Jeet Kune Do
- Thread starter Lionidas
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,604
- Reaction score
- 0
Very true. Bruce was always open to evolution and changing for the better.
It would of been interesting to see which direction JKD would have gone if he were still alive.
edit: With today's access to information, I have a feeling that JKD would be much different than it is today.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 2,935
- Reaction score
- 124
you are obviously a person who doesnt really listen to bruce lee but think you know all about him. bruce was ALWAYS training in different artts and everything. He trained some judo with judo gene and was training some muay thia shortly before he died, he never intended jkd to have just a limited set of techniques, and if you read tao of jeet kune do you would know that, and if you have read it, you need to read it again. he always said that one needs to be like a river and not a lake or pond. the river keeps flowing seeing new things while the pond and lake just stay there and never change. continuing to train in other ideas, concepts, and arts would be like that of a river. continuing to train the same thing over and over agin would be like a lake or pond.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 11,493
- Reaction score
- 1
Actually if YOU have ever read the tao of jeet kune do you would know that it is just merely notes Bruce was taking on various martial arts and techniques and it was thrown together by other people AFTER HE D-I-E-D. Who knows if he even wanted to keep half of what was in there. Quite alot of it may have just been scribblings on things he was pondering at the time and nothing more.
What i think too defensive was getting at and many of you are failing to grasp is that an art doesn't have to be deconstructed in order to evolve it can retain what it has and ADD on to so it is tailored together perfectly.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 2,935
- Reaction score
- 124
ok fine, dont take it form tao of jeet kune do, take it form the fact that bruce lee and dan inosanto trained in other arts together that they didnt teach in their classes at the time, so later on they could add it to their classes. tale it form the fact that bruce did talk about always evolving and that he made dan inosanto the first certified instructor under him.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,269
- Reaction score
- 0
In the end there are two kinds of stand up, those with rules and those without. I think Bruce would have dismissed MMA for what it is.. a sport. This fact cannot be disputed, as anyone who has read any of Bruce's stuff knows he was anti sport
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 440
- Reaction score
- 0
I disagree since it has been the most inclusive sport within civility in allowing the utilization of a dizzying array of Martial Arts found in just as many disciplines. Small joint, manipulation, fish hooks, eye-gouges, and groin strikes aren't for sport; they're for utter survival.
Shulom1***
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,597
- Reaction score
- 0
no he was anti dead training and non-competition and following sifus word as if it's the gospel truth. Its easy to kick/knee to the groin if you know muay that. It's not hard to head butt from a clinch.
When you train JKD you don't kick to the groin. But in a street fight you would. In a mma match you don't kick to the groin. But in a street fight you would.
Savate,boxing,wrestling, and judo are all sports. But these sports made up Jun fan Gung fu.
I want you to realize something
www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=98407&page=2
Read from the begining
Shulom1***
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,597
- Reaction score
- 0
Isn't that what Dan Inosanto promotes? Verbatim that is the argument that TD made against Inosanto. TD is nothing but a Bruce Lee LARPer who can't stand the fact that someone ( the founders highest ranking instructor under him) dare progress the art. TD is just a Traditional Stylist claiming to possess the progressive though that BL and MMA guys have.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 440
- Reaction score
- 0
This is actually what Bruce had to say:
"The best fighter is not a Boxer, Karate or Judo man. The best fighter is someone who can adapt on any style. He kicks too good for a Boxer, throws too good for a Karate man, and punches too good for a Judo man." - Bruce Lee
Also about sports:
"Unfortunately, now in boxing people are only allowed to punch. In Judo, people are only allowed to throw. I do not despise these kinds of martial arts. What I mean is, we now find rigid forms which create differences among clans, and the world of martial art is shattered as a result." - Bruce Lee
Shulom1***
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,597
- Reaction score
- 0
Both of these quotes are different from the one he is referencing to. The second just seems to promote mma and cross training
Shulom1***
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,597
- Reaction score
- 0
READ IT AND STOP THE BS:
Thoughts on the army rangers combatives manual from the man who wrote it
In light of the recent discussion about MCMAP, and the ongoing "combat sport vs. martial art" silliness that never seems to go away, I though I would copy this post from the e-budo forum (my understanding is that linking to it would not work if you're not a member of their forum). It is a discussion of the then-new (circa 2000) army rangers combatives manual by one of the men who wrote it, Matt Larsen (just so there's no confusion, an army ranger himself).
I've quoted it in its entirety because I think its all worthwhile, but the real meat starts in paragraph 5 (the one that begins "I always ask our students..."), although the 3rd paragraph also has some good stuff, including some really interesting remarks about sambo and the Russian army. This essay includes some very interesting discussion of benefits to training in grappling for a soldier, having nothing to do with groundfighting itself per se, as well as remarks about the role of competition and 'sport' in effective training. Please bear in mind too that Mr. Larsen has a longtime background in TMA, and in fact used to teach Shorin Ryu (which he learned in Okinawa) in the military.
Hope people find this worthwhile, and I'd be very interested in any comments from bullies who are current or former military. Without further ado:
"Around 1995 LTC Stan McCrystal took command of the second Ranger Battalion in Ft. Lewis WA. And ordered a reinvigoration of Combatives training. We got out the FM 21-150 and started doing just what it said to do. The men call !!!!!!!! on something pretty quick and that is just what happened. After about two or three months we went back to the commander and told him that it was a waste of our training time, that we would rather be shooting, or rucking, or anything else that had a better return for the amount of time invested. We also told him that the manual did not reflect the current realities in the battalion. For instance, the weapons fighting portion does not reflect that in a rifle squad there are two SAWs, two M203s, and everyone else is armed with an M-4, not one of which is very suitable for bayoneting and butt-stroking. That is not even to mention all of the flashlights, lasers, and optics on them or assault slings, etc.
He told us that if it was a waste of time there must be a reason and told us to come up with a better answer. A comity was formed of senior NCOs and the various martial artists in the battalion. Represented on the committee were Bujinkan, Judo, Shorin Ryu, Shotokan, JKD, wrestling, boxing, and several others. Many of these men had been drill sergeants or Ranger Instructors and had been responsible for teaching the old stuff even before the 1992 manual. All had extensive experience in the both the infantry and the Ranger Regiment.
The first thing we did was take a look at what had been done elsewhere. We soon noticed that there were very few successful programs around. Our criteria for success were simple. The average soldier in the army had to know what their literature said they should know, and they had to produce their own experts independent of continuing outside instruction. We found that there were very few instances of successful programs in large armies, and that in most cases where there was a successful program there were underlying societal reasons that the program was successful. For instance Judo training is very common in the school system of Japan so it stands to reason that the Japanese would have an easier time than some having at implementing a program. The same thing holds true for Korea with TaeKwonDo. The biggest exception to this rule was the Russians with SOMBO. Almost alone in the world the Russian army takes an untrained populous and successfully trains them on their program. We then asked ourselves what it was about SOMBO that made them have success teaching it to soldiers. The most obvious thing was competition.
Most people begin their martial arts training because they want to learn to fight, but that is not the reason that they continue. After all, few people who train with a Katana do so because they think they may have to use it. There are other often times more compelling reasons to train. They love the history or the romance of it, or they just enjoy it. None of these is a compelling enough reason for most soldiers to dedicate the countless hours that it takes to become proficient at most martial arts. For example when I was stationed on Okinawa as a Marine, Out of the eight hundred men in my infantry battalion I was the only one who pulled myself away from the bars to train. Once again competition provides that reason.
I always ask our students "Who is the best fighter in your company?" They almost never know. I then ask them who the best runner is and they all know. Subconsciously the army has chosen running as more important than fighting. The reason is probably that there has not been any way to show your proficiency in combatives. This is why competition is important. There is more about how we intend to avoid the pitfalls of competition, i.e. a sportive focus, in the manual itself.
We then started looking around to find a way to emulate the successes of SOMBO. Our first stop was obviously wrestling. J. Robinson, the head wrestling coach for the University of Minnesota, was a Vietnam era Ranger and Steve Banach, or battalion S-3, was one of his wrestlers so he came out to help us. He gave us a bunch of great advice and pointed us in the right direction and we started looking around. After several other things we eventually sent four guys to the Gracie Academy. They came back as almost disciples of the Gracies. We however were a bit more skeptical. What we saw was that in many ways what the Gracies had was very good, but it did have some problems. First, it was oriented around one on one arena fighting. We obviously were thinking more about the battlefield, i.e. many people all with weapons, and equipment. We thought that the sportive aspects had a serious potential to change the techniques even farther away from the battlefield. We also thought that the nature of the Army would allow a more systematic approach to training than was practical in a commercial school.
It is my opinion that among the many reasons that the army has not had a successful combatives program since WWII., the two main ones are;
1. Any one motivated enough to expend the personal and professional energy to change the system probably has an extensive martial arts background and therefore has the pedagogy of his system ingrained into him. The unfortunate thing is that most martial systems come from a time when Warriors were raised and not recruited. If you were to get your recruits when they were twelve and you did not need them to be proficient fighters until they were eighteen, you would train them completely differently than if you got them when they were already eighteen. When I was a young recruit the first thing that we were taught was one hour of ukemi, and then we went straight into osotogari (otherwise known as the cross hock takedown), and seoinage (otherwise known as the over the shoulder throw) both of which are excellent techniques. Neither of which can be learned in a half of an hour.
2. The second reason is that few can see past the obvious question of what techniques soldiers need to know to the less obvious question of how do we get them to know what we think they should know. We catch allot of criticism from martial artist for teaching the ground grappling from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. "Soldiers don't need to be rolling around on the ground", "The ground is the last place you want to be on the battlefield", "blah blah blah blah blah". The reason that we teach that stuff first is not because we think that it is a soldier's first option, or the preferred place to be, or "90% of fights etc.". The reason is that in the amount of time we have we can actually teach them something useful. From the beginning of time martial arts enthusiasts have been saying that if commanders would give more time, etc. etc. But the truth is that they will not. Commanders are under the same pressures now that they were 100 years ago and that they will be under 100 years from now. They will not give more time.
There has to be another answer, and we think we have found it.
I like to compare the way combatives used to be taught like learning marksmanship at the soldier of fortune convention. You put a guy behind a fifty caliber machine gun and its cool. He walks away motivated and it looks like training. But at the end of the day, no one showed him sight alignment or sight picture. So he didn't learn a thing about shooting. We all know that combat marksmanship is a difficult proposition. You are smoked and under stress. It is dark. The targets are fleeting, etc. etc. But no one doubts the necessity of learning Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Consider that dominant body position on the ground and the control of the range, angle and level in standup fighting are the BRM of combatives."
____________
Thoughts on the army rangers combatives manual from the man who wrote it
In light of the recent discussion about MCMAP, and the ongoing "combat sport vs. martial art" silliness that never seems to go away, I though I would copy this post from the e-budo forum (my understanding is that linking to it would not work if you're not a member of their forum). It is a discussion of the then-new (circa 2000) army rangers combatives manual by one of the men who wrote it, Matt Larsen (just so there's no confusion, an army ranger himself).
I've quoted it in its entirety because I think its all worthwhile, but the real meat starts in paragraph 5 (the one that begins "I always ask our students..."), although the 3rd paragraph also has some good stuff, including some really interesting remarks about sambo and the Russian army. This essay includes some very interesting discussion of benefits to training in grappling for a soldier, having nothing to do with groundfighting itself per se, as well as remarks about the role of competition and 'sport' in effective training. Please bear in mind too that Mr. Larsen has a longtime background in TMA, and in fact used to teach Shorin Ryu (which he learned in Okinawa) in the military.
Hope people find this worthwhile, and I'd be very interested in any comments from bullies who are current or former military. Without further ado:
"Around 1995 LTC Stan McCrystal took command of the second Ranger Battalion in Ft. Lewis WA. And ordered a reinvigoration of Combatives training. We got out the FM 21-150 and started doing just what it said to do. The men call !!!!!!!! on something pretty quick and that is just what happened. After about two or three months we went back to the commander and told him that it was a waste of our training time, that we would rather be shooting, or rucking, or anything else that had a better return for the amount of time invested. We also told him that the manual did not reflect the current realities in the battalion. For instance, the weapons fighting portion does not reflect that in a rifle squad there are two SAWs, two M203s, and everyone else is armed with an M-4, not one of which is very suitable for bayoneting and butt-stroking. That is not even to mention all of the flashlights, lasers, and optics on them or assault slings, etc.
He told us that if it was a waste of time there must be a reason and told us to come up with a better answer. A comity was formed of senior NCOs and the various martial artists in the battalion. Represented on the committee were Bujinkan, Judo, Shorin Ryu, Shotokan, JKD, wrestling, boxing, and several others. Many of these men had been drill sergeants or Ranger Instructors and had been responsible for teaching the old stuff even before the 1992 manual. All had extensive experience in the both the infantry and the Ranger Regiment.
The first thing we did was take a look at what had been done elsewhere. We soon noticed that there were very few successful programs around. Our criteria for success were simple. The average soldier in the army had to know what their literature said they should know, and they had to produce their own experts independent of continuing outside instruction. We found that there were very few instances of successful programs in large armies, and that in most cases where there was a successful program there were underlying societal reasons that the program was successful. For instance Judo training is very common in the school system of Japan so it stands to reason that the Japanese would have an easier time than some having at implementing a program. The same thing holds true for Korea with TaeKwonDo. The biggest exception to this rule was the Russians with SOMBO. Almost alone in the world the Russian army takes an untrained populous and successfully trains them on their program. We then asked ourselves what it was about SOMBO that made them have success teaching it to soldiers. The most obvious thing was competition.
Most people begin their martial arts training because they want to learn to fight, but that is not the reason that they continue. After all, few people who train with a Katana do so because they think they may have to use it. There are other often times more compelling reasons to train. They love the history or the romance of it, or they just enjoy it. None of these is a compelling enough reason for most soldiers to dedicate the countless hours that it takes to become proficient at most martial arts. For example when I was stationed on Okinawa as a Marine, Out of the eight hundred men in my infantry battalion I was the only one who pulled myself away from the bars to train. Once again competition provides that reason.
I always ask our students "Who is the best fighter in your company?" They almost never know. I then ask them who the best runner is and they all know. Subconsciously the army has chosen running as more important than fighting. The reason is probably that there has not been any way to show your proficiency in combatives. This is why competition is important. There is more about how we intend to avoid the pitfalls of competition, i.e. a sportive focus, in the manual itself.
We then started looking around to find a way to emulate the successes of SOMBO. Our first stop was obviously wrestling. J. Robinson, the head wrestling coach for the University of Minnesota, was a Vietnam era Ranger and Steve Banach, or battalion S-3, was one of his wrestlers so he came out to help us. He gave us a bunch of great advice and pointed us in the right direction and we started looking around. After several other things we eventually sent four guys to the Gracie Academy. They came back as almost disciples of the Gracies. We however were a bit more skeptical. What we saw was that in many ways what the Gracies had was very good, but it did have some problems. First, it was oriented around one on one arena fighting. We obviously were thinking more about the battlefield, i.e. many people all with weapons, and equipment. We thought that the sportive aspects had a serious potential to change the techniques even farther away from the battlefield. We also thought that the nature of the Army would allow a more systematic approach to training than was practical in a commercial school.
It is my opinion that among the many reasons that the army has not had a successful combatives program since WWII., the two main ones are;
1. Any one motivated enough to expend the personal and professional energy to change the system probably has an extensive martial arts background and therefore has the pedagogy of his system ingrained into him. The unfortunate thing is that most martial systems come from a time when Warriors were raised and not recruited. If you were to get your recruits when they were twelve and you did not need them to be proficient fighters until they were eighteen, you would train them completely differently than if you got them when they were already eighteen. When I was a young recruit the first thing that we were taught was one hour of ukemi, and then we went straight into osotogari (otherwise known as the cross hock takedown), and seoinage (otherwise known as the over the shoulder throw) both of which are excellent techniques. Neither of which can be learned in a half of an hour.
2. The second reason is that few can see past the obvious question of what techniques soldiers need to know to the less obvious question of how do we get them to know what we think they should know. We catch allot of criticism from martial artist for teaching the ground grappling from Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. "Soldiers don't need to be rolling around on the ground", "The ground is the last place you want to be on the battlefield", "blah blah blah blah blah". The reason that we teach that stuff first is not because we think that it is a soldier's first option, or the preferred place to be, or "90% of fights etc.". The reason is that in the amount of time we have we can actually teach them something useful. From the beginning of time martial arts enthusiasts have been saying that if commanders would give more time, etc. etc. But the truth is that they will not. Commanders are under the same pressures now that they were 100 years ago and that they will be under 100 years from now. They will not give more time.
There has to be another answer, and we think we have found it.
I like to compare the way combatives used to be taught like learning marksmanship at the soldier of fortune convention. You put a guy behind a fifty caliber machine gun and its cool. He walks away motivated and it looks like training. But at the end of the day, no one showed him sight alignment or sight picture. So he didn't learn a thing about shooting. We all know that combat marksmanship is a difficult proposition. You are smoked and under stress. It is dark. The targets are fleeting, etc. etc. But no one doubts the necessity of learning Basic Rifle Marksmanship. Consider that dominant body position on the ground and the control of the range, angle and level in standup fighting are the BRM of combatives."
____________
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 440
- Reaction score
- 0
Zisteau
Green Belt
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 0
I studied JKD in Los Angeles for 3 years with Ed Monaghan, one of Poteet's students. He teaches the spirit of JKD, not the style. He emphasizes taking the best techniques from a variety of styles/sports and adapting them to the individual. We did a pretty good amount of boxing, muai thai clench and kicking, some dirty street fighting stuff, some joint breaks, etc.
If you live in the LA area, and are interested in JKD, its worth the time to look him up. Here's his website:
Combative Arts Academy
If you live in the LA area, and are interested in JKD, its worth the time to look him up. Here's his website:
Combative Arts Academy
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,532
- Reaction score
- 0
This is an interview with Inosanto that gets into Lee and Muay Thai. Interview With Dan Inosanto | www.thaiboxing.com
Shulom1***
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,597
- Reaction score
- 0
This also. I have however scene the quote about someone with 6 months of boxing and wrestling can beat a Kung Fu man with 20 years experience.
BJJ PrideFC**
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2010
- Messages
- 371
- Reaction score
- 0
Jkd is not a style of fighting
its a philosophy that can be applied to fighting as well as other areas
its a philosophy that can be applied to fighting as well as other areas
Shulom1***
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,597
- Reaction score
- 0
Nice post and I agree with Guro Dan said.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,604
- Reaction score
- 0
Beat him in what....a boxing match?
Also, source please. This sounds like complete bullshit.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 440
- Reaction score
- 0
Complete in utter bs! If even if Bruce did say it, I'm sure it was on one of those Sunny California days in Berkeley in the 60's.:icon_lol:
