Paradoxal quotes

[white devil]

''Lee compared doing forms without an opponent to attempting to learn to swim on dry land''

But then he says that shadow boxing is a very important part of training.

''JKD students are told to waste no time or movement''
But then he tells us to always keep moving because it is harder to hit a moving target than a stationary one.

Theses are not the first contradictory theories ive noticed by him...Maybe i just misunderstood..if not post your comments.

[aseepish]

1. Shadowboxing and kata are two different things. Kata is pre-arranged. Shadowboxing is improvised, formless.

2. A movement that results in your opponent being unable to hit you is not wasted.

[white devil]

what do you qualify as an unecessary movement?..does your fundamental stance transfer your weight back and forth (like most savate fighters do)?

do you ''bob'' your head even when you're out of range? (like boxers)

do you move your arms in little circles all the time?(boxers)

do you raise your lead foot slightly on and off the ground? (muay thay fighters,that are more traditional i guess)

A movement that results in your opponent being unable to hit you is not wasted.

what about offensive movements?..whatever their purpose may be (drawing,confusing..etc)

is it better to keep a ''wing chun stance'' (besides the fact that it puts you off balance)? yet the fighter is much more ''still'' ..but then again why would Lee discard that?

as for shadowboxing...it is alot like katas when you think of it...
fighting with an imaginary oponent,..and repeating your drills..as well as your set ups..combinations are planned aren't they?the only thing that separates katas from shadow is that it is taught from a to z.(even though there might be variations here and there)

[eXcessiveForce]

A simpler way of stating it is. Economy of motion. To not step 2 feet when you only need to step one. Do not move the arm 5 inches when you can move it one and have the desired effect.

For instance you don't need to block a punch that won't hit you, nor do you need to block a punch further than the edge of your body.

Lee is talking about efficiency. being non telegraphic, not winding up to punch, to take the quickest way between two points.

You don't win a fight from bobing your head, or shifting your weight, you win by hitting and avoiding being hit.

[white devil]

You don't win a fight from bobing your head, or shifting your weight, you win by hitting and avoiding being hit.

doesnt bobing your head and shift your weight avoid you from being hit?

For instance you don't need to block a punch that won't hit you, nor do you need to block a punch further than the edge of your body.

that same punch does not hit you because you were moving?

that ''economy of motion'' is very vague..to me economy of motion is more like resting your weight on your oponent and dont throw that many punches during round 9 to gather your energy back.I know that Lee mentioned it as not making any unecessary movements but still.

Then to use the economy of motion we have to know every purpose of every move and then train accordingly...to later discard the ''unecessary''.But to do that would mean that we can predict the oponent's every reaction to every maneover.

Then to be able to discard unecessary ''stance'' movements would be wrong..(''stance'' movements = bob n weaving,moving around,shifting)

When your oponent punches and you block instead of using a ''stop hit'' or a parry ..does your block become unecessary?

Economy of motion is not as easy as it sounds.

[jkdmlastudent]

Originally Posted by white devil

that same punch does not hit you because you were moving?.

don't overdo it, don't move for the sake of moving, a jkd man can easily time you if you constantly move

Originally Posted by white devil

that ''economy of motion'' is very vague..to me economy of motion is more like resting your weight on your oponent and dont throw that many punches during round 9 to gather your energy back.I know that Lee mentioned it as not making any unecessary movements but still.

you're wrong, lee is right. do that against somebody who's proficient in bjj, etc., then you're in for a beating. unless you're as good as the bjj guy.

Originally Posted by white devil

Then to use the economy of motion we have to know every purpose of every move and then train accordingly...to later discard the ''unecessary''.But to do that would mean that we can predict the oponent's every reaction to every maneover.

not really, economy of motion begins with you. you should not make unnecessary movements before, during, and after your attack.

[quote=white devil]
Then to be able to discard unecessary ''stance'' movements would be wrong..(''stance'' movements = bob n weaving,moving around,shifting)
[\QUOTE]

not really.

Originally Posted by white devil

When your oponent punches and you block instead of using a ''stop hit'' or a parry ..does your block become unecessary?

instead of blocking(1) and hitting(2), try to intercept or stop-hit, 1 movement that serves the same purpose(economy of motion!)

Originally Posted by white devil

Economy of motion is not as easy as it sounds.

true, simplicity and directness is not always easy.

[white devil]

youre replies are very unclear..no disrespect intended but you do not seem to know about what you are saying much.

don't overdo it, don't move for the sake of moving, a jkd man can easily time you if you constantly move

actually a ''jkd man'' is one who is constantly in movement(like i said,he does so to be less of an easy target)

you're wrong, lee is right. do that against somebody who's proficient in bjj, etc., then you're in for a beating. unless you're as good as the bjj guy.

im wrong and lee is right? i just admitted i knew what bruce lee meant.whats the point of bjj?i said taking it easy in ''round 9'' meaning to gather energy in a tough contest after being exhausted(using unecesary movements)..''round 9 '' if you havent noticed meant in a boxing/muay thai bout

not really, economy of motion begins with you. you should not make unnecessary movements before, during, and after your attack.

so what youre saying is you should stand still before,during and after an attack?

you have barely answered my questions and it seems all you're doing is repeating my previous arguments.just how long have you been studying jeet kune do my friend?

[jkdmlastudent]

Originally Posted by white devil

youre replies are very unclear..no disrespect intended but you do not seem to know about what you are saying much.

I guess so. I just can't explain myself. But I know what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by white devil

actually a ''jkd man'' is one who is constantly in movement(like i said,he does so to be less of an easy target)

not really, you move with a purpose, do not move for the sake of moving. have you also heard of stillness in motion?yes, you move but not too excessively. excessive movements make you telegraphic, at the same time, it wastes energy. it is easy to time somebody who is constantly moving.

Originally Posted by white devil

im wrong and lee is right? i just admitted i knew what bruce lee meant.whats the point of bjj?i said taking it easy in ''round 9'' meaning to gather energy in a tough contest after being exhausted(using unecesary movements)..''round 9 '' if you havent noticed meant in a boxing/muay thai bout

sorry about that, i thought you were saying that for you, economy of motion is resting within a fight(ie. clinching)Hence, the example in bjj

Originally Posted by white devil

so what youre saying is you should stand still before,during and after an attack?

what i am saying is you should be still while in motion. minimize your movements, be efficient and non-telegraphic. or you can stand still if you want and draw your opponent, then do whatever you want to do next.

Originally Posted by white devil

you have barely answered my questions and it seems all you're doing is repeating my previous arguments.just how long have you been studying jeet kune do my friend?

ok, i will not pretend to be an expert, i've had only about 4++ mos. of training. 1 thing i can tell you though, i have opened my mind and i have understood some things about jkd through scientific thinking. anyway, you are free to disagree

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

Originally Posted by white devil

you have barely answered my questions and it seems all you're doing is repeating my previous arguments.just how long have you been studying jeet kune do my friend?

To be fair, your writing is often unclear, if not nonsensical. Words are the tool we use most often to communicate our thoughts to others (and the only tool we have in this medium) so you should take more care with them.
On a related note, maybe someone who doesn't know the word "paradoxical" shouldn't spout off about paradoxes.

[eXcessiveForce]

Originally Posted by white devil

doesnt bobing your head and shift your weight avoid you from being hit?

that same punch does not hit you because you were moving?.

buy why bob and weave if I can move at at a 45 and knock him out?

that ''economy of motion'' is very vague..to me economy of motion is more like resting your weight on your oponent and dont throw that many punches during round 9 to gather your energy back.I know that Lee mentioned it as not making any unecessary movements but still..

Economy of motion is percise, not vague. it means analyze everything you do, eliminate telegraphic or wasted movement. If a movement enhances your ability then it is not wasted is it? but what if you could only move half as much as still get the same benefit? then that would expend less energy and since it is less movement it would take less time. You can't apply JKD to ring sports, lee would have wanted the guy down in the first 30 seconds or less.

Then to use the economy of motion we have to know every purpose of every move and then train accordingly...to later discard the ''unecessary''.But to do that would mean that we can predict the oponent's every reaction to every maneover. .

While people only have two arms and two legs their can only be one type of fighting. Over time you learn there are only so many reactions to a jab, so many for a cross. So you can predict. The better at predicting the better chance of winning

Then to be able to discard unecessary ''stance'' movements would be wrong..(''stance'' movements = bob n weaving,moving around,shifting).

IF it adds to your effectiveness it is not unnecessary if it does not increase your effectiveness then yes drop it. Why bob and weave if you can punch the guy in the forehead and knock him out?

When your oponent punches and you block instead of using a ''stop hit'' or a parry ..does your block become unecessary?.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

Economy of motion is not as easy as it sounds.

No it is not, that is why people work on it for a long time.

Research the Hammer Principle and it may help you understand

[white devil]

To be fair, your writing is often unclear, if not nonsensical. Words are the tool we use most often to communicate our thoughts to others (and the only tool we have in this medium) so you should take more care with them.
On a related note, maybe someone who doesn't know the word "paradoxical" shouldn't spout off about paradoxes.

Well i'm sorry but english is only my third launguage..as you may know french and english have tons of similar words in common in their vocabulary that don't even mean the same thing,or that cannot be used the same way.It's not easy to be able to fully express yourself in english without mixing yourself up from time to time when you've only learned lately to master it.

so you should take more care with them.

i'm trying as hard as possible to expand my vocabulary as much as possible.I mean,the only one who complains about the way I write is an english major like you,that's not so bad isn't it?

On a related note, maybe someone who doesn't know the word "paradoxical" shouldn't spout off about paradoxes

a paradox is something or someone that contradicts itself...so are such unclear theories as economy of motion.Unlike some few in this forum,most of us still see vague notions and it's normal that we do otherwise we would be called ''masters''.So instead of getting angry and posting remarks just because i wanted to understand some theory ,you should just express your opinion..YOUR OPINION,not quote what Bruce said.


Thanks excessiveforce and Mike Brewer for the tips.They were helpful.

You can't apply JKD to ring sports,

now why is that? i've done so more than once and it's of a great help.

[eXcessiveForce]

because JKD was designed for street fights, While some of the concepts translate well, you can't take Lee's ideas for outside combat and try to put them into the context of the ring. As you can see it leads to confusion.

JKD isn't going to serve you well in a boxing match. It's JKD not boxing.

In JKD, if you are fighting a boxer you don't stand and box with them.

It translates a little better to MMA but the ring is still a different mentality than what Lee was talking about.

[white devil]

I disagree partly,JKD was uniting different styles and systems to create,(yea i agree with you) a ''street-fighting'' concept.

But doing the opposite works too..which is defragmenting the JKD concept to adapt it's theories and principles to various styles or arts.

Listen, i'm a boxer not a pure JKD practitionner,although i have trained in JKD for a while,(ive stopped going to classes because the sifu was teaching us his own misinterprated variation of JKD)..Not training the techniques i have been reading and studying the concept.
I'm an amateur boxer,I absorb what is useful for me FROM JKD and incorporate it into my boxing(excluding the wing chun,and kicks).I do so because,to me,to progress as a professional boxer and have a sucessful career is far more important than street-fighting(which I am still able to do,even while excluding some JKD techniques and principles.)

examples of such things i study are:
Progressive Indirect Attack.
Attack By Combinations.
Attack By Drawing.
Efficiency
Directness
Simplicity

I agree that JKD was not meant for ring sports at first,but we are in the 21st century and i think most martial arts and ring sports would evolve greatly if they adopted Lee's mentality of fighting..it doesn't work for everything of course..but still.

[eXcessiveForce]

while I think his ideas may be useful what you are talking about is not JKD.

A weapon against a boxer would be a stop kick,

While you may find a concept useful for you in your frame of reference, it very well could lead you onto a completely different path that is consistent with main idea Lee was expressing.

He took what worked for him and discarded what did not work.

But when you put JKD under the boxing rule set you are throwing out things that work (for street fighting) JKD relies heavily on elbows, knees, trapping, and ranges of combat.

Boxing excludes several ranges of combat and many of the techniques.

A great boxer is a great boxer, that does not make him a master of JKD, he is only the master of one range of combat.

[jkdmlastudent]

btw, white devil, who was your sifu in jkd?