Talk:Jun Fan

Untitled
I favor merging this with the JKD article. Dick Clark 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that this is a modification of Wing Chun, and not another name for Jeet Kune Do, I don't see why a merger should occur. This is a style, and Jeet Kune Do is most specifically the lack of a style by it's design. They are two different books, as it were, who happen to share an author.


 * This article states: "The Seattle era of JKD is usually referred to as the Jun Fan Gung Fu era.", which seems to emply this was just the early development that would later be JKD. I don't think that Jun Fun is significantly different enough to merit it's own article and it should simply be merged. --Mista-X 03:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (a JKD practictioner)

Jun Fan Gung Fu is a distinct style from Jeet Kune Do. Bruce Lee himself made distinctions in his regard for each of these styles, and each involves separate philosophies of combat that Bruce Lee successively developed over the course of years. Though they carry indisputable similarities, Jun Fan may be taught independantly of JKD and vice versa. Because of this, I believe that they should be treated as disparate, unique styles and should not be merged into the same subject page. Taking this into consideration, it may be deemed appropriate to contain some mention of one on either page. BHave


 * Could you provide sources/more details for these distinctions? I'm not saying you are wrong but I am curious and maybe these details should be added. I was about 11 or 12 years old when I read The Tao of Jeet Kune Do but I don't remember him saying that Jun Fan is differently. Also, the school where I train JKD seems to use the term somewhat interchangeably. Our training is considered JKD, and we do Savate the first hour, and when we do the "Kung Fu" like stuff in the last hour )if we are not doing FMA) it is referred to as Jun Fan. --Mista-X 07:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are using the The Tao of Jeet Kune Do as reference material for JKD or even Jun Fan, I would be highly dubious of your assertions. Some of the newer volumes of books that were put together by John Little are a bit more comprehensive and the notes are quite a bit more cogent.  ShuckyDucky 01:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the article now seems to suggest that it would make sense to merge the articles. Can anyone come up references that can conclude JF should be treated different from JKD? --Mista-X 22:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)