All martial artists post here!

[Flanker]

I took American Tae Kwon Do for about 3 and 1/2 years in an acelerated program and was about a year from black belt when the class i was taking was disbanded b/c tecnical difficulties about 2 years ago. Know a little Hapkido, fencing, and about 4-6 styles' meathods of defense from knife and close( about 1 foot) range gun defense. My TKD class was mainly defensive with the flexibility to learn a little of your own technique. Since then i have develope my own style of k-bar and short katana tenique(fencing goes further back than TKD).

 

P.S. I have actualy been in a knife "fight", or rather a stand off, I just like to call it a fight.

[Flanker]

Wardz,

I agrre with you that each stlye of martial arts has both its strentghs and weaknesses. Taking both TKD and Hapkido is benifital in that the first focuses on defense and feet work(in the olimpics points are only given for kicks) which can be very powerful(a properly dilivered side kick can move 300 lbs. about 1.5 ft along the ground if the agresser is about 130 lbs). Hapkido focuses on hand work, presser points, knife+staff fighting.

 

P.S. Not trying to say that TKd is the best with all the kick information. Bruce Lee's style comes the closest to the best I think.

[Homuncul]

wardz:

I imagine the opposite would be said about aikido? I have limited knowledge about that, apart from it doesn't involve the same kinetics as TKD because you wait for an attack to come in before countering. Is that right?

 

It's not completely right because difference between the dead and alive is timing. We don't wait for an attack as a physical action we wait for the intention of attack. It would be stupid to be able to do something if you're dealing with the with a gun if not attack first before he shoots. This analogy could be extrapolated on bare fighting too. If I see someone on the street is intended to attack I start a physical action before he does if not contredicts with the situation I'm (then I'll just run away). There're many misunderstandings about many martial arts and the only way to avoid them is to understand them better.

 

Just make sure you're taking a GOOD school. A lot of dojos have toned down the difficulty for people........I once took out a black belt in my school because he had improper training, and possibly due to some fast moves for my being. (He punched there, grabbed it, pulled it, and hit him with a couple of punches to the stomach.) (He said he got it under 5 years.)

 

I wasted a year doing crap with my technique because of wrong approach, none could direct to. After visiting a seminar of 6th dan everything changed radically.

 

That said, I don't actually study a Martial Art, mom thinks I'll get bruises even though I'm actually one of the strongest in class due to weight training.

 

Yeah, me too, but I somehow feel now that it doesn't help. And I wear glasses and my mommy is always afraid if I'm gona get injured.

 

I've wondered how an Aikido practitioner is going to deflect a Karate black belt, for example - any techniques dealing with kicks (high and low)?

 

There're many techiniques of mae,yoko, mawashi geri waza (techs against legs) in aikido especially against karate kicks. Unfortunately we are not given to train them much cauze they are very difficult in terms of timing reaction and distance. Still I work myself on them. Most of them are like working with legs like you're working with arms (just hold a sword in front of ya). Most of them also use a priniciple of jo (work with the leg like you work with jo). There are mune dori ikkyo, yonkyo, irimi nage, kote gaeshi (maybe some names are unappropriate, just they seem to look like these techniques)

 

But as I said experience is more important then dan rank. If karateka and aikidoka of same experience meet in fight it's no obvious at all who's gonna win

[Homuncul]

And I don't really know any technique on low kick, mostly they are mae (front) and mawashi (round) and the only thing we've yet been told is that you have to keep distance and then do something. Many karatekas I know don't like to use low kicks, only in situations when it's satisfactory

[Silent_Thunder]

Not to insult anyone or any particular style in general (sorry if I sound pompous, I really don't know much about the subject) but I think its alittle foolish to think that EVERY martial art is equally effective in combat situation but they all just have strengths and weaknesses. There ARE such things as wasted movements that could be otherwise compacted to become more effective... I mean, if I studied a martial art that told me to hit people with my head as my primary offense would you say that that martial art was just as effective as any other art but just in a different way??

 

That said you only have a very small percentage of actually getting in a real life fighting situation where a martial art will actually help you. Something like .25% chance before the age of 20 and it only declines after that. To add to that the fact that your studying a martial art at all proves that you won't try to get into a real fight because of your mind set, which will lower your odds even more.

 

So... If you factor that all in then it is probably most practical to NOT learn a highly effective martial art for self defense purposes ONLY if you have to exhort a ton of effort and time, and quite possibly get injured in the process. If you break your neck or back (like quite a few San Soo instructors have) but never get in a real life fighting situation than all of your training has been wasted (unless you loved every bit of it). For that reason it would be best to learn a martial art for fun, exercise and health. I mean, I got my hand broken by a somewhat careless black belt in a so called "self defense learning setting" but I have yet to EVER get hurt in a real fighting situation! That could have been someones eye ball or knee cap, which would have impaired them far more than some so called street fight that might occur at some point in your life... chances are you won't be able to do anything about it anyway!

 

One of the best martial arts I've seen that has a good combination of street fight effectiveness and health is Xingyi or Hsing I Chuan (same art, two transelations). It may very well rival (or come close) to Wing Chun on the level of compact, powerful economic moves (though probably not quite as sensitive), but it also has the health benifits of TaiChi (or Taji in Cantonese), or nearly.

 

Anyways... I don't think Bruce Lee's martial art Jeet Kune Do has really passed the test of time yet. You have to remember; Bruce Lee only learned Wing Chun for about 4 years in his mid, to late teen years... Hardly enough time (and at such a young age) to take out what was effective in Wing Chun and implement other arts and create a superior martial art I think (though Bruce Lee didn't ever tote Jeet Kune Do as a true martial art I don't think... more of what HE liked personally, and not a highbred art that would be more effective than the originals). Remember, Bruce Lee was an actor! The only real fighting he did was the so called "Roof Top Fights"... but people forget, that was when Bruce Lee was 12, fighting people his age; long before he become proficient in any martial art.

 

One more thing while I'm on a role . Street fighting and Olympic fighting are two very different things... even full contact fighting and street fighting are much different. In a real street fight the attacker will be in a MUCH different mindset than an opponent in the ring. He'll care much less about himself and be far more aggressive and most likely put you at a disadvantage immediatly. He'll be on you in a second becuase of his advantage of instigating the attack. Often times you never get a chance to kick and most punches occur in the 1-8 inches range. Also, it would seem that rarely is it directly the skill of the defender in any martial art that wins in a street fight, but their will to live and aggresiveness. I haven't actually been in any street fights myself... But from all I've read about real life street fights I noticed the same things over and over again, though I'm sure there are many variables that could change all those situations quite a bit.

 

Anyways... enough of my ranting... I just get alittle tired of people saying ever martial art is "equal in self defense" but have "strengths and weaknesses". Sure, as an ART every martial art is equal, and can only be superior for yourself if you choose that one over another for some artistic expression. But heck, I personally don't think the martial art I've been studying for awhile is the most effective in a street fight. It could be effective if used well but there are many weaknesses to the way it's taught manly because of the way it was brought to America. And I'm learning Wing Chun primarily for personal satisfaction because I absolutely love the stance, the way they practice, and the overall look of the martial art. Even though it may be one of the better arts in self defense thats towards the bottom of my list of reasons (though it is still present).

 

PS, about that low kick defense... In Wing Chun if the opponent is close enough to do a low kick then the Wing Chun person would have already have made contact with him, allowing him to feel the attackers intentions as they switch balance... it only takes a slight push on the elbow to prevent any kind of kick. And besides, if you're that close the concentration will surely be on hand techniques as the Wing Chun practicioner would try to get as many punches in as possible. But as an actual counter to that kind of attack, I would assume it would be a knee against the attackers shin or thigh as you feel them shift to kick at you. But I haven't done it enough to really say.

 

In Kung Fu San Soo the defense would generally be shin kick or a deflecting kick (kind of like a small wheel kick) to the opponents instep. Which would probably be followed up with a knee or kick to the groin depending on range.

[Homuncul]

First things first. Every "do" martial art is not about fighting and self defense, they are all called "ways" because of their phylosophical background. These are ways of conduct. They may differ in principles they put accents to but they are loyal to them. It's atradition

 

And I've never heard of a martial art a main principle of which was striking with head. It's absurd and such martial art if there's one is no more than a single technique of something bigger and therefore is very limited as a martial art (the same with schools of Kung Fu, they and every art never are limited with understanding by solely one main principle).

 

I think that the main goal of martial is to set people free, let them gain better control over themselves which follows then by the greater control over their lives and lives of others. For that solely reason I think there're no championships in aikido, it's that championships are misleading cauze they are really restricted by rules created by men while real life is out of it and there's no point to compete either than for life or death. I'm not against championships, I love myself to compete, I just explain how it is thought on my opinion in aikido for example. Life is governed by laws we can only adapt to. Wouldn't you use anything you possess to fight for your life. You can take a table in your arm and make it the extension of your body and you will win (perhaps). That's one of the principles of aikido - extension - one , you can use at any time you want (if you have a table close to you) and not by the rule that using tables is not allowed in championships.

 

The other thing is street fight. We you've got nothing to offer there like i do cauze I'm not that matured in it I use whatever street fighting technique I can. But as I already mentioned in different thread: street fight is merely a justification for not understanding principles of an art. Yet I do street fight when I'm in dangerous situation

 

About Bruce Lee. He wasn't an ordinary practitioner. Again it's misleading. Some ordinary people can study something for 4 years and get no success while others talented people can get from A to C without B. I read about aikidoka who was given 8 dan after he got 2 dan. Just his master realised that this is the only pupil who truely understands master's ideas. The same with Bruce Lee and many admit that.

 

And we speak of different schools of Kung Fu. While accents on principles are different there, the principles themselves stay the same, it's tradition which was tested in thousands of years.

[Spider AL]

Jeet Kune Do is Bruce Lee's altered style of Wing Chun Kung Fu.

This is horribly, horribly inaccurate. Bruce lee's Jeet Kune Do wasn't a style, it was an idea. It's an idea summed up best as: Experience as much as you can, and take what is useful, what best suits you.

 

Anyone who claims to teach Jeet Kune Do is in my considered opinion a ripoff merchant, as Jeet Kune Do encompasses at once all techniques, and no techniques, all styles, and no styles. Only Dan Inosanto and a tiny number of Bruce Lee's other students could ever claim to teach the principles of Jeet Kune Do, but everyone can read those principles by buying the darned book.

 

The last line in Tao of Jeet Kune Do is an appeal that the name of Jeet Kune Do should never become associated with any "style" or "technique", two things Bruce Lee never believed in.

 

Naturally the issue is not whether Lee was correct in his disdain for styles, all that matters is that he had it, and since he's dead, we should all respect his right to it.

 

And as Homuncul says, to be a martial artist isn't just to be a fighter. In fact, there are many great, great martial artists who could be defeated by some greatly experienced streetfighter or other. To be a martial artist, one has to make an art out of one's discipline. To intentionally reach one's own highest level of potential. In a fight, a martial artist would be best advised to pick up a huge iron bar and hit his or her opponent with it. Martial arts should not be about fighting, but about self-improvement at all levels.

[Silent_Thunder]

I certainly agree with the above poster who says that there are more to martial arts, and the artists than fighting. It just bugs me when people think that every single martial art will have equal effect on the "street" but just in different situations... Or those that think in a real fight you have to totally change your tactics from a martial artist to someone trying to survive... Thats why alot of martial artists do worse in a real fight than the average boxer, and partially becuase of many martial arts teaching false confidence. But as some of the posters pointed out above, there ARE martial arts that DO teach you to fight in a REAL situation, not a modification of ring fighting. And no, that martial art where people strike eachother with their foreheads does not exist... yet .

 

I mean, I personally have alot of respect for sport and health martial arts and by no means to I see them as inferior to a self defense art. But having the mind set of: "well, in a REAL fight I'm going to pick up a big heavy stick or metal bar to beat my enemy, and NOT use what I've been trained in", and assume that what you're doing is NOT considered martial art just goes to show that the martial art that person uses is NOT a street effective art as it does not teach how to react in real situations... But there are alot of arts that DO teach that. Not all teach you just to go into gaurd position and try to remember a certian kind of block or strike... In San Soo for example the weapon you're wielding is used almost exactly as hand techniques... and are defended against in the same manner. There are some things I find ineffective about San Soo but that's one thing it defiantly has going for it (one thing is the lack of sensitivity training... a good Aikido person should be able to take out a San Soo man easily... because they can feel the attacks better, even if the San Soo person has more effective techniques). That's one reason why I'm learning Wing Chun and San Soo.

 

Maybe I'm wrong about Bruce Lee, but I'm pretty sure he never even learned the final basic forms of Wing Chun. So its not like he was just really smart and trained really hard to get from A to Z in 4 years at such a young age. He was certainly gifted but it seems clear that he by no means mastered the art or came close to being able to distinguish the movements and strikes that were effective and not effective. But as for the "art" of Jeet Kune Do... To me it seems like a true martial art, or atleast made to sound that way. From all I've seen of it there are certain flavors which appear in two totally different practicioners, and unless that just means that they both found the perfect mother arts to draw from that can only lead me to believe there are indeed certain rules to Jeet Kune Do... Besides, if I do Long Fist, Wood Monkey, Pakua and Tai Chi does that mean I practice "Jeet Kune Do" since I'm studying as many arts as I can and taking the best from each?

 

Anyways... I have 2 questions for you guys... I'm kind of curious:

 

1. Have any of you fellow martial artists heard of Kung Fu San Soo, also known as Choy-Li Hoi Fut Hung-Gar ? It is not the same as Hung Gar, nor is it the same as Choy Li Fut, though it does bear some resemblence to both of those but does NOT appear to be a combination of those two arts. Just to note: The Hung Gar in the name is something that does not look nearly as advanced as the Hung Gar death touch of Dim Mak practicioners, its much more physics based instead of a mental thing. If you want to find out more about Kung fu San Soo try going to http://www.kungfusansoo.com or search on google for more info.

 

2. There was a student that used to do San Soo with us and he said he studied a martial art that was pronounced phonetically as "Gone Da Gal" if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure that it was a Chinese art... Anyone know the real spelling or anything about it? Its been bugging me for awhile and I can't find any martial art with a name similiar sounding to that, and the student is gone now so I can't ask him... He studied it in the UK before coming to the US and I guess he couldn't find a "Gondagal" studio out here. I'd really like to know... anyone heard of something that sounds like that?

 

Anyway, nice to see so many martial artists are on these boards and I hope to see more .

[A5ko]

2nd DAN Tae Kwon Doo (Got bored)

 

Not sure what grade in Iaido

[Spider AL]

Maybe I'm wrong about Bruce Lee, but I'm pretty sure he never even learned the final basic forms of Wing Chun. So its not like he was just really smart and trained really hard to get from A to Z in 4 years at such a young age. He was certainly gifted but it seems clear that he by no means mastered the art or came close to being able to distinguish the movements and strikes that were effective and not effective.

Since he did a lot of fighting, I mean actual fighting, brawling, it's undoubtedly true that he knew which techniques really worked for him, in a combat situation. Or should a fighter, if a technique doesn't work with his height, body mass or shape, say "It must be me" and practice it for another ten years? Of course not, at some point one must tailor whatever techniques one has learned, to oneself. The "mastery" of Bruce Lee wasn't in his martial arts, nor his physical skill, but in his philosophy.

 

Besides, the word "mastery" is just another belt, and means about as much.

 

But as for the "art" of Jeet Kune Do... To me it seems like a true martial art, or atleast made to sound that way. From all I've seen of it there are certain flavors which appear in two totally different practicioners, and unless that just means that they both found the perfect mother arts to draw from that can only lead me to believe there are indeed certain rules to Jeet Kune Do...

Read the book again, and you will see that there are no techniques in Jeet Kune Do, because it is not a style. The only rule is: Learn as much as you can from as many places as you can, and adapt that knowledge to yourself.

 

Some people read the book and copy the illustrations, and the description of the side-kick, and call it a style. They don't seem to realise that directly copying Bruce Lee's own way of fighting (which he used as an example of his learning process) is not what Lee would have wanted, nor is it Jeet Kune Do.

 

Besides, if I do Long Fist, Wood Monkey, Pakua and Tai Chi does that mean I practice "Jeet Kune Do" since I'm studying as many arts as I can and taking the best from each?

Now you're getting the idea. That selection's a little small though, all Chinese disciplines... If you can find someone who trains in them, medieval European combat styles are most useful. Aikido, Muay Thai, anything that really has power and works. Also, learning from people who are good fighters is important, not learning from people who just know a list of techniques, learned by rote.

 

Remember though that one cannot "practice" Jeet Kune Do in the same way as one can practice kung fu, or boxing, or any other art. One can however practice Jeet Kune Do in the same way that one can practice christianity, or vegetarianism, or any other way of thinking and/or living. Thus you don't have to be a martial artist to practice Jeet Kune Do, you could be a chef, a carpenter, a TV weatherman. It's the idea that makes it what it is.

 

I hesitate to do so for fear of seeming flippant, but since we're on a JK2.net board, why not use a JO analogy: Martial arts are like sabre stances, or guns. How can one know what weapons suit one, if one doesn't try them all and then trust oneself to make the best selection? That's the totality, and the strength of Jeet Kune Do.

 

Or those that think in a real fight you have to totally change your tactics from a martial artist to someone trying to survive...

Regardless of whether you're a martial artist or not, of course you're someone trying to survive in a fight. And a martial artist should have learned this after his years of training: A sensible and sane person always takes any advantage he or she can, in a fight. Thus a martial artist should avoid fighting unless escape is impossible, because a fight contains the risk of injury thus it is strategically undesirable. Secondly, a martial artist should avoid one-on-one combat, as simply even numerical odds are undesirable. A group of friends to back you up is always preferable. Thirdly a martial artist should, if forced into combat, at least choose the ground on which they will fight, to their own advantage, or have a superior weapon than your foe.

 

Too many people take up the arts to try to be some sort of superman, when they should be learning... Learning to be a realist, frankly. A real fight isn't a test of skill, because a lucky punch ignores all skill, and can end a fight quite unceremoniously. so the best martial arts technique one can learn is the swift getaway.

 

If at the end of your life you've never had to use your martial arts skills once, you've honoured your teachers best. Naturally a large number of people will be forced into combat, but the true effort to avoid it is what's important, because it shows that you have learned the most important lesson: That risking injury is never, ever a good strategic choice.

 

I mean, I personally have alot of respect for sport and health martial arts and by no means to I see them as inferior to a self defense art. But having the mind set of: "well, in a REAL fight I'm going to pick up a big heavy stick or metal bar to beat my enemy, and NOT use what I've been trained in", and assume that what you're doing is NOT considered martial art just goes to show that the martial art that person uses is NOT a street effective art as it does not teach how to react in real situations...

Boxers and wrestlers train more to fight than most conventional martial artists, and that's why they win when the match is on. Their bodies are conditioned, and they're used to altering situations to their own advantage. But that doesn't mean that a selection martial artists aren't good fighters. But fighting ability is something that should grow alongside one's martial arts, it's not necessarily connected directly to it. For example, learning a form doesn't instantly make you a better fighter... but training at it and training at it with the intention of using it to make one a better fighter, might just do it. Thus learning all the techniques of Wing Chun won't make one a better fighter, but training to apply those techniques to one's own innate style of physicality will make one stronger, faster and more able to control the body mechanics of other people.

 

No martial art is guaranteed to make anyone a good fighter. This shows that it's not the techniques that are important, it's the calibre of the person learning them.

 

And picking up a big stick is a good idea no matter how good you are, and no matter how bad your opponent is.

 

And no, that martial art where people strike eachother with their foreheads does not exist... yet .

It's a Scottish art I think, it's called "Stitch This."

[El Sitherino]

if you have mastered the art, you will be able to use it no matter what your opposition is. just so you know. it's not just flashy kicks it's not just for certain situations, it's used in all situations you just have to have mastered the art.

 

i have mastered shadow boxing (the actual chinese boxing art, not that crappy thing people do) i am also very good at drunken boxing, jeet kun do, tae kwon do, kung fu(both a shaolin style and chinese boxing), ninpo ninjitsu, kendo, and other styles of sword fighting.

[Spider AL]

i have mastered shadow boxing (the actual chinese boxing art, not that crappy thing people do) i am also very good at drunken boxing, jeet kun do, tae kwon do, kung fu(both a shaolin style and chinese boxing), ninpo ninjitsu, kendo, and other styles of sword fighting.

 

Musashi wrote that once you have mastered the way of strategy, ten thousand things cannot touch you... but it's equally true that if you master the art of business you will attain similar power over others, and if you master the art of running away, you'll never get a scratch. Knowing your way around combat is important, but knowing how to avoid combat is considerably more important, and mature.

 

And while it's true that you are only a master when you yourself know you're a master (nobody can MAKE you a master of combat, or tell you that you are) a true master should have the humility never to claim to be one. Not an attack, just a pointer.

 

Lastly, while you may be very good at applying the principles of Jeet Kune Do, since it is not a "martial art," it is illogical to claim to be "very good at it".

[Silent_Thunder]

I'm not sure what book you mean, Spider AL but I get what you mean.

 

So let me get this straight... Jeet Kune Do doesn't actually have techniques? I mean, lets say I knew the principles of Jeet Kune Do and found for myself that certain movements or strikes that would be effective for me, but ineffective for someone else (for whatever reason) but both people claim to "do" Jeet Kune Do". Does that mean BOTH are doing it correctly, even though the other person's techniques contradicts the other? Am I getting this right?

 

Also, do people who "do" Jeet Kune Do agree that what was practical for Bruce Lee may not necissarily be practical for someone else, or is he basically the standard for good Jeet Kune Do practice? I think I understand the concepts more in JKD but I'm still wondering about some things... Like to say that Bruce Lee invented the idea of trying martial arts and picking what seems most effective is completely false... But then again I don't know all the principals so I'll have to study it more... All I know is whenever I see Jeet Kune Do on the internet or in a magizine they all look VERY similar, as if they all were taught by their masters to do everything a certain way... Maybe you can clear this up for me Spider AL.

 

My example of the "big stick" or bar wasn't to say that using whatever means available to defend yourself isn't part of martial arts. My point was that alot of martial arts put a huge distinction between what they learn in class and what they would actually do "on the street". My point was that picking up a big stick or a chair and using it to your advantage skillfully CAN be part of a martial, and to say that a martial artist fights much different on the street than in class just proves that that martial art is not very street effective. And if running away or having friends around is totally foreign to a martial artist, and they consider it totally outside of the realm of their teaching than they just aren't being taught any real fighting situations in the class... Which is perfectly fine! But when someone who practices a martial art and admits that they'd rather just pick up a big stick to whack someone over the head with and say that they DIDN'T use a martial art can't really say that their training had many practical appilcations...

 

Anyway... I'm kind of curious about Jeet Kune Do now, though for some reason I always feel alittle bit biased against it for some odd reason ... I know of a guy who lives near my San Soo studio who learned Wing Chun and Jeet Kune Do as well as alittle Dim Mak who lived in China for a really long time. He would also teach me for free the old Chinese way (he said that he would disgrace his masters if he charged for lessons...). Maybe I should talk to him a bit about JKD... He has some really strange Chinese stories about these Death Touch people too.

 

One more JKD question... If I knew nothing about Bruce Lee, or Keet Kune Do but I studied 4 or 5 martial arts for example, and took what I thought was the best in each one would I be considered a "JKD person"? In other words, did Bruce Lee actually invent JKD or did he simply put a name on something that alot of people already do, and put is own twist on it?

 

BTW, I'm still wondering; has anyone here every heard of Kung Fu San Soo before I mentioned it? It's not really that widely known yet, though there is certainly a strong and growing San Soo community, especially on the west coast. Also, anyone heard of a martial art that would be phonetically pronounced as "Gon Da Gal" or many "Gon Da Gar"? Its really starting to annoy me that I can't find any martial art that has a name that sounds anything similar to that... please tell the correct spelling if you know what I'm talking about.

[Silent_Thunder]

One more thing about what you said Spider...

 

"Now you're getting the idea. That selection's a little small though, all Chinese disciplines... If you can find someone who trains in them, medieval European combat styles are most useful. Aikido, Muay Thai, anything that really has power and works. Also, learning from people who are good fighters is important, not learning from people who just know a list of techniques, learned by rote."

 

"The only rule is: Learn as much as you can from as many places as you can, and adapt that knowledge to yourself."

 

"How can one know what weapons suit one, if one doesn't try them all and then trust oneself to make the best selection? That's the totality, and the strength of Jeet Kune Do. "

 

--- Spider AL

 

To me it seems like it can work opposite of that as well... How does one know what is truely effective about a certain movement or technique if they don't know the rest of the art. You can't simply look at 50 martial arts take the "best" aspects of each one and put them all together. It would be like taking the prettiest peices from 50 jigsaw puzzles, then trying to fit all of those pieces together... it just won't fit, it needs the rest of the original jigsaw puzzle to fit together. Its the same with martial arts. In one art there may be a reason why a certain movement is done in a certain way even though the Jeet Kune Do logic may say its ineffective and should be dropped... it may be because it sets the opponent up for a second more effective attack. If you simply take away the first movement because its "ineffective" then combine it with a contrary movement and expect the second attack to work just as well than it probably won't have the same effect. You'd REALLY have to know your stuff and be in tons of fights in lots of situations to really say what part of a martial art can be dropped and replaced with another part. Thats why I have more faith in an older proven martial art than my own instincts.

 

To show an example of what I mean... There's this one "martial art" school that does that exact thing... They claim to teach "Kung Fu" (not really sure what kind... if any), Wing Chun, Escrima, Judo, Jujitsu, Karate, Boxing, and a slew of other martial arts. I was observing them spar and just asked one of the students who was taking a break when they taught Wing Chun... He pretty much said "Oh, they don't actually teach each martial art... they just take whats most effective out of each one and put it all together". It sounds good on the outside... But when I actually watched the students spar it just looked like a mish-mash of crap... I hate to say it. There were many techniques that just seemed out of place or left the students way too exposed... but if they were to have used the same techniques with the same stances or movements that the art it was taken from had then I bet it would've been alot more stable...

 

On the other hand though... My Wing Chun sifu knows of a guy who mastered Kung Fu San Soo, 2 styles of Hsingi, 2 styles of Pakua, and 1 style of Tai Chi. He basically took the best from each martial art and combined it to create his own art (which he currently teaches, but not in my area). But there's a key difference between him and the students I mentioned above... He actually learned why and how each technique is applied in each martial art so that he could actually take the best parts of each one out and replace it with a more effective substitute that actually "jived" with the rest of what he added which makes all the difference. Those students just learned individual moves from many martial arts and just squashed it all together instead of learning WHY each aspect is done (and the teachers were no better... they only learned Wing Chun from a few seminars and already they know what is effective and what isn't??).

 

Maybe I'm totally getting off track of what JKD is now... and wasted alot of posting space... but I hope you agree with what I'm saying atleast, even if that's not remotely close to JKD logic.

[Spider AL]

I'm not sure what book you mean, Spider AL but I get what you mean.

Tao of Jeet Kune Do by Lee himself of course! You've never read it? Oh, you have to read it. It's very interesting. Highly recommended, especially if you have an interest in the nature of Jeet Kune Do.

 

does one know what is truely effective about a certain movement or technique if they don't know the rest of the art. You can't simply look at 50 martial arts take the "best" aspects of each one and put them all together. It would be like taking the prettiest peices from 50 jigsaw puzzles, then trying to fit all of those pieces together... it just won't fit, it needs the rest of the original jigsaw puzzle to fit together.

It's a good analogy, and while I understand what you mean, it doesn't quite fit the martial arts... I'll give you an example. If a person trained in one core art, say... A southern style of Chinese Kung Fu. That style may be excellent, but it like all styles has its weaknesses: A reliance on a certain range, not too much floor-fighting or grappling, few high kicks, (which in my opinion is not really a weakness, but bear with me- it's just an example ) etcetera.

 

So this person can train all they like. They might even master that style, in about forty-fifty years. But to improve their combat skills, at some point they're going to have to plug the gaps in their art, those subtle weaknesses. Of course it's possible for a master of Wing Chun to AVOID situations in which high kicks are necessary, and a Karateka could avoid situations like floor-fights, but the weakness would still be there to be exploited by a sufficiently skilled opponent.

 

So the analogy of Jeet Kune Do is this: All martial arts are puzzles, as you say, but puzzles which only cover a certain area on the tablecloth of combat. To cover the whole tablecloth, to understand combat itself, one must learn as much as possible, and adapt it to one's own unique style.

 

No two martial artists fight in exactly the same way, no matter how similar their training. Two artists from the same school in the same town wouldn't fight in exactly the same way. Styles are important in that they're structured training to reach the GOAL of being good in combat, but they're not a goal in themselves.

 

In one art there may be a reason why a certain movement is done in a certain way even though the Jeet Kune Do logic may say its ineffective and should be dropped...

Well first it's not "Jeet Kune Do logic" that tells you when a technique isn't working for you, it's just yourself. For me, a high kick is just not on the cards. Sure, I've trained them to a certain level, but after careful consideration and a lot of observation, the risk outweighs any benefit. One kick can end a fight, but it can end it either way. I've seen good artists do high kicks and win with that single blow to the head, but I've seen good artists throw high kicks and get truly and utterly pounded into pulp as punishment for exposing their sensitive areas, and giving their leg to their opponent to play with.

 

You may say "But you can do it faster than they can see or catch it". Well sure, it's possible. But it's like fighting a guy with a gun, when all you have is a crowbar... You may win, but it's not worth the risk.

 

On the other hand though... My Wing Chun sifu knows of a guy who mastered Kung Fu San Soo, 2 styles of Hsingi, 2 styles of Pakua, and 1 style of Tai Chi. He basically took the best from each martial art and combined it to create his own art (which he currently teaches, but not in my area). But there's a key difference between him and the students I mentioned above... He actually learned why and how each technique is applied in each martial art so that he could actually take the best parts of each one out and replace it with a more effective substitute that actually "jived" with the rest of what he added which makes all the difference.

There you have it once again, This man you describe took a range of arts and combined them into something extremely effective, proving that martial arts have great benefits, if one looks deeply into them. And frankly the only way to learn a technique is to get in there, do it, use it regularly in training, and become subconciously familiar with it. Seminars are intellectually interesting, but not the best place to learn an art.

 

Now, this man you describe can't have trained at each art for at least fifty years. Obviously not. So did he master them all? Probably not. But is his combination effective FOR HIM? By your account, definitely.

 

Finally, learning an art deeply means only one thing: That you've learned that art deeply. Learning Hung Gar for years on end can't make a person a good fighter, any more than learning boxing for years makes a person a good fighter. A good fighter is a good fighter, and USES the style that he or she has learned to augment his or her skill.

 

One thing martial arts can do is familiarise a student with the physical and mental domination of an opponent in a combat scenario.

 

So let me get this straight... Jeet Kune Do doesn't actually have techniques? I mean, lets say I knew the principles of Jeet Kune Do and found for myself that certain movements or strikes that would be effective for me, but ineffective for someone else (for whatever reason) but both people claim to "do" Jeet Kune Do". Does that mean BOTH are doing it correctly, even though the other person's techniques contradicts the other? Am I getting this right?

Well... roughly, but you can't "do" JKD, any more than you can "do" vegetarianism. See what I mean? JKD isn't an allegiance, it isn't a school, there is no teacher. It's just a way of dealing with the process of learning combat, as vegetarianism is a way of dealing with the process of choosing and eating food.

 

I think I understand the concepts more in JKD but I'm still wondering about some things... Like to say that Bruce Lee invented the idea of trying martial arts and picking what seems most effective is completely false... But then again I don't know all the principals so I'll have to study it more...

Well nobody said Lee invented anything. He advocated it, though. Has your local priest "invented" christianity? "Invented" the deity associated with it? Bruce Lee just gave a name to a concept which occurred to him. There's no patent on the concept, as far as I'm aware.

 

Also, do people who "do" Jeet Kune Do agree that what was practical for Bruce Lee may not necissarily be practical for someone else, or is he basically the standard for good Jeet Kune Do practice?

Here you have the problem. Some people copy Lee's style of moving, style of fighting, and call it JKD. That's so wrong. Many people say "I do JKD." So wrong. Only Dan Inosanto and a small number of Lee's original students are entitled to teach the PRINCIPLES of JKD, which has no techniques, and no art. It's merely a philosophical approach to the study of the art of combat. If you went to Dan Inosanto to teach you JKD, I'd expect a lecture and nothing more... maybe he'd use some techniques to illustrate strengths or weaknesses, but he wouldn't teach you any techniques and say "these are JKD techniques", see what I mean?

 

Imagine JKD as a study guide. You know, you're doing an English Literature course, you have to study MacBeth or something... You buy a study guide. You don't write down exactly what's in the study guide, unless you're a very bad student, and you'll get caught out if you do. No, instead you use the study guide to give you IDEAS about what to write. That's JKD. It should give you ideas about how you train, it doesn't tell you what to train at, how long to train at it, or whether what you're training at is good or not. All that's up to you.

 

Thats why I have more faith in an older proven martial art than my own instincts.

I'm sorry, but this is really, really dangerous. Your own instincts are so important... I've seen people train for years at an art which is patently badly taught, poorly conceived and full of techniques which would work about as well in real combat as a sponge hammer. Maybe they haven't trusted their own instincts enough. Just because a person teaches Hung Gar or Wing Chun, or Aikido or whatever, doesn't mean that person is GOOD at teaching that art. Find a teacher who teaches chopstick throwing... but teaches it WELL, and you'll be better off than if you learned Aikido from a person who teaches it badly.

[Silent_Thunder]

Thanks for reading through all my babeling Spider (I also read through all of your posts ofcourse!).

 

Well, I like your logic and theological way of looking at the subject and actually agree with you on practically every point you bring up even if I didn't convey what I ment properly and you took it to mean something contrary.

 

I will read that book as soon as I get a chance now... You got me interested . I actually saw the book Tao of Jeet Kune Do (An idea about the way to intercept a fist?) at Barnes and Nobles awhile ago, when I bought a WC book which my sifu said (after I bought it) was all but worthless except for looking up the meanings of certain Chinese words... . It has a green cover with practicioners in black and white and was written by someone who studied under Bruce Lee. Actually I think his last name was Lee aswell (maybe Jimmy Lee?)... if you know what book I mean (don't have it on hand...).

 

But I just wanted to clear up one thing...

 

"I'm sorry, but this is really, really dangerous. Your own instincts are so important... I've seen people train for years at an art which is patently badly taught, poorly conceived and full of techniques which would work about as well in real combat as a sponge hammer. Maybe they haven't trusted their own instincts enough. Just because a person teaches Hung Gar or Wing Chun, or Aikido or whatever, doesn't mean that person is GOOD at teaching that art. Find a teacher who teaches chopstick throwing... but teaches it WELL, and you'll be better off than if you learned Aikido from a person who teaches it badly."

 

--- Spider AL

 

When I said: ---------------------------------------------------------------

Thats why I have more faith in an older proven martial art than my own instincts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I didn't mean to say that I trusted EVERY single thing a martial art instructor says or even all the principles about each art. If I did I would've fully trusted my San Soo instructor who says that San Soo is the "oldest, most advanced end all, be all martial art that has everything that is effective in other arts and more" (that's what HIS master taught him). If I had trusted him completely and not questioned him one bit I wouldn't have went to see my current Wing Chun instructor who not only teaches Wing Chun but also San Soo (and he prefers Wing Chun over San Soo but still sees alot of good in San Soo).

 

What I ment was; sure I'm going to question the people that teach the arts, and the arts themselves but I'm also going to question myself... especially if I try to "go it alone" the whole way through martial arts without getting a real foundation in any. I mean, what would you rather trust in, yourself with absolutely no combat experiance trying to take out the "best" in each art, or a 2 thousand year old martial art that has been used and modified by many people over hundreds of years who actually used what they knew in combat? I'm sure learning martial arts your way, and the way of JKD is great fun and quite effective, and I don't have enough knowledge against it to say otherwise but there IS something to be said about studying martial arts the way I mentioned... while keeping an open mind using alittle common sense .

 

By the way, Kung Fu San Soo actually sounds alot like JKD in some ways... even though San Soo is really considered a martial art and not principle (but neither are really tangible). San Soo (which roughly means "free style") claims to be the most comprehensive martial art with the most effective strikes, throws leverages, etc found in any other art.

 

In theory San Soo is supposed to only include the effective kinds of attacks/defends/etc while leaving out all the totally ineffective ones, but at the same time including a VAST number of techniques so that everyones' San Soo is quite different and can be modified to fit every kind of situation or person but they all are held under the same basic guidelines as to not hurt yourself or do something totally ineffective and still teaching proper pressure points and weaknesses inherent to the human body (such as eyes for example).

 

I'm certainly not saying that all that "San Soo Talk" is correct and that San Soo is infact everything it claims to be (one thing it doesn't encompas is hands up fighting, there is no real "stand up" guard or stance which can be a weakness or strength depending upon how you look at it). I personally don't buy into all of the rehtoric the general San Soo people spew out though I do ofcourse see quite a few strengths and haven't really decided yet what is the most effective art or arts for me. All I know is I can see alot of potential weaknesses in San Soo which is one reason I want tp broaden my spectrum alittle bit... Such as the fact that we don't really spar or do REAL ground fighting. The San Soo logic is that San Soo is just too deadly to spar with since after the first strike of your opponent you've already incapacitated him by pulling out their eyeballs, breaking their windpipe, smashing knee caps etc. But the thing that they seem to forget (even so called masters of the art) is that your opponent may actually block YOU! And that all of a sudden your nasty techniques could be turned back at you and you'll be wondering why it didn't work even though you followed with the correct responses. Sure, there IS counter blocking defense in San Soo in late brown and early Black belt but it isn't really enough and only invovles 1 or two counters from the attacker... But it still doesn't teach real "sensitivity" fighting like other arts. That's why in San Soo you have to be a REAL fighter at heart to be effective... otherwise you'll be faked out or countered too easily. Don't get me wrong though, I have a ton of respect for my first martial art and I still think it can be quite effective but some things just get on my nerves about the way the average practicioners of San Soo think.

 

Anyways... just thought I'd say that .

[Silent_Thunder]

Spider, incase you were curious about San Soo and had not heard about it before you might want to check out this link which talks about its history: http://www.kungfusansoo.com/ (click on history). Also click on "instructors" if you want to get an idea of what they the general mind set of San Soo people.

[Homuncul]

You know, guys I learned a lot here (and thanks for that) and some things that I care I would like to present in stories.

 

I guess everyone here had this problem. Your sensei says to you that you have to learn the base first and then think of something of your own feeling. My sensei says: "You have to learn the base. I see that you understand the movement I teach and you're doing it like a true shugyo-sha (seeker) but you must study our base implicitly first, get some classic and then something of what others say about self seeking"

 

There is story when Morihei Ueshiba (o'sensei founder of aikido) failed once to demonstrate his aikido principle where he put his smaller finger against the strength of a very matured master of judo. In the end he had to use a technique to win judoka. After that o'sensei said that it's the wrong way that he's teaching. It happened during his last years.

 

Another story about him. He was a great master and even could dodge bullets and was tested at it a few times (the main reason I think o'sensei's aikido worked is that he was always dealing with death, he was really tryed to be killed. And that is what we, europeans can't understand about him and of his way.). A group of shooters stood in front of him and tryed to shoot him. He was some 100 metres from them. He started running and in the end appeared so close to them all that they could fire him no longer. These are all facts and there's nothing mystical in that as some people still think. Then some great master of shooting came to him and asked to dodge his bullet. And Ueshiba said: "No, I know you're gonna kill me, I know that you're a master of shooting"

 

After a siminar with a master of 6th dan european we asked him what he can tell us of how it is in different countries that people take aikido: "Well, you russians have problem stubborn strength, you need to relax, I know you're all very strong but that's what misleads you. And I don't appreciate the way of study in japan. Masters there still follow the tradition of 200 year old. I can understand that time because a man there from birth knew whom he's gonna be: a carpenter, or a warrior and he could follow his way not hesitating at all experiencing only of what he's advanced enough to experience. And masters their, concerning that, show a technique once or twice and then let their students find their way to them on their own. I think it's inappropriate today when a man is out of this tradition and behaves differently and so martial art has to evolve. Now is the time when people want to learn more in lesser time and deeep explanation of everything is very important." These are the words of a man for 35 years studying aikido.

 

This is a story of a situation we have now. One of our senseis studyed karate first for 8 years then aikido for 7 years. And today he teaches a bit of a mixture which our snior masters consider. And lately they have decide to fire a this teacher. They claim hinto be different from the direction our federation has to be. I that this situation is deeply absurd. First of all because the direction aikikai itslef is very diverse in "styles". Actually every sensei teaches differently. The second is that when I see this sensei teaching I can see

 

I only try to show the falliability of anything man kind create.

[Spider AL]

I will read that book as soon as I get a chance now... You got me interested . I actually saw the book Tao of Jeet Kune Do (An idea about the way to intercept a fist?)

Hehe, that is the correct direct translation. More dramatic-sounding though, is the common translation: Way of the Intercepting Fist. All combat is based on intercepting one's opponent, after all...

 

I didn't mean to say that I trusted EVERY single thing a martial art instructor says or even all the principles about each art.

Ahh, I misunderstood you, taking it to mean that you always trusted the art over your instincts. What you say is the truth: That one must listen to both the art and one's own instincts, but since you're the one who'll be fighting alone, in the final analysis, your instincts should take precedence.

 

But it still doesn't teach real "sensitivity" fighting like other arts.

Sensitivity training is important in my opinion, and makes up at least 40% of "ways to block things." Eyes can be used to tell one when to block, but they're slow... The Chi can be used to tell one when to block, but most people will never access it... So the remaining method is to stick to the opponent, and flow with him through the sense of touch. Not as fast as instinct, but faster than sight.

 

And thanks for the link, Thunder. Most informative... Tom Akers seems by his biography to be a regular stick in the mud. I must confess that I wouldn't consider being taught by him at all...

 

Good stories, Homuncul. They show that no one style is effective in all situations any more than any other single weapon that man has devised. A tank is no use indoors, and a sword is no use at range.

[Silent_Thunder]

Yeah... alot of those Kung Fu San Soo people are alittle bit unhealthily confident with San Soo, and it's supposed superiority over every other martial art... it only gets worse if you actually talk to one... especially a teacher who has never studied any other competent martial art before. Although there are a few exceptions... and they tend to not only appear to be better fighters over all, but better SAN SOO fighters too, even though they don't think it's the end all be all martial art like too many San Sooers do.

 

Anyways, my own personal theory for picking the best martial art for yourself, or the best parts of the art is pretty simple... Just observe, explore and learn about as many martial arts as possible. Those that are just obviously ineffective for what you want to do (assuming self defense is the primary goal) are put aside after a little scrutiny, those that seem to be quite good and street effective are compared with the others that are on the list and are observed some more until you find ONE that seems to fit your needs... then you stick with that one untill you gain some level of proficiency for a good foundation and then start looking at other martial arts to compliment the one you already have. Obviously availability of the martial art and the availability of a good teacher have to be taken into consideration...

 

Is that at all similar to the JKD approach?

 

 

One question Spider, which I don't think you answered yet (sorry for making you repeat yourself if you did, but I can't find it anywhere...) Have you heard of or seen Kung Fu San Soo before I mentioned it to you? If so, what did/do you think of what you've seen of it? It's an important question to me since San Soo is a rather small martial art, so the only people that really know about it are the ones that study it... and those that study it (there are a few expections luckily) think its the best thing "since sliced bread". I'd really like to know an outsiders opinion on what we do, since only now that I've been exposed to other martial arts (mainly Wing Chun) do I start to see obvious weaknesses.

[Silent_Thunder]

By the way (Spider), if you wanted to see some Kung Fu San Soo stuff in action, without trying do a search for it on the web go to http://www.easthillskungfu.com and click on "videos" . The video clip of Master Bob Shores (also 10 level instructor of wing chun) may be a good one to see as well as one by Bill Lasiter. I'm personally having some problems with downloading them, since I'm on such a slow connection... but you might not. BTW, Bob Shores is actually my sifu of Wing Chun, and I was only searching for San Soo stuff when I found that website, so I was kind of surprised. Also that website has alot more comprehensive history of that martial art, and the Chinese arts in general than alot of sites I've seen.

 

Anyways, if you could see one of those clips and say what your thoughts are about it from an "outsiders" position with martial arts experiance I would apprecaite it. Since the only people that really know about San Soo are the ones that do it I never really get an unbiased opinion or perspective about any aspect of the art... maybe with someone else's view I can see potential strengths or weaknesses I wouldn't have seen otherwise.

 

 

Also, I got the Tao of Jeet Kune Do book just a few hours ago! I've been skimming through it for awhile, and reading a ton of useful and interesting information. Very few of the content contradicts what I've been taught so far. I was really impressed with the depth the book goes into.

 

Just a few questions about it though... maybe these would be answered as I read more but I think you can probably explain them off the top of your head easier:

 

1. So is there no stance in JKD? At first I was under the impression there was a default stance.. but then elsewhere it pretty much says that you make your own stance under certain guidelines... Can you explain that alittle more? I'm kind of confused how the stances and guards would work in JKD.

 

2. How is a lunging punch deliver (ie; invovles a punch and a step)? In San Soo and Wing Chun I'm always taught to step then immediatly punch to get maximum stability and power. But from what I read in the JKD book it made it seem like you have to begin steping, then punch before your step hits the ground... Why is it done that way (if so) and is that a specific JKD principle or something that Bruce Lee developed for himself?

 

3. Can you explain where the power comes from when you strike (with your fist)? In San Soo it comes from the hips and in Wing Chun through the arms. I read something about that in the JKD book but it was rather confusing.

 

4. When you draw the best from all martial arts how do you know what is the most effective... I mean, alot of the traditional arts have been used many times in documented combat (with some success), but how do you know that all the modifications and additions you make from the base arts isn't weaking your art instead of creating a better system of fighting (for yourself atleast) without having been in combat to test it first? That's really my only hesitant to accepting JKD.

 

Also, Spider, since you study JKD that means you've taken alot of other traditional martial arts too, correct? Which ones were those and how long did you take them? I'm just trying to get a feel for this JKD stuff before I decide anything about it (like if I'm going to practice the principles of JKD or not).

[BawBag™]

Originally posted by Spider AL

It's a Scottish art I think, it's called "Stitch This."

 

It's called: Fuk-yu, an art involving head-butting, kicking people when their on the ground, drinking heavily and swearing.

It's very refined. (being scottish its second nature to me, but if anyone is in need of a sensei, i'm your man! )

[Spider AL]

Just a few questions about it though... maybe these would be answered as I read more but I think you can probably explain them off the top of your head easier:

Excellent, it's a good read.

 

1: There's no set ANYTHING in JKD. It's not a style, has no techniques. Remember, Bruce Lee illustrates his own choice of fighting style in the book, and the choices he went through when deciding what to use. This does not mean one should copy Bruce Lee.

 

2: Bruce Lee's own way of fighting was like that, it relates somewhat to traditional european rapier fencing techniques as far as I can see. Also, it works with Wing Chun punching too, as power only comes together in the last few inches of a short punch, so one can be in any position pretty much, until that moment. Then one must be in a stance ready to brace against the force of the punch. It's the same as his trademark lunging side kick. Once again though, JKD technique? no.

 

3: I think Lee advocated whole body power behind a punch. Hence he's famous for the inch-punch. Turn the hips, settle the stance, extend the arm, extend the back and chest muscles, all at once.

 

4: I think that's individual to each person... Bruce Lee advocated hard sparring. He bought a lot of padding equipment, made some that wasn't on sale, strapped his students up in it, and they all had big barneys. The point being of course, that without force, one cannot tell if a technique works.

 

So get a like-minded friend, and have some proper sparring. Sparring doesn't have to be hurtful, just forceful. With proper non-constrictive padding and experienced sparring partners, it should be a great training experience.

 

It's important to remember that when one is practicing combat, one must be at the peak of readiness every minute of every day. It's no good training for twenty years and only knowing how to fight in the twentieth year, it's up to you to make a style for yourself that works at least a little, from day 1. All styles have their uses, so make some simple decisions, like linking wing chun close quarters fighting with some lunging mid-height side kicks to make up distance or to finish off a recoiling opponent. That's the start, IMO.

 

One question Spider, which I don't think you answered yet (sorry for making you repeat yourself if you did, but I can't find it anywhere...) Have you heard of or seen Kung Fu San Soo before I mentioned it to you? If so, what did/do you think of what you've seen of it?

Oh, I'd heard of it, I think there are schools even in the UK. It's not mainstream by any means though, and most practitioners who wanted to learn a chinese discipline naturally gravitated towards wing chun, myself included.

 

Also, Spider, since you study JKD that means you've taken alot of other traditional martial arts too, correct? Which ones were those and how long did you take them? I'm just trying to get a feel for this JKD stuff before I decide anything about it (like if I'm going to practice the principles of JKD or not).

The usual... Wing Chun, some muay thai, some boxing, some classical fencing, some animal styles, some chinese weapons. My main style has been WC though. I was lucky enough to find a school where tradition was eschewed in favour of a serious learning environment but with a truly friendly class and sifu. No learning Chinese calligraphy HERE, thank you very much. I've been doing that for about a decade now. Still very much a beginner.

 

And one doesn't study JKD itself. One can study the book, but the principles are simple... one only has to live by them, not learn them.

[Silent_Thunder]

What??! No calligraphy??

 

Ok, so I guess it makes sense that sparring with real force can be helpful in determining if what you're experimenting with can be useful or not... Excpet that it can never be exactly the same as it would be used in a real fighting situations... but alot of times the traditional styles have been modified FROM real fights. Still, I can certainly see where that kind of sparring can be quite helpful, regardless.

 

That stepping and punching makes more sense now, so it's more or less like fencing in that regard? But if you step like that while punching it seems like you could get pulled offbalanced very easily if they block your punch... But once again I guess it just depends on yourself so I if it worked for Bruce Lee then it might not work for me (I still prefer stepping, then immediatly punching).

 

"All styles have their uses, so make some simple decisions, like linking wing chun close quarters fighting with some lunging mid-height side kicks to make up distance or to finish off a recoiling opponent. That's the start, IMO." -- Spider AL

 

I won't dispute the usefulness of studying mulitple styles, but I always hear that WC doesn't really have any range attacks or high kicks but I just don't see where they're coming from. In everything I see at my traditional Wing Chun studio they use fairly high snap kicks and side kicks aswell as other kicks. What kind of kicks are missing? I just don't see where it's lacking in long range kicks... maybe you can tell me where I should look. My sifu learned from William Cheung, so maybe it's a lineage differences (not trying to start any WC lineage debates!).

 

One more question though... Where does YOUR JKD differ with Bruce Lees? I mean, I know that its supposed to not be a copy, but I'm just wondering what your differences and preferences are... such as how you gain power in punches and movements, what your guard or stance position is, etc... For me I think I would prefer a gaurd position exactly the same as the Wing Chun stance, except with the hand farther out to be closed as a fist to prevent any finger injures and to aid in quicker punching (although a well placed finger or pheonix strike could be move effective).

 

Uh, big barneys?

[Spider AL]

Ok, so I guess it makes sense that sparring with real force can be helpful in determining if what you're experimenting with can be useful or not... Excpet that it can never be exactly the same as it would be used in a real fighting situations... but alot of times the traditional styles have been modified FROM real fights. Still, I can certainly see where that kind of sparring can be quite helpful, regardless.

So true, I'd still avoid any art that didn't involve at least some full contact sparring though. Yes, one can't poke people in the eye in any sparring, but it's excellent training for full force blows. Impact feels so different to static shadow boxing.

 

I won't dispute the usefulness of studying mulitple styles, but I always hear that WC doesn't really have any range attacks or high kicks but I just don't see where they're coming from. In everything I see at my traditional Wing Chun studio they use fairly high snap kicks and side kicks aswell as other kicks. What kind of kicks are missing? I just don't see where it's lacking in long range kicks.

According to most sources, traditional Chinese Wing Chun included nothing so snappy as a thrusting side kick, Bruce Lee was famous for combining that particular technique into his personal art. Many northern chinese styles contain similar high and long kicks, however.

 

One more question though... Where does YOUR JKD differ with Bruce Lees? I mean, I know that its supposed to not be a copy, but I'm just wondering what your differences and preferences are... such as how you gain power in punches and movements, what your guard or stance position is, etc...

This is an interesting question... I rely on slipping more than blocking, that's one personal choice. I also prefer a long to medium range engagement rather than a close range one, though I train specifically for the close range instances too... I gain power in punching in a traditional pugilistic fashion, but naturally train my wing chun blows too... Having one's own style doesn't necessarily mean that one neglects the art too, of course.

 

Uh, big barneys?

Fights! Big fights! Our English slang is poetic...