Malldetective

It does. The problem comes in when you take people who are not already good people and teach them how to snap necks and break bones. Accountability is the most important aspect to being an instructor. Beyond that, one thing or the other is not necissarily what does it. There are many things that keep people away from the negative and into the positive. I don't think anyone is arguing that. If playing guitar or going to church every sunday keeps you off drugs so be it. But for some Martial Arts is the trigger. If modern MA is the most effective in terms of combat prowess, IF it is, than we need to creater an enviroment in which people, espcially young people, can become proficent and still become honorable. But the most important factor is not using martial arts to build up someones character; its insuring that martial arts don't destroy what character they already have. I have no problem romanticising the martial arts. Maybe I'm just a natural romantic. Maybe it's because I'm an Obama supporter and I like chanting 'Yes we can!" Who knows? But I know this, there was a move on someones part to make martial artist a beacon for truth and hope. There had to be. Even if it didn't start that way. Because if there wasn't, the romantic notion never would have come about. History is important but it doesn't always control and direct my now. And my 'now' says a martial artist should be a hero, not a villian, a role-model, not another bad influence. Children today have enough of those.

Let me just clarify the stance here before my words get menced too. This is not a battle for supremecy between modern martial arts and traditional. I started off in a traditional martial art but I favor styles like Jeet Kune Do, Krav Maga, and Judo. All of which are modernizations modified for todays world. I'm arguing for a curriculum that creates a a better world through martial artist. One that builds martial artist that leave the planet in better condition than they found it. I hate the term self-deffense. I don't like it because it's absorbed. I prefer warriorship. The responsibility to defend those that can not defend themselves, not just the ability to walk away from bar brawl after you tried to hit on someone elses girlfriend. My argument is for making the modern combat system something to be looked up to and admired on a basis higher than I can beat you up. Big flipin deal. I'm not impressed. The courage to fight for somethign you know is right when nobody else will is impressive. Modern MA styles have a bright future ahead of them, and let us remember someday these too will be looked at from an aincient historical basis. Are we going to be seen like heros? Or is the period of popularity for UMC going to be looked at in the future as a time when people were obbsessed with only violence and aggresion, and had forgotten who they were in favor of bright lights, hard hits, beer and women. A time when our most primal insticts ruled over our own cognition, and all intellegence and honor was stripped from the art of fighting. That is not what I want. I'll blaze my own path. Thats all I'm trying to say.

Thats all I'm saying. There may not have been a spiritual self-improvement nature when it started, but there is now, and I prefer it. And yes I know there are lots of backstabbing but at least its kept somewhat quiet. The testostrone is suffacating in MMA orgs.

Night Owl: So what and when caused the MMA subculture to develop, with the same motiffs and enviroment that, in my opinion, plaque the boxing community. The removal of ettiquette and humility etc. MMA as a style I don't have much problem with, it's the subculture that seems inescapable with it. When did this come about in MMA?

Well yes but thats not what I wanted. I like the philosophy just as much as the combat but I wanted the combat in Jeet Kune Do. So I got it. =) Like I said I'm not bashing MMA's fighting prowess I just don't want my martial arts to look like a boxing match because it doesn't feel right to ME.

I studied Isshinryu for quite some time, and I think your right. It is a combination series. Kata is meant to teach you how to move from one technique fluidly to the next (among other things) and thats exactly what this section does,.

I wanted to share why I got into JKD and why I like it, and get your perspectives on chossing this or your perspective style. It actually started when I joined a gym. I had always been into martial arts but kind of fell out of it when my dojo closed. Then I got into smoking... Well when I decided to quit I joined a gym to get my body back in shape. And btw, its the best gym I've ever seen, I won't mention the name from fear of being nailed for advertising but everyone there has been great. I mentioned almost tounge and cheek to my trainer the first day that I wanted Bruce Lee's body. Well they went up and above the call of duty and the next day had prepared me a training schedule based on Bruce Lee's own training methods. I felt guilty then because I realized despite my love of Martial arts I had never read one of his books or seen one of his movies. I knew OF JKD but nothing really about it. So I bought his fighting method books and Enter The Dragon to get started and ended up falling in love with JKD. One of the main reasons I bring it up though and what I would like commentary on is the fact that everyne calls this a non-traditional stye and the foundation of mixed martial arts etc. This is the EXACT OPPISITE of why I wanted to do it and why it was the perfect art for me. I studied Karate and I flirted with Krav Maga. I personally don't like Mixed Martial Arts or Brazillian Jujitsu at all. Thats not me bashing them, to each his own, but I'm not a fan. Here is why; When I did very traditional Karate I found myself craving something more millitant and modernly practical. But when I got into Krav Maga (partially due, yes, to my Jewish heritage) I craved something more bound to the eastern philosophies and traditions I came to admire and love about Karate. I love Jeet Kune Do because to me it is a marriage between the two. It is modern, practical, and fairly millitant in fighting nature when it wants to be. But it also still has that taste of Wu-shu classicism and respect for tradition and philosophy in it. (Bruce Lee himself a philosophy major) I don't enjoy BJJ or MMA because the way its broadcast is through things like UMC, which has a whole lot of hooting and hollering rowdy crowds and half dressed girls. I like half dressed girls as much as the next guy, but I feel like it takes something away from the spiritual and reverant nature of martial arts and moves towards bar brawling. If thats your thing, great, no grivences here. It just wasn't what I was looking for. So I guess I'm suprised to hear people say JKD started MMA. I just don't see it.

If there is any style that Jeet Kune Do is similar to, I'd say first it's Krav Maga in philosophy. Bruce Lee had alot of respect for most styles and I don't think grappling techniques were elliminated (I'm frankly glad BJJ was left out). I think in understanding the answer to your question you have to look back at some of Lee's key principles. The simplist way is usally the correct one. Much of what is in there that would normally look like Judo doesn't because of the nature of its simplicity. But on the other hand recall that JKD is an evolving art that Bruce Lee didn't want to stay stagnant. There is still room for new technique as long as it doesn't change the face of the style or force it into the same misgivings as other "styles" which is why Lee feared naming it in the first place. That said, in all honesty, Lee himself was largerly a strike fighter. And his initial influence was Wing Chun. So with that in mind, dubbing down the classical wing chun techniques one could see how it would end up looking like a higher level of kickboxing. But to say there are NO groundfighting or judo-esque techniques would be inaccurate too. He simply didn't derive them from any of the styles you mentioned. I'm sure he had respect for and researched in those styles because his martial arts library was huge.

One of the great things about Krav Maga is that it was developed with soldiers who only had three solid weeks of good hand to hand combat training time in mind. In those three weeks they had to learn how to basically defend themselves. Understandably there is a limit to how far you can go with that much time, but Litchenfeld worked hard to make sure they could become as skilled as possible in that amount of time. If anything ,your karate training will mean some simple stuff comes naturally to you. You know how to not hurt your fist when you punch etc. But the best advice I can give is, if youv'e developed a mentallity of "Karate is the martial arts god and nothing else is correct, anything that contridicts Karate's technique principles is a hoax." Get over it. Clear your head of that thought line now, or just don't try to train in Krav Maga. Or anything else really. Krav Maga has stances that will be new to you, and is based on instictual practices more than disciplined unnatural movements. There are no forms, and you may even hear the idea of kata put in the dumpster a little. Just respect the view point and move on if you disagree. You'll be doing Retzev instead now with the same kata principles in mind really, but with a bit of a twist. I don't think you'll have a problem with this you seem pretty together. But its an easy trap to fall into because instructors some times instill this karate is everything mentality. If you have it, its probably not ALL your fault. But you have to drop it and go into Krav Maga with a very open mind.

Last one I promise: Just to make it clear though, I'm not advocating the idea that the mind and spirit are pointless ideas in martial arts. They are VERY important. In respect to Jeet Kune Do, recall that Bruce Lee himself was a Major in philosophy, and those fingerprints are evident in all his publications. lol, I feel like even after his death I'd have to be pretty brave to claim anything he did was irrelevant. Both deffinitions due varriate, application is more important to the styles integrity. After all ,we all know how Master Lee felt about stamping labels on stuff.

Let me aid one counter point to that. The name to deffinition between spirit and mind is often interchangable UNLESS speaking in very specific terms in a very specific setting. The word 'spirit' itself holds a multitude of deffinitions and therefore is a variable. The same goes for mind. Unless its in a setting (unlike martial arts where depending on style and teacher and region and school and interpretation its a million different things) the variable is deffined clearly. For example, in my faith what is often refered to as 'the holy spirit' is called "The Rouch Ha-Kodesh" (Hebrew: Set-apart spirit roughly) It is a proper noun, has a clear deffinition, and so is not a variable. "Holy Spirit" falls into the same category, espcially since its the same exact thing (albiet, I'm not crazy about that paticular linguistic interpretation because its a bit loose) but in eitheir case, we have given it a proper noun. Spirit in general philosophy, as it is typically used in martial arts settings when one says 'Mind, body, and spirit'. Can be defined a multitude of ways, some of which even contridict. There is no clear citation for a single deffinition, which is why I say it matters little if you liek to call the mind the spirit or the spirit the mind or consider them a hybrid. So long as you exersise them properly the effects are the same. I'm through trying to pretend I'm smart so you'll all like me now, lol. Thank you for listening to my lecture. Place an email now to recieve the audio-tape!

Wow so many interesting things here. Yin and Yang is not entirely wrong in the field I call home. Psychology has only been around in name since 1879 founded by Wilhelm Wundt. It's foundation disciplines are physiology and Philosophy. which means yes we have only been doing what we do the way we now do it for a little over a hundred years. Less than that if your a one-perspective guy. (Like Humanist or Psychodynamic alone. Though few if any good psychologist are so narrowminded anymore as to only view things from a single perspective.) However, science is old as man. And alot of these things we refer to as superstitions or eastern philosophies are just science in disguise, acurate? Not always but sometimes, more than some might think. I will state that I think the religion and science debate is funny. They are like an old married couple constantly fighting, both are on a quest for truth and often they come to the same conclusions but can only mention to eachother where they differ. But in this case my argument is not against the mind and the spirits prevelence and importance or its aplication. I'm a martial artist too, and even if there was only a symbolic nature to what is actually cognitive biological processes the almost supernatural relevence to some things may be necissary at certain times to make the cognition work appropriately. (i.e. what do you think is 'really' happening when you talk to your inner child? Willing suspension of disbeleif is sometimes a necissary and effective clinical tactic). All I'm arguing is that the deffinitions of mind and spirit are liguistic in nature and are therefore technically irrelevant. If I decide to call the mind a coka-doodle rooster and the spirit a moo-moo cow but the way I use and exersise them is still exactly the same, it makes little difference what I call them .

And to add, niether of those deffinitions sound like a solid grounding to define mind or spirit, sense there are neurotransmitters and cranial regions already doing those jobs. (although they don't "remember every step". If you can do that, may I do a case study on you?)

Ok. Psychology and philosophy major here. Let me "attempt" (albeit likely in vain) to cut this one short. Arguing the point of the mind and spirit being the same thing or seperate entities is pointless. You'll never get anywhere. First, don't confuse the brain with the mind. They are NOT the same thing or concept. If the spirit and the mind are the same thing or not is an argument in linguisticts, not biology or even para-biology. It really depends on how YOU use the word "mind". It's a philisophical idea, a metephor more than anything else, and so technically is a variable open to being assigned several deffinitions depending on context and preference. Ultimately, it really doesn't make much difference in the context we are talking about.

This is certainly true. The reason I didn't mention it is because I come from styles that worked very hard at the mind and spirit but almost not at all for the body, other than the work out you get from honing technical skill, which is not enough. In short I failed to mention spiritual and mental training because thats nothing new to me, unfortunately physical training in this aspect is.