which is better jkd conepts or the original

[Happy Cat]

You may be surprised that I agree with the last several Mike Brewer and Ghost comments. You are talking about "concepts, but the same is true for "Original."

To be clear, I think you should train in what works for you. If that is Kali, great. If it is "concepts", great. Not sure how you could have interpreted my comments in any other way. I do not presume to tell an Aikido student that my art is better than his. For my body type, athletic ability, personality and mental ability, and each of my limitations in those area, a particular splinter of the OJKD works best. But for someone else it may be something else.

So why is there a problem. The issue arises because both of us use the words JKD, and each probably thinks the other has missed the point of those words. And there is little to be gained from trying to convince each other, we both know the arguments from each side. In any event your path may not be my path, and we can probably agree that is a central part of “The Way.”

Whatever you are doing, cross training in some form is important if you want to be prepared. Now 80% plus probably of all schools saying JKD are teaching concepts. There is nothing wrong with that, whatever they want to learn is Ok with me. The issue I have is when someone reads The Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and then shows up at his local JKD school and can not understand why what he sees there is nothing like what he experienced in the Tao. That’s why I suggest that if folks want to do Kali, maybe they should call it Kali and not hang out a banner that says something different.

Case in point, I was at a school this morning and I asked the instructor why he had taken the JKD banner down. He said that the head instructor had a high level cert from Dan, but that the people that the sign drew were not the kind of students they wanted. People who would not put on belts, and who wanted the Tao. I think he did the right thing.

If a new student is reading all of this and trying to understand what the issue is, all I can say is that there are few signposts on the pathless path. If The Tao of Jeet Kune Do makes sense to you, then don’t let anyone tell you that the truth is outdated. On the other hand Mike Brewer makes good points for “Concepts,” and Bruce was the one who came up with the concept of constant evolution. Even original must evolve and stay current.

[Happy Cat]

Another point for new students: do not try to train yourself using the "Tao Of jeet kune Do." These are semi random notes, and not all that is writen there is meant for training or aplication.

[g-bells]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

G-Bells,
The argument usually goes something along the lines of, "We're supposed to be hacking away, not acquiring." Some people have even been so short sighted as to dub people who train in many arts as "Jacks of all trades and masters of none." I'm certainly not trying to put words into Happy Cat's mouth, but those are common arguments from the "Original JKD" side of the aisle.

What these arguments fail to recognize, let alone acknowledge, is that it is indeed a process of hacking away what's not essential. In order to do that, you need a pretty serious exposure to what's out there. In order to discover whther or not your training methods are getting you to the point you're trying to go, you need to know what you're doing well, and what could be improved. You don't discover your own weaknesses by staying in your own backyard. You need to get out, experience other arts and methods, and see if someone out there is doing it better. To use the kali analogy, if using double sticks on a regular basis can improve my speed, reaction time, coordination, line familiarization, timing, range, footwork, and body mechanics - all at the same time (!) - then that's a worthwhile training method to keep on board, don't you suppose? Especially if what I have to do right now is work eight different drills to cover all those attributes? "Hacking away" is not always about getting rid of techniques. Hell, I can shortcut that one just by not doing any! The point is to get to the root of what works, and to do it in the most direct way you can. I and many others believe that weapons training offers a host of practical and peripheral benefits, but some folks aren't willing to look that far into it. Hence, you get comments like Happy Cat's erroneous statements about Dan Inosanto. It's not malicious. It's just ignorance.

Then there's the "Jack of all trades" argument. This has held one major flaw since the beginning. It fails to address the full scope of what a fight is. Let's examine:

A critic claims that by going into kali and BJJ and Muay Thai and this and that, you're diluting JKD to a point that it is no longer recognizable, and you're becoming a jack-of-all-trades, and a master of none." Since that debate is so close to home, let's use another profession as an example. Basketball players, for instance. They have to be able to dribble, pass, rebound, shoot 3-pointers, free-throw, block, and hit the layup. What would a basketball player who was a master of dribbling the ball, but who never focused on any of those other things look like? You'll never know, because that guy will never play in public. Is he a "jack of all trades" just because he focuses his efforts on being well rounded? Here's another analogy. Take a carpenter this time. He's a master at using his hammer, but he can't saw, can't measure, can't cut a straight line, can't trim, can't use a drill...get the point? He's not a jack of all trades and a master of none because he devotes his training to learning all the ins and outs of his craft. In fact, he could hardly be considered a master carpenter if he didn't do all those things well. But with martial arts, people argue for convenience. So let's put it back into context.

As a martial artist, our trade is, in fact, fighting. And since fighting happens in all ranges, you cannot be considered a master of it unless you're competent in all ranges, right? And if fighting also happens in the dark, on uneven ground, with multiple assailants and weapons, then you'd need to address all that as well, wouldn't you?

In my experience (and that is certainly not comprehensive, but it's great enough to speak with some intelligence), the arguments from the Original JKD crowd have more to do with identifying with Bruce Lee than with any kind of fighting effectiveness. Likewise, the arguments from the Concepts JKD people often have more to do with defending Dan Inosanto's curriculum than fighting effectiveness. The truth is somewhere in the gray between. Fact is, there are tons of "Concepts" people out there who just memorize what Dan Inosanto throws out there. If he says Silat is great, you'll find them fighting with skirts and wearing funny hats. If he likes Capoeria, they'll be working on their jenga (or however the hell you spell it). Those folks will never be recognized as "greats," but there are enough of them out there to give creedence to Happy Cat's arguments. Likewise, there is an abundance of Original JKD people who point and mock things like kali et al as unnecessary additions or as Guro Dan's way of getting around Bruce Lee's wishes. These people generally feel some need to connect with Bruce Lee's original legitimacy, even at the expense of being as functional as they could be. In my opinion, it's the worst kind of hero worship, and it's exactly how good martial arts become flaccid business models instead of fighting methods. There are those who can fight like wildcats using Original JKD, but as with the concepts guys, there are enough of the loons to give creedence to every vile thing said.

When you cut through the crap, Linkin Park said it best:

In the end, it doesn't even matter.

mr brewer,

that is exactly my oppinion, you just but it more eliquently.
i did'nt mean to dabble in other arts, but to understand their structure, put it in the lab and use what works best for you.

well put

[Happy Cat]

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the history. And from your response it does not sound like you were unaware of it.

This whole discussion reminds me of the 40 year war back in Germany. Good meaning Protestants and Catholics back then tried to meet to work things out, but it always ended rather badly for one side or the other. As much as you and I might try to have a decent conversation, there is always a view that the other side is just plane wrong.

Now If I did karate, we would not have a problem with each other. It is the name JKD that is the source of our dispute. Frankly Bruce predicted all of this. He said “do not make a fuss over it.”. And yet here we are decades later.

And yes, all those MMA schools will keep saying JKD, JKD, because it is great for marketing. Maybe the OJKD guys should just give up the field and call our stuff “Not JKD.” Or maybe “les conceptual JKD.” After all, the “Concepts” people outnumber us, so why should they change the name. Again, it is only a name. Don’t get too excited.

[eXcessiveForce]

I'd just as soon not use the term JKD, but if I don't people will either accuse me of taking credit for something that isn't mine, or they won't have a clue what I'm talking about.

I've never been a big bruce fan, mostly because I didn't have the chance to meet him and so he has little relevance for me. I have found some of his material and notes useful. Although really most of the concepts weren't new to me, I had come to many of the same conclusions.

It just turned out that there was already an application of the concepts that was superior to what I already had put together on my own so I adopted it.

In the end if the person you are conversing with can school you with what they know, they are better than you and you can learn something.

[Happy Cat]

I agree. My Sifu does not use the words JKD. he has been around long efuff to see the problems those words can bring.

The other problem with the words JKd is that it brings up all kinds of "Bruce" issues.

[Jujujason]

I don't know if this post is even necessary since the two Mike's have done and always do a fine job of laying out the 'concepts' arguments, but my biggest concerns are twofold. First, it never ceases to amaze me how the 'orginal' camp always presumes that sijo Bruce would have remained as he was during the 60's. I challenge any 'orginal' student to name one human being during his/her lifetime that didn't continue to learn and evolve with new experiences. Just one human being in the history of all human beings to include sijo Bruce is all I ask.

Additionally, it irks me to no end how people insinuate that guro Dan promotes kali (or muay thai, silat, savate, shoot, bjj, basket-weaving, etc.) as anything (to include jkd) other than what they are. Guro holds all of his martial arts teacher (not just sijo Bruce) in very high regard. To label muay Thai or Lacoste kali as 'jkd' is disrespectful to ajarn Sirisute or guro John Lacoste. Sifu Dan just doesn't conduct himself in this manner.

The fact is that guro has and will continue to study different arts. He feels (rightfully so) that he has a responsibility to his students to expose them to different arts, either for practical or artistic (yes, I said artistic) purposes so we can become well-rounded martial artists and individuals. Finally, the O's can try to engage in revisionist history all they want, but the simple fact of the matter is that guro Dan (NOT ANYONE ELSE) is sijo Bruce's highest ranking student in jkd and was the guy that sijo Bruce personally put in charge of the Chinatown school. The O's especially should be the most fervent defenders of guro's leadership since you absolutely will not question or second-guess any other decision that was made by sijo Bruce during his lifetime. Why should that one decision be any different?

[Happy Cat]

well, I am sure your Sifu did what he thought was right. How can I question his path. Nor have I ever heard anyone question his ability.

Bruce would have evolved. he did every day.

[Happy Cat]

By "Bruce" issues I mean the kind of religious hero worship that Mike Brewer reserd to, and which jujujason apears to thin I suffer from.

Ther is also the issue of peolpe who feel intimidated by the name JKD, and who feel a need to deride Bruce.

So when I am with non JKD people I try not to sue those words

[Michael Wright]

JKD, in whatever form you choose to name it, is an art and philosophy enjoyed the world over by hundreds of thousands of people. There is no problem with JKD, except those created in the minds and opinions I have read on this thread.

Draw a line under Mike Brewer and Jujujason’s posts, which I would love to have written if only I was that articulate and patient.

[g-bells]

[quote=Mike Brewer;283258]No need for all of us to be articulate, Michael. The world needs stuttering, knuckle-dragging badasses as well.

mr brewer,

you talking about me again

[Happy Cat]

Mike Brewer, you make several good points. My "issue" is simply that in order for words to have any meaning there must be some type of consensus about that meaning. As I mentioned earlier, My Sifu, who is obviously wiser than me, will not call what we do JKD because of the difficulty in the terminology, and the politicks. Some of his students may be resisting it, but our discussion has helped convinced me that he is right.

I have looked over the posts and I do agree that what Sifu Dan has done is in the sprit of JKD. And perhaps "JKD Concepts" is as good a name as any for it. Already however there is such diversity between what people are doing under that name that even "concepts" will hold no recognized meaning in a few years.

"Original JKD" on the other hand is not a good a name for what I do, because it has and does evolve and adapt. I can not vouch for what is being taught by the Nucleolus. I am afraid the discussion is a lot like that between 17th century Protestants and Catholics. And both sides are in the process of further fragmentation.

I have recently, when asked, told people that what I am a student of is just some Kung Fu that a couple of guys made up in their garage. And that is true. And no one gives me any flack about it. Of course those two guys, BL and JL were really something special.

And maybe all of this is for the good. If the “pathless path” is a personal journey, perhaps there is no reason to guide students along a particular road. And perhaps that is why Bruce closed the schools in LA and Seattle (although I think that personal reasons were a factor there as well).

Over and Out.

[fenwick99]

When it gets right down to it, there is nothing special about boxing out of a right lead and mixing in some rudimentary wing chun.

"There is nothing special in this art. Take things as they are.
Punch when you have to punch, kick when you have to kick."

However, even if this is all jkd is, it was a great innovation. Why?
1. Many boxers are spooked by southpaws, and some will lose to a southpaw of inferior ability.
2. Many right-handed people are more coordinated in throwing the left thai kick out of a rigth lead stance.
3. Grapplers who get into MMA often shoot off of the strong side.
4. The right step jab has knockout power, which is more critical for the street than the ring.
5. The right lead is better for defense, and not getting hit at all is more important for the street than the ring.
6. Some footwork patterns are much easier to do strong-side lead.
7. Many great boxers, including Oscar de la Hoya, have used strong side forward.

In my view, Bruce was a genius, but , as has been said, more like a great sculptor than a painter. Instead of creating a wondrous new world, Bruce hacked away the inessentials so that the true essence of combat could be revealed.

If you were his direct student, of course you picked up little things and nuances that can't be duplicated, but anyone can work with his ideas and create an individual path.

[Michael Wright]

If I may fenwick, from a technical point of view that’s a pretty awful analysis of what JKD is. The notion of right lead boxing and some rudimentary Wing Chun is a very narrow summary of early Jun Fan, probably early Oakland period. It evolved on a daily basis throughout Mr Lee’s lifetime way beyond that, and over the last 35 years has evolved beyond measure into the multifaceted martial arts matrix we see today.

However I do fully agree with you sir that anyone can adopt Mr Lee’s ideas and philosophies and develop their own individual path in the arts – that is what I see around me, that is exactly what JKD is.