Why do you have to belong to a style

[Groinstrike]

How can I not belong to a style(s)?

According to "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do" Bruce Lee says we as martial artists should strive to be without style and without form. This can be interpreted a number of ways. I believe that this means we should only belong to one style... the style of effectiveness. If a technique is not effective or can be made more effective, it should either be discarded or modified. IMHO we should all strive to be the most effective martial artist we can be. If you find Kata to be effective in self defense by all means practice kata, if full contact sparring is your thing, do that. The important thing is that the concepts and techniques that you are practicing in your kata or sparring are not full of "classical mess".

As you can tell by my post our school is heavily influenced by Bruce Lee and the idea of Jeet Kune Do. Our system has changed quite a bit from its inception in 1993. We are always experimenting and changing techniques and if we find something clunky or unwieldy, we discard it.

So what i guess im trying to say is, don't get caught up in "style". Learn what you wish, learn what works for you, throw away what doesn't. It unnerves me when people say that Jeet Kune Do is a style, JKD is an idea and a mindset. Mr. Lee himself said that if any of his ideas become outdated or unuseful, they should be discarded as well.

[MasterPain]

As you can tell by my post our school is heavily influenced by Bruce Lee and the idea of Jeet Kune Do. Our system has changed quite a bit from its inception in 1993. We are always experimenting and changing techniques and if we find something clunky or unwieldy, we discard it..

Burton Richardson, a great modern JKD guy said that any JKD students who aren't doing some BJJ have missed the point entirely. Yet many are trying to do exactly what Bruce was doing in 1970. Ugg.

[Wastelander]

Learn what you wish, learn what works for you, throw away what doesn't.

I have a major problem with this concept. I will grant that Bruce Lee was a fantastic martial artist and the overall concept of JKD--that you should always be advancing your art and learning and building on what you know--is a good one, but this line is always thrown about in discussions about JKD. I hated it the moment I saw it quoted with Bruce Lee's name next to it and I've hated it every time someone has mentioned it since then.

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I will say that just because something doesn't work for you now doesn't mean you should "throw it away", and just because something does work for you now doesn't mean it will always work for you. I feel that the very statement of "throw away what doesn't work" is counter productive to the entire ideal of always working to advance your art and building on what you know.

[ps1]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I will say that just because something doesn't work for you now doesn't mean you should "throw it away", and just because something does work for you now doesn't mean it will always work for you. I feel that the very statement of "throw away what doesn't work" is counter productive to the entire ideal of always working to advance your art and building on what you know.

Solid post! I can think of several moves and concepts I've learned over the years and initially thought were useless/don't work for me. Yet, as my skill increased (and of those around me as well) I ended up using the very things I had thought were unnecessary. Had I just thrown them away, I may never have been able to step up to the next level each time.

[MasterPain]

Learn what you wish, learn what works for you, throw away what doesn't.

I have a major problem with this concept. I will grant that Bruce Lee was a fantastic martial artist and the overall concept of JKD--that you should always be advancing your art and learning and building on what you know--is a good one, but this line is always thrown about in discussions about JKD. I hated it the moment I saw it quoted with Bruce Lee's name next to it and I've hated it every time someone has mentioned it since then.

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I will say that just because something doesn't work for you now doesn't mean you should "throw it away", and just because something does work for you now doesn't mean it will always work for you. I feel that the very statement of "throw away what doesn't work" is counter productive to the entire ideal of always working to advance your art and building on what you know.

The idea isn't to instantly discard what doesn't work right now. If something has been shown to work for someone else, it's probably valuable. It took me a long time to make x guard useful, now I love it.

I will NOT, however try for years to make chainpunching stop a double leg.

[Groinstrike]

Learn what you wish, learn what works for you, throw away what doesn't.

I have a major problem with this concept. I will grant that Bruce Lee was a fantastic martial artist and the overall concept of JKD--that you should always be advancing your art and learning and building on what you know--is a good one, but this line is always thrown about in discussions about JKD. I hated it the moment I saw it quoted with Bruce Lee's name next to it and I've hated it every time someone has mentioned it since then.

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I will say that just because something doesn't work for you now doesn't mean you should "throw it away", and just because something does work for you now doesn't mean it will always work for you. I feel that the very statement of "throw away what doesn't work" is counter productive to the entire ideal of always working to advance your art and building on what you know.

I believe what is meant by this, is not to necessarily discard anything that doesn't work for you right now. What i believe is meant by this is to be wary of techniques, stances, forms, etc. that do not directly contribute to your efficiency as a martial artist. Beware of techniques that have either become outdated or overly complicated. Just my opinion however.

[bushido_man96]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I will say that just because something doesn't work for you now doesn't mean you should "throw it away", and just because something does work for you now doesn't mean it will always work for you. I feel that the very statement of "throw away what doesn't work" is counter productive to the entire ideal of always working to advance your art and building on what you know.

Solid post! I can think of several moves and concepts I've learned over the years and initially thought were useless/don't work for me. Yet, as my skill increased (and of those around me as well) I ended up using the very things I had thought were unnecessary. Had I just thrown them away, I may never have been able to step up to the next level each time.

When I see the "throw away" line from Bruce Lee, it usually makes me think of forms. Although Lee was familiar with forms early on in his training, it is well documented how he felt about forms in the latter part of his training, along with the "aliveness" aspect he wanted so much out of training. Along with that, we see how certain styles are always bound to the curriculum they teach, be it forms, one-steps, a certain way to spar, etc. I think these are mainly the things Lee didn't like, and are likely the root of his "throw away" quote.

[MasterPain]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I will say that just because something doesn't work for you now doesn't mean you should "throw it away", and just because something does work for you now doesn't mean it will always work for you. I feel that the very statement of "throw away what doesn't work" is counter productive to the entire ideal of always working to advance your art and building on what you know.

Solid post! I can think of several moves and concepts I've learned over the years and initially thought were useless/don't work for me. Yet, as my skill increased (and of those around me as well) I ended up using the very things I had thought were unnecessary. Had I just thrown them away, I may never have been able to step up to the next level each time.

When I see the "throw away" line from Bruce Lee, it usually makes me think of forms. Although Lee was familiar with forms early on in his training, it is well documented how he felt about forms in the latter part of his training, along with the "aliveness" aspect he wanted so much out of training. Along with that, we see how certain styles are always bound to the curriculum they teach, be it forms, one-steps, a certain way to spar, etc. I think these are mainly the things Lee didn't like, and are likely the root of his "throw away" quote.

I think you just opened a can-o-worms. Might as well start fishing.

[bushido_man96]

Belonging to a greater group is only there to validate you grades. Are these same people the same ones that must have Dan Bars on their belts too?

in my opinion, a black Belt should be plain apart from Style name (ie Black Tiger Kara Te) and Holder's Name (Sensei Ken) if nessesary. Dan Bars should never be added

Eh, I don't let dan bars bother me. If we are going to have colored belts, then I don't see why we can't have dan bars. I don't think they are that big an issue.

If a person walked into your Dojo, and they didn't know the grades of the people in that Dojo (as none of them were wearing belts), would that person be able to correctly give the correct grade to each individual after watching a class. this is the biggest test I think.

This would fall under what Bob would refer to as "the proof is on the floor." The floor doesn't lie.

As we consider this, I think its important to realize that some are better at some things, and others at other things. Like forms and sparring. I tend to be good at forms, and I think I could handle myself fight wise if I needed to. But, I'm not some super sparring strategist, nor could I fight for 3 three minute rounds. So, if that would change the idea of what my rank should be in your eyes, then so be it. But, I know how I add up within my organization and school, so, I wouldn't let someone else's opinion bother me too much.

So, its going to be different no matter where you go.

[ps1]

Dave Moore, From a different Forum asked the following Question, I thought it was an excellent question but didn't want to take away Dave's ownership of the topic, Thanks Dave

This has been puzzling me for a while

Why does a Karate club have to belong to any particular style? a question that has been thrown at me a few times by people who practice the major ones who always ask "is it Shotokan, is it Goju ryu, Wado ryu" and then raise an eye brow when I say no. One high ranking guy said "you know you will never be recognised by the major styles when you get a black belt"

I have come around to the thought now that I don't really care who the club are affilliated to as long as I get something from the training and find the stuff taught usefull and wonder why I should have to be part of the style issue. Surely if I am getting something from the training then why should it matter which style I belong to or practice.

your thoughts please

I think this, while possibly thought provoking, really comes down to a matter of semantics. Unless you have never entered a MA school and come up with a fighting system all your own, you will be drawing your technique base from somewhere. So whether you decide to say, "your training Dobbersky's Karate" or "Shotokan Karate mixed with some other things," is really quite irrelevant. Personally, I would want my students to know how their technique base was derived. I think it's only proper to pay that respect to those who taught me.