Whats the difference between a move from the sixties and a move from today? Why is Ted Wong's Jun Fan trapped? and everybody these days isn't? Is there really a need to try and better what Bruce did as look at it from another point of view, outside of the box! If someone throws a punch at your nose, what is the simplest option to do?.....There are a number of answers but use your problem solving art to figure it out. GJ
nothing is wrong with ted wong, but nobody is trying to better bruce, they arw trying to do what he said, research and find what works for them, and if you teach, you should give a number of ways because some people will find different things will work for them
Yes I agree that people should research and find out what works for them. But why is Ted Wong's Jun Fan/JKD stuck in the 60's, I mean fighting hasn't changed you still throw strikes and get hurt, so is the style he represents not capable of todays fighters? it's a moot point so I'm not winding people up I just want to know why people think that he is stuck?
but fighting has changed, people don't fight the way they did. stuck? well maybe, maybe not. but people don't fight the way they did in the 60's
society has changed and people have less morals these days but if some one wants to hurt you badly whether its 1914 or 1967 or 2007 they still have to go through certain physical principles and actions to get to you, times have changed we have more knowledge but in terms of man's instincts they haven't changed since the cavemen, were all just soft lol
I think people should judge the book on its relevant content. Teri Tom does not respect Dan. Okay, this is a bit of a strange position to take, but all the same, she wrote a fantastic book on the straight lead. Anything that is sai about Dan should be left out of the book, indeed. But, the fact remains that it is there. As a resource for JKD students who wish to get the straight lead it is fantastic. It should be left at that. Em
A whole book dedicated to one move, eh? Sounds like a waste of paper, but who knows? I haven't read it, but I'll look for it. Of course, I'll take the ninja way about it; read the whole thing at the book store for free, commit the useful parts to memory, then put it back and go to Wendy's for a chicken sandwich.
Why are people so hung up on the whole "One technique" thing? Would you be happier if a whole book was dedicated to thousands of techniques? The straight lead is the corner-stone of JKD. Em
True, but it seems like a lot of material for a single technique. I will try to find this book so I can understand the author's intentions, but IMO I think she may have been a bit verbose. How many pages are in the book?
I can't remember the exact number, but each one is as relevant and imprtant as the last when talking about the straight lead. Em
I will try hard to find this book. If it really is all relevant, then I certainly can't wait to read it.
have read articles in black belt mag. and talked with jkd students about the comments made there. what they had to say was that teri tom is talking about jkd of days past. about her comments of dan inosanto. many instructors have came forward lately and claimed to be teaching 'right' jkd. from what i remember in the bruce lee books edited by john little the style was left in the hands of dan inosanto. not a jkd expert (never even student) yet have met inosanto during a couple of seminars. anyone taking 'shots' at inosanto is full of crap! btw. how come inosanto was in several bruce lee movies and not ted wong? for that matter why did bruce leave jkd in the hands of inosanto? again not ted wong. from everything i ever heard/read about jkd nobody was closer to bruce lee than dan inosanto. even former jkd students that went on to develop thier own systems like richard ryan or paul vunak have never to my knowledge said anything close to negative about inosanto.
I dont believe Dan Inosanto really cares about whats being said by petty girls trying to make a name for themselves. I mean throughout the book she makes snide comments about wing chun and Dan, so she really hasn't got a clue when it comes to Jun Fan/JKD, she should be ashamed. Bruce didnt choose idiots as friends you can see that from the way they have tried to keep his art alive. It must hurt them inside to see it get messed up and turned into a Non-classical mess GJ
can't we all just get along? whether it's jkd concepts or jfjkd i wish we could all just come together and not accuse each other of practicing incorrect jkd. i probably sound like a hippie. I just don't think it's right for us to say we know more or less about it than the next guy. (unless of course the other person doesn't even do martial arts) I think it's rude and immature of the author to criticize Guru Dan, period.
While I dont know if the book is technically accurate as far as her presentation of the straight lead as it relates to JKD, she has at least half a dozen mistakes as far as her statement of the "science" behind her attempt to validate the technique. In one instance, she incorrectly presents the concept of inertia and in another she discusses momentum when what is occurring has to do with impulse, not momentum...ad nauseum
much as i hate to sound like another poster who goes around quoting bruce all the time...please turn to page 208 in tao of jeet kune do. "if people say jkd is different from "this" or "that", then let the name of jkd be wiped out,for that is what it is, just a name. please dont fuss over it." and 'rude' doesnt even begin to descibe how i feel about anyone that would criticize danny inosanto. despite the likelyhood this will draw fire inosanto does know more than the next guy and was the sole person that bruce left to carry on jkd. and this petty criticizing is well below him.
i follow Guru Inosanto, but i still think it's interesting that Ted Wong's camp is preserving Bruce's specific jkd. at the same time i don't think putting a box around an idea, that is supposed to "use no way as way," is right at all. i just ignore other people's propaganda.
ted wong is teaching what bruce showed him, now some first generation students say he didn't learn that much, giving the time he spent with bruce,proberly true, but its still important to show what he know's one point i can never understand is when they say ted was the last private student there for knows the most of what bruce was doing just before he died. know if an instructor has a student that comes into his class and does six months, does this student know more about what the instructor is doing, than the others that have been with him for a long time? no is the answer, so tho he should teach what he learnt, the foundation so forth, should be to take the advice of people like dan inosanto, jerry poteet.as well as ted wong
why not learn from them all and those who have spent time carring on the legacy and then make it your own?
