foot, with the left hand held straight out. Even then, the left hand was used as a defensive tool to fend off opponents with pestering jabs, from a stance that guarded the centerline. The Greeks probably used the lead hand as a gauge for judging distance as well.4
Whatever progress the Greeks had made, however, was soon lost when the Romans introduced the lead-loaded caestus, which was quite effective at smashing skulls, ending matches swiftly and spectacularly, regardless of the contestants’ skill. Following in the vein of the loaded caestus was the myrmex, a pick attached to the caestus, intended to pierce body parts—nasty, nasty business. Both weapons may be blamed for the loss of fistic art and science. In a situation not unlike the one we face today, the desire for bloody entertainment had brought fighting to its lowest common denominator.
It would take 1200 years and the development of fencing for boxing to reemerge. As John V. Grombach wrote in The Saga of the Fist:
When boxing did come back in England, it was introduced by fencing-masters. As a result, the boxing stance was made to approximate the fencing stance and to good effect. By that time, fencing had advanced to the point where the small sword or thrusting weapon was preferred to the broadsword or sabre. The use of the straight thrust or lunge against any side sweep or slash had been developed. The principles of advancing, retreating, much of our modern boxing footwork, and our straight punching came from fencing.5
The rapier was the weapon that established the supremacy of straight thrusting over slashing.6 First, the rapier, with its pinpoint accuracy, was much more effective than the broadsword in finding those vulnerable little areas between plates of armor. But the main advantage of the rapier over the broadsword is that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Applied to fencing or boxing, a straight thrust or straight lead will reach its target before a swing, hook, or sweeping slash. Straight motions in fighting are, therefore, not only offensive maneuvers, but defensive in nature as well.
This is what we call the “stop-hit” in fencing. As Nadi noted, “The great advantage of the stop-thrust over the counterattack-proper is that it can be performed against fast, correctly executed attacks—stopping them in their tracks.”7 The stop-hit, executed mainly with the straight lead, is such an important principle of Jeet Kune Do that this is where Bruce Lee’s art derives its very name. In Cantonese, jeet means “intercepting” or “stopping,” kune means “fist,” and do is “the way.” Translated in English, Jeet Kune Do is quite literally “The Way of the Intercepting Fist.”
N O T E S
1 Bruce Lee, ed. John Little, The Tao of Gung Fu (Boston: Tuttle Publishing, 1997), p. 59.
2 Jim Driscoll, The Straight Left and How To Cultivate It (London: Athletic Publications, LTD.), pp. 16–19.
3 Harry Carpenter, Boxing: An Illustrated History (New York: Crescent Books, 1982) pp. 8–10.
4 John V. Grombach, The Saga of the Fist (New Your: A.S. Barnes and Company, 1977), pp. 191–194.
5 Ibid., p. 200.
6 Richard Cohen, By the Sword: A History of Gladiators, Musketeers, Samurai, Swashbucklers, and Olympic Champions (New York: Random House, 2002), pp. 28–29.
7 Aldo Nadi, On Fencing, (Bangor, ME: Laureate Press, 1994), p. 185.
C H A P T E R T W O
E V O L U T I O N O F J E E T
K U N E D O ’ S S T R A I G H T L E A D
B y now, the story of how Bruce Lee came to develop Jeet Kune Do is the stuff of legend, but it bears repeating here. In 1964, Bruce was teaching martial arts at his Oakland school. Other Bay Area kung fu instructors, displeased with Bruce’s willingness to take on non-Chinese students, dispatched Wong J. Man from Hong Kong to Oakland with an ultimatum: close the school or throw down.
The challenge, of course, was met right there on the spot, and the two faced off, but a fight that Bruce felt should have been over much sooner lasted an excruciating three minutes.1 Bruce hadn’t trained to deal with someone who ran. After the fight, he came to the conclusion that if he’d known some Western boxing, he would have dispensed with his opponent much sooner.2
While it’s true that Bruce originally studied and taught the classical Chinese art of Wing Chun, it is not to be confused with Jeet Kune Do. In a letter to William Cheung, dated January 4, 1969, Bruce admitted to having virtually abandoned Wing Chun:
William, I’ve lost faith in the Chinese classical arts—though I still call mine Chinese—because basically all styles are products of land swimming, even the Wing Chun school. So my line of training is more toward efficient street fighting with everything goes, wearing head gear, gloves, chest guard, shin-knee guards, etc. For the past five years now I’ve been training the hardest and for a purpose, not just dissipated hit-miss training.
I’ve named my style Jeet Kune Do—reason for my not sticking to Wing Chun [is] because I sincerely feel that this style has more to offer regarding efficiency.”3
By this time, Bruce had already immersed himself in the study of Western boxing and fencing. In a letter to James Lee dated July 31, 1965, Bruce wrote, “I’m having a Gung Fu system drawn up—this system is a combination of chiefly Wing Chun, fencing and boxing.”4 By 1969, he had for the most part dropped Wing Chun and the classical Chinese arts. Soon afterward, he would begin writing what would eventually be published as The Tao of Jeet Kune Do and Bruce Lee’s Commentaries on the Martial Way.
Because of Bruce’s untimely death, neither volume appears in a form he would have intended to publish, but from these notes, we can see the heavy influence of boxing and fencing. Entire passages are quoted from boxing sources, mainly from Jack Dempsey and Edwin Haislet, and the major arguments for using the straight lead can be found in the writings of Jim Driscoll.1
People have assumed that Bruce Lee turned to fencing because his brother was a fencing champion in Hong Kong, but this was probably not the case. According to Ted Wong, “People always say Bruce Lee looked into fencing because his brother’s a fencer. I doubt it. There had to have been some kind of writing that connected boxing to fencing. Driscoll mentioned that connection, as did Haislet. I doubt that the main interest in fencing came because of his brother.”6 As you’ll see throughout this book, Bruce made direct references to Driscoll and Haislet that clearly explain how straight punching evolved out of fencing. In fact, it seems that at one time it was common knowledge that the British had revived boxing because of fencing.7
The most frequently cited fencing sources in The Tao of Jeet Kune Do come from Roger Crosnier, Julio Martinez Castello, and Hugo and James Castello. But the crucial stance and mechanical nuances come from Aldo Nadi and appear in Bruce Lee’s Commentaries on the Martial Way. The three major influences on the straight lead specifically are Jim Driscoll, Jack Dempsey, and Aldo Nadi.
A N G R Y Y O U N G M E N
If his disillusionment with the status quo is what drove Bruce Lee to develop Jeet Kune Do, it was pugilistic regression that prompted Driscoll and Dempsey to write. Both authored books in an attempt to preserve the dying art of straight punching. And though Nadi’s book was fueled by his intense love of fencing, that feeling was matched by his utter disgust with the fencing practices of his time.
Figure 2: Jim Driscoll.
P E E R L E S S J I M
Early 1900s Welsh featherweight champion Jim Driscoll authored a series of boxing books, in an attempt to rectify the pathetic state of British boxing. Chief among these slim but highly illuminating volumes is The