Book Review The Straight Lead: The Core of Bruce Lee's Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do

Tilting at Windmills in the land where confirmation bias is king

(Before moving ahead, the uninitiated may be wondering what a straight lead even is. It is punch delivered with your forward or lead hand, similar to the power jab, but with the fist vertically held at impact. Here is an example taken from Bruce Lee's Fighting Method Volume 4: Advanced Techniques.

Boxers would probably just refer to it as the power jab, and not pay much attention to whether the fist was thumb's side up, or palms down. However Lee liked the arrangement very much, and it became the core of his attack and defense.)

This is an ambitious book. Much more ambitious than its single focus subject matter might lead you to believe. It is after all a book focused on a single punch, and a few of its variants. What can it be trying to say other than throw the straight lead like this, in the following situations? For Tom a discussion of the straight lead appears to be a vehicle to argue a great many other things, not least of which is the nature of what is, and is not Jeet Kune Do.

Starting with the good points we find the following. Where she is instructing the reader on the hows and whens of the straight lead, Tom's book is excellent. Her discussion of Lee's "small phasic bent-knee" stance? Peerless. Though she could have used vastly more sequence photos, and more cues to demonstrate how her body was moving through space. The prose is very helpful, very detailed but the new student is going to have trouble translating the written description into action without more visual cues. Also adding a strong engrossing flavor to the book, is that Tom has a wonderfully strong voice as a writer. She is engaging, witty, and the book never suffers from dullness. Certainly this is a trap into which a 205 page book on a single punch could have easily fallen. However her lively voice, even where you disagree, will carry you through the material rather quickly. And where she isn't namelessly impugning everybody else's approach to JKD except for Ted Wong's, it is a wonderfully challenging voice.

Beyond the punch instruction though, the book full of problems. Besides instruction her aim is to convince the reader no less than the following, straight punching is a lost art and has been since Dempsey, the straight lead is better than all other leading punches, and that this is scientifically proven to be so, as well as that the whole of Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do is scientific in its approach to fighting, that anyone not doing/focusing on what Bruce Lee taught late in his life (that is to say the material that Ted Wong teaches) is either mis-representing, misinterpreting Jeet Kune Do, or using the name to justify, falsely promote themselves, and Jeet Kune Do cannot be anything like what the Jeet Kune Do concepts people think it is. June Fan Jeet Kune Do according to Teri Tom and Ted Wong is constructed of a core of fencing, boxing and a little Wing Chun.

It is hard to know where to begin with such a long list. So I will start somewhere else. The main problem I see with Tom's book is that her analysis is terribly, terribly faulty, and chalk full of confirmation bias, and one sided presentation. She dresses her analyses with a great deal scientific explanation about what is occurring during the lead. She loves to cite Newton's laws of motion, and discuss gravity and say see, JKD follows the laws of science. By which I think she means physics. But so do all martial arts techniques. Watch any show from Fight Science, to The Human Weapon and you can see why a martial arts technique works according to the laws of physics. Unless magic powers are being claimed any technique will have an explanation falling out from F=ma, or F=G(m1m2/r^2. This doesn't establish anything like scientific proof that one technique is better than any other in all instances in all ranges so much as it establishes that human bodies are as subject to the laws of physics as other bodies. Any sense of a scientific approach to these questions is ruined by her method of backing up her assertions, and ideas. The book is copiously end-noted but the end notes are useless in establishing meaning. Her arguments in a nutshell take the following form. Bruce Lee, or his primary sources, Driscoll, Nadi, and Dempsey thought straight thrusts were more economical, powerful, and efficient than curved swings or strokes. We know this because the lead is biomechanically efficient, and exerts more force into the target more quickly endnote. But when we look at the endnote, it doesn't point us to research that demonstrates this the case, but rather Lee, Driscoll, Dempsey or Nadi saying the same thing. She is using her sources to support her sources. Whatever that may be it isn't scientific research. All of her sources may have been smart men and fighters but none of them were scientists. And none of them conducted any research on the subject of leads that might be considered scientific, empirical certainly, but limited in the broadness of the generalizations that can be made.

Her analysis is further hindered because she is never very clear with whom she is arguing. Is it the "bear-cats" (wild, undisciplined swingers) that so vexed Driscoll and Dempsey? Is it the classical martial artist the Karate, or Tae Kwon Do practitioner, who chamber their punches on their hips before firing (incidentally this is the only comparison for which she offers anything like a scientific examination, and strangely it is the only thing that fails to make the list on her short bibliography). Is it the people who throw their lead palms down like a boxer? Likely it is all of them but she doesn't have any hard data to back up her assertion that the brand of JKD she practices is better than other methods. It is in this area that her argument strikes some of its most inarticulate notes.

Her explanation of Driscoll, Dempsey, Nadi and Lee are told in such away to favor her analysis. There is no talk of other explanations, no review of other hypotheses. Driscoll and Dempsey complained that straight punching was a lost art form, and their analysis did much to inspire Lee. But it is possible that they were wrong in major ways. From Dempsey's day to today, boxing has been changing, namely in the areas of defensive postures and footwork. Is it possible that changes in footwork led to the changing of the straight lead? Heavy lateral movement makes shooting straights as a fencer problematic. In the modern era, one of the best straight punchers was George Foreman (the old one) and he constantly had to use his hooks to get people to stand in front of him to take his two best shots of his second career, his jab and his cross. No mention is made of this trend in boxing footwork. Boxing is devolved is all we get from Tom on the subject.

Jabs, and straight leads are excellent in situations of matched leads (that is both fighters have the same side forward). It is important to note Lee advocated that all of his students fight strong side forward. This would mean that most people under Lee fought same side (right) forward if the statistics of such things are anything by which to go. Is it possible that lead hand straight punches like the jab, power jab, and the thumbs up straight lead work better in a matched lead situation like a boxing coach at any gym will tell you. Unmatched leads typically puts your opponent's hand directly in the way of straight punches to his/her head. No mention is made of this old boxing maxim, nor any real indication that the author has ever heard of the problem. But it is something all advocates of the strong side forward approach should consider. It probably means that you will be fighting southpaw, against orthodox (left lead) and this reduces the success of straight lead punches.

Tom also goes to great lengths to demonstrate the superiority of the Jeet Kune Do stance over alternatives found in boxing and Wing Chun. While demonstrating how structurally safe you are while throwing the straight lead. Let me address the last point first. When you throw a proper left or right straight lead, you turn your body sideways, in an effort to get your hips and lead shoulder into the punch. This leads to the conclusion that you suddenly present a smaller target area to your opponent. And you do, but only from straight punches. Hooks of either the hands or feet will come in perpendicular to the plane of your body, which is all there for the taking if you miss, or otherwise fail in some way. The lead even when thrown correctly isn't unbeatable as she over and over again implies.

So in what way is the stance she advocates superior? Compared to other stances it is, she argues, the most efficient way to deliver the straight lead, as an initial technique, as a counter, as a stop hit (countering the opponents preparation or initial action). Are there any weaknesses? Apparently not, or at least none that she can imagine or entertain. Any fighting stance is a compromise. Thai boxers have a stance that favors the speedy and powerful use of both legs along mostly curving lines. This limits other options. Boxing has several stances that maximize some qualities while minimizing others. Wing Chun is stance heavily predicated on blocking and simultaneous use of both hands, and its stance reflects that. Not every trade off is negative or positive. The Jeet Kune Do stance is no different. It may be superior at delivering its lead hand thrust, and involving the lead leg, but its structure reduces dramatically the effectiveness of its rear tools. Is there a scientific reason for this. Here is Lee (by way of Ted Wong) on the subject,
"…being able to hit an opponent with good combination is satisfying, but if you can hit the target with one shot, then that's a sign of greatness.(Tom 2005)" Not a terribly scientific rationale to say the least.

While I think her argument for the superiority of the punch, and the stance crumble under the weight of all she fails to address her book's usefulness as an instructional resource is not in doubt, and as a read, it is plucky, challenging, and engaging. This was easily the most engaging book on martial arts I've read in quite some time. I for one cannot wait for her next two books.

What is Jeet Kune Do?

(Preface to the subject: I've been thinking a great deal about martial arts as they are envisioned beyond the sporting aspects of their practice. I practice Brazilian Jiu-jitsu avidly-BJJ hereafter- have for several years now. I enjoy competing in BJJ tournaments, and find its self-defense applications sound. However I was introduced to BJJ through a little approach to martial arts called Jeet Kune Do-JKD hereafter. I have an admission to make. I've never not considered myself a "JKD man." That is to say, when I think of martial art as self defense, I apply JKD principles to my training. Lately I have been retooling my own approach to the "totality," as Lee himself might have referred to it. In my researches I found the following.



It was this clip (which I would recommend that everyone view, and then follow the various links provided, suggested)that reminded me of the pointless fissure that originated, or at least manifested in a very public way, in JKD circles in the early to mid-90s. Two groups emerged. On one side we had the Jun Fan/Jeet Kune Do clan-most apparent in the form of the Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do Nucleus, and an amorphous group which practiced Jeet Kune Do concepts. Judging by the comments sections, and blogs and articles the argument appears to be ongoing.
I’ve decided to put my own thoughts down here on my blog.

If I don’t do this now, it is likely I will have to do it later. What makes me qualified to talk about this subject? Here is the martial CV. Tae Kwon Do, brown belt; Chan Style Wing Chun, brown sash; Taijitsu, a year of study among the Bujinkan; Jeet Kune Do ,full instructor through Indiana PFS; Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, purple belt; Judo yellow belt. In addition to this training, I’ve spent the entire time researching martial arts in an attempt to take some ownership of my own training. Certainly my copies of Bruce Lee’s Tao of Jeet Kune Do and his Fighting Method series are deeply annotated, and colorfully highlighted. I will still hear about my lack of qualifications, but I had to try to head that obvious criticism off. Enough by way of introduction, here are my thoughts on the nature of JKD, and the mistakes most common to its adherents. )
The question that forms the title of this blog is a common and sensible question. Eminently sensible. There is no shortage of answers on offer. But it is there that we get into trouble. Most of the answers that you are going to get are unreflective, and victim to the very errors Bruce Lee first identified decades ago. So let me do the shocking thing and say I don’t know what your JKD is going to look like. I don’t have a clue as to what you, a JKD “man,” might look like in a fight. I could likely predict a few commonalities between you and I, but that will be all I can do. I may guess that you will try to be efficient, economical, and that you will try to flow with your opponent as best you can. You will observe the five methods of attack. As a JKD practitioner you will strive to have a functional eye toward the real . That is to say that your self-defense applications will be constantly reviewed through a reality based lens. Beyond that I cannot really say. While JKD has a few core principles you couldn’t really call JKD a style. Lee was beyond that. And so is JKD.

Jeet Kune Do favors formlessness so that it can assume all forms and since Jeet Kune Do has no style, it can fit in with all styles. As a result, Jeet Kune Do utilizes all ways and is bound by none and, likewise uses any techniques or means which serve its end.
Bruce Lee The Tao of Jeet Kune Do

The philosophy seemed the perfect tool to move martial arts into the modern era, while at the same time avoiding the decidedly sectarian nature of martial arts politics. Bruce favored simplicity, and accepting reality. Points to which we will shortly return. Before we can address what he favored however, we have to ask a question embedded in the aforementioned quote. Namely we have figure out the end for which JKD aims.

Luckily for our investigations this actually isn’t very difficult. He wrote it down for anyone interested. Bruce was interested in human combat in its totality.

Styles that focus on a particular aspect of combat are in bondage.

Combat is never fixed and is changing from moment to moment. Working in patterns is basically a practice of resistance.

The way of combat is not based on personal choice and fancies. Truth in the way of combat is perceived from moment to moment when there is awareness without condemnation, justification, or any form of identification.

Bruce Lee, The Tao of Jeet Kune Do.

From the quotes above we see Lee establishing this theme of reality, and totality. JKD is the philosophy designed to help a martial artist function in a real moment of combat. The philosophy does not, as some have argued, favor any technique, or style, or system. A JKD player is thus freed to use any and all techniques that enable them to prevail in a real, fluid, and dynamic combative moment. This perspective is not universally agreed upon.

Sifu Lamar Davis has suggested that JKD emphasizes, no less than the following to make authentic Jun Fan/Jeet Kune Do. You must have your strong side forward, no wasted motion in defense or attack, vertical fist punching structure, interception skills, the five ways of attack, light quick explosive type footwork, energy/sensitivity training, trapping hands. He has a few others but they can be viewed as subsets of the list above. Within this list I can find things both to admire, and place at which I might raise my eyebrows. Points involving principles I like, but points where he begins to suggest that JKD favors a particular style or set of specific techniques are where I think he (I am using Sifu Davis simply because he is one of the more articulate “original” JFJKD guys out there. He is by no means the only advocate for this position) goes awry. You have to see vertical punching structure? Really? This seems deeply at odds with history since Lee utilized and found vastly effective, the arsenal of western boxing. You have to have your strong side forward? Lee certainly favored placing his strong side forward as most of your attacks were carried out by the leading weapons. The rear weapons structurally more powerful could then be carried out by the weaker side. This is fine, but demanding that this be done seems unnecessarily restrictive of the personal freedom for which JKD is supposed to allow. Each practitioner must experiment with such particulars on her own and decide what is best for her. The point is that JKD isn’t bound by such things as technique, or style and it is here that I think that those adhering to the original material taught by Bruce Lee are making a mistake. They are becoming closed in a style and thinking that there is no need to look beyond that. This brings us to the next point.

Bruce Lee did invent a system, or style. And that style was Jun Fan Gung Fu. It has a definite progression, and suite of things you must learn as you progress. It has a stance, ideas about movement, and is clearly Lee’s first attempt to create a personal system reflecting his philosophical principles. Jun Fan is an incredibly good style, and according to Dan Inosanto is the place where one absolutely must begin when they explore the philosophy of JKD. Jun Fan is mostly concerned with the stand-up (punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing headbutting) aspects of hand to hand combat. It isn’t sporty, but can be trained in real time, with contact using proper equipment which minimizes injury. It is focused on economy of motion, interception and brutality (eye jabs, groin strikes, attacks on the knees with strikes). As a stand up art of self defense, it has to be considered, when practiced with seriousness, one of more effective martial arts one could learn.

Some of its practitioners (most falling under banners that say Jun Fan/JKD) think Jun Fan represents the totality of which Bruce Lee so often spoke. This is simply not the case. We have no idea what it would look like in the year two thousand and nine, but we can bet it would not currently be frozen in nineteen sixty nine, or sixty four, or seventy one. The art of Jun Fan was still evolving, as was Lee’s understanding of his own expression of JKD. There is no weapon portion of Jun Fan. This surely would have changed as Lee’s focus on reality would have forced it to change. Most attacks in the US involve a weapon of some kind. And the grappling in Jun Fan was limited largely to a series of flowing drills that were done without much resistance. So in this area too Jun Fan was unsophisticated, and under developed. According to Dan Inosanto, Bruce Lee was only toward the end of his life exploring how grappling could be, or should be incorporated into his fighting. Lee may even have ushered in the new focus before the Gracies exploded on the scene, or their explosion might have been facilitated by his research. We will never know. Lee was always ahead of the curve on these things. He may have been here too. In any event Jun Fan, even as good as it is as an art of one-on-one self defense, it was, let us admit, in its infancy and incomplete.

The Jun Fan-only advocates scoff at the incorporation of other techniques, methods and approaches, and will point to the brutal efficiency of their Jun Fan, and wonder how a Muy Thai kick or BJJ approaches the kind of efficiency, and ecomony of which JKD demands. Or they will think that incorporting new techniques violates Lee's daily decrease, not daily increase maxim. Here they are at their most errant, and closed minded. Economy, and efficiency are not qualities that exist in a vaccum. They are utterly contextual. Your favorite method may not be available to you. Perhaps you were just tackled, perhaps you are a 120 lb woman and there is a 230lb man accosting you, where then is your JKD lead punch. Vanished in the ether and you have no time to lament you must react with the approaches that are most efficient and economical in the new moment. Daily decreases (that is Bruce's leanings toward simplicity and effeciency) can come in any number of ways. You can shed techniques you find no longer helpful or necessary. You can shorten steps, make more efficient your training. It isn't implied that the decrease is always on the number of techniques. (If this were so, I suspect that those calling themselves Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do would jettison almost all of their complex trapping drills as they are ineffective, and extremely low percentage.)

Here some examples of the ways in which efficency, economy are contextual and cannot be judged from the arm chair but only in the experience of combat. Maybe you are threatened with a knife (if you are attacked in the US this is not statistically unlikely) your focus on BJJ, or Jun Fan has likely just failed you. Pulling guard just got you stabbed a hundred times, or launching the dreaded Jun Fan side kick just cost you the mobility of your leg, perhaps for the rest of your life (perhaps not terribly long given the scenario). Jun Fan is a wonderful art but it isn't the totality, and it isn't something to which a JKD player should become overly attached, or limited. Think of the totality of fighting not your own conception of it. Let that be your guide to understanding how to apply JKD principles and concepts to your technical training.

Anyone saying that JKD is the practice of only the material taught by Bruce Lee have defacto admitted that they do not apply the philosophy of JKD to their martial arts. They have instead opted for the security of a system or style.