That’s a good question.

I’ve been reading this thread at martialartsplanet.com on that very question. It seems it’s difficult to come to a consensus. What follows is by no means a definitive statement nor answer to the question, just my own evolving thoughts on the question.

Without question, “Jeet Kune Do” is a creation of Bruce Lee. Now, I’m not a Bruce Lee fanboy, but yes I’ve enjoyed his movies and I do think there was a lot of good contribution that he made to the world of martial arts, especially at the time when he made them. As he was fond of saying, the “classical mess” was quite popular at the time and it was too stiff. He brought out the notion of combat being more alive, of being dynamic. He established a lot of good “martial philosophy”. Jeet Kune Do is an outgrowth of that.

Originally I was viewing Jeet Kune Do as merely a philosophy, a set of concepts. For instance “take what is useful and discard the rest.” Or as Bruce himself stated:

Learning Jeet Kune Do is not a matter of seeking knowledge or accumulating stylized pattern, but is discovering the cause of ignorance.

So I could look at my Kuk Sool study and say things like spin kicks, jump kicks… heck, most any kick other than a front push kick or a roundhouse kick (maybe side kick, maybe back kick) are not useful to me. So, why bother studying those useless (to me) kicks? Just focus on the few that matter, discard the rest. I look at a great deal of the joint lock and throwing techniques, and some are just flat out impractical (my favorite: Yahng Sohn Mohk Soo #10, because everyone knows flipping your opponent over your back is soooo practical). But Ki Bohn Soo #9? To me, quite practical as-is. But then you have to move beyond that “classical mess” of step here, grab this, do this.

Instead of facing combat in its suchness, then, most systems of martial art accumulate a “fancy mess” that distorts and cramps their practitioners and distracts them from the actual reality of combat, which is simple and direct. Instead of going immediately to the heart of things, flowery forms (organized despair) and artificial techniques are ritualistically practiced to simulate actual combat. Thus, instead of “being” in combat these practitioners are “doing” something “about” combat.

When you get down to it, real combat is not fixed and is very much “alive.” The fancy mess (a form of paralysis) solidifies and conditions what was once fluid, and when you look at it realistically, it is nothing but a blind devotion to the systematic uselessness of practicing routines or stunts that lead nowhere.

So with that, Jeet Kune Do is a “martial philosophy” geared towards simplicity, directness, and helping you find your way to fight, your way to express yourself. Consider it a guide towards helping you find yourself.

As I read the MAP discussion and even look back over some of the Bruce Lee books that I own, I actually can see that in fact Jeet Kune Do does have some fundamental concepts. This is where it seems to become a big point of contention: does this make Jeet Kune Do a style? But Bruce himself said “it’s just a name.” Are these concepts more a part of the Jun Fan Gung Fu method and from that style one can explore Jeet Kune Do? This seems to be a grand point of argument, but as I start to see it well… perhaps not. Maybe it might require to know how you define a “style” of martial art.

Some will say that Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kune Do involves:

• Power Side Forward
• Bai Jong Position (Small Phasic Bent Knee Stance)
• Centerline Preservation
• Maximum Economy of Structure
• Simplification Over Complication
• Light, Quick, Explosive Footwork
• Shifty, Alive, Evasive Body Movements
• Dynamic Entering Techniques
• Longest Weapon to Nearest Target
• Emphasis On Interception
• Straight and Curved Line Attacks
• Aggressive Attack Empasized Over Defense
• Lin Sil Die Dar (Simultaneous Defense & Attack)
• Bruce Lee’s Five Ways of Attack

But then if you do these things, does that make it a style? A converse question perhaps is: if you study Taekwondo for kicking; BJJ for locks, submissions, and ground fighting; and wrestling for takedowns… is that Jeet Kune Do? I feel that no, that’s not Jeet Kune Do. It may borrow some Jeet Kune Do philosophy, but it is not Jeet Kune Do.

So then what is Jeet Kune Do? I would agree that it has the above concepts, because that’s still what they are: concepts. To take a simple direct route, that is a concept. What is that simple direct route? That all depends upon the situation at the time. To say “well you step here, grab here, throw an elbow, lock him up, then do-si-do” gets back to the structured classical mess that Bruce was getting away from; that’s not alive, that’s not a dynamic response. Sure maybe it’s simple, but it’s not alive. There may be discussions of how the straight lead punch can be best utilized as a tool, but how you apply that tool remains mostly undefined and up to you. Thus, this is Jeet Kune Do.

So is Jeet Kune Do a style? In a sense, yes it is. There are particular things to do and to not do. There is a particular structure and organization and direction in which to go. It could be said that Jun Fan Gung Fu is one avenue towards exploring and understanding Jeet Kune Do, and was certainly Bruce Lee’s avenue. But then should you rigidly adhere to his style, to his avenue? No, as finding yourself and those other philosophical notions of Jeet Kune To are Jeet Kune Do as well. Certainly one must be careful when attending a school that says “we teach Jeet Kune Do”. Is it possible to teach that? I think so. But if they are merely regurgitating what Bruce did, then they have turned it into a “classical mess” and it’s not Jeet Kune Do. Yes you may need to learn some classical mess because you must have some knowledge before you can shape and refine it, but you just can’t let yourself stop at the classical mess. You have to work to find yourself, and the intent of Jeet Kune Do is to allow you to find yourself.

I don’t know if I’ve answered anything, but it’s sure helpful to myself to get some thoughts down.

(All Bruce Lee quotations are taken from his book, Tao of Jeet Kune Do).