[Colony Thread]

[Vash]

Well, since it appears that the JKD forum is taking a nap, I think I'll post an argument which (in my opinion) would at least start a debate to liven this place up.

Don't let the JKD forum die so easily. It's an amazing resourse which we should use quite a bit more than we do.

Is anyone out there?

[Vash]

Not wanting to ape Chen Zhen's "Brink of Death" idea, but it seems a shame to let a potentially engrossing forum of this nature simply die out.

Those who practice Jeet Kune Do, JKD Concepts, Jun Fan Gung Fu, and the like, please show some interest, before this forum is found to be nothing more than a drain on KFOs resources.

[Vash]

First, I feel it necessary to define "style" in a martially-applicable manner:

Style: n, v; 1. Manner of artistic composition, 2. kind or variety, 3. formal name.

Herein, I shall rely upon definition #3, as I am pro-style, as it were.

==========

Part 1: Style as an IDEA(L)

I will here discuss the concept of a martial arts style as an idea which pertains to a particular method of fighting.

A style, using this concept, could be classified only as "striking," that is, a curriculum which has emphasis placed primarily upon the methods of striking and the delivery systems used for such, and "grappling," which would encompass any type of curriculum based around holding and controlling one's opponent.

One glaring and common problem in the martial arts circles is that to define a combative art as either "striking" or "grappling" is to disallow the practice of the other method. Taking this as the frame of reference, labeling any combative training method would limit greatly the themes discussed. But, if one uses the definition of style given at the beginning of this diatribe, then the true limitlesness of "style" is easily seen.

[Vash]

Part 2: Style as an Organism

Looking at a style's curriculum in the light of a living thing as opposed to a set of crystalized theories offers up a much more engrossing, and a much more beneficial, study.

In my art, Isshinryu Karate, we have a set number of basic exercises and kata (forms). We have a certain way of punching. We have a certain method of footwork. And, if one studies this art on a purely mechanical level, then it becomes rather . . . unimpressive. Certainly, the techniques are effective for a certain environment and under certain conditions, but what happens when an unfamiliar rule-set is used to oppose the Isshinryu techniques? Well, the system will fail. But, what if the PRINCIPLE of the technique, that is, the "why" in CONJUNCTION with the "how," is utilized in a combative situation? Well then, the system has a pretty fair chance. The point is, it is pointless to limit the study of an art. Unless, of course, one isd of a traditional mindset . . .

[Vash]

Part 3: The Evils of Traditionalism

This is mostly an offshoot of the part 2 argument, but I feel it is important enough to warrent it's own section.

The term and idea of traditionalism is a rather counter-productive to martial study. "But," it is often argued, "we don't study for fighting applicability, we study for cultural preservation/holistic health." Well, dear friends, you are studying the wrong art. A martial art should NOT be used to preserve a culture, providing that art is not an extension of another cultural institution (Shaolin comes to mind). Also, it is rather inappropriate to use a martial art as a form of "holistic health." Yes, most martial arts foster a decent level of health, but is generally safer to take up a non-combative art to improve your biological function. You are just as apt to be injured learning your basics as you would to get killer abs from x activity.

So, to sum up this little section, "traditionalism" is a death trap for the martial arts. If we look to the "principle" of the art, as opposed the "technique," any art from any culture can be easily integrated into any society.

[Vash]

The base of Jeet Kune Do is, in fact, the same base inherent to any truly combative art. Adaptation, evolution.

Peace.

[Vash]

You know you love JKD, you're just afraid to admit it.

[fa_jing]

I love JKD. I practice it under a great teacher. However I find it painfully boring to discuss - people come into the discussions with all their preconceptions and then they want to talk about this person and that and I find it pretty excruciating. Then you have the vast majority of JKD-ers who don't practice anything like what it is I practice.

[Vash]

But isn't JKD an infinitely adaptable art? That would explain the extreme differences in training procedures from teacher to teacher.

Is it an art, or a training philosophy?

[Vash]

"JKD is a training philosophy!"

"Uh-UH! It's a system of highly adaptable techniques, principles, AND philosophies!"

"You're both wrong! It's a style which shouldn't be changed from the way Bruce tought it back in the day!"

Trolling and flaming are never conducive to a learning environ. Here, in this atmosphere, I'd think we could have a good bit of discussion (both agreable and dis) for the benefit of all involved.

[yenhoi]

My teacher doesnt call his art JKD, but his lineage is JKD.

Arts and styles do not exist. They are just pigeon holes into which groupings of training methods fall. Not one single person from any "style" fights like any other person from the same "style" or any other "style." The combination of individual mindsets, traditional or non-traditional limitations, lingo, cultism, other physical and mental limitations and advantages, and the addition of a non-predictable opponent. Styles exists as abstract institutions and burearacrcys on paper only. "Style" or "art" is just an easy way to refer to what MAYBE the same or very similar set of training methods and methodology.

The real art is the learning process that goes on between teacher and student and the student figuring 'things' out for themselves, or making mistakes (a valuable training tool.)

People (fighters) are 'composed' of a basic set of attributes. Everything else is based off these attributes. 'Techniques', 'Skills', and 'Principles' are all dependant on actual, physical training methods or drills even. There is no other way but repetition, and then testing. Its how all things are learned, no matter the subject.

These are my thoughts for now. You and the teacher learn and practice. "Style" names play major roles for some 'teachers' and a much more minor role for other 'teachers.' You practice and train and discuss with them and your training partners. Thats where the "art" is, names and banners dont train.

:eek:

[Vash]

Excellent points, all. I'd love to critique, expound upon, or say something particularly witty, but . . .

Again, excellent.

[Young Gotti]

Vash, in this thread woull find out which people who practise JKD, and then convince them to help the board. make new threads, make new debate subjects, etc.

-cz

edit: i was logged in as chen zhen, clicked the link to this thread, replied, then suddenly i was logged in under this name..wtf:confused:??

[Vash]

Sounds like a plan.

Thanks.

[Kristoffer]

Maybe you'll get this place up n running.. maybe not. Hope you'll make it

[Vash]

It'd be great to actually get some business in here. I'm ORA pho liphe, but I think this particular forum deserves a bit more attention, as it really could be a valuable resource to a multitude of martial artists.

Thanks for the support.

[Vash]

Well, I am quite certain there are at least a few M.A.s out there who are non-JKD, but find the topic relevant. And I know there's at least someone looking over this thread. Every time I come over, the views # is up by 5.

Post something. Anything. A ttt would be great. Just don't let this forum die, peeps.

I've got mad posting skillz, an I aint aphrade to use em.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Man, Vash, looks like you need some help getting this place up and going. I'll post a couple of my views on JKD.

I belive JKD is a great supplemental art, but now days I think its harder to find good JKD instructor(and not some JKDC that someone derived just for monetary purposes) If we had more good JKD teachers or some good JKD concepts than maybe the art will survive a while. Lets hope so because it seems people only really learn it because of Bruce, and thats not a reason. I think its a mokery...like learning Kung Fu to learn how to chi-blast some folks.

[Vash]

It seems such a shame to let this resource go to waste.

I have to agree with your stance on JKD. It seems to me the only person who ever really did JKD was Bruce Lee. Everyone else is just doing what he did or, in the better mind, doing things the way he did them.

Without a firm foundation, nothing can stand. That's what the "art" of Jeet Kune Do seems to be to me, a beautiful statue with no pedestal to stand upon.

[Vash]

Props to Chen Zhen for moving the Tradition threads over here.

Thanks.

[CaptinPickAxe]

That quote about the statue was true.

I can see JKD giving way to new hybrid JKD/MA superstyles (or crapstyles) The theories are magnificent, but its a shame Bruce didn't really leave behind a bigger amount of students. Maybe if he had more students the art would have more of a base. Does anyone know how many qualified JKD instructors he left behind?

[yenhoi]

"JKD" 1 - Dan Inosanto.

But then there are the people he certified in various levels of JKD, Jun fan Kung Fu, and etc, like james Lee and Taky Kimura.

Also, Ted Wong had no prior martial arts instruction to Bruce Lee.

:eek:

[Vash]

Where does the man Vunak fall in the JKD yard?

[yenhoi]

And a Seattle guy, named someting Glover.

Big Sean Madigans site I think is the best for JKD history and lineage. I think it is www.combatativesolutions.com

:eek:

[yenhoi]

I think he is a student of bustillo and inosanto.

ryu answers questions about paul vunak at www.defend.net JKD forum. ryu is a PFS full instructor I think.

:eek:

[Vash]

I've been there a few times, but never posted.

Oft times, I worry that many of the conversations had there are the pinnacle of martial talk.