Dan Inosanto promised Bruce not to teach JKD
Russ Urquhart
According to what I heard, Dan had either promised Bruce, or Bruce told Dan, that he (Dan) would not teach JKD. because of this the whole JKD concepts exists, to kind of sidestep the issue.
My question is that, if Dan did indeed make this promise, etc. how can he have students, who acknowledge that they are certified under Dan, TEACH JKD. Doesn't that kind of violate the promise?
Just a thought!
Thanks
Russ
Mike Shimer
No, there were only 4 people who were authorized by Bruce to teach
JKD: See Danny's book the history and philosophy of Bruce Lee from more
info. Note number two.
1. Taky Kimura
2. Dan Inosanto
3. Ted Wong
4. James Lee (deceased)
What difference would it make anyway??
later,
Mike
--
msh...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu**********************************
Russ Urquhart
>
>
> Dan had mentioned in the past that this is why he got in to
> publicly teaching Kali, Silat, and other arts. And later why
> he created the term JKD Concepts, because the demand for Bruce's
> stuff was to great, so he used this idea to somewhat get around the vow.
> If this is so, then how can his students cut off the Concepts part
> of the title?
>
> He always speaks reverently of Bruce, and refers to him as Sifu.
> So one would think that he would not break his vow to his Sifu.
>
> The more I hear about this, the more intrigued I am about Peter
> Capell's mentioning of a tape as well.
>
This was kind of the point that I was getting at. I think that Dan's forming JKD concepts to address people wanting to know JKD is probably ok, but isn't there then a problem with his "Certified" students teaching JKD and if they are INDEED teaching JKD are they teaching JKD as taught to them by Dan (which be a broken promise) or are they teaching THEIR version of JKD which, therefore, isn't really from Dan or Bruce?
I have heard rumors of this tape as well. Is this the tape that supposedly has Bruce telling Dan to NOT teach JKD or that he wasn't qualified to tach JKD, etc.
Can Peter Capell comment on this tape, send me a copy/transcription, etc.
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks
Russ
Russ Urquhart
>
> No, Linda never gave any authorization, nor would she have any
> authorization to do so. She's never been listed as an authorized JKD
> instructor, nor did she hold any sort of weight when Bruce was alive,
> other than she was Bruce's wife and the wife of people's Sifu.
> Likewise, the only sort of authorization she currently has is that
> of curator of the Bruce Lee estate. That means she's in charge
> of all business and monetary decisions regarding the marketability
> of Bruce Lee (who is very marketable right now). However, this
> is totally seperate from any jurisdiction on an actuall martial art.
> Unless for some reason she decided to copyright the name Jeet Kune Do,
> and define it in legal terms.
This raises another interesting point, I think.
If the originator of
a martial art decides to close his schools, And never re-opens them,
Can anyone re-open them and who?
I have attended Jesse Glover seminars
where he asks the same question, i.e. "Bruce closed the schools! Who
opened them?" He later goes on to state that bruce gave him permission
to teach what Bruce had taught him and that it was definitely NOT JKD!
In fact if you ask him what he calls what he teaches, he either says it
doesn't have a name or it is Bruces Modified Wing Chun.
FYI
Russ
>
Marty
>Russ Urquhart <Russ.U...@dal.khis.kodak.com> wrote:
>>I recently heard this rumor again and was wondering if anyone here had heard this.
>>According to what I heard, Dan had either promised Bruce, or Bruce told Dan, that he (Dan) would not teach JKD. because of this the whole JKD concepts exists, to kind of sidestep the issue.
>>My question is that, if Dan did indeed make this promise, etc. how can he have students, who acknowledge that they are certified under Dan, TEACH JKD. Doesn't that kind of violate the promise?
>
>
>No, there were only 4 people who were authorized by Bruce to teach
>JKD: See Danny's book the history and philosophy of Bruce Lee from more
>info. Note number two.
>
> 1. Taky Kimura
> 2. Dan Inosanto
> 3. Ted Wong
> 4. James Lee (deceased)
This is rather interesting, since Taky has said in print he wasn't a JKD
person. The main reason being because he felt what Bruce taught
him in Seattle worked well enough for him. He also mentioned that
Bruce was making too big of leaps and bounds for him to keep up with
in the short periods of times he got to see him. I've also seen linneages
mentioned by Dan where Taky is not listed.
>
>
>What difference would it make anyway??
A big difference. Dan himself has admitted to taking this vow in
an interview with Jerry Beasley back at a seminar in the early
80's (read Beasley's book on the subject). Bruce ordered the
schools closed down. Who ordered them open?
Dan had mentioned in the past that this is why he got in to
publicly teaching Kali, Silat, and other arts. And later why
he created the term JKD Concepts, because the demand for Bruce's
stuff was to great, so he used this idea to somewhat get around the vow.
If this is so, then how can his students cut off the Concepts part
of the title?
He always speaks reverently of Bruce, and refers to him as Sifu.
So one would think that he would not break his vow to his Sifu.
The more I hear about this, the more intrigued I am about Peter
Capell's mentioning of a tape as well.
> later,
>
> Mike
>
>--
>msh...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu**********************************
Marty
-----------------------------------
World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association
===================================
Sean Browne
This is really a spurious argument. What is Dan supposed
to do with what he learned from Bruce, simply ignore it?
Dan Inosanto is teaching and sharing Dan's knowledge. I don't
think he has commercialized or capitalized on his association
with Bruce Lee. I primarily think of Inosanto in terms of
Filipino martial arts from his books and videos.
I find it hard to believe that after all the effort Bruce spent
in challenging assumptions about the martial arts, that he would
want it to stop after he was gone. I have to assume Bruce wanted to
avoid having Jeet Kune Do made into everything he was challenging
during his life; a rigid formulaic system that people teach and sell
as a product or end in itself.
-Sean
Nancy L. Van Kesteren
>In article <3o2tk7$nv@khis_news.khis.kodak.com>,
>Russ Urquhart <Russ.U...@dal.khis.kodak.com> wrote:
>>I recently heard this rumor again and was wondering if anyone here had heard this.
>>According to what I heard, Dan had either promised Bruce, or Bruce told Dan, that he (Dan) would not teach JKD. because of this the whole JKD concepts exists, to kind of sidestep the issue.
>>My question is that, if Dan did indeed make this promise, etc. how can he have students, who acknowledge that they are certified under Dan, TEACH JKD. Doesn't that kind of violate the promise?
>>
>
>No, there were only 4 people who were authorized by Bruce to teach
>JKD: See Danny's book the history and philosophy of Bruce Lee from more
>info. Note number two.
>
> 1. Taky Kimura
> 2. Dan Inosanto
> 3. Ted Wong
> 4. James Lee (deceased)
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>--
>msh...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu**********************************
>
In one of Linda Lee's biographies about Bruce Lee, she said that in 1971
Bruce Lee decided to close all of his JKD schools because he felt that
students were not using what they were learning in the manner he had
intended. I'm assuming that Linda Lee must have been the person to
authorize the reopening of the schools so that others could benefit from
his knowledge of the art.
Nancy :)
Marty
>In one of Linda Lee's biographies about Bruce Lee, she said that in 1971
>Bruce Lee decided to close all of his JKD schools because he felt that
>students were not using what they were learning in the manner he had
>intended. I'm assuming that Linda Lee must have been the person to
>authorize the reopening of the schools so that others could benefit from
>his knowledge of the art.
>
>Nancy :)
No, Linda never gave any authorization, nor would she have any
authorization to do so. She's never been listed as an authorized JKD
instructor, nor did she hold any sort of weight when Bruce was alive,
other than she was Bruce's wife and the wife of people's Sifu.
Likewise, the only sort of authorization she currently has is that
of curator of the Bruce Lee estate. That means she's in charge
of all business and monetary decisions regarding the marketability
of Bruce Lee (who is very marketable right now). However, this
is totally seperate from any jurisdiction on an actuall martial art.
Unless for some reason she decided to copyright the name Jeet Kune Do,
and define it in legal terms. But then we're moving back towards
Kato's Gung Fu Schools. ;)
Russ Urquhart
>
> I worked out with Danny Inosanto for three years in the early 80's. He
> generally referred to Bruce's stuff as "Jun Fan Kickboxing", and there was
> a senior class where "Jeet Kune Do" concepts were learned. Jesse Glover
> was with Bruce during the transitional period where Bruce was
> deconstructing Wing Chun with that fine analytical mind of his, but
> previous to his working extensively with martial artists like Joe Lewis,
> Mike Stone, and Chuck Norris, who were friends, workout partners, and
> living laboratories for his concepts.
> One assumes that, Jeet Kune Do never having been copyrighted, students who
> spent six or eight years studying with Danny wished to teach. They were
> excellent, knew their stuff, and there was no real reason for them not to
> describe the lineage of their style. After all--they were going to call
> it "Jun Fan", or "Bruce Lee's Style", or SOMETHING. It wasn't dishonest
> to call it Jeet Kune Do, and they had never given their promise to Bruce.
> So it happened.
In this senior class, was this "JKD Concepts" or "JKD" that was taught?
It seems to me that IF "JKD Concepts" were taught then the "Promise",
if there was one, may have been bent, but not broken. If "JKD" was
taught, in any manner, then how can the promise have been anything
but broken?
I think that if Dan, and his students, teach "JKD Concepts" then it
should be made clear to everyone that this is distinct from the "JKD"
that Dan learned and is, therefore, his (Dan's) interpretation of
"JKD". I think Dan and his students SHOULD teach "JKD Concepts" they
have spent the time and energy training, why not. But I think the
distinction should be made.
It is my opinion that this distinction, however, is not being made or
"JKD Concepts" is being sold to students as "... this is the
progression that Bruce would have taken, were he still alive!" which I
admit I don't really believe. If either of these two scenarios are
occurring, then aren't the people studying "JKD Concepts" being
deceived? Was this deception pre-meditated? Was this deception as a
result of a business decision?
I started this thread some time back cuz I had heard of the existence
of a taped phone conversation between Bruce Lee and someone,
supposedly Dan Lee. Supposedly the gist of the conversation contains
Bruce stating his dis-satisfaction with Dan Inosanto teaching JKD.
(Supposedly Bruce is stating that not only is Dan incapabable of
teaching JKD, but that he would NEVER is able to teach JKD.)
To add more intrigue to this rumor, I was told that Dan was not only
aware of the existence of the tape, but had a copy HIMSELF and that
it was primarily because of the existence of this tape, that Dan
began teaching and focusing on the Filipino Martial Arts! If I
wanted to 'smell a conspiracy" I could infer that Dan, not, or perhaps
indeed,
knowing who else had a copy of this tape, developed "JKD Concepts"
to carve a niche for himself in the event that "JKD" was ever
copyrighted. But I don't think this is the case.
I have not heard this tape but have received mail from people who
claim to have seen the tape and heard its contents. (BTW, if anyone
has any info on this tape, please send me some mail!) I think that it
is important for our Martial Arts history to document the events
to the best of our abilities, while it is still possible. If the
existence of this tape is proven I don't believe it will change
anything. I don't think it should, for the serious Martial Artist.
I think what it will do is serve to add a more truthful light on the
people in the Martial Arts.
FYI
Russ
SEBARNES
Sean Browne
While we argue the various sides of did Dan Inosanto
break a promise to Bruce Lee, if you go to the Panther
Productions Home Page, Paul Vunak's name is under a
section entitled:
"Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do"
Check it out:
http://www.speed.net/panther/paul_vunak.html
By the way, I have no idea if this was Paul's
idea or just the person that put together the Panther
web page. It does look like he's pretty much selling
genuine bona fide Bruce Lee Jeet Kune Do.
Just thought I'd take the heat off Dan for a while :)
by the way, I'm a fan of both and am not too bothered
by this...
-Sean
Elliot
{snip}
>One assumes that, Jeet Kune Do never having been copyrighted, students
who
>spent six or eight years studying with Danny wished to teach. They
were
>excellent, knew their stuff, and there was no real reason for them not
to
>describe the lineage of their style. After all--they were going to
call
>it "Jun Fan", or "Bruce Lee's Style", or SOMETHING. It wasn't
dishonest
>to call it Jeet Kune Do, and they had never given their promise to
Bruce.
>So it happened.
Well, in the letter of the law, perhaps no contract was broken. But
wasn't it pretty clear that Jeet Kune Do wasn't a fully defined system,
and that Bruce Lee wasn't comfortable with the idea someone else
teaching something that even he hadn't delineated himself?
It's all about following a fallen colleague/master/friend's fervent wish
concerning a closely-held subject.
Elliot.
Brad Webb
According to the stuff St. Bruce wrote,
JKD is not a system of fighting, it is more of a way of thinking
and changing the current system that you are using, trying to
make what you are using into a more efficient fighting system.
Therefore, you really can't teach JKD, you can only teach the
concepts of JKD.
Trying to teach JKD is only trying to cash in on St. Bruce.
Trying to teach the concepts of JKD is more of a tribute to
his thinking.
--
Brad Webb, reply to:erw...@rwasic33.aud.alcatel.com (mine bounces)
Japan Shotokan Dallas,TX. Nortel, Inc. (214)684-1737
(214) 231-4922 My opinions != NT opinions
Seek perfection of character.