Venrix

My Personal Motivations: Fitness Self Esteem Perfectionism Warrior Culture (Combat) Warrior Culture (Way of Life - Bushido) Warrior Culture (Martial Art - Budo) Social (Club Membership with 'like minded') Interest in Philosophy That's certainly not all - but it should get the thread started.

As we are all aware by now - the most common question asked concerning the Martial Arts is: "Which is the best Martial Art?" This question invariably leads (correctly) to statements like: "The question is not which is the best art. The question is - which is the best art for you." For example - you may be interested in: Keeping Fit Self Defense Being Part of a Club Warrior Philosophy Losing Weight Gaining Weight Our personal motivations behind training help decide the art that is best for us. It makes clear the simple truth that: "There is no best art - only the art that is best for you." It would be interesting to compile a list of 'possible motivations' for training. It's important that we DO NOT fall into the 'my art is best' trap. We are not interested in the art - only in the 'motivation' for practising/training. Please do not turn this thread into a list of reasons to practise YOUR art and keep the motivations 'simple' (as with list above). You may, of course, choose to outline (again in a simple list) your personal motivations for training. This will be helpful to many who are still trying to understand their own motivations. It will allow them to make an 'educated' choice when choosing a Martial Art (and perhaps more importantly - a school). It becomes a simple matter of: "What are my motivations. Does this school/style fulfill them?". -V- [[Edits: One day soon - I will conquer my dyslexia. But, until that day comes - expect lots of edits on my post as my mistakes become apparent to me. ]].

Hi Scholar, I am happy to stand corrected for the most part - since, clearly you have a different understanding of Lee's life to my own. However, regarding the inability to seperate - I'm afraid I must disagree. To say that one cannot seperate philosophy from physical training is like saying: "One cannot practise Karate unless one is a Zen Buddhist". The philosophy of any given practitioner can always be taken and used (with or without the style). I see your point 'in reverse' though. That is - for Lee - the practise of JKD cannot be seperated from the philosophy of JKD. However, it's philosophy can certainly be seperated and migrated to another art. Just as the boxer may, if he chooses, approach his boxing with the same dedication and philosophies of a Shorin/Shaolin Monk.

Since the question was (althought somewhat badly put): "What's all the controversy with JKD?", I don't really see how a peeing contest of lineage helps. That said, it would be nice to hear from some practising JKD guy's whether my assessment of the problem is accurate? I am more than willing to change my opinion if a counter-argument clearly demonstrates that this is the right thing to do... -V-

Hi Mtal, You should find just about everything you need to know here: http://www.systemauk.com/system.htm The upshot it - Systema has been primarly developed (in recent years) for use by the Russion Special Forces and a means of armed and unarmed combat. -V-

It's interesting to see the number of 'demonstration dummies' that are consistantly used by their Trainer (Sensei, Shihan, Sempai, Sifu - pick an appropriate titile). It's actually a compliment to you that your trainer chooses to use you for demonstration purposes. Consider that it takes TWO to make a demonstration of a 1:1 technique. If your 'dummy' isn't able to stay in control - they could well find themselves 'running on to a fist' that really wasn't headed in their direction. In other words: "Good trainers don't pick out the same guy regularly to 'beat up on him', it is often because they know he can take the appropriate actions as a 'receiver' of the technique." -V-

I certainly agree that people are missing the point with Bruce Lee's art and his philosophy. Bruce was able to say: "I have no way as way", because he mastered multiple arts and then discarded what was useless to him and added what was essentially his own. Therefore, in order to achieve one's own JKD. In order to 'do away with the classical mess', as Lee put it, one must first master the classical mess. How can one 'do away with something' that one has not yet aquired? Therein lies the problem. People learn the techniques of JKD that Lee left behind. Unfortunately, the majority completely miss the notion that 'learning what Lee left behind' is in fact learning a classical mess (since it has become 'stylized and forumulized'). JKD was a 'perfect art' only for Bruce himself. In order to come anywhere close to being like Bruce (as an artist) we must do away with the elements of Bruce's classical mess that are useless to us as individuals. Clearly put: 1) Bruce created a part of his JKD from the techniques he aquired when mastering the classical mess. 2) Had he not first mastered the 'classical mess' JKD would not exist. 3) He did away with the parts that did not suit him as a fighter. 4) He never did away with a technique that he had not first mastered. 5) He created a part of his JKD from his own innovation. As he learned the mechanics of his own mind and body he began to create techniques that suited him. They may suit us too but they just as easily may not. 6) Bruce would never claim that JKD is the perfect martial art. He would claim it to be the perfect philosophy/approach to practising martial arts. 7) JKD is about mastering and then refining, aquiring and then pruning (doing away with the useless) and finally adding what is your own. 8 ) JKD is not a perfect martial art for anyone other than Bruce himself. 9) Whilst JKD is not a perfect art (and Bruce would never claim it to be so), Bruce may well be the perfect example of what it is to be a martial artist. 10) If one is to become a martial artist like Bruce Lee (and this appears to be the goal of many JKD practitioners) then one must accept that 'throwing the usless parts of JKD the style into the trash can' is a part of the process. Bruce would encourage it! It is in line with JKD the philosophy and one must realise that JKD the Philosophy and JKD the Style are two different things. They are not two sides of the same coin (i.e. inseparable), they are separable components of an overall ideal that was unique to Bruce. The controversy lies in point 10 (sorry that there are so many points!!! ). JKD has become stylized - making it no different to any other classical style. I believe that Bruce would not be happy with this. He would ask that you master it - then disregard what you do not need - then move onto to 'another style' and take from it what you can. Bruce was a 'martial arts scavenger' - and I mean that as a compliment! -V-

Personally, I see books as 'training aids'. That is - a great way to 'revise' or expand upon the things you are learning. But, the knowledge is purely academic. Physical skill comes only from physical practise. Knowledge can come from an instructor - or a book. In other words - I think progression needs both the development of the brain (knowledge of techniques) and the body (the physical ability to perform them). When training - we cannot 'see ourselves'. We often feel and believe that we are performing technique correctly when, in fact, we are all over the place. An instructor is like a 'human version of the book that can actually see what we are doing'. He is able to assist us, comment on our performance of technique. Praising that which is good and guiding us in the right direction when things are bad.. Personally, I feel both serve their purpose. The book provides the 'academia' and the instructor helps bring that acedemia to reality. As an 'overview' of what's to come within a given style a book can often be the perfect place to start. -V-

Hi Mate, This really is a standard part of the learning curve. I went throught the exact same process in Freefight (MMA). Basically, I began with 'instinct and natural reactions' and was fairly 'untouchable'. Then - as training progresses - one begins to think a lot more about one's movements. All this 'thinking' slows our reactions. The effect is standard: "More techniques available but a delayed reaction time". This is simply a result of 'trying to use techniques' instead of 'just plain fighting'. One should never give up on the 'trying to use techniques' element. That's why it's called 'training' (a learning process) and not 'fighting in a Gym'. As time goes by, these 'new' techniques become integrated into our 'natural' set of abilities. The result - we stop thinking quite so much and our reaction times return to 'normal' but with a far larger arsenal of technique at our diposal. There's an old Karate saying: "A white belt aims for a black belt, and a black belt eventually returns to being a white belt". That saying is partly because the belt itself tends to go white/grey after time. But, there is also the 'coming out the other side' where 'all the thinking has stopped'. Believe me - if you are thinking about what you are doing - this is a GREAT THING. Many 'naturals' (and certainly it sounds as though this 'type' fits you) make the mistake of 'refusing to learn' purely because of the process you are going through right now. They feel that their 'natural ability' is being diminished and give up on the training with comments like: "I was better before I started learning all this stuff". It's likely that your friends still seem 'good' because they are not thinking quite so much. If you are training a lot - you are thinking a lot. That's NOT a bad thing. It's perfect. Become a chess player with a body of stone - not a brain of stone with the body of a chess player! Just remember the future that lies ahead: "You will possess all the abilties and talents of a 'natural' and you will be 'armed' with an arsenal that most naturals do not have the patience to aquire". To me - you sound like a guy who is certainly on the right track. Don't let it get you down... -V- [[Edited because I'm severely dyslexic and I just spotted about 7,000,000 mistakes. There are probably more but things are still a little more readable now. ]]

Hi All, I agree with the ethos of 'There is no wonder style'. However, I feel that simply saying, "train hard and any style is effective" is not quite true. In particular, I would suggest there is a considerable difference in the efficiency of 'non-contact', 'semi-contact' and 'full-contact' styles. That is - if you are looking for a style that is 'street effective' - then, one could pretty much assume that any 'no-contact' style will prove less than useful in a real life physical confrontation. So, I would agree with: "There is no wonder style." However, I would advise that no 'non- and semi- contact' martial artists are fooled into believing that 'kata' will win a fight for them. This is the second time I've posted this quote today - but, once again - I think it's appropriate: "You may train for a long, long time. But if you merely move your hands and feet and jump up and down like a puppet, learning karate is not very different from learning to dance. You will never have reached the heart of the matter; you will have failed to grasp the quintessence of karate-do." - GICHIN FUNAKOSHI (The 'Father' of Modern Karate).