The Erosion of JKD?

[Maxximus]

In the latest Inside Kung fu magazine, Wing Chun sifu Hawkins Cheung wrote an article about what he feels is the sad state that JKD is currently in. I guess he feels that the JKD people of today have completely misconstrued Bruce's original intention. The article is entitled "The Erosion of JKD". I was interested to see what everyone else's opinion on Cheung's views are. If you have read the article, what do you think?

[MikeJKD]

I read the article, and I have mixed feelings. PArt of me thinks that it's another guy trying to cash in and position himself as the leading authority on what Bruce Lee meant. The other part of me agrees that there are a lot of guys out there without a lick of practical experience trying to theorize a functional approach to what Sijo Lee said and did. Do I agree that Hawkins Cheung is the guy with all the answers? No. I think that nobody is as qualified to point people in the right direction like Dan Inosanto, and in my opinion (for all that's worth)whether people think he deserves to be or not, he'll always be the man in my book. He spent more time and personal energy with Bruce during the development of JKD than anyone, and it shows in his work ethic, his continued study of the arts, and his instruction.
Mike

[Paul Sharp]

Nothing guarantees coverage in a martial arts mag like bashing JKD.

Well okay, maybe Gracie bashing would get more coverage.

-Paul Sharp

[MikeJKD]

Ain't it the sorry sad truth?

[jime23]

JKD And the gracie's? Streetfighting vs. a sport nhb fighting is not reality people!

[Burton]

In early January I got a call from Hawkins. He was in Honolulu and wanted to have dinner with me. It was great to see an old friend, and we spent time talking about the article that was going to come out. He has many valid points, but upon reading the article, it is clear that Hawkins has not seen the more recent evolution of JKD. Hawkins grew up fighting in Hong Kong, and he has a fighter's perspective. I told him when we met the next day for lunch about how my group and a few other groups were training. He was surprised to hear that we actually tested everything under heavy fire, and was pleased to hear it. We do disagree on some technical approaches and on some training methods, but he had nothing good to say about compound trapping or the traditional straight blast! More on that another time. To sum up, in my opinion Hawkins has many valid points, but not all JKD people are training in the way that he thinks they are.

[Paul Sharp]

jime23,
I am not really sure where that debate fits in here. When I mentioned those things in my post I was refering to what seems to be a trend in the martial arts world. Hype up some minute aspect rather than print articles that are focused on Training. Now thats a thought. A martial arts mag that actually prints articles about performance enhancement.

-Paul Sharp

[Alan]

What did Hawkins have to say about compound trapping and the traditional blast?

[Burton]

I spoke with Hawkins on the phone yesterday. He said that IKF is after him to do another article, but he wants to wait. He said that he has created his own style and wants to show that, but not for awhile, as he is getting a lot of pressure from people.
I mentioned trapping again, and he reiterated that most of the trapping from JKD comes from Wing Chun. He said "Wing Chun people can't make it work, so how can anyone else?" This is from the mouth of a Wing Chun Grandmaster. He said that the traditional blast is not powerful enough, so he punches more with his whole body. (We must remember that Hawkins weighs about 120 lbs! Larger people can get more power.)
In our previous meeting, Hawkins talked about how nobody is going to stand there and let you do pak sao, lop sao, etc. He says (and I agree) that you might get off one pak or lop, but to go for compound trapping is not a good idea.
The article is definitely course, but there is a great deal of truth in it also.

[ghoyd]

In reference to compound trapping:

Generally we don't "go for compound trapping". As a matter of fact we don't attempt to trap at all. Our main objective is to HIT. The trapping generally comes in to play when the hit is obstructed, then we trap.

I don't believe compound trapping will work either! Do I train it? Yes! You see I don't train them with the expectations that they will work. I train them as a drill (trapping progressions). The compound traps we practice are to highten sensitivity. We work them in hopes that if we find ourselves in a certain position (attachment), we will have trained that position of attachment before.

This is just my take on it.


Gary Hoyd
http://www.geocities.com/ghoyd/
MIDWESTERN JUN FAN FIGHTING ALLIANCE

[Burton]

I would like to respond. There is a lot of this idea of training techniques that don't work to heighten sensitivity. Doesn't it make more sense to train techniques that do work in a way that heightens sensitivity? I have heard many instructors expound on the erroneous belief that doing a drill that looks nothing like combat will help you in combat. In my fighting experience, I have found that this theory just isn't true. Many others who fight will confirm this. Just thought I'd try to save you some training time so you can focus on enhancing those things that do work.

[jeyel]

So what would be the things that do work? And how do you work these? Sparring?

So I guess stuff like hubud, chi sao, push hands etc have no value at all in martial arts. So why were these "sensitivity" drills invented in the first place?

[ghoyd]

It works for me, and that's what counts.

Different strokes for different folks.

[Chad W. Getz]

Maybe, some of the drills were created to train certain "energies" from a fight, except the "proper" energy couldn't be given because of protective reasons.

Today, we have headgear with face cages, shin pads, etc. The drills that we do involve a little more timing and distance that the regular hubud, chi sao, etc. If we practice doing drills alot, and develop a really good sensitivity for a certain energy, we need to evaluate or training and ask ourselves, how applicable is that energy to fighting.

Then we also need to look at fighting. How has it evolved since back in the days. My girlfriends(ex, actually) grandfather is the person who I learned the bulk of my FMA from. He once told me of how he came back from service in the 70's and worked out with his uncles(who he learned from as a child up until 17 years of age). His uncles were a little upset that he had changed his way of doing some of the things that he learned from them. He had explained to me that what they taught him worked well for them in the 30's and 40's, but people in the 70's fought different. I train differently then how I originally learned. The reason for that is because, people have evolved the way that they fight.

I don't think the question of drilling is if they are effective, but how we do the drills. Drills were created for us to become familiar with an energy, why not have that energy evolve like fighters do?

Trapping. I find alot of usefulness with "classical" trapping on the ground. Then again, the only "classical" trapping I ever really liked was pak sao, lop sao, and a version of a bong sao. So this is where I train my "classical" trapping.

Hubud. Hubud and chi sao done with an "FMA" mindset is supposed to give you reference points in which to work your counters, etc. I used to love this, but have a little trouble doing it now, because the intent just isn't the same once I did vale tudo sparring. I think a mixture of Greco clinching, Thai clinching, and stickfight clinching( it's a clinch with one overhook and one underhook...sorry for lack of better terms) gives you all of these "reference points" and more. A progressive path may also add one punch with only a right hand punch to only the left side of the partners head...with a mask on of course, and eventually more tools. The beautiful thing about this type of trapping drill, is that while you are working your sensitivity to his body throwing just that one punch, you are also working the sensitivity to a regular clinch. Of course, that is just one example of how drills could be adapted.

If you want to find out how good your current training is, you should spar. I would say mimimum gear, bag or grappling gloves, macho headgear with face cage, maybe elbow pads(because bare elbows to the face cae don't feel good) and shin pads should be sufficient protection. Only rule is to stop if someone says stop or if someone is incapable of continuing inteligently. So to speak. If you can't imagine yourself training in this manner, maybe you should look at your current training curriculum.

Of course, what one man may or may not do, doesn't mean another man should or should not.

[Burton]

I think that a big communication problem happens when we talk about sparring. There are things you can apply easily when your partner is cooperating, that you can't apply when he isn't. That should be clear. It works the same way one step up in sparring.
There are things that you can apply in light to medium intensity sparring that are almost impossible to apply when going full-out, where your opponent is trying to hurt you and knock you out. This is what a street fight is like, so to test techniques for street fights, we must step our sparring up to that all-out level. Most people never spar in this context, but believe that sparring medium is the same test as sparring hard. I can do traps and all kinds of techniques in medium intensity sparring that I would not even attempt in all-out sparring due to the diffence in speed, power, and danger.
As far as Hubad, Chi-Sao, etc., I encourage you to research your own truth by going to a boxing gym, a kick-boxing gym, or better yet, a NHB gym and sparring hard with some of the guys. Test yourself to see what you can apply and what you can't. There are lots of drills and techniques that have been created in a peace-time environment without being properly tested. It is up to each of us to actually test these things to see if they are useful to us.