Jump to content

Talk:Jeet Kune Do/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

POV

This article needs to be rewritten.

Very POV. Needs rewrite. --Andrew 06:00, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

If it is rewritten or just edited someone might want to add Tommy Carruthers... He is a practitioner of JKD and is amazing.

"I've not met anybody on par with Bruce Lee except for Tommy Carruthers, who is better than Lee in some respects.

Let me say that Tommy is Bruce Lee #2, hands down. This is the baddest man around. I don't give out props lightly, so take note. There's a new martial star, and his name is Tommy Carruthers. If you are looking for a standard of excellence, look no further than this dude." - George Tan (Bruce Lee historian/film producer)

http://www.tommycarruthers.com/tommycarruthers.htm

There are some video's on there too if you want to see why I am recommending he should be added.

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art

OK, the article (is missing a couple (of (closing (braces and I don't know where (to put (them.

Zen and Chan in JKD

Many of the influences on Bruce Lee were Zen specific rather than Chan in general. Zen being the Japanese interpretation of Chinese Chan. This is a curiosity since Bruce Lee was of course Chinese. SOURCE: The Unbeatable Bruce Lee: A Manual of the Master in Action [Collector's Edition] Author: Editors of Kung-Fu Monthly. & Many of the actual book titles in Bruce Lee's private library. FrankWilliams 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, Lee being fluent in English, he was using the word most familiar in the 1960s to Americans? He himself would have been very familiar with Chan, as HK had a large community of Buddhist monk exiles from the mainland at the time. --Fire Star 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Arrows of the JKD Emblem

We need to keep the arrow definition in the emblem box because Bruce Lee very purposely put those arrows there. He wanted to show that the "Fighting Universe" of which the emblem is representative was very dynamic and ALWAYS changing.

FrankWilliams 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Styles

I think there is some misconception going on between Jeet Kune Do proper and Bruce Lee's personal JKD. This is how to understand this:

  • A. There is a JKD framework that incorporates certain principles and provides building blocks. This JKD is a PROCESS.
  • B. There are personal JKD "Systems" that Utilize A. (Above - the JKD Framwork). These building blocks are utilized to construct a personal system. This type of JKD is a PRODUCT.

The article should revolve around A. NOT B. Listing the styles that Bruce Lee utilized to make up his "PERSONAL" system should NOT occur. JKD as a FRAMEWORK is NOT bound or confined by any styles or systems. To list them is pointless and missess the the very nature of what JKD is. Bruce Lee recognized the problem with labeling such a thing and regretted ever giving the system/approach a name.

Also many of the systems that Bruce Lee studied were not just to develop his "Personal JKD" but used to gather the "principles" utilized in the JKD Framework approach. Not sure how beneficial it is to list what styles he looked at because we CANNOT extrapolate which principles came from which styles except for but a few.

This difference is the very core of JKD; which many individuals including students of JKD miss. Traditional styles and system are essentially a product that is given to a student. Bruce Lee recognized the inherit problems with this approach and established a "Process" which a student could than utilize to make a "Tailored" "Personal" Product of their own.

The last paragraph of the (Last style) section below is quite correct.

FrankWilliams 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point, Frank Williams, but I would have to say there is one inherent flaw with what you just said. Nobody on this living earth can define what JKD is or isn't. The one man who could do that is long dead.

It seems you have put a great deal of time into this so I am by no means trying to make a degrading statement towards or about you. I have in the past added to this article, and I am actually surprised to see some remnants still there.

There is one thing to which I take exception to what you have just said:

  • You hold a one popular viewpoint about this, ergo there is an oposing side to the debate. To maintain the neutrality of this article the oposing side should be allowed the space.

Rather than get into a deletionist war, it would be nice to see this article fleshed out with everyones agreement that it would be better off for it.

ShuckyDucky 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've rolled back the edits by 169.145.3.13 because they were too subjective and opinionated as far as assuming what Lee intended JKD to be, and presented those opinions packaged as Lee's discovery of underlying fact, not Lee's opinions. It is OK to cite Lee's opinions of martial arts here, but we can't present those opinions as fact, or imply that they are some sort of "eternal truths" Lee discovered to the detriment of the reputations of all other styles of martial art. Wikipedia's npov policy requires a more neutral, dispassionate reporting of the issues surrounding JKD's founding and subsequent development. Fire Star 01:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


hi. can someone please tell me or give me a link on how do i do the dril that`s called 3 punch way\wave?

Misunderstanding

Bruce Lee's comments and methods were seen as controversial by many in his time, and still are by many today. Many teachers from traditional schools disagree with his opinions on these issues, especially seeing what Lee described as their lack of strategic flexibility due to "rote" teaching methods to be a misunderstanding on Lee's part. Most, if not all, traditional martial arts teachers say "fluid" strategy is a feature of martial training that is indeed addressed in the curricula of most traditional styles at advanced levels, when the students are ready. The schools Lee criticized tend to see their initial conservatism as a safety feature; a legacy of practical experience passed down from generation to generation, said to ensure that their students are thoroughly prepared for advanced martial training, skipping nothing and developing intangibles such as good character, patience and discipline. The hierarchy of the traditional schools is said by this reasoning to provide a level playing field for all students by instilling respect and care for one's seniors, peers and juniors, so that everyone, not just the physically gifted, has an opportunity to benefit from the training provided in a martial art school.

There could be a follow up to the paragraph above, featured in the article, as the above statement itself seems to be a misunderstanding on Bruce Lee's philosophy.

The fact that a style is taught at all goes against Lee's views on martial arts.

Marial arts category for Wikipedians

A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your user page:

[[Category:Wikipedians interested in martial arts|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

Shawnc 01:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Last style

Ok people,I've done so much research all over the net and found 29 of the styles he learnt although it is disputed if some are styles or substyles.

Could someone please add the last one. I wonder if he studied Kino Mutai.

It is almost impossible to list every style that Bruce Lee studied because he had a library of over 2000 books on different fascets of combat. Also, the article is about JKD not Bruce Lee's version of JKD. It is an open system in which individuals add what is specifically their own. This list of studied systems will change from individual to individual. So in reality there is no list of incorporated systems.

Not Controversial

I removed the controversial tag, as I see no controversy here. --Xyzzyplugh 23:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would say this article is highly controversial. --ShuckyDucky 00:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say the JKD article is atleast controversial for the following reasons:

  • A. Most folks have NOT studied the system and thus only know what they read or hear.
  • B. It was in the midst of evolving and thus changing.
  • C. It was designed to be dynamic and thus difficult to pinpoint.
  • D. It is both a process and a product (Which many confuse).
  • E. It criticizes traditional Martial Arts which is extremely controversial for the obvious reasons.

FrankWilliams 13:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Nothing to add except the controversy not only surrounds, but also sadly exists within JKD. 71.231.184.103 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Should characters from movies, shows, or games be mentioned if they're somewhat famous practicioners? Or should that be kept in their profiles?

  • Personally, I believe that there should be a Pop Culture section... So i'll add one. Unfortunatly, right now I can only think of one TV character that uses JKD, so i'll just add him.

JKD = MMA

In a sense, considering that Jeet Kune Do is a process rather than a product; and that everyone has their own style that fits them (their body type and skills); isn't Jeet Kune Do the same as Mixed Martial Arts? Both attempt to assimilate different martial arts; in an effort to create the "best fight style"; or at least; the best for a specific person and/or body type. And, also, considering that it has been a great deal of time since Bruce Lee's death, and if viewing MMA and JKD as products; couldn't you say that MMA is more "advanced" than JKD now, since MMA has been worked on and perfected more for the human body? For instance, if two fighters were paired up in a ring, one using the JKD style, while the other using the MMA style of fighting; and if both were the same body type and even the exact same person; (and assuming JKD and MMA were viewed as products rather than a process), would it be fair to say that the fighter utilizing the MMA style most likely would beat the fighter using the JKD style?

Some of the ideas (the process) sound similar, but the term "JKD" is slightly self-contradictory because it literally means "the way of the intercepting fist", but its ideal is "using no way as way". It is ironic to have a "JKD style". It's also a Cantonese/Chinese term, which signifies a particular origin. The main article on Bruce Lee states that he abandoned the term before he died and didn't want it to be used anymore. In contrast, the term MMA is neutral, does not emphasize any style or culture, and can be translated into any language. MMA shouldn't really be refered to as a style because it can include any style. As far as the "products" go, many MMA competitors are skilled in all areas of fighting. They also make their living by winning fights on a regular basis, and not by discussing theoretical philosophy. Shawnc 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
One thing that strikes me reading over this and the Bruce Lee article is that there are several contradictions in what Lee said about what he was doing. I'm sure some of them were intentional imitation of the sometimes obscure metaphors of Taoist and Buddhist philosophy, others the result of his opinions evolving over time. Another part of it was his attempt to legitimise his break with his Wing Chun school, insulting the routine he thought to be unsuited to him while expressing at least a psychic nostalgia for it in his own training and keeping a big part of the teaching structure. None of this belongs in the article of course, but that is the impression I get from reading Bruce's words. MMA in contrast seems much more straightforward: "Train your *** off and go fight." ;-) --Fire Star 15:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

JKD=MMA YES. It is often described the precursor. I think BL practised that MMA ethos of "Train your *** off and fight". Certainly Lee was obsessed with training and when he fought/sparred it was as realistic to real combat as possible. If fact he was one of the first proponents of using safety gear to "Go all out" while sparring. (Examples of this can be seen in many photographs while training with Ted Wong, Danny Inosanto, and others). Many photos of other martial artists during the same period hardly ever showed them in full gear and "Going all out". This is NOT a slam on other martial arts but rather an example of how Lee's emphasis on realistic combat was taking shape. Had the UFC or Pride been around in the late 60's and early 70's Lee would almost certainly have participated; and probably would have done rather well. As a side note Lee's feelings about the so called "Martial Arts Tournaments" of his day were that they were no more than a "Games of Tag" with the whole point system and all. He found this quite "unrealistic" and chose NOT to participate in them. Again, this thinking would come to fuition by the commencement of such "No Hold Barred" contests of the early UFC contest. FrankWilliams 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Same core "use what works, discard what doesn't" strategy, however, MMA is geared towards the ring and JKD was geared towards the street. Bruce was certainly an innovator in both cinema and breaking Martial Art dogma.

True, my original comment was geared more towards the first couple of UFC's which were for all intents and purposes televised "Street Fights". MMA and ring fighting is much much tamer now with the onset of rules and political pressures.FrankWilliams 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

joeygil's 12/4/06 comments: Like many things in JKD, I think you can say yes and no. For example over at the Inosanto Academy, the main "basic" course is called Mixed Martial Arts - but it's not exactly what you see in the UFC. It's left lead, Muay Thai, Jun Fan (what Sifu Dan calls Bruce Lee's "style" before he died), Kali, BJJ). There's also a Vale Tudo class, and Shooto class, which might be closer to what people think of "MMA" today. In addition to this, there's the Jun Fan or Jeet Kuen class, which is ONLY what Bruce Lee taught during his lifetime. Sifu Dan makes it clear that MA "technology" has progressed since the 60s and 70s, and doing only Jun Fan won't hold up against a contemporary grappler doing a BJJ based style. Another way to see the difference between "JKD MMA" and "UFC MMA" is situation they're used for and how it's trained. The base (aka JKD) MMA is trained on concrete wearing shoes - that's for street fighting. The Vale Tudo and Shooto classes and other "UFC MMA" are trained on mats, with no shoes - which may indicate an emphasis on sport fighting (thought it sure as hell can be used effectively on the street).

Fictional Practitioners/Pop Culture

I have noticed that a while back someone added a Pop Culture section, which was quickly removed by someone else, then just the other day, someone aded a section about fictional practitioners of JKD. Again, someone deleted it. I don't understand why this article can't have a Pop culture or Fictional practitioner section. Many articles have similar sections, for example (just a few articles I found quickly to make my point):

All these articles have Pop-culture/fictional or similar sections, and yet every time someone adds such a section to this article, it is quickly deleted. It just doesn't make sense that this article dosn't have a section that lists Pop-Culture and fictional uses of JKD, when so many other articles do have such sections. This article could use a Pop culture/fictionial use section. I really can't understand why no one will allow such a section to be added to this article.

  • It seems that any time someone adds the section, it is quickly deleted without any discussion here... that doesn't seem fair. All of the aticles above have sections that mention pop culture and fictional uses of the topics those aricles cover. Muay Thai, for example, lists video game characters who use Muay Thai. It doesn't seem right that that this article isn't allowed to have a section like that. It seems unfair to delete what appears to be a legitimate section without any discussion about it. especially since many other articles have pop culture and fictional user sections (Muay Thai, for example). I honestly can't understand why this article can't have a pop culture section, while other articles can. 151.203.179.227 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this article much, but I see your point. Something that may be helpful is that there is already a Bruce Lee and popular culture article. --Fire Star 火星 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Fire Star; the fact that there is already a whole article dedicated to Bruce Lee and popular culture which would encompass JKD seems to negate a need to have this section included in the JKD article.FrankWilliams 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see why we can't have a Pop culture section on this article. It's just a little section that shows the use of JKD in fiction and pop culture. After all, this is the JKD article, so it should have it's own pop culture section. Just becuase there is a whole article about Bruce Lee in Pop culture, doesn't mean that we can't make a note in the JKD article about JKD in pop culture. However, if you insist on removing the fictional practitioners section (which personally, I don't see any reason to remove it, as I believe this article should have it's own JKD in pop culture section) At the very least set up a "See Also" section that links to the Bruce Lee and Pop clture article, since it also deals with JKD. 70.17.150.174 18:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a "See Also" section is good idea and compromise to this issue. I'll add it if no one objects. FrankWilliams 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Carter Hargrave

My JKD sources tell me this guy is a sham. He broke away from Gary Dill a legitmate instructor and than tried to get others to promote him. When he couldn't he started his own organization with all kinds of claims to being a Grand Master. There is no history of this guy before 1992. Any way the point is that we should be careful if citing anyone without the proper credentials.FrankWilliams 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Chinese or American martial art

I happened to be reading the section of Chinses martial arts the other day and discovered Jeet Kune Do was included in one of the Chinese martial art listings. I must say that with all the training and techiniques Bruce Lee adopted from Savate, boxing and fencing that wouldn't it be prudent to catgorize this martial art as American or hybrid or whatever you may call a martial art which cosists of techniques from various styles? Futhermore, would it be correct to say that Jeet Kune Do is an American style as it was created in the U.S. and first taught to U.S. citizens?

Thoughts?

157.80.33.202 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all JKD is NOT a style. Therefore it would not be American or otherwise. Since JKD can be influenced by other styles and systems than logically it could be listed under any and all of them.FrankWilliams 12:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The External Links seem to be under question as what should be in there. I think it's obvious that we don't need advertisements. Also trying to link every (supposedly legitamate)(also see Carter Hargrave above) JKD school would be ridiculous, but I believe that linking both Inosanto and Kimura would be appropiate as they were both instuctors under Lee. Discussion? -- ShuckyDucky 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree external links should be kept down. Also Inosanto and Kimura links are definitely appropriate.FrankWilliams 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

JKD: name, and essence

I would like to discuss the following addition, that was recently made to the Jeet Kune Do entry:

"Recently, in 2004, the Bruce Lee Foundation decided on using an all encompassing name of Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do. This name refers to the art itself as taught by Bruce Lee and as intended by Bruce Lee in his lifetime. "Jun Fan" being Lee's Chinese given name, therefore the literal translation is "Bruce Lee's Way of the Intercepting Fist."

My comments:

Bruce called his approach to combat simply "Jeet Kune Do", but at the same time, he stated that he was sorry he used that term, because he was afraid people would get too "caught up" in the name (that appears to have happened, too, over the years !). He stated "it is just a name", and "don't make too much of it".

Jun Fan is Bruce's (Cantonese) Chinese name. Jun Fan Gung Fu was Bruce's version of wing chun (which Bruce did up to 1966), which is more or less an art with a set number of techniques, and that can be taught as a product, and handed down.

Jeet Kune Do (what Bruce did from 1966-1973), on the other hand, is not an art, it is an approach to combat, based on Bruce's and his students' exploration into over 30 martial arts (wing chun, kung fu, boxing, fencing, savate, etc.). It does not have a set number of techniques. It is a personal process of discovery, not an art. That is why Bruce stated "my Jeet Kune Do is not your Jeet Kune Do". He also stated that JKD is to "contain everything, and be bound by nothing". To me, that suggests that JKD is not an art, but an open-ended approach to combat, and a personal path of discovery.

We can view JKD as a progression and experimentation by Bruce Lee. Wing Chun was the nucleus for this was the art that Lee had originally studied. Throughout Lee's experiences he found that Wing Chun was too restrictive (for whatever reasons, to be argued later for it really doesn't matter). Jun Fan was the modified Wing Chun system that evolved under the premise of Wing Chun (and other traditional systems for that matter) being too restrictive in Lee's opionion. During this development Lee further modified Jun Fan Kung so that it became Jeet Kune Do as he felt that Jun Fan was also still too restrictive. It is my understanding that JKD the Process and JKD Lee's personal product of that process were done hand in hand. This distinction for Lee was always there. There were many (are still are today) that do not understand this distinction and believe that to imitate Lee or even to use the techniques that he used is to practise JKD. In fact it is really only a fascimile. In order to really practise JKD one has to absorb martial arts to the degree that you are expressing yourself uniquely. Only then are you practising JKD. Of course there maybe similarities between JKD practioners because many of the principals overlap. But, there will also be many more differences as we are all individuals with many diverse abilities and attributes.FrankWilliams 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think using the name Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do is quite unncecssary. When Lee evolved Jun Fan into JKD; Jun Fan at that point should have siezed to exist. Remember Lee said "Absorb what is useful; disregard that which is useless". In Lee's mind Jun Fan was still too restrictive thus he disgarded it; while replacing it with JKD. Why attempt to resurrect something that Lee threw away???FrankWilliams 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I would like to start off by asking: if it is just a name, why are we even discussing it? I believe if you really look through a lot of Lee's collected notes there is quite a bit of conflicting statements, so I can't quite see any arguments about JKD based on his statements as solid. Actually I've seen quite a few arguments setup in this manner crumble because of it. As far as the entry is concerned, the statement was composed by family, friends, and students of Lee's. I think the major reason the name Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do was created was to solidify and authenticate certain teachings that are available. In other words to claim to be the "correct" finger that points at the "true" moon. As far as the view point you have put forth, although it seems somewhat popular, I've always had the notion that it's a bit too ... "clean". To gain a better vantage point sometimes it is better to take a step back, and view the all the surroundings. Lee had the term Jeet Kune in his head long before 1967(according to Glover's book). He also knew early on he had two options, either open a chain of Gung Fu schools or become an actor(also in Glover's book). So he set out to become successful actor, but still loved martial arts. He taught when he needed money, when he felt he did not need the money he closed the schools. Jeet Kune Do is just a name. It was a name he created, to market what he taught. (Heck he could've called it Fancy Dancy Kickboxing, but that just does not sound as cool.) If you were to ask anybody who was around when he changed the name of his martial art, "What did he do different?", the answer will inevitably be "Nothing.". I could take a polor point of view and say true JKD died with Lee, but I'm not that closed minded. If you want to see what Bruce Lee really did and taught in his "later" years, I would suggest searching out Ted Wong or Howard Williams. I am not a student and do not know either of them, but both are direct students of Lee and both never formally trained in another martial art. If you noticed in the last couple of sentences I've laid out what is another view point to this argument. That JKD does have parameters in what defines it, and that specifically it's techniques (like any other martial art) are what define it. I do think (for the record) intrinsic to what JKD is, at it's "highest levels" there should be action/reaction and nothing else. No techniques, just movement in concert with the environment. I have restated some of what you have already said, and yet for these same reasons I believe that the term Jun Fan is important and should be attached to JKD. It was never discarded and no one is attempting a resurrection. That is the name that some use to define what they do, and hey ... it's just a name. (By the by, I think this is all purely academic and take a rather light approach to this. After all I think it is far more important to train, train, and then train some more.) ShuckyDucky 02:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Joeygil's comments: I just wanted to add the term "Jun Fan Jeet Kun Do" is important for business and legal reasons (more so than martial art reasons). There are tons of people out there profiting on Bruce Lee's likeness and ideas. I suppose it's fair that the family should be able to control this, and even make some royalties on it. Unfortunately, this has in some ways hurt or confused the JKD community, as many schools can no longer use the term "Jeet Kune Do" as it's copyrighted, even if the instructors are legit and certified.

What differentiates JKD from other "arts" or concepts ???

In reading the current definition of JKD in wikipedia, I am still a bit confused as to what differentiates JKD from other martial arts or styles. In short, the contention is made that Bruce Lee's art "flows" more than say, kung fu, and is more "alive". I think that serious kung fu and wing chun practitioners would dispute that, to put it mildly.

I try now to list, in my mind (and I am a student of wing chun and JKD), the differences between Jeet Kune Do and other arts:

- In JKD, the "man" [practitioner] is at the center of attention and development, not the art. The history, the teacher, or the art itself is not the center in JKD. In other words, it is not the job of the student to learn the classical art by "rote", learn the katas, never change them, and then pass them down. That is the way classical arts are taught, and don't get me wrong, the classical arts are still great for what they are (Bruce I think had more respect for them than some of his current JKD students do, IMHO).

- JKD emphasizes making contact. Most martial arts have the student strike air, i.e. practice the moves without hitting anything (again, that is a generalization, because in wing chun, you hit the mook gung [wooden dummy], the wall bag, etc. But in general, in JKD, the idea is to always "see how the punch/kick, etc. works on a real target".

- JKD is different for everyone. Bruces stated "my Jeet Kune Do is not your Jeet Kune Do". What he meant was: there is no art to hand down, everyone has to discover JKD for himself. JKD is thus not a product, it is a process. (it reminds me of a Socratic teacher in ancient Greece, whose job was not to hand down knowledge to the student, but rather, to allow the student to "open up" to knowledge, or to discover knowledge. I think this is the image in the movie "Enter the Dragon", when Bruce tells the young student that it is not the finger that is important, but what the finger is pointed at".

- JKD abosorbs what is useful. I constantly hear people claim that Bruce had no time or room for arts like kali, silat, etc. The truth is, Bruce studied almost everything (he trained in silat for over three years). Bruce loved certain aspects of the Filipine arts (limb destructions, some of the Filipino boxing, etc.). I also hear people claim that Bruce "gave up on wing chun". But the truth is, JKD is not a collection of arts. JKD is about honing your own style, based on a process of discovery into all the martial arts. Thus, for someone to say "there is no kali in JKD", to me, totally misses the point.

- JKD is more about abilities and attributes than techniques. I will give you an example: attributes are: timing, speed, interception, distance, spring energy, etc. Techniques are: jab, cross, kick. JKD values attributes and concepts more than techniques. If you understand JKD as an attribute-centered art, I think you will understand the art better (in other words, it is like saying, "we are going to train to be better interceptors and better at timing. We will use specific techniques to get better at speed and timing". But it is not saying: we will learn 100 techniques, and at the end of that process, I hope we have speed and timing".

- JKD (like wing chun) is about efficiency, timing, speed, and "what works". In a sense, this is the same as wing chun. JKD is about "the reality now, for the individual" (not about the tradition).

I just hope that this might start a discussion about JKD. I obviously don't have all the answers. If someone wants to point out errors I made, I welcome that. It is a process of learning.

Quotes Section

Recently there have been some edits that have removed certain explanations of what the quotes mean. I propose discussing such edits prior to removing these important portions of the explanations. Also I propose that the explanations be as simple and concise as possible. The more verbiage that is added will only add complexity and controversy FrankWilliams 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been more edits in the quotes section where key words within a quote have been changed. Please refrain from changing words that were used by its author. It's a quote, if you change the words used; it is NO LONGER a quote. Ex. Lee used the word teapot not kettle when talking about the water principle. FrankWilliams 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a misspelled word on the link to the main page on Google...

Wikipedia: Jeet Kune Do Martial arts system developed by Bruce Lee after researching into various fighting styles. Article includes the Jeet Kune Do principles, <brances,> and its system and philosophy. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kune_Do

I pasted this off of Google. I've placed arrows < > around the word in question


I suspect that the word "brances" is a misspelled word that should be "branches," as for example, "the various branches of..."


Peter Yarborough, Nov. 28th, 2006

References

Is there a way to cite references so they are not redundant yet will give specific page numbers? I understand the need for not repeating the same reference yet citing the specific page number seem to also be important for those wishing to verify. FrankWilliams 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you find out let me know but the usual practice it to site the publication alone - if someone has the source they should be able to find it. One possible way it to give a list of page ranges within the text.Peter Rehse 02:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do; and thanks for your contributions. I have found that giving specific references and pages numbers eliminates if not "cuts down" on any potential disputes or contraversies; as long as the references are legitimate of course. FrankWilliams 19:44, 31 DeceBold textmber 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at how its done here Ernest Emerson.Peter Rehse 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to the "Principles" area, specifically refering to the ranges of combat. I would like to cite "Jeet Kune Do" as edited by John Little (Bruce Lee's direct notes) - Pages 141-152 and thereabouts and you will see he specifically talks about "Close Range" "Long Range" etc. Also, Ted Wong, Jerry Poteet, Steve Golden and a few others teach THREE ranges of combat - all Bruce Lee students. Dan Inosanto teaches 4 ranges, and as he is very famous for ADDING or ALTERING what Bruce originally taught (he doesn't deny that, thus the name CONCEPTS on the end). So I'd like to see that both the four ranges and the three ranges have representation in the article, instead of just the concepts approach. Both are valid, since both are (O)JKD(C). This is one of my first "Wiki edits" so if I have gone out of protocol, or did something incorrect please let me know. Thanks! 24.210.33.137 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Zaose (First time adding a comment, hope I signed that properly.)

Legitimate Instructors

Instructors listed in this article should should be:

  • A. Direct students of Bruce Lee (verifyable: IE Dan Inosanto, Larry Hartsell etc.)
  • B. Student promoted to instructors by A. above. (Also verifyable


As far as point B is concerned, to include Second Generation students is reaching quite a bit. There are tons and tons of second gen students and I can't fathom they are at all pertinent to the JKD article. If the inclusion is needed then maybe a secondary page should be set up for these student/teachers. It seems more like people are advertising than adding info to the article. - ShuckyDucky 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, I only included "B" above as there maybe some proteges out there that work closely with the 1st Gen Instructors and thus would carry on the mantel. Also, some like Larry Hartsell who worked with Lee but carried on with Inosanto so he's kind of a 1st/2nd Gen. 206.125.176.3 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Hartsell learned directly from Lee, I would consider him first generation and don't see a problem mentioning him within context of the article. Carter Hargrave OTOH is someone I've never heard of. Did he learn directly from Lee? Does his name need to be mentioned in the article within context of the article? As far as I can tell Hargrave has a bunch of websites that claim he is the World Leader of JKD, whatever that means. If this is such a big deal I would just suggest a seperate section for lineage, and once it balloons(as it surely will) create a seperate page.ShuckyDucky 20:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Applicable JKD Instructors

This is a dispute about what instructors should be mentioned in the Jeet Kune Do article.18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Only legitimate instructors should be mentioned being affiliated with known groups. As wiki edtors we have the responsibility to ensure accurate information. This is done through reseach and citing references. Adding someone like Carter Hargrave in the same league as Dan Inosanto and Larry Hartsell is outrageous. There is much documentation on both Mr. Inosanto and Mr. Hartsell both having studied directly under Bruce Lee. Mr. Hargrave's credentials on the other hand are seriously in question. Mr. Hargraves claims on the number of systems he has supposedly mastered for his age is nothing less then spellbounding. When adding information to articles the burden of proof should be on the person adding information. Wikipedia is NOT a Rumor Mill and non verifyable information or information nor correct should not be included.FrankWilliams 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The best place to learn Jeet Kune Do is from Bruce himself. Books, Videos and learn from original students. There alot of people learning JKD from original students such as Dan inosanto, and adding there own stuff to it. Dan has added Kali to JKD and believes that bruce wanted him to expand JKD. the reason bruce didnt want anyone to teach JKD was because JKD is suppose to be your OWN PERSONAL EXPRESSION OF THE MARTIAL ARTS. One persons expression is different from anothers, so how can you teach that with the same name as someone else? The Lee family has come up with a solution... naming Bruce's art Jun fan Jeet Kune do, and letting the others who add there own have Jeet Kune Do. Thou they may use some of lee's original teachings, they add there own ideas...such as Dan has. Not saying anything negative about inosanto, he is a great martial artist!. Bruce lee clearly wrote in his notes and interviews that JKD is a self-expression. It is interesting to me that some partisans or students of Professor Carter Hargrave have been trying to edit this article to reflect on Hargrave's sokeship. IIRC Prof. Hargrave is a student of Gary Dill, a man who did not train with Bruce, but was apparently a top student of James Yimm (Jimmy)Lee. Jimmy Lee was Bruce Lee's associate in Oakland. Hargrave was a high-ranking kenpo black belt before studying with Sifu Dill. I have no opinion one way or the other about Hargrave, but it is interesting that "the lineage" is invoked as a pretext for excluding edits concerning Hargrave. Why cannot these same original Bruce Lee students have their views on the Wong Jak Man fight be reflected in the Bruce Lee main article? The Wong Jak Man POV on the fight is sacrosanct and immune from criticism. Rebuttals are "Bruce Lee POV" and not valid. I would like to see all of the opinions of "real" Bruce Lee students mentioned in regard to the Wong controversy. Apparently Lee students are POV and Wong students are NPOV. BTW: Glover was Lee's first student and he certainly helped Lee develop what was to become JKD. It is true that Glover never used the jkd or junfan terms, but he was the first student. Excluding Glover is like saying that since the Decatur Staleys did not have the name "Chicago Bears" they are irrelevant to the history of the Bears. Jeff Vincent, Fort Wayne, Indiana

I don't think anyone was disputing Glover; there is no doubt he was a student under Lee. The issue was in the description of the two branches of JKD and the "Original" Lee student who represented those two branches. Since Glover admits he doesn't do JKD nor is he a proponent of JFJKD then he clearly cannot represent one branch or the other. Hence he doesn't need to be mentioned at least not in this part of the article; "The Branches". If there were something useful that Glover contributed to JKD then I don't think there would be any objections to adding him; at least not from me. Also, I don't think there was any "pretext". It was a general consensus that only first generation students should be listed as proponents of their respective "Branches". This allowed the list to be small and manageable. It also served as a clear discriminator as to who is and is not a first generation student; as this is easily verifiable. Allowing second or third generation instructors as proponents of each of the "Branches" would have:

  • A. Made it too POV as who gets mentioned and who doesn't?
  • B. The list would be endless and thus difficult to manage. (As there are many second and third generation instructors).
  • C. Brings up the issue of "legitimacy". Inosanto has made the claim that only he was given the right to certify anyone in JKD. If one subscribes to this then any of the first generation students who have promoted anyone did not have Bruce Lee's sanction including those of Jame Yimm Lee. By extension this also means that any first or second generation instructors that worked with Inosanto could have some form of accrediation given to them by Inosanto himself since he had that power given to him by Lee.

As for the Wong Jak Man issue; this is best left in the Bruce Lee article. There is always going to be two sides to that debate which will only end up being opinions by those that were there. The Lee students and proponents are going to side with Lee and the Wong Jak Man students and proponents are going to side with Wong. FrankWilliams 13:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC) FrankWilliams 13:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Why is an article for a martal art need anything other than info about the martial art? Why is there a need for students/teachers beyond the original students of Lee even mentioned? And furthermore the students of Lee that are mentioned are in context of what/how they teach. I see no reason for non-origianl students to be mentioned.ShuckyDucky 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason that current instructors should be listed is that JKD is still alive and not just a history lesson. It is still taught just as Lee did, and those that lead it today should be listed. Personal attacks have no place here and only show inmaturity. JKD is not dead and those who are currently infulencing it have a legitimate place. I am not saying list everyone who ever was certified, just the leaders if you will..Bruceleeman

I agree with ShuckyDucky a martial arts article like Jeet Kune Do really doesn't need instructors mentioned above and beyond the original students of Lee; and doesn't seem to offer any advantages except promotion of those folks which is not the goal of Wiki articles. FrankWilliams 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The names that are mentioned are only in reference to info within the article. Unecessarily ballooning the article with 2nd and 3rd generation students and instructors seems a bit ridiculous to me. I would suggest the other editor(s) make a new page for lineage (if this holds that much interest). By the way I am all for listing the "leaders" of JKD, if there were any. To say "we should list the leaders" is loading your phrase isn't it? I'm sure we all could list different leaders of JKD for different reasons, but again that adds nothing to the article and is not NPOV editing. ShuckyDucky 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Glover

I am deleting Jesse Glover from the article as he has stated many times that he does not do JKD nor is he a proponent of JFJKD. If there is a disagreement with this I would suggest Googling his name and read any interview he has done, many people ask him about a comparison. If you really need to know I believe he simply calls his style Non-Classical Gung Fu. When he asked Lee if he could teach on his own, Lee said sure as long as he doesn't call it Jun Fan.ShuckyDucky 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatrevolution (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection

This article has undergone edit warring so I am protecting it for a while. Please, discuss the changes on the talk page rather than in the article itself. --Tone 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This page should undergo editor warning. Editors posting libelous statements that have no place in JKD or on Wikipedia. A good lawsuit is what is needed I think. Anti constitutional editors. Stalin would be proud.Jeetman

I find it interesting that you make implied comments about editors not being democratic, and yet this is the first time you have posted to the discussion page. Perhaps a refresher course on Democracy or maybe even Teamwork might help clarify things for you. I think maybe the best article for you to read would be Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. ShuckyDucky 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
here here, So far I have seen Frank remove names that are not cited. A simple citation proving the said fact or not would take care of it. Till then the names should be removed till proven otherwise. Then if they are, with a grain of salt and a plate of crow Frank should allow them. Till then it should be discussed here. So far seems as if he is keeping the article concise and uncited things out. Isn't that what we are supposed to do?--Xiahou 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The edit warring continues. Therefore I have fully protected the article and I invite all interested to reach an agreement here. --Tone 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

JKD Vandal

After doing reverse DNS lookups it appears a single user with the following alias's is continusously attempting to either support/promote certain instructors while there is a discussion going on. The users alias appear to be: Bruceleeman, Martiallaws, Jeetman, and 70.128.117.245 . This user has been warned many times and refuses to use standard Wiki mechanisms for proper discussions of context within articles. FrankWilliams 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition: After looking back at the edits the user/users only contribution has been the attempted inclusion of certain instructors. It seems the only goal of this user/users is to promote such instructors without really contributing much of anything else. I seriously question the motivation behind this.

The Wikimedia Foundation offices have been contacted about legal threats pertaining to the editing behavior of people on this page. Please work this out and concentrate on what is best for the encyclopedic nature of the article. Martial arts articles generally are highly controversial when it comes to the question of who is "legitimate" as an instructor of the discipline, and the issue of "truth" in credentials and the like is a distraction at best and a fertile ground for personal libel at worst. I implore all concerned to focus on the purpose of the article itself and not be cajoled into a fight over levels of proof for acceptable statements concerning instructors. This is an encyclopedia, not the martial arts yellow pages.--Brad Patrick 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the people who have threatened this course of action has not worked through legitimate wiki methodologies; namely discussions to have clear dialogue on what should included in articles. This process is easy to use unless they have no valid arguments or support in which case their only course of action is to just cry foul. There is nothing wrong with open free debate which has not occurred yet because of non participation. FrankWilliams 19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does User:WorldJKD think that this is libelous anyway? Discussions on talk pages hardly constitute libel. Do these legal threats hold any water? Asarelah 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No they don't, and even if they manage to find their way to court, the charges would drop --Dark Dragon Flame 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've notified the administrators on the noticeboards about this, and hopefully they can block WorldJKD and his sockpuppets. Asarelah 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Mr.WORLDJKD please don't forget to sue every forum user that makes negative comments about the JKD "intructors" or aganist anything that you or your attourneys think, thank you. --Dark Dragon Flame 06:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. don't write everything in capital letters --Dark Dragon Flame 06:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

First and Foremost

Is the opening header as it sets the tone for the article and flows directly into the Bruce Lee quote. It also stresses the importance of reading the quote first as the article should give the details and strengthen what Lee says in his quote. FrankWilliams 13:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The section title should pertain to the material that is specifically in that section. Wikipedia does not stress to the reader which part of the article they should read first. That is up to the reader to decide, which is why each section is linked to in the Table of Contents at the top of the article. As for the References section, that some references have yet to be incorporated into the new format does not mean that the article needs a section called "References 2", which makes the article look less organized and neat. Nightscream 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Combat Ranges

The notes in "Tao of Jeet Kune do" edited by Gilbert L. Johnson and Linda Lee and "JKD" edited by John Little essentially say the same thing because their source material was exactly the same; Lee's notes during his convalences in 1970. The ranges were refined after 1970 to incorporate the 4 rather than the original three. This is part of JKD flexibility and adaptability. The 4 ranges are more refined and more descriptive then the previous three. The problem with those previous 3 was in defining what is a middle range? or what constitutes a short range?. The latter 4 leaves less ambiguation. This is not a an Original JKD vs. Concept JKD differentiation. Readers need to be careful when reading Bruce Lee source material as there were many changes occurring after Lee essentially stopped teaching and was concentrating on his movie career when he gave Inosanto the reins of continuing JKD. Also, remember that Inosanto is the ONLY person authorized to certify individuals in JKD.FrankWilliams 13:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Granted the source material is the same, but Little was quite a bit more comprehensive with using the collected notes. Also the notes were not just from his convalesence, there was probably close to 14 years worth of Lee's scribblings and disparate notes he pulled from his collection of books. From what I've heard, the materials filled a room. I can counterpoint everything you've just said and we all can watch this quickly devolve or we can cite sources and references and be done with it. It would not surprise me in the least if there are two different sources that say two different things, but whatever. Forget Original VS Extra Crispy and let's just cite sources.ShuckyDucky 07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was just two filing cabinets. The bulk of the material was done in 1970 and just prior. There was very little after after that and as mentioned above Lee really let Inosanto take over with respects to teaching and developing JKD. But, regardless the point I was making was that the range concept evolved over time going from general to specific. Also, this article is one of the most difficult to keep up with because it's very nature is so dynamic. Taking a "snapshot" at any one time is difficult as the editor has to have a good understanding of the art to figure out where it is at any one time. BTW, I usually cite all of my comments; ranges not being any different. FrankWilliams 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Two filing cabinets? Does that include his library of books? They were used as references if I'm not mistaken. Lee was writing about Gung Fu long before 1970. This point in time would also put James Yimm Lee alive and going strong for another couple of years, and he was also authorized to certify individuals in JKD. Bruce Lee closed the schools in '72 right? Did he authorize the "evolution" of his martial art? Saying that Lee gave the reins of JKD over to Inosanto is just not true. There were and are other people who are just as knowledgable about Bruce Lee's Gung Fu as Inosanto. I believe you are not the only editor to have a thorugh understanding of JKD. I also believe the article is encyclopedic, so these "snapshots" have their much needed use to fully flesh the article out and to offer a comprehensive view of what JKD is. My point, is that all information should be available to visitors.ShuckyDucky 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. Bruce's personal library of books are not included as they are not his notes; therefore they are not source material created by him. No one knows what information Lee extracted from those books other then him.
  • 2. Lee was writing about Gung-Fu before 1970; it was never insinuated that he didn't; what was said was that the bulk of the material was written around 1970, big difference.
  • 3. Was not aware that James Yimm Lee was authorized to "certify" in JKD. There is a difference between being allowed to teach versus being allowed to certify. Please provide a reference that James Lee was authorized to "ceritfy".
  • 4. Lee closed down the schools because he didn't want his art commercialized; and didn't want others to credit themselves as being "his" students as many people are doing now by the way. Yes, Lee did authorize Inosanto to the evolution of JKD by virtue of allowing him to "certify". As far as I know Dan Inosanto is the only person to receive a third level certificate from Bruce Lee which very specifically makes him a "Full Instructor". Only full instructors can certify other individuals. If anyone wants proof of this I have a copy of Inosanto's certificate. If anyone else has a third level certificate from Bruce Lee I would very much like to see this. Dan Inosanto had been given the reins of JKD by virtue of being the highest certified instructor by Bruce Lee. Whether there are more people just as knowledgeable as Insoanto is A. an opinion, B. POV, C. Arguable. The point is that it doesn't matter if there are or are not; Dan is the highest certified individual in JKD; period.
  • 5. I never claimed to be the only editor with a thorough knowledge on the subject.
  • 6. The problem with adding those "snapshots" is that they could be confusing because the article is dealing with a subject that evolved/is evolving. I could see a benefit of perhaps saying that originally the ranges were categorized as short, medium, long and were then categorized into their more descriptive forms. Perhaps this would be a good compromize.
  • 7. Always a pleasure to discuss this subject with you Shucky :) FrankWilliams 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Dan is NOT the only person authorized. Several others have certificates, if that is what you are basing your "authority to certify" on. If you want to be VERY technical - NO ONE has authority to certify, not even Dan especially since Bruce told him to STOP Teaching JKD and shut down the schools (he was told not to use the JKD name too). The four ranges are TECHNIQUES that can be used at a specific range, not RANGES themselves. It seems to me you are very biased towards Dan's teachings - which are not always Bruce's teachings. I think you need to leave BOTH in, and not just YOUR prefered version, since you will be guilty of "agendizing" as you have accused others of. I agree with SHuckyDucky - you are not the only editor with JKD information and everyone visiting should have as much information as possible about the art. I have personally trained with several of Bruce Lee's students, and most of them said Bruce taught 3 ranges. Even Bruce's "last student" and the one who spent the most time with him, Ted Wong, states 3 ranges. So please RE-ADD the 3 ranges (in whatever manner you like, you are a good writer). It's only fair. I have cited the three ranges from Bruce's notes also. Is your "cite" better than my "cite"? Gilbert Johnson had no experience with JKD before he began orginizing the notes on the Tao - something to think about. 24.210.33.137Zaose

    • Response - SD

This is not getting us anywhere ... but

  • 1. & 2. My point was that Little used more than just Lee's Commentaries on the Martial Way Notes. Little referenced books, interviews, various writings before 1970.
  • 3. Someone who has a thorough knowledge, or wants to have one, should be predisposed to looking this up.;p
  • 4. I would strongly disagree with most of this, but we could go tit for tat for days and not get anywhere.
  • 5. & 7. Agreed
  • 6. This is the important part. The information needs to be presented. That is all.ShuckyDucky 03:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Response - FW
  • 1. & 2. OK, well aware of what was used for Little's books. I wrote the wiki article Bruce Lee Library.
  • 3 & 4. Glad you suggested that I look this up. Here are the facts about certification that are backed up by physical authentic certificates which are considered non-disputable:

Dan Inosanto, James Yimm Lee (deseased) and Taky Kimura are the only instructors certified by Bruce Lee. Dan Inosanto holds the 3rd rank (Instructor) Directly from Bruce Lee in Jeet Kune Do, Jun Fan Gung Fu, and Bruce Lee's Tao of Chinese Gung Fu. Taky Kimura holds a 5th rank in Jun Fan Gung Fu. James Yimm Lee held a 3rd rank in Jun Fan Gung Fu. Ted Wong was never certified by Bruce Lee, however Dan Inosanto precented Ted with an honorary Intructorship after Bruce Had died, However Ted Wong holds a 2nd rank in Jeet Kune Do, directly by Bruce Lee

Although many do not know this, Dan Inosanto is the only one certified by Bruce Lee to teach JEET KUNE DO, as he is the only one to be given the 3rd rank diploma. (James Yimm Lee and Taky Kimura hold ranks in Jun Fan Gung Fu, Not Jeet Kune Do, Taky Recieved his 5th rank in Jun Fan Gung Fu after the term Jeet Kune Do existed). Also it is interesting that Bruce gave Dan all three diplomas, on the same day suggesting that Bruce wanted Dan to be his protege. Also what user 24.210.33.137 above says is incorrect; Dan was allowed to teach after the schools were closed. Lee's conditions were: A. Not to use the JKD name. B. Keep the classes small.

Inosanto's Position

--Dan Inosanto lashes out at Jeet Kune Do pretenders in exclusive interview.
(See reference for details) FrankWilliams 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding reference to the 3 ranges. I would have to say you are absolutely incorrect about who was certified, who wasn't and to what level. Ted Wong DOES in fact have a certificate from Bruce Lee, and it is LEVEL III also (which is NOT an instructor level - no where does it say INSTRUCTOR on any of anyone's certificates). Dan can CLAIM whatever he wants, despite not having proof. Bottom line is that Bruce told Dan to stop teaching and using the Jeet Kune Do name. How can he now claim to have the sole right to teach an art that Bruce told him to stop teaching, and stop using the name of? Ponderous.

Don't get me wrong, I highly respect Dan and ALL of Bruce's students. The bottom line is, NO ONE is "authorized" as an instructor, certificates or not. No ones certificates say INSTRUCTOR on them. That is the reality of it. 24.210.33.137 00:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Zaose

Your welcome. Q: Are you saying that I'm incorrect about all the certified people mentioned above or just Ted Wong? Also I have only seen a level two certificate for Ted Wong from Bruce Lee. What is your source/proof for him obtaining a level 3 from Bruce Lee as opposed to getting it from Inosanto? Also, it is well known that Bruce considered level 3 individuals to be "full instructors" so the word instructor does not appear on any of the certificates. By definition an instructor is someone who "teaches". Also for clarification Bruce asked Dan to stop teaching commercially; big difference then asking him to stop teaching at all. Dan's claims to being able to teach is that he is a "full instructor" by definition this allows him to teach. FrankWilliams 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't want this implied any other way, I believe Inosanto is highly knowledgable about JKD and one of the best(if not the best) Escrimadores in North America. The problem I have with this mess is the circuitous routes used to base the arguments upon. FACT Lee did NOT authorize(allow) Inosanto to the evolution of (evolve?) JKD by virtue of allowing him to "certify". Lee did not sit face to face and say "Dan, change this stuff then teach it however you want with this stuff." Only full instructors can certify other individuals. Who cares!? Did Inosanto hide away the full JKD curriculum or did he teach it the way Lee wanted it to be taught. Because at that point he would have no more knowledge than any of the other first generation students(LA School) Maybe Lee closed the schools to keep his martial art from degrading into something else, like some kind of consumer product. (Although if you read through his personal correspondence you can see he initiated teaching his martial art to turn it into a consumer product to make money from.) Dan Inosanto had been given the reins of JKD by virtue of being the highest certified instructor by Bruce Lee. Like I said this doesn't hold water. How about this?: Whether there are more people just as knowledgeable as Wong is A. an opinion, B. POV, C. Arguable. The point is that it doesn't matter if there are or are not.ShuckyDucky 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well no one really knows if Lee sat down with Inosanto and told him to change this or that except Dan; so this is academic. What we do know is that Lee intended JKD to adapt and change as circumstances dictated both from a "person JKD" perspective and from an overall "system" perspective. The real question here is who can take JKD beyond what Lee initially put together? Who indeed is the rightful heir to the JKD System?

This has been fun; thanks! Over and out FrankWilliams 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that we don't even know if Lee intended anything for JKD. The reality is, once he taught the knowledge to others it was out of his hands anyway.The questions you pose are leading but my answer would be a rhetorical ... who cares.ShuckyDucky 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pedigree/Jkd

I have noticed alot of debate over this subject as to what is JKD or who is or isnt JKD.

No-one is certified in JKD. JKD is not a system that has set techniques or forms, therefore their can be no clear division of certified or uncertified instructors of JKD Regardless of pedigree.

I also noticed that someone made a section called "system" under the JKD topic.... "Nothingness cannot be defined, the softest thing cannot be snapped" Bruce Lee

"To be great is to be misunderstood" Ralph Waldo Emerson—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.127.94 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Innaccurate

I have noticed several innaccuracys and in this article such as "jkd being the genesis to mixed martial arts" Mixed martial arts were around long before jkd. I also notice many items in this article that were simply opinion and some worded incorrectly, however when I went thru and changed them they were reverted back. I do not believe it is in the best interest of wikipedia to allow a few certain people to control a subject to make it into what they want it to be. Yalegolas 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yalegolas you bring up some interesting points. Although I would agree that there was a mixing of martial arts prior to JKD; I don't believe it was very formalized. Lee & JKD formalized many of those concepts in a unique way. Although the article doesn't say that (maybe it should) I certainly think there is room to mention attempts of blending styles prior to the advent of JKD. I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise.

As for the reversions; as an editor I try to keep an article focused and on topic and it just become a chaotic jumble. FrankWilliams 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the heading called system should be changed, seems jkd doesnt have a system.

I also think it would be a good idea to mention at the start of the branchs heading to mention that Lee closed his schools due to the fact that he did not like that people would commonly take what was taught there/the schedule/Curriculum as gospel truth Yalegolas 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

An answer to your fist point is the article fits with the formatting for Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts, as for your second point I believe it is already as you say. I would suggest reading thoroughly through the article and then make possible suggestions. They are always welcome.ShuckyDucky 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi im researching the life of Bruce Lee for a documentary and ive yet to find any evidence whatsoever that JKD is even close to being what is considered a real Martial Art, yet it is reffered to as one many times in this page. How anyone can honestly call a fighting system a real martial art when its founder never proved it worked by competing in a single tournament amazes me. It seems all you need to be declaired a master is just say you are according to this page. No proof what so ever is needed. I thought Wiki was a serious attempt to tell the truth. This page is like one giant advert for the Lee Estate. I think whoever wrote this story is far, far away from being objective. The continuation of the myth JKD as a serious fighting system can only benefit those who are activley involved in selling the myth to the general public ,the Lee Estate,film companys + various individuals who have disrespected Lee's final wishes JKD.

My personal analysis of JKD The main message of JKD seems to be do anything you want during a fight. Use any style or method or just make it up as you go along. So what does the word 'Martial' out of Martial Art mean? Doesnt this indicate some kind of regimented system of learning? IMO (and many other serious Martial Artists and instructors JKD is a made up Martial arts that was designed against bruces wishes by people who were very clearly not quaified/had not the authority to try and guess at what bruce was trying to and profit from it for the rest of thier lives. These vultures are picking The last rancid bits of flesh from the Bruce Lee carcass.

A more correct deffinition JKD was a name that Bruce Lee had for a collection of ideas that he never fully explained, never demonstrated in open tournament had no forms of KATA , no set moves. Bruce died along with his claims to . Some of his students blatantly disrepected the last wishes of their former instructor and began to develop a tangable fighting by guessing the meanings of a few pages of notes and drawings and some underlining in a few books that were not supposed to be used for that perpous.

IMO As a martial arts ex-Instructor/expert/researcher & analyst there are a few things about JKD that i think people are perpously avoiding so they can show off about how much of a devoted fan of bruces they are.

Tricks Almost all of Bruces demonstrations are VERY clearly parlour tricks and screen martial arts tricks. Most of his demonstrations involved other PEOPLE who bruce manipulated with the skill of a vegas magician. Think about it if the 1 inch punch was real lets see someone bust 4 bricks with it..? Its a trick...it looks like they put the chair there to stop the guy being punched from hurting himself..? no they put the chair there so he can fall onto/over it. If the obsticle wasnt there that person wouldnt end up on their ass. He does the same trick EVERY SINGLEtime he does a fake power side kick where the person holding the pad falls over (except Enter the Dragon when the guy falls back into a group of people producing the same effect as a chair)... its one of the oldest slapstick tricks in the book guys....surley some here realises that?

So what is JKD? Could it be that JKD might just have been a collection of moves that Bruce knew he would look impressive on screen with and nothing else? This being why bruce kept changing his mind over which moves are more appropriate? His constant refference to how the moves should flow and a total lack of attention to correct and effective techniques does not strike me as a system designed for winning a fight. Just to look good and stay cool. Its very obviously clear he was to train his own screen fighters for future film projects - because he certainly wasnt training them to win any fights with the weak ass madeup techniques he was performing. In many peoples opinion he was designing a screen martial arts that almost anyone could learn quickly and look good without any real fight training background at all...thats why he was allways stressing simplicity (actors are not the brightest bunch of people).Any martial art that favours speed over control is dangerous! IMO i think bruce eventually realised that no one was going to look as good as him on screen without some real MA experience and hard work and decided to shut down his schools to avoid any further costly embarissments as his brain dead students acctually went out and tried the stuff for real and got thier asses kicked trying to fight like a glass of water or something and then finally suing him! Dont do the svertisers work for them guys.. they make enough cash as it is.. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.45.226.149 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

...Well then I'm glad Wikipedia articles are not about random biased opinions such as yours.ShuckyDucky 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I agree with ShuckyDucky, and also say that the saddest thing here is that there is no way for us (Wiki users or guest) to tell if what was said here is the truth. "The" truth is we don't know accurately what Bruce Lee had in mind for JKD beyond public interviews, testimonies of friends and students, and the release of certain records reviled and publicized over the years. The sole true interpretation of JKD lies with his family, and his close friends and students, if not just with him. The problem with this argument is there is no offered proof on the behalf of its side; for all we(wiki users) know, this argument could have been the art of "making it up as you go along". If the truth is the point here, there must be a sign of factual evidence to present this side of what seems to be one of the biggest controversies surrounding this Martial Art. BTzJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where to learn in L.A. ?

or a website for finding well respected locations to learn ? or world and national headquarters for various styles ? Hello,

I'm looking for a place to practice in L.A. Where would I figure out how to find something? While I don't think the article or talk page should directly advertise specific locations to learn, I think it should be more helpful in directing someone who is interested in the right direction. Thanks. Tkjazzer 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Commercialisation to the detriment of consistent teaching?

The problem with JKD is that it has helped to commercialise martial arts to the detriment of the student who seeks genuine guidance. The direction of JKD schools in the 70's , and 80's was to obfuscate and sifle development of students to secure continued fees to the schools (and the instructors). The vague teaching standards of JKD has bred a lot of poorly trained students who are not capable of dealing with genuine violence. An example of this is the continued promotion of esrima drills and weapons drills which wont help in a gang beating or being shot by a mugger. In this context no two JKD have the same grading system. So the ability to compare potential teachers and their effectiveness is very limited. JKD has merely become a business that beguiles new students to ensure they will continue to make money for the schools.--Redblossom 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You may find the article McDojo of interest on this subject. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just put this in context in a different way , most JKD schools dont have bona fide sparring practice.When i say sparring i mean at the level of boxing/kickboxing. So this is very detriemntal to a JkD student who wants to learn to fight and defend themselves under pressure. It is very weird and dishonest that most JKD schools wont allow their paying students to do sparring.--Redblossom 13:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely, sometimes your better off training in boxing/kickboxing etc. as you learn to use stuff not just practice it. You may also want to look @ Bullshido article and Bullshido.net a site about that sort of thing, I'd read the article before you post if I were you, can be 'lively' over there. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I'm sorry if the cleanup tags were a problem for you - I've been trying to go through all of the B-class martial arts articles to let people know where they can be improved (WP:WPMA currently has only 7 GA or better classed articles). So here's my rationale for each tag, and I'll leave to the regular editors of this article to decide if they are warranted. On the other hand, if the article is perfect the way it is, why don't you submit it for GA, and see what they think of it over there?

  • {{refimprove}}: To pass GA, it is usually required by reviewers that at least every block of related material be referenced (not necessarily every sentence, but usually at least every paragraph). Here are the problems broken down by section
    • The System - no references
    • The Principles - 11 or so paragraphs; 3 references
    • The Branches - no references
    • Bruce Lee - 2 paragraphs; 1 reference
    • Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do Quotes - properly referenced
  • {{citation style}} Lists of works cited need to be incorporated as footnotes. Footnotes need to be formatted to a consistent citaton style (Chicago manual of style, etc...) or use citation templates.
  • {{cleanup-laundry}} (which is the tag for "unencyclopedic lists"): See generally, WP:EMBED. Lists are generally disfavored anytime it is at all possible to discuss or present the contents of the list in prose. I believe this is the case with most of the "Principles" section. The section should be rewritten so each of the categories of principles, as well as individual principles is named and discussed in paragraph form. You may also consider breaking this section up into proper wiki-coded subsections. Consider also converting the lists to tables, which are acceptable. The lists in the "Branches" section would be especially easy to break up into paragraphs instead of bulleted lists. The Quotes section, as well, would be better if the context of the quotes was provided, and the meaning of the quotes was discussed with references. Lists are criticized very frequently on GA reviews, and considered by many reviewers to be inherently unencyclopedic.
  • {{quotefarm}} Really just referring to the quotes section, and overlaps with the previous comment. Having so many quotes is especially problematic when they are presented in a bulleted list.

A few additional comments:

  • Most of the section headings are contrary to the guidelines at WP:HEAD.
  • The System section especially, but the rest of the article as well, could probably use some subsections.
  • The Principles section could probably be expanded to include more detailed explanation of the individual subparts, particularly IV and V.
  • The material in the section Bruce Lee should probably appear up front in a "History" section that details his inspirations experiences that led him to create the art, and that immediately precedes the more detailed description of the system itself.

I hope all of this has been helpful, it would be wonderful to see more martial arts articles make it to GA and above. Bradford44 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Cleanup tags

I'm sorry if the cleanup tags were a problem for you - I've been trying to go through all of the B-class martial arts articles to let people know where they can be improved (WP:WPMA currently has only 7 GA or better classed articles). So here's my rationale for each tag, and I'll leave to the regular editors of this article to decide if they are warranted. On the other hand, if the article is perfect the way it is, why don't you submit it for GA, and see what they think of it over there?

  • Response: The tags are less of a problem now that you have them in a collapsed format; you initially had so many that you could barley see the article when came upon it.

Referencing

  • {{refimprove}}: To pass GA, it is usually required by reviewers that at least every block of related material be referenced (not necessarily every sentence, but usually at least every paragraph). Here are the problems broken down by section
    • The System - no references
  • Response: Agreed
    • The Principles - 11 or so paragraphs; 3 references
  • Response: Having written the Principles section the 3 references covers all that is written.
    • The Branches - no references
  • Response: Agreed
    • Bruce Lee - 2 paragraphs; 1 reference
  • Response: The second paragraph is a truism and self explanatory as the reference is a tv episode.
    • Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do Quotes - properly referenced
  • Response: Agreed
We appear to be in agreement here. One note, however, is that if the three references in the Principles section cover all the material, then repetitive inline citations (again, just one per paragraph is sufficient at this level) should be used to indicate this. Otherwise, it appears to readers that some material is referenced, and other material is not. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

  • {{citation style}} Lists of works cited need to be incorporated as footnotes. Footnotes need to be formatted to a consistent citaton style (Chicago manual of style, etc...) or use citation templates.
  • Response: Please help with this. What is the Chicago manual of style? Many of the references in other articles I've written use this same style. What is different about this one?
See WP:CITE#HOW. I prefer citation templates, but they are not required (I just think they are easier to use). See WP:CIT for a list of all the templates and how to use them. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Embedded lists

  • {{cleanup-laundry}} (which is the tag for "unencyclopedic lists"): See generally, WP:EMBED. Lists are generally disfavored anytime it is at all possible to discuss or present the contents of the list in prose. I believe this is the case with most of the "Principles" section. The section should be rewritten so each of the categories of principles, as well as individual principles is named and discussed in paragraph form. You may also consider breaking this section up into proper wiki-coded subsections. Consider also converting the lists to tables, which are acceptable. The lists in the "Branches" section would be especially easy to break up into paragraphs instead of bulleted lists. The Quotes section, as well, would be better if the context of the quotes was provided, and the meaning of the quotes was discussed with references. Lists are criticized very frequently on GA reviews, and considered by many reviewers to be inherently unencyclopedic.
  • Response: I think this is a stylistic issue and one open to interpretation and opinion. I happen to think the bullets are appropriately and useful.
You're quite right that it is a stylistic issue, I'm just letting you know what I believe reviewers' preferences are at GA review. I think it is a shame that there are currently only 6 or so GA-class martial arts articles, and all of them are about Japanese people or arts. I'd like to see more diverse articles get polished and promoted. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

  • {{quotefarm}} Really just referring to the quotes section, and overlaps with the previous comment. Having so many quotes is especially problematic when they are presented in a bulleted list.

Additional (minor) comments

A few additional comments: *Most of the section headings are contrary to the guidelines at WP:HEAD.

  • Response: Maybe the guidelines need to be revised. What is specifically wrong with the headings. They appear to be supportive of each of the sections.
Cleaned up to meet WP:MOS, 'the' and the name of the article should not be in most headings. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The System section especially, but the rest of the article as well, could probably use some subsections.
  • Response: See above.
  • The Principles section could probably be expanded to include more detailed explanation of the individual subparts, particularly IV and V.
  • Response: Agreed
  • The material in the section Bruce Lee should probably appear up front in a "History" section that details his inspirations experiences that led him to create the art, and that immediately precedes the more detailed description of the system itself.
  • Response: Maybe, treading on stylistic ground again however. The article is about JKD not Bruce Lee; although Bruce Lee is obviously involved.

I hope all of this has been helpful, it would be wonderful to see more martial arts articles make it to GA and above.

As a general response to the above, I simply believe that the article's presentation and organization is too informal. Having bolded subject headings instead of wiki markup sections and subsections is an example of how. I'm not too worried about the guidelines, they are just a tool to increase uniformity and encourage a professional presentation. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Country of Origin

I have lately seen some editors changing the country of origin of JKD from U.S. to China or adding China in addition to. It is well established that:

  • A. Bruce Lee was born in the U.S. & chose U.S. citizenship
  • B. Bruce Lee resided in the U.S. while developing JKD
  • C. JKD was developed and refined in the U.S.

It is thus not a Chinese system, martial art, or style.

FrankWilliams 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, but given the Chinese name and heavy Wing Chun influence I'm not sure it's quite that simple. It's certainly based in kung fu to a large extent, despite the admixture of boxing, fencing, etc. This isn't an either/or thing. JJL 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is heavily influenced by Chinese MA especially Wing Chun, but as it was created in the US by a US citizen, claiming it's chines is as incorrect as it would be to ignore the chines influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 13:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

JKD is no more influenced by Wing Chun then any other of the sytems Bruce Lee incoporated into it. Western Boxing and Fencing are also heavily influenced to ignore this is just as incorrect. 206.125.176.3 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Lee and his art certainly pose a difficulty when it comes to placing its geographical-cultural identity. To offer a simple one or the other type of answer does not do justice to its complexity. Possibly our modern day language doesn't really have the vocabulary to capture this complexity. I would say that it is precisely this point which should be made when describing where his art came from. --Baumgaertner (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Guys, i just wanna say that even though you all bring up some great points. You need to piece together Bruce's writings. Also Bruce had three schools opened at one time, therefore does it not make sense to have three capable instructors regardless their names or rank. I mean what good is an instructor that cannot certify, lol? And yes they did use the books in Lee's libray because he had wrote personal notes inside them. As far as the ranges go, ifyou chose to look at the as close, med, and long that's great or if you choose to break them down into punching, kicking, trapping, and grappling they are one in the same. I know because im a fourth generation instructor. Dan was certified the highest jkd rank and Kamaru the highest jun fan rank by Bruce Lee. However, this does not mean that others didnt get certified later as high as Dan or Kamaru, because they themselves can certify own rank if they so choose. I know for a fact that Ron Balicki (Dan's soninlaw) is a full instructor and is fully capable of teaching. Bruce wouldn't want this kind of disharmony over his system so let's help one another piece this puzzle together, and remember it is a puzzle because we atleast there are three main phases to jkd. 1)Wing chun 2)boxing 3) fencing and this is not to mention the studied he did in the filipino arts, savate, northern and southern mantis and many many more!----your friend----

Lee Quotes

I think it is funny that that there are legitimate quotes from Bruce Lee stating that the name of "Jeet Kune Do" is not that important. At the same time, in this Wiki article, you have various groups fighting over what the exact name of "Bruce's new art" [sic] should be, which totally contradicts both Bruce's stated intent and JKD. 207.105.30.44


Open Source

So, is it possible that JKD is a proto-implementation of Open Source philosophy? VampRomero 18:51, 1 November 2007

SAA

SAA stands for Single Angular Attack NOT SIMPLE ANGULAR ATTACK. This has never been disputed so I don't know where this is coming from. I suggest editors seek more knowledge before changing these articles. 206.125.176.3 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you also take more care with your edits as you broke a reference with part of it, I didn't see the second part of the edits. You may also want to seek the knowledge of WP:CIVIL --Nate1481( t/c) 15:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • SAA stands for Simple Angle Attack, see Tao of Jeet Kune Do (page 194), nowhere on that page is written SINGLE, that's something that other people came up with.

Well its hard to be civil when a correction is made and one keeps changing it back to erroneous material. 206.125.176.3 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All or most of this article appears to be a direct copy of the following article which shows a copyright notice (unless this article was here first?): http://www.boxist.com/2008/01/18/jeet-kune-do-secrets-and-methods/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarmonicSphere (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This wiki article was definitely here first. That web site mentioned above copied and pasted everything from this article and added pictures. Shame on them for not citing this. I know because I wrote the majority of this article. FrankWilliams (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is JKD a system or a concept?

Why are people claiming that JKD is a system? Bruce Lee clearly intended it to be a conceptual approach rather than a system. In fact, when he saw students interpreting it as a system, he shut down all of his schools. JKD was created in opposition to system. If you interpret JKD as a system, you have missed the boat. In order for the article to be NPOV, it should portray JKD as a conceptual approach. The two primary founders of JKD, Dan Inosanto (who is still alive and teaching) and Bruce Lee, taught that it was a conceptual approach to martial arts and life in general. Claiming that JKD is a system is a POV. --RisingSunWiki 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're failing to distinguish between what he intended it to be and what it currently is. Look in your local Yellow Pages and see if it's just a concept or if it's marketed as a system. JJL (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has a section on "Branches" where this difference is discussed and can be discussed further. As I mentioned earlier Dan Inosanto is still teaching and as far as I know, he still teaches it as a conceptual approach to martial arts and life in general. If there are some schools today teaching JKD as a system, then that can be discussed in the "Branches" section. Even if their ads appear in the yellow pages, they should still be teaching Original JKD or JKD Concepts. If not, then they are teaching a significant departure from the fundamental ideas of JKD. Again, this can and should be discussed in the "Branches" section. But the fact remains that at the heart of JKD, as it was founded and is still taught by many today, is total and complete rejection of system coupled with an eclectic approach to martial arts and life in general. All articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be NPOV. To claim that JKD is a concept is NPOV. To claim that JKD is a system is POV. So the article should be changed. --RisingSunWiki 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a POV issue. That Bruce Lee stated that he intended it as a concept is certainly accurate. However, it's treated as a system nowadays. A web search quickly verifies that it's more widely taught as a style/system than a set of concepts. JJL (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JKD userboxes

I have created a page of JKD userboxes, both philosophical and MA, if anyone is interested and would like to put any on their user page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RisingSunWiki/JKDuserboxes/

--RisingSunWiki 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new section: JKD as a philosophy

The current article focuses primarily on JKD as a martial art. I would like to see a new section that discusses JKD as a philosophy (after all, Bruce Lee did intend for JKD to be both). The current Quotes section seems to be the most philosophical, so I propose merging that into a 'JKD as a philosophy' section that will be devoted to the philosophical angle. This new section can list basic principles of the philosophy using quotations or non-quotations, and then briefly discussing each one. --RisingSunWiki 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this has been done. Please help improve the section and add to it, if you have some good things to add. --RisingSunWiki 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You should leave the article alone and start Jeet Kune Do (Philosophy) in that case. Also the current article was hideos full of inaccuracies and no references. I've reverted back to a more complete version.NathanielPoe (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you did post on the discussion page. I didn't see that earlier. You want references? Okay. On p. xv of Bruce Lee: Fighting Spirit, Linda Lee states of her late husband, "He studied all the traditional philosophies, but then he began to form his own philosophy...." Dan Inosanto on pg. 97 of Jeet Kune Do: The Art and Philosophy of Bruce Lee states that, "Bruce stressed time and again that JKD was really intended as a means of self-discovery or enlightenment." The introduction to Bruce Lee: Artist of Life states on pg. xiv, "Finding a truth in one discipline and then applying that truth to an entirely unrelated discipline is a hallmark of Lee's genius." So clearly the evidence shows that Bruce Lee was a philosopher who intended JKD to be a philosophy. This is a NPOV fact of JKD. If the section on philosophy becomes large enough, we can split the article into two; I don't think the section is long enough yet. If the article has inaccuracies, those inaccuracies should be changed. You claim there are "no references". There are 16 reference books and 21 footnotes in the edition I defend. In the edition you are suggesting, there are 5 reference books, and 13 footnotes. Based on everything that I have stated here, I think the newer edition is better, as a whole, than the older; so I have reverted. I guess this starts an edit war; not sure how to resolve it. --RisingSunWiki 11:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Edit war, it states "Our neutral point of view requires that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally." This Wikipedia policy would suggest that both views of JKD (philosophy and martial art) can and should exist harmoniously with each other in the same article (yin and yang). --RisingSunWiki 11:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit of a false controversy, since I'm not aware of any notable JKD concepts practitioners who claim that JKD is merely a philosophy. Take Taky Kimura's view:

If you want to compare it to a sculptor that takes a piece of clay and ends up with a beautiful art object, then he's casting off these little pieces of clay that aren't necessary but in order to get to that beautiful sculpture you will still have to know how he got there. So, yes I think there are pieces that need to be gone through to get up to that point.

I've heard Dan Inosanto make similar statements on numerous occasions with regard to the importance of learning Jun Fan Gung Fu as the base, and that JKD can be taught, but it cannot be standardized. You need something to work with before you are liberated. Otherwise, you could do anything you wanted in your garage and call it JKD. The issue is whether or not JKD is capable of evolving without Bruce Lee, as long as it remains consistent with the basic principles. It is false that Dan Inosanto passes off Filipino Martial Arts as JKD. Dan is very conscientious when it comes to explaining where all of the various techniques come from. However, there are similarities between JKD and FMA because Kali is a weapons based system and so is fencing. In addition both Wing Chun and Kali use trapping. Then you have western boxing and panantukan which have obvious similarities and can inform one another. The ground awareness of BJJ was sort of after Bruce's time, so the question is, can JKD students learn BJJ and incorporate it into thier truth of combat and still be practicing JKD? Well, of course, and this is backed up by Bruce's own writings. You only need to be tied up on the ground by someone who studies BJJ to realize your own ignorance there, and once you realize your ignorance, you act to improve yourself. That's what JKD is about, and that's where the philosophy comes in. MoodyGroove (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Branches section

This section seems to have some obvious POV currently. It no longer has a good NPOV discussion of the differences between Original and Concepts. To bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards, the section needs to be modified. If there are no objections, I am going to change it to make it NPOV.--RisingSunWiki 03:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

According to this video of Ted Wong, there are still differences between OJKD and JKDC. So the claim in the current section that there are no longer divisions between the two branches must be false. If no one else changes this section, I will change it when I get time. --RisingSunWiki 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think people have too much time on their hands as the saying goes. I believe in this: If there is a question as far as the combative aspect of JKD, take it to the middle of the floor, bring it to the gym, get in there and just do it. I guess that is what the JKD philosophy was all about. Let’s test the essentials and do away with all this make believe. Let’s find out the truth. That’s the real JKD, so we are not getting into all of this hype about concepts or the original JKD. I think controversy sells. If this was like in other countries or if you had to survive in the streets of LA, New York or Chicago, you know people that walk the streets have no time for b.s. So I think some JKD people today are just trying to sell their politics." - Ted Lucaylucay[1]

"I think Dan Inosanto is the person that has been left with the legacy of Bruce Lee, so with him lies the key to some kind of consensus there. Otherwise Bruce is going to be forgotten. If he isn't forgotten it's going to be so fragmented and in different directions nobody's going to understand what he stood for. Dan is the guy who is at the head of the group to lead us into the future with a true perspective of what Bruce was and who he was. Dan is the kind of guy that has such humbleness about him and is so dedicated to making sure whatever Bruce stood for doesn't get misconstrued. He's logically the fellow that needs to be there. I think all these other people around him will rally around him and allow him to form a body that will take this thing into the future. My feeling is Dan needs to come out to assert the leadership that everyone is looking for. Dan might emphasize Kali but that's what people want him for. People like Ted Wong, Dan Lee and all those guys, they were the nucleus of who Bruce was teaching down there. For anything to occur that shows different directions among these people obviously shows a lack of communication." - Taky Kimura (Google Taky Kimura Interview -- Associated Content is a blacklisted URL)

"The Nucleus has high regard for Dan Inosanto. Regardless of what you may have heard, the Nucleus respects Dan Inosanto as a skilled and knowledgeable martial artist, as Bruce's assistant instructor in the L.A. Chinatown School, and as sifu of many Nucleus members. In fact, several Nucleus members were certified in Jeet Kune Do or Jun Fan Gung Fu under Dan Inosanto and have taught classes for Dan. This certification plus their personal experience with Bruce Lee only enhances the contribution they can make to preserving his art. In addition, some Nucleus members did receive certificates of various levels of accomplishment directly from Bruce Lee. It is unfortunate that Dan Inosanto decided not to be a part of the Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do Nucleus because we recognize that his contribution and that of many of his students is of great value. The contribution of all students of Jeet Kune Do should be combined for the benefit to future generations." - Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do Corporation[2]

"People are still trying to define 'Jeet Kune Do' in terms of distinct style, i.e. Bruce Lee's Gung Fu, Bruce Lee's Karate, Bruce Lee's Kick Boxing or Bruce Lee's Street Fighting, etc. To label Jeet Kune Do as "Bruce Lee's martial art" is to miss completely its meaning. Its concepts simply cannot be confined within a system. To understand this, a martial artist must transcend the duality of "for" and "against" and reach one unity that is without distinction. The understanding of Jeet Kune Do is a direct intuition of this unity. Truth cannot be perceived until we have come to full understanding of our potential and ourselves. According to Lee, knowledge in the martial arts ultimately means self-knowledge." - Dan Inosanto[3]

Dan Inosanto discusses original JKD and JKD concepts here and here. MoodyGroove (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

  1. ^ Goldsmith, Tami (Jan. 1997). "Q & A: Dan Inosanto Puts His Fists Down! =Black Belt Magazine". 35 (1). Rainbow Publications, Inc.: P. 38. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeet_Kune_Do/Archive_1&oldid=1057254808"