From: ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty)
Subject: re: Which Style To Take 
Originator: ninjam@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:18:52 GMT

tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) says:



>KARATE - has a heavy weight of tradition behind it.  I enjoyed it.
>	 However, it strikes me as being an inflexible system - in the
>	 same way that nuclear weapons are inflexible.  At heart, I am
>	 a pretty upright sort of guy.  I'd rather step off the pavement,
>	 than fight.  I'd rather restrain, than strike.  I'd rather strike
>	 a little than a lot.  I'd rather hurt than kill.
>
>	 But - in shotokan at least - the idea was one punch was enough.
>	
>	 How do I perform a citizens arrest with one punch?


As another poster said, it's only about 60 years of tradition.  Other
Japanese styles go back farther.

>TAE-KWON-DO - seems to have the benefit of drawing from karate's tradition,
>	 but is modernised.  (That could be a good thing or a bad thing).
>	 Its kicking emphasis make it *look* effective.
>	 But it also seems to be a hard art - inflexible.
>
>	 A major plus (for me) for TKD, is its breaking requirements.  
>

TKD is an influence of Chinese and Japanese culture, though mainly
japanese from the times of the occupation.  It seems modernized because it
is quite modernized (i.e developed in this century).  I'm sure a TKD
student here could fill you up here a little better.  As for it's
effectiveness, I can go by the many TKD I've sparred and worked with,
and personally I don't see the hand techniques or punches as being
that effective, and unless you are 5'4" or below, alot of the kicks are
easily telegraphed.  Now again, this is by personal experience with
TKD people from Korea and local.

>Jiu-jitsu - Is more felxible that karate and TKD, but classes in my
>	 area are few and far between.
>	  Also, I wonder if there is any possibility of competition.

Jiu-Jutsu as far as I know does not have competition, because the techniques
emphasize joint locks, ect.  I would think that in the heat of competition
someone might go to far by accident and break someones limbs, ect...

>Jeet-kung-do - This, in my poor opinion, seems the ideal choice.  It seems
>	 to teach the underlying principles of unarmed fighting, not just
>	 a series of more or less effective techniques.  (I am sure that
>	 sufficient training in karate etc, would also teach these basics,
>	 but its not the same.)
>
>	 One of the only classes in my area in JKD, is run by the Kreuses
>	 brothers who were trained by a guy called Dan Inasanto (or something)
>	 like that.  The Kreuses are two of a very few folks in the UK who
>	 have been "licensed" by Inasanto to teach JKD.

Jeet Kune Do is not a style or system, but an idea, and a goal.  You are
correct in saying that on the path to JKD you are learning the underlying
principals of unarmed fighting.  Dan Inasanto was one of Bruce Lee's 
students and also his training partner.  What Dan does now is teach
"JKD Concepts" as it is called, with an emphasis on Kali techniques.  Dan
claims that "JKD Concepts" is what Bruce would have developed had he
lived.  Many people dissagree with this and many people also dissagree
with Dan mixing Kali as the base with JKD.  What people are learning
to do are not develope their "own" JKD which is what the process is supposed
to involve, but they are learning Dan's personal JKD which involves
a Kali basis.  Just like when when Bruce would teach his students, he
would not teach them his JKD (which was a wing chun basis), but many
of the techniques and ideas used to develop his JKD.  Unfortunately
many of the "JKD Teachers" as they are called, continue to either teach
the JKD/Kali or the JKD/Jun Fan  (Jun Fan was Bruce's chinese name, and
the name for his "classical" wing chun style), failing to realize one
of the things that their friend and teacher continuously stressed:

The Boat should be discarded once you cross the river.

By teaching a person their personal JKD or Bruce's, they are turning JKD
into a classical style, and forcing the student to carry his/her boat
once they have crossed the stream.

I leave you with a few more quotes that hopefully will give you a 
better understanding what I am talking about:

"Jeet June Do, ultimately, is not a matter of a petty technique but of a 
highly developed personal spirituality and physique.  It is not a question
of developing what has allready been developed but of recovering what has been
left behind.  These things have been with us, in us, all the time and have
never been lost or distorted except by our misguided manipulation of them.
Jeet Kune Do is not a matter of technology or technique but of spiritual
insight and training"

"Jeet Kune Do is the art not founded on techniques or doctrine.  It
   is JUST AS YOU ARE."

"Learning Jeet Kune Do is not a matter of seeking knowledge or
    accumulating stylized patterns, or obtaining a list of techniques, but
      is discovering the cause of ignorance."

and most importantly:

"If people say Jeet Kune Do is different from "this" or from "that", then let
the name of Jeet Kune do be wiped out, for that is what it is, just a name.
Please don't fuss over it."


See you around....


Marty


	 JKD's major negative is the cost of lessons!

So any thoughts on this?

Oh, due to their explicit religious links, I am not interested in Aikido,
or Shorinji Kempo.  (Or at least I'm not interested in the religious aspects,
which - in most schools - seem an integral part).

Finally - I've just moved to Edinburgh University (still staying in Glasgow),
and would be interested in training during the day if anyone was interested.
Im based at the Kings Buildings, but presumably the main PE buildings
have reasonable gym facilities.

tommy