Jeet Kune Do No Controversy Ideology

[Cmon]

I also think JKD is very well rounded. I can't see any major weaknessess to it. For example Judo is really good for grappling but not as good in the punching kicking department (hope i don't get a load of Judo people on my back now)

[ovine king]

just in case you missed it,

 

my post was in reference to the post above mine (shown below)

 

i was in no way saying what i think jkd is or isn't

if you guys think about it...JKD in translation means ''intercepting the fist'',it isnt saying anything specific like other fighting styles like..

 

TKD-''way of the fist and foot''

 

Karate-''empty hand combat''

 

It shows that it is not a style,thats why Bruce mainly thought of it as a philosophy.

[Lazy Scholar]

Venrix, I just got through your previous post and wanted to address some things mentioned. In regards to Bruce mastering this mastering that, Bruce if anything only had formal training in hung gar (for a short time) then went about learning wing chun seriously. Although it's been said that Bruce did take some Judo lessons, what % of it was included in JKD has yet to be seen by most JKD students. Bruce never went about training in several styles, for this is what he wasn't in agreement with. Bruce didn't want the accumulation of fixed knowledge or styles or systems. Bruce had his direction in terms of conducting himself in combat. Although Wing Chun, Boxing and Fencing have the greater influence in the creation of JKD and their influence being most evident, it was bruce's genius to take what he thought were the essence of such arts and made them fit his direction through modification. For the most part bruce sought to study , and I do mean study, not train; to find out how to counter these. On my JKD shirt, there's a diagram in the back talking about partiality, Fluidity, and Emptiness. In analyzing after my experience in jkd, i found that those three thuings are the three steps of cultivation in martial art.

 

As far as the philosophy, principles, and techniques being separable, I'm not sure if that's the case becasue you need the principles to guide the tools, and the tools to express the principles. The thing with JKD is that the tools that were left by Bruce to his students were teh tools seen by Bruce that fit best the structure of JKD. So having said that, it's pretty clear that the two can't be separated.

[Venrix]

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.

 

 

The thing with JKD is that the tools that were left by Bruce to his students were teh tools seen by Bruce that fit best the structure of JKD. So having said that, it's pretty clear that the two can't be separated.

[Lazy Scholar]

actually, you just made my point for me . But you're right in that you don't need to be a buddhist to do karate, like you dont need to be buddhist to do or understand jkd to a good degree. But JKD philosophy is unlike say the philosophy in buddhism where as although its philosophy permeats throughout other avenues, it's primary avenue is that of JKD. There has to be a purpose as to the practice of your skill. A standard to your skill. There needs to be a philosophy nonetheless.