01-29-2000, 06:36 AM
If BL never stated such a thing (IN 6000 PAGE'S OF PERSONAL NOTE'S) where did it come from?

I'm just asking if anyone of you know who started this quote & why?



[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 01-31-2000).]

01-29-2000, 09:59 AM
I heard it came from Dan Inosanto, but I can not say for sure. I do think it sums up JKD pretty well.-ED

01-29-2000, 04:04 PM
It came from a philosophy book Bruce had. Guro Inosanto talks about it in an interview. When I sort all this junk out here I'll probably come across the interview & give you more info.


"No - try not.
Do - or do not.
There is no try."

Ian Brewster
01-30-2000, 05:29 PM
Dear guys,

If I remeber correctly that quote did not come from Bruce or Dan although they both use it....I believe that came from Khrisnamurti (Teacher of Depac Chopra) who bruce Lee coined alot of sayings from...like think on these things (which is actually the name of one Big Ks books)...

If you really want to know where Bruce got alot of his Philosophies from then read the works of Khrisnamurti and his peers....

But I am 90% sure that "Absorb what is usefull....." came from him.

Ian B.

01-31-2000, 04:12 AM
Ok now that we know it came from a philosophy book that BL had. I would like to know if it was Bruce or Dan who made this statement a part of JKD?

But most importently WHY?
The reason why I'm asking this question is because the way I have come to understand this statement.

Which tells me that one has to continue to grow as an individual even if he resorts to adding other system's to his JKD.

Just as long as he remembers that he has to chip away at what he has added as well as chip away at what he already know's!
The way I see it this is the only way one can say that he is truly doing JKD & by doing so one should be able to express himself completely.

In short I would like to use another statement that is used in JKD which is using no way as a way & having no limitation as a limitation now if this is what BL was trying to say. Then why so many of the JKD INSTRUCTORS that are out
there today have chosen to use BRUCE LEE'S way as there way.

Rather then seeking there own PERSONAL
approach to there JKD.

What I'm trying to say here for those of you who may have lost me/or the point that I'm trying to make here is that JKD'S essence is supposed to be based on one's PERSONALIZATION as one believe's it to be.

I mean after all this is what BRUCE LEE did himself & in doing so gave us his own PERSONALIZATION of what he believed his JKD to be at the time.

I mean all you have to do is look at what BL said about JKD which is JKD is like a circle with out a circumfrence meaning?

It should alway's continue to evolve no matter what, after all a circle has no ending.

What do you think?



[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 01-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-01-2000).]

01-31-2000, 09:40 AM
Look at it this way, isn't it easier if you are hiking to follow a trail already made instead of having to blaze one yourself? Now I do not agree with locking oneself to a set pattern or way so a person has to be careful. What I like to think is that there is no one way, concept or rule in JKD that can not be broken or that does not have a exception. Eventually of course you will have to make your own path, following Bruce's path in the beginning though at least keeps you from getting lost and keeps you pointed in the right direction.-ED

Ian Brewster
01-31-2000, 05:58 PM
Think of it this way....

Bruce didn't tell us what mountain or path to hike on...he gave us the tools to go hiking, the compass, the tent, the matches, fishing line etc.

Bruce (as he likes to say) is a finger pointing at the moon.

people who doing everything Bruce did and call it JKD are way way way way way out in left field.

Bruce borrowed concepts and techniques from everybody and every art...

JKD is about the process not the product....

When Lee said chip away at the non essentials it fell perfectly in line with "absorb what is usefull reject what is useless"...

he you check out kali, hmmmm some good stuff in it and some crappy stuff in it...absorb the good get rid of the crappy and adapt the good specifcally to your way....end of story....

Many of the classical JKD guys have never rolled on the ground with a Rickson Gracie or duked it out with sticks against a Angel Cabales if they did things would be alot different....

Bruce Lee is your high school english teacher...

He taught you how to form words, use proper grammar and punctuate correctly. With that knowledge you can write everything from poetry to drama, science fiction to a dictonary.....

Hope that helps....


02-01-2000, 12:50 AM
I'm glad that we see eye to eye on this & by the way hell of a point you made there with Gracie & Kali.

I look forward to talking with you as well as any other's on JKD & how they feel about it.



Ian Brewster
02-01-2000, 07:05 PM

check out my web site www.urbancombat.com (http://www.urbancombat.com)

e-mail me at Brewster@Sprint.ca

take care,

02-01-2000, 08:56 PM
Ian. I agree with your post, but I read something strange on your web site. I'm not sure if I understood correctly though.

4) Your training should be alive. No dead patterns, katas, forms,
traditions or any training which does not build functional attributes
and qualities.

Do you mean all forms? If you do, then what do you think forms are meant to do? Build functions attributes like speed, power, stanima, flow concepts, and strength except you don't need to do an exercise for each because it's all contained in one form.

Liken a form to bag work and shadow boxing. Bag work and shadow boxing will build speed, power, stanima, flow, and some strength. Forms do the same thing. Obviously you won't use a form when you are attacked on the street, but how many times have you been atttacked by a heavy bag? They are both viable training methods for the specific reason that they build functional attributes.


Ian Brewster
02-01-2000, 10:43 PM
Dear Seeker,

Point 1: Thanks for dropping by my site, it is appreacited...

Point 2: If were are referring to forms (as in another word for Kata)...they do not make you a functional fighter...

Sparring and realistic drilling make you a better fighter (we are taking in the realm of self defense and street assualts here)....

Punching or kicking air in specific patterns does not give you the attributes you need to fight against a reall attacker.

Let's say for the sake of argument you do karate....I taught you some basic punches and kicks and said i want you to do forms for
a year....I took another guy taught him basic punches and kicks and had him spar 8 rounds every 2 or three days for 3 months...who do you think would win if I would sqaure you two off....

Forms DO NOT simulate real combat. Now I agree neither does a bag....but the bag gives you more resistance than the air ever will. If you don't have a partner to pratice alive drills against then you have to resort to a heavy bag until some one shows up....

Go to any boxing gym or muay thai gym, you see them doing forms....how many karate forms guys or kung fu forms guys could stand up against a good thai boxer...very very few if any....

Forma and kata look great but they are self-perfection...not self-preservation...

In the realm of martial arts the art is in the performance and the combining of attributes.....

Think UFC....you think Frank Shamrock, Royce Gracie, Ruas, Ruttan, Rizo, Belfor or any of those guys got good from doing forms? They good by doing fucntional drills, by rolling around on the mat, working their endurance on the thai bag, countless hours of sparring etc.

That's how Bruce did it....that's how the best fighters do it. Tough is how you train not how you act.....

Conclusion if you can't realte an element of your training to actual fighting situation then it's a waste of time (in the context of self preservation)

sorry to ramble, hope that helps....

Ian B.

02-02-2000, 01:01 AM
This may sound like a rant, but your views are just confusing. Saying that forms do not make you a functional fighter is the same thing as saying that hitting a heavy bag, shadow boxing, focus mitts, jogging, and jumping rope don't aid your fighting ability. Forms cover all those areas! They are not meant as a substitute for sparring. To believe that forms are meant for more than training and conditioning tools is a bit ignorant of the classical martial arts. Forms with sparring is the same thing as heavy bag drills, jumping rope, and sparring. You see what I mean?

02-02-2000, 01:03 AM
Oh, BTW, I boxed competitively for 3 years, so I can relate to that type of training as well. I've been to at least a dozen boxing gyms and competed in 11 tournaments. I fairly familiar with the types of conditioning boxers undergo. However, I can see the merit in both types of conditioning exercises.

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

Ian Brewster
02-02-2000, 01:43 AM
Dear Seeker,

I to enjoy boxing (looks like we have something in common)....

If forms does help your martial arts then "absorb what is useful, reject what is useless and add what is specifcially your own, then walk on...."

In my experience in helping others train and in my training and in just talking to and training with other JKD boys (Concepts and Original) they all seem to feel the way I do...

I personally do shadow boxing because I like it and it's a good relaxer for me, I work the bag to work endurance and maybe refine my technqiue...that is when their is no one else available....it may help my training but in a very minimal sense to me.

For me and quite a few others where it's at is partner drills against an alive uncooperative opponents....no amount of air punching (shadow boxing or kata) will build attributes the way that does....

The closer your training simulates a fight the better a fighter you shall become....

If you want to look at what is more productive I would say.....(from a boxing stand point only)

-Forms and Kata work few attributes (in my opinion
-Shadow boxing
-bag work

Forms don't simulate a fight so they don't simulate the functional attributes you need to be a functional fighter....

your drills must come as close as can be to what happens ina fight...if they don't you are only cheating yourself.....

Bruce Lee did forms (don't let anyone tell you otherwise) but Bruce didn't think it improved his functional attributes...he just liked then and it helped him relax....

I do Simbrada in the air (stick drill) does it make me a better fighter or build attributes...not really....I do enjoy it....
it's self perfection....

I have seen Aikdo locking kata does that make them better fighters no.

Katas for me and for most JKD guys are what Bruce used to call dry land swimming....

But if it works for you and it makes you a better fighter then guy I'll be the first to say to hell with every body else....do it man.

Ian B.

02-02-2000, 06:51 PM

I see where your coming from, but it is this ignorance of the purpose of a form that is the problem. Forms don't and were never meant to be a substitute for sparring. The are meant to refine technique, build strength, endurance, and speed, etc. I'm not saying that it will make you "fucntional fighter" in the place of sparring. Anyone who tells you that is full of it. Trust me, every single style of kung fu has two-man drills and spars. However without refinement of technique on your own, your technique will be sloppy. If you try to learn everything against a live, uncooperating opponent, then you will take short-cuts to make yourself more effective. These short-cuts work great in the short run, but will stunt your development in the long run. It will, in fact, be a deficiency in your technique that a more technically effecient fighter can take advantage of. This has been shown time and time again.

Ian Brewster
02-02-2000, 06:57 PM

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

02-02-2000, 09:24 PM
I got'cha, buddy. Just didn't want any misconceptions floating about. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I think the main problem with forms is that the people who do use them, concentrate way too much on them.

02-02-2000, 10:00 PM
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.

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

Lates all.-ED

02-03-2000, 12:07 AM

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." /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

02-03-2000, 12:29 AM
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
02-03-2000, 12:29 AM
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,

02-03-2000, 01:12 AM
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.

02-03-2000, 01:41 AM
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

02-03-2000, 04:01 AM
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.



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

02-03-2000, 04:23 PM
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 /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ian Brewster
02-03-2000, 05:27 PM
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.

02-05-2000, 08:17 AM
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?

02-05-2000, 10:15 AM
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.


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

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

02-05-2000, 02:00 PM
...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

02-06-2000, 01:09 PM
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.

Ian Brewster
02-06-2000, 05:58 PM
A good friend of mine went to Korea to study TKD...

He says despite what you might think there isn't I repeat isn't a TKD school on every corner like there is in the US or Canada.

he also says most of those guys who do TKD out in the open and own shops are frauds and just in it to make a buck off silly westerners or milk money from their own people....

He did say however if you find a real TKD instructor you would be surpirsed by what you see...

he said the vast majority of the instructors that he saw had no belt system or if they did the belts represented actual time in the dojo not gradings for say...like a white meant rookie year a purple meant 4 years etc etc ....

he also said that for a time he thought they were doing JKD or NHB style fighting because they did the kicking,punching, clinching and ground fighting plus weapons....

Now he says that in talking to others that real TKD guys and even Karate and Kung Fu guys are truly all around fighters however we in the west have *******ized the art and packaged it into something sellable....
Real martial arts training over in the orient is for the eliote minded people, people who can take punishment for mind and body....

This is a little off topic but i though it might shed some light on some people's statements that Kung Fu and other sister arts are not as unrealistic as many of us would have you believe it is only our lack of training methods and lack of understanding that make it seem so artlike and mot martial like....

Ian B.

02-06-2000, 09:09 PM
My point being is simple, this is not about traditional this or that or even JKD. It is about one simple fact, we fight the way we are trained. What may work for one person may not for another for whatever reasons. The only way though that we will discover this is by asking questions and trying these techniques and concepts first hand. I really do not think Bruce wanted everyone to become JKD fighters, in fact he had closed down all his JKD schools long before he died. What I think he wanted was for people to discover on there own the "martial truth" through whatever art or style or system. To realize that in the course of time information can become misinformation and that not everything works the way it appears. Peace all, and remember it is not the number of techniques you know that shows a good fighter, it is how well you fight.-ED

02-07-2000, 09:10 AM
Hello everyone:
I would like to start this post by saying what I said on an other thread dealing with JKD.

Which is JKDcan be found in any SYSTEM,STYLE OR FORM OF COMBATIVE FIGHTING THERE IS that's just a fact!!!!!

Even BL realized this & knew the truth about what he coined to be the CLASSICAL MESS OF MARTIAL ARTS.

Which in turn mean's at least the way I see it to be is that he felt THE TRADITIONAL WAY OF TRAINING & LEARNING ONE'S CHOSEN MARTIAL ART,STYLE,OR SYSTEM.

Should not become more important then the INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE IF IT DOES ONE WILL NOT KNOW HOW TO TRUELY EXPRESS HIMSELF IN HIS CHOSEN ART.Unless one wanted to train most of his life if not all of it to learn how to do so.


Look in short what I'm trying to say is JKD is meant as a way for one to be able to flow in & out of the different range's of combat & be affective in a shorter amount of time.

After all it was BL himself that said a man doesn't have his whole life to learn how to fight. HENCE THE BIRTH OF JKD A WAY OF REACHING ONE'S END AS HE BELIEVE'S IT TO BE.(MEANING YOU & ME)

What do you guy's think I mean I could be wrong about the the way I see JKD to be but!

Then agian maybe I'm not?

The real question here is whether you see it the way I do at least to some point I mean I don't believe all of us will agree on every point all the time RIGHT!



[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-16-2000).]

02-13-2000, 09:39 AM
But again Lestat, What is JKD? The man died before anyone could truly see it for what it was.
could there be a slim chance that we, (not I of course) are lamenting over a 'style' that never really saw the light of day?
I mean Inosanto teach something that could be called JKD, but is it truly what Bruce intended it to be.

I do not believe that one man can duplicate the thoughts of another no matter how hard they tried. And I'm sure that BL never finish on what he started, so would the JKD that is around today, in fact a incomplete style to begin with, if it is a style at all.

Boy am I gonna catch some heat for this post.

Again this is me on too much medication, or maybe too little...time to look at the label.


[This message has been edited by Gojira (edited 02-14-2000).]

02-13-2000, 01:26 PM

Hi there! If you've read my post, you'll probably find that I've been expressing these views. Like most developers of new stlyes, Bruce found something that suited him. it is unfortunate that he didn't code (OK my computing back ground) the main aspects into a form or something.

Although there are many stlyes of traditional KF have lost their "bite", there's a chance of rediscovering the concepts as long as the form remains.

There are many Western martial arts in Russsia that have been lost forever becasue they didn't teach forms.

That's very unfortunate because Russia is a big place and greatb things would have been developed there!

02-13-2000, 11:05 PM
I am not a big fan when it comes to dead patterns (forms, katas, and what have you), I also do not discount as a whole, Kung Fu as I feel there are many useful aspects in Kung Fu. As for Ma's becoming lost over time, I feel that if it was useful and effective then most likely it would still be here, so I really see your point, I just do not agree, also much the russian MA's are based from grappling and I really can not see how one can convert that to a set of forms or katas. As for JKD being inherantly incomplete, it is like that for a reason, it is up to each individual to complete JKD, through there own experiences and research. What may work for one person may not for another, but we do not base what is effective through dead patterns.-ED

[This message has been edited by Edwin Lyon (edited 02-14-2000).]

02-16-2000, 05:13 AM
A theory on the kata vs live exercises. If one wishes to play chess against another, one must first learn the moves of his piece. The physical part of martial arts is learning the moves. When one has learned how to move his piece, he may attempt a game. No rule is absolute of course, and some people may prefer to learn their moves 'on the run' so to speak. I don't. I like practicing a move statically before adding other variables. Unfortunately my trainer isn't like that, so I learn on the run, simply because I can, regardless of preference. The mental part of martial arts can be referred to simply as a game of strategy. Once you can move your pieces where you want them to, when you want them to, all that is left to chance is the strategy chosen. Make sense at all?

02-17-2000, 07:05 AM
Let me see if we're reading from the same book? Ok because I'm more then sure that we are not on the same page here.;D

Now let me first state that JKD may never have seen the light of day through BRUCE LEE'S EYE'S IN FULL.

But that doesn't mean that JKD never saw the light of day!

Just in case you haven't notice or realized it DAN INOSANTO was the cofounder of JKDregardless of what you or anyone may believe that's just a fact!

So to come out & say that you believe that no one man can duplicate the thought's of another no matter how hard they tried is mute. (RIGHT)

No problem I can see where I may agree with you but only to a point after all BRUCE LEE'S JKD was
based on his own personal approach to the martial arts & no one else's.

That's why he believed JKD is ment to fit the individual & not the individual to it!

This is why I feel that DAN INOSANTO is the only one out side of BRUCE LEEthat has kept it real.

After all if it wasn't for him JKD would not have gotten as far as it has.

Yeah I know there are alot of you out there who may feel what DAN INOSANTO is doing may not be what BRUCE LEE intended JKD to be.

But just remember that DAN INOSANTO was there from the start & as much as what BRUCE LEEhad to offer to DAN!

Inosanto had to offer BRUCE.

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-18-2000).]

Sean Madigan
02-17-2000, 04:29 PM

Cool how you can rewrite history like that, you do that for a living, or is it just a hidden talent?

Let's get something straight, Guro Dan is a fantatic martial artist. He is most likely one of the few men in this world that can teach that many martial arts. His seminars are packed, and the volume of information that he gives at seminars is huge! He can kick, punch, grapple, trap and fight with knives better then most martial artist out there today...however, he was NOT the "Co-founder" of JKD. He was not Bruce Lee's partner, he was his student. Anything else is just wrong.

All the best,

BIG Sean Madigan

02-18-2000, 07:22 AM
Hi there
It's very difficult to say person such and such deveoped a particular style. JKD is a relatively young stlye and a number of people over time made their contributions to it's growth.

We have read about how tradition styles developed. It usually involved the melding of styles that were around at that time. For example Eagle Claw is a based on Faan Tzi & Ying Jow. Then you have styles like Bagua that is a cicularised version of long fist. And within sytles there are sub-styles that reflect an emphasis on certain concepts over others.

What Bruce Lee did was nothing new and accordingly I have no problem of accepting that many people are co-developers of JKD and there will be many more to come. I wouldn't be surprised that there'll be many variations of JKD sharing the same concepts but each with their unique differences.

The only differnce in terms of the development of JKD and tranditional styles is that, we can see JKD evolution taking place in front of us instead of reading about a style's 300 year old history from a book.

About what LETSTAT33 said "...fit the individual not the individual fitting the style". That concept is nothing new, that's why we have all the different styles today. Lee did not create a new concept but just re-affirm something important that some people may have forgotten in the pursuit of CMA.

02-21-2000, 11:46 AM
Gee Sean I though Mr Inosanto was a co-founder of the JKD style, I must re-read my history books. And as for Lestat re writing history, all I have to say is GO BOY!!.
Can some one clear up the histoy mess without to groveling to BL or DI?

Life is like a hourglass, how much sand is there in yours?

02-29-2000, 04:27 AM
Oh come on just because I may see things differently from what you perceive them to be DOESN'T mean that I'm trying to REWRITE the HISTORY of JKD here Sean....

So since you have taken the time to express how you feel about the way I see them to be. Which is totaly wrong in your eyes RIGHT!

I would like to ask a few questions ok?

Why is it you feel that DAN INOSANTO should not be considered BRUCE LEE'S PARTNER let alone the CO-FOUNDER OF JKD & he should only be considered as a student & nothing more....

Now if your willing to enlighten me as well as the other members of this form as to how you perceive the roll that DAN INOSANTO played in JKD.

It would be more then welcome But most importantly I would like to know how you feel about the roll that DAN INOSANTO PLAYED after BRUCE LEE'S DEATH...

What BRUCE LEE wanted?

The way I see it DAN INOSANTO is the only one who has kept it the way BRUCE LEE intened it to be!


Dan Inosanto even wrote a book under the title of ABSORB WHAT IS USEFUL.

The way I see it JKD was based on the concepts of any & all of the martial arts that BL himself came in contact with why else would he say (BRUCE LEE) that is that JKD favors formlessness & by doing so it can not be held by any restricted ways of combat.



[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 02-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 03-11-2000).]

Sean Madigan
02-29-2000, 05:30 AM

Ok, I'll just answer your points one by one.

You wrote: Why is it you feel that DAN INOSANTO should not be considered BRUCE LEE'S PARTNER let alone the CO-FOUNDER OF JKD & he should only be considered as a student & nothing more....

I feel that nobody can be considered the "co-creator" of Jeet Kune Do. I firmly beleive that Jeet Kune Do is the creation of Bruce Lee, and those around him where just plain old lucky to be there.

You wrote: "Now if your willing to enlighten me as well as the other members of this form as to how you perceive the roll that DAN INOSANTO played in JKD."

Dude, I doubt I could 'enlighten' you to anything, to assume that I would first have to consider myself, 'enlightend' and I am not. Now, to answer the second part of that, I feel that Dan Inosanto was Bruce Lee's student, friend, sparring partner and punching bag when needed.

You Wrote: "It would be more then welcome But most importantly I would like to know how you feel about the roll that DAN INOSANTO PLAYED after BRUCE LEE'S DEATH..."

Ahh..now, I do feel that Guro Dan is the SOLE creator of Jeet Kune Do Concepts! Dan Inosanto did more then just about anybody else in keeping the name of Jeet Kune Do alive and in the minds of martial artist everywhere!

Now lets make sure that we do not forget that there is a difference in the way that Jeet Kune Do was taught under Bruce Lee and the way that Jeet Kune Do Concepts are taught under Guro Dan. (I am not saying 'better' or 'worse'...just different.) When Bruce Lee was alive, he had a set curriculum, he taught from that curriculum, and (Yes, I have a copy) in it there is NO mention of other martial arts. Yes, he does mention other martial arts in his notes, (later released as the Tao of JKD) but make no mistake in believing that when Bruce Lee was alive, there was NO "Thai Class" at his school.

You wrote: "What BRUCE LEE wanted?

Man, I really don't know. I feel that he was on a path to reducing his techniques, not increasing them.

You wrote: "The way I see it DAN INOSANTO is the only one who has kept it the way BRUCE LEE intened it to be!"

Ok, you can believe that. I will not argue you on that. We all have beliefs, our may differ on this one.


Cool, did you also know that Dan Inosanto wrote on page 145 in the book Jeet Kune Do, The Art and Philosophy of Bruce Lee this:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>An individual can not learn the principle roots of Jeet Kune Do through the accumulation of many different styles; for that would be like a singer trying to improve his voice by accumulating many songs. Rather: it is by understanding the roots of the problem. - Dan Inosanto[/quote]

Weird huh?

You Wrote: "Dan Inosanto even wrote a book under the title of ABSORB WHAT IS USEFUL."

I know, I have an original copy...oh, and its autographed by Dan.

Remember, Jeet Kune Do is the "Way of NO WAY"...NOT the Way of MANY ways, and yes, there is a difference.

I do not expect to change your mind on this, and I am sure that you have logged 100's of hours with Dan (your not one of these guys that read the Tao of JKD a few times and now he thinks he KNOWS JKD LOL). I respect that, and I respect Dan Inosanto.

There is more then one way to look at JKD, I have mine, and you have yours. That is the way it should be.

Have an awesome day!

BIG Sean Madigan

www.junfanjkd.com (http://www.junfanjkd.com)

PS: Sorry, but I am not as good as you when it comes to this HTML stuff, but I tried my best to keep up with you. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Sean Madigan (edited 02-29-2000).]

03-17-2000, 02:47 PM
Ok there Sean:
Let me first start by saying I see where your coming from when you say that you firmly believe that JKD is & was the creation of BL & thats why you feel that nobody should be considered the "co-creator" of JKD.

Even DAN INOSANTO should not be considered a co-founder/co-creator of BRUCE LEE'S JKD because you feel that he was just BRUCE LEE'S student,friend,sparring partner & punching bag when needed RIGHT!?

But yet you go on to say that GURO DAN is the sole creator of JKD CONCEPTS! & that he did more then just about anybody else in keeping the name of JKD alive!

Now the question I would like to ask you is why would say such a thing only to go on to make it a point to say lets make sure that we do not forget that there is a difference in the way that JKD was taught under BL & the way that JKD CONCEPTS is taught under GURO DAN ( your not saying better or worse just different.)

I take it the reason you feel this way is because you feel that BL was on the path to reducing his techniques & not increasing them RIGHT?

So I take it you feel that what GURO DAN has done & has been doing is not what BL intended.

Now I would like to make the way I see what DAN INOSANTO has done & has been doing in my eyes clear to you ok...

BRUCE LEE'S JKD was based on the concepts of every & any system,style or way of fighting he came in contact with.

The way I see it GURO DAN has keep it the way BL would have wanted it to be.

In short one has to has to have something to work with before he can decide what works & what doesn't. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 03-18-2000).]

03-20-2000, 07:49 AM
Now I would like to continue where I last left off with you Sean. The reason being I don't think I may have made myself clear enough for you to understand what I'm saying here! But most of all why.....

So with all do respect I would like to make it clear that this is & should not be taken as an attack towards you in any way shape or form ok!!!

Now should you want to take it as one thats all up to you. After all I think I've made it QUITE CLEAR already as to how I see the way JEET KUNE DO is seen through my eyes ok... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now I would like to point out where you & me disagree on this topic ok ...

Let me first start off by saying you made it a point to say something to the effect of make no MISTAKE that when BL was alive,there was NO "THAI CLASS" at his school,because the copy you have of the original set of ways that BRUCE LEE did his JKD & the way that DAN INOSANTO is & has been doing his JKD.

Seem to be different only because we've been left with a taste in our mouth that was so good we can't believe thats it's gone or is it??? WHAT DO YOU THINK SEAN?..

The reason why I'm asking you this is because you sound confused to me as to what side you choose to stand on is it your's BRUCE LEE'S or DAN INOSANTO'S way of doing HIS JKD...

I mean you have gone on to say on another post that you are a strong supporter of the JUN FUN JEET KUNE DO NUCLEUS & YET YOU TRAIN WITH BOTH A KNIFE & STICK.....

That sounds to me like your beside yourself here Sean. The reason I'm saying this is because you call what you do "BIG JKD" & you feel that your BIG JKD has no side other then the way that you feel your BIG JKD SEE'S THINGS TO BE RIGHT..

& you base this on your own truth or should I say the search for your truth through what you call BIG JKD....




[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 03-21-2000).]

[This message has been edited by LESTAT33 (edited 03-21-2000).]

04-03-2000, 03:50 AM
That was a good point there Lestat If I do say so myself.But let us not forget that there are those of us who will agree with the point that you made & those that will not! Thats just a give me so I would just like to leave you with a "QUOTE"
that DAN INOSANTO made from the same book if I'm corect that Sean took a "QUOTE" from,Which DAN INOSANTO WROTE!

We are all climbing different paths through the mountain of life
And we have all experienced much hardship and strife.

There are many paths through the mountain of life
And some climbs can be felt like the point of a knife.

Some paths are short and others are long
Who can say which path is right or wrong?

The beauty of truth is that each path has it's own song
And if you listen closely you will find where you belong.

So climb your own path true and strong
But respect all other truths for you way for them could be wrong.