Hi all, The purpose of this post is to seek opinion, rather than to provide answers- as i'm more in need of them than most i'd say Therefore, as always I welcome criticisms and opinions. My question, of course, is regarding the study of Jeet Kune Do. Now before I dive in, let me quickly give you a little context behind this question. I've recently taken a stronger interest in JKD and have sought out a school in my area that teaches it. What I began noticing was that the few schools that do teach 'JKD' actually teach a few classes a week called 'JKD/kickboxing' and 'JKD/ Kali'. When I popped down to one of these schools (this one in particular said to be the best JKD school in London), I undeniably walked away having learnt a lot, but I have to question whether what I was taught was in fact JKD as Bruce Lee intended. I recently re-read Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and came across a bit in particular- unfortunately, I don't have it with me right now to quote from, although I will do so later- which discussed JKD's distinction from concepts like MMA (i.e the 'take a bit of this and a bit of that and, hey presto, you have a great fighter' approach). This got me thinking. What is it that distinguishes JKD practitioners from MMA ones? and so far, it's occured to me, that it's the theory and principles that JKD students learn to accompany the techniques. Consider, for example a person who is simply taught how to throw a straigth punch and another person who is taught the principles of economy of motion alongside the straight punch. The straight punch alone is a great tool, but knowing why that punch is efficient alongside it is even better. It in turn lays the foundation for a whole range of things- the straight kick, for example, and an addition to strategic thought. Theory without practice is ok, as is practice without theory- but ultimately what you end up with is butter without bread. This, is not what I believe constitutes JKD in it's entirety. This in turn has left me stranded. I know many people consider JKD to simply be a concept applicable to any martial art i.e. the concept of taking what works and discarding the rest, but the fact is, despite this attitude, Bruce still taught his students a firm foundation encompassing and incorporating HIS knowledge of other arts- most notably Wing Chun, Boxing and Fencing (both techniques and principles). He didn't teach 'JKD/Kali' etc. It was simply JKD. To paint a picture, despite his criticisms of Wing Chun, its principles are seen when we watch Bruce throw punches. He doesn't always throw punches from up high like a boxer, instead he throws them from lower down- on the basis of Wing Chun theory. This in turn is why I am writing this post. Ultimately, my question boils down to this- if i'm unable to study under a first generation or second generation student etc (someone who comprehensively understands the way in which Bruce taught JKD) of Bruce's willing to teach both theory and technique, do you consider the next best substitute to be to learn the building blocks of the art alongside JKD principles e.g. Wing Chun, and decide for myself what is useful and what isn't (alongside some help from Bruce's written material) or do you consider it better to learn the alternative on offer. Obviously one path is significantly longer than the other, but the rewards end up being sweeter. It seems to me that the teaching of 'JKD' by substituting the theories and practice of the main arts which influenced Lee (or at least not expalining their presence for the student to understand), for others (most popularly Kali and Kickboxing) seems neither pure nor authentic. Nor do I think that it is right for a person to profess to teach Bruce Lee's JKD without a knowledge of the basics described above. (Sorry if i've rambled on a bit, i just had one of those Jerry Maguire moments where I spent all night thinking)- As I said, I'm not looking to stir up an argument, instead i'm looking for, and am very interested in your ideas. Thanks for reading.
What's In a Name? by Chris Kent This is from an article I wrote several years ago, which was never published. I have come to the realization that, over the years since it came into existence, the “name” or “term” Jeet Kune Do has in some ways now become its own form of limitation. That’s right, the very name of the art that I have spent most of my life perpetuating has become, not from my personal understanding of it, but rather, due to the public’s varied perceptions (or perhaps misperceptions would be a better word), restrictive and limiting. How? Let me give you a few examples of some of the various perceptions regarding what Jeet Kune Do is that I’ve run across. When some people ask me what I teach and I tell them Jeet Kune Do, their immediate response is, “Oh, yeah, I’ve heard of that. It’s mixed martial arts.” The reason for this perception is that, in the martial art world, for many people the term Jeet Kune Do has become synonymous with a person simply doing whatever they want, grabbing whatever techniques or whatever they want from this style or that, and tossing them together to create a kind of generalized martial art system that’s supposedly “free”. The problem with using the term “mixed martial arts” in an attempt to define Jeet Kune Do is that it violates one of JKD’s fundamental tenets, which views “martial art” as a single, unified “whole’, a “totality” without separation, and not a bunch of different arts which are separate from each other, such as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Muay Thai, Boxing and Wrestling. I am in no way denigrating “mixed martial arts”, which I consider a great competitive martial sport. But there is a huge philosophical difference between the two. JKD is not about a person taking what they consider to be the “best” of each style and building their own style. It’s about removing the whole notion of “style” or even mixing styles or systems. This is difficult for many people because we are so conditioned to put names or labels to everything. Other people believe that if it’s not about “kicking ass” or “all-out street combat”, then it’s not Jeet Kune Do. This perception completely ignores Bruce’s belief that, at the highest level, the art should serve as a prescription for personal growth physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. While functionality in combat is an integral and important component of the overall Jeet Kune Do training, to say that JKD is merely about fighting is like holding up a single grain of sand and saying, “This is the entire beach.” Some JKD people, who like to think of themselves as “purists”, believe that if it’s not written in Bruce Lee’s notes, or if he did not specifically use a specific technique or action, then it cannot be Jeet Kune Do. But this goes against the very philosophical principles Lee used in creating the art. Still others will tell you that Jeet Kune Do is just a “concept” or an “idea”. But that’s a very vague and nebulous perspective. What exactly does that mean? A concept is an intellectual abstraction. You and I may have very differing concepts of what gravity is, and we could probably debate it forever. But the fact remains that gravity is the same for you as it is for me. Each of these various groups believes that they truly know what Jeet Kune Do really is, and their members simply repeat the party line espoused by their faction. Remember now, the people I am talking about are people who are educated in the field of martial arts. I’m not talking about the average person you might meet at a party or run into out on the street. You could take a hundred people you meet on the street and ask them who Bruce Lee was, and probably at least 95 of them will know. However, ask the same people if they know what Jeet Kune Do is, and you’ll be lucky if any of them will be able tell you. The majority of the general public do not know the difference between Jeet Kune Do, Tae Kwon Do, or Tang Soo Do, Hapkido, etc. Even in China, if the person you are talking to doesn’t speak Cantonese, the name Jeet Kune Do doesn’t mean anything to them. My own approach to both training in and teaching the art and philosophy of JKD has always been simple. It’s been built upon two statements made by Lee himself. The first was, “Basically we have two arms and two legs. So the question becomes, how can we use our body to the maximum?” The second was, “How, in the process of learning to use my body, can I come to understand myself?” My point is that the “name” Jeet Kune Do has, by its numerous and varied perceptions, in many ways become a form of limitation. It’s the fact that, due to the way the public perceives Jeet Kune Do and places it into certain categories with certain predictabilities, that the name has become restrictive. It is viewed as simply “this” and thus, “not that.” It’s a known fact that, although Bruce Lee was reluctant to put a name on his personal philosophy, he christened the martial expression of his philosophy Jeet Kune Do. This was because he understood that he had to call it something. But he also knew that names could become potentially restrictive agents, limiting the scope of a person’s thoughts to only those areas that fall within the general definition of the words used to describe it. Recognizing that words are always poor symbols for what they represent, in his notes about Jeet Kune Do he wrote, “The title is not important. It’s only a symbol for the kind of martial art we study. The emphasis should not be put on its title.”
Various Educational Periods in Bruce Lee's Development by Chris Kent The following is a brief breakdown of the various periods of learning that Bruce Lee went through with regard to his personal development. 1. STUDENT (blank slate) Time Period: 1953 - 1960 Philosophy: Strictly Chinese approach; Ch’an, Taoism, Tai Chi Chuan Classics, I-Ching Martial Arts: Tai Chi Chuan, Wing Chun Gung Fu, a bit of Judo, 2. ASSISTANT TEACHER (and still learning -- experimenter --school of higher learning) Time Period: 1960 - 1967 -- Starts to apply “science” (i.e. empiricism, experimentation, physical sciences research to his art Philosophy: Pragmatism, Zen, Allen Watts, Martial Arts: Western Boxing, Fencing, 3. TEACHER (still involved in “post-graduate” studies) Time Period: 1967-1971 Jeet Kune Do officially conceived -- Looks initially at all arts, but does not accept or adapt their curriculum or agendas which he finds limiting and incomplete (also experiences Thai kickboxing -- formulates “pros” and “cons” list -- Focuses on scientific “refinement” of what he’s already developed. Philosophy: Eclecticism (pragmatic), J. Krishnamurti, Hesse, Individualism Martial Arts: Wrestling, *Kenpo, Aikido, Ju Jitsu, *Karate, *Tae Kwon Do (* - familiarity through association with representatives of these arts such as Jhoon Rhee and Chuck Norris (Tang Soo Do), Joe Lewis and Mike Stone (Karate) 4. MASTER TEACHER (teaching the lessons learned throughout his life through the most powerful medium in the world at the time, which was film --continues his “higher learning” advances by studying film: i.e. ‘communication techniques”) Time Period: 1971 - 1973 -- Emphasis shifts to films as educational medium -- Infuses lessons such as Wu-hsin from his earlier (1953 - 1960) period, Zen from his 1960 - 1967 period, and pragmatic adaptation -- “whatever works, use it” lessons from his 1967 - 1971 period.
I love Chris Kents Articles! He has a very analytical mind and a very methodical way of projecting his thoughts. JKD is not about a person taking what they consider to be the “best” of each style and building their own style. It’s about removing the whole notion of “style” or even mixing styles or systems. This is difficult for many people because we are so conditioned to put names or labels to everything. I'd be surprised if %5 of people who associate themselves with JKD realise the importance of the above statement. AND EVEN IF THEY DO .... DO THEY ACTUALLY PRACTICE IT AND NOT JUST PREACH IT?
Most decent JKDers I've met actually discarded the JKD boat a long time ago. And they spent more time studying JKD than most self appointed "defenders of the faith" ever have. If the the old original vs concepts type argument still gives anyone sleepless nights......they seriously need to get a life. Fighters fight and talkers talk, I know which camp the majority of so-called JKDers fall into. I'd go the Harry Hill route and say there's only one way to settle this..........
Yeah I can see How some people get on the "boat" just to get to the other side, whilst others get on the boat to enjoy the ride down the river itself. Either way is fine by me as long as credit is given when the credit is due. Truth is a pathless land after all
February, Ive often wondered where the JKD fighters fight?,I mean where are they in MMA,Muay Thai etc? or are you referring to street fighting that the majority of JKDers do?
Hey FC, That was the point I was trying to make i.e. The majority of JKDers fall into the "talkers" camp. There are progressive groups affiliated with JKD who fight in MMA etc. and have done for a long time, only in the eyes of some of the more zealous Bruce Lee fans they're not "doing JKD" by virtue of the fact they're mixing or diluting it - or God forbid - doing concepts. It's the self appointed gatekeepers that get my goat. Although deep down I know I still take a JKD approach to my own martial arts, I refuse to attach the name to it. I'll leave that to the trekkies and fanboys who are more obsessed with analysing video footage and looking like Bruce Lee, than actually enjoying and gaining benefit from martial arts.
I agree Feb! The idea is that JKD itself is not appropriate for competition fighting at all because that clashes with its true motives and methods trained towards. But if some one uses JKD principals for MMA, kickboxing competition etc (many who successfully have starting with Joe Lewis) then that's what it is ...."Principals" I personally find that paradoxical because JKD itself is based on principals found in sports (Boxing/fencing). but then again those sports were originally martial arts/street fighting arts. They just happen to be ones bruce was exposed to more as a youngster! It is a highly commended method though if practiced/taught well!
This is true, and they also hide behind the fact that Bruce didn't enter competitions himself due to the limits the rules create. That might be true buts its also true that he trained with several of the top combat sports stars of the day including Bill Wallace, Chuck Norris and, and you say, Joe Lewis. Obvious he felt his training methods could help train somone for competition, and they obviously felt the same. Another point is that kickboxing back then was extremely limited compared to MMA in terms of rules.
Yeah they spoke highly of him as a teacher and fighter. He did actualy demolish a black belt in a competition Jesse Glover umpired once. Jesse was amazed and Jesse was pretty bad ass himself..still is in his old age from what I hear...
I have fought for many years in many arenas as well as out of those arenas and I know quite a few top JKD Practitioners who do as well. I like many used these fights in the various arenas as testing grounds to enhance certain attributes as after all these arenas do have certain limitations placed on them. But if used correctly and for the right reasons they are great tools to enhance your skills. Just because they don't use the JKD tag when fighting does not mean they are not there. There are more fighters from JKD out there than many realise. Then of course you have the other side of the coin with some of those using the excuse of 'oh we don't do that type of fighting as we are street fighters and all our skills are too dangerous and we are not allowed to use the' when in fact what they really mean to say is 'are you mad? I would get my ass handed to me on a plate by those guys. Have you seen them? They actually try to hurt each other'. Best regards Pat
It is childish if that is what some think! But its unfair to assume this about all JKd clubs that don't believe in competition! Many of their members and teachers actually have strong Full contact competition background. They believe however that the skill set they work towards in street fighting is actually of limited use in competition and targeted to a different direction. They do indeed get their Asses handed over to them in multiple opponenet pressure testing just to show them a sense of what its like even in the safety of the classroom environment. A good way of describing this is how a skilled Polish pro boxer when lined up against the former world strongest man ( who hated each other) got mullered in seconds EVEN IN THE RING. This is partly due to the tendancy where competition fighting tends to train you to feel your opponenent out. I personally think competition and sparring in JKD should be targeted towards close analysis through video footage to find the weaknesses of an individual in responce to certain stimuli. What they can improve in their technique and positioning to move around more effectively in the shorter term. What helps them connect and why? look at why they went wrong and why even if they win a competition... why the way they performed could have got them killed in a real confrontation? This would be an educational experience for both the student as well as the teacher. Dan inosanto said something sweet along the lines that. Some one who learns to sing cannot improve their voice by singing different songs or different types of music styles. they should find the problem with their voice and rectify that.
These are not the people I am talking about as these people know the benifits of competition and pressure testing under certain envirnoments, bu there are those few who bad mouth competition simply because they fear the fact that there is a chance that their invincible skills might just get a dam good thrashing.... I always say that you can never criticise any pressure testing format until you yourself have actually been in that format and tested it, and I dont mean turn up once and get a kicking then dish it big style, I mean keep going back and see it for its worth win or loose. All the formats I have participated in (all full contact by the way) have value in learning certain skills and arttribute, certain skill sets that are harder if not impossible to learn in the classroom environment amognst people you know. Even if the lesson learn't is how not to do it, it is a valuable lesson that can only be expearianced by actually getting in there and getting dirty. For instance, if you have someone you dont know or who dislikes you that is trying to take your head off within the limited environment, what better place to test some of your skills and practice some of your attributes. This is something that cant really be replacated in the classroom. Best regards Pat
I always teach my students that if you cannot hit me with a 16oz glove on then you have no chance with an eye jab
It is a paradox. But I think there's more to it than those arts being originally street fighting arts. Lee would never have known Western fencing as a street fighting art. Nor, to my knowledge, did his brother ever study it as anything other than the competitive sport format. And even if Lee had studied historical fencing (i.e., a form of fencing at one time appropriate for street fighting), it wouldn't have still been appropriate for personal combat on the streets of modern-day California. Likewise, Lee's exposure to boxing was to the modern competitive form. And the format under which he competed was, by definition, the modern competitive form. So Lee's experience of both boxing and fencing would have been as combat sports. Not street fighting styles. And yet, he still thought them important enough to be two of the three largest influences on the evolution of JKD. The obvious question is why? If competitive fighting is so antithetical to the no-rules street fighting mentality of JKD, why would the majority of major influences on JKD be ring sports? To me, it seems clear that things like the eye jab, the groin kick, and so on are only as useful as the platform upon which they're grafted. It's true that they can't be used in sport. But it's equally true that grafting them onto a delivery system that has been proven within certain parameters is better than grafting them onto a system that lacks that sort of verifiability. An actual fight isn't like a sport fight. We all get that. An actual fight isn't like forms or scenario training or anything else either. An actual fight isn't even like a different actual fight. But someone who's capable in competition has a good evidence-based platform from which to work as he adds tools and skills. The valuable thing about MMA, to my mind, is that it extends the platform further. So that, now, there's a good evidence base for a wider range of tactics. If someone is beating the snot out of you in stand up, and you're an accomplished ring grappler, you stand a better chance of taking them down and out of their element before sticking your thumb in their eye or whatever low down dirty shame you choose to visit upon them. From a JKD perspective, the sport format isn't the final product, but it's a really valuable launching point. If I know how to land a jab on a guy who's trying very hard not to get jabbed, my ability to finger jab a guy who's trying very hard not to get finger jabbed goes up considerably. Stuart
I posted a blog on my website about the "street vs sport" issue...with the gratuitous plug for my style and classes removed here it is: ================================================================= There are two opposing schools of thought when it comes to martial arts that seem to eat up far more than their fair share of ink, paper and debate these days. The first group consists of the MMA crowd, who believe that unless it is seen in the Octagon it cannot work. The flipside are the “street” guys – who trot out the mantra “we train for reality not a sport”. Let’s be blunt – the chances of anyone standing up to a top-level MMA fighter and winning are very remote. We are talking about individuals who train every single day, working their fitness, technique and speed. It is their job; they eat, live and breathe it. To suggest that they would be ineffective in a street-fight because they train for the ring is asinine. Why? Because success in a Street-fight is NOT about technique; it is about ATTRIBUTES Take an individual who spends hours a day honing his timing, distance, endurance, power, speed etc and you have an individual who is a very dangerous proposition in a fight. Most who so readily decry MMA (and that incorporates grappling, boxing and kickboxing systems) as “sport” fighting completely miss this point. The sport aspect is merely one manifestation of the training – a way to test oneself against an unfriendly and hostile opponent (whilst getting paid for it of course). What MMA teaches in addition to fighting competitively, is a way to push yourself physically and mentally and gain a level of exposure to realistic combat conditions in your training. It is this last point that separates them from nearly every other martial art. Disregarding the submission aspect for thetime being, I want you to consider which are the most successful techniques you find in MMA? Punches, kicks, knees & elbows. Now, talk to anyone who has any experience in real-world combat and ask them which techniques are most commonly encountered or utilized - punches, kicks, knees & elbows! I don’t think that I need to draw your attention to the obvious! Now is MMA a complete method of fighting? No, it isn’t. And this is where the “street” advocates have a point. MMA stylists have holes in the way they fight you can exploit, but only if your own training is of a sufficiently high caliber. MMA does not train in using or defending weapons; They do not deal with “Mass Attack” scenarios; They do not train in combat psychology and ritual and perhaps most importantly they have no “dirty” tactics (such as biting and gouging). They do, however, possess a superior training methodology ==================================================================
This is part 2......... ================================================================== Watch any MMA fight and you see mano-e-mano combat at an incredibly high level – now imagine if just one of those fighters had a friend with them and you would see the whole situation change drastically. Recently in a Strikeforce event, Jake Shields put on a master clinic in defeating veteran Dan Henderson. In the aftermath victory celebration Jason “Mayhem” Miller entered the cage to issue a challenge. This led to a brawl in the cage involving high-level MMA athletes, yet you would be hard pressed to discern any recognizable technique. It was little more than “caveman 101” and one of the starkest illustrations of what can happen as soon as violence is spontaneous rather than a pre-arranged event. It was not an MMA match – it was a streetfight. Clearly the obvious difference between Street and Sport is the rules – or the lack thereof. MMA has very specific restrictions applied. There are prohibitions on techniques, a referee to look after a fighter’s wellbeing and the action can be stopped at any time for a medical assessment. Furthermore the fighters have weeks, even months, to prepare for an upcoming fight and know who, where and when they will fight. They can get fit, prepare mentally and physically and develop a strategy. Compare this to a situation when you are walking to your car after a busy day shopping. You have several bags and are fumbling for your keys. Your cellphone goes off and as you are looking for which pocket you put it in you suddenly find yourself face-to-face with an assailant. Which one do you think will be harder to deal with? Now, many of the “Reality Crowd” are quick to say that scenarios like the above are why MMA is limited - and then they proceed to teach and practice techniques that are essentially the same! How many systems do you hear say “we train for self-defense not sport” who then teach blocks, reverse punches and kicks? In other words MMA-style techniques! They also teach these techniques in isolation – in other words you have situations where “person A does this so person B does this”. There is no overall development of the individual attributes and instead you have a series of responses with no common thread to link them. Even worse, these techniques are drilled 1 on 1, the very style of fight MMA excels in! =================================================================
both these sport where never street fighting systems. Fencing developed from a battlefeild skill which crossed over to a weapon of defence carried by gentlemen. Boxing was always a sport based on pugilism which is not boxing and was just one of the skills in a whole host of weapons ( battlefield ) skills learnt by the pugilist. Take a look at an old time pugilist and a modern day MMA'er which is based on Vale Tudo or Pugilism if you like and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. Pugilsts used throws, takedowns and submissions too but the original pugilists also trained and fought with weapons such as the cudgel and back sword etc. So as much as many so called JKD'ers bitch and moan about sports aspect of the martial arts they forget that 3/4 of what they do is based on just that. And the miss out on a valuable learning tool that can and does enhance their over all fighting skills. So next time when you hear ' we don't do sport we only train for the street' ask them how they actualy pressure test their skills to know of they work.
Inosanto-line schools tend to be heavy into muay thai and Filipino arts, and to some extent BJJ and Indonesian/Malay arts. Seattle-linage schools are more kung fu oriented. Ted Wong (RIP) line schools tend to be about boxing and footwork. Poteet line school are very eclectic, since Poteet himself was both a Lee and an Inosanto student. I think of it like this- jkd is like Jazz. There are many different "schools" of Jazz (bebop, rebop, west coast, big band, dixieland, smooth, etc.) but they are all jazz.
