whaz the dilly

come on, the jkd concept is extremely popular amongst traditionalists who walk to the "dark side" of realistic training with their fighting skills.

I can't believe there is so little activity on this forum.

even I appreciate the concept of jkd and in fact have been working hard within my own personal training to embody it over the last 3 years.

It has helped me to move out of the rigid framework of my traditional training and into a more fluid and alive type of training where I can still keep a lot of teh traditional, but at the same time make what of it I can make work, work!


seriously, I thought there would be way more hits to this board from the martial artists out there who are into the "martial" adn into making their thing an "art" form.

More discuss!

why don't tell you tell us?........give a break down of this concept and we'll go from there. It's like a personalised mixed form/style thing right??

Really.....

KL:

I disagree that a "traditional" (I loathe that word) style is rigid in it's frame. I feel that the idea which is the cornerstone (or the only stone, depending on one's point of view) of Jeet Kune Do is inherent in most or all "traditional" styles; by that, I mean finding a technique (learning it consciously) and losing it (being able to apply it under pressure as an instinctual response).

Wait, that's not the cornerstone ideal of JKD/JKD philosophy! My Bad! That's just MY cornerstone belief of proper, sliding-scale training.

I loathe the idea of having boundaries on anything regarding martial arts. I cannot see where this philosophy is used within "traditional" martial arts. I've always been under the impression a style was a collection of training methodologies/technical principles/strategic ideas, which by it's nature bent and flexed to the interpretations and needs of a given artist.

As an aside, "martial art" is an art only because it can't be a science.

blooming lotus, check your PMs.

JKD is all about foot sectoring.

Etc.

;)

Quote:

---

why don't tell you tell us?........give a break down of this concept and we'll go from there. It's like a personalised mixed form/style thing right??

Really.....

---

JKD is/was Bruce Lee's personal training idea. It reflected the idea of having no limitations as limitations, etc.

JKD is/was also a style/concept/Sno-Cone of rejecting "traditional," "classical," "crystalized" training methodologies, usually thought of as "sets/patterns/forms/kata."

JKD is also different things to different people.

So, it is IMPOSSIBLE now that JKD is so firmly entrenched in the general martial consciousness to give it a solid definition. Which, BTW, I don't think we should do.

That'd spoil the fun.

As an aside, I practice my "traditional/classical" karate (Isshinryu Karatejutsu) with many of the same ideas put forth by Lee as being JKD.

OH, JKD is also quite marketable.

vash, when i say say rigid framework, i am talking about a finite amount of skills that are taught and then practiced.

each and every style has limits and is finite in it's offerings.
It is you as a practitioner who makes those lessons infinite in variety by discovery of more and more use.

jkd can bust open doors by breaking you out of what you already know and throwing you back into the fire. especially in context to live training.

so, I am not talking about traditional being "bad" it isn't, it is a grounding. The expansion to the grounding comes from deeper understanding of yourself and how you use those things that you ahve been taught.

I think the concept of jkd is a useful tool to beginning that line of thought and study.

cheers

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kung Lek
vash, when i say say rigid framework, i am talking about a finite amount of skills that are taught and then practiced.

each and every style has limits and is finite in it's offerings.
It is you as a practitioner who makes those lessons infinite in variety by discovery of more and more use.

jkd can bust open doors by breaking you out of what you already know and throwing you back into the fire. especially in context to live training.

so, I am not talking about traditional being "bad" it isn't, it is a grounding. The expansion to the grounding comes from deeper understanding of yourself and how you use those things that you ahve been taught.

I think the concept of jkd is a useful tool to beginning that line of thought and study.

cheers

---

Good stuff.

I've never studied jkd ( obviously), but that has been take on it for some time. I was looking for a little more, because as far as I'm concerened that is what a practical personal style eventually becomes in real-life situations for a great part of freestyle fighting. I know its' origins, and I think what I do embodies this very concept without ever having studied it. I want you tell me why that's not true.

Because you talk about it so much. That takes away its truth value regardless of what really is the truth.

:rolleyes:

hmm.solid point..thx for the technical input

To me, JKD concepts are like a "finishing school" to MA. I don't believe Bruce Lee intended for people to shun traditional training methods (if he did he was a fool, cause that's how he got trained), he just emphisised moving past structure and form to a point of self-expression.

I like to use the music analogy on this. To learn music, first you learn theory and structure, along with the physical ability to play an instrument. As skill and knowledge are developed, the individual learns to break and bend rules to achieve artistic expression (becoming formless).

This is, IMO, the path of all good martialists. Too many misguided people find a JKD school thinking they will learn a style, but they are givin a handful of techniques and a lot of theory/philosophy, I believe you need to learn form before you can develop formlessness.

you need to learn form before you can develop formlessness. :D

Why?

Why go through the trouble of form just to go through the trouble of getting to formless. If the goal is formlessness then there seems to be an extra step for some reason.

:confused:

Because the two go together like the yin yang avatar of yours. You can't have one without the other, and learning formlessness before form is like learning physics before learning math, one makes more sense to learn first. I'm not saying it's impossible to learn formlessness first, but think of what kind of music you might make without understanding its structure first. Some things are intuitive but many are not.