Classifying Jeet Kune Do

[disgruntled]

i have a debate for us... it should be fun because there is no right answer... unless we are all too agreeable, or no one cares and no one answers

should JKD be considered a chinese MA or a western MA?

we all know that it was invented by Bruce Lee, and for the most part we can agree that he is american, but JKD is based on (is a reaction to) wing chung, thus the debate.

personally i consider it chinese because JKD is based on that system.... thoughts?

[Hatori]

Boy you may have opened up a can of worms here matey!!! Jeet Kune Do is recognised more as a concept than an actual STYLE. Practitioners of JKD are encouraged to use whatever works rather than "monkey see monkey do" techniques. Bruce actually said "favour formlessness so you can assume all forms"

[disgruntled]

although i agree that it is a personal "style" and was never meant to be an actual new form, i would argue that it has now become it's wn form by those that continued to teach it after Bruce Lee passed on. whether right or wrong, you can take JKD classes and i believe it has a rank system, but i am not positive.

[DOCBROWN1705]

It, like all styles, does have a rank system.... and I would have to agree that despite its philosophy... it is, in itself, its own art (otherwise it wouldn't have any name at all). .... because of its philosophical basis, and root styles, I would say that it would be considered a Chinese form..... That being said, almost any style taught in North America, loses something in its translation, and gains new influence, so they all become American versions of themselves.

[disgruntled]

so do you think the trend in the future will be a distinction between, say taekwondo and western taekwondo? and should the philosophy define an art or the movements? and can that really be lost in translation?

[DOCBROWN1705]

Originally Posted by disgruntled

so do you think the trend in the future will be a distinction between, say taekwondo and western taekwondo? and should the philosophy define an art or the movements? and can that really be lost in translation?

I think there is already a distinction..... not that what most of us have learned here isn't accurate, or good..... but when you take another cultures art form or fighting style.... especially asian styles... and bring them to a place like North America, they begin to change. Mostly because of the cultural differences. Anyone I know who has gone overseas to train for any length of time, has said that it is a whole different form of training, and they tell me they learn things there, that just are not taught here. Thats why I think they get lost in translation.... as a culture we tend to take what we want from things, and leave what we don't, and in doing so we may lose something valuable.

Should Philosophy define an art or its movements? I think to some effect it has to... It is our beliefs that define us spiritually, and morally. I think that as MAist we use those beliefs, to determine how we use our skills, and practice our art..

[disgruntled]

although i agree that we got to take into account that MAs change, they change regardless of where they are. TKD in Korea has evolved too..... so then do we need to start defining traditional korean TKD and modern TKD and western TKD etc....

i disagree that the philosphy would define the art. although i think that it is essential to an art, i do not see it as the defining thing. beliefs change with the times and adapt. and an idea is much more volitile and contextually dependent than a movement or the principal of the movement. so for example, just because i am not learning Muay Thai to prove my worthiness as a warrior and to shapen my skills for war, does not mean that i am not learning muay thai. the reasons for an art can change multiple tmes through out history, or even from person to person... the consistency and thus defining characteristic comes from the movements and the "martial" aspect.

[DOCBROWN1705]

Originally Posted by disgruntled

although i agree that we got to take into account that MAs change, they change regardless of where they are. TKD in Korea has evolved too..... so then do we need to start defining traditional korean TKD and modern TKD and western TKD etc....

i disagree that the philosphy would define the art. although i think that it is essential to an art, i do not see it as the defining thing. beliefs change with the times and adapt. and an idea is much more volitile and contextually dependent than a movement or the principal of the movement. so for example, just because i am not learning Muay Thai to prove my worthiness as a warrior and to shapen my skills for war, does not mean that i am not learning muay thai. the reasons for an art can change multiple tmes through out history, or even from person to person... the consistency and thus defining characteristic comes from the movements and the "martial" aspect.

__________________________________________________ _
I think that we already do classify them as separate forms, and styles (Ie modern, western, etc)... we just don't say it. By philosophy.... I mean the basic principals, values, and beliefs that the art was formed around.... if you lose those, or people ignore those, than in essence you have changed the art, and we come back to the definition of traditional vs modern (Does that make sense).... Interpreting the philosophy is an individual thing, but the basic will always be the basics. Even if the times define how the art is used or practiced, it is still grounded in its roots. In essence (For example)... you are learning Muay Thai, no two ways about it.... however you are not learning it in the way a traditionally trained Muay thai warrior would, as such you will never truly learn the whole art. That being said, the fact that you understand its original purpose, shows that you have respect for its philosophy.. thus bring us back to the root....

[disgruntled]

well said and good points. it just does not sit with me so well that we are dismissing the physical aspect of MA so easily. i would still place a higher priority on them then the philosphy, but agree that both are needed.

[DOCBROWN1705]

You are right, about the physical aspects of the MA's, and I don't mean to dismiss them. You really do need both parts to make a complete form...