wing chun and jeet kune do

[fenwick99]

Opinions seemed to vary about the role of wing chun in Bruce's development.
Many think that although Bruce abandoned wing chun, he needed wing chun to get as good as he was. Others seem to view jun fan gung fu, tao of chinese gung fu, non-classical gung fu, and jeet kune do to be "lateral" developments of wing chun. Still others see jkd as superceding wing chun.
Some believe that Bruce would have become the best even w/o wing chun, that his fast-twitch muscle fibers and raw determination would have made him the best. I read once that Sijo DeMile was asked why, if the Seattle material was so wonderful, did Bruce change his art after the Wong Jak Man fight? His answer: Bruce's Seattle approach had nothing to do with Wong's ability to run backwards as fast or faster than Bruce could run forwards. My own take on this is that Bruce's four arts were lateral developments of both wing chun and each other, just as Leung Ting wing tsun, Moy Yat ving tsun, ling wood chuan, Holder wing chun,
and many other systems took off from the original Yip wing chun and other variations as well. Nothing is intrinsically "better" than anything else, just as you have yang, wu, sun, chang, and other tai chi styles. It is up to the individual to maximize his own potential, with Lee's original techniques or with other techniques. If you could become the world's best fighter using Tae Kwon Do, Bruce would encourage you in your training!

[Thai Bri]

And?.................

[Troll Virus]

Opinions seemed to vary about the role of wing chun in Bruce's development.
Many think that although Bruce abandoned wing chun, he needed wing chun to get as good as he was. Others seem to view jun fan gung fu, tao of chinese gung fu, non-classical gung fu, and jeet kune do to be "lateral" developments of wing chun. Still others see jkd as superceding wing chun.
Some believe that Bruce would have become the best even w/o wing chun, that his fast-twitch muscle fibers and raw determination would have made him the best. I read once that Sijo DeMile was asked why, if the Seattle material was so wonderful, did Bruce change his art after the Wong Jak Man fight? His answer: Bruce's Seattle approach had nothing to do with Wong's ability to run backwards as fast or faster than Bruce could run forwards. My own take on this is that Bruce's four arts were lateral developments of both wing chun and each other, just as Leung Ting wing tsun, Moy Yat ving tsun, ling wood chuan, Holder wing chun,
and many other systems took off from the original Yip wing chun and other variations as well. Nothing is intrinsically "better" than anything else, just as you have yang, wu, sun, chang, and other tai chi styles. It is up to the individual to maximize his own potential, with Lee's original techniques or with other techniques. If you could become the world's best fighter using Tae Kwon Do, Bruce would encourage you in your training!

To be honest, you can't really start a discussion on this based on stuff that you've read in books.
A lot of other people have read those same books, and maybe have acquaintance to fact beyond those.

If BL were on here, he'd be most likely saying forget me, sort yourself out ( get your lard-ass off the computer and go DO!).
[BL-Cliche]It is like a finger, pointing at the moon. [/BL-Cliche]

[peppi]

Wing Chun is a system, JKD is a concept

[Tant01]

No two are the same (exactly)

Wing Chun is a system, JKD is a concept

I prefer to think of JKD as one man's EXPRESSION of his own concepts. Subtle difference, I know...

[Durete]

I prefer to think of JKD as one man's EXPRESSION of his own concepts. Subtle difference, I know...

That's what's written in his book at least ^^ Nothing but an expression.
one man's JKD cannot be the same as someone else's.

[ShawnJKD]

...but do they know its different? Are the encouraged to see what they do as different?

That's the difference :-)

[Tant01]

By the time they understand what they're doing, yes - they know that they're doing their own interpretation. Look at any champion in any art, and he/she can describe the stylistic differences between themselves and their competitors. Ask Dan Inosanto what separated his own JKD from Bruce's and he can tell you. So I think the answer is, Absolutely, Yes.

Now, if they're beginners and they don't understand, then it makes no difference anyway. Put them in any art - even one that teaches individuality - and all they're going to do is copy the instructor and seniors until it makes sense.

That's funny Mike... True for most I suppose but ALL I ever wanted was to beat my instructors...

[ShawnJKD]

My memories of my Karate days have a different perspective. We were not being taught to be like the instructor exactly, it was more the idea that there was a perfect form and we were trying to be that perfection - whether it suited our body types or not (my philosophy days are also long ago but I think that was part of Plato's theory). Everything was to be just so. There was no talk of making it your own, you became it (or tried to).

It was only when I got into JKD that I had instructors start to say "don't do it the way I do." Or "I'm not good at this, but I think it will work well for you."

To a lesser extent I got a little of that freedom from my Mantis instructor, and certainly from FMA, but Karate? No, not at the places where I trained.

[fenwick99]

I can chain punch at 13 per sec. and generate 510 psi at five inches distance, is that from training or reading? is that any good?
Reason I ask is that all my Chinese boxing teachers thought that Bruce branched off into western ma's because he had no depth in any real chinese system. A common complaint, actually. Dan Lee, on the other hand, flet that Lee could "be" the yin and the yang in his movements, unlikem any1 else. I thought it was worth pursuing- sorry if others thought not.