which is better jkd conepts or the original

[Happy Cat]

You are confusing the meaning of the words. Original does not mean unadaptable. JKD was always adaptable If some of the old students are trying to copy Bruce, then more power to them. But that is not what JKD is about. It is about adaptability and individuality.

It is interesting that all the "Concepts" individuals just happen to be on the same road to kali, yet they lecture about individuality.

But you really lose me when you say you are moving beyond Bruce. Maybe you are a martial arts genius, but I am tired of every joker telling me that they have gone beyond Lee.

Last week a Wing Chung guy told me that Bruce would have been good if only he had studied more wing chug. But perhaps that is human nature.

To paraphrase Bruce, unless you have three legs and three hands, the methods of defeating you are not going to change much. If you think Bruce did not know about ju jitsu and Indonesia you are kidding yourself.

So I will stick with the ba jong. The origonal thread heare was which is beter "O" or "C." Of course I like "O", but I will not say it is better. A lot depeds on the person and the aplication. But Bruce was right, it is the name that is causing the fuss. What is JKD to you is not JKD to me and what is JKD to me is not optimal for you.

Try this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srvKE_Y0bUQ

[Happy Cat]

You guys know the history. Bruce told Dan to stop teaching JKD, except to a small group of students. So Dan taught Kali. Add a few decades and everyone is doing kali. They think it is because they have "progressed." But it was Dan's decisishion. If Dan had chosen Akido, guess what all the "Consepts" people would have "progressed" to.

And saying my side kick is from 1964 will not make it any less effective. And yes, we train against Ju Jitsu, and evertything else that we can get our hands on.

Having said all of that, I do respect that "consepts" is to be taken seriously. You guys, as a group, are not a joke. But don't tell me how you have moved beyond the beyond.

[Guest]

Happy Cat,

First a small word of advice. You might want to listen to Mr Brewer, and don’t feel the need to tell him what JKD is and isn’t. The man has been there for decades and trained with the very best in JKD, including the people you choose to quote at him in your posts.

I trained in what you call OJKD for years, I was a member of the Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do Nucleus. I loved the training, I love the original Jun Fan arts, and I respect all of the 1st Generation students I studied under. Due to a move in location I found what you refer to as a JKD Concepts school, and from that point forward I have trained in this system under Guro Inosanto. So I have experienced both sides from the direct source, and therefore feel I can offer a balanced view to some of your points.

Individuality is absolutely prevalent in JKD Concepts, all of my teachers are different, all of them have their own way of doing things, and they have always encouraged me to do so also. Go train with Rick Faye, then go to Erik Paulson, then try Paul Vunak and tell me you don’t see the individuality. Also tell me that these people don’t teach excellent Jun Fan, just because you develop beyond one art does not mean that you lose proficiency in that art. But either way do me a favour, do the training with these people first – then share your views and maybe I’ll be interested.

I have never, ever met a teacher in Concepts that has ever expressed the opinion that they have “moved beyond Bruce Lee”. Its like Mr Brewer said, they are exploring beyond his material – not the man. Guro Inosanto reveres Mr Lee to the highest level to this day, as do all of his students I have ever met.

In the JKD Concepts family under Guro Inosanto you will be hard pushed to find a more adamant supporter of the original Jun Fan arts than me, they are the non-negotiable foundation for all of my students wanting to understand JKD. If I felt you had come on here to push the positive aspects of Jun Fan (or OJKD, call it what you will) then I would be right behind you. But like so many people I met in the OJKD days you base all of your statements on negative references to Concepts and Mr Inosanto, statements based on complete and total ignorance of our actual training methods. So you stick to your Bai Jong sir and good for you, but don’t type a load of garbage about what Guro Inosanto has and hasn’t done to JKD - because you weren’t there, you aren’t there now, and you don’t know.

[Happy Cat]

Look, I made all of my coments with respect. But when I get a reply like that from Michal Wright, I must think that my simple coment hit a nerve. Can't take the heat Michal? Why is it that the "O" and "C" guys get so caught up in the mine is biger than yours game.

As for Brewer, you make some good points, and out of resect I am trying not to push it. But if you keep telling me how out of date "O" is I will respond. Yes my side kick is from 1964 Lee invented it then. Your Kali is from 1864. So who is out of date?

[g-bells]

My question is this, if you have the "base" of JDK and then you add what "you" feel works for you, whether it be Kali,BBJ,judo or whatever is'nt the the idea. Be true to the roots but then you need to find your own path.

just my 2 cents for what it's worth

[Ghost]

yeah but the point of saying jack of all trades and master of none is that a JKD guy(in the eyes of this theory) cant beat someone in their own range who has similar training in a base system etc.

for example you would expect a boxer to beat a JKD guy with similar strength stamina etc and training time in punching range, a bjj guy to beat them on the floor etc. this is all assuming they have the same quality of tuition etc, its a theoretical assumption, of course you cant test this.

So alot of people suggest that you find a base before you study JKD, JKD after all is a principal. I personally rate JKD instructors that have mastered 2 or more systems over those that have followed the instructors that have already been through that process and teach what they think works though this is fine if you have mastered 1 system at least yourself.

If you havent studied a system alone then how can you know what works for you if you only studied what a JKD instructor says works from that system.

The way you can do it, is if you train with a variety of instructors that specialize in their systems at the same time. like a good boxing instructor and a good bjj instructor.

Im not personally keen on the JKD schools that teach JKD as a system that claims to have the answer already.

[Guest]

Look, I made all of my coments with respect. But when I get a reply like that from Michal Wright, I must think that my simple coment hit a nerve. Can't take the heat Michal? Why is it that the "O" and "C" guys get so caught up in the mine is biger than yours game.

As for Brewer, you make some good points, and out of resect I am trying not to push it. But if you keep telling me how out of date "O" is I will respond. Yes my side kick is from 1964 Lee invented it then. Your Kali is from 1864. So who is out of date?

The person who came on here talking about “O” vs “C” is you, so don’t cop out. I challenged your views, which is probably what you don’t like about my response, but that’s what a debate is. Don’t come on a JKD forum making the kind of points that you are, and not expect to get challenged. Did you hit a nerve? Of course you did, I believe you are talking garbage about an art and an instructor that I care about and respect greatly, so I’m going to call you on it.

If you don’t like the fact that I speak plainly I don’t care to be honest. I don’t like that fact that you make derogatory comments about my art and my teacher, then think you can shroud them by using phrases like “I make all of my comments with respect”. Respect is inherent in what you say, not an afterthought you can tag on the end to buy favour.

I have backed up all of my points with training experiences from the people involved, so far I have heard jack from you on that front. Like Mike said, you are making statements about Concepts and those who teach it without offering any foundation for your opinions. So don’t get all sensitive just because someone has challenged your point of view, come back and substantiate your argument with real life training experience, and I’ll listen to what you have to say.

[Ghost]

True, and I'm not keen on that either. The part that the Jack of all trades folks forget is that someone with all ranges accessible to them don't have to fight a boxing master in boxing range, or a BJJ guy in BJJ range. I think we've showed in numerous instances how it can really get you hurt if you step in a ring with only one game plan (see the defeats of all those Gracies at the hands of people like Hughes, Sakuraba, and Kid), and the defeats of loads and loads of boxers at the hands of people who didn't fight in boxing range. Remember Art Jimmerson? Good boxer. Not so great when someone else had other options. It's a story that plays out nearly every time. You see a one-dimensional fighter in against a guy who;s pretty well rounded, and you're going to watch the one-dimensional fighter get his ass kicked. Not everything that's true in sport holds true in the street, but that's one thing that's unequivocably true.

And you're right - training with other specialists is the way to go. That's how Bruce Lee did it, and it worked well for him. Why some people choose to train in what he did instead of using his approach is beyond me.

And Garland,
I'm not saying they're a good band or anything. I just think they happened to hit a pretty lucid point about the whole Original vs Concepts JKD argument. Or didn't you know that's what that whole song was about?

yeah i think we are basically on the same page then.
I agree completely that the advantage is that you dont have to fight that person in their range.

IMO , youd pick your most natural area to be your specialization, like Guru Dan has escrima, you can say Dan is better at escrima than he is at other systems. He is definately not a jack of all trades master of none.
He is a jack of all trades master of escrima.
And that is really my point. The guys that i have come across that are good at JKD arent just jack of all trades, they are master of one or two trades as well.

I dont think you disagree with me, i just wanted to make the point.

[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]

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.

[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.