Jeet Kung Do - Style of no style

[wouldbemaster]

Just a question, no offencew but lots of discussion on JKD which it is my understanding meaning style of no style but when you explore lee's master text etc you find he has taken what he felt worked for him from a variety of arts any put them into his approach, not the first i know buit is this really a style of no astyle or juist a mma style?

Really not looking to offend genuinely interested in your thoughts.

[tallgeese]

There's much more to a system or style than the movements that make up it's tactical responses. It's the principles behind the art that are the real back bone of it. Almost as important are the training methodologies used by the art.

It's these second to factors that make JKD fairly unique. Most all the movements we all use have been done for years somewhere. When someone "fins" or "creates" a technique it's almost always been done somewhere in some variation all ready. Human physiology has been the same for quite some time, and we've been killing each other that long as well. So saying that someone's movements are also used by another art isn't really indicative of a "style". Most of the time it's a fact of anatomy.

For instance, Okinawan joint locking systems look very similar to Chin-na and other Chinese grappling arts. Why? There's only so many ways to turn a human wrist to break it.

The bigger issue is how a systems principles (fighting strategies, not philosophical stuff) operate and bring it all together. What are they trying to accomplish, how are they using those tools to that end. That's what can set a system apart.

Additionally, you have to look at training methods. Some non-combative schools use material that can be utilized very comparatively. However, they aren't optimizing what they have due to over burdened traditional mindsets or clunky drill mechanics or a lack of centralized goals for training drills. All this should build to one's goal. If that's fighting or sd, often times there a schools missing the boat. Not because of movements, but because they are missing some of what I'm talking about above or a mindset.

This is the second area that can really set an art apart. How are they drilling and applying those principles and movements that we've just been talking about.

Those two factors are really what set JKD apart from other systems. It's lack of "system" or "traditional" training is built around the idea of using what is working and testing it. This includes importing movements from outside the initial set of skills brought to the table by the practitioner.

Just my thoughts on what goes into a system and what sets them apart. Good question.

[joesteph]

I've been studying Soo Bahk Do for nineteen months now, but Jeet Kune Do for just about two-and-a-half. My SBD lessons have been twice a week, my JKD once a week, based on family responsibilities.

I've already seen such a difference in how the systems work, one more traditional in fighting style and personal values, the other more attuned to straightforward "put out his lights," that I can definitely see why Jeet Kune Do is found under "Combative Martial Arts" here in the forums.

One special quality about JKD is that it's geared towards what's comfortable or natural for you, personally. If you are comfortable with the vertical fist at all times, or with the vertical fist and sometimes the three-quarters, that's okay--just practice them faithfully. I've also found the JKD kicks much better suited to my kicking abilities than SBD.

In my case, a green belt in Soo Bahk Do is all I feel I really need to call it my art, while studying Jeet Kune Do at the same time and having no confusion between the two. Taking JKD has changed my original thought that someone should reach dan level in one art before starting a second one. I'm ready now for this second art and what it offers.

In a sense, Jeet Kune Do is like pragmatism. It's "true" for you because it "works" for you.

[bushido_man96]

I've already seen such a difference in how the systems work, one more traditional in fighting style and personal values, the other more attuned to straightforward "put out his lights," that I can definitely see why Jeet Kune Do is found under "Combative Martial Arts" here in the forums.

I have noted this elsewhere before, but its kind of sad that we don't consider all Martial Arts "combative."

As for JKD...you hear a lot about its "style of no style," and other philosophical things like that, but when you get into it, and I think Joe can confirm this for me, you still learn some things as far as technique goes. Like the straight lead, for instance. You'd think that in JKD, you would just do the straight lead that works for you, but, as I have seen in articles in Black Belt magazine, there is a "way" to teach and do the straight lead, and it is practiced that way a lot. I'm sure that there are other techniques in there that get attention, as well.

Like tallgeese mentioned, though, its the methodologies and the concepts that really take it apart from other styles. I think that Joe will also notice that the training that he's done in SBD probably gives him kind of a "plug-and-play" technique repretoire that he can take with him. He can use what works, and discard the other stuff from it.

Please, Joe, chime in and let me know how far off the mark I am here.

[wouldbemaster]

If it is all about not being held back by traditional barriers and mindsets and very efctiveness focused then I fit very closely to this camp. In terms o looking outside of a single style then Otsuka did this many years prior to Lee but without the film star marketing opportunity, it is a shame however that some wado-ka seem to hold on the detail of the last conversation Otsuka gave rather than living the spirit both he and Lee seem to have had for the question why.

#Ask yourself the why question five times in a row and if your head isn't hurting you have finally openned your mind'

[joesteph]

Like tallgeese mentioned, though, its the methodologies and the concepts that really take it apart from other styles. I think that Joe will also notice that the training that he's done in SBD probably gives him kind of a "plug-and-play" technique repretoire that he can take with him. He can use what works, and discard the other stuff from it.

I have discovered that the practice I've put into Soo Bahk Do regarding the hip turn has not only made it easier to straight lead punch in Jeet Kune Do, but the additional JKD emphasis on how the shoulders turn to form almost a straight line to the target puts a lot more power into those strikes.

My footwork has also speeded up with the rear heel raised in JKD, meaning less "grounding" than in SBD, but SBD was where I first learned proper balance, such as not to over-commit to a strike or even "lean" or "list" to one side while performing one.

I have noticed that the practice of blocking first and then responding has a strong emphasis in SBD, especially in the lower belts, but the higher belts (definitely dan level) concentrate more on parrying and a quicker response. In JKD, you're not blocking unless you're stuck with it, so from the get-go, you're learning to parry and punch, my instructor able to punch just before the parry, and even to block a kick with the leg while moving in and turning, so that the knee of your other leg strikes the inner thigh of your opponent. I've seen it demonstrated and practiced with a more advanced student, and it's perfect for anyone who's not afraid to step right up to the opponent instead of stepping away from his attack.

How SBD and JKD complement one another in kicks, for me, is that in SBD the rear leg is emphasized, but in JKD it's the lead leg. It's great to get understanding and practice in with both.

I realize that there are many fans of forms in the forums, and I like them if I know what applications (or even some applications) are contained within. The problem can be that it may be years before these applications are revealed, or revealed and practiced. In JKD, the application is what you're not only aware of, you're practicing it.

I'm sure I'll find out more as I go further along the road in Jeet Kune Do. There's a seminar/workshop this weekend right in my hometown, and I'll be attending it.

[bushido_man96]

I realize that there are many fans of forms in the forums, and I like them if I know what applications (or even some applications) are contained within. The problem can be that it may be years before these applications are revealed, or revealed and practiced. In JKD, the application is what you're not only aware of, you're practicing it.

I see this, too, and it is part of the reasoning behind my thread on which came first, forms or applications. I like the idea behind learning the techniques in an applied setting, and this training methodology allows the techniques to be more readily employed when the time comes.

[RichardZ]

JKD may be nothing new as a style with no style would suggest that a martial artist grow and further devlop their abilities. Which was the original concept of martial arts for many millineum.

Edited November 19, 2009 by RichardZ

[Jay]

The idea is that when you in a martial art with a set techniques expected off you, you just follow what the founder did and don't express how you would do that particular technique. Thus after years of refinement your technique should be different in JKD plus once you have reached the highest level you are allowed to tailer it to yourself to improve.

The philosophy is confusing and not a lot of people understand it personally I only understand set bits. The rest is crazy and never has the meaning you see on face value.

[ShoriKid]

Transending style and not fighitng, or trying to, with wrote forms is what the writings of early karate founders expected out of their training.

Lee wasn't pushing for anything new. He just let go of the overly developed concern for adhearing, strictly, to tradition.