Jeet Kune do class content help

[rhilllakefield]

I folks,

I've recently been promoted to apprentice instructor in a traditional, JKD school with a great lineage.

Are there any JKD instructors that have insight to traditional class content?

I'm struggling a bit having to find new content for 2 hours a week. My head instructor covers the other two classes.

I come from a Karate and boxing background, so I always fall back to my roots. I'm looking for more close quarters drills and traditional work.

Thanks for any help.

[tallgeese]

Define "traditional" as you're using it. Are you referring to traditional as per using trad art techniques and tactics in your JKD, or are you talking about techniques and tactics normally associated with JKD thru a specific (or non-specific) lineage?

Once we determine that I might be able to be more helpful.

[rhilllakefield]

Thanks Tallgeese.

Well, the story is this,

My instructor is essentially a third generation student and would like to keep Bruce Lees fundamentals and content alive and well.

Were trying not to deviate into the newer age JKD, and stay closer to Bruce, and Dan Inosantos roots.

I know there are a lot of varying opinions on this, I'm just looking for functional Pak/Lop Sao drills, straight blast work, trapping, hu bud etc..

I am seriously considering stepping back for another year to train, before I continue instructing. I've been boxing and studying Karate since I was a kid, but JKD is still relatively foreign!

Thanks for any suggestions.

Ryan

[tallgeese]

Well,m you couldn't have summed up the political climate of JKD any better! There's controversy galore about the directions the art (or training method depending on your view ) should go. To stay on point, I'll focus on your question without devolving into the great debate of it all.

First up, taking time to get more depth to what you're wanting to teach is never a bad idea. Time spent cementing the knowledge you have along the lines you're looking for is really time well spent. That said, one of the greatest ways to solidify knowledge learned is to teach it. So only you're the person to make the call about which route is best for you right now.

Some drills out of the more "traditional" lines of training to think about. One of the aspects of combat that people associate with JKD is trapping. Good or bad, it's become permanently affixed as a major component of the art. Before I go further, I have to say (for my own conscious) is that it's a tool. No more or less, and one that needs time to develop. That said, traditional trapping drills are a good way to do this.

I'm a big fan of trapping as a tool and not a range, however, drilling at traditional trapping range will pay off when you start deploying it against boxer types with snappier punches. It's hard to develop a reference point with these individuals and it will take some good attribute development out of other arts, or some time spent in traditional trapping range to develop it into a working tool. Just never, ever, let people forget that THEY ARE DRILLS, NOT TACTICS.

So, what to do. start with reference point drills, we'll use Pak Sao as a basic reference. And we will build from there.

So, a training progression might look like

1) a static Pak Sao

2) Pak at ranges from a trap at the wrist to elbow to simulate ranging created by footwork

3) Utilize a Pak drill while moving, start linear, move to circular, then all on the call of the training partner.

4) Move away from static reference and initiate a reference by DA. Use this to set up your HIA.

5) Now, gear up. Start limited engagement sparring until the student can develop a reference point to Pak from.

6)Now back up and add follow on control to static Pak's. Build back up thru the series.

7) Finally, do away with the reference point altogether. This is reality. By now (and it's not a short trip, especially for new people with no other art background) the student will have an idea of timing and the function of the trap to conduct it without first establishing the reference.

This is where you start to move into the functional aspects of trapping. Bear in mind, this is only Pak. While you're working on this, think about using the same type of progression for lop sao, chi sao, jut sao, huen sao, ect.

Once you start getting your people good at them start chaining them together. Spend time making them feel energy, but (for my money) spend just as much time teaching them to control after they successfully trap. Remember, they are trapping for a reason, not just to trap.

I work this the same way when I'm working the lower hubud variant. I spend part of the time working the pattern and part of the time controlling from various positions.

This type of progression really stresses the functional portion of your request.

Also, consider working trapping sensitivity drills from a reference point. From my experience (limited as it is) these work really well for training to perform live against people really trying to hit you due to the points of contact often formed during sparring.

1) tan sao from a reference point (very useful)

2) reference point to low line of attack by breaking reference (a counter fighters best friend)

3)swinging gate drill (largely a sensitivity measure but useful training points for navigating the in fight)

4)Low line Pak sao when your training partner breaks reference and drives on a low line.

I hope this gives you some ideas for working in what has been a "traditional" aspect of JKD. Full disclosure, I too come out of other backgrounds into JKD and it's a methodology I'm still wrapping my head around. I too just recently got awarded an apprentice instructor license so I feel your pain. Also, and you've probably already noted, I'm from the more "training method" school of thought for JKD rather than the art as it was with Bruce group. This colors how everyone looks at what they are doing. I'm not sure anyone is actually wrong or right, I just wanted to let you know where I'm coming from so there's no confusion of background.

The hubud is a great drill and I've been exposed to it mainly through the short blade. For me, it's strength is the ability to work so many things out of it. Disarms, controls, unarmed joint position, and all flowing one into the other. It allows so many repetitions of a given flow it's amazing. Just make sure you're setting up different controls and follow up from it. That's where you can really spend time.

Student can work the pattern for ever if they are learning a different controlling position or takedown from each position within the pattern. Once they've gotten a handful everywhere (again, longer than it sounds) then start letting the free form put them together.

Once you're seeing them knock it out of the part blindfolded (only kind of kidding, that's a good addition to any sensitivity training but I'd keep it to reference based trapping) then start them into limited engagement sparring work followed by live sparring using those tactics.

That's enough material to run for a while. Not to mention, this stuff isn't (again, only in my opinion) worth doing AFTER a student can maintain structure in stance and movement AND has a basic function understanding of attacks.

Those drills can fill volumes and can probably come largely from your boxing background.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Let us know how it works out and what you decide about teaching. Also, if you've got any questions let me know. The written word is hard to tell if you've been clear or not.

Good luck.

[rhilllakefield]

Thanks a ton Tallgeese.

I really appreciate the time and insight. I'm going to keep this as a reference, and I completely agree in the building block style of teaching.

I also agree that there should eventually be movement added to the basic drills, ideally ending up in as close to a realistic situation as possible with a fair amount of pressure.

Thanks again for the thoughts.

I apologize its been a while since I've checked in. There's a lot going on right now, and I've been a little distracted!

I've been getting frustrated with the club lately. My head instructor seems to be resisting when I try to teach boxing drills, and utilize even some transitional footwork from my Karate days. I'm not sure, but it seems like anything that resembles a traditional art he pushes back on.

I try to teach only functional techniques that are easy to use in a heated moment. In trying to stick so closely to traditional wing chun based movements he seems to be neglecting one of Bruces main philosophies. Take what is useful, discard what is useless (and make it your own.)

I have a solid striking base, (not perfect, but very functional) and I still feel like I'm not able to offer much. I think the point has been missed that Bruce was a huge advocate of Western boxing.

Don't take me wrong, my instructor is a great guy, but my frustration is reaching a point where its almost time to move on.

Sorry for the vent session!

I appreciate the insight, once again.

[tallgeese]

I can understand your frustration and your feeling that you're overlooking some of the prime philosophy of JKD in the club you're in. That's a tough spot, breaking with a club is always tough and it seems especially so in JKD circles for some reason. I think that's due to the animosity between the various sub groups of the art.

Glad anything I posted could be of help. Let us know how things play out.

For what it's worth, if you want to look at JKD that's doing the sorts of integrations that you're talking about check out Harris International and Prof. Harris' work. I know he's know more in BJJ circles but his JKD is amazing.

[rhilllakefield]

Thanks again. I'll do that! I enjoy the system, Its just these roadblocks that are making things difficult. I'll keep you posted.

[Sifu88]

If you're still looking for ideas I would love to give my two cents. I'm an instructor as well but from a more progressive lineage, Paul Vunak, Harinder Singh, etc... But I do have some more "traditionalish" ideas you may like. Let me know.

[Luther unleashed]

I'm 36, I bought a book when I was 19 called "Tao of jeet June do"! The main thing I left with after reading it, besides a really nice view into Bruce lee's mind, was the fact that jeet June do was actually a CONCEPT not a specific style, and that was stated by Bruce many times! He laid down a base because he said it was better to have a fundamental base but the art itself was formless! So, having said that I mean no disrespect BUT although the material iv seen from so called jeet June do stylists, seems to look like good, effective techniques, I feel that if it's being taught as A SPECIFIC WAY, or style, then it shouldn't be called jkd!

Respect to you guys/girls that train in jkd, hopefully you can understand my perception on jkd! Not a judgment, more of a perception.

[Archimoto]

I'm 36, I bought a book when I was 19 called "Tao of jeet June do"! The main thing I left with after reading it, besides a really nice view into Bruce lee's mind, was the fact that jeet June do was actually a CONCEPT not a specific style, and that was stated by Bruce many times! He laid down a base because he said it was better to have a fundamental base but the art itself was formless! So, having said that I mean no disrespect BUT although the material iv seen from so called jeet June do stylists, seems to look like good, effective techniques, I feel that if it's being taught as A SPECIFIC WAY, or style, then it shouldn't be called jkd!

Respect to you guys/girls that train in jkd, hopefully you can understand my perception on jkd! Not a judgment, more of a perception.

I completely agree. I am a long time JKD practitioner. I've been lucky to have studied under a few very good instructors including Dan Inosanto. Until I met guru Dan I had struggled with reconciling Bruce Lee's philosophy with the narrow-minded teachings and application of some instructors. I have enjoyed my journey in JKD, and continue to so, however, more so than with other arts I believe it's SUPER important to find a good instructor and to have a proper grasp of JKD's philosophy.