New SD Videos at Shaolin Center [Archive]

Fu-Pow

10-01-2003, 03:19 PM

My criticisms of Sin The's form. BTW, it's nice to finally actually see him perform so that SDers can not use the excuse "Well, he's not a very good student." :

1) It's generally very stiff. Sin The is very ripped but more in a body builder way. If you look at most Chinese kung fu masters they are quite scrawny but they are internally quite strong because their strength comes from spiral movement (ie tendons.) (BTW, the greatest argument for putting on muscle is to create protection against strikes more than anything.)

2) It's lacks whole body movement. There are many parts of the form where he is only moving his arm and/or hand. Real Chinese kung fu should center on movement of the waist (the area between the lowest rib and the pelvic bones.)

3) He lifts his elbow up. A big no, no and definitely not indicative of 7* praying mantis.

4) He is using his mantis "hooks" stiffly so it looks like he can only poke and not grab.

5) He leans very far back when he side kicks which is more indicative of Tae Kwon Do and Karate then of Chinese Kung fu where the body is usually kept more upright.

6) It lacks extension. Northern Praying mantis is a northern kung fu style and in Northern styles there is usually an emphasis on full extension.

I'm not an expert on Mantis but I have had a class mate who was a master of Northern praying mantis.

Generally, I would say that seeing this form supports what I have already said. That Shaolin-Do is kempo masquerading as Kung Fu.

If you were to compare this form to a "real" Mantis masters form I believe the differences would become readily evident.

And this is the biggest problem I see with Shaolin Do. They are teaching things that they are not qualified to teach.

illusionfist

10-01-2003, 04:43 PM

Although I have my own opinions about this whole thing, I'd like to approach it from a more stylistic point of view, and mainly coming from basic principles that are found in CMA, such as unified body movement (six harmonies, 7 stars, silk reeling, etc), types of ging generation, and actual form structure.

A good friend of mine was a northern and 7 star mantis practitioner and sifu, and the main thing that i noticed was a differentiation in structure from the lower body to the upper body-mainly in that the upper body was the "mantis" and the lower body was very lively with "monkey" footwork. I've had the opportunity to see a good amount of Shaolin Do forms and I've also been to one of Joe Schaefer's tournaments in Austin and I can say that the Shaolin Do mantis forms displayed did not have these characteristics. The hands were there and mimicked the classic diu sau posture, but the footwork wasn't very typical of mantis (or gung fu in general-IMHO). The kicks in general are not CMA type kicks and actually, from my experience, Mantis doesn't use too many kicks, and when used, they are not used in the fashion that is laid out within the Shaolin Do forms.

If we approach it from a southern angle, I would say that the body structure is way too open and there is no emphasis on the "fu bui" or tigers back that is integral to the posture and ging generation of Southern Praying Mantis. The stepping is too wide open as well and doesn't contain any of the elements of three step arrow-like stepping. In general, SPM is very hidden in its movement. The demo shown in the vid is pretty much antithetical compared to anything SPM focuses on.

The footwork in general is pretty generic across the board, yet at the same time isn't indicative of the arts being expressed. I've also had the opportunity of seeing Shaolin Do's Tiger and Crane set, which also displays a lot of these same kicks. Its easy to spot that this set was patterned after Hung Kuen's Fu Hok Cern Ying Kuen set, but there are drastic deviations in not only form structure, but also in method. When I say method, i mean "faht" or the actual method of the technique. Basically its the entire system expressed in one move. The kicking alone is totally against what is set forth by Hung Kuen's principles according to rooting, ,stancework, footwork, and bridging principles. So not only does it change the kicking, but it also changes the way the other techniques work because it is not working within the principle framework of how Hung Kuen works.

The flavor of the forms are all pretty much the same, which is actually quite strange considering that some of the forms within the Shaolin Do system are complete systems unto themselves, and in many instances, are diametrically opposed to each other not only in theory, but also execution of technique. I've seen the Shaolin Do Hsing Yi Five Elements form performed with the same power as Mantis, or even Tiger forms. I've seen a Chen tai ji form within the Shaolin Do camp that was totally devoid of the very building blocks of what make Chen style what it is. I guess this is the byproduct and result of what happens when you have entire systems treated as just a stepping stone to another form or belt. The Chen style form surprised me because as I was told, this form is taught at a pretty high level within the SD org. It's taught basically around the time when people start getting promoted to "associate master", etc. I'm not exactly sure if this is true across the board, but that is what I was told at the time.

My two centavos...

Peace :D

themeecer

10-01-2003, 07:32 PM

OK you are explaining systems of praying mantis that left the temple at what time? Where did it travel from there?

The SD mantis left a Fukien Shaolin temple around 1875. I would expect there to be variations in techniques from those that were at other temples and those that left at different times. I promise you if I teach a form to someone and 400 years later I come back to see how the form has been passed down, I would see a wide range of variations.

As to GM Sin's physique, he has commented negatively about it. He admits it was a mistake to bulk up that much. He can't do a lot of his snake as easily as he did when he was real skinny. I have noticed his style has changed over the years. A lot of his attacks are pressure point attacks, now. Which hardly matters, with his chi and power he could hit me about anywhere and I would fall down.

Serpent

10-01-2003, 08:42 PM

It seems like the SD guys are always making desperate sounding excuses...

Skummer

10-01-2003, 08:50 PM

Has anyone ever seen Sin The fight or spar?

themeecer

10-01-2003, 08:52 PM

Desperate sounding? I want to know what the excuse is of these different praying mantis groups, why do they look different from each other. I think it indicates that they are not authentic. :rolleyes:

Really serpent, when are you going to give it a rest? Guess what, I found you a SD school in Australia.

Shaolin Do of Australia

Carlton Baths Community Center
248 Rathdowne Street
Carlton, VICTORIA
AUSTRALIA
(03) 9481-6973

Head Instructor: Maya Kriem (1st Degree Black Belt)

E-Mail: Shaolinaus@iprimus.com.au
School Web Page: http://www.shaolinaustralia.com/

Serpent

10-01-2003, 08:57 PM

Guess what, I don't give a fuq.

Although it is a shame that it's about a thousand kilometres from me. If it was nearby I would go and check it out. You know that web address doesn't seem to work.

themeecer

10-01-2003, 08:58 PM

Well if you don't give a 'fuq,' then shut your trap.

Brad

10-01-2003, 09:00 PM

The SD mantis left a Fukien Shaolin temple around 1875. I would expect there to be variations in techniques from those that were at other temples and those that left at different times. I promise you if I teach a form to someone and 400 years later I come back to see how the form has been passed down, I would see a wide range of variations.
In regards to mantis history and common links between the styles after all these years, it would probably be best to ask the experts on the mantis board who've allready done extensive research.

Of course you're starting with the assumtion that somehow multiple Northern praying mantis styles that had allready branched off in their own directions outside of Shaolin came to all be taught to one person in the Southern Shaolin Temple.

Serpent

10-01-2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by themeecer
Well if you don't give a 'fuq,' then shut your trap.

No, because it's too much fun to play with you, little boy. ;)

I don't give a fuq if there's Shaolin-Do in Australia - it doesn't bother me. The fact that Shaolin-Do exists at all doesn't really bother. As I've said before, I'm sure that a lot of people are getting a lot of pleasure from it and no doubt some of them can even fight.

However, it's built on a pack of lies and the system itself suffers for that. It's the lies that keep me opening my mouth. Admit that your system is Kempo at best and then I'll "shut my trap".

Brad

10-01-2003, 09:09 PM

I want to know what the excuse is of these different praying mantis groups, why do they look different from each other.
They don't look that different from each other from the outside, at least from the bits I've seen. I think it would be very easy for someone who doesn't know mantis to mistake a number of the forms as being from a single mantis style. Same way some would look at 24 form Taiji and traditional Yang style Taiji and mistake them for being both from Yang style.

Brad

10-01-2003, 09:10 PM

BTW, the australia link aint working.

Brad

10-01-2003, 09:16 PM

Admit that your system is Kempo at best and then I'll "shut my trap".
Wouldn't that be like telling a BJJ guy that claims he's teaching shui jiao to admit he teaches western wrestling? :p

Serpent

10-01-2003, 09:16 PM

Their slick marketing probably didn't work over here.

Serpent

10-01-2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Brad

Wouldn't that be like telling a BJJ guy that claims he's teaching shui jiao to admit he teaches western wrestling? :p

LOL.

:)

My point is that if they admit that their system is essentially karate with a hodge podge of Chinese influenced additions, then I have no problem with it.

themeecer

10-01-2003, 09:19 PM

But it isn't essentially karate no matter how much you want it to be.

joedoe

10-01-2003, 09:24 PM

It is a shame because I am going to be down near the Aussie SD school in a week or so, but won't have the chance to stop in when there is a class on. Maybe next time I visit Melbourne.

Brad

10-01-2003, 09:31 PM

Actually it looks a whole lot like what my first martial arts school used to do... don't really know of a good name for it though, lol.

Serpent

10-01-2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by themeecer
But it isn't essentially karate no matter how much you want it to be.

And that's exactly where your delusions have left you stranded.

You admit that you've never studied anything else, you obviously have no experience of any kind of traditional kung fu and you blindly follow what you're told by the cash grabbers in charge.

Why do you think that all the SD people say, "But it's not karate!" and all the kung fu people say, "Looks like karate to me"?

Open your eyes, man. And while you're at it, reassess your belief in creationism. ;)

illusionfist

10-01-2003, 09:36 PM

Not to sound cynical or stand off-ish, but I wouldn't put much faith in any dates for anything in CMA oral tradition because they often change. Then of course there is the dubious nature of the existance of the Nam Siu Lam Gee (southern shaolin temple), couple that with spurious dates and you'll get a rather annoying research experience. Just the story of Wang Lang alone has a 200-400 year gap, because the exact time between the two dynasties he lived is not known (one of which was a dynasty which extended to 1911).

Now one thing that needs to be taken into account is the specific lineage of praying mantis. The date inaccuracy above only takes into account the founding of mantis and is not taking into account the varying origin dates of the other types of praying mantis such as Seven Star, Tai Chi, Plum Flower, Six Combinations, Flat Plate, Secret Door, Jade Ring, Dragging Hand, Eight Step, Jut Sau, etc. So if further depth has to be reached, we need to narrow it down to a specifc lineage of praying mantis so we can streamline the discussion.

However on a geographic level, a preponderence of the practitioners of northern mantis were found in the Shandong region- nowhere near Fukien. This is obviously not to say they didn't spread, but the existence of northern mantis is not very prevalent in the south. I'm also basing the emphasis on northern mantis from the video- which doesn't show ANY remnant of southern praying mantis at all. So i default the overall larger lineage to at least some variant of northern mantis.

I personally feel that no validity can be placed on anything coming out of the Fukien Shaolin temple, not because there is no proof it existed (most of the legends based from this temple have roots in martial pulp fiction novels), but there are systems within SD that are basically in no way affiliated with arts that lay claim to a lineage to a southern shaolin heritage- i.e. tai ji, bagua, hsing yi, govt produced forms, Hua boxing, etc. Even going by commonly told stories of the southern shaolin temple, the abbots of said temple stopped after the displacement of Gee Sin and his compatriots. There is no mention of the patriarchs of the SD lineage.

So I would rather put weight into an entering date by a person that can be recognized within the same mantis lineage from which the SD forms originate. That way, if there is record of said persons exploits, it can be cross-referenced with the other lineages. Not only would it show where the form came from, but it would also give insight as to where and when that person would have entered a temple.

Peace :D

brassmonkey

10-01-2003, 09:39 PM

I didnt sthink the Mantis guys used that hook type hand formation to strike with or do they?

shaolinarab

10-01-2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by illusionfist
Not to sound cynical or stand off-ish, but I wouldn't put much faith in any dates for anything in CMA oral tradition because they often change. Then of course there is the dubious nature of the existance of the Nam Siu Lam Gee (southern shaolin temple), couple that with spurious dates and you'll get a rather annoying research experience. Just the story of Wang Lang alone has a 200-400 year gap, because the exact time between the two dynasties he lived is not known (one of which was a dynasty which extended to 1911).

Now one thing that needs to be taken into account is the specific lineage of praying mantis. The date inaccuracy above only takes into account the founding of mantis and is not taking into account the varying origin dates of the other types of praying mantis such as Seven Star, Tai Chi, Plum Flower, Six Combinations, Flat Plate, Secret Door, Jade Ring, Dragging Hand, Eight Step, Jut Sau, etc. So if further depth has to be reached, we need to narrow it down to a specifc lineage of praying mantis so we can streamline the discussion.

However on a geographic level, a preponderence of the practitioners of northern mantis were found in the Shandong region- nowhere near Fukien. This is obviously not to say they didn't spread, but the existence of northern mantis is not very prevalent in the south. I'm also basing the emphasis on northern mantis from the video- which doesn't show ANY remnant of southern praying mantis at all. So i default the overall larger lineage to at least some variant of northern mantis.

I personally feel that no validity can be placed on anything coming out of the Fukien Shaolin temple, not because there is no proof it existed (most of the legends based from this temple have roots in martial pulp fiction novels), but there are systems within SD that are basically in no way affiliated with arts that lay claim to a lineage to a southern shaolin heritage- i.e. tai ji, bagua, hsing yi, govt produced forms, Hua boxing, etc. Even going by commonly told stories of the southern shaolin temple, the abbots of said temple stopped after the displacement of Gee Sin and his compatriots. There is no mention of the patriarchs of the SD lineage.

So I would rather put weight into an entering date by a person that can be recognized within the same mantis lineage from which the SD forms originate. That way, if there is record of said persons exploits, it can be cross-referenced with the other lineages. Not only would it show where the form came from, but it would also give insight as to where and when that person would have entered a temple.

Peace :D

illusionfist,

i respect your comments and analysis on the forms and history based on your experience. not to start another thread discussing SD history b/c it has already been expounded, but i felt that some of your thoughts warranted clarification. One common misconception of SD is that we lay claim to all the forms found in our system as having been all taught in fukien. that is not the case at all in our tradition. according to our narrative, the great-great GM had travelled around to different temples where he learned the other styles (such as some of the northern ones, or even of the internal arts). i guess, u can liken his martial education to the way wang lang travelled around to master different fighting styles.

the other thing i'd like to clarify is that su kong tai djin was not the chief abbot of the temple (whichever temple in the fukien province he came from), but the grandmaster of the martial arts instruction in the temple. but as you said, there is so much clouded in chinese history that who knows what the final resolution will be regarding which was the real 'southern temple,' etc. or the specific origins of a given form and/or its variation (will the real slim shady please stand up?) ;)

illusionfist

10-02-2003, 02:14 AM

shaolinarab,

Although it can be said its a common misconception, I've been hearing stories since the 80's that have basically insinuated or outright said that ALL of the systems were once taught at varying shaolin temples throughout China (which the idea of many Shaolin temples teaching martial arts around China is debatable itself). Even the main SD website likens the temples to "universities" where the monks were "professors" of martial arts. It is a well known fact that a majority of the temples were solely devoted to their religious practice and did not partake in the training of martial arts.

According to Joe Schaefer's site- http://www.swshaolin.com/kungfu.html - "Since its creation, Shaolin has collected, refined and retained over 980 katas (forms), representing more than 50 different open hand systems and many different weapons. Contrary to the popular belief that Shaolin monks only practiced the "hard styles", every major form of internal kung fu was practiced in the Shaolin temples. This includes every major family of Tai Chi and Pa Kua, as well as Hsing Ie and the very rare Liu Hsing (meteor fist). Shaolin monks also possessed an awesome body of knowledge on esoteric Taoist and Buddhist Chi Kung (breath training) and Nei Kung (internal training) techniques."

So even there it says that the internal arts were practiced at Shaolin temple(s), which by most internal schools accounts outside of the SD org, that doesn't jive well. Considering that Yang, Wu, Hao, and Sun style Tai Ji (which including Chen are the major branches of Tai Ji) ALL originated outside of the Shaolin temple and have never had any ties to a temple makes that statement above false. Bagua itself didn't even become mainstream until after Dong Hai Chuan's stay in Beijing around 1875 and its region of focus stayed in that area surrounding Beijing, Tianjin, etc.

Returning back to the south, it has been a common consensus amongst historians that the Southern Shaolin Temple (the one in Fukien) was destroyed by 1768 (some say 1763- with either date it was the second burning of the temple) and it was never rebuilt because the Ching influence in the region lasted until 1911, where afterwards foreign invaders took hold of many spots in the region. Considering that many systems after that time went underground and led to the formation of secret societies like the Hung Mun, etc, it is highly unlikely that numerous temples remained with hundreds of practitioners learning from these martial "universities". There is much speculation on just the one Nam Siu Lam Gee, much less several. A majority of southern systems have more to do with the Hoi Tong temple (which was a refuge for many after the temple burned).

So taking the common date of 1768 and comparing it to Su Kong's life (as stated at Union Shaolin Do (http://www.unionshaolin-do.com/) ) the dates dont add up. According to the Union Shaolin Do site, "Great Great Grandmaster Su Kong Tai Djin (1849-1928) spent his entire life in the Fukien temple. Away from society, he dedicated himself to the mastery of forms from all seven Shaolin temples, and was named Grandmaster of Shaolin. His special area of mastery was the deadly art of tin Shieh Kung, or Death Touch." Even if the common date of 1768 is wrong, there is pretty much no way that he was able to remain in a temple past 1911.

Another thing to note is that the Union description says, "the" fukien temple and it doesn't make reference to "a fukien temple" or "one of the fukien temples", etc. In Deng Feng there is a bell that was cast in the 1330's and it has a inscribed list of monasteries that had proponents of the Shaolin faith (not necessarily their martial arts) and it lists 23 monasteries, all of which are in surrounding areas of the main Shaolin Temple- none are in the south. Now there are many ways to interpret this, but some think that this is merely because the temples changed sects and embraced different beliefs (as well as different rulers). If this is true, at the very least it debunks the theory that the Shaolin temples were this grand network of temples exchanging ideas on faith (much less martial arts) all based from one head school (in this case the main Shaolin temple in Henan).

Ie Chang Ming's history also does not make much sense considering that it says he received his grandmaster title after the Shaolin temple was burned. If he was born in 1880, this obviously doesn't coincide with the timeline as well. Even giving the benefit of the doubt and saying he was somehow at a temple that was burned down, we'll give him say 20 years to master his art, starting maybe at the age of 5 (which would still be inline with the statement that Sin Kwang The' himself mastered the art at 25, making him the youngest shaolin grandmaster in history-i.e it took him 18 years), that would bring us to 1905 and still be within the regime of the Ching dynasty. Now, whereas using the much older date of 1768 could raise the idea that there was time for the ruins to be destroyed, excavated and materials used, built over, etc. I think there would still be ample evidence of a temple razed as early as circa 1905. Then there is the question of who burned the temple. If the temple burned later than the aforementioned hypothetical date, who burned it? It's pretty much implied by the varying histories throughout the SD org that this burning that is mentioned is in fact the actual burning of Southern Shaolin. If this is the case, the dates just totally dont add up.

Peace :D

The Willow Sword

10-02-2003, 02:18 AM

hope all is well with you.
peace,,,TWS

BeiTangLang

10-02-2003, 04:54 AM

Excellent post illusion fist; I'm glad you wrote all that so I wouldn't have to.

An adept student can look at SD's history & tell its suspect.
A non martial artist can compare traditional systems forms to the sd versions & tell they are not the same.

What is the dire devotion to SD that makes people blind to facts?
I have been asking myself this since I saw their schools start popping up. No answer yet except this is America; Land of the free, Home of the brave & the exotic stuff collectors (authentic or not....The more the better!).........I wouldn't live anywhere else.

:D

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 05:25 AM

Well, I am new here so I guess that I should throw my two cents in. I will start by saying that I am somewhat biased in that I have been a student of Master Sin and instructor for close to 25 years. In that time, I have seen just about every arguement that there is about Shaolin-Do not being this or that. It still amazes me that it continues today. I see the indepth research that must have taken weeks to compile just to try to discredit our art. Each time I see these threads, I sit back and ask myself why is it so important for others to send their precious time fighting about this when I am sure that there are more productive ways that it could be spent.

So I now pose this question to you. What gain or benifit can come of trying to discredit another style of martial arts?

Say that you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shaolin-Do was created in the mind of Master Sin to bilk the unsuspecting out of their money. During that time, he has still allowed thousands of people to learn something that they could have never learned if it was not for him. He has taught forms and movements that let people improve their confidence and conditioning. His schools have allowed people to meet and form life long friendships that perhaps would have not happened otherwise. In essence, he has bettered the lives of many people. Can you say the same?

Say that you prove that the history of Shaolin-Do could not have happened the way it is stated. Does that change the content of what was taught and the benifits that were gained?

Say that you prove that the forms (mantis, tiger, snake, etc.)are not from the original "system". Can you think of another person that would or could for that matter put the time and the effort into creating all these forms and systems just to make a few dollars?

What needs to be understood is that in my opinion, when someone tries to discredit or put down something that someone truly believes in, they are wasting their time.

A very wise person once told me that when someone puts another person down, they are just trying to make themselves look better but can't do it on merit alone.

Again, I just felt like putting my two cents in on the thread and actually could care less what others think of Shaolin-Do. I am fully aware of what it has given me over the many years that I have been involved with it and if it was discovered tomorrow that Master Sin is actually an out of work carpet salesman from BFE it would do nothing to change my opinion.

Well, have fun and practice hard...

BeiTangLang

10-02-2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Golden Tiger
Well, I am new here so I guess that I should throw my two cents in. I will start by saying that I am somewhat biased in that I have been a student of Master Sin and instructor for close to 25 years. In that time, I have seen just about every arguement that there is about Shaolin-Do not being this or that. It still amazes me that it continues today. I see the indepth research that must have taken weeks to compile just to try to discredit our art. Each time I see these threads, I sit back and ask myself why is it so important for others to send their precious time fighting about this when I am sure that there are more productive ways that it could be spent.
***
Not fighting, conversing. Students of all scholarly sects do the same thing. Obviously you enjoy conversation as well or you would not have replied....
***

So I now pose this question to you. What gain or benifit can come of trying to discredit another style of martial arts?

***
Opening a childs eyes to the fact that the "rock candy" he just bought from another kid was just a rock, and no matter how long it stays in his mouth it will not be sweet, is worth it.
I do not call it discrediting when something is not acredited.
**

Say that you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shaolin-Do was created in the mind of Master Sin to bilk the unsuspecting out of their money. During that time, he has still allowed thousands of people to learn something that they could have never learned if it was not for him. He has taught forms and movements that let people improve their confidence and conditioning. His schools have allowed people to meet and form life long friendships that perhaps would have not happened otherwise. In essence, he has bettered the lives of many people. Can you say the same?
***
No,..but Mr.Banks could & he never claimed to have a fighting art...
***

Say that you prove that the history of Shaolin-Do could not have happened the way it is stated. Does that change the content of what was taught and the benifits that were gained?
***
Nope, by definition they'd still have what they paid for.
***

Say that you prove that the forms (mantis, tiger, snake, etc.)are not from the original "system". Can you think of another person that would or could for that matter put the time and the effort into creating all these forms and systems just to make a few dollars?
***
Nope,..just choreographers.
***

What needs to be understood is that in my opinion, when someone tries to discredit or put down something that someone truly believes in, they are wasting their time.

A very wise person once told me that when someone puts another person down, they are just trying to make themselves look better but can't do it on merit alone.
***
No one is puting anyone down I think,....just discussing & arguing a bit. Its done by more than just anti-sd'ers. Its not a bad thing because the subject gets publiciy & usually bennefits (unless discovered to be fraudulent). As a 25year student, you hould know nothing will become of the art due to this thread! Why worry!
***

Again, I just felt like putting my two cents in on the thread and actually could care less what others think of Shaolin-Do. I am fully aware of what it has given me over the many years that I have been involved with it and if it was discovered tomorrow that Master Sin is actually an out of work carpet salesman from BFE it would do nothing to change my opinion.
***
I would expect nothing less.
***

Well, have fun and practice hard... :cool:
Excellent post as well.
Best Wishes,
~BTL

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 06:13 AM

Point proven......

BeiTangLang

10-02-2003, 07:00 AM

point poven that any reply would have warranted "point proven"?? LOL!

Brad

10-02-2003, 07:08 AM

Say that you prove that the history of Shaolin-Do could not have happened the way it is stated. Does that change the content of what was taught and the benifits that were gained?
No. But wanting others to know the correct history isn't exactly unreasonable. IF Shaolin-Do is spreading incorrect history about the arts that non-shaolin-do people practice, then they have every right to discredit what shaolin-do says. Unlike most of us, Illusionfist is being 100% respectful to you Shaolin-Do followers, backing up every argument with solid edvidence. The least you could do is respond in the same manner instead of questioning his motives.

Well, I am new here so I guess that I should throw my two cents in. I will start by saying that I am somewhat biased in that I have been a student of Master Sin and instructor for close to 25 years. In that time, I have seen just about every arguement that there is about Shaolin-Do not being this or that. It still amazes me that it continues today. I see the indepth research that must have taken weeks to compile just to try to discredit our art. Each time I see these threads, I sit back and ask myself why is it so important for others to send their precious time fighting about this when I am sure that there are more productive ways that it could be spent.
I seriously doubt most of the in depth research was done solely to
discredit Shaolin-Do. Many of us choose to research for our own benifit to learn more about our own martial arts. No different than if I go to art school and learn about art history, or football players learning about Joe Nameth.

At the very least, a well thought out argument against SD's history can serve to educate others. For example, I never knew about the Deng Feng bell until this thread.

[QUOTE]Say that you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Shaolin-Do was created in the mind of Master Sin to bilk the unsuspecting out of their money. During that time, he has still allowed thousands of people to learn something that they could have never learned if it was not for him. He has taught forms and movements that let people improve their confidence and conditioning. His schools have allowed people to meet and form life long friendships that perhaps would have not happened otherwise. In essence, he has bettered the lives of many people. Can you say the same?
Life long friendships, bettering people's lives, learning something unique(very arguable in SD's case), and increased health could be gained at any number of places outside of Shaolin-Do. It's no excuse for lying.

Say that you prove that the history of Shaolin-Do could not have happened the way it is stated. Does that change the content of what was taught and the benifits that were gained?
No, but it does improve the average persons ability to judge for themselves the content of what Shaolin-Do teaches.

Say that you prove that the forms (mantis, tiger, snake, etc.)are not from the original "system". Can you think of another person that would or could for that matter put the time and the effort into creating all these forms and systems just to make a few dollars?
Yes I can. In fact I've personally had contact with two such individuals right here in central Ohio.

What needs to be understood is that in my opinion, when someone tries to discredit or put down something that someone truly believes in, they are wasting their time.
This is not a religion it's a martial art. If someone is spreading false information and you know it, why stay quiet?

A very wise person once told me that when someone puts another person down, they are just trying to make themselves look better but can't do it on merit alone.
Illusionfist didn't put you or anyone else down. He put out a solid arguement that published information was false. It's not his fault if that hurts anyone's feelings, it's the fault of the person puting out the false info in the first place.

Again, I just felt like putting my two cents in on the thread and actually could care less what others think of Shaolin-Do. I am fully aware of what it has given me over the many years that I have been involved with it and if it was discovered tomorrow that Master Sin is actually an out of work carpet salesman from BFE it would do nothing to change my opinion.
That's your opinion, but others may not be so willing to give money to a con man, and when making a decision to hand someone their money, you can't fault them for wanting to look at all the info available.

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 07:53 AM

Looks as if I have struck a nerve....

As I mentioned before, I have seen all these arguements before. In no way did I question the motives of illusionfist. I am sure that his motives are honorable.

Brad, you also have taken some time and quiet a bit of effort to respond to my post. I am glad that I facilitated that sort of a response from you.

That said, I will just sit back and relive the past as I read thru the threads.

Thanks

PHILBERT

10-02-2003, 08:09 AM

None of the links are working on the Shaolin-Do page to download the videos. What happened? I wanted to see Sin The doing his forms.

cho

10-02-2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Golden Tiger
As I mentioned before, I have seen all these arguements before. In no way did I question the motives of illusionfist. I am sure that his motives are honorable.
so could you refute them?please :)
or are you going to pull an Ashida Kim on us?

anyone ever wonder why no other style or anyone will give any acknowledgement of SD, besides its own members? How come SD schools are only in the midwestern and southern states, instead of the usual east and west coast?

tnwingtsun

10-02-2003, 08:25 AM

It just does not look like kung-fu,sorry SD guys,there are some of you out there that I like but it just does not have the look or the feel of the real Chinese MA.

It may be good carpet though............

PHILBERT

10-02-2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Golden Tiger
... During that time, he has still allowed thousands of people to learn something that they could have never learned if it was not for him...

Ok, I am one of the few here who really doesn't defend or offend Shaolin-Do practioners. I am a firm believer in "Go meet them before you judge them." I am sure there are some SD people out there who are better than me, and I am sure I am better than some SD people out there. Does it mean SD sucks? No, I have yet to meet an SD practioner, so I have not forumulated an opinion for them (despite the fact I have an SD school just 4 miles from my home).

However I pointed out the above quote because it stood out in my mind. What exactly do we learn we could not learn from someone other than him? Other than Shaolin-Do that is.

I live in Dallas/Fort Worth. Literally 1 mile from my house, there is a home. In this home there is a man who teaches Baguazhang, Taiji and Hsing-I. ONE MILE from me. This man is world famous too, constantly having articles published in IKF (even though people discredit him without meeting him) and even wrote the Introduction to Dr Yang, Jwing-Ming's Baguazhang book.

I get on 303 and travel 5 miles I hit a Hung Gar school.

I get on I-20 and then 820, I hit an 8 Step Mantis school.

I get on I-20 and then 183, I hit a school that teaches Wing Chun, Seven Star and Taiji.

I get on I-20 and then 360, I hit a school that teaches Wing Tsun.

There are several people under 25 miles in my area (the Wing Chun/Seven Star and 8 Step being the furthest I listed). I don't have to go to Shaolin-Do to "learn something that" I couldn't learn at another school. And I did not even mention the 12 other Kung Fu schools in Dallas.

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 09:24 AM

philbert-

this is a little off subject, but i would definitely advise you to go to the shaolin do school in your area. Sifu Jay Boyer should still be heading the club there. He has trained under master schaefer for quite a while now. He is a really excellent martial artist. I dont know what his thoughts are on the different philosophies of why someone would study martial arts (ie. health and longevity vs. fighting), but from what i have seen of him, he is a very good teacher and person. You should look him up!

Others-

I must say that before posting on this forum, i heard horror stories of how anti-shaolin do a lot of posters are. I dont think this is the case. I am hoping that all of you are trying to discredit our system for the right reasons. I agree that if grandmaster sin is telling false or half truths then the rest of the martial arts community, especially shaolin do students, have the right to know. Does it change the fact that he is offering a great martial art? No. Would it really change anything in the martial arts community? No. I hope that you and your students and your teachers are not losing sleep over these matters. Has anyone tried to write grandmaster sin himself and ask him these questions? I have met him. He is probably the most humble and giving person that i have ever met. I am sure (although i obviously cannot speak for him) that he would be more than happy to help out in any way that he possibly could.

How will the martial arts community react if they can disprove what he claims? What if they can't? Does that mean that everyone else is wrong? Does it really matter? I hope that everyone here puts as much time into their training as they do on these boards trying to refute these issues. If that is the case, then we are some of the most dedicated martial artists ever!

Ben

ps. It is rather upsetting that so may of you bring up the money issue. My teacher did not make me pay for my first year worth of lessons. I worked around his dojo and helped to bring in new students. He is always helping people with financial issues to work out their tuition payments so that they are best suited for them. He is truly a student of grandmaster sin and reflects his giving nature. I dont think that making money is his first priority at all!

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 10:14 AM

Cho,

There have been numerous articles about Shaolin-Do in Inside Kung Fu(Story of Sin The, The Hua system, Iron Fan form,etc.), Black Belt (Drunken Imortals, I Chin Ching))so as to not being acknowledged by anyone, I think that this may be a mistake on your part.

Every few years, Master Sin and some of his students travel to China. He has always been received very well by them and is treated with the upmost respect. There is even a marker erected in the square of the temple dedicated to him. On a previous trip, they visited Chen village and gave a demonstration and also was fortunate enough to cross hands (sticky hands) with some of the practicioners there. So if the style is indeed a fraud, why are those who should be upset for the ripoff meeting him so warmly?

As to the locations of the schools, the first school was in Lexington so this is where most of the instructors were taught. Only when they decided to move for whatever reason did the style move with them. And for the record, I do believe that there are schools in San Dieago (West Coast) and in Maryland (East Coast).

As for it looking like real Chinese martial arts, what are you using as a reference other than Wu Shu because it does not look like that, thats for sure.

Ok, I am not sure who Ashida Kim is so that reference eludes me. Why don't I refute the allegations? Why should I? I have nothing to prove nor does Master Sin. I did enjoy the line from Philbert " I don't have to go to Shaolin-Do to "learn something that" I couldn't learn at another school" (sorry, I can't do the fancy quote thing). If you have never been or even met someone from Shaolin, how can you be so sure?

That should give you all something to do for a while....

Fu-Pow

10-02-2003, 10:22 AM

First off....

Let me say that both of Illusionfist's posts have been money. It is obvious to me that he has an intimate knowledge of the history of Chinese martial arts.

You Shaolin Doers should look long and hard at his posts because you are basically getting a college lecture from a professor on the history of Chinese martial arts.

Secondly, I keep hearing the same arguments from you guys when you are confronted by things that don't add up.

1) "I don't care, Sin The is a great guy even if he's full of it."

2) "But we can never really know the truth, Chinese history is too hard to figure out."

3) "Why don't you leave us alone, why do you care? What's your motives?"

4) "Well, we don't have and answer for that, but what about this fact over here?"

You never address the facts. It's always a diversion.

Instead of doing this "diversion dance" perhaps you guys should do your own research on Chinese history, investigate some other teachers from the styles which Sin The 'claims" to teach.

Are you guys just being lazy or what?

Or are you just afraid to admit that you are ignorant of the truth?

Or worse yet that you are ignorant and you have no desire to know the truth because it might mean that you were wrong all this time?

At the end of the day you guys are learning kempo and mishmash of other stuff that no one in your organization is qualified to teach.

How could you be happy with that?

Fu-Pow

10-02-2003, 10:32 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Golden Tiger
[B]Cho,

There have been numerous articles about Shaolin-Do in Inside Kung Fu(Story of Sin The, The Hua system, Iron Fan form,etc.), Black Belt (Drunken Imortals, I Chin Ching))so as to not being acknowledged by anyone, I think that this may be a mistake on your part.

***This means nothing. There have been countless B.S. articles in that magazine over the years.

Every few years, Master Sin and some of his students travel to China. He has always been received very well by them and is treated with the upmost respect. There is even a marker erected in the square of the temple dedicated to him.

****This has been covered countless times on this forum. The stone was purchased for around 2000 dollars by the Soards. Anyone can have one erected there.

On a previous trip, they visited Chen village and gave a demonstration and also was fortunate enough to cross hands (sticky hands) with some of the practicioners there. So if the style is indeed a fraud, why are those who should be upset for the ripoff meeting him so warmly?

***Because those places in China are not going to be hostile to outsiders when they bring money into the village or town. China is not a very wealthy country. It doesn't mean they weren't laughing there asses off when he left town.

Ok, I am not sure who Ashida Kim is so that reference eludes me. Why don't I refute the allegations? Why should I? I have nothing to prove nor does Master Sin.

***No but he does have some questions to answer.

All these arguments are "hand waving" arguments. You haven't countered anything that illusionfist or I brought in terms of history or form content.

BeiTangLang

10-02-2003, 10:38 AM

I've been to the Mr Shaefers school in Austin. He is a great guy. Very open. I enjoyed my time there. We did a form, he did a form etc.
I will never claim to be a historian nor an expert in mantis, however, I have seen quite a bit of 7*, 8-step, etc etc, even Southern Mantis from our brothers down in Houston; SD mantis is nothing like the mantis I have seen.
Granted our families have an extra move, a move removed, different tempo or emphasis, but we can all tell what form the other families style is doing because of a common root; Well, I have never seen the common root in SD mantis forms.

Notice I am not hammering SD for its 5-animal goose, snake, crane, tiger or any other styles it teaches, just the one I have knowledge of. I can however summise that if the mantis has no appearant basis, the others may not either.

What is a system based upon? The history of its founders and the practitioners that have handed it down through the ages. For someone to claim teaching 7* without having something to base the system on (say a monk that was supposed to have lived in a temple that could not have because it wasn't there at the time) is nothing less than fraud, even if it does attempt to mimic the said system. Exept in this case, as I have said before, it does not mimic the system in any way that I can see (as far as 7* is concerend).

So you see, I like the practitioners; I have found them to be hard working great people. It just irks me to see what they do being called 7*Mantis.

I know I was a bit short in the earlier post. I hope this one is better recieved.

Best Wishes,
~BTL

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 10:55 AM

Actually Fu, I know little if any history concerning China nor do I want to. And while I can see the facination with finding your "roots", how will that help develop speed, conditioning,etc.? Thats almost akin to if you use the internet, you need to be a Ph.D in the history of the ARPnet. One has nothing to do with the other.
Personally, I have trouble finding the time to train, do my job, and get some sleep as it is.

Just saw your recent post. Lets see....If there are countless BS articles, of course those on Shaolin Do must also be also.

Yes, China is a poor country but I doubt very seriously that the people of Chen would be willing to host such a fraud.

The Soards did get the marker put there but I don't think that they paid the head abbot and the others to come out and honor Master Sin when it was erected.

If he has these questions to answer, why the heck don't you ask him? You guys spend your tiime on these boards coming up with these conspiracy theories when instead you could speak with him and findout from the source. He lived in Lexington for over 25 years and has been in LA since, I am sure that you could catch him at one of the gyms and flash your Martial Arts Fraud Busters badge and he would be happy to answer any and all of your questions. He is a very approachable person.

The bottom line is that rather than visiting and or joining a Shaolin Do school and seeing the complete style for what it contains, you would rather spend your time fussing it out online after seeing a clip on a webpage or reading what you can on a website.

In the end, I will still be a student/ instructor (unqualified apparently) following Master Sin and Shaolin Do and you will not. You will continue to study what ever style you happen to study and probably become very proficeint at it, as will I in SD.

MasterKiller

10-02-2003, 11:06 AM

As for it looking like real Chinese martial arts, what are you using as a reference other than Wu Shu because it does not look like that, thats for sure. Just because themeecer thinks everyone on here studies wushu and can't tell the difference between it and real kung fu, doesn't mean you have to follow his lead. :rolleyes:

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 11:09 AM

Fu-

I was wondering what makes someone a 'qualified' instructor? I have had the privilege of training with some of the best martial artists i have ever seen while studying in shaolin do. I feel they are very qualified instructors and have a deep understanding of what they do.

I am in no way trying to get a "fight" started here. I obviously dont agree with what you are saying (to an extent i do...read my last post), but i do like to know why people say the things that they do and feel the way that they do. maybe if i knew what you considered qualified and unqualified, i could shed some light on the subject and clarify things. (ie. what our teachers are supposed to be doing vs. what you feel other teachers are doing better)

Ben

ps. did anyone read my last post? just wondering. its like i have to plss people off around here to get them to read and respond to anything that i write.

Fu-Pow

10-02-2003, 11:19 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ninthdrunk
[B]Fu-

I was wondering what makes someone a 'qualified' instructor? I have had the privilege of training with some of the best martial artists i have ever seen while studying in shaolin do. I feel they are very qualified instructors and have a deep understanding of what they do.

***What are you comparing those instructors too?

I am in no way trying to get a "fight" started here. I obviously dont agree with what you are saying (to an extent i do...read my last post), but i do like to know why people say the things that they do and feel the way that they do. maybe if i knew what you considered qualified and unqualified, i could shed some light on the subject and clarify things. (ie. what our teachers are supposed to be doing vs. what you feel other teachers are doing better)

***When you have studied one SYSTEM of martial arts for a very long time with a knowledgable teacher(s), you have intimate knowledge of that one SYSTEM, knows it applications, it's way of generating force, it's drills, conditioning, fighting strategy and history, etc.

Then I would say that you are "qualified" to teach it.

There is no way that Shaolin Do instructors have that kind of knowledge of ALL the STAND ALONE systems that they claim to teach.

You would only realize this if you had spent time in any one system for a long time.

It seems that Shaolin Do caters to the American market of short attention spans, rank advancements and ignorance about Chinese culture and history.

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 11:37 AM

Fu-

I can definitely agree with that! However, you have to realize that with shaolin do its almost like saying "here, all of these forms from different styles now make up your style". I dont think that there is anything wrong with that. Each individual system has a set number of katas. In each of these katas, there is a different aspect of the system to be trained. What is so wrong with taking different katas from different systems and training them in that manner? I agree that sometimes the shaolin do curriculum just offers way too much material. I think this is because not everyone will be good at the same things. Also, in the sense that shaolin do is its own system, the forms that grandmaster sin has set at the different belt levels teache the techniques and attributes that he found to be important at that level. Grandmaster sin set the curriculum up so that any student could take advantage of the different fighting styles and techniques that are taught. Some of the students that i have trained with practice the forms simply to the point of understanding, so they will be able to teach it to others; while at the same time will put particular emphasis on training one particular style...or the few forms that we have been taught from that style until they develop a higher level of proficiency. Isnt this a good way to go about learning to defend yourself. Every student that I have worked with could tell you the philosophies behind the different forms they are doing. They know the aspect of the particular system that is being taught out through that form. No one is claiming that because we do three white crane katas before black belt that we understand the crane system...but i think most of us understand the aspects of those three katas pretty well. Then when we learn some of the higher level forms, it will give us something new and different to think about.

As far as my basis of saying that the shaolin do teachers i have been exposed to are very good teachers:
I have trained in martial arts for the last ten years. I studied arnis, sikaran, and kyo-sho from two separate teachers while i lived in the phillipines for three years at all systems. Then i studied for another three years in shotakan and tkd (it was actually called sport karate there) in south dakota. I have done shaolin do for the last seven years. It is by far the best system that i have ever done. Which actually brings up another question: If shaolin do is such a horrible martial art with nothing to offer (as so many people are trying to lead us to believe on here), why in the world are so many of my class mates back in tx students of other martial arts that they have since quit going to?

Sincerely,

Ben

themeecer

10-02-2003, 11:45 AM

Alright, we have effectively batted down most of the conspiracy theories that have been thrown at us. From the use of sais to the gis, to the name we use. But it hasn't mattered to most of you. Even when shown pictures of antique sais used in shaolin temples, it wasn't proof enough.

What do I care if a bunch of underlings like you don't think our art looks like what you think is 'traditional kung fu?' We have had old masters in China tell us that what we are doing is authentic; that it resembled what they were taught when they were young. They were amazed that westerners had this art. They have many more years experience than most if not all of us, I am going to rely on their wisdom and not your opinions.

I am going to repost a quote from Okami in an earlier thread on SD.

First of all I want to say that I have no side on any issues about Shaolin do. I have my own opinions about SD, but my research is a firm attempt to remain objective and seek the truth.

The dates of the SD grandmasters fit into historical accounts of events during the times that they lived. This does not mean that they existed, just that their existence was possible.

Guang Xu (Manchu) was emperor of China from about 1890 until the Boxer Rebellion. Some historians claim that the Fukien temple was destroyed completely just before the Boxer Rebellion. This would place Su Kong (the hairy one) at the right time and the right age to have been at the temple and to have escaped into the mountains. The best report I can find is that about 30 or so inhabitants of the temple excaped, most are unnamed.

The next grandmaster who killed 11 soldiers also fits into history. Around 1928 when he was supposed to have been awarded this title, China was not under a unified rule. The camp of a warlord that he wandered into could have existed. Also, it is reported by historians that many practitioners of kung fu traveled south to maintain their safety. The move to Indonesia fits into this.

Sin The is a real person. He attended the University of KY with the father of a friend of mine. He is Chinese (my friend's father is Chinese). My friend's father knew Sin and I asked him some questions about him. He said that Sin was a good engineering student and lived on the same floor of the dorm with him.

...

So much for objective, now for my opinion.
I think SD looks so much like Karate because they have the same roots. And the roots aren't that deep. Karate practitioners who make up the lineage of the four main Okinawan styles (Shotokan, Shinto-Ryu, Wado-Ryu, and Gojo-Ryu) traveled to the area of China where the Fukien Temple was located. Regardless of the grandmaster's lineage being legit, SD most likely came from southeastern China as did the roots of Karate. Tode Sakagawa who by most accounts is the first major practitioner of Karate in Okinawa, lived around the time that the Fukien Temple was supposed to have been destroyed. It is possible that he learned martial arts from the same people as Sin's martial ancestors learned from. Of course the martial arts of both lines evolved independently due to the envoronment, politics, and the individual practitioner's physical capabilities and motivations. But they are not seperated by much time, so the styles still share much similiar material.

From what I have seen of SD I believe it to be an effective combat martial art. Just as effective as Shotokan, Jujutsu, or Wing Chun. Of course it has its weaknesses, but all styles lack somewhere if we are persistent enough to look for them. If someone is training to be combat effective I think SD is a good system to utilize in a cross-training program. I have found through my own experience that the instructors are willing to help in this cross-training endeavor. When I went to the Shaolin-Ryu club at UK while I was in college, they let me keep my rank from my own style and allowed me to train with students at all levels. I had a good time with these guys. Their class sessions were physical and I got some good exercise from both kata and sparring. I learned some things fighting with them, and I like to think I taught them something too.

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 11:46 AM

Fu-

"There is no way that Shaolin Do instructors have that kind of knowledge of ALL the STAND ALONE systems that they claim to teach. "

I would would have to disagree with you there Fu. How many SD instructors have you trained with to be able to make that sort of broad statement? Since you seem to always have proof to back up your facts, I am sure that you can name the instructors that you have personally asked to teach you the applied learnings (you have studied one SYSTEM of martial arts for a very long time with a knowledgable teacher(s), you have intimate knowledge of that one SYSTEM, knows it applications, it's way of generating force, it's drills, conditioning, fighting strategy and history, etc.). Given your requirements for qualification as a teacher, I think that I just might sqeak by (with the exception of the history but I all ready covered that).

Since we have extablished that I qualify (25 years in the same system, studied under 1 Grand Master, 3 Senior Masters and taught my own classes for 15 years, have a very good grasp of the mechanics, etc. involved in generating force and power) I would like to invite you, if ever in the area, to stop by and see what you so desparately wish to dislike. You might actually be suprised what you might learn. This is in no way a challenge or any of that melodramatic BS, just a friendly gesture to perhaps show you that SD might not be so bad. Heck, If you would like, I could ask Master Sin to try to be in town at the same time and you could ask him the history questions also.

Fu-Pow

10-02-2003, 11:58 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ninthdrunk
[B]Fu-

I can definitely agree with that! However, you have to realize that with shaolin do its almost like saying "here, all of these forms from different styles now make up your style". I dont think that there is anything wrong with that.

*****There is everything wrong with that. Each system is Stand Alone. In other words it is a complete fighting system unto itself.

Each individual system has a set number of katas. In each of these katas, there is a different aspect of the system to be trained. What is so wrong with taking different katas from different systems and training them in that manner?

***Everything. Because the first way you describe each "kata" builds from and reinforces previous forms and concepts. In the Shaolin Do way, you are pulled in 10 different directions. Now, Sin The may have made the katas "appear" to fit together but that is because NONE of them are being done correctly. They are all being done the Shaolin Do way.

Also, in the sense that shaolin do is its own system, the forms that grandmaster sin has set at the different belt levels teache the techniques and attributes that he found to be important at that level.

***That is f-ed up. Chen Taiji is not "higher level" than say a Tiger style." It's simply another system that can bring you to a high level. But the fighting principles of Taiji and Tiger style are very different from the get go. They do not reinforce each other.

Grandmaster sin set the curriculum up so that any student could take advantage of the different fighting styles and techniques that are taught. Some of the students that i have trained with practice the forms simply to the point of understanding, so they will be able to teach it to others;

***So once you have a cursory knowledge of the form you are "qualified" to teach it. I don't think so. If I took a begginers oil painting class would I then be qualified to teach it?

while at the same time will put particular emphasis on training one particular style...or the few forms that we have been taught from that style until they develop a higher level of proficiency. Isnt this a good way to go about learning to defend yourself.

***No, because it creates a ton of confusion. One presented with a real life situation your body is not gonna know how to move.

Every student that I have worked with could tell you the philosophies behind the different forms they are doing. They know the aspect of the particular system that is being taught out through that form.

***They might superficially understand it but can they consisently apply and demonstrate it. For example in Taiji the theory is to "move 1000 pounds with 4 ounces of strength." But it is a lot harder to manifest this as a physical reality.

No one is claiming that because we do three white crane katas before black belt that we understand the crane system

***You just did. You said after you learn it your qualified to teach it.

...but i think most of us understand the aspects of those three katas pretty well. Then when we learn some of the higher level forms, it will give us something new and different to think about.

***Something new to think about which is from an entirely different system.

As far as my basis of saying that the shaolin do teachers i have been exposed to are very good teachers:
I have trained in martial arts for the last ten years. I studied arnis, sikaran, and kyo-sho from two separate teachers while i lived in the phillipines for three years at all systems. Then i studied for another three years in shotakan and tkd (it was actually called sport karate there) in south dakota.

***And none of it was Chinese Kung fu.

I have done shaolin do for the last seven years. It is by far the best system that i have ever done. Which actually brings up another question: If shaolin do is such a horrible martial art with nothing to offer (as so many people are trying to lead us to believe on here), why in the world are so many of my class mates back in tx students of other martial arts that they have since quit going to?

***Because it caters to people with Short attention spans.

Sincerely,

Ben

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 12:23 PM

Boy, I wish I knew how to do that "quote " thing. It would be a lot easier to set Fu straight.

*****There is everything wrong with that. Each system is Stand Alone. In other words it is a complete fighting system unto itself.

So in other words, there is no benifit to learning more than one style? Wonder why you have to take many different classes in college to get a particular degree? Could it be that it makes you more educated?

***Everything. Because the first way you describe each "kata" builds from and reinforces previous forms and concepts. In the Shaolin Do way, you are pulled in 10 different directions. Now, Sin The may have made the katas "appear" to fit together but that is because NONE of them are being done correctly. They are all being done the Shaolin Do way.

Again your background eludes me. From who and for how long did you study SD in order to make this statement?

***That is f-ed up. Chen Taiji is not "higher level" than say a Tiger style." It's simply another system that can bring you to a high level. But the fighting principles of Taiji and Tiger style are very different from the get go. They do not reinforce each other.

Perhaps not higher than a upper level Tiger form but certianly higher than say Tiger 1 or 2 in the sysstem. I think that you missed the point that he was trying to make. 83 postures is pretty advanced.

I could go on and on but I have to get back to work. This is fun!

themeecer

10-02-2003, 12:28 PM

To quote use this format:

[ quote] text of the quote[/quote]

Leave out the space between [ and quote]

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 12:34 PM

Fu-

I am glad that you have cleared this all up for me. Your ability to take the things that people say and turn them around is incredible. Would the problem be as bad if grandmaster sin never told us what system the other forms came from? Maybe if he just numbered them. Then we could just pretend that it was all one system and each kata taught us a different aspect of the system.
Maybe one of the chinese historians that post here can clarify this, but I thought the monks studied many different styles while in the temples, they just specialized in the one that best suited them (or the one their master picked for them!).

If doing things the 'shaolin do way' is incorrect, then i would prefer to be wrong all the time...i have learned a lot of lessons while studying there.

If you think that tai chi and tiger styles (the examples you used) are the same difficulty level, then your understanding of the systems is very skewed.

If you took a beginner's oil painting class and paid attention to what was going on, and to what your instructor was telling you, then yes you could teach beginning oil painting. teaching and mastering are two different things. i am a teacher, not a master.

As far as real life situations go, Ive been there and done that...I guarantee you that i wasnt pulled in ten different directions.

No, I did not say that we (lower belt students) have an understanding of the crane system. Last time i checked, the crane system consisted of more than three katas. I said that we had an understanding of the forms that have been taught.

I dont think you need to take a particular martial arts style to know if someone is a good teacher. My teachers have described and demostrated every form that they have ever showed me. Did it look like yours? Nope. Have the applications worked for me repeatedly? Yep. Did i learn the form correctly? I think so.

Short attention spans? Most people that train in shaolin do are there for many years. That doesnt sound too short to me.

Fu, you really sound like you love martial arts. I wish that every student out there cared as much for what they do as you do. I really mean that, by the way, not trying to insult you. I am enjoying the arguments that you are posing. I hope this stays at this level.

Ben

ps. do you ever make it to the other side of the US? I live in new york, but would love to get together any time you are in the area. Does choy lay fut ever have tournaments or seminars here that I could go to?

BeiTangLang

10-02-2003, 12:38 PM

[QUOTE]
So in other words, there is no benifit to learning more than one style? Wonder why you have to take many different classes in college to get a particular degree? Could it be that it makes you more educated?
[QUOTE]

***Educated, yes. Better at what you do, no.
Kind of like taking underwater basket weaving to be a brain surgeon.

Ever wonder why most of the great practitioners only study one style at a time? Learn a whole system? One maybe two systems in a _Lifetime_?
Its not because they were slow learners.

Fu_pow , you are right on track.

I have enjoyed reading everyones perspectives, but as Golden Tiger said,...back to work.

Everyone have a great day, this thread has been fun.
~BTL

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 12:42 PM

***Educated, yes. Better at what you do, no.
Kind of like taking underwater basket weaving to be a brain surgeon.

Don't you think the manual dexterity needed to weave something in an environment such as underwater would actually help someone that used their hands for a living...say ....like a brain surgeon.....

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 12:44 PM

hehehe!

Only on this forum could someone use that!

Dont let the med schools hear abou that! They may take it seriously!

Ben

BeiTangLang

10-02-2003, 12:49 PM

Ever wonder why most of the great practitioners only study one style at a time? Learn a whole system? One maybe two systems in a _Lifetime_?
Its not because they were slow learners.

MasterKiller

10-02-2003, 12:51 PM

If you think that tai chi and tiger styles (the examples you used) are the same difficulty level, then your understanding of the systems is very skewed. No, my friend, I think it is you who are mistaken here. A complete Taiji Chuan style is nor more difficult or complex that a complete Tiger style.

Notice I used the word "complete" here.

The learning curve for one may be steeper, but that's a different matter all together.

GreyMystik

10-02-2003, 12:56 PM

There is everything wrong with that. Each system is Stand Alone. In other words it is a complete fighting system unto itself.

i think what fu pow was getting at is that each system referenced can be used as a complete system (meaning it has it's own power generation, fighting theories/concepts, drills, techniques etc). to put this in your collegiate analogy, it would be more accurate to say, for example, Choy Lay Fut is the "degree plan". in this instance, we are saying to learn Choy Lay Fut (as our example) would require many "courses" (the power generation, history, fighting theory, internal work etc each being a part of the "courses") which make up the degree plan of CLF in our example. so let's say you learn enough to get your "bachelor's degree" in CLF. you are perhaps basically proficient in the system after several YEARS of training (in just that one system!). this doesn't even remotely qualify you to teach the system... again, using the collegiate reference, you aren't a "professor" yet (no doctorate degree to teach at the collegiate level!), just proficient enough to "get by" in a pinch perhaps.
now, to liken to what he was saying specifically, we'll use the college example again.
you couldn't get a degree of any specfic system (i.e. have any serious DEPTH of knowledge and proficiency) if you just threw together a bunch of unrelated courses! the same goes for the shaolin-do example.
so in essense, we are dealing with someone who claims to have thorough knowledge (we'll say master's degrees for the sake of argument) of 50+ complete systems, right? that would imply he has 50+ MASTER'S DEGREES (by our analogy) and he did it all in 18 years (from the start!). contrast this with some of the most well-known and best masters of any given system we have ever even REMOTELY heard of, who MASTERED maybe what, 3 systems? can anyone name a martial artists who has thoroughly mastered more than maybe 3 systems (the one i'm referring to is Sun Lu Tang)? this is where some of Shaolin-Do's claims start to appear absurd to some folks.

it is a "jack of all trades, master of none" scenario.

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 01:05 PM

Masterkiller-

Youre saying that tai chi is not harder to master than tiger? So, it would take an equal amount of time to master each system? The first black tiger system that I learned has about 50 moves in it (counting some repetitions...about 40 not counting reps), I have also learned combined family 24. I have a much better understanding and can use the tiger system a lot better than i can use tai chi. I dont lie to myself when i practice....I try to use tai chi, but I am just not at that level. I can use the applications, and have relatively good sticky hands practice, but my sensitivity is just not there. Tiger on the other hand, is raw and aggressive. It is something i could teach my little brother to utilize in his fighting. The time it takes to master tai chi is much longer than tiger, and most other "external" systems as well. I dont know of a single external system that requires shien tien chi meditation while you are performing the katas. I would be very interested in seeing your training protocol for tai chi if it would enable me to master it in the same amount of time as tiger.

Ben

ps. i would like to point out that i am not claiming to have mastered either style. I am only estimating at the amount of time based on the difference in proficiency that i have gained between the two systems.

MasterKiller

10-02-2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by ninthdrunk
[B]Masterkiller-

Youre saying that tai chi is not harder to master than tiger? So, it would take an equal amount of time to master each system?Yes.

The first black tiger system that I learned has about 50 moves in it (counting some repetitions...about 40 not counting reps), I have also learned combined family 24. Those are individual forms, not systems. Like I said. above...COMPLETE SYSTEMS, not bits and pieces.

The time it takes to master tai chi is much longer than tiger, and most other "external" systems as well. I dont know of a single external system that requires shien tien chi meditation while you are performing the katas. I would be very interested in seeing your training protocol for tai chi if it would enable me to master it in the same amount of time as tiger. See above answer.

After learning 1 form, are you now a master of Tiger style?

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 01:21 PM

so in essense, we are dealing with someone who claims to have thorough knowledge (we'll say master's degrees for the sake of argument) of 50+ complete systems, right? that would imply he has 50+ MASTER'S DEGREES (by our analogy)

In my profession, I use many different principles from the scientific,physics and mathmatic disiplines. Do i have a Masters degree in them? No. Do I have a thorough knowlege of what I am doing. More than likely. At least enough to be able to do my job. Can I apply them to different situations? Very much so. That is because even though they are different subjects, once you know that basic concepts of each, those concepts can be applied to the other discipilines. That said, one can apply the same logic to the martial arts. Once I learned a front kick, I didn't have to spend time learning a Tiger front kick, a Crane front kick, etc.

Almost time for me to go home, I hope that you will miss me when I am gone...

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 01:22 PM

Wow! First off let me appologize for my typo...i did not mean to say first tiger system, i meant to say kata. I know perfectly well what you wrote. I am providing an example for why i feel differently. As for me being a tiger master...i wish...why dont you read ALL of my post. Thanks

Ben

MasterKiller

10-02-2003, 01:27 PM

I'll go back and read yours if you go back and read mine. :rolleyes:

Because if you do, you see that I said while the learning curve for Taiji may be steeper than for an external style, it is no more or less complete once the entire system is learned.

You haven't learned an entire system of either, so you really have no basis for your argument.

illusionfist

10-02-2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by themeecer
Guang Xu (Manchu) was emperor of China from about 1890 until the Boxer Rebellion. Some historians claim that the Fukien temple was destroyed completely just before the Boxer Rebellion. This would place Su Kong (the hairy one) at the right time and the right age to have been at the temple and to have escaped into the mountains. The best report I can find is that about 30 or so inhabitants of the temple excaped, most are unnamed.

This is totally not true. This is mixing two different times in history. The number 30 is taken from the original Shaolin legend. Guang Xu was in rule from 1875-1908 (some accounts 1909), then the child emperor Pu Yi ascended to power for a short period after that until the govt was taken over (1911-1912). It is true that the temple was more than likely destroyed before the Boxer Rebellion, but try about 130 years or so before. Even if the burning happened during this time, this still reinforces my earlier argument that the ruins would still be readily recognizable and there would still be references to its existance. Once again I ask the question, If it was burned down around this time, who burned it?

Peace :D

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 01:30 PM

Grandmaster sin has not mastered all 50 plus systems. I dont think i have ever heard that claim. He is a golden snake master. He has mastered a few other things but golden snake is the system he is noted for mastery (someone else could point out the other things he has mastered, they are on his certificate). he does have the katas for the other systems, as well as an understanding of the systems. (see Golden Tiger's example).

I love the university and degree analogy! Lets not forget the folks that have a good base understanding, go out to the working world, and learn how to use these skills. they often get a better understanding of how these things really work than the college level professors that taught them in the first place! i am not using that to help either argument, just something to keep in mind.

Ben

BeiTangLang

10-02-2003, 01:32 PM

so in essense, we are dealing with someone who claims to have thorough knowledge (we'll say master's degrees for the sake of argument) of 50+ complete systems, right? that would imply he has 50+ MASTER'S DEGREES (by our analogy)

***Exactly. No way,...No How.

Your profesion has nothing to do with the point GreyMystic made, nor my question/comment,"Ever wonder why most of the great practitioners only study one style at a time? Learn a whole system? One maybe two systems in a _Lifetime_?
Its not because they were slow learners."
.

"
to put this in your collegiate analogy, it would be more accurate to say, for example, Choy Lay Fut is the "degree plan". in this instance, we are saying to learn Choy Lay Fut (as our example) would require many "courses" (the power generation, history, fighting theory, internal work etc each being a part of the "courses") which make up the degree plan of CLF in our example. so let's say you learn enough to get your "bachelor's degree" in CLF. you are perhaps basically proficient in the system after several YEARS of training (in just that one system!). this doesn't even remotely qualify you to teach the system... again, using the collegiate reference, you aren't a "professor" yet (no doctorate degree to teach at the collegiate level!), just proficient enough to "get by" in a pinch perhaps.
now, to liken to what he was saying specifically, we'll use the college example again.
you couldn't get a degree of any specfic system (i.e. have any serious DEPTH of knowledge and proficiency) if you just threw together a bunch of unrelated courses! the same goes for the shaolin-do example. " -GreyMystic

One of the best ways I have seen it put. Once again, these are_systems_ ST is pushing off as katas of all things. Systems that take years to learn unto themselves.
BTW,.....all kicks, punches etc., etc., _ARE NOT ALL THE SAME_ throughout the CMA's!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, time to go home. You guys have a great evening.

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 01:42 PM

Masterkiller-

Fair enough...I think i agree with you. when you have mastered either system, the effects are the same (fighting ability?)? is this what you are saying? im not sure what is getting argued here...i was talking about the time it would take to master a particular style. i was using a "one-form referrence" for time...and just as an example...you know, like "if it takes this long to master (or gain proficiency) only one form, how long will it take to master the whole system?" Sorry if we got off on something else, and sorry if i misunderstood what we were debating.

Ben

norther practitioner

10-02-2003, 01:46 PM

I didn't have to spend time learning a Tiger front kick, a Crane front kick, etc.

Well there are subtle differences in each system, thats what makes each unique.... My taiji front kick is a bit different than my the front kick I learned when I did a southern style.

Question, where is the 2nd road up Hwa mountain form from?
Hua chuan?

Also, what style of taiji was that in the taiji straight sword form?

MasterKiller

10-02-2003, 01:50 PM

No, that's exactly what we were debating, and it is tied precisely into your school's training philosophy.

Learning 1, 2, or even 3 forms from a system does not mean you know the whole system or guarantee that you have the slightest clue as to what that system is about, yet SD teaches broken pieces of otherwise complete systems and leads you to think you have mastered that style once you can walk through a couple of forms.

Of course, you never have time to master anything because after you get a belt, you're off to learn 15 forms from 3 more unrelated styles so you can get your next belt.

Question, where is the 2nd road up Hwa mountain form from?
Hua chuan?NP,
Hua-Family Chuan (or China-style Chuan) calls their forms 1st road of Hua, 2nd road of Hua, etc...I don't know enough about it though to comment on whether or not that's what the SD guy is doing. It's definitely not Hua (flower) boxing.

First-Chevalier

10-02-2003, 02:35 PM

>>Learning 1, 2, or even 3 forms from a system does not mean you know the whole system or guarantee that you have the slightest clue as to what that system is about, yet SD teaches broken pieces of otherwise complete systems and leads you to think you have mastered that style once you can walk through a couple of forms.<<

SD DOES NOT tell you you have mastered a system because you have learned three forms and advanced a rank. Not even close. Please relate to the board where you get that?

Granted I am a relatively new student to the art, three years, but it is my understanding that the forms we are learning are but building blocks for the structure of our art. You wouldn't use the same block in a wall as you would for a cornerstone, neither in an arch. Each complete system has advantages and disadvantages and helps the student grow in a differnet way.

It is the same reason a crane system was created in the first place. Tiger is strong and powerful so you must become soft and flowing to counter it. IMHO we learn these katas so we are exposed to the different ways of thinking and fighting so we might improve those aspects that apply to each kata in ourselves.

What would a tiger master do if he were suddenly beset by a crane master? If he had another form to fallback on, say mantis or monkey, could he then coutner the crane master? If all the crane master has is crane, is he out in the cold when the tiger master changes style? Probably.

No one is stating we master each style we have katas in. It's just part of what we're taught to help us become well rounded martial artists.

Oh, I suspect that this kind of exchange is similar to what went on in the temples and helped the art to grown and change. A critical eye applied to all things will make the weak fall away and the strong grow stronger.

GreyMystik

10-02-2003, 02:49 PM

In my profession, I use many different principles from the scientific,physics and mathmatic disiplines. Do i have a Masters degree in them? No. Do I have a thorough knowlege of what I am doing. More than likely. At least enough to be able to do my job. Can I apply them to different situations? Very much so. That is because even though they are different subjects, once you know that basic concepts of each, those concepts can be applied to the other discipilines. That said, one can apply the same logic to the martial arts. Once I learned a front kick, I didn't have to spend time learning a Tiger front kick, a Crane front kick, etc.

allow me to address your kick example.
let's say we use math for "kicks" in general. math is the "subject" at hand. you couldn't really say "once i learned algebra, i didn't have to learn geometry and calculus..." but yet this is what your logic is implying. yes, a front kick is a front kick. but realistically, there are several kinds of front kicks... just as there are several kinds of math within the same overhead "branch" of mathematics.
different systems do them differently, and some systems have their own kicks that you don't find 'across the board' or call them by different names.

i'm not really sure what you were getting at with your "in my profession" example, and i don't think it directly relates to what I was trying to say... could you clarify your position?

illusionfist

10-02-2003, 02:51 PM

Why is it that forms become the focus when dealing with an opponent? Forms dont fight your fights for you. Forms are just dictionaries. Just because another animal is symbolically opposed or philosophically compliments another doesn't make it tactically sound. Your own knowledge and depth of your art makes it better than the other guys, not forms. So if tiger overwhelms opponents typically and crane is evasive, its the evasiveness that allows you to overcome your enemy, not just by virtue of it being crane. There are crane techniques that are very straightforward which dont necessitate the use of evasion. Same thing with Tiger. Depth does not equal forms. Depth constitutes knowledge of method, principles, and tactics.

Peace :D

GreyMystik

10-02-2003, 02:56 PM

What would a tiger master do if he were suddenly beset by a crane master? If he had another form to fallback on, say mantis or monkey, could he then coutner the crane master? If all the crane master has is crane, is he out in the cold when the tiger master changes style? Probably.

i don't think any proficient martial artist would fall back on a form by itself and expect to learn a system's principles and nuances from it. now , if by "form" you mean "system" , then we are talking about a different animal entirely (no pun intended)!

however, your point still implies MASTERY of a system to begin with (the tiger MASTER is beset by the crane MASTER)- not a few forms dabbled in until the next belt... even if you include a few forms, let's say you get **** good in them, you likely won't be able to manifest the ging of a crane player or a tiger player, etc... you won't have the hallmarks of the tiger OR crane player, and no you won't have the 'best of both worlds' either..it just doesn't work that way, each takes far too long to get good at to merely dabble in and claim proficiency.

that being the case, if you are learning forms as the building blocks for your structure, what IS the sld structure?
is it a mix of forms?

just to give you an example of what i'm talking about regarding mastery of a system, there was a time i studied hung kuen and we were practicing out in my garage. the door was open and someone drove by and stopped, backed up , and asked what we were doing. i replied it was a form of gungfu, and he asked what form, and i said "hung kuen" and he looked confused for a sec, i said "hung gar kung fu" and he said "oh! we have that!" all matter of factly and promptly told me that "they" (shaolin-do) had that as a black belt form. here i was practicing what little i had learned so far, and someone actually tells me they have my ENTIRE SYSTEM as a "black belt form"?!?!? needless to say we didn't talk much more. my sifu got quite a laugh from that situation, but it's that sort of mentality that gets people going about SLD...

Fu-Pow

10-02-2003, 03:17 PM

Because there is a sub-thread going on here about Internal vs. External let me try to clear that up a bit.

And I will expound on what Illusionfist was saying about different strategies as they relate to Internal and External

An "External" style like Tiger uses a different fighting strategy then say an "Internal Art" like Tai Ji.

On the outside they appear very different because the overall strategies are different and so the techniques are very different.

However, I believe at a high level, after many years of practice, the Internal Body Mechanics are very similar, although they may not be expressed in quite the same way.

Because we all share pretty much the same body plan there are only so many ways to move in an efficient and powerful manner.

However, the Tiger stylist will never become quite as "Internal" as the Tai Ji stylist because his style does not require him to be so.

The Taiji player has a much higher requirement of "Internalness" then a Tiger player for his art to work effectively.

The Taiji players techniques are so far removed from "everday" strength and he must be so relaxed that all his force must come from inside.

The end goal is the same though really. To move like "steel wrapped in cotton. " It's just that the Taiji player must be MORE like steel wrapped in cotton than the Tiger player for his techniques to work.

In a head to head to match this becomes moot because the Tiger stylist is " internal enough" for his techniques to deliver massive damage, while the Taji stylist is "Internal" enough to deflect and absorb these attacks and deliver his own.

Of course I'm making things out to be a bit more simple than they really are for arguments sake.

The problem with Shaolin Do is that they are seeking to express power in the same way for both arts. It simply cannot work. If you are using Tiger techniques and using Taiji mechanics it won't work and especially not vice versa.

And especially not if you are applying Kempo power generation to all arts.

This is why specialization is so important.

illusionfist

10-02-2003, 03:26 PM

Fu Pow,

I agree. Take into account that the overall dynamic of a tiger system and tai ji is just totally different (one is very agressive and focuses on overwhelming the opponent, while the other is absorbtion based) and I seriously can't understand how the two will just be treated as steps on a ladder. Tai Ji alone takes ions to become proficient in.

*as a side note*

Are any sd'ers gonna address the issues I brought up before? I'm very interested in hearing your opinions.

Peace :D

Fu-Pow

10-02-2003, 03:40 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by illusionfist
[B]Fu Pow,

I agree. Take into account that the overall dynamic of a tiger system and tai ji is just totally different (one is very agressive and focuses on overwhelming the opponent, while the other is absorbtion based)

****Exactly.

and I seriously can't understand how the two will just be treated as steps on a ladder. Tai Ji alone takes ions to become proficient in.

***Amen to that.

*as a side note*

Are any sd'ers gonna address the issues I brought up before? I'm very interested in hearing your opinions.

***No they'll just give you one of the stock responses that I listed in an earlier post.

Or this one:

5) "All these questions have already been answered."

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 03:43 PM

Thanks everyone for such great opinions. These are all things that i have addressed to myself. I can see that my answers are not the ones that you are looking for. It actually seems like you dont really want any answers....everyone on here is just so intent on proving their point. Here is what i think:

I like learning a few forms from different systems. It allows me to grow as a martial artist at a more rapid pace. I learn different techniques and philosophies on fighting. I learn how to "switch" between the different philosophies as well. Have i mastered any? No, not yet. Will i eventually master some? I hope so. I think that over time, I could. That is a level i just dont think i can understand right now. I have a good understanding of the different forms that I have learned. If i never learn an entire system, I think that I could still develop great fighting ability. Heck, maybe I could even master the different forms that I have. (master white crane FORMS rather than the white crane SYSTEM) I think that is a much better way to go. I dont feel confined to one particular school of thought. I know that most out there wont agree with me, but again, these are my thoughts.

Ben

ps. I think this will be a two or three part post...that way everyone can have ample time to bash each section...hehehe!

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 03:55 PM

Illusionfist-

Do you mean your questions about forms vs. depth of understanding? Or something else?

Throw it at me in a pm, please. I would love to get something going on this, but I dont want to take away from the discussion here. (Or am I just avoiding the issue...dodging the subject maybe. Perhaps, I just want to give you the same responses that Fu-Pow says we use all the time to get out of these questions).

I would like it if people quit making out as though all shaolin do practicioners share a common brain. I have been more than willing to agree with peoples' points, its just that we go about getting the answers in different ways. Thanks!

Ben

First-Chevalier

10-02-2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by GreyMystik

i don't think any proficient martial artist would fall back on a form by itself and expect to learn a system's principles and nuances from it. now , if by "form" you mean "system" , then we are talking about a different animal entirely (no pun intended)!
****You are correct, and I misspoke. I did mean a master of tiger as a system. However, the crux of my point is still valid***

however, your point still implies MASTERY of a system to begin with (the tiger MASTER is beset by the crane MASTER)- not a few forms dabbled in until the next belt... even if you include a few forms, let's say you get **** good in them, you likely won't be able to manifest the ging of a crane player or a tiger player, etc... you won't have the hallmarks of the tiger OR crane player, and no you won't have the 'best of both worlds' either..it just doesn't work that way, each takes far too long to get good at to merely dabble in and claim proficiency.
****I think here you've misspoke. You can get good at them, but it does take a long time to MASTER them. I'm not saying SD students master them in such a short time. I am saying that aspects of that system are prevelant in the forms we learn and that by practicing those forms, we enhance those aspects. To what degree our craneness or out tigerness is enhanced depends on the student and their attention to the form(s) and how often they parctice, etc.*****
that being the case, if you are learning forms as the building blocks for your structure, what IS the sld structure?
is it a mix of forms?
****this mixing of forms is what has driven the development of our art, and I mean OUR art. SD is no different, IMHO, from a family style in China. There are so many people who can trace lineage to venerable monks who were in various temples, and call themselves Shao-Lin, and they all are equally worthy of that title. The SD system is our system. Whether you agree with it or not is no matter. It is our system. What makes us worthy of being instructors in this system is up to our instructors and masters and it's not open to debate or subject to your opinion. What is subject to your opinion is whether or not you chose to participate in SD and what you think of it's students should you meet them in a tournament. In the old days, that was what truly seperated the fighting arts were the tournaments (friendly) between rival schools.***
just to give you an example of what i'm talking about regarding mastery of a system, there was a time i studied hung kuen and we were practicing out in my garage. the door was open and someone drove by and stopped, backed up , and asked what we were doing. i replied it was a form of gungfu, and he asked what form, and i said "hung kuen" and he looked confused for a sec, i said "hung gar kung fu" and he said "oh! we have that!" all matter of factly and promptly told me that "they" (shaolin-do) had that as a black belt form. here i was practicing what little i had learned so far, and someone actually tells me they have my ENTIRE SYSTEM as a "black belt form"?!?!? needless to say we didn't talk much more. my sifu got quite a laugh from that situation, but it's that sort of mentality that gets people going about SLD...
***I think you're missing the point of the statement. Your visitor wasn't stating he was a master of that system, or even that he knew the entire system. Just that he had a part of it in his cirriculum. For you to imply by your visitors statement that he had the entire thing, I think, is a mistake on your part. Show me one post where an SD student claims mastery over a style, or even that they've seen the entire system? I don't think you've seen that. I know that those forms and systems are in our style, and that Grandmaster The' has the option of teaching them if he chooses, but the advancement cririculum for at least the Marietta CSC is posted right over the floor and is the first thing you see when you walk in. It contains many forms from many systems, but nowhere does it claim to teach an entire system as a requirement for advancement. If your point is that we SHOULD teach an entire system, that is a seperate issue. However, SD is what it is. You can debate the EFFECTIVENESS of it as a style or method of teaching, but to dengreate it as a Martial Art is sheer opinion and it's like dengrating impressionism over realism as a worthy art form.

Fu-Pow

10-02-2003, 04:53 PM

I think a crucial peace you SD guys are missing is that to advance in a style or system or whatever you have to train with a master who is already super proficient (read: a master) in that style.

You claim that Sin The is master in "Golden Snake" style. Ok...let's just say that he is.

And he teaches Master Mullins "Black Tiger" forms. Then how does Master Mullins become a "Black Tiger" master without a qualified "Black Tiger" master to teach him? Because Sin The is not a "Black Tiger" master, right?

Explain how this works....please!!!!

I don't get that. As we've already laid out Sin The can't be a Master of 50+ styles.

So where do his direct students learn from?

I just don't see the logic here. It's giving me a headache.

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 05:10 PM

Fu-

I kinda liked the oil painting analogy, personally.

Would it make you feel extremely better if someone told you that you were right? Do you really think that given the instruction that shaolin do students receive, they cannot go on to master a particular system? I have seen a rank advancement chart that outlined what would be required at the different levels in shaolin do from 1990 (i think). It had listed for the requirements for each upper level of black (master level and up) the performance of whole systems. At each successive level you went from having to do one system, to two, three...etc. And even better than that, you had to do an 18 kata set, a "minor" set (6 or 12 katas), and a weapon set! So at each level, there were three entire systems required. I really would rather be a "master" of a few forms from a bunch of different systems, than limit myself to one particular style. For now! Once I have gained a greater understanding of different fighting strategies, then I would like to be taught one particular system. Who knows...maybe when you get the master levels in shaolin do, you are taught whole systems. We combine so many different styles that I will have something to challenge me all the way up to the day that I die. I wonder how many different FORMS I can master? Shaolin Do works...we must be doing something right.

Ben

ps. fighting is fighting. when you have mastered fighting with one system, i would think that seeing others that are relatively comparable would let you see the similarities. naturally, you will always have aspects of your system that poke through and dictate your applications from the other systems. i find applications in my forms that are very much "alien" or "foreign" to the philosophies that go along with the kata being practiced. does this make it wrong? No. It works.

joedoe

10-02-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by ninthdrunk
Fu-

I kinda liked the oil painting analogy, personally.

Would it make you feel extremely better if someone told you that you were right? Do you really think that given the instruction that shaolin do students receive, they cannot go on to master a particular system? I have seen a rank advancement chart that outlined what would be required at the different levels in shaolin do from 1990 (i think). It had listed for the requirements for each upper level of black (master level and up) the performance of whole systems. At each successive level you went from having to do one system, to two, three...etc. And even better than that, you had to do an 18 kata set, a "minor" set (6 or 12 katas), and a weapon set! So at each level, there were three entire systems required. I really would rather be a "master" of a few forms from a bunch of different systems, than limit myself to one particular style. For now! Once I have gained a greater understanding of different fighting strategies, then I would like to be taught one particular system. Who knows...maybe when you get the master levels in shaolin do, you are taught whole systems. We combine so many different styles that I will have something to challenge me all the way up to the day that I die. I wonder how many different FORMS I can master? Shaolin Do works...we must be doing something right.

Ben

ps. fighting is fighting. when you have mastered fighting with one system, i would think that seeing others that are relatively comparable would let you see the similarities. naturally, you will always have aspects of your system that poke through and dictate your applications from the other systems. i find applications in my forms that are very much "alien" or "foreign" to the philosophies that go along with the kata being practiced. does this make it wrong? No. It works.

I have spent 16+ years training in Ngor Chor. If I then go and learn Taiji but do my Taiji using Ngor Chor principles, can I honestly say I am doing Taiji?

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 06:00 PM

That is obviously an excellent point...that is why i said relatively comparable....hehehe. I know exactly what you mean. This is another reason that i enjoy and see the benefit of the shaolin do curriculum being set up the way that it is. I get exposed to a wide variety of styles. A lot of these styles have some pretty close similarities in philosophy, but then others are really on different pages of different books altogether. Like tiger vs. tai chi (that one has been getting used a lot lately)

Ben

Serpent

10-02-2003, 06:09 PM

If what you guys are doing is kung fu and not karate (or a kind of kempo) why do you insist on calling your forms katas?

As for the whole multiple system thing, I'm surprised that anyone is arguing it. It's obviously beyond the ability of anyone studying SD to break their programming and recognise that it's impossible to learn several different systems at once, let alone accept that it's impossible for Sin The to have anything like enough proficiency to teach them all.

joedoe

10-02-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by ninthdrunk
That is obviously an excellent point...that is why i said relatively comparable....hehehe. I know exactly what you mean. This is another reason that i enjoy and see the benefit of the shaolin do curriculum being set up the way that it is. I get exposed to a wide variety of styles. A lot of these styles have some pretty close similarities in philosophy, but then others are really on different pages of different books altogether. Like tiger vs. tai chi (that one has been getting used a lot lately)

Ben

I agree that being exposed to many different arts is a good thing, however the questions in my mind are:

* Is what I am being exposed to a good representation of the various arts?
* If I choose a particular art to focus on, how close to the real thing is the stuff I am being taught? i.e. are the teachers really qualified to teach the various arts?

To follow on from my previous example, if I have spent 16 years training in Ngor Chor, then done 2 years in Taiji, am I qualified to teach Taiji? I would say no, particularly if I did my Taiji with a Ngor Chor flavour.

ninthdrunk

10-02-2003, 06:41 PM

Serpent-

I cant speak for the rest of shaolin do, but i call them forms because of my history with other matial arts. Most of the people back home call them forms...i think. Anyway, who cares what we call them? We are just stupid americans with short attention spans remember!

Also, if you really want to press the issue, shaolin do students are not learning different systems. We are learning katas from different systems. All of these differing katas make up our system...shaolin do. Just like the katas of other martial arts make up their system. What is so difficult to grasp? Do you really doubt that we are capable of learning these different forms? At one time, I was practicing forms from shotakan, tkd, and sikaran at the same time. They would all be involved in my workouts. So, I guess I was programmed before I even got to shaolin do. What is wrong with that? Is it really a problem to know forms from so many different systems? Are all of the forms that you practice the same? They dont teach you different aspects of your fighting system? I hope they do, otherwise you are probably limiting yourself in your techniques.

joedoe-

I have asked myself the same questions...i really have...and the only answers that i can give you are "i dont know for certain, but it works for me, & yes". I cannot speak for all shaolin do instructors, but master schaefer has taught me to use every one of the forms that i have. he gave me a good base of knowledge that i build on everyday. he makes you search for the answers yourself. the applications to the moves are readily apparent. then you start looking at what else it could be. as for whether or not it is JUST LIKE what was taught back in the temples...i dont know, but what i have learned works. No one here can say that there art is just the way it was taught when it was first created. each master has helped to shape their respective arts into what they are today.

Ben

Serpent

10-02-2003, 06:50 PM

I posted this on the other thread, but it seems to be relevant here as well. I use the term sets here because of the precedent that WD set. I would usually use the term form or the Chinese, taolu.

In my system there are well over 100 sets. However, my system is one coherent fighting style, using the same principles and methodology thorughout. When you learn the first set it is designed to develop a strong stance and foundation, to develop a powerful waist for power generation and to introduce some basic hand techniques. The second set that you learn is very similar to the first but is more mobile and has more complex techniques in it. If you learned the second set without the first, it would be quite difficult to learn. If you learn it after the first then you have a good basis to understand it. Subsequently, each set has its basis in previous sets. Often you will find the same techniques in several sets, often the same sequence of several techniques, however, they are preceeded and succeeded by other things and sometimes are delivered from different positions, with different footwork, different internal energy, etc.

As you progress through the system, you are able to learn sets more and more quickly as certain aspects (i.e. the style) is recognisable. You are just constantly adding to your library of techniques and various applications for techniques previously learned. Subsequently, you build up a thorough knowledge of the style.

When you practice the application of techniques in sparring or two man drills, etc., you start with a rudimentary knowledge of the techniques and, as you practice and learn more sets and develop a greater understanding, your knowledge and ability to apply your style realistically increases.

This is the essence of learning a system or style. You might learn dozens of sets, but they are all related and build upon the same skill set. To learn dozens of sets from lots of different styles directly contradicts this learning method.

Comments?

joedoe

10-02-2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by ninthdrunk
Serpent-

I cant speak for the rest of shaolin do, but i call them forms because of my history with other matial arts. Most of the people back home call them forms...i think. Anyway, who cares what we call them? We are just stupid americans with short attention spans remember!

Also, if you really want to press the issue, shaolin do students are not learning different systems. We are learning katas from different systems. All of these differing katas make up our system...shaolin do. Just like the katas of other martial arts make up their system. What is so difficult to grasp? Do you really doubt that we are capable of learning these different forms? At one time, I was practicing forms from shotakan, tkd, and sikaran at the same time. They would all be involved in my workouts. So, I guess I was programmed before I even got to shaolin do. What is wrong with that? Is it really a problem to know forms from so many different systems? Are all of the forms that you practice the same? They dont teach you different aspects of your fighting system? I hope they do, otherwise you are probably limiting yourself in your techniques.

joedoe-

I have asked myself the same questions...i really have...and the only answers that i can give you are "i dont know for certain, but it works for me, & yes". I cannot speak for all shaolin do instructors, but master schaefer has taught me to use every one of the forms that i have. he gave me a good base of knowledge that i build on everyday. he makes you search for the answers yourself. the applications to the moves are readily apparent. then you start looking at what else it could be. as for whether or not it is JUST LIKE what was taught back in the temples...i dont know, but what i have learned works. No one here can say that there art is just the way it was taught when it was first created. each master has helped to shape their respective arts into what they are today.

Ben

Well if it works for you and you are happy with what you are getting, then that is good. :)

Golden Tiger

10-02-2003, 07:11 PM

Wow, I am gone (in class by the way where all you good martial artistshould be and look what happens.

***let's say we use math for "kicks" in general. math is the "subject" at hand. you couldn't really say "once i learned algebra, i didn't have to learn geometry and calculus..." but yet this is what your logic is implying.

Its really hard to follow it all now but as to the "math analogy", what I was trying to imply is that once you have the basic principles of anything, be it a kick, a style, math or what have you, that understanding could be applied to other systems and you would not have to start from scratch in another discipiline. Using math, it would be almost impossible to do calculus with out first having learned algebra, yet if I am proficient in algebra then calculus would be much easier.
Given that, I think that I, having been exposed to all the forms and systems that I have (albeit fraudulent as it is) ,would be able to pick up some style involving spinning kicks, rolls, etc. than say a Tai Chi student would (no offense to the Tai Chi people, just an example)

I really enjoyed First-Chev's post. He is wise beyond his years.

I am not asking anyone to approve of SD. But until you have actually studied it, you are really in no position to discount it. But the really great thing about all this is is that no matter how hard you try, at the end of the day, SD will still be there, alive and well.

themeecer

10-02-2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Fu-Pow
I think a crucial peace you SD guys are missing is that to advance in a style or system or whatever you have to train with a master who is already super proficient (read: a master) in that style.

You claim that Sin The is master in "Golden Snake" style. Ok...let's just say that he is.

And he teaches Master Mullins "Black Tiger" forms. Then how does Master Mullins become a "Black Tiger" master without a qualified "Black Tiger" master to teach him? Because Sin The is not a "Black Tiger" master, right?

Explain how this works....please!!!!

I don't get that. As we've already laid out Sin The can't be a Master of 50+ styles.

So where do his direct students learn from?

I just don't see the logic here. It's giving me a headache.
We have a difference of opinion here. Many think to master a style they need someone to hold their hand the whole way, to teach them all the applications. I am of the opposite opinion, that you can master an art through practice of the forms thousands of times and self study. The applications I discover from self study are more a part of me than those that I am shown can ever be. Tonight, in fact, I had 3 different new applications come out of some short kata that I have known for 20 years. I was reviewing my brownbelt class and these just kind of jumped out at me.

How do you think GM Sin Mastered Golden Snake without his teacher being a GS master? The same way.

joedoe

10-02-2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by themeecer

We have a difference of opinion here. Many think to master a style they need someone to hold their hand the whole way, to teach them all the applications. I am of the opposite opinion, that you can master an art through practice of the forms thousands of times and self study. The applications I discover from self study are more a part of me than those that I am shown can ever be. Tonight, in fact, I had 3 different new applications come out of some short kata that I have known for 20 years. I was reviewing my brownbelt class and these just kind of jumped out at me.

How do you think GM Sin Mastered Golden Snake without his teacher being a GS master? The same way.

See, I am somewhere in the middle there. I believe that you need a teacher to provide guidance, but you also need to discover for yourself.

themeecer

10-02-2003, 07:58 PM

See, I am somewhere in the middle there. I believe that you need a teacher to provide guidance, but you also need to discover for yourself.

Wouldn't an opponent's fist in your face be a good teacher when you do a technique wrong? :D

Personally I have to learn how the forms/katas fit my body. I have to learn how they fit my ability level as well, and how that changes as I age. I think that all comes from self discovery.

joedoe

10-02-2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by themeecer

Wouldn't an opponent's fist in your face be a good teacher when you do a technique wrong? :D

Personally I have to learn how the forms/katas fit my body. I have to learn how they fit my ability level as well, and how that changes as I age. I think that all comes from self discovery.

I agree, and I am not saying you cannot advance by studying it all on your own. What I am saying is that a good teacher can provide the little things that can help you unlock the heart of your art quicker than you would on your own. Why not take advantage of the experience and knowledge a good teacher can offer, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?

Serpent

10-02-2003, 09:15 PM

Good grief. It's like trying to describe the colour red to a blind man.

blooming lotus

10-02-2003, 09:42 PM

cheers boys ...not bad.

would like to 've seen some sparring at the festival and your right that last cli[p while better was no where near as crisp as I have seen elsewhere but like I said...not bad...cheers

blooming lotus

10-02-2003, 09:42 PM

themeecer

10-02-2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
Good grief. It's like trying to describe the colour red to a blind man.

I know, but I have to keep trying. I don't want to give up on you all so easily.

I find it funny that the ones that have never tried something, being proficient and eventually mastering a style without someone holding your hand the whole way, are telling the ones that are doing it it isn't possible. :rolleyes:

shaolinarab

10-02-2003, 10:20 PM

Okay folks, i have been trying to avoid posting so i can study for my test but i can't help it. i must admit, this has probably been one of the best discussions/debates on SD because of the focus on ideas and techniques as opposed to pathetic bickering over colors and patches :) i will try to address several points that were raised but i may have to curtail the answer until later. let me first say that whatever comes out in this post is not some apologetic attempt to answer your questions, but to humbly answer them based on a few things: my personal understanding of SD in the six months I have been training to it, my small previous exposure to the MA, my own personal research into training methods of other styles, my background as a medical student :p and my witnessing what SD has produced in veterans of the SD SYSTEM.

and now i shall begin. fupow, illusionfist, etc., u have all raised equally valid questions, and again, i will give you answers based on MY understanding. i just hope you don't try to belittle them by attacking my physical time training or accusing me of being blind. one of my main motivations is that i have seen what is has done for people who have stayed in this system for over 15 years. okay..

forms vs. applications and theory
you are right in being skeptical on whether an SDer can develop the full theoretical and technical understanding of a system that thousands of other focus on for decades. as several said, we do not purport this, we claim something else. assuming (for the sake of argument since i know u don't necessarily believe this) one of the great grandmasters had developed sound understanding in several fighting styles not only because he experienced personal training in the east before all the modern distractions, but that he also trained full-time compared to what many have to do today, it is my belief (not dogmatic! ;) ) that GM Su and GM Sin were able to formulate a revised curriculum that could teach sound martial understanding of techniques and forms from different systems in a unique way for a modern practioner. In the case of SD in america... while in the old days of indonesia (as well as in china as many know), students had to go through the onerous stance training to develop the proper framework that would hasten one's development of fa jing, way before he would learn any stances, in america GM Sin changed the curriculum so that we learn the foundational techniques and stances, but we progress before having to sit in a horse for 10 minutes (pheew!). one thing that outsiders do not fully understand regarding our training (and why we keep saying visit a school) is that yes, we do not develop theory understanding in the exact way that a specific system's school would per se. before we even get to any long forms that last more than 35 seconds to complete we go through a long foundation in which we study 30 short forms (water dragon, basically, the 'postures' you refer to, but comparable to tan tui in the way they are done are both sides and run through sequentially) that comprise brief sweeping, kicking, and punching techniques, in addition to 20 other 'sparring techniques' that are similar in nature. depending on your teacher, this period (in addition to other self-defense aspects), can last up to about to 9-12 months by themselves. this would mean drilling them constantly, learning the applications, practicing on each other (by having one attack), then practicing using them in free sparring (where you're told to only use techniques 3, 5, and 8, for example, at 50% speed) and then in free sparring at regular pace. only then do you move on to long forms. now, if one cannot fathom how a sound understanding of such techniques could be developed in this systematic way i'm not sure what to say. granted, this may not be the route that any practioner of a specific 'animal' style progresses, but in our system, it is sufficient to teach us fighting concepts and provide a conceptual framework to engage in the animal forms that we later study.

now with the forms...as themeecer has said, while teachers teach many applications that they learned for forms that we study, after a certain level in SD, we learn forms so that we can gain the physical and aesthetic benefits from them, while seeking to derive applications from them ourselves. before you try to shoot me for this :rolleyes: notion, remember, this is done after a sound foundation of fighting techniques and strategies developed through the short forms and sparring techniques that we practice so much. perhaps it would help if i didn't call the short forms short form but 30 postures instead. that way you would not be misled into thinking that we derive our martial knowledge solely from erratically doing forms from different styles.

okay, i can see i've written enough for now, but i havent touched on many issues that i planned to discuss. i look forward to the comments and further discussion. to be continued.... :D

joedoe

10-02-2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by themeecer

I know, but I have to keep trying. I don't want to give up on you all so easily.

I find it funny that the ones that have never tried something, being proficient and eventually mastering a style without someone holding your hand the whole way, are telling the ones that are doing it it isn't possible. :rolleyes:

I never said it wasn't possible, and how do you know I haven't done it? Let me tell you a story.

When I started training, my sifu taught me a little bit of stuff but not much. Mostly I learned from the seniors. About 4 years into my training, all the instructors left the school (to this day I don't know why, but I suspect politics) and I happened to be the most senior student left! So it was left to me to keep the school running as my sifu was busy running his business. My sifu might pop in to see us twice a year if he had the time and occasionally one or two of the other disciples would show me something, but for over 5 years I was left to run the school and try and improve my own art.

Obviously a school is not going to survive being run by an instructor (if you could have called me that) who was so inexperienced, and eventually I called my sifu and told him that we didn't have enough students to keep the school running. As it turned out, he was about to sell his business and come back to teach.

In the time on my own, trying to improve my art by myself, I managed to develop my own expression of the art and I managed to stay a step ahead of the people I was trying to teach. However in the time since my sifu came back to teach, my art has improved 100 times over and each improvement came from tiny little things my sifu was able to point out to me - little pieces of the puzzle I probably would have missed on my own.

So you see, I have tried both paths and I have benefitted from both paths. However I believe that without my sifu giving me the keys when I needed them, I would not be anywhere where I am today.

Serpent

10-02-2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by themeecer

I know, but I have to keep trying. I don't want to give up on you all so easily.

Cute. Dumb, but cute. You must be very proud.

I find it funny that the ones that have never tried something, being proficient and eventually mastering a style without someone holding your hand the whole way, are telling the ones that are doing it it isn't possible. :rolleyes:

Now you see, this is exactly the problem. Your definition of mastering a style is worlds apart from anyone else's. You are not mastering a style. You are learning bits of a style, piecemeal, and then smothering them with your over-riding Shaolin-Do (karate/kempo-esque) flavour, and then claiming to have mastered them. All you are really doing is taking moves from a style and *******ising them into the SD "way".

This is why I wish you'd all admit that you are learning a system similar to kempo, with nothing to do with Shaolin whatsoever.

Read joedoe's last post. Then read it again, very carefully.

blooming lotus

10-02-2003, 11:04 PM

big ups to you for your loyalty. I dont know if I could've stuck it out under those circumstances for so long. well done dude :cool:

themeecer

10-02-2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
Now you see, this is exactly the problem. Your definition of mastering a style is worlds apart from anyone else's. You are not mastering a style. You are learning bits of a style, piecemeal, and then smothering them with your over-riding Shaolin-Do (karate/kempo-esque) flavour, and then claiming to have mastered them. All you are really doing is taking moves from a style and *******ising them into the SD "way".

This is why I wish you'd all admit that you are learning a system similar to kempo, with nothing to do with Shaolin whatsoever.

Read joedoe's last post. Then read it again, very carefully.
How the heck do you know what I am doing? Are you spying on me when I practice? Are you following me to every class? Have you crossed hands with me? You have no idea what you are talking about till you have done those things.

Ok Joedoe tried his road to mastery after only 4 years of instruction. I have 20 years under my belt. Big difference.

Ralphie

10-03-2003, 12:01 AM

I find it funny that the ones that have never tried something, being proficient and eventually mastering a style without someone holding your hand the whole way, are telling the ones that are doing it it isn't possible.

I tried SD several years ago, and I can tell you it is different than any CMA I have seen or experienced. Illusionfist, fu pow, and others have described the differences very well, actually. The trouble that I've seen with SD is that it lacks the essence of the styles and subsequent forms that it teaches. This is because they don't teach the building blocks to each of these "styles" they teach through forms. It's also because the passing down of these forms is a bit convoluted, and there is no continuing source. The forms themselves are inconsequential if you have not learned the methods of movement, attacks, bridges, gings, gungs, etc. These methods are not something you can learn in a week, then move onto something else while claiming any kind of proficiency. It takes years of refining these quintessential things in order for your body to understand a singular style.

Learning the primary items of a style is not hand holding. Learning forms is not a primary item to a style. Being able to capture the essence of a style gives you an initial paradigm so that you can fight or grow using the tactics and methods as past down from teacher to student. This paradigm can be changed and adapted once a level of understanding is aquired. SD teaches a SD paradigm, even though it is expressed through forms of tiger, mantis, crane, etc. It is not any of those styles, though.

Serpent

10-03-2003, 12:01 AM

No, meecer, you still don't get it.

I don't imagine you ever will.

themeecer

10-03-2003, 12:09 AM

Look Serpent, if you are really that concerned of my technique hop in a plane and head over here. You can check my building blocks and my basic movements. Heck you can even jump me unaware and test my skills if that floats your boat.

It is funny that you are so critical of my style but are too chicken to even state what yours is.

ShaolinRogue

10-03-2003, 12:48 AM

Good point Meecer.

So how about it Serpent, or any other 'expert' on here, what style do you study? Have you got what it takes to put your money where your virtual mouth is? Lay it out there so folks can research and decide if your full of bunk or may actually have a credible opinion.

And don't hide behind the "because I know better...so I won't get flamed/trolled, etc...excuse" If your not willing to face the fire then you have no credibility.

jon

10-03-2003, 01:32 AM

Simply becouse some people here are questioning Serpent due to him not listing his style.

Ive met Serpent, he is an exceptionaly skilled martial artist and a great guy to boot. He is also from a very respected school and just becouse he chooses not to list this on a public forum does not invalidate his opinion.

themeecer

10-03-2003, 01:39 AM

If it doesn't invalidate his opinion it at least shows he has no balls. I have read him saying he doesn't list it because he doesn't want to be verbally attacked by it.

templefist

10-03-2003, 02:29 AM

I read your post, well most of it(too long for me this late at night), and I usually stay out of topics like this, but I think I have a point to make. And I dont mean to insult anyone, but as this is a public forum I will put in my two cents

You say the SD curriculum is like a "liberal arts" sort of study which supposedly gives you a strong foundation in martial arts theory and application.

The entire problem with this is that these alot of these COMPLETE systems that SD is pulling forms from have COMPLETELY different foundations of theory and application. Yes a punch is a punch, but to do the punch correctly the way the style wants it done is a totally different thing. Silat punches, Shaolin punches, Wing Chun punches, all different.

It is impossible to transmit every single nuance of a form to a student in a style where forms are picked from styles that for the most part completely opposite in theory and in application. And even if it was it would take 20 lifetimes just to apply them the exact way they were meant to.

What does this mean? You are not getting the very essence of the art, you may be able to fight well and defend yourself, but you are definatly not using the true style.

I am not trying to call anyone out or make them stop what they are doing if they like it, I just dont see how valid points like this can be entirely overlooked.

Themeecer - I wouldnt want my teachers coming back to me saying they are getting heat for something one of their students is saying in a forum. It doesnt show lack of balls, it shows respect to keep his school out of this.

Shaolin-Do

10-03-2003, 06:37 AM

" It doesnt show lack of balls, it shows respect to keep his school out of this."
Out of the dogging of other schools? :rolleyes:
I dont even care. all the SD debates are stupid.
:eek:
Or maybe im just still way to tired to think?

GreyMystik

10-03-2003, 07:15 AM

my point exactly... you can't expect to get a good foundation in something when that something is just several forms thrown together.

allow me to ask the SLD folks this question- you have said something to the effect of the forms you study are building the foundation for your system, or helping you develop the foundation of your system...
what *IS* the foundation of your system? what's the "core"? what makes Shaolin-do, Shaolin-do?
what makes your system different from, say for example, Serpent or Illusionfist or FuPow saying "i have the knowledge!" and running around teaching tons of forms from different systems?

i guess what i'm wondering is, what's the real "meat" of shaolin-do? if it's a bunch of forms from other systems, i don't really see much substance...

for example, let's say we are talking about Wing Chun (a fairly well-known system). the core elements would be relaxation, economy of motion, centerline principles, sensitivity, etc... these are fundamental princples of the wing chun system and things that any person well-versed and proficient in wing chun should be able to manifest (among others).
what do proficient Shaolin-Do folks manifest? what makes them unique; what is their "identity" so to speak?

ninthdrunk

10-03-2003, 07:39 AM

Adaptation & accomodation

First-Chevalier

10-03-2003, 08:54 AM

Add to Ninth's points quality of life, joy of living, & respect for others. One of the core principals my instructor is constantly passing on is life inside and outside of the kwoon is connected. What goes in one area affects the other.

Shaolin-Do

10-03-2003, 09:00 AM

Id say the system is more or less based off of the short forms and sparring techniques...

First-Chevalier

10-03-2003, 09:06 AM

I think the real issue we're all discussing here is one of philosophy. Regardless of what you may think about those of us who practice SD, it is a way of doing things in the MA world. You may disagree with those ways or may think there's a better way, but it is a way none the less.

To try and bash its leadership because you disagree with its methods is the weakest of arguments you could possibly make. I've read through this entrie thread and seen attacks and defenses on every point. No, I've not researched all the dates, times, and places. However, I've seen the arguments from those who have and what it comes down to is your own personal desire to either believe or not, and you will ultimately prove yourself right no matter what your belief starts out as.

In the end it doesn't matter if you start out taking Tae Bo at Bally's or studying in the temples in China. If you aren't improving yourself, and those around you, you've failed your instructors. To me Kung Fu isn't about breaking bones, getting in fights, and being Billy Bad @$$ on the block. It's about being better than the only person whose opinion of me matters at the end of the day, and that is me. Jesus loves me no matter what I do, so that means I only have to make myself happy when it's all said and done. If the only reason you're in MA is to break things, win fights, and collect trophies, then your missing out on 99% of what makes Kung Fu Kung Fu, in my humble opinion.

MasterKiller

10-03-2003, 09:10 AM

If the only reason you're in MA is to break things, win fights, and collect trophies, then your missing out on 99% of what makes Kung Fu Kung Fu, in my humble opinion. 99% of kung fu is breaking bones and winning fights....the 1% is the esoteric stuff. How much of your training time is devoted to 'feeling happy' as opposed to hitting a bag?

First-Chevalier

10-03-2003, 09:32 AM

Unless you live in the school, you spend much more of your time out in the world living, doing your day job, spending time with family and friends. How much of that time invovles breaking bones and punching a bag? Hopefully none, yet the principals learned in the kwoon can still apply to that other time as well. Why do you thing Yang Tai Chi has the nick name 'meditation in motion'? You can meditate on many things other than a new way to cause your oponent injury. To my mind there are pleanty of ways to find new applications, but to spend time on the other provides balance that would help you find your center and thus improve your over all art.

To answer your question, I don't spend nearly as much time as I'd like working out, but I try to avail myself of at least five trips to the school each week. I average about four though. I'm not as dedicated as many and my art suffers for it, I know. I try to work in little things when I can, like droping into a cat stance while waiting for our interminably slow copier, or opening doors with different arm structures as I walk around our building. It's not much, but I figure every little bit helps.

ninthdrunk

10-03-2003, 09:32 AM

I think First is referring to the accomplishment, the dedication, the ability to overcome other obstacles in your life that you learn from training in martial arts. I feel that this is the ultimate goal of martial arts. To live a better life. I use this on my students a lot:

You may learn a form that you believe you will never be able to perform. Then you keep at it, not really believing that you will succeed. Then you start to realize that you are already a lot better at it than when you first learned it. You start to really work at it, and you find that the more you work at it, the better you get. Then someday, another student says "Dang I wish I could do that form as well as you can". You have now been empowered. You learn that you can accomplish the things that you would otherwise not even bother to attempt. Without even realizing it most of the time, this will carry over into your daily life as well.

Heck, martial arts are always advertising how great they are for kids. Its this same idea. The kids learn to try harder and they will feel better( ie. do your **** homework, and you will get a good grade and not be yelled at or grounded to your room). That is where the confidence factor comes in...its not because they feel like they can fight. Heck, when i was a kid, I was more worried about nintendo and girls than I was about fighting (that is in no particular order by the way)...and I was training in martial arts!

I know its kinda cheesy, but I think that is what martial arts is all about. Im sorry kung fu is not about breaking bones and winning fights. How many fights do people really get into these days? How many bones have any of us broken (besides our own)? And most of us wont have to deal with either of those situations for the rest of our lives. For all the training I have done, I have been in one fight...and that was a huge misunderstanding. My quality of life is always improving. Once I grew a little older and started to really pay attention to what my teachers were trying to teach me, I have improved every aspect of my life tenfold. My fighting ability still increases...you train your hardest and the other stuff is just a by-product. I hope that all martial arts are teaching their students this lesson. I feel bad for anyone who is just in this to hurt others.

Ben

ps. sorry to rant...

First-Chevalier

10-03-2003, 09:41 AM

Ninth,

Thank you. A much better stating of my point.

ninthdrunk

10-03-2003, 09:44 AM

No problem! Good to know you guys in Atlanta are on the same page!

Ben

GreyMystik

10-03-2003, 09:48 AM

that may be what it has become, in some eyes, a sort of 'champion of all that is good and wholesome' or whatnot...

but i tend to agree with masterkiller... i train to be able to fight and fight well. the other benefits are secondary.

think about it, you can get all kinds of health benefits from yoga, meditation, etc... so why do martial arts? i think for most, it's because they want more than just the health benefits.

people talk about wu de this and mo duk that, but i think when it boils down to it, the martial arts are about fighting, plain and simple. everything else is gravy.

Judge Pen

10-03-2003, 09:52 AM

Nice posts everyone. Shaolin arab makes wonderful points. SD (the person) makes a great point that most of our art is based off the short forms and sparring techniqes in that is what we do more than anything and many of our forms repeat the techniques learned their albeit from differing angles and ranges to improves one application of the basics.

SD is SD. Our mantis is not the same as yours as is our tigers, cranes, or tai chi. They are based on similar principles; however, as all the detractors have pointed out, when you teach them together as patchwork, the meanings change slightly and take on their own meaning. In film the theory is the meaning of each individual photograph changes dramatically when you show those photographs in a sequence. The individual pictures are authentic, but their meaning does change in perspective with the ohter pictures. The same with SD's forms. A meaning is present, an art is taught, and martial applications are absorbed, by the teaching of these different forms. There is a progression desinged to allow an SD practitioner to adapt to the circumstance even if the process changes the forms from what you know them to be in your study.

Is this wrong? Depends on your perspective. Is it applicable? Absolutely. Is it kung fu? Yes, but evolved.

fa_jing

10-03-2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by First-Chevalier

What would a tiger master do if he were suddenly beset by a crane master? If he had another form to fallback on, say mantis or monkey, could he then coutner the crane master? If all the crane master has is crane, is he out in the cold when the tiger master changes style? Probably.

Sorry if this has already been said, but you've been watching too many Shaw Brothers movies. Systems do not fight, people do. When you master a system and yourself, you are able to adjust to the opponent. All complete systems cover defense against different types of opponents - agressive, slippery, whatever.

It's like a person who learns to fight with the left foot forward. If his opponent switches stances, will he do the same? Not if he knows what he's doing in that stance. If he knows what he is doing, he will be able to face an opponent in any stance, making necessary adjustments to tactics and target areas.

themeecer

10-03-2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by templefist
Themeecer - I wouldnt want my teachers coming back to me saying they are getting heat for something one of their students is saying in a forum. It doesnt show lack of balls, it shows respect to keep his school out of this.

Well then said student should keep his trap shut. It isn't out of respect he doesn't list it, he has told me why he doesn't. He doesn't want to be attacked on here. Apparently he can dish it out but he can't take it.

cho

10-03-2003, 10:16 AM

you see, martial arts were created for fighting. When they were created, the creators had a cause, be it to protect themselves from bandits, the Qing dynasty, or ruthless samurai.

to say martial arts are about health, etc. is marketing today, and they same about playing football. Now the only problem here is the same problem with the ten year old black belts. You have to admit that even though his self esteem is high, he would be crushed by any Kramer (anyone watch Seinfeld?).

the problem anti-SDers (myself included) and others have is the authenticity. We've discussed forms and all, but the fact is it's very difficult if not impossible to train a foundation in, say, tiger and crane simultaneously. Others taking TCMA have to spend lots of time just getting their body (muscle memory and all that) to move right. That's how you can "see" the differences between Choy Lay Fut and Wing Chun, or to the point , whether someone moves like gongfu or karate.

fa_jing

10-03-2003, 10:25 AM

Hey I just finished the thread - I would like to compliment Shaolinarab for his last three posts - well written and to the point, something which after 11 pages to this thread, it would be nice to see more of.

And SD confirmed and summarized, that most of the "core" of Shaolin-Do is in the short forms and sparring techniques. This makes more sense than "no core" or "our core is everything."
If this "core" is then used to "flavor" the other forms that are studied, than so much the better for the improvement of the student within the core system.

It is true that an accomplished Martial Artist can gain something out of (even) superficial studying of a form. For instance I, with 3-4 years training in CMA, can follow along to a Hung Gar or Mantis form, and get something out of it. I can recognize a few techniques, not all of them, and I can get a bit of flavor. I would think that there is a point of diminishing returns with such an approach, however.

Furthermore, I'm concerned about developing the basics, since those of us who compete know that basics win the fight. I'm afraid that with an emphasis on learning a large # of forms, this could fall by the wayside.

There's different approaches to the learning process. Fabulous lineage claims aside, I'm sure that Sin The learned in a manner very similar to the one that he is teaching. A sort of forced volume approach. And I'm sure that he developed a core set of techniques and was able to improve this with the study of a lot of different forms.

We should all recognize that there are different ways to approach the MA. Some CMA artists feel that one system is enough. Others find that 2 or 3 systems is the way to go. For Shaolin types (traditional, wu shu, Shaolin Do, etc.) alot of forms are to be learned. Some styles do well with no forms at all.

The marketing stuff in Shaolin-Do, the phony history and claims of mastership, etc. does tick me off. But I would say that this is fairly common in the world of TMA, and that I have to commend Sin The on his commercial success.

It's not traditional Chinese Martial Arts in my book, however that doesn't mean that it's not a valid approach. Not the one that I would choose for myself, but I don't see major barriers to someone else being able to make it work.

shaolinarab

10-03-2003, 10:40 AM

Thanks for fairly examining my view. you're right...one thing about these daamn threads is that there can be a good discussion going until people start detracting from the subject for several wasted pages.

i'm gonna that you can appreciate our sense of a core training before we engage in a myriad of forms. you hit the nail on the head with what you said about being able to gain something from other forms based on your fundamental training.

just to keep the subject on topic, if the reader wants to start with my first post :) , go to this page:
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25675&perpage=15&pagenumber=9

happy training...:D

Fu-Pow

10-03-2003, 10:41 AM

I have to hand it to you SD guys, you don't give up.

If you've learned anything from your training perhaps you've learned tenacity.

But I feel that you've failed to adequately answer many of the questions that have been posed to you.

There are answers but they are in form of ramblings and not very straightforward.

If you guys are happy with your training...then fine...so be it.

But I hope that through this forum a seed of doubt has been planted in your mind and that you will dig for answers to some of the questions that have been posed to you by the MA community at large.

I would recommend that you all pick up a copy of the "Sword Polishers Record" by Adam Hsu.

I was thumbing through this book last night before bed.

Here is a well respected master who has trained in many styles of martial arts and yet he continuously warns against doing just that.

I encourage you all to read this for some perspective. So you realize it is not just some MA geeks on an internet forum telling you this stuff.

P.S.

I've trained CLF and Chen Taiji for about 7 years. I spent my first year of training in Lam Family Hung Ga and some Northern Shaolin. I also have some brief experience in Tae Kwon Do and Aikido.

I believe Serpent studies CLF also.

Golden Tiger

10-03-2003, 11:06 AM

Well gentleman (and ladies too), I think that this debate has been settled. We (SD'ers) love what we do, period. It should be apparent that some of the things that is very important to you (anti-SD) is not at the top of our list. We choose SD for what we believed was right for us just as you all did with you own respective systems. As shown in this thread, there is a vast amount of information that the posters posess so instead of bickering all day, lets put our knowledge to a resourceful use.

It has been a pleasure getting to know each and everyone of you.
I think that this has been one of the most civilized slam fest that I have seen.

now.....can't we all just get along

Golden Tiger

10-03-2003, 11:06 AM

Ralphie

10-03-2003, 11:07 AM

If you guys are happy with your training...then fine...so be it.

I think that is the point with the SD guys. That is, they are happy with their training, and what SD supplies. If you go to one of their schools this is evident. I disagree with almost every aspect of the methods of SD. However, each person is looking for something different, and obviously many people find "it" at a SD kwoon. What's wrong with that? There's no doubt in my mind that CLF is a superior ma. You should be content with that.

themeecer

10-03-2003, 11:10 AM

There's no doubt in my mind that CLF is a superior ma.
And we're the ones called arrogant. What does CLF stand for anyway?

shaolinarab

10-03-2003, 11:15 AM

choy lay fut

Ralphie

10-03-2003, 11:17 AM

And we're the ones called arrogant. What does CLF stand for anyway?

Choy Lay Fut, and I don't study it. However, I've been lucky enough to meet a high level practitioner, and witnessed his skill. I've known high level practitioners of SD; I've seen and experienced the difference. Sorry if you don't like my observation, but I'm not putting you down just expressing a belief/opinion based on actual experience.

GreyMystik

10-03-2003, 11:18 AM

clf = choy lay fut, a quite famous and effective martial art system which originated in southern china.
i'm surpised you haven't heard about it... it's real popular in hong kong

Fu-Pow

10-03-2003, 11:18 AM

Choy Lay Fut, thought to be the 3rd most popular southern style of kung fu in the world.

(The first being Wing Chun and second being Hung Ga.)

Perhaps there are a few things for you yet to learn meecer. 20 years in MA's and you've never heard of CLF?

themeecer

10-03-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Fu-Pow
Choy Lay Fut, thought to be the 3rd most popular southern style of kung fu in the world.

(The first being Wing Chun and second being Hung Ga.)

Perhaps there are a few things for you yet to learn meecer. 20 years in MA's and you've never heard of CLF?
Oh heck, I will be the first to tell you I have tons to learn. Reason I haven't heard of them, besides what I have read on these boards (I didn't recognize the abbreviation) is that my past 20 years have been spent on studying my art, I never had the time, nor do I really now, to be spend hours on the web looking up other martial arts. I'd rather spend my time first on normal life and secondly on training, not on becoming an arm chair martial artist.

Wing chun is the most popular?!?! I would think not as much as I've seen people dog them on these boards. I give them their props for what I have seen of them. They have very nice hand speed.

GreyMystik

10-03-2003, 11:48 AM

well in this case, we don't mean popular as in "well-liked" as much as popular meaning "widespread" :)

Ralphie

10-03-2003, 11:49 AM

Oh heck, I will be the first to tell you I have tons to learn. Reason I haven't heard of them, besides what I have read on these boards (I didn't recognize the abbreviation) is that my past 20 years have been spent on studying my art, I never had the time, nor do I really now, to be spend hours on the web looking up other martial arts. I'd rather spend my time first on normal life and secondly on training, not on becoming an arm chair martial artist.

It is traditional for practitioners of different styles to visist, study, train, and fight each other. This is a widely accepted in Chinese Martial Arts. It is actually not traditional to segregrate one's art and self from the rest of the martial world. No need to surf the web for info, reach out to your KF brethren and your KF will probably get better (my opionion anyway).

First-Chevalier

10-03-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Ralphie

I think that is the point with the SD guys. That is, they are happy with their training, and what SD supplies. If you go to one of their schools this is evident. I disagree with almost every aspect of the methods of SD. However, each person is looking for something different, and obviously many people find "it" at a SD kwoon. What's wrong with that? There's no doubt in my mind that CLF is a superior ma. You should be content with that.

This is what I'm talking about. This is a philisophical choice concerning the MA's. You believe what you want about your art of choice as do we. Nothing wrong with that, and it's what makes discussions like this go round. It's also what makes the MA's grow and change.

First-Chevalier

10-03-2003, 11:55 AM

Shaolin-Do

10-03-2003, 11:57 AM

"If you guys are happy with your training...then fine...so be it."
Wow.

;)

I train Shaolin-Do and Shuai Chiao. Works great for me. :)

norther practitioner

10-03-2003, 12:28 PM

So is the video of the guy doing second road up hwa mountain supposed to be hua chuan?

MasterKiller

10-03-2003, 12:39 PM

This is a philisophical choice concerning the MA's. You believe what you want about your art of choice as do we. Philosophy and history have little in common. Practice what you want, but at the same time, don't blindly accept everything your told just because it comes from someone you respect. Don't reject research for fear of proving your idols wrong!

First-Chevalier

10-03-2003, 12:58 PM

I understand you don't believe our history to be accurate and or factual, but in all the pages of this list I didn't see anything refuting the post that addressed how our history fits into the appropriate time frames? It is a specific response to the specific questions that were asked. I don't have the actual post to put the link in, but if you insist, I can go get it? Some of the Anti SD group are giving us a hard time about not addressing specifics, so how about what's good for the goose is good for the gander and address this rebutal?

MasterKiller

10-03-2003, 01:03 PM

Didn't illusionfist already give you a history lesson?

Golden Tiger

10-03-2003, 01:09 PM

Oh boy, here we go again........

First-Chevalier

10-03-2003, 01:13 PM

No, no, I'm not trying to 'here we go again'. I was under the impression that the post I'm speaking of was in response to Illusionfist. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it certainly made the case well for the history being plausable. I'm by no means a historian on this, though I can do my own research. It just seems that research was already done. What I'm asking for is a rebutal of that explaination, one that I can verify.

CaptinPickAxe

10-03-2003, 01:14 PM

FC,
do you go to the Chinese Shao-Lin Center?

Fred Sanford

10-03-2003, 01:15 PM

do they give you SDers an IQ test before they admit you as students? you have to score below an 80 to get in?

you poor dumb *******s.

MasterKiller

10-03-2003, 01:18 PM

It just seems that research was already done Illusionfist gave you an explanation based on actual historical data he obtained from graduate-level studies. Shaolinarab gave an account based on his 6 months at an SD school. You decide which holds more water.

themeecer

10-03-2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Ralphie
It is traditional for practitioners of different styles to visist, study, train, and fight each other. This is a widely accepted in Chinese Martial Arts. It is actually not traditional to segregrate one's art and self from the rest of the martial world. No need to surf the web for info, reach out to your KF brethren and your KF will probably get better (my opionion anyway).
I would absolutely love to. Big problem, no other reputable kung fu schools around. We have plenty of TKD though. But we always get disqualified from their tournaments. I have a huge fat guy, who think he is a pa qua master, teaching at the flea market. I think I will pass on that as well. However if I am in a big metropolitan that some of you guys are at, I would love to come by and cross hands with you. I say this genuinely ... not as in coming down there disrespectfully trying to prove something.

MasterKiller

10-03-2003, 01:24 PM

I would absolutely love to. Big problem, no other reputable kung fu schools around. We have plenty of TKD though. But we always get disqualified from their tournaments. Man oh man....at every local tournament around here, I always end up fighting a big Indian from a TKD school. It's never the same Indian, but he's always big, regardless. :D

CaptinPickAxe

10-03-2003, 01:29 PM

These days it seems we all live in the past. Whats your lineage? Who was the 1st grandmaster? who'd he learn from? WHO CARES? Don't take what people say to heart, its just opinions. If it makes you happy, then good. Regardless if its lineage is "shotty" at best. If you can defend yourself but not your art, does that not make you a Martial Artist?

MasterKiller

10-03-2003, 01:41 PM

If you can defend yourself but not your art, does that not make you a Martial Artist? Solipsism is all fine and dandy until you start giving other people incorrect history lessons.

I'm not for sure certain that the Holocaust happened because I wasn't there....but all the history books seem to have corraborating stories, so should I listen to the accepted history, or some neo-nazi schmuck who claims it never happened?

CaptinPickAxe

10-03-2003, 01:49 PM

How correct is your history? How many times has the story "Hansle and Grettle" changed? History is written by the winners and therefore is Biased. How reliable is history?

MasterKiller

10-03-2003, 01:53 PM

What does Hansle and Grettle have to do with anything? Regardless, I'm sure, though it has been re-told many times, that someone could trace it back to it's original version. You see, recorded history is kinda funny that way....it's been recorded and can be verified/negated based on evidence. No one plays the "what if this happened instead" game when discussing WWII....they don't have to.

My point is, just don't be blind.....I'm not in the mood to argue the fallacy of history or semantics....It's Friday, and I'm outta here.

CaptinPickAxe

10-03-2003, 02:00 PM

Yes, tricky indeed...the same way the government has the ablity to change documents. The same way we have never been the bad guy in war. We learn "American" history, not world history. I guarentee you there are a million different stories of wartime atrocities world-wide. But the only way to know if its true is to actually be there, like you prevously said. But that statement in itself contridicts any bashing on SD's lineage or anything else for that matter.

Fred Sanford

10-03-2003, 02:00 PM

fake history, made up lineage, forms modified to the point that they aren't even doing the art they say they are- I'd even hazard a guess that quite a few of those forms were picked up via video tapes

lies on top of lies but y'all have no trouble rationalizing it all away, it really is amazing

CaptinPickAxe

10-03-2003, 02:06 PM

Lets get one thing straight, I trained SD about half a year ago. I'm no longer an SDer and do know of its shaky lineage. I found myself shaking my head at most of the applications. I choose to debate because it keeps me sharp. Debate is the thinking mans way of training...

ShaolinRogue

10-03-2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Fred Sanford
fake history, made up lineage, forms modified to the point that they aren't even doing the art they say they are- I'd even hazard a guess that quite a few of those forms were picked up via video tapes

lies on top of lies but y'all have no trouble rationalizing it all away, it really is amazing

Ok, here's a thought, since this has been mentioned on more than a few occasions. Can anyone out there dig up the 'true' origins of the material that SD is laying claim to? Like produce a video tape that GM Sin 'learned' from to start his illustrious career as a scam artist. Since it's obviously now available on video most likely. And keep in mind that he developed alot of this material and taught it out to black belts before 1970. So where is the original film that he ripped off, that would be an ultimate debunk if someone could produce tangible viewable evidence of even one form that GM Sin teaches and claims as originating from his teacher's through fukien province.

Example, let's see a film of the SD black tiger system that GM Sin learned from and then changed to accomodate his grand scheme of a cult like empire to rob round eyes of their $$$.

Water Dragon

10-03-2003, 02:44 PM

OK here's a thought. What is Sin The's Xing Yi lineage? Lineage can't determine whether or not someone is good, but it can verify whether someone had access to the goods or not.

Frankly, I'm rather surprised that the Xing Yi guys are being so cool about this. Let Shaolin Do (the school, not my SC brother) start claiming Shuai Chiao. See who shows up at your door.

themeecer

10-03-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Man oh man....at every local tournament around here, I always end up fighting a big Indian from a TKD school. It's never the same Indian, but he's always big, regardless. :D
How did he fare? The TKD students I have been against don't do or allow any groin attacks, or sweeping the supporting leg.

Fred Sanford

10-03-2003, 02:48 PM

you forgot already sin the's xing yi lineage is from the shaolin temple. how could you forget that?

Water Dragon

10-03-2003, 02:52 PM

Well, Xing Yi is not a Shaolin art. If anything, it's Muslim, not Buddhist.

Fred Sanford

10-03-2003, 02:55 PM

that's just crazy talk. everyone knows that xing yi is from the shaolin temple:D

GreyMystik

10-03-2003, 03:05 PM

that's just crazy talk. everyone knows that xing yi is from the shaolin temple

heheheheh

First-Chevalier,
yes there was a post that attempted to rationalize the history with alternative dates and such, but Illusionfist replied to that (page 7 i believe?) already and addressed it. Is this the 'rebuttal' that you were looking for?

Judge Pen

10-03-2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Water Dragon
Well, Xing Yi is not a Shaolin art. If anything, it's Muslim, not Buddhist.

I thought it was taoist. Anyway, is it possible that someone who studied Hsing-i took refuge in a temple? Isn't shaolin notorious for absorbing systems into its own?

norther practitioner

10-03-2003, 03:14 PM

XY isn't one of them though....

It should be sort of easy to be like, ok, Sin, where did you learn your XY from?

Fred Sanford

10-03-2003, 03:15 PM

anything is possible :rolleyes:

funny nobody seems to make mention of that except your organization and it's pack of lies though.

Water Dragon

10-03-2003, 03:16 PM

Judge, go to this site and spend some time there:

www.chinafrominside.com

The guy who runs this site is somewhat of a CMA historian. It's probably one of the best factual resources that exists on the CMA.

Water Dragon

10-03-2003, 03:19 PM

You can also check out these vids to get an idea of what your stuff should look similar to.

Wai Lun Choi from Chicago (http://emptyflower.stanford.edu/video/wailunchoi_xingyi.mpg)

A linked fist form (http://emptyflower.stanford.edu/video/mpegav59.dat)

A good example of Power Generation (http://emptyflower.stanford.edu/video/XY_Liu_Ho.WMV)

Fred Sanford

10-03-2003, 04:42 PM

interesting picture. if you scroll down to the bottom the last picture is of sin the doing a sword form.

http://www.centralshaolin.com/cshaolin_pages/gen_photos.html

ninthdrunk

10-03-2003, 04:50 PM

hmmm...is that what hsing ie looks like in ALL schools that teach hsing ie?

the picture is actually of hiang the.

planetwc

10-03-2003, 05:32 PM

Great Physique and a cool mullet too!

Business in front, party in the back!

Originally posted by Brad
Yeah, I agree. About the physique that is, lol. I think he does look better than some of the supposedly legit people I've come across before. I don't know a thing about praying mantis though, other than a couple of vid clips I've seen :P

Felipe Bido

10-03-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by ninthdrunk
hmmm...is that what hsing ie looks like in ALL schools that teach hsing ie?

Not in speed. But the Six harmonies must be there. Speed may vary.

You can find other version of the same form here: http://www.emptyflower.com/video.html

And here: http://homepage.mac.com/stevefarrell/

Look where it says Hsingy

Edit: And a description of the form here:

www.emptyflower.com/xingyiquan/splitting/form.html

Felipe Bido

10-03-2003, 06:10 PM

AND...another tutorial of the same form here:

http://www.thewushucentre.ca/litianji.htm#CHAPTER%20THREE

Felipe Bido

10-03-2003, 06:11 PM

OHHHH

Go here, too: www.hsing-i.com, and check the vid clips section...it's yummy

templefist

10-03-2003, 08:15 PM

What are these "short forms" that everyone is saying makes up the core of SD training?

Where did they come from? Just curious because no names or style indicators have been given.

templefist

crazymaddrunk

10-03-2003, 08:52 PM

hsing-i sucks, learn a real MA like Pa Kua

Brad

10-03-2003, 09:04 PM

screw you, Baji ownz them all :D

crazymaddrunk

10-03-2003, 09:16 PM

I actually agree, Baji is real good

Felipe Bido

10-03-2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by crazymaddrunk
hsing-i sucks, learn a real MA like Pa Kua

same advice goes to you ;)

Christopher M

10-03-2003, 10:02 PM

You missed these vids, Felipe:

http://www.whitecraneinstitute.com/artsofcombat/xingyi.htm

BTW, the white crane flashes its wings posture looks awesome... must have been taken from bagua. :p

Felipe Bido

10-03-2003, 10:08 PM

Oh, I've seen them, Christopher, I've seen them. In fact, I have them in my HD. Serge himself showed them on my 'kingdom' :D ...believe that there isn't any authentic IMA vids or articles on the net that I haven't seen..whether I find them, or the teachers themselves show them to me.

Yeah...Baihe Lianshou must have been taken from Bagua. :p

Nice avatar, BTW!

Christopher M

10-03-2003, 10:12 PM

:p

For sure! They just had to straighten it up a bit... you know, make it easier for you xingyi guys. :D

... I figured you'd seen them; but it's worth the link here, I think - I really like the applications section on that site especially.

Felipe Bido

10-03-2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Christopher M
:p

For sure! They just had to straighten it up a bit... you know, make it easier for you xingyi guys. :D

LOL:D

illusionfist

10-04-2003, 12:37 AM

I can't believe that the argument of alternative dates was brought up when I went through and basically gave you a glimpse through the Ming and Ching dynasties all the way to foreign occupation (1911).

Since I dont have the inclination to go back and sift for the actual quote, I'll paraphrase an earlier comment that was made about Su Kong not being the actual abbot, but he was the grandmaster of the martial arts at the temple. Even though it was referenced as something to the effect of "whatever temple in fukien that was", there is only mention of one in legends of yore. Once again, that statement only referred to "a" temple, which is still insinuating THE southern shaolin temple in Fukien. If you only mention "a" or "the" temple (especially in Fukien) this pretty much insinuates that.

With that I bring you a list known as the "Siu Lum Sup Geht" or Shaolin's Ten Best. This is the list of the instructors that were given permission to teach by the abbot Gee Sin himself.

1. Hung Hei Gun
2. Tan (sometimes referred to as Tong) Chin Gun
3. Wu Wai Gin
4. Won Lung Yok
5. Lay Choi Ping
6. Lay Ba Fu
7. Fong Hau Yuk
8. Fong Mei Yuk
9. Fong Sai Yuk
10. Luk Ah Choi

Su Kong's name is obviously not listed.

By 1785 most were in hiding due to the Ching mandate to seek out the "revolutionaries". Most went to Guangchou and some even taught together. Mind you, this is 64 years before Su Kong was even born (according to the Union Shaolin Do website).

So my question is if there were so many secret societies being made (one of the most famous being the Hung Mun) to preserve the shaolin martial hertiage, how is there going to be a network of temples exchanging so much martial info? Especially when the govt has mandated that they all be slaughtered?

Another thing to note is that a lot of styles have ties that either go back to the Sup Geht themselves or their followers. Another thing is the common southern gung fu traits. Almost all of them share traits from the base Tiger system that was taught to Gee Sin by Bai Yu Feng. So how is it that Gee Sin's top 10 disciples all share a common link in their gung fu (i.e. southern traits- heavy emphasis on rooting, bridging principles, five animal usage, etc) whereas SD's have links from all over the place? Was there some period of time that a wealth of northern information (including parts of the country that were strictly of the Hui- i.e. muslim- a minority of people who during the Ching dynasty could be outright killed if they travelled in numbers of 3 or more) was prominent in the temple and then left mysteriously with no actual traces except one untainted line to Sin The' himself?

Another point- Somebody mentioned something about producing a video that would debunk Sin The' and prove he stole the form and fabricated the history. I would like to go the opposite route and get the names of elders from the lineages of the systems that were included within the art. If its reasonable to apply an assumption that it was stolen from a video source, it can be equally as easy to just go the "legit" route and just trace the roots back. If at anything we'll all get to see a glimpse of SD's gung fu roots. If there is this grand Shaolin legacy that spans the course of millenia, I would assume a focus on a few hundred years wouldn't hurt.

Another point- somebody mentioned that since Sin The' has been published in martial arts mags, etc that it gives him legitimacy and acceptance by the martial arts community. Well, Milli Vanilli actually won music awards and was accepted by the music community, but that didn't make them good singers...:D

Peace :D

Golden Tiger

10-04-2003, 08:05 AM

Well Illusion fist,

That convinced me. As of today I will no longer study something that has no basis of existence. It saddens me to think how blind I was for over 25 years, the countless hours I spent working on something that wasn't real because its history didn't match the one that you have researched so intently. I shudder to think that during that time, everything that I thought was real want nothing more than the musings of a con man. All the things that I practiced along with countless others were just untruths dreamed up to take my time and money. Here, all this time, I thought that the things I was learning were taken from legitiment teaching of long ago and yet now, I see that this is not true. All those years, I followed blindly because I thought that what I was being told would help me develop my skills and myself to become something greater than I thought that I could acheive on my own.

But now, after only finding this message board 4 days ago, I have see the light. I have learned that unless something is able to stand up to the scrutiny of a few people, it is not real, a sham,a fake, an elaborate con. I have learned that reguardless of the vast amount of knowledge, insight and information it has to offer, unless it can be proven to be real, it is not. I have learned not to trust someone that has devoted all of his life to sharing what he has amassed through out it. I have learned that people, including myself, are stupid and that they will follow anyone with a charismatic personality.

I again want to thank you and the others for allowing me to see the light. I am putting away my uniform, my old frayed belt, my skills and everything else that I attainded from these fraudulent teachings .

Having freed myself from these lies of the past, I will now move on. I am just glad that I came across this board instead of one based on religon..........

Sou Se

Radhnoti

10-04-2003, 01:53 PM

Templefist asked about the "short forms" everyone keeps referring to in their musings.

I would define it as a series of 30 "forms" that introduce basic movements in our system, with an emphasis on good stances and power in the movements. I've found it to be similar to what I've seen of tan tui in a few magazine articles...and it's said by most to be a distillation of the same. I've heard from others that some of the "short forms" are actually "linkage" portions of higher ranked forms, and I have no reason to doubt this...but it's not the "official line" you'd catch on some of the websites.

illusionfist

10-04-2003, 03:53 PM

No need for that Golden Tiger. All I am doing is trying to understand the rationale behind the history. Just because what you guys have been shown through the keyhole doesn't mean thats necessarily whats entirely behind the door. What I'm trying to do is show that there is a common history shared by many arts within Gung Fu and that, especially in the case of southern systems, all have ties and linkage to a common ancestry.

You could practically give me any Chinese system and I would be able to give you a reasonable timeline of its dissemination. Now of course, SD is not the only org out there that has a history that is met with problems. There are many arts that have trouble tying things to the Fukien temple (mainly because they have ties to revolutionary activities and anti-govt sentiment), which was my earlier assertion made at the beginning of this thread. So what we have to go on IS the common linkages from other arts in order to draw up a "big picture." This is why there is a large emphasis on the "Mo Lum" or martial community in CMA. So would it not be reasonable to ask to trace these sources and how they eventually found their way into SD? If over 50 systems are claimed, I would say that gives us 50 different ways to see how things ended up where they did.

The next piece of the puzzle is actual knowledge of general chinese history and geography. This is the biggest problem met with western martial artists. They have no idea where Fukien is in relation to Beijing, or Shandong to Hong kong. This geography not only helps you in finding out history on a martial art, but it also gives you insight into its regional variations. For instance, the Hung Kuen I play (which is mainly Hong Kong based) is very different from the one that is played in Gwandong. What's the common linkage? The underlying principles, methods, and tactics that make Hung Kuen what it is (5 animals, 5 elements, 12 bridges, 18 joint locking methods, etc). So of course there will be variations (that's human nature), but in the end, the SYSTEM SPECIFIC principles will have "ties that bind."

I took this opportunity to post these types of questions mainly because I saw an influx of SD people, but not only just novice practitioners, but actual "senior" members of the art that have been playing their art for more than 20 years. It is you guys who should have insight into many of the questions I have asked. It is you who should know the differences and commonalities between arts not just on a historical level, but also on a theoretical, structural, and tactical level (after all, you are most likely teaching it). It is you who should have a solid knowledge of principles (with at least a few systems) and the types of ging (power) generation. It is you that know the WHY, the HOW, and should know the WHEN. The WHEN is what gives insight into the arts development which directly ties into the eventual WHY and HOW. You can't tell me that studying for over a quarter of a century has not brought up these issues or even called to you in any way?

Take for instance Hsing Yi. How did it evolve? Why did San Ti change over time? Who changed it? How do Shanxi, Hebei, and Henan do things? What lineage are we? Based from our lineage, how did it evolve? Why is it that some lineages have 10 or 12 animals? Why do some lineages not use San Ti at all? Why do some lineages focus more on the elements than the animals? Why do some lineages not even use the elements or the animals? Why do some not have any forms at all?

Basically, some of these questions pose a life long study into just the one art. How many arts can this possibly be extended to with proficient knowledge?

Peace :D

Radhnoti

10-04-2003, 05:52 PM

Found something I wanted to add/ask. I'm not meaning this as a dodge to anyone's questions, I'm just not sufficiently educated in Chinese history to debate or confirm illusionfist's dates/numbers.

What is the general opinion of these schools? :

http://www.kungfula.com/

http://www.cf.ac.uk/suon/au/kungfu/

I saw a few similarities between these arts and SD, as I'm sure would anyone else.

And I'd LOVE to see a sister school's website from joedoe. Any chance of that joe? I know that the LAST thing you want for your style is any comparison to SD, but I love hearing the similar almost parallel route your art took as far as travelling into a "western" setting by way of SE Asia. From the Southern Shaolin Temple. With such similar weapons being taught in the same order. Etc.

Thanks.

Radhnoti

10-04-2003, 06:38 PM

That's fine cerebus, I had wandered across these schools and was curious about the response they'd receive from the CMA community, that's all. Did you check out their historical claims?
Thanks for your response.

Kymus

10-05-2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by templefist
I wouldnt want my teachers coming back to me saying they are getting heat for something one of their students is saying in a forum. It doesnt show lack of balls, it shows respect to keep his school out of this. [/B]

I may be off on this one, and then again, maybe I won't. One of my teachers (<a href="http://pamausa.com/Pages/rick.html">Sif Rick Tucci</a>) who is actually pretty well respected from what I know on the East Coast doesn't participate in tournaments at all because "they are too political". For some it is better to just stay out of the lime light and keep doing what your doing. So in other words, I agree with you.

David Jamieson

10-05-2003, 11:36 AM

illusionfist-

You surely aren't saying that gee sim sin see was the only monk who brought martial arts out of the shaolin temple are you?

Also, I don't think that the 10 disciples of Gee Sin are the only ones who had Shaolin Kungfu.

The diaspora was much much greater than that. It just happens that in some families there is better documentation while in others there is only master student hand downs.

fwiw, the principles of Shaolin kungfu that you describe are found in many styles and in many different iterations. and yes, even in styles of karate.

the human body is after all the human body, although we are all different and at different levels of capabilities, we share many commonalities.

For everyone : If you really want to show someone that your kungfu is better, then simply go and cross hands with them if they will. Nothing more telling than combat defeat in rgeards to this.

Arguing about lineage and history to support a fighting art is imo ridiculous. a man can know 6 moves and defeat an opponent with hundreds, that's a fact.

The history of China even today is shrouded and uncertain on so many levels. There are so many gaps and never mind the language problems. Shaolin is an enigma, wrapped in a mystery and served up as riddle in and of itself.

Take things for what they are, practice hard and you will find out on your own what works and what doesn't, it's really as simple as that.

cheers

illusionfist

10-05-2003, 04:47 PM

Kung Lek-

I'm not insinuating that, but considering that Gee Sin was the Abbot and if Su Kong was the "grandmaster" of the martial arts in the temple (which there is actually no such title) then his name would have been listed among the Sup Geht. Plain and simple. There is no other list of this type coming from the south.

Of course the concepts carry over to other arts, this is why i said SYSTEM SPECIFIC principles.

Peace :D

illusionfist

10-05-2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Kung Lek
For everyone : If you really want to show someone that your kungfu is better, then simply go and cross hands with them if they will. Nothing more telling than combat defeat in rgeards to this.

So if I beat you using Western Boxing and I call it Chinese Gung Fu, does that really make it Chinese Gung Fu?

Fighting skill in a gung sau, etc has nothing to do with what is being argued here.

On a general level, the ones i see screamin "I don't care about lineage" or "lineage is meaningless" are usually people who dont have it. Lineage is not something you claim, its given. It is recognized by a larger gung fu family. Nuff said.

Peace :D

Radhnoti

10-05-2003, 07:53 PM

You ain't gonna take that from him are you KL? He's an EX-KFO mod, and I don't even remember why they kicked him out. ;) Probably got something to do with making reasonable, well-informed posts. "Here's why the Southern Temple couldn't have existed..." angering (what seems like) half of the board that claims historical connections to it. Or maybe he gave all the rational, obvious reasons showing that Ta Mo probably never existed or at least was over-estimated in importance. Most martial lineage in China seems to be questionable at some level, usually it's beginning. Wandering taoist hermits, undefeated generals, wandering immortals, female shaolin masters on the run, folk heroes who defy corrupt officials, caged men with nothing better to do than construct a martial art and go mad, shadowy organizations sworn to overthrowing the reigning dynasty...
It all sounds so...unbelievable to me. How much has been added through the years from the martial novels once so popular in China, re-tellings around camp fires and Shaw Brother's films? Did Ta Mo build the Shaolin Temple, or did Jet Li with his earlier films? I've heard both claims. :D

I suppose that lineage can be used as a gauge for what's "good", but I also imagine that it could be used as a crutch. Or worse, using the excuse of "lineage" or tradition might make an art stagnate...connecting with no one but martial historians. But what do I know, I'm just one of those guys with "no lineage". :p

Illusionfist, Bruce Lee took (depending on who you ask) quite a bit of his JKD structure from Western boxing...and it's now officially recognized as "kung-fu"...even by the Chinese government.

;)

I hope that didn't sound as adversarial as I'm afraid it did to illusionfist...I just meant it as "chit-chatty" not mean spirited. I'm very glad he's posting on this thread.

illusionfist

10-05-2003, 08:08 PM

Radhnoti,

I'm surprised you remembered I was a mod here at one time, haha. Actually, I left of my own accord. I just didn't have the time to moderate 4 forums.

The JKD point is a good one, and one that can be argued many ways. The bottomline with JKD is that it has a huge Wing Chun base, and personally, I think this is why it is recognized. That and also Bruce Lee was a huge cultural icon. If you talk to a lot of the old timers in the HK martial arts scene about Bruce Lee, you'll get a totally different perspective on the man. Irregardless of the ways it can be argued, it is quiet easy to trace JKD's gung fu roots.

Hybridization within the martial arts is an interesting subject, especially when trying to "classify" what the system is (gung fu, karate, joe-blow-do, etc). I believe that at least a few people here on KFO would be willing to argue that Shaolin Do is a hybrid art (an opinion that I've seen echoed here by SD members as well). If this is the case, then I would argue that a "pure" line or lineage (if there is even such a thing) statement should not be made.

Bottomline, I think what ****es people off are the past claims of having the "original" Shaolin and that everybody else is doing Wushu.

Peace :D

Shaolin-Do

10-05-2003, 09:28 PM

lol. Funny my name never really pops up in the SD conversations ;)
Anyhow... Rad, check your pm's.
Im tired. Time for sleep.

Kymus

10-06-2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
lol. Funny my name never really pops up in the SD conversations ;)
Anyhow... Rad, check your pm's.
Im tired. Time for sleep.

That's cause you're the comic relief of this board ;)

Judge Pen

10-06-2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by illusionfist

Hybridization within the martial arts is an interesting subject, especially when trying to "classify" what the system is (gung fu, karate, joe-blow-do, etc). I believe that at least a few people here on KFO would be willing to argue that Shaolin Do is a hybrid art (an opinion that I've seen echoed here by SD members as well). If this is the case, then I would argue that a "pure" line or lineage (if there is even such a thing) statement should not be made.

Nice post Rad.

Illusionfist, I'll agree that SD is a hybrid, patchwork style, but I believe that the hybridization is of kung fu styles that were influenced by the fact that the art moved to Indonesia which apparently altered it somewhat from other traditional martial arts.

PHILBERT

10-06-2003, 09:13 AM

Let's do a "What if" here.

What if Shaolin-Do really is fake? What if Sin The came out and said the art is Kempo mixed with a little bit of Kung Fu, and all the other stuff was a lie? Now what if all the practioners of Shaolin-Do said "Who gives a crap?" and kept practicing? Would you finally be at peace knowing it is fake? Or would you continue to bash people behind a computer screen on a message board?

I understand what some of you are saying, that Shaolin-Do is "fake" and it pulls people away from "real" Kung Fu schools that manage to barely survive as is. If you hate Shaolin-Do so much, go out and do something about it rather than whine and wimper behind a computer screen. Or rather, find out how they manage to get so many students, and try to apply that to your school.

Shaolin-Do

10-06-2003, 09:19 AM

"Or rather, find out how they manage to get so many students, and try to apply that to your school."
In "the biz", we call it "strategic sales marketing". ;)

Its a big name, and it has big ads in the phone book. I put up fliers at the local martial arts supply store, and spoke with the woman who works there and asked that she direct any would be KFers our way. Since, there actually has been a surge of new students...

"go out and do something about it "
Such as? :rolleyes:
On top of that, Im with the idea that if people are getting something positive from it, and loving what they do, who the hell are any of you to tell them otherwise?

:eek:

PHILBERT

10-06-2003, 09:26 AM

Maybe go to one of there open tournaments instead of complaining? I am one of the few who don't agree or disagree with Shaolin-Do because as I've said so many times before, I've never met someone who takes it. Even if I did, I still can't base the entire art off of one person. I am just tired of how everyone here cries about Shaolin-Do behind a computer screen.

Judge Pen

10-06-2003, 09:28 AM

For every professional teacher out there that advertises and operates one or more full time store, there are 3 more part-time teachers that operate out of their basement, the local school gym, a YMCA, etc. that is barely breaking even and they teach because they love the art. My first teacher was this way. My current teacher is alos part-time and charges less than any MA school in my area.

Not all of SD is the large marketing beast.

Shaolin-Do

10-06-2003, 09:29 AM

The # of open tournaments is limited, to say the least. I would however, at least suggest to those of you who hate SD, to at least find an experienced SDer to touch hands with, so you have SOMETHING to base your criticisms off of...

MasterKiller

10-06-2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by norther practitioner
So is the video of the guy doing second road up hwa mountain supposed to be hua chuan? Here's some info on SD's Hua Chuan:

http://w3.blackbeltmag.com/featurecontent/view.asp?article=22

Shaolin-Do

10-06-2003, 11:03 AM

Cool. Ive been wanting to read that.

thoughts on that article from non SDers?

themeecer

10-06-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by PHILBERT
I understand what some of you are saying, that Shaolin-Do is "fake" and it pulls people away from "real" Kung Fu schools that manage to barely survive as is.
Well, that is the huge misconception. We aren't making money hand over fist. We don't have huge schools. We have about 20 in our school. The TKD schools in thia area have taken most of our students. Don't worry about us pulling students away from struggling kung fu schools, we are struggling as well.

MasterKiller

10-06-2003, 11:09 AM

themeecer,
With 20 years of experience under your belt, how come you haven't started your own school? Are you wary of taking students from your own teacher?

Shaolin-Do

10-06-2003, 11:10 AM

One thing I will say that does bug the sh!t out of me, is the "our art is the best, no questions, I dont like to open my eyes" attitude of some SDers I have met.

PHILBERT

10-06-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
One thing I will say that does bug the sh!t out of me, is the "our art is the best, no questions, I dont like to open my eyes" attitude of some SDers I have met.

I am sure most people hate that in every art. I didn't like how my old WT instructor said "WT is the best, nothing compares to it. WC is nothing to WT and WT would defeat every other art out there because of it's directness."

norther practitioner

10-06-2003, 01:20 PM

SD..

That is what gave me such a bad initial taste... The first one I met told me I wasn't doing shaolin, when I was doing a line drill....:rolleyes: Since then, I've met SDers that I think are good ma... but for some reason, the few that I've met that aren't, left me with a bad taste... plus how do you end up with hua chuan in your curriculmn (by the way, there are two that I know of.. china hand and the hua shan chuan).. I have done a little research into the system, but haven't found out too much yet.

themeecer

10-06-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by MasterKiller
themeecer,
With 20 years of experience under your belt, how come you haven't started your own school? Are you wary of taking students from your own teacher?
Exactly. I don't do it out of respect. I live in the same area he teaches and do not want to move away to teach. And with 20 years under my belt I am still only starting. :)

Also a few of those years I wasn't actively going to classes but working out on my own because of being away at college, so maybe I should count that less than 20 years.

ninthdrunk

10-06-2003, 04:36 PM

Norther Practitioner-

We have hua chuan as it was developed at hua mountain. We are taught the classical four roads (or books) of hua, two hua two-man sets, the modern hua form, and there are apparently some hua animal forms out there (grandmaster sin and senior master mullins were in an article about hua and it covered the five animals of hua system...that was the first a lot of people had heard mention of that). As far as the china hands...we have two of those that I am aware of (if they are the same thing that you are talking about). It is interesting that you ask about those in conjunction with the hua forms. Have you heard that they were developed or practiced in the hua temple. I use them as a warm up to hua. They are nice and powerful with really good footwork, just like the hua katas but on a smaller scale. These apparently went on to form the basis of japanese karate...kinda funny actually...I guess you could say that I do karate. Our short forms helped to form the basis of Okinawan karate, and china hands are the precursor to japanese karate...hahahaha! In a weird round-about way, I guess you could say that some of the sd bashers are right! Too bad for them, that's not all we do, or they might have a decent argument! Anyway, I would love to hear what you have read about the hua system, and the china hand system! Thanks!

Ben