Jeet Kung Do - Style of no style

[RichardZ]

Jay, less not forget how many beleive that JKD is supposed to be a art whoch is misinterpreted as training by oneself, without the need for any type of instructor with a foundation.

[sensei8]

Jay, less not forget how many beleive that JKD is supposed to be a art whoch is misinterpreted as training by oneself, without the need for any type of instructor with a foundation.

That's a good point! Bruce did say the following....

"I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.

 

There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.

 

Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive.

 

Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back."

[tonydee]

“I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”

Bruce Lee

Is it just me, or is it funny to see this juxtaposed with a thread about Bruce's style with no form, adapting every technique to the instant? Shouldn't he have said "I fear the man who's found 10,000 kicks optimal to his momentary situation"?

I suspect there's an issue with Lee's philosophy (though it's been years since I looked at his writings)... still, has he said everything from every angle? You can't be wrong if you hedge your bets, while being suitably vague. Makes me think of some religions, where people picks the bits that resonate for them and praise the whole as if it's flawless, even if there are pretty poor bits in it. Of course, that's the "use what's useful" right built into JKD, so maybe it's all fair after all.

I don't see JKD being much different to the "no mind" philosophy KarateEd wrote an article about, except that the adaptability to the moment goes way out of its way to emphasise spontaneous customisation of technique.

I would tend to think, if there is one whom kicks, is getting the best of one who doesn't, then the area of expertise to study, is not kicking, but better hand-blocking-jamming.

As I had said, in sparrng, there maybe a certain environeent or set - type of rules. I for one, will not "spar another's game".

Just one of many examples: I've visited Wing Chun schools and watched them practicing defenses against kicking techniques, but nobody there could kick properly to begin with, so their practice was largely useless. Even if _some_ of the principles were sound, the instructor couldn't necessarily give them an understanding of the dynamics of a kicker's footwork, the range and timing of their strikes, the power and speed, so there were enough flaws in their execution to prevent it having a hope of working.

For this reason, it makes sense to actually practice your style against someone from another style. If you don't have access to an environment where you can get enough exposure to sort out your problems in dealing with them, then indeed joining their training for long enough to get the same insights, understandings and exposure may be the most efficient way to surmount the problem, although it can be a bit rude and dangerous if you're experimenting with counters from outside the style on your junior-belt peers.

So, it doesn't necessarily mean there's some unbridgeable gap in the techniques, knowledge, tactics etc of your main art, just that you need a practical way to develop and apply that knowledge. Another example: when UFC came out with rules in which BJJ seemed effective over striking arts, it took a while for strikers to develop the practical knowledge to even the scales again under those rules. Even if your karate (or whatever) instructor could tell you what to do, he may not have been able to simulate a BJJ attack well enough to let you practice your defenses. Learning BJJ may not be done for it's own sake, but as a way of efficiently enhancing your karate. Again, swap all that round for any combination of arts: I'm sure BJJ didn't get ahead in the first place by practicing in isolation from strikers.

Cheers,

Tony

[RichardZ]

Is it just me, or is it funny to see this juxtaposed with a thread about Bruce's style with no form, adapting every technique to the instant? Shouldn't he have said "I fear the man who's found 10,000 kicks optimal to his momentary situation"?

Grand point. once that I believe Lee Jun Fan would perhaps be amused by.

I suspect there's an issue with Lee's philosophy (though it's been years since I looked at his writings)... still, has he said everything from every angle? You can't be wrong if you hedge your bets, while being suitably vague. Makes me think of some religions, where people picks the bits that resonate for them and praise the whole as if it's flawless, even if there are pretty poor bits in it. Of course, that's the "use what's useful" right built into JKD, so maybe it's all fair after all.

Indeed. Like a sage with metaphors from some mis-understood tome. Of course the phrase "absorb what is useful", is subjective to what may have to be exactly "useful" to what one desires or seeks. Underlying per a determinaton wihtin the confines of one's own goals, or attainment.

I don't see JKD being much different to the "no mind" philosophy KarateEd wrote an article about, except that the adaptability to the moment goes way out of its way to emphasise spontaneous customisation of technique.

But, without proper guidance, can such customization be applicable?

Just one of many examples: I've visited Wing Chun schools and watched them practicing defenses against kicking techniques, but nobody there could kick properly to begin with, so their practice was largely useless. Even if _some_ of the principles were sound, the instructor couldn't necessarily give them an understanding of the dynamics of a kicker's footwork, the range and timing of their strikes, the power and speed, so there were enough flaws in their execution to prevent it having a hope of working.

However, being that such practitioner is using said methods for close range, which many confrontations are, it is less-likely, that one would truly be in defense battle agianst more than usual kicking methods. Also, agian, I must re-iterate, that to go beyond the application of method agianst another, is set upon the environement of which one is training in and/or for.

For this reason, it makes sense to actually practice your style against someone from another style. If you don't have access to an environment where you can get enough exposure to sort out your problems in dealing with them, then indeed joining their training for long enough to get the same insights, understandings and exposure may be the most efficient way to surmount the problem, although it can be a bit rude and dangerous if you're experimenting with counters from outside the style on your junior-belt peers.

I am not agianst the idea of practicing with other from antoher style. I am stating that the choice and such has to be conducive to the methods that one is going to be familiar with and/or emcounter. In short, it maybe a waste of time and effort if such practice would produce results which such may have a far improbable chance to present itself.

So, it doesn't necessarily mean there's some unbridgeable gap in the techniques, knowledge, tactics etc of your main art, just that you need a practical way to develop and apply that knowledge. Another example: when UFC came out with rules in which BJJ seemed effective over striking arts, it took a while for strikers to develop the practical knowledge to even the scales again under those rules. Even if your karate (or whatever) instructor could tell you what to do, he may not have been able to simulate a BJJ attack well enough to let you practice your defenses. Learning BJJ may not be done for it's own sake, but as a way of efficiently enhancing your karate. Again, swap all that round for any combination of arts: I'm sure BJJ didn't get ahead in the first place by practicing in isolation from strikers.

As for BJJ, and the UFC, you have just proven my point about the methods practice to suit the environment and such one will encounter under conditions.

[Jay]

People sometimes forget that JKD is named the 'Way of the Intercepting Fist'

Above all you must intercept, always.

[ShoriKid]

Richard Z

However, being that such practitioner is using said methods for close range, which many confrontations are, it is less-likely, that one would truly be in defense battle agianst more than usual kicking methods. Also, agian, I must re-iterate, that to go beyond the application of method agianst another, is set upon the environement of which one is training in and/or for.

Whatever you are training for does not dictate what you need to prepair against. No matter what tactic the practioner wants to employ, they need to be ready to face sitations that do not fall into their dictates. Just because a Wing Chung man trains to engage at close punching range doesn't mean he will be to do so. Or that because he trains for such an encounter he can made do with poor kicking defenses trained against ineffectual kicks. Just as the Wing Chung man looks to close the range to punch, the TKD/MT fighter will use their training to keep the distance expanded so they can kick as they want to.

Training against people who know how to properly employ a tactic is how you learn to defend against it. Applying the tactics and precepts of your art to those attacks/tactics can't really be done if you don't understand what your facing. Like tonydee, I sat and watched an Aikido class talk about kick defenses and then show some really poor kicks and how to stop them. I've heard a lot about defending against being taken to the ground and then watched the example take downs that wouldn't make it on a low end highschool wrestling team or even a football field.

I am stating that the choice and such has to be conducive to the methods that one is going to be familiar with and/or emcounter. In short, it maybe a waste of time and effort if such practice would produce results which such may have a far improbable chance to present itself.

Last time I saw anything in print TKD, since kicking is our example, was the most widely practiced martial art in the country. I believe in the world. So it has the widest chance of being something your going to face someone with training for. The US Army and Marine Corp both teach front and round kicks as part of basic training and the more advanced programs they teach and train throughout the time one is in the service. So good kick defense, is wholely within the realm of meathods on may well encounter. Past a nice cowboy haymaker and a tackle, if your playing the percentages, everything is a low return waste of time.

If your an instructor that wants to teach a method to your students, theory is fine until you decide to actually teach that something. Then you had better understand not only the defense, but the attack well enough to make sure the defense works against someone who is competent. Improving your training by better understanding the things you can or may face, so that your training is up to par is responsible.

Staying within only what you have been doing is stiffling and leave you stagnant if you don't look outside your own sphere of ability and training. Boxers don't ask TKD how to punch or defend against them, or vice versa. But, if your a boxer, you ask the TKD/MT man how to defense kicks, the wrestler how to defend the take down. You don't assume you know how and teach bad methods on the assumption it's not important enough to bother. In the realm of complete defense and fighting, you have to bother with those other things enough to be competent. You don't have to use so much time that your an expert. But, you need to know how to deal with them.

[tonydee]

I don't see JKD being much different to the "no mind" philosophy KarateEd wrote an article about, except that the adaptability to the moment goes way out of its way to emphasise spontaneous customisation of technique.

But, without proper guidance, can such customization be applicable?

My comment above wasn't related to your question, but no, I've never met anyone who didn't need real face-to-face time with a credible instructor to bootstrap them towards becoming a good martial artist. I have several plenty of people who kept the ball rolling long after they'd left their early instructors behind, and a few who continue to train and improve without an instructor. I try to do that myself these days.

For this reason, it makes sense to actually practice your style against someone from another style. ...

I am not agianst the idea of practicing with other from antoher style. I am stating that the choice and such has to be conducive to the methods that one is going to be familiar with and/or emcounter. In short, it maybe a waste of time and effort if such practice would produce results which such may have a far improbable chance to present itself.

All martial arts practice should be as realistic as possible, and for optimal results focus and effort needs to be directed towards more likely and effective threats / opportunities.

As for BJJ, and the UFC, you have just proven my point about the methods practice to suit the environment and such one will encounter under conditions.

I agree it is useful to cross-train. But for myself I consider it primarily as fine-tuning of the way I employ what I already know. I emphasise being good at what I specialise in. Same with the BJJ guys - all this cross-training stuff, but - unless my eyes deceive me - they're not making much effort at mastering striking techniques, just learning enough to plug the gaps in their own system. I'm in MAs for the long haul: when I couldn't yet use my main art to my own satisfaction, there wasn't much point considering the wider pool of challenges. After 5 or 10 years, sure.

Visiting my old school a number of years back, I was frankly shocked and disappointed to see junior black belts and even an instructor more interested in sharing scraps of other arts' techniques after class, instead of working on their own techniques (which left a lot to be desired). Sometimes it's an easy way out for those that aren't psychologically tough enough to knuckle down and do the hard yards of introspection and practice necessary to move a plateaued technique or tactic forwards again, or up the intensity with their training partners until new challenges, issues and insights arise, and the training methodologies to address them are employed or evolved.

That said, intelligent people wouldn't blindly stick to what they happened to have learned first - any more than it makes sense for people to defacto endorse the religion or cultural values popular in the country they just happen to be born in - they may find more resonance elsewhere. For me personally, striking arts resonate... not so much modern taekwondo, but I believe I've made my way back somewhat towards the karate roots, and that's where I belong. Perhaps strangely, I'm not sure if I want to go further - Shotokan seems to have itself moved towards sport in many schools.

I've touched on other things - a few years' hapkido, half a year of aikido, tai chi, and bagua, a few months here and there of a generic kung fu, a shaolin school. I currently train in a kickboxing gym though I don't interact that much with the kickboxers. So, I don't feel I'm hiding with my head in the sand... just that a touch of cross-training is fine and useful, but needn't turn you into a would-be jack of all trades.

Cheers,

Tony