JKD is about using your art no matter what it is. TO internalize your art form and to know it intrinsically and extrinsically.
JKD applies to mma, boxing, kung fu, fencing, karate, wrestling, you name it and you can employ the concept to free yourself to use that within your art that YOU find most usable.
lineage in jkd is laughable in that sense. Even BL taught Jun Fan kung fu (his own style because he didn’t actually have a style that he could lay claim to) as a foundation. It was only afterwards taht he would give the concept to already established martial artists.
Over time, people want to associate themselves with him, make themselves famous through association and then make claims of having inherited jkd…:rolleyes:
The bottom line is still this in martial arts: Repetition is the mother of skill.
I agree it’s a concept - and again although BL didn’t want a style, it is a style per se even as you noted. The set curriculum that Dan Inosanto called Jun Fan Gung Fu is what BL set as the foundation. Others have been labelled “Original JKD” while doing that foundation.
I may be doing what the JKD concept is all about by absorbing what is useful to me, but i shouldn’t call what i do JKD as I have no affiliation/no lineage/no connection whatsoever to BL. I’ll just calle it Stickgrappler-do or Stickgrappler-Kuen or Stickgrappler-Pai. Why bother to even mention JKD?
As you noted, to cash in is probably the biggest reason.
This is one topic that will argued from both sides until infinity sadly.
[QUOTE=Stickgrappler;1234316]I agree it’s a concept - and again although BL didn’t want a style, it is a style per se even as you noted. The set curriculum that Dan Inosanto called Jun Fan Gung Fu is what BL set as the foundation. Others have been labelled “Original JKD” while doing that foundation.
I may be doing what the JKD concept is all about by absorbing what is useful to me, but i shouldn’t call what i do JKD as I have no affiliation/no lineage/no connection whatsoever to BL. I’ll just calle it Stickgrappler-do or Stickgrappler-Kuen or Stickgrappler-Pai. Why bother to even mention JKD?
As you noted, to cash in is probably the biggest reason.
This is one topic that will argued from both sides until infinity sadly.[/QUOTE]
I thought JKD means ‘no style’ so why shouldnt you call what you do JKD? In other words if you arent using a specific style then it can be called JKD? Wasnt that BLs whole message? Q: What style do you practice? A: no style just my own thing aka JKD? No?
Technically JKD means ‘intercepting fist way’
My issue is why even call it JKD of the ‘thing’ you do? Call it “Kungfubar-Do” or “kungfubar-Pai”
That should be ‘your own thing’… jkd’s is BL’s own thing. Know what i mean?