JKD is on a slippery slope. There. I've said it. Somebody had to. I get the feeling that i am not the only person on these boards that is sick and tired of all the bitching about JKD. Luckily, this doesn't tend to happen a lot here, but there are many guys out there who will spout out nonsense about JKD. A great example of this is the giant rift between Core and Concepts. I am both a core and a concepts JKD'er, and so I have no allegiance to either side. But I do see that there is in general a feeling of supremicy on bo both parts, but mainly in the core side. To many core guys, if you don't do what Bruce taught exactly, you are not doing JKD. This is bull! If you do grappling, you are not doing JKD. If you do FMA, you are not JKD. If you do (insert MA here) you are not doing JKD. I'm sorry, but what is JKD in the first place? What did Bruce do to develop JKD. He researched other arts, numbnuts! Then there are those guys that follow exactly what he did, and even drop certain things that he dropped. Again, this is silly. There are many things that Bruce dropped that he still believed in. look at trapping. It is the general misconception that Bruce dropped trapping from his JKD. No. He stopped using it in class. Isn't it obvious what Bruce was doing when he was teaching. He was experimenting on his students. This is why you see that Ted Wong will teach a different version of JKD to say Jerry Poteet. Bruce was experimenting with different things at different times. On the other hand, there are the concepts guys that think just because they follow a couple of Bruce principles, or they have attended a Dan inosanto seminar, that they are doing JKD. No. JKD stresses the concepts of expansion and personal interpretation. However, this does not mean that one should ignore the other concepts and central tennets of JKD. JKD is heading down a similar slope to many classical martial arts. There are already two schools of thought, with both having their own headquarters. Dan is regarded as the head of concepts, and the JKD foundation is the headquarters of core. Very very political. Who wants to place a wager on when the crusades will start. Soryy, but it had to come out here sometime. Em
I am more of a spectator than a participant in the whole core vs. concepts (I'm not really interested, because I think JKD, like modern day WC is a giant mess with only a few specs of gold amongst the mud and grime), although because I do Wong's method I have a very unique and in many way clearer perspective of things from square one (I hope that didn't come across badly). I know what Bruce Lee was taught from the beginning (or rather have learned), and also where he was already going, and also maybe where he was near his death (as Bruce and WSL met on numerous occassions throughout his career even up to his death). As a spectator familiar with Wong's method the term Jeet Kune Do, gives it away immediately. Intercepting fist way, that's a core principle of WC, MT is not an intercepting fist way, BJJ definitely isn't, I'm pretty sure most Kali isn't either (they go for limb destruction I think). To me it's obvious that it's Bruce's incomplete and modified version of Wing Chun, and if you ever had the oppourtunity to train with Jesse Glover you'd find that that's exactly what it is. Because of certain assymetries in Bruce's body he felt it difficult (uncomfortable) to fight in an ambidextrous fashion like in Wong's method and most of WC, this shows up very obviously in Jesse Glover's teachings (his chi sau is very one sided making a backfist an obvious entry. Also Bruce's WC has tactics in it that just won't work for people who weren't at his level physically. (NB: as I have mentioned in dozens of threads before, for someone coming from the perspective of one of Wong's students, looking at JKD you can see that where Bruce was going was that he was trying develop a way to shut down reflexive fighters, either better or bigger reflexive fighters than himself. That's a long story though.) To me it's plain as day how JKD was to begin with, but even with all this, a person can make the argument that "yes, JKD was basically Bruce's incomplete WC with some influences from Boxing and Fencing, but he 'evolved' into what we know as concepts later in his life" Hmmm... maybe that could be true. But then why would it be called JKD? Also how does that conform to the idea of simplicity? Also has anyone heard of this quote before? "One cannot learn the principle roots of Jeet Kune do through the accumulation of many different styles for that would be like a singer trying to improve his voice by accumulating many songs. Rather it is by understanding the roots of the problem." - Dan Inosanto Seriously I want to know if it's legit and where is comes from. So that's what my take on things. Eventually once I get my WSLWC core stamped down I'm going to experiment with a few things, I might take another look at Bruce's ideas and experiment with them. My 2c.
first to empress akasha, its about time someone approached the subject of politics in jeet kune do without reservation. several times in this forum there have been refrences to these problems and the desire to address them. yet until now ive not seen a lot of willingness to be specific at the risk of beginning of a debate. right up front my allegiance is to jkd concepts. the concepts are the heart and soul of jkd. among those concepts is the ability to interpet jkd on a personal level. never has jkd been nor ever should be about imitation of what others are doing. there are styles of martial arts for those intrested with as much. which is exactly what these 'core' jkd instructors and students are doing. the jun fan was the individual means of practicing jkd for bruce lee and was never meant for anyone else. sure we learn jun fan in early stages because it provides a model for how the concepts are or can be applied. becoming a bruce lee clone is not jkd. how the 'core' jkd practioners miss something that simple and fundamental is beyond my comprehension. thier not doing jkd reguardless if that statement is liked or not. what they are doing is a poor rendition of jun fan and creating a jun fan 'style'. the sharp division that exists in jkd does need to exist if you have a side being true to bruces vision of jkd as opposed to those drowning our art into a style. where my instructor to become a 'core' jkd type id walk out of class and never return. and id drop jkd altogether if this ever becomes another style. we have to be jkd concepts to keep jkd alive. otherwise we become another dead style.
second to gong_sau_rick, theres a central theme in your posts about jeet kune do thats seriously flawed. it doesnt seem likely that anyone would argue that bruce did learn wing chun. nor do i think anyone would get upset by saying that bruce didnt learn all of wing chun. in fact the early teachings of bruce here in america heavily favored wing chun. and bruce never completely abandoned what he found usefull from wing chun. where do you get this idea that jeet kune do means way of intercepting fist means wing chun from? just recently jester loaned me this book about chinese martial arts and i read theres a form called jeet kune in the eagle claw style. does that suggest jeet kune do = eagle claw? from what little ive read jeet kune do and eagle claw are very different. and from what ive seen jeet kune do is not wing chun. theres no completing wing chun in jeet kune do. for one thing despite having concepts wing chun is a style. it might be interpeted a little different yet the forms and techniques are still there. from what ive seen wing chun is strictly a close-range endeavor at the end of the day. wing chun has fixed parameters. what you keep suggesting is that jeet kune do is a lesser effort to recreate wing chun. maybe thats what youve been told. because of the connection between wing chun to bruce lee and to jeet kune do theres plenty of devoted wing chun practioners in a hurry to suggest wing chun is just fine as it stands and jeet kune do was born from the lack of knowledge bruce didnt posses. the reality here is that bruce took what he found usefull from wing chun and moved on. we dont attempt to be practioners of muay thai or brazillian jujutsu. nor of savate and whatever else we borrow material from. theres too much freedom with not being confined by the limitations of any style. just recently i learned that bjj proper doesnt involve striking. no offense to any bjj students out there yet striking is a huge part of my game plan. about the only thing we do agree on is that youre a spectator not a true participator in jkd. from what i can tell a wing chun biased one at that. drop by your friendly neighborhood jkd school and it wont take long for the lies youve been told about jeet kune do being nothing more than wing chun incomplete wont hold water. were not wing chun or trying to be.
That's right, he found pretty much all of it useful. Eagle claw as far as I know is distinguished by joint locks, gripping techniques, chin na, takedowns etc... hence the term Eagle Claw not Eagle Fist, Eagle Hand, what have you. Wing Chun on the other hand if you have ever studied decent Wing Chun is characterized by interception. Unlike most other styles of Kung Fu or CMA, Wing Chun (and when I speak of Wing Chun I'm speaking of WSL method) does not bother with "blocking" an opponent's attack but rather intercepts an opponent with the primary goal of just hitting the opponent, if something gets in the way and new path is either found or created with the reflexive skills gained from chi sau training, the trapping range then becomes much more dangerous for the opponent. Just about all of the techniques go forward and intercept, quite different from most CMAs if not all. Fok sau, taan sau, pak sau, chi sau etc... the entire idea of from the proverb "loi lau heui sung, lat sau jik chung". The eastern martial arts in the US in Bruce's time tended to have very descriptive names. Karate-do "way of empty hands", Taekwondo "way of smashing with hands and feet", Judo "the gentle way" etc... Wing Chun, if you take the correct characters (the one with the speech radical) is most accurately translated as "to sing praises to spring" which obviously isn't very descriptive of the art. If someone were to give a more descriptive name to Wing Chun, I think Jeet Kune Do would be a good choice. JKD if we're talking about what Dan Inosanto teaches, is not Wing Chun. It's nothing like it. On the other hand Jesse Glover's JKD (and some others I can't remember their names) is definitely just another version of WC, interception and all. JKD is also a style IMO, so is MMA. The practitioners fight with a certain style that I can usually pick out. This all depends on how we define style. Well you've never seen the full story. We've already been over this in another thread, WC goes out of it's way to unrestrict itself. "In training 'Biu Ji', we are taught to be free. The first two forms tell us about normal conditions. 'Biu Ji' is for the abnormal conditions. The ideas in 'Biu Ji' sometimes contradict normal Ving Tsun ideas in order to allow the person to survive a bad situation. We are told to do whatever is necessary to survive and so there are no limitations." - Sifu Wong Shun Leung, Bruce Lee's coach and mentor. Nope. JKD (core, original, jun fan, what have you) is just BL's personal expression of the WC he knew, suited to his body type, attributes and challenges. Yes, he needed to fill in the blanks in some places, and so he research styles based upon efficiency, such as western boxing and fencing, since he knew those would be good places to look. I also explicitly stated that JKD is more than attempt to recreate WC. In this thread! ROFL! You made me inhale some of my drink! My knowledge of JKD comes from much more reliable sources (and key people) than a local JKD school. Saying my understandings are lies, is an insult to several world class Martial Artists. That's right JKD (as in concepts crew) are nothing like Wing Chun. Today it just seems that JKD concepts is more or less Dan Inosanto's MMA; and there's nothing wrong with that. But what Bruce Lee practiced and developed for himself up to his death. Was the "way of the intercepting fist". It's not that I'm biased towards WC, it's just that WC is what I mostly train in, so of course my perspective is going to be a WC perspective. My message to the JKD community is that we can learn more about Bruce's ideas, philosophy, methodology, thinking process and put it in a more encompassing perspective and context. If we can learn who his most influential instructor, coach and mentor was.
maybe what jesse glover teaches is just another version of wing chun. having no idea who glover is (no offense just true) and having never seen his classes its not possible for me to speculate what goes on in there. when i hear someone talk about jeet kune do resembling wing chun a great deal the first thing which comes to mind is those core jkd schools. they seem fixated on jun fan and miss the whole point of jeet kune do. unless youre an authority on chinese martial arts id be carefull about making statements like intercepting was unique to wing chun. if eagle claw does have a jeet kune form does that not suggest intercepting? maybe you should run the idea that most chinese martial arts dont use the intercepting concept by those active in the kung-fu forums. they would be far more qualified than myself to accuratly respond. very few people i know or even hear of would ever suggest that danny inosanto is not teaching jeet kune do. more often than not what i both hear and believe personally is that danny teaches jkd as it was meant to be. we have been through wing chun being restriced before in another thread. and i asked you for evidence numerous times. wheres the proof wing chun deals with grappling effectively? proof not theory! jeet kune do is not a style. we dont have fixed techniques and forms. neither is mma. again dont take my word for as much go ask those who practice mma on a regular basis. theres a lot to learn from researching the life and influences of bruce lee. yet despite the large number of different instructors no particular one was the responsible party for jeet kune do. bruce alone was. once again if wing chun has no boundaries show me evidence to support that claim. wing chun cannot handle western boxing in terms of puching. nor bjj in terms of grappling. in jeet kune do we learn from other sources to find a better way of doing things. ever hear absorb whats usefull and discard the rest? we dont stay inside wing chun or anything else. this is about the politics of jeet kune do not about wing chun vs jeet kune do. stop making crazy statements about wing chun connections if youre intrest is about jkd politics. if you have a general intrest with mma being a style or cmas not widely using intercepting ask them. because id like to hear what either say. and id maintain a good local jkd school is better than listening to anyone.
OMG. You do JKD yet you don't know who Jesse Glover is?! No wonder you say some of the things you say. IMO Jesse is one of the finest Martial Artists in the world, I think he was probably Bruce's best student. Devastating fighter even into his old age. I'm growing weary of this conversation already as I have already stated everything I wanted to say and I have received the response I totally expected. Maybe you're the one who's missing the point of the way of the intercepting fist. I don't have to be and authority to talk about CMAs. Who cares if eagle claw has a form that's called JKD. The entire WC system is about interception not just a single form, and have you seen Eagle Claw lately? Plenty of intercepting fists there, c'mon already. I agree. He's teaching what he calls JKD. Which is basically an MMA. LOL, I don't need or even want to prove anything to you. Who am I to believe, the greatest WC practitioner of the 20th century, my instructor and hundreds of my brothers in the WSL family or a JKDer from the internet who's probably only dabbled in 'mickey mouse' WC and has a bad opinion of it? Ok, by that criteria then WC isn't a style either. We don't have a fok sau technique, we have a fok sau concept which is not a fixed technique or form. It can be many things, take many forms. For example Bruce's lead punch is an example of fok sau concept. Most of Bruce's ideas on combat come from his teacher and the fights they had. Without him there would be no Bruce Lee. I'm not making it into a WC vs. JKD thread, just giving my view. I already stated I wanted to explore Bruce's ideas, I like where Bruce Lee was going with JKD. A perspective you just can't understand without understanding Wong's method. Also the place of WC in or with JKD is a key point in the politics of JKD. OJKC vs. JKDC, it's crazy to think that there is no connection. I read on these forums that MMA was a style or at least becoming one. If it really isn't a style I retract my statement. (Also why does MMA have style forum on MAP ) All the Chinese MAs I seen bar the WSL method pretty much all teach blocking, it's a natural human reaction and based on weapons fighting. CLF, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis, Hung Gar, Lau Gar you name it. and even if you can find a technique that utilizes interception, that says nothing. These arts are characterized by other things, it's quite obvious that BL got his idea of interception from WC. It's the only art he studied that has such an idea was so explicitly taught. Anyway I'm tired of typing, I want to read what other JKDers, both original and concepts think.
....Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do die when he did. We are only left with the principles. Original JKD and JKD Concept was creating after Bruce Lee' s death, if anything it is these two thing that are miss leading everyone.... 1 in 10,000 as the man said Keep "IT" Real, John McNabney
thank you for getting back on the subject at hand. what i think is a big problem within these politics is that people think in 'fixed' terms. for example my older brother is a taekwondo stylist. if you went to a bookstore theres probably a book available which shows the various forms and techniques of taekwondo. that doesnt change as the years pass. (with the exception of different branches) nor does it change with the individual. the students of teakwondo might place emphasis on different techniques yet all of them are still learning the same forms and techniques. (at least they are supposed to from what i have seen). thats one thing which classifies taekwondo as being a style. where jeet kune do is entirely different. there are plenty of books available on the subject of jeet kune do as well. those books can tell you about the concepts of jeet kune do. from what ive learned over many years of jeet kune do practice is the concepts dont change. and the same books might tell someone how jun fan looked when bruce lee died. what a book can never do is give the reader any idea of what jun fan would have looked like had bruce lee lived many years longer. because jun fan was always changing. that is the very problem with these politics. jeet kune do is a continued work in progress. the concepts might remain the same yet the other material will always vary. theres no 'official' jeet kune do. that would be a style. never was it the intention of bruce lee to create a style where everyone would be learning/doing exactly what he did. the concepts alone hold us together as jeet kune do students. the personal jeet kune do of bruce lee did end with him. no arguement there. yet these 'original' jeet kune do types seem to miss that very point. we do learn jun fan at the start. yet thats only the beginning not the middle or end of our jeet kune do experience. the jun fan is a good way of learning how the concepts were applied. for that reason jun fan will always exist. how each of us interpet jeet kune do will (or should) never be the same. which is exactly as bruce intended. for bruce wrote as much and passed the idea down to his students. jeet kune do is always work in progress. everyone will practice jeet kune do a little different. except for concepts it never stays the same. at the gym where i take classes a lot of emphasis is placed on kickboxing and brazillian jujutsu technique. yet even that changes. for example i use a lot of material from muay thai and wrestling. another student uses a lot of material from boxing and brazilian jujutsu. most everyone has a different way of practicing jeet kune do there. as they should. theres no 'official' jeet kune do. theres only the concepts and jun fan to guide us. how to find a common ground between the different schools of thought about jeet kune do is a question we need to explore. what i think could be the answer is saying we practice the concepts of jeet kune do yet not jeet kune do itself. that might sound odd yet let me elaborate. inosanto teaches at his school called the inosanto academy. what paul vunak teaches is called progressive fighting system. for richard ryan its dynamic combat method. all of them are practicing jeet kune do concepts yet thier own interpetations and not just the jun fan. when a person claims they teach anything more than concepts from our jeet kune do is where trouble starts. because theres just no way to actually teach jeet kune do. again jeet kune do is different for everyone. the best we can do is teach the concepts and show an example how that works from jun fan.
bruce lee did not trap because he did'nt have to and find your own path of JKD but be true to the roots!
Rick - I'm sorry, but you have no idea how far off the mark you are. JKD is not a modified version of JKd. Simply no way. First of all, you are right, Bruce found WC inadequete, and therefore strove to change it. This was in the early years, and so it can be deduced that Jun Fan Gung Fu was, as you say, modified wing chun. However, later along the line, Bruce heavily modified his trapping. Some JKD people say that Bruce dropped trapping. This is not true at all. He modified it. The problem he found with trapping is that it is always drilled with having a reference point. But, during a fight, a punch comes in at such speed that there is no reference speed. Also, economy of motion is thrown out of the window, as it is a lot easier to punch somebody than lop sau them. This is not to say that WC doesn't work. It is better if you are in a WC stance, but Bruce used the Bai Jong, which made trapping harder, but meant that he was less open to attacks. In place of trapping, Bruce used the sliding arm leverage. This is basically sliding over the attacking arm and hitting the opponent. As Bruce said "the best way to end a fight is to reach over and hit your opponent". What people seem to forget is that Bruce, as I mentioned earlier, was experimenting at different times on his students. This is why Ted Wong has learnt things slightly different to say Bob Bremner. What Bruce taught Ted is no moreright than what he taught Bob. It is just different, as JKD was a work in progress. It is not Wing Chun. Where is the grappling in wing chun? Where is the 'real' interception? Yes, there are some interceptions, but these are in no way related to the interceptions that are found in JKD. The interceptions in jKD are so based in physics it is unbelievable. In other words, where is the JKD in wing chun? It is not there. JKD took from WC, but saying that it is modified WC is akin to saying that it is modified boxing, or modified fencing, etc. It is not. It is JKD. Em
I just spent about 30 minutes writing up an awesome reply to this thread and then my browser crashed! ARGHHHHH!!! :bang: :woo: I've got to go to training in about an hour so I don't know if I should write a new response. (training sure beats this crap) For now the main thing I need to get across is this: What I meant in my first post Em is that at the principle level JKD and WC are very hard to tell apart and in that sense JKD is a modified version of WC, but at the structural and technical level, you are right it is something else. Reading a lot of JKD literature has confused me as it has become a bit confusing with the whole Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do vs. Jun Fan Gung Fu terms being used. I should have drawn a more clearer line between JF and JKD, I apologize if I was a bit confusing. Man I had written an long and awesome resposnse, including some of my insights as to where BL was going with JKD from a WC perspective. when I get back from training I might add some stuff. Also Em you said some stuff about WC that was just plain inaccurate and nasty, but don't worry we'll get that all cleaned up. I'll be back to take on all you JKDers like Bruce Lee took on all those guys in the Japanese dojo in Fist of Fury! :ban:
Again I disagree. The principles of JKD are very much different from JKD. Yes, certain principles such as the centerline theory are present from Wing Chun, but there are many other principles that are not. That's ok. I think a lot of JKD guys get confused by this also Don't get me wrong. I suppose what I said in my previous post may have come across as defamatory towards WC. That was not what I meant. What I meant was that WC does not work very well in JKD due to our conflicting stances and principles. Wing Chun on its own, I feel, can be very effective. But, I also feel that there are certain things in Wing Chun that are inadequete, like not being able to deal with hooks; like have a very open stance. But, on the whole, I think WC is a good system. Just not very good in JKD unless it is modified. Em
I find the ojkd vs jkdc is the easiest way of trying to define something that is at its core, something that is hard to define. The term ojkd vs jkdc is wrong because they are one of the same. Bruce Lee wanted to develop an art where people could use there own views to develop themselves as a martial artist. There for views will clash, because there will always be differences even between training partners. jkd did not die with Bruce lee. His own fighting style died with him. The jkd vs wc argument is strange. I have heard that jkd is modified wc, now doing both ojkd stuff and WSL method of wing chung. I personally didn't see much difference. Now, when I did ojkd stuff, i was told to lop sau over my hand to grab the wrist, in the concepts is taught both over and under the arm, people that did the ojkd said it was wrong to lop under. But really is there a difference? Now the argument saying there is two much kali in jkd or dan has mixed together makes me laugh. First of all, ALL jkd principles are in kali. 1) Interception. Ok examples, elbowing the hand (destruction) is an offence, intercepting technique 2) Always thing of hitting, kali is based on the blade, you are always hitting in kali, 3) attack by drawing - they scoop the first attack, so they can attack on the person’s second strike, give away centre line so they can draw the person in. bjj, thai, you can make the principles work in these arts, they are both really good, but have flaws Whether you do 26 styles, 3 or 1, using the principles is a guide, a blue print of jkd. That you can use to develop yourself and your personal art
Tel said----------->Now, when I did ojkd stuff, i was told to lop sau over my hand to grab the wrist, in the concepts is taught both over and under the arm, people that did the ojkd said it was wrong to lop under. But really is there a difference? <---------------- Yep there is a big time difference.....Going under against a seasoned JKDer will get you hit everytime...... p.s. I'm surprised Jerry didn't show you why!!! Keep "IT" Real, John McNabney
I've been thinking about this some more, and also been talking to some people (mostly my sifu) and there seems to be an underlying assumption I have been making about Bruce Lee that I'm beginning to challenge considering his choices in direction and development of his JKD system. It has been said that Bruce Lee knew SNT, CK and some of the wooden dummy form. I'm beginning to suspect that he did not actually have an firm intellectual grasp on the second for Cham Kiu. Why? 1. He only taught his students the first form SNT. Not CK, those few JKD guys who do SNT have very little understanding of what's going on, hence if BL didn't pass on SNT theory well, he sure of hell wouldn't of been able to pass on CK theory. 2. All WC principles and ideas that have been transfered to JKD are found in SNT. Nothing from CK that isn't already in SNT can be found in JKD from my understanding. 3. CK teaches you how to move and how to hit moving targets (among a hell of a lot of other things) it seems that instead of using CK theory, Bruce has instead gone for the next best thing and substituted western boxing and fencing. The point is that, it is suspected that in Bruce's last months training with Wong they probably focused little on the second form, probably more focused on chi sau. (also as Bruce's HK brothers would/will tell you, he was a lazy student!) So Bruce doesn't understand Cham Kiu, therefore he's unable to apply it. What does he go for? He doesn't look to Gung Fu to try and fill in the gaps, instead he fills in his knowledge with Western Boxing and Fencing. Why? Because they are more closer conceptually to Wong's method (simple, direct, efficient) even though they are non-Chinese systems. Also what Jesse Glover teaches, what he calls non-Classical Gung Fu has from what I've heard almost a complete absence of kicks. I mean here in the Wong Shun-leung method we hardly kick, and Jesse and his boys keep their feet on the ground more than us. Why? When do you learn kicks in Wing Chun? The Cham Kiu level. This is also why I suspect Bruce not only adds kicks later but is filling in his kicking knowledge with northern KF styles and Japanese and Korean arts like Karate, TSD, TKD etc... Notice whenever Bruce kicks he chambers like in those systems, that's not how it's done in the WSL method. We don't chamber at all, there's even a video on the net somewhere with Wong in Beijing explaining (in Chinese) how WC kicks are unchambered single action kicks as opposed to chambered double action kicks (yet most WC chambers their kicks .). So yeah to me it seems that Jun Fan Gung Fu only has the theoretical foundation of SNT and not CK, hence the boxing and fencing influence. Remember Bruce had already learned some boxing technique off Wong (who did western boxing before WC) for a high school boxing competition, yet he only began to implement it when he was separated from his teacher. Ahhh... crap I forgot where I was going with this. Oh yes, basically WC and JKD share the same theoretical underpinning, the same core, the same "young idea", Siu Nim Tau. When we say JKD has an incomplete WC core, this is what we're talking about. You have a quote in your signature from Sifu Lamar M. Davis II, instead of listening to a slimy Wing Chun propagandist like me, this is what he wrote on the JKD brotherhood forum. Here's the full thread: http://pauljbax.forumco.com/topic~TOPIC_ID~12069.asp The problem is it is really blurry to try and figure out where Jun Fan ended and where Jeet Kune Do began. Since from what Jesse has shared with us, Bruce was already trying to figure out how to overcome reflexive fighters even back in the Seattle era, long story. Really JF is the core of JKD and JF is like a membrane over the core of WSLWC. SNT theory works perfectly with JKD and pretty much unmodified from what I've seen, it's CK theory that beings to conflict with JKD. Ok as you would have noticed, I've bolded some statements you made in that last chunk. Statements that expose your ignorance, and lack of understanding of the Wing Chun system. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's the truth, I'm not going to pull punches just to be nice. I don't know what 'mickey mouse' Mc Wing Chun you've been learning or who you've been learning from, but in the WSL method dealing with circular, or hooking attacks is just kids stuff to be blunt, WSLWC (I don't know about the other guys, I've seen some lineages defend a hook with a quan sau which is just retarded) has the best offense-defense against a hook I've ever seen. As for the open stance, if you're talking about the "character two, goat gripping stance" you don't understand what you're talking about. If you're talking about the triangle stance then you definitely don't know what you're talking about. My 2c.. or maybe 3 or 4c. Remember when your posts contract, mine expand! And when yours expand mine contract!
"bjj, thai, you can make the principles work in these arts, they are both really good, but have flaws" Whats the "flaws"in "Thai" Tell?
lack of countering the shoots. the rear kick can be seen before its thrown, depends on the person, cos one person can pull it off better than others, just like any system, it doesn't have all the answers. doesn't mean its not a great art
have practiced a lot of muay thai skills in jkd class. the kicks in muay thai are more difficult to see coming than other kinds from my experience. because theres not the chambering motions found in other styles. and the shin does seem a better part of the body to make contact with as opposed to using the instep. the skills from muay thai have so much to offer they could be talked about for hours. among the first which come to mind is the simplicity. not being over-burdened with techniques is a good thing. and the offferings of muay thai are more concept driven. what i mean there is that a few techniques can be used for many reasons. also muay thai is about solid conditioning and provides a great workout. the striking found in muay thai has always worked for me and represents the base of skills in that area. yet i would have to agree theres a proverbial fly in the ointment there. the art of muay thai doesnt include ground-work and has limited grappling. some techniques in muay thai can be used for anti-grappling like using the clinch and knees a great deal yet it needs more solid base of grappling skills. as you can tell i love what aspects of muay thai that are taught in jkd class and favor the striking over anything else. if you have questions about muay thai why not check out thier forum? the posters there are probably far more qualified than me to answer them.
