A question about JKD from a an interested bystander

[jimbob]

Hi Guys

I posted this question quite a few years ago now but thought I'd re-do it as there are probably some new faces here since 1998 (I hope so) and I'm still wondering what the answer might be.

As I understand it, jkd is a philosophy that embraces the notion of self expression and self determination through the martial arts. Absorb what you find personally useful, reject what doesn't personally work for you and add what you can to augment what you have. Do this in such a fashion that you eventually have a system of concepts, strategies and techniques that best fit your own unique personality and allows you to defend yourself in a manner that is "natural" and organic for you. Do I have it right so far? It's an appealing concept to me - 20+ years in CLF and there some things I still wonder how I'd pull them off!

Anyway - here's my question (and it does come from someone with only a passing familiarity with jkd, so forgive me if I miss the boat completely). When I see jkd (video, seminars etc), I see a lot of foundation work being done in various systems. Western boxing, silat, escrima, muay thai, maybe some wing chun - now some groundfighting. All well and good - a nice toolbox to have as a base.

BUT

there doesn't seem to be much in the way of traditional MA's influencing the jkd philosophy. I know Bruce Lee mentioned the "classical mess" where people had become bound by protocol and ritual and had lost sight of what the arts really held, but what if I - in my own personal experience, felt that one of my best paths of expression was through something like Shotokan or TKD or Hung Gar? What if I could naturally make that art work for me efficiently, and genuinely felt it fit best with my own psychological and physical make-up. Let's say it's the closet that I feel fits best in my house. I might go and get some clothes from outside - boxing, BJJ etc - but want to bring them back to hang in my traditional closet (not sure if I'm making sense now).

Would this be catered for in a jkd training environment?

Or to take it even further - what happens if I start out in a jkd environment, not knowing that that a traditional system is really the most ideal way for me to express myself martially and physically? Isn't that akin to forcing a left handed child to learn how to do everything right handed?

I certainly don't mean any offense, and I know this is probably an inaccurate question anyway - we all have to start somewhere and find our way - but it's a question that's been on my mind for years yet whenever I ask it I really don't receive an answer that satisfies me.

So I thought I'd throw it out there again.

Thanks for reading - looking forward to what comes back.

James

[SevenStar]

kali is a traditional style, as is wing chun and boxing. muay thai is a modern sport, but was derived from a traditional style. silat is traditional... It's not that he was against traditional styles. He was against the mindset seen in some of them. Ever see the guys who only practice forms, but never spar? What about the guys who only talk theory and nothing else? And then there are the guys who don't spar anyone outside of their school and base everything they know about fighting solely on that...

This, is part of the classical mess. If shotokan or hung gar were your base (TKD is NOT traditional - it's less than 70 years old!), then that would be fine. After all, a karge part of the original jkd is wing chun trapping. Use your shotokan, but break the traditional mindset and habits. Technically, ANY style can fit within the jkd framework. The "classical mess" he refers to is the general mindset and strict adherance to tradition for whatever reason - the uniforms, the lack of sparring, the over emphasis of forms, the closed mindedness you see in many schools in regards to cross training, etc.

[jimbob]

Thanks Seven Star - i was beginning to wonder if anyone was out there.

Okay - got it. I should have expressed myself a little better. Of course, silat, escrima, etc etc are "traditional". I guess I was thinking of traditional north asian martial arts - the ones that would have been predominantly available when Lee was formulating his philosophy (and still are now, no doubt).

You wrote... "Technically, ANY style can fit within the jkd framework."

This is what I was getting at. From my understanding, yes - ANY style CAN fit within the jkd framework. BUT - from what I've seen, (and like I said - it has been limited) - there are a few core systems that feature much moreso than others. And if my own personal temperament is best expressed through a style or concept that many might reject as part of the "classical mess" - will jkd allow me to adequately express myself should I spend time within a jkd teaching "curriculum".

Please bear in mind - this is all hypothetical. I'm quite happy with my background in CLF and tai chi. It's just a question that has always been on my mind.

Taekwondo is not traditional. Gotcha. Should have remembered that. I like to stir things up by telling tkd people they're really only learning Shotokan!

Thanks again for your reply. I hope this doesn't finish here and we get some more insight.

Cheers

[SevenStar]

this is where jkd tends to join the mass of other styles out there... In it's attempt to not become a style, it's has basically become one. IMO, that was inevitable. every student needs some base to start with, and WC, kali, silat and thai boxing seem to form that base. Also, there was lee's style - jun fan kung fu. These are the base for the formless, styleless jkd.

theoretically, you could use shotokan as your base and mold it to the jkd framework, but the above arts are what have been adhered to over time, for whatever reason.

[jimbob]

Seven Star wrote "this is where jkd tends to join the mass of other styles out there... In it's attempt to not become a style, it's has basically become one. IMO, that was inevitable"

But do you think THEY realise that? *looks around nervously*

Thanks for replying mate. Are we the only ones here?

:)

[SevenStar]

Nah, there are a few others, but they are probably still partying from the holiday weekend. They'll come back when they sober up. :D

[yenhoi]

Really, what does it matter what you call what you do?

What does the JKD label do for your skill?

:confused: :confused: :confused: :eek:

[yenhoi]

No style is a style. Not the ones that want to be styles and not the ones that dont want to be styles. There is no such thing as style. Not one single school anywhere teaches the exact same stuff, the same amount of time, by the same people from city to city or even block to block. No matter how much categorization it always comes down to specific expierence. Students, teachers, and time, nothing else, no matter who calls what what.

:eek:

[jimbob]

Thanks Yenhoi

Ok - let's broaden what i meant by "style" - because. after all, a punch really is just a punch. but if we look at the different "styles' out there, we see a limited number of techniques that make use of the various parts of the human body to ward off an attacker. Fists, arms, legs and feet can be used to impact against a target. Limbs can be bent or twisted against their natural range of movement to subdue an opponent. Air and or blood supply can be restricted long enough to shut down someone. Muscles can be separated from bones. Nerve bundles can be struck to bring about a sense of pain, and possibly a reflex that will open up another are for further opportunities.

And that's about it (apart from the delivery of flaming balls of chi).

So I see your point- what really is a "style" when we can appreciate that the human body can only move in so many ways?

I would put it this way then. A style is a concept or philosophy that drives the delivery of certain applications in such a fashion as to be recognised as having a unique "signature". The transmission of these concepts will vary from person to person - my SuiMoiFah looks different to someone who learnt the form somewhere else - BUT - the essence, the philosphy, is still the same. I guess when someone disagrees with the essence of what they're teaching, it starts to "become" something else. Have you ever trained with people of the same "style" but at a different school? They might do things a little differently - but because of the overriding concepts and philosophies of the "style" - you can recognise what they're doing as what you're doing.

So - if it's a question of technique that doesn't sit well with you, put this back into my original question instead. If someone can express themselves via the philosophical approach to self defense (or mutual combat) emphasised by something like Five Ancestor Fist boxing - how easily would they be catered for in a modern jkd environment?

[yenhoi]

this I dont understand:

how easily would they be catered for in a modern jkd environment?

what do you mean?

If any person 'can fight' then everyone else who can also fight, will be able to tell immediatly... sometimes from just watching, and probably always by touching... never by speach or label. Like you say, the feel of the principles etc that you can hear in people from similar training. I think you can teach people how to knock other people over.. but whether they get good at knocking others over using circles or triangles I dont think is ever much up to the teacher. Unless thats what he is interested in... forceing a particular group of specific techniques onto people.

Very few teachers are good enough to transfer exactly what they have to others... specially in great numbers. It really is more about pointing the way.

People from similar schools should end up feeling the same, because they draw from a similar pool of training methods. The end result is rarely the same because as individual schools they dont have the same time allocations or talent resources.

So if we worry about only principles and skill acquisition, instead of all that style and label jazz, Im sure mostly we will all find that most people that are truely skilled at anything have more in common they they dont.

:cool:

[jimbob]

Yenhoi wrote

'...Unless thats what he is interested in... forceing a particular group of specific techniques onto people...'


To my inexperienced eye, this is what I perceive about the jkd that I have seen. Despite the assertions that we should all strive to become "formless" so that we are never limited to a certain "style" - I see people engaged in jkd training, training in certain "styles". Now, perhaps these are used as base from which to then start exploring one's unique mindset and self expression - but when I said "how well would someone be catered for.....etc etc" - that's what I was getting at. If someone's best means of expression (because of their unique biomechanic setup/psychological state/emotional predisposition whatever - was via an art that many people may have written off as being too "traditional" ie some of the kung fu styles or karate styles - then what happens when that person enters a jkd environment? Are we looking at a naturally left handed peson being forced to become right handed?

Thanks for responding and keeping this alive. i really thought there would be more people here.

j

[yenhoi]

Well, it shouldent matter what the "jkd" people think. Its still about who you have learned from and what you have done. If you find someone in your area who has "it," and is willing to teach you specifically and then you get good at it, what does it matter what you call it or what any one else calls it?

I dont think styles exist. The basic components of skill breakdown into smaller better pieces then styles. The basic idea of a style is limiting in itself, no matter what name... jkd or 5 fist whatever.

What does it matter what they are doing or what they call it. What are you doing and what do you call it, and why should anyone care either way?

:confused:

[yenhoi]

Isent it good to be trained both handed and choose yourself when its best for you do do somethings with your good hand and other things with your better hand for specific reasons related to your specific goals and such? Thats what real pointers offer.

:eek:

[fa_jing]

Bruce Lee started with Wing Chun and tinkered with it. The first changes he made were good ( for him ) but as he diverged more and more from his base, I'm not sure he was really improving as a fighter. hard to say, since most of his real action took place in his backyard.

There is "Original JKD" which is the style that Bruce developed for himself, you have the skip forward side kick and xyz techniques, trapping hands sequences etc. This is being kept alive by Ted Wong who is my old Sifu's sifu. Then there is the JKD concepts people, which is no different from MMA in my opinon other than the fact that they read Bruce Lee's writings. You have people somewhere in between, for instance Dan Inosanto who has brought SE asian fighting arts into the mix and is even combining BJJ into his fighting style. Anyone can start from a traditional style and JKD-ize it, the key is putting on the gloves and doing western boxing drill or modifications of boxing drills. Putting down a mat and rolling with BJJ rules or throwing with Judo rules. Using modern equipment and sports styles and contact with other martial artists to further your own personal style. So BL did it with Wing chun, Inosanto did it with SE asian arts, someone else can come and do it with Northern Kung Fu, guess what someone could do it with Wing Chun again and come up with a different evolution than what Bruce came up with!!

50% of JKD is wanting to be associated with Bruce Lee....something quite understandable given the economics of martial arts teaching. Most of the rest of it is related to MMA, modernization, and cross training in general.

[yenhoi]

Why shouldent you want the end product now?

If it works, it werks... :(