Bruce Lee and Grappling

[Liberty]

OK, so therefore I don't understand your question..

Perhaps I did not understand the guy's statement to begin with. I took it to mean that perhaps some of Lee's techniques were outdated. And given what he was able to do with them through training - not because he was Bruce Lee (Bruce Lee was a skinny kid who transformed himself into the poewrhouse he's known as) - how could they be outdated if what they need in order to be effective today is not some modern counterpart but the sort of training Lee engaged in? Was the poster talking about some other JKD techniques that are now outdated? I mean, do you )or anyone else on here)doubt that if you were to, train your Straight Lead, for example, as diligently and as scientifically as Lee did his, that you'd not have a devastating technique, as well?

[Guest]

Bruce Lee, and the techniques from the arts that formed Jun Fan and JKD, were a phenomenan 40 years ago. Like any other athletic endeavour, some things he did have been surpassed by modern methods and superior athletes. However some things he did remain very valid to this day, and he is still an example to anyone who claims to be a dilligent student or a progressive instructor.

[Wolfeye589]

Perhaps I did not understand the guy's statement to begin with. I took it to mean that perhaps some of Lee's techniques were outdated. And given what he was able to do with them through training - not because he was Bruce Lee (Bruce Lee was a skinny kid who transformed himself into the poewrhouse he's known as) - how could they be outdated if what they need in order to be effective today is not some modern counterpart but the sort of training Lee engaged in? Was the poster talking about some other JKD techniques that are now outdated? I mean, do you )or anyone else on here)doubt that if you were to, train your Straight Lead, for example, as diligently and as scientifically as Lee did his, that you'd not have a devastating technique, as well?

As far as training goes, a technique is only as good as the person executing it. Bruce stressed that ANYONE doing ANY martial art should be fighting fit.

As you probably know, Lee borrowed most of his techniques from other combat arts and the rest were tweaked to fit in with what he needed (for instance the "on guard" stance, with the strong hand forward, was borrowed from the fencing stance "en guarde"). I don't think any of Bruce's techniques, themselves, were amazing, certainly most of what Bruce did was known to someone somewhere, but the results of such attack were incredible. Why? because he had developed his body, timing, etc to an amazing level. If someone applied themselves to that extent today, learning what styles are in use today and training to the best of their ability. I have no doubt that person could be just as effective as Bruce.

I'm not saying any of his techniques are "outdated", but new styles have been developed since that need to be learned, and proper measures should be discovered to counteract them. Anyone who refuses to adapt to his opposition, no matter how effective of techniques you have, you'll get beat eventually. Know thy enemy, I say.

[Liberty]

Bruce Lee, and the techniques from the arts that formed Jun Fan and JKD, were a phenomenan 40 years ago. Like any other athletic endeavour, some things he did have been surpassed by modern methods and superior athletes. However some things he did remain very valid to this day, and he is still an example to anyone who claims to be a dilligent student or a progressive instructor.

At the risk of appearing to be "baiting" you (Brewer's notion), what in your opinion, Michael would be several examples of each (surpassed/valid today). Any hope of exploring that, even debating it if we disagree. For example, some have said his practice of isometrics is outdated today. Yet, given the phenomenal degree to which he took it, and it's result, he'd be a tough individual to grapple. His muscles and tendons being as tough as they reportedly were from isometrics, it would perhaps not be so easy to cause someone like that to give in to an armlock, etc. I may be off on this, but I'm open to exploring it. Notice I didn't go there on "the arts that formed Jun Fan" thing. From time on this forum, I know we'd disagree, no point in dragging that one out with each other (No, I'm not dodging it, I'm open to exploring that if you are. If not, that's cool as well).

Geez, upon rereading that I have to ask why I have to qualify everything with you and Mike, to avoid your misinterpretations, and hurt feelings, when you guys just say what's on your mind, appearing to worry about misinterpretations other's hurt feelings later. That to me smacks of a double-standard I'd prefer we could move beyond.


Brewer: "That's because unlike you, we..."

[Liberty]

As far as training goes, a technique is only as good as the person executing it. Bruce stressed that ANYONE doing ANY martial art should be fighting fit.

As you probably know, Lee borrowed most of his techniques from other combat arts and the rest were tweaked to fit in with what he needed (for instance the "on guard" stance, with the strong hand forward, was borrowed from the fencing stance "en guarde"). I don't think any of Bruce's techniques, themselves, were amazing, certainly most of what Bruce did was known to someone somewhere, but the results of such attack were incredible. Why? because he had developed his body, timing, etc to an amazing level. If someone applied themselves to that extent today, learning what styles are in use today and training to the best of their ability. I have no doubt that person could be just as effective as Bruce.

I'm not saying any of his techniques are "outdated", but new styles have been developed since that need to be learned, and proper measures should be discovered to counteract them. Anyone who refuses to adapt to his opposition, no matter how effective of techniques you have, you'll get beat eventually. Know thy enemy, I say.

Have to disagree, his last years, he emphasized and practiced stripping oneself down to a few basic techniques in accordance with the various ranges, honed to deadly accuracy, speed, power, timing, etc. And his last writings, interviews, and the few who spent anytime with him near the end all have said as much, as well. Near the end, it was for him a journey of looking within, rather than without. It's ironic. All in martial history who have reached that have said as much and yet everyone continues to just disregard it. I mean no disrespect towards you in any of this, but you might want to find out what he said when, what he kept, what he refined, and what he discarded not only regarding his technque but with respect to his writinbgs as well.

[Wolfeye589]

Have to disagree, his last years, he emphasized and practiced stripping oneself down to a few basic techniques in accordance with the various ranges, honed to deadly accuracy, speed, power, timing, etc. And his last writings, interviews, and the few who spent anytime with him near the end all have said as much, as well. Near the end, it was for him a journey of looking within, rather than without. It's ironic. All in martial history who have reached that have said as much and yet everyone continues to just disregard it. I mean no disrespect towards you in any of this, but you might want to find out what he said when, what he kept, what he refined, and what he discarded not only regarding his technque but with respect to his writinbgs as well.

No offense taken, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I said. Perhaps I didn't understand the initial question. I'm saying that while Bruce's techniques were great in their day (and probably still are now), People should adopt their own "style" (for lack of a better term) of JKD. Folks shouldn't emulate Bruce Lee, they should go out and see what works. Explore different fighting styles and take only what's effective. That's what Bruce did and I think that exploring of everything possible is part of what made Mr. Lee such a powerful fighter and an intelligent man. With all due respect, I think you spend too much time on worrying about Bruce's techniques and not enough time on the philosophy behind JKD. That's just my 2 cents.

Frankly, I never spent a lot of time on what HE did. I study JKD and see how it can affect me. Theres no doubt in my mind we can learn some things from Bruce's life, but I'm not Bruce, and as such not all the things he did will work for me.

"Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves"..."

[Guest]

Wolfeye, thats one of the best posts I have seen on the JKD forum. Pos Rep.

[Wolfeye589]

Aww, shucks! Thanks guys.

I guess it's the reason why I don't understand the point of JKD schools.

[Wolfeye589]

I look at JKD schools the same way I look at the original Academies of ancient Greece. They were places that didn't profess to have the answers. They were institutions that would educate people in nothing more than the tools of exploration. They gave you the charts, the compass, the sextant and taught you how to use them to find your way, and then they encouraged you to do so. The original Academy was not a place of instruction, but of exploration. The answers were as unknown to the teachers in many cases as they were to the students, and they ended up using a common methodology to explore and find answers.

A good JKD school is a place where the instructor outfits explorers. He doesn't point them down a path, per se, but he gives them the tools they need for whatever journey they want to undertake. When I was actively studying at the Inosanto Academy, my focus was different from a lot of people's. I tended to lean very heavily toward non-ring, street oriented training. As a result, I would often skip some of the classes that other people really liked. I also didn't do well learning forms, and that didn't bother me even a little bit. I don't think it bothered Guro Dan either, to be honest. He knew why I was training, and he didn't bother loading me down with a bunch of tools that weren't designed to take me there.

To beat the analogy into the ground, consider the notion that a JKD instructor is like the Medicis. One explorer comes to them and says, "I want ot explore a Western route to the East Indies." They outfit that explorer with boats, charts, supplies, etc. that are suitable for such a voyage and they send them on their merry way. Another explorer comes up and says, "I want to find a new overland route through Asia to reach the Indies." Well, needless to say, that guy doesn't get boats. He gets supplies and equipment designed for the task at hand. When I teach what I consider to be JKD, it entirely depends on the audience what tools and methods I use. Also critical to understand is that I almost never approach teaching the art with the idea that I already know the answers. Fact is, I may know the answer for me, but each student is going to have a slightly different answer for themselves, so my job becomes equipping them well and then going along for the ride until we both discover what's out there.

If a school or instructor can manage to conduct business that way, JKD schools make a great deal of sense.

Ah, I see. I had expected JKD schools to be someplace where people go to "be like bruce" and that's what they taught. Thanks for clearing it up for me. If that's the case, then I had it all wrong.

[Liberty]

Wolfeye, my use of the word “emphasized” spoke of a philosophy. While my use of “in accordance with the various ranges, honed to deadly accuracy, speed, power, timing, etc,” spoke not only to a philosophy, but to certain principles, as well. In my use of the phrase “his writings” this is also evident. Surely I was not referring to his penmanship (technique), for example. And what is “it was for him a journey of looking within, rather than without,” if not a philosophy? What about my “what he said, when”?

The question and the point of my post, has not been so much Bruce Lee’s technique but rather his philosophy’s effect on it. That his philosophy was, for him a continuous, wondrous journey of looking within, to, as he’d found therein, “the cause of his own ignorance,” and of continuously honing what was revealed by that process to an ever greater degree of combat efficiency. As such, his technique could never be outdated, for it was ever evolving, ever alive, not static.

My question regarding “which of his techniques might be outdated” had hoped to open that discussion, to explore that, to point to that.

I’m reminded of a failing of his own which Inosanto once described. That every so often, while attempting to lead students to experiencing one principle in particular which he’d had in mind, while attmepting to do so through various techniques that he’d have them execute, some, unable to grasp that principle, would instead get caught up in the techniques and complain he was teaching them too many (techniques) at once.

I've also obviously failed to get my point accross. And for that, all I can hope to do is to go back to the drawing board; my own soul, search out the cause of my own ignorance, and hopefully do a better job of communicating a point the next time around. Wolfeye. thanks for your time, by the way.

[Wolfeye589]

Wolfeye, my use of the word “emphasized” spoke of a philosophy. While my use of “in accordance with the various ranges, honed to deadly accuracy, speed, power, timing, etc,” spoke not only to a philosophy, but to certain principles, as well. In my use of the phrase “his writings” this is also evident. Surely I was not referring to his penmanship (technique), for example. And what is “it was for him a journey of looking within, rather than without,” if not a philosophy? What about my “what he said, when”?

The question and the point of my post, has not been so much Bruce Lee’s technique but rather his philosophy’s effect on it. That his philosophy was, for him a continuous, wondrous journey of looking within, to, as he’d found therein, “the cause of his own ignorance,” and of continuously honing what was revealed by that process to an ever greater degree of combat efficiency. As such, his technique could never be outdated, for it was ever evolving, ever alive, not static.

My question regarding “which of his techniques might be outdated” had hoped to open that discussion, to explore that, to point to that.

I’m reminded of a failing of his own which Inosanto once described. That every so often, while attempting to lead students to experiencing one principle in particular which he’d had in mind, while attmepting to do so through various techniques that he’d have them execute, some, unable to grasp that principle, would instead get caught up in the techniques and complain he was teaching them too many (techniques) at once.

I've also obviously failed to get my point accross. And for that, all I can hope to do is to go back to the drawing board; my own soul, search out the cause of my own ignorance, and hopefully do a better job of communicating a point the next time around. Wolfeye. thanks for your time, by the way.

No, it is I who apologise for not understanding what you meant. I hope my posts haven't bore any ill will toward you, I was simple trying to answer a question I didn't fully understand.

I think , though, that part of that "aliveness", that "non-staticness" has to do with changing the way you must approach something. In which cases, dropping the things you may know and learning new things in order to counteract the obstacles presented to you. I believe, in essence, that is what makes the JKD philosophy such an amazing and formidable idea.

When someone says "technique" I generally assume some sort of an attack (straight blast, kicks, punches, etc.). I didn't know you we're speaking of his "style" in general, in which case, yes it couldn't outdate since it was always changing and adapting to what is was presented with. I think we were pretty much saying the same thing, I was just a little confused. My apologies.

[Wolfeye589]

I'm not saying you've got it wrong! The sad fact is, many if not most are exactly what you thought. Times change, and these days I'm discovering that fewer and fewer people know even who Bruce Lee is. They all want to be like Anderson Silva or Chuck Liddell, not Bruce Lee.

Not that it makes any difference - trying to be like anybody except yourself is a futile effort. Like my Dad used to tell me, "There's no one in the world better qualified to be you than you. There's also no sense in trying to be anybody else, because all those jobs are filled." Many schools do indeed try to promote themselves as a path to becoming like those idols we all look up to. But in that sense, it's a fraud. And in that sense, you're spot on.

The way I see it, if a JKD school tries to teach people how to be like someone else, then it's not technically JKD.

Also a very good quote, your dad sounds like a smart guy. I might jack it and use it sometime.

[Liberty]

No, it is I who apologise for not understanding what you meant. I hope my posts haven't bore any ill will toward you, I was simple trying to answer a question I didn't fully understand.

I think , though, that part of that "aliveness", that "non-staticness" has to do with changing the way you must approach something. In which cases, dropping the things you may know and learning new things in order to counteract the obstacles presented to you. I believe, in essence, that is what makes the JKD philosophy such an amazing and formidable idea.

When someone says "technique" I generally assume some sort of an attack (straight blast, kicks, punches, etc.). I didn't know you we're speaking of his "style" in general, in which case, yes it couldn't outdate since it was always changing and adapting to what is was presented with. I think we were pretty much saying the same thing, I was just a little confused. My apologies.

No, it is I who apologize - just kidding - LOL! But really, it's refreshing to discuss, debate, explore these things without the "petty technique" (sic) even I have far too often allowed myself to have stooped to. Really, no offense taken.

JKD is actually what inspierd my call name, "Liberty."

You know, at first, it was rough going around here. Being immediately perceived, and dismissed as just another, Bruce Lee quoting, nut hugger. But I hung in there, thanks, by the way, to a Bruce Lee "quote" I took a good pounding for, but I took and gave some shots, gave em hell back, and eventually won at least some of my senior's respect on here. And though at present I may be on the bad side of one of em. I know the guy is nevertheless as lovable as a nice, rough, full of splinters baseball bat in a streetfight - just what the doctor ordered. Can't put a price on that.

Anyway, Wolfeye589, (love that name), welcome aboard. Look forward to our skirmishes.

[Liberty]

Well in case it's my bad side to which you were referring - I told you, you're never on my bad side. Straight talk from me is a sign of respect, and an indicator that I give you enough credit to handle and be responsible for your own emotions. Please take it as such.

People who are on my bad side just get banned. The give and take discussion and debate is just part of why I visit, and I really don't take any of that stuff personally.

Leave it to you to read into things and come up with you - man, what an ego - LOL!

Let's just say that, had I wanted to say who it was, I would have said so.

[Liberty]

I look at JKD schools the same way I look at the original Academies of ancient Greece. They were places that didn't profess to have the answers. They were institutions that would educate people in nothing more than the tools of exploration. They gave you the charts, the compass, the sextant and taught you how to use them to find your way, and then they encouraged you to do so. The original Academy was not a place of instruction, but of exploration. The answers were as unknown to the teachers in many cases as they were to the students, and they ended up using a common methodology to explore and find answers.

A good JKD school is a place where the instructor outfits explorers. He doesn't point them down a path, per se, but he gives them the tools they need for whatever journey they want to undertake. When I was actively studying at the Inosanto Academy, my focus was different from a lot of people's. I tended to lean very heavily toward non-ring, street oriented training. As a result, I would often skip some of the classes that other people really liked. I also didn't do well learning forms, and that didn't bother me even a little bit. I don't think it bothered Guro Dan either, to be honest. He knew why I was training, and he didn't bother loading me down with a bunch of tools that weren't designed to take me there.

To beat the analogy into the ground, consider the notion that a JKD instructor is like the Medicis. One explorer comes to them and says, "I want ot explore a Western route to the East Indies." They outfit that explorer with boats, charts, supplies, etc. that are suitable for such a voyage and they send them on their merry way. Another explorer comes up and says, "I want to find a new overland route through Asia to reach the Indies." Well, needless to say, that guy doesn't get boats. He gets supplies and equipment designed for the task at hand. When I teach what I consider to be JKD, it entirely depends on the audience what tools and methods I use. Also critical to understand is that I almost never approach teaching the art with the idea that I already know the answers. Fact is, I may know the answer for me, but each student is going to have a slightly different answer for themselves, so my job becomes equipping them well and then going along for the ride until we both discover what's out there.

If a school or instructor can manage to conduct business that way, JKD schools make a great deal of sense.

Very Nice!

Actually, I just wanted to write "nice" but this darned thing, being tied to your ego as it is wanted one more word - LOL!