PDA

View Full Version : Xingyi in Jeet Kune Do



xingyiman
12-11-2000, 06:50 PM
I was just wondering do any of the Jeet Kune Do systems that you practise incorporate Xingyiquan(a.k.a. Hsing-I Chuan) among the many martal art styles you take from?? How do JKD practitioners view Xingyiquan, as an effective and REALISTIC art, I mean?? What Techniques from Xingyiquan do any of you incorporate into your Jeet Kune Do training??? Thanks.

DragonzRage
12-12-2000, 01:21 AM
To my understanding, Hsing I did have a slight influence in Bruce Lee's development of Jun Fan, although that aspect of Jun Fan is probably nowhere near as extensive as say, the wing chun and western boxing influence. I am quite certain that Bruce Lee never had any extensive exposure or training in Hsing I so I really don't think you could look for any in depth hsing I methods in Jun Fan Gung fu. I don't think Bruce ever commented on the style (which would make sense since his knowledge in it was quite limited) and I feel that there are probably very few known JKD instructors who have been exposed to Hsing I in great detail. I have never really heard it commented upon by any of my instructors, personally. I'd say that most JKD people do not know nearly enough about hsing I to really be able to analyze it from their perspective. The only person I could think of is Tim Tackett, who had extensive knowledge in Tai Chi and Hsing I before he became a JKD instructor (certified by Dan Inosanto). But i've never read his comments regarding Hsing I. I think its pretty safe to say that the general consensus regarding Hsing I among JKD people would be "need more information!" :D

There is only one martial art.

xingyiman
12-12-2000, 07:45 PM
How do any of you personally look at Xingyiquan's strengths and limitations from your Jeet kune do mindset?? As I understand it, a main focus in Xingyi is putting full body force behind the strikes. Many martial arts are good at using an attackers momentum against him. Would this be a major weakness in Hsing-I Chuan?? Individual differences aside, do you think a Xingyi practitioner would be easy pickings for a reasonably skilled Aikido practitioner who is good at doing this??

PlasticSquirrel
01-01-2001, 02:46 AM
i used to do jkd a lot. basically, it puts an emphasis on putting a lot of power into your hits, but leaving the rest of the body able to defend a counter-attack.
you're right, that the full-body force is emphasized a lot, especially through use of twisting the hips to speed up strikes and give them more power. personally, i think that both are very economic in their own ways. xing-yi delivering powerful internal force without sacrificing defense. jkd uses stances and attacks that are difficult to fight against and leave the body closed to attack.
one of the big differences is that jkd is a philosophy that can be applied to any martial art, but has it's weaknesses in the fact that it there is no mention of internal aspects and from bruce lee's limited knowledge of kung fu. he then goes to gripe and rip on people who have spent their lives developing styles of kung fu. personally, i think that he was very rude and ignorant to those people, taking on primitive ideas from western boxing and body-building.
i think that it's impossible to look at xing-yi strategy from a jkd strategy stand-point, because they're completely different, yet useful in their own ways.
i think that the xing-yi practicioner would easily win against an aikido practicioner. the high levels in aikido are equivalent to the low levels in xing-yi. internal kung fu styles are much more advanced than aikido in terms of power generation and usage (and pretty much any other area you'd like to think about). the famous xing-yi master sun lu tang and a japanese aikido master once touched hands to see who had more internal force. the aikido master was pushed from the garden they were in to the street. all you'll see from an aikido master is a good flip or some rooting demonstrations that would bore just about anyone in xing-yi.

shoalinmaster
01-01-2001, 07:24 AM
quote: but has it's weaknesses in the fact that it there is no mention of internal aspects and from bruce lee's limited knowledge of kung fu. he then goes to gripe and rip on people who have spent their lives developing styles of kung fu. personally, i think that he was very rude and ignorant to those people, taking on primitive ideas from western boxing and body-building."


Thats an interesting idea, with no background, but interesting. It is quite well known that Bruce Lee's father was a tai chi practictioner, and Bruce Lee himself gave various demonstrations in seattle and california on tai chi. And in his earlyer years before the conception of JKD, Lee was one of the poeple who advocated the internal arts as a better way for health (you can read his only published book while he was alive, Gung FU, to see that he denounced the western practices of exercise and called them "static and fruitless") Later in life he saw the obvious benefits of weight lifting and bodybuilding and then began to advocate these means to achieving better health.

And in JKD internal arts are practiced quite often, just becouse it is not in a clasical sense, or refered to with any sort of mysticism, or even refered to as chi, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The one inch punch, or any strike for that matter, can not be fully optimised without the proper use of chi in JKD.

spend more time studing, and less time babaling, and you won't look so ignorant.

As to the thread, I belive that Xing Yi is a perfect compliment to JKD. The constant dominating and yielding of the art flows perfectly in the philosophy, and the strikes enhance punching skill in JKD.

to each, onto his own. never the less, it is all the same.

PlasticSquirrel
01-02-2001, 05:08 AM
"Thats an interesting idea, with no background, but interesting"
i know that lee did tai chi occasionally, and i do have a base for what i say. i have also read the books (the tao of gung fu, gung fu: the philosophical art of self defense, jeet kune do, the tao of jeet kune do, and the art of expressing the human body). he did a little tai chi (his father did wu family, but he was seen doing yang chengfu's 108 form), but that doesn't mean that he learned anything more than the basics of the art. tai chi is infinitely deep and it takes years to even understand a small part of it. i remain skeptical as to whether he did this, however. he seemed to have an air of being to high above any system, once to started to develop jkd, to expend the effort and patience required to properly practice anything more than a hollow tai chi form.
i do realize that he used some chi in those short punches, but does that take any real skill? just ask some of the people in the internal martial arts forum.
it's too bad that he resorted to nothing more than aggressive free-form refined kickboxing, disowning the theories and philosophies he was so keen about. he may talk about it in his books and show diagrams, but whether it manifesting his fighting or not is unquestionably "no." in the book the tao of gung fu, i see a very limited knowledge of kung fu (see the iron forearm section-- great for beating out every bit of sensitivity in your arms).
also, he criticizes an old man for asking about his opinions on yin and yang. bruce replies by saying "baloney!" and writes that the old man probably still doesn't understand that the two are never one. this is true in one perspective, but the two can be studied alone. he didn't offer any sort of explanation or an interest in further conversation, but instead decided to be rude, implying (to the un-knowing person) that the tao is "baloney."
he criticizes kung fu for not being efficient for attack. i, for one, am not an aggressive person, and i don't know why anyone would have a reason to learn an aggressive martial art (even while xing-yi is armed for attack, since it was developed for war, it was toned down in spirit to suit the needs of a different group of people." aggressive does not mean dominating. you can dominate your opponent better if you let him make an attack first.
"And in JKD internal arts are practiced quite often, just becouse it is not in a clasical sense" please enlighten me as to how you can practice your conception "internal arts" in a modern way. ba duan jin, stance training, zhan zhouang, etc. are all classical ways. i'd like to hear how anyone could develop real internal power in a way that hasn't been used before.
don't get me wrong. jkd is a good base and many of the ideas are good (especially flowing like water to adapt that will compliment any style), but before you alter xing-yi, understand why you do what you do not only in external ideas but in internal as well. that could take years. guess that's why they call it kung fu. :)

shoalinmaster
01-02-2001, 07:41 AM
I find most of what you say quite amusing. Your misinterpritations compunded by your bias has lead you to conclusions that are quite contrary to what my limited perception can verify with facts. Maybe you should actualy read all those books you have so that I don't have to spend time quoting each and every thing word by word on this forum. You state half-truths in your "quotes" just to justify yourself, but justification cannot be found in your pride and refusal to be open to the truth.

Please actualy read these books you say you have and you will see that what you are trying to quote, is actally stated quite the oposite as you wish to make others preceve it. I implore you to please reread those books carfully, save us both some time, and I won't negate everything you said word by word. You have the proof right in your hands please read it.

to each, onto his own. never the less, it is all the same.

PlasticSquirrel
01-04-2001, 05:39 AM
i have read the books. i don't just buy a book and not read it, and when i read the books, i was VERY interested in jeet kune do. i bought a heavy bag and constantly practiced on it as well as free sparring and jkd footwork. i idolized bruce lee and thought that he was the greatest martial artist in the world. after i read some of the books, i compared them with the philosophies and traditions of kung fu systems that i also read about, over the span of a few months. what i found was that the systems were not so rigid as lee had made them out to be in the books, and that his love for very simple techniques had come from the portion of wing chun training that he had (that put emphasis on simple techniques).

my real disagreement with lee is that he puts down form, when it is the path to formlessness, which he states in the tao of gung fu, but then later in the jeet kune do: bruce lee's commentaries on the martial way, he rarely writes about the need to perfect and understand pre-made techniques to give a person the experience and knowledge it takes to reach formlessness. certainly, it is important to practice simple techniques as shown in his books. but as time progresses (as does your skill), you should move on, beyond the very, very basic. natural progression. to be stuck in one simple mindset is not good for you.

if by negating the original points in the book you are referring to the story of the old man and the tao, maybe you should re-read what i have said, and stop accusing me of reading and quoting with bias. rather than making an intelligent response, you just give me generic insults and try to cut me down. maybe you're the one biased. i make observations.

i would like to admire bruce lee, but for many reasons, i would rather look up to someone like cheng man-ching. cheng man-ching was a peaceful herbalist who taught tai chi chuan mostly for health, but never turned down a challenge and was never defeated. he was also fond of philosophy (i-ching, the tao), but practiced an art that reflected these ideas, rather than setting them aside when it was time to practice or fight.

[This message was edited by PlasticSquirrel on 01-04-01 at 09:45 PM.]

Sam Wiley
01-04-2001, 10:55 PM
I've seen some of the stuff Jeet Kune Do people call "Taiji" and it was not Taijiquan. There was no internal movement, no waist movement, too much muscle being used...it just wasn't Taiji.

*********
"To enter is to be born, to retreat is to die."
-An Old Taijiquan Saying

PlasticSquirrel
01-04-2001, 11:28 PM
"shaolin master," i like how you cut me down without explanation, and i give answers for everything you say, but you still won't answer me about how internal arts are practiced in jkd, but not in a "classical sense."

btw, are you a "shaolin master" who does jkd? :p

xingyiman
01-24-2001, 09:04 PM
In one of Bruce Lee's Fighting Methods books he does a critique of some traditional kung fu stances. Would anyone like to give a critique (the positives and negatives) of the San Ti stance in Xingyiquan. In San Ti, one hand is kept high to protect the upper body while one hand is kept low to protect the lower body. Does this make the Xingyi fighter predictable in how he might move and act?? I've heard that the San Ti stance has concepts in common with the traditional Cat stance. Any comments??

HuangKaiVun
01-25-2001, 06:20 AM
xingyiman, have you read Sun Lu Tang's xingyi text?

Sun Lu Tang used to point his lead hand out horizontally, but then he curved his wrist so that the fingers pointed to the sky. This was because he felt that this cultivated his qi more.

As far as the combat effectiveness of San Ti goes, it should be noted that either the lead or back hands can be up or down in real fighting - depending on the situation.

Bruce Lee had an exquisite control of the "internal" aspect of the martial arts. His demonstrations indicate that he had excellent sensitivity and power - traits cultivated by practicing either Taijiquan (in a combative manner) or WC.

Practicing the basics REPEATEDLY is the only way to develop the exquisite "internal" control Lee had - it matters not how much training he had or didn't have in Taiji or WC.

xingyiman, Xingyiquan is NOT strictly a power art. It has all the grace and speed of the other CMAs - particularly when you look at the 12 Animals set.

Check out Sun's book. It's not really learnable, but it does reveal the art of one of the great kung fu artists of the early 20th century.

WongFeHung
02-03-2001, 07:01 AM
let us not forget that Tim Tackett, one of Lee's original students had extensive experience in Hsing-Yi, and could have exchanged knowledge. Seeing that there are alot of similarities, perhaps Lee didn't want to give up his hand?BTW Tackett's books on Hsing-Yi are pretty interesting and have a great many training drills from chi-sao to iron palm.

Daedalus
02-06-2001, 07:18 PM
I understand the question, but still ask why it matters as to whether or not anyone else has implemented Hsing I techniques and tactics into their JKD. If you see value in Hsing I, then use it. If you don't then don't use it. Thats what JKD is all about; using what is useful and discarding what is not.