Has Dan Inosanto Moved Away From JKD?

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by fire cobra

It doesnt look to me that Guru Dan Inosanto took a technique from here and there then added them together etc,surely Dan learned the arts complete in the majority of cases? he is after all qualified to teach Muay Thai,BJJ,Silat,Various Filipino systems etc etc.

Ive never understood this idea of taking bits and peices from various arts,if you dont put the time in each art then how in heaven can you know what are the good bits? an example is the low kick people "pinch" from muay thai,but in the majority of cases they dont "pinch" the defence(s) and counters,plus in my opinion the low kick to the thigh isnt the most effective technique in that art,it tends to hurt tommorow but not today).

I understand where Liberty is coming from on this and have had similar experiences myself including the "slo mo" effect,wish i could reproduce that at will,then i would be behind some one when they thought i should be in front of them like Mr Lee,would of saved a lot of lumps and bruises

Whats your view on people studying Bruce Lees original JKD?

[Happy Cat]

Liberty says "Again, you might want to reread the Inosanto interview, see what it says, as a whole."

I read it as a "whole." It repeats what he has said and what others in his school (like most here) have said. Jkd is suposedly a reserch method. One guys JKD is suposedly grapaling, another guys JKD is Judo and Karate.

Make a little pasta salad and to each his own.

But JKD did have a specific course of study while Bruce was alive. The real proble here is that JKD as founded by Bruce and James Lee had within it a self controdiction. On the one hand it had a specific methodiology which they taught. But on the other hand Bruce did not believe in set styles and he was revulsed by the fact that he had created a style.

Given this, the split of JKD into two camps was almost inevitable.

I respect people in both camps. But some here think they have transended the origonal coriculum, and that I will not agree with. Nor will I agree that Sifu Dan has transended that coriculum. He is on his own pathless path.

[Michael Wright]

Correct, Bruce Lee's art did have a specific course of study. It morphed on almost a daily basis, which is why peers from different eras can never agree.

You are right, with all of the contradiction and daily progression of Bruce Lee's philosophies, differences of opinion and politics were always inevitable. As they are in every martial art.

In terms of your last point: I keep repeating this over and over again. Guro Inosanto teaches the Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum from 1964 to 1973 - untouched. The fact that he has chosen to study and teach other arts as part of his own path over and above this does not mean for one minute he claims to have transcended that curriculum. You will not find a greater advocate of Bruce Lee, or his martial art, than Mr Dan Inosanto.

[Happy Cat]

I know that Sifu Inosanto has kept the Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum seporate. And I apreceate that. Unfortionatly many if not most schools here in the states have integrated the curriculum. I can not say what is hapening in your country, but I suspect it is the same.

To be fare, I have been working out at an Inosanto certified gym for the past 6 weeks just to get a beter feel for what that integration means (and because I am temporaraly located across the country from my prefered instructor.) At my "new" school the "june Fan" curiculum inclues Kali.

In terms of effectivness, I find the Kali to be prity bad. But that is just me (to be fare again, none of the students there can do the Kali against even half hearted resistance). I recognize that what does not work for me may work for somone else.

[Liberty]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Liberty,
The thing that seems hard for you to grasp here is that it is precicesly the experience of what's new and different that allows us to find what works. Make it fancy and philosophical if you like, but it's not. You can use terms like "transcending technique" if it makes you feel like you're identifying with Bruce Lee, but the simple fact is, all that means is "finding out what works best for you." And here's a newsflash:

What "works for you" will change over time if you're doing it right. If you get settled in and find a great way to throw a straight punch or a side kick, and all of a sudden, the way people fight changes? You're going to fall behind and your art will not work as well as it once did. That's a fact in all walks of life, not just fighting. The wat Dick Fosbury did the high jump was made obsolete when someone invented the Western Roll, even though it worked astonishingly well for Dick Fosbury before that time. The way people shot a basketball before Hank Lusetti started doing something called a "jump shot" was the most effective tool of the day, until Lusetti changed the way the game is played by continuing to grow. The way people trained to run the mile before Roger bannister came along was drastically different from the way they did it after he broke the four minute barrier. If people stuck to "what worked for them" in the face of all those examples of innovation, they'd have vanished into obscurity. Many did exactly that. Others, however, decided that they needed to keep learning. They researched the training of the innovators, and they adopted the things that worked. They "added" training methods and techniques in order to raise their game.

Now if you choose to believe that there is no "addition" of material when comparing an instinctive kick at a mouse and the round kick of a Thai Boxer, then that's up to you. That choice and that belief won't make you right, however. As for "decoding the laws of combat?" That's the simplest thing in the history of mankind. Combat is not a difficult thing to understand. It's perhaps the simplest thing in the human experience to define. The things that make combat effective are not mysteries. The "laws" that govern it are not hidden from view. Combat is simple, it is direct, and it is forever missed by people who have not experienced it. The reason I lose patience with the philosophical rambling is because it smacks of armchair quarterbacking. If you're talking about a fight, here's the simple truth of the matter: Do more than the other man is willing to do, and do it sooner. That's it. That's all. Fighting on any scale can be distilled right down to that one statement. That's why you got nailed in the face while thinking about techniques. it's also why you succeeded the next time. Everything beyond that is shit. Take that as you like.

"Into a soul free from all thoughts and emotion..."

[Liberty]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

Correct, Bruce Lee's art did have a specific course of study. It morphed on almost a daily basis, which is why peers from different eras can never agree.

You are right, with all of the contradiction and daily progression of Bruce Lee's philosophies, differences of opinion and politics were always inevitable. As they are in every martial art.

In terms of your last point: I keep repeating this over and over again. Guro Inosanto teaches the Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum from 1964 to 1973 - untouched. The fact that he has chosen to study and teach other arts as part of his own path over and above this does not mean for one minute he claims to have transcended that curriculum. You will not find a greater advocate of Bruce Lee, or his martial art, than Mr Dan Inosanto.

Here is proof Dan has always been upfont about things. He nad Taky Kimura are just in a class all their own:

“Actually Bruce was not all that positive on Kali as a whole, when I demonstrated both Escrima single and double sticks to him he called it *#!and 'Flashy *#!; when he did not have a very positive view on an art or an individual he could be very direct with his opinions. Later in his movies you can see he did incorporate their use; in both "Enter The Dragon" and "Game of Death." It is a misconception when people have claimed I have said he heavily advocated or practiced Filipino martial arts, he did not and I have never claimed this, but as a Filipino myself I feel that those arts definitely have value and should be practiced” (Dan Inosanto, “Secrets of Kung Fu” magazine, Issue 34, Hong Kong).

Whoops, I quoted again, oh well.."into a soul free from all thoughts..."

[Liberty]

Looking for a book I ran across this - just had to quote it as is, ha, ha, ha!

The Straight Lead: The Core of Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do
Our bookstore specializes in collectible and new science fiction, fantasy, mystery and horror in addition to our general used stock.

[Michael Wright]

Originally Posted by Happy Cat

I know that Sifu Inosanto has kept the Jun Fan Gung Fu curriculum seporate. And I apreceate that. Unfortionatly many if not most schools here in the states have integrated the curriculum. I can not say what is hapening in your country, but I suspect it is the same.

To be fare, I have been working out at an Inosanto certified gym for the past 6 weeks just to get a beter feel for what that integration means (and because I am temporaraly located across the country from my prefered instructor.) At my "new" school the "june Fan" curiculum inclues Kali.

In terms of effectivness, I find the Kali to be prity bad. But that is just me (to be fare again, none of the students there can do the Kali against even half hearted resistance). I recognize that what does not work for me may work for somone else.

Integrating Jun Fan into a blended curriculum of other arts is not wrong, as long as that is explained to the student. Many JKD schools teach what is called a "Phase Class" where they blend arts from various sources together to offer the student a crosstraining experience. What do you think Jun Fan is? Its a blend of 26 composite arts. The integration of arts is one of the cornerstones of what JKD is, just read any of your Bruce Lee material.

I cannot speak for your school, but if they are Inosanto certified they should make the clear distinction between Jun Fan and Kali, my suspicion is that they are saying Kali is part of JKD Concepts, not Jun Fan. But you are going there and I'm not, so fair enough. This all comes back to the original post I made on this thread - names names names....who cares.

I think you have answered your own question on the Kali. If I listened to you play the guitar after six weeks, I'm sure that would sound pretty bad too.

[Michael Wright]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Combat is simple, it is direct, and it is forever missed by people who have not experienced it. The reason I lose patience with the philosophical rambling is because it smacks of armchair quarterbacking. If you're talking about a fight, here's the simple truth of the matter: Do more than the other man is willing to do, and do it sooner. That's it. That's all. Fighting on any scale can be distilled right down to that one statement. That's why you got nailed in the face while thinking about techniques. it's also why you succeeded the next time. Everything beyond that is shit. Take that as you like.

....job done.

[Liberty]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

The ancient Chinese zen master's way of saying "I'm rubber and you're glue."

I'm not upset with you, Lib. I've already learned the lesson. Whether or not you choose to doesn't really affect me. Keep searching, keep borrowing, and keep identifying with whatever toots your horn. Eventually, you'll either convince yourself that philosophy is enough to understand combat, or you'll discover that I'm 100% right on this one.

Yeah, but I won't be able to quote you on it... I know what - when I've all grown up and am "able to snatch the pebble from your hand," you know, then I "will have learned," I'lll change my handle to Ad-Lib and quote you under that. That way, you won't know it's me, and heck, I probably won't know either. After all, I "will have learned," right?

Much luv, Michael... whoops, someone's already said that - darn it! Oh,man, someone's said that too.... I know what - it's not orginal, but it is hearfelt -here it is, "thank you."

[Ghost]

Too much reading on the internet and not enough experience as of yet.
More articulate than the average 17 year old though i think. Over analyzing. Martial arts just arent that complicated and generally nor are people.

[Liberty]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Boy you get worked up over little stuff for someone who's striving not to allow the tiger's claws to take root. Take a breath, Libby.

I didn't say "never quote." Never said it. I didn't even say "never borrow." What I said was, often, when you borrow wisdom from others without having lived the experiences, it comes off as phony. And it does. There are times when you have quoted others and borrowed wisdom, and it's fairly clear to all reading that it's all you're doing - quoting and borrowing. In these instances, it's also clear to most that you might be better served looking for advice, seeking information, and gaining experience rather than professing to know things you don't know by using the words of others who did.

With that said, there are times you've come across as a very genuine, good guy. I would not have written to you the way I have if that were not true. I think you really do have a lot of potential, and I am impressed by your dedication to your study. I wasn't trying to bash you or humiliate you or anything when I pointed out that it sounded less than genuine when you quote or steal ideas from others without having lived the lessons yourself (and that's the important part - the living of the lessons - so when you get all bent out of shape over this, be sure to include that last part in your misquotes), it was to answer a question. You wondered before why it was that so many people were dismissing you as a kid, or why they wrote you off as someone who didn't have the background to be telling them the ways of the world. I explained why. Respectfully, I thought.

Now you're all wrapped around the axle, ignoring your own favorite tag line about souls without thoughts and emotions, getting peeved because I pointed out that you tend to rely on the wisdom of others more than your own? Why do you suppose that is, grasshopper? Why do you suppose we can have a discussion on something as generally controversial as the meaning of JKD and you don't get upset, but the minute I point out that you are quoting people without having lived the lessons they spoke about, you get defensive and pissy? Could it be because maybe something rang true? Could it be that I hit a nerve in there somewhere, and you didn't have a better way to respond than to go all passive-aggressive? Personally, I think it shows how far you have to go. If a comment like that can make you abandon the nugget of wisdom you aspire to (soul without thought and emotion...tiger's claws...yada yada yada), then what happens when you take an unplanned punch in the nose? Damn, brother! If words affect you that strongly, what do you suppose contact will do?

Again, though. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. I've been there and walked the miles, and I realize how far I truly have to go. You learning or not learning really doesn't affect me all that much. Oh, and you're welcome, by the way, for saving you decades of distilling and transcending. You may feel free to quote me on the meaning of combat - whether you understand it or not.

Michael, Michael, Michael... what am I ever going to do with you? That last post of mine was a joke, levity. Things appeared to be getting a little too serious, so I thought to joke on both of us. Relax, enjoy the weekend...

[Ghost]

lol hes quite cheeky as well mike.^^

[Happy Cat]

Liberty found this quote from Inosanto: "It is a misconception when people have claimed I have said he (Bruce) heavily advocated or practiced Filipino martial arts, he did not and I have never claimed this, but as a Filipino myself I feel that those arts definitely have value and should be practiced” (Dan Inosanto, “Secrets of Kung Fu” magazine, Issue 34, Hong Kong).

Again, good reserch Liberty.

Kali apears to be a part of Sifu's personal quest and is tied to his ethnic roots. Good for him. But for all of those who think they have incorporated Kali into the coriculum because "it flows so well with JKD" as some have said here, are off target. You are on that road becuse Sifu is on that road. You follow because he leads. You are not on your own jurney, you are on Sifu's jurrney. He is greater than you, and always will be while he folows his own path and you do not.

I am not disrespecting Kali, or your Sifu. I am sure that some here can be very effective with those methods. But it seams to me that if you define JKD as a reserch method, then most of your grand mothers were JKD practishioners. Hit with a rooling pin: thats JKD. But it is'nt is it?

[Ghost]

you shouldnt assume all of us that have studied JKD have learnt escrima primarily from Dan.
Also, you shouldnt assume you cant surpass your trainer.
A good trainer can teach you to be better than them
If the right person came along, Dan would be able to teach that person to be better than himself. All good instructors can do this.

IF it were the case that no one could be better than their instructor then every successive generation of martial artists would be worse than the last leaving us with a complete pile of crap in a few decades.