JKD = Art

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Mixed Martial Arts
21

Stinkssss of “all arts have unique equalness” dogma, silly.

You evaulate by training, training more, training lots more, then testing, and at some point you start to figure out whats smarter for you to ‘use’ and whats not so smart for you to ‘use.’

Anyone with any kind of realistic, serious, actual training to fight, can evauate a particular training method and see the obvious benefits and drawbacks. Unless for some reason you suggest that martial arts is mystical and different from all other forms of study and dicipline.

:eek:

22

smartmonkey on defend.net

If you have read SBGi material before, this is not new. Its full of marketingisms. Good stuff nonetheless.

:eek:

23

As much of a fan I am of some of the philosophies of JKD, I think there are just a few too many peeps anymore who use the philisophical “word/unword” to describe, well, pretty much anything.

SBG is good, and they produce good fighters, but it’s not my cup of tea.

24

You evaulate by training, training more, training lots more, then testing, and at some point you start to figure out whats smarter for you to ‘use’ and whats not so smart for you to ‘use.’
And what if you’re training is wrong, that you are using the techniques wrong, that your assumptions are wrong? Something that I’ve experienced is trying to train yourself out of a lack of knowlage. I’ve seen people, and done this myself btw, train things incorrectly, assume that they don’t work and toss them away, with the only problem being ignorance of how something is supposed to be used.

25

Rogue makes a good point.

26

Here’s an interesting quote from the DB site from a very good article on trapping.

But most of all, we need to remember that THESE TRAINING METHODS WERE DEVELOPED BY WARRIORS IN THE PHILIPPINES TO TRAIN WELL AND SAFELY. HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WE TRY TO USE THEM TO DEVELOP WARRIORS, WHICH IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TASK, AND BLAME THE METHODS INSTEAD OF OURSELVES WHEN WE STILL CAN’T FIGHT. This is just my opinion.
To me this also pertains to much karate training like kata and is a reason why to most a “block is just a block and a strike is just a strike”.

27

And what if you’re training is wrong, that you are using the techniques wrong, that your assumptions are wrong…

Well yeah. This is where a good teacher comes into good use.

How will you ever know that you are “doing” the “techniques” right? What test can you ever apply that will truely tell you if its you thats lacking at that particular moment or the design of the “technique” thats lacking?

The problem there is the idea of “techniques.”

Ive never met a “JKD person” in real life that talks about the “keep what works and discard what doesnt” maxim in such a serious, godly way that people on the internet and BL fanatics talk about. It seems easily understood and applied by the people Ive trained with and met. Constantly learn (accumulate) and constantly discard (evaulate.) Its a process that never stops, and its the process that matters. Mistakes are one of the most mis-understood training tools. Its good for a person to decide they will no longer “use” a “technique” anymore because “it” doesnt “work.” They will learn something from that mistake at some point.

:confused:

28

Yenhoi, a semi-serious question

Why the quotations around doing, using, and techniques? They don’t seem to carry any dual philisophical or literal use.

But, that could just be “me.” :wink:

Peace.

29

“Techniques” do not exist, you cant use them, they dont do anything. They are just an easy way of talking about very very broad groups of common body mechanics. Instead of attempting to get my warped point of view accross in every single thread, I just use quotes to ease my mind and calm the flames.

:eek:

30

How will you ever know that you are “doing” the “techniques” right? What test can you ever apply that will truely tell you if its you thats lacking at that particular moment or the design of the “technique” thats lacking?

A very good instructor is needed. I’m learning that trial and error is a lousy way to discover what a good sensei can teach in 5 minutes. I tested my karate blocks and analyzed the things to death, couldn’t make them work. Then I hooked up with a small group that showed me how effective they could be with a slight change in mindset, targeting and striking surface. Bam, one class and they worked in sparring. I was trying to make something work in a way it was never intended to work. All the testing led to false results and was a pure waste of time.

If we are asking, “How will you ever know that you are “doing” the “techniques” right?”, indicates that our instructors are failing or we are failing to listen to the good instructors.

Ive never met a “JKD person” in real life that talks about the “keep what works and discard what doesnt” maxim in such a serious, godly way that people on the internet and BL fanatics talk about.
I remember the dreaded BL fanboys from my days in JKD. :rolleyes: :smiley:

31

Greetings..

I believe the question was put to me of "What background do you have for evaluating those techniques and evaluating their worth? "… Only my own experience, the same experience that has taught me not to assume the words of others are less than valid without some evidence to the contrary…

Suppose you go fishing and the local “fishmaster” says to use a certain lure.. 2 hours later and no fish, you try another lure and you begin to catch fish.. work with me here, do you chastise yourself for abandoning the local wisdom, or go home with lots of fish.. Same as in the rest of life, if it doesnt work for you and something else does, common sense suggests that we go with the obvious.. poor teacher? poor student? the only thing that matters is, does your training serve you when it’s needed? not like the guy sitting in the parking-lot holding a handfull of his teeth mumbling something about the victor’s poor technique.. I would rather win with what works for me than lose because i couldn’t escape the dogma..

Training is just that, “training”.. training for the real thing, not the ring, not for show, just that one “speeecial” moment when it actually matters… and, that’s the only experience that matters.. I’ve seen too many “show-dogs” take one good hit and fold, don’t mistake training or styles for the real thing, it’s not.. when it’s actually “on”, you find out what “works”, and you may be surprised…

As for JKD, i think of it less as a style and more as a philosophy.. but, the philosophy dictates that we train hard and with focus on what has worked before, while keeping an open mind to deal with the developing new styles (ie: MMA) and such… if you’re arguing about the purity of JKD as a style, you really have missed the point..

Be well…

32

Suppose you go fishing and the local “fishmaster” says to use a certain lure.. 2 hours later and no fish, you try another lure and you begin to catch fish..
Well if I’m going for bass, use a lure for bass but I’m in the part of the river where bass aren’t then of course I won’t catch anything. Same with techniques, if I’m trying to accomplish X with a tool for Y my results will be less than optimal.

Training is just that, “training”.. training for the real thing, not the ring, not for show, just that one “speeecial” moment when it actually matters… and, that’s the only experience that matters..
And if your training was wrong you’re dead? Would it be safe to say that the best place to start training is with someone with experience instead of waiting for that experience myself and finding out I was wrong? Now what is the real thing?

33

Some training can work, I mean the Armed Forces train in combat MA, and it seems to work for them. People that train in Muay Thai have awesome street-potential, as they have trained to become used to the rush of adrenaline.

I think most people used JKD as a loosely based foundation, to get their name and credibility across. I see most JKD having influence in kickboxing, Wing Chun.

34

Originally posted by Vash
What of the stuff currently being taught as Jeet Kune Do? Does this curriculum constitute a “style” or “art?”

Thank you Vash, but you cannot teach another person Jeet Kune Do. It is something you must teach yourself. The whole idea behind it is an expression of oneself, not the expression of another. You cant “take” a JKD class, because there is no class to take. The only class to take is the one that you must take by yourself, alone, using your own skills to create your own self-expression. No one else can teach you how to move or react to another’s movement. No one can teach you the proper way to express yourself. No one can teach you your “style”. Only you can. So with this said, the “art” of JKD is no longer taught as an art, because it IS TAUGHT. If it wasnt taught it would be an art because it is your own expressions. Did anyone teach Picasso to paint like that? No. Because if they did Picasso wouldnt be famous for his unique style. An “art” is your own “style”, not someone elses, so if you teach yourself, you are learning an “art”, if you get taught by someone else, it is a “style”. Nowadays, JKD is a style of fighting, just like all other martial arts. Bruce Lee did not have that intention i do not think.

-Qigong

35

I disagree… I dont think thats a very effecient way to train people at all. His students dont seem to think so either.

:eek:

36

Greetings..

Bluntly, we use what works when it matters.. certainly, training is important, but.. in the fluid dynamics of an evolving street situation(s) we will find out the difference between theory and reality.. there is a significant difference between the kwoon/ring and the street.. in the relative safety of the training arena we refine what “works for the individual” so that, if needed, we only use that which is most likely to provide the desired results.. Those results and the techniques that make them happen are unique to each individual.. many systems offer many possibilities for self-defense and i feel it is wise to choose a system that is most closely aligned with the individual’s abilities and personality.. but, if particular aspects consistently fail to produce the desired results there is no wisdom in adding that technique to one’s personal self-defense system.. likewise, if another system’s technique consistently produces the desired results, there is equally no wisdom in discarding that technique in favor of the particular system chosen by the individual..

Surely, someone will expound on the merits of sticking with a particular style to receive its deep secrets.. personally, i feel there should be no “secrets”, only techniques and sub-systems that require foundational training to be effective, even if that training takes years to acheive, the “secrets” should be available to the ones that make the journey.. (the journey will weed-out the undeserving or those with poor intent)..

If the goal is to train people to defend themselves why would we deny them the use of techniques from other systems if they work.. JKD is just such a system, a mix of useful and effective techniques, useful for BL.. if variations on this theme are more useful for someone else, where is wisdom in confining them to a single system?

This country (USA) has a short but great history built on diversity.. we have accepted people from many cultures and come together as one of the greatest nations on the planet.. Martial Arts can assimilate in the same manner, as was the vision of BL.. Certainly, traditional Art forms should be preserved and transmitted from generation to generation.. but, too often we mistake the Art for the “end all/be all” of self-defense, and no single system has emerged as truly supreme.. MMA seems to best demonstrate the usefulness of using the most effective techniques to acheive the most desired results..

I am dedicated to the preservation of traditional martial art forms.. but, i am equally dedicated to effectively developing a personal self-defense system built on what “works for me”.. that system is built on consistent training and practice in my chosen system, trying new techniques as i have the opportunity, and adjusting my system according to the most effective techniques as evidenced in the arena of controlled combat.. then, in the unlikely event that i must depend on those skills in the street, i am confident that i have an reasonable chance of survival.. and, that’s all this is about.. survival.. survival of the Art, survival of the individual..

Be well..

37

Link I couldent find earlier

38

Having now read about 150 books on this subject, it seems to me that Bruce’s philosophy is actually the basic philosophy of all great martial artists and founders of “classical” styles and modern methods, with a slightly more American twist. It’s the personality he puts into his articulation that’s really great.

I recommend reading his “liberate yourself from classical karate” to all of my students, right along side with classical readings like “the unfettered mind”.

I think that JKD philosophy is the basic undercurrent of serious training.

39

Bruce Lee And The Art Of Fighting!!!

I really like the way Bruce Explains his Art… I say “We are not computers” we must be expessive with our movments. I find the his view more of an open side of learning the feel of fighting.
well red tornado id spinning out now !!

Kung Fu ------------------------ Life

40

A Philosophical Link to Classical Arts?

Back to the topic at hand . . . :wink:

Now that it’s been “established” (for the purposes of this discussion) that JKD could be classified as an art, now we should dig a bit deeper, and perhaps find philisophical links to other styles.

From what I’ve heard, the goal of martial arts (emphasis on the martial aspect, not the self-improvement workshops) is to improve the odds of defending the self or a particular interest in a given conflict. Also, most martial arts utilize given training methods and technical libraries with the idea that these are an efficient means of furthering the above-mentioned goal. Bearing this in mind, is it possible that established masters of “classical” systems once practiced in the same vain as Bruce Lee, i.e. the utilization of only useful and applicable techniques? Of course it is. My own style of karate, Isshinryu, was formed on just such a basis.

Continuing that thought, why is it that in recent years, the emphasis for many schools has been the preservation of the technical library and/or the training methods/tools of the practiced arts, even after certain aspects of the training have been proven ineffective or useless in the modern world? [Please understand, in this point, I am referencing “traditional” weaponry, not empty-handed training] Would this type of preservation not be in conflict with the idea of improving martial skill?