WHERE DID "ABSORB WHAT IS USEFUL & REJECT WHAT IS USELESS "COME FROM?

[Ian Brewster]

Seeker,

Good valid points all around...

Although where I train and when I train people the focus is on self preservation one cannot ignore self perfection....

I ahve noticed that many of the guys who start JKD are often hardcore kick ass and take no names kinda guys..give them a few years they gel out and start looking for something more. example of Paul vunak has big time mellowed out since the late 80s and early 90s...

And you are right half the people who do martial arts don't know what forms are for let alone anything else they are doing....

I see a lot of that every day....

I am one to give people functional fighting knowledge first and refine it as they get into the art more....

Once again good points all around....

Ian B.
with respects

I got'cha, buddy. Just didn't want any misconceptions floating about. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] I think the main problem with forms is that the people who do use them, concentrate way too much on them.

Seeker,
I think the differences between shadow boxing and forms, is that forms are basically dead patterns, while shadow boxing is alive so to speak. When you shadow box there is no set pattern you do whatever you have to to beat your imagery partner. You can not say the same thing about forms.

Ian,
Nice website, just curious are you going to Paul's knife fighting seminar down in San Diego this month?

Lates all.-ED

Ed,

I really think that point is rather moot when speaking of shadow boxing and bag work because they are in fact "dead" activities as well. The aliveness in combat is from adapting and reacting to the outside stimuli such as enviroment and opponent. To be truly alive, there is no room for favorite techniques and angles. They are dictated by the moment. Although at first glance, one may say that shadow boxing is alive, it is actually just what the practitioner "wants" to throw next and is heavily influenced by his own likes and dislikes and is thus in reality as far from alive as forms are. Both are merely conditioning exercises that train both physical and meantal attributes. The path may be different, but I believe the final destination is the same. Can you see what I mean. Do you have experience in a "classical mess." [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Seeker,
As oppose to throwing predetermined techniques in a predeterminely set pattern? My point is shadow boxing and bag work may not be the best examples of a live pattern but they are only limited by your own mind. I can warn up on a bag and do some shadow boxing before my drills and sparring and work on things the way I actually will be fighting without having to do the third set of dance of the dragon form repeatedly. I studied Shotokan karate when I was younger and a great deal of the training was katas, so I do have some experience with the classical mess thing first hand. It all comes down to the fact that different tools have different purposes, I do not consider shadow boxing or bag work a dead pattern as I can change the pattern at anytime, I do not think they replace sparring or two person drills but neither are they meant too. My knowledge of Kung Fu is pretty limited, for the most part the Kung fu I am mainly been exposed to is what has been included in JKD. I have seen a few demos here and there and have a hard time believing that is the way they are going to fight. Anyway I meant no offense, and I hope none was taken.-ED

[Ian Brewster]

I wish I was going,

I am going to Trinidad ina few weeks to do some training in an obscure Afircan art called Kalinda Kalinda,

Then I am coming back for a Larry Hartsell seminar....

Then I am heading down to do a private with Vu and maybe do one or 2 with Demi Barbito while I am there....

back up here to make arrangements for an up coming Matt Thronton Seminar

plus 2 or 10 other things I am missing....

It will be a very very bust year for me......

How about you guys any plans for the near future....

Thanks for stopping buy my web site I shall be updating it regurlarly from here in so stop back once a week or so.....


And I will be sending out copies of the Urban Combat Newsletter...If you want to be on the list e-mail....


take care,
Ian

Hi Ed,

No offense taken at all. I'm just offering my take on things. Guess we don't agree on this one. Take care.

I just thought I might like to try and make a point. First let me say I recently started reading this particular forum out of Curiosity, and interest. I've not been disappointed this thread in particular I have found very informative and the debate at the end is very interesting and seems a common idea here. So here's my $.02. I agree with seeker on the forms being a valuable training tool. I think all who said otherwise made some good points, however, I think they spoke of doing forms the wrong way. From my point of view formed after speaking with and listening to my sifu for the last few years, and now doing lots of reading outside just the system I have been studying I think that it starts with forms. They are no substitute for sparring or drilling with a live opponent. When you do a form though, to just do the motion and refine the technique is ok, but it doesn't get you much. I think the real benefit comes from the visualization. It comes from seeing your opponent there, and practicing on him. It doesn't stop once you get good at that form though, because it's only one situation. From there you work on doing it left handed and backwards. Then start mixing it up, jumping around out of order, play mind games like "if I do this how can the bad guy hurt me?" or "what if he does this instead? Can I use the same technique to stop it? How do I have to adapt?". I don't think forms were ever intended for less, they are like tools for remembering the techniques and philosophy of a system, but you have to take them apart to find it. Again, it's good to spar and practice with live opponents, but for those times you don't have one, forms are can be a great aid. So what do you think? is there any merit in what I said?

-- MG

That was one hell of a post there Guy.
Now as for what you said in your last reply whether it having any merit or not?

Let me be the first to say what you said about forms holds more merit then what most people choose to believe & that's just a fact.

PEACE LESTAT33


------------------
LESTAT 33

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-03-2000).]

Come on guys! No one would dare claim to be an originator of a statement sooooo basic! Did you learn to eat potato chips but throw away the wrapper from Mr Lee's 6000 page journal?

Any way if you want to learn martial arts I suggest you find an instructor whose alive rather than hunting around a dead man's diary [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Ian Brewster]

Dear Rocklizard,

You have a point, of coarse we should find a live instructor who can teach us.


But there is a very very old saying that goes

"Learn from the past and look to the future!"

There is nothing wrong with looking at Bruce's notes or any other dead person's work as long as you don not make it the end all be all of your existance....Why study the notes of Shakespeare or Plato or Einstein or Newton or Krisnamerti....

These men have all made significant contributions to our ways of thinking and acting and being....the more we understand each other the more we understand ourselves....


Hey I am not saying become a Bruce Lee junkie like I have seen so many people become....

All I am saying go through Bruce's Notes (or anybody else for that matter that might be onto something, living or dead) then...

"Abosorb what is usefull, reject what is useless and add what is specifically your own..then walk on"

Ian B.

Hi there Ian!

I agree it's important not to focus on the person be it Netwton, Einstine or Lee, rather evaluate the subject matter for it's merits.

However, I feel that those old saying is more of a truism rather than genuine words of wisdom.

After, all that's how technology developed anyway from stone age to today! In fact the traditional way of KF involved a lot of research & development in a battle field context. I feel that the developers of those traditional styles had much more experience than Lee or any of us today. That's why I tend to wonder how much Lee has added to KF or was he mostly a subject of mass media?

Hey Rock:
Look at it this way I know as most of the people out there that have some idea of what (TRADIONAL GUNG FU IS ABOUT.) Know that the masters of the past had a hell of lot more knowlege then BL when it came to fighting. All you got to do is see it for what it is.

BL took what what he learned from Wing Chun & any of the other art's that he learned thrugh trading idea's with other master's being through GUNG FU or his cha cha lessones.

To make up for his short comming in the Wing Chun System.

The way I see it if BL had completed his WING CHUN TRAINING he would not have had to go out of the WC SYSTEM as gifted as he was.


------------------
LESTAT 33

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-06-2000).]

...or maybe Bruce Lee realized that the only way you can ever learn the martial truth was through action. You guys can be really insulting sometimes, you like to take credit for his abilities but you look down upon his deeds. Enough with the excuses. Many of the truths he talked about came from some of your own Kung Fu arts. Have you lost the ability to see and think for yourselves, can you not accept that there maybe other ways, that the truth of fighting is everchanging and that we must be able to adapt and think for ourselves inorder to continue to be effective? I am here to exchange ideas not to listen to insults or excuses. Peace all.-ED

Hi Edwin,

Martial arts through action (I guess you mean actual combat) was exactly how the styles were developed in the first place.

Sure we could think for ourselves but we also lack the actual combat experience that's why I feel that it's important to learn a traditional style that has been battle tested.

No matter what style we learn, practitioners will invariably apply the concepts in a slightly different way- just like no 2 tennis players hit the ball the same way! We don't need Bruce Lee to tell us that!

I understanding that Mr Lee put a lot of effort creating a style and that's great! but I feel that a practitioner would cover the JKD cirriculum plus more in a traditional style.