JFJKD Obsolete

[strblast]

Hi everyone,

Just throwing in my opinion,

One of Lee's friends, Hawkins Cheung reportedly stated that when he came to visit Lee's classes, he observed that Lee was teaching incompletely or differently from what he (Lee) was teaching before. He asked Lee about this as Lee said why should he be giving away techniques that he developed and discovered so that other people could learn it and beat him.

What Lee asked Inosanto not to do is teach other than JFJKD. Jun Fan Gung Fu or Jun Fan JKD is more or less the same thing. Sifu Inosanto was not allowed to teach more than this.

To call Dan Inosanto an opportunist is a lame remark. Because of his promises to Lee, he now only teaches JFJKD and not the "advance" JKD that Lee discovered. Why else would he be teaching Kali/Silat incorporated with JKD principles? He's researching his own JKD and imparting the knowledge to his students without breaking his promises to Lee.

As to the "not teaching JKD publicly" I believe non of Lee' s students or from Inosanto lineage is doing that. All classes are private and students are selected. Teaching publicly will something like holding a regular class for about 50 person with absolute disregrad towards the students' personal growth and understanding.

Monkey, stop attacking other people's posts. You have your opinion and we have ours. Your truth and my truth are different. Lets compare our thoughts rather than debating who's right or wrong.

[Monkey]

"I've never heard Dan or Richard Bustillo (the only two original Bruce students that I've personally spent any time around) say that FMA have anything to do with JKD. It's just something that they enjoy and feel is useful and so they teach it ... but not as part of JKD."

Dont you see that this is in conflict with the JKD philosophy of martial arts? One system for your method, one stance, simplicity. Why not teach sticks, hands, feet, grappling, etc, rather than Jun Fan JKD, Jun Fan Gung Fu, Kali, Silat, BJJ, Shootfighting, Boxing, Muay Thai.... etc... THATS NOT HOW BRUCE DID IT, AND FOR REASONS THAT YOU SHOULD ALL KNOW!!! HE DIDNT TRAIN IN DIFFERENT "SYSTEMS" OR TEACH DIFFERENT "SYSTEMS"!!! HE TAUGHT FIGHTING MOVEMENTS AND DIDN'T PUT THEM INTO CATEGORIES OR GIVE THEM NAMES!! HE DIDNT BELIEVE IN CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS, JAPANESE, FILIPINO, WHATEVER!! IT WAS JUST ALL FIGHTING TO HIM.

He incorporated everything he learned and researched into a single method with emphasis on simplicity and efficiency, cutting out the least useful aspects. Dont you see that this way of teaching is in conflict with JKD?

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH, THINK ABOUT THAT.

There is no difference in the truth, only in our perception. To see fighting in its suchness, as it IS, is a goal of JKD as I see it. THat is, not to have your perception fragmented and partial as a result of who you are or where you come from or what 'style' you 'belong to' or anything else.

So, Im not saying anybody is an opportunist, or that they are out for money, I mean these guys could all retire, but they keep it up because they are passionate about it.

I just think that sadly, JKD today is definitely not JKD the way Bruce did it. It could be like that, but it isn't because people a lot of people just don't get it. You just have to read Tao of JKD, the early sections, and have a quick look at Bruce Lee's Fghting Method. Not talkin about the exact techniques that he used, they may have been outdated, but the way he approached his method. Simplicity. See how much he payed attention to the straight lead, the lead kicks, the finger jab. No Kali, Jun Fan, this, that......... just movements, simple and efficient, no style. Kali and Jun Fan and BJJ are styles, whether you like it or not, no matter how good they are. But when you check how Bruce trained and thought and researched.... pure martial science. Search for the truth, the one truth, clear and simple.

[sikal]

Originally posted by Monkey
"I've never heard Dan or Richard Bustillo (the only two original Bruce students that I've personally spent any time around) say that FMA have anything to do with JKD. It's just something that they enjoy and feel is useful and so they teach it ... but not as part of JKD."

Dont you see that this is in conflict with the JKD philosophy of martial arts? One system for your method, one stance, simplicity. Why not teach sticks, hands, feet, grappling, etc, rather than Jun Fan JKD, Jun Fan Gung Fu, Kali, Silat, BJJ, Shootfighting, Boxing, Muay Thai.... etc... THATS NOT HOW BRUCE DID IT, AND FOR REASONS THAT YOU SHOULD ALL KNOW!!! HE DIDNT TRAIN IN DIFFERENT "SYSTEMS" OR TEACH DIFFERENT "SYSTEMS"!!! HE TAUGHT FIGHTING MOVEMENTS AND DIDN'T PUT THEM INTO CATEGORIES OR GIVE THEM NAMES!! HE DIDNT BELIEVE IN CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS, JAPANESE, FILIPINO, WHATEVER!! IT WAS JUST ALL FIGHTING TO HIM.

He incorporated everything he learned and researched into a single method with emphasis on simplicity and efficiency, cutting out the least useful aspects. Dont you see that this way of teaching is in conflict with JKD?

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH, THINK ABOUT THAT.

There is no difference in the truth, only in our perception. To see fighting in its suchness, as it IS, is a goal of JKD as I see it. THat is, not to have your perception fragmented and partial as a result of who you are or where you come from or what 'style' you 'belong to' or anything else.

So, Im not saying anybody is an opportunist, or that they are out for money, I mean these guys could all retire, but they keep it up because they are passionate about it.

I just think that sadly, JKD today is definitely not JKD the way Bruce did it. It could be like that, but it isn't because people a lot of people just don't get it. You just have to read Tao of JKD, the early sections, and have a quick look at Bruce Lee's Fghting Method. Not talkin about the exact techniques that he used, they may have been outdated, but the way he approached his method. Simplicity. See how much he payed attention to the straight lead, the lead kicks, the finger jab. No Kali, Jun Fan, this, that......... just movements, simple and efficient, no style. Kali and Jun Fan and BJJ are styles, whether you like it or not, no matter how good they are. But when you check how Bruce trained and thought and researched.... pure martial science. Search for the truth, the one truth, clear and simple.

You're right Bruce didn't "train" in a lot of different systems ... but he researched the hell out of a lot of different systems. Unfortunately, very few people are the kind of martial genius that he was. Very few people can do what he did. So, rather than workout with a guy a few times and be able to improve on what he's doing (like Bruce was able to do, according to what I've heard/read) ... people like Richard and Dan (and others) have to actually train in a system for a while.

I think it's ludicrous for you to sit here second guessing the people who actually trained and spent time with Bruce. You're pretending to know how Bruce trained and thought and researched ... but you weren't there.

As far as people "not getting it" ... I think you're the one "not getting it."

Mike

[thekuntawman]

i think what monkey wants to say is when we look at the technique of kicking, we should look at it as just "kicking" , not silat kickings, chinese kickings,etc. this does make more sense if you are looking for the "truth", instead of only doing what are the popular arts.

like in 1980 you would not find people interested in indonesian style. i know a really popular man who did malaysian style, but he called it chinese kung fu for so long, now he is only known as kung fu, he's stuck because of a name. today, people would go all over this man's style, not because it was good or effective, but because it is malaysian.

today, certain styles are popular because somebody else is doing it. people call certain things "effectuve" and "deadly" because it is popular or certain people do them. for example, i see a very close similar technique of some of the indonesian styles today with even the most common kung fu styles. but the indonesian one is popular and called "effective", while the kung fu version is called "classical". when really they are the same thing. like some people say they dont like form, but they will do a juru. i can show you both, and you cant tell me which is kung fu and which is silat.

the truth is found by learning a technique, which one you have available, training it until you get strong in it, then fighting to make it part of your weapons. forget "testing" it, a fighter _makes_ his technique work. then when it becomes your technique, a punch is a punch (not kung fu punch or karate punch) and a kick is a kick. but it looks like some people want to make the truth bruce lee found for hisself to be their own truth. and it does not work that way. put george foreman in the gym and train him with roy jones style, george will get killed in the ring. not all you guys have what bruce lee had.

and from the little bit of information i know about bruce lee philosophy, what people are doing today is what he was against...you call this bruce lee style, you call him "sijo" which means your founder, you only want to look at what bruce lee was looking at. i remember when larry hartsell and tim tackett was the only jeet kune do men who would look at grappling. now because of the fear the gracies put on you, they now say "bruce lee was such a grappler" and show a picture of the technique he used in enter the dragon. i dont think bruce lee wants to be worship, and i dont think he wants to be the ruler everybidy is using to measure good technique from bad technique. everyone is suppose to look at himself for the answer. and hwne you limit yourself to only this style and that style, you make it worse.

monkey am i right?

[Maxximus]

"today, certain styles are popular because somebody else is doing it. people call certain things "effectuve" and "deadly" because it is popular or certain people do them. for example, i see a very close similar technique of some of the indonesian styles today with even the most common kung fu styles. but the indonesian one is popular and called "effective", while the kung fu version is called "classical". when really they are the same thing. like some people say they dont like form, but they will do a juru. i can show you both, and you cant tell me which is kung fu and which is silat."

That is a really great point! I've noticed this with extreme annoyance for quite a long time. Many people must learn to see things for what they are and choose what's best for them rather than simply follow trends like a bunch of sheep and parrot what their teachers and elders say. IMHO, there is just as much if not more to traditional Wing Chun and certain other Gung fu styles as there is in all these silat styles, etc that are prevalent among much of the JKDC crowd now. But whereas Gung fu and tai chi are looked upon as classical garbage, Silat and Filipino empty hand techniques are considered extremely useful. I believe it was Matt Thornton who said that if Guro Inosanto were to decide to do extensive research into Shotokan Karate, then Shotokan would become the next big thing in many JKD circles. What's sad is that this is probably very true.

[sikal]

Originally posted by Maxximus
"today, certain styles are popular because somebody else is doing it. people call certain things "effectuve" and "deadly" because it is popular or certain people do them. for example, i see a very close similar technique of some of the indonesian styles today with even the most common kung fu styles. but the indonesian one is popular and called "effective", while the kung fu version is called "classical". when really they are the same thing. like some people say they dont like form, but they will do a juru. i can show you both, and you cant tell me which is kung fu and which is silat."

That is a really great point! I've noticed this with extreme annoyance for quite a long time. Many people must learn to see things for what they are and choose what's best for them rather than simply follow trends like a bunch of sheep and parrot what their teachers and elders say. IMHO, there is just as much if not more to traditional Wing Chun and certain other Gung fu styles as there is in all these silat styles, etc that are prevalent among much of the JKDC crowd now. But whereas Gung fu and tai chi are looked upon as classical garbage, Silat and Filipino empty hand techniques are considered extremely useful. I believe it was Matt Thornton who said that if Guro Inosanto were to decide to do extensive research into Shotokan Karate, then Shotokan would become the next big thing in many JKD circles. What's sad is that this is probably very true.

While I agree that there are those who fall into this "follow-the-leader" mentality ... it's not a global thing. Not everyone who does Silat, for instance, is doing it just because others are doing it.

Most people I know who are serious about their training don't consider Gung Fu, for instance, to be "classical garbage." They consider it to be as valid as anything else.

Does it all share common components ... absolutely. But the approach is different. For some people the Wing Chun approach to trapping suits them better ... or they are able to learn it better. For others, the Filipino method suits them better. To watch a high level WC guy and a high level FMA guy trap, it's virtually impossible to tell who got what from where ... but while the end result is similar (and in some cases the same), the path is different ... and the path that one person enjoys will be torture for another.

And, FMA/IMA are just the latest in the string. When Gung Fu first arrived in the US, a lot of Karatekas said, "Oh ... another fad for people to jump on the bandwagon for."

For years, I trained in Okinawan Goju-Ryu because it suited me better than other things I'd been exposed to. Then I was exposed to Kali and Silat. I'd never heard of them before. It wasn't a "follow-the-leader" thing for me. While I had been content with my Karate, I was overwhelmingly happy with Sikal (the hybrid of Kali and Silat that I train in). Sikal suited me much better than Goju-Ryu did ... but that's me.

Just because some people are "followers" doesn't mean there aren't people who just flat-out prefer it. Please don't lump all of us in with the bad apples that you guys have run into ... otherwise we'll have to lump all the Gung Fu guys in with the bad apples we've run into :-)

Regards, Mike

[Maxximus]

Didn't mean to lump them all together at all, sikal. Don't get me wrong, I have just as much admiration for Filipino arts and silat arts as the next guy. I respect all the serious dedicated practitioners of these great arts. The ones I was referring to are the 1,000 technique collecting, flavor of the month practitioners that IMO, seem to be plaguing the JKD community to a certain extent. And I'm NOT saying that crosstraining in these arts is a bad thing. But as Bruce said, understanding the roots of combat is more important than sampling all the different "styles" you come across. If many of these people understood the "roots of combat" then they would see the fact that there is a lot of overlap between the Jun Fan techniques, silat/FMA techniques and even certain Gung fu styles. They wouldn't be rejecting certain styles just because of what Bruce Lee said about the "classical mess" and then embracing other arts just because it is the popular thing to do. When they train in this way, JKD becomes just another classical mess for them to get trapped in rather than the liberator that it is supposed to be. Anyways, that is what I was tryign to get at, Please don't lump all Gung fu guys together on my account. I am NOT a Gung fu guy so surely they do not deserve to suffer because of me

[sikal]

Originally posted by Maxximus
Didn't mean to lump them all together at all, sikal. Don't get me wrong, I have just as much admiration for Filipino arts and silat arts as the next guy. I respect all the serious dedicated practitioners of these great arts. The ones I was referring to are the 1,000 technique collecting, flavor of the month practitioners that IMO, seem to be plaguing the JKD community to a certain extent. And I'm NOT saying that crosstraining in these arts is a bad thing. But as Bruce said, understanding the roots of combat is more important than sampling all the different "styles" you come across. If many of these people understood the "roots of combat" then they would see the fact that there is a lot of overlap between the Jun Fan techniques, silat/FMA techniques and even certain Gung fu styles. They wouldn't be rejecting certain styles just because of what Bruce Lee said about the "classical mess" and then embracing other arts just because it is the popular thing to do. When they train in this way, JKD becomes just another classical mess for them to get trapped in rather than the liberator that it is supposed to be. Anyways, that is what I was tryign to get at, Please don't lump all Gung fu guys together on my account. I am NOT a Gung fu guy so surely they do not deserve to suffer because of me

LOL ... my tongue was firmly in my cheek about lumping all the Gung Fu guys together :-) I know too many who can kick my butt :-)

Anyway, I couldn't agree with you more.

For me (and I'm probably preaching to the choir in large part), cross-training isn't about "collecting techniques." It's about refinement. In Sikal, I've got a very good foundation. I'll always be a student of Sikal and of my instructor.

But, I feel that MA training is an ongoing process. When I encountered the Shen Chuan guys (a system I'm training in now), I found that my joint locks, while completely functional, weren't as crisp as they could be. The group I'm working with now are joint locking specialists. Their joint locks originally came from Daito Ryu, then were refined by Small Circle Jujitsu, then have been refined even more through trial-and-error. So, when you want heart surgery, you don't go to a general practitioner ... you go to a specialist. When I decided I wanted to refine my joint locks, I started training with these guys (there were other factors that brought me here, but that's the primary thing, MA-wise, that I'm getting from them). Part of it also has to do with the "mat time" these guys devote to joint locks. Every single class has time spent on joint locks ... and sometimes an entire class is spent on joint locks (of course, the price paid is that my wrists and shoulders are taking a lot of abuse ... but it's worth it :-)

Anyway, that's what I feel cross-training should be about. The way I look at it, where systems/styles overlap, I get more depth of understanding and am able to refine my knowledge in that area. Where they don't overlap, I get another tool to develop.

Like I said, in large part, I'm probably preaching to the choir ... but that's my thoughts :-)

Mike

[strblast]

on silat and kung fu

today, certain styles are popular because somebody else is doing it. people call certain things "effectuve" and "deadly" because it is popular or certain people do them. for example, i see a very close similar technique of some of the indonesian styles today with even the most common kung fu styles. but the indonesian one is popular and called "effective", while the kung fu version is called "classical". when really they are the same thing. like some people say they dont like form, but they will do a juru. i can show you both, and you cant tell me which is kung fu and which is silat.

Hi everyone,

Just a little note on silat & kung fu, Kuntawman, you said that if you do a juru (jurus) or a kung fu form, people won't be able to tell the different.

In a Malaysian Silat point of view, you should be able to tell a difference. I don't know about kung fu but I do know that in order to perform a juru (jurus) you must have the proper silat footwork. Now silat footwork comes in various styles but most of the times they crosses each other's paths. In Malaysian Silat, some of the styles of silat footwork are like the tapak 4 (4 direction steps), tapak 5 (5 direction steps) and tapak 3 (3 direction steps). You can't perform a juru (jurus) without a proper silat footwork because the juru (jurus) comes from the pattern (bunga sembah/tari). Not to mention the various styles of delivering a juru (jurus), be it as a means to be deceptive, opening your defenses to draw the opponent in or just plain straight attacking.

This post was not meant to offend you Kuntawman, and I apologize if it did. It's just that I'm Malaysian and a Malay by birth, I feel obligated to tell you my opinion.

[Monkey]

Yes Kuntawman, you are right, I think, and you have been seeing and thinking the same things as I have, and same with you, Maxximus. Have you guys read a book called the Tao of Bruce Lee, by Davis Miller?

Anyway, all that shit about jurus and what not.... its so off the track. Of course Bruce Lee didn't want anybody to worship him, to call him Sijo, didn't want anybody to think of him as anything as just a human being like us who worked real hard at what he did. There's all this about "discovering the advance JKD"... as if there is some magical secrets that Bruce Lee had discovered for himself and kept secret. That is so stupid.

I will quote from Tao of JKD, that will keep you happy:

"Just as yellow leaves can be golden coins to stop the children crying, so are magical styles and secret techniques to the unknowledgable martial artist"
- Bruce Lee

People just fuss over Lee and worship him, its so stupid and it really goes against everything he said.

"We should forget Bruce Lee, so that Bruce Lee can be remembered"
- Dan Inosanto

I think that is a good way of thinking about him, he just was who he was, he wasn't a god, he was just like us and we can learn from what he did but we can't BE HIM and we can't fuss over everything he did because that's the last thing he would want us to do. Im tired of saying this in this forum. If we really want to carry on with what Bruce started, then the best thing is to think that JKD is a philosophy and set of principles, not a religion and Bruce Lee was a person, not a god, and even if he was the best at that time, he would probably have changed so much since then anyway, because he was always changing and being scientific.

And its very true about getting to the ROOT of the martial arts. You can learn all the forms in the world, all the techniques, but if you can't throw a really fast, powerful, nontelegraphic punch, then what is the point? Bruce worked hard at the fundamentals, like an artist, like a perfectionist, and that's why he was so good, not because he learned all the techniques in the world. If he has got the fastest punch he can get, the most economical footwork he can get, etc, what is the point in learning about Shotokan?? Its just another form. Read Tao of JKD, the early sections. No, of course I didn't train with him or even know him, but it is what he says in Tao of JKD and in all his interviews that makes me say these things against many of the JKD instructors these days. Its not second guessing. Im going off what the man said, in his own words, and when I see that people are going against that and going in a different direction and calling what they do "Jeet Kune Do", then I say so.

[thekuntawman]

hello str8blast,

i am not familiar with the footwork techniques you are talking about, but i am quite familiar with silat. i have two brothers in my mosque who i practice with one is from indonesia, the other is from malaysia. i also have one very good friend who is a silat full contact champion from indonesia. and i have practice kung fu for many year before, so my words are not from ignorance or a limited exposure.

what i am speaking of for the juru and kung fu similarity is the way the technique is applied. the hands of a silat man and the kung fu man move very much the same way, and the level of complexity is very much the same. when i demo one or the other to a person, no matter what the level of knowledge is, they cannot tell the difference. some tehnciques in kung fu has its own look and you can tell, but for most people who do not know, they can't tell, espcially the little expereince someone who has only experience the seminar has.

then there are many styles of both fighting art where you cant tell the difference, except a few where you can.

the styles you are speaking about i havent heard any of my friends do, so i am sure there are just as many differences like in kung fu from the many styles.

i understand why you want to correct me, because i feel the same way when someone makes incorrect statements about the philippine arts.

please excuse my ignorance.

assalamualikum

[aseepish]

Silat and Kungfu

Hi folks, apa khabar?

Side note:

I'm currently studying a non-Yip Man branch of Wing Chun (Cho-ga/ Cho family), which has been described as "Malaysian Wing Chun." The art was brought to Malaysia by Cho On sometime in the last century. I have noticed that many of the hand movements are very "silat-like." Whether or not there was any direct influence or not is another question, but I find what I have already learned in silat to be very complementary to my Wing Chun.

-Tony

http://wingchunzone.com

[gungfuhero]

Hi everyone. It's been a long time.


I've stayed away from the internet for a while, and I see little has changed. It seems the issue that Monkey is bringing up is whether cross training is relevant to JKD. Personally I think it is. Jun Fan Gung Fu (the agenda of the institute) didn't come from the clear blue. Bruce Lee had the herculean task of studying systems from all over the world, finding common threads and distilling them to fit his principles of self expression and discovery. JFGF is a system born out of cross training; however, it is also a system that readliy admits the limitations of "style" and serves as a springboard for students to find their own way. What are JFGF's main concepts: simplicity, economy and the ability to adapt and evolve. Yes, it is "stylized", but you have to have some starting point, otherwise we get the self styled boastful "masters". What many instructors call the phase of sophistication is a necessary step in the direction of being able to truly express oneself (returning to original freedom).

I train JFGF, and I think that it still has useful lessons. Do eye jabs not work any more? When you kick a guy in the nads does he cease to feel excrutiating pain (I still do by god . The argument that trapping doesn't work because most people can't use it is like saying that since I can't preform brain surgery that it doesn't work either. Personally I think trapping is pretty hard, but as long has people obstruct punches (and I haven't seen an art that doesn't) trapping will have some place be it phon sao (jun fan trapping hands) or Vale Tudo clinching or Muay Thai head control or freestyle wrestilng arm manipulations(arm drag, elbow post, etc.) My personal expression of JKD has been greatly influenced by JFGF, but CSW, FMA, BJJ, and Tae Kwon Do have also contributed to my aresenal.

[Twisted up]

It appears that no-one will ever agree so, perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Can you not stop insisting upon having to be "right" for a moment and simply be kind?

EGO folks, is what creates the need to be right. Martial arts done PROPERLY destroys the ego, it doesn't FEED the ego.

I have found myself wondering if many of you people understand this at all!!

THAT is what Bruce Lee was TRULY about!


John

[sikal]

Originally posted by Twisted up
It appears that no-one will ever agree so, perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Can you not stop insisting upon having to be "right" for a moment and simply be kind?

EGO folks, is what creates the need to be right. Martial arts done PROPERLY destroys the ego, it doesn't FEED the ego.

I have found myself wondering if many of you people understand this at all!!

THAT is what Bruce Lee was TRULY about!


John

Hmm ... a total destruction of ego isn't good. A good friend of mine (who I highly respect as a martial artist and as a person) once told me, "I wouldn't give a plug nickel for a martial artist, or any man, who didn't have an ego."

An instructor, particularly, has to have an ego. The problem is when ego becomes egomania. It is confidence. An instructor, when teaching, has to be able to feel that he is "the man" while teaching ... that no one else in the room has the same understanding or perspective on the material.

Of course, this may be a semantics issue (i.e.: your definition of "ego" may not work with this).

Anyway ... just my 2 cents :-)

Mike